Henry Kissinger and the Arab Spring

By Abdelkader Zerougui

The Arab Spring has removed the curse of dictatorship that has been imposed on the people of the Middle East by the post-colonial regimes. This spontaneous revolt restored hope to the disheartened people who finally lived to see this jubilee, and be active witnesses to their day of deliverance from decades of tyrannical rule.

A new beginning is in the making; however, some policymakers remain skeptic about the nature and the outcome of these popular revolts in the Middle East.

U.S. President Barak Obama’s position remains ambiguous about the transformations that are taking place in the Arab world. He praised the Ghandian approach espoused by the revolutionaries in Egypt and Tunisia only after the fact that both Hosni Mubarak and Zain al-Abiddine Ben Ali were dethroned.

The tarnished U.S. image in the Middle East is not associated with its support to Israel, but rather revolves around the unconditional support to the Arab tyrants. Democracy, the rule of law and human rights have always been subordinated to “stability.” Whereas, the discourse calls for so-called “friendly” and “moderate” regimes to be open to popular demands.

On the ground, the U.S. did little to stop the Saudi forces from “invading” Bahrain to rescue a discredited Sunni dynasty in repressing the Shiite population. In Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh ― a staunch U.S. ally ― does not seem to be prepared to leave his office, as the Gulf states have been trying to “contain” the street demands, organizing a cosmetic change and thwarting the revolution by controlling its outcome.

In Syria, the U.S. and the West prefer Bashar al-Assad to remain rather than have a “radical” Sunni regime in its place. The Alawites might have been a nuisance in the Middle East, but a radical Sunni regime might draw a new fault-line in the region.

In Libya, NATO allies’ continuous bombing has prolonged the life of Moammar Gadhafi, and transformed the popular uprising into a full grown civil war that is becoming bloodier by the day. Whereas, the U.S. considered that Libya is of no consequence to its vital interests. Ignoring the fact, Libya could become another failed state like Somalia.

Dr. Henry Kissinger ― a career diplomat ― is advocating a new approach called “pragmatic idealism,” which apparently balances between the vital U.S. national interests and its moral obligations in supporting democracy and human rights. As such, the U.S. should only use military force when its national interests are at stake.

The dilemma with this “vision” is that the notion of self-interest is rather fluid, and can be invoked anytime, which automatically neutralizes the concept of “universal moral values.” The experiences of Afghanistan, Iraq and to a certain extent the situation in Pakistan are clear indicators of the limitations of Kissinger’s new vision.

Subordinating “moral values” to national interests can only reproduce Auschwitz and the Srebrenica and Rwandan massacres. Such doctrine can only hinder the spread of democracy and rob the Arab populace of their basic rights of freedom and self-determination.

The Kissinger model which evolved with his historical encounter with Chairman Mao Zedong in the 1970s remains questionable, and imposing the same model on the Middle East is a self-defeating quest. Kissinger preached against imposing sanctions on China and pressuring its leaders on human rights issues.

Such measures were declared “counterproductive,” and pressuring “friendly” countries in the Arab world will breed Leviathanic regimes. A central critique to Kissinger is succinctly formulated by Col. Liu Mingfu’s in his book, “The China Dream.”

The inherent conflict between the U.S. and China has only been appeased, and not erased. The historical visit by former President Richard Nixon in 1972 might actually have prolonged the authoritarianism and allowed China to circumvent a possible implosion similar to the Soviet Union.

This brings us to the issue of democratic systems and their incompatibility with totalitarian regimes. Gestures of conciliation are “immoral,” and subordinating human suffering to the stability of so-called "friendly regimes" is a recipe devoid of long-term vision.

Genuine coexistence can only be accomplished through compatible systems that respect freedom of the individual and the rule of law. History will judge the U.S. and the West "harshly" and solely on their positions toward the spread of democracy and the promotion of universal rights of individuals.

Abdelkader Zerougui, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor of sociology at American University in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at Zerouguiabdelkader@yahoo.com.