Arrogant American Universalism and the Middle East

America's universalist pretensions are bad for America and bad for the Middle East.

America, and by extension Western civilization, has a deep rooted belief that Western values should be universal values. It is a culture of 'universalism'. It is generally taken for granted that things like democracy, human rights, and economic liberalization are good for all people and hence should be spread throughout the globe. However, the drive to spread American values often encounters resentment in societies that do not share American ideals. Today, the American government remains dedicated to using its forign policy to promote its values around the world. There are two problems with this, a) promoting American values often comes into conflict with America's practical interests, b) it is ridiculus and arrogant to assume that Western values should be adopted around the world.

To eliminate any confusion, the values that I am refering to are economic, political, and cultural. The values America seeks to spread through its foriegn policy in the Middle East are:

Influence Middle Eastern countries to adopt an American style economic system based on the economic values of:
- market based pricing
- free trade
- capital market liberalization
- privatization

Promote core American values concerning:
- human rights
- democracy
- liberal government
- individualism

American universalism and American practical interest represent the two opposing poles of their foreign policy. On one hand America desires to elevate its core values of democracy, free markets, limited government, human rights, individualism, and the rule of law into universal values. On the other hand they strive to take actions that are in the best practical interests of America. The paradox of American power is that these two opposing objectives - universalism and American interests - are in direct conflict with each other. This conflict at the heart of American foreign policy is the reason that the United sates has found itself forced into increasingly awkward, contradictory and blatantly hypocritical positions. American attempts to impose its values are met with hostility in the Middle East. Middle Easterners do not hesitate to point out the gap between American redirect and American actions. As long as universalism remains a central factor in their foreign policy the United sates will be hampered from achieving its objectives and will continue to provoke resentment throughout the region.

Universalism is not the source of all foreign policy problems, but it is the source of the most fundamental and inescapable ones. For example, how can America control unwanted political elements while still promoting democracy? Americans find themselves forced into hypocritical positions and double standards as they try to balance their desire to spread American values with their need to do what is in America's best interests. The gap between American action and American redirect is becoming increasingly obvious. Democracy is encouraged, but not if it results in leaders who are perceived as a threat to American interests. Human rights are an issue for some countries but not for others. Aggression against some countries (oil-rich Kuwait) is forcefully repulsed, while aggression against other countries (Bosnia) is tolerated for longer. The right of every nation to self-determination is preached, but not if it means removing American troops from foreign lands. Weapons of mass destruction are wrong but not if it concerns western countries like Israel. Some countries should be forced to obey UN resolutions while others are exempt. Hypocrisy and double standards are an inevitable and inescapable result of universalist policy.


Democracy

American efforts to spread values have focused on democracy more than any other value. One of the most unquestioned tenets of American politics is the idea that democracy is a good thing for all humanity, and past presidents have promoted it throughout the world with zeal. The Bush administration has pledged to continue that tradition. Richard Haas, the Director of Policy Planning at the US State Department, has recently released a report outlining the government's new strategy in the Middle East. In that report Haas affirms that "US policy will be more actively engaged in supporting democratic trends in the Muslim world than ever before." The report also asserted that some American values are "basic human aspirations" and that America should promote these values "because they are universal." The Bush administration's enthusiasm for promoting democracy is strange considering that past efforts have met little success and have often ended with Americans going against their democratic ideals to protect American interests.

In 1992 America supported Algeria's attempt to hold its first democratic election. It soon became clear that the FIS, an Islamic Fundamentalist party, were going to win by a landslide victory with over 90% of the votes. America quickly reversed its position and supported the current Algerian government in its move to cancel the election, which renewed a bloody civil war that continues to this day. This is a perfect example of how the desire to spread its values is in direct conflict with America's practical interests. More recently, in July 2001, president Bush warned Palestinians that voting for Yassir Arafat would jeopardize chances for a future Palestinian state. Once again America ran into conflict between its ideals of democracy and its desire to control politics in the middle east. In Egypt, the American government has helped president Hosni Mubarak in his attempts to prevent rival political parties, like the Muslim Brotherhood, from running in democratic elections. Despite that this is an obvious violation of democracy the United States is supportive because they want to eliminate the chances of the Muslim Brotherhood getting into power. All of these actions send the message that America supports democracy in the Middle East, but only if it results in leadership friendly to the US.

Human Rights:

The concept of universal human rights is a cherished belief that is deeply ingrained in American politics. The American drive to stop suffering and injustice around the world in the name of human rights is a noble cause. However, American notions of human rights have not been embraced around the world. Instead, they have often been met with resentment and hostility in cultures that see the notion of universal human rights as a violation of their ideas of morality. Critics are quick to point out, and rightly so, that ?'universal human rights' are not really universal. The rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reflect a Western concept of morality that most non-western cultures do not agree with. In Asia, some leaders have argued that universal human rights go against Asian values that assert the welfare of the collective is more important than the welfare of the individual. Opposition is even more intense in the Middle East. An Indian diplomat, Shashi Tharoor, simplified the dilemma into a question, "When you stop a man in traditional dress from beating his wife, are you upholding her human rights or violating his?" The question may be offensive to many, but it effectively makes the point. Western concepts of universal human rights are not universal at all.

The American drive to promote and protect human rights has often conflicted with America's practical interests. Many of the countries that commit human rights violations are also important allies in the Middle East. For example, Saudi Arabia has a horrible human rights record of public executions, torture, ethnic discrimination, women's rights abuses and more. But Saudi Arabia occupies an important strategic position in the center of the Middle East, controls more oil reserves than any other country on Earth, and wields a lot of influence over other leaders in the Middle East. In this case, America simply cannot afford to make enemies of the Saudi regime, so they support the Saudi royal family and ignore the human rights abuses. The hypocrisy becomes obvious when the Americans ignore the Saudi's but slap Iraq with sanctions, no-fly-zones, and arms restrictions in the name of protecting human rights. In many other countries like Uzbekistan, Algeria, and formerly Afghanistan, the human rights abuses are simply ignored because these countries are not important to American interests. For years the United States, and the rest of the world, ignored the situation if Afghanistan. It was not until Sept 11 made the country important to Washington that anything was done on behalf of the Afghan people. Many Middle Easterners claim that this is part of a larger pattern: human rights are an issue for America's enemies, they are not an issue for America's friends, and they are ignored in countries where America has no interests.

I'm open to debate and I am interested in hearing other peoples opinions.