American Middle East researcher Frederick asks whether the Corona virus will spark a second Arab spring, and it is likely in an article in the New York Times that the Corona epidemic highlights the inability of regimes in the Middle East.
The researcher says that during a recent visit to Libya, he met a family living in a dilapidated shelter in a camp for the displaced, east of Tripoli, facing, like many thousands of families, a shortage of drinking water and an abusive mockery of the local population. To make matters worse, the spread of the new Corona epidemic would have a devastating impact on the refugee and migrant communities in the Middle East, he said.
He commented that any rapid public health and economic response could enhance the authoritarian rule of these regimes, but not indefinitely. He believed that a crucial lesson from the 2011 Arab uprisings and the protests that erupted last year is that without more comprehensive governance, less corruption and more economic justice, technocratic and coercive tools are only temporary measures.
The author believes that the demands of citizens in the Middle East are likely to increase in the aftermath of the epidemic, and the impact of the epidemic will be more clearly felt in active civil wars in the region as in Libya, Yemen and Syria. An outbreak in one country or community of these countries may increase feelings of hostility and violence, and this killer virus will make untold suffering.
The researcher added that what is happening in Libya is not comparable to what is Yemen, which is the largest human-made human catastrophe, where the war revealed the nature of coexistence between war and disease, and where the cholera outbreak was a clear result of the attacks led by the Saudi-led coalition on hospitals and water and sanitation facilities.
He added that the impact of the virus outbreak in Syria can be horrific, especially for millions of displaced people, where the frequent shortages of water and the density of the population trapped in Syria add to the danger surrounding them, where more than a hundred thousand could die in Idlib alone.
The virus will also challenge the apparently stable capabilities of governments. The wealthy Gulf kingdoms may withstand the storm, but the journey may be bumpy. And it will be less likely to direct aid to the poorer regimes that have relied on their generosity, such as Egypt, which has faced protests even before the outbreak.
With the protesters taking to the streets in response to public health measures, the virus crisis may give these governments a respite, but the protesters are regrouping and preparing for another round of unrest, which could make worsening conditions more widespread.
The writer believes that what makes this shock to the Middle East different and more severe, is that the usual firefighting teams - a rescue plan from the Gulf states, international organizations, or superpowers - may not reach as they were before.
He concluded that the leaders of the Arab world have become alone, and if the past is evidence, this is not a basis for great optimism. Seismic changes can have small beginnings, especially in a region hampered by economic stagnation, political rigidity, proxy wars and baseless confidence in the continuation of the status quo. As the old Arab proverb says, "Even a mosquito can make a lion's eye bleed."