Anyone who thought the Arab Spring would bring peace,
tranquility and pluralist democracy to the Arab world was, at best,
misinformed. For decades, many Arab
states had been ruled by autocratic if not dictatorial regimes whose origins
can be traced to an earlier period dominated by ideologies of nationalism,
Communism, and secularism. Domestic
opposition to these regimes had coalesced around Islamic organizations and
Islamists had long been targeted for repression. Even in autocratic regimes built upon tribal,
dynastic and Islamic principles such as Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states,
opposition increasingly tended to be led by Islamic movements. While secularists devoted to liberal
democratic principles also often found themselves in opposition and subject to
repression in Arab autocracies, they tended not to be the strongest opposition.
Hence, the Arab Spring has unleashed an Islamic reawakening
in the Arab world. Despite a misplaced
belief by some that “free” elections in Arab states would result in the triumph
of secularists devoted to liberal or pluralist democracy, electoral victories
have gone to Islamist parties. This has
been most visible in the two countries that led the uprisings, Tunisia and
Egypt. In Tunisia, the Nahda party is in
control of the government. It is a
moderate Islamist party, at least when compared to the more extreme
Salafists. In Egypt, the Moslem
Brotherhood triumphed at the polls. The
Moslem Brotherhood has a long history as an extreme fundamentalist Islamic
organization strongly opposed to the dissemination of Western values, secular
regimes, and Israel. Time will tell
whether its political leadership, reflected in Egypt’s President Morsi, will
adopt more pragmatic moderation now that it is actually in power. In any case, these new regimes reflect the
re-emergence of Islam as the dominant political ideology, and not merely
religion, in the Arab world after decades of secularist rule in much of the
region.
The United States has sought to move with caution during the
Arab Spring. While American policy has
long advocated democracy, it has also not surprisingly favored support for
pro-Western regimes regardless of their political stripe. Hence, the United States long supported
Egypt’s Mubarak, a secular military dictator who repressed Islamic
fundamentalists and others but maintained peace with Israel. The United States has also long supported the
traditional regimes in Saudi Arabia and the Arab emirates despite their
autocratic structures given their pro-Western foreign policies.
The United States did not foment the Arab Spring. With its eruption, in Tunisia, then Egypt,
Libya and Yemen, and now Syria, the United States has sought to find a balance
between, on the one hand, supporting Arab efforts to cast aside dictatorial
regimes in favor of open elections and political movements with considerable
popular support, and, on the other hand, maintaining friendly relations with
autocratic Arab regimes that remain pro-Western. Where the more traditional Arab regimes have
succeeded in maintaining stability and not succumbing to the Arab Spring, the
United States has moved carefully in continuing to lend its support while
gently nudging their autocratic leaders to make concessions toward opposition
groups in order to avoid instability.
These include Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Jordan. But where autocrats have been successfully
challenged in the streets, such as in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, the
United States has sought to develop friendly relations with the newly emergent
Islamist forces.
It is easy to criticize the Obama Administration for purportedly
not showing stronger leadership during this incredible period of flux in the
Arab world but such criticism is misplaced.
Some American political leaders were highly critical of Obama for not
standing behind Mubarak, clearly a pro-American dictator, as his regime began
to crumble. But even his own military comrades
saw the writing on the wall as popular opposition grew and grew and ultimately the
military moved against him if only to preserve its position of power. Surely had Obama remained steadfast in
support of Mubarak and against the popular revolution, America would not have
succeeded in “saving” Mubarak and it would have found itself in an untenable
position vis-à-vis Egypt. In Tunisia, the first country to overthrow its
dictator, there was little support for the crumbling regime. The United States wisely showed support for
the overthrow of the dictator. In Yemen,
the United States appears to have sought to provide its good offices to assist
the long serving leader in stepping down, in hopes that the succeeding regime
would remain pro-American.
If some have been critical of Obama for not standing behind
America’s Arab allies, others have been critical of him for not moving faster
to support forces aligned against the old regimes. This was most evident with respect to Libya,
during the battle against Gaddafi, but is also evident more recently with
respect to the civil war in Syria. John
McCain, the Republican candidate for President in 2008, was sharply critical of
Obama for not leading the fight against Libya’s Gaddafi. Obama wisely chose not to take the lead but,
rather, provide important support in a more subdued way, looking toward
American European allies to step forward.
As a result, Gaddafi was defeated and American influence with the Libyan
government appears strong. McCain has
also criticized Obama for not getting involved in the Syrian civil war against
Assad. Obama has wisely not bowed to
these criticisms. He has moved
cautiously vis-à-vis Syria, seeking to build a coalition to pressure the Assad
regime and quietly provide arms to the opposition.
It is clear that a cautious, measured, balanced policy of
the kind Obama is pursuing is required to cope with the Arab Spring and spinoff
events. It reflects wise public policy
as well as the sentiments of most Americans.
The American electorate does not want further significant
American military involvement in the Middle East or elsewhere. Americans came to see the Iraq War as a huge
mistake. The United States was misled by
its President into believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction and became immersed in a civil war pitting Sunnis against Shia with
Kurds as still another party. While
supporters of the Iraq War claim that it resulted in a democratic state, that
remains unclear. The sectarian groups are
still fighting fiercely amongst themselves both in political and military
terms. The emergence of a democratic
regime, even a functioning pluralist political system, remains
questionable. Furthermore, as a result
of the Iraq War, the current Shia dominated Baghdad regime is far friendlier to
neighboring Shia Iran than suits American interests. The continuing war in Afghanistan is trying
the patience of most Americans. While
that war had widespread American support at the outset, it has become the
longest war in American history, the Afghanistan regime seems incapable of
assuming effective military control over the country (much as the South
Vietnamese regime could not do during the Vietnam War) and most Americans are now
eagerly awaiting America’s exit in 2014.
Polls suggest that Americans do not want to become militarily involved
in Syria’s civil war.
As shown by the early results of the Arab uprisings, the
regimes that have come to power may turn out to be far less friendly toward the
United States and its allies than the regimes that were overthrown. Hence, while continuing American support for
the dictators would have been a mistake given their tenuous holds on power,
unabashed support for the popular uprisings and the Islamist leaders and
parties who have come to power might have been and may be a mistake as well. The new Egyptian regime is dominated by the
Moslem Brotherhood, which, as noted, has historically been a very anti-Western organization
that has denounced Egypt’s treaty with Israel as well as the dissemination of
Western values in the Islamic world. The
opposition to Syria’s Assad family is led by the majority Sunnis. Their political orientation remains unclear
as a unified opposition has yet to emerge.
While the United States should not keep its distance from this Sunni
opposition, as America wants to exercise influence over the probable victors in
the civil war, it needs to proceed with caution. It is far too early to know where a new
regime in Damascus will stand vis-à-vis the West, Russia, China, Israel and its
neighbors. Furthermore, American support
for a particular group or organization in the Arab world often backfires as others
paint those groups as too pro-Western or weak on fighting for the
Palestinians. Effective diplomacy
requires subtlety, something many Republican politicians seem not to
understand. The Obama Administration has
seemingly been successful thus far in cultivating good relations with the new
regimes in Tunisia, Libya and Yemen despite the latest terrorist attack in
Libya and mass demonstrations elsewhere.
Critics of Obama have also focused on his treatment of
Israel and its current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Republicans have long claimed that Obama has
been an apologist toward the Arab world and Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee
for president in 2012, has irresponsibly charged that Obama has thrown Israel
under the bus. Netanyahu, seemingly
trying to take advantage of the American presidential elections to put pressure
on Obama, recently claimed that Obama’s refusal to draw a bright red line in
the sand beyond which Iran may not move without suffering military retaliation
deprives the United States of any moral authority to restrain Israel in its
actions toward Iran.
These charges are simply untrue. President Obama must walk a
careful line in furthering American interests in the Middle East. He has repeatedly pledged America’s steadfast
support toward Israel. At the same time,
America has always had interests in the Arab world, both in the oil-rich
kingdoms surrounding the Persian Gulf, and amongst the Arabs from the Fertile
Crescent to North Africa, including Egypt.
Obama has sought to proceed in a cautious way to maintain support for
Israel, nudge both the Palestinians and Israelis toward a resumption of peace
negotiations, remain supportive of Arab regimes that, while not democratic, are
pro-Western, and develop links with the new Arab regimes that have emerged from
elections as a result of the Arab Spring.
This has been a juggling act of sorts and is quite a challenge. It is easy for Obama’s critics to accuse him
of not acting firmly enough in one or more of these areas but an effective
foreign policy requires that America pursue its interests in all of these areas
simultaneously. Obama is doing so
despite incredible obstacles.
The most recent crisis has involved demonstrations against
American embassies and consulates in the Arab world following the airing of an
inflammatory video on YouTube mocking Prophet Muhammad and a terrorist attack
and killing of America’s ambassador to Libya on 9/11. Instead of supporting
President Obama in a bipartisan manner during this period of unrest, Mitt
Romney engaged in partisan politics, condemning a press release issued by the
American Embassy in Egypt before any violence or breach of the Embassy’s wall had
occurred that was intended to discourage violence by condemning the hate-filled
YouTube video as an assault against religious tolerance. Romney was heavily criticized even by many of his
own party leaders for his misguided behavior.
Surely, America
needs to proceed with strength but caution in response to the current unrest
over the incendiary video and the terrorist attack in Libya. Working with
a friendly Libyan government, the United States must aggressively hunt down the
terrorists who killed our Ambassador in Libya.
But as for the street demonstrations now occurring throughout many Arab
and Moslem countries against the hateful video, the United States must proceed
prudently.
The Arab
world is in turmoil and the United States will be making an enormous mistake to
believe that it can control events just because it is the United States of
America, the world’s predominant if only “super power.” It
does not further American interests to alienate the emerging Islamist governments
in the Arab world who may be less friendly to us than their predecessor
autocratic rulers. We must seek to develop positive relations with them
but this will not be an easy task. Egypt
is a particular challenge given the profound change from military dictatorship
led by a secular, pro-Western leader, to an Islamist regime led by a prominent
member of the Moslem Brotherhood. But the
United States needs to proceed with caution, using its influence as best it can
and only using threats to withhold financial and military aid, let alone the
actual deployment of American military force, sparingly. These threats have some effectiveness but
likely not as much as most Americans think they do.
At the same time, the United States must make clear its
expectations and act appropriately if foreign leaders fail to meet them. Recently President Obama was asked whether
Egypt was still an American ally in light of President Morsi’s tepid response
to the breach of the American Embassy by Egyptian demonstrators. Obama responded that he didn’t think Egypt
was an ally although it was not an enemy.
While the United States drew back slightly from that pronouncement the
next day in that Egypt is legally designated a major non-NATO ally, Obama’s
message to Morsi was clear: that America will seek to accommodate these new Islamist
regimes that have emerged at the ballot box but it will not forego America’s
own interests or sit idly by while America’s interests, including the safety of
its citizens, are undermined.
The ramifications of the Arab Spring are still unfolding. Those who thought the popular uprisings would
result in Western-style liberal or pluralist democracy were mistaken. It has unleashed pent up popular sentiments
deeply affected by and infused with Islam.
These sentiments reflect fundamentalist religious beliefs, historical
sectarian divisions between Sunni and Shia and among diverse ethnic communities,
frustration over widespread poverty and unemployment, deep animosity toward
Israel, and distrust of the West. There
is no deeply embedded pluralist democratic ethos in the Arab world so the
development of democratic institutions will take some time. The rise of new autocratic regimes before
democracy takes root is certainly quite possible.
But the United States has weathered previous storms in the
Arab world and the greater Middle East.
Egypt under Nasser was not an American ally. Non-Arab Iran under the Shah was an American
ally. America tilted toward Saddam
Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. The
biggest threat decades ago to Western interests came not from Islamists but
from radical secular Arab movements, sometimes allied with the Soviet
Union. Alliances come and go. It often appears that “plus ça change, plus
c’est la même chose,” but not quite.
The United States must remain strong and resolute yet
flexible and prudent. In my judgment,
that has been Obama’s approach. Accommodations
made by the United States to dynamic situations should not be seen as signs of
weakness. Rather, inflexibility and a
belief that America can and will prevail in every situation through its
exercise of military and/or economic might are doomed to failure.
These are uncertain times and often the most effective path
forward is far from clear at the time decisions must be made. President Obama has made mistakes. But, overall, his policies toward the Arab
Spring, Israel, the Middle East, and Iran, have been smart, wise, prudent, and
in furtherance of America’s interests.
