Why change in the Arab world may not be as radical as you think

Posted By Dov Zakheim Friday, February 4, 2011 - 1:08 PM

Events in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and to a lesser extent Jordan have led both administration officials and the chattering classes to conclude that democracy is on the march in the Middle East. Having once again been caught by surprise by events overseas -- one wonders where our intelligence agencies have been hiding -- the Obama administration is now trying to push itself into the forefront of those seeking democratic change in the region.

Yet it was not democracy that led a young Tunisian to immolate himself and, apart from English-speaking educated intellectuals, it does not appear that democracy is what most people have been demonstrating about. Instead, what they are seeking, first and foremost, is economic opportunity unfettered by corruption and favoritism. Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire because he was prevented from earning a modest living. Three Egyptians have burned themselves because of lack of job opportunities.

Secondly, Tunisians and Egyptian appear to be seeking responsive government, which is quite different from Western notions of democracy. In fact, it is arguable that they and other demonstrators in the Arab world would be quite comfortable living under a Chinese-style system, where there is a high and consistent level of economic growth and standards of living continue to rise. Would Tunisia have overthrown Ben Ali if its economy grew, as it had in the 1990s, and if the President's family curbed their greed? Would Mubarak be in the trouble he is now if he had a far greater percentage of the population benefitting from Egypt's economic growth?

It is noteworthy that for all the talk of upheavals in the Arab world, there has so far been little unrest in the traditional Gulf emirates or in Saudi Arabia. The rulers of the smaller Gulf States have long made it their policy to distribute wealth widely among their citizens. (Non-citizens don't count, of course. And if they made any trouble they would be deported.) Despite predictions of their imminent demise over the past two decades, the Saudis likewise have so far remained quiet. The al-Saud family recognized some ten years ago that it needed to spread more wealth to ensure the support of its increasingly younger population; so far so good.

Even Bahrain, which might have been expected to be the scene of riots, given the secondary status of the majority Sh'ia population, has not witnessed any major demonstrations. Again, most of the Bahraini Sh'ia appear to recognize that a stable Bahrain means more wealth for them too -- even if they do not achieve economic parity with the dominant Sunnis. They also know that Saudi tanks are not far from the causeway that links their state to its much larger and more powerful neighbor, and that those tanks would be quick to cross into the island kingdom if the ruling family came under siege.

Read on

BULENT KILIC/AFP/Getty Images

COMMENTS (2)

What a shifting Egypt means for the U.S.

Posted By Kori Schake Wednesday, February 2, 2011 - 11:30 AM

For an administration that claims there is no conflict between our interests and our values, the Obama administration has sure seemed to have a difficult time balancing U.S. interests in a stable Egypt with the U.S. values of a democratic Egypt.

The administration is in a legitimately tough position deciding how much support to continue giving an authoritarian government that has proved useful to us. But as the protests have worn on, the president, like Secretary Clinton, hit a better balance, calling on the Mubarak government to set in motion a transition to free elections. Vice President Biden was characteristically maladroit, claiming Mubarak was not a dictator and explaining that all the Egyptian protesters were seeking was "a little more opportunity." The Pentagon was characteristically calm and forward leaning, reaching out to the Egyptian defense establishment -- which is indistinguishable from the Egyptian government at its highest levels -- to urge professionalism and restraint.

The Egyptian military has already delivered on the only important near-term military request the United States is likely to make: not using force against the protesters. How might democratization in Egypt affect U.S.-Egyptian military cooperation? Short of an Iranian-style Islamic government overtly hostile to the United States, Mubarak's departure is unlikely to affect military cooperation with the United States. The United States does not actually rely on the Egyptian military for much militarily, and most of that which the United States does is very much in their interests to continue. But it could affect Egyptian-Israeli cooperation, with enormous consequences for the United States.

For military purposes, the United States relies on the Egyptian government in three main ways: 1) acting as a transit for U.S. military forces, 2) preventing Egypt from becoming a base for terrorist activity that would affect the United States, and 3) protecting Israel.

Read on

CHRIS KLEPONIS/AFP/Getty Images

COMMENTS (1)

EXPLORE:ARAB WORLD, AL QAEDA, DEMOCRACY, DIPLOMACY, EGYPT, ELECTIONS, FOREIGN AID, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, ISLAM, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, STATE DEPARTMENT, TERRORISM, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

Stop talking about the mosque; start doing something to help Pakistan

Posted By Peter Feaver Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 9:40 AM

I have held off commenting on the "Ground Zero mosque" controversy, in part because it seemed to be primarily a domestic political issue but mainly because I was dismayed by the hyperbole, demagoguery, and dishonest argumentation I found -- and, sadly, there are plenty of culprits on both sides of the debate. Some of the debate has been principled, nuanced, and careful, but not enough of it has and like an email flame war, the rhetoric has escalated even as the actual underlying points of dispute have narrowed.

However, one underappreciated point of consensus in the debate has prompted me to weigh in. Both sides of the debate appear to agree on one narrow claim: that the Ground Zero mosque is an important issue, symbolic or otherwise, in the ideological struggle in which the war on terror is embedded -- what Bush administration insiders referred to as the war of ideas.

I think it is certainly relevant to the war of ideas. Al Qaeda has sought to turn a broad civil war within the Muslim world into a war between Islam and the infidels (everyone else). If al Qaeda ever succeeded in that aim, our prospects for success would dim considerably. In fact, as President Bush and his advisors made clear within hours of the 9/11 attacks, and as leaders from both parties have emphasized repeatedly ever since -- and as most Americans have accepted to a remarkable degree -- the United States has not viewed the war on terror as a war against Islam. On the contrary, Americans have expended considerable blood and treasure to help protect Muslim victims of al Qaeda and other like-minded terrorist groups. And American leaders have sought, wherever possible, to reach out to the Muslim world and highlight America's long tradition of religious freedom and unrivaled record as a society that welcomes and integrates immigrants from all walks of life.

President Obama has made this particular aspect of the ideological struggle a personal priority of his and he deserves some credit for doing so.

Yet, all of the focus on the Ground Zero mosque controversy may now be having the ironic effect of distracting us from a much more important and much more urgent issue in that ideological struggle: the vast humanitarian crisis caused by the floods in Pakistan. The human toll is staggering, and that alone ought to be enough to prompt an outpouring of generosity from the American people.

But if you are not moved by the human suffering, perhaps the national-security concerns will prompt you into action. Pakistan is at the epicenter of the war on terror, and it is hard to see how that larger struggle will turn out well if the Pakistani state collapses and the society plunges into anarchy. The country was already teetering on the edge with a bankrupt economy, severe food and water problems, and an ongoing insurgency in Balochistan. And, by the way, al Qaeda and other terrorist networks are primarily in Pakistan, not Afghanistan -- indeed, several of the recent attempted terrorist attacks in the United States have originated from or had links to groups in Pakistan. Oh, and Pakistan has a sizable nuclear arsenal.

The stakes in Pakistan are exceptionally high and the international response thus far has been inadequate. The United States has done better than most, but we could do more. The most successful things the Bush administration ever did in the war of ideas were the rapid and substantial responses to the Asian tsunami of 2004/2005 and the Pakistan earthquake of 2005. More than anything, our actions confounded critics in the Muslim world (and elsewhere) and thwarted al Qaeda's goal of fostering a war between Islam and the West.

The current Pakistan crisis dwarfs both of those prior disasters, but the international response, beginning with ours, has not yet been commensurate. There are many reasons for that, but maybe one of those reasons is our national preoccupation with the mosque debate.

Perhaps it is time for our national attention to pivot from the mosque controversy on to the far more serious Pakistan crisis. Perhaps it is time for all of those political leaders and pundits who have scored points on their partisan enemies on this issue to take a pause, make a donation to the International Red Cross, and urge others to do the same.

COMMENTS (0)

EXPLORE:ISLAM, PAKISTAN

Obama in Cairo -- a modest step forward

Posted By Peter Feaver Thursday, June 4, 2009 - 6:25 PM

By Peter Feaver

For my part, I thought the speech was a workmanlike effort laboring under the impossible burden of great expectations. I am keen to credit the President Obama's good intentions and, for the most part, I think he did what he had to do. I did not see any howlers -- egregious mistakes that would torpedo the effort. Nor did I see any "aha's" -- moments of rhetorical epiphany when the president (or his speechwriters) captured perfectly a hitherto elusive truth. Perhaps the real news of the speech is that there is no news. In a time and a world where there is too much news -- especially these days in that region of the world -- perhaps the absence of news is a good thing.

I was reading closely to see if the president would commit the mistake so often committed by pandering politicians and academics, especially those who are tone-deaf on religious matters: trying so hard to flatter Muslims that one insults the faith of Christians (and others). I think the speech avoided that, though I will be interested to see how many people agree with me. Certainly one could find missed opportunities in this area in the speech. Indeed, one could code the entire section on "religious freedom" as one big "missed opportunity."

But it is perhaps unfair to expect Obama to really "tell it like it is" in a speech whose primary purpose was to begin the delicate process of translating Obama's celebrity status into a diplomatic asset in the ideological struggle formerly known as the global war on terror. Yes, Obama treads exceedingly lightly on the global persecution of Christians, or the role of Arab political elites in promoting myths about 9/11 or Jew-hating and Christophobic myths. Yes, the president trades in some false if convenient rhetorical subterfuge of his own -- the bogus "war of choice vs. war of necessity" dichotomy, or the statement (surprising from a self-proclaimed "student of history" on the eve of the anniversary of the invasion of Normandy) that "no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other." Yes, there are some carefully chosen code-words and phrases that have the effect of creating false moral equivalencies: For example, does Obama seriously believe that tax rules on charitable giving impose upon American Muslims religious constraints comparable to, say, what evangelical Christians endure in Saudi Arabia?

Yet, there are also carefully chosen phrases that represent progress, sometimes over rhetoric from the Bush administration and sometimes over Obama's own earlier campaign rhetoric. I think "Muslim communities" is better than "Muslim world," for instance. And I was rather surprised to hear him say, "I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein," the circumlocution that most Bush administration people use to describe the positive side of the ledger on Iraq -- so surprised, in fact, that I am willing to give him a pass for sullying that thought with the utterly tendentious caveat that followed: "I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible." (Is there anyone so blinkered that they believe supporters of the Iraq war would disagree with that bromide?)

And there are enough gestures to true candor -- for instance, calling out the cowardice of terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, or the forceful restatement (without credit, of course) of President Bush's rhetoric about universality of democracy's appeal -- that will be useful if the speech, as I respect, receives rave reviews. To the audiences giving the speech a standing ovation, those snippets of candor can be put to good use. To misappropriate another bit of scripture, be ye not just hearers of the word but doers also.

We can and should view this speech as a step forward. A modest step, perhaps, but in the right direction.

COMMENTS (0)

EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, ISLAM, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.