Heir to the Freedom Agenda

In North Africa, Barack Obama has the opportunity to breathe life into the American vision of global democracy.

Fashions come and go, but classics always manage a comeback. The term democracy promotion had become an obscenity in the United States, but now it’s experiencing a renaissance. In the Middle East, dictators are faltering, and demonstrators in the streets from Algeria to Sanaa are forcing the United States to choose between their strategic allies and democracy for the masses, the concept upon which America is based. President Obama made that decision regarding Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and chose freedom. He cannot reverse the path he has chosen if he hopes to maintain any credibility.

But this is a role for which Obama never auditioned. After his inauguration, he went to great lengths to distance himself from the arrogance of his predecessor, George W. Bush, who demolished America’s image in the Arab world with his plan to bring democracy to Iraq by invading it militarily. Obama ordered restraint and banned the phrase “regime change” from America’s diplomatic dictionary. But in so doing, he overcompensated. When demonstrations took place in Iran in 2009 protesting the rigged election there, Obama hesitated to support the “green revolution,” emphasizing instead his continued willingness to negotiate with the mullahs about their nuclear program.

The peaceful protests in Tunisia and Egypt and the protests that have erupted in the rest of the region are driving the United States out of the audience and into the ring. The United States may not be overly popular in the streets of the Middle East, but it now has the opportunity to improve its image by laying the law down to its dictatorial allies: Either pay heed to your citizens and begin instituting the reforms they want, or do without Washington’s financial assistance. The gratification exhibited by Bush’s loyal neoconservative followers over these events is totally inappropriate. Bush was right all along, his former adviser Elliot Abrams crowed, quoting a speech Bush gave in 2003 to the Muslim world. In it, he said, “… in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty.” But neither did the Bush administration turn off the money spigot that showered Mubarak and other dictators with military aid the United States used to ensure the continued supply of oil and to buy allies in the war on terror. This double standard eventually caused America’s commitment to democracy to fizzle out.

Obama’s conclusion that the United States could no longer play the role of honest broker while confined by its own strategic interests was justified. The discussion in the Republican camp, on the other hand, shows how difficult the conservative freedom fighters are struggling to balance democracy with strategic interests. While the Obama administration recognizes that Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood must be a participant at the negotiating table, numerous prominent Republicans have called for denying their participation under any circumstances. Their message: We support democracy, but if and only if it has Washington’s seal of approval. The fear of radicalization is understandable in view of the Hamas victory in Palestinian elections, but it’s the sort of message that has created so many enemies for the United States in the region.

The comparison with conservative icon Ronald Reagan, under whose administration the Cold War ended, is also faulty. “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” was easily said as long as an archenemy and not a long-time ally like Egypt’s Mubarak stood behind that wall. So there was little risk that the Obama administration would correct its mistake in dealing with Iran and demand the right to openly protest since its outstretched hand on Iran’s nuclear program had been rejected. The test case for U.S. diplomacy will come with nations like Jordan. The government there is under pressure but not acutely threatened, and the United States has thus far played the role of a strict but benevolent mentor.

It will be important to choose the right time for the United States to intervene and further the democratization process without giving the impression that it is dictating conditions. Bush’s crusade for freedom set the movement for democracy back rather than moving it forward. On the other hand, Obama has to watch out that he’s not steamrollered by events. In Egypt, he finally got ahead of the power curve despite communications failures early on. He allowed the demonstrators to develop their own dynamic while Mubarak searched in vain for proof of a foreign conspiracy against him. The Obama administration’s role consisted of finally telling the stubborn Egyptian government it could do nothing more for it without the support of the Egyptian people.

Obama thus became the agent of a freedom agenda to which Bush gave lip service but was never able to realize. Small wonder that envy seeps through the comments of neoconservatives about these events — envy of Obama who was given this historic opportunity.