If you have been following the series on Individualism and Socialism, you now have a little break to read about something else before we tie everything up. So delving right in: by this point we are all aware of the protests and revolutions occurring in the Middle East and North Africa. They have been going on for months now and every week seems to add a different country or different agenda to the list. I recently read an article which explains to a certain extent the often times perplexing stance taken by the United States in dealing with this protests or for that matter not dealing with them. If you look at the region country by country, the United States varies widely in how it responds to pleas for assistance and in its willingness to support protests that seek to oust the leaders of those countries. If you look at the region as a whole, however, you will see that Iran dominates any response from the United States. Every protest and consequent decision by the United States as to support or not support is considered as to how it will affect Iran, its power in the region, and its attempt to make nuclear weapons.
The United States, long sought after for its humanitarian aid, support of democracy and the general freedom of all people, has fallen incredibly short recently in its lack of support of some protests. Depending on which country you look at, we hold a different response for each one. In Egypt, while vaccilating at first, we eventually threw our support behind the people seeking to reclaim their government from Mubarak. In Libya, we are assisting in conducting air raids to weaken Qadaffi's forces to prevent further deaths of the people in that country. (Partly a show of force to show Iran what we can do). Now lets flip to Yemen, we are just recently seeking to quietly transition power from Saleh to his VP instead of completely reforming the government because we want to continue conducting covert raids against Al Qaeda cells in that country. (Essentially, we have said to the people, your concerns our great, but our concerns over Al Qaeda trump your desire for democracy and freedom.) And Bahrain, where we have remained mostly silent, even as Saudi Arabia sent in troops to help quell the protests, all because our Navy's Fifth Fleet is stationed there and it just happens to be in close proximity to Iran. Syria now? Well, there has yet to be a definitive position stated by the U.S. Our government is probably currently absorbed trying to figure out the correct response when it comes to how it will affect Iran. And what about Iran. We support protests there but will not officially say so in order to prevent Amagonnapoop from using us as a reason to stifle yet more protests.
There is no universal response from the United States when it comes to supporting democracy. The people in these countries see the value in democracy and having the freedom to vote and live their lives, yet depending on where they live, they do not get the same response from the U.S. Many people, especially in countries like Bahrain and Yemen, have lost faith in us to do the right thing. We are incredibly wrapped up in ourselves and can not see the desire that these people have for freedom. It all comes down to how unrest in these countries will affect the United States via Iran. It is a vicious circle and not an easy one to get out of. The more we play to our own interests in the region, the more fuel we give to Al Qaeda cells who will use it to galvanize even more people against us. If there are anti-U.S. sentiments in the region, you can be sure that they will inflate them and use them to their own benefit. Would the U.S. be taking a chance supporting the freedom of the people? Only in the respect that it could allow more freedom for members of Al Qaeda as well. Yet if we support the people in these countries, show them that we are there to support them in their drive for democracy and freedom, they will be less likely to be turned against us by Qaeda. Inclusive in this is showing the Iranian people and those in Jordan (who I did not mention before), Syria, and any other nation seeking to remove their leader, that we will support the spread of democracy and freedom, regardless of the ensuing results.
The United States foreign policy, in my mind, has turned incredibly inwards, concerning ourselves more with stability as pertains to our own security than the actual spread of democracy and freedom. Change is never easy, especially on a large scale when dealing with entrenched regimes. The United States is essentially being selfish. There is no grand desire simply to promote freedom and democracy anymore. It reflects on a larger scale what is occurring in our society. It seems there is a general movement to be more concerned with ourselves and how events will affect us rather than concerning ourselves with other's well being. So what is the remedy in the Middle East. In my mind, it is quite simple (although no decision concerning foreign policy is ever simple), support the spread of democracy and the freedom of all people and let nature take its course. Is there an inherent risk of increased terrorist attacks? Yes, and I am not advocating diminishing intelligence gathering operations, but we should deal with the attacks when we percieve they will occur and not seek to attack before being attacked. All in all, freedom and democracy must be supported. We must personally take a stand and let our government know our feelings (hoping against hopes that they will listen). For today, look outside yourself at the people around you and seek to understand them more. In doing so, it could open up a window unto yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment