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
|
Joint Letter Urges Biden Administration to Push for Release of Unjustly Detained Saudis
|
Joint Statement: Egyptian Authorities Must Lift Punitive Measures Against EIPR Staff
|
#FreeAhmedKamel: Saudi Arabia must not extradite peaceful protester to Egypt, where he would face torture
MEDC’s newsletters bring you news, analysis, and insights about democracy and human rights in the Middle East and North Africa.