home > by publication type > interviews > Arab Specialist Hawthorne: Is U.S. 'Beacon of Hope' or Enemy No. 1 to Arab Reformers?
Email
| Interviewer: | Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor |
|---|---|
| Interviewee: | Amy Hawthorne |
October 19, 2004
Amy Hawthorne, editor of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Arab Reform Bulletin, says the Bush administration’s calls for political and economic reform in the Arab world has sparked a lot of talk but not much action. Some reformers, she says, “openly call for the United States to take a very active role in promoting democracy” in the region. “At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who see the United States as enemy No. 1, and they direct their energies to criticizing the United States.” But, she adds, “Most politically minded people who are interested in reform fall in the middle.”
Hawthorne was interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman, consulting editor for cfr.org, on October 19, 2004.
What are the chances for genuine political reform and moves toward more democracy in the Arab world?
I would say that there’s a quite tense and widespread discussion among the elites in the Arab world that political change is needed for Arab countries to move forward economically and socially to become a more productive part of the global community. The debate about democracy in the Middle East isn’t new; it’s been going on for a long time, but since September 11, there’s definitely been a consensus forming that among the sources of problems Arab countries face are closed political systems. But I wouldn’t say that there’s a popular movement for democracy in any Arab country that would make regimes or rulers feel pressured to make significant political change. You have words, but not much action at this time.
Who’s pushing for change?
There’s a group of people in the Arab world who are primarily from the elite and they come from different professional backgrounds- some are journalists, some are professors, some are engineers, a few are businesspeople, scholars, political activists, human rights activists- who believe that democratic change is required for Arab countries to heal what ails these societies.
There isn’t a consensus, however, among those pro-democratic voices about what the economy in a democratic Arab society should look like. People with a neoliberal economic vision advocate exactly what the IMF [International Monetary Fund] preaches and believe that privatization and foreign investment and a shrinking role for the state is the only way to go, and that this should accompany democratic change.
Another camp believes in a bigger role for the state in an economy, something close to what we would call socialism, even though the term isn’t really used anymore. The people in this camp believe the state should protect people who are not well-off and that this approach should accompany political change.
There’s somewhat of a consensus among these pro-democratic voices about the type of political changes that are necessary. They believe that constitutions should be reformed, and there should be limits on the powers of Arab rulers. There should be checks and balances, there should be term limits, there should be free elections, there should be open space for independent media and civil society, there should be political parties. They don’t agree on the socio-economic portion of reform, and that stymies them because they’re so divided.
You might think that the United States would be looked to as a beacon by Arab political reformers because many of them were educated in the United States. On the other hand, the invasion of Iraq and continuing American support for Israel has led to widespread condemnation of the United States in the Arab world. How do you resolve this dilemma?
That depends on who you talk to. The Arab world is diverse politically, and there are certainly people who openly call for the United States to take an active role in promoting democracy. We’ve seen in the past few years civil society organizations coming forward and being very direct in their call for the United States to play a role. Regional groups of activists came together to issue declarations or manifestos. One came out of Cairo this summer; one came out of Doha in June. These call for democratic change and liberal democracy, and they also said very clearly that they don’t believe democratic change is possible without influence from the outside, specifically [from] the United States.
What you find is that at one end of the spectrum there are voices, who I would describe as a distinct minority, urging the United States to do more. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who see the United States as enemy No. 1, and they direct their energies to criticizing the United States.
I would say most politically minded people who are interested in reform fall in the middle. They have a nuanced view of the United States. Many of them have been educated here or have contacts and family here, and they appreciate the political system that we have and understand the huge amount of influence the United States has over Arab regimes. They would like the United States to use that influence in pressing for human rights and democracy. On the other hand, they do not see the United States as a benign power in the Arab world. This is not just because of Israel and Iraq, but because they see the very long history of U.S. support for authoritarian regimes in the region.
There’s a widespread perception among many in the Arab world that the U.S. reform campaign highlighted by the speech given by President Bush is designed to undermine and weaken Arab countries, to make them submissive and more pro-American, and to undermine Islam and change the role of Islam. The perception may be incorrect, but it nonetheless exists and is pervasive. That makes people very reluctant to work with the United States. Also, the changes in the United States since the 2000 election and some of the security measures that have been adopted after 9/11, combined with the Abu Ghraib scandal, have tarnished the image of the United States as a beacon, as a model, for a lot of elites in the Arab world.
Put all those things together and you come up with a very complex and ambivalent view of the United States. That’s how I would describe how most people think of the role of the United States in promoting democracy. The extremes are all-out, “the United States is our savior,” or “the United States is evil,” and the middle is much more complex. The failure by some U.S. policy-makers or officials to understand that complexity has hindered our ability to promote reform.
If the Iraqis can pull off an election in January or soon thereafter, will it have an impact in the region? And if Iraq begins to be perceived as more democratic, how will that affect the rest of the Middle East?
For starters, I would say something which, I’d like to underscore, was said much better than I can by a number of people on a panel at [The] Brookings [Institution]. The excessive focus on the January elections in Iraq is going to throw us off course, because while the conduct of the elections is important, the very fact that they’re taking place is not the ultimate sign of democracy taking root in Iraq. What’s more important is the legitimacy that the elected government has and what kind of constitution it writes. We need to look at the elections as one part of a complex process that’s going on in Iraq. A lot of informed observers in the Arab world will look at them that way. If the elections go well, if they’re conducted in a peaceful atmosphere in which it’s clear to people in the Arab world that Iraqis were able to exercise their choice freely and that the United States was not seen as manipulating the process, that will give a boost to people who want those kinds of elections in their own countries.
The second point I’d like to make is that very few among the educated Arab elite ever saw Iraq as the vanguard of democratization in the region. People in the region understand the kind of country Iraq is, its difficult history, its fractious nature, its tradition of violence, and very few serious people ever say, “Let’s start with Iraq- this can be our model.” There was never much expectation among Arabs that Iraq would trigger democratic change. This is something that was invented in Washington and that doesn’t resonate with people in the region at all. A lot of people in Washington are disappointed that Iraq isn’t going so well, but the perception of the Arab elite is that this is exactly what was expected. I think people would look at Egypt or Jordan or Lebanon or even Morocco as countries that could better serve as a model for the rest of the Arab world. The bottom line is that the United States cannot rely on positive change in Iraq to be a catalyst.
I’d like to finish up by talking about Egypt and Saudi Arabia, both of which have been involved with reform in different ways. The Egyptians have a parliament and elections, but the same man always wins. Is that going to change?
Egypt does have a history, under the monarchy before the 1952 revolution, of a form of parliamentary democracy, very flawed, very weak, not successful, but there does exist in the minds of a lot of Egyptians a historical memory of a time when they at least tried, and that’s very important. They have a reference point in their own history for those who would like democracy.
Secondly, there will be a leadership change taking place at some point. [President Hosni] Mubarak is 76. This succession issue and the uncertainty of who is going to follow Mubarak and how he will come to power and rule are creating ferment. This political debate does not open up a path toward democracy, but there’s a discussion of issues on the table that hasn’t been the case for a long time in Egypt. They are talking about really key issues- the powers of the president, the laws.
Some say Mubarak is trying to arrange for his son, Jamal Mubarak, to succeed him.
It’s not clear what’s going on. I think that’s one of the possibilities, but I don’t think it’s a done deal. What signals the United States sends about the succession and how we’re going to deal with a new government and a new leader will be quite important. There is the chance, although the United States is by no means the arbiter of political change in Egypt, that the kind of signals and messages we send during the transition period, very carefully and quietly, could be one of the many factors that influences what happens next. We do have a chance to turn over a new leaf and say, “The way that you govern your country is going to be one of the factors that influences your relationship with the United States.”
The second point I’d like to make is that Egypt is a country that faces almost mind-boggling economic problems. Given the unemployment, the lack of productivity in the economy, the number of new entrants into the work force every year, it’s amazing that the country is as stable as it is. The interplay between economic reform and political reform is critical. The economic issues are very important and need to be addressed at some point, but doing so could be very destabilizing politically. How the Egyptians balance political pressures for change with economic issues will help determine what direction that country moves in. I don’t want to be too optimistic, because often when governments implement the kind of painful economic measures required in Egypt, the only way to do that and stay in power is by clamping down on political freedoms. We may see that in Egypt if the economy takes a turn for the worse.
And Saudi Arabia?
We have to have realistic expectations for how Saudi Arabia could evolve. It seems that the royal family is in control. Clearly, the country faces huge social challenges, not to mention the problem of terrorism, that have to be dealt with in a variety of ways. The idea of Saudi Arabia being transformed into a western-style democracy is really unrealistic. I don’t think there’s much support for that in the kingdom. The most that could be expected over the next many years is the establishment of a sort-of constitutional monarchy under which the royal family still rules with some checks and balances and greater financial transparency. Those in the west who call for the imposition of democracy in Saudi Arabia are completely out of touch.
But there are some things that the Saudi royal family can do to allow Saudis greater participation, economically and politically, in their own society. Again, it’s very delicate, but the position of the United States on that is an important factor. It’s not the determining factor, but it’s important.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
Start-Up Nation addresses the trillion-dollar question: How is it that Israel—a country of 7.1 million, only sixty years old, surrounded by enemies— produces more start-up companies than large, peaceful, and stable nations like Japan, China, India, Korea, Canada, and the UK? With the insights of geopolitical experts and investors, the authors examine this nation’s adversity-driven culture to answer this question and offer prescriptions for a global economy on the rebound.
In Forces of Fortune, Vali Nasr presents a paradigm-changing revelation that will transform the understanding of the Muslim world at large. He reveals that there is a vital but unseen rising force in the Islamic world—a new business-minded middle class—that is building a vibrant new Muslim world economy and that holds the key to winning the cold war against Iran and extremists.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba's unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
Complete list of CFR Books
The report of this bipartisan Task Force of distinguished leaders and experts represents a strong consensus on the importance of repairing America's immigration policy. It makes the case that maintaining America's political and economic leadership depends on attracting talented and hard-working immigrants, and on securing the country's borders in a smart, effective, and humane way.
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
Identifying international threats and acting on them may be the most difficult job for U.S. policymakers. This report
provides an actionable road map for managing international threats before they erupt into crises and makes a strong case that preventive action is not a luxury but a necessity.
For more than a decade, the United States has mostly watched from the sidelines as Asian countries organize themselves into an alphabet soup of new multilateral groups. In this report, the authors review the relationship between pan-Asian and trans-Pacific institutions and suggest policy guidelines for a new U.S. approach to this new Asian landscape.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.