Western analysts and political scientists will be learning lessons from the Arab Spring for a long time. But among the most important and immediate was the revelation that the cynical core assumptions of realist foreign policy were disastrous for the region and the West. The mirage of stability lured president after president, all the while helping to stifle democracy, education, and women’s rights. The inevitable and violent end of that “stability”–which of course was anything but–has finally reset the Western outlook on dealing with the newly emerging regional power brokers.
Or has it? Freedom House’s David Kramer and Charles Dunne aren’t so sure the West isn’t about to relapse. Egypt’s foreign policy, under its new Islamist president Mohamed Morsi, is adapting to new realities—and so should Washington’s, they write in the American Interest:
First, bedrock principles should guide U.S. policy, and we need to be clear in public and in private what those principles are, stressing the importance of institutions versus personalities. The United States must stand firmly on the side of basic human rights, especially those of the most vulnerable, including women and religious minorities, and uphold freedom of the press, expression and association. It is particularly important that the United States press the Egyptian government to liberalize the environment for civil society and end its prosecution of international non-government organizations for their efforts to help Egyptians as they work toward democracy; investigations into domestic NGOs should also be ended. There must be rewards for advancing the political transition and real consequences for pushing it back.
The United States must also engage broader segments of Egyptian society and politics. The temptation is to pay too much attention to traditional political elites as well as President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood as they seek to consolidate power, but that is a mistake. The U.S. needs to reach out consistently to young activists and liberal and secular parties; however feckless they might seem now, their ideas on democracy and governance were the ideological underpinnings of the revolution against Mubarak and have been broadly, if tacitly, accepted by wide swaths of the Egyptian body politic, including the Muslim Brotherhood. They will continue to play a significant role in Egyptian politics.
They have more suggestions as well, so read the whole thing. Lately, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been throwing brushback pitches at her old friend Leon Panetta, the secretary of defense, in the everlasting turf war between State and Defense. Clinton’s tenure thus far at State has been mostly unremarkable, but managing diplomatic relations with the new Egypt is going to give her the chance to forge a legacy.
Though she won’t be at State much longer, the first diplomatic moves with any new government tend to set the course, since Foggy Bottom’s inclination is to change direction only when absolutely necessary. The Arab Spring and the crumbling of the realist gambit have given Clinton the ability to lead down a different path, one that would finally give Arab liberals a voice and help create the institutions that could lead to real stability—one that relies on, instead of subjugates, the people.
" Arab liberals"? Those must be the Arabs who haven't died as suicide bombers – yet.
Bedrock principles? Really? n nLike what? n nAre these principles to be applied across the world, or selectively in certain areas among some countries at certain times? n nHow will we decide which countries? How can we possibly use 'bedrock principles' to selectively apply where we will apply those principles? n nI guess the point I am trying to clumsily make is that it is the attempt to apply 'bedrock principles' that gets us into trouble. n nWhy can't we simply recognize that the US necessarily has interests rather than principles in dealing with foreign nations, ugly as that reality is. Because it is the reality, regardless of how we try to dress it up in morality. The latter achieves nothing except make Hillary Clinton look like a clown. n nWhy do we think that the alternative to dictatorship is liberal democracy? Perhaps it is malignant theocracy for most of the world, or at least the Arab world, mired as it is in tribalism, superstition, illiteracy, and misogyny? n nDo we have an understanding of what cultural underpinnings are required to create a liberal democracy? Much more than American soldiers on the ground and blue ink, that's for sure. n nAs for finding and empowering liberals, isn't that we we just tried to do in Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan? How is that working out? n nThe article referenced is just so much more fashionable hypocritical crap. Why so concerned with Egypt when thousands die monthly in Syria, for example, or Zimbabwe? Where are our bedrock principles in dealing with China and Russia? n n n
Agree with MainesMichael …. n nThe United States has "interests" – just like every other nation. n nIslamists consolidating power in Egypt isn't in our interest because that ideology, by definition, is hostile to the United States. Criticism of that enterprise premised upon its failure to respect the humanity of its women may cause our intellectual class to feel smugly superior – the Islamists reject it out of hand because OF COURSE those decadent westerners don't appreciate the superiority of sharia. They feel no need and have no intention of wasting time explaining it all to us – they're not interested in convincing us to agree with them, they're intent on making our opinion irrelevant. n nIt would be wonderful if we'd view others as they are and act accordingly rather than treat them as if they are what we'd like to see them become.
Good luck playing a decisive role in mentoring the internal dynamics of a society, people, culture far far away.
When the generally astute and even inspiring commentator MainesMichael says"Why can't we simply recognize that the US necessarily has interests rather than principles in dealing with foreign nations,ugly as that reality is",I am jarringly reminded that that's the same rationale that Pat Buchanan,Ron Paul and their ilk use to advocate for the abandonment of Israel……We need a different framework than the realist/idealist dualism for thinking about foreign policy.