By Anders Jerichow

The United Nations has its problems with the new world order, because the old states see revolutions as disorder.

But sometimes, revolution is simply necessary.

That is the case, for example, in Syria and Bahrain – just as it was necessary in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. And why? Because the dictatorships in Tunis, Cairo and Tripoli were hopeless. They failed to give their populations the welfare and development they yearned for. And they failed to give them the freedom to choose another government.

Sooner or later, dictatorships crumble. Some people accept repression for a long time. No-one accepts repression forever.

That is also the case in Syria and Bahrain where an imprisoned, tortured, Danish and Bahraini passport holder and democratic rights activist Abdulhadi al-Khawaja is risking his life on hunger strike.

Governments in both countries are fighting to stay in power. Fighting? Yes fighting. The regimes use soldiers trained to defend their countries against foreign enemies to beat down their domestic critics.

Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan is trying to solve the problem in Syria with his own “Peace Plan”: Get the soldiers out of the cities, stop the violence, freedom for political opposition, free access for the media.

It would be interesting to see if the same plan could solve the conflict in Bahrain. Here too it would be appropriate to demand that the government withdraws the military from the cities, stops the violence, gives freedom to the political opposition and free access to the media. What is happening, however, is precisely the opposite. The regime in Bahrain abuses its monopoly of violence by letting the military – including troops from Saudi Arabia – crush the opposition. Demonstrations are stopped using violence and demonstrators are killed. Dissidents are imprisoned – just like al-Khawaja. And attempts are made to keep the media out of the country.

While Kofi Annan concentrates on Syria, his successor as Secretary-General, Ban ki-Moon has strongly urged Bahrain to release al-Khawaja.

But both Annan and Moon are overlooking the fact that repression in Syria and Bahrain is not an accidental blemish on otherwise well-functioning states. On the contrary. The repression in Damascus and Manama is a prerequisite for the survival of the two regimes.

Secretary Generals and the established world would like to believe that the revolution in Tunisia or Egypt was the spark that unduly lit the fire of revolution in the Arab world.

Wrong. It was not undue, but rather overdue. And the Arab uprising is not the result of last year’s ‘spring’.

The uprisings are a result of badly functioning and illegitimate regimes which sooner or later had to suffer a meltdown.

And the so-called ‘Spring’ had budded in Bahrain long before it did so in Tunis and Cairo.

Bahrain’s ruling Khalifa family, which was put in power by the British when they gave up the Gulf Protectorate in 1971, has been faced with demands for democracy since the second half of the 1970s. The regime has opened and closed its partially popularly elected Parliament that has no influence, at the whim of the Emir or King. The oil-rich state has held back demands for democracy with bans, censorship and violence for decades.

Throughout the years, the United States and the United Kingdom have supported the dictatorship in Manama, just as Russia has supported the dictatorship in Syria.

American presidents have needed the U.S. naval base in Bahrain, just as Russian leaders have needed their naval bases in Syria.

But time is running out – both for the dictatorships and for those who bestow favour on them. Russia can hide it for some time yet, because Putin is still able to control the politics and debate in Russia.

But as a democracy, it will be increasingly difficult for the United States to maintain its support for dictatorships such as the one in Bahrain. A dictatorship that represses and censors the opposition, puts dissidents in prison, tortures them and claims that it is not the regime’s fault.

Annan and Moon can try to plaster over the violence that is taking place. But they ignore the real problem – that Syrians and Bahrainis have every good reason to rebel.

The Arab revolutions will not succeed over a weekend, and will not create a Scandinavian ‘home for the people’ in a summer. The international community’s politicians, media and debaters seem to be getting impatient. Can these rebellions not succeed soon? Why so much violence? Why so much influence to religious networks? Why has democracy not already arrived?

This sort of impatience and lack of historical understanding is not one that Arab countries can indulge in. They seek freedom. They are met with violence. Their future takes time.

FACEBOOK – Follow Politiken’s News in English