Message of the Liberation

The followers of Bush and Obama fight over whose politics have caused the agitation in the Middle East. That is blatant bully tactics; the people have stood up themselves. And who want to help, shouldn’t make any doctrines.

In the U.S. right now there is an absurd debate to be followed. They turn the question around, if George Bush isn’t to thank, in the end, for the protests in Egypt, the uprising of the masses in the Arab world. Parties from the left and right bombard everyone, asking if the democratic ideals would be more effectively diffused under President Bush or under President Barack Obama.

And because this year is the 10th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, it’s nothing less than historical fairness: Wasn’t it George W. Bush who, with his wars, laid the seed that opened, sprouted and hopefully will bear fruit?

The crude dogmatic world couldn’t care less if they left behind a great big evil: The ideologues in Washington miss the actual message, their chauvinistic arrogance alters their view of the actual meaning of the events in the Middle East. Because the news from Tunis, Cairo and, of course, out of Tripoli and Tehran is very different.

Nowhere do the people go out into the streets and praise on their protest posters, the beneficial effects of President Bush or Obama. Nowhere is the Bush Doctrine discussed, whose namesake sees his foreign policy as his legacy: Carry freedom and hope into a world of suppression and, when necessary, do it with weapons, before the opponent can place his message of terror and violence in the Western world a second time.

There are three truths, which won’t jive with the strategy in the West, but which all democratic governments should, through analysis, appraise more closely. First: The West, George W. Bush and Barack Obama himself play no role at the melon stands, the cell-phone salesmen, book stands and doctors, who forced the exit of Hosni Mubarak.

The Majority of the Arab People are Reasonable

These uprisings happened without the West — not in spite of and also not because of the West. The masses demand grievances for injustice; they want to escape from their confinement, which the West out of fear for incalculable alternatives to the allied powers have developed The rebellion works by itself; nothing is borrowed from foreign powers.

Secondly, the powers of radical Islam play an apparently unimportant role. Islamists, radical Muslim Brothers, preachers of hate have not triggered the revolution, and they have also not profited from it. What’s more, the masses of reasonable Arabic people gain influence and are the face of the people.. Egypt is discussing a constitution, to become a model for the whole Arab world. The Sharia will play no meaningful role. Therefore, the constitution can be more democratic than any other in the region.

The Security Structure Changes

The jihadists, on the other hand, are in the background and are suddenly being seen for what they always were: a minority. The Muslim Brotherhood, once it is pushed into the light, will soon be recognized as: moderate and social, radical and also extreme. In this heterogeneity, they will only be in opposition, but won’t be able to shape it.

And third, Israel and the unresolved issue of the Palestinian state don’t play a role in the insurgency. The importance of Israel as a strategic keystone of a complex security-political architecture for the whole region has abruptly reduced itself. All labor and aspirations of the West will soon no longer go to Israel and only to Israel. The government in Jerusalem could lose their place as a bridge for the democratic world in an autocratic-fanatical neighborhood. It also hasn’t come so far, but Israel’s strategic role is changing at a breathtaking pace, while the government of Benjamin Netanyahu acts frozen.

Whoever Wants to Help, Shouldn’t Write Doctrine

A revolt without the West in the role of revolutionary example, the significant shrinkage of the Islamists, and the relativity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — those are the three biggest messages, which a new calibration of Western policy concerning the Middle East might enforce.

Therefore the most important insight of the revolt won’t be underestimated: The insurgency is so strong, precisely because they have chased out their rulers without foreign help. The joy over the new freedom is so large, precisely because they themselves have won. They appear, therefore, as examples to Libya and Iran, because the demonstrators believed in themselves and no one else needed to believe.

Here is the actual message of the Tahrir demonstrators to the West: Your system might be right, but we must figure it out for ourselves. All the paternalism of the West has helped exactly every repression that allowed the entire region to solidify. Whoever wants to help the democratic movement in the Arab world, shouldn’t write doctrine. They should wait, until he is asked for help, and then help the new democracy stand actively.