Monday, October 5, 2015

"What would an Islamist Egypt mean?" Caroline Snyder

Caroline Snyder
International Relations
Professor Shirk
5 October 2015
“What would an Islamist Egypt mean?”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/10/opinion/ghitis-egypt-islamists/index.html
            I read an article from 2012 about Islamist parties winning the popular vote in Egypt in the countries first free election. The writer asked, “Should the international community worry (about these results)?” The reason for the concern of Islamist parties coming to power was because different groups were discussing going back to the original rules for Muslims from 1300 years ago. One Islamic group, the Salafists, proposed, “banning women and Christians from holding office, ending alcohol sales and cutting off the hands of thieves.” This would mean taking away a lot of basic freedoms from various groups of people. The United States was worried about this because of the Islamic parties’ hatred towards Western culture and whether or not Egypt would become an enemy after these elections.
            The question in this article is tied directly to the Democratic Peace Theory (DPT). The DPT is the idea that countries with democratic systems of government do not start wars with other countries that are also democracies. From the Jackson reading last week, we learned about the Truman Doctrine, “’the policy of the United States (is) to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures,’” and how presidents have used its idea in their foreign policies. Although that presidents do not follow the Truman Doctrine verbatim, its affects can still be seen today. Based on the DPT and the Truman Doctrine, the United States would be worried about a country with a non-Democratic government that was very against the Western countries. During this time, the United States was worried about relations with Egypt. One statement from the article that I found to reflect America’s foreign policy was this: “They should talk about how democracy does not just mean majority rule; it also means protection of minorities, equality for women and for people of all religions. It means rule of law and an independent judiciary. The West should make clear that those leaders who help preserve peace and build that vision of society in the emerging Arab democracies will have its support while those who don't will not have its backing.” The key concept from the Truman Doctrine can be seen in the last sentence.

            In my opinion, the Democratic Peace Theory is valid. We have seen that wars between democratic countries seldom ever happen. This is obviously a beneficial thing for all democracies and the global community overall. However, this does not mean that America should jump at the chance to fix a non-Democratic country, in my opinion. Yes, if certain groups of people are being oppressed, of course the United States should intervene, especially when violence or possible war is involved. I personally believe we try to solve other countries problems too much. We think that since we are The United States of America and we are, arguably, the most powerful state, all other states should be modeled after us. Sometimes we have to see what a state can do on its own before we swoop in and come to the rescue. In regards to this article, I believe that yes, the Islamic parties needed to be more informed about democracy and equal rights and since there was a threat to freedom, the United States had the right to be worried.

3 comments:

  1. Hi Caroline,
    I agree with your argument that the United States probably gets involved in too many issues that don't necessarily require our involvement, however, I think as the great power that the US currently is, there is some responsibility to handle such threats as this particular idealism may present. Although I do not think the US should intervene strictly on the basis that an Islamic Egypt would have different ideals than us, but we should intervene under the basis that they are threatening freedom to a large group of people, as well as structuring a government around very outdated ideals. In conclusion I agree that the US should be worried and should potentially intervene.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your thoughts Jonathan! I agree with you that the United States should not intervene when another state has different ideals than us. I think as humans we are naturally drawn to wanting to help oppressed people. We do not like seeing others in suffering. In most cases where the United States does intervene, there is an oppressive power that is harming certain groups of people. We can applaud the U.S. in the amount of times it has helped these groups of people regain their rights and freedoms.

      Delete
  2. Hi Caroline,

    I I liked your post! Middle Eastern Politics is very interesting to me. I like that you addressed the situation in Egypt and distinguished that, in the case of the Democratic Peace Theory, Democracies cannot only have a democratic form of government ruled my the masses, but they also have to fairly represent minority groups in the states.

    I think that the Middle East is a long way off from becoming a part of this theory because religion is such a dominant part of this regions politics. From what I have observed, there are mainly two forms of governments that succeed in the region: governments based in Islam or Monarchies. Recently, the democracies that have come out of the Middle East tend to elect leaders that want to establish Islamic governments, which tend to not be friendly with the U.S.. Strange enough, the Middle Eastern governments that have the best relations with the U.S. tend to be monarchies (like Saudi Arabia). I just find this interesting that the Middle East is the one place where the Democratic Peace Theory does not work.

    Thank you for bringing this topic up, it is very interesting.

    -Ben Soder

    ReplyDelete