The United States' Diplomatic Dilemma

As you have probably noticed, the Islamic world is in the midst of an exciting, violent, and uncertain period. Starting with protests in Tunisia, the fervor spread to Egypt, perhaps the most publicized case, and then to other countries like Bahrain, Libya, and most recently Morocco, Yemen, and Iran (did I miss any?). Opinions vary on  protesters' actions and government responses, but what I want to focus on is the difficult time the U.S. State Department is having with the recent developments, and in particular how the U.S. is balancing the need to appear fully behind democracy while still supporting its decidedly un-democratic allies in the region. 

Let's look for a second at Egypt. After the assassination of Anwar Sadat about thirty years ago, Hosni Mubarak took over and proved to be a consistent ally of the U.S. in a region where allies are few and far between, considering the situation with Israel. Now, a "president" does not stay in power for thirty years without some heavy-handed tactics at the polls, but where the U.S. would normally issue statements encouraging voting reforms and U.N. involvement in elections, we looked the other way in Egypt. Why? Because Mubarak and his corrupt, inefficient government were the only things standing in the way of Islamic fundamentalists taking control of the country. And why was this such a concern? Think about it; when your village is having trouble getting clean drinking water and the government won't lift a finger, the only group to turn to is your local Muslim Brotherhood chapter (this put into layman's terms). Now, perhaps I haven't explained it as eloquently as I could have, but the fact is that these groups are active in communities, getting things done for the people when the government bureaucracy is too inept. This wins them support that, despite their motives, is well earned. 

So, when protests for real democracy flare up in Egypt, what is the U.S. to say? Well, in the State of the Union Address, the president referenced the protests in Tunisia by stating that the U.S. supports democracy abroad, etc.. So the White House will immediately issue a statement in support of the protesters, right? Not so, for unlike in Tunisia, Egypt is in danger of falling into the wrong hands and borders Israel and holds control over the Suez Canal, a.k.a the place where all the oil comes through. In truth, the U.S. would much rather have had Mubarak stay than see a truly democratic Egypt. The White House walked the diplomatic tight-rope of not hanging Mubarak out to dry while also not appearing to discourage the protesters. Quite Bismark-esque, I would venture.   

The exact same situation seems to be happening in Bahrain. Protests there against the royal family turned violent recently as the government sent riot police in to crack down on the protesters, killing many in the scrum. Shame! Condemnation! But wait, the U.S. and the Bahraini royal family are great allies, and we have a large naval base in the country, our largest military foothold in the Persian Gulf! So, some ho-humming in Washington, a statement from the White House, not even a slap on the wrist really. Why? Because democracy, the great light of the world, is simply not in the U.S.' interests. 

It is also interesting to note that the exact opposite of this situation is true with the protests happening in Libya and Iran. The State Department, I believe it was, even went so far as to set up a Twitter account to send out revolutionary messages of support in Farsi to the people of Iran. They are all-for democracy in those places, because there is nothing the U.S. would like more than to see Muammar Gaddafi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad get ousted. 

But all of that explaining aside, I suppose the main thing I'd like you to take away from this piece is that even though the U.S. more or less claims to support democracy over tyranny and corruption in all cases everywhere, It really doesn't, and I found that interesting and felt the need to point it out. This is no new revelation, I'm merely shedding some light on the more recent examples. Are the concerns of Egypt becoming a fundamentalist Islamic state like Iran well-founded? Perhaps..and perhaps not...this and other more opinionated matters, like should the U.S. actually support democracy unconditionally, or should we at least stop lying about supporting it, you may take up with me personally.  

Democracy at Work

I believe in democracy. That is to say, I believe in it more than any other form of governance. A good democracy, well it should do several things. It should accurately represent the will of the people, but not at the expense of the minority. It should check its own power. Similarly, and I think many of us have forgotten this, a democracy must have the ability to reinvent itself when something is not working properly, or when one individual has gained excessive power and is attempting to change the system for his or her own gain. Many are viewing the coup in Niger, and the previous one in Honduras as democracy failing, but I consider them both rousing successes.

It is true that in times of great adversity, single individuals must sometimes rise to the occasion, commanding more power than is usually wise for one person to wield. Even in the great pillar states of democracy, such figures are sometime necessary, and here I would be referring to Lincoln and F.D.R. The large majority of the time however, the president must be expected to work within the framework of his nation's laws, and when they inevitably don't, it is the job of the nation to be rid of him. No second chances.

Take former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. Last summer, he attempted to hold a poll which would determine if there would be a referendum to change the constitution of that country, something that the supreme court had already ruled against. The proposed constitutional changes would include the elimination of a term limit for president. What a surprise! Wisely, the supreme court ordered the military to have Zelaya removed from office, making Speaker of Congress Robert Micheletti interim president. A couple of months later, the government held the next previously scheduled elections without incident. This situation couldn't have been handled in a better way, and I applaud those in the Honduran government who recognized the danger that the integrity of their democracy was in, and acted to correct it. Many foreign governments opposed the coup, and refuse to recognize the outcome of the latest election, and this frustrates me to no end. The precedent must be set that when a leader attempts to change the constitution and increase his own power, there is no tolerance for such actions.

This latest coup in Niger is also, so far, a victory for democracy. Mamadou Tandja, former president (since the 18th of this month), succeeded in dissolving the National Assembly of Niger, which allowed him to alter the constitution, lengthening his tenure in office and expanding his powers. His stance was that the people of Niger wanted him to remain in office, and there were important programs in the works that needed his guidance. My thought on that is, too bad. The rules are the rules, and he himself was voted into office in a fair election after a coup in 1999. The time had come for another fair election, but he was unwilling to give up the throne. That is just about when the newly formed (like that very day) Supreme Council for the Restoration of Democracy stepped in and ousted Tandja. They claim that there will be a speedy return to democracy, with fresh elections pending, but a timetable has yet to be released. I sincerely hope that these elections will be held soon, because it will demonstrate for the world one of the key functions of a government, run by the people, at work.

So, as I stated before, despite some viewing these coups as failures of democracy, I firmly believe that they are rather saviors of the democratic values set forth in both of these countries' respective constitutions. Every despot starts somewhere, and if they are cut of at the start, they can have no future. Most dictators don't seize power overnight. It is a slow process, during which they take a little bit here, and a little bit there, until eventually they are wielding far more power than was ever intended. Although I would rather see these acts of necessity put into use with other, more bold and overstepping figures (Putin, Chavez, Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, to name a few), these recent oustings are encouraging nonetheless.