Solid kernels in a not so good idea
My SAIS colleague Ed Joseph and Aaron David Miller earlier this week put forward a proposal for a Union of Arab Democracies that merits examination despite its deep and fatal flaws. There are nuggets therein worth preserving.
The idea in their words is this:
Egypt and its fractious neighbors desperately need a unifying vision that can inculcate respect for democratic norms across glaring differences. Although Arab nations have no interest in joining the European Union or NATO, the Arab world can draw on the model of Eastern European transition, with fledgling Arab democracies devising their own supra-national organization dedicated to advancing democracy. Like the E.U. in its infancy, this Union of Arab Democracies (UAD) could start with limited objectives and evolve toward ambitious goals, including, ultimately, pan-Arab political union.
Waving their magic wand, Ed and Aaron then tell us all the good things that would happen if such an organization were to come into existence, despite the shambolic history of pan-Arab political union proposals.
If Egypt and the other Arab uprising countries were capable of creating such an organization, they wouldn’t need it. The weakness of the proposal is all too apparent when Ed and Aaron get to proposing that Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority (known to me as Palestine) would be the leading democracies, with transitioning countries (Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen) and supposedly “liberalizing” countries (Morocco, Jordan and possibly Oman) tagging along. What a democratic club! Several are more likely to find themselves joining an Islamic union than a democratic one.
Nevertheless, there is a core idea here that is important: transitions need a destination. When the Berlin wall fell, the former Soviet satellites of eastern Europe and the Baltic “captive nations” quickly set their aim on meeting European Union and NATO standards. This gave direction and impetus to countries that would otherwise have wandered as aimlessly as the North African revolutions are doing today.
The way to answer the question “transition to what?” is not to have nascent Arab democracies try to figure it out for themselves. They cannot reasonably aim for membership in NATO or the EU, but they should be able to aim at two easier targets: the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe or, as my Turkish colleague Aylin Unver Noi suggests, the Council of Europe.
OSCE comprises 57 states and plays an important role in the Balkans and the more Asian parts of Eurasia. Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia are already among its “cooperating partners.” Several OSCE members are no farther along in democratizing than their Middle Eastern partners. With 47 member states, the Council of Europe regards itself as the continent’s leading human rights organization. It has a human rights court with some real enforcement capacity that could provide minorities in the Middle East with real recourse if their mother countries were to join.
The idea of extending OSCE and the Council of Europe to the southern littoral of the Mediterranean may seem far fetched, but efforts to construct more ad hoc arrangements have not worked well. Neither the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership nor the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative gained much traction before 2011, Aylin says, and their relevance will be further reduced by the Arab uprisings.
Another of the world’s more restrictive clubs, the rich people’s Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) , has opened its doors to newly developed states like Korea and Mexico, much to their benefit and the benefit of the organization. Opening the OSCE and Council of Europe to new Middle Eastern members, who would need to meet clearly defined criteria in order to get in, would be a worthwhile experiment. It would give the Arab uprisings, if they want it, a destination as well as a tough-minded qualification process, which is really what Ed and Aaron were calling for.
So “no” to the Arab Democratic Union. “Yes” to Arab democracy that aims to meet the not too exacting standards of the OSCE and respects human rights as defined by the Council of Europe.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
One thought on “Solid kernels in a not so good idea”
Comments are closed.
RSS - Posts
Two comments in response to Dan Serwer’s incisive points:
First, in short, with his comment on our Washington Post piece, Dan Serwer ‘got it.’ As we intended, Dan saw that our piece rests far more on the diagnosis (based on Eastern Europe transition and the need for a ‘destination’) than on the prescription we came up with (a Union of Arab Democracies.) If OSCE or the Council of Europe works better than a Union, then so be it. (But there are reasons to consider a Union, see below.)
Our other core point is, simply, that the Arab Upheavals demand a commensurate response and that response starts with some out-of-the-box thinking — which should be widely encouraged. The Middle East skeptics and naysayers deserve their say as well. Only that credibility requires at least the acknowledgement that just ‘staying out’ has its costs as well. (See the latest chemical weapons attack in Syria. See Michael Morrell’s comments on how dangerous the situation in Syria is.)
Second, ‘why a Union?’
Dan correctly points out the failures of pan-Arab efforts past, so why propose a ‘Union of Arab Democracies’, as opposed to the OSCE or CoE or some other concept?
Answer: because the challenge, as we identified it, is to find not just a destination, but a ‘unifying destination’ that could bring along a critical mass of Islamists, non-Islamists, and members of minority religions.
Shibley Telhami, the pre-eminent surveyor of Arab opinion, points out that the common theme in the uprisings isn’t democracy per se, but rather the search for Arab dignity. Would the chance to join the CoE or OSCE mobilize a wide enough segment of the Arab world such that it would stand a chance of inculcating democratic norms? (which is the goal)
We were not so sure about that. Indeed, extant efforts like OSCE’s ‘Mediterranean Partnership’ which links five Arab countries with Israel (!) have had little impact; likewise NATO’s efforts — or the trans-Mediterranean initiatives that Dan correctly cites.
So, the challenge is to devise a destination that could really be attractive to a critical mass of severely polarized opinion in fledgling Arab democracies. We thought that a concept like the UAD, which held out the possibility, however distant, of full Arab empowerment — eventually as co-equals to the EU — would have that symbolic attraction. Of course, as noted above, we might be wrong; others like Dan and the colleagues he cites may have a better approach. Nevertheless, the seminal imperative remains: come up with some ideas that can inculcate a modicum of respect for democratic norms across glaring divisions.