The American Legion Magazine | 11.1.12
By Alan W. Dowd
In 2005, long before there
was an Arab Spring, Middle East scholar Fouad Ajami announced “the autumn of autocrats”
and predicted that “the entrenched systems of control in the Arab world are
beginning to give way.”
His prediction came to
fruition in 2011, when four Arab dictators were toppled and a fifth (in Syria)
came under sustained pressure from his subjects. With so many rogue rulers
departing in such short order, now is an ideal time to survey the globe for what
comes next.
This gallery of rogues is by
no means exhaustive. Rather, it represents that collection of autocrats who generate
the most news and/or the most worries for the international community—and it’s
just a snapshot at that. Given the many forces impacting these regimes—political,
cultural, religious, ethnic, economic—each story offers far more complexity
than a thumbnail sketch can fully capture.
Yemen: HQ for AQAP
Ensconced as Yemen’s autocrat for 33 years, Ali Abdullah Saleh signed an
agreement in late 2011 to transfer power to his deputy, Abed Rabbo Mansour, who
is leading a caretaker government until full-fledged elections are held. But Yemen
could be sliding from the ranks of Arab autocracy to Somalia-style anarchy. A
powerful wing of al Qaeda—al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQAP)—has seized large
swaths of Yemen. “Ongoing instability in
Yemen provides AQAP with greater freedom to plan and conduct operations,” Director
of National Intelligence James Clapper warns.
Saudi Arabia: The West’s Favorite Autocracy
Freedom House ranks Saudi
Arabia among the worst countries on earth when it comes to political rights and
civil liberties. King Abdullah’s regime does not allow religious freedom.
Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are severely circumscribed. And
there is virtually no freedom for women. But the West keeps quiet about these
unpleasant realities because Saudi Arabia is a lynchpin of the oil-dependent
global economy and a bulwark against Iran. Two successors have died in the past
year: Crown Prince Sultan and Crown Prince
Nayef. Prince Salman, the defense minister, is next in line.
Syria: Like Father, Like Son
It’s not in Bashar Assad’s
DNA to countenance any challenge to his rule. Recall that his father
slaughtered 20,000 Syrians to staunch a 1982 uprising. The younger Assad’s army
has eclipsed that grisly milestone. However, tens of thousands of Syrian
soldiers have defected and formed the Free Syrian Army. If post-Assad Syria is
run by the generals, Brig. Gen. Manaf Tlass, the highest-ranking deserter, is
a possible successor. There is also a Syrian National Council handling
civilian matters. Abdelbasset Sida
leads the SNC. My Fraser Institute colleague Martin Collacott, who
served as Canada’s ambassador to Syria in the 1990s, cautions, “the possibility
of arriving at some sort of compromise seems remote due to the brutality of the
government’s crackdown.”
Iran: A Tyranny of Terrorists
Not surprisingly, Iran has sent advisors and military personnel to Syria
(Wall Street Journal). In addition to making common cause with Syria for
decades, Tehran’s record of rogue behavior includes international terrorism,
support for Hezbollah, an outlaw nuclear program, bloody proxy wars against the
U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, and threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. As if
to prove their rogue bona fides, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his
puppet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad smashed pro-democracy protests after elections in
2009.
Sudan: Worst of the Worst
In control for almost a
quarter-century, Gen. Omar Hassan Bashir is
among “the worst of the worst” dictators on earth, according to Freedom House. Bashir’s
Sudan is the very definition of a rogue regime—cultivating ties with North Korea, Qaddafi’s Libya and Hussein’s
Iraq; supporting terror groups such as Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and the Lord’s
Resistance Army; and offering safe haven to Osama
bin Laden (U.S. State Department). The barbaric Bashir has been implicated in
slave trade and genocide. For his mass-murder campaign in Darfur, Bashir was
indicted by the International Criminal Court.
Bashir’s reach shrank when South Sudan broke away in 2011, though he has
threatened to overthrow the breakaway region.
Belarus: Europe’s Last Dictator?
In power for 18 years, Alyaksandr
Lukashenka is often called “Europe’s last dictator.” Ruling by executive fiat,
his regime is characterized by “disregard for the basic rights of freedom of
assembly, association and expression,” according to the State Department. In
fact, after the 2010 election, Lukashenka jailed seven of the nine candidates who
dared oppose him.
Russia: A Czar Is Born
After serving as prime minister in
1999, Vladimir Putin began his first presidential term in 2000; then returned
to prime minister in 2008; and then returned to the presidency this year. As
Robert Kagan observes, “Elections do not offer a choice but only a chance to
ratify choices made by Putin.” Putin’s regime intimidates opponents, rewards
cronies, controls the media and stage-manages elections. Ahead of the 2012
election, Putin’s Justice Ministry barred key opposition figures from
participating. And even the Putin-approved opposition candidates dismissed the
2012 results as fraudulent. Putin’s Russia is making outlandish claims in the
Arctic, occupying parts of Georgia, resupplying Assad, blocking UN action in
Iran and using oil wealth to boost Russian military spending by 65 percent
since 2010. If Czar Vladimir gets his way, he will rule until 2024.
Burma: Baby Steps
Ruled by the military since
1962, Burma may be changing for the better. This is partly a function of the
military junta’s deplorable response to the 2008 tropical cyclone that claimed
150,000 lives. The military initially blocked humanitarian aid, which raised
international awareness of Burma’s plight. In 2010, junta leaders allowed
parliamentary elections, the first since 1990. Junta leaders also have released
political prisoners. Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi is leading what appears to
be the beginning of a peaceful revolution. Although she holds just one seat in
parliament (which she won in April 2012), she is using her new post to promote
political freedom nationally. For her efforts, Suu Kyi has been called “Mother
Democracy.” Given that this year’s elections impact just 48 of the 664 seats in
Burma’s two legislative chambers, change will take time.
China: Business-Suit Autocrats
Beijing has transformed
itself into a business-suit autocracy. In an indication of how un-democratic
Beijing’s political process is, Hu
Jintao’s successor, Xi Jinping,
was chosen by a small committee of powerbrokers, introduced to the world, and
then inexplicably kept in hiding for weeks ahead of the transition. Although
Western reporters are charmed by what Reuters calls a “folksy smile,” it pays to recall that Xi has been a central part
of the regime’s policies, which include a massive military buildup, an
intimidation campaign throughout the Western Pacific, a barrage of cyberattacks,
and the “harshest crackdown on dissent in at least a decade,” according to
Clapper. In Xi’s China, the basic freedoms of speech, religion and assembly do
not exist. Indeed, some 3 million people are rotting away in laogai slave-labor
camps, many “guilty” of political dissent or religious activity. When Beijing barred
dissident Liu Xiaobo and his family from traveling to Oslo to receive the Nobel
Peace Prize, The Washington Post noticed
a grim parallel: “Only once before has the peace prize been awarded without
anyone to receive it—in 1936, when Adolf Hitler prevented German pacifist Carl
von Ossietzky from attending.”
North Korea: The Kim Dynasty
The same family has been in
power in Pyongyang since the end of World War II. At first glance, the prospect
of a free North Korea seems low. After all, there’s no sign of a Pyongyang
Spring on the horizon. But other factors suggest the end of the Kim Dynasty is
not far off. First, Kim Jong-Il put in place a collective leadership structure
to guide his untested son, Kim Jong-Eun. Including the younger Kim, his uncle
and aunt, and a cadre of generals, the structure is inherently unstable.
Second, as the Carnegie Endowment’s Minxin Pei observes, “No modern
authoritarian dynastic regime has succeeded in passing power to the third
generation.”
Cuba: The Cult of Castro
Fidel Castro transferred leadership to his brother, Raul, in 2008, which means
Cuba has been ruled by the Castro family since 1959. Freedom House calls Cuba
“one of the world’s most repressive countries” and reports “no political
liberalization” in 2011. Economic freedom is non-existent. Freedom of speech,
assembly, religion and movement are limited. And the Castro regime holds
thousands of political prisoners. What comes after the Castro brothers? Fidel’s
son, Fidel Castro Diaz-Balart, is only in his 60s.
Venezuela: Hugo’s the Boss
In control since 1999, Hugo Chavez has nationalized industries; expanded
government control over the press, Internet, banks and NGOs; and limited
legislative power. “Nearly all notable legislation enacted since January 2011
has been through presidential decree,” according to the State Department. Henrique
Capriles, a regional governor, challenged the cancer-stricken Chavez in 2012. The Chavez regime carried out a campaign of
intimidation ahead of the elections, using police to disrupt Capriles campaign
activities and the National Electoral Council to block pro-Capriles political
ads. Election results were not official as we went to press, but wresting
control won’t be easy. Defense Minister Henry Rangel Silva says the army is
“married” to Chavez’s political program.
WATCH LIST
Iraq: Baghdad Backslides
Iraq has the opportunity to be a beacon for the Middle East by continuing along
the road to liberal democracy. Or it can revert to its old ways. The signs are
not good. Pitched battles between Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish groups are flaring.
Suicide bombings have returned. Human Rights Watch warns that Iraq is “slipping
back into authoritarianism” (Morse). Citing an orchestrated effort to “decapitate”
the Sunni-majority coalition, Lt. Col. Joel Rayburn, an Army intelligence
officer specializing in Iraq, calls Prime Minister Nuri Malaki “a would-be
strongman.”
Pakistan: Frenemy Regime
With the military, intelligence agency and civilian government as competing
centers of power, Pakistan’s dysfunctional regime helped spawn the Taliban in Afghanistan; then, after 9/11, cooperated
with the United States; then returned
to its old ways, hatching plots against Afghanistan’s democratic government;
then allowed bin Laden to hide in plain sight; then provided safe haven to
Taliban and Haqqani leaders. “Support of terrorism is
part of their national strategy,” as Adm. Mike
Mullen said of Pakistan’s
military-and-intelligence machinery last year. The nuclear-armed basket case
has weathered three military coups and scores of political assassinations in
its 64-year history.
Libya: Militia-ocracy
The National Transitional Council (NTC) served as an umbrella for anti-Qaddafi
groups during the 2011 civil war and led Libya until parliamentary elections in
July 2012. A coalition of moderate groups, guided by NTC leader Mahmoud Jibril, bested Islamist parties in the
elections, and Libya’s new National Assembly chose Mohammed
Magarief as its president. Still, there are worries about the government’s
ability to rein in militias and govern, as underscored by the assassination of
U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and his staff. Reuters reports that there could
be hundreds of thousands of unregistered militiamen. “We don’t have a state,”
concedes Jibril (Reuters). Indeed, militia leaders in eastern Libya are
proposing their own capital in Benghazi and planning an independent legislature.
Egypt: Democratic
Dangers
Democracy is not the inevitable successor to autocracy, which is why the world
is watching Egypt so nervously. As the Egyptian military’s role receded in
early 2012, reformers canceled each other out, allowing Islamists to flex their
political muscle. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi won the presidency in
June, and the Brotherhood and other Islamist groups won 65 percent of the seats
in parliament. But then the military reasserted itself, dissolving parliament, circumscribing
the new president’s authority and reserving for itself broad powers. Morsi then
fired senior military officials and reversed the military’s orders. All of this
suggests that there will be a tug-of-war between the old regime, reformers and
Islamists, which will affect everything from the U.S. Navy’s movement through
the Suez to the Israel-Egypt peace accords. Egypt could become like Turkey: a
free and usually-responsible member of the international community. Or it could
degenerate into something like Iran: a radicalized regime where the veneer of
legitimate government covers a terror state. Worryingly, post-Mubarak Egypt
began its life by holding Americans hostage and breaching the U.S. Embassy—just
like post-Shah Iran.