The UAE determined to maintain the Middle East and North Africa’s autocratic structure at whatever cost
A widespread European position has highlighted the subversive role of the UAE and its ally, Saudi Arabia, in promoting tyranny in the Middle East at any cost under their leadership of anti-Arab revolutions.
The European Modern Diplomacy website said that the political transition in the Middle East and North Africa has so far been working on the principle of ‘The King is dead, long live the King.’
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have sought to maintain the authoritarian structure in the Middle East and North Africa at all costs, and are either keen to strengthen military systems to be a decisive political force or to support the rise of troops that fit their agenda, the specialist in international politics website said.
The Libyan battle for Tripoli, along with the mass anti-government demonstrations that toppled the tyrannical leaders in Algeria and Sudan, proves that both the Arab popular protests in 2011 that overthrew four presidents and the counter-revolution are still ongoing.
The report, written by James Dorsey, said the battle was a warning to protesters in Sudan and Algeria who risked their fundamental change to harass the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Retired Maj. Gen. Khalifa Haftar, backed by Saudi and UAE, hopes his attack on Tripoli will end the conflict or at least strengthen his influence in any peace talks.
The protesters in Algeria and Sudan, Dorsi said, are determined to prevent the repeat of the Egyptian experiment, where Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, supported by the UAE and Saudi Arabia, failed their revolution to establish a brutal dictatorship, or the experience in Yemen, Libya and Syria.
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates pledged last week to provide $ 3 billion in aid to Sudan in the form of cash worth $ 500 million and aid from food, fuel and cheap medicines.
This aid has deepened divisions among the opposition, which has vowed to continue street protests until a full civilian rule is achieved despite the dismissal of President Omar al-Bashir, the resignation of senior military officers, including the head of intelligence, and the capture of Bashir’s brothers.
While Sudanese military protesters demanded that the aid be denied, other opposition groups, including the armed group, visited Abu Dhabi to discuss the project, backed by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, based on a transitional council led by al-Askar.
Saudis and Emiratis also hope that Taha al-Hussein, who was a key figure in Bashir’s circle, would be a key player in protecting the military’s position.
The head of the transitional council, Abdul Fattah al-Barhan, and his deputy, Lieutenant General Mohammad Hamdan (Hamidti) have a strong relationship with the two Gulf states, especially for their previous roles in leading Sudanese forces in the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.
Hamidti was the commander of the forces accused of massacres in Darfur. The author believes he is looking forward to power, and Western officials call him “Sisi Sudan” in reference to Sisi Egypt, which established the most repressive regimes in modern Egypt’s history.
The role of the military in overthrowing the regime of Hosni Mubarak in the revolution of 25 January 2011, and the restoration of power by coup, and the concern about applying this to Hamidti, prompted one of the Sudanese protesters to shout “either victory or Egypt.”
The writer concludes that there is a chance in Sudan and Algeria to avoid the fate of Libya from violence, or the civil war in Syria and Yemen.
