U.S. foreign policy and conflict prevention theory in the Arab Spring

Foreign Policy

United States Foreign Policy:

The Situation in the Middle East

The United States has been deeply entrenched politically in the Middle East since the discovery of oil in the 1930s. Before this time, France and Britain held loosely controlled colonies in the region, chiefly to benefit through their own shipping routes through the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean Sea. Since the discovery of surplus oil in 1930, however, the Middle East has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policymakers. Rather than try to occupy or control the various states in the region, the United States has opted to support existing regime leaders through financial benefits, weapons technology, and worldwide political support. This paper will aim to examine four countries, namely Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria, in a unique policy study that aims to apply conflict prevention theory to current U.S. foreign policy based on the events of the Arab Spring and analyze the roles that the U.S. had played and can play in the future in the region.

United States Foreign Policy and Conflict Prevention Theory

Conflict prevention theory as looked at through the lens of U.S. foreign policy, will approach the conditions and recent events of these four separate Arab nations, all of which have different historical ties and understandings of the U.S. And the West. The theories presented here seek to resolve long-standing misunderstandings in the region by approaching three separate but equally important aspects of any healthy state in a triumvirate of analysis. These aspects are, thus, the socio-historical, the political and the economic spheres. The United States is in a very strong position to influence several of these countries, if not all, due to its own strengths as a liberal democracy and in economic matters.

Egypt

Egypt is the most populous Arab country, with Cairo being the most populous city, as well as the heart of Arab culture. This country does not have oil wealth, but it does have two important things that attract the U.S., namely, access to the Suez Canal and a friendly relationship with Israel. The Mubarak regime, which had just been ousted, was certainly brutal to its people at times, but overall could be described as inefficient, slow and unrepresentative of the nation's youth. Epidemic problems of unemployment and lack of access to improvements in education and employment rendered the country simmering and finally exploding into a revolution. These forces also contributed to the general decline of the state and the feeling that if things did not change, hopelessness would increase exponentially, and this eventually led to the ousting of the Mubarak regime.

Like Tunisia, the primary concerns of the citizens' overthrow of the government was not the personality of its leader per se, but rather his inability to effectively manage the state. What Egyptian citizens sought was not quite the freedoms of expression and what is seen as secular activities of the West, but rather the ability to find meaningful purpose and employment. One can see very well here that something as simple as being able to feed one's family becomes a powerful motivator. This is an important distinction from both Syria and Libya, which will be analyzed below, and where the regime has far more of a repressing, police-like tendency. For the reasons mentioned above, however, the United States has been quite involved in Egyptian policies and will most likely remain very interested in the future of Egypt.

United States foreign policy has been 30 years in the making in Egypt. It is not doubted in political circles in this country that the U.S. has aided Mubarak, at time, due to policy interests. However, the U.S. has not always taken the best approach to Egyptian problem on the ground; rather it has only been concerned with the political/regional attributes of Egyptian foreign policy, as it mostly concerned neighboring Israel. Since the Arab Spring and the fall of Mubarak, the U.S. will have to utilize the lessons of conflict prevention theory to create a more stable and ultimately healthier country in the ashes of the dictatorship.

Socio-historically speaking, Egypt has been a country led by strong men since its independence. It has created a network of the "haves" and the "have nots," or those who are willing to abide by the rules of the dictatorship and get ahead in an old-world cronyist-like fashion, and those who play by the rules and fall behind. Conflict prevention theory is based on the principle that easing traditional hostilities first comes from representation in political arenas. Democracy is still the only form of government that can ease historical burdens and this is the political attitude that must be encouraged in the country.

Despite the ability of anti-American Islamic parties to rise to power in Egypt as they did in Iran in the revolution of 1979, it is preferential to have bottled up voices be heard in some form rather than decades of stagnation driving Egyptian people to hopelessness and despair. Cairo, despite being the largest Arab city and at the symbolic heart of the Arab world, has severely lagged behind other cities as far as business practice goes. Cities like Dubai, Riyadh, and Beirut have surpassed Cairo, simply because of their leaders' ability to look into the future and see where their nation needs to direct itself.

Conflict prevention theory states that strong economic foundations within a nation tend to create a happier environment, a wealthier people, and more opportunity for those in the middle class. The United States has previously offered Egypt some of the largest sums of aid toward its political infrastructure in the world; however, the average Egyptian has still failed to see any of these benefits. U.S. foreign policy going forward needs to encourage the Egyptians' embrace of liberal market economic policies so that the average Egyptian has access to high quality goods, which will improve the daily lives, and make the nation richer.

Libya

Libya has been in the midst of civil war for the past six months and has been quite a unique country on this list. Situated between Tunisia and Egypt, Libya has developed its own culture based on the eccentricities of the late Colonel Qaddafi. The country is based on far more tribal links than any other country on its list, because of its large size and sparse population. This also means that the strategies that may work in a densely populated metropolis such as Cairo simply do not withstand the same weight in a country full of small city-states, such as Libya. The NATO air strikes that have recently led to the liberation of the Libyan state have been, to a large extent, very successful and beneficial for the country; yet it is important to note that fractions within the country remain, particularly between the long liberated East and the Qaddafi supporting West, in Tripoli.

Conflict prevention theory may seem contradictory in a country that has just held a civil war, but it remains an important focus of U.S. foreign policy going forward in Libya. Socio-historical problems facing Libya stem from the tribal bonds that divide the nation. The United States must focus on finding a balance between the tribes rather than supporting a single tribe over the others, as it had when cooperating with Qaddafi. Politically, the three major cities of Libya are Tripoli, Misrata and Benghazi. These cities will have to find a way to power broker themselves in order to create a thriving democracy, based in Tripoli, but representative of the other two cities, as all three places are cornerstones of Libya's future as well as strong reminders of the country's past, on which a successful future can be built.

Libya is the only country of the four analyzed in this paper that has massive oil revenue potential, which creates a dynamic of possible laziness by politicians and corruption between power holders who will be new to the recently acquired riches of oil wealth. Therefore, the U.S. must not limit its interactions with Libya's economic leaders based solely on oil, as opportunity for shipping in the Mediterranean Sea is also an important potential benefit at which the U.S. can look.

Syria

Syria is last on this list for a reason. Its fate as of now is still undetermined; however, it is by far the least likely of the Arab Spring states to succeed. The brutal dictatorship of the Assad Regime, as well as the proximity of Syria to radicalized Iran and its relatively closed border with the West, has meant that there is little Western sympathy and understanding in Washington of Syria's internal affairs. It is impossible to expect some sort of Libya-like NATO operation to lead to the same successes. Further, it would appear that Damascus and Aleppo are still supporting the Assad regime because of the unique minority sects of Christians and Druze in Syria.

Conflict prevention theory is unable to work in a country that is simply inhospitable to Western influence; however, there are still lessons that can be applied from conflict prevention theory into Syria, which can inform us as to how the West should approach this country, if indeed the Assad regime does fall. Socio-historically, for example, retaliations against minority sects, as well as considerations for the massive influence Iran holds in Syria need to both come into consideration if the West is to engage Syria. There is no doubt that Turkey and Iraq will be the two important allies of the U.S. In this situation, and the U.S. must take good stock of these two allies in addressing the eventual collapse of dictatorship and emergence of Syria into a fragile democracy.

Politically, it is unforeseen as to whether the Arab Spring revolters in Syria are actually looking for a democracy or whether they are simply crying out because they are being crushed by the regime. Economically, Syria has been isolated by United Nations sanctions; however, in a post-conflict situation these sanctions would be lifted and Western business would enter from Turkey and Iraq. It is unfortunate, but, again, it must be stressed that of the four countries analyzed here, Syria is unlikely to fall or in any way be swayed by policy makers in foreign countries and in Washington.

Conclusion

After having studied these four Arab case studies, one can clearly see that the United States has immense foreign policy interests, opportunities, and shortcomings in the region. Conflict prevention theory succeeds because it removes political bias, favoritism, corruption, and all the ailments of the Arab dictatorships, and therefore this theory is the best theory applicable to U.S. foreign policy in this region. Having examined this theory's application to a country from three perspectives, one can also see the wealth of knowledge that is to be gained from more in-depth examination of these situations.

However, one must also note that although democracy is the best form of government, this does not necessarily mean that all countries in the Middle East will embrace it. Indeed, some countries may not function well under democracy. For this reason, each country must be treated as its own entity, as well as examined from the point-of-view of conflict prevention theories, whose honesty comes from removal of all things realpolitik and embrace of the demands and desires of any human being, Arab, Muslim, or otherwise.

References:

"Carnegie Corporation of New York: Search Publications." Carnegie Corporation of New York: Home. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. .

"Carnegie Corporation of New York: Search Publications." Carnegie Corporation of New York: Home. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. .

"Carnegie Corporation of New York: Search Publications." Carnegie Corporation of New York: Home. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. .

"QDDR." U.S. Department of State. Web. 24 Oct. 2011. .