Reforming the Arab and Moslem worlds (or rather, helping them reform themselves) may take decades if it can be done, but I don't see an alternative. And I don't think the Arab world is incapable of reforming any more than Asian values prevented Asian countries from adopting democracy; or Latin culture prevented South American countries from adopting democracy (heck, add Spain in here, too); or centuries of despotism, monarchy, or communism prevented East Europeans from adopting democracy. Arabs in America's culture do just fine, thank you, so don't dismiss democracy in Iraq or the wider Arab world so quickly.
Strategypage argues that we have planted this seed of reform:
After centuries of Turkish domination, the Arab world was told to rule itself, or at least try to. This effort at self-rule is still a work in progress. There have been many failures, in the form of long (often over a decade) civil wars, and even longer periods of rule by tyrants like Saddam.
It's been a tragic situation, as the political chaos has resulted in slow economic, educational and cultural growth. While countries like South Korea, China, Taiwan, India and Malaysia, that were behind the Middle East economically half a decade ago, and had no natural resources like oil to rely on, are now way ahead of the Middle East economically, educationally and in terms of scientific and technical accomplishment. This is the sort of thing that is now a hot topic in the Arab world, and has been since the fall of Baghdad three years ago. That was the tipping point for many Arabs. Not the fall of yet another hapless Arab dictator, but the way it was misreported and misunderstood by the Arab media, and many Arabs watching events unfold. It was embarrassing, and striking, with video of Saddam's Information Minister standing in Baghdad, insisting that the Americans were losing, while U.S. tanks could be seen in the background. This proved to be a decisive event for many Arabs. Dreams and illusions are nice, but they don't pay the bills. Blaming America, while lining up outside the U.S. embassy to get a visa and emigrate to the "land of the enemy," was now recognized as another symptom of an Arab disease. It was in the wake of Baghdad's fall that many more Arabs accepted that change had to come from within.
In the short run we may have to do things that a realist would approve (like dealing positively with Saudi Arabia because they have lots of oil), but in the long run we have no choice but to hasten the change in the culture of the Arab world and change what it means to be a realist.
But the Neo-Realist Left (can we call them Neo-Reals?), I guess, can only look on with envy at China's foreign policy and how China eagerly calls the bad boys of the continent and makes deals with the corrupt and evil in Africa in the name of realism (via the Weeky Standard blog):
The calls are being answered, in part because African governments view China as a more cooperative partner than the West. China has refused to back regular Western rebukes of African corruption and human-rights abuses and last year used its permanent seat on the UN Security Council to block genocide charges against Sudan--source of about 7% of China's oil--for the massacres in Darfur. "The U.S. will talk to you about governance, about efficiency, about security, about the environment," says Mustafa Bello, head of the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission, who has visited China seven times. "The Chinese just ask, 'How do we procure this license?'"
I've noted China's Africa policy before.
I guess all those Neo-Reals will have to peel the "Free Tibet" bumper stickers from their Volvos.
If it makes them feel any better, I never believed they would have seriously supported any action to actually, you know, "free" Tibet from the Chinese.
