Meaningful Dialogue Should Include Islamists
Barack Obama’s visit to Cairo seems to be sparking a depressing quantity of nonsense criticism, but I think real questions are hanging over the long-run import of this kind of outreach. In that spirit, I would add my voice to what Matt Duss says here and what Michael Cohen and Brian Katulis say here, namely that a meaningful dialogue with the population in Egypt and neighboring countries requires a willingness to engage with the Islamist political movements that are, in most such places, the main source of political opposition.
It would be nice to think that we could cook up a nice crew of friendly, western-style, market-oriented, Israeli-loving, secularist Arabs to take the reigns of power in Arab capitals and spread the gospel of democracy. But you have to deal with societies as they actually exist, and in Egypt that means a society with a large and influential Muslim Brotherhood. The aim should be to move toward a healthier bilateral relationship, where the United States is not involved with actively propping up unpopular regimes or trying to micromanage the domestic politics of foreign countries.
24 Responses to “Meaningful Dialogue Should Include Islamists”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
They should press for economic reform instead of political reform. Part of the way we prop up the Mubarak regime is through a huge and labor-market distorting bureaucracy that stifles their small business community. We should push for some micro-loan programs. These sorts of reforms would mean much more for the average Egyptian than any sort of political reform. Many more Egyptians want jobs and prosperity than anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
This:
“These sorts of reforms would mean much more for the average Egyptian than any sort of political reform.”
is not proved by this:
“Many more Egyptians want jobs and prosperity than anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Do you have some evidence, beyond ideology, that pushing microloan programs would be more effective than supporting democratic reform?
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Regarding Matt Duss and Michael Cohen and Brian Katulis, sorry but I’m just really cynical about their talk about desiring democracy in the Middle East.
For most of the Muslims in the Middle East, except those in Iraq and Lebanon and Turkey, they’re stuck with undemocratic regimes and there’s not much the US is going to do about it. Maybe the most helpful thing Obama can do is help mediate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Mr. Yglesias continues his hopeless search for democracy in the Arab world. Unfortunately, he fails to realize that the Arab psyche desires a strong hand at the helm. The only issue is whether that strong hand will be the Mubaraks and the Assads of the world or the Ayatollahs of the world.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
But you have to deal with societies as they actually exist, and in Egypt that means a society with a large and influential Muslim Brotherhood.
Similarly, it means that any negotiations toward a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians must include Hamas.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Unfortunately, he fails to realize that the Arab psyche desires a strong hand at the helm.
Sounds more like the Republican psyche to me. Actually, pretty much everyone would prefer a strong hand at the helm, running their national government. Or would a weak hand be better?
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Petty point, but “reins of power”, not “reigns of power”. Otherwise a good set of points. A lot of trouble was created for the West when a military coup stopped an elected Islamist party from taking power in Algeria in the early 1990s and European and American governments seemed to approve.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Basing our Middle East policy on who runs or ought to run these countries rather than accommodating the countries’ actual concrete interests in their relations with us is doomed to failure. It would be disingenuous to pretend that we don’t have preferences about who should run these countries, but trying to get our way or even expressing preferences would surely backfire. I’m reminded of an unpopular Governor who told a friend and political ally facing a tough re-election fight: “I’ll come into your district and campaign for you — or against you. Whichever you think helps.” Regime change is not a policy, especially if you can’t do it.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Sounds more like the Republican psyche to me. Actually, pretty much everyone would prefer a strong hand at the helm, running their national government. Or would a weak hand be better?
Touché. A strong hand makes the trains run on time.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:04 pm
And regarding the lack of Arab democracies, this could have something to do with the fact that as the British withdrew from Arabia they went around creating monarchies. And as some of these monarchies began to flirt with Democracy in the 60s and 70s the US orchestrated coups and installed strong man dictators.
Democracy (though not so much a free society) is fairly vibrant and growing in Iran (not an Arab country). Give them another 20 or 30 years and the power of the mullahs will probably be largely ceremonial, much like the titular religious leader of the United Kingdom.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Yikes! That’s opening a can of worms. It’s not impossible, but it has to happen right. If we just introduce democracy, we’ll get some really nasty regimes. The current governments are hopelessly corrupt, and the main oppositions make the Iranian regime seem tame by comparison. Democracy works pretty well in Turkey, but only because Ataturk secularized the country by force. Now, the Islamists can win, but only if they are very moderate like the AKP. Secularists can win it back, but only if they can prove they aren’t corrupt like the last ones to hold power. In Egypt, it was probably possible under Nasser, but those times are gone. Lebanon is probably the best hope, and that’s not saying much. Syria seems like it would also have a shot, but the Syrians I’ve talked to fear democracy and would rather stick with Assad.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
It should be pointed out that during the Cold War the US and regimes like Saddam’s Iraq, wiped out the communist parties and the left, but allowed the religious parties to survive. The Israelis promoted Hamas to damage Fatah. That worked out well.
Rob Mac:
Democracy (though not so much a free society) is fairly vibrant and growing in Iran (not an Arab country).
I wouldn’t say vibrant and I think you’re being a bit pollyannaish but it was been interesting watching the current Presidential election. It’s as if we had a contest in the US between Pat Buchanan and John McCain with some hard core Christian priest in the background having the real power. Plus they have the example of the Iraq elections and democracy next door.
I do think Iran is paranoid that the U.S. is trying to subvert them by “color revolution” means (i.e. Ukraine, Lebanon, Georgia, etc.) which is why, say, that American journalist was picked up. So if the U.S. can do some decent dialogue, it will probably help. Iran was helpful in Afghanistan after 9/11.
In my opinion, the Middle East is screwed, unless they catch a lot of good breaks. Not b/c of the Arabs, but b/c of the history. If(when) Iran gets nukes and if they start playing around and expanding, it will get ugly.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Lebanon is probably the best hope, and that’s not saying much.
Jordan was making tentative steps five or six years ago, but the demographic upheaval and instability next door probably makes that a very slow burner.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Re: Mr. Yglesias continues his hopeless search for democracy in the Arab world. Unfortunately, he fails to realize that the Arab psyche desires a strong hand at the helm.
Precisely, SLC. Again, your admirable tough-mindedness is a welcome corrective to the tiresome nonsense of the would be democratizers around here. Just what distinguishes Mr. Yglesias from Mr. G. W. Bush in this regard.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
More like static in the hivemind of suck.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Yeah, and you get a good day’s work out of a Mexican, but don’t expect them to think for themselves.
[/19th-century anthropometrics]
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Jordan was making tentative steps five or six years ago, but the demographic upheaval and instability next door probably makes that a very slow burner.
I think democracy in Iraq will actually have a good effect on neighboring countries. Turkey which borders Iraq is certainly doing well, i.e. mediating between Israel and Syria, talking with Armenia. And they’re ruled by a religious party. I’d argue that Europe should allow them to join but they didn’t want the Turks lobbied against the Dutch NATO general nominee b/c of the cartoon scandal. The Dutch? So maybe the Europeans are right.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
anti-war liberal left: we wish there was more democracy in the Middle East. Honestly. But we also wish psycho dictator Saddam was still in power.
Huh?
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Nice link, pseudonymous, it explains the difficulties very well. I’d say it applies to Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well. Lebanon and Syria are a little different because of their religious diversity. Adding Christians, Druze and Alawites to the mix makes things more complicated. Iraq faces the combined ethic and religious divides which makes it probably the worst candidate for democratic stability. I’m not optimistic about what happens when we leave. Then again, I’m not optimistic we’ll actually leave.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:53 pm
I have to agree with you: you make no sense.
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:02 pm
“If(when) Iran gets nukes and if they start playing around and expanding, it will get ugly.”
Iran probably will never get nuclear weapons. They aren’t very helpful as an offensive weapon (you don’t want to occupy for quite a while after you nuke them). And nobody but Israel really seems to want to invade them anyway. As for expanding, the only place I see them expanding into would be southern Iraq. But they pretty much control that anyway. So I only see that happening if (when?) Iraq collapses. At that point, it would probably be a good thing.
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Poptarts: I wish there was more democracy in the middle East. Honestly. But I also suggest we spend a trillion dollars or so and create a civil war we can radicalize the population and Iran can gain influence at our expense.
Huh?
June 4th, 2009 at 1:27 am
There’s no such thing as “meaningful dialogue” from Obama. What’s needed is meaningful action and so far we haven’t seen any, just some allegedly “tough” talk on Israeli settlements.
A “meaningful action” which would impress the hell out of the Arab world would be hauling Israel up in front of the UN Security Council and demanding a complete and total verifiable disarmament of their nuclear arsenal, and joining the NPT with ratification of the Additional Protocol.
That would make believers out of a lot of the Middle East that Obama means what he says about nuclear disarmament.
Another step would be publicly disavowing and canceling all the covert operations Bush initiated to destabilize Iran, which as Flynt and Hilary Mann Everett pointed out in their NY Times piece are still ongoing.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Imagine that: anti-war leftists want democracy, and also don’t want a war which is almost certain to fail to bring sustainable, liberal democracy while also slaughtering a million or so people.
Huh?