WASHINGTON -- In a speech at London's historic Whitehall Palace in November 2003, President George W. Bush said, "Democracy, and the hope and progress it brings (are) the alternative to instability and to hatred and terror. We cannot rely exclusively on military power to assure our long-term security. Lasting peace is gained as justice and democracy advance. In democratic and successful societies, men and women do not swear allegiance to malcontents and murderers; they turn their hearts and labor to building better lives. And democratic governments do not shelter terrorist camps."
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the world has changed. The United States changed its priorities and its foreign policy. The enemy of modern society was closer than we had anticipated. It took us by surprise and won the first round. From that point on, we have looked with suspicion at the world around us. Our culture, traditions and faith in democracy were challenged. The next move should be ours. The United States finally took a serious look at the Arab/Muslim world. The issue was not only about the economic interests; it was a deeper conflict that involved religion and the way of thinking and living of Arab Muslims.
The central challenge that America faces in its relation with the Islamic world is that of credibility. While U.S. power is at its greatest historic heights, global esteem for the United States is at its depths. Anti-American feelings are particularly strong in Muslim countries and communities across the world, while the continuing violence in the Middle East has only further hardened these attitudes. Thus, rather than being viewed as a victim of terrorism, the United States has become widely perceived as arrogant and anti-Muslim.
Perhaps the best example is the fact that the U.S. "war on terrorism" is broadly interpreted as a war on Islam. This credibility gap is worrisome. Whether America is able to reverse this trend and better convey its policies and values abroad could be a critical determinant in winning the "war on terrorism." The image is that U.S. foreign policy makes the Middle East less stable.
The way that Washington communicates its foreign and domestic policies will dramatically affect how the world views America. Given the realities of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, America needs a broad coalition to protect itself. In order to build and sustain the necessary alliances, they have to communicate with their allies and potential allies more effectively.
Long-time Arab allies of the United States like Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia acknowledged the need to bring reform and, at least, a sense of democratization in their respective countries. Some acknowledged this need sooner than others. The Middle East region did not live by our rules before Sept. 11, 2001, and they certainly look determined not to change their habits now. After all, what is it that terrorists hate? The American values and culture, or the American insistence on imposing those on others?
Washington decided on the basis of not very well-reasoned information to invade Iraq, and as Bush has repeatedly said, to liberate the Iraqi people and to bring democracy. His intentions were questionable, but some may say that, at least, he removed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power.
True, Saddam is out. However, anarchy and more violence took the place of Saddam's cruel regime. Since democracy means self-rule, it would seem that this is something people must do for themselves, not something that can be introduced by outsiders. But history contradicts this intuition.
America, the first modern democracy, has been a powerful engine spreading democracy elsewhere. At its most active, America has done this by force of arms; at its most passive, simply by setting an example from which others have borrowed. In between these two extremes, the United States has intervened on behalf of democracy by nonviolent means: diplomacy, foreign aid, international broadcasting and even covert political manipulations.
Page 2 of 2
To bring change in the Middle East, overthrowing Saddam's regime seemed as a good start. However, the present situation in Iraq pointed out a feature of the Arab world: Many societies reject the West's political advice and military presence. It is the Pax Americana voice they especially reject and fear. Many people thought that a democratic Iraq would have a favorable influence on other Arab countries and on neighboring Iran. The replacement of Iran's theocracy by a genuine democracy would certainly reverberate loudly across the region.
However, the terrorists have used the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and in the region to excuse their violent acts against the West. This should not take anyone by surprise. It seems that reform must come from within, otherwise it can create chaos and terror. What the United States, the European Union and the United Nations can do is to continue to use non-military means, such as diplomatic pressure, direct assistance to Arab Muslim non-governmental organizations to support efforts to democratize the Middle East.
The liberation of Iraq provides the opportunity to open the entire Arab world to the concept of democracy. It is important to show that democracy is not an alien concept to Islam. If the West will succeed in Iraq, then democracy might have a chance in the region. Winning the military war against Iraq's insurgents may prove to be the easy part. The hardest battle remains to be fought on the field of ideas.
The West's efforts should concentrate around the issue of harmonizing Islamic law with the model of democracy. Turkey is an example in this regard, nevertheless even in Turkey the voice of a politically energetic Islam can be heard.
Is Arab anti-Americanism just an irrational phenomenon manufactured by presidents, kings and military dictators who rule their countries without legitimate political authority?
There are some U.S. policies in the Arab world that seem to encourage anti-democratic tendencies. For example, the United States gives $2 billion a year to Egypt. While U.S. policymakers should definitely tie aid to democratic reforms, it is clear that Egypt would be less oppressive or corrupt without that money.
Also, the United States supported Saddam's regime in Iraq for many years, until they decided to switch the policy. Syria has occupied Lebanon since 1976, but until last year, U.S. officials did not even use the word "occupation" in referring to it for fear of offending Damascus.
Another important factor of anti-U.S. feelings is the support for Israel. This has made Washington deeply hated in the region. On the other hand, Arab anti-American feelings are easy to get used to -- it's been around for close to half a century. What's hard is living up to the Arabs' best expectations of America.
Middle East elites use outside powers, including the United States, to advance their domestic and regional interests; supporting a local elite makes an outside power such as the United States a symbol of evil in the eyes of the opposition forces in Middle Eastern countries. Inevitably, the more the United States tries to impose a Pax Americana, the more it becomes involved in issues that have nothing to do with its original interests.
None of this would matter if the United States had not declared the peace and the stability of the Middle East region to be of vital national interest. Trying to stabilize one of the world's most politically turbulent regions has proven to be a frustrating objective. Even if Iraq eventually enjoys some sort of democratic regime, other crises are sure to follow such as an Iranian bid for regional pre-eminence, a possible radical revolution against the Saudi monarchy or Hezbollah provoking some new conformation with Israel.
Neither peace nor democracy are products that can be exported wholesale from Washington to the Middle East or anywhere else. People and nations need to find their own paths to democracy and to peaceful co-existence.
(Manuela Parapan is a correspondent for the New York-based World Security Network Foundation)
