OF the numerous stories running in the American press last Sunday, four stood out: The American failure to convince Egypt to sign a regional democracy declaration which would allow foreign governments to fund NGOs; the return of Ahmad Chalabi to Washington; the problems hindering the Millennium Challenge Account — a Bush-inspired plan to alter the US foreign assistance formula; and Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick’s latest visit to Khartoum.
Collectively, these stories epitomize the myriad problems confronting US policymakers as they attempt to implement a coherent, workable foreign policy. They also highlight the difficulty in meshing realist and idealist Middle East policy aims, and the difficulty in balancing US national interest, security and regional stability, on the one hand, and democracy-building and human rights on the other.
Even without the burden of a weakened presidency, executing the White House’s ambitious regional program would be daunting. However, given George W. Bush’s woeful 36 percent approval rating and today’s hostile political climate, gaining traction on each facet of the policy — trade liberalization, peace in Sudan and Palestine, Iraq, democratization, and national security — is becoming increasingly difficult. Despite making the Middle East a priority over the last four years, the US position is more precarious than it was at the dawn of the Bush administration. Meanwhile, it can be argued that the Middle East focus has come at the detriment of America’s other global commitments, particularly since the intense efforts undertaken in the Arab world have thus far failed to bear fruit.
Egypt is in the midst of parliamentary elections, which on the surface would demonstrate the success of American democracy-building. Cairo claims these elections, and the presidential race before them, mark a turning point in Egyptian politics. But Americans have not been convinced the electoral process has led to any serious changes. Congress, in particular, has accused the Egyptian government of stymieing reform and manipulating the rules to preserve the status quo — all the while cloaking itself with democratic rhetoric.
The failure to convince Cairo to sign the non-binding, US-inspired Forum for the Future declaration offered firm evidence to skeptics as to Egypt’s real intentions on democracy-building. In fairness, however, Egypt, like any sovereign nation, had reason to be leery of the provision in the declaration which would allow foreign funding to non-registered NGOs; 18,000 registered Egyptian NGOs are already are in existence. But the press accounts of the Manama conference concluded that Egypt thwarted the US initiative. As a key regional ally and the second largest recipient of US assistance, Egypt’s position also suggested a failure in the broader regional democracy program.
Ahmad Chalabi, once thought by American admirers as Iraq’s George Washington, has long since fallen out of favor of all but the most ardent neo-conservatives. Chalabi’s wit and charisma bamboozled policymakers and the press, and much of the falsified intelligence used by the Bush administration to justify the invasion of Iraq is attributable to him. His ties to Tehran have further sullied his image. Thus, Chalabi’s visit to Washington, and the access granted to him, was depicted as an embarrassment to the White House, which is already under withering attack over both the chaotic situation in Iraq and the indictment of Lewis Libby.
In tune with democracy promotion, the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) was created to reward developing countries which demonstrate a commitment to reform, transparency, and rule of law. But due to bureaucratic paralysis and the need to buttress pressing national security needs by providing aid to MCA-ineligible nations, little money has been doled out. In fact, of the $2.5 billion allocated to the MCA, a mere two percent has been provided to eligible nations. If the MCA is discarded, as its performance thus far suggests, it will ultimately fall victim to the politics of realism.
Just when the situation in Sudan was supposed to be improving, the eruption of violence in Darfur and untimely passing of John Garang, among other events, has left the key East African nation fragile. After condemning Khartoum for years, the US is now attempting to court it and mediate between the bickering factions in Darfur and elsewhere. For the US, re-engaging with the Sudanese government offers continued cooperation in the war on terrorism, access to sizable oil reserves, and a potentially powerful bridgehead to both Africa and the Middle East. But Zoellick — who has traveled to Sudan four times this year — and his colleagues have not only had to wrestle with the complexity of the situation on the ground, but also the strong anti-Sudan sentiment in Washington.
Dissecting four separate news items covered in a single day offers keen insight into the problems with, and possible limitation to, United States foreign policy. All also highlight the growing need for the Bush administration to string together a string of diplomatic victories to reverse a trend which has called into question whether or not the emperor has clothes.
Perhaps this explains Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s doggedness in brokering a deal between Israel and Palestine on the Gaza borders, and why the president himself has embarked on an extended visit to Asia. Certainly, if ever success was needed, it is now.
— David Dumke is principal of the MidAmr Group. Send comments to: [email protected].
