The Right Side of History
Unrest in the Arab World
Will the United States be on the right side of history?
The Right Side of History? The wave of demonstrations, uprisings and revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East has presented the United States with a complex set of diplomatic problems. While a key component of U.S. foreign policy is promoting and supporting democracy, it is vital to U.S. interests that the Middle East remains relatively stable. A truly democratic Arab world is a new concept, and is one that has yet to show its true colors. If the result of the Palestinian Authority legislative elections held in January of 2006 is any indication of what may evolve in the region, the U.S. has plenty of cause for concern. The elections, championed by U.S. President George W. Bush, resulted in an overwhelming victory by Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by the United States. The United States is in an awkward position, needing to appear to the world as a supporter of democracy. Yet the U.S. government has backed oppressive rulers in the region for many years. The reasons the U.S. supported Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak are quite clear. A stable, albeit oppressive, regime in Egypt meant more stability for the region. With Mubarak gone, the future of the Middle East remains unclear. Increased instability in the region will cause oil prices to rise further (gasoline prices in the U.S. have shot up 16% in the last 8 weeks[1]), possibly putting the U.S. in another recession. Unstable states would provide a refuge for Islamic terrorists, such as al Qaeda. In a worst-case scenario, anti-Israeli, radical Islamic governments in the region could result in war, conflict that would likely, or perhaps inevitably, involve the United States. President Barack Obama has said on many occasions said that he wants the United States to be on “the right side of history.” Considering the number of ill-fated foreign policy decisions made in recent history (i.e.
Will the United States be on the right side of history?
The Right Side of History? The wave of demonstrations, uprisings and revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East has presented the United States with a complex set of diplomatic problems. While a key component of U.S. foreign policy is promoting and supporting democracy, it is vital to U.S. interests that the Middle East remains relatively stable. A truly democratic Arab world is a new concept, and is one that has yet to show its true colors. If the result of the Palestinian Authority legislative elections held in January of 2006 is any indication of what may evolve in the region, the U.S. has plenty of cause for concern. The elections, championed by U.S. President George W. Bush, resulted in an overwhelming victory by Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by the United States. The United States is in an awkward position, needing to appear to the world as a supporter of democracy. Yet the U.S. government has backed oppressive rulers in the region for many years. The reasons the U.S. supported Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak are quite clear. A stable, albeit oppressive, regime in Egypt meant more stability for the region. With Mubarak gone, the future of the Middle East remains unclear. Increased instability in the region will cause oil prices to rise further (gasoline prices in the U.S. have shot up 16% in the last 8 weeks[1]), possibly putting the U.S. in another recession. Unstable states would provide a refuge for Islamic terrorists, such as al Qaeda. In a worst-case scenario, anti-Israeli, radical Islamic governments in the region could result in war, conflict that would likely, or perhaps inevitably, involve the United States. President Barack Obama has said on many occasions said that he wants the United States to be on “the right side of history.” Considering the number of ill-fated foreign policy decisions made in recent history (i.e.