Brookings: Experts - Jean-Marie Guehenno

The Arab Spring is 2011, Not 1989

Jean-Marie Guehenno — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:00:00 -0400

The Arab revolutions are beginning to destroy the cliché of an Arab world incapable of democratic transformation. But another caricature is replacing it: according to the new narrative, the crowds in Cairo, Benghazi or Damascus, mobilized by Facebook and Twitter, are the latest illustration of the spread of Western democratic ideals; and while the “rise of the rest” may challenge the economic dominance of Western nations, the West will continue to define the political agenda of the world.

In that optimistic scenario, 1989 and 2011 are two chapters of the same story, which connect in a self-congratulatory way the political appeal of democracy and the transformative power of entrepreneurship and new technologies.

In reality, the movements that are shaking the Arab world are profoundly different from the revolutions that ended the Soviet empire. The Arab spring is about justice and equity as much as it is about democracy, because societies in which millions of young men and women have no jobs — and millions live with less than two dollars a day — crave justice as much as democracy.

As I heard one experienced Arab diplomat say, today’s revolutions are against “profiteers” as much as they are against dictators. The movements are also profoundly suspicious of foreign interference, and Western nations, which for many years have had a cozy relationship with dictators and profiteers, will be utilized, but they are unlikely to be trusted or to serve as models as they were in 1989.

The implications for our Middle Eastern policies are wide-ranging. The good news is that the focus on social justice and practical issues of development and redistribution has the potential to move the public debate further away from dreams of a return to the mythical past of the caliphate promoted by radical Islamists.

In the words of the French scholar Olivier Roy, the Arab revolutions may well become the first “post-Islamist” revolutions. But that will happen only if we in the West accept that Muslim values — which have, like Christian or Jewish values, many interpretations — can become part of the political debate, without being at the center of it.

The more we try to polarize secular forces against Islamic movements, the more unlikely it is that secular values will win. We must abandon the illusion that the defining issue in the region is a battle between moderates and hardliners. Europe and the United States could send a strong signal by ending their policy of “à la carte democracy” and start talking to movements such as Hamas or Hezbollah — which does not mean that we in any way agree with their views.

Bringing the Muslim Brotherhood and related organizations into mainstream politics rather than trying to isolate them should be a priority. This is all the more necessary as the aspiration to justice will lead to demands that the present élites — and in particular security establishments — relinquish their grip not only on power, but also on the economy, and that demand may eventually trigger a second wave of upheavals.

A more democratic Arab world is also likely to be less tolerant of the benign neglect with which the international community has often addressed the Israel-Palestine and the Israeli-Arab conflicts since 2000. That should not be seen as a threat by countries that support a resolution of the conflict in accordance with international law and a two-states solution, but it will require a “reset” of the policies of the last 10 years.

Lastly, as we discover that 2011 is not 1989, and that we are no more the trusted reference, we will have to navigate in unchartered waters: our engagement in Libya will probably have less moral clarity at the end than it has had at the start. Political processes will inevitably be messy, and we will be tempted, especially in oil-rich nations, to pick winners and manipulate outcomes.

That would be disastrous for our long-term standing: in a region whose future has repeatedly been decided by foreigners since the end of the Ottoman empire, outside powers will have to demonstrate that this time they are genuinely willing to support home-grown political processes.

The West has to accept that it is not the central player anymore. But it need not be an indifferent and passive spectator. Finding the balance between engagement and restraint will be the policy challenge of this new phase.

In Libya and possibly in some other situations, the active involvement of the United Nations to find a political solution may help us find that new balance by providing the impartiality and sufficient distance from great powers politics without which no political process will have a sustainable outcome.

Authors

Jean-Marie Guehenno

Publication: The International Herald Tribune

The UN, the United States and International Cooperation: What is on the Horizon?

Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:00:00 -0400

Event Information

September 22, 2010
9:00 AM - 10:00 AM EDT

Center on International Cooperation
New York University

New York City, NY

To coincide with President Obama’s twin addresses to the UN, the Managing Global Insecurity project at Brookings (MGI) hosted a panel discussion in New York on September 22 with Brookings President Strobe Talbott, former head of UN peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno, MGI Director Bruce Jones, Brookings Senior Fellow Homi Kharas, and Jim Traub of The New York Times.

The panelists addressed the Obama administration’s performance in the UN and G20, Ban Ki-moon’s leadership of the UN, the challenge of Iran to the future of international cooperation, and the role of economic interdependence in major power diplomacy.

Watch the event video and read the event transcript on the Center on International Cooperation's web site.

Participants

Panelists

Jim Traub

Contributing Writer, The New York Times

Cooperating for Peace and Security: Reforming the United Nations and NATO

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:00:00 -0400

Event Information

March 24, 2010
2:00 PM - 3:30 PM EDT

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

On March 24, the Managing Global Insecurity Project (MGI) at Brookings hosted a discussion on reforming the United Nations and NATO to meet 21st century global challenges. The event marked the launch of the MGI publication, Cooperating for Peace and Security (Cambridge University Press, 2010). With essays on topics such as U.S. multilateral cooperation, NATO, peacekeeping and nuclear security, the book shows how the operational activities of international organizations meet current global security needs. Using the book as a springboard for broader discussion, the panelists explored the factors that have driven the evolution of the United Nations and other existing security mechanisms and evaluated whether these changes have led to a more effective international system.

Panelists included contributors Bruce Jones, Brookings senior fellow and MGI director, and Stewart Patrick, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow. Brookings Senior Fellow Jean-Marie Guehenno, former U.N. under-secretary general for peacekeeping operations, and Richard Gowan, associate director for policy at the Center for International Cooperation at New York University, also joined the panel.

Martin Indyk, vice president and director of Foreign Policy at Brookings, provided introductory remarks and moderated the discussion. After the program, panelists took audience questions.

Participants

Moderator

Panelists

Stewart Patrick

Senior Fellow and Director, Program on International Institutions and Global Governance, Council on Foreign Relations

Richard Gowan

Associate Director for Policy, The Center for International Cooperation, New York University

Building Haiti’s Future: Is Protectorate Status the Best Option?

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:30:00 -0500

Event Information

February 17, 2010
1:30 PM - 3:00 PM EST

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

Following last month’s historic earthquake, Haiti remains in a state of physical and political devastation. The earthquake destroyed the Haitian Parliament and Presidential Palace, killing members of Haiti’s Cabinet and leaving the government in disarray. With Haiti’s government and infrastructure in a severely weakened state, many in the international community are debating how best to support the Haitian government and people at this time. Some have called for the creation of a U.N. protectorate for Haiti to provide the fragile nation with stability and leadership as the country recovers and rebuilds. Others strongly reject this option, viewing it as a threat to Haiti’s autonomy.

On February 17, Brookings hosted a discussion on the future of Haiti, focusing on critical issues of governance and independence. Panelists included Senior Fellows Mauricio Cardenas, director of the Latin America Initiative; Elizabeth Ferris, co-director of the Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement; and Jean-Marie Guehenno, former U.N. under-secretary general for peacekeeping operations. Senior Fellow Kevin Casas-Zamora, a former vice president of Costa Rica, moderated the discussion.

After the program, panelists took audience questions.

Audio

Building Haiti’s Future: Is Protectorate Status the Best Option?

Transcript

Remarks by Jean-Marie Guehenno (.pdf)

Event Materials

guehenno_remarks

Participants

Moderator

Panelists