U.S. Involvement in the Democratization of the Middle East

Originally written April 13, 2011. First published on Medium September 27, 2015.

Framing the Issue

Lately, as of February 2011 there has been an upward trend in international news coverage regarding the growing pro-democratic protests and anti-autocratic sentiments in many Middle Eastern nations. Most notably Egypt, Bahrain, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya and Tunisia.

It is only a matter of time before the United States (U.S.) and the United Nations (UN) become involved due, in part, to the 2005 UN mandate (UN: 30) and the U.S. foreign policy of promoting democracy and protecting human rights internationally. The UN mandate states that member nations have the responsibility to intervene on behalf of foreign civilians should their government fail to ensure their protection and safety.

The only real question then is in what capacity is this involvement introduced?

In discussions regarding the United States’ involvement in the democratization of the Middle East just one of the controversial issues has been whether active military interventions have been instrumental to the success of, or disastrous set-backs to, the development of true democracy and civil liberties in the region.

As an American I will admit that the facet of this issue of primary importance to me is how the U.S. is involved. Historically the U.S. has become entangled in a myriad of interventionalist capacities covering the entire field of play from solicited advice and requests for funding to outright military operations and long-term occupation with a mixed set of resulting outcomes.

That said the ultimate goal of the U.S. Foreign Policy is first and foremost to ensure the safety of the American people. Currently the primary means of accomplishing this is to promote democracy word-wide. That is democracy with a lowercase ‘d’, defined as a pluralist political environment with rule of law and civil liberties.

The Opinions

Championing military and occupational intervention as a means to empower an oppressed nation’s civilian population in the wake of a regime change is Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, the public policy think tank unit of Stanford University, who believes that the only thing that will work to help bring about democracy and along with it prosperity and liberties is to provide, “…systematic, sustained, and unqualified support for democratic reform.” (Hanson: 2)

He makes the argument that even the strong, but all too brief responses to international issues by the H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations were manifestly ineffective at aiding sustainable peace for the target nation as well as for the United States. Moreover he even blames them, at least in part for the eventual boldness of hostile international groups manifesting in the hi-jackings and subsequent attacks of 9/11/2001.

He goes on to draw historic parallels for successful military intervention and even in some cases occupation; such as the French intervention in the U.S. Revolutionary War and later in his argument for occupation he mentions post-WWII Germany and Japan, both of which are currently thriving democracies.

On the other side of the argument is Heinrich Winkler, chair of modern history at the Humbolt University at Berlin. Winkler, in a paper meant to address the insinuated parallel that the post WWII occupation and subsequent democratization of Germany proves that democracy can be affected forcibly, states quite plainly that:

“Successful democratization is based on societal and cultural requirements that cannot be brought about through external force. Those who want to help other countries with democratization can, at most help those countries help themselves.” (Winkler:1)

Another related argument is made by Umair Jamil, co-founder and editor-in-chief of the independent online publication Letter to a Disciple, who in an article commenting on the U.S. and other western nations’ potential involvement in the ongoing Libyan rebellion. (Jamil: 1)

Jamil argues against U.S. and Western interference stating that anything beyond implementing a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians will only serve to deepen the fears and concerns of neighboring nations that this conflict is just another Western/European imperialist gambit for power in an oil rich ex-colonial region. He goes on to proclaim that any further intervention will ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the Libyan peoples fight in the eyes of their peers for years to come; Tainting any future in foreign relations for the new regime.

Facts and Assumptions

Each of these opinions are founded on a few basic principle arguments that frame the overall issue more clearly.

First among them is the Democratic Peace Theory which summarily states that democracies rarely or never go war with one another, are less likely to instigate conflict and when they do go to war are more often part of a larger collective force than other forms of government (Owen: 2).

So for Americans, as the spread of democracy grows around the world so does our domestic security, therefore we have a vested interest in promoting it. So again, the only question is how that promotion is implemented.

The second consideration is the reality of democracy in the Middle East. That reality being that democracy in the Middle East region will likely never mirror Western democracy perfectly. One major difference can be witnessed in that virtually any issue can be open for debate in modern Western Democracy, where in even the most moderate Islamist democracies there are issues related to religion that there is simply no room for debate.

The region is infused with more than two-millennia of religion and faiths that are so deeply integrated in the culture that there may never be such a thing as the viable separation of church and state. Unfortunately this means that until political decisions in these nations are tempered with democratic moderation they will always be made with the passion, fervor and single minded absolution of religious doctrine. A recipe that almost always leads to oppression and repression for a nation’s inhabitants regardless of which religion and system of government is at the forefront.

However, in recent years even some ‘extremist’ groups have become wise to the outcry of people for civil liberties and freedoms. For example the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest international Muslim interest group, has recently published public support for democracy. They have done this by stating clearly that they have no intention to seek power in post-Mubarak Egypt, only representation. Also by voicing their democratic support by stating, “We reject the religious state.” (Muslim Brotherhood: 1)

Maybe the most important consideration for international interference is also the least often admitted to. That is plain and simply: do the domestic benefits of international intervention outweigh the costs. An example of this is the forced democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which were at the immense and ongoing cost to the U.S. and coalition allies in both lives lost and in dollars spent. Logic dictates then that policy makers have decided that the benefits must be equally immense.

Upon first inspection the value in forcing a democracy on a nation that was not openly and immediately progressing in that direction would appear to be counter-productive to the purpose of democratization. Simply because one of the primary tenets of the process is that it must, by its very definition, be voluntary. However, upon closer inspection of the causes and catalysts of democratization we can discover that the U.S. and coalition foreign policy makers may have been playing the long-game; banking on the forced democracy inspiring true democracy in neighboring nations.

This is supported by the theory of “democratic contagion through proximity” which observes a clear direct correlation between a single nation’s democratization affecting its immediate geographical neighbors as a viral outbreak might affect a species. (Whitehead: 5)

Findings

To answer the specific question of whether military interventions have been instrumental to the success of, or disastrous setbacks to the development of true democracy and civil liberties in the Middle East I must first answer the overarching assumption of whether or not intervention at all is a viable foreign policy.

After reading a number of research papers as well as both expert and amateur commentaries regarding the issue it is my opinion that not only is intervention on behalf of foreign civilians seeking to progress democratization a necessary thing, but even a domestically responsible and ultimately beneficial thing.

Now to answer the question at hand: Much to my own distaste, as I am always a proponent of finding a black-and-white truth over an abstracted and non-committal assessment. Unfortunately however I believe that this issue is not one of those that are clean, easily identifiable and defensible.

Instead I must do what generations of democracy in the United States has taught me to do and be, in my decisions, democratic and moderate my desire for a single correct answer and make the conclusion that there is cause, and results for both active military as well as passive supporting international intervention. In conclusion, there is a time and a place in geography and history for the supporting hand of both humanitarian and political aid, punitive but peaceful international sanctions as well as directed, sustained and accountable military intervention and occupation.

Works Cited

UN General Assembly, 60th Session. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. 2005 World Summit Outcome. 24 Oct 2005. Official Record (2005) (A/RES/60/1). New York. Web. 05 Apr 2011. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/487/60/PDF/N0548760.pdf?OpenElement

United States. White House website. Foreign Policy. Web. 05 Apr 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy

Hanson, Victor Davis. “Democracy in the Middle East: It’s the hardheaded solution.” The Weekly Standard. 21 Oct 2002 Vol. 8 No. 6. Web. 05 Apr 2011. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/769bfuqn.asp

Winkler, Heinrich August. “Forced Democratization? Some lessons from postwar Germany.” Eurozine. 29 Jun 2006. Web. 3 Apr 2011. http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2006-06-29-winkler-en.html

Jamil, Umair. “Intervention is Not The Answer.” Letter to a Disciple. 26 Feb 2011. Web. 01 Apr 2011. http://lettertoadisciple.com/2011/02/26/intervention-is-not-the-answer-2/

CNN Wire Staff. “Muslim Brotherhood: ‘We are not seeking power’”. CNN.com. 09 Feb 2011. Cable News Network. Web. 03 Apr 2011. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-09/world/egypt.muslim.brotherhood_1_muslim-brotherhood-brotherhood-candidates-parliamentary-bloc?_s=PM:WORLD

Owen, John M. IV. “Iraq and the Democratic Peace”. Foreign Affairs. November/December 2005. Council on Foreign Relations. Web. 02 Apr 2011. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61206/john-m-owen-iv/iraq-and-the-democratic-peace?page=show

Whitehead, Lawrence. “The International Dimensions of Democratization: Europe and the Americas”. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print.