1. On the anniversary of the Arab spring what has changed in the Muslim world?

The Arab spring began in January 2011 and has now reached its first anniversary. The uprisings when they began initially started in Tunisia and then spread to Egypt eventually engulfing most of the Muslim world. After a year, regime change has only taken place in Libya, whilst in Egypt and Tunisia, the rulers may now no longer be in power, but their regimes still remain.

The reason why much of the political architecture prior to the uprisings remains is because of the interference from foreign powers – namely the US. The Arab revolt that started in Tunisia and spread to several Arab countries was manipulated by America to move closer to its goal of creating a new Greater Middle East, where old European powers have marginal influence. The dismissal of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was not a random event. Rather, it was a synthesis of rampant corruption incubated by 23 years of Western patronage and fused with dire economic conditions made worse by the global financial crisis and bloodsucking IMF structural programs. America is eagerly awaiting similar turmoil to manifest itself in Algeria, Jordan, and the Gulf countries, so that she can engineer regimes that pledge greater loyalty to her hegemony at the expense of Britain and France.

With regards to Egypt, America defused the uprising by disposing of her loyal agent Mubarak and handed the power to the army to rule Egypt on her behalf. The Suez Canal and Egypt’s the pact with Israel remains intact much to the dismay of the Egyptian public. Today, American officials have resurrected outdated plans to devour the Arab world once deemed too ambitious to accomplish and too dangerous to talk about in public.

So whilst the US attempts the hijack the uprising, the Muslim Ummah has thrown away her fear of the rulers who ruled with an iron fist to remain in power. This is the most important aspect that has changed.

2. Elections are now taking place in Egypt, does this signal the decline of the SCAF’s influence?

On assuming power the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) suspended the constitution whilst both houses of parliament were dissolved, they also declared the military would rule for six months until elections could be held. The prior cabinet would continue to serve as a caretaker government until a new one was formed. Then a constitutional referendum held in March 2011 saw only a 41% turnout to limit presidential terms amongst a host of proposals, many of the groups who initially protested against Mubarak boycotted the vote as it did not go far enough. A vote on a new constitution is yet to take place and this is complicated by the elections to elect a new government.

The Egyptian army since it came to power through the three Officers coup in 1952 has been the de facto rulers of Egypt. They however have allowed a civilian leadership to carry out the day-to-day administration of the country, whilst they have determined the strategic direction of Egypt. When the uprising began the army realised that Mubarak was a liability and in essence a coup was undertaken against him. By April 2011 hundreds of thousands of demonstrators again filled Tahrir Square, criticizing the ruling SCAF for not following through on revolutionary demands. They demanded the resignation of remaining regime figures and the removal of Egypt’s public prosecutor due to the slow pace of investigations of corrupt former officials.

After much delay the election of for a new Parliament started December 2011. The Islamic parties have fared very well. This led to condemnation by the SCAF who viewed the upcoming parliament as “not representative” of the true will of the Egyptian voters, even though they voted for them. Gen. Mukhtar Mulla said that instead of allowing parliament to write the constitution the junta will now appoint a new council of its own to oversee the drafting of the constitution and will “limit” the already mostly powerless parliament.

Since removing Mubarak from power the SCAF has constantly played its cards wrong and this has turned the Egyptian populace against itself whilst initially having such support. The army initially kept Mubarak’s cabinet as a caretaker cabinet and argued this would remain until a new cabinet would be formed after the elections. A government reshuffle then took place as the caretaker cabinet was in reality the armies handpicked cronies. However the defence, interior, foreign, finance, and justice ministries remained unchanged. The army has constantly attempted to placate the protests by making artificial changes, however each of the changes have led to further protests.

The army has made it clear that it plans to maintain its powerful role in Egyptian politics. So whilst the army underestimated how well the Islamic parties would do, it still maintains that, rather then the new parliament will decide the new constitution through handpicking a panel of experts.

3. Does the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Nour party now mean the Arab spring has ushered in a new era for an Islamic government?

The Muslim brotherhood and the Nour party have won landslide victories, however their future agenda appears not to be any different to its predecessors. Whilst the Muslim brotherhood are the largest group in Egypt and yield immense power, they have operated from a position of weakness. They have gone out of their way to highlight they are not really calling for Islam and have attempted to appease the global concern about Islam in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood have set up the Freedom and Justice Party and insisted that the Party will be completely separate from the parent organisation. This new party has also stated that it would be prepared to enter into a coalition government with any of the other parties. Hilary Clinton has said that the Obama administration was “continuing the approach of limited contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood that have existed on and off for about five or six years.” The Nour party has been no different. The spokesman of the Salafi al-Nour Party, Yousri Hammad, was asked in a phone interview with the independent satellite channel al-Nas about controversial statements attributed to party chairman Emad Abdul Ghafour regarding the possibility of holding negotiations with Israel. He said: “We have not received an official request from Israel yet, but if we sit with Israel, it has to be through the Egyptian Foreign Ministry,” he added “Egypt is signatory to international treaties and these have to be respected, This is not my personal opinion or that of the party chairman. It is part of the party’s policies.”

4. Where do matters currently stand in Syria?

Bashar Al-Assad continues to massacre his own people, whilst the international community looks on. The response by the international community has been largely filled with rhetoric. Whilst many have called for Assad’s removal, the US has called for reforms by the Assad regime.

It is important to remember that whilst Syria is depicted as an international pariah state that supports Hizbullah and Palestinian militants. However, away from public scrutiny the US government has always viewed Syria as an important surrogate that is needed in the region. Syria has safeguarded US interests, which includes the arrest and torture of its own people. In Iraq, Syria played an active role in infiltrating the Islamists and passing on valuable intelligence to the US led coalition and in Lebanon the Syrian deterrent forces (SDF) ensured the protection of US interests with the Taif agreement in 1989 as it became the real power in Lebanon.

The US has pushed the Syrian opposition to maintain dialogue with Bashar al-Assad’s regime and details have emerged of a ‘roadmap‘ for reforms that would leave Assad in power despite demands for his overthrow. Hilary Clinton explained the American stance in an interview with Lucia Annunziata of Italy’s ‘In Mezz’Ora,’ in May 2011: “the difference between the situations in Syria and Libya is that the Syrian government might still come around and pursue a reform agenda… There are deep concerns about what is going on inside Syria, and we are pushing hard for the government of Syria to live up to its own stated commitment to reforms,” she said. “What I do know is that they have an opportunity still to bring about a reform agenda. Nobody believed Qaddafi would do that. People do believe there is a possible path forward with Syria. So we’re going to continue joining with all of our allies to keep pressing very hard on that.”

The US has tried to keep Assad in power but has also supported the opposition if he is unable to maintain his grip on power. The Syrian opposition has begun openly seeking international intervention, during a meeting in Antalya, Turkey, in June 2011 Syria’s opposition came together and requested the West to aid Syria as it did in Libya. The US has also called for the opposition to unify so that a new ruling council can be formed, with whom the US can deal with, as is what happened in Libya with the National Transitional Council. Mark Toner, the US State Department’s deputy spokesman, told CNN that “a real opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was beginning to form after five months of pro-democracy protests. We have seen the Syrian opposition begin to take shape, begin to stand up and become more cohesive and become more broadly representative… of Syrian society.” Toner said President Barack Obama’s administration would like to remain in touch with the Syrian opposition as it grows.

In the case of Syria unlike Libya there has been very few calls for military intervention, both France and Britain continue the rhetoric for regime change as the Assad’s regime systematically massacres its own people. Various resolutions from the Arab league in effect give the regime more time to quell the uprising. Syria is in effect in a stalemate, the people are unable to mount a sustainable offensive to overthrow the regime, whilst the Assad regime is unable to completely quell the protests. As pictures continue to beam around the world of the Syrian security services systematically and brutally massacring the protesters and as the regime prepares to carry out a full scale military offensive in towns such as Homs and Daraa. The opposition who are organising into a national council will become much more prominent as the crisis descends into civil war.

5. Gaddafi was removed from power in August 2011, what is the current status of Libya?

After overthrowing Gaddafi, the National Transitional Council (NTC) has been accepted by the international community as the only representative of the Libyan people, even though in reality it is not recognised by many groups. Comments by both London and Paris since the fall of Tripoli, of peacekeeping forces remaining is an ominous sign that Western interference will remain.

Currently Libya does not have a fully established army. In the aftermath of the downfall of Gaddafi and his regime, Libya still lacks any centralized political authority. The country is still struggling to recover from the month’s long war against Gaddafi, and neither the NTC nor the transitional government it formed in November 2011 constitutes a true, legitimized authority. Power remains in the hands of the armed militias, and none of those are strong enough on their own to begin acting as a national military force. The international community has long viewed the NTC as the embryo of the future Libyan state. Yet at the moment, the NTC counts among its challenges the most basic task of state formation: establishing internal security. The on-going formation of the Libyan National Army is the centrepiece of the NTC’s push to accomplish this task, but so far, all attempts at threatening the militias into subservience have accomplished next to nothing.

It should be remembered with regards to Libya that the US viewed the instability in Libya as an opportunity to gain influence in the country. It made use of Europe’s inability to go it alone in removing Gaddafi to steal Libya from Europe and Britain. The US strategy was to delay matters which would make Europe ever more reliant on US fire power, this stalling allowed the US to cultivate contact with the rebels. This is one of the reasons why it took so long to overwhelm Gaddafi’s forces. The US delayed the launch of the initial invasion and by passing over the operation to NATO it only delayed matters further. A senior European official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to the Washington Post and to avoid antagonizing the Americans, said that Obama’s eagerness to turn over command of the Libyan air operation to NATO in late February 2011 and the withdrawal of US fighter planes from ground-strike missions, had undermined the strength of their united front against Gaddafi.

6. In Tunisia the Ennahda party won the election, are we witnessing the first Islamic party who will implement in Islam?

Whilst Ben Ali was overthrown many of those individuals who worked with him have attempted to shape post Ben Ali Tunisia and have been in constant contact with France and Britain. This political class attempted to stall the elections as the environment in their view was not right and they would in reality garner very few votes.

When elections did take place in October 2011 it was only for a constituent assembly, this new Assembly had 217 members. Only 50% of the electorate voted with the Ennahdah movement gaining 38% of the total vote. In its attempts the placate international concerns Ennahdah’s Rachid Ghannouchi, explained with regards to establishing the Khilafah: “Definitely, we are a nation state. We desire a state for Tunisian reforms, for the Tunisian State. As for the issue of the Khilafah, this is an issue that is not one of reality. The issue of today’s reality is that we are a Tunisian State that desires reform, so that it becomes a State for the Tunisian People, not against them.” Ghannouchi has been a long term advocate of Islamic reform and along with other leading members of the movement advocates the imitation of the Turkish model of governance.

7. It appears Ali Abdullah Saleh has finally agreed to a transition deal, does this now mean regime change has taken place in Yemen?

After intense pressure and political wrangling Salah agreed to the GCC deal in late November 2011, which he previously backed away from on numerous occasions at the last moment. The deal hands over Saleh’s powers to Abdrabuh Mansur Hadi, the Yemeni vice-president, to negotiate a power transfer with the opposition in return for a promise of immunity from prosecution.

Even though Saleh will be formally stepping down as president and with elections to take place in February 2012 the political transition in Yemen in no way constitutes regime change. The deal gives Saleh a dignified exit. But one must ask why Saleh has agreed to such a deal after refusing to sign the same agreement on numerous occasions previously? On this occasion it appears the deal would largely leave the regime under his family’s control.

The post Saleh regime is full of his family members with his son Ahmed Ali Saleh, remaining in control over the armed forces. The struggle in Yemen will continue as Saleh attempts to dictate Yemen policy from behind the scenes even though he will formally not be in power. Yemen is another example of where the personnel may have changed but the regime remains in power, setting the nation up for further instability.

The biggest problem with Yemen is the Anglo-American struggle taking place. The British Deputy Foreign Secretary for Middle Eastern affairs Evan Louis while meeting the Yemeni Ambassador in London on 24th November 2009 clarified regarding the situation in Yemen: “What is happening in Yemen is a proxy war.” The US has used the war on terror to undermine Ali Abdullah-Saleh by accusing Yemen of being a hub for Al Qaeeda, Ali Abdullah-Saleh attempted to appease the US with a host of security guarantees which allowed the US to carry out drone attacks in the country. The uprising has given the US the opportunity to remove Saleh, who however dug in his heals with the support of Britain and in the face of demands by his own people to leave. He agreed on many occasions to a transition deal – led by the Gulf Cooperation council (GCC) – another US tool, but constantly backtracked. The US has continually called for the immediate transition of power in Yemen, whilst Britain has stopped at reforms and has also deployed military assets near the embattled nation.

8. Why have the secular groups failed in making much progress in elections that have taken place across the region?

The ecular groups have failed to garner many votes in the elections that have taken place and have largely fallen from public eye as the revolution continued to evolve. This has been due to the fact that many secular groups have very little support and as a result have been unable to achieve anything sustainable due to their small numbers.

In the initial days of the Egyptian uprising the Western media gave them much attention due to their ability to harness Social media. However as they interviewed and spoke to such individuals their views for secular change were taken as representative of the masses. Egypt with a population of over 81 million, with its largest city Cairo’s 6 million population, at most 300,000 people were in Tahrir square during the peak of the protests. As the Western media interviewed those who advocated their values, the assumption was this is what the masses wanted. An interesting insight was provided by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi at the American Spectator: “That Islamism consequently has a significant degree of appeal should not come as a surprise…instead of trying to offer comprehensive alternative policy programs to voters, prominent, Western-educated Egyptians like Mona Eltahawy have become enthralled with spectacles like that of an Egyptian female blogger’s stripping completely naked….in the midst of an Islamist upsurge in Egypt, they can find nothing better to do than to express delight over someone exposing her entire body on a public forum.”

Secular values have very little traction in the Muslim word, whatever the rhetoric is from the Western media. Mohamad Elberadi confirmed that secular groups have very little traction in Egypt in an interview with Britain’s Telegraph: “I should say even if they [secular groups] continued to coalesce into a cohesive bloc, they would not have been able to compete fairly and squarely right now. They don’t have the resources, they don’t know the techniques. … They haven’t connected with the people on the street.”

As one geopolitical analyst put it: “The case of Egypt raises an interesting and obvious question regardless of how it all turns out. What if there are democratic elections and the people choose a regime that violates the principles of Western human rights? What happens if, after tremendous Western effort to force democratic elections, the electorate chooses to reject Western values and pursue a very different direction — for example, one that regards Western values as morally reprehensible and aims to make war against them?…….but the general assertion is a form of narcissism in the West that assumes that all reasonable people, freed from oppression, would wish to emulate us.”

9. What is the future of the Arab spring?

The Arab spring challenges the existing world order. The people who rose up to over-throw their rulers do possess an alternative system of governance and in 2011 they moved a step closer to taking their destiny into their own hands. Whilst the narrative from the West has been demonstrations equal western values, the success of Islamist parties runs contrary to this. The secular groups who communicated to Western audiences via social media were given the majority of the media airtime. Despite this they remain a tiny minority.

Whilst the Arab spring is still a work in progress and as many of the statements by the Islamic parties leaves much to desire, the role of Islam in society and governance will only increase. Those parties that dilute Islam, will see themselves side-lined as their votes are based upon them remaining Islamic.

2011 was the year a new player entered the global scene. Whilst much will need to happen for the current uprising to turn into an Islamic government, the US and the Western world will have to contend with a rejuvenated Muslim world who have broken the shackles of fear (something the West backed) to take their destiny into their own hands. Whilst it remains to be seen how Islamic the current crop of Islamic parties will be, what is for sure is the Muslim world wants change and that change is not for a four millennia old, foreign system developed in Europe.