For many years, U.S. foreign policy claims that we support the self-determination of countries around the world. And for many years, we have made the mistake of saying one thing and doing another. How many times have we preached this mantra and then ensured that the person who comes to power in that particular country is the one that WE would most like to have in power. And more importantly, how many times has this backfired?
In the case of Egypt, it looks like we are ready to make the same mistake. Whereas on one side we say we support the "will of the people" being carried out, but on the other hand, we want to make sure that the person who takes over will be an American asset. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said it would be unwise for America to take a "hands off" approach to possible upcoming elections in Egypt, and we should instead be on the "ground floor" with their decision making process. I say: wrong.
The first argument to what I've said here is that I am being unrealistic and naive to boot. If the U.S. doesn't have direct influence on who a country picks as their leader, how can we ensure the new ruler will be a friend to the U.S. and a trusted ally? And that is specifically my point - we can't. And that is specifically why we shouldn't be involved.
The United States continues to have a questionable reputation around the world (and especially the Middle East) because we have a perpetual need to mettle in other country's affairs. If other countries started to see that the only thing we wish to support is the will of the people (even if their ideologies are vastly different than our own), then maybe, just maybe, these countries can again see us as a friend, an ally, a partner no matter what our differences may be.
If America did not have the opportunity to pursue self-determination, this world would be much different, and undoubtedly much darker. Other countries should be afforded the same opportunity - with our full support.
No comments:
Post a Comment