Our Foreign Policy needs serious overhaul. I believe the one big lesson that all countries should have learned from the Bush years is that no one nation, however powerful it may be, can  “go it alone” for any significant period of time. Nations cannot advance their position in the world by thumbing their noses at others, stating their demands and then staking a “take it or leave it” position.

Yet, we seem to be the in process of doing exactly that. This is most evident when it comes to the Middle East, but also on other files (climate being the most prominent recently). We have already destroyed our relationship with the United Arab Emirates seemingly over landing rights for an airline. They kicked us out of a base we had been using gratis for the past ten years. We then had to move at a cost estimated at several hundred million dollars. In a world where walls are coming down and international trade and business are depending on freedom of movement, Canadians are now one of the few Western nationals that require avisa obtained ahead of time to enter the Emirates. Prior to this fracas, Canadians simply obtained a visa at the airport.

We have now also taken an adversarial position vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia. There is a campaign to label Saudi oil unethical (as opposed to our oil sands, which are trés ethical). Saudis believe the Canadian embassy in Riyadh is exceptionally obstructionist. From my own experience, it takes no less than 6 months for a physician to obtain the authorizations needed to begin residency training in Canada (for which the Saudi government pays us some $75,000 per year for each trainee).

The government of Saudi Arabia apparently feels that these are deliberate actions by the Canadian government and has instituted measures on the basis of reciprocity. It now takes some 45 days for Canadians to obtain a visa to enter Saudi Arabia.

Who the heck wants to go to Saudi Arabia or Dubai in the first place? Well, the government of Saudi Arabia just announced the budget for the previous year. Balance: Surplus of roughly $80 billion. (We have a deficit ~$30 billion).  How will that surplus be spent? Infrastructure, health and education. Are there any Canadian companies that should want in on this boom? Probably. They need to wait 45 days. In case you’re wondering, the United States now routinely grants Saudis multiple entry, 5 year visas and the Saudis are reciprocating. But of course the United States did not experience a traumatic terrorist attack and we did. Wait, did I get that right?

Early in the course of the Egyptian Revolution, our government sent signals that an end to the Mubarak regime might not be such a good thing. Recently, our PM reiterated this position, saying that a post-revolutionary regime may in fact be worse than the Mubarak regime.

Let’s dissect this one out more:

–       The previous regime was corrupt

–       The previous regime drove the Egyptian economy into the ground

–       The previous regime presided over a bankrupt educational system that saw Egyptian university delisted from world rankings.

–       The previous regime detained Egyptians illegally and tried civilians before military courts.

–       The previous regime tortured its citizens, in addition to other abuses.

–       The previous regime systematically plundered the country for the benefit of a few individuals.

–       The previous regime pitted one segment of society against the other.

–       The previous regime was implicated in attacks against Copts (Egyptian Christians).

–       The previous regime systematically extinguished the hopes, dreams and aspirations of an entire generation of Egyptians.

–       The previous regime was friendly to Israel, assisted in the starvation of Palestinians by assisting in the inhumane blockade of Gaza and subsidized the Government of Israel by selling it natural gas at obscenely low prices.

What about the post-revolutionary regime? While it remains unclear who that will be, it is now obvious that Islamists, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, will play a prominent role in it. The consensus in Egypt, even among the most skeptical, is that any post-revolutionary regime is most likely going to:

–       Fight corruption

–       Try to improve the economy

–       Try to improve education

–       Abolish military courts and illegal detention for civilians

–       Abolish torture

–       Try to improve the standard of living for average Egyptians

–       ..etc.

Oh yes – I neglected to say that any post-revolutionary regime, Islamist or not, is unlikely to be friendly to Israel, to assist in the starvation of Palestinians or to subsidize the government of Israel.

When our PM makes the claim that the post-revolutionary regime is likely to be worse than the Mubarak regime, he is exclusively referring to that last point. For ordinary Egyptians, or for that matter, for Egyptian officials reading these statements, PM Harper’s priorities are painfully obvious. Canada prefers a regime that extinguishes any semblance of dignity and hope for Egyptians so long as it is a regime that protects the interests of Israel. When our PM prefaces these views by saying he has spoken to the PM of Israel and “we both agree…”, it leave little room for another interpretation.

Which leaves us with a simple question: If foreign policy is based on reciprocity, how should we expect the Government of Egypt to reciprocate?

2011 has been a remarkable year. For far too long, the Arab world seemed immune to the changes sweeping the rest of the world. This year, finally, the peoples of Tunisia, Libya and Egypt managed to throw off the yokes of oppressive regimes. For those in other countries, the struggle continues.

The “Arab Spring” also showed that, despite years of suppression and oppression, these countries continue to have a strong and vibrant Islamic identity. In the two countries that have had free and fair elections, Islamic movements garnered a greater share of the vote than, say, our present elected government. In both Egypt and Tunisia, the Islamist parties have won more votes than the next three or four parties put together. Libya is unlikely to prove any different.

Both Ennahda in Tunisia and the Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt have stated very clearly that their priorities are to improve the economic lot of their respective peoples and establish the rule of law. For others, however, who are coming into the world of governance with an Islamic ideology, the priority seems to be to ensure the proper practice of Islam in their respective societies.

So, what should it be? In others words, from an authentic Islamic understanding, what should the priority be for those who, at long last, seem to be in a position to influence the ship of government?

I feel very strongly about this one. As a young person growing up, one of the most important lessons I was taught was that the world moves according to certain basic principles. If you want to succeed, you have to work hard; if you want to pass an examination, you must study. In short, if you want a result, you must understand what it is that can help bring about this result. Merely wishing something to be does not make it so. Doing the “wrong thing” does not help bring about the desired result anymore than doing nothing at all.

So, what is the right thing today? I would argue that there are three essential priorities for any Islamic movement in the Arab world today: Establish a society based on the rule of law and respect for institutions of governance; enshrine personal and societal freedoms and improve the participation in society of all segments of society but more so the dispossessed and underprivileged.

In his reading of the life of the Prophet peace be upon him, Dr Al-Buti reflects on the Divine wisdom of the message of Islam being revealed to Arabs. He concludes that Arabs at the time were free of oppressive rule, unlike the Romans, Byzantines and Persians. He extrapolates from the wandering of the Jews in the Sinai after the exodus to make the same point. The generation of Israelites that grew up in the shadow of the Pharaoh could not build a nation – and hence it was necessary for a free people to grow up in the wandering. Similarly, the Arabs, free, though unruly, were more likely to shoulder the responsibility of the new message.

Mandela expressed a similar idea eloquently a few decades a go: Only free men can negotiate. Similarly, only free people (men and women) can believe. Only a free people can build civilisations. And so, if the Islamic movements are to make a long lasting contribution today, it will be to restore societies in which people are free. Like the pre-Islamic Arab society, freedom can be associated with unruliness. Yet the price of restricting freedom in order to achieve order is a slide back into the authoritarianism that has been emblematic of Muslim societies for far too long in the recent past.

On the second issue – the rule of law and respect for institutions of governance: Many Islamist leaders seem to suggest that there is a magic formula that will evolve on its own once an Islamic “state” is established. This simplistic approach tends to be more common in the so-called salafi camp, but it is not entirely absent from mainstream groups either. This simplistic view ignores the wealth of human experiences to date that tell us that men and power, once joined, are hard to separate.

A new culture of respect for institutions that operationalize effective checks and balances must be a priority. Appealing to people’s religious faith and sense of justice and fairness is simply not enough. Reliance on “wise leadership” is not enough. Although it has not always resulted in the best government, the framers of the American Constitution understood this point well. Checks and balances must be instituted to ensure that good government continues.

Finally, for far too long, leaders in the Middle East have conditioned people to take a back seat and simply passively follow. Changing this requires a monumental effort. An active citizenry makes the job of a government much harder and it is tempting to try to quell dissent. That would be a mistake even if dissent is quelled using entirely legal means.  I was heartened by a recent interview with the General Guide of the Egyptian MB in which he stressed that, in the process of framing the new Egyptian Constitution, the framers must tour the entire country and consult widely.

Today, the Arab world needs freedom, rule of law and engagement. The Islamic movement can and should champion these three goals explicitly