Middle East Suffering from Post-Cairo Depression?

“Apparently”, the new American administration doesn’t have time for democracy-promoting/building…here (busy ramming a spoonful of socialized medicine down our throats) or elsewhere in the world. You see, in the words of the Democrats’ (oh, the irony of the party’s name!) “other candidate”, Hillary, “they have a lot of other things on their plate.”

Jackson Diehl reporting for WaPo:

The deflated Arab hopes for Obama

By Jackson Diehl
Monday, November 30, 2009

It’s been nearly six months since Barack Obama stirred hearts and raised hopes across much of the Arab world with his much-promoted Cairo address. Many came away from it expecting a new and more vigorous U.S. attempt to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Others hoped for more American sympathy and support for liberal reform in countries where free expression, women’s rights and democratic elections are blocked by entrenched autocracies.

That would be under President Bush, who liberated 50 million from a repressive regime and a murderous tyrant, before passing the baton over to #44.

The peace-process bubble burst two months ago at the United Nations, when Obama’s poorly executed attempt to launch final-settlement talks between Israelis and Palestinians collapsed. Arabs who were led by Obama’s rhetoric to believe that the United States would force Israel to make unprecedented unilateral concessions — like a complete end to all construction in Jerusalem — were bitterly disappointed.

But they are not the only victims of post-Cairo letdown. Arab reformers, who for most of this decade have been trying to break down the barriers to social and political modernization in the Middle East, have also begun to conclude that the Obama administration is more likely to harm than to help them.

“All Arab countries are craving change — and many of us believed Obama was a tool for change,” says Aseel al- Awadhi, a Kuwaiti member of parliament. “Now we are losing that hope.”

“Tool for change” = Bush Administration

Awadhi, one of four women elected to Kuwait’s parliament this year, is part of a movement that the Bush administration loudly promoted and sporadically attempted to help — though the effort steadily waned during George W. Bush’s second term. The Obama administration, in contrast, often speaks as if it does not recognize the existence of an Arab reform movement. Bush’s frequently articulated argument that political and social liberalization offer the best antidote to Islamic extremism appears absent from this administration’s thinking.

“People in Jordan are beginning to understand that the United States will not play the same role as under the old administration on democracy,” said Musa Maaytah, Jordan’s minister of political development — who, like Awadhi, visited Washington recently for a conference sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy. “People think that the U.S. has many issues that for it are a priority,

Like overhauling our whole healthcare system. Change America could do without.

and they prefer to have stability in these countries more than democracy.”

The Obama Administration believes “stability” equates with peace. But there is no permanent peace and stability in the absence of justice and freedom. Who cares if Iranians are living under miserable rule? What’s important is that Iran remains stable. [/sarcasm]

For the reformers, a big signal came this month in a speech Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered in Marrakech, Morocco. Clinton was attending a session of the Forum for the Future, a body the Bush administration established at the height of its pro-reform campaign. The idea was to foster a dialogue between Western and Arab countries about political and social reform that would resemble the Helsinki process between the West and the Soviet bloc during the 1970s.

Clinton began her speech by referring to Obama’s call in Cairo for “a new beginning between the United States and Muslim communities around the world.” She then said that after consulting with “local communities” the administration had “focused on three broad areas where we believe U.S. support can make a difference.”

These turned out to be “entrepreneurship,” “advancing science and technology” and education. As if citing the also-rans, Clinton added that “women’s empowerment” was “a related priority” and that “the United States is committed to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.” The word “democracy” appeared nowhere in the speech, and there was no reference at all to the Arabs who are fighting to create independent newspapers, political parties or human rights organizations.

Saad Eddin Ibrahim, an Egyptian who is one of the best-known Arab reformers, was part of a group who met Clinton after the speech. He told me that he tried to point out to her that “the next two years are crucial” for determining the political direction of the Middle East, in part because Egypt is approaching a major transition. Parliamentary elections are scheduled in 10 months, and their results will determine whether a presidential election scheduled for 2011 will be genuinely democratic. Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s 82-year-old ruler, is under pressure to retire; if he allows it, a truly competitive race to succeed him could pit his son Gamal against diplomatic heavyweights such as former foreign minister Amr Moussa and Mohamed ElBaradei, the outgoing head of the International Atomic Energy Agency — not to mention Ayman Nour, who was imprisoned for three years after challenging Mubarak in 2005.

Clinton, said Ibrahim, replied that democracy promotion had always been a centerpiece of U.S. diplomacy and that the Obama administration would not give it up — “but that they have a lot of other things on their plate.” For Arab liberals, the translation is easy, if painful: Regardless of what the president may have said in Cairo, Obama’s vision for the Middle East doesn’t include “a new beginning” in the old political order.

Islamic militants and radical Islamists are attempting to drive Muslim countries backward, to become less modern and non-secular; transforming secular Muslim governments into Islamic states. Latest (Hat tip: Steve Schippert):

as war rages against Muslim militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas, the chief of army staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani,
shocked secular elements in the country by saying that “no one can separate Islam and Pakistan” and that the goal was to turn the country into a true Islamic state.

And , repeat after me, “Pakistan has nukes”:

President Asif Ali Zardari issued an amended ordinance at the weekend in which he abdicated as chairman of the Nuclear Command Authority and transferred command of the country’s nuclear arsenal to Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani. (See Pakistan’s military stays a march ahead November 25, 2009)

The Obama Team is dropping the baton, ditheringly tying its shoe in the middle of the race, and then walking away in the other direction. You see, they have other priorities on their agenda plates.

Fouad Ajami:

He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not “unclenched their fist,” nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest.

There is little Mr. Obama can do about this disenchantment. He can’t journey to Turkey to tell its Islamist leaders and political class that a decade of anti-American scapegoating is all forgiven and was the product of American policies—he has already done that. He can’t journey to Cairo to tell the fabled “Arab street” that the Iraq war was a wasted war of choice, and that America earned the malice that came its way from Arab lands—he has already done that as well. He can’t tell Muslims that America is not at war with Islam—he, like his predecessor, has said that time and again.

It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America’s decline in the eyes of foreign nations. Foreigners were saying what the liberals wanted said.

Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn’t seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that’s reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year.

Mr. Obama’s election has not drained the swamps of anti-Americanism. That anti-Americanism is endemic to this region, an alibi and a scapegoat for nations, and their rulers, unwilling to break out of the grip of political autocracy and economic failure. It predated the presidency of George W. Bush and rages on during the Obama presidency.