n Marwan Al Kabalan
When US President Barack Obama used the Cairo University as a platform to lecture the Arab world on the merits of democracy a couple of years ago, he did not imagine that his words and speeches would be tested before the end of his presidency. In fact, the Arab revolutions have put Obama and his political advisers off guard, and have presented them with a dilemma that needs to be dealt with at some point.
In Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and even in Libya, Washington seemed to have been quite content with the status quo. It was forced to adjust its policy only when it became absolutely clear that change in these countries was inevitable. Several excuses have been given to justify the lack of interest by the Obama administration in democracy promotion in the Middle East (ME).
Absorbed with his internal problems and preoccupied with re-establishing America's leadership abroad, Obama's utmost priorities are to resuscitate the US economy and end two unnecessary wars, i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan, it has been argued.
Given the golden opportunity presented by the uprisings in the Arab world to advance the cause of democracy, however, these excuses are hardly convincing. Unlike the costly intervention in Iraq, for example, the US could contribute to establishing democracies in the Arab world at a cheap price.
Over the past two years, since he became President, Obama has not been really interested in the kind of rhetoric which featured prominently under his predecessor and focused on democratic change in the ME. Words such as ‘democracy promotion' have almost disappeared from Obama's public speeches. This trend brought to the fore the eternal question in US policy circles about the ability of America to live with democratic governments in the ME.
The thesis that America must support dictators or else accept to live with the very people it regards as dangerous for its interests and core values has become the compass that directs US policy in the ME under Obama.
His dilemma in dealing with the current events in the Arab world involves balancing the desire for establishing democracy with the risk of losing power to anti-US elements. His worry is that democracy in there may very well empower the forces that the US opposes.
Clearly, the US is still hostage to its unfortunate experience in Iran. The Americans still remember with bitterness that in the 1970s when former US President Jimmy Carter demanded that the Shah should respect human rights, the domestic pressures that were unleashed helped overthrow his rule and bring about a government unacceptable to it. The US cannot hide its fear of having similar experiences in the Arab countries where revolutions are taking place. This prevalent view among US officials explains the hesitancy and the inconsistent policies of the Obama administration concerning the Arab revolutions.
When US President Barack Obama used the Cairo University as a platform to lecture the Arab world on the merits of democracy a couple of years ago, he did not imagine that his words and speeches would be tested before the end of his presidency. In fact, the Arab revolutions have put Obama and his political advisers off guard, and have presented them with a dilemma that needs to be dealt with at some point.
In Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and even in Libya, Washington seemed to have been quite content with the status quo. It was forced to adjust its policy only when it became absolutely clear that change in these countries was inevitable. Several excuses have been given to justify the lack of interest by the Obama administration in democracy promotion in the Middle East (ME).
Absorbed with his internal problems and preoccupied with re-establishing America's leadership abroad, Obama's utmost priorities are to resuscitate the US economy and end two unnecessary wars, i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan, it has been argued.
Given the golden opportunity presented by the uprisings in the Arab world to advance the cause of democracy, however, these excuses are hardly convincing. Unlike the costly intervention in Iraq, for example, the US could contribute to establishing democracies in the Arab world at a cheap price.
Over the past two years, since he became President, Obama has not been really interested in the kind of rhetoric which featured prominently under his predecessor and focused on democratic change in the ME. Words such as ‘democracy promotion' have almost disappeared from Obama's public speeches. This trend brought to the fore the eternal question in US policy circles about the ability of America to live with democratic governments in the ME.
The thesis that America must support dictators or else accept to live with the very people it regards as dangerous for its interests and core values has become the compass that directs US policy in the ME under Obama.
His dilemma in dealing with the current events in the Arab world involves balancing the desire for establishing democracy with the risk of losing power to anti-US elements. His worry is that democracy in there may very well empower the forces that the US opposes.
Clearly, the US is still hostage to its unfortunate experience in Iran. The Americans still remember with bitterness that in the 1970s when former US President Jimmy Carter demanded that the Shah should respect human rights, the domestic pressures that were unleashed helped overthrow his rule and bring about a government unacceptable to it. The US cannot hide its fear of having similar experiences in the Arab countries where revolutions are taking place. This prevalent view among US officials explains the hesitancy and the inconsistent policies of the Obama administration concerning the Arab revolutions.
This news was published in print paper. To access the complete paper of this day. click here
No comments:
Post a Comment