Khalil Matar

The Arab peoples never learned what a real state institution is. Old semi- established institutions in countries like Egypt have always suffered from the overwhelming political pressures of their leaders. Arabs must learn how to be effective followers before they can become real leaders.

The military activities in Libya lead to many unanswered questions; “Did the United States and its allies create the chaos now sweeping the country or did they simply fuel an already existing flame? Did they start a civil war or become immersed in one? Are they riding a wave of history or creating another ‘double standard’ accusation, suggesting that Israel is receiving preferential treatment? Is this a policy of principles or another political miscalculation based on realpolitik and national interests?”

Whatever the answers are, it is clear, yet again, that the Obama administration has fallen into the Arab abyss. Libya seems to be the first demon to come out of the Pandora’s Box the president has opened with the intervention in that country.

When the movements for democracy erupted in Tunisia and then Egypt, fevered hope developed, and was exaggerated, that this so-called Arab Spring would spread through the region. Instead of navigating this movement in the right direction, the Obama administration made the biggest mistake of them all by resorting to old tactics and calculations, missing an opportunity to cultivate real democracy.

President Obama managed both Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings properly; he stayed on the sidelines and provided advice to different parties, letting the situation develop from within. Unfortunately, whatever success he may have had there was negated by his miscalculation in dealing with the revolts in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria and other countries in the region.

Many in the region, especially in the countries mentioned here, are asking the same questions that were always raised during times of conflict, “Is there a double standard? Since when does any rational politician care what the Arab League thinks or says? Do Arab regimes even care what the people really want? And, how can these leaders be trusted when they ask for foreign powers to solve their problems?”

The Secretary General of the Arab League Amr Moussa was among the first to call for a no-fly zone in Libya. But with his rush to leave this job and run for the post he always wanted, president of Egypt, he made yet another miscalculation. He thought this position would give him the support of the Egyptian youth that forced the resignation of his nemesis, Hosni Mubarak, and would settle old scores he had with the Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. What Moussa failed to realize was that the no-fly zone would require military action and lives would have to be sacrificed, something the Egyptian youth realized early on, forcing Moussa to later change his position.

Britain and France had old scores to settle with Qaddafi, as did many Arab leaders that supported the Arab League decision. French president Nicholas Sarkozy still harbors grievances since Libya released the Bulgarian medics from Libya to his divorced wife instead of him. Some think he is riding a neo-conservative agenda because of his background and the advisers he listens to. Britain still feels maligned since Qaddafi was not giving them oil concessions similar to those given to the United States. Qaddafi also dragged his feet fulfilling promises to Britain and France that he would buy weapons from them while in reality looking for American weapons the United States never agreed to sell him.

While some advisers to the president looked at the Libya situation with idealism, Sarkozy succeeded in convincing Secretary Clinton that a massacre was about to happen in eastern Libya, reminding her of her husband’s regret he did not intervene in Rwanda. Foreign leaders like Sarkozy and the Emir of Qatar pressed president Obama to approve military intervention. This resulted in a move that raised many questions: People demonstrating in Yemen and Bahrain are now asking loudly, “Are we less human than the Libyan people? Do we not deserve the international protection afforded the Libyans?” demonstrators in Syria asked for similar interventions unaware of the fact that principles are not the guiding force for intervention in Libya.

The Arab peoples and their leaders have been living in too much chaos to make a proper decision about where they are headed politically. People of the region were looking to America for real leadership. President Obama was their biggest hope since his speech in Cairo. Today, they are more confused than ever.

The president can still limit the harm done by the indecisiveness of the last few months in dealing with this revolt movement. He should:

• Start with stopping the military actions in Libya, while keeping pressure on all parties there to find a transitional formula that will lead to real democracy.
• Call for a national unity conference that will stop the bloodshed, criminal revenge actions and tribal score settling.
• Apply the same standards everywhere there is any hint of movement towards further chaos and bloodletting.
• Start putting together a long-term program for democracy in the region that will ensure smooth transition using the “carrot and stick” approach with all.

The United States and the West should not worry about threats from Islamic fundamentalists. Moreover, they should not appease and ally with them. . Fundamentalists are an influential factor in the region and in this revolt but they are NOT what democracy is about. We are still suffering from the consequences of a similar experience in Afghanistan in the eighties.

So long as there is a plan toward democracy that is peaceful, both citizens and leaders in the region will be forced to deal with this continuing threat to their existence. The regimes in the region are not different from each other. Monarchies are not constitutional and not democratic. Most of them, if not all, are not better than republics where demonstrations and fighting are taking place.

Such a policy requires the following:

• Patience and long-term commitment of the whole foreign policy community in the United States and the West. All departments of government, congress and parliaments, the intelligence community, and scholars should realize the threat of mishandling this situation.
• Applying equal standards to all countries of the region; i.e., not applying “humanitarian” standards to some while ignoring others for economic and national security considerations.
• Considering that American and Western national economic and security interests are best served, long term, by allowing principles to overpower political considerations.
• Assigning well-respected scholars and diplomats to lead this program and coordinate the efforts of all concerned in the United States, the West and the Arab world.
• Applying one major principle to all. No, democracy of the West will not work immediately in this region, although the current system failed miserably. Education is the most needed element today. A five-year program of real education toward democracy, on all levels, will lead to a realistic formula, with minor differences accommodating one country’s government that may not apply to another. This program must start by making an effort to replace the “I” that is prevalent in the Arab mind with a “WE” that gives priority to the society and state over the sect and tribe.
• Establishing an Arab fund to finance these efforts based on the UN model of contributions which is proportional to wealth. Those who refuse to finance or participate in this program will face sanctions.
• After that five year period, elections should be held with international supervision letting the people feel they are contributing to their political systems.

Unfortunately, the American and Western choice is clearer than ever; long-term violence and chaos or an extended and painful commitment to real democracy. That is unless they just intend to keep the Arab peoples in their misery.

September 22 2011