Orientalism, Idealism, and Realism

Forum on the 2011 “Arab Spring”

Orientalism, Idealism, and Realism:

The United States and the “Arab Spring” Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/awg/article-pdf/14/2/169/1449170/arwg_14_2_kj72435x25412850.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021

Fred M. Shelley Department of Geography and Environmental Sustainability, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019 U.S.A.

During the winter and early spring of 2011, grassroots political movements arose throughout Southwest Asia and North Africa. Escalating protests resulted in the ouster of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, after 23 years in power, and of Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak, after 30 years. In neighbouring Libya, protests against the 40-year rule of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi resulted in civil war between rebels and government security forces. Protests against autocratic rule are taking place in Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, and other countries throughout the region. Americans following the events in these countries on television and via the Internet have observed them with a combination of fascination, hope, and anxiety. The essays in this issue of the Arab World Geographer offer varied and compelling perspectives on these recent events, the “Arab spring” of 2011. The purpose of this essay is to comment on these perspectives and to consider the relationships between these common threads and the present and future interests of the United States and its people. Edward Said’s classic work on Orientalism (1978) provides valuable context for understanding American reactions to the “Arab spring.” For Said, Orientalism encapsulates dichotomies between Westerners’ views of them - selves and of their culture and their views of non-Western peoples and cultures, based on a Western assumption that Western values are inherently superior to those of non-Western cultures. Westerners see themselves as civi - lized, cultured, and rational; people outside the West are regarded as back - ward, irrational, and unable or unwilling to recognize the superiority of Western values. Indeed, the term “oriental despotism” encapsulated the Western assumption that non-Westerners are unable to govern themselves under democratic regimes. As Paul Jahshan puts it, Orientalism, as applied to Southwest Asia and North Africa, implies that “the Arab is the opposite of what are seen as the noble qualities of the Western Man.” In accordance with this perspective, many Americans view the peoples of Southwest Asia and North Africa with a combination of fear and disdain. Many Americans—both opinion leaders and ordinary citizens—believe that Arabs are lacking in these “noble qualities.” Remembering the tragedy of 11

September 2011, many associate Arabs with terrorism. Some pre-judge all Arabs as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. To what extent are the perceptions of Americans shaped by an underly - ing Orientalism? Mohammed Abu-Nimer identifies several misconceptions shared by many Americans about the culture and politics of the Arab world. Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/awg/article-pdf/14/2/169/1449170/arwg_14_2_kj72435x25412850.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 As he points out, many Americans assume that the cultures of the Arab world are authoritarian, that Arab societies are characterized by an archaic tribalism, and that Western military intervention is necessary for democracy to take root in Southwest Asia and North Africa. Abu-Nimer also challenges the predic - tion that democracy in Southwest Asia and North Africa will inevitably result in the election of fundamentalist regimes that, once elected, will not only threaten American interests and American security but also destroy the frag - ile fabric of democracy in the region. The history of state formation in Southwest Asia and North Africa is both a product and a cause of Orientalism. The boundaries of most contemporary states in the region are the product of European colonialism . T he Ottoman Empire controlled much of the region, including present-day Turkey, Egypt, Palestine/Israel, and Iraq, for several hundred years prior to its dismember - ment after World War I; after the war, control of the region was divided among the European powers. For example, Britain assumed a mandate over Palestine and Transjordan, which included present-day Jordan, Israel within its 1967 borders, the occupied West Bank, and the Gaza Strip; it also assumed a mandate over what was then known as British Mesopotamia, present-day Iraq. Present-day Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria were French possessions, the latter achieving independence in 1962 only after several years of armed conflict. How has this history of Western control affected Southwest Asia and North Africa? Seif Da’na writes that “Western imperialism, a total reality and a system of domination, has been one of the central counter-forces inhibiting democratic transformation in the Arab world.” And as Hussein Amery points out, the aftermath of European control over European colonies in Southwest Asia and North Africa was the creation of what some have called “artificial” states. That the states are artificial has encouraged the establishment of what might be called artificial regimes . The artificiality of these regimes, in turn, has facilitated the establishment and maintenance of authoritarian and corrupt regimes such as those in Tunisia and Egypt. Many of the protests were directed against the corruption of these regimes, along with their indifference to public opinion and their unwillingness to address fundamental social and economic problems in their countries. The legacy of colonialism has affected the contemporary political history and development of Southwest Asia and North Africa. Indeed, colonialism itself can be regarded as an expression of Orientalism. Of course, colonies

The Arab World Geographer / Le Géographe du monde arab Vol 14, no 2 (2011) Orientalism, Idealism, and Realism 171 created wealth for their European colonial masters; at the same time, the lead - ers of colonial powers were motivated by the idea of bringing “civilization” to the “backward” peoples outside the West. As several contributors point out effectively, an important corollary assumption underlying colonial control over Southwest Asia and North Africa is that Arabs and other residents of non- Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/awg/article-pdf/14/2/169/1449170/arwg_14_2_kj72435x25412850.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 Western parts of the world are incapable of achieving democracy without Western intervention and Western guidance. The grassroots protests that have occurred throughout the region belie this assumption. The “Arab spring” protests made clear that many in the Arab world share a genuine belief in democracy and in the need to implement democracy in their home countries. The United States, of course, prides itself on being the world’s oldest functioning democracy. Most Americans believe that democracy is a form of government that is superior to autocracy, monarchy, or any other system of governance. Yet the United States’ record of support for democracy in other parts of the world, especially outside the West, has been mixed. For many years, American geopolitics has been characterized by tension between “idealistic” and “realistic” perspectives. Idealists believe that their country’s form of government is superior to its alternatives and that it should be imple - mented throughout the world. This philosophy is often associated with Woodrow Wilson, who as U.S. president argued that the United States’ inter - est in defeating Germany in World War I was motivated by the goal of making the world “safe for democracy.” To a considerable extent, the foreign policy of George W. Bush was also motivated by idealistic impulses, including the goal of establishing democratic regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. The realist perspective, on the other hand, is based on the premise that the national interests of a given country must take precedence over idealistic impulses. According to realists, the primary goals of any state are its own security and the improvement of its position in an international order charac - terized by ongoing conflicts among states. With respect to Southwest Asia and North Africa, realists believe that regimes whose own foreign policies coin - cide with the interests of the United States, even if those regimes are authori - tarian and corrupt, are preferable to democratic regimes that do not support American political and economic interests. The realist perspective has been an important component of U.S. policy in Southwest Asia and North Africa for many decades. For example, while the United States recognized that the Mubarak regime in Egypt was corrupt and undemocratic, it regarded Mubarak’s government as a pillar of support for American interests in the region, and was therefore a strong supporter of the Mubarak regime, to which it provided substantial military and economic assistance over many years. Realists have expressed concern that the post- Mubarak government in Egypt might become dominated by Islamic funda - mentalists, such as members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Such a government

The Arab World Geographer / Le Géographe du monde arab Vol 14, no 2 (2011) 172 Fred M. Shelley might oppose American interests in the region more vigorously than did the stable but corrupt Mubarak regime. This possibility encouraged some foreign-policy realists to support Mubarak, even in the face of the “Arab spring” protests and the eventual ouster of the Mubarak regime. As Amery notes, the Tahrir Square protesters argued vigorously in favour of democracy, Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/awg/article-pdf/14/2/169/1449170/arwg_14_2_kj72435x25412850.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 human rights, and the elimination of corruption—all values that are at the core of American idealism. Yet realists have seen maintaining U.S. policy interests in Southwest Asia and North Africa as more important than supporting the implementation of these values. Tension between American idealism and American realism may have made the United States appear hypocritical to many “Arab spring” support - ers. On the one hand, Americans believe passionately in democracy. On the other hand, they are deeply sceptical of how democracy will function in Southwest Asia and North Africa, and many are fearful that anti-American regimes will take control of governments in this region. Perhaps this tension between idealism and realism has influenced Americans’ reactions to the “Arab spring.” While many Americans applauded the actions of the protest - ers, the U.S. government was slow to provide active support. Not until several months after the Ben Ali and Mubarak regimes were ousted, for example, did the United States offer unequivocal support to new governments in Tunisia and Egypt. In May 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama gave a policy address in which he placed “the United States squarely on the side of democratic reform in the Middle East and North Africa, declaring in a major policy speech that the wave of change sweeping the region ‘cannot be denied’” (Silverleib and Cohen 2011). Was American caution motivated by tension between realism and ideal - ism? And to what extent has it been motivated by doubt that voters in Egypt, Tunisia, and other countries will elect “friendly” governments? Even this possibility may be motivated by tension between idealism and realism. Idealists doubt that democracy will work—for example, can an elected government be trusted to relinquish power if defeated in a free and fair elec - tion? Realists doubt that voters in the Arab world can be trusted to elect governments whose foreign policies are consistent with American interests. What happens next? And how might the relationships between the “Arab spring” and the United States evolve over time? In a region whose governance has a long history of authoritarian regimes and suppression of political debate and dissent, the “Arab spring” may mean more than simple protests against corrupt dictatorships. As Sharif Elmusa writes, “For the bulk of the Arab people … this has been a great creative moment, springing out of a long period of gloom and seeming loss of hope.” The protesters in Southwest Asia and North Africa are expressing idealism about their own futures. Mona Fayad makes a similar point: “ The Arab revolution obliged Western countries

The Arab World Geographer / Le Géographe du monde arab Vol 14, no 2 (2011) Orientalism, Idealism, and Realism 173 to become more transparent and abandon support for dictatorial govern - ments.” As Abu-Nimer emphasizes “Arab spring” was an indigenous grass - roots movement. And as Fayad points out, it is motivated by a yearning for democracy and transparency replacing corruption and political suppression. As authoritarian regimes topple, how democracy will function in the coun - Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/awg/article-pdf/14/2/169/1449170/arwg_14_2_kj72435x25412850.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 tries of Southwest Asia and North Africa—whether or not their present boundaries remain in place—remains to be seen. But Americans observing “Arab spring” and its impacts on the governments of the region need to recog - nize that their perceptions may be influenced by the blinders of Orientalism, and that ongoing tension between idealism and realism have influenced governments in the region as well as relationships between these governments and the West.

References Said, E. 1978. Orientalism . New York: Vintage. Silverleib, A., and Cohen, T. 2011. Obama announces “new chapter” in U.S. Mideast diplomacy. CNN.com, 19 May. http://www-cgi.cnn.com/2011/POLI - TICS/05/19/obama.mideast/index.html

The Arab World Geographer / Le Géographe du monde arab Vol 14, no 2 (2011)