Diehl’s blind spot

Jackson Diehl has been focusing democratization in the Arab world. It’s an important issue.

For example Gen. Petraeus in his famous and mischaracterized testimony prepared for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee lists a number of items such as

Ethnic, tribal, and sectarian rivalries. Within certain countries, the politicization of ethnicity, tribal affiliation, and religious sect serves to disrupt the development of national civil institutions and social cohesion, at times to the point of violence. Between countries in the region, such rivalries can heighten political tension and serve as catalysts for conflict and insurgency.

Disputed territories and access to vital resources. Unresolved issues of disputed territorial boundaries and disagreements over the sharing of vital resources, such as water, oil, and natural gas, serve as sources of tension and conflict between and within states in the region.

Uneven economic development and lack of employment opportunities. Despite substantial economic growth rates throughout much of the region over the past few years, significant segments of the population in the region remain economically disenfranchised, under-educated, and without sufficient opportunity. In addition many countries in the region face growing “youth bulges” that will strain their economies’ abilities to produce sufficient employment opportunities. The recent global economic downturn has heightened these problems. Without sustained, broad-based economic development, increased employment opportunities are unlikely given the growing proportions of young people relative to overall populations.

These are all functions of the autocratic nature of the Arab world. Yet somehow it didn’t stop Israel’s critics from pouncing on the general’s one statement about Israel.

But Diehl has a blind spot when it comes to Arab democratization. In his latest column, he promotes the candidacy of Mohammed El-Baradei in his campaign to become President of Egypt.

The Obama administration is pressing ahead on the first two issues, setting impossibly ambitious goals and ignoring the unfavorable conditions. And it has put on a distant back burner the one place where opportunity beckons.

That would be Egypt, the region’s bellwether — where an 81-year-old strongman, Hosni Mubarak, is ailing; where a grass-roots pro-democracy movement has gained hundreds of thousands of supporters; and where a credible reform leader has suddenly appeared, in the form of the Nobel Prize-winning former nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei. The movement he leads is pressing Mubarak to lift an emergency law — imposed 28 years ago — that blocks political organizing and freedom of assembly, and to change the constitution so that next year’s presidential election can be genuinely democratic.

Yes, the same Mohammed El-Baradei who dismissed the risk of Iranian nuclear weapons, claimed that they were a lot further away form weapons technology than the Iranians turned out to be, and calls Israel the greatest threat in the Middle East, is the man who Diehl thinks should be promoted as the future President of Egypt as a first step to containing Iran and solving the Arab-Israeli conflict.

(These views are on display at El Baradei’s Facebook page, last week’s more controversial remarks attributed to him were manufactuted.)

If Diehl wanted to promote democracy for its own sake I wouldn’t have as much of a problem. But El Baradei wouldn’t be a help in either problem Diehl suggests he would. As in other cases, Diehl here refuses to acknowledge the anti-Israel hatred of his “progressive” candidate.

Promoting the Palestinian cause and fomenting hatred of Israel is a regular feature of Arab autocrats. It allows them to pose as liberal or prorgressive by adopting the cause of freedom – even as they deny basic rights to their own citizens. Plus it allows them to pose as democrats as they claim they can’t show more friendliness to Israel because their countries won’t allow them too, as if they achieved their positions through free and fair elections, when, in fact, they would allow their populations to dictate no other policy to them.

If El Baradei were doing anything more than seeking power and wishing to change the despot at the head of Egypt’s government he’d show some sign of of thawing relations with Israel. Like Goldstein of the two minute hate Israel provides a handy rallying point for despots of the Arab world to legitimize their hold on power. I can’t believe that El Baradei desires any change except for who will be holding the reins of power in Egypt.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.