Friendless in the Middle East -Daniel Pipes
The Arab upheavals of 2011 have inspired wildly inconsistent Western responses.
Such ad hockery reflects something deeper than incompetence: the
difficulty of devising a constructive policy toward a region where,
other than in a few outliers (Cyprus, Israel, and Iran), populations are
predominantly hostile to the West. Friends are few,
powerless, and with dim prospects of taking control. Democracy
therefore translates into hostile relations with unfriendly governments.
[G]iven a free choice, a majority of Middle Easterners vote for Islamists.
Dynamic, culturally authentic, and ostensibly democratic, Islamists constitute the
only Muslim political movement of consequence.
But Islamism is the third totalitarian
ideology (following Fascism and Communism). It preposterously proposes a
medieval code to deal with the challenges of modern life. Retrograde
and aggressive, it denigrates non-Muslims, oppresses women, and
justifies force to spread Muslim rule. Middle Eastern democracy
threatens not just the West's security but also its civilization.
That explains why Western leaders (with the brief exception of George W. Bush) shy away from promoting democracy in the Muslim Middle East.
Greedy and cruel tyrants, however, present two problems to the West. By
focusing on personal priorities to the detriment of national interests,
they lay the groundwork for further problems, from terrorism to
separatism to revolution; and by repressing their subjects, they offend
the sensibilities of Westerners. How can those who promote freedom,
individualism, and the rule of law condone oppression?
Then, last December, a butterfly flapped its wings in the small Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzid (population: 40,000), when a policewoman slapped a fruit vendor. The response toppled three tyrants in eleven months, with two more in serious jeopardy.
Summing up the West's policy dilemma vis-à-vis the Middle East:
- Democracy pleases us but brings hostile elements to power.
- Tyranny betrays our principles but leaves pliable rulers in power.
As interest conflicts with principle,
consistency goes out the window. Little wonder
policy is a mess.
Policy guidelines are needed; here follows my suggested triad:
1. Aim to improve the behavior of tyrants
whose lack of ideology or ambition makes them pliable. They will take
the easiest road, so join together to pressure them to open up.
2. Always oppose Islamists, whether Al-Qaeda
types as in Yemen or the suave and "moderate" ones in Tunisia. They
represent the enemy. When tempted otherwise, ask yourself whether
cooperation with "moderate" Nazis in the 1930s would have been a good
idea.
3. Help the liberal, secular, and modern
elements, those who in the first place stirred up the upheavals of 2011.
Assist them eventually to come to power, so that they can salvage the
politically sick Middle East from its predicament and move it in a
democratic and free direction.
[National Review Online]
*
[National Review Online]
*
2 comments:
Unfortunately many things are missing from this thesis. The West propped up the dictators so we are not viewed as neutral even when we assist the uprising. The uprising in Libya was carried out by Islamists which is why they are getting a big role in shaping the government even though Libya's population is thought to be more liberal and moderate. No one has shown they have a clear and successful understanding of the MidEast much less the ways to 'fix it'.
Though I think Pipes did a good job of laying out the policy dilemmas that any US President would face.
Post a Comment