Revolutions might not bring hoped-for democracies

Listening to the veiled threats disguised as advice from the White House and the State Department in Washington to the beleaguered autocrats in the Middle East one is involuntarily reminded of the famous observation by a British politician many years ago that “countries have no permanent friends but only permanent interests”.

As the drama in the Arab world unfolds the hypocrisy of the United States  is astounding.

While serving their own interests successive US governments – Republicans  and Democrats – have few qualms in supporting dictators and despotic regimes in the Middle East.

For as long as autocratic and despotic regimes keep the oil flowing the US turns a blind eye to the repressive internal policies of its allies.

American support for its Middle Eastern allies is unwavering when they show a willingness to keep close tabs on those surporting Muslim fundamentalist tendencies and when they show commitment to the War on Terror.

A few examples

As far back as 1953 the US, for the sake of oil, supported the repressive and dictatorial regime of the Shah in Iran. Only when the writing appeared on the wall for the Shah’s brutal and unpopular reign, did the US decide to abandon an ally of long standing.

In 1991 when the fundamentalist orientated Muslim Brotherhood was well on its way to register a comfortable victory in the Algerian elections the US kept queit and did nothing when the Algerian government abruptly cancelled the elections.

The Iraq debacle is still fresh in the memory and not over yet.

Under the pretext of seeking to destroy Saddam Hussein’s stockpile of weapons of mass destruction but with oil and maintaining the fragile balance of power in the Middle East their main concern, the US intervened militarily to overthrow the Saddam regime. This was the same regime that was tolerated and even supported despite common knowledge of its brutality and repressiveness until Saddam became an impulsive and uncontrollable force.

Tunisia and Egypt fall in the same category.

It is inconceivable that the US should ignore the realpolitik of the day but it is seemingly impossible for the US to allow for some flexibility in its foreign policy.

In the case of Egypt it is mind-blowing that the US in the light of overwhelming evidence declined to put pressure on the Egyptian government to seriously and purposefully address the issues that were causing restlessness and resentment that would inevitably explode into public protest.

On the contrary, as if in tandem, the US increased and strengthened its support as the Mubarak regime became more repressive and autocratic.

For President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to now publicly ask or rather demand, of President Mubarak not to ignore the “plea for democracy” in Egypt, smacks of hypocrisy.

Hillary Clinton’s explanation that the US has been coaxing the Egyptians into a national dialogue sounds rather tame and unconvincing.

And, to add injury to insult President Mubarak was told by the US President that future US assistance to the tune of 1.5 billion dollars is in jeopardy should he not comply.

This all seems inexplicable since the US never seemed bothered in the past.

It would perhaps be wise for those Arab states in the Middle East with close links to the US to take notice because they might be next.

What kind of democracy?

The popular uprisings in the Middle East exposed the extent of government repression in the region, the high level of hypocrisy of US foreign policy in the region and the intensity of popular discontentment with government-sanctioned  corruption, dishonesty, neglect and brutality.

It is a wake-up call for all governments around the world that some serious introspection is perhaps not a bad idea.

The support and enthusiasm for the bravery of the downtrodden in the Middle East to stand up and demand more freedom and change is understandable and infectious. A word of caution is however, in order.

It is premature and dangerous to believe that the Middle East stands on the threshold of a new dawn that will bring greater freedom and democracy.

There is no indication that the governments now under threat are ready to capitulate and run as Ben Ali did in Tunisia. At the time of writing President Mubarak is still digging in his heels with President Saleh doing the same in Yemen. They are obviously trying to ride out the storm and are gambling on the belief that the protesters will tire and lose steam making negotiations more attainable.

From some of the oil-rich states it is reported that the ruling sheiks are trying to pacify the population by financial hand-outs.

Even if democracy and greater public participation in government does emerge from the current protests there is no guarantee that it will be a democracy the West expects.

Iran and the aborted 1991 elections in Algeria showed that Muslim fundamentalism can also profit from more openness and regime change. A similar tendency is possible if comprehensive political change does come to the Middle East.

The political future of the Middle East as it now stands is unpredictable and uncertain. The only certainty is that by the end of this year the Middle East is going to be a different place from what it was when thousands of Tunisians took to the streets in January 2011.