A dual-use technology is a technology that has both peaceful and military applications. Nuclear technology is a prominent example of dual-use technology. Nuclear technology offers a clean and efficient, albeit risky, means of meeting a state’s energy needs. Simultaneously, nuclear technology can be used to create weapons of mass destruction. Those states that have harnessed the power of the atom have been understandably selective about who they share nuclear technology with. They have also taken harsh actions against those who have been permissive in spreading the technology. Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan has been under house arrest for years for irresponsibly sharing nuclear secrets with the likes of Libya and North Korea. However, for the past couple of years, the U.S. has been enthusiastically and permissively sharing a new dual-use technology with the Arab world: resilient, Internet-assisted, social networking techniques.
The New York Times reports that many of the key actors and organizations responsible for the wave of democratic uprisings in the Arab world were trained in social networking and technological tradecraft by none other than U.S.-based pro-democracy and human rights advocacy groups.[1] An excellent example of such an organization is the State Department’s own “Alliance of Youth Movements.” This organization’s web-page provides tips and tactics for Arab democratic upstarts, such as “how to organize protests with the geo-local mobile app Foursquare,” and “how to remain connected if your Internet gets shut off.”[2] Provoking organic regime change abroad by training social media-savvy guerillas may seem like a masterstroke in the U.S.’s long term goals of spreading democracy. Yet, before we congratulate the State Department for its slickness, we should be asking ourselves whether or not Arab democracy and IT-centric Arab advocacy groups are actually conducive to American national security.
While the maxim that mature, stable democracies never go to war with one another continues to hold true, new democracies are not so benevolent. Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Synder’s article “Democratization and War” informs us that history suggests “formerly authoritarian states where democratic participation is on the rise are more likely to fight wars than are stable democracies or autocracies.”[3] The transition from authoritarianism to democracy is a rocky one that “typically creates a syndrome of weak central authority, unstable domestic coalitions, and high-energy mass politics.”[4] We currently see this taking place in Egypt. The revolutionary fervor continues. Former benefactors of the Mubarak regime cling to their old posts amidst protest. The military, wary of its own continued existence, continues to clash with protestors[5] and has recently jailed a blogger critical of its actions.[6] Just as Mansfield and Snyder predicted, we are witnessing “mass politics [mixing] with authoritarian elite politics in a volatile way.”[7]
Violent nationalism is one way for elites to preserve their diminishing stake, and Egyptian elites are already appealing to this. Mubarak has been instrumental to the 30+ year peace between Egypt and Israel, so anti-Mubarak fury translates easily into anti-Israel vitriol. Presidential candidate Mohamed ElBaradei has already asserted that “if Israel attacked Gaza we would declare war against the Zionist regime.”[8] The Israeli embassy in Egypt was recently swarmed by over 1,000 protestors demanding the removal of the Israeli flag atop the building, as well as demanding that Egypt stop selling gas to Israel.[9] Elites have already acquiesced: Egypt’s sale of gas to Israel, an appendix to the 1979 peace treaty between the two countries, is already under review.[10] As far as Middle-Eastern peace is concerned, authoritarian Egypt is beginning to look like a better alternative.
As if Egypt’s sudden democracy wasn’t problematic in itself, the meddling of new tech-savvy transnational advocacy groups stands to complicate the equation further. In “Activists beyond Borders,” Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink define transnational advocacy groups (TAGs) as non-state activist networks that are organized around “values rather than by material concerns or professional norms.”[11] TAGs reframe contentious political issues into moral issues of right and wrong and use accountability politics to “persuade, pressure, and gain leverage over much more powerful organizations and governments.”[12] They are most effective at this in issues involving “bodily harm to vulnerable individuals” and “legal equality of opportunity.”[13] The network structure of TAGs make them resilient to state oppression and their value-based message transcends national boundaries, soliciting sympathy and support from around the world. By appealing to norms of “freedom” and “self-determination,” TAGs were instrumental in provoking Western intervention in both the Egyptian and Libyan revolutions.
While most of us associate TAGs with liberal endeavors of human rights promotion and environmental activism, we would be remiss to forget one of the most successful TAGs in history: al Qaeda. Though most of us prefer the nomenclature “terrorist group” to describe al Qaeda, this highly effective TAG is a model of resilient networking, media savvy, and accountability politics. It has successfully reframed all Muslim problems, however disparate, as the product of “Crusader-Zionist aggression” and has continually “named and shamed” Muslim leaders that have capitulated to Islam’s enemies. The plight of the Palestinian people, in particular, has been a cornerstone of their justification rhetoric, effective because of “vulnerability” of this population and the “inequality” it faces. Al Qaeda will not prompt Egypt into war with Israel. However, “legitimate” TAGs such as the Muslim Brotherhood very well could do so by leveraging their networks to promote pan-Muslim, anti-Zionist moral interpretations of political reality.
Egypt currently has all the ingredients to become an aggressive Middle-Eastern destabilizer: hyper-politicized mass politics, government and military elites looking to deflect popular rage, the world’s largest Islamic TAG slated to assume political power, and down-trodden Muslim neighbors appealing for help. To offset this trend, perhaps those U.S.-trained pro-democracy Arab TAG agents will be waging netwar against any such militancy, ensuring democratic peace and U.S. national security interests. Or perhaps not. As one such agent said to New York Times, “While we appreciated the training we received through the NGOs sponsored by the U.S. government, and it did help us in our struggles, we are also aware that the same government also trained the state security investigative service, which was responsible for the harassment and jailing of many of us[.]”[14]
Instead of providing alternatives to extremism and violent insurrection, the U.S. may be simply providing the Arab world with more robust and ecumenical ways of destabilizing the Middle-East and endangering U.S. interests in the region. Should the U.S. find itself having to militarily confront the Egyptians, we will likely be facing a networked state impervious to decapitation strategies and resilient to attacks on it communications infrastructure. Further, our adversaries would be social media-savvy and frame American intervention as “Crusader-Zionist aggression,” potentially garnering support from other states and terror-TAGs. This isn’t the first time that the U.S. has armed an ideology with asymmetric capabilities. We did the same for the mujahedeen who chased the Soviets out of Afghanistan. And we all know how that one turned out.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?_r=2&hp
[2] http://www.movements.org/how-to/
[3] Mansfield and Snyder, “Democratization and War,” pg 80.
[4] Mansfield and Snyder, “Democratization and War,” pg 88.
[5] http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/04/09/egypt.protests/index.html?iref=allsearch
[6] http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/12/egypt.blogger.sentence/index.html?iref=allsearch
[7] Mansfield and Snyder, “Democratization and War,” pg 79.
[8] http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ElBaradei-Israel-War-Gaza/2011/04/05/id/391829
[9] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110408/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_egypt
[10] http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=28401&ref=search.php
[11] Keck and Sikkink, “Activists beyond Borders,” pg 2.
[12] Keck and Sikkink, “Activists beyond Borders,” pg 2.
[13] Keck and Sikkink, “Activists beyond Borders,” pg 27.
[14] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?_r=2&hp
No comments:
Post a Comment