The sowers of the seeds
Aaron Crist
Staff Writer
Anyone giving even a cursory glance at the media over the last several weeks cannot have missed a cavalry of pundits and commentators (not to mention government officials) declaring that because of the United States, the seeds of democracy have begun to sprout in the Middle East. They use as evidence the small concessions made by the House of Saud and Hosni Mubarak, the anti-Syrian protests in Lebanon, the Palestinian presidential elections and, above all, the January elections in Iraq. They argue that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was the catalyst that encouraged the nascent democratic movements to be more bold and, that since then, the region has been moving slowly but surely toward a future where democratic governments replace the current authoritarian regimes. However, taking every opportunity to praise America as the harbinger of democracy to troubled peoples could very well backfire and, in the end, deplete what little political capital the United States has left in the Middle East.
While saying that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein had no bearing on the aforementioned events would be erroneous, it is also just as easy — and probably more dangerous — to overstate its importance. True, there would not have been free or open elections in Iraq had the United States not overthrown Hussein, but one should question just how much this changed the opposition movements in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or any other country. Attributing the lion's share of credit for the recent gains made by these movements to the United States would be doing a disservice to the men and women who bravely fill the streets of Cairo and Beirut in order to push for change. It is they who constantly put themselves and their friends at risk of harassment or worse, not Rice or Rumsfeld.
Instead of the back patting and thumbs up signs that U.S. officials are giving one another, they should instead step out of the limelight and take a more behind the scenes role. By placing themselves front and center, one can only imagine that many Arabs will see the democratic movements as nothing more than tools of U.S. foreign policy as opposed to being an authentic grass roots movement originating from within oppressed populations.
Far from being some argument over semantics, this distinction is crucial, and American officials would be wise to quietly support democratic movements instead of framing every inch of progress as a result of some brilliant U.S. policy strategy.
One recent example of this phenomenon was the series of counter-demonstrations organized by the Lebanese organization, Hezbollah, claiming that it was imperative that Syria retain its forces in Lebanon to maintain stability, and that the millions of protesters who only hours before were calling for Syria's withdrawal were nothing more than pawns of U.S. imperialism. As preposterous as this may sound, it was and continues to be a charge that is believed by many in the Middle East, especially in light of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
This is by no means implying that the Unites States should not give financial, moral, or any other type of support to the various democratic movements in the Middle East. Designating a portion of the budget to just such an effort would be an extremely wise investment for the United States and would be an opportunity to put our money where our mouth is. That being said, I do believe that turning policy statements on the Middle East into glorified press releases trumpeting the merits of U.S. policy – specifically the Iraq war – as the reasons for the recent victories in the efforts to throw off the yoke of despots is foolish and will only damage the already embattled image of America in the Middle East.