For those who are prone to be prone to such things, recent eventsin Egypt are further evidence of declining American globalinfluence. President Hosni Mubarak, having taken a lot of Americanaid, now seems immune to both American advice and pressure. Theprotesters, one article complained, didn't even bother to burn ourflag. We are seeing, according to some observers, a "post-AmericanMiddle East."
Never mind that the protesters are using Western technology todemand individual rights. Or that many of the young, secularbloggers who laid the groundwork for the revolution alternatebetween Arabic and English and have visited or studied in America.Lay aside the fact that Egyptians in the streets have focused theirdemands on only two actors, the Egyptian regime and the Americangovernment - not the United Nations or the Arab League or China. Infact, China's response was to remove the word "Egypt" from itsInternet search engines and lie low, hoping the storm passes.
Such considerations should not be allowed to detract from oursense of impotence - a paradoxical tribute to our ambitions. Peoplein Holland or Costa Rica do not celebrate or decry their lack ofsway in Egyptian politics. Only Americans feel vindication or guiltat the limits of their power.
Those limits are obvious along the Nile. The outcome of thisconfused struggle matters greatly to American interests. Theemergence of a Sunni version of Iran in Egypt would be a major blow.A democratic transition, even a messy and partial one, mighteventually isolate or domesticate the extremists and defuse hatredfor America. But the course of events in Egypt is determined by aninternal contest of fear and hope that intensifies daily and thatAmerica can influence only on the margins.
And the limits of a certain American policy approach in theMiddle East have never been more obvious. Decades of aiding amilitary dictator who presides over a corrupt, unresponsivegovernment, who has managed his economy into stagnation andscarcity, and who has driven most legitimate opposition toward theradical mosque have not produced stability. There's a reason shahsare sometimes followed by mullahs - because religious extremism isthe opiate of a humiliated people. Who can seriously argue that thedenouement in Egypt will be better because Mubarak cannot seem totake a hint and board a plane?
But it is a tricky thing to extrapolate these limits into atheory of American decline. Decline compared to what? Compared tothe heady, unipolar moment immediately following the collapse of theSoviet Union? Or compared to the coldest days of the Cold War, whenthe Soviet Union sent military aid and advisers to Syria, Egypt,Libya and Iraq, attempting to block American actions at every turn?
The scholar Joseph Nye describes a layer cake of Americaninfluence. On the first level, military power, America remainsunchallenged. On the second, economic influence, the world has beenmultipolar for a while now. On a third level - a transnational realmof bankers and terrorists, Facebook and hackers - power is diffusedto a wide range of actors, both good and bad, who now have theability to sponsor Sept. 11, 2001, or Jan. 25, 2011.
In the complex determination of national influence, those withthe best story, the most compelling narrative, have an advantage. Inthe Middle East, does the old dictator speaking of past glories onEgyptian state television really seem like the wave of the future?Does Iranian theocracy, which in reaction to democratic protests hascollapsed into military control, seem worthy of emulation? Thesesystems may be imposed at the barrel of a gun. But on the streets ofCairo, self-government is the hope. It seems the system most likelyto result in progress, social vitality and national achievement. Andit seems that way because it is.
At least since Franklin Roosevelt, American leaders have viewedthe appeal of democratic ideals as a source of national power.America now has less direct control, say, in Germany and Japan thanit did in the 1950s. But both countries are monuments to Americaninfluence. Democracies do not always do our bidding, but in the longrun they are more stable and peaceful than countries ruled by thewhims of a single man. Democratic transitions are difficult anduncertain, especially in places with shallow democratic roots. Butit is strangely disconnected from American history and ideals toregard a popular revolt against an oppressive ruler as a sign ofAmerican decline.
michaelgerson@washpost.com
michaelgerson@washpost.com
No comments:
Post a Comment