Bharat Rakshak

brihaspati wrote:Monarchs and monarchies are now part of the garbage bin of history. Future does not belong to dynastic rule, even to the most spectacularly preserved one on a certain island. It will not be wise to bet on the feudal version in the Islamic regions - not even a constitutional monarchy will be sustainable for long. All these regions had a combined theocratic-leftist radicalism in the early twentieth century which was brutally crushed by the west and the feudal mullahcracy installed. Now the west can no longer support the feudals.

Why must India always clean up after the mess of others, and join in at the late stage and support those who have already been abandoned for real?

shyamd wrote:

Bade wrote:What is GCC states stake in this either ? Likes of Qatar & UAE. Hard to understand.

Look here birather.... Very zimple onlee... UAE boys want target practice for Iran. US wants arab states to take part to stop this from looking like another Iraq - its an image thing. It is likely that the UAE will be in western coalition if they were to strike nuclear targets in Iran, so this is like a real life drill.

UAE has sent their boys to Afghanistan, to get counter terror practice, conduct of operations, get the boys war ready.

Qatar:- Not sure, but they are trying a little to be an independent state that sets policy. They want to be like KSA in terms of power.

This is not to say no other arab sstate was invited. They were. KSA defence min was asked by Washington about 10 days ago for RSAF participation. RSAF said YES but xyz conditions if we are to deploy.

This is not about "saving the people" for the arabs. There is no ideology as part of this deployment.

Bahrain's population comprises a majority of Shi'ites - as much as 70% - and although they are drawn more toward Najaf in Iraq than to Qom in Iran for spiritual guidance, almost one-third of them are Arabs of Persian origin whose welfare is a matter of legitimate concern to Tehran.

Second, the United States Fifth Fleet is berthed in Bahrain and among its vital tasks, it "spies" on Iran. Indeed, a key vector of US-Bahrain strategic ties is also their intelligence tie-up over Iran. Naturally, the "liberation" of Bahrain from the clutches of US domination is a matter of national security priority for Tehran.

Iran keeps pressing for habitation within a common Persian Gulf "home". In the Iranian perspective, a "regime change" in Saudi Arabia would make that country more "authentic" and far more amenable to accommodation with Iran. Indeed, any gravitation toward republicanism - away from archaic monarchies - on the part of regional states would make them more receptive to the Iranian ideologies of resistance, justice and freedom and Iran's regional role would thereby get a fillip.

But a break-up of Saudi Arabia - or any of Iran's neighbors - is not in Tehran's interest. No doubt, Tehran would be horrified if the forces of religious militancy or terrorism exploited the regional turmoil to gain ascendance.

These are traditional parameters of the Iranian approach to the Persian Gulf region. Thus, there is no question of an Iranian intervention in Bahrain strategically or tactically. (Bahrain used to belong to Iran.) Tehran has no problem anticipating that if it steps forward and does something on the ground by way of opposing the Saudi military presence in Bahrain, it would be walking into a trap. Riyadh and Washington are combing the Bahrain scene to spot even a trace of Iranian involvement.

The following directions of the Iranian strategy emerged. One, the Bahrain crisis cannot be caricatured as sectarian Sunni-Shi'ite strife. Any such characterization would make Iran a partisan and isolate it from the Sunni Arab street, which would suit Iran's detractors very well. Iran's aspiration to identify (and even claim a degree of leadership) with the "Arab awakening" would be frustrated. Even more, the political thrust of the Middle East uprisings - "regime change" - might get obfuscated.

Two, following from the above, Iran's religious establishment refrained from commenting on the Bahrain developments. This is a smart thing for yet another reason that it is the Custodian of the Holy Places who has opted for muscle play and Iran would prefer to let time take its toll and allow the Bahrain developments to evolve into an acute "Muslim issue". The Custodian shot his own foot and can only bring ridicule upon himself over time when his troopers are seen on TV screens slaughtering Muslims in a foreign country - no matter his weak plea that he has a GCC mandate to do so.

Three, Iran's main focus is on "internationalizing" the issue. This is not to be branded as an Iran-Saudi bilateral issue. Thus, Iran's Foreign Ministry is in charge. Foreign Minister Ali Salehi is constantly on the phone. Iran has formally approached the United Nations (UN) and Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) - and, interestingly, the Arab League (AL) where Iran is not a member country. AL secretary general Amr Moussa finds himself in a fix after having taken a strident stance over Muammar Gaddafi's use of violence in Libya. Tehran knows Moussa won't have the courage to lift his little finger against Riyadh, but it is nonetheless keen to introduce the Bahrain issue into the pan-Arab agenda.

Rhetoric is one thing and Tehran will make the most of it, but it cannot be lost on the Iranian "brains" that for the fourth time in a row within the past six weeks, Iran and the US are finding themselves on the same side of the fence - on Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, and now Bahrain. The big question is whether Obama notices it.

Although touted generically as a no-fly zone resolution, the scope and range of 1973 and the use of force authorized under it are open to interpretation. Which means that the ostensibly limited involvement by the international community for the specific purpose of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya with the humanitarian intent of protecting the civilian communities, can open the door to large-scale military intervention as time passes.

One salient outcome of the voting was that four of the BRICS member countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China - but not South Africa) abstained. The Indian stance was based on three points: that the resolution was not backed up by any report of the special representative of the UN secretary general on Libya and was being adopted while the African Union had yet to send a panel to Libya - underlining that political efforts should have been exhausted first; there was "relatively little credible information" available on the Libyan situation to back up the resolution; and there was no "clarity" about the actual operations authorized by 1973.

US raises the ante
The ultimate clincher appears to have been the "hardening" in the US position. Whereas in recent weeks Washington kept up an air of studied indifference to no-fly zone, it turned out to be posturing. As recently as Tuesday, Britain and France failed to win support for a no-fly zone during the two-day meeting of the Group of Eight foreign ministers in Paris.

Credit goes to the Barack Obama administration that it held on to its "pre-conditions" on imposing a no-fly zone over Libya - namely, the US will not act without Security Council authorization; it does not want to put US ground troops into Libya; and there should be broad international participation, especially by Arab states. Washington can draw satisfaction that these conditions have been met.

However, the US was covertly active in arranging military assistance for the Libyan rebels. Last week Robert Fisk of Independent reported that Obama administration approached Saudi Arabia to secretly finance the transfer of American weapons to the Libyan rebels. The Wall Street Journal on Thursday quoted unnamed US and Libyan rebel officials saying that Egypt's military has been shipping arms over the border to Libyan rebels with Washington's knowledge.

Egypt's covert involvement carries much meaning. It highlights that the military junta in Cairo and the Obama administration are getting along famously after the apparent loss of US influence in the post-Hosni Mubarak era. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Cairo (following visits by British Prime Minister David Cameron and French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe) indicates that the Egyptian military junta has been assigned a key role in Gaddafi's ouster. This is bound to impact Egypt's own march to democracy.

In sum, we are standing somewhere at a similar threshold to the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, which began as aerial operations to back up Northern Alliance [NA] militia, supplemented by special forces operations, and was later legitimized as a ground presence.

Don't watch from the sidelines
# What is the US strategy? Most significantly, on the eve of the Security Council vote, Senator John Kerry, chairman of the senate foreign affairs committee, and a pillar of the foreign policy establishment, made a major speech at the Carnegie in Washington. His main points: The Arab awakening is as profound as the collapse of the Berlin Wall and, equally, Washington's approach should be to turn the challenge into an opportunity by identifying with democratic forces.
# The Middle East order cannot be restored. The revolution is deep-rooted in popular discontent. Therefore, America's relationship with the region requires a "broader adjustment to reflect the new realities". Relationships focused on leaders are not sustainable.
# The US can learn to live with religious parties and engage them so long as they "reject radicalism and anti-Semitism" and "embrace moderation".
# Some leaderships are "responding to the imperative of reform" but "no country in the region will escape the populist wave".
# Israel faces isolation and the "status quo with its neighbors is now unsustainable"; however, Israel's long-term security needs to be ensured

Sify Technologies, Indian provider of converged ICT services, has announced partnership with Saudi Telecom (STC), the largest telecom services provider in the Middle East and North Africa. This partnership will provide customers and partners wider network reach, richer portfolio of services and effi
ciencies of scale in today's markets by leveraging their respective investments in submarine and terrestrial telecom capacities and value added ICT services, it said in a statement.

"Our partnership with the market leader will help establish a seamless ICT service for our enterprise customers and help our Indian, Asian and US Carrier partners connect to Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Yemen, Iraq, Sudan and East African countries like Djibouti, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, South Africa and Madagascar," Vegesna said.

"Our partnership with Sify allows us to deliver best in class network service reach into India, alternative network path and efficient Internet routing and most importantly leverage on Sify's value added ICT offerings like cloud services, SaaS as well as managed integration services to STC's customers," he added.

"Sify's role will be to provide expertise in innovative managed services including cloud services and SaaS offerings in the Middle East and African markets," he said.

RajeshA wrote: Who can come to their aid?
..................... The Gulf emirates can go and get Pakistanis and draft them for their security, but then Pakistanis are highly vulnerable to the Islamist message, and they may bring down the monarchies themselves. The monarchies would also keep Turkey at an arms distance considering their past!

NO LESS than a member of the beleaguered Al Khalifa family has assured the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) that Filipinos will remain unharmed amid escalating anti-government protests in the Middle East.
In a statement, Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario said that Prime Minister Prince Shaikh Khalifa Bin Salman Al Khalifa personally assured him that the host government will look after the more than 50,000 Filipinos in Bahrain.

It was during the same meeting when the DFA chief was told that the Prime Minister's household employs at least 40 Filipinos, and that his grandchildren were raised by Filipinos and they know how to speak Tagalog.

The DFA raised the alert level in Bahrain to 2 last week after protests by disgruntled Shi'ite Muslim majority versus the Sunni al-Khalifa ruling family escalated.
The Bahrain government has declared martial law in the country after troops from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia entered to help pacify the situation.
Under the said alert level, movements of Filipinos there have already been restricted while those who do not feel secured in their current locations should just voluntarily depart the country.

The real questions surrounding this are why the action was taken and what its ultimate political and diplomatic goals are.
The specific goals of what Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called a "limited" military mission are to create a no-fly zone, protect civilians from attacks by forces loyal to Col. Moammar Gadhafi and allow humanitarian support to proceed in Libya, he said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

Both President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have said in the past two weeks that Gadhafi should give up power, but administration officials and Democratic senators insisted Sunday that regime change was not the goal of the military mission.

The goal of this mission ... is not to get rid of Gadhafi," Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "That's not what the United Nations licensed, and I would not call it going to war. This is a very limited operation that is geared to save lives, and it was specifically targeted on a humanitarian basis. ...
"We're not policing Libya," he added. "We are engaged in a humanitarian initiative to prevent the slaughter of innocent people, to prevent a dictator from dragging people out of hospital beds and they disappear and he kills them, to ruling his country by pure force when there is an indigenous movement to try to join with the rest of the countries in this Arab awakening that is taking place."

But others argued that ousting Gadhafi is exactly what the goal should be.

Critics are also wondering why the Security Council and the Arab League haven't seen fit to take similar action against other countries experiencing internal political strife, such as Syria and U.S. allies Bahrain and Yemen.

Micah Zenko, fellow for conflict prevention at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote on Foreign Policy's website: "There are plenty of conflicts that are far more -- or at least equally -- pressing. In October and again this spring, for example, the African Union requested a no-fly zone from the U.N. Security Council to patrol Somalia. Guess how many French and British planes are flying over Mogadishu today? None."

shyamd wrote:

RajeshA wrote: Who can come to their aid?
..................... The Gulf emirates can go and get Pakistanis and draft them for their security, but then Pakistanis are highly vulnerable to the Islamist message, and they may bring down the monarchies themselves. The monarchies would also keep Turkey at an arms distance considering their past!

You are miles off target on this one.

AKalam wrote:RajeshA ji, if monarchies are really history, they will not be back for the foreseeable future. Is it not better to adapt to an emerging future than to try to cling to a past that could have or might have some open opportunity, I believe that is what brihaspati ji is saying. I doubt India or any other outside power, the West, the Russians or the Chinese will have any way to change the ultimate outcome of this "awakening" movement. What the West have probably done is detected the popular sentiment and has run fast to be ahead of the curve with actual boots on the ground and of course ruling the sky in some places, while everyone else is still reacting or are confused, not knowing how to react to this new emerging reality. The movement IMHO is definitely indigenous, while there are outside catalysts that may have made things easier in some places.

shyamd wrote:RajeshA,

It has nothing to do with paki's working in the gulf. Turks are aligned with GCC, not with Iran.
Can't reveal more than that I am afraid. Nature of warfare has changed. What used to be true is not so any more.

Another thing I'll reveal is that the GCC are looking at everything with the Iran lense at the moment. KSA is not afraid to be pro-active militarily. Diplomacy can only achieve so much.

India abstained last week from a U.N. vote on the no-fly zone in Libya that also authorised military action, but since then it has been more vocal in its rejection of airstrikes, joining China and Russia in criticising the coalition of Western powers and the Arab league and its actions against the Libyan government.

“We regret the air strikes that are taking place in Libya. We are viewing ongoing violence with grave concern,” Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna told reporters on Monday, in comments carried by NDTV television channel. It echoed an official comment on Sunday.

India’s declarations signal that New Delhi will not step in line with the West despite its growing ties with the United States and Europe — highlighted by a string of visits last year, including President Barack Obama’s and the leaders of France and the United Kingdom.

This is not new. India for years has gone against U.S. interests in a string of geo-political issues, including Myanmar. But it has counted on the fact that it is now economically too important to be sidelined by any Western power due to any criticism of the West.

India, especially the ruling Congress party, still has deep roots in the Non-Aligned Movement. And domestically, it plays well with voters often skeptical of Western intentions.

Why then did India abstain in the U.N. vote? While China’s veto would have stopped the no-fly zone given Beijing’s status as a permanent member of the Security Council, India’s would have been a symbolic move.

China did not want to be seen blocking what is perceived by many as being a humanitarian mission. India would have just been a noted protest at the United Nations.

So again, there is a disparity between what India votes and what it says. Is India still unclear about where it stands globally? Or has it played a clever political game — a game that it has played for decades as a “non-aligned” power — that will pan out if the military airstrikes end in a stalemate?

Indian government officials and some political experts have hailed the "well-thought-out" move, saying that the country was right as it may have only worsen the Libyan people's woes, instead of mitigating them.

Ten of 15 members of the UN Security Council voted in favor of the resolution. The BRIC nations of Russia, China, India and Brazil plus Germany, however, stayed away.

According to foreign policy expert R.K. Dutta, India and other BRIC nations' abstainance only proved that these countries showed the international community that they are not willing to be too collaborative with the West.

Singha wrote:it seems one general has also defected, presumably with his men.

I am all for more mayhem to keep the pot boiling if India can somehow benefit from this 'reshaping' ...but looking at the comatose SMKrishna speech today, its unlikely!

while Libya is arguably outside our IndoSphere, Yemen definitely is well within it! but as true dharmics and intellectuals India will reject the idea of getting down and dirty, doing menial work to shape this mess and instead outsource it to Unkil/NATO/China as usual.

SPIEGEL: Germany is the only Western country to abstain from voting on the Security Council resolution, siding with less democratic countries like Russia and China. Is this company that we should feel comfortable with?

Westerwelle: Don't forget Brazil and India. We abstained from voting because there was a major part of the resolution -- military intervention -- that we won't go along with. This was not an easy decision for us to make. It was preceded by a difficult evaluation process. I am convinced that it was the right decision.

Military leaders, ambassadors and tribal chiefs in Yemen have made clear their support for pro-democracy protesters, ramping up pressure on Ali Abdullah Saleh, Yemen's president, to step down.

Following a wave of defections, Mohammad Nasser Ali, Yemen's defence minister, appeared on state television on Monday maintaining that the army still backed Saleh.

"The armed forces will stay faithful to the oath they gave before God, the nation and political leadership under the brother president Ali Abdullah Saleh," Ali said.

"We will not allow under any circumstances an attempt at a coup against democracy and constitutional legitimacy, or violation of the security of the nation and citizens."

But in the streets of Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, rival tanks were ranged against each other after three senior army commanders announced that they backed the protesters.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Gabool al Mutawakil, a youth activist, said: "We are now in the middle of two militaries - one that has joined the protesters and one that is under the authority of president Saleh. There is fear of civil war, but we are insisting on having a peaceful revolution."

Earlier Major General Ali Mohsen Saleh, the head of the north western military zone and the head of the first armoured division, announced his support for the protesters.

Brigadier Hameed Al Koshebi, the head of brigade 310 in the Omran area, Brigadier Mohammed Ali Mohsen, who heads the eastern division, Brigadier Nasser Eljahori, the head of brigade 121, and General Ali Abdullaha Aliewa, an adviser to the Yemeni supreme leader of the army also deserted the president.

'End of Saleh'

Hakim Al Masmari, editor-in-chief of Yemen Post, told Al Jazeera that Monday's army defections spell the end for president Saleh.

"It is officially over, now that 60 per cent of the army is allied with the protesters.

"For Ali Mohsen Saleh to announce this, it is a clear sign to president Saleh that the game is over and that he must step down now.

"It means the fall of the Yemeni army, by nightfall, we expect 90 per cent of the army to join Mohsen Saleh.

"According to our sources, the president knew that this will happen and he expects Major General Saleh to let him leave without further degradation and humiliation," he said.

Masmari, however, said Major General Saleh was not an acceptable figure to lead the country.

"Ali Mohsen Saleh will not be accepted by the youth, it is not the start of a military government in Yemen, so a national emergency government will be a civil government," he said.

"He is also very corrupt, he is not respected here in Yemen, however, it will open the doors for the fall of the current regime."

'Demand for change'

Saleh's support in diplomatic circles also appeared to be eroding rapidly, with Abdel-Wahhab Tawaf, Yemen's ambassador to Syria, saying he was stepping down and joining a slew of diplomats who also quit in protest.

Speaking from the Syrian capital Damascus he said he was resigning over the deaths of more than 40 demonstrators, shot by snipers during a crackdown on Friday near Sanaa University, for weeks the centre of demonstrations.

Huda al-Baan, Yemen's human rights minister, said she had also resigned from the government and the ruling party in protest over the attack.

Yemen's ambassadors to Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, the Arab League and China also resigned or expressing support for the protest movement.

Abdullah Alsaidi, Yemen's ambassador to the UN, told Al Jazeera: "I think there is now a demand for change and we are all for a peaceful change. I appeal to the president and to all the others to work for a peaceful transfer of power."

Adding even more pressure on Saleh, the country's most powerful tribal confederation on Sunday called on him to step down.

Sheikh Sadiq al-Ahmar, the leader of Hashed, which includes Saleh's tribe, issued a statement asking the president to respond to the people's demands and leave peacefully. It was co-signed by several religious leaders.

The chief of the state news agency has also stepped down.

Abdul Ghani Al Iryani, a political analyst in the capital, Sanaa, told Al Jazeera: "The defections are on all sides and this is just the beginning. I think if we don't come to some kind of national reconciliation, the defections will continue until the regime falls."

Saleh, who has pledged to give up the presidency at end of his term in 2013, has no clear successor, one reason why his closest allies - the US and Saudi Arabia - have appeared nervous about his stepping aside.
Source:
Al Jazeera and agencies

RajeshA wrote:

AKalam wrote:RajeshA ji, if monarchies are really history, they will not be back for the foreseeable future. Is it not better to adapt to an emerging future than to try to cling to a past that could have or might have some open opportunity, I believe that is what brihaspati ji is saying. I doubt India or any other outside power, the West, the Russians or the Chinese will have any way to change the ultimate outcome of this "awakening" movement. What the West have probably done is detected the popular sentiment and has run fast to be ahead of the curve with actual boots on the ground and of course ruling the sky in some places, while everyone else is still reacting or are confused, not knowing how to react to this new emerging reality. The movement IMHO is definitely indigenous, while there are outside catalysts that may have made things easier in some places.

AKalam ji,
Spring greetings to you!

The "Arab Awakening" is something I welcome whole-heartedly! However areas which are of value to India - the GCC, Yemen, Somalia would not see much of an Arab Awakening!

In GCC, it is not possible, simply because the citizens are still too fat with state privileges! In Yemen, because as long as Saudi Arabia remains a monarchy, Al Qaeda would remain nested in Yemen, and in Somalia because its economy and current political and tribal structures would not allow it!

The GCC countries (Kuwait, Bahrain, KSA) are vulnerable not because of citizens suddenly awakening, but because of Shia-Sunni divide, which IMO, is something totally different!

So a possible Indian involvement strategy in the region, does not conflict with the "Arab Awakening" at all!

brihaspati wrote:RajeshA ji and Akalam bhai,

The Arab "problem" has become so surprising because we - as usual - deride "looking back" while we hold on to institutions from the past blindly. There always was an anti-establishment mood in the ME, that was sought to be controlled by institutionalized Islam which in turn fought and suppressed ethnic/national and cultural uniqueness or assertions. The British and the French simply crushed this persistent rebellious tendency that resurfaced in the early twentieth century - this time adopting the European ideals of Leftism and liberal democracy. The European powers deliberately enhanced the power of the mullahcracy to decimate any moves that they feared would encourage fierce nationalism or space for communism/socialism that may invite the Russians.

Now that both the Soviets as well as the West have weakened, there is no communist threat, and the west itself has been forced to fight "Islamism", there is no "universal" or expansive ideology left to make a devil out of and bring any other force - like the mullahcracy of old- to suppress such "ideologies". No one here appears to have followed the distinct trends of agrarian unrest, changes in land holding and marginalization patterns of ME peasantry - that started from the 60's. There was bound to come a reaction against dictatorial, totalitarian, and dynastic corrupt regimes (whenever you have the three you have corruption anyway) in the classical ME pattern.

The question is which faction of this reaction will you support? If we take lessons from the Brits, the Congress and even the USA, when there is a faction which is strongest among others or dominates others, and you don't like this particular faction - you find the next weaker other faction which competes with the strongest but fails - and back that "minority" up. This is what the Brits did in India, the Congress learnt it from them and applied, and USA has done so too. This needs a careful calculation of balance of forces, so that just a small amount can tip the balance.

If we don't want mullahcracy to take over the fruits of this unrest - who will collaborate underhand with the West anyway [just as Iran under the Ayatollahs did with Reagan over teh Contra deal] - we need to support conditionally the factions that are trying to walk the non-mullahcracy way. You can still find your "dominance" over IOR that way - but not by backing a dying power.

I have tried to draw attention to Yemen for some time, and I also think that Syria could become a surprising case. Yemen's problems have nerver really been solved since the merger of the north and the south. There are strong undercurrents of leftist or liberal radicalism, and even if the clerics have jumpred on to the bandwagon, this is not going to be an old style religious intifada.

Bharain and KSA may hold out for some time. But they may not be surviving without compromise on some degree of transparency and constitutionalism. If Bahrain falls, KSA goes. I would suggest that allowing strong nationalism and liberal, even "secular" or socialist tendencies or movements - howvere weak they are - may actually weaken AQ type movements in ME.

Aq and mullahs and ayatollahs are more worried about the possible veering away of these movements from their agenda and control.

Syrians are pre-empting any moves of a similar revolution of what happened in Tunisia, in Syria.

He called in all the regional heads of Police, interior minister and several others for meetings.

So the Syrian intel have now worked out a plan. Officers will be beefed up in market places (souks, town centres) , to watch for demonstrations and stop them from taking place. Extra officers are being sent to telephone exchanges to increase wiretapping.

Military have been told to take down satellite dishes as soon as possible.

in the event of a demonstration, they will cut off all communication of the town/village and isolate it completely.

Syria
Protesters call on Assad to go

In an effort to contain spreading popular disorders against his regime, Syrian President Bashar Assad Monday, March 21, sent the 4th Armored Division commanded by his younger brother Maher Assad to suppress the three-day uprising in Darra (Deraa), capital of the southern Hauran region, and blockade the adjoining Jabal ad-Duruz where a demonstration is planned for March 26 at As-Suwada.
Earlier, he posted two expanded Syrian army brigades at Darra, where some 20 demonstrators were killed and 300 wounded by tear gas and live bullets.

Damascus confirmed army had been deployed in Darra where five more demonstrators were killed Monday in fresh anti-government unrest after smashing the statue of Hafez Assad, the president's father and predecessor. The demonstrators called on Syrians around the country to join them at a rally to mourn those who died in clashes with police over the past three days.

Assad has thus joined the list of dynastic Arab rulers fighting to retain power in the face of popular revolts.

Sunday, the United States "strongly condemned the violence that took place in Syria and called on the Syrian government to allow demonstrations to take place peacefully. Those responsible for today's violence must be held accountable," said a White House statement.
However, Washington has invested considerable effort into improving relations with Damascus and so, unlike in the case of Libya, the Obama administration has not gone beyond verbal condemnation of Assad's brutal crackdown on dissent. Assad's Baath party and family have ruled Syria for almost half a century under emergency laws dating from 1963, which brook little dissent and no political freedoms.

Poverty-stricken Darra is strategically important because it is situated on the Damascus highway to southern Syria, Jabal ad-Duruz, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon.

The regime failed in its effort to open a dialogue with the leaders of the Darra uprising. They refused to meet a large group of prominent Syrians from Hauran clans headed by Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad which arrived Sunday to try and defuse the tension. As soon as they left, Darra townspeople set fire to the Baath Party building, the court and other symbols of Assad domination, igniting other parts of the country.

Monday, March 21, demonstrations spread to the town of Quneitra on the Syrian part of the Golan abutting the part held by Israel.

The 4th Division was then assigned the task of cutting southern Syria off from the rest of the country, separating it as one of three military sectors: Large forces cordoned off Damascus, the capital, which lies 100 kilometers north of Darra; they also blocked routes out of Jabal ad-Duruz, home to nearly a million Syria Druze tribesmen.

The Assads have lived in fear of abiding separatist Druze dissent against Damascus since the Great Druze Revolt of 1925-1927, which spread across Syria.

The Syrian army has also laid to siege border regions on the Syrian Golan, the areas adjoining the Lebanese and Israeli borders and the Yarmuk River crossing into Jordan, lest anti-Asad disturbances spill over between those sectors and spread further.

The regime's contest with the South is therefore in standoff for the moment.
But unrest simmers in Damascus and Aleppo, where the opposition continues its attempts to mount protest demonstrations - so far without success. Sunday's riots in the northern Kurdish towns of Al Qamishli and Al Haskah and also at Deir ez-Zor and Homs have died down for the time being although mass arrests are reported.

Bahrainis look to Gandhi’s non-violent means in the face of mounting repression

brihaspati wrote: Bharain and KSA may hold out for some time. But they may not be surviving without compromise on some degree of transparency and constitutionalism. If Bahrain falls, KSA goes. I would suggest that allowing strong nationalism and liberal, even "secular" or socialist tendencies or movements - howvere weak they are - may actually weaken AQ type movements in ME.

Aq and mullahs and ayatollahs are more worried about the possible veering away of these movements from their agenda and control.