8/19/2019 1A smith

1/10

I afrm resolved: The United States ought to promote

democracy  in the Middle East

I value morality  and my standard or when we have

achieved that is utilitarianism  or doing the most goodor the most number o people

Beore we begin we must dene a ew terms! Merriam

"ebster denes promote as #to help $something% happen!

develop! or increase& and democracy as #a government

in which the supreme power is vested in the people

and e'ercised by them directly or indirectly through a

system o representation usually involving periodically

held free elections&

(ontention ) is *emocracy

Middle Eastern democrati+ation has ailed in the past due

to a ailure to ully commit to democrati+ation , by

shiting our ocus to democrati+ation we can solve

authoritarianism  within the Middle East

-amid and Mandaville ). , -amid is a senior ellow at the /ro0ect on U1S1 2elations with the Islamic "orld at the Broo3ings Institution4s(enter or Middle East /olicy! Mandaville is a proessor o public and international a5airs at 6eorge Mason

University and a ormer member o the State *epartment7s policy8planning sta51

$Shadi and /eter! #The U1S1 Is 6iving Up on Middle East *emocracy9and That4s a Mista3e&! )88).!

http:;;www1theatlantic1com;international;archive;

8/19/2019 1A smith

2/10

to loo3 at this as a security problem ris3s conating cause and e5ect1 Today7s Middle East is

a product ! at least in part!  o ailed democrati+ation ! and one o the

reason s it ailed was the timid! hal8hearted support o the 

Dbama administration1 That the U1S 1 is undamentally limited in its ability to inuence the internal politics oCrab states has been a consistent theme within the Dbama administration as well as among analysts 1 Jo one

denies that there are limits to what the U1S1 can $or can7t% doK the uestion! however! is what those limits are1 C

growing academic literature points to the signicant

impact "estern leverage  and #lin3age& can have on democratic

transitions 1 *uring the #third wave& o democrati+ation! Steven Levits3y and Lucan "ay write! #it was ane'ternally driven shit in the cost o suppression! not changes in domestic conditions! that contributed most

centrally to the demise o authoritarianism in the )?>=s and )??=s1& They nd that # states7

vulnerability to "estern democrati+ation pressure  was

oten decisive1 & "estern democrati+ation pressure will be less e5ective in the Middle East because othe more e'istential nature o ideological divides! but it is still important1 In a new article in The "ashington

uarterly! we argue that the various attempted revolutions  o

8/19/2019 1A smith

3/10

 The uprisings o  These early

years o the Crab uprisings tell a story that is largely at

odds with the predominant narrative that e'ternal actors

can and should play only a uiet!  supporting role 1 "ith the

e'ception o Tunisia! each o the revolutions9 in Egypt! Libya! Remen! and Syria  $as

well as the one nearrevolution in Bahrain%9 has been notable or the important!

even decisive role o international actors 1  In Egypt ! as the crowds

swelled in Tahrir Suare! senior U1S1 ofcials e'erted pressure on themilitary  to rerain rom using orce against protesters 1 In

Libya! the JCTD operation provided a protective umbrella

or the rebel orces! allowing them to deeat  Muammar

adda7s army 1 Meanwhile! the uprising in Bahrain was uashed when Saudi and Emirati orcesarrived to crush the protests led by the country7s ma0ority8Shia population1 In Remen! the removal o president Cli

https://csis.org/files/publication/TWQ_13Winter_Hamid-Mandaville.pdfhttps://csis.org/files/publication/TWQ_13Winter_Hamid-Mandaville.pdfhttps://csis.org/files/publication/TWQ_13Winter_Hamid-Mandaville.pdf

8/19/2019 1A smith

4/10

Cbdullah Saleh was acilitated through negotiations involving Saudi Crabia! the United States! and other 6ul(ooperation (ouncil $6((% nations1 Cnd 2ussia7s unailing support o the Syrian regime has ensured the UJ7s

inability to ta3e any meaningul action as it slaughters its own citi+ens1 Iran and -e+bollah have helped Cssad chec3rebel advances on the ground! while aid rom Saudi Crabia! atar! and "estern nations has been vital in sustaining

the rebellion1 It is also worth noting that perceptions o U1S1 inuence and leverage in the Crab world very much

depend on the preconceptions o whoever happens to be watching 1 It may be the case that U1S1 inuence has

diminished in purely ob0ective terms! but that does not mean that all Crabs will or must believe it1 I the United

States acts as i it has diminished inuence! then it becomes a sel8ullling prophecy 1 (ontrary to declinist

assumptions! the United States does! in act! have more

leverage  in the Middle East than many U1S1 policyma3ers

assume 1 Nor e'ample! ormer JS( director Steven Simon argues that the United States can do very little topressure Egypt7s generals! but the act remains that there is simply no replacement or the crucial spare parts and

euipment that the United States provides! not to mention the thic3ness o military to8military relations built up

over decades 1 "hen it comes to the 6ul! the threat o Iran! while oten overstated! continues to loom large! but in away that afrms U1S1 leverage1 Instead o viewing the United States as dependent on the 6ul! the reverse is more

accurate! especially now with U1S1 domestic energy production rapidly e'panding1 Meanwhile! in the ace o Iranianaggression! the 6ul States have never been more dependent on U1S1 security provisions including advanced

weaponry and e5orts at coordinating regional missile deense1 Cs long as the Iranian threat esters! the UnitedStates has an opportunity! one which will almost certainly diminish i Iran gives up its nuclear ambitions and

reconciles with the "est1 In other words! Iran currently provides an opening or the United States to adopt a more

comprehensive approach o lin3ing what have until now been treated as discrete concerns9security and reorm1

Maintaining democracy is key to peace

(ortright )H !

 *avid (ortright is the director o /olicy Studies at the roc Institute or /eace Studies at the University o Jotre

*ame! (hair o the Board o *irectors o the Nourth Nreedom Norum! and author o ) boo3s! risten "all is a

2esearcher and Cnalyst at the roc Institute! (onor Seyle is Cssociate *irector o Dne Earth Nuture! 6overnance!

*emocracy! and /eace -ow State (apacity and 2egime Type Inuence the /rospects o "ar and

/eace! http:;;oneearthuture1org;sites;oneearthuture1org;les;;documents;publications;(ortright8Seyle8"all8/aper1pd 

 

*rawing rom the  empirical literature!

this  paper  identies two  underlying pathways through

which state  governance systems help to  build peace1 These are:

State capacity1 I   states lac3 the ability to e'ecute their policy goals or to maintain security andpublic order in the ace o potentially violent groups! armed conict is more li3ely1 State capacity reers to two

signicant aspects: security capacity and social capacity1 Security capacity includes the ability to control territory

and resist armed incursion rom other states and nonstate actors1 Social capacity includes the ability to provide

social services and public goods1 Institutional uality1  2esearch suggests  that  not all

governance systems are eually e5ective or capable o

supporting peace1  6overnance  systems are seen

as  more  credible  and  legitimate,  and are better at  supporting peace! when they

are  characteri+ed by inclusiveness! representativeness!

http://oneearthfuture.org/sites/oneearthfuture.org/files/documents/publications/Cortright-Seyle-Wall-Paper.pdfhttp://oneearthfuture.org/sites/oneearthfuture.org/files/documents/publications/Cortright-Seyle-Wall-Paper.pdfhttp://oneearthfuture.org/sites/oneearthfuture.org/files/documents/publications/Cortright-Seyle-Wall-Paper.pdfhttp://oneearthfuture.org/sites/oneearthfuture.org/files/documents/publications/Cortright-Seyle-Wall-Paper.pdf

8/19/2019 1A smith

5/10

transparency! and accountability 1 In particular! systems allowing citi+ens to voiceconcerns! participate politically! and hold elected leaders accountable are more stable and better able to avoid

armed conict1  Both dimensions 9state capacity and uality9

are crucial  to the  prevention o armed conict  and are the ocus o part

one o this paper1 /art two o the paper ocuses on democracy as the mostcommon way o structuring  state  government to

allow  or  inclusive systems while maintaining state capacity1 The twoparts summari+e important research ndings on the eatures o governance that are most strongly

associated with prospects or peace1 Dur analysis! based on an e'tensive review o empirical literature! see3s to

identiy  the  specic dimensions o governance  that are  most strongly associated with peace1  "e show

evidence o a direct lin3 between peace and a state7s

capacity to  both  e'ert control  over its territory  and provide  a ull range o

social  services t hrough e5ective governance institutions1 "e apply a governance ramewor3 to e'aminethree ma0or actors associated with the outbrea3 o war9border disputes! ethnic conict! and dependence oncommodity e'ports9and emphasi+e the importance o inclusive and representative governance structures or the

prevention o armed conict1

Liberal democracy is a sel8correcting order that will

always prioriti+e the good o the people , that resolves

any potential abuses o rights! osters cooperation! and

creates productive and positive changeStarr =A

$is a /ulit+er /ri+e8winning proessor o sociology and public a5airs at /rinceton University% /aul Starr#Nreedom4s

/ower: The True Norce o Liberalism& accessed online ;?;)G

http:;;www1princeton1edu;starr;articles;articles=;Starr8Liberalism8(h)1pd 

In a di5erent way! guarantees o religious toleration and reedom o conscience e'empliy the logic o liberalism as

a oundation or a stable polity1 Internecine religious conicts and wars o religion! l i3e revenge euds! deplete the

powers o states and societies1 2eligious toleration serves not only to allow people to worship di5erently but also to

reduce conict! acilitate economic e'change! and create a wider pool o talent or productive wor3 and the state

itsel1 By dividing religion rom law9 that is! by e'cluding religion rom any binding social consensus9states

guaranteeing religious reedom allow people o di5erent aiths to cooperate under a political order that does not

threaten to e'tinguish any o the various theological doctrines they support1 2eligious toleration has also served asa paradigm or the state7s acceptance o pluralism in other cultural and moral controversies1 "here divisions over

the meaning o the good lie are deep and irreconcilable! the state7s neutrality among competing perspectivesurthers mutual orbearance! cooperation! and the growth o societal powers1 The neutrality o the liberal state!

however! does not apply to all matters o moral 0udgment1 Liberalism not only regards people as worthy o beingtreated eually but holds that each individual lie has positive value! and the laws and policies o a liberal state

ought to embody that principle! though citi+ens may well disagree about how to interpret it1 Cs each lie has value!

so do the health and well8being o the community: liberal policies in support o public health and a salubrious and

sustainable environment stem rom commitments that are moral in their inspiration1 Cnd because education

necessarily cultivates character as well as intelligence! a liberal society will properly use its schools to pass on to

the young such moral ualities as integrity! perseverance! empathy! and personal and civic responsibility1 But 0ust

http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles07/Starr-Liberalism-Ch1.pdfhttp://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles07/Starr-Liberalism-Ch1.pdf

8/19/2019 1A smith

6/10

as liberalism e'cludes religion rom a binding social consensus! so it accepts a diversity o cultural and moral

practices that cause no harm to others1 The ramewor3 o a liberal society is

only a ramewor39that is! it provides space or ree

development! allowing or di5erences and promoting

cooperation . "e may 0ustiy religious reedom and cultural diversity on the grounds o individual rightsand autonomy or the eual respect due people o di5erent aiths and values1 But the potential o

liberty to promote stable cooperation and state power

helps to e'plain why states that adopted religious

toleration continued to maintain it and why they have

e'panded the scope o pluralism 1 These 3inds o e5ects on societal power arecrucial in accounting or liberalism7s historical rise1 The liberal hypothesis is not that each and every constraint on

power serves the utilitarian purpose o enlarging societal powers! much less that every rule should be tested solely

on that criterion1 2ather! the hypothesis is that liberal constraints on power! when

ta3en as a whole! have created stronger sel8corrective

political mechanisms! a more innovative and productive

economy! broader societal cooperation! and other

ormidable advantages1  Mechanisms o this 3ind help to e'plain why liberal ideas becamethe basis o enduring liberal states1

(ontention < is /rimacy

*emocracy promotion is 3ey maintaining primacyLennon ?

 , Nellow in the international security program at (SIS! ad0unct proessor in 6eorgetown University7s SecurityStudies program $Cle'ander T1Q1! (enter or Strategic and International Studies! #Oiews Dn *emocracy /romotion

rom the Strategic (ommunity&! March

8/19/2019 1A smith

7/10

values and ambition to democracy, individual rights !rule o law! pro8tection o minority rights1 &)H Some sub0ects put orward a multilateral version o the partnership

argument! contending that # in the longer term! states that ma3e that

transition become more reliable and more cooperative

participants in a cooperative international system ! 1 1 1 inan increasingly globali+ed economy and polity!& a #part o the international abric that ma3es the world wor3 well!&are better #or managing global disorder and security!& and #are drawn to participating in the 3ind o l iberal

international order the United States tries to create1& Dne ormer senior policyma3er concluded: #I would simply saya U1S1 grand strategy should certainly be aimed at an international system with the United States in a leading role!

but is rules8based1 Cnd those rules should be derived rom the consent o the governed 1 1 1 and the only way to do

that is to have an international community made up o democratically governed states 1 1 1 1&). Ninally! a third

strategic reason e'pressed in interviews is that having the United States see3 to

spread democracy helps it be! and be  perceived as! a

benevolent global power or  leader 1 C ew simply cited #values!& a #moral& interest in

spreading democracy or others! or altruistically that democracy #comes

the closest to ullling the aspirations o the people who

are being governed 1&)G But the principal strategic argument! as one ormer senior policyma3er

elaborated! is that # or the United States! our credibility as a world

leader depends to some e'tent on the values that we bring to our

world leadership1 Cnd being identied as on the side o

those people that share those val8uesV is central to our

basic engagement in the international system  and who we are as apeople 1

/rimacy prevents worldwide regional conicts because

the US acts as a orce against possible conicts and

dampens the possibility o a positive outcome – it also

acilitates cooperation between countries that helps to

maintain global peace and unity

Broo3s! "ohlorth! and I3enberry )HI3enberry! Broo3s! and "ohlorth! Cssociate /roessor o 6overnment at *artmouth (ollege and the Clbert 61

Milban3 /roessor o /olitics and International C5airs at /rinceton University and 6lobal Eminence Scholar at yung

-ee University in Seoul and the *aniel "ebster /roessor o 6overnment at *artmouth (ollege! )H $Qohn I3enberry!

Stephen 61 Broo3s! "illiam (1 "ohlorth! Qanuary;Nebruary .A>;stephen8g8broo3s8g80ohn8i3enberry8and8

william8c8wohlorth;lean8orward%

D course! even i it is true that the costs o deep engagement all ar below what advocates o retrenchment claim!

they would not be worth bearing unless they yielded greater benets1 In act! they do1 The most obvious benet o

8/19/2019 1A smith

8/10

the current strategy  is that it reduces  the ris3 o   a dangerous conict 1 The U nited

S tates4 security commitments deter states  with aspirations to regionalhegemony rom contemplating e'pansion and dissuade U1S 1 partners rom trying to solve security problems on their

own in ways that would end up threatening other states1 S3eptics discount this benet by arguing that U1S1 security

guarantees aren4t necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries rom erupting1 They maintain that the high costs o

territorial conuest and the many tools countries can use to signal their benign intentions are enough to prevent

conict1 In other words! ma0or powers could peaceully manage regional multipolarity without the Cmerican pacier1

But that outloo3 is too sanguine1 I "ashington got out o East Csia! Qapan and South orea would li3ely e'pand theirmilitary capabilities and go nuclear! which could provo3e a destabili+ing reaction rom (hina1 It4s worth noting that

during the (old "ar! both South orea and Taiwan tried to obtain nuclear weaponsK the only thing that stoppedthem was the United States! which used its security commitments to restrain their nuclear temptations1 Similarly!

were the U nited S tates to leave the Middle East ! the countries currently bac3ed

by "ashington88notably! Israel! Egypt! and Saudi Crabia88might  act in ways

that would intensiy  the region4s security dilemmas1  There would even be reason toworry about Europe 1 Clthough it4s hard to imagine the return o great8power military competition in a post8Cmerican

Europe! it4s not difcult to oresee governments there reusing to pay the budgetary costs o higher military outlays

and the political costs o increasing EU deense cooperation1 The result might be a continent incapable o securing

itsel rom threats on its periphery! unable to 0oin oreign interventions on which U1S1 leaders might want European

help! and vulnerable to the inuence o outside rising powers1 6iven how easily a U1S1 withdrawal rom 3ey regionscould lead to dangerous competition! advocates o retrenchment tend to put orth another argument: that such

rivalries wouldn4t actually hurt the United States1 To be sure! ew doubt that the United States could survive the

return o conict among powers in Csia or the Middle East88but at what costW "ere states  in one or both o

these regions to start competing against one another! they would  li3ely boost their military

budgets ! arm client states! and  perhaps even start  regional pro'y wars ! all o whichshould concern the United States! in part because its lead in military capabilities would narrow1 6reater regional

insecurity could also produce cascades o nuclear prolieration as powers such as Egypt! Saudi Crabia! Qapan! South

orea! and Taiwan built nuclear orces o their own1 Those countries4 regional competitors might then also see3

nuclear arsenals1 Clthough nuclear deterrence can promote stability between two states with the 3inds o nuclear

orces that the Soviet Union and the United States possessed! things get sha3ier when there are multiple nuclear

rivals with less robust arsenals1 Cs the number o nuclear powers increases! the probability o illicit transers!

irrational decisions! accidents! and unoreseen crises goes up 1 The case orabandoning the United States4 global role misses the underlying security logic o the current approach1 By

reassuring allies and actively managing regional relations! "ashington dampens competition in the world s 3eyareas! thereby preventing the emergence o a hothouse in which countries would grow new military capabilities1 Nor

proo that this strategy is wor3ing! one need loo3 no urther than the deense budgets o the current great powers:on average! since )??) they have 3ept their military e'penditures as C percentage o 6*/ to historic lows! and they

have not attempted to match the United States4 top8end military capabilities1 Moreover! all o the world4s mostmodern militaries are U1S1 allies! and the United States4 military lead over its potential rivals 1is by many measures

growing1 Dn top o all this! the current grand strategy acts as a hedge

against  the emergence regional hegemons 1 Some supporters o retrenchment argue thatthe U1S1 military should 3eep its orces over the hori+on and pass the buc3 to local powers to do the dangerous wor3

o counterbalancing rising regional powers1 "ashington! they contend! should deploy orces abroad only when a

truly credible contender or regional hegemony arises! as in the cases o 6ermany and Qapan during "orld "ar IIand the Soviet Union during the (old "ar1 Ret there is already a potential contender or regional hegemony88(hina88

and to balance it! the United States will need to maintain its 3ey alliances in Csia and the military capacity to

intervene there1 The implication is that the United States should get out o Cghanistan and Ira! reduce its military

presence in Europe! and pivot to Csia1 Ret that is e'actly what the Dbama administration is doing1 MILITC2R*DMIJCJ(E! E(DJDMI( /2EEMIJEJ(E /reoccupied with security issues! critics o the current grand strategy miss

one o its most important benets: sustaining an open global economy and a avorable place or the United Stateswithin it1 To be sure! the sheer si+e o its output would guarantee the United States a ma0or role in the global

economy whatever grand strategy it adopted1 Ret the country4s military dominance undergirds its economicleadership1 In addition to protecting the world economy rom instability! its military commitments and naval

superiority help secure the sea8lanes and other shipping corridors that allow trade to ow reely and cheaply1 "ere

8/19/2019 1A smith

9/10

the United States to pull bac3 rom the world! the tas3 o securing the global commons would get much harder1"ashington would have less leverage with which it could convince countries to cooperate on economic matters and

less access to the military bases throughout the world needed to 3eep the seas open1 C global role also lets theUnited States structure the world economy in ways that serve its particular economic interests1 *uring the (old

"ar! "ashington used its overseas security commitments to get allies to embrace the economic policies it

preerred88convincing "est 6ermany in the )?A=s! or e'ample! to ta3e costly steps to support the U1S1 dollar as a

reserve currency1 U1S1 deense agreements wor3 the same way today1 Nor e'ample! when negotiating the

8/19/2019 1A smith

10/10

international relations! the answer is yes88a view that seems even wiser in the wa3e o the disaster in Ira and the

6reat 2ecession1 Ret their arguments simply don4t hold up1 There is little evidence that

the U nited S tates would  save  much money switch ing to a smaller global

posture 1 Jor is the current strategy  sel8deeating: it has not provo3ed 

the ormation o counterbalancing  coalitions or caused the country to spend itsel into economicdecline1 Jor will it condemn the U nited S tates to oolhardy wars  in the uture1 "hat the strategy  does

do is help prevent the outbreak of con%ict  in the world4s most important

regions! 3eep the  global economy humming! and ma3e  international cooperation

easier 1 (harting a di5erent course would threaten all these benets1 This is not to say that the United States4current oreign policy can4t be adapted to new circumstances and challenges1 "ashington does not need to retain

every commitment at all costs! and there is nothing wrong with re0iggering its strategy in response to newopportunities or setbac3s1 That is what the Ji'on administration did by winding down the Oietnam "ar and

increasing the United States4 reliance on regional partners to contain Soviet power! and it is what the Dbamaadministration has been doing ater the Ira war by pivoting to Csia1 These episodes o rebalancing belie the

argument that a powerul and internationally engaged Cmerica cannot tailor its policies to a changing world1 C

grand strategy o actively managing global security and promoting the liberal economic order has served the UnitedStates e'ceptionally well or the past si' decades! and there is no reason to give it up now1 The country4s globe8

spanning posture is the devil we 3now! and a world with a disengaged Cmerica is the devil we don4t 3now1

"ere Cmerican leaders to choose retrenchment! they would inessence be running a massive e'periment to test how the world would wor3 without an engaged and liberal leading

power1 The results could  well be disastrous1