Although President Barack Obama's 2009 Cairo address to the Islamic world was designed to invigorate U.S.-Arab relations, America's capricious policies in the face of pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East have betrayed his words.
Obama heralded a new beginning based upon shared principles of truth, justice and progress. Yet, the U.S. reacted clumsily to the "people power" movements, persisting to support certain authoritarian regimes until the last minute while selectively taking stronger stances against others. Meanwhile, disillusioned Arabs from Tahrir Square to Damascus watched as the U.S. deviated from the tenets espoused in Obama's gospel.
U.S. propping tyrants and unpopular monarchs in countries like Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia fed an ever-burgeoning anti-Americanism that has manifested itself on the Arab streets. Most protesters view White House policy as hypocritical, evidenced by a recent Zogby poll that found Obama's favorability rating in the Arab world had sunk to 10 percent, which means he is now more unpopular in the region than even George W. Bush.
It's time for the U.S. to truly begin anew, as former Pakistani finance minister Shahid Javed Burki put it, "...in resetting the button, President Obama needs to move forward from rhetoric to real politics."
In Egypt, the U.S. stood by its tyrant, Hosni Mubarak, until it was politically unfeasible. U.S. officials are now even more unenthused about Egyptian democracy after the Muslim Brotherhood held a public internal election on Saturday for the first time in its history. Many experts see the Salafist movement as the favorite to win November's elections, a prospect leaving many politicians in the beltway tremulous with fear. American leaders miss Mubarak, given his proficiency at repressing Islamic factions, because the U.S. fears any type of Muslim regime, whether voted in democratically or otherwise.
In Libya, the U.S. has been an active participant in creating the wrong type of history. NATO-backed rebels are reportedly being led by al-Qaeda elements. From a humanitarian perspective, Western involvement has stalemated the struggle as Libya barrels down the path towards protracted civil war.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates it could take two to three years to dislodge Gaddafi. Some analysts have even suggested that an outright rebel victory could lead to a power vacuum, retributive attacks, catastrophic tribal bloodshed and the disintegration of the Libyan state.
U.S. advocating for regime change in Libya entirely contradicts its position in Syria where policy is driven, once again, by Realpolitik. The Western powers have been reluctant to ask Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down despite the fact he has committed atrocities on par with those inflicted by Gaddafi.
But the West sees Syria as a linchpin to Mideast stability, indispensable to maintaining the regional balance. An attitude well-encapsulated by Aaron David Miller in the Wilson Quarterly, who wrote: "Like a Wall Street heavyweight, Syria was too big and important to fail."
The U.S. finds itself on the sidelines, powerless, but has no other choice but to accept its limited influence. Miller recommends that, as it watches these events unfold, the U.S. should "be humble and respectful of history's power and uncertainty".
Miller also points out how America has found itself in terra incognita in a region vital to its national interests without a unified doctrine to guide it. But the U.S. should embrace democracy even if it can't configure the outcome, and accept the reality that the Mideast's emerging governments will unlikely be transfigured into Jeffersonian-style secular republics. The only guarantee that can be made is these nascent regimes will be far less amenable to American raison d'État than the Western-friendly dictatorships they're replacing.
Rami Khouri, editor of the Daily Star, says patience is the watchword as liberated Arab lands establish more democratic structures, each with its own unique tone and color:
Arab democracies will look very different from Western ones, and the world should have the patience and composure to let the people of this region find their own sustainable balances between religiosity and secularism, state-centered and pan-Arab nationalism, and traditional and modern forms of governance.
One can't expect overnight results considering these revolts have been a century in the making. After European colonial overlords retreated and the Ottoman Empire was swept aside by World War I, they left behind twenty-two nominally sovereign Arab states beset by corruption, income disparity, high unemployment, poor education, curbs on personal freedom and a record of sustained autocracy unmatched by any region the world over. Now Arab countries are being born of their own volition rather than through what Khouri calls "the false-birth handicraft of audacious European officials."
But Arab democratization will take time as they address critical issues such as security, economic stagnation and political legitimacy. Plus, mass discontent sparked by unfulfilled expectations is also a risk if these regimes revert back to authoritarian rule. Khouri estimates it will be at least a decade before we know if the change now underway is irreversible.
Suspicion of the U.S. will not dissipate easily, considering for decades Washington helped undermine the self-determination of the Arab world by supporting its oppressors. This sentiment has only been exacerbated by America's erratic behavior, as the U.S. finds itself in a dilemma succinctly captured by Global affairs columnist Frida Ghitis:
At a time when millions of Arabs will start voting, Washington's sluggishness to support pro-democracy demonstrations has eroded its claim to stand for freedom and democracy.
The common rallying cry of the demonstrators was a desire for constitutional changes that would protect individual liberties such as voting rights, freedom of expression and equality before the law. This was an opportunity for U.S. leaders to build a bridge to the Arab street based on similar American values. But if it continues to promote policies based solely on geopolitical calculus and fails to live up to its own principles, the U.S. could seal its fate as the biggest loser of the Arab Spring.
==
Michael Hughes writes similar articles as the Geopolitics Examiner.
Follow Michael Hughes on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mhughes3500
Syria's Arab neighbours pile pressure on Assad regime
As Markets Tank Israeli Protesters Resemble Arab Spring, Not Tea Party
Mubarak's trial gives the Arab Spring a new twist
Helping the Arab Spring succeed is Britain's cause too
US Debt Struggle Puts Middle East Aid Commitments in Question
In Tunisian Town of Arab Spring Martyr, Disillusionment Seeps In
the fact that US put PMOI in it terror list to appease dictators ruling Iran and causing all of these problems for the Iranian people, people of the region and the world at large, questions US's claims for being Pro-democracy movements! By doing so, US did nothing but fastening the stone and unleashing the dog of dictatorship "the religious kind of it" to take tolls from the poor but brave Iranians. a closer look at what US has achieved in Iraq also reveals that US biggest strategic mistake ever put Iraq in a golden plat and offered it to the Mullahs ruling Iran at the expense of American lives, Money and also the innocent blood of the PMOI members and supporters that directly translate into a yet bigger and stronger religious dictatorship in Iran and another Islamic republic (so called Islamic!) only extended to behind Iraq!.
Which is the least islamophobic policy? I am really curious.
When we intervene and toss out a wicked Arab tyrant (Iraq) and attempt to restore self rule, we are assailed by the Arab World and the Left as overthrowing a sovereign nation and waging war against innocent Muslims.
When we reject business from corrupt Arab autocrats, such as Dubai World, we are branded as Islamophobes. When we reduce their aid or the mere mention of doing so, we’re Islamophobes, Israeli puppets and any other name they can throw at us.
When we do business with them, we are propping up Arab autocrats against the wishes of the Arab people and, thus, the back bone of all their problems.
We are always in the wrong.
Which is the correct policy? Why can’t these people face their own problems? Why do we always have to apart of the equation?
This is Obama's alternative to Bush Doctrine: An American coup like the sort Nixon used to engage in Latin America and Southeast Asia. Thing is, that didn't work out too well. I am so ashamed of Obama right now. His mother was a peace activist who hated war and colonialization. It's just sick what Obama is doing.
Nor did I see any specifics on what to do in Syria, Libya or Bahrain.
I get the desire and motivation.
The execution of the change in policy needs fleshing out. And it can't exclude the elephant in the room.
I agree with some of the things they said but the inconsistencies and variety of support is very troubling and has led to anti-American feeling, when there is quite enough of that already.
The Arab Spring needs only one thing from the USA for us to stay out of it and be an honest broker.
It would not hurt to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and to quit supplying Israel with weapons. We have been bunglers in the Middle East long before Obama and have payed a heavy price as have the people there.
Obama should concentrate on the USA and keep his mouth shut about the Middle East except to get us out of there entirely militarily yesterday.
and Stopped a massive civil war in the Balkans, twice....that was pretty nice
Where the author says "...U.S. should embrace democracy even if it can't configure the outcome, and accept the reality that the Mideast's emerging governments will unlikely be transfigured into Jeffersonian-style secular republics..."
I would point out that a Jeffersonian style secular republic is the last thing US foreign policy wants in the ME. In fact, that is exactly what the US has been blocking for 65 years. A radical jihadist state with a brutal dictator is preferrable to that because the first thing an independent republic would do is kick the US out and take contol of their own resources.
This is simply an intolerable situation for US foreign policy.
I wish them the best of luck, and maybe, just maybe, if folks in the Arab world can run their own countries, this could usher in their era of world influence. In much the same way that the 'West' has for the past 5 centuries......
"Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me, you can’t get fooled again."
~former President George W. Bush
I think it's fair to say that most people in the Arab world have a somewhat more coherent version of that same view toward the United States and its foreign policies.
==============
A deeply misguided reading of recent history. Our foreign policy always encouraged more democracy in Egypt, but that option was not available—thanks to Egyptians alone.
The minimum historical scope required to understand what is happening now in Muslim countries must start with the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
Ataturk diagnosed the problem as too much Islam in government, Hasan al Banna diagnosed the problem as the reverse.
Al Banna's diagnosis is being accepted by Muslim majorities everywhere in the world.
The West has encouraged democratic reform when and where possible, although with a sometimes conflicting interest in opposing Communist regimes.
Looking to blame America for the resurgence of Islamism in the Muslim world is a mug's game.
Obama's pandering in Cairo was pretty embarrassing, I must agree.
Obama followed standard US foreign policy dating back to the end of WW2. Tout our love of freedom and democracy while backing brutal regimes that repress their own people.
The US has blocked all democratic reform in the ME because countries would take control of there own resources and expel the US and its allies. This has been known to the US government since Eisenhower. Imperialism, including American since WW2, has kept the ME repressed and radicalized. To ignore this fact is to ignore history.
==========
As the Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis, etc. have? What an incompetent empire we operate.
has kept the ME repressed and radicalized.
=========
The notion that only Western powers have had agency and agendas since WWII is the biggest fault of your analysis.
I agree with those who say we have gone too far with the notion of being the world's self appointed policeman. In that role, America has used its influence to keep Middle Eastern oil flowing. It would be irresponsible of a super power to do otherwise. And of course America has national interests that are not disinterested. What nation doesn't?
Your point of view is that of Noam Chomsky (and frequently that of President Obama)--as a citizen of the United Nations. You clearly consider transnational progressivism the high moral ground. I disagree.
I am first and foremost a citizen of the United States and am primarily concerned with America's--my grandchildren's--future. I do not automatically apologize when my country acts in its self interest--as all nations do and should, within limits.