POMED Notes: The Transformation of the Middle East

On Wednesday, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars hosted a lecture offering an analysis of the impact of the Arab Spring on the international community, focusing on the U.N. Security Council response to the events in the Arab world in 2011. The lecturer was His Excellency Ambassador Dr. Peter Wittig, permanent representative of Germany to the United Nations since 2009. The moderator was Michael Van Dusen, vice president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

For full event notes, continue reading below. Or, click here for the PDF.

Wittig began by asking what the U.N. Security Council expects for 2012. He responded that it will be hard to predict what would drive the Security Council, as the events that happened in 2011 were unpredictable. However, he said that 2011 was momentous, and 2012 would surely be. According to the Ambassador, the events that occurred in2011 inTunisia,EgyptandLibyaannounced a new era for the whole region and maybe on a larger scale.

Wittig argued that the international community could not predict the events of the Arab Spring and quoted then from the UNDP’s Arab Human Development Report. The report published in 2002 said, “The wave of democracy that transformed governance in most of Latin America and East Asia in the 1980s and Eastern Europe and much ofCentral Asia in the late 1980s and early 1990s has barely reached the Arab States.”  Still quoting, Wittig added, “the mismatch between aspirations and their fulfillment has in some cases led to alienation and its offspring —apathy and discontent.”

Considering the 2011 events, Wittig regretted that the international community appeared “slow and hesitant” to respond in an adequate way. He explained that the Security Council tends to open discussion and consider issues if they fit into a “classic conflict.” The Security Council didn’t make a move while the upheavals were starting and culminating inTunisiaandEgyptwith the resignation of each state’s leader.

However, the ruthless reaction of Libyan President Muammar Gadhafi to demonstrations changed the dynamic of the Security Council. Moreover, the Libyan Ambassador at the U.N. Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalgham defected from the regime that he was serving. This defection was considered a signal that the events inLibya were not internal affairs anymore, but an issue the Security Council should address.  Resolution 1970 was adopted with the joint efforts of theU.S.,China andRussia, and represented a landmark in the Arab Spring. Resolution 1973 was about protecting the Libyans by imposing a ban on all flights on the country’s territorial airspace and increasing sanctions on Gadhafi. This second resolution lacked the same unanimity, asBrazil,China,Germany,India andRussia abstained. Wittig explained this move as a sign that BRICS nations (Brazil,Russia,India,China andSouth Africa) would not only tighten their economic links but also their diplomacy.

Considering Yemen, the international community was more reactive and spoke with one voice. Yemenis considered an explosive issue (piracy, Al Qaeda presence etc). The country has the potential to disintegrate, which would present a risk to the control of strategic trade routes. In October 2011, the Security Council unanimously voted in favor of a resolution to condemn violence. The international community put pressure on Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh to prepare a peaceful transition and leave power.

When discussing Syria, Wittig said it is one of the most geographically strategic Arab countries, it is involved in conflicts such as Lebanonand Israel, it is a close ally to Iran, etc. On October 4th, Russiaand Chinavetoed a draft condemning the attacks on protesters and threatening sanctions, a rare double veto in Security Council history. Wittig insisted that the resolution was a “warning shot and not a military intervention.” The message sent to Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad was that he could continue the repression under the patronage ofChina andRussia.

The Ambassador followed with what the International Community should do in this context. He also expressed his belief that the Security Council could frame and accompany change in the Arab World. He made three propositions.

-The international community should enter into dialogue with moderate Islamist parties. He quoted the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Guido Westerwelle, who said, “Islam can be compatible with democracy.” According to Wittig, they can “contribute to emerge a democratic and pluralistic society.”

-The Ambassador insisted on the importance of economic issues. The desire of the young demonstrators was for dignity and based on democratic demonstrations, however, they were also calling for jobs and economic perspective. Wittig invited governments to followGermanyin his recent initiatives to develop “economic bridges” with Arab states by increasing investments and trade.

-He stated that the Arab League was under a “transformation process.” The position of this organization was clear onSyria, and despite the critics on the observation mission in this country, it has proven a shift of the league. The Arab League should be considered an important actor in the region for resolving conflicts, under the framework of the U.N.

Wittig concluded, “We are witnessing a new dawn in the Arab world.” He argued that the changes will not end, but spread. He called on the international community to join the progress.

The audience asked questions onGermany’s abstention on Resolution 1973 and about any parallels between Eastern European revolutions and the Arab Spring. The Ambassador insisted thatGermanywas concerned about the violence perpetuated against civilians inLibya. However, his country wanted to preventLibyafrom falling into chaos if the military violence increased. Moreover, the Ambassador said any military intervention has to be voted on by the parliament, and it would not have given the mandate forGermany’s army to participate in military action planed by Resolution 1973. Regarding the comparison betweenEastern Europe’s revolutions and Arab revolutions, Wittig stated that they were different. Eastern states received strong support fromEuropeand they had the perspective of joining the European Union. In response to a question regarding the ability of the ICC to dissuade mass violence by dictators, Wittig suggested that the International Criminal Court (ICC) was too young an organization to represent a threat for leaders using ruthless violence on their citizens. Nevertheless, he was optimistic about the ICC’s future and asserted that it would dissuade heads of states to attempt by mass crimes.