Academic Year 2008-2009

The Fares Center Forum on U.S.-Middle East Diplomacy:
Should the U.S. promote democracy in the Middle East and, if so, how?
Wednesday, November 5, 12:30PM
The Fares Center Conference Room, Tufts University
Speakers: Shahla Al-Kli, Erin Clancy, Mohammed Herzallah, Ivan Rasmussen, Dahlia Shaham, and Tarek Zeidan
Moderator: Ambassador William A. Rugh, Fares Center Visiting Scholar; Edward R. Murrow Visiting Professor of Public Diplomacy, The Fletcher School

Summary

Whereas in the past the US would privately prod Middle Eastern countries to democratize, in the last eight years the Bush administration has publicly made democracy promotion in the Middle East a central tenet of its foreign policy. In a roundtable discussion held the morning after the election of Senator Barack Obama to the presidency, a panel of students who were either from the Middle East or with recent experience related to the region, met to discuss U.S. strategies for promoting democracy. Ambassador William Rugh moderated the roundtable discussion.

Shahla Ali-Kli (MALD '09), grew up in Iraq and concentrated on her country's experience with democracy. She began the discussion stating that it is foolhardy to speak broadly about democracy promotion in the Middle East: with so many different countries and cultures, there cannot be a “one size fits all” policy in the region. Ali-Kli went on to explain that while the U.S. is uniquely qualified to help push for democracy in Iraq, the new administration must understand that democratization takes time. Simply running down a time-constrained checklist will result in gains that are superficial and tenuous at best, such as the hasty passage of the Iraq constitution, which is a source of conflict today. Instead, the U.S. must focus its efforts on long-term solutions such as promoting civil society and introducing democratic principles through education.

Erin Clancy (MALD '09), who spent the summer working as a political officer at the U.S. embassy in Syria, spoke about the need for the incoming Obama administration to redefine democracy promotion in the Middle East. While mistakes have been made, the U.S. must not abandon this cornerstone of American foreign policy, even when election results run counter to U.S. interests, as exemplified by Hamas in Palestine. Regardless, elections are not the only marker of democracy. Clancy suggests that U.S. diplomats and other representatives leave their embassies and work with the population to promote civil society initiatives and education, all the while understanding that democracy takes time. After all, it took the U.S. over 200 years to become a full-fledged democracy.

Mohammed Herzallah (MALD '10), who grew up in Palestine, began his presentation noting that a great number of Middle Easterners are cynical regarding democratization in the region. The election of Hamas to power has particularly caused many to fear the unintended consequences of democracy. Herzallah noted that progress is under way, notably in Bahrain, Morocco and Kuwait, which have passed legislation that is tolerant of the opposition; however, these governments, like the majority of other Middle Eastern ones, demonstrate zero respect for the law. Herzallah concluded by explaining that he felt that the U.S. should not promote democracy in the region for three reasons: the aforementioned possibility of unintended consequences; the notion that the U.S. is observing a double-standard when it promotes democracy abroad, while violating it in places such as Guantanamo Bay; and that democracy ought to be homegrown, allowing people to fully experience the process.

Hawazin Nasseef (MALD '09), a native of Saudi Arabia, focused the discussion on democracy promotion in her own country. Nasseef explained that democratization in Saudi Arabia has come about only thanks to pressure from the Bush administration, and questions whether an Obama administration would continue to apply this pressure. However, she went on to state that President Bush was mistaken in attempting to impose democracy by force and that in doing so he created a backlash even among those who were pro-democracy. Nasseef explained that Arabs have begun to associate democracy solely with U.S. imposition of this value and are thus rejecting it. The U.S. should take advantage of the fact that American culture is popular in the Middle East, and use “soft power” to promote democratic values. Without these values in place, Nasseef argued that Saudi Arabians are not ready for elections, as they will only elect extremists who will nullify any gains made thus far.

Ivan Rasmussen (MALD '09), who has done work on human rights and democracy issues at the State Department, began by quickly laying out the arguments for and against U.S. promotion of democracy in the Middle East. Doing so will promote stability in the region, which is fundamental to our energy and proliferation concerns, but it is at best questionable whether the U.S. should force its ideals on others. Rasmussen went on to acknowledge that regardless of any objections, it is clear the U.S. will continue to promote democracy, and thus the focus ought to be on how. He suggests that the U.S. look beyond elections and focus on sponsoring domestic and international NGOs that can instill democratic values among the populace.

Dahlia Shaham (MALD '09), who recently returned from Israel where she was conducting research for her thesis, stressed the stabilizing effect of democratization. She argued that stability is a prerequisite to the other benefits of democracy, particularly greater human rights and a stronger economy. However, to achieve stability, Shaham argues that a more “hands-off” approach is needed, if only to gain the trust of the Middle East populace. This approach entails a demilitarization of the Middle East, and the promotion of a free exchange of ideas facilitated by open forums such as those provided by the Internet. It is this latter issue that the U.S. government ought to emphasize: if state governments control information, democracy will surely be stifled.

Tarek Zeidan (MALD '09), who has experience working as an electoral monitor for his native country of Lebanon, argued that democracy is a discipline that cannot be taught, only experienced. The process will certainly be painful, but there is no alternative. What's more, Arabs will likely rebel against U.S. attempts to promote democracy, as they believe that the U.S. is using democratization as an excuse to exert control over the Middle East. And, if U.S. influence is the only force urging otherwise authoritarian countries to become more democratic, what happens when the U.S. loses this influence? Will privileges be revoked? Zeidan concluded by stating that if the U.S. insists on promoting democracy, it would do well to limit its efforts to ground-up strategies.

More Forum Events >