Arab Perspective: Mauritania coup and its implications

With Mauritanian President Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmad Taya out of the country for the funeral of the Saudi king, a group of army officers declared on August 3 that he had been ousted and announced the formation of a military council. Manal Alafrangi reviews what was said in the Arab press this week

It is clear that the military coup that overthrew Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmad Taya received an unprecedented and unheard of welcome from all corners of the Mauritanian society. This perception starts off an editorial by Akhbar Al Arab.

Ostensibly, the Mauritanian people held negative feelings towards the government for various reasons: Taya would not allow political opposition in the country and would resort to sending anyone who defied him to jail.

Mauritania's economy also caused their anger to rise. But perhaps most decisively, the Mauritanian people were unable to accept their government's relationship with Israel, whom they view as an enemy to the entire Arab and Islamic world.

And this, says Akhbar Al Arab, is something the people of Mauritania could not live with.

Abdul Ilah Belqzes of Al Safeer declared that the coup in Nouakchott both surprised and didn't surprise him.

He felt it was unexpected because the people's movement stood against a vicious leadership who had no interest in acknowledging their people's pride or self-worth or even basic human rights.

What is more, the leadership of Taya seemed successful in containing past coup attempts and in even predicting where they would take place and when.

His leadership also enjoyed "a continuous French protection" and, today, "an American-Israeli protection" was added to it, especially after discovering oil in their lands.

But it was not surprising for numerous reasons, starting with the fact that the occurrence of military coups is common in African countries (and Mauritania has similar political features to its African neighbours) where the army plays a major role in public life.

Furthermore, Mauritania already witnessed six previous coups (four of which were successful). Not to mention the fact that Taya's leadership had been authoritative and domineering. So a coup provided the quickest way to get rid of the existing leadership.

Questions were raised by Al Safeer: What comes after the coup? Will it last? Is the new government's announcement sufficient to gain the legitimacy they ask for?

International pressure could increase. It concludes with the following: "It is too early to tell whether the new leadership is secure in its place".

Similarly, an editorial from Al Watan (Qatar) takes a realistic approach to the matter. The writer argues that the democracy we all aspire towards collectively should be suitable for the people's needs otherwise there is no meaning in change.

And he fears that the blind hatred towards Taya and his rule will prevent everyone from evaluating the newcomers. This could make of them an exact copy of Taya, who when arriving to power was welcomed by the people.

The editorial says, "The fact that I didn't support Taya doesn't mean that I will grant the new rulers a blank cheque until they prove that they've come into power for change". A quick acceptance of them would only make them gradually give up their enthusiasm for change.

Abdul Bari Atwan from Al Quds Al Arabi tackles the event from a different angle.

He says, "The coup certainly placed a heavy rock on the Arab Summit's agenda. It proved that getting rid of dictatorships is not only possible under American invading troops, as is the case in Iraq, but through internal forces who lay their country's benefits above all else".

Mauritania's coup brought back the stature to the Arabic military body that has long been sidelined and suppressed from exercising their role of protecting their country and its interests.

This phenomenon is not new for it "originates from the signing of Camp David almost a quarter of a century ago".

So when peaceful change is not possible (ie through ballot boxes) or when rulers (especially those who came through a previous coup) begin to design democracies around their "sizes and their sons' sizes", resorting to coups is not so shameful, he says.

And if one were to judge by the people's reaction, then the "festivals on the streets of Mauritanian cities have shown absolute happiness and sincere support for this change".

What is comforting for Atwan is that the Mauritanian revolutionaries did not contact their Arab counterparts but opted to communicate with the Africans and followed the way of Nigeria and Ghana, meaning, "the real quest for democracy, which stands on a political basis".

He offers the following lessons to be learned from Mauritania's experience: Most importantly, one should realise that relying on the United States and Israel does not guarantee continuity in leadership.

"While these two countries can secure bank loans, offer foreign protection, guarantee a red carpet welcome in some European capitals, or even secure a framed smiley picture at the White House, they cannot protect these leaders from their people's anger, once the volcano has erupted."

In Mauritania's neighbour Algeria, L'Expression conveyed signs of worry on how these developments will impact the Maghreb area, contending violent changes in the government will diminish Africans' hopes for a better, more united future. "Regional regrouping" is a concern of theirs.

Lack of response

Akhbar Al Arab's editorial seems to offer the following explanation for the lack of response from the Arab world: "So far, Arab brothers are still studying the situation and they do not want to be rushed into something with unknown repercussions".

The paper maintains Arabs' dealing with this exemplifies their "thinking" crisis and lack of direction in their policies. The editorial cautions their confusion ought to end soon, before Mauritanians lose their faith in this ummah.

The future is unknown for Mauritania, but what is known is that it will be very different from the past 20 years, which were isolated years.

Oil will start flowing next year and it is hoped that the revenue will be shared with all members of society.

Al Quds Al Arabi wonders why there is an Arab and African hesitation from some countries in acknowledging the new government (one resulting from a bloodless coup) but they rushed to acknowledge a leadership imposed by the Americans (through a sea of Iraqi blood) in Iraq?

Not only that, they rushed to send their ambassadors and opened closed embassies in the occupied country.

This, says Atwan, is a twisted blind rationale in every measurable way.