|
 |
|
|
America is at a loss about what to do in the Middle East. The fundamental challenge that continues to define American foreign policy is terrorism. Yet the American debate about terrorism is as polarized as ever.
|
|
In the first camp, those in favor of the ?root causes? approach argue that fighting terrorism should primarily target social and economic development in the Islamic world. Their rationale is compelling: Poverty and ignorance create an ideal breeding ground for terrorist recruitment. In the second camp, however, an equally vocal group maintains that socio-economic deprivation has no positive correlation, let alone causality, with terrorism. Most terrorists, they argue, are neither poor nor uneducated. To illustrate this point, they often point out that if poverty and ignorance were root causes, most terrorists would come from sub-Saharan Africa. Such logic defines terrorism almost exclusively as a ?security threat? with no discernible socio-economic rationale. Fighting terrorism is conceptualized accordingly, with an exclusive focus on state actors, intelligence gathering, law enforcement, and military action. The challenge awaiting the Bush administration is to find a balanced approach between these two polarized views. So far, the Bush administration seems to have opted for the second camp?s viewpoint rather than the first. The invasion of Iraq and current pressures on Iran and Syria illustrate a single-minded focus on state actors. Commonly known as the ?neoconservatives,? a hawkish group within the administration continues to support political and military pressure on state sponsors of terrorism. This strategy, they believe, sends the strongest message against terrorists and their sponsors in the only language they understand. Despite such focus on state actors, it would be misleading to argue that the Bush administration has been totally oblivious to the root causes of terrorism. There are two areas where the Bush administration has been trying hard to tackle the non-military causes of terrorism: foreign aid and the push for democratization. The problem is that much more needs to be done in both areas. Take foreign aid, for example. Four years ago the Bush administration heralded with great fanfare the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). This new initiative was supposed to triple US foreign assistance to the developing and underdeveloped world. Yet, three problems have plagued this worthy goal. First, the House of Representatives trimmed the planned increase in US foreign aid. Second, it became clear that a large number of the poorest countries would not qualify for the MCA because of a strict, merit-based selections process. And finally the MCA has by and large failed to take off due to administrative problems. The overall picture on the democratization front is no better. In the summer 2004 Washington launched the Broader Middle East and North Africa (BMENA) initiative, as a multilateral G-8 effort in cooperation with regional countries. The BMENA initiative has produced an impressive ?to do? list, ranging from education reform to strengthening civil society. Yet, once again the problem turned out to be feasibility and credibility. In its call for reforms, the BMENA is unable to spell out the incentives it offers to regional autocrats. In any case, after the electoral success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, Washington is no longer pushing for democratization. There is now a return to the old ?realist? bargain: Embrace your friendly autocrats in order to have stability. Under such circumstances, America?s democratization rhetoric is bereft of credibility. Words are not matched by deeds. The only way to address this problem is to provide a much more generous budget for democratization combined with stronger conditionality for help. More funds for democratization will create incentives for reform. Yet, if a country is not reforming, it should simply stop receiving military and financial aid. Such a policy of ?generous conditionality? has never been tried. It is time to give it a chance with countries such as Egypt.
|
| 29 January 2007, Monday |
| ÖMER TAŞPINAR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benzer Haberler 
