President Barack Obama’s address on Friday to the State Department and the nation was a clear opportunity to finally lay out a strong national policy with regard to the democratic movements blooming in the so-called Arab Spring.
The results were sadly — but predictably — hesitant.
“Our message is simple,” Obama proposed. “If you take the risks that reform entails, you have the full support of the United States.”
I suppose that depends on what your definition of what “full support” is.
Because while those words are bold, pointed and project the image of what most people think America should stand for, actions taken thus far have failed to live up to their import. This has been the fundamental flaw of the Obama administration throughout his presidency: big promises, little realization of what those promises entail.
U.S. foreign policy toward the democratic movements in the Middle East and North Africa currently reads as follows: We unconditionally support you. This sounds great, but protesters in the Middle East beware: Whatever autocratic regime you are attempting to overthrow is not our ally. It is a contradiction that President Obama has largely ignored by simply not discussing, but it is right there in the open for anyone to see.
The most common defense to this notion is Egypt, as the now deposed Mubarak, who ruled the country for close to 30 years, was one of the staunchest allies of the U.S. in the region. However, the White House was able to appear supportive of the democratic movement, because Mubarak stepped down before the U.S. had to commit one way or another. It was like placing a bet after the cards have been shown, and you still get to collect the pot. @@Mubarak: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12301713@@
So although President Obama applauds the movements in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Syria, he notably refrains from mentioning Saudi Arabia — the most autocratic nation in the region, and the biggest ally of the U.S. — and Jordan. Frankly, I would prefer it if Obama simply came out and said that the United States is unwilling to support reform movements in Saudi Arabia because of our nation’s close ties with the Saudi royal family. At least we would be honest with ourselves as a nation instead of playing this game where we attempt to look benevolent and come across looking like a jerk to the rest of the world. Some might claim that this would be political suicide, but it has to be the case that the average citizen is aware of this. Would anyone blame the president for stating the truth?
The closest Obama came to addressing this issue was by saying, “There will be times when our short-term interests don’t align perfectly with our long-term vision for the region.”
While somewhat more candid, there are still flaws with the statement. First of all, it is representative of a fundamental problem, both domestic and foreign, in U.S. policy: short-term goals for electoral expediency superseding long-term benefits. Essentially, while democratic regimes in the Middle East are the long-term goal, it might be tempered somewhat in a case such as Saudi Arabia, where a democratic movement could cause U.S. gas prices to rise by a few dollars a gallon and cost government officials elections.
This is how politicians think and construct their policies. It is a product of the system that is our government. We have frequent elections that make long-term planning and decision making less important than delivering short-term results (see our current problems with the soaring debt). No one wants to raise taxes or make significant budget cuts for fear of political reprisal.
The solution to this problem is for the American people to understand the importance of the future and not punish politicians who make short-term sacrifices in order to realize long-term gains. Is a nondemocratic Middle East more attractive than having to pay a few dollars more at the gas pump? Wouldn’t a democratic, non-nuclear Iran be worth unequivocal U.S. support of all democratic movements?@@I’d take less at the gas pump. Chevys don’t drive themselves.@@
Secondly, the idea that we as a nation not only tolerate but even prefer totalitarian regimes — governments that make a mockery of human rights and everything our nation claims to stand for — anywhere in the world should make everyone reexamine their beliefs. If this is indeed the way we want our nation to express itself, then by all means continue.
But I don’t think it is. It can’t be. American benevolence may be an ethnocentric view; maybe it never even truly existed. Nevertheless, there is a belief in America that more often than not we stand for the right thing. We as a nation don’t even need to be benevolent. We just need to do the right thing.
As the primary agent of our nation, Obama can’t just talk about it. He has to prove it.