The lack of democracy in the Arab world results from an unholy alliance between Western interests and local autocrats, justified by what both sides claim to be the region’s “cultural specificity.” In a nutshell, it has been much easier for the West to do business in the post-colonial Middle East with undemocratic regimes, which have found Western support and recognition useful in marginalizing local liberal and democratic forces, even as it paved the way for the rise of Islamist radicalization.
Sticks as well as carrots have been used — by both sides — to maintain this alliance.
For example, the Western emphasis on reform and democracy in recent years has been used more often than not as a threat, a typical message being: “Help us in Iraq or we will press for democracy and human rights in your own country.”
And the Arab reply is equally threatening: “Stop pressing us on the reform issue or we won’t cooperate in the ‘war on terror.’”
Two other major issues have sustained the trade-off: Israel and the rise of the Islamist movements.
The Arab public overwhelmingly regards Israel as an alien and illegitimate entity imposed by force on Palestinian land with Western support. If this perception was channeled democratically and allowed to shape Arab countries’ policies toward Israel, any peace negotiations would be even more complicated than they are now.
So it is far easier for authoritarian regimes like Egypt and Jordan (and in the future perhaps Syria), where there is no need for parliamentary agreement, to launch negotiations and sign peace agreements with Israel. Likewise, in Morocco, Tunisia, Mauritania, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain, where various low-level contacts and Israeli representations exist, undemocratic regimes can define whatever relationship with Israel they choose.
The rise of radical Islamism has been no less obstructive when it comes to Arab democracy. Decades of unholy alliance between Arab autocrats and the West have seen radical Islam emerge as a “salvation” force. If free and fair elections were to be held in any Arab country, Islamists would come to power. That was the case in Algeria in 1991 and 1992, in Iraq in 2005 and in the West Bank and Gaza in 2006. Other countries, such as Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait, Yemen and Bahrain, have created more limited space for democracy. There, too, Islamists have immediately filled it.
The West has wasted decades, missing countless chances to establish regimes that could empower Arab liberal and democratic forces. The West’s blind support for autocratic Arab rulers has reduced all hope of peaceful change. The democratic process has lost its aura and its thrust, not least because democratization seems to lead to the rise of political movements the West finds unacceptable. The whole notion of democracy has been eroded and discredited, with the radicalization that engulfs many Muslim societies now spilling over into their emigrant communities in the West.
When former US president George W. Bush’s administration launched its Middle East Partnership Initiative for democratization in 2002, it turned out to be too little, too late — and it died too soon. The allocated budget was just US$29 million, but its rapid death can also be ascribed to its short-sighted design — and to US President Barack Obama, who has shown little interest in the issue.
Obama’s praise of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak as a man with whom one could do business demoralized opposition groups, which have been struggling against the long-serving autocrat and his efforts to ensure that his son, Gamal Mubarak, succeeds him.
The US is not the only guilty party. Europe has played a major role in retarding democratic reform in Libya and Saudi Arabia. Libya has become a Mecca for European leaders trying to win multibillion dollar oil and investment deals. The rehabilitation of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s regime has never included any push to ease political repression.
An even more telling case is Saudi Arabia. No European leader risks antagonizing the Saudis by raising the issue of democracy and human rights. Saudi women remain prohibited from driving cars, traveling on their own and working or studying without the permission of a male relative. Saudi society, and those of some other Gulf States, lacks minimum levels of political freedom and participation. The status quo is excused by Arab regimes in the name of cultural specificity — the same pretext used by Western governments to justify their “value free” policies toward these regimes.
Add together all the trade-offs between the West and the Arab regimes, along with the Israeli and Islamist factor, and the conclusion is as inescapable as it is alarming: The West cannot afford democracy in the region.
Khaled Hroub is director of Cambridge University’s Arab Media Project.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesman Wu Qian (吳謙) announced at a news conference that General Miao Hua (苗華) — director of the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission — has been suspended from his duties pending an investigation of serious disciplinary breaches. Miao’s role within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) affects not only its loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but also ideological control. This reflects the PLA’s complex internal power struggles, as well as its long-existing structural problems. Since its establishment, the PLA has emphasized that “the party commands the gun,” and that the military is
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During