Fundamental changes are needed in U.S. policy and understanding.
By Nicholas Kristof
New York Times
It’s a new day in the Arab world — and, let’s hope, in American relations to the Arab world.
The truth is that the United States has been behind the curve not only in Tunisia and Egypt for the last fewweeks, but in the entire Middle East for decades.
We supported corrupt autocrats as long as they kept oil flowing and weren’t too aggressive toward Israel. Even in the past month, we sometimes seemed as out of touch with the region’s youths as a Ben Ali or a Mubarak.
Recognizing that crafting foreign policy is a thousand times harder than it looks, let me suggest four lessons to draw from our mistakes:
1. Stop treating Islamic fundamentalism as a bogeyman and allowing it to drive American foreign policy.
American paranoia about Islamism has done as much damage as Muslim fundamentalism itself.
In Somalia, it led the United States to wink at a 2006 Ethiopian invasion that was catastrophic for Somalis and resulted in more Islamic extremism there. And in Egypt, our foreboding about Islamism paralyzed us and put us on the wrong side of history.
We tie ourselves in knots when we act as if democracy is good for the United States and Israel but not for the Arab world. For far too long, we’ve treated the Arab world as just an oil field.
Too many Americans bought into a lazy stereotype that Arab countries were inhospitable for democracy, or that the beneficiaries of popular rule would be extremists like Osama bin Laden.
Tunisians and Egyptians have shattered that stereotype, and the biggest loser will be Al-Qaida.
We don’t know what lies ahead for Egypt — and there is a considerable risk that those in power will attempt to preserve Mubarakism without Mubarak — but already Egyptians have demonstrated the power of nonviolence in a way that undermines the entire extremist narrative.
It will be fascinating to see whether more Palestinians embrace mass nonviolent protests in the West Bank as a strategy to confront illegal Israeli settlements and land grabs.
2. We need better intelligence, the kind that is derived not from intercepting a president’s phone calls to his mistress but from hanging out with the powerless.
After the 1979 Iranian revolution, there was a painful postmortem about why the intelligence community missed so many signals, and I think we need the same today.
In fairness, we in the journalistic community suffered the same shortcoming: We didn’t adequately convey the anger toward Hosni Mubarak. Egypt is a reminder not to be suckered into the narrative that a place is stable because it is static.
3. New technologies have lubricated the mechanisms of revolt.
Facebook and Twitter make it easier for dissidents to network. Mobile phones mean that government brutality is more likely to end up on YouTube, raising the costs of repression. The International Criminal Court encourages dictators to think twice before ordering troops to open fire.
Maybe the most critical technology — and this is tough for a scribbler like myself to admit — is television.
It was Arab satellite television broadcasts like those of Al Jazeera that broke the government monopoly on information in Egypt. Too often, Americans scorn Al Jazeera (and its English service is on few cable systems), but it played a greater role in promoting democracy in the Arab world than anything the United States did.
We should invest more in these information technologies.
The best way to nurture changes in Iran, North Korea and Cuba will involve broadcasts, mobile phones and proxy servers to leap over Internet barriers. Congress has allocated small sums to promote global Internet freedom, and this initiative could be a much more powerful tool in our foreign policy arsenal.
4. Let’s live our values. We pursued a Middle East realpolitik that failed us.
Condi Rice had it right when she said in Egypt in 2005: “For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region, here in the Middle East, and we achieved neither.”
• • •
I don’t know which country is the next Egypt. Some say it’s Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Syria or Saudi Arabia. Others suggest Cuba or China are vulnerable.
But we know that in many places there is deep-seated discontent and a profound yearning for greater political participation. And the lesson of history from 1848 to 1989 is that uprisings go viral and ricochet from nation to nation. Next time, let’s not sit on the fence.
After a long wishy-washy stage, President Obama got it pitch-perfect on Friday when he spoke after the fall of Mubarak. He forthrightly backed people power, while making clear that the future is for Egyptians to decide.
Let’s hope that reflects a new start not only for Egypt but also for American policy toward the Arab world. Inshallah. source