GMEI 2?
As Issandr indicated, Bush’s inaugural speech covertly unleashed the “freedom” doctrine. For those of us studying and living in the Arab world this meant the GMEI. In what feels like the film Groundhog day, Bush 43 admin 2 is looking about reviving the Greater Middle East Initiative (whether they call it that or not) which horridly failed last year.
Today’s Guardian had a superficial piece that touched on Bush’s promises to expand freedom in the ME. The article was more useful in seeing what Americans think about this idea rather than the admin directly promising to pick up the pace in the region’s “forced liberalization”.
The most troubling part of the piece is that most Americans according to a Gallup poll don’t think that the Admin can achieve its goal of spreading democracy in the Middle East. Complicating this analysis though is the bit where nearly two-thirds of Americans polled actually thought Bush’s inaugural speech was good or excellent. Only 11-percent thought the speech was rubbish.
America is not special in this regard. People not thinking their government can deliever but still bestowing on it legitimacy exists everywhere (even surprisingly in the Arab world where many a book has been written about the lack of legitimacy these regimes’ possess). The fact that most Americans approved of Bush’s speech is more indicative of the millions of dollars thrown into the inaugural exhibition than human beings actually being aware of the consequences of continuing to let Bush think he has a mandate and “political captial”. You may not be able to Shock and Awe Baghdad into political acquiescence but in democracies its easy.
This spectacle proves worth it though…..anytime you can get the people to realize that your goals are flawed but they still approve indicates that the US government can engage in time-wasting affairs such like the doomed GMEI, which can only promises failure. That is unless the real goal of the GMEI and its potential re-emphasis is more to do with keeping Arab governments in-line and on-board with American strategic interests.
Categories: General, US policy.
I disagree with this interpretation … there is a long history of American presidents using this kind of rhetoric, and it appeals to Americans’ feeling that their nation is exceptional. And indeed, sometimes America does great things. The problem is that the rhetoric does not match the reality at present, and few Americans wish to acknowledge this disconnect because either it makes them feel bad or it would force them to reassess their support for Bush. To say the least.
I suppose we’ll disagree although I am unclear on what exactly you disagree with me about.
As far as I’m aware, the US government -regardless of who was/is president- has never promoted democracy in the Arab world or Middle East (I am thinking in the post WWII-era). The rhetoric (by which I think you mean policy creation?) does not match the reality is an understatement. This is the predominate, ongoing policy trend.
Bush’s policy decisions are an extreme development of a continuous trend. Bush inherited the “US-interference into the ME” policy and exaggerated and enhanced it.
I agree that presidents use the democracy/freedom rhetoric to appeal to American “feel-good” nationalism. Nevertheless, the fact that most appreciated Bush’s speech last Thursday but think that the democracy rhetoric is a bit unrealistic gives Bush a longer leash to play around in the region.
Perhaps Americans know their is a disconnect and choose to ignore it so they don’t have to reassess their support for Bush….if so, I think they are lazy citizens - if I understand that a citizen in a democratic framework is required to be an active agent.
And “Sometimes America does great things.” This is too generalized a statement to refute an argument.
Thanks for the comments though pratike……
I think that you’re largely right, Josh, but not entirely. Americans are largely ignorant of the depth to which this disconnect between rhetoric and practice runs. I was well into college, as a Middle East Studies major, before I really started to understand how little interest the government has in promoting freedom (as opposed to stability). Living in Egypt now, the real effects of these policies (for which successive Egyptian governments are no doubt also deeply responsible) make me want to cry.
That said, as my father would always remind us, “ignorance is no defense under the law” - meaning that it is our responsibility as citizens to know our history - especially in a country where history is not as tightly controlled a part of nationalist identity as it is in others. In other words, it is possible to learn about the controversial aspects of our nation’s history, so we should. But I highly doubt that the increased “interest” in learning about the Middle East is likely to produce the kind of self-appraisal that we would need in order to evaluate the MEI, or those who have designed it.
OK, I see what you mean, Josh, and I agree that the U.S. has thus far been a negative force wrt democracy in the ME. I was speaking about American policy generally, which has been more pro-democracy in, for instance, Eastern and Central Europe and SE Asia than it has been in the ME. Certainly, the US has never really tried to promote democracy in the region, and it’s not at all clear that it is doing so now despite the soaring phrases of Michael Gerson … at the same time, I would say that a good deal of responsibility rests with the people of the region themselves. The durable popularity of a proven failure like Nasser is instructive in this regard, as is the tepid reaction by Arab governments to the Arab Human Development Reports, which can hardly be blamed on “US interference.”
Your beef with the GMEI seems to be that the U.S. is promoting its interests in the region. What do you expect it to do? Governments hardly ever undertake policy initiatives that would hurt themselves. Personally, I think the region would do well to enhance its trade regardless of what the U.S. thinks. It’s probably the only way Egypt is going to be able to address its long-term economic and demographic problems. I think, for instance, that Egypt ought to do more trading with Israel — I don’t understand Issandr’s fears of “economic dominance” of the region.
In any case, like Stacey, I’m not optimistic about some kind of citizen awareness movemement. Americans, by and large, simply do not want to hear that their government is up to no good. But what is interesting is that Bush’s rhetorical shift in favoring democracy over stability may pave the way for a later administation that isn’t full of crap. In the meantime, the peoples of the ME can and should make progress on their own.
In Josh’s defense, and mirroring the opinion of many who work on the Arab world (and many Arabs themselves), the problem with the GMEI is not that it promotes US interests. It is that it does so while pretending that it is promoting Arab interests, and at the same time puts threatens the interests, human rights and basic dignity of ordinary Arabs (not the regimes). Furthermore, as an American I don’t really see how Bush’s policy in Iraq or Israel-Palestine promotes American interests.
What people resent is being hustled and then being told that they have to like it.
“Furthermore, as an American I don’t really see how Bush’s policy in Iraq or Israel-Palestine promotes American interests.”
Nor I, but I’m pessimistic about the latter changing any time soon. I think the Palestinian leadership would have much greater success with a unified Gandhi-like nonviolent resistance campaign than with the current approach of negotiating with the Israelis on the one hand, and failing to do enough to reign in the militants on the other. Arafat “held it together” in one sense, but he also managed to cede the moral high ground with Americans even though the Palestinians are actually in the right as far as I can tell from reading Benny Morris.
Ok - perhaps a mass citizen education program may not be the answer but I am not going to slide out blame’s back door by arguing “well, it is also the Arab governments’ (people) fault.”
I am well aware the Arab government are also at fault but comparing the impact of Egypt versus the US is comparing apples and oranges.
The fact is when the US moves, for good or bad, it has a massive ripple effect in the region. These regimes, which incur some of the blame, are defensive regimes. The US is an offensive regime. It plans and shapes the lives of many more than any of these Arab governments are capable doing.
To prove my point I will use pratike’s example of the Arab Human Development Report which Issandr did a brilliant job of covering in the blog in early-mid December. Yeah, the Arab states despise the AHRD report. But none of them have the ability to bury the report the way the US did because the intro criticized the US occupation of Iraq and its one-sided political, economic, and military support for Israel.
I am not so simplistic to think that the US is the SINGLE factor in current developmental circumstances of the Arab world. Nevertheless, to say “it is also their fault” a backhanded way of blaming the victims.
Perhaps it is time to overshoot in the other direction and overplay the US’s role in promoting authoritarian governments. An interesting book on the subject is Stephen Kinzer’s book “All the Shah’s Men.”.
Now I know….it is not a ’scientific’ book and its flawed and shallow and and and. Nevertheless, it depicts the great depths th US wold go to rid Iran its unpopular western leader (even beyond the resources Kinzer had when he wrote the book in 2003 - for instance, the CIA has admitted that if ‘53 coup failed, they were organizing massive peasant revolts throughout the country to stiffle Mussadeq). Now, that is one example, but the US was overtly involved in Lebanon and covertly involved Jordan, Egypt, and God knows where else.
I conceed though my argument is unwinnable. I am not arguing the US get all involved and start destablizing the region. Rather, if they were just there are a positive and encouraging force - an honest broker - to use their terms, I think that is the best we should expect.
I suppose I could sit there and say everyone is to blame…. but its like the Arab-Israel conflict. Yeah, sure everyone needs to relax and stop the killing but it is not exactly a fair fight now is it. By protraying it in such terms it marginalizes morality and allows for the status quo, which provides the more powerful agent an advantage.
I am, however, enjoying the debate. Thanks for everyone’s participation.
Oh, it’s a great subject to debate. I’ll concede the point about the AHDR, although I think that the new plan of spinning it out into an independent entity is pretty good. I’d also note that from the reporting it sounds as if there were plenty of people in the State Department who wanted it to come out regardless.
I’ve read the Kinzer book (as well as his other book about Turkey), and I agree that the U.S. ought to have supported Mossadegh rather than tried to oust him. That’s actually what the U.S. was inclined to do until the Dulles boys came on board.
But what about the 1979 revolution? The Iranians tried to install a moderate government, but Khomenei was able to outmuscle and outmaneuver everyone. Was that the U.S. fault? The U.S. had tried, by the way, to get the Shah to moderate his behavior and pay more attention to the needs of his own people. But he didn’t listen. So what should we have done? I think you could fairly argue that the U.S. should not have sold Iran all of that weaponry. But the Shah bears a great deal of responsibility as well. And I think that the Khomeneists should bear the brunt of the blame for Iran’s course since 1979.
Regarding Jordan, would it be preferable if the Black September guys had won? Somehow I doubt it.
My point here is that while the U.S. has often exerted a negative impact on the region, it’s facile to blame it for everything that goes wrong. Moreover, it’s not as if the British, French, Germans, and Russians have bathed themselves in glory in the region. Look at what happened in 1956, when the British and French tried to resurrect the colonial project in Egypt. Who stopped it? The U.S. did. And Nasser more or less aligned Egypt with the USSR anyway. And we know how that turned out.
You have me on the Iranian stuff. I just read Kinzer.
The point is that coups were a major modus oprandi for years at the CIA and its precusor. For example, there is strong evidence to suggest that the Hosni Zaim coup in Syria in ‘49 was orchastrated by the US (pipelines were as important then as they are now).
There were US coup plots scheduled for Nasir as Dulles and the gang sat around in Washington debating if he was a real communist. Really, Nasir a communist? Could it have been that hard to see Nasir was not a communist. That’s like saying Saddam and Ossama were buddies. It BS.
Jordan-Black September…..I don’t know….perhaps if Arafat would have been included politically early enough we could have avoided the whole terrorism stage and running around from country to country for twenty-years. It is difficult to play what if games….
I know you think my policy formulation is naive. It maybe. But I think the principle (read basis, not moral) compass that grounds AFP is off, not the individual decisions any given Admin takes given a particular situation and who to back.
I suppose when the compass is flawed, what comes out is inevitably screwed.
I do not see the US as an “honest broker” and now more then ever the US will never support freedom in the Middle East, for if the people could truly choose their own leaders, they would not choose leaders that are friendly to the United States.
What about the Algerians elections when the Islamists won it and the army stepped in? What about the Islamist party that one the Turkish elections until the army stepped in?
If the majority of the people elect an Islamist party what is so undemocratic about this to the US? All we have seen from the US is that it supports its own dictators its own terrorists (eg. Latin America, Israeli state) and claims the moral highground against anyone that disagrees with it, it has done nothing but bully the world.
There are a lot of problems in the Middle East no one will dispute this, but so far US interference has not helped the people of the Middle East it has only made problems worse. Whether its actions are intentional or not the US is fast losing what little friends it has left in the Middle East, and 300 million Arabs is a larger number then 6 million Israelis to lose friends over.
The US fears democracy in the Middle East more then it fears these terrorists, what would affect them worse? If Islamic governments rise or Arab nationalist governments rise across the Middle East that decide to base oil prices on demand and supply? Or terrorists whose power is limited to begin with and have no control over natural resources.
debt consolidation [url=http://debt-consolidation-z.blogspot.com]debt consolidation[/url] http://debt-consolidation-z.blogspot.com