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
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS