Washington Post Outlook
Sunday, November 23, 2003; Page B03

By Saad Eddin Ibrahim

CAIRO

I must confess that President Bush's speech on democracy in the
Middle East earlier this month came as a pleasant surprise. Like most
Arabs, I have strong misgivings about his unilateral intervention in
Iraq and failure to maintain consistent standards toward Palestinians
and Israelis.

But as a lifelong advocate of democracy in the Arab world, I could
not have written a better speech. The president hit the right notes
when he admitted past foreign policy mistakes and vowed not to
condone dictatorial regimes, even among close traditional allies. He
dismissed as false the cultural arguments that Islam is inherently
incompatible with freedom and democracy. And yet, for the speech to
be truly meaningful, Bush must now translate some of that fine
rhetoric into policy.

For many years, those of us who struggle for democratic
transformation in the Arab world felt alone in confronting despotism.
As Bush himself admitted, Cold War and geopolitical considerations
made the United States dance all too often with Arab dictators. Now
that this era may be over, dissidents are beginning to speak a little
more loudly.

Our numbers are small, not so much for lack of fellow citizens
yearning for liberal governance, but out of fear of publicly
expressing those yearnings. When the Egyptian regime imprisoned me
and 27 young associates three years ago, charging me with taking
foreign grant funds without permission and tarnishing Egypt's image
abroad with my work, most Egyptian intellectuals and civil society
activists in our country did not act for many months. They were
paralyzed. Meanwhile, international civil society and the media in
democratic countries kept up the pressure until our full acquittal by
Egypt's highest court in March.

One tactic of the region's dictatorial regimes is to deflect
attention from domestic injustices by whipping up anger over external
issues. Thus, Arab dictators, through their state-controlled media,
dismissed the Bush speech as hypocritical and arrogant. For them it
merely revealed a U.S. double standard. The U.S. president, they
would say, should not speak out on Arab governance until there is a
final resolution of the Palestinian question and/or immediate
withdrawal from Iraq. This plays to popular and legitimate demands of
the Arab people, but with ulterior motives.

These anti-democratic regimes have opted not to declare such
hostility outright. Instead, they allege that any Arab voice that
calls for regime change is supporting a nefarious American agenda in
the Middle East. Then the allegation extends to those who call for
greater freedoms in any sphere of life, labeling them "cultural
agents" of a hegemonic America. Since the war in Iraq and the quest
for its democratization, Arab democrats like me have become favorite
targets for that broad anti-reform coalition.

I have just returned from a lecture tour of the United States, which
was arranged months ago and initially did not include Washington or
meetings with any administration officials. Yet the coincidence of
Bush's speech with my presence in the United States caused the yellow
press in Egypt to go wild. Al-Osbou Weekly, a reputed mouthpiece of
the state security agency, went so far as to credit me as the unseen
author of the speech. It alleged that Congress subsequently rewarded
me by appropriating several million dollars for my development
studies center. The front page headline read: "Saad in Washington to
incite the US against Egypt and the Arab World." This baseless story
also appeared in several other Arab newspapers. My true mission? To
lobby, along with other members of the international human rights
movement, for the worldwide repeal of emergency laws such as the
Patriot Act.

Demagoguery aside, there is valid apprehension among Arab democrats
about whether Washington is serious about supporting their efforts
toward overdue democratic transformation. And if so, how will the
United States go about it -- with helpful encouragement or heavy-
handed interference?

Arab democrats recognize that U.S. success in Iraq would strengthen
their own democratic efforts elsewhere in the region. They wish the
United States had planned more wisely for a postwar Iraq. It should
have consulted more closely with Arab and Iraqi democratic forces in
the region. It should not have so quickly dissolved the Iraqi army,
which was as alienated from Saddam Hussein as the rest of the Iraqi
people.

But it is never too late to admit mistakes and move forward. As I see
it, Washington could call upon the United Nations and Arab legal,
economic and political advisers from around the region to work with
local counterparts toward reconstructing Iraq. Security could be
improved by reconstituting units and brigades of the old Iraqi army.
With brief retraining, they could expedite the transition to a stable
and democratic Iraq.

Those who wish for American failure in Iraq are an unholy alliance of
anti-democratic groups: Arab tyrants, old leftists, Baathists and
Nasserites. These spent forces recognize on some level that history
has finally moved beyond them. The graphic fall of Saddam's statue
was a moment of truth for them. But an American failure in Iraq would
give them a new lease on life.

Unfortunately, a regional democratic coalition has yet to emerge.
Although its constituent elements are all there, both in the business
community and in civil society, they are widely scattered. Arab
regimes have long put activists in prison or under permanent siege.
Older democracies around the world should help lift that siege by
demanding a greater margin of freedom. They can do so in several
ways. One is by providing interaction with democracy advocates in
Eastern Europe and elsewhere who successfully defied their own
despots. Funds without strings attached, travel opportunities and
training also would be welcome. Similar post-Helsinki support in the
1970s and '80s hastened peaceful transformations of governance across
the former Soviet sphere.

What else should the United States do to promote democracy in the
Middle East?

• Work multilaterally. Actively welcoming other democracies,
particularly those with no colonial history in the region, to join in
the Iraq project would ward off much of the suspicion that still
lingers of a sinister design to rob Iraq of its oil, or to
consolidate imperial hegemony.

Along the same lines, it would help both the Americans and the
indigenous Arab democrats if the United States declared a timetable
for transferring power to Iraqis -- and adhered to it faithfully. The
recent statements from Washington to this effect must be widely
publicized in Iraq and the region at large. And then they must be
honored.

• Resume an active role in peacemaking between Palestinians and
Israelis. This is a noble goal in itself. It is also a sine qua non
for establishing sustainable democratization in the Middle East. Arab
regimes have used the highly emotional Palestine question as an
excuse to engage in authoritarian practices. The world has come close
to an equitable resolution of the conflict several times, always
aborted by extremists on both sides. The silent majorities in
Palestine and Israel have yet to enjoy the opportunity to vote on a
historical compromise of the kind entailed in the road map, or Camp
David I and II.

• Support making aid, trade and investment conditional upon Middle
East governments' (including Israel's) taking concrete steps toward
full democracy. This strategy is neither new nor draconian. It was
effective in bringing about and sustaining an Egyptian-Israeli peace
treaty. We also saw the success of this strategy in Europe. South and
East European countries eager to join the European Union were given a
twin mandate: Create democracy and a market economy. The European
Union has subsequently grown from seven to 15 and, soon, to 25 member
countries. Europe is now more democratic, united, peaceful and
prosperous than at any time in the past 10 centuries. Democracy
should not be imposed by external armed forces -- and does not take
root this way.

• Build on regional liberal traditions. President Bush has correctly
noted on several occasions, including in his recent speech, that
there is no contradiction between Islam and democracy. Two of the
largest Muslim countries, Indonesia and Bangladesh, have elected
democratic governments and female heads of state. And while many in
the West may not know it, in several parts of the Middle East there
were liberal traditions from the mid-19th to the mid-20th centuries,
including pluralistic multiparty systems, a free press and vibrant
civil societies. The West should acknowledge and build its support
for the region on this liberal tradition. It is still part of the
Arab collective memory.

• Invigorate partnerships with civil society organizations. At a time
when ruling elites are too fossilized to change or allow others to
bring about badly needed changes, Arab civil society organizations
are working actively for political and cultural reforms. They have
not waited for official approval. Our Ibn Khaldun Center reopened
this past June 30, exactly three years after it was shut down by the
authorities. Saudi intellectuals are loudly and forcefully demanding
sweeping reforms. Palestinian and Israeli moderates have been
searching for common ground for years. Bravely, they found enough of
it to sign a "virtual" peace accord in Geneva last month. Similar
initiatives are under way in Syria and Tunisia despite ongoing
repression.

It is this budding Arab civil society that provides the future
infrastructure for democracy. Its counterparts in the United States
and other Western democracies must now stretch helping hands across
the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. And the United States should
pressure reluctant Arab regimes to lift legal and other restrictions
that strangle local civic participation.

Arabs have long lamented past betrayals by the West. Bush's democracy
speech is a promise to correct the historical record. But it's up to
Arab democrats to make Arab democracy a reality.