It is known that the United States of America generally and publicly supports the spread and demands of democracy. However, the United States usually uses the democracy card with regard to its political, economic and strategic interests in the region. The United States could conversely be against the aims and demands of democracy when it threatens its interests and the current political power in the region that maintains U.S. geopolitical interests. Therefore, these current political regimes, in America’s view, should be kept unchanged.
It is not surprising that the United States’ politics is focused on its interests. The cultural understanding of democracy, freedom, human rights, its values and its slogans are expressed as important, only to be ignored when political, strategic and economic interests are already met with the cooperation of the current ruling powers.
The United States invaded and occupied Iraq for democratic reasons — the fall of the ruling dictatorship and the spread of freedom — even though we have seen the United States supporting many dictatorships when it was necessary to maintain its political interests in the region. The U.S is keen to use this approach when it comes to what is needed to secure its interests.
We cannot trust any move made by the United States when it comes to the issue of spreading or supporting demands for democracy. The United States will show support for democracy only if the conditions that follow in the region do not contradict the U.S.’ economic, political and strategic interests.
Hamas winning the elections a few years ago (which were supposed to be free and fair, under the supervision and control of an international body), was met with rejection by the former American administration. The current American administration has decreased the extremist attitude of its predecessor, which heralded the spread of democracy in the region under the Iraqi invasion and occupation platform.
President Obama announced in his speech in Cairo that the United States does not impose its approach to democracy on other nations and that every nation should be able to choose the approach and path to democracy that is most suitable for it — in addition to the notion that the United States will always be a pro-democratic nation, a nation that heralds democracy and will always advocate the spread of democracy.
When the national Arab resistance started, the American position was at first not supportive, even with the United States advocating democracy. The United States advocating and expressing the spread of democracy only defeats its political, economic and strategic interests in the region. However, the United States tried to back away from its first position on the Arab resistance to what was voiced in the streets. The U.S. could go with the only possible solution: showing compassion to the people in order to preserve and guarantee its future interests in the region which started to take shape. The United States seems to have learned from past experiences with its ongoing support of the Egyptian regime, even with it falling. The situation has gotten worse; American support of the falling regime has caused hostility between the United States and the new political power, similar to what we have seen between the United States and Iran.
The paradox is that the United States invaded Iraq, destroying it and leaving behind millions of victims and displaced, only to achieve its publicly known objective — the spread of democracy in the region. The new Arab revolutions came with a blank page — a safe revolution with a centrifugal force against violence. This Arab revolution, in a short period of time, achieved what the American tanks, bombs and air strikes that targeted Iraq could not.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq has violated the human rights charter. The United States committed crimes and left behind millions of displaced people and victims, all in the name of building democracy to meet its own desires in its own way. These desires, of a custom-made democracy in the Middle East, are in America’s political, economic and strategic interests.
It is known that putting a bet on the United States to achieve democracy and its demands is a losing bet. This is because there is a difference between the expression of democracy, freedom and the concepts of human rights by the United States and what the United States exercises in reality, which is only based on its political, economic and strategic interests.
It is obvious that the United States will warily be against any path to democracy in the region that might hold a view that is against the U.S.’ own interests in the region. In this context, it is very easy to understand that U.S. interest is the real compass and judge for supporting or going against any democratic change in any country. U.S. foreign interest is the judge of any democratic demand or change in the region.
In all cases, this is an example of American political behavior that should not be perceived as strange. The U.S.’ political and strategic interests are more important than the demands of democracy in any other nation. There is no harm if the U.S.’ interests and demands for democracy go together, because U.S. support will surely follow. There is also no harm if the demands for democracy do not align with U.S foreign policy and interest in the region, because they will only face rejection. This is why American foreign policy prevails, even with the U.S. striving to retain the concepts of democracy, freedom and human rights. On the other hand, it seems that the United States is not so keen on making democracy and freedom a presence in a land beyond its own borders. Democracy is then transformed into a card which is used by the U.S. to pursue and maintain its political interest. Democracies in other nations are supported and backed only if they do not hinder American political interests in the region. Democratic demands that will negatively affect the future interests of the United States will simply be rejected, eliminated or hijacked and changed into a different course — a course that suits American interests.
God has fixed a term of life period for every nation to judge how best it performs according to the dictates of God. America of today is no doubt different from the America of the Puritans. This people will also pass away being replaced with another set of generations. God also rotates good and bad days on the peoples of all countries and races. Good days account for good deeds and bad days ostensibly end the period set for those people. America is no exception. It is high time that the present American people prevail upon their admin., to discard the obsolete policy aim of America’s one sided self interest. It is the age in which geopolitical changes are taking rapid changes. Democracy has acquired the ingredient of playing with the rules. This is now the name of the game. Arabs would for their own survival and sustainable stability towards this new concept of democracy. Let them and all other emerging people embrace it and they would find American interference to no avail. For illustration, America’s concepts of Iraq and Afghanistan are quite primitive. Iraq is an integral component of the greater Arab unity stretching from Morocco to Yemen. As for Afghanistan, its location makes it a conduit of transit of trade to and from the emerging central Asia. Moreover Afghanistan is integrally linked to Pakistan. Pakistan’s destiny lies in its being a trading hub for trade and transit of goods and services emanating from the SAARC countries to and from central Asia through its hubs both from land and the Sea Port of Gwadar. Here is writing on the wall for America that in today’s geopolitics it is the economy that is the driving force.