The Arab world has recently seen unprecedented calls for freedom and democracy. From Algeria to Yemen, protesters have challenged the despots’ grip on power and demanded that they be free to choose their leaders. Sadly, the courage of the protesters is mirrored by a dismally feeble response by Western leaders.
Not that this is anything new. Western nations have a long history of propping up dictators that fit into their strategic plans — suffice it look at America’s track record in Latin America, or France’s dealings in Africa. However, at least in recent times, the combination of public support, civic activism and media interest could twist the governments’ hands.
Indeed, this has been the case with Belarus. Election fraud and a brutal suppression of ensuing protests only gave rise to vapid condemnations at first. Nevertheless, a concerted effort by NGOs, media outlets, and such politicians as Guido Westerwelle, Carl Bildt and Radoslaw Sikorski (the fo-reign ministers of Germany, Sweden and Poland, respectively), finally resulted in tougher measures, including a visa ban on the country’s top officials.
But even by these already low standards the response to events in Tunisia and Egypt has been disheartening. Only recently — months after the beginning of protests in Tunisia and weeks after Egypt followed — did the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Relations and Security Policy Catherine Ashton begin to provide any meaningful reaction to what was going on. In both Europe and America leaders have called for “stability” and “restraint,” evidently motivated by a fear of Islamism. Many countries also have interests, economic or political, in the region.
The Egyptian revolution has sparked even more controversy. While his 29 years as president clearly label Hosni Mubarak as a dictator, he is one of the few Arab leaders to have good relations with the US and Israel. Moreover, given Egypt’s population of nearly 80 million (the biggest in the Middle East and third in Africa), he is a valuable asset. Consequently, leaders like Secretary of State Hilary Clinton or German Chancellor Angela Merkel have warned against early elections, in hopes that Mubarak retain power long enough to find a suitable successor.
On February 11, after Suleiman announced Mubarak’s resignation, US President Barack Obama fully endorsed the Egyptian people’s calls for democracy. He also backed the plans to see the army, which he described as a patriotic and responsible “caretaker,” in the role of running the country during the period of transition. It appears that military rule will be maintained for six months, until parliamentary and presidential elections can be held. Ashton has also expressed her desire to see the army in the role of a “guardian” of the “transition process,” while stressing the importance of “regional stability.” Naturally, both positions would be more praiseworthy if they had appeared before the outcome had been secured on the streets of Cairo.
This attitude of Western leaders, unfortunately, does not augur well for Ukraine, or the post-Soviet region in general. Indeed, the Orange Revolution was backed by many leaders abroad; within days after protests had erupted on the Maidan Poland’s former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Lech Walesa came to greet the protesters and help appease tensions. Further support soon came from the Czech, Lithuanian, and Polish presidents — Vaclav Havel, Valdas Adamkus, and Aleksander Kwasniewski, respectively. Foreign financial assistance (albeit significantly smaller than domestic resources) helped fund civil society organizations, e.g. PORA, which played an essential role in boosting and managing civic activity, received grants and technical assistance from the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Freedom House, and the Canadian International Development Agency.
This support may not have been critical to the outcome of the Orange Revolution, and we will never know what could have been. But it was certainly of assistance, and helped remind anti-democratic forces, both in Ukraine and throughout the world, that the international community is not mute, and that it will not stand by idly as freedoms and human rights are violated. Sadly, it appears that what was true in 2004 (and even this is debatable) no longer holds in 2011.
Since Viktor Yanukovych was elected as president, European leaders have repeatedly praised him as a man “that has brought stability,” and not without reason: relations with Russia improved, talks with the EU moved forward, domestic reforms were implemented. Yet with time his authoritarian inclinations have become increasingly visible, as reflected in Ukraine’s fall in the Freedom House ranking — from “free” to “partially free.” The recent witch hunt of former officials has provoked responses both from the US and the EU, with the EU Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy Stefan Fuele warning that Brussels would not “compromise on core values like democracy.” However, when push comes to shove, one can only wonder how much weight those words will carry.
As most of the world’s democracies have grown older and more prosperous, they have also become disillusioned with lofty ideals and principles. Stability favors long-term planning and economic development, both of which are desirable. But freedom must not be sacrificed. The greatest achievements of recent history were built on dreams of a better tomorrow, while words of hope echoed around the world. Unfortunately, those who come to speak them, in Ukraine, in Arab states, or elsewhere, may soon find themselves alone.
