A matter of interests

There is nothing remotely altruistic about US calls for reform in the Arab world, writes Khalil El-Anani*. It's about oil and Israel, not democracy and human rights

---

How far is the US willing to push its reform agenda? How much pressure will Arab regimes face to move towards democracy and human rights? And what are the real motives behind all of this?

Never have the conflicting interests between Washington and Arab capitals been more stark. The time when the Arab world's ruling elites got on fine with the US, while their populations paid the price, are well and truly over.

The US has traditionally cared about three things in the Middle East: the incumbent regimes, Israel and oil. Now it is only the last two that remain on the agenda, while supporting incumbent regimes appears to have slipped out of sight. Washington has signalled that it is ready to ditch the regional status quo in defence of its interests, a shift in policy that came with a sugar coating of media- induced optimism. In its official discourse all the US ever wants is to promote democracy into the region. We all know the story. Conditions in the Arab world are deplorable, US officials keep reminding us, quoting extensively from successive Arab Human Development reports. They have apparently discovered, a little belatedly, that Arab populations could benefit from a little more political freedom.

This shift in US policy towards the region puts paid to any illusions the Arabs may have had about Washington being an unbiased partner in the peace process. Washington is no longer biased to Israel, it is one with it. The US and Israel see eye to eye on everything that has to do with the region. And the US is not only borrowing the Israeli point of view, it wants the Arabs to adopt it too.

According to the Bush administration, everything will be fine once the Arabs change. The Arab mind is too closed, apparently, and someone has to crack it open so that the truth may finally be revealed. And it is reform in the region that is supposed to do the trick. Clinton, the Israelis claim, offered the Arabs the best deal they could possibly hope for and still nothing happened. The only way ahead, then, is to force the Arabs to see things in the right light. The whole Arab- Israeli conflict, goes the reasoning, was caused by the Arabs' defective ways. Once the Arab mindset has been straightened out everything will be fine.

Must I go into the nature of US interests in the region or are they clear enough? The US, everyone knows, is in the middle of an imperial quest to dominate the globe. In the Middle East the US may have a tarnished reputation but it has something else: an enormous amount of influence. So how far exactly does the US intend to push the reform thing?

Recently Washington has been experimenting with new tactics, inciting opposition against regimes in the region. It has been providing aid to anyone who wants to speak out against despotism and repression in the Middle East, and has been busy forging ties with civil society institutions around the Arab world.

The US has hinted that Arab elites are dispensable, even replaceable. American diplomats have let it be known that the US has no problem with Islamists coming to power. According to press reports US officials have held meetings with Islamist activists, which may well be a ploy intended to ratchet up the pressure to on incumbent regimes.

The US is placing enormous political and economic pressure on Arab states to push them towards political openness and greater respect of human rights. So far, both Egypt and Saudi Arabia have felt the brunt of this pressure.

Washington is also offering unprecedented levels of financial aid to civil society activists in Arab countries, encouraging them to press for more freedoms. It is actively encouraging Arab states to host opposition members from neighbouring countries. Solidarity for the sake of freedom, we are told, is good for everyone.

And meanwhile Thomas Friedman and other writers of his ilk have been telling all and sundry that the Middle East is on the verge of some velvet revolution. Freedom, they insist, is about to hit the region. Taboos daily collapse. All it will take is just one last push.

Ignore the rhetoric, though, and concentrate on the facts on the ground and it becomes clear that all this talk of reform had achieved is to raise the spectre of instability. Faced with one of two choices -- reform or stability -- which will Washington go for? The two, after all, are unlikely to coexist happily, not in countries with, such a history of despotism and repression. So how far is the US ready to go?

In answering this question we must bear in mind that the US sees democracy in the Arab world as a means not an end. The end is to promote US interests. And alternative means will be considered as and when they become expedient. The US will press for change only to a certain extent; that is, it will do so short of threatening the stability of the conflict-ridden Middle East.

The equation of stability versus reform is an interesting one, not least because it is the litmus test for US rhetoric. Let me refer you to a recent statement by Peter Peterson, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. On the eve of his visit to Cairo a few days ago Peterson said that the pace of reform in Egypt should be gradual, so as not to compromise stability. He was, I assume, referring to the kind of US pressure on Cairo that led to the amendment of Article 76 of the constitution, allowing multi-candidate presidential elections.

In all probability the US would be happy to see the back of some Arab leaders. But this is not about Arab interests, or about the need to revitalise the Arab political scene. It is about US interests, and Washington's desire to see more malleable leaders, sensitive to US needs and to the changes the US seeks to impose on the international scene.

* The writer is a political analyst.