Ikhwanweb :: The Muslim Brotherhood Official English Website

Wed917 2014

Last update10:17 AM GMT

Back to Homepage
Font Size : 12 point 14 point 16 point 18 point
:: Issues > Democracy
The Structural Hopelessness of US Policy Toward the Middle East
The Structural Hopelessness of US Policy Toward the Middle East
Daniel Larison has made one of the strongest arguments I’ve seen for the structural hopelessness of US policy toward the Middle East. In response to my piece calling on Obama to focus more on democracy promotion, he writes.
Tuesday, April 20,2010 11:20
by Shadi Hamid Democracy Arsenal

Daniel Larison has made one of the strongest arguments I’ve seen for the structural hopelessness of US policy toward the Middle East. In response to my piece calling on Obama to focus more on democracy promotion, he writes

Were allied Arab states to become much more democratic, their governments would be obliged to pay more attention to the grievances Greg [Scoblete] mentions, and that would make the divergence of perceived interests between our governments difficult to paper over…Washington is not very used to having many allies that pursue independent foreign policies, and it does not respond well to allies that resist or criticize U.S. policies(...)

It might be possible for Washington to adjust to a world with many democratized Arab states that distance themselves from the United States in some ways, but more likely we would have to endure years of acrimonious domestic debate and recriminations over “who lost Oman.” Our politicians would try to outdo one another with promises to restore American “credibility” in the region, and the government would probably back the occasional coup against Islamist or populist Arab leaders.”

It is certainly possible that policymakers would be this myopic. One hopes we’re capable of some introspection – and, God forbid – change. I think that’s why we need to make the case, in very clear terms, that democracy promotion is, contrary to perceptions, in America's national security interest (I’ve made this argument here, here, and here). Continuing our unqualified support of dictators, on the other hand, is not, because it perpetuates what nearly everyone agrees is an untenable status quo - unless, that is, you’re willing to believe that autocracy can be made permanent.

That said, having, and propping, “stable” dictators in power is the path of least resistance, in part, because it's been our policy for so long. Change, particularly when it requires bureaucratic recalibration, is painful. It would require a strategic vision, along with a boldness, creativity, and imagination that have thus far been lacking from the Obama administration. It would also take a certain tolerance for risk; newly-elected governments, as Larison points out, would do things we'd disagree with. 

But I think Larison overstates the U.S. fear of states pursuing what he calls “independent foreign policies,” especially since there are already two Middle Eastern countries that actively and unapologetically do just that – Turkey and Qatar. They also happen to be close American allies. I’d be comfortable making the argument that, despite their hobnobbing with Iran and sympathy toward Hamas, both countries are more effective American allies than, say, Egypt and Jordan, precisely because their foreign policy conduct is perceived to be more independent and in line with popular Arab sentiment. Turkey and Qatar are credible actors where their Egyptian and Jordanian counterparts are not. In other words, it is possible to envision a new Middle East, one with democratically-elected governments which, because they enjoy popular consent, are more effective on the regional and international stage.


    Source
tags: US Policy / Middle East / Obama / Hamas / Islamists / Arab Leaders / Obama Administration
Posted in Democracy  
Add Comment Send to Friend Print
Related Articles
Hamas renews its vow to adhere to resistance option
A History of Western Involvement in the Middle East in One Lesson
Can Obama erase ‘Bush nostalgia’ in the Middle East?
Hamas: Arresting Zionist war criminals is a must
Obama denies visas to Israeli scientists
Hamas: IOA threats reflect criminal intentions
Hamas: The Arab summit’s fell short of Palestinians’ hopes
Hamas demands Arab summit to take serious positions to protect Jerusalem
Hamas welcomes British expulsion of Israeli diplomat.
Hamas dismayed at ignoring Palestinian prisoners
Hamas denies sending message with American congressman to Egypt
OBAMA'S TURN AGAINST ISRAEL
‘Islamists must adopt pragmatic approach’
Is there a tyranny-terror link in the Middle East?
Threat to Social Media in Middle East
OBAMA'S GRAND STRATEGY IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND CENTRAL ASIA
Obama's Budget Ducks Pentagon Cuts
Nightmare in the Middle East
Obama Ignores Key Afghan Warning
Obama’s Secret Prisons
Imposing Middle East Peace
Obama and the Middle East: One Year On, A New Beginning?
Obama and the Arab World: The Honeymoon Is Really Over Now
The Islamists are not coming.
Mauritanian Islamists: Political Islam beyond the War of Ideas
Boycott of Islamist movements to Arab leaders' summit in Damascus.
Experts: There is a real Change in US Policy and Strategy
Islamists in Politics: The Dynamics of Participation
Democracy ‘normalizes’ Islamists?
New PPI Paper on US Policy toward the Middle East
’Islamists edge towards democracy’
US/INTERNATIONAL: Dialogue with Islamists
Political Islam and Democracy - What do Islamists and Islamic Movements want?
Arab Media and US Policy: A Public Diplomacy Reset
New Report Affirms the Pivotal Role of Arab Leaders in the Reform Process
Most Arab Leaders Survive to See Another Summit