As a prelude to my rant we must first accept that while it would be nice to only do business with the good guys, that's not how the world works. If America didn't play ball with autocrats the Big Mac index would be nearly worthless. It is important that the United States act in it's power as dominant state in the international system to play a stabilizing role. Aside from Israel the entire middle east is made up of non-democratic countries. Thus it follows that to play a stabilizing role in that region we have to sell arms and give military aid to autocrats and monarchs at times. It's unavoidable.
This being said, we should consider our relations with autocrats a delicate balancing act as well. What has been the USA's major mark on the world? One can rattle off a healthy list of accomplishments. We've landed on the moon, put the world on wheels, invented the internet and were the first in controlled aviation. But despite our such marvels over the past hundred or so years technological innovation can be found in many great countries. Who's to say that aviation has been more important than the steam engine or the printing press? One might also look to the World Wars or actions in Korea and cite our military might. However, our military prowess and ability to surmount the seemingly insurmountable can be spoken for by others as well (if not to the same degree in certain areas). The difference between the United States and previous hegemons is that we have used our power for good. Under American leadership the international system has transformed from a tool to guarantee freedom of navigation and interstate postal service into something bigger. It has transformed into an intricate and all encompassing regime that strives to better the lives of citizens of the planet earth on a more human level. We have borne witness to the birth of the very concept of human rights and watched democracy and it's associated freedoms spread across the planet. Is the international order always effective at stopping genocide and ensuring basic human rights? Clearly not. But the point is that it was under our watch that the world first recognized the issue and began to tackle it. This is what history books will say about the United States 1000 years from now and it is for this reason that idealism and ideology should not be granted an instantaneous backseat to pragmatism and Coca-Cola! Of course, while we should be proud of such a distinction it is the very same excruciating duality that makes American foreign policy so much more difficult than that of the British a hundred and fifty years before us.
Being the extreme moderate that I am, the aforementioned juxtaposition has been at the forefront of my while following the events in Egypt. On one hand our country should look out for it's interests. In that sense, the toppling of Mubarak does not at first been in our favor. The first and most obvious reason is that to see a friendly regime toppled is probably detrimental to US influence within Egypt. The new government might or might not be on good terms with us. Undermining Mubarak also sets a precedent. Other friendly autocratic regimes have to wonder if they'll be next. You know, those Abrams tanks may come with an OnStar kill switch and the moment people start demanding democracy the turbines shut off “this is OnStar, we've detected a popular uprising in your region and have dispatched international police forces. Also, it seems you're due for a transmission fluid change if you'd like to schedule that at the nearest GM dealership”. Egypt has also been one of the bright spots in terms of policy regarding Israel. Mubarak has enforced a secular regime and consequently peace with Israel. The next government might not. Instability in Egypt is also bad for markets of any sort given that it's home to the Suez canal. Though the prospect of a new government in Egypt selectively closing off the Suez canal is remote, it's scary enough that it should be called into question. The scenario of the US fighting against it's own weapons to open the canal back up had to have been brought up at least once in the White House.
Yet for all these possible drawbacks, cautious followed by open (if not mild) support for the protesters was the right thing to do. Even if the worst comes to pass and an islamist regime finds itself in place in Egypt, something monumental had occurred. Egypt signifies a huge crack in the dam. Liberty is contagious and we now know that the middle east is not immune. The people there demand it and Islamist regime or not one day it will invariably come into being. Moreover, the nightmare scenarios don't seem too likely. Say (and hopefully this is not the case) elections are not held or they're hijacked by forces already in power. The US was in contact with more people than Mubarak. The Pentagon and State Department have had ties with multiple and various levels of the Egyptian military and government for decades. Anybody from the military that would come to power would already have a pro-US proclivity. We would be right back where we started except with the possibility of a better conditions for Egyptians. What would be terrible would be an Islamist faction winning overwhelmingly in elections and then refusing to relinquish it's control of the government. But Egypt is not a fanatically Muslim country and the protesters weren't railing against the West. From everything I've seen elections probably aren't going to bring in Hezbollah.
Moreover, when we are looking at the long term dictatorships just aren't the answer. To my knowledge modern history has never seen an anti-democracy revolution. Once democratic norms are firmly engrained that state will always be on at least reasonable terms with other democracies. Remember the one law like rule of IR: two democracies have never gone to war. And as a rule democracies don't abuse the rights citizens. The pie in the sky dream of a world composed solely of democratic states may not happen within our lifetimes, whose to say in 200 years? Change will come. Either way, the more democracies there are, the less there is to worry about and the more peaceful the world will be (in terms of interstate wars). Basically, what I'm saying is that Egypt and Tunisia are akin to ripping off a bandaid. If the two (or more) become democratic it will have a stabilizing effect on the region 20 years from now and beyond. Why hold back the dam in the middle east? Let's let Chevron ride in the backseat for this trip.
This being said, we should consider our relations with autocrats a delicate balancing act as well. What has been the USA's major mark on the world? One can rattle off a healthy list of accomplishments. We've landed on the moon, put the world on wheels, invented the internet and were the first in controlled aviation. But despite our such marvels over the past hundred or so years technological innovation can be found in many great countries. Who's to say that aviation has been more important than the steam engine or the printing press? One might also look to the World Wars or actions in Korea and cite our military might. However, our military prowess and ability to surmount the seemingly insurmountable can be spoken for by others as well (if not to the same degree in certain areas). The difference between the United States and previous hegemons is that we have used our power for good. Under American leadership the international system has transformed from a tool to guarantee freedom of navigation and interstate postal service into something bigger. It has transformed into an intricate and all encompassing regime that strives to better the lives of citizens of the planet earth on a more human level. We have borne witness to the birth of the very concept of human rights and watched democracy and it's associated freedoms spread across the planet. Is the international order always effective at stopping genocide and ensuring basic human rights? Clearly not. But the point is that it was under our watch that the world first recognized the issue and began to tackle it. This is what history books will say about the United States 1000 years from now and it is for this reason that idealism and ideology should not be granted an instantaneous backseat to pragmatism and Coca-Cola! Of course, while we should be proud of such a distinction it is the very same excruciating duality that makes American foreign policy so much more difficult than that of the British a hundred and fifty years before us.
Being the extreme moderate that I am, the aforementioned juxtaposition has been at the forefront of my while following the events in Egypt. On one hand our country should look out for it's interests. In that sense, the toppling of Mubarak does not at first been in our favor. The first and most obvious reason is that to see a friendly regime toppled is probably detrimental to US influence within Egypt. The new government might or might not be on good terms with us. Undermining Mubarak also sets a precedent. Other friendly autocratic regimes have to wonder if they'll be next. You know, those Abrams tanks may come with an OnStar kill switch and the moment people start demanding democracy the turbines shut off “this is OnStar, we've detected a popular uprising in your region and have dispatched international police forces. Also, it seems you're due for a transmission fluid change if you'd like to schedule that at the nearest GM dealership”. Egypt has also been one of the bright spots in terms of policy regarding Israel. Mubarak has enforced a secular regime and consequently peace with Israel. The next government might not. Instability in Egypt is also bad for markets of any sort given that it's home to the Suez canal. Though the prospect of a new government in Egypt selectively closing off the Suez canal is remote, it's scary enough that it should be called into question. The scenario of the US fighting against it's own weapons to open the canal back up had to have been brought up at least once in the White House.
Yet for all these possible drawbacks, cautious followed by open (if not mild) support for the protesters was the right thing to do. Even if the worst comes to pass and an islamist regime finds itself in place in Egypt, something monumental had occurred. Egypt signifies a huge crack in the dam. Liberty is contagious and we now know that the middle east is not immune. The people there demand it and Islamist regime or not one day it will invariably come into being. Moreover, the nightmare scenarios don't seem too likely. Say (and hopefully this is not the case) elections are not held or they're hijacked by forces already in power. The US was in contact with more people than Mubarak. The Pentagon and State Department have had ties with multiple and various levels of the Egyptian military and government for decades. Anybody from the military that would come to power would already have a pro-US proclivity. We would be right back where we started except with the possibility of a better conditions for Egyptians. What would be terrible would be an Islamist faction winning overwhelmingly in elections and then refusing to relinquish it's control of the government. But Egypt is not a fanatically Muslim country and the protesters weren't railing against the West. From everything I've seen elections probably aren't going to bring in Hezbollah.
Moreover, when we are looking at the long term dictatorships just aren't the answer. To my knowledge modern history has never seen an anti-democracy revolution. Once democratic norms are firmly engrained that state will always be on at least reasonable terms with other democracies. Remember the one law like rule of IR: two democracies have never gone to war. And as a rule democracies don't abuse the rights citizens. The pie in the sky dream of a world composed solely of democratic states may not happen within our lifetimes, whose to say in 200 years? Change will come. Either way, the more democracies there are, the less there is to worry about and the more peaceful the world will be (in terms of interstate wars). Basically, what I'm saying is that Egypt and Tunisia are akin to ripping off a bandaid. If the two (or more) become democratic it will have a stabilizing effect on the region 20 years from now and beyond. Why hold back the dam in the middle east? Let's let Chevron ride in the backseat for this trip.
RSS Feed