Once upon a time, the US revolution and its supporting Declaration of Independence and Constitution inspired others - the French Revolution being the most obvious example. But that's a long time ago, in a more naïve and promising era where the real-politik of political institutions wasn't so important. More important, the bloom is off that rose: 

Despite idealistic beginnings, it's obvious the US looks out for its own interests, and "better our bastard than their bastard" is the driving principle, from the Monroe Doctrine to now. Any cursory look at America's 19th Century with ugly compromises on slavery and theft of 1/3 of Mexican territory shows that lofty words from Founding Fathers don't ensure enlightened behavior. 

But the single most noble thing America did was the Marshall Plan, which restored a devastated Europe and planted the seeds for a united, non-warring future. Though a Europe with no foreign policy or drive. 

That lack of foreign policy shouldn't be overrated. For all America's mistakes, playing in politics gives a lot of lousy, unpredictable choices that had to be made. And it's a bit unfair to say "stop messing in other countries' affairs" at the same time criticizing, "why didn't you overthrow our dictator?" 

There are very few Gorbachevs and Mandelas and Gandhis to deal with, very few democratic movements like Solidarity in Poland. Mostly it's a Shining Path in Peru, or it's Brezhnev vs. Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, the Shah vs. the Ayatollah in Iran, Diem vs. Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam (taking note of Ho's mass executions during land reform). Nasser and Qaddafi were no examples of modern democratic values, despite Nasser's bringing some needed progress to the Mideast, nor were they supported by the US. But clearly the US blew it badly a number of times: Mossadegh, Lumumba, Nixon's embarrassing visit to CeauÅŸescu.... And America's unwavering alliance with Israel good-deed-or-bad makes it almost impossible to assist deeply in the current situation even if she wants. 

But the EU's lack of imperial ambition and even-handedness is an advantage, and the West including the EU still controls the power, much of it economic. Revolutions are only a hope of a new beginning, not a fait accompli, as shown by promising but failed democratization efforts in 1990s Iran, independence of Zimbabwe, Kabila's overthrow of Mobutu, or the close-but-no-cigar Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Blame it on the US or Russians or other factors, the reality is that "it's over when it's over", not just when it begins. And for all the appearance of a watershed moment for the Middle East, it's still in its infancy - unlike the Iron Curtain, there is no pre-WWII democratic norm to return to. The Mideast likely needs help to round the curve. 

More importantly, Turkey's an example of how go-it-alone or friendly cooperation goes only so far. Now with a string of revolutions, the Muslim world could try creating its own EU - with strong humanitarian and economic principles and a raison d'être stronger than "we hate Israel". 

But it's far easier to create a stable, potentially successful system as a satellite of or integrated into a successful system. Just as the formerly Communist Eastern Bloc entered the EU, long before it could have independently derived or returned to the needed norms and laws and economic grounding all on its own. And even the EU grew out of trade agreements, avoiding the political issues that would have torn it apart at first. 

Then there are the useful side effects that transcend internal and national in-fighting. The Northern Ireland problem went away because once both Ireland and N. Ireland were in the EU, nationalism didn't matter - they were under one system anyway. Lebanon's or Iraq's religious divisions can turn into just another Belgium or Spain/Catalonia within a more guaranteed EU-like framework where everyone wins. 

But it's hard to "guarantee" without the framework having a real history of living up to its promises - something that's taken the EU decades. ASEAN turns a blind eye to Burmese abuses, and Burma itself is "unified" only because a UN referendum on the Karen people's independence never happened. 

An extension of the EU for newly democratic Muslim states (i.e. to include Iran, ex-Soviet Turkics, etc.) creates both a strong, clear democratic, *economically successful*institution to aim for, as well as lets the EU deal with similar problems as one bloc, saving loads of time. And a democracy without a real path to economic stability for all is only as promising as the latest democratically elected Haïtian government. Lack of torture is only a necessary mid-way aspiration. The Muslim world needs both democracy and an end to degrading poverty under the shadow of great wealth. 

While it's easy to appreciate the sentiment "screw the West, they've let us suffer for years", in practical terms it's a risky approach. Even now, the long-established Suleiman likely holds all the keys, which doesn't get Egypt much farther than where it was - hidden agreements and directives from abroad, continued state of emergency, enrichment of the ruling elite. 

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" has long been the main result of "throw the bums out". But a goal of "EU or bust" would be almost impossible for Suleiman and US right-wingers (including, as it seems, Obama) to deny as subversive to world order. And it's a practical and achievable mid-term goal for the region to rally around. 

 12 Feb 2011 billiardsat8 [at@] gmail.com   billiardsat8.blogspot.com