Effective Response to the Arab Spring: Recommendations for American Foreign Policy By: Saed Kakei, Ph.

D Student Nova Southeastern University Department of Conflict Analysis & Resolution PhD Program October 19, 2011 Abstract What is the main reason that has prompted Arab citizens to demand change in their revolts known as the Arab Spring? What impact this change of attitude has on the President Barak H. Obamas government? What policy recommendations should be made available 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 transformation perspective. Introduction The 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 causes such as pan-Arab nationalism, Islamic fundamentalism, anti-western imperialism or Arab socialism. Their movements are patriotic rather than nationalist, taking root in a domestic context and challenging their authorities with charges of corruption, economic manipulations, nepotistic governance and anti-democratic governing rules. All these charges combined form the root cause for the lack of security as one of the basic needs for a human being. The technological advancement of the current globalization era has changed international order in profound ways. Globalisation has brought us communication and information capabilities that our forebears could only dream of. The internet technology with its astounding social media has led to a global interconnectedness. It allows people around the globe not only share knowledge about events mainly ignored by mainstream media, but also develop sensitive stories and organize unthinkable events such as the Arab Spring which is reshaping the regional as well as the international politics. Less than a decade ago, the majority of the citizens of the Arab world were against the United States (U.S.) led intervention in Iraq. Concepts of sovereignty, foreign interference, and invasion dominated the daily Arabs engagements. Arab States sponsored massive anti-western demonstrations 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 is under widespread Arab criticism for its extreme cautious responses to the non-military intervention calls against the ruthless regimes, especially in the countries of Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. Therefore, one might ask, what is the main reason which has prompted such a drastic change in the mindset of an Arab citizen? What impact will this change of attitude have on the President Barak H. Obamas government? What policy recommendation should be made available 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 transformation perspective. 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 conflict transformation 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 and social interaction. All individuals have needs that they strive to satisfy, either by using the system [,] acting on the fringes [,] or acting as a reformist or revolutionary. Given this condition, social systems must be responsive to individual needs, or be subject to instability and forced change (possibly through violence or conflict) (p. ix). In Violence explained, John Burton (1997) stated that the reason for the widespread of actual defiance of the ruling systems around the world is due to the technological advancement on 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 with human needs. Abraham Maslow (1954) had conceptualized human development as the fulfilment of 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 the essential needs that yield a normalnon-violentindividual behavior. Burton (1990b), in turn, used the theory of basic human needs as a conceivable approach for the basing of conflict analysis and resolution in an invulnerable theory of the individual. In his view, the most striking causes for destructive conflicts are the needs of identity, recognition, security, and personal development. Now, in determining security as one of the root causes of conflict, there remains a fundamental question we cannot afford to ignore. Are conflicts occurring due to inherent human aggressiveness? Or, do conflicts occur because of institutional misuse and inapt actions of governing establishments? To answer this set of questions, one has to understand how the prevailing socio-political perspectives treat the individual as unit party to a structural conflict. According to Rubenstein, John Burton viewed neither paradigms of conservative personalism nor liberal situationalism as adequate to explain either the persistence of irrational social struggles or the real opportunities for their resolution (Rubenstein, 2001, p. 151). Rubenstein furthered that Burtons main observation was that the seeming personalist and situationalist contrast concealed an underlying similarity. The personalists believed that the person was constantly aggressive in nature. Hence, a limited measure of social construct was suggested by conservative personalists as a deterring possibility to externally control the persons aggressive dispositions. As for the situationalists, Burton provided that they were considering the individual to be extremely flexible, therefore, they were outwardly reluctant to introduce any societal alterations to exclude violent behaviors. In other words, the situationalists were of the view that the 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 were basically elitist. With these perspectives and political power in their disposal, the ruling elites were pacifying their disobedient subjects. Consequently, the basic human needs theorya radically optimistic personalismwas their answer (Rubenstein, 2001, p. 152). If fact, the

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) recognized human needs, especially human security needs as crucial in protecting the freedom of every individual in order to enhance his or her well-being and dignity (UNDP, 1994, p.22). Before going further on the subject of human security, it is important to briefly mention the Elite Theory with its economic and socio-political impacts 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 democratic concept and practice to effectively dictate the primary goals for all imperative government policy-making and societal affairs by virtue of their control over the main economic resources in the country. Huntington (1991) argued that Democracy will spread in the world to the extent that 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 is that a politically powerful set of elites becomes committed to it (p. 99). Such statements had profound impacts on the formation of powerful elites in the Arab world. In Democracy in the Arab World: an Elitist Approach, Gawdat Bahgat (1994) hailed Arab elites, especially in Egypt and Jordan, for their crucial role in introducing and solidifying democracy in the Arab countries since the late 1980s (p. 49). However, the downfall of Husni Mubaraks Egyptian regime on February 10th, 2011, and the Jordanian King Abdullahs dismissal of his government on February 01st, 2011, bothas initial results of the Arab Spring are contradictory facts to Bahgats elitist democratic claims. With the end of the World War II (WWII), the State of Israel was created in 1948. The presence of this non-Muslim and non-Arab political entityin the heart of the Arab worldnot only fuelled the growth of Islamic fundamentalism, but also caused a widespread of pan-Arabism let 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 Egyptian originated 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 two fronts each with its own grievances. The IBM breathed religious entitlement to the holy land with primordial positional wants, whereas the NPA formulated a combination made of security and esteem needs bannered with positional unity and home-grown socialist slogans. Both camps indoctrinated their followers with presumed Islamic eternal perspectives, yet each with different priorities. Elites of the IBM tried to recruit Arab nationalists according to the fourteen hundred years old Quranic teachings. Whereas the NPA elites eagerly incorporated Islamic ideals into their doctrine only to prove to the polarized world that Arab nationalism was neither in support of the western imperialist camp, nor was in concert with the eastern blocs 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 infrastructures coupled with socio-cultural modernization. It is worth mentioning that much of Egypts capital investments came from the Oil producing Arab states as well as the some non-Arab countries in the Islamic world. This was due to Egypts Middle Eastern geopolitics on the one hand, and its sociocultural domination of the Arab world on the other hand. The Nasist elites were brilliant in playing these two cards to their own advantages. Domestically, under the pretext of speedy socio-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 and personal or individual freedom should be set aside (Bahgat, 1994, p. 51). Regionally, the NPA was viewed as the answer to unify the Arab countries into a single Arab confederation system powerful enough to reclaim Palestine by eliminating the Israel. Internationally, as Egypt became one of the major key players in the balance of power in the Middle East, the Palestinian cause became the single most important bargaining chip in the hands of the Nasirist elites with which an extortion policy was designed to last for well over five decades. To attract much needed foreign aid, other Arab countries followed suite. This is by no means an indication to claim that all Arab regimes were Nasirists in governance. In fact, except for the short lived United Arab Republic (UAR) formed in 1958 between Egypt and Syriaand later joined by Iraq, the NPA never strode up westward to include the North African Arab states. Similarly, the oil-rich sheikhood states of the Persian Gulf were tribally conservatives that at no time welcomed the sociocultural liberalization of Egypt, let alone its NPA. Thus, single man elitism in each respective Arab country became the model for governing Arab people; and this model in both forms monarchy and republicanlasted to the present day (Fisher and Ochsenwald, 1990, pp. 696697). 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 expect unwavering loyalties from their subjects, they constantly ignore their obligatory protection services toward their followers. Universal human rights are limited and interpreted according to the desires of the authorities. Social, economic, and political corruptions are widespread and have been crippling all aspects of life. Nepotism and closed-knot association with the elites are the norms for any individuals 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 the political regime. This is not to say that all Arab countries are ruled by authoritative regimes. Rather, some have allowed limited forms of political pluralism. Moderate Islamic parties and socialist oriented political 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 but painstakingly slow political reforms. These reforms, however, did not include socio-economic developments which could have aborted the birth of a more extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism 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 the Middle East, expanded the gaps between Arab rules and their unhappy subjects. As a result, nonviolent non-governmental circles were formed by well-educated Arab citizens in almost every Arab 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 on academic findings of contemporary social sciences which identify causes of injustice, misuse of power, and abuse of human security. The Council argues that it has a practical solution for most of the conflicts associated with abuse and misuse of power which the revolutionary movements, humanitarian associations and political regimes have failed to eradicate injustice and empower the weak (Citizens, 2011).

Like the Council of Citizen in Lebanon, almost all the other nonviolent nongovernmental awakening circles in Arab Countries have been arguing that their powerful elites have been misusing their power to the extent that the concept of separation of powers executive, legislative, and judicialhave become a pretentious value with highly questionable legitimacy. Therefore, not reforms, rather, drastic non-violent changes must be introduced to eradicate injustice, eliminate abuse, and retire illegitimate elitism all at once (Mustafa, 2009). Clearly, change is a constructivist objective which incorporates universal altruistic values far from nationalism or religious paradigm. The Change Movement in Iraqi Kurdistan, founded in 2009, did not win sizable seats in the 2009 Kurdistan parliamentary elections based on Kurdish nationalism. Rather, advocating human rights, valued citizenry, and the application of democratic rule-of-law, accountability and transparency were the primary reasons for changing the status quo of equal power sharing between the nationalist elites of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the social democratic elites of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). In Tunisia and Egypt, high levels of unemployment, nepotism, political and economic corruption, economic decline, and extreme poverty have collectively crippled peoples abilities to survive with dignity. Although claimed to have democratic governing systems, both elitist political regimes in these two countries concentrated their countries wealth and power in the hands of ruling families for decades. Such factors created environments in which a large percentage of educated youth with access to internet and social media outlets become dissatisfied and ultimately seek nonviolent changes to their autocratic regimes. The 1998 Tunisian Takriz Group, dubbed as the Cyber think tank, was able to effectively yet sarcastically expose President Zain Al-Abidine Ben Alis 23 years of tyrannical regime. As for the Egyptian Academy of Change which created in April 2008, the formula of promoting nonviolent civil disobedience was the catalyst to occupy Cairos Tahrir Square from which the down fall of Egypts Mubarak regime materialized (Pollok, 2011). It is worth mentioning that some leaders of the Egyptian Academy of Change were inspired by the Serbian Optor movement which helped removing Yugoslavias Slobodan Milosevic 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 get trainings on how to initiate and organize massive demonstrations that could lead to positive regime change. Also, Obama deserves credit for his motivational speech delivered at the Grand Hall of Cairo while he was visiting Egypt in 2008. In that speech, Obama called upon the Muslim world in to initiate reforms which bring much needed justice and balance and peace and security to the world. Arab Spring in full action By means of massive demonstrations, civil disobedience and civilian-based defense tactics, Tunisians were able to ouster their dictator Ben Ali on 14 January 2011. With similar means, the Egyptians forced their way into the Tahrir Square. After 18 days of unprecedented public defiance of police and pro-government mob brutalities, Mubaraks three decade long regime collapsed on February 10, 2011. Eventually, the Tahrir Square became an inspiring symbol for the rest of the Arab worlds unhappy populations. Spontaneous demonstrations and civil disobediences shock the entire Arab countries. Monarch as well as republican systems resorted to various supressing tactics. The oil-rich countries used the carrot and stick policy to manage 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 of for dealing with their discontented citizens. In both countries of Libya and Syria, thousands of unarmed civilians were viciously murdered by government security forces paving the way for full-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? To answer this, it is necessary to provide some backgrounds for the U.S. foreign policy vis--vis the Arab world. U.S. Foreign Policy and the Arab Countries From Franklin Roosevelts Four Freedoms to Jimmy Carters human rights policy, the United 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 with values of the western democracy. American Realists and Idealists alike were of the ill-advised opinion that in order to keep the stability in the Middle East, aiding and supporting of powerful Arab 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 Israel based on religious convictions and the unrestricted flow of cheap oil. Regrettably, however, this policy has terribly backfired. On the one hand, greedy Arab elites used it to extort more and more U.S. aid to get domestically richer and stronger and, on the other hand, it hastened the antiAmerican sentiments, particularly amongst the majority of the disenfranchised population. For instance, while much of Arabs anti-American literature was produced by Egyptian think tanks, political writers and commentators, Egypt was getting a lions share of U.S. foreign aid. As mentioned before, it was Egypt in which the IBM was originated, grown in strength, and from which spread into the Arab world. Ironically also, it was the IBM that nurtured many of the current 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, 2001 which shattered that approach (Abrams, 2011). It was President George W. Bush, who changed the traditional course of the U.S. foreign policy. For many decades, the American international politics was framed by John Quincy Adams 1821, 4th of July speech in which he argued; America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion 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 also invigorated 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 guards of the status quo, George Bushs freedom operations in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly enduring. Although the cost of both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been enormous; and, yes they have alienated most of the undemocratic elites of the Arab countries, but they have also prepared the grounds to seed some of the fundamental principles of human security, freedom and democracy. In other words, the neoconservative conception of orienting and mobilizing public opinion to embrace change leading to democratic governments that are more just and humane and thus less likely to stir political instability. It took a decade for Arab youths to look beyond Bushs 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 philosophers working in the field of conflict analysis and resolution. For example, inquiries of Abraham Maslow, John Burton, Johan Galtung, Roger Coate and Jerel Rosati, Sandra Marker, Cheryl Saunders and many others have been extensively cited in literature processed by the Council of Citizen in Lebanon, Change Movement in Iraqi Kurdistan, Academy of Change in Egypt and many 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 which keeping peace and security in the Middle East is the ultimate goal. Although Obamas reform plan has separate designs for each Arab country, but his administrations foreign policy thinktanks are not completely in alliance with his neorealist foreign policy approach. Among those in particular, is the Secretary of the State Department, Hillary Clinton, who has adopted the humanitarian 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). The consequence for the clash of ideologies within the American Administration, however, is clearly noticeable in its cautiously handling of the unpredictable direction of the Arab Spring. Foreign Policy Recommendations: According to Ryan Lizza (2011), Thomas Donilonthe most influential foreign policy think-tanks and the National Security Advisor at the White Houseis 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 Chinas unchecked influence in the region (Lizza, 2011). While this statement is fairly accurate, it holds some challenging elements of Fareed Zakarias notion of American decline. Donilon, Zakaria and even Thomas Freedman need to revisit their arguments and investigate the growing gap between the American fast-forward advancement and the far too lagging-behind of the underdeveloped countries of the world. No doubt, the economic troubles of America are on the rise due to the worlds poor market performances on the one hand, and the greed of the transnational banking and manufacturing organizations, on the other hand. 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 in its progression at which slowing down to catch a clean breath is required (Lizza, 2011). The United States needs to intricateinvolve rather than extricate itself from the troubling countries of the Middle East and North Africa more than anywhere else in the world. This is because most of the worlds conflicts are unfolding in these two rich resourced areas (Lizza, 2011). The U.S. involvement needs to constructively focus on human needs rather than conservatively personalized or liberally situationalized. For example, instead of providing foreign aids to build heavily armed militaries and sophisticated security forcesmostly used to supress the displeased portions of the populations, U.S aid could be spent on carefully designed socio-economic developments. Thus, not only reducing human needs grievances, but also rebuilding the tarnished reputation of America in the Arab countries. The Obama Administration needs to adjust its multi-chaptered political reform to accommodate 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, this adjustment 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 political organizations if and only such organizations submit and act by the universal human rights declarations. Furthermore, the Administration should move quickly to work with American conflict management and conflict transformation experts and professionals to setup various problem-solving train-the-trainer workshops and activities. Meanwhile, President Obama needs to keep his Track-One Diplomacy vis--vis the Turkish and Iranian influences in the region. As it has been widely reported by foreign media in the Middle East, the Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, has revealed a "quiet" exchange between the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Obama during their meeting on the sidelines of the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York last month. According to PUK Media, the Turkish Network TV (NTV), quoted Davutoglu saying that: "Obama quietly told Erdogan: youre protect Iran, and Erdogan replied telling him in the same fashion: and you are also a lawyer for Israel youre protecting and defending it" (pukmedia, 2011). If any, this is a clear indication for the manipulative roles Iran and Turkey play to wreck the outcomes of the Arab Spring for their national interests. Therefore, the presence of the United States in the Middle East is required more than any other time. This could be done by reinforcing the U.S. diplomatic missions with new ambassadors and attaches armed with socio-economic knowledge and experiences. Their main goals should involve building soft power with which new democratic institutions and the existing socio-economic establishments are built, rebuilt and or revitalized with American expertise. Finally, the Administration should halt any military intervention except for extreme situations where grave human rights violations and acts of genocide are about to occur. In so doing, 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, it will lead to building a leadership that can be called to account and put an end to all forms of corruptions, 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 with nonviolent means and tactics. However, because most of these political regimes are ruled by powerful and corrupt autocratic families, most of these movements have been facing structural violence which in four Arab countries; Libya, Bahrain, Syria and Yemen have left thousands of innocent victims behind. Therefore, the United States as a hegemonic power, with vested interest in these countries, needs to adopt a constructivist approach in its foreign policy. The current neorealist approach which emphasizes the political reform, may work for countries with some forms of separation of power institutions like Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon. But, certainly does not work with totalitarian countries like Libya, Syria, Sudan, and Yemen. Accordingly, the Obama Administration should not extricate itself from the Middle East. Rather, it should quickly move to 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, 2011 from http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/09/11/091111-opinions-oped-abrams-arabspring-1-2/ Bahgat, G. (1994). Democracy in the Arab World: An elitist approach. International Relations, 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 their prevention. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Burton, J. (1990b). Conflict: Basic Human Needs. New York: St. Martins 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 Company Huntington, 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. Martins 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 Obamas foreign policy. The New Yorker. Retrieved on 06 October 2011 from http://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 from http://www.technologyreview.com/web/38379/ PUKmedia (2011). US act as Israel's lawyer, Turkey says. www.pukmedia.com Retrieved on 17th October, 2011 from http://www.pukmedia.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10 049: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-springaftermath-america-s-next-step-in-the-middle-east.html