British Prime Minister David Cameron just gave a speech in Kuwait where he proclaimed that the West has contributed to Middle Eastern instability by backing autocratic regimes. The Left has been arguing this for years. And the media has been picking up on this notion of western “guilt” as they cover the dramatic events in the region.
I understand why Cameron said what he said on a political level: he’s trying to get out in front of change that seems to be sweeping the Middle East. But the claim is absolutely ridiculous. Repression and autocracy are organic to the Middle East. Care to read a history book about what the place was like, 150 years ago, before oil was discovered? Let’s just say it was not a pretty place. A British colonial presence actually made it a far more humane place.
Repression and autocracy are not western imports. No one can seriously claim that the involvement of the west in the region has made the place worse. Indeed, the more western a regime in the region is in its cultural and political orientation, the more free it tends to be. Israel stands out in this regard. But even when you look at the other countries the same holds true. Kuwait or Iran? Bahrain or Libya? The more western, the less repressive. A strong western influence means liberalization.
Autocracy is a function of Middle Eastern culture and Islam. So let’s put the blame where it belongs.
This sort of thinking, that what we do in the west strongly determines what happens in the region, is extremely naive and will only set us up for disappointment. What happens in the Middle East is largely driven by the weight of history, Islam, and culture, not by human rights proclamations in the west. The uprisings we are seeing in the Middle East might remind some of the crowds we saw standing on the Berlin Wall in 1989. But Tripoli is not Gdansk. Poland, Hungary, and the other countries in Central Europe had civic organizations and institutions that were never completely wiped out by the communists. The Christian Church always maintained a “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” attitude which means that we have a civic space that is separate from our church obligations (but they should not contradict them). In Islam there is no belief in a separate civic space. Everything is rendered unto Allah. And the Poles and Hungarians always maintained their western sensibilities and their belief in individualism. The same can not be said of the Middle East, where such views are barely understood by the masses. Look at the situation in Iraq, which is relatively secular compared with other countries in the region and is the recipient of tens of billions of dollars in aid from the west. We have made it a priority to promote democracy in Iraq for close to a decade. And where do things stand? With factional infighting and sectarian wars still a very stark reality, it’s not a very rosy picture. And if the US pulled out completely? It’s not a big stretch to believe that the bullets might start flying again.
The events in the Middle East are momentous. Let’s hope for the best. But stop with the guilt-mongering. The West didn’t cause this mess. It’s not our fault.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.