Washington's best alternative to resource insecurity, regional instability and costly military misadventures is to support true democracy, justice and non-bias, writes Ayman El-Amir* The greater Middle East region that former US president George W Bush sought and failed to reform following the invasion of Iraq is teetering on the brink of chaos. Escalating confrontation in Afghanistan and Pakistan between Taliban and Al-Qaeda on the one hand and US-led NATO forces and national governments on the other has become uncontrollable. Al-Qaeda's recently launched front in Yemen has turned into a regional war that the combined military efforts of the government and heavy American and Saudi Arabian support has failed to quell. Iran continues to defy Western powers over its nuclear enrichment programme while its political theocracy is facing increasing challenges. In the Near East, Israel continues its time-honoured practice of frustrating legitimate Palestinian rights, thus increasing tensions in the area with unpredictable consequences. Israeli arrogance has touched off a diplomatic row with Turkey, its one-time close military ally. US policy of automatic support of Israeli actions has radicalised peoples and polarised governments of the area. In Egypt, the social fabric is bursting at the seams as a consequence of years of political stalemate and economic decline. It has also given rise to domestic religious extremism as demonstrated by the recent murder of six Copts and one Muslim policeman in Upper Egypt as they left Christmas mass at a Nagaa Hammadi church on 6 January. And Iraq continues to be a tragic case study of how the US used military power to turn a major Arab country into a sectarian pandemonium for its own ends, and is getting away with it. At one time most countries of the wider Middle East region were in the process of transition to the status of democratic nation-states. After decades of struggle against the old colonial powers they emerged as newly independent states that confirmed their standing in the global community by joining the prestigious United Nations Organisation. They didn't get very far. With no democratic tradition to build on, some of them, including Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Gulf states, had only their tribal tradition to rely on. They built government institutions backed by a balance of tribal coalitions represented by pseudo-political parties, as in the case of Afghanistan and Pakistan, or on the tradition of tribal dynasties, as in the case of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. These are the countries the late Egyptian diplomat and political analyst Tahseen Bashir called "tribes with flags", singling out Egypt as the only nation-state. Other countries were relatively more fortunate. Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen climbed out of a combined state of colonial rule and royal tradition to establish themselves as modern republics. However, since their evolution was led by the military elite, they transited from colonial/monarchical rule to the dictatorship of a military oligarchy with the trappings of democracy. The nature of the military regimes stymied the development of genuine democracy "of the people, by the people, and for the people". In addition, the creation of the state of Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people and the East-West Cold War confrontation generated military conflict and fragmented the countries of the region, leading to further tensions. The downfall of the former Soviet Union in the last decade of the 20th century left the countries of the region vulnerable to US hegemony that sought and got control over the region's oil and gas resources and the positioning of strategic military bases. Failure of the transition to secular democracy, the perpetuation of autocratic rule and the heavy-handed US presence in the region and its outright support of Israel inevitably led to regression and national frustration. In the absence of a democratic rotation of power and the rule of law, oppressed nations invoked religion as their weapon of resistance against both foreign military invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as against entrenched domestic dictators. The 30-year war in Afghanistan is but one example. It was there that the perennial phenomenon of terrorism acquired global dimensions. Religious extremism inspired the demanding, two- edged struggle against foreign military occupation and indigenous dictatorship. The struggle often embraced terrorist tactics that, in the previous era of anti-colonial resistance, was hailed as revolutionary violence. US military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, its failure to push through the democratic reforms it clamoured for in the Middle East and alliance with local dictators to guarantee its interests are fuelling terrorism in the region. The Obama administration, in its bid to turn its back on every aspect of the Bush administration's policy, has made it clear that it has no intention of pressuring its local autocratic allies for democratic reform. This is not to say that the previous administration was fully determined to bring about that reform. In effect, it abandoned its so-called Greater Middle East Initiative before it even began because its target regimes persuaded it that such reform could only embolden religious extremists and hurt US interests in the region at a critical time during the war on global terror. Like its local allies, the US perceived terrorism as a security challenge that should be met with enhanced military tactics and manpower. It was therefore alarmed at Afghanistan President Hamed Karzai's bid to engage the Taliban in dialogue, and pressured him to drop it. A little far afield, in the Arab Gulf region, the US may seem to have a safe haven for its policy and military presence. It is a misleading tranquillity. Stirrings of tension under the surface are rising on two fronts: the limits of parliamentary democracy, particularly in Kuwait, and the increasing Shia-Sunni contention in Bahrain and Qatar. Parliamentary democracy in Kuwait is unstable as evidenced by frequent confrontation between the government and the Umma Council, leading to several dissolutions of parliament and new elections. Last August, Kuwait announced the arrest of a six-man terrorist cell associated with Al-Qaeda that had planned to carry out subversive activities at sensitive locations. Compared to Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar have a limited form of democratic representation but are more wary of Shia demands for minority rights in a predominantly Sunni state. The Arab Gulf Shia is amenable to Iranian influence that supported Iraqi Shia and helped them gain the upper hand following the 2003 US invasion. What both Shia and Sunnis have in common is an innate resentment of expanding US military presence in their countries, although the former could not overlook the fact that it was the US invasion that gave pre-eminence to their Shia brethren in Iraq. So Iran will always be the influential catalyst in the US-Gulf states equation. However, the seeds of sectarian and political tensions that threaten the seemingly unshakeable stability are not far from blossoming. It will always be remembered that it was the US that had nurtured these seeds when it invaded and divided Iraq along sectarian lines. The only role the US could play to stem the tide of terror and instability in the greater Middle East region is to help promote genuine democracy. It could do so by putting its autocratic allies on notice that it will establish a close link between its support and the extent of their respect of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic rotation of power. This could largely eliminate US worries over its interests and the heavy military presence it maintains to secure them. * The writer is former Al-Ahram correspondent in Washington, DC. He also served as director of United Nations Radio and Television in New York.
