Democracy promotion leads to instability in the Middle East—empirics
[Shadi Hamid=Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center, “The Struggle for Middle East Democracy”, April 26, 2011, http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2011/04/26-middle-east-hamid]
It always seemed as if Arab countries were ‘on the brink.’ It turns out that they were. And those who assured us that Arab autocracies would last for decades, if not longer, were wrong. In the wake of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, academics, analysts and certainly Western policymakers must reassess their understanding of a region entering its democratic moment.What has happened since January disproves longstanding assumptions about how democracies can—and should—emerge in the Arab world. Even the neoconservatives, who seemed passionately attached to the notion of democratic revolution, told us this would be a generational struggle. Arabs were asked to be patient, and to wait. In order to move toward democracy,they would first have to build a secular middle class, reach a certain level of economic growth, and, somehow, foster a democratic culture. It was never quite explained how a democratic culture could emerge under dictatorship. In the early 1990s, the United States began emphasizing civil society development in the Middle East. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the George W. Bush administration significantly increased American assistance to the region. By fiscal year 2009,the level of annual U.S. democracy aid in the Middle East was more than the total amount spent from 1991 to 2001. But while it was categorized as democracy aid, it wasn’t necessarily meant to promote democracy. Democracy entails ‘alternation of power,’ but most NGOs that received Western assistance avoided anything that could be construed as supporting a change in regime. The reason was simple.The United States and other Western powers supported 'reform,' but they were not interested in overturning an order which had given them pliant, if illegitimate, Arabregimes. Those regimes became part of a comfortable strategic arrangement that secured Western interestsin the region,including a forward military posture, access to energy resources and security for the state of Israel. Furthermore, the West feared that the alternative was a radical Islamist takeover reminiscent of the Iranian revolution of 1979. The regimes themselves— including those in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, and Yemen —dutifully created the appearance of reform, rather than its substance. Democratization was ‘defensive’ and ‘managed.’ It was not meant to lead to democracy but rather to prevent its emergence.What resulted were autocracies always engaging in piecemeal reform but doing little to change the underlying power structure.Regime opponents found themselves ensnared in what political scientist Daniel Brumberg called an 'endless transition.'This endless transition was always going to be a dangerous proposition, particularly in the long run. If a transition was promised and never came, Arabs were bound to grow impatient.
[Francis Boyle professor of international law at the University Of Illinois College Of Law, “Unlimited Imperialism and the Threat of World War III. U.S. Militarism at the Start of the 21st Century The Legacy of Two World Wars”, December 25 2012, Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/unlimited-imperialism-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii-u-s-militarism-at-the-start-of-the-21st-century/5316852]
Historically, this latest eruption of American militarismat the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American Warin 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal waragainst the Filipino people;while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to near genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of Chinapursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But overthe next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the “Pacific” would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harboron Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launchedand menacedby theRepublicanBush Jr. administration and now theDemocratic Obama administration are threatening to set off World War III.Byshamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, theBushJr. administrationset forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf and Africaunder the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against international terrorism; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled “humanitarian intervention”/responsibility to protect. Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago:control and domination of two-thirds oftheworld’s hydrocarbon resourcesand thus the very fundament and energizer of the global economic system– oil and gas. The Bush Jr./Obama administrations have already targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia for further conquestor domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation. In this regard, the Bush Jr. administrationannounced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, and exploit both thenatural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. Libya and the Libyans became the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the Obama administration. They will not be the last.This current bout of U.S. imperialism iswhat Hans Morgenthau denominated“unlimited imperialism” in his seminal work Politics Among Nations (4th ed. 1968, at 52-53): “The outstanding historicexamples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and,if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world.This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind… “ It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity.