What green peril?
Fanning the Fear of Islam
From home and abroad voices have begun to counsel the Clinton
administration that with communism s death, America must prepare for a new
global threat--radical Islam. This specter is symbolized by the Middle
Eastern Muslim fundamentalist, a Khomeini-like creature armed with a
radical ideology and nuclear weapons, intent on launching a jihad against
Western civilization.
In the search for new doctrines for a new world, this image of a worldwide
threat from militant Islam could filter deep into the policymaking
processes of the new administration. In the way that the perception of
danger from Soviet communism helped to define U.S. foreign policy for more
than four decades, the fear of Islam could embroil Washington in a second
Cold War.
This policy, however, would rest on utterly fallacious assumptions: Islam
is neither unified nor a threat to the United States. Were America to let
these phobias drive its foreign policy it would be forced into long and
costly battles with various, unrelated regional phenomena. In the Middle
East, the principal battleground of this struggle, it would place America
in the position of maintaining a corrupt, reactionary and unstable status
quo. In short, such a policy would run against the long-term interests of
the peoples of America and the Middle East.
Conjuring up a New Menace
Like the red menace of the Cold War era, the Green Peril--green being the
color of Islam--is described as a cancer spreading around the globe,
undermining the legitimacy of Western values and threatening the national
security of the United States. Tehran is the center of this ideological
subversion, the world's new Comintern. The goal of the Iranian-led global
intifada is said to be support for anti-Western regimes stretching from
North Africa across the Near East and the Persian Gulf to Central Asia.
Tehran's aim is to control the oil-rich gulf, destroy Israel and threaten
areas on the periphery of a new "arc of crisis"--the Horn of
Africa, southern Europe, the Balkans and the Indian subcontinent.
The Islamic conspiracy theory ties together isolated events and trends:
the recent bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City, the civil
war between the Muslim government in Khartoum and the Christians and
Animists in southern Sudan; terrorist attacks by radical Muslim groups in
Egypt; the popularity of Islamic parties in Algeria and Tunisia; Arab
support for the Bosnian Muslims; the instability in the newly independent
Central Asian republics; the Lebanese Shiites' struggle for political
power; the continuing Palestinian uprising; and Iran's pursuit of economic
power and political influence in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. In
short, all the changes and instability in the post-Cold War Middle East
and its peripheries are described as part of a grand scheme perpetrated by
"Islam International."
Apart from some frustrated Cold Warriors in Washington, this campaign has
been eagerly joined by a strange group of foreign governments including
Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, India and the old communist regimes in Central
Asia. Some of these have repressive governments that need a new enemy to
preserve eroding public support. All are concerned about their weakening
strategic value to America, now that the superpowers have made peace.
Turkey and Pakistan have already volunteered their services to the West to
halt Iranian-led radical schemes in Central Asia. India presents itself as
a bulwark against Islamic Pakistan's designs. Serbian nationalists have
described their "ethnic cleansing" policies as part of an effort
to contain the spread of radical Islam to Europe's center. The Israelis,
who five years ago equated Palestinian nationalism with
"Soviet-sponsored terrorism," are now identifying it with
Islamic fundamentalism. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin justified his
government's expulsion of 415 Islamic activists to Lebanon in December
1992 by suggesting that the Jewish state stands "first today in the
line of fire against extremist Islam."
A mirror image of the Israeli argument is reflected in the Arab spin.
Riyadh and Cairo contend that Washington's refusal to pressure Israel to
give up the occupied territories increases the growing danger of Islamic
radicalization of the Arab and Muslim world. Ironically, Israel might find
that, in the long run, the propagation of the Islamic threat might turn
against its interests.
These strategies recall the way Third World countries exploited the U.S.
obsession with the Red Menace during the Cold War despite their own
skepticism about its long-term threat. Even Uganda has been requesting
military aid from Washington to combat the Islamic threat from Sudan. The
anti-Iranian/Islamic fundamentalism hysteria that has gripped the U.S.
media and Congress has already produced a theater of the absurd, when the
People's Warriors of Iran, an Iraqi-based Iranian group with a Marxist
leaning, succeeded in getting. the majority of Senate members to sign a
letter promoting its agenda. This organization, with a history of
anti-American terrorist activities, even gained access to the top foreign
policy aides of then Governor Bill Clinton during the presidential
campaign.
These governments and their lobby organizations use leaks, misinformation
and media spins to help construct the new Middle Eastern danger. "
Government sources" and "intelligence reports," sometimes
using questionable evidence and exaggerating credible information, warn of
Iranian subversion in Central Asia, the export of terrorism to North
Africa and Egypt, and a Khartoum-Tehran connection.
Journalists, who have become the transmission belt for such reports, so
reminiscent of Cold War propaganda campaigns, add drama to the mix. They
impose the term "Islamic fundamentalism" to describe diverse and
unrelated movements that range from CIA-trained Islamic guerrillas in
Afghanistan to the anti-American clerics in Iran, from the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt operating in a parliamentary system, to murderous
terrorist organizations like the Lebanese Hezbollah, from pro-American Saudi
Arabia to anti-American Libya. Think-tank studies, op-ed
pieces and congressional hearings add color to this image of a unified and
monolithic Islam.
The Muslims Are Not Coming
Before leading America into a war against Islam, President Clinton would
be well advised to take a bird's-eye view of the so-called Islamic
crescent. Instead of a monolithic Islamistan, he would uncover a mosaic of
many national, ethnic and religious groups competing for power and
influence; a multinational phenomenon ranging from Malaysia to France, in
which Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is less a transnational
political force and more a vital religion that provides spiritual support
for a broad spectrum of people, some liberal, some orthodox. It is a
kaleidoscope producing shifting balances of power and overlapping
ideological configurations that neither Tehran--nor Washington--can
control.
Far from being a unified power that is about to reach again the gates of
Vienna and the shores of Spain, Islam is, in fact, currently on the
defensive against militant anti-Muslim fundamentalists. In the former
Yugoslavia, the Westernized and secular Muslim population of Bosnia and
Kosovo is threatened with extinction by Serbian nationalists, who have a
strong connection to the Eastern Orthodox Church. In Central Asia, the old
communist guard, with support from Russian nationalists, is leading a
bloody campaign against both Westernized and Islamic opposition groups,
sending a wave of Muslim refugees from Tajikistan into Afghanistan. In
India, the Bharatiya Janata Party, an anti-Muslim Hindu nationalist group,
and the even more militant Shiv Sena are gaining power. In the West Bank,
Gush Emmunim, the jewish fundamentalist settlement movement, has been
spearheading since 1967 the Greater Israel drive, aimed at suppressing the
Palestinian nationalist movement, which includes many secular Muslims and
Christians. And in France and Germany, racist and neo-Nazi groups are
trying to violently eject large Muslim immigrant populations. These
developments do not reflect a war between Western and Islamic
civilizations. Actually, Western, including Jewish, sympathy seems to be
moving in the direction of the Muslims in Bosnia, France and Germany,
while the struggles in the West Bank and India are producing at best mixed
feelings.
Ironically, the most militant and successful Islamic fundamentalist
offensive has been led and financed by the United States. The broad
coalition of Mujahedeen freedom fighters, trained by Washington and the
Pakistani government, successfully ousted the Moscow-backed regime m
Afghanistan in April 1992. Currently, the remnants of the Mujahedeen,
which comprises various ethnic, religious and linguistic groups, are
engaged in a bloody war for control of Afghanistan. The governments in
Central Asia consider these warriors--not Tehran--the greatest threat to
regional stability. These Mujahedeen veterans are also playing a key role
in the Islamic rebel movements in Algeria and Egypt.
Balance of Power Games, Not Holy Wars
The disintegration of Afghanistan into mini-states ruled by different
tribal leaders with complex ties to outside powers reflects the return of
the nineteenth-century Great Game in Central Asia. Iran, Turkey, Pakistan,
Russia, China and even Saudi Arabia and Israel are
trying to establish spheres of influence in the area. But the new balance
of power constellations in Central Asia and the Middle East are not
pitting a unified pro-Iranian coalition against a unified pro-Western
axis. They are producing strange bedfellows whose moves are driven by a
complicated set of interests and ideologies, Islam being only one part of
the mix. The continuing instability in these regions is a result of the
struggle for self-determination by ethnic groups, a largely
secular-nationalist drive, though various Islamic groups carry the banner
of national independence, just as the Catholic Church did in Poland in the
1980s.
Iran's role in these developments, far from being revolutionary, leans
toward maintaining the status quo. It has joined Turkey and Syria to
discuss ways to prevent the rise of Kurdish nationalism. Worried over the
secession of its own Azeri minority and the instability in its southern
Caucasian backyard, Tehran has tried unsuccessfully to bring a peaceful
end to the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.
Not wanting to see a strong nationalist Azeri state stirred by
pan-Turkism, it has tilted toward the Armenian Christians, for years the
darlings of the West. Iran occasionally supported changes in the status
quo, for example, by backing the Islamic opposition in Tajikistan, where
the anti-Western old communist guard is trying to hold on to power.
Like other players in the region the Arab states, Turkey, Israel-- Iran
projects a mixture of defensive and aggressive strategies that are
motivated less by Islamic ideology than by its perceived national
interests in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf, and in particular by the
need to prevent the rise of unsympathetic players in these regions. On one
hand, Tehran has promoted economic cooperation and trade through the
formation of regional groups like the Central Asian Economic Cooperation
Organization and the Caspian Sea Cooperation Council. On the other hand,
not unlike pan-Arabism, pan-Turkism and pan-Islamism, Iran has tried to
export its own version of Islam, as well as the Persian language, as a way
of advancing its interests in the Middle East and Central Asia, though
with mixed results--the Iraqi Shiites' support for their government during
the war with Iran being the most dramatic failure.
The nightmare scenario of a new Iranian-led Islamic empire is a result of
misguided Western fears. Even Egypt during the heyday of pan-Arabism under
Gamal Abdel al-Nasser was unable to lay the groundwork for the unification
of Arabs, who share a common language and culture. Iran' s Shiite
religion, its historical animosity toward the Arab word, its struggles
with Iraq over influence in the Persian Gulf and with Turkey over
influence in Central Asia, and its limited economic and military power
place severe constraints on its ability to become a magnet for the mostly
Sunni Muslim world. Nor do talks about an Iranian- Sudanese alliance look
promising; Tehran and Khartoum have parted ways on many issues--Khartoum
refused to follow Tehran's lead in isolating Iraq during the gulf crisis
and in turning against the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan and other states are self-interested and
well equipped to contain Iranian expansionism even without American
prodding. At the same time, Iran could find itself sharing interests with
some of these rivals. Tehran supported the American-led Arab coalition
against Saddam Hussein and, like Israel, is against the creation of a
united Arab bloc in the region. The Iranian policy of deterring an
aggressive Iraq and of rejecting efforts by Saudi Arabia and
the American-backed Gulf Cooperation Council to isolate it in the gulf are
as understandable as are past Israeli policies of preventing its
encirclement by a Soviet-backed Arab bloc. In both cases strategic
considerations and not religious beliefs have been the driving force. In
fact, most of Iran's recent moves on the foreign policy front, including
the reported attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, would probably have been
applauded by the secular and pro-Western shah. In the anarchic environment
of the Middle East, where Israel, Iraq, Pakistan and Kazakhstan possess or
could possibly possess nuclear weapons, Iran's interest in acquiring
similar capability is hardly surprising.
While there is a strong religious component in Iran's foreign policy,
fundamentalism is usually outweighed by Iran's military and economic
interests. The so-called moderates in Tehran, led by President Ali Akbar
Hashemi Rafsanjani, are in large part Iranian nationalists. While
committed to a theocratic form of government, they recognize that the
costs of channeling their revolutionary fervor abroad have made it more
difficult to pursue Iran's security interests. Their opening to the West
is motivated by the same concerns that led the orthodox-communist Chinese
leadership to establish diplomatic relations with the United States--the
need to improve their nation's diplomatic and economic power position.
The Mosque and the Audiocassette
If a crusade against Iran and Islam makes little sense from a realpolitik
perspective, as an idealistic Wilsonian project it lacks credibility.
Unlike communism in its heyday, the Islamic movement is not a powerful
global ideology competing with democracy. Rather, as an umbrella for
diverse and disorganized political ideologies, political Islam is only one
of the many and multifaceted elements in the colorful Middle Eastern
tapestry that the end of the Cold War is unfolding.
The Islamic resurgence is a response to the confusion and anxiety of
modernity and a challenge to repressive and corrupt regimes. Like
Christians during the Reformation, the Islamists attempt to reach directly
the literal word of God and provide legitimacy to popular demands to
transform their societies. Indeed, the political clout the Islamists now
have is due not to the desire of Arabs and others to live under strict
Islamic rule, but to the perceived failure of Western models of political
and economic order, including nationalism and socialism, to solve the
Middle East's problems.
As in other parts of the world, the political order in the Middle East is
under challenge. With the end of superpower rivalry, Arab governments are
finding it more difficult to extract economic and military support from
external powers in return for their strategic services. That situation is
exacerbated by the global economic recession and the fall in oil prices,
which have reduced the amount of capital available for aid and investment
in the region. The result is growing public disenchantment with and
opposition to the socialist, Baathist, nationalist and established Islamic
leaders who are trying to maintain their hold on power. In Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait and the other Arab gulf states, rampant
corruption, bogus legal systems, ineffective armies, mismanaged economies
and dependency on the United States have eroded the legitimacy of the
regimes. In North Africa, bankrupt statist economies continue to provide
benefits to the politically corrupt nomenklatura.
Unlike secular organizations, or even liberal Islamic ones, the mosque has
remained a relatively independent institution in many Arab states, and has
therefore become an important center for expressing the discontent of the
unemployed and disenfranchised youth. But trends are leading in many
different directions, producing overlapping coalitions and alliances with
no common ideological denominator. The search in the West for an
explanation that will distinguish between the good guys and the
villains--with the Islamists being usually placed in the latter drawer--is
futile and simplistic.
The Islamic groups that operate in opposition to the different autocratic
regimes represent a diversity of players and organizations. They are
populists who do not fit into a left-right dichotomy and combine a strange
mix of atavism, romanticism, and a respect for certain free- market ideas
and for Western technology. The mosque and the audiocassette have become
their two major propaganda tools, reflecting the love- hate prism through
which they view the West. Some of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's clerics,
for example, are economic liberals who are much closer ideologically to
Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan than are the pro-American statist
leaders who rule Egypt and North Africa. Indeed, support for the Islamists
has come in part from the bazaars, from the merchants and small
businessmen who are opposed to government control of the economy.
Many Islamic leaders do not fit the image of radicals and terrorists.
Working together with secular parties and using the language of political
liberalization, they have pressed for political reforms that have led to
elections in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan and Kuwait and to the
establishment of a consultative assembly in Saudi Arabia.
Most Islamic groups that operate more or less freely in the relatively
open systems of Egypt and Jordan or in the more democratic systems of
Turkey and Pakistan have successfully adapted to the democratic
game--running candidates in local and national elections, forming
alliances with secular groups and holding cabinet positions.
The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, although prevented from participating in
elections as a political party, joined forces with the Wafd party in the
1984 elections. It then formed a new coalition with the Labor Party,
calling itself the Islamic Alliance. In the 1987 elections, it won close
to 20 percent of the vote and emerged as the main opposition to the
government. In Jordan, the Muslim Brotherhood remains the largest and best
organized group in the country, forming recently with independent
Islamists, a newly licensed Islamic Action Front. Many analysts expect the
movement to win a majority in the coming parliamentary elections.
Moreover, contrary, to Western stereotypes, many Islamic leaders are not
medieval figures. As in the case of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in
Algeria, they are educated professionals, such as engineers, physicians,
lawyers and academics, who control modem institutions like hospitals,
schools and businesses. They are not interested in returning their
societies to the past as much as transforming their political and economic
structures. Even Iran's theocrats utilize Western concepts of
government--"republic," "democracy" and
"constitution" --to legitimize their rule.
That does not turn the Islamists into Jeffersonian democrats. There is no
Middle Eastern equivalent of a Mikhail Gorbachev, let alone a Vaclav Havel.
The most extreme among them will try to rigidly enforce the sharia, or
Islamic law, in their societies, which would require the complete
segregation of the sexes outside the home and the introduction of stoning,
flogging and amputation as legal punishments. Westerners who believe in
the universal application of such ideas as individual rights and freedom
of religion should not accept an argument, smacking of cultural
relativism, that their values only apply to the secular West and that
Muslims, unlike Christians or Jews, are more inclined to live under
repressive religious systems. By the same token, however, neither should
analysts and policymakers adopt a mirror image of this argument,
suggesting that for some reason Muslim societies, unlike their
counterparts in Eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union, are inherently
resistant to democratic role. The American government that found it
possible to promote elections from Russia to Nicaragua, from Cambodia to
Kenya, should not believe that Muslim societies are not yet ready for
democracy.
In fact, when it comes to free elections in Algeria or Egypt, Washington
suddenly begins to lament over the "dilemmas," the
"difficult choices, " and the danger that democracy in those
countries would bring anti- democratic forces to power and produce messy
problems for the United States. Similarly, the media and Congress, which
have constantly denounced human fights violations in countries like China,
do not seem to express a similar sense of sorrow when the regimes in
Algeria and Tunisia repress their own citizens.
This attitude is based partly on the genuine concern that if Islamic
parties come into power through democratic elections, they will impose an
intolerant, undemocratic order on society and usher in a new dark age of
fundamentalist rule. But it is doubtful that any serious voice in Europe
and the United States, using this same logic, would suggest that because
of the real danger of rising nationalist-authoritarian regimes in Eastern
Europe, the West in retrospect would have been better off with the
communist governments remaining in power.
The inevitable rise of Islamic regimes in countries like. Algeria or Egypt
is a transitional phase in the process of political and economic
transformation of the old order in the Middle East. Once in power, Islamic
groups like the FIS, who have thrived on the martyrdom of political
oppression, will have to deal with the mundane social and economic
problems of their country. If they want to expand their political bases
and remain in power, they will have to form political coalitions, modify
their rigid theocratic agenda, and take into consideration the interests
and views of competing groups like the military and the business community
as well as those of foreign governments and investors.
Like other political parties, Islamic groups will be judged by their
ability to "deliver the goods," mainly economic opportunities.
Religion, as King Hassan of Morocco once said, is not enough to run a
country. Iran's clerics, facing public discontent, including food riots,
over their handling of the economy, have had to move toward major changes
in domestic and foreign policy aimed at stimulating the economy. "
Had the Algerian elections been allowed to proceed, we would have seen the
[FIS] at work," suggested King Hassan. Their failure could have led
to the emergence of new secular opposition groups.
Instead, the cancellation of elections in Algeria in January 1992 and the
pursuant violent political repression there and in Tunisia have only
enhanced the popularity of the Islamic groups and helped to radicalize the
FIS as well as Tunisia's Islamic Renaissance Party, leading to more
confrontation and violence. Washington should not be surprised if, when
those groups come to power, they have a hostile attitude toward the West,
which has, after all, applauded their repression and encouraged the
stifling of democracy in their countries. The crusade against political
Islam is in danger of becoming. a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Washington: The Guarantor of the Status Quo
The greatest hypocrisy in the debate over political Islam is the fact that
Americans have fought a war and committed their military and diplomatic
power to secure the survival of the most fundamentalist state of all--Saudi
Arabia.
The Saudi regime's own legitimacy is based on an
alliance with the Wahhabi movement, an extremely conservative Sunni sect.
The Saudi government is actually more rigid in its
application of Islamic law and more repressive in many respects than the
one in Tehran. Saudi Arabia has no form of popular
representation, political rights are totally denied to women and
non-Muslims, and the regime has consistently applied sharia to criminal
justice. It has financed a variety of Islamic groups worldwide, including
the Hamas. Its ruler, King Fahd, has publicly stated that the
"democratic system that is predominant in the world is not a suitable
system for the peoples of our region" and that " the system of
free elections is not suitable to our country." Indeed, Saudi
Arabia, like all the other Arab oil-exporting states of the
Persian Gulf, is an absolute monarchy that does not recognize the concepts
of civil rights or civil liberties.
Washington also backed the regime of Jafar Muhammad Numayri in the Sudan
after he had declared an "Islamic revolution," and supported
Egyptian President Anwar Sadat after he had allied himself with the
Islamic groups in his country. In both cases Islam was used, as in Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan, to legitimize the role of pro-Western
authoritarian leaders. Similarly, U.S. concerns over democracy in the
region do not prevent Washington from providing its second largest foreign
aid package to the Egyptian government, whose security forces, according
to Middle East Watch, "regularly resort to physical and psychological
torture" of political and security suspects. Nor does Israel's own
brand of Jewish theocracy diminish in any way its position as America' s
largest foreign aid recipient.
Indeed, the language of Wilsonian idealism with which the current
criticism of political Islam is being framed masks dear political
interests and has little to do with concerns over the status of liberty in
the Middle East. Such rhetoric is used to mobilize support for the
pro-Western autocratic regimes and by extension to secure U.S. hegemony in
the region, and. in particular its access to oil.
There is a major contradiction between America's global democracy project
and its pax-Americana program in the Middle East. U.S. policymakers know
that democratically elected and popularly based governments-- Islamic or
otherwise--would be less inclined to bow to American wishes. It is not a
coincidence that the governments in Jordan, Yemen and Algeria (before the
military takeover) were the most critical of U. S. policy during the
Persian Gulf crisis, reflecting the general public mood in those
countries. Hence the vicious circle: continued support for repressive
regimes, exacerbated by America's alliance with Israel, only fans
resentment toward the United States. And the existence of that resentment
makes it more difficult for Washington to tolerate the idea of
democratization and reforms in the region.
Constructive Disengagement
The end of the Cold war has provided the United States with an opportunity
to begin disengaging from trouble spots around the world, shifting
security responsibilities to regional powers. The withdrawal from military
bases in the Philippines points in that direction. At the same time, the
end of the superpower rivalry has also permitted Washington to decouple
itself from Third World tyrants and despots who lost their job of serving
as regional anti-Soviet policemen. Bidding farewell to characters like
Zaire's President Mobuto Sese Seko reflects that trend.
No similar post-Cold War reexamination of U.S. policies has taken place in
the Middle East, with the exception that the Bush administration proved
unwilling to sponsor then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's Greater Israel
policies. That shift in policy led indirectly to the defeat of the Likud
government in June 1992 and helped revive the peace process, thus
improving America's position in the region. In the other parts of the
Middle East, however, the fall of the Berlin Wall has been followed by a
dramatic extension of U.S. military power and massive commitment to
autocratic regimes, highlighted in Operation Desert Storm.
President Clinton should take a cue from one of his predecessors at the
White House, John Quincy Adams, and resist the pressures from interested
political parties and foreign clients to go "abroad in search of
monsters to destroy." Indeed, searching for imaginary Muslim monsters
will involve major costs for the United States.Clinton's geo-economic
strategy, with its goal of shifting resources from the military to the
civilian economy, does not fit with a costly involvement in the Middle
East, which a crusade against Islam would certainly entail. After all, why
should the United States continue to police the Persian Gulf for the
Europeans and the Japanese, who are more dependent on oil coming from that
region, while they beat Americans in the trade competition?
A policy of constructive disengagement from the Middle East would permit
the United States to encourage Europe and Japan to start taking care of
their interests there. Such a policy will also help create new and
independent balance of power systems and security arrangements. Washington
will not need anymore to play the role of balancer in the Middle East and
to use Israel, Egypt, Turkey or Saudi Arabia as
regional cops, while Iran could play a role in the region that is
commensurate with its political and military power.
In the 1970s Washington opened lines of communication to Beijing during
the height of its revolutionary fervor and helped Red China to gradually
move away from its isolation and to begin reforming its politics and
economics. Realpolitik considerations suggest that the Clinton
administration adopt a similar strategy vis-a-vis Tehran that could lead
to the restoration of diplomatic relations and the expansion of trade
relations with Iran. A policy that rejects the idea of a grand Western
crusade against Iran fits with U.S. interest in having a diplomatically
responsible and economically prosperous Iran in the Persian Gulf. It will,
in turn, strengthen the Iranian nationalists interested in attracting
Western aid and investment and in integrating Tehran with the word
community.
The new administration's neo-Wilsonian orientation with its emphasis on
defending democracy, human rights, self-determination and arms control
worldwide clearly runs contrary to the interest of maintaining alliances
with Middle Eastern despots and arming them to the teeth. Directing such a
policy only against Iran and the Islamists, while exempting the
pro-American Arab axis from its pressure, will only signal to the rest of
the world that American policy is dominated by duplicity.
President Clinton should use American diplomatic influence in the region
to be an honest broker and to help Israel make peace with its neighbors,
including the Palestinians. The integration of Israel into the Middle East
will contribute to the creation of a stable Middle East, while
self-determination for the Palestinians will advance the cause of
political freedom. An Arab-Israeli peace could be a nucleus for the
economic renaissance of the region, which, in turn, would strengthen the
hands of the more Westernized and modernizing forces there. An America
whose ties with Israel have ceased to be a burden in its relations with
Muslims and that has left its Cold War legacy behind will not have to
chase any more monsters or saints.
America should not lead a crusade for democracy in the Middle East. But
neither should it continue, through aid and military support, to provide
incentives for maintaining autocratic rule. Removing those incentives
might force those rulers to begin reforming their political systems. If
they refuse to do that, Washington should adopt a policy of benign neglect
toward the coming political changes in the region. Disengaging from the Saudis
and the other Middle Eastern despots will ensure that when
new regimes come to power, they will not direct their wrath against
Washington but against those external powers, like France, who might find
it in their interest to maintain in power groups like Algeria's National
Liberation Front. The interest of America lies not in isolating but in
maintaining friendly relations with the new Islamic governments and in
playing into the hands of the liberal and democratic elements in their
countries through trade and communication. By doing this America will best
serve both its own interests and the interests of the people of the Middle
East.
By Leon T. Hadar Leon T. Hadar teaches at the
American University School of International Service and is an adjunct
scholar in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. He is the author
of QuagMire: America in the Middle East.
Copyright 1993 by Council on Foreign Relations. Text may not be copied
without the express written permission of Council on Foreign Relations.
Hadar, Leon, What green peril?., Vol. 72, Foreign
Affairs, 04-01-1993, pp 27.