Each of them is claiming to “know” the best strategy to spread democracy in the Arab world. The European Union leadership pretends to believe that its trade policy towards the region, such as its “association agreements”, twinned with a very smooth political attitude regarding local dictators will in the end emulate a process leading to democracy in the Arab world. On the other hand, the Bush’s administration pretends to believe that by defeating Saddam Hussein, and talking a lot about aggressively promoting democracy and freedom in the region, they will rapidly obtain a new democratic Arab world.

For examples, here is what we can see in two cases:

The only problem with these two “examples” proving the success of one or the other policy, is that they are wrong:

Today both the EU and the US policies are having effects which are in complete opposition with the declared goals of democratisation of the Arab world.

The EU is just strengthening all those autocrats from Morocco to Syria in order to keep its borders stable; and therefore prevents any significant progress towards democracy. By the way, which is the last Arab country Europeans helped turned to democracy?

And the US is just engaged into a series of regime changes whose rationale is very unclear (control of oil resources, fight against terror, genuine intention to boost democracy, expanding sphere of influence…?) but results are obvious in terms of regional instability, expansion of Muslim extremists movements and internal chaos. Which is the last Arab country Americans claimed to turn democratic and which did not end into chaos?

Lebanon may be on the verge to slip back into civil war. I did wrote the day after Hariri’s assassination that the Syrians will have to leave now. But I also asked whether we (Europeans and Americans) had a solid plan for the post- Syrian occupation period. Unfortunately, it does not look very much like it.

The regime in Saudi Arabia is fighting a kind of rampant civil war. The Moroccan regime is dancing on a volcano of poverty and growing Muslim fundamentalists threats. Algeria has entered a kind of “never-ending end” of the civil war” which brings death every week.

Do the Europeans really think that it is by supporting the regimes in these countries that they will bring long term stability and democracy too? Do the Americans really believe that by generating chaos they will preserve their national interests in the region and promote democracy as well?

My opinion is that both will fail (in fact are already failing).

The only two strategic objectives to foster democracy in the region are indeed not addressed by those European and American policies: on the one hand, drastically improve the wealth and well-being of the vast majority of Arab people (which requires to confront their elites on this issue); on the other hand, support only (and I mean “only” whatever short terms interests may be) the democratic forces within these countries.

Some will say that it is not realistic. Then, we should forget about the idea of ‘democratisation of the Arab world’, and clearly say that we just want to keep the Arab world under our control … knowing that this control will end up into chaos in a matter of years.

Paris
Franck Biancheri