Effective Response to the Arab Spring: Recommendations for American Foreign Policy

By: Saed Kakei, Ph.D StudentNova Southeastern University

Department of Conflict Analysis & Resolution – PhD ProgramOctober 19, 2011

Abstract

What is the main reason that has prompted Arab citizens to demand change in their revoltsknown as the “Arab Spring”? What impact this change of attitude has on the President Barak H.Obama’s government? What policy recommendations should be made available to PresidentObama so that he can effectively respond to the needs of the Arab Spring? This paper attempts torespond to these and other related questions from a conflict transformation perspective.

IntroductionThe asset of the Arab Spring in the Middle East is such that, for the first time in Arab

history, ordinary Arabs have been on the move without attaching themselves to traditional causessuch as pan-Arab nationalism, Islamic fundamentalism, anti-western imperialism or Arabsocialism. Their movements are patriotic rather than nationalist, taking root in a domestic contextand challenging their authorities with charges of corruption, economic manipulations, nepotisticgovernance and anti-democratic governing rules. All these charges combined form the root causefor the lack of security as one of the basic needs for a human being.

The technological advancement of the current globalization era has changed internationalorder in profound ways. Globalisation has brought us communication and informationcapabilities that our forebears could only dream of. The internet technology with its astoundingsocial media has led to a global interconnectedness. It allows people around the globe not onlyshare knowledge about events mainly ignored by mainstream media, but also develop sensitivestories and organize unthinkable events such as the Arab Spring which is reshaping the regionalas well as the international politics.

Less than a decade ago, the majority of the citizens of the Arab world were against theUnited States’ (U.S.) led intervention in Iraq. Concepts of sovereignty, foreign interference, andinvasion dominated the daily Arabs’ engagements. Arab States’ sponsored massive anti-westerndemonstrations prompted the United Nations’ Security Council (UNSC) to brand the 2003 U.S.-led regime change in Iraq as an unlawful invasion. Currently, however, the U.S. government isunder widespread Arab criticism for its extreme cautious responses to the non-militaryintervention calls against the ruthless regimes, especially in the countries of Syria, Yemen andBahrain.

Therefore, one might ask, what is the main reason which has prompted such a drasticchange in the mindset of an Arab citizen? What impact will this change of attitude have on thePresident Barak H. Obama’s government? What policy recommendation should be madeavailable to President Obama so that he can effectively respond to the needs of the Arab Spring?This paper attempts to respond to these and other related questions from a conflict transformationperspective. Yet, in order to do that, some definitions with brief discussions are required for

understanding both: security as a vital element of human needs concept and conflicttransformation as one of the method of conflict theory.

Human Needs Concept

In their definition for human needs, Coate and Rosati (1988) provided that:“Human needs are a powerful source of explanation of human behaviour andsocial interaction. All individuals have needs that they strive to satisfy, either byusing the system [,] ‘acting on the fringes [,]’ or acting as a reformist orrevolutionary. Given this condition, social systems must be responsive toindividual needs, or be subject to instability and forced change (possibly throughviolence or conflict)” (p. ix).

In Violence explained, John Burton (1997) stated that the reason for the widespread ofactual defiance of the ruling systems around the world is due to the technological advancementon the one hand, and “decreases in personal security,” on the other hand (p. 8).

The interrelated words of safety and security have long been closely associated withhuman needs. Abraham Maslow (1954) had conceptualized human development as the fulfilmentof basic human needs in a sequentially grouped five hierarchal headings: physiological, security,social belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. Sites (1973) regarded security as one of theessential needs that yield a normal—non-violent—individual behavior. Burton (1990b), in turn,used the theory of basic human needs as a conceivable approach for the basing of conflict analysisand resolution in an invulnerable theory of the individual. In his view, the most striking causesfor destructive conflicts are the needs of identity, recognition, security, and personaldevelopment.

Now, in determining security as one of the root causes of conflict, there remains afundamental question we cannot afford to ignore. Are conflicts occurring due to inherent humanaggressiveness? Or, do conflicts occur because of institutional misuse and inapt actions ofgoverning establishments? To answer this set of questions, one has to understand how theprevailing socio-political perspectives treat the individual as unit party to a structural conflict.According to Rubenstein, John Burton viewed neither paradigms of conservative personalismnor liberal situationalism as “adequate to explain either the persistence of ‘irrational’ socialstruggles or the real opportunities for their resolution” (Rubenstein, 2001, p. 151). Rubensteinfurthered that Burton’s main observation was that the seeming personalist and situationalistcontrast concealed an underlying similarity. The personalists believed that the person wasconstantly aggressive in nature. Hence, a limited measure of social construct was suggested byconservative personalists as a deterring possibility to externally control the person’s aggressivedispositions. As for the situationalists, Burton provided that they were considering the individualto be extremely flexible, therefore, they were outwardly reluctant to introduce any societalalterations to exclude violent behaviors. In other words, the situationalists were of the view thatthe anti-social conducts of individuals can be managed with “positive reinforcement”(Rubenstein, 2001).

Burton (1990b) and Galtung (1990) argued that both of the above viewpoints werebasically elitist. With these perspectives and political power in their disposal, the ruling eliteswere pacifying their disobedient subjects. Consequently, the “basic human needs theory—aradically optimistic personalism—was their answer” (Rubenstein, 2001, p. 152). If fact, the

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) recognized human needs, especially humansecurity needs as crucial in “protecting the freedom of every individual in order to enhance his orher well-being and dignity” (UNDP, 1994, p.22). Before going further on the subject of humansecurity, it is important to briefly mention the Elite Theory with its economic and socio-politicalimpacts on Arab countries.

The Elite Theory and the Arab Elitism

Many pro-elitist American scholars and writers such as (Bermeo, 1992; Diamond, 1993;Higley and Burton, 1989; Huntington, 1990; Rustow, 1970) argued that elitism was a democraticconcept and practice to effectively dictate the primary goals for all imperative governmentpolicy-making and societal affairs by virtue of their control over the main economic resources inthe country. Huntington (1991) argued that “Democracy will spread in the world to the extentthat those who exercise power in the world and in individual countries want it to spread” (p.316). Correspondingly, Diamond (1993) stated that “The only real precondition for democracy isthat a politically powerful set of elites becomes committed to it” (p. 99). Such statements hadprofound impacts on the formation of powerful elites in the Arab world.

In Democracy in the Arab World: an Elitist Approach, Gawdat Bahgat (1994) hailedArab elites, especially in Egypt and Jordan, for their “crucial role in introducing and solidifyingdemocracy” in the Arab countries since the late 1980s (p. 49). However, the downfall of HusniMubarak’s Egyptian regime on February 10th, 2011, and the Jordanian King Abdullah’sdismissal of his government on February 01st, 2011, both—as initial results of the Arab Spring—are contradictory facts to Bahgat’s elitist democratic claims.

With the end of the World War II (WWII), the State of Israel was created in 1948. Thepresence of this non-Muslim and non-Arab political entity—in the heart of the Arab world—notonly fuelled the growth of Islamic fundamentalism, but also caused a widespread of pan-Arabismlet by then President Jamal Abdel-Nasir of Egypt across in the region (Fisher and Ochsenwald,1990, pp. 664-665). In parallel with each other, yet with contrasting ideologies, both Egyptianoriginated elites of the Islamic Brotherhood Movement (IBM) and the Nasirst pan-Arabism(NPA) began to mobilize the non-Arab Muslim as well as the Arab nationalist masses on twofronts each with its own grievances. The IBM breathed religious entitlement to the holy landwith primordial positional wants, whereas the NPA formulated a combination made of securityand esteem needs bannered with positional unity and home-grown socialist slogans. Both campsindoctrinated their followers with presumed Islamic eternal perspectives, yet each with differentpriorities. Elites of the IBM tried to recruit Arab nationalists according to the fourteen hundredyears old Qur’anic teachings. Whereas the NPA elites eagerly incorporated Islamic ideals intotheir doctrine only to prove to the polarized world that Arab nationalism was neither in supportof the western imperialist camp, nor was in concert with the eastern bloc’s communist manifesto.Thus, the NPA won the intellectual battle with the IBM forcing the latter lose much of its sheen,especially as the Egyptian government began developing much needed economic infrastructurescoupled with socio-cultural modernization. It is worth mentioning that much of Egypt’s capitalinvestments came from the Oil producing Arab states as well as the some non-Arab countries inthe Islamic world. This was due to Egypt’s Middle Eastern geopolitics on the one hand, and itssociocultural domination of the Arab world on the other hand. The Nasist elites were brilliant inplaying these two cards to their own advantages. Domestically, under the pretext of speedysocio-economic progress dubbed as the “Nasirist formula,” the Egyptians were supressed by a

few powerful Nasirist elites who “assumed that citizens’ participation in the government andpersonal or individual freedom should be set aside (Bahgat, 1994, p. 51). Regionally, the NPAwas viewed as the answer to unify the Arab countries into a single Arab confederation systempowerful enough to reclaim Palestine by eliminating the Israel. Internationally, as Egypt becameone of the major key players in the balance of power in the Middle East, the Palestinian causebecame the single most important bargaining chip in the hands of the Nasirist elites with whichan extortion policy was designed to last for well over five decades. To attract much neededforeign aid, other Arab countries followed suite. This is by no means an indication to claim thatall Arab regimes were Nasirists in governance. In fact, except for the short lived United ArabRepublic (UAR) formed in 1958 between Egypt and Syria—and later joined by Iraq, the NPAnever strode up westward to include the North African Arab states. Similarly, the oil-rich sheik-hood states of the Persian Gulf were tribally conservatives that at no time welcomed the socio-cultural liberalization of Egypt, let alone its NPA. Thus, single man elitism in each respectiveArab country became the model for governing Arab people; and this model in both forms—monarchy and republican—lasted to the present day (Fisher and Ochsenwald, 1990, pp. 696-697).

Prelude for the Arab Spring

The tyrannical Arab regimes have been uniquely ignoring their subjects’ basic needs,rights and privileges. As members of a collectivist society, while the powerful elites expectunwavering loyalties from their subjects, they constantly ignore their obligatory protectionservices toward their followers. Universal human rights are limited and interpreted according tothe desires of the authorities. Social, economic, and political corruptions are widespread andhave been crippling all aspects of life. Nepotism and closed-knot association with the elites arethe norms for any individual’s dignified survival. Alienations of non-submissive women, youths,and minorities seated at the core of elites’ power defence and protection. Last, but not the least,human security and self-actualization needs have been minimized to protect the existence of thepolitical regime.

This is not to say that all Arab countries are ruled by authoritative regimes. Rather, somehave allowed limited forms of political pluralism. Moderate Islamic parties and socialist orientedpolitical organizations have been permitted to function as national actors of the periphery.Moreover, since the end of the cold war era, Arab regimes have been accommodating limited butpainstakingly slow political reforms. These reforms, however, did not include socio-economicdevelopments which could have aborted the birth of a more extreme form of Islamicfundamentalism encompassing the Al-Qaeda terror organization with all its satellite variations.

Greed of the Arab elites combined with two decades long wrong U.S. policies in theMiddle East, expanded the gaps between Arab rules and their unhappy subjects. As a result, non-violent non-governmental circles were formed by well-educated Arab citizens in almost everyArab country. For example, the “Council of Citizen” founded by the Lebanese citizens in 2001,calls for a far-reaching humanitarian coalition to apply justice and enforce human rights based onacademic findings of contemporary social sciences which identify causes of injustice, misuse ofpower, and abuse of human security. The Council argues that it has a practical solution for mostof the conflicts associated with abuse and misuse of power which the “revolutionary movements,humanitarian associations and political regimes have failed to eradicate injustice and empowerthe weak” (Citizens, 2011).

Like the Council of Citizen in Lebanon, almost all the other nonviolent non-governmental awakening circles in Arab Countries have been arguing that their powerful eliteshave been misusing their power to the extent that the concept of separation of powers—executive, legislative, and judicial—have become a pretentious value with highly questionablelegitimacy. Therefore, not reforms, rather, drastic non-violent changes must be introduced toeradicate injustice, eliminate abuse, and retire illegitimate elitism all at once (Mustafa, 2009).

Clearly, change is a constructivist objective which incorporates universal altruistic valuesfar from nationalism or religious paradigm. The Change Movement in Iraqi Kurdistan, foundedin 2009, did not win sizable seats in the 2009 Kurdistan parliamentary elections based onKurdish nationalism. Rather, advocating human rights, valued citizenry, and the application ofdemocratic rule-of-law, accountability and transparency were the primary reasons for changingthe status quo of equal power sharing between the nationalist elites of the Kurdistan DemocraticParty (KDP) and the social democratic elites of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK).

In Tunisia and Egypt, high levels of unemployment, nepotism, political and economiccorruption, economic decline, and extreme poverty have collectively crippled peoples’ abilitiesto survive with dignity. Although claimed to have democratic governing systems, both elitistpolitical regimes in these two countries concentrated their countries’ wealth and power in thehands of ruling families for decades. Such factors created environments in which a largepercentage of educated youth with access to internet and social media outlets become dissatisfiedand ultimately seek nonviolent changes to their autocratic regimes. The 1998 Tunisian TakrizGroup, dubbed as the “Cyber think tank”, was able to effectively yet sarcastically exposePresident Zain Al-Abidine Ben Ali’s 23 years of tyrannical regime. As for the Egyptian“Academy of Change” which created in April 2008, the formula of “promoting nonviolent civildisobedience” was the catalyst to occupy Cairo’s Tahrir Square from which the down fall ofEgypt’s Mubarak regime materialized (Pollok, 2011).

It is worth mentioning that some leaders of the Egyptian Academy of Change wereinspired by the Serbian Optor movement which helped removing Yugoslavia’s SlobodanMilosevic from power by a nonviolent and peaceful demonstrations in 2000 (Pollok, 2011).Eventually, an Egyptian activist named Mohammad Adil was sent to Serbia in 2009 to gettrainings on how to initiate and organize massive demonstrations that could lead to positiveregime change. Also, Obama deserves credit for his motivational speech delivered at the GrandHall of Cairo while he was visiting Egypt in 2008. In that speech, Obama called upon theMuslim world in to initiate “reforms” which bring much needed justice and balance and peaceand security to the world.

Arab Spring in full action

By means of massive demonstrations, civil disobedience and civilian-based defensetactics, Tunisians were able to ouster their dictator Ben Ali on 14 January 2011. With similarmeans, the Egyptians forced their way into the Tahrir Square. After 18 days of unprecedentedpublic defiance of police and pro-government mob brutalities, Mubarak’s three decade longregime collapsed on February 10, 2011. Eventually, the Tahrir Square became an inspiringsymbol for the rest of the Arab world’s unhappy populations. Spontaneous demonstrations andcivil disobediences shock the entire Arab countries. Monarch as well as republican systemsresorted to various supressing tactics. The oil-rich countries used the carrot and stick policy tomanage their public discontents. With hollow reform promises, Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon,

and Morocco and were able to control their nonviolent crowds. As for Libya, Yemen, Bahrain,Sudan, and later Syria, harsh government crackdowns and bloodshed were chosen as methods offor dealing with their discontented citizens. In both countries of Libya and Syria, thousands ofunarmed civilians were viciously murdered by government security forces paving the way forfull-fledged civil wars that are ongoing and devastating all aspects of life.

So, where is the U.S. foreign policy from all of what is happening in the Arab world? Toanswer this, it is necessary to provide some backgrounds for the U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis theArab world.

U.S. Foreign Policy and the Arab Countries

From Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” to Jimmy Carter’s human rights policy, theUnited States promoted its power elite oriented democracy in the Arab world (Abrams, 2011).This was due to the ill-advised assumption that Arab Islamic culture was not compatible withvalues of the western democracy. American Realists and Idealists alike were of the ill-advisedopinion that in order to keep the stability in the Middle East, aiding and supporting of powerfulArab elites and their political regimes was the only viable and enduring policy to maintain.Evidently, at the core of this conviction there lies a socio-economic reason: the security of Israelbased on religious convictions and the unrestricted flow of cheap oil. Regrettably, however, thispolicy has terribly backfired. On the one hand, greedy Arab elites used it to extort more andmore U.S. aid to get domestically richer and stronger and, on the other hand, it hastened the anti-American sentiments, particularly amongst the majority of the disenfranchised population. Forinstance, while much of Arabs anti-American literature was produced by Egyptian think tanks,political writers and commentators, Egypt was getting a lion’s share of U.S. foreign aid. Asmentioned before, it was Egypt in which the IBM was originated, grown in strength, and fromwhich spread into the Arab world. Ironically also, it was the IBM that nurtured many of thecurrent leaders of the Al-Qaeda organization. Sadly enough, the socio-economically driven U.S.foreign policy in the Middle East kept its course until the tragic events of September 11, 2001which shattered that approach (Abrams, 2011).

It was President George W. Bush, who changed the traditional course of the U.S. foreignpolicy. For many decades, the American international politics was framed by John QuincyAdams’ 1821, 4th of July speech in which he argued; America “does not go abroad in search ofmonsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is thechampion and vindicator of her own” (Freedom Foundation, 2011). With his “freedom agenda”,Bush not only went after the Middle Eastern monsters in Afghanistan and Iraq, but alsoinvigorated the freedom and democratic hopes of millions of alienated Middle Easterners.Although tainted with bloods of many innocents victims and burled by agendas of the old guardsof the status quo, George Bush’s freedom operations in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly enduring.

Although the cost of both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been enormous; and, yesthey have alienated most of the undemocratic elites of the Arab countries, but they have alsoprepared the grounds to seed some of the fundamental principles of human security, freedom anddemocracy. In other words, the neoconservative conception of orienting and mobilizing publicopinion to embrace change leading to democratic governments that are more just and humaneand thus less likely to stir political instability.

It took a decade for Arab youths to look beyond Bush’s interventionist freedom agenda.Their interest in reaching out to freedom without violent courses of actions founded mainly

within the body of literature processed by American and European scholars and philosophersworking in the field of conflict analysis and resolution. For example, inquiries of AbrahamMaslow, John Burton, Johan Galtung, Roger Coate and Jerel Rosati, Sandra Marker, CherylSaunders and many others have been extensively cited in literature processed by the Council ofCitizen in Lebanon, Change Movement in Iraqi Kurdistan, Academy of Change in Egypt andmany other active circles of nonviolent change platforms in Arab countries.

At the heights of this unprecedented movement towards change in Arab countries,Obama has introduced his “political reform” agenda aimed at keeping the Arab political regimes’status quo but with reforms suitable to the national interests of the United States in whichkeeping peace and security in the Middle East is the ultimate goal. Although Obama’s reformplan has separate designs for each Arab country, but his administration’s foreign policy think-tanks are not completely in alliance with his neorealist foreign policy approach. Among those inparticular, is the Secretary of the State Department, Hillary Clinton, who has adopted thehumanitarian approach in her foreign policy execution. This contrast is yet another example for“the fundamental fault line of the American foreign-policy debate” (Lizza, 2011). Theconsequence for the clash of ideologies within the American Administration, however, is clearlynoticeable in its cautiously handling of the unpredictable direction of the Arab Spring.

Foreign Policy Recommendations:

According to Ryan Lizza (2011), Thomas Donilon—the most influential foreign policythink-tanks and the National Security Advisor at the White House—is of the opinion that“America needed to rebuild its reputation, extricate itself from the Middle East and Afghanistan,and turn its attention toward Asia and China’s unchecked influence in the region” (Lizza, 2011).While this statement is fairly accurate, it holds some challenging elements of Fareed Zakaria’snotion of “American decline.” Donilon, Zakaria and even Thomas Freedman need to revisit theirarguments and investigate the growing gap between the American fast-forward advancement andthe far too lagging-behind of the underdeveloped countries of the world. No doubt, the economictroubles of America are on the rise due to the world’s poor market performances on the onehand, and the greed of the transnational banking and manufacturing organizations, on the otherhand. Yet, the U.S. continues to be the single most progressive hegemonic power in the world.With unmatched wealth, unchallenged power, and social strength, the U.S. has reached a point inits progression at which slowing down to catch a clean breath is required (Lizza, 2011).

The United States needs to “intricate—involve” rather than “extricate” itself from thetroubling countries of the Middle East and North Africa more than anywhere else in the world.This is because most of the world’s conflicts are unfolding in these two rich resourced areas(Lizza, 2011). The U.S. involvement needs to constructively focus on human needs rather thanconservatively personalized or liberally situationalized. For example, instead of providingforeign aids to build heavily armed militaries and sophisticated security forces—mostly used tosupress the displeased portions of the populations, U.S aid could be spent on carefully designedsocio-economic developments. Thus, not only reducing human needs’ grievances, but alsorebuilding the tarnished reputation of America in the Arab countries.

The Obama Administration needs to adjust its multi-chaptered “political reform” toaccommodate the unyielding of “political change”, particularly in countries like Syria, Yemen,Sudan, and Bahrain. Such adjustment must be quick and aimed at humanitarian needs. Also, thisadjustment must not apply filters by which favoring one communal group over the others. In

other words, the United States must not hesitate from dealing with moderate Islamic politicalorganizations if and only such organizations submit and act by the universal human rightsdeclarations. Furthermore, the Administration should move quickly to work with Americanconflict management and conflict transformation experts and professionals to setup variousproblem-solving train-the-trainer workshops and activities.

Meanwhile, President Obama needs to keep his “Track-One Diplomacy” vis-à-vis theTurkish and Iranian influences in the region. As it has been widely reported by foreign media inthe Middle East, the Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, has revealed a "quiet"exchange between the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Obamaduring their meeting on the sidelines of the General Assembly of the United Nations in NewYork last month. According to PUK Media, the Turkish Network TV (NTV), quoted Davutoglusaying that: "Obama quietly told Erdogan: ‘you’re protect Iran’, and Erdogan replied telling himin the same fashion: ‘and you are also a lawyer for Israel… you’re protecting and defending it"(pukmedia, 2011). If any, this is a clear indication for the manipulative roles Iran and Turkeyplay to wreck the outcomes of the Arab Spring for their national interests. Therefore, thepresence of the United States in the Middle East is required more than any other time. This couldbe done by reinforcing the U.S. diplomatic missions with new ambassadors and attaches armedwith socio-economic knowledge and experiences. Their main goals should involve building “softpower” with which new democratic institutions and the existing socio-economic establishmentsare built, rebuilt and or revitalized with American expertise.

Finally, the Administration should halt any military intervention except for extremesituations where grave human rights violations and acts of genocide are about to occur. In sodoing, the United States will help the Arabs to increase their self-confidence; build permanent,solid and popular institutions that will change the balance of power in favor of the public; and, itwill lead to building a leadership that can be called to account and put an end to all forms ofcorruptions, torture and inhuman police practices.

Conclusion

The Arab Spring is a collection of positive “Change” movements across Arab countries.The ultimate goals of these movements are to change their existing political regimes withnonviolent means and tactics. However, because most of these political regimes are ruled bypowerful and corrupt autocratic families, most of these movements have been facing structuralviolence which in four Arab countries; Libya, Bahrain, Syria and Yemen have left thousands ofinnocent victims behind.

Therefore, the United States as a hegemonic power, with vested interest in thesecountries, needs to adopt a constructivist approach in its foreign policy. The current neorealistapproach which emphasizes the “political reform”, may work for countries with some forms ofseparation of power institutions like Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon. But, certainly does not work withtotalitarian countries like Libya, Syria, Sudan, and Yemen. Accordingly, the ObamaAdministration should not extricate itself from the Middle East. Rather, it should quickly moveto support these nonviolent change movements with soft power tools.

Reference:

Abrams, E. (2011). Op-Ed: From 9/11 to Arab Spring. The Daily. Retrieved on 12 October, 2011from http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/09/11/091111-opinions-oped-abrams-arab-spring-1-2/

Bahgat, G. (1994). “Democracy in the Arab World: An elitist approach.” InternationalRelations, Vol.12, No.2.

Bermeo, N. (1992). “Democracy and the Lessons of Dictatorship.” Comparative Politics, vol.24, no. 3, April 1992.

Burton, J. (1997). Violence explained: The sources of conflict, violence and crime and theirprevention. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Burton, J. (1990b). Conflict: Basic Human Needs. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Coate, R. A. and Rosati, J. A. (1988). The power of human needs in world society. Boulder:

Lynne Rienner Publishers.Diamond, L. (1993). Political cultures and democracy in developing countries. Boulder:

Lynne Rienner Publishers.Fisher, S. N. and Ochesnwald, W. (1990). The Middle East: A History, (4th Ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill Publishing CompanyHuntington, S. P. (1991). The Third Wave. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Galtung, J. (1990). International development in human perspective. In Burton. (1990b),

Conflict: Basic Human Needs. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by peaceful means: Peace, conflict, development and civilization.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Higley J. and Burton, M. G. (1989). “The Elite variable in democratic transitions and

breakdowns. American Sociological Review, vol. 54, no. 1, Feb. 1989.Lizza, R. (2011). The Consequentialist: How the Arab Spring remade Obama’s foreign policy.

The New Yorker. Retrieved on 06 October 2011 fromhttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/02/110502fa_fact_lizza#ixzz1bD0kzjYB

Mustafa, N. (2009). Why we need change and not reform? Rojnama Daily News. Issue No. 529,Monday, 10 August 2009, p. 2.

Pollock, J. (2011). Streetbook: How Egyptian and Tunisian youth hacked the Arab Spring.Technology Review. Retrieved on 14 October 2011 fromhttp://www.technologyreview.com/web/38379/

PUKmedia (2011). US act as Israel's lawyer, Turkey says. www.pukmedia.com Retrieved on 17th

October, 2011 fromhttp://www.pukmedia.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10049:us-act-as-israels-lawyer-turkey-says&catid=45:international-news&Itemid=387

Rustow, D. A. (1970). “Transitions to democracy.” Comparative Politics, Vol. 2, No. 3.Rubenstein, R. E. (2001). Basic human needs: The next steps in theory development.” The

international Journal of Peace Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1.Sites, P. (1973). Control: The basis of social order. New York; Associated Faculty Press.Suri, J. (2011). The Arab Spring and American foreign policy. The Daily Beast. Retrieved on 08

October, 2011 from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/07/arab-spring-aftermath-america-s-next-step-in-the-middle-east.html