Interference in foreign protests a dilemma for the West

The year 2019 has been one of protests and political unrest worldwide. Events in Hong Kong, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, France, Venezuela and Bolivia are just the most prominent examples. It seems like there may be a larger phenomenon and moment of change occurring, with freedom-loving people around the globe rooting for democratic and liberal political progress. However, we must remember that, while sudden transformations do happen, they cannot be predicted.

Only one of those countries — France — has a fully democratic system. Bolivia’s protests this autumn have revolved around suspicions of massive corruption in elections. Because the other countries do not have legitimate elections that can effect serious change, protest is the best way for the citizens to make a difference — short of revolution, of course.

Still, protest has a poor track record of success. Authorities do not readily relinquish power; they hold onto it as long as they can. As a result, we cannot know if any given protest will result in concessions from the existing government or even a change in government. Furthermore, even if there is a change in leadership, we do not know if the new government would be any more liberal or just. These days, we often seem to consume news and commentary for a look at the future, because we are all so impatient. Nevertheless, there is no way to effectively predict the outcome of any of these political demonstrations.

The 1979 revolution in Iran is the best example of a major political change that surprised the rest of the world. Ten months into the protests of the late 1970s that would ultimately topple the shah and lead to the current Iranian regime, US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told President Jimmy Carter that Iran “is not in a revolutionary or even a pre-revolutionary situation.” He said: “There is dissatisfaction with the shah’s tight control of the political process, but this does not at present threaten the government.” Clearly, Brzezinski and the US intelligence apparatus were wrong. The revolutionary Iranian government has now controlled that country for almost 41 years.

Similarly, most of the supposed experts did not foresee the fall of the Soviet Union, which finally came in the summer of 1991. The US and Soviet Union were chief adversaries at the time and the collapse of the communist empire was a primary concern of the Washington government. Yet the US leadership did not foresee — or was not even prepared for — the event it had sought for 46 years.

Even the State Department’s own telling of the history of this event highlights the lack of foresight of the US leadership at the time. “Conditions in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union changed rapidly. (Mikhail) Gorbachev’s decision to loosen the Soviet yoke on the countries of Eastern Europe created an independent, democratic momentum that led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, and then the overthrow of communist rule throughout Eastern Europe. While (President George H.W.) Bush supported these independence movements, US policy was reactive.”

If we do not know which protests will succeed and which governments will fall, it is up to freedom-loving people and nations to support whichever protests align with their beliefs. Capitalist countries will support the opposition in Venezuela. Those who oppose authoritarianism will support the activists in Hong Kong. Those who oppose cross-border interference and colonialism should support the Iraqis who have taken to the streets. There is no underlying ideology behind all of this year’s protests, but there is an underlying goal: Change.

With the exception of the French “Yellow Vest” protesters, these groups are seeking change in the only way available to them — and there is something noble in that. Communities should have the opportunity to choose their own government and the policies that impact their lives. When voting does not exist or has little consequence, protest can be necessary.

Much of the world watched Iranians with sympathy during the Green Movement protests in 2009, and yet no one really seemed to do anything overt to help. Ten years later, there is still debate over whether US President Barack Obama was wise to refrain from interfering or even offering verbal support. The logic was that Iran would have used US involvement as a reason to further attack the protesters. This can be disputed, but it is true that oppressive regimes will often use the support of other countries against demonstrators. For instance, China has already accused the Hong Kong protesters of receiving aid from both the US and the UK in an effort to portray the protests as foreign interference rather than a homegrown struggle for freedom.

However well-intentioned this stance might seem, it is not always the best choice. In fact, some of Obama’s advisers, such as Dennis Ross and Hillary Clinton, later regretted not offering material or rhetorical assistance to the Green Movement. We don’t know what the outcome would have been if the US had helped at that time, but Clinton and Ross were right to second guess their own actions. Authoritarian regimes will use anything to attack their opposition, but we shouldn’t let that prevent us from advocating for what is right.

• Ellen R. Wald, Ph.D. is a historian and author of “Saudi, Inc.” She is the president of Transversal Consulting and also teaches Middle East history and policy at Jacksonville University. Twitter: @EnergzdEconomy