 |
|
|
 Editorials | Opinions | March 2005 
Is George W. Bush Right?
 Hubert Védrine - Le Monde
When George W. Bush presented his "Greater Middle-East" project at the beginning of 2004, Europe did not conceal its skepticism. But whether right or wrong, the United States has the power to create faits accomplis. Has it, whatever we may think about it, begun to change the Middle East?
One view is that there are plenty of reasons to doubt that is the case and to worry. First of all, without even going back as far as the nineteenth and twentieth century efforts to modernize the Arab world, one may highlight diverse recent advances, from Morocco to different Emirates, that owe nothing to American injunctions - or then only in a very indirect way - and that respond rather to an effervescence, an impatience in Arab societies.
Another argument: It is artificial to look at Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the Maghreb in the same way. One may also counter the Bush administration's satisfied announcements with the argument that it is far too early to declare victory, that it is relatively easy to organize elections - which does not in any way detract from the courage demonstrated by voters - but a long, slow process for democratic culture and respect for the minority to become rooted there, where they have never existed before.
That's the difference between restoring and installing democracy. One may consequently object that everything could still turn out badly: in the Middle East, if Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush don't give Mahmoud Abbas any political perspective beyond the withdrawal from Gaza; in Iraq, if the Sunnis don't resign themselves to being a minority, if the Shiites fail to give them convincing constitutional and political guarantees, and if no agreement over Kirkuk is found.
One may add that no one knows how things will turn out in Lebanon, and we should not forget the Iranian crisis that is developing.
Nor should we forget that everywhere else, the changes are cosmetic; that truly free elections would most likely bring Islamists to power in all these countries; that it is not certain we are ready to bear the consequences of that any more than are modern Muslims; that these Islamists do not easily transform themselves into "Islamic-Democrats" as the Christian Democrats in the Christian world did in the end - even though, initially, the term was oxymoronic. All of this is not wrong.
To these may be added other reasons for skepticism that are less pure intellectually. Notably, in some European countries where one feels a certain irritation at the idea that George W. Bush should have been able to start a promising process by such crude and brutal methods: hence the perceptible discomfort about how to situate oneself in relation to this new state of affairs.
It is nevertheless specious to accuse those who are circumspect with regard to American zeal of being on that account partisans of the status quo and authoritarian regimes. That's a little facile! After all, the present situation in the Middle East owes much more to the United States and its freewheeling foreign policy in recent decades than to Europeans.
If it were only up to Europeans, there would undoubtedly have been a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel for some time. Arab rancor would be less, and less exploitable by enemies of the West. Not everything would be settled, but nothing would be the same. Not long ago, the Americans preached accommodation with Algerian Islamists. And in 1979, Jimmy Carter believed that democracy would emerge from the fall of the Shah of Iran. Consequently, Europeans' caution, the fruit of experience, is neither shocking nor ridiculous, and betrays no love of dictatorships.
Nonetheless, even if all these objections with regard to the missionary policy of President Bush are well founded, it would be absurd to ratiocinate and to deny that something is happening. Is it due to George W. Bush himself and his rhetoric? To the intimidating effect of American force on several regimes who have thus been placed on the defensive? To profound movements in the heart of Arab peoples abandoned by modernity, but attracted by the image of it presented by the media and the Internet? To the activity of several Arab leaders and modern thinkers who have prepared the ground?
In the end, it matters little. Since a movement has begun, it is vital for the Arab people, and also for their close European neighbors, that it not turn into a catastrophe. Let us not forget that in the nineteenth century, the nationalist principle that enthused revolutionary as well as Bonapartist France modernized Europe, but also put it to fire and blood.
The real difference is not between those who are for democracy in the Arab world and those who are against it. Who can be against it? The difference is between those for whom it's an easy posture, a way of criticizing European diplomacies, a dilatory pretext for further delaying the necessary Palestinian state, a missionary exaltation, and those conscious of the risks, for whom it's a serious and responsible long-term commitment, a necessary and desirable - but also high risk - process that will stretch out over years and must, in consequence, be managed with perseverance and care with regard to method and rhythm.
From this I conclude that we French and other Europeans should feel more clearly and visibly involved, with the Americans and as much as they, as actors in this process - and not only as spectators or commentators. Let us then and to that end take advantage of the best attitudes demonstrated by the Bush administration: already several new convergences have appeared. In the absence of convergence, we must impose ourselves with our experience, our knowledge of the countries, and all our resources for action, the Barcelona process and others, because it is crucial for us.
That, however, presupposes that we and the Americans take Arab demands and aspirations as our point of departure, those of Arab governments, but also those of their societies; and that we are always conscious that, in the end, they will be the inventors or the gravediggers of their own modernization and their own process of democratization. It also presupposes that it all be done in a spirit of brotherhood, without Western dogmatism, and without hubris.
Otherwise, no matter how well-intentioned it may be, it will only be another neo-colonial wave that will lead to dangerous disappointments.
Hubert Védrine is a former French Foreign Affairs Minister. |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us