Freedom on the March II: Arab Spring Turns Hotter
Hotter . . . if you're a Danish flag. Or the Norwegian (?) embassy. What did the Norwegians do?
Remember the Arab Spring? Oh, yes, you do. It went something like this:
It has been amusing watching the tortured knots various pundits have contorted themselves into trying to deny that the flickerings of freedom in the Arab world have anything to do with US foreign policy post 9/11 and, especially, the dreaded George Bush.
Since the invasion of Iraq, a series of events, remarkable when taken together, have occurred in the Middle East, prompting optimists to predict an "Arab Spring" of democracy.
There was Iraq's "purple revolution", as Bush has dubbed it, after the purple-ink-stained fingers of voters. Under the calm leadership of Grand Ayatollah Ali Husaini Sistani, the Shiite majority which won the elections is busy involving the Kurdish and Sunni minorities in the democratic process, which keeps proceeding, despite the expectations of Western doomsayers.
Then there was Lebanon's "cedar revolution", when people-power toppled the Syrian puppet government, although by last week, nine days later, the old prime minister, Omar Karami, was back in power and Syrian-backed Hezbollah supporters were out in numbers. But Syria is pulling out thousands of troops as well as its intelligence agents and last week a reported 1 million democracy activists took to the streets of Beirut, some carrying signs that read, "Thank You, George W. Bush."
In Saudi Arabia municipal elections were held, for the first time. In Kuwait, protesters rallied outside Parliament to demand women be given the vote. "Women's rights, now," read the placards. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak promised a free presidential election. And while Libya isn't anywhere near democracy, a few days after Saddam Hussein was arrested, leader Muammar Gaddafi renounced his weapons of mass destruction. All a crazy coincidence?
Now, call me crazy, but when Afghans (NOT Arabs) protest outside Bagram airbase, when there are massive protests against cartoons across the Middle East . . . I'm not sure just what season it is. Now, no one ever promised us Jeffersonian Democracy, but this is the Two Minute Hate. And this certainly does have something to do with U.S. foreign policy since 9/11, especially the invasion of Iraq.
Btw, I heard that the Muslim boycott of Danish products is costing the Danish economy a million dollars a day. Huh? Were the Saudis big consumers of Havarti? I'd like to see some more concrete numbers on this one.
posted by Number Three @ 7:56 PM
3 Comments:
It certainly wouldn't be like me to defend George W., and I agree that things are not nearly as rosy in the Middle East (ME) as the Bushies like to claim, but do we have a better alternative?
In the long term, at least, we certainly want a democratized ME, and I'm not sure I can envision a scenario where this occurs without some real turmoil and growing pains in the short term. The U.S. has gotten itself in trouble before with short-term thinking in the region, specifically by favoring pro-US autocrats in places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt and even discrediting elections when thy produced governments we didn't like (Algeria). The result has been that the "Arab street" gets ever more radicalized, and meanwhile many potentially sympathetic Arabs and Muslims don't trust our democratic bona fides enough for us to cultivate a pro-US liberal base in these countries. So I would argue that our best course of action is to continue promoting "democracy" in the ME, even when we don't like the results, and look for ways to both limit those countries' ability to do mischief in the short term while we look to co-opt and assimilate them over the long term.
Words vs. Deeds: Despite all the rhetoric, we haven't "promoted" democracy in the Middle East. We've sparked massive Islamist backlash across the region, strengthening political Islam everywhere there have been elections since the invasion of Iraq (Ahmadinejad in Iran, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas in Palestine, and the Shiite fundamentalist UIA in Iraq itself). Note furthermore that Palestine regularly had legitimate elections prior to this Hamas victory. Iran and Lebanon's system were both pluralistic, well before our rhetorical gambits.
Nobody is against democracy. But the Bush administration's foreign policies haven't advanced the cause. Egypt is as authoritarian as ever, only now the leaders have to placate the newly strengthened fundamentalists. The other elections would have happened without us saying one word, and without the invasion of Iraq they might have come out better for our long-term and short-term interests. And as for Iraq, let's wait until the civil war is over before we declare victory in promoting democracy there. Only after we leave and they fight it out among themselves will it be apparent what kind of government that country (or countries) will have.
Frances, point taken--I mostly agree with your analysis. This is always the case for the Bushies. Even on those rare occasions when their stated aims are noble, they manage to shoot themselves in the foot with incompetent policy. Same story, foreign and domestic.
On "democracy" promotion, they do a lot more credit claiming than actual planning and strategizing, and what strategizing they do tends to be loopy (e.g., the "one-step-over" theory, where Israel gets the West Bank, Palestine gets Jordan, and the Hashemites get Iraq). Iraq's evolution toward democracy is, as you note, far from assured, and our poor planning and failing policies run the risk of discrediting the experiment for decades to come. Plus, I have yet to see any credible evidence that the Iraq invasion was a direct CAUSAL factor in any of the more positive events outside its borders, although it strikes me as possible that Lebanon's "Cedar Revolution," whatever becomes of it, could be related in some indirect way.
And yet, I think it's important that the US be committed on record as favoring democratizing reforms in the ME, not just reforms that promote marketization. It's even more important that a GOP administration be on the record for such a policy, especially one with such a record of hostility toward democracy at home in the US. Although the neocons are inept to the last man, I have greater sympathy for their long term aims than for those of the "realist" school who would maintain a low-risk "balance of power" at the expense of improving political conditions in other parts of the world. Finally, the Bush policy toward democratization gives Dems a useful issue: "You claim to support democracy, so why aren't you backing it up with actions?"
In sum, I worry that we Dems may overreact to the rise of elected fundamentalists in the region. As Jefferson said (roughly) in reaction to the Shaysites, "God forbid we should be every twenty years without such a rebellion." They're angry, and they're going to vent and even get violent in ways we must condemn. Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is at least a decent chance that, over time, being in power will either (a) discredit the radicals (like Hamas), or (b) force them to abide by both international and democractic norms in ways that assimilate them to positive end (think Sinn Fein).
Post a Comment
<< Home