In a recent Fox News article, the American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Rubin presents an issue that will consume Middle East policy makers for decades: “Is There Really Democracy in the Middle East?” He’s apparently not interested, however, in serious analysis of that question. Instead Rubin offers a partisan polemic [...]]]> via Lobe Log

In a recent Fox News article, the American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Rubin presents an issue that will consume Middle East policy makers for decades: “Is There Really Democracy in the Middle East?” He’s apparently not interested, however, in serious analysis of that question. Instead Rubin offers a partisan polemic criticizing the Obama administration’s responses to the Arab Spring and last week’s events in Benghazi.

Rubin dismisses as “initial optimism” Secretary of State Clinton’s September 2011 description of a “US strategy… based on America’s experience at the end of the Cold War, helping countries that are moving to democracy.” For Rubin, the Arab Spring is far different. Last week’s violence in Benghazi was “equivalent to…Robespierre unleashing the Reign of Terror in the chaos…following the 1789 storming of the Bastille that began the French Revolution.” He argues that President Obama was annoyed “with analysts who suggested that Islamists might hijack the uprisings” and “directed his aides to discount parallels to Iran and focus instead on comparisons to Eastern European transitions after 1989” instead. He goes on to add, in a dramatic tone channeling the stentorian tones of Orson Welles, that “the Islamist putsch continues…as the Muslim Brotherhood…filled the vacuum” in Tunisia and Egypt after their respective dictators abdicated.

Unfortunately, Rubin can only offer a hardly realistic alternative. He suggests that we “ask whether democracy is even possible in the region” because Islamists will inevitably hijack it, as he states they already have in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. And since he refers to the French Revolution more than once (but in misleading comparisons), it is appropriate to characterize Rubin’s policy preference in those terms. He seems to deny the Arabs who removed their autocratic regimes the legacy of the French Revolution that we in the West have enjoyed for two centuries. Historians define almost unanimously this legacy as including the basic rights of man and citizen, the right to free and fair elections, an end to feudalism and hereditary privileges, the equality of all men under the law, and free speech and thought.

Despite Rubin’s version of the Obama administration’s missteps, can anyone identify any Middle East policy makers in or out of government, in the US or abroad, who do not agree with Rubin’s Kuwaiti academic, Saad al-Din Ibrahim, when he says that “It’s understandable the Muslim Brotherhood won… after years in opposition they could promise constituents the world?”

Inconveniently for Rubin, we in the West bear some responsibility for the unique domestic popularity of Islamist parties within Middle Eastern nations. Rubin understands the strength of Islamists in Arab societies today but chooses pointedly to ignore the reasons for their presence. During the Cold War, the region’s autocrats attracted Western aid by suppressing the left. Autocrats promoted Islam as a domestic bulwark against leftist movements. Israel even adopted this tactic. As is commonly reported, Israel provided Hamas support to grow into an alternative to leftist Palestinian organizations. After the fall of communism, Arab autocrats maintained American support by ensuring that their domestic opposition could not interfere in negotiating peace agreements with Israel.

Rubin also complains that the Administration is “treating American aid as an entitlement for hostile regimes.” The last time I checked, Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya are not enemies of the United States. No doubt, elements within their societies are, but elements like these also exist in Eastern Europe and among other US allies. Rubin’s complaints about American financial aid “appeasing” the newly elected regimes discounts the possibility that they may truly enjoy majority support from their electorates. Moreover, the US has provided aid to foreign nations to enhance American interests for decades; it’s not charity.

Since Rubin expects any administration to ensure a continuance of American influence in the region, the Obama administration’s early support for the Arab Spring, its assistance to the Libyan Revolution and financial aid, are among the tools the US must continue to employ; “big sticks” are no longer an appropriate option. Rubin also ignores elements within these countries that can serve as US allies such as the Egyptian army and the thousands of Benghazi residents who ejected Islamist militias from the city the other day. His account of the Benghazi violence never mentions that dozens of Libyans tried to help the beleaguered diplomats.

Rubin’s main problem seems to be with Middle Eastern democracy itself. He seems truly unsettled by the results of free elections. But democracy can be messy; its initial baby steps messier still. Sometimes your friends don’t win. There is no evidence that Islamists stole the Egyptian elections. President Mohamed Morsi may have won the freest and fairest election in the country’s history. It would be much worse for the US, presuming a monopoly on democratic perfection, if it were to deny it to others. The US is fortunate as of yet to remain relatively untarnished by the West’s history of predatory and lethal activities throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Perhaps, unlike in Iran, the US can reap the wind without sowing the whirlwind.

Last Sunday former President Bill Clinton asked the CEO of Walmart if he would open a store in Libya.

Surely Libya needs more jobs and needs to get its economy going, but I am not sure how a Walmart would do that. A large proportion of the goods that [...]]]> via Lobe Log

Last Sunday former President Bill Clinton asked the CEO of Walmart if he would open a store in Libya.

Surely Libya needs more jobs and needs to get its economy going, but I am not sure how a Walmart would do that. A large proportion of the goods that Walmart sells in the United States are imported into the United States, not made there. Seventy-five percent of the foodstuffs in Libya are imported from elsewhere. Libya has no real manufacturing base. Libya’s supply chains are hardly up to the task for feeding into a group of Walmarts. Most of the managers and even greeters may have to be foreigners initially. The people setting up the supply chains would also likely be non-Libyans given the complexity of what needs to be done and the lack of applicable training for most Libyans.

The finance for the setting up of the Walmart(s) would have to be via foreign direct investments likely from the United States. Those investments would need some insurance from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. There would also need to be lots of cooperation and aid from the US government and the Libyan government regarding security for the initial buildings and the entire supply chain within Libya. Maybe the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation and others could be involved in developing the basic infrastructure and connections needed. Effort would also be required for improving the capacity of the Libyan government to handle economic development and the development of businesses.

Physical as well as financial security would be keys to the success of a Walmart in Libya. It would not take much for some trucks or even a store to have problems. Walmart is definitely an American brand and there are lots of Salafis and others who would want to do damage to anything representing an American brand. Consider what happened to the French Carrefour markets in Tunisia during its revolution. Think of what happened to outlets of major American food chains like KFC during the recent riots against that repulsive anti-Islam film. Think of the increasing anti-Americanism amongst some groups in the region and you can see that there could be some physical security issues.

Financial security may require that the payrolls, insurances, cash flows for inventory, maintenance, upkeep and more be kept offshore in part for a while. As the security and banking capacity situations in Libya change this could change. There could also be some significant foreign exchange risk involved, especially if the new Libya becomes more unstable and cannot get its economic act together. However, a good risk management team could hedge this if they knew the country well.

There are also some inherent financial and physical risks by simply being in North Africa and near Egypt and Tunisia, two countries that are still in the midst of trying to find their ways. Their revolutions are likely far from over. There is also a problem with Al Qaeda in the Maghreb and other AQ-like groups floating around the region. The instabilities to the south of Libya are hardly comforting.

Even so, my sense is that President Clinton’s heart was in the right place even if his logic needed a bit more work.

Libya needs foreign investment. There is a lot that American companies can do in Libya.

There are many people in Libya who are pro-American given that we helped their country gain some independence from the wretched regime of Qhaddafi. Many of the expatriate leadership of Libya of the older generations spent some time in the United States. We could gain a lot by helping some of the younger people, appropriately vetted, to get scholarships to visit and study in the United States. Sometimes the best way to make friends and future allies is to give them a good experience in the United States and provide high-quality education and training. There are great opportunities even within the massive and volatile risks of Libya.

That said there are many people in Libya including some militias, extremist groups, pro-Ghaddafi remnants and more who do not like the United States, to put it mildly.

It will be vital to understand the overall environment on the ground of who is who and where they stand before moving forward. It may be a big mistake to write off Libya because of the vicious and evil behavior of a few when the majority of the country could benefit. But we need to be sure.

However, dropping Libya as a place to help may end up delivering it to the extremists and that is a very bad idea.

There is another side to the Walmart story. What about all of the small mom and pop stores, green grocers, kiosks and others in Libya who may be put out of business due to the Walmart. Many of these have been put out of business here. How would Libyans react to being put out of business by a massive American company?

On the other hand, if Walmart and other US companies take the leap into the new North Africa they could help develop countries and their people while at the same time making serious profit. However, the Walmart model may not be the best one to start out with.

Indeed, there are risks. Normally in such situations the only companies that come in are the oil and gas companies or other major energy companies that have vast experience working in conflict and post-conflict zones.

Maybe President Clinton was trying to get a discussion and debate going in US business communities as well as in the government about how the US could help the economies of these hurting countries in a (hopefully) post-conflict environment. This is an important thing to consider even if the situation looks dismal from afar.

Developing the economies of these countries will be far from easy and there are likely to be many bumps along the road – some of them very steep and risky. However, with the right incentives and the right risk management, it may be possible to make a difference and to do well by doing good.

Perhaps there could be some tax breaks and free land to build on in return for training and educating Libyans and increasing the percentage of Libyans working at the Walmart or other such stores. There will need to be some give and take. I know that the tax breaks and free land (for a limited time of perhaps 10 to 20 years and then the lease fees kick in) are contentious. But Libya needs to move forward and get its people — especially its young people — employed. Maybe the United States could improve its reputation in the region by doing just that.

You make more friends by creating jobs than dropping bombs. Developing a better security situation in a region via real strategic thinking can involve a lot more than just the military and the State Department. Sometimes businesses can make a big difference.

However, many businesses need to be sure that they are not going to walk into mine fields before they move forward with serious investments.

There is a certain menace attached to Libya now. Violent extremists created that. Should we give up on the rest of the Libya because of the people who want to destroy it rather than build it up?