“U.S. Cautious in Responding to Tunisian Government Crisis”

Author: Shaun Waterman

Publisher: The Washington Times

Date Published: 20 January 2011

To access this article, please click here.

Article Summary

In the article linked above, Shaun Waterman examines the United States’ handling of the Tunisian Revolution. Waterman (2011) frames his discussion of the United States’ role in the revolution in terms of security, noting that the government’s approach is being informed by the need to move forward “without sacrificing other U.S. goals — or allies — in the region” (para. 1). The United States’ avoided offering any more than technical support for the Tunisian government as it moved forward (Waterman, 2011, para. 7). This policy of offering cautious assistance during Tunisia’s transitional period was shaped by fears of instability in Tunisia threatening United States’ interests and goals in the region (Waterman, 2011, para. 8). The instability in Tunisia could spread into neighboring nations and undermine autocratic regimes allied with the United States (Waterman, 2011, para. 9). The instability created by the Tunisian Revolution also carries the risk of threatening United States’ security by inflaming anti-American sentiments or providing an opportunity for a hostile Islamist regime to take power. Hussein Ibish cautioned against US intervention in the Tunisian Revolution on the grounds that doing so would allow enemies of the revolution to portray it as an “American plot” (Waterman, 2011, para. 18). Ibish also raises the possibility that the Tunisian Revolution could provide an opening for Islamist groups, which, as in Iran in 1979, could work with other parties pursuing the revolution but turn on them to establish a theocracy (Waterman, 2011, para. 28). Overall, Waterman’s article emphasizes the maintenance of United States’ security and interests in light of the Tunisian Revolution and supports a cautious policy towards the Tunisian Revolution. The American government needs to respond in such a way that it can preserve its goals and defend its interests in the Middle East.

It seems that Waterman values the maintenance of United States’ interests and American security. Waterman points to fears that instability could undermine American interests, and focuses on these aspects as opposed to the state of the Tunisian people or the support of democracy. When support for democracy is mentioned, it is in the context of encouraging friendly regimes to agree to some liberalizations and democratic reforms in order to retain power. Maintaining American security and American interests are given the highest priority in responding to the Tunisian Revolution.

 

Guiding Questions

What should have been or should be the role of the West in the Tunisian Revolution and its aftermath?

When stability and security run up against liberal democracy, which should prevail or be supported?