Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "Opportunities in North Africa"

Opportunities in North Africa

Ana Isabel Alves: Today, millions of citizens in Egypt believe in a better future and are willing to die for it. We, Western citizens, cherish and support them - at least, in theory. But, are we really thinking about it? Do we provide effective support for democratisation?

In June 2008, I joined Shia Tribal leaders at a table in Iraq. They asked Paulo Casaca (former Member of the European Parliament and author of the book The Hidden Invasion of Iraq) to send an important message to both the European Parliament and the European Commission: "The money you are sending to support the reconstruction of Iraq is being used to sponsor the so called Death Militias, responsible for ensuring the maintenance of sectarian hate." Right there I understood how shamefully we, the so called "Western Civilized World", have failed in Iraq - and this impression only grew stronger during the rest of my visit to Iraq. Not because all Iraqis are fundamentalists who know no other language but violence, but because, in the end, the ones who really supported the United States, dreaming about a better future, were left to die in a country devastated by chaos and terror. Apparently, we didn't know Iraq well enough to help and we got caught by our own ignorance. Apparently, we didn't care enough about the human lives we left there (except for the soldiers and the children that Miss Angelina Jolie embraced for the "pink" news). Summing, we failed and we (public opinion) forgot all about it. If the rumors of a perfectly organized Iranian force being settled in Iraq are true (as many specialists alert), we don't care. Iraq is far away enough to allow us to think like this.

What about Egypt? Are we about to make the same mistake? Allow our enthusiastic ignorance to turn an amazing opportunity of democracy into another fundamentalist regime? During the Iraq war, Western public opinion was divided in two groups: the ones who supported Bush against all "the Evil" and the ones who demanded the immediate exit of the country. Very few people asked the simple question: "Now that we are there, are we, as well as the leaders we have elected, doing the right thing?"

The uprisings in North Africa show how utopias can be given a try, when there is nothing left to lose. Today, millions of citizens in Egypt believe in a better future and are willing to die for it. We, public opinion of the West, cherish and support it - at least, in theory. But, are we really thinking about it? Will we really care about the results? Who is sponsoring the opposition parties? If there are elections, do we have any doubt that the victory will the delivered to the most organized, best supported group, instead of the one with the best democratic intentions? Who are the best supported and organized groups? Who is supporting who? Is the word "democracy" true in the mouth of those demanding the end of the regime, or just the word waved to the people, desperate for an alternative and now crucial in the movement? What will happen to the people, after the turmoil ends? Who is really ruling the Army (institution which receives 1.5 billion of American aid a year)? Will this same Army, sponsored and well trained by Western interests, now be used by pro Iranian groups against the West? Should the Egyptian people have any reasons at all to trust a Western way of life (the "American dream") after 30 years of Western support to the dictatorship?

Slavoj Žižek wrote: "The cynical wisdom of western liberals, according to which, in Arab countries, genuine democratic sense is limited to narrow liberal elites while the vast majority can only be mobilized through religious fundamentalism or nationalism, has been proven wrong."

Even if this is an obvious truth, what Zizek seems to forget is that, in Arab countries, unlike the West (where we get exactly what we want and deserve, by voting and caring or by choosing not to vote and not to care), Arab people (civil population) rarely get what they want and hope for. And the violation of their basic rights has been a reality, either perpetuated by the ones who pretend to represent the Islamic religion or the ones who practice dictatorships backed by countries who pretend to defend World Democracy.

Again, like in Iraq, the Western public position should not lie around the center of the question, since some defend, that the revolution is great, no matter what, and others insist this is the beginning of the "end of the world". The Egypt situation is not only about us, but it's also about us. And it is a great opportunity for us, Western citizens, to embrace our own values and support, in an effective way (effective by asking the right questions and demanding the right actions) the rise of our neighbor's rights, such as the ones we demand for ourselves.

Angelina Jolie might have a great heart and the best intentions, but hugging children means nothing if we don't make sure that the right political actions are taken to ensure the freedom and the future of those children. Political winners have strategies, are not led by passion (but by reason) and tend to make good usage of the ignorance and/or passion of the masses.

Can we, the masses, do better this time?

Ana Alves is a Portuguese student of European Studies and International Politics, a working single mother, and former director of Babel Project.

This article was submitted for the atlantic-community.org's competition: "Empowering Women in International Relations." It coincides with the 10th Anniversary of UN resolution 1325 calling for an increased influence of women in all aspects of peace and security. The contest is sponsored by the U.S. Mission to NATO and the NATO Public Diplomacy Division.

You can read more submissions from the competition here.

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

April 13, 2011

Niklas Anzinger, Student of Philosophy & Economics, Platinum Contributor (708)

I like this comment! What's this?

An excellent comment, though as I see it, the Iraq invasion was not led by the belief of a fight against "Evil".

Instead those thinkers had decent objectives about the possibiliy and the framework of democratizazion, though the executive order of the invasion expected to much results in too less time.

As I see it, Zizek also has the misperception that it was the "Western liberals" that underestimated the possibility of democratization in Muslim countries. Wasn´t it the other way round that actions to promote and when neccessary enforce democracy in Muslim countries was imagined and taken into action by "Western liberals" and instead those who suddenly were enthusiastic about the uprising in Egypt never considered this possibility?

Either way, I agree with the author that we should not continue with the ideological warfare of the perception of the invasion in Iraq, instead care about the people´s expectations and beliefs for a better life - from my perspective that effectively means support for democratization.

April 13, 2011

Cody William Punter, Kings College London/ Trinity College Dublin, Silver Contributor (31)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Ms Alves,
your article brings up some interesting points concerning the current situation in North Africa and across the Arab world. The speed at which current events are unfolding, has many onlookers trying to make sense of what is going on. On the one hand, there is something to be said for Zizek's conclusions about the wide reaching impact of emancipatory participation. The protests that eventually led to the overthrow of Mubarak's regime showed as Zizek pointed out elsewhere, that Egyptian's were embracing the language of universal values and freedoms. However it would be naive to assert, as Zizek certainly implies in his philosophy, that this moment of existential solidarity is somehow revelatory - pointing towards a new dawn in which global participation in democratic governments is the norm. Indeed, although we can all point to the 'utopian' moment during the revolution when all of Egypt came to together and embraced universal values in the name of democracy, the biggest question remains, what next?

Contrary to Zizek's belief that masses of Egyptians revolting in the name of universal values should undermine the need for 'narrow liberal elites', it is precisely those 'elites' that will ultimately have an impact in determining the future of the country. It would be delusional and even selfish, for us to see this moment as a utopian opportunity - substitute the image of Angelina Jolie hugging and Iraqi child for one of Slavoj dancing hand-in-hand with Egyptian protestors in Tahir Square. If Egypt is to emerge from this 'Arab Spring' as a thriving democracy, it will be because of the ability of a group of 'liberal elites' will have been able to harness the positive energy of the Egyptian people into an acceptable legal and political framework. Not only that, but it will be their ability to maintain stability in the region in conjunction with their counterparts in Washington, that will determine whether the democracy is a peaceful one. (Make no mistakes, America will continue to be an important partner for Egypt and together both countries will continue to play an important role in the regions politics)

Insofar as other countries are concerned, although what has transpired is indeed amazing and was by all accounts entirely unpredictable, we should be careful not to overplay the significance of what has happened. Egypt, for one, is very different to other North African and Arab countries in that contrary to what Zizek would have you believe, they have a very large young educated middle class. As such, it was more predisposed to taking up the banner of universal values than are other countries. The sheer size of the protests and the length for which they were sustained bear testament to this. Moreover, in Egypt there is a greater sense of cultural and national identity. Unfortunately, for Zizek, the sum of these factors which we often define as nationalism was a big factor in the overthrow of Mubarak, and will play a large role in the future success of any democratic project in the country

These are elements which make the transition to a democracy much smoother than in the other Arab countries currently experiencing revolt. The fact is countries like Yemen, Bahrain and Libya are much more susceptible to internecine fighting, because of religious and sectarian tensions. Thus although it is clear that there is popular discontent towards the oppressive authoritarian regimes that govern them, it is difficult to imagine how one might mediate tensions in those countries in the hope of establishing more democratic regimes. You rightfully pointed out that in Iraq, America found itself supporting sectarian violence amongst Iraqis. Indeed, although America has through its' own efforts, and through a fortunate turn of events in which it had not hand, been able to achieve a degree of stability in Iraq. However, it has come at a great cost both in terms of lives and money. Perhaps, even more pertinently with regards to your argument, it cost America its international reputation.

These are the realities that face us when deciding what we should do with regards to Arab democracy. It may seem unsympathetic to the cause to do nothing and to not intervene, however, it is far more irresponsible to suggest we get involved in a domestic conflict without sufficient resources or legitimacy. The current civil war in Libya is an example of the degree of caution that must be exercised. The fact that the UNSC resolution provides for the protection of human life, but does not go so far as to warrant regime change, is an important precedent in this regard. In effect it reaffirms a people's right to self determination, which is one of the fundamental principles of democracy.

Thus, if you are wondering what 'we' can do to help support, the answer, insofar as direct intervention is concerned is nothing. The greatest way we can support democracy in the area is through guaranteeing the right to self-definition and self-governance. Although I am reluctant to draw parallels with 1989, it should be pointed out that the revolutions in Eastern Europe succeeded precisely because there was no outside intervention. There are regional actors, such as the Arab League, which have greater influence and a better understanding of regional politics than we do, and we should do our best to support them when we are called upon, as we have done in the current Libyan civil war. But to go beyond that would be both unwise and irresponsible on 'our' part.