In an article for the American Prospect on August 24, 2006, Research Director Shadi Hamid continues to flesh out what a progressive foreign policy might look like in the Middle East and suggests that, in the long run, a foreign policy that puts democracy promotion at its center is the only way to secure our strategic interests.
What might a progressive foreign policy look like — not just in theory but also in practice? In recent months, there have been numerous efforts to forge a workable alternative to the belligerency of neoconservatism and the amorality of neo-realism, including proposals from Michael Signer, Madeleine Albright, Robert Wright, and Peter Beinart. Several common themes come up repeatedly, themes that may very well animate a new progressive consensus on foreign policy. But despite their ambition, the contributions in question address only vaguely the inevitable moral and strategic dilemmas that would-be Democratic policy-makers will have to face.
Beinart’s book, for example, is an invigorating call to arms. But critical questions remain unanswered. Yes, we must promote democracy abroad. We must offer a new Marshall Plan for the Middle East. But the battle we fight today is different than the one we fought in the Cold War for a fundamental reason: If we now know who our enemy is — Islamic extremism or Islamic totalitarianism, depending on your preference — it is not clear that we know who our friends are, the allies who will stand beside us in this new struggle.
Home / Publications / Commentary
Vision Gap, Part II
Shadi Hamid
Share
In an article for the American Prospect on August 24, 2006, Research Director Shadi Hamid continues to flesh out what a progressive foreign policy might look like in the Middle East and suggests that, in the long run, a foreign policy that puts democracy promotion at its center is the only way to secure our strategic interests.
What might a progressive foreign policy look like — not just in theory but also in practice? In recent months, there have been numerous efforts to forge a workable alternative to the belligerency of neoconservatism and the amorality of neo-realism, including proposals from Michael Signer, Madeleine Albright, Robert Wright, and Peter Beinart. Several common themes come up repeatedly, themes that may very well animate a new progressive consensus on foreign policy. But despite their ambition, the contributions in question address only vaguely the inevitable moral and strategic dilemmas that would-be Democratic policy-makers will have to face.
Beinart’s book, for example, is an invigorating call to arms. But critical questions remain unanswered. Yes, we must promote democracy abroad. We must offer a new Marshall Plan for the Middle East. But the battle we fight today is different than the one we fought in the Cold War for a fundamental reason: If we now know who our enemy is — Islamic extremism or Islamic totalitarianism, depending on your preference — it is not clear that we know who our friends are, the allies who will stand beside us in this new struggle.
View full article here.>>
Related Work
|
Exploring the Nexus of Faith and Freedom
|
Democracy Matters Initiative Private Dialogue: Making the Case for Democracy and Human Rights
|
Weaponizing Democracy in the MENA Feminist Domain
MEDC’s newsletters bring you news, analysis, and insights about democracy and human rights in the Middle East and North Africa.