Middle East Expert Prof. Vladimir Chukov: Libya, Arab World to See Rise, Rehabilitation of Political Islam

Novinite Insider » INTERVIEW | Author: Ivan Dikov |March 15, 2011, Tuesday // 05:10
Bulgaria: Middle East Expert Prof. Vladimir Chukov: Libya, Arab World to See Rise, Rehabilitation of Political Islam Photo by politika.bg

Interview of Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency) with Prof. Vladimir Chukov, a doctor of economics and political science specializing in the Middle East, the Arab World, and Islam.

Prof. Vladimir Chukov was born in Athens in 1960. He studied at French-language schools in Tunisia and in Sofia, and graduated from the University of Damascus, Syria. He teaches at Sofia University St. Kliment of Ohrid and the New Bulgarian University in Sofia.

In 2005, he joined the Higher Attestation Commission, a Bulgarian government body overseeing the awarding of higher academic degrees.

In 1999, he set up a Bulgarian Center for Middle Eastern Studies; in 2002, a Center for Regional and Religious Studies. In 2008, he started orientbg.info, a website providing analyses on the Middle East. He is the author of several books.

What is your forecast about the situation in Libya– do you think that the regime of Muammar Gaddafi will manage to survive, to hold on to power?

It is indisputable that the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya has no future. In the long run, the fate of the Libyan people is not connected with the government of Gaddafi. As an Arab newspaper put it, the last paragraphs in the chapter dedicated to the government of Gaddafi in Libya's history are being written.

But apparently, the events on the ground are extremely dynamic. We see constant offensives and counter-offensives in the fight between the Gaddafi loyalists and the opposition, which, in my view, are the result primarily of the lack of preparation on part of the opposition. The Libyan opposition and rebels' desire is bigger than their actual capacities. At least for the time being, they place their hopes with the desertions from the government armed forces by trained soldiers and officers.

We have seen many senior military and police officers abandon the Gaddafi regime. However, we should note that few of them actually join the rebels. Most of those who leave Gaddafi, don't join them, which weakens their stance.

Because of that we are witnessing these constant battles for several strategic towns and cities. For example, Zawiya where the largest Libyan oil refinery is located. Or Brega, which has already changed hands several times.

I should point out that the regime of Muammar Gaddafi has substantial resources. The loyalist troops are about 20 000 – these are the special forces commanded by Gaddafi's three sons. But it also relies on African mercenaries that it continues to recruit.

What is more, it relies on its aviation, which was out of order for a while, in the first days after the clashes started on February 18, but its power has been fully restored, and it is now carrying out two crucial tasks – first, providing air cover for the loyalist forces by bombarding the rebels, and, second, bringing in fresh reinforcements of African mercenaries.

So on the ground Gaddafi does have the edge and is better positioned, while the opposition rebels are very eager but they lack sufficient military experience.

As a result, the claims of the opposition that it can take on the Gaddafi regime all by itself cannot be substantiated and do not rest of objective assessments.

The Libyan rebels have already called for military intervention in the form of a foreign air cover. The reason they have been so wary of asking for outside help is because the fear that if foreign troops enter Libya, they will not leave, i.e. there will be something like an "Iraq scenario."

That is why they are just asking for an air cover, which, for the time being is just a judgment call as to how it can be materialized, if it has to get the approval of the UN Security Council, and all sorts of other issues.

If there is a foreign military intervention in Libya, what form is it going to take? Do you think the only feasible and likely option is the air cover, i.e. the setting up of a no-fly zone over Libya?

At that point we cannot be sure. But I dare claim that without such outside support – I am not even using the word "intervention" but "support" – the forces loyal to Gaddafi will be stabilized. I am even afraid that they will recover most of the territories they lost to the rebels – and regardless of the fact that the rebels already have a proper military command structure in place – the military council in Benghazi.

I think that some kind of formula for an outside intervention will be found that will not go through the approval of the UN Security Council, and that will provide an air cover for the opposition. This will then equalize the chances of each side to prevail, and the outcome of the fight will be decided by the land forces.

That is why I dare claim that in the medium run there might be a kind of a parity on the ground but in the long run the regime of Muammar Gaddafi has no way of surviving. First, because the really substantial cracks in it are very visible, and, second, because it is in total international isolation. It will just run out of resources.

Let's assume that the opposition does eventually beat the Gaddafi regime. What is going to replace it? Does the Libyan society have the potential to create a liberal democracy?

You are reasoning like a European. In Libya, the realities are more different. First, if we look at the flag of the opposition rebels, they are raising the flag of the Kingdom of Libya, i.e. there is a reference to the regime of 1951-1969, which was really interesting. It was a kind of a Libyan democracy with a bi-cameral parliament, with elections, but – note that – without any political parties. There were political parties only for one year, in 1952, and they were dissolved. So it was a majority electoral system.

The slogans that today's opposition is raising are – no to tribalism, no to partisanship, which for the Libyan society symbolizes the division of the nation. That is why I would be very surprised if we see the creation of political parties and a liberal democracy of the type that you are talking about.

I think there will be a very long period in which things will be settling in their place. All the more so because the opposition against Gaddafi at the moment is very diverse. It does have political centers of the Western type. It has individual thinkers and activists, liberal ones, who spend decades in the West. I should also say that there are forces that are very clearly connected with the tribalist political and social model.

Finally, I must stress the one power factor that for the time being, even if backstage, demonstrates that it will be a considerable, if not the dominant force – the Muslim Brotherhood.

They have made steps showing that they will play a key role. What do I mean? The personality of Mustafa Abdel Jalil was put forth as the chair of the National Council, i.e. the center of civilian government of the rebels. Before that he made it clear that there will be no government, not even a temporary one, until all of Libya is freed from Gaddafi. There was mention of two persons who could be placed in charge.

The first one is major Abdelsalam Jeloud, an extremely charismatic person, one of Gaddafi's associates in the 1990s, and one of the participants in the September revolution of 1969. Literally right after the events of February 18 Gaddafi offered him to become the prime minister but he refused.

The other one, also very charismatic, is the already resigned Interior Minister Abu Bakr Yonis Jabir, who is really a person with a great authority in the power structures.

With all that said one must pay attention to the declaration of the Muslim Brotherhood which set conditions on who should and should not be attracted into the new government of Libya. They set conditions eliminating both of these persons.

Apparently, if not a dominant factor, the Muslim Brotherhood will be a major factor filtering the members of the future government of the Libyan state. I am not saying the Libyan Jamahiriya because I think that the Jamahiriya will be dropped as a form of government since it is an archaic, anarchistic, and tribalistic formula.

During the rise of the rebels just recently the Green Book centers – setting the political philosophy of Gaddafi – in Benghazi were burned down, which is clearly a demonstration that this political paradigm is in the past.

It is very hard to predict what is going to happen but some of the Western experts believe that the future Libyan state to be institutionalized will be dependent if not dictated by the will of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Let's not make any illusions. We see an increased influence on part of the Muslim Brotherhood not just in Libya but also in Egypt, Jordan, Iraq.

An important example was the visit of the Norwegian Foreign Minister in Egypt whose program included a meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood for the first time. He said that Norway will be talking to them and urged the EU to do the same.

What is happening is a rehabilitation of this kind of political forces known as Islamist, and there will be a more tolerant assessment of the political model that they offer.

In the Libyan case one can only guess how much influence they can gain but we are seeing that they are very well positioned in the society. Some believe that Benghazi fell as fast as it did in the hands of the rebels primarily because of the support and the efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood.

So there will be some kind of a democracy, most likely a republic with a substantial presence on part of this type of political forces.

If you look at the wider region, including Tunisia and Egypt, and beyond, do you expect that the nightmare scenario for the West in which Islamists such as Hamas might take over can be realized? Or that a regime somewhat similar to the one in Iran might be established?

I think that the Iranian scenario in particular can hardly be repeated elsewhere. Let's not forget that it is based on the fact that the Iranians are predominantly Shiite Muslims, whose governance principles are different from those of the Sunni Arabs.

In Iran, there is the classic version of a domination of the spiritual authority over the secular. It is materializes in the constitution and the political mechanisms. If we have to use the European religiously dogmatic term, this is papocaesarism, or a theocracy.

The Sunni Muslims have a different principle of the presence of religion. It is the Muslim version of caesaropapism, which is not about the dominances of the secular about the religious authority but about their equality because there is no clerical hierarchy.

There will be a very strong presence of the Muslim Brotherhood. This is an Islamist political force that uses liberal and parliamentary mechanisms such as a multi-party democracy as major means to realize its goals. So what's more important is what its goals are.

The million-dollar question is if they are capable of evolving to the Turkish model. The great debate in the expert circles is focused on whether the Arabs can achieve what Turkey has right now – i.e. enlightened, secular Islamists creating a state that has a multi-party, competitive democracy, parliamentary rule, constitutionalism, and protection of human rights, in which Islam is a matter of a strong tradition.

From our point of view as Europeans we can debate if there is a democracy in Turkey. If we look from a Franco-German angle, not really. But if we look from the Arab point of you, the Turkish democracy is highly recommendable. Martti Ahtisaari recently stated the Arabs had better apply the Turkish model. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutogly said that Tunisia is the country which should institutionalize the Turkish model.

The development of the Islamist sector is especially interesting in Egypt where it is best structured and formulated. I should point out that the Muslim Brotherhood is not the only carrier of political Islam in Egypt. There are other entities there as well. There are Islamic mystics.

For the first time now the Muslim Brotherhood has formed a party in Egypt – they were a movement as they had only a brief period when they were legal – and it resembles an Egyptian replica of the ruling party in Turkey.

The Egyptian one is called Justice and Freedom Party, while Turkish PM Erdogan's is called Justice and Development Party. So this is a reference to the Turkish model. The Islamists want legitimization with both the society and the West, which remains extremely suspicious of them.

So apparently both sides will make steps into the direction of the other one but I cannot say if the Arabs are capable of applying the Turkish model in the form that the Europeans would like to see.

In any case, this should be very positive since no Arab country, unlike Turkey, is applying to join the EU. We in the EU are criticizing Turkey for not protecting human and minority rights, for failing to obey political criteria. But this is only because they are applying to join our club, it is only from that point of view.

That will not be the case with the Arabs. They are our neighbors but they remain in their own region. They won't be joining the EU. The idea is to have a fruitful cooperation with them, to terminate the illegal migration, to boost the economic relations, and to have all that guaranteed by a sustainable political model that does not feature repressions and persecution. This means having a proper democracy, of course, with their own respective specifics.

This is what we as Europeans would wish for. Is it going to happen? I think that there will be a very long transition period. Some are talking of about 20 years but hardly anybody can predict how long it will take.

But it is a fact that there is an increased activity in the direction of political Islam in the entire region. Just recently, the Party of Revival, Al-Nahda, was legalized and registered, which shows that they will have a presence even though right now they don't have resources. The political Islam is starting to manifest itself across the region.

With Tunisia, Egypt, and now potentially Libya, there have already been two-and-a-half revolutions in the Arab world, to put it that way. Which of the other regimes do you expect to crumble in a similar way, if any?

I think that the country which is most likely to see a regime change is Yemen. The opposition there is very well organized, we see the same kinds of forces – youth, Facebook activism, active population eager for reform, of course with the local specific.

Yemen is also a tribalistic state, especially in the north, where there is a Shiite minority. Then there is the former Southern Yemen, where many want to secede. It used to be the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen supported by the former Soviet Bloc. The regime in Yemen of President Ali Abdullah Saleh is facing a very serious challenge. Since it does have resources and supporters, I cannot say if it can survive. But even if it does survive, there will certainly be very serious reforms.

There has been much unrest in Bahrain but there situation there is more specific since it is about the demands of a Shiite majority ruled by a Sunni minority. All that translates into political demands. But I think that the situation there will be stabilizes since the USA has a lot more serious tools to influence it – it is the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet; what is more, the Bahrain monarchy is strongly supported by Saudi Arabia. But there, too, serious reforms will be introduced.

In Jordan and Morocco the protest movements are demanding a reduction of the powers of the monarchs, not their toppling. It is still unclear how much of their goals these movements can achieve.

For me personally, the most interesting situations will be posed by any developments – if they occur at all – in Syria and in Iran; even though Iran is not an Arab state it bears some resemblance in that respect.

How should the EU go about its relations with the Arab world now? For example, the so called Mediterranean Union initiated by France never really took off. Could it make a difference?

During French President Nicolas Sarkozy's recent visit in Turkey, he and his Turkish hosts reached a consensus only on one matter – that the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya has got to go. At the same time, Sarkozy declared that the initiative for a Mediterranean Union must be revitalized because of the turmoil in the Arab world.

He seems to think that if such an union of integration of the two parts of the Mediterranean had really worked it, there would not be so much turmoil now. So it is likely that this project will be revitalized. At least for the time being, until the storm subsidies, I don't see how this can happen. But maybe Paris should have been firmer on this initiative – it is a bit late.

Are the Arabs even willing to take part in such an organization? For example, the forum in Barcelona saw a very modest presence on part of the Arab states.

There was a specific reason for that. In general, the Arabs believe that the Mediterranean Union is not so much a design to stimulate the cooperation of its two parts but that it is a plan of the Europeans to integrate Israel in the Arab world. This was the major reason for their restraint.

But right we see that some of the major Arab players in it are in transition. Egypt's capital Cairo was even supposed to be one of the centers of this new organization; the former president Hosni Mubarak even had claims to chair it. It was in competition with Tunisia. But for the time being, until Egypt is stabilized, there cannot be even talk of the institutionalization of this project. The same goes for Tunisia. For now it remains in the realm of good wishes.

How much of the problem of illegal immigration to the EU is directly connected with the unrest in the Arab world? How much is Bulgaria going to be affected by this problem?

Yes, I think that the rise of illegal immigration to the EU is the most direct result from the situation in Tunisia where thousands set off for Italy. Hundreds of thousands have already fled Libya. Where are these people trying to go? Of course, to the richer northern shores of the Mediterranean – the EU, and the Schengen Area in particular.

For the time being Bulgaria has been spared the worst because it is not a member of the Schengen Area yet. That is why the major stream of illegal migrants coming from the Eastern Mediterranean is heading to Greece, which is the closest Schengen member. The moment Bulgaria becomes a member of the Schengen Agreement, most likely at the end of the year, it will draw a fair share of the migration current.

Why? Because Turkey changed its policies and stopped acting as a free buffer for the EU. It removed its visa regime for many Arab countries, including those who right now are seeing unrest. So instead of getting in boats as they did earlier, the prospective migrants are now dressing up and getting to Turkey as tourists, and from there they are seeking the trafficking channels for the Schengen Area. So Bulgaria is about to face a huge challenge, and our government should be well aware of that.

We need your support so Novinite.com can keep delivering news and information about Bulgaria! Thank you!

Interview » Be a reporter: Write and send your article
Tags: Libya, Middle East, Muslim Brotherhood, Islamist, Islamists, political Islam, EU, Muammar Gaddafi, turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, morocco, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Bahrain, Mediterranean Union, civil unrest, Arab world, Vladimir Chukov

Advertisement
Advertisement
Bulgaria news Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) is unique with being a real time news provider in English that informs its readers about the latest Bulgarian news. The editorial staff also publishes a daily online newspaper "Sofia Morning News." Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency - www.sofianewsagency.com) and Sofia Morning News publish the latest economic, political and cultural news that take place in Bulgaria. Foreign media analysis on Bulgaria and World News in Brief are also part of the web site and the online newspaper. News Bulgaria