Leader: The west needs a grand plan to pay its debt to the Arab world

A multilateral fund should be deployed to support economic development and civil society.

During his recent visit to Egypt, David Cameron declared: "I am not a naive neocon who thinks you can drop democracy out of an aeroplane
at 40,000 feet." Yet, less than a week later, the Prime Minister became the first world leader to raise the possibility of direct military intervention in Libya. Mr Cameron's belligerent tone was a hasty attempt to compensate for the government's incoherent response to events in the Middle East and North Africa. As Benjamin Disraeli once remarked, you can tell a weak government by its eagerness to resort to strong measures.

The PM's decision to reaffirm his call for a no-fly zone on the day that plans were unveiled to make 11,000 members of the armed forces redundant was further evidence of his lack of judgement. But his confused approach is a reflection of a wider question: what is the purpose of post-Blair British foreign policy? The disastrous consequences of the Iraq war have left the public and policymakers with little appetite for military intervention. Yet support for those fighting for democracy in the Arab world remains both a moral duty and an act of national self-interest. The region's post-revolution governments are unlikely to forget those who came to their aid and those who spoke merely of the need for "stability". If the west's commitment to Arab democracy is to be more than rhetorical, it should draw inspiration from the Marshall Plan, which was used to reconstruct postwar Europe. A multilateral fund should be deployed to support economic development and civil society in the region's nascent democracies. The six Arab Gulf states, currently reaping the benefits of inflated oil prices, should be encouraged to contribute.

Such an act of solidarity, as proposed by the Spanish prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, would encounter significant political opposition. A Republican-led Congress is determined to reduce America's humanitarian aid budget by 41 per cent and the $250m civilian aid budget to Egypt is earmarked for cuts of 10 per cent. In Europe, voters enduring the largest fiscal retrenchment since 1945 are understandably unsympathetic to calls for increased aid. But a grand plan for the Middle East, which would bolster the region's democrats while reducing the appeal of political extremism, is in the long-term interests of the west.

The British government should support what would be an effective and judicious use of soft power. The initial signs are not encouraging. The coalition has announced its intention to withdraw all UK funding from the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the UN agency that co-ordinated the trade union struggle against apartheid in South Africa and Stalinism in Poland, at a time when unions have been playing a leading role in the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. The General Union of Tunisian Workers was at the forefront of the revolt against Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali's government. In Egypt, where the trade unions have been state-controlled since the Nasser era, an independent confederation has been formed to fight for political freedoms and workers' rights. History teaches us that strong, intermediate institutions are an essential guarantor of democracy. The coalition should reverse its ill-timed decision to end ILO donations.

It remains unclear whether the Arab spring will result in the spread of democracy, as in eastern Europe in 1989, or whether authoritarian forces will fill the void, as happened in Europe after the uprisings of 1848. What we can say with certainty is that the west's history of supporting the region's autocrats means that it has incurred an obligation to do all that it can to work for the former possibility.

The experience of the past decade proves that neither the military adventurism of the Blair government nor the debased "realism" beloved of Foreign Office Arabists is a viable policy option. Instead, we need an approach that combines scepticism towards military intervention with an unambiguous commitment to the promotion of democracy. A grand plan for the region - and the enlightened statecraft that it would herald - would go some way to repaying the west's historic debt to the people of the Arab world.

37 comments

Michael Antony's picture

What historic debt? You're not still rabbiting on about the translations of Aristotle in Toledo that were duplicates of the ones being done direct from the Greek in Constantinople?
And who do you give this massive Marshall Aid money to if the dictators re-establish control because gutless left-wing pacifists are "sceptical of military intervention." You can't have it both ways: the Marshall Plan followed military conquest of the dictators and democracy imposed by force. It wasn't just a hand-out to the local fascists.
Michael Antony

Raghu Nath's picture

@Gerry: If you carefully read my post you will not find anywhere that I have said there should be any kind of reparation. Rather I said it is utter nonsense and disguise further interference.

As I said I earlier that selective support and opposition is what the root cause of the problem and no one asking you to celebrate any of the demonstration. My point is whatever happening is none of our concern and whatever government arise out of these revolution is purely a matter for the people of Middle East to decide. If they are happy to have theocratic government it is entirely their choice. Not your, not mine or anyone else's.

Why are you loosing sleep over what may or may not take root in Bahrain???

Raghu Nath's picture

@snark: You are diverting from what we were debating. But in one hand you are saying the ME government use slave labour and on the other hand you are saying India need to uplift it poor by having foreign factories where its alright to work in inhuman condition and meagre salary.
The matter of the fact is India has more than 750 million people living under abject poverty and by having few factories it won't be able to lift them above the poverty line. Beside, as I mentioned earlier, India is lot way behind to be depended completely on oil and it has its own oil field.
Your kinds are Caucasian European and North American.

gerry's picture

Raghu Nath - as a fellow human being it does concern me if a hardine Islamic theocratic regime emerges in Bahrain, as we know that means murder, torture, blasphemy laws, apostasy laws, persecution of gays and lesbians, sharia law in its most extreme form...you may not be concerned about that, but I am.

You are right though - if they freely choose that sort of regime, and then destroy any remaining human rights in Bahrain just like they have done in Iran, that too is their choice.

But progressive people like me should point out that this democratic choice is the polar opposite to human rights, equality of opportunity, womens equality, freedom of speech, freedom from religion...

Des Demona's picture

@ Raghu Nath
You said this - 'India is prospering because of zero interference or nose poking by foreigners'

Foillowed by - ' India is still 75% agrarian and without electricity, gas or motor vehicle'

And this - ' The matter of the fact is India has more than 750 million people living under abject poverty'

Did you mean some Indian Billionaires are prospering?
I'm quite sure they are happy with 'zero inteference'

Raghu Nath's picture

@snark: At least you accept the fact that Europe and America have bigger portion of blame re the Middle East. Europe and America need oil much more than the Developing World precisely because without oil Europe and America would come to halt. Beside, the Developing Nations doesn't poke their nose in the affairs of the States of Middle East nor do they support or oppose them selectively. Remember Egypt needed orderly transition but Libya must be confronted by any means necessary! Why? Not some rubbish about human rights of the Libyan but because of oil!

snark's picture

No - the children of the developing nations are used as unmandated slave labour by the oil states of the ME. Why, lots of them are at the border of Tunisia at the moment trying desperately to leave Libya. They are there to service the plutocrats. Arms are sold to them by several nations including Russia and China. Don't know where they fit into your dyspeptic world view. All nations bar those sustained by agrarian subsistence - that is, none - would be adversely affected by disruption of the oil supply. Imagine for example, India without oil. It would be disastrous. Egypt has moved into transition while Gadaffi is killing his own people. The scale is the difference as well as the oil. Had Egypt transited into civil war then maybe the same intervention arguments would surface. Blame? I assume nothing without facts, and accept no criticism from people unable to marshall facts.

Raghu Nath's picture

@Leader Writer: The premise of your proposition is utter nonsense. The Arab World is capable of looking after themselves and uplifting their economy to the level they desire to. They don't need anymore interference from Europe or America in disguise of any kind of help. They also do not need any kind of handsout from any nations or blocs. Your argument about paying debt is very hollow. Because through this kind of plan and programmes, your vain desire is to direct and to some degree control the political and economic discourse the Arab will take. But I think by now, they are well aware about your real intention. India is prospering because of zero interference or nose poking by foreigners so will the Arabs. Just that it will take a while for them.
@Buckskins: UK and France is primarily responsible for most of the ills which has engulfed the Middle East.
@Woogy: The proposition was made by the leader writer of the New Statesman not by any Arab. You appear to me as willful idiot.

Raghu Nath's picture

@Gerry: As I said to the so called western values are not universal values and in way or form should be imposed, dictated or corced to be accepted. What is good for Europe and America may not be good choice of every other nations on the Planet. I would say it is your ineherent fear of Islam that driving you to conclude your variety is the only good variety. I would say that whatever they choice made by people of Middle East, we got no business telling them what is good for them because that is patronising. Don't forget these are people are as fed up with their governments as they are with patronising from Europe and America. Also I'd like to make a point about your earlier post re Bahrain: The fact that no strong statemants coming out of anywhere is because America and Britain got bases there as well as the oil factor. If Europe and America want every state to be pro-them then why is it wrong for states to be pro-Iran or pro-China? Please don't bring the the rubbish of Islamist regime. Just think logically.

Raghu Nath's picture

@snark: Shall I tell you about the slave labour of India who work big European and American corporations so that you can have cheap goods and indulge in luxury while the labour on day and night with meagre pay and no humane condition to work or live. You live in a fantasy world where you think everything blameless! India is still 75% agrarian and without electricity, gas or motor vehicle and wouldn't come to halt

Latest tweets