http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2042936,00.html?xid=rss-mostpopular
This past week, Tunisia has continued to make headlines following massive protests and the selection of an interim unitary government. Little has changed at this point and protests continue. This was to be expected and full democratization in the country is still premature.
Even so, the current “Jasmine Revolution” in Tunisia and both regional and global reactions to the movement provide an interesting perspective on international relations, perceived strategic security interests and realpolitik.
Firstly, it has been argued that Tunisia has unique underlying characteristics that make copycat actions unlikely, but, it is clear that neighboring leaders, most of which share similar autocratic leanings, have realized the “powder-keg” nature of the movement and are showing some signs of worry. In Egypt, it has been reported that concessions may be made to help subsidize the cost of food for the poor. Syria has also announced over the weekend that it plans to provide financial support for as many as 415,000 low-income families starting next month. Even as Arab leaders met at a regional economic summit in Egypt, another man self-immolated himself in front of the government headquarters in Cairo: one of nine now reported at this point. A number have also been reported in Algeria.
What history clearly shows us is, that despite some differences, the overwhelming linkage between Middle-East and North African culture, religion and economic conditions make it easy for the region’s large, economically-marginalized population to find common ties with each other. While some argue otherwise, I feel the power of of a single Arab,Muslim psyche cannot be discounted. The notable example in this case is a shared regional hatred of Israel: something that has also raised red flags in Israel this past weekend.
The second point: the perceived threat of regional democratization has raised alarm bells in Israel. Free-elections pose the risk of putting Islamicist governments into power and trumping current security agreements now in place: worst case, provoking a unified Arab- Israeli conflict.
The United States government has also come to a similar conclusion and has remained uncharacteristically quiet in lieu of Tunisia’s uprising: Hilary Clinton when questioned responding, “We cannot take sides”. . . For America, which had until recently supported the Tunisian dictatorship, it also provides an interesting example of realpolitik. While democracy as an ideal remains central to American foreign policy, it is not always the best choice for strategic interests. The Middle East remains a crucial source of energy for America. It is also the source of two lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: both of which the Obama administration is now trying to distance itself from. Much like Cambodia post-Vietnam War, further American involvement in regional politics is risky. Furthermore, the potential threat of politicized Muslim democracies that may prove unsympathetic, at the least, to American interests is also very real. Lastly, American support of Israel has and will continue to remain unquestioned.
The next few months may undoubtedly prove interesting…
3 responses so far ↓
Jonathan Davidescu // Jan 18th 2011 at 10:58 pm
While having American backed dictators does not seem just. What is the alternative to such unstable countries in the explosive Middle East? True democracy that sits upon a stable foundation cannot coexist with Sharia law. What if Egypt follows Tunisia and the radical “Muslim Brotherhood” takes power. I can see Israel’s concern. Look at what happened when the U.S. backed Shah got ousted from Iran in 1979. The Islamic revolution turned Iran into a radical authoritarian state that supports terror and threatens to “wipe Israel off the map”. A very interesting few months ahead indeed.
nathanallen // Jan 21st 2011 at 9:54 am
Regime changes produce uncertainty in the international sphere. If you were in charge of American policy, what would you do in this case? Throw your support to the protestors, back the old regime, or play the ‘wait and see’ game?
alex // Jan 21st 2011 at 11:10 am
As much as I hate it, I would probably do the same thing: the reality of realpolitik makes it difficult to act against vested interests in respect to any policy. In the case of Tunisia, or the Middle East for that matter, actualized democracy may not always be the best choice for strategic interests – until there is cause to change.
Should the US openly support a radical change towards democracy, the chances of similar movements occurring in the Middle East would increase ten-fold and irregardless of whether or not fundamentalist parties gain power through democratic means, current alliances ,which at this point are crucial to American strategic security and energy security interests, would undoubtedly be upset or altered creating future problems for American policy makers.
Leave a Comment