The uprisings in the Arab world have attracted support and sympathy from citizens in the West (Varin), and these revolutions are an opportunity to embrace our values by supporting the uprisings (Alves). The West should “take Egypt's Revolution as the starting point of a new era of democratization across the Middle East and a chance to create a new foreign policy strategy” (Kennedy). All contributors participated in the competition "Women on Transatlantic Security" sponsored by the United States Mission to NATO and the NATO Public Diplomacy Division.
1. Promote democracy by engaging all civil society groups.
Engagement with and support of civil society movements should be a priority because transformations in the former USSR and Eastern Europe have shown that the strength of such movements is critical to democratization processes. Western-led democracy initiatives in the Arab world will face a credibility issue, so the West will need to take a “careful and culturally sensitive approach to civil society engagement.” This approach should include a wide range of pro-democracy groups and religious organizations. Ignoring groups who do not mirror Western values in favour of those we agree with is not compatible with democracy promotion. Success can only be guaranteed if these initiatives are shaped by local realities (Makanju).
The West should engage in dialogue with Islamist groups. Encounters with Islamism are unavoidable when promoting democracy in the Arab world and we have failed to distinguish between different Islamist currents. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is a pragmatic movement experienced in working with a broad coalition of groups. A younger generation of Brother's are open to dialogue with Israel (Kennedy). By refusing to talk to Hamas, which was elected by the Palestinian people, we are ignoring our democratic principles and promoting double standards (Paraipan).
2. Support reforms with better trade.
Europe should provide better market access to Arab countries, using trade as a means to encourage longer term political reform. These reforms should include profound institutional transformation towards fairer, more transparent elections, constitutional reform and robust judicial systems (Jacobs).
The West must make a sustained commitment to a legally binding treaty to regulate the international arms trade. While publicly calling on Arab leaders to respect human rights, Western countries have sold them tools for domestic oppression. Our policies on arms exports leave us bound to regimes whose domestic legitimacy is questionable. This sends the message that “international norms such as democracy and human rights do not count as much as economic interests do” (Kruse).
3. Build confidence through NATO's regional cooperation initiatives.
NATO is a political entity whose goal is to "promote democratic values to build trust and prevent conflict in the long-run" (Redohl). The Mediterranean Dialogue (MD) with Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia, as well as the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) with Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, can be used as frameworks to promote confidence building and increase transparency between military establishments (Scatamacchia).
These measures would also reassure Israel and thus promote stability in the region (Landman). The success of such military diplomacy was evident during the Egyptian Revolution, when the United States military’s ties with its Egyptian counterparts were credited with fostering the Egyptian military’s decision to protect the protesters from government forces.
Atlantic Memos showcase the best ideas and arguments from debates in the Open Think Tank on www.atlantic-community.org. Please take the next step and help us spread the word. You can download a PDF copy of this Atlantic Memo to distribute to your local or national decision-makers. The recommendations expressed above come from your Atlantic Community.
Written by Elias Gladstone. Photo credit: cc 2.0 Takver
- 22
April 15, 2011
Cody William Punter, Kings College London/ Trinity College Dublin, Silver Contributor (31)
The news of American support for civil society groups come - as this memo points out – at a time when the issue of supporting civil society groups has become a focal point for onlookers of events in the Western world. Indeed, there is an almost unanimous belief that America is not doing enough to support democracy in the Middle East. The recently leaked cables show that the US has indeed been funding programs to undermine autocratic regimes and to strengthen democratic movements. Although this news will have caught most of us off-guard, it should not come as a surprise. We should not forget, that it was after all the Bush administration that was preaching the advent of democracy in the Middle East.
However, while the leak of these cables may mean that America can claim a hand in supporting democracy all along, they also raise lots of questions for Western countries as well as for Arab ones. Firstly, what are we to make of the fact that America was apparently supporting democratic movements in countries like Egypt, all the while giving propping up Mubarak’s regime with over a billion dollars in aid. As one of the activists has pointed out “While we appreciated the training we received through the NGOs sponsored by the U.S. government, and it did help us in our struggles, we are also aware that the same government also trained the state security investigative service, which was responsible for the harassment and jailing of many of us”.
A cynical individual might argue that America was simply hedging its bets.
However, for those who are arguing (I should add that I am indeed in favour of seeing the success of democracy in the Arab world) that we should support civil society groups in the Arab world, we must ask how the successful support of such groups should fit into a wider American policy. Perhaps, more importantly, we should examine how such support has fit into America’s strategic considerations over the past decade. It would appear that there are two contradictory narratives in this regard: 1)America’s belief that democratic countries are more likely to be peaceful allies and have less support for terrorist and the transition to such regimes is supported; 2) authoritarian regimes are easier to manipulate and are supported on the premise that they can be coerced into acting in America’s interests. I believe that this is something that needs to be closely examined with regards to American foreign policy, because as of right now, it suffers from a dangerous lack in coherency
Finally, while these recent cables might be interpreted as a positive coup for America’s support of democracy in the Arab world, they should also serve as a caution. Apart from reading as a list of America’s good deeds, the cables show that leaders (which they supported), in the region were not only aware of the support, but wary of it. While this may seem inconsequential, as a bombing campaign threatens to oust Gaddafi, while Mubarak heads for trial, the outcome in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen are yet to be determined. Indeed, in Syria it is the President who is mediating events and who is reluctantly making concessions. Meanwhile, in Bahrain, America has recently used its influence to encourage the government to retract their decision to ban the opposition party. The parties and leaders currently in power cannot be excused for their flouting of the constitution and human rights abuses, however, it is far better to have them be allies in the transition to democracy than enemies, so that we might avoid a situation where they hold on to power through resorting to violence. It might be worth considering whether now that America’s undermining of these regimes has been made public, whether it might hurt its reputation in influencing the outcome in the region, while putting those clinging to power on the defensive. Moreover, what will future governments in the region (and other autocratic regimes such as China and Russia) make of America's role in undermining their authority?