The rise of the Arab spring has been attributed to a number of factors, most of which are related to the nature of governance, economic status, and lack of sufficient opportunities for employment. This dissertation seeks to investigate external factors which were responsible for instigating the revolts and sustaining them. Unlike previous research which investigated these factors but did not identify a causal link between them and the uprising, the dissertation will demonstrate the causal relationship between the revolts and the external factors. Therefore, the dissertation will intent to demonstrate that apart from the influence of internal factors, there were external considerations responsible for triggering the Arab spring and some of these factors were instrumental in sustaining the uprisings.
According to Rand (2013, p.1), the revolution in Tunisia was triggered by an act of self-immolation fruit vendor who was denied an opportunity to sell merchandise in Sidi Bouzid, a town in one of the rural areas of Tunisia. Mohamed Bouazizi was denied permission to conduct business in the town because he did not possess a permit. In protest against humiliation and the restriction that denied him an opportunity to engage in business, he lit himself on fire in front of a building in which government business was being conducted. According to Dabashi (2012, p.4), the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi may have started protests and demonstrations in Tunisia, but it was not the major reason why members of these countries chose to march along the streets of towns and cities. There are a number of reasons why the Arab spring was inevitable. To begin with, these states had a long history of government suppression of basic rights such as freedom of speech, and other basic human rights. Governance of most of these states was characterised by mismanagement of resources and corruption, and political intolerance. However, these revolutions were not experienced in all states in the Arab world. Garfinkle (2013, para 2)observes that there is need to establish reasons why these revolutions only occurred in some countries while others, who had similar problems were not as adversely affected.
Di Giorgi (2016, para. 40) says that these demonstrations and protests can be considered as an alternative means of achieving democracy in governance systems where leaders become authoritarian and disregard the rights, opinions, and needs of the people they govern. On the contrary, Battaloglu and Farasin (2017, pp. 317-318) assert that these protests had negative consequences on how citizens view protests and demonstrations, as well as disagreements regarding how reforms in governance should be done. Additionally, the revolutions served as a caution to organizations and other countries against pushing for political changes in other states for the purposes of achieving a set target.
According to Malmvig (2014, p. 146), securitisation of the Arab spring resulted in a shift in focus and attention from the traditional issues that the citizens and rebels were fighting. A lot of focus has been placed on questioning the legitimacy of governance of different administrations since this period of time. Additionally, attention has been diverted to addressing differences between Shia and Sunni Muslims, which has become one of the most important issues in the Middle East and North African states.
The Copenhagen School of security studies asserts that there are instances in which matters of domestic governance and politics are transformed into national security matters. This means that these issues may require more robust interventions such as the use of military and security forces, the imposition of curfews and suspension of basic rights of citizens. When dealing with political problems such as demands for change in governance or resignation of political leaders, violent interventions cannot be justified. When issues are securitised, relevant authorities can be justified in applying extraordinary measures to address them. Authorities tasked with neutralizing the security threat can, therefore, have numerous options from which they can find a solution. These options, under normal circumstances, would not have been possible in neutralizing a political, social, or economic problem. Scholars of this school of thought include Barry Buzan, Bill McSweeney, and Ole Oever (Daheshvar1a, Mousavi and Safdari 2014, pp. 76- 77). This research will seek to determine the validity of the theory that there were factors, besides grievances raised by protesters, which were involved in securitising the Arab spring.
This dissertation seeks to demonstrate that protesters in Arab world countries had political, economic, and social grievances but these complaints would not be considered matters that required security concerns. Solutions to the problems they were raising, therefore, did not require extreme interventions by authorities and security forces. The research will examine the role played by three external factors in securitising the revolutions. Firstly, it will examine how the European Union’s policies and actions were part of the contributing factors in the triggering of protests. It will evaluate the extent to which the EU participated in transforming matters of governance and economy into security problems in the Arab world. Secondly, new media’s involvement in the revolutions will be investigated, and finally, the dissertation will demonstrate how the USA was involved in influencing NATO’s actions during the uprisings, and as a consequence, political problems were turned into security problems.
Role of European Union in Securitising the Arab Spring
According to Peters (2012, pp. 17-18), the EU had a major role to play before protests and civil unrests were experienced in Arab world countries and after the rise of the Arab spring. During the revolution, the EU was keen on these events, and it maintained that it was in support of democracy in the region. The union later established missions in countries such as Algeria, Tunisia, and Jordan, where their main focus was on governance. EU was also actively involved in organizing for democratic elections in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. They also gave support to organizations established by the civil society to educate members of the public on the importance of democracy and individual votes. Additionally, election observers were trained through support offered by the European Union. Democratic governance was not a system used by these states earlier and its adoption would have required putting mechanisms and policies into place to allow a peaceful and systematic transition of governance.
The European Union felt that the rise of protests and civil unrests in the Arab world was a vindication of its policies and views on democratic governance. The union had been stressing on the importance of establishing governments that would be accountable to the citizens of that particular state, protect the rights and freedoms of individuals, allow for freedom of expression, and uphold the law. The opinion of the EU that democracy is one of the best and most desirable forms of governance is integrated into their policies (Seeberg and Shteiwi 2014, p. 2). An examination of EU policies would enable one to understand why the Arab spring was considered to have acceptable consequences. Additionally, the union made formal calls to support the protests because it thought that the people were demanding for their rights and freedoms. A public acknowledgement that there was a need to revisit its policies so that it would engage and directly reach members of the public rather than exclusively deal with governments can be interpreted to mean that it supported the actions of the protestors.
In its agreement with members of the Mediterranean countries, adoption of EU policies in non-EU countries would help the latter to create more job opportunities for citizens of these countries, and create a society with shared wealth and prosperity. However, adoption of these policies did not reduce unemployment levels in countries which dealt closely with the union. Grievances such as unemployment are some of the major triggers of the Arab spring. This is an indication that these policies were either defective or not suitable for adoption in the Mediterranean countries they were introduced in (Hollis, 2012, p. 81).
Gillespie (2013, p. 3) argues that the Euro-Mediterranean partnership was launched with the intent of fostering trade, social, economic, and political relationships between nations in the Arab world and EU countries. This agreement sought to enhance security as well as political cooperation which would result in stability of the Mediterranean region and also foster peace among them. Secondly, the success of this agreement would guarantee economic partnerships and improvement of trade relations. Thirdly, the Barcelona Declaration of this agreement posited that there would be ties, both cultural and social.
The EU, however, in its formulation of this partnership agreement, did not address the threats to its realization in the Mediterranean states. The interests of the Arab world countries were diverse unlike those of EU member states. These Arab countries did not effectively utilize the trade agreement among them because they did not have much to offer each other but could offer more to Europe. The European Union did not support investments in the Mediterranean states but insisted that these countries should allow Europeans to have free access to their economy such that the Europeans, who had more resources, were in competition with the local businesses (Gomez 2018, p. 2). The Europeans would perform better than the local people, and as a result, citizens of these countries were run out of business.
Protests and demonstrations in Arab World countries may have been partly influenced by EU policies and programmes initiated in these states. The EU was involved in demanding for the adoption of governance policies in countries with no previous adoption of democracy while at the same time not imposing any restrictions on leaders in these countries. The EU did not help these countries to set strategies and policies which would enable them to smoothly transition into democracies. Additionally, policies which negatively affected the economic welfare of Middle East and North African states contributed to unemployment and poverty, which were some of the reasons for the outbreak of protests (Schäfer 2011, pp. 24-25). Seeberg and Shteiwi (2014, p. 2) present a similar position that the European Union had a role to play in triggering protests in countries which started their revolutions after Egypt and Tunisia. When the EU publicly showed support for the Arab spring based on the outcomes of protests, other nations in the Arab world started experiencing unrests. The union also insisted that it would not have close relations with nations which did not adopt a good governance model. Introduction of sanctions was also used as a strategy for encouraging a change of governance in these countries. These actions by European Nations can be considered extreme compared to the problem they attempted to address. Governance could be addressed in a diplomatic manner and as such, extreme measures like supporting the overthrow of legitimate governments and imposing sanctions on them were necessary under these conditions.
Failure of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership to foster bilateral trade amongst countries in the Arab world resulted in the establishment the Union for the Mediterranean which was intended to facilitate reforms in the economic collaboration of between European nations and the Arabic world. However, this new partnership was not successful because it focused more on benefiting the Europeans through projects in the energy sector and in infrastructure. Majority of the benefits were received by the Europeans and to the Arab nations, the benefits were modest. Fewer benefits to the Arab states meant that they could not guarantee enough employment opportunities for their people (Hassan 2015, p. 44).
Engagement of EU with countries from the Arab world gave them the opportunity to have bilateral trade agreements as well as cooperation in ensuring that immigration from these countries was limited and closely monitored. The EU required countries in this region to implement certain measures to curb terrorism and immigration and in return, these countries would receive more financial assistance from the EU (Hollis 2012, pp.92-93). According to Hassan (2015, p.45), the EU chose not to engage Arab world leaders on their style of governance for fear of losing intelligence reports on terrorism and immigration. Reforms in the political sector, therefore, were only implemented if the leaders of the Arab world deemed them fit. Perthes (2011, p. 80) criticizes this relationship and argues that support offered by these parties should not have been accompanied by expectations of a specific outcome. Countries within the Arab world were supposed to have autonomy of making political, economic as well as social decisions without being compelled to choose a particular leader or adopt a certain economic policy or measure.
Upon examination of the policies advocated by the EU, one would be compelled to agree with the assertion that establishment of a democratic system of governance and respecting the law would have aided countries in the Arab world in establishing a free society in which justice and fairness were observed. However, the union erred in introducing policies which would be more beneficial to countries in Europe than states in the Arab world. EU countries may be held to contribute to the Arab spring because their actions were contrary to their policies and against the interests of citizens of Middle East and North African nations. One would, therefore, be justified in positing that some actions by the EU would not be warranted if political and economic problems were not escalated to security problems.
Role of Media in the Arab Spring
The arguments presented in this section seek to demonstrate that media played a role in the escalation of the Arab spring in Tunisia and Egypt and those subsequent protests in other countries were influenced, to some extent, by media. These arguments serve to reinforce this dissertation’s position that external factors such as social media should also be considered as possible triggers of the Arab spring.
Media refers to a channel or means of communication among people in the society. Some of the popular communication means include television, radio, posters and newspapers, among others. Communication in traditional media is limited to a one-way model where information is communicated to people but they cannot send communication back at the same time. New media, on the other hand, is communication among people which is characterized by the possibility of active interaction among people at the same time. New media is sometimes referred to as social media and it includes internet enabled platforms like Facebook, Skype, and Twitter, among others (Chun and Keenan 2006, p. 2).
The question of whether media and especially new media had a role to play in causing the Arab spring and even sustaining it has been answered differently by various researchers. There are some who are sceptical that social media had a major role in the events associated with the protests in the Arab world. For instance, Gire (2014, para. 4-5) argues that revolutions can only be successful when activists and protestors play a more risky role which involves active engagement in revolutionary activities. Social media, he argues, cannot successfully cause a revolution because the users of social media platforms have weak ties and do not have a lot of energy invested in the revolution.
According to Khondker (2011, p. 676), some thinkers like Clay Shirky and scholars from the Dubai School of Government consider the Arab spring to have been greatly influenced by new media. Social media was instrumental in the mobilization of protesters in different countries. In Tunisia, social media and network sites such as YouTube, facebook and twitter were used to share images and video files of the protests, brutality of security forces and plans of actions. In previous demonstrations where social media was not used few people noticed or even knew of the protests or the reasons for the demonstrations. However, when protestors resorted to using new media to air out their grievances, many people noticed and joined them. Incidences of self-immolation had been experienced before, but Bouazizi’s suicide was captured through social media and shared widely. The initial protests were not popularized and had few participants, but once the cause of these protests was made known through new media, many Tunisians joined in
According to Douai (2016, p. 30), social media gave civilians the opportunity to form many groups on facebook for purposes of organizing demonstrations and offering support to protestors. These online groups were mostly formed and managed by younger people. This mode of communication was considered safer, faster, and more efficient in coordinating the revolutions than mainstream media.
The Tunisian government realized the role played by users of social media accounts and sought to restrict their communication. Breuer, Landman and Farquhar (2015, p. 766) assert that attempts were made to block the flow of information through blocking accounts of users who shared images and videos of security forces’ brutality. Attempts were also made to hack into social media accounts of these users for purposes of preventing transmission of information pertaining to the ongoing protests. Besides Facebook, communication channels were blocked by the authorities in a deliberate attempt to deprive protestors of information. People’s interaction on Facebook was instrumental in preventing protestors’ deaths and injuries from security forces who sought to ambush them during demonstrations. Additionally, messages of brutality from the government angered the protestors and gave them a reason to increase the intensity of their protests against the government.
In Egypt, social media was also employed to make protests and demonstrations popular and for protesters to communicate with each other. Most people involved in the protests had mobile phones and could access online articles from major fundamentalists, facebook posts, tweets, and columns by analysts. These were the only media platforms which could be used by the protestors to spread information against the government without risking arrests or media shutdown (Adi 2014, p. 26).
Social media was also used to facilitate and coordinate protests and confrontations with the Libyan government during the Arab spring. A Facebook page created by a Libyan exposed police brutality in dealing with citizens, the difficulty of life experienced by Libyans, and the extravagant lifestyle of leaders, and especially Gaddafi and his family members. This facebook page also asked Libyans to shun the leadership of Gaddafi and commence mass protests to oust him. New media was actively involved in reporting events that were happening in the country. Facebook was the most popular new media platform used by Libyans to criticise the government and threats to activists from the government were not successful (Erdag 2017, p.3).
Pictures and videos of brutal clashes between government forces and protestors were posted on Facebook, twitter and youtube and shared widely. These images and videos elicited reactions from different people all over the world and Gaddafi was condemned for using brutal force on civilians. These unjustified murders by government forces led to the christening of the protestors as “freedom fighters.” Ultimately, the Libyan government was toppled and Gaddafi was killed. This accomplishment was made possible by the coordination and communication made possible through social media (Holtschke 2013, p. 12).
Information shared through social media, especially Facebook and youtube, gave inspiration to the Syrian people to begin their own revolution. Gradually, individuals, as well as groups, began to raise their concerns on the state of governance in the country through social media. Before this strategy was adopted by the Syrian people, there were complaints but the dissenters could only voice their concerns in secret. They could not openly confront the government for fear of persecution and unpleasant consequences. Some protestors were killed by security forces during protests to demand the release of young people (aged between eight and fifteen years) and this action triggered waves of mass protests against the government. (Information Resources Management Association 2016, p. 1746). New media was therefore partly responsible for securitisation of the Arab Spring because its users transformed politically and economically triggered demonstrations into protests about their security and well being.
Social media may have played a major role in triggering and escalating protests but international media did not give priority to important features of the revolutions being witnessed. Lee-Wright (2017, p. 14) argues that in international media, the revolutions in the Arab world only got superficial attention without more consideration of the causes and grievances of the protestors. Coverage of the revolutions was only done for purposes of giving descriptive information on what was happening in the Arab world. This means that the deeper meaning of the revolts and possible consequences were not prioritised. Additionally, priority was not given to possible measures for preventing or even stopping violent revolutions.
The literature presented in this section serves to demonstrate that new media was instrumental in securitising the Arab spring. Information concerning atrocities committed by governments, organization of protests, coordination of events, and communication among demonstrators was done through Facebook, twitter and youtube channels. Assertions that new media did not have a significant role in the securitisation process, therefore, cannot be objectively held because there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. The relevance of new media can also be demonstrated by the fact that leaders attempted to restrict protestors’ communication and coordination through these platforms.
The United States of America’s influence on NATO
This section discusses the USA’s contribution to the securitisation of the revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa. It seeks to demonstrate that constant push for the establishment of democratic governance in the Arab world was one of the demands of the demonstrators. It also presents arguments to demonstrate the involvement of the USA in triggering and sustaining the crisis experienced in some Arab nations during the revolutions.
The USA and Tunisia had economic, political and security ties and it was part of the reason why democracy could not be adopted. This relationship ensured that the leaders kept their positions and chose whether or not to adopt democracy and respect for human dignity. Dehai.org. (2018, para. 4) asserts that the start of protests in Tunisia made the USA uneasy because it had military ties and counter-terrorism deals with the North African State. If the government was overthrown, then their sources of intelligence would be compromised and there was a possibility that the new regime would not cooperate with them. The relationship between the USA and Tunisian leaders was based on economic as well as military aid to Tunisia in exchange for intelligence and cooperation in the USA’s fight against terrorism. The USA kept on pushing for democratic reforms in the country but did not take measures to ensure that the Tunisian government complied with their policies. Instead, they chose to ignore the injustices and violation of human rights and the law for the sake of receiving intelligence reports and cooperation from the Tunisian leaders. Further, the USA did not place sanctions on the government, but rather, the country provided Tunisian authorities with technical and financial reinforcements.
As a measure to stop extrajudicial executions by the Libyan government, NATO proposed the enforcement of a ban on flights within the country’s airspace. In order to properly enforce this strategy, the USA argued that they would have to disable the air defences of Libya so that their planes would not be shot down within the country’s airspace. Firstly, the Senate of the USA passed a resolution which urged NATO to impose a no-fly zone over the Libyan state. Some allies of NATO did not agree with the idea of initiating airstrikes against Libya because there would be a loss of civilian lives. In June, Italian authorities requested NATO to cease from using airstrikes because of the high number of civilians killed by these attacks (François 2011, p.3).
America employed propaganda in order to provide an opportunity for NATO to use a military intervention for what was considered humanitarian reasons. Americans had interests in controlling the oil reserves and this is why they used this strategy to intervene in the Libyan protests. Moreover, the USA was determined to prevent the adoption of a single currency in Africa which was to be used to make business transactions involving oil trade. Introduction of this currency would weaken the value of the American dollar and as a result, weaken the economy of the country (Paperblog 2018, para 11-13). Use of propaganda to convince NATO to adopt military strikes against the Libyan government and America’s desire to pursue its interests in Libya led to the transformation of political matters into security problems so that extreme measures could be adopted by NATO.
When protests began in Egypt, the USA, together with European nations, did not try to intervene and find a solution for the concerns of the demonstrators. Assebur (2013, p. 47) argues that, when the protests became more violent and international media reported on the excessive force used by government forces, the USA adopted a critical position against the government and urged President Mubarak to resign. The USA campaign to urge the president to leave office was adopted by NATO, who offered assistance to the rebels and successfully defeated government forces.
During the military intervention in Libya, the USA, which is a permanent member of NATO, was involved in an unpleasant confrontation with allied countries that had pulled out of the military intervention because they thought that NATO had overreacted to the Libyan situation. Etzioni (2012, pp. 47-49) says that some of the countries who reduced their contribution to NATO’s intervention include: the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, and Germany. According to Pranger (2011, pp. 24), Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations justified America’s involvement in the Libyan strikes by asserting that NATO’s action was a response to the cries of citizens of Libya and that this was the best course of action at the time. Robert Gates, the United States Defence Secretary criticized NATO states which had refused to contribute to the Libyan strikes and those who had offered little support.
According to Byman (2013, p. 289), Western countries took long to respond to the revolutions in the Arab world and these responses varied from one country to another. There were suggestions that the situation could be controlled through military interventions, political intervention or even economic intervention from different members. The failure to agree on a common intervention was informed by varied interests among the Western states. Some of the factors which led to lack of consensus include interests in oil, fight against terrorism, and security of borders.
The involvement of the USA in the Arab protests and revolutions was not only limited to its role in the Libyan air strikes. Together with other European countries, the USA did not immediately intervene when the Syrian government used lethal force against protesters and dissenters. Even though the American ambassador to the country was vocal in condemning the attacks and declaring support for the opposition, there was no pragmatic intervention form the USA. Additionally, the Americans did not make it obvious that their inaction was intended to ensure that President Assad was overthrown (Byman 2013, p. 231).
Claims that the USA was directly involved in triggering the revolutions in the Arab world have been made by different researchers. According to Nixon (2018, para 1-5), some protestors and group leaders during the revolts had support from the USA. This support involved provision of finances to coordinate protests and training. The National Endowment for Democracy was used to assist rebels in their fight against government forces in Egypt. The organization was considered to be neutral but its mode of operation demonstrated that it was only concerned with achieving the interests of the USA. Moreover, some leaders of groups within the Egyptian civil society were alleged to have been trained on matters such as advocacy and democracy by USA government officials.
The involvement of the USA in the crisis experienced in North Africa and Middle East countries cannot be underestimated or overlooked. The literature presented in this section demonstrates that the country had vested interests in the nations affected by the uprisings of 2011. For instance, the USA can be held accountable for keeping the leaders in power even though they did not adopt systems of governance which would be considerate of the rights of citizens and ensure economic as well as social development. The USA was also alleged to have influenced NATO’s decision to initiate military airstrikes against Libyan security forces, a decision that was later regretted because it was responsible for the loss of innocent civilian lives. When the demonstrations and dissent of the protestors grew, Americans supported the rebels and civilians in calling for the resignation of these leaders. One would be led to conclude that the American government did not have the interests of the Libyans, Syrians, Egyptians, or any other Middle East or North African country at heart. Instead, they had their own interests in engaging in the Arab revolutionary campaigns. The literature examined in this dissertation shows that the USA was involved in the Arab spring and its intentions were not similar to those of the protestors. Additionally, the literature demonstrates that the USA did not consider employing alternative (more peaceful or diplomatic) methods of solving conflicts in the Arab world, but chose to use a military intervention.
Conclusion
This dissertation discusses the securitisation of the Arab spring in some countries situated in North Africa and the Middle East from January 2011 until December 2012. This period was characterized by civilian uprisings against their governments triggered by a variety of factors such as economic suppression, violation of basic human rights (such as free speech, inhumane treatment, arbitrary arrests and torture, and freedom of association), poor systems of governance, and suppression of political freedom. The investigation into the possibility of external factors being part of the triggers of these revolutions has not been considered by many researchers, and as a result, there is limited literature on these factors. This dissertation examines how three external factors contributed to the securitisation of the revolutions in North Africa as well as the Middle East. These three external factors are the European Union’s policies and actions before and during the protests, new media’s involvement in triggering and sustaining demonstrations and protests, and the American contribution towards the crisis through its involvement in NATO’s operations and its relationship with some of the countries involved.
Findings of the research have demonstrated that the European Union was partly responsible for transforming non-security matters into security problems and thus, extraordinary measures like use of military interventions could be adopted to deal with them. For instance, the union insisted on the establishment of democratic governance in Arab World states which did not have previously have this form of governance. To achieve their goals, they used humanitarian aid and imposition of sanctions to co
