Then, two months ago, on Dec. 17, a fed-up Tunisian street vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire. A new model for change in North Africa, quite undreamt-of by the alumni club of the Pentagon Defense Policy Board, was born. The Tunisian regime was its first victim. Hosni Mubarak in Egypt was its next. More thugs will follow them into oblivion.
What’s important to realize is that the old model—a string of sullen and hopeless but relatively quiet dictatorships—is already gone forever. Nobody can bring that cold peace back. What comes next could look a lot like Somalia: chaos, sectarian violence, terrorism bred in anarchy. Or it could look better.
Isn’t it obvious that the West has a vital security interest in making sure the future looks better and not worse?
The crucial transition is still Egypt’s. Its population is 13 times Libya’s, 2½ times Canada’s. If it doesn’t lead the Arab world toward democracy it will lead it the other way. Its transition is shaky. The military council has announced a constitutional referendum and free elections. But relics of the Mubarak years remain in cabinet. An advisory panel will recommend only amendments to Mubarak’s constitution, not an all-new document. The army still controls much of the economy. Reform requires an informed and patient population, but poverty will make reform painful and illiteracy will make it hard to explain.
To say Egyptians will decide their future does not mean Canadians and others should hold our tongues. Canadians helped draft South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution. Western NGOs and academics like Jeffrey Sachs were crucial in cementing Eastern Europe’s transition to democracy and free markets. Democrats never mind offers of help from democrats.
The Canadian Bar Association, or law deans of prominent Canadian universities, should analyze and publicly comment on the quality of the proposed Egyptian constitutional amendments. The Harper government should offer to loan experts from the public service now, and coordinate such offers with the G20 soon. Military assistance, mostly Washington’s, must depend on continued reform and peace with Israel and other neighbours. Civilian development assistance should flow under the same conditions. If it helps, the money spent will be a bargain.
Stephen Harper has made none of these moves. He bases his Middle Eastern policy on stale one-dimensional guesses about what might be good for Israel. Fair enough: a string of failed democratic transitions across North Africa would be really bad for Israel. Not long after, it would be really bad for Canada. It is easy to spot the big historical moments in hindsight. Harder to spot and seize them while they’re happening. Canada’s role has often been to stall for time and then say, “Me too.” Harper used to mock Liberals for acting that way. Today he is outdoing them.
Pages: 1 2
