Democracy, Strategic Interests & U.S. Foreign Policy in the Arab World: A

1 The University of Washington Bothell Democracy, Strategic Interests & U.S. Foreign Policy in the Arab World: A Multiple Case Study of Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan & Saudi Arabia Kelly Berg A Capstone project presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Policy Studies through the School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences June 2015 2 Abstract What determines U.S. foreign policy in the Arab world? In order to address this question, an inductive multiple case study of Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia was conducted. These four Arab countries were selected due to their varying political positions and relationships with the U.S. I argue that the U.S.’s prioritization of strategic interests trumps or, in some cases, stifles support for the democratic process within the context of U.S. foreign policy in the Arab world, and that “democracy” is only advocated for when it serves U.S. desire for stability and hegemony throughout the region. Examining Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia demonstrates that political stability in the region, resistance to terrorism and unrest, Israel’s interests, and economic gains through oil and weapon production and sales are the U.S.’s key priorities. The results of this study will contribute to the existing literature by providing a comprehensive assessment of complex interdependence and political incongruences in U.S. foreign policy in the Arab world. 3 Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor and mentor, Professor Karam Dana, whose encouragement, advice, wisdom, and support proved to be invaluable to my academic journey. Many thanks go out to the faculty of the University of Washington Bothell, who have taught me countless skills and lessons that I will continue to reflect upon and develop beyond the university setting. I would like to thank the MAPS 2013 cohort for their humor, ingenuity, and insightfulness. I have learned a great deal from each of you, and truly treasure the bonds that have developed over the course of our academic career. I would like to acknowledge and appreciate my lovely husband David for picking up the slack so I could focus on my studies throughout the last two years, particularly as it pertains to dishes and dog walking. Finally, I wish to show my gratefulness to my parents and family for their constant encouragement and support of my education. 4 Executive Summary What determines U.S. foreign policy in the Arab world? The Department of State has defined the key goals of U.S. foreign policy as protecting the U.S. and American citizens, advancing “democracy,” defending human rights, encouraging economic growth and prosperity, and promoting international understanding of American values and policies.1 However, all goals are not equal when considering U.S. foreign policy in the Arab world. Although American politicians take public positions based upon a global demand for democratic and values-based policies, U.S. foreign policy in the Arab world is primarily based upon strategic-based interests. In Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, U.S. foreign policy is heavily interdependence, as cooperation between states is contingent upon what is mutually beneficial both in terms of political and economic goals. Meanwhile, economic stability and positive, steady relations with Israel are priorities the U.S. relations with Jordan and Egypt. Silence on human rights violations and lack of effective policies regarding the democratic process throughout all four countries indicates that priorities in the Arab world continue to fall under the categories of hegemonic, tactical power for the U.S. The purpose of this research is to examine how the prioritization of various strategic interests repeatedly trumps the U.S.’ desire for democracy within the context of U.S. foreign policy in the Arab world. Strategic interests have been framed within the concept of global trade, regional security, Israel’s interests, and military power. The theory through which I will be examining each case is that of “complex interdependence,” 1 “What are the Key Policies of the U.S. Department of State?” (2015). U.S. Department of State. 5 discussed in Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye’s Power and interdependence: world politics in transition. This theory argues that states and their finances are inextricably tied, increasing cooperation between states. Reflecting upon the past decade of U.S. relations in Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia is vital in understanding current issues that are occurring in the region, and attempting to comprehend the relationship between regional peace, resistance to violence and individual freedoms and rights. If the U.S. government truly wishes to achieve the Department of State’s foreign policy objectives, it must confront existing negative impacts of favoritism towards oppressive regimes over human rights and democratic representation. In order to do so, The U.S. government and U.S. political representatives must transition to a system that addresses political transparency and values-based policies in addition to military access, regional stability and hegemonic power. 6 Table of Contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………....2 Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………..………....3 Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………….4 Literature Review………………………………………………………………………….7 Research Design and Methodology…...…………………………………………………15 Chapter One - Introduction………………………………………………………………18 Chapter Two - Case Study: Bahrain…………………………………..…………………21 Chapter Three - Case Study: Egypt………………...……………………………………29 Chapter Four - Case Study: Jordan………………………………………………………39 Chapter Five - Case Study: Saudi Arabia………………………………………………..49 Chapter Six - Conclusion: A Brief Comparison of Case Studies………………………..57 Bibliography………………………………………………………………..……………61 7 Literature Review Overview In order to address determinants of U.S. foreign policy in the Arab world, key topics in existing academic literature must first be examined. While many authors treat U.S. foreign policy towards the Arab world as homogenous, it is important to understand that each nation’s relationship with the U.S. that differs according to media and public opinion, religion, military and power, and trade; all of which are impacted by the U.S.’ inconsistent political presence in the Arab world. While Saudi Arabia is among the least democratic nations in the world, their oil exports to and weapon imports from the U.S. have caused them to be one of the U.S.’s closest allies.2 Bahrain’s need for military goods and training, in addition to their geographically important location, has permitted the U.S. to disregard the widespread violations of human rights that have been particularly evident since the Arab Spring. 3 Jordan’s geographical location and relationship with Israel/Palestine has caused the U.S. to prioritize peace through trade and financial support. 4 Meanwhile, the past decade has altered the way in which scholars and policymakers in the U.S.’s frame policies towards Egypt’s government and people, supporting democracy while attempting to avoid the onslaught of adverse media coverage and disapproval from the Muslim Brotherhood that negatively impacts U.S. foreign relations.5 The following review is divided into separate categories in order to allow the 2 “Freedom in the World 2014.” 2014. Freedom House.; "U.S. Relations With Saudi Arabia Fact Sheet." U.S. Department of State. August 23, 2013. Accessed October 20, 2014. 3 "U.S. Relations With Bahrain Fact Sheet." U.S. Department of State. September 13, 2013. Accessed October 20, 2014. 4 "U.S. Relations With Jordan Fact Sheet." U.S. Department of State. July 03, 2014. Accessed October 20, 2014. 5 Snider E.A., and Faris D.M. 2011. "The Arab Spring: U.S. Democracy Promotion in Egypt". Middle East Policy Council. 18 (3): 49-62. 8 reader to differentiate between key topics and gaps discussed in the literature regarding U.S. foreign policy in the Arab world. Trade, Weapons, and Oil The relationship between the quest for democracy and the prioritization of strong state relations between the U.S. and different Arab countries relies heavily upon trade, weapon and oil.6 Rather than democracy in the region existing for the sake of human rights or domestic equality, literature and public opinion polls suggest that there are ulterior motives in the form of trade and economic stability.7 8A key example of this reality rests in Saudi Arabia, which is simultaneously one of the most significant exporters of oil the U.S. trades with, while also one of the key importers of American military aircraft, defense weaponry, and armored vehicles. It is impossible to avoid the discussion of Israel when analyzing the relationship between the U.S. and Jordan, as Jordan’s involvement in the Oslo peace process was rewarded with the U.S.-Jordanian Free Trade Agreement, ensuring that the nation would stay involved in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.9 Subsequently, free-trade agreements in the region have had a significant impact on U.S. political involvement, existing in order to have a positive foreign political impact with smaller Arab nations, rather than existing 6 Atlas, Pierre M. 2012. "U.S. Foreign Policy and the Arab Spring: Balancing Values and Interests". Digest of Middle East Studies. 21 (2): 353-385. 7 Blanchard, Christopher. "Saudi Arabia: Background and U.S. Relations." Congressional Research Service. Accessed October 21, 2014. Web. 8 "U.S. Relations With Saudi Arabia Fact Sheet,” 2013. 9 Rosen, Howard, 2004. “Free

Load more