America Debates Its Middle East Policy
Should the United States become more involved in the Middle East, or should it settle for a foreign policy of "benign neglect" in the region? In the aftermath of former President George Bush’s invasion of Iraq to topple a regime considered hostile to "American democracy," Obama's America is now heatedly debating how and whether to intervene in support of the democratization movements in the Arab world, and whether to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians against bombing raids by Colonel Gadhafi.
The argument in Washington has begun in earnest. On one side is the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that advocates smaller government and greater individual freedom. It favors non-intervention.
Responding to events in Libya, Ted Galen Carpenter, the vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at Cato, said that America must adopt a “low profile,” because any American involvement could have the opposite effect to the one being sought, which is to promote democracy.
In other words, it would be better to allow the Libyans to rid themselves of their dictator, as the Tunisians and Egyptians did, rather than to foster the impression that these changes were the result of U.S. involvement. In a recent forum, Doug Bandow, another Cato Institute researcher and former adviser to President Ronald Reagan, said that “the U.S. government should recognize its limited ability to influence events, and even more important, to do so positively” in the Middle East.
One of the arguments put forward by the libertarian institute is the disproportionate aid the U.S. sends to countries in the region compared to other parts of the world. From North Africa to the Persian Gulf, $5.3 billion was allocated in 2008.
However, the American military deployment since the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq, meant to protect oil exports from Saudi Arabia and other producers, has according to the institute cost the U.S. between $30 billion and $60 billion per year. Not only has this policy been counterproductive due to its high cost, but it has inspired a virulent anti-Americanism in the region, without even coming close to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
According to the experts at Cato, the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq contributed to strengthening Iran. Therefore, the institute supports a "constructive" U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East.
This would, the argument goes, encourage the European Union, which is more dependent than the U.S. on oil from the Middle East and is threatened by a mass exodus from the Mediterranean Basin countries, to take a "more active" role, as already suggested by Leon Hadar in his 2005 book "Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East."
The assessment may appear fair on many points, but the political vision is impractical, if not impossible. First, although the European Union has been meeting in Brussels to discuss the situation in Libya, and more generally in the Arab world, it is far from having the capacity to replace the U.S. militarily or politically.
The European Union's ability to secure a common position in response to the tragic events in Libya is far from certain. France has thus far been the only European country to "welcome" the establishment of the Transitional National Council in Libya, but it is not clear if Paris will succeed in getting a joint position from the other 26 EU members in Brussels.
As highlighted by Alexander Lennon from the Center for Strategic and International Studies — another Washington think tank — "a return to a policy of benign neglect for the United States would go too far on the pendulum" compared to the intervention policies of George Bush. Between military and laissez-faire approaches, the expert said, there are many ways to proceed that do not "promote" Western-style democracy, but do "support" the democratization process.
The U.S. needs to be more patient, because the establishment of a democracy is a long-term process and does not depend simply on the organization of elections, as demonstrated by the polls in Iraq or in the Palestinian territories. There is, however, one point that many analysts agree on, which is that America needs to be more humble in defining its role in the world.
One of the options, noted Alexander Lennon recently, is enhanced co-operation in the Middle East, not only with Europe but also with countries like South Africa, and not only between governments but also among NGOs.
All this could exclude the U.S. from a leadership role. Experts from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — considered one of the leading neo-conservatives groups — believes that the U.S. should have made the transition in Egypt "the priority of its policy" in the Middle East. Even if the success or failure of the Arab rebirth depends on the peoples of the region, that fact should not prevent the U.S. and other democratic countries from doing everything they can to help.
In other words, Barack Obama is playing his part in history also the Middle East. And America must not be seen to be turning its back on the region.
The argument in Washington has begun in earnest. On one side is the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that advocates smaller government and greater individual freedom. It favors non-intervention.
Responding to events in Libya, Ted Galen Carpenter, the vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at Cato, said that America must adopt a “low profile,” because any American involvement could have the opposite effect to the one being sought, which is to promote democracy.
In other words, it would be better to allow the Libyans to rid themselves of their dictator, as the Tunisians and Egyptians did, rather than to foster the impression that these changes were the result of U.S. involvement. In a recent forum, Doug Bandow, another Cato Institute researcher and former adviser to President Ronald Reagan, said that “the U.S. government should recognize its limited ability to influence events, and even more important, to do so positively” in the Middle East.
One of the arguments put forward by the libertarian institute is the disproportionate aid the U.S. sends to countries in the region compared to other parts of the world. From North Africa to the Persian Gulf, $5.3 billion was allocated in 2008.
However, the American military deployment since the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq, meant to protect oil exports from Saudi Arabia and other producers, has according to the institute cost the U.S. between $30 billion and $60 billion per year. Not only has this policy been counterproductive due to its high cost, but it has inspired a virulent anti-Americanism in the region, without even coming close to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
According to the experts at Cato, the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq contributed to strengthening Iran. Therefore, the institute supports a "constructive" U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East.
This would, the argument goes, encourage the European Union, which is more dependent than the U.S. on oil from the Middle East and is threatened by a mass exodus from the Mediterranean Basin countries, to take a "more active" role, as already suggested by Leon Hadar in his 2005 book "Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East."
The assessment may appear fair on many points, but the political vision is impractical, if not impossible. First, although the European Union has been meeting in Brussels to discuss the situation in Libya, and more generally in the Arab world, it is far from having the capacity to replace the U.S. militarily or politically.
The European Union's ability to secure a common position in response to the tragic events in Libya is far from certain. France has thus far been the only European country to "welcome" the establishment of the Transitional National Council in Libya, but it is not clear if Paris will succeed in getting a joint position from the other 26 EU members in Brussels.
As highlighted by Alexander Lennon from the Center for Strategic and International Studies — another Washington think tank — "a return to a policy of benign neglect for the United States would go too far on the pendulum" compared to the intervention policies of George Bush. Between military and laissez-faire approaches, the expert said, there are many ways to proceed that do not "promote" Western-style democracy, but do "support" the democratization process.
The U.S. needs to be more patient, because the establishment of a democracy is a long-term process and does not depend simply on the organization of elections, as demonstrated by the polls in Iraq or in the Palestinian territories. There is, however, one point that many analysts agree on, which is that America needs to be more humble in defining its role in the world.
One of the options, noted Alexander Lennon recently, is enhanced co-operation in the Middle East, not only with Europe but also with countries like South Africa, and not only between governments but also among NGOs.
All this could exclude the U.S. from a leadership role. Experts from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — considered one of the leading neo-conservatives groups — believes that the U.S. should have made the transition in Egypt "the priority of its policy" in the Middle East. Even if the success or failure of the Arab rebirth depends on the peoples of the region, that fact should not prevent the U.S. and other democratic countries from doing everything they can to help.
In other words, Barack Obama is playing his part in history also the Middle East. And America must not be seen to be turning its back on the region.