16-12-2011 21:26:16

US needs to engage with Islamists

Washington must recognise that religious groups are much more pragmatic in government than they are outside it

(Gulf News, December 16) – Islamist parties coming to power in most of the Arab countries which experienced popular uprisings has set off alarm bells in western capitals.

Attempts by moderate Islamist leaders such as Rashid Gannouchi of Tunisia's Al Nahda party, Ali Sallabi, the most important Islamist leader in Libya, and Abdul Moneim Abu Al Fotouh, a former Muslim Brotherhood leader who is running for president in Egypt, to convey the commitment to democracy, do not seem to have convinced the sceptics, mainly in Washington.

In fact, few in and around the Obama administration would explicitly say that Islam is incompatible with democracy. That task has been in effect left to the media and academia. George Friedman, a prominent US thinker and strategist, expressed his concerns by presenting the question: What happens if, after tremendous western effort to force democratic elections, the electorate chooses to reject western values and pursue a very different direction — for example, one that regards western values as morally reprehensible and aims to make war against them?

One obvious example of this, Friedman adds, is Adolf Hitler, whose ascent to power was fully in keeping with the processes of the Weimar Republic — a democratic regime — and whose clearly stated intention was to supersede that regime with one that was popular, opposed to constitutionalism in the democratic sense and hostile to constitutional democracy in other countries. This argument underlines the fear that is being felt in Washington and other western capitals about the ascent of Islamists to power in various parts of the Middle East. It also conceals concerns about the future of US interests in a region that is being ruled by Islamist forces.

In fact, for the past three years, since his election as president, Barack Obama has been grappling with the prospect of establishing democracy in the Middle East. Torn between the concern to protect its national interests and the desire to spread the ideals of American culture, Washington could not decide which way to go.

Indeed, Democratic administrations in the US have long held the belief that promoting liberal values around the globe constitutes the ultimate guarantee for America's national interests. The failure in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global financial crisis tilted the balance in favour of the pragmatists who defended the status quo.

This situation, however, did not last long. Over the past year, Washington was caught off-guard by the Arab Spring. Noticing that the change in Tunisia and Egypt in particular had been led by liberal forces, Washington decided to support the march towards democracy in these two Arab countries. But with the liberals scoring poorly in the ensuing elections, Washington's enthusiasm has begun to ebb.

Historically, US policy towards the Arab and Islamic world has been determined by strategic and economic considerations. This was the secret of Washington's success in the Middle East during the Cold War, especially in dealing with political Islam. After the end of the Cold War, US policy towards Islamism remained, with various degrees of interest, the same.

Until the coming of George W. Bush, the official policy in Washington was that the US will accept and deal with any government in the region as long as it is prepared to accept US interests.

With the rise of Islamic forces in key Arab countries, Washington must cling to this policy. It needs to recognise that Islamists in power or around it are much more pragmatic than they are outside it. In Turkey, for example, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) rose to power through the ballot box, accepting the western secular system and working through it.

And when in power, Turkey's Islamists did not try to challenge the long-established pro-western stand adopted by the country's secular elite since the end of the Second World War. More importantly, perhaps, Turkey retained its membership in Nato and allowed the establishment of an early warning radar as part of Nato's missile defence system aimed at countering ballistic missile threats from neighbouring Iran.

Of equal importance, the Obama administration must recognise the socio-economic factors, which contributed to the rise of religious tendencies in the region and try to handle them accordingly. People made desperate by poverty, unemployment, repression and corruption in their societies turn to their cultural and religious roots for solace and guidance. Islamism has more to do with the local conditions of the Arab and Islamic societies than with the desire to confront the West.

Finally, the Obama administration must acknowledge that the existing regimes in the Middle East are bound to disappear in the future because change is inevitable. It must also accept Islamists as integral players among the broad social forces operating in the region.

If Washington seeks different policies it runs the risk of antagonising the vast majority of the Arab people whose thirst for change is irresistible.

TAGS: Washington, Rashid Gannouchi, Tunisia, Al Nahda party, Ali Sallabi, Libya, Abdul Moneim Abu Al Fotouh, Muslim Brotherhood leader, Egypt, Adolf Hitler, Weimar Republic, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Justice and Development Party, Turkey, Nato