Balancing Act: National Security and Democracy Promotion in the Middle East

Daniel Cassman at Partnership for a Secure America writes on the tension U.S. foreign policy meets when it tries to address national security concerns while promoting democracy in the Middle East. Cassman points to a period in the mid-2000′s when it seemed that interests in advancing democratic principles in the region and those that would safeguard against national security threats were “perfectly aligned.” As the events in the Middle East began to unfold (he cites failed and unfavorable elections in Egypt, Iraq and Palestine), however, it became quite clear that national security and democracy promotion will oftentimes be at odds.

“What happens when an autocratic nation is a crucial American ally and democratic elections in that country risk bringing power to more radical leaders?” he asks. “We grant aid or coordinate military operations with these governments, lending them legitimacy and material support. By reinforcing such governments, we deal democracy a blow.”

Cassman suggests that U.S. foreign policy should develop a framework that helps prioritize U.S. interests for times when tensions arise and “push us in different directions.” He lists four factors especially crucial in this decision-making process that include: the immediacy of the national security threat; the nature of our cooperation with the autocratic government; how U.S. aid will affect the regime; and how strategically important the country is as an ally to the U.S.

This tension has certainly been relevant to the current administration: President Obama has chosen to remain largely silent on Iran’s Green Movement in order to be able to engage the regime in a discussion about its nuclear program; it has also chosen to increase aid to an autocratic Yemen in order to counter its al Qaeda militants.