An American Policy in Transitioning Middle Eastern Environments For many decades the Middle East region dealt with power struggles, badly drawn borders, and the Arab-Israeli conflict or Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These examples are just some of what plagues the region and attests to their continued unstableness. The Middle East will undoubtedly remain unstable now and through the near future as it tries to rewrite constitutions, call for reforms, and is engaged in ongoing protests. Regardless, building a stable economic power and government is not one simple solution and takes time. As some nations strive for liberal democracies or constitutional monarchies, there must be political pluralism and with that secularism or at least pseudo-secularism. All things equal, the U.S. foreign policy must see a change in its promotion— a different, new way to deal with the Middle East as a whole and the diverse specific countries. There is no question as to whether conflict will arise in other countries within the Middle East, we know it will, but how the U.S. chooses to position itself in the fight includes stability and democracy on the overall position and relationships and development in terms of specific countries. This paper explains steps that could be taken in forming a U.S. foreign policy in the emerging Middle East region. Some people educated or not about foreign affairs are pushing for the U.S. to take action and use the Middle East crises as an advantage. They want to use this time as a way the U.S. can pursue its goals for forming a more cooperate region. Conversely, many people are opposed to getting involved to a certain extent. According to a poll on FoxNews.com, 58.7 percent of the people surveyed believed the U.S. should get involved only a little in the Egypt crisis, “getting involved is likely to backfire, so let Egypt work it out” was the consensus. (Public) Still, I believe either choice must be pursued with caution and steered far from any kind of oppression. The U.S. does not want emerging regions to feel as if we have underlying corrupt intentions. Also, our engaging with other international coalitions must be discreet in order to attain our creditability. The Middle East people have long succumbed to political longevity and as the new emerging regions form the U.S. should back diverse governments. The main purpose or one overall ideal goal the U.S. should have for the Middle East as a whole in terms of policy is a humanitarian and non-oppressive “transition of power” where the people of the country have a voice. (Green and Gaouette) Although politicians and leaders have pointed an “orderly” transition is important I believe focusing on the people’s voice is imperative because it promotes democracy in the long run and changes in the present. The people want to be heard, as you can see by protests, and we must listen and stray away for our contentedness we have kept with leaders for so long. It is no secret the U.S. promotes democracy, but even a constitutional monarchy would be a better way people could vote a party to power just as they do in European countries. Now, countries are seeing their counterparts can overthrow their regimes and are taking note. The transition period has only just begun; therefore, can the U.S. rely on the notion of stability to really be restored when emotions are so hostile and deep-rooted? Visibly, the answer is no. Striving for stability in such unstable and sometimes uncooperative societies is not something that would even put world affairs back to its former state. Nations have been shaken up and the times of change are upon us. Transformation in the time of change is something we should seek and advance. Accordingly, one principle the U.S. should use is promoting governments with many parties not one National party. Another principle should be governments should embrace democracy or quasi-democracy but keep a religious identity. This is an especially important point. As we know culture is instilled deep within a society and it is used as a way its citizens cope with the world and interact internally with each other. For the U.S. to think they can change a whole culture would be foolish. What we can hope to change very slowly would be doctrinal values in the form of politics. Primarily focusing on the younger generations in some regions and basic disbursement of power in others (constitutional monarchies). While the U.S. should encourage its countries’ values to the Middle East region such as freedom of speech, press (including internet options), and assembly they must keep an open mind. Again, the Islamic countries have values and a culture that are resistant to change. As a result of this difficult situation we should team with the vision of those that pursue “the Koran is not the constitution.” (Vidino) Rather the younger generation of the Islamic culture “speaks of human rights and compares itself to Europe’s Christian Democrats—embracing democracy but keeping a religious identity.” (Vidino) Our policy toward the Middle East should no longer accept the identity of most to be forced upon others as it has for so long. We should work to develop relationships with the younger generation. We also should recognize that there might be room for limited engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood as the Eisenhower administration did in the Cold War. (Vidino) Nevertheless, the process will be muddled and our policy of non-oppression or “freedom of assembly without fear” must be carried throughout each nation. (Kernis) This includes the aftermath and development of regimes. The downfall to any foreign involvement is the same: other people hate the U.S. for meddling in their affairs, it costs the U.S. a lot of money, and if taken far enough Americans die. In the long term we will improve relationships on a specific-country level if we can help during the transition process enough to see it through and also protect our economic interests such as oil. If nations continue to oppress and kill civilians inside their borders blatantly I expect the U.S. to take action, as they should. Yet, the process of a transformation in each country is different due to its existing political make-up, economics, and socio-economics. Leaders in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen have been in power for many decades and each run corrupt and tyrannical governments. According to abc.com Mubarak alone is estimated to have a worth anywhere from 40 to 70 billion dollars. (Kim) The people of Egypt know the government is corrupt and hence have many frustrations. When high unemployment, martyrs, and young individuals being killed by police get factored into the situation, frustrations only gain momentum and opposition forces become unmanageable and uncooperative. There is no turning back. Therefore, each country must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. So, the bigger question to answer is how do we promote change? What policy should the U.S. really follow for specific countries? The younger generation is not holding back and many are protesting at the expense of their lives. Working with these individuals is an obvious option, but they can be too unstable to cooperate with a country they resent. Just as the U.S. has worked with other opposition forces in Afghanistan this choice seems feasible. Again, I believe the U.S. foreign policy should take more of an Eisenhower approach than a Bush one. Instead of marching in with military arms and insurgencies we should recognize the opposition forces that are willing to work with us as well as the new forming governments. In terms of more civil societies such as Egypt and Tunisia to name a few, the U.S. really didn’t need to get involved too much. The transitions did involve casualties but intervention was minimal. Our association with Egypt is something we need to maintain through their developing stages to assure our strong relationship. We should work with civil societies in a civil way. New leaders should be someone of whom the people’s voice will reflect. In terms of tribal societies such as Yemen and Libya and places that very much oppose U.S. intervention there needs to be critical planning on the policy pursued. In Libya, the transition will take much longer as Qaddafi said he will “die a martyr” before he backs down. (Muammar Gaddafi) Rightly so, his people are forming opposition forces. These countries need in the simplest form elections, parties, and economic and technical help. Yet, in light of uncivil protests, democracy is not a country’s first priority. Survival is more what they are seeking. Therefore, as long as we can promote our humanitarian approach to keep protesters alive and out of harm from governments, America can work with opposition forces like the National Council or take matters into their own hands. Even so, as we have seen the U.S. does not need to get into another long engaging war like those in Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot send insurgencies into every nation because they are unfit to run the government themselves. But, as civilians are killed day after day the U.S. will not stand by. We would not want to ignore a situation like this where we have seen “how ignoring Afghanistan led to the growth of Al-Qaeda in that country.“ (enotes.com) Our policy should include workable sanctions and not to repeat the past. Fly-zones “did not prevent Saddam Hussein from slaughtering people on the ground and it did not get him out of office.” (Green and Gaouette) We should also not trust tribal society leaders. Moreover, I believe, as the U.S. is the most powerful democracy in the world it has taken on the parent role in world affairs and cannot step back into isolationism. However, I would like to believe these decisions to step in are not based on political gain; politics always has its part. In addition, opposition forces are not our only allies. International coalitions like the Arab League and Europe are essential. The U.S. must remember these foreign partners know the area, sites, and region better than us. If it comes to it two heads are bigger than one, but four would be even better. An international military action would be ideal when an overt condition becomes noticeable. Aforementioned, the U.S. will and should not stand by while oppression of this magnitude is present on civilian protestors or opposition forces. To close, it seems simple to speak of a solution but nothing is definite to work. Treating civil societies with civility and tribal societies with military action seems so simple. Yet, the complexity comes the minute we intervene. Our believed responsibilities come with consequences that end in ramifications. The idea of “leveling the military advantage” in countries and decreasing oppression while providing humanitarian aid should be the U.S. goal. (Rozen) While we may be a powerful force this fight includes many others. Europe has a strong existence in the Middle East affairs that dates far back and the Arab world has their own coalitions that we must align with. This policy change to democracy from stability can lead to greater relationships between all those involved and developments of a society the Middle Eastern people seek. Lastly, people around the world listen when the U.S. speaks and the U.S. should listen to those voices in need whether its political crises or natural disasters.

Works Cited

enotes.com. "Should the U.S. get involved in foreign conflicts or should the U.S. stay

out of world affairs?" 9 February 2010.

Green, Peter S. and Nicole Gaouette. Bill Clinton Says U.S. Should Support a No-Fly

Zone to Help Libyan Rebels. 10 March 2011. 13 March 2011.

Kernis, Jay. Marandi: Recent events in other Middle East countries will not be

repeated in Iran. 28 February 2011. 14 March 2011.

Kim, Susanna. Egypt's Mubarak Likely to Retain Vast Wealth . 2 February 2011. 14

March 2011.

Muammar Gaddafi. 20 March 2011. 19 March 2011.

Nichols, David A. Eisenhower, master of the Middle East. 13 March 2011. 14 March

2011.

Public. How Much Should U.S. Get Involved in Egypt Crisis? 03 February 2011. 13

March 2011.

Rozen, Laura. U.S. seeks international consensus on Libya response. 10 March 2011.

13 March 2011.

Vidino, Lorenzo. Five Myths about the Muslim Brotherhood. 6 March 2011. 14

March 2011.