The Post-Tunisia World

Last week's upheaval showed that citizens of the Arab world are willing and able to overthrow their dictators -- and the Obama administration has to figure out how it will respond when they do.

BY JAMES TRAUB | JANUARY 21, 2011

The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks prompted a radical rethinking inside the administration of President George W. Bush about the purposes of American foreign policy -- above all in the Middle East. "Realism died on 9/11," as an administration official said to me several years later. Changing the insides of states had become a matter of national security no less urgent than affecting their external behavior. Bush, previously a hardheaded realist, became an ardent proponent of democracy promotion.

But the problem -- or at least the biggest problem -- was that while the terrorist attacks had changed the United States, they hadn't changed the place where the United States hoped to act. Terrorism had made democratic reform more urgent without making it a whit more likely. Autocratic leaders in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere regarded the president's new preoccupation as a mere irritant.

Now, suddenly, unexpectedly, it's that world, not the United States, that's changing. The Tunisian people have taken to the streets and ousted a tyrant, just as the people in the Philippines, Chile, Romania, and Georgia once did. And that spectacle has inspired young people and activists across the region. The Tunisian drama may end badly, of course: Protests elsewhere may simmer down, and in any case the conditions that produced this one revolutionary upheaval may turn out to be sui generis. But Arab regimes are shakier today, and their critics more emboldened, than they were before. And Barack Obama, like Bush before him, must adapt to a Middle East different from the one he inherited.

A region that has felt paralyzed by autocratic rule is now in motion. Leaders are backpedaling: The emir of Kuwait abruptly announced that he would distribute $4 billion in cash and free food to citizens. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt issued a call for investment in Arab youth. You can almost smell the fear in the likes of Ahmed Aboul Gheit, Egypt's foreign minister, who informed the country's official press agency that "the talk about the spread of what happened in Tunisia to other countries is nonsense."

Egypt, where the increasingly frail and profoundly unpopular Mubarak, age 82, seems prepared to run for president once again this year, looks especially vulnerable. At least three desperate protesters there have set themselves on fire in imitation of Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian street vendor whose self-immolation sparked the uprising in Tunisia. The bombing of a Coptic Christian church in Alexandria on New Year's Day, which killed 21, has exposed frightening new divisions in the country. And Egyptian leaders are angrily pushing back against outside criticism. Aboul Gheit called on a group of Arab foreign ministers meeting in the resort town of Sharm-el-Sheikh this week to adopt a resolution telling the West: "Do not dare interfere in our affairs."

Aboul Gheit was reacting not only to criticism following the New Year's Day bombing, but to a speech his American counterpart, Hillary Clinton, had just delivered in Doha on January 13, warning that people in many parts of the Arab world "have grown tired of corrupt institutions and a stagnant political order" and imploring states to demonstrate a commitment to the rule of law and the inclusion of civil society. One way of framing the choices facing Obama: Should he now be more willing, or less, to risk infuriating autocratic allies through public criticism?

Until now, U.S. officials, above all Clinton, have almost always chosen circumspection. And they've had at least a plausible rationale: Bush took a different approach and failed. In 2005, both Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice publicly criticized Mubarak's regime and demanded that it hold free and fair elections. Mubarak first gave ground, and then cracked down on the opposition; the White House, fearful of offending a key ally and worried about the growing popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood, held its tongue. Obama discarded Bush's crusading moralism in favor of "engagement," which dictated a more respectful stance toward regimes.

MARTIN BUREAU/AFP/Getty Images

 

James Traub is a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and author of, most recently, The Freedom Agenda. "Terms of Engagement," his column for ForeignPolicy.com, runs weekly.

EVAN HELMUTH

9:08 PM ET

January 21, 2011

Think again

Yes The Islamic Caliphate of Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood as the only legal party sounds like a delicious outcome (and it would almost certainly be the outcome of democracy).

It could only have a positive and pacifying impact on the Palestinian issue too.

I'm as much a democrat as the next guy, but I'm also concerned with my country's national interests and horrified of the kinds of regimes that would be produced by free and fair elections in most parts of the Arab world.

 

TEASER38

2:30 PM ET

January 24, 2011

Many parallels with Iran...

Just like the Iranian Revolution of 1979, all those Persian liberals and leftist who precipitated the revolution got shut out by the Islamists right quickly.

Maybe also, the Arab world will finally get a state who will actually stand up against Iran and push back against the falling dominoes of Syria, Iraq and now Lebanon?

 

AUGUST WEST

12:55 PM ET

January 22, 2011

Tashley16

Is a scam artist. He takes the money and runs. You might as well just flush your cash down the drain.

Sad that FP does nothing to monitor spam on their site.

 

PARUL1234

1:02 PM ET

January 23, 2011

well people should respect

well people should respect the truth and honest .. without that this world is not going to survive free medical books

 

SAMI JAMIL JADALLAH

1:05 PM ET

January 23, 2011

Arab opposition parties are not yet ready to govern.

Arab opposition parties are not yet ready to govern.
23 01 2011

Without taking away from the heroic and unprecedented persistent of the people and streets of Tunisia in uprooting and dispatching to exile in very humiliating way the klepto-dictator Bin Ali, the Jasmine Revolution showed us that formal opposition parties in the Arab world are not yet ready for prime time and not ready to take over managing a country on a moment notice. A failure and a shortcoming that all Arab opposition parties have to take into serious consideration. Countries and citizens could not afford the mistakes of the Tunisian opposition parties. more at www.jeffersoncorner.com

 

THE GLOBALIZER

12:26 PM ET

January 24, 2011

The same could have been said...

...of nearly any pre-revolution "opposition" group (colonial America, pre-revolutionary France, colonial Africa, Timor-Leste, South Sudan).

But that's not really the issue, is it? It seems a bit like the slaveowner saying that the poor, lowly, subhuman slaves can't be trusted to manage their own affairs.

 

JOHNHUNT

12:13 AM ET

January 24, 2011

The Reality of Force

The key to understanding these situations is quite simple...force.

Autocratic regimes are willing to use force to maintain power and control of the sources of money. The US is unwilling to use force to counter that of the regimes and the regimes know this. The UN is even less willing to use force.

So, this leaves the oppressed citizens of these countries in a very difficult situation. If they oppose their dictators, they could loose their liberty or even their life, and they know that no one will come to their rescue. If this were you...what would YOU do?

We need to insist on externally run elections (dictators cannot be trusted to run fair elections). If the countries don't agree to UN-run, transparent elections then, if we determine that the outcome is different than what free elections probably would have given, then we (Coalition of the Willing - i.e. the U.S.) reserves the right to overthrow the regime regardless of what anyone else thinks. No one will come to the military defense of these dictators.

If we state this clearly and then place an aircraft carrier off their coast, the dictators will know that the force equation has changed and we'll be suprised at how quickly things will change with or without the need for force.

If Islamists are elected, then they should be held to the same standard as any country -- If they fail to make a good faith effort to prevent their territory from being used by groups that attack other countries or, if they eliminate political freedom then we (Coalition of the Willing - i.e. the U.S.) reserves the right to overthrow them regardless of what anyone else thinks.

Short of doing something like this, then dictators may well stay in power so long as they control their secret police / Republican Guards and are willing to use sufficient force against their people. Internationally, there may be much hand wringing, resolutions, strong statements, engagement, confessing our own sins, acknowledging what a great history they have...these won't change the force equation nor the reality on the ground.

This is not a prescription for all autocratic regimes (e.g. we need to be sensible about China's nukes) and more benign autocratic regimes should be given more time. But we should start right away with places like Zimbabwe and, yes, North Korea. We've been patient enough. The abuses have been too great. Their people deserve to be free.

 

PFNOVAK

1:44 PM ET

January 24, 2011

Arvay

Point taken, and an invasion of Egypt would be completely counterproductive and unnecessary for US interests. But in general, I think the US Army (if not the public and politicians) learned a lot from the misadventure in Iraq and have belatedly realized that misapplication of force can be far worse than failure to use it. Read "The Gamble" by FP's own Tom Ricks...it's very ambiguous about the merits of the Surge, but I think it shows that the dissenting voices in the army that have been lingering since Vietnam were eventually allowed to apply better policies.

North Korea is a sticky issue. China, to an even greater degree than the US, favors stability above all, and any sort of regime change in North Korea would likely lead to chaotic upheaval right at China's doorstep. But as they threaten the entire region's balance, the continuation of the family dynasty will be a disaster. China is already fostering mistrust and driving countries like Indonesia into the arms of America, and the last thing they want is to have to back up Kim Jong-Il in an all-out war. A joint effort with the approval of China, Japan, South Korea and others will be needed, and the consensus is far from there.

Zimbabwe is also tricky. The ANC is still wearing the mantle of Nelson Mandela, in spite of all its flaws, so as long as they protect Mugabe any Western interference in Zimbabwe will be seen as neo-Colonialism. The last thing we need is Mugabe regaining popular support by painting himself once again as a shining African knight, with Tsvangirai coming off as a tool of the imperialists. As in all politics, it only matters what people think, and any Western efforts in Zimbabwe would likely be doomed by the shadow of colonial history.

 

CHOPPY1

3:58 PM ET

January 24, 2011

Two Points

It's funny how the discussion shifts effortlessly to what the U.S. must do. Where are the people in these Arab countries who truly believe in democracy? Sure, the leaders of these countries try to eliminate the opposition systematically, but the regimes in Eastern Europe during the Cold War tried to do the same. That didn't stop people from organizing, protesting and being ready to seize the moment when democracy became a possibility. Do Arab countried have people with the courage to work for democracy no matter what the current climate? Democracy won't happen in the Arab world unless the answer is yes.

Democracy is not just about elections but also about robust civic institutions that disperse power and turn democratic elections into real benefits for the people. The U.S. should do as much as it can to foster independent civic institutions in the Arab world as a hedge against the inevitable fall of the dictators.

 

BERGAMO

6:19 AM ET

January 26, 2011

pressure? Please!

what pressure did Bush exercise on Egypt to turn democratic?

The same pressure he exercised on Israel to stop settlements: words.

But the USA has other weapons at its disposal -- weapons it is using relentlessly against Iran, for instance: sanctions and the threat of military intervention.

The USA could tell Egypt it would stop paying it over 1 billion dollar a year and you would see how Mubarak and his ilk react. But no: words. Words are cheap and nobody knows it better than American politicians, including Obama.

Facts are difficult, and, when it comes to pro-Israel stabiity in the region, the USA chooses stability over freedom. Period.