Being adaptable to an evolving international system has never been incumbent upon the United States until now. The modern age of international relations began with the rise of the non-state actor, now more than just IOs, NGOs, or MNCs, and it has now taken on the mantle of a rise in democratic movements. The events in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya show an empowered generation, looking for a chance to establish themselves in a changing world. As the governments of the international community seem to be more likely to embody the mindset of a younger generation, it behoves the United States to do the same. There are about a million reasons as to why the United States continues to pursue the same sort of foreign policy exhibited since the Cold War, but perhaps that policy is not the most productive. Defining productivity begins with a clear understanding of the position the United States has. Its not a widely touted fact, but the US just isn't what it used to be and that is more due to the changing needs of the international system than a potshot at the US. The Cold War necessitated a US that was well established and could serve as a counterbalance for a rising Russia, but the modern system would be better served by a team player. Coalitions, those that are more ideological rather than militarily based, provide a firm foundation and allow states to create a more cohesive system. Non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations, flourish in systems where every man is an island. The United States should transition from a place of military leadership to a more ideological one. The freedom and democracy that has made this country great should not be the excuse that we make to create regional militarily based counterbalances, but rather it should create a space for the free exchange of ideas that current events in the Middle East and North Africa are demanding.
One issue to look at with the current revolutions that are occurring in the Middle East and North Africa is the changing notion of security. During the Cold War security meant keeping communism from spreading in a domino effect, as well as preventing a nuclear war through deterrence. During the 90’s security meant ensuring stability in a post-Soviet world with the new states that were emerging out of the former Soviet Union. Security concerns in the present day encompass the various threats of terrorism. This creates a dilemma in our support for the current MENA revolutions. For example in Libya we are helping “pro-democratic” rebels replace an autocratic government. This could lead to many security issues in the near future due to the instability that could come out of a new and weak government. Terrorist elements could take root in Libya where previously there was no valid threat. There are already reports that a former Afghan Mujahadeen, Abdel-Moneim Mokhtar, was killed by Ghadafi’s forces. Mokhtar was a commander in the Libyan Islamic Fighters Group which had supposedly allied itself with al-Qaeda a few years ago. This is only the most recent example in which elements of terror groups could be seen as gaining a foothold in a post-Ghadafi Libya.
The emergence of new threats to the security of the United States could be circumvented would be to add to our Revolutionary Aid Packages the services of knowledgeable people to help newly freed states establish governments that will do exactly what governments as supposed to do, work for the people. It also might go a long way for the United States to better understand who exactly we are supporting. While it is impossible to clearly understand every nuance of every individual to whom we give aid, we can theorize based on past experiences. In regards to the current situation, the involvement of the international community at large is, and should, extend farther than providing military cover. Nation building is an extremely delicate process that needs an amount of attention to detail that necessitates a level of experience in state craft that many of the modern revolutionaries lack. The vision and the drive and the thirst for freedom is a great starting point, but it is a short distance between a desire for a true democracy and the devolution to a religiously run state, especially for MENA countries. Security threats emerge in situations where the focus of a country is to not to serve its people but rather to further the goals of the religion, as put forth by the major leaders within the country itself.
As Libya goes through its shift in power, it would be remiss not to comment on the issues facing other MENA countries, specifically Yemen. While so many of the countries in the Middle East are seeing their citizens take part in the Arab Spring, Yemen is a complete paradigm shifter when it comes to a concerted effort on the part of Middle Eastern countries. The Arab League, in the same manner as the African Union, has sought to step in a create a way to end the violence in the country. While in previous instances, the countries that make up the Arab League would choose to stand back and allow the country in question to deal with its issues on its own, it is now abundantly clear that the demands of the people in one country are not isolated incidents. The surge for democracy is spreading through out the MENA region and is posing an imminent threat to many of the long standing regional regimes. Involvement on the part of the Arab League in Yemen could be attributed to many things. The might of the military in Yemen is far more than what is seen in Bahrain or surrounding states, and this could possibly create an escalation to the violence that is detrimental to the citizens at large. Perhaps the most profound reason for involvement in Yemen as opposed to Bahrain would be sectarian implications. There is no way to be completely sure that if the government of Bahrain is allowed to be overthrown, the replacement government would not be hard line anti-Shi’a and create an opening for the expansion of the power of Iran in the region.
