Democracy Promotion by Western Powers since the beginning of the Arab Spring in Tunisia - Essay Example

Democracy Promotion by Western Powers since the beginning of the Arab Spring in Tunisia Table of Contents Table of Contents 0 Introduction 1 a.Western Military intervention 1 Description of the Statements 3 Description of the context of statement 4 Analysis of the text 4 b.Pro- democracy assistance in Springing states (Arab and developing countries) 5 Description of the Obama’s statement 6 Context of Obama’s Statement 7 Analysis of the Obama’s remarks 7 c.Abstinence of Islamic movement empowerment by western powers 8 Description of Wittes’s statement 8 Context of Wittes’s statement 9 Analysis of Wittes statement 9 d.EU and Arab Countries Cooperation Agreement 10 Overview 10 Description of selected statement 11 Description of the context of Statement 11 Analysis of the Text 12 e.Critics to promotion of democracy in the Arab World 12 Overview 12 Description of the statement 13 Description of the context of the statement 13 Analysis of the text 14 Introduction The 20th century saw a new political ideology of democracy rising in most nations across the globe. The western powers, especially Europe and the USA employed the ideology before the later colonized nations adopted it. However, political powers as those of the UK still retained the monarchy system, even as most nations including those bound by cultures and empire authorities broke away for the new political evolution. The Arab world has developed economically compared to the rest of the third world countries in places like Africa, which attained their freedoms and democracies along the century. Until lately, Arabic countries in the last two decades have demonstrated their strong need for political changes and democracy in their countries. Tunisia was the first, followed by Egypt’s riots that have persisted since then, and followed Libya before the Middle East, where the world watched Islamic movements match in union against repressive governments to claim for their rightful democracy (Hamid aucegypt.edu). The western powers have since taken strategic positions, policies and redefined their foreign relations with external nations to promote peace and the sparked democracy in the society. The democratization of the Arab countries has been the United States and European Union’s long term interest since the break out of the uprising. a. Western Military intervention It was not the first time to have witnessed the western military intervention in the Arab countries during the time of the wars. Historically, the United States is known to have sent its military personnel in different areas, like the 1982-85 intervention in Grenada and many others (Adams and Newell 35). Most people doubt the presence of military intervention to promote democracy. It has often been considered a harsh move for governments to absorb, hence they let go off the powers, but play no significant role to change citizens’ revolution. Military invasion is often the last resort after attempts to bring peace internally fail. The western powers have confronted the recent issues including war on terror without shying war for the safety and well-being of the global society. The USA has often applied quite a hard force compared to the European Union, but they have all shown a greater purpose to secure their own countries and promote democracy internally and those they relate with externally. Based on Lang’s arguments, Owen concludes that “military intervention always simultaneously aims at an ethical purpose (that is, self-interest and/or humanitarianism) and a presentation of state agency” (362). Different nations would demonstrate different outcomes at the military intervention in the nations. Some usher in democracy, but others persist on civil wars because of the divergence in priorities and struggle to maintain their identity and power. The United States has led its military in various wars over the last decades in Afghanistan for removal of the Taliban from power in Pakistan and Iraq, and then Libya and Somalia after the Arab uprising. The outcomes set up skeptics and interest among politician and IR agents, which will continue to make military intervention a matter of controversy. Lang is convinced that “states display themselves and their purpose as they try to impose a political system on a community in the midst of a humanitarian crisis” (Owen 362). Description of the Statements Military intervention in foreign nations occurs for various specific purposes depending on the crisis. However contentious western military involvement in foreign nations is, it is guided by the objectives. It is not just a course of war, but initiating peace and stability in most situations. In most cases, the intervention has been to enforce humanitarianism that has either been denied to the society upon the emergence of power and opposition wrangles. In Somalia, a military intervention was authorized to ensure food supplies to Somalia’s population without bias as demonstrated by its government, later in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban leadership that supported terrorism and Iraq against terrorist forces; others involve rescuing people and initiating peace (Chatterjee and Scheid 2). Whether for self-interest purposes like economic or political stability for foreign relations or humanitarian reasons, western military intervention plays an ethical role to resolve the crisis in nations. Its influence on power and culture of democracy will always be felt to be contradicting with such Islamic laws and powers, especially because it involves superior nations over others. Only then can the intervening state differentiate itself from others, through their purpose and the image they create in the public’s domain through their achievements. While more inclined to utilitarianism, the interventions effect to the public’s well-being determines their attitude towards it. Description of the context of statement The statement was based on Anthony Lang’s perception of the politics of military intervention. Owen reiterated the same ideology to justify the validity of contemporary military intervention practices. Owen understands the controversial issues facing the engagement of the western military powers and moves to seek the reasons for its legitimacy in the world politics. The statement was produced in the context of the author’s critical analysis of the three books written by North American authors (Lang, Finnermore and Crawford), who support military intervention under aims of humanitarian justification. Owen shows how such western powers have imperial history, and claims that such interventions have introduced western democracy in the countries still in crisis, but comes with other costs, where foreign nations have to accept western powers engagement and identities. In other words, weaker states’ rights are overruled by the power states in the international scene. This basically sets a debate over the ethicality of military intervention on the media. The opponents of the motion focus their arguments on historical doctrines, but often overweighed by the proponents argument on the virtues that intervention bring upon crisis and much projection of chaos in future; the motion on the military ethicality on the internet was won by proponents and the debate has so far received over 3000 views (“Is Military,” debate.org). Analysis of the text When a nation accepts assistance of foreign military intervention, it means the nation has itself tried and failed to defend itself against domestic or external challenges. Hence countries in crisis seek a greater power to intervene and calm the situation. The western military intervention in the Arab and third world countries represents the smart power that consist of alliances and partnerships to create a strong military at the international stage, which can be used to secure a nation’s interest. In 2011, such smart power entailing France, the UK, the USA and NATO troops were in a coalition to uproot Gaddafi’s tyranny, and provide a way that people could be free to choose their own destiny (BBC bbc.co.uk). In this context, the author claims that the intervention endeavors to do what is moral and promote positive behaviors, alongside carrying the image of the intervening state and the associated agonistic identity that distinguish themselves from others through their deeds. Presentation of the state agency is based on how the intervening power maintains its identity and distinguishes itself from the other political forces. For resistant rebels, their military intervention can use force to achieve the ethical purpose, whether democracy, peace, stability and foreign aid, which the people of the nation desire. This could also imply to safeguard the political and economic strength of a nation that could affect western powers and other nations’ sensitive issues of economy like trading, though often a matter of political realism. b. Pro- democracy assistance in Springing states (Arab and developing countries) Western powers have made a progress and implemented policies aimed at promoting democracy in the civil societies of Islamist nations. It is evident that the Islamist authoritarians have remained persistent and in grip of their political power despite the numerous civil movements. Western powers are aiding civil societies to bring in change in their political and economic systems, by funding programs to training people in different sectors of economies like politics, labor and education through the NGOs (Cambanis bostonglobe.com). The US has actively funded the foreign policy funding program for democracy promotions with billions of dollars so far being invested in the Middle East and third world countries, where societies are trained about their democratic rights. Earlier on, President Obama gave the following speech in vow to push for democracy after the North Africa uprising: “United States supports a set of universal rights.  And these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders – whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran…Our support for these principles is not a secondary interest.  Today I want to make it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions, and supported by all of the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at our disposal” (Office of the Press secretary whitehouse.gov). Description of the Obama’s statement The statement could be quite critical and unwelcomed by the authoritarians in the countries undergoing uprising. The world and the western powers have been watching closely the political trends of Arab countries, including the oppression of people’s rights in their own land. United States is a democratic nation with relations to Middle East countries. They could not just sit idle and watch humanitarian rights being suppressed at the expense of sustaining existing authoritarians. Obama’s statement concentrates on supporting human rights, liberalism with the available resources, and prioritizing them to bring political transformation and democracy. Context of Obama’s Statement The president produced the remarks in one of his briefings following the uprising that had occurred in Tunisia and Egypt. He aimed to defend the move of the US government towards supporting change for democracy and human rights in such nations, for the benefits of the general global society. President Obama congratulated the people’s will and self-determination for change. He however warns them that change does not come easily; in any case, resistance and other costs could occur, but re-affirms of the United States commitment to support reform and the democratic process. The statement was made available from the White House and part of the State’s release reiterated in most websites and published work. Obama’s works are reassuring to the politically struggling nations of receiving foreign assistance to transform their nations. Analysis of the Obama’s remarks Human rights defense that is at the core of promoting democracy in any nation is critical to Obama’s speech. He talks of universal human rights, which the general assembly of the UN clearly lays out in articles 1to 30 and freedom to all (UN 1-7). It is designed to govern all people and nations of their political system. The president sets out that, components of human rights ranging from freedom of expression to election by vote and equality among others should not be downplayed at any cost. Instead, resources should be polled together to promote reform and transition to democracy. This would see the democratic wave hatch into complete democracy. The human rights are a set which is indivisible and since the US supports the whole set, partial violation is equated to full violation of human rights, which call for concrete actions to rectify and enforce human rights. Since 2011, MENA region has received hundreds $US “to respond to the changing dynamics and support achievement of human rights and democracy in the region” (“Exercising” 7). It’s in line with United States funding of the US and foreign civil society groups to strengthen US democracy programs. c. Abstinence of Islamic movement empowerment by western powers The past experiences have taught the western powers that their intervention in foreign political issues could not always translate into what they expect. The incident of Taliban ruling in Afghanistan is an eye opener on how not only western, but other nations can unknowingly back the activities of host nations to extremists that obstruct peace and security across the globe. For example, Western relations with Egypt and like other Islamic nations had supported the authoritarian governments, only to later realize about the repressive power they exhibited in the course of uprising. Historically, imperialist support of Algerian army over the FIS (an Algerian Islamic political party) that had won the elections led to further suppression of democracy and human rights in the course of civil wars (Annis, rogerannis.com). Such experiences warn western interferences; “the western governments have become so afraid of empowering the ‘wrong’ Islamist movements that they don’t try to empower any at all” (Wittes 85). People and institutions in the uprising states are left to determine their own destiny without need of western power endorsement of parties. Description of Wittes’s statement The outcome of the political endorsement in the past to Islamic movements and political parties have not reaped the best when it came to promoting democracy and human rights. Though the empowerment have led to wining of the endorsed parties upon influence, the chances of backing up the wrong party are quite high in the Islamic nations, especially in the contemporary times when Islamic extremists can manipulate or disguise to support endorsed parties and acquire power, to settle their grievances with western powers and opponent Islamic nations through violence. Rather than risk this, western powers opt to refrain from empowering any Islamic movement. Context of Wittes’s statement Wittes gives the remark to give the western powers ideology of Islamic movements that followed few years after 9/ 11. The author intends to convince the western world that Islamic movements are not necessarily oppressors of democracy or the antagonist groups to initiating change in society. Wittes takes the stance that it’s the “political framework present in their societies and the cyclical manipulation of the domestic political space that make them behave the way they do” (85). Western power need not shy away but press for change to facilitate intense political competition that will bring forth democracy in due time. The authors work is based on intense research on the Middle East policies for presentation to the IAI. Analysis of Wittes statement Empowerment of the political parties gives them political strength and influence among the competitors. Western powers had in the past endorsed some parties in nations with movement (e.g. Algerian military) in hope that it would spur democracy, but resulted in the opposite. Similarly, they worked close with Islamic regimes (e.g. Mubarak and Ali Ben governments) for decades before the citizens in these Islamic nations demanded change. Western powers have put themselves in tough positions hoping to provoke democracy and change, but ended up tarnishing their image in the global society. They backed the wrong power and ended bearing the blame and accusation of hypocrisy to reap the best out of the resources of these nations. They have also been victims of terrorism violence and are persuaded that such empowerment would open up opportunities of radical Islamists to institute themselves in Arab governments through endorsed movements (Young 3). Based on the text, the option of the western powers is to find other alternatives to further their pro-democracy agendas other than empowerment. Initiation of negotiations rather than political intervention by western powers has been the latest trend of governments and the influential Islamic movements to ensure power balance and set democracy to civil societies. d. EU and Arab Countries Cooperation Agreement Overview The EU has been involved with MENA regions for decades and has the complete idea of the regions political culture and democracy gap. Both regions conduct trade and other commercial activities for benefit of their economies and social affairs, which has been enforced by the different cooperative agreements they have. These agreements have existed and give conditions to guide their relations against its violations. “Democracy forms part of the main cooperation agreements and platforms between the European Union (EU) and the Arab world, such as the EMP and the ENP as well as bilateral partnership or association agreements” (Ziadeh 3). The EU has reformulated most of its policies relating to the MENA region to address numerous challenges in terms of social, economic, political and security issues that could affect democracy and human rights among the state actors. Description of selected statement The existence of the Arab Spring appeared to test the established EU foreign policies and agreements, especially with the Arab world. Despite the existing relations, the EU realized the recent trend of Arab uprising and citizens aspirations for democracy. In response, the EU has come up with strategies to accelerate reforms through its existing mechanisms like EMP and ENP among others, which include democratic transformation and other support. Description of the context of Statement The statement was made by Doctor Radwan Ziadeh in recommending emphasis for democracy and human rights objectives among other policies in the Arab world for better relations with the EU. From the context, the Arab countries had been established to have had long standing repressive regimes. The author advocates for tailored relationship of the EU to individual Arab countries in consideration to the level of democratic development (Ziadeh 3). The remark was made in a published work by IDEA before the Arab uprising in 2009. In line with such recommendations, the EU has renewed and launched its relational agreements and mechanisms from the beginning of 2011 for better EU-MENA strategy enforcing partnership for democracy (Wouters & Duquet 10). Analysis of the Text The cooperative agreements between the two regions are a pro measure taken by the EU in conjunction the Arab countries to support the later in transition to democratic from autocratic regimes. The renewal of existing agreements and policies improve closer relations and liberalization and cooperation in their common commercial activities. For example, there exists the Libya-EU agreement to support its current changes and economic factors. To promote democracy, the EU takes advantage of the existing mechanism to export democracy through the instruments’ (like EMP and ENP) objectives among other policies. The EU is a good position to offer its expertise through its institutions, government, civil organizations and unions among others, such that Arab countries can achieve reform and promote liberal democracy. The bilateral agreements for example, have a clause that demand respect for democracy and human rights. e. Critics to promotion of democracy in the Arab World Overview There seems to be hidden interests among the western powers and actors who argue to promote democracy in the Arab countries. While some nations have intensely been scrutinized and even open critics made for the long standing autocratic regimes, others are treated quite leniently, yet show no difference in their suppression of the uprising, lack of freedom and democracy and even violation of human rights. While democracy aspirations for citizens in places like Egypt was well supported by the western regimes, little has been experienced in strongholds of the autocratic regimes. It is evident there have to be an existing issue that is being protected, such that the western powers fail to use such energy to criticize. According to Zebley “HRW said the reasons so many democratic governments make an ‘Arab exception’ include fear of political Islam and terrorism, the need to keep oil supplies flowing, and a longstanding policy of reliance on autocracies to maintain Arab Israeli peace and to help stifle migration to Europe” (jurist.org). Therefore other human rights and international actors find themselves alone to criticizing such protected governments because western powers retrieve. Description of the statement The Human rights watch argues that the western powers, especially the European countries and the USA have established long term relationships with the Arab countries. This translates to the tolerance of the autocratic regimes to safeguard their benefits and avoid the political and conflict implications of western powers intervention and critics. HRW has monitored the trend of western powers behaviors and criticism towards the different countries of MENA regions. Description of the context of the statement The statement was made in a release of HRW report of 2012, following the western governments’ behavior of tolerance towards Arab nations that impede democracy and increased human rights violations. It exposes the violations of the western governments in failure to defend the human rights and their cunning behavior associated with their self-interests. The author, Zibley reiterates HRW stands to no exception of democratic reformation and criticize western powers for their hypocritical behavior and lack of international action. Analysis of the text Power factor and capitalist nature of States forms the basis of the text. When a nation has something to offer, then it has certain advantage over others in how it relates with foreign powers. For example, Saudi Arabia seems much of an exception in military and political intervention, because it is a rich supply of the oil resource to the western governments. It hence enjoys certain power compared to other Arab countries. While countries of North African region can receive harsh treatment from western countries, the likes of Saudi Arabia and China are untouchable; in fact, they have become allies and shun from open critics directed to them. This is the nature of political realism. Other than the accrued benefits, such nations are treated in higher capacity to maintain peace and cooperation around the region. Therefore, democracy would be neglected at the expense of the protected interests and fears of unforeseen implications. Acronyms IAI- Instituto Affari Internazionali MENA- Middle East and North Africa EMP - Euro-Mediterranean Partnership ENP- European Neighborhood Policy Work Cited Adams, D. L. and Newell, C. R. “Operational Art in the Joint and Combined Arenas.” Army.mil. June 1988. Web. 2 April 2014 Annis, R. “Lessons for Egypt from Algeria’s Military Coup of 1991/92.” Rogerannis.com. 28 July 2013. Web. 2 May 2014. BBC. “Libya: US, UK and France Attack Gaddafi Forces.” Bbc.co.uk. 20 March 2011. Web.1 May 2014. Chatterjee, D. K. and Scheid Don E. Eds. Ethics and Foreign Intervention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print. “Exercising U.S Leadership: Democracy Funding in a Time of Global Change.” Freedomhouse.org. 15 May 2012. Web. 2 May 2014. Hamid, S. “The Struggle for Middle East Democracy.” Aucegypt.edu . n.d. Web. 30 April 2014. “Is Military Intervention Ethical.” Debate.org. n.d. Web. 1 May 2014. Office of the Press Secretary. “Remarks of the President on Middle East and North Africa.” Whitehouse.gov. 19 May 2011. Web. 2 May 2014. Owen, P. “Review Article: Theorizing Military Intervention.” Chathamhouse.org . n.d. Web. 30 April 2014. UN. “United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.” Watchlist.org. 1949. Web. 2 May 2014. Wittes, T. C. “Promoting Democracy in the Arab World: The Challenge of Joint Action.” Brookings.edu. April 2004. Web. 2 May 2014. Young, S. A. “A Basis for Middle East Islamic Extremism.” kaplan.edu. n.d. web. 2 May 2014. Read More