|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
American and Arab Youth Share Ideas
US-Promoted Reform: Genuineness or Rhetoric?*
(Part One)
In
the context of IslamOnline.net’s coverage of the issue of the US
role in Middle East reform, we sponsored an e-mail-based dialogue
between American university student Benjamin B. Brandenburg and
Egyptian university student Mona Akil El-Kouedi.
August 26, 2005
Dear
Mona Akil El-Kouedi,
It
is not completely unreasonable for people in the Middle East, Europe,
and even some in Crawford, Texas, to think that the current US
administration’s intention to bring democracy to the Middle East is
merely a cover that the United States uses to expand its hyper-power
and get more oil out of the region.
Judging
by the last 60 years, America’s involvement in the Middle East has
been far from benign, even within the geopolitical context of the Cold
War. For decades, the United State enacted a cynical policy based on
stability that called for support of corrupt regimes (who can forget
Mr. Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983?) in return for
support against the Russian bulwark. Whatever the short-term security
gains from cooperating with illiberal Arab regimes, America paid a
heavy long-term price by incurring the enmity of many of their
peoples. This enmity has already cost America 3,000 lives, which
seems a lot to pay for stability and more oil.
I
can also understand how some may think that the United States decided
to use democracy as a justification for war in Iraq only after the
intelligence about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) turned out to be
unjustified, although not deliberately deceptive. America’s
past support of corrupt regimes and its WMD miscalculation are two
legitimate reasons to doubt Washington’s sincerity.
| America’s
founders declared a new order of the ages based on freedom and
liberty. |
Nevertheless,
people who expound these ideas have a profound misunderstanding of
what the United States is. While every nation on earth
looks out for its own security and national interest, I would argue
that none have had the same idealistic sense of mission since their
inception. Americans, since their nation was founded by religious
refugees called Puritans, have seen their nation as a “City on a
Hill,” a bright and shining example for the rest of the world.
America’s revolutionary founders declared a new order of the ages
based on freedom and liberty.
Although this
experiment went through many difficult trials, including a bitter
civil war over slavery and a repulsion of rights for African Americans
and other minorities, it has also defended its ideals by the sacrifice
of its citizen-soldiers in World War I and II for the sake of freedom
against Prussian militarism and fascist totalitarianism. In the modern
era, it has led the same fight against authoritarian communism,
although it had to sacrifice some of those ideals in the Middle East
as a result.
After
the Berlin Wall fell, America naturally turned its eye toward the
Middle East. The events of 9/11 resulted in a significant shift in
American foreign policy. The Bush administration realized that the
spread of freedom through liberal democracy was a national interest.
In other words, if America didn’t actively work to spread democracy,
more people would try to cause harm to America. The Bush
administration realized that it could no longer stand as a model for
democracy while it supported illiberal regimes.
Two
months ago, in Al-Qahira (Cairo), Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
made it utterly clear that the United States is serious about trying
to spread democracy across the Middle East: “For 60 years, the
United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this
region here in the Middle East—and we achieved neither. Now we are
taking a different course … supporting the democratic aspirations of
all people.”
I
do not believe that Mr. Bush was speaking empty rhetoric when he said,
“I believe that America is called to lead the cause of freedom in a
new century. I believe that millions in the Middle East plead in
silence for their liberty. I believe that given the chance, they
will embrace the most honorable form of government ever devised by
man.”
Considering
that a massive $200 billion dollars have been spent and nearly 2,000
US citizen-soldiers have died, and with oil prices and anti-war
sentiment at historic highs, he must be insane to continue his
policies unless he believes in the cause. And I do not
think that the President of the United States is insane. We may
not always live up to our ideals (see the utterly horrific Abu Graib
scandal), but that does not mean that we do not believe in
them. For examples, see American history 1776–2005.
With
utmost humility and respect, I ask for your thoughts.
Salaam
Alikom,
Ben
B. Brandenburg
*****
August
26, 2005
Dearest
Ben B. Brandenburg,
Thank
you very much for your e-mail. It really touched upon many aspects of
the issue.
First
of all, let me agree so much with the first part of your e-mail. It is
very true that people in the Middle East do think and believe that the
US administration is calling for democratization to expand America’s
hyper-power—and they have their reasons. Yes, the US policies,
throughout the last years, supported autocratic regimes in the Middle
East, but this isn’t only history; unfortunately, the United States
is still supporting autocratic regimes.
Nowadays,
for instance, the United States is supporting the undemocratic,
military regime in Pakistan, which is considered a friendly regime to
the United States.
So,
I may agree with Mr. Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly
Standard, that there is continuity in the US foreign policy, as
you can hardly say that the US foreign policy is changing drastically.
The United States was not supporting stability at the expense of
democracy and then it suddenly changed to the opposite; no, the United
States is always supporting its INTERESTS, like any rational
state—or at least from a realist perspective.
So
let me disagree with Ms. Rice that the United States has just realized
the mistake: Actually there is no mistake, but there are changes. The
previous strategy succeeded at a certain point of time, but, now, the
strategy must change. Furthermore, it must change for particular
actors. This change may include changes for the actors themselves.
Now,
as for Iraq—the big mistake of Iraq—I may have agreed with most of
what you said before the Iraq war was waged, but the war has made it
very clear that, by all means, the United States can’t be seeking
democracy in the Middle East. Robert Dahl once said that democracy
can’t be invented; you can’t invent democracy by troops, by
soldiers, by bombing civilians, by Abu Ghraib...
The
US administration manipulated its people and the whole world, from
9/11, to Al-Qaeda, to terrorism, to WMD, and ultimately to democracy.
Do you think there is credibility in the administration’s
statements?
Even
after the war, what’s happening in Iraq nowadays about democracy is
a big joke, a big, big joke. Do you really think that there is a true
democracy in Iraq now? Here in the Arab world we are very much afraid
of civil war. Can you imagine this?
| The United States is supporting the undemocratic, military regime in Pakistan. |
At
the end of the day, I don’t want to undermine your deep belief in
your president and your administration, and I don’t want to
undermine your belief in Mr. Bush’s statement that “America is
called to lead the cause of freedom in a new century.” I know that
you believe in this statement, and I totally respect your opinion;
however, I just want you to rethink the issue and consider its
different dimensions.
I
will recommend some tools to help you: just take a look at “The
Project for the New American Century,” the new century that Mr. Bush
was talking about. I think it explains what the US administration is
doing now. It was created in 1997. Guess who participated in its
creation? Look at these names: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul
Wolfowitz, Francis Fukuyama, Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J.
Bennett, Jeb Bush, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky,
Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald
Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Vin Weber, and
George Weigel.
What
do you think? Are there any familiar names? Cheney, Rumsfeld ...
Another
thing: Also look at the map of the Middle East now; what do you think
about the balance of power there?
Well,
anyway, I wanted to end my e-mail with two questions. I think they are
quite common, but they are always relevant. It is really important for
me to hear your opinion on them:
Do
you really think that the war on Iraq was for democracy and
humanitarian reasons? In your opinion, what should be the conditions
for humanitarian intervention?
That’s
it for now. It would really be my pleasure to share some thoughts with
you. It’s really a great pleasure.
Wishing
you all the best.
Alsalam
Alikom (Peace be upon you).
Yours
truly,
Mona
El-Kouedi
Do
you have an opinion to share? Click here
to join our discussion forum, or e-mail us your comments at Middle_East_Democracy@islamonline.net.
Your comments are subject to editing and maybe used in
IslamOnline.net’s online or print material.
Move
to Part Two
|
|
|
|
|
|
