Between freedom, values and interests

Thanks to what took place on May 1, the mass media in the US has dropped Libya and Syria like hot potatoes, but it does not mean that the goings-on in that part of the world can be forgotten. The future of the al- Qaeda, post-Osama, is being discussed and debated but few are of the view that the al-Qaeda has struck roots in the pro-democracy movement in West Asia.

The al-Qaeda may not be able to fish in the troubled waters of West Asia, but sooner or later, the Obama administration will have to take decisive steps in a region that is critical to American and Western interests, over and beyond the oil factor. The impression thus far is that Washington has been limping around trying to find coherence to a policy that will send a clear signal to allies and adversaries.

“Are the peoples of West Asia somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even to have a choice in the matter?”

That was President George W. Bush eight years ago.

Waking up to reality

“Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in West Asia did nothing to make us safe — because, in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty…As long as West Asia remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export” he remarked at the National Endowment for Democracy.

At that time, people within the foreign policy establishment and outside thought that the President could even be crazy or “nuts” to take his democracy and freedom agenda to West Asia. But, today, the US is waking up to the reality of the ground situation in many parts of West Asia where the momentum may have been lost.

Targeted sanctions

On the one hand, Official Washington will have to see the implications of not getting behind the democracy movement in parts of West Asia. It runs the risk of attracting the disenchantment of pro-democracy groups in these countries that could have an impact on the credibility front down the line. And, on the other hand, in realising what actually could be done.

Take the case of Syria where the Obama administration is looking at targeted sanctions against the regime in Damascus — how much more can the screws be tightened against a country that is already heavily weighed down by sanctions by the United Nations and by some in the West?

The issue in West Asia would appear to go much farther than what is billed as “targeted sanctions”.

At the heart of a coherent policy of pushing the so-called freedom agenda lies the difficult decision between going after values, protecting interests and maintaining credibility, the last of which would seem critical for the Obama administration and the US.

Strategic and economic interests would seem to weigh heavily within the Obama administration as it gropes to find a way out of the mess. Hardliners are not just calling for tightening the economic screws; some of them like Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina are calling for the US to “cut the head of the snake” in Libya and making Muammar Gaddaffi's inner circle to wonder if they are going to live through the day when they wake up in the morning.

And, then, there are those who are apprehensive of a protracted unrest in West Asia impacting the price of oil. Already, California is seeing oil prices go past $5 per gallon and the rest of the country is catching up slowly.

What would happen if the unrest spreads to other areas of the region and threaten, say, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

As it is, the US media has pointed to a growing apprehension in the Kingdom to Washington's lack of support to its staunch ally in Egypt, the former President, Mr Hosni Mubarak.

And some in the foreign policy establishment are apprehensive of the President of Yemen deciding to step down shortly — seen as a staunch ally in the war against terror.

But the bottomline in pushing the so-called democracy and freedom agenda is also maintaining the credibility of the US. Can Washington afford to make a distinction between pushing for freedom in Syria and Libya and looking the other way when it comes to more pliable allies in West Asia?

Using different yardsticks to measure the same problem is nothing new in the foreign policy scheme of things.

(The author is Head, School of Media Studies of the Faculty of Science and Humanities, SRM University, Chennai. He is currently visiting the University of Central Oklahoma, US.)

COMMENT NOW