We’ve been around as a civilized species for at least ten thousand years. This means events of every description have taken place in one place or another to one group of people or another during that time span. We call it our human history.
That is also what should compel us to think twice before accepting
someone’s suggestion that what we see happen today will unfold along a predetermined
line because history shows it is how a similar event has unfolded in the past.
The truth is that for every example that ended one way in the past, you
can find in the vast annals of human history, a similar example that ended another
way, maybe even the opposite way. It is important to remember all this when
reading the article that came under the inquisitive title: “Has America’s
Influence in the Middle East Really Declined?” and the long subtitle which
reads as follows:
“Forty years ago, U.S. allies raised similar concerns
about how America’s withdrawal from Indochina in 1973 and its “allowing” the
downfall of the Shah in 1979 cast doubts on Washington’s commitment to its
other allies. But America didn’t leave the Middle East then, and is not going
to leave it now either”.
The article was written by Mark N. Katz, and published
on December 18, 2021 in the National Interest.
The difficulty in trying to follow Katz’s reasoning is
that he sees America as having influence somewhere when it has what are
described as allies like today’s Egypt and the Gulf states, or when America has
troops in countries that do not want them, such as Syria and Iraq. This raises
the question: What exactly does Mark Katz mean when he says that America has or
has no influence in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter?
Still, using that nebulous yardstick, Katz proceeded to measure the
influence that America has in the Middle East today, and compares it to what
influence it had during different periods of the past. For example, he has
determined that America is as influential in the Middle East today as it was 40
years ago at the height of the Cold War. But he cautions that it was normal for
America and the Soviet Union to repeatedly win and lose allies during that era.
However, Mark Katz went on to add the optimistic note that whereas the
Soviet Union — that was America’s superpower antagonist at the time — worked relentlessly to undermine America’s influence in the Middle
East, the case is different today. According to him, the current reality is
that China and Russia, who are America’s superpower antagonists today, wish to
work with all the nations of the Middle East, even those that are allied with
America. It is so, Mark Katz explains, for the simple reason that neither China
nor Russia wants to shoulder the responsibility of providing security
guarantees to those nations. They would rather let America carry that burden.
If you feel like Mark Katz has delivered a Chevrolet when you expected a
Cadillac, relax because all is not lost. It is that a “Cadillac” essay in 5700
words was delivered at about the same time. It takes a much wider view of the
global situation, and covers many of the points that Katz has tried to wrestle
with.
The article came under the title: “The Real Crisis of Global Order,” and
the subtitle: “Illiberalism on the Rise.” It was coauthored by Alexander Cooley
and Daniel H. Nexon, and was published in the January/February, 2021 issue of
Foreign Affairs.
Reading the article, you get the sense at the outset that the writers
want you to know they are firmly on the side of the system known as “Liberal
Democracy,” however it may be defined. As they develop the article, they do not
disguise the belief that the system is threatened not only by others, but also
by those in the United States of America.
In fact, the writers came up with an ingenious way to say that Liberal
Democracy has been caught between a rock and a hard place, at least since the
dark days of Donald Trump. They said that it was caught between Charybdis the
sea monster, representing the bad illiberal characters of the world, and her
daughter Scylla, representing what Donald Trump brought to America and may
never leave.
Cooley and Nexon lamented that the pundits of the think tanks turned out
to have guessed wrong when they predicted, for the benefit of the echo chamber,
that the illiberal regimes of the world will turn liberal if and when they
taste from the fruit of liberalism. Here is how our two writers expressed that
thought:
“Key players in the established democracies in Europe
and North America, assumed that reducing international barriers would
facilitate the spread of liberal movements and values. It did for a time, but
the resulting international order now favors a diverse array of illiberal
forces, including authoritarian states, such as China, that reject liberal democracy wholesale. As well, in the eyes of many
right-wing Americans and their overseas counterparts, Western illiberalism
looks perfectly democratic”.
And while that experiment did not turn out as expected, things
deteriorated in America, the supposed home of democracy. Here is how Cooley and
Nexon expressed that thought:
“In their current form, liberal institutions cannot
stem the rising illiberal tide. They must adapt to fend off threats on multiple
levels. But there is a catch. Any attempt to grapple with this crisis will
require policy decisions that are clearly illiberal or necessitate a new
version of liberal order”.
But whereas Mark Katz repeated what the mistaken
pundits of the echo chamber had blared, namely that everything is hunky dory as
things stands now and that the status quo must be maintained, Cooley and Nexon
offered the more thoughtful suggestion that:
“Liberal democracies really do need to assume that
they will not retake the catbird seat of the international order anytime soon.
And so the question becomes not whether the liberal order will change but on
whose terms”.
Instead of telling America to delude itself once more, maybe the time has come for Mark Katz to learn the French song, “A la Claire Fontaine,” which contains the words, “Chante, rossignol, chante.” Who knows? He may be invited to attend a singing session of the illiberal catbirds.