"American diplomacy has become the butt of jokes" cites NY Times---Self-indulgent arguments for and against despots are too easy to mine in the Arab world if you know what you want to find and then can sell it to your and their masses as treasures of wisdom---. Talking a big game does not translate into playing it. In Tunisia, what did US official policy contribute to change? At best - nothing. Less charitably, the "Jasmine Revolution" has occurred despite official Washington. (Still too early to see if this revolution is transformative or just transfer of power among elites). Considering the emphasis that we in the United States, at least in public rhetoric, place on progress toward democratization and open societies in the Arab world, the actual impact appears undistinguished. It is hard to judge it by the effort, since that is also by design or negligence not particularly discernible. NY Times cites US diplomacy in Arab World as "butt of jokes" The New York Times, (interestingly as I was starting to write this article), has also addressed the issue of US influence as events rapidly unfold in Tunisia, Lebanon and the Arab World. The NY Times "News Analysis " - January 19, 20011 - is worthwhile briefly highlighting. Citing events in Lebanon's new crisis (over possible indictments by the Special UN Tribunal for Lebanon): "American diplomacy has become the butt of jokes here.... It is yet another episode in which the United States has watched - seemingly helplessly - as events in places like Tunisia, Lebanon and even Iraq unfold unexpectedly and beyond its ability to control." Perhaps this is not so bad that the US is perceived sidelined, at least for this moment. After all, if Washington's fingerprints are seen in any form on the Tunisian revolution, it could instigate speculation of an American conspiracy - the US has a checkered history and Washington has played a role in installing governments in some states while preventing presumed reformists from taking power in same or other countries in the broader Middle East (see just next door Algeria and more distant Iran as two examples). More radical or even religiously reactionary figures could exploit alleged US involvement to further a purely self-serving and an unsatisfying route for this grass-roots revolution. However, one false theory can be set aside with the Jasmine Revolution: that Arabs as a people and culture really do not want democracy. The problem with most Arabs, as with all people living under totalitarian regimes for an extended period of time, is that oppression may be all around them and discernible, but how do they recognize democracy, and its close partner - open society? This does not mean that Arabs have no experience with tolerance or pluralism, even multi-ethnic, multi-religious societies. To the contrary, that is the paradox. Democracy v. Tolerance - the False Choice? Unfortunately despots have long whispered, with some receptive ears in Washington, that democracy is dangerous for such multi-religious societies. However, the relationship between despots and religious/ethnic pluralism is tenuous at best. Some had also offered the theory that "it was Tito who maintained peace among Yugoslavia's many ethnic/religious groups" and that the breakout of democracy was to blame for cataclysms of the 1990's. (Of course, this argument ignores historical reality at least in part regardless of blame or credit accorded to Tito: multi-ethnic Yugoslavia was established well before Tito and its particularly multi-religious centers, as Bosnia & Herzegovina, existed for centuries before.) Similar logic of course could be applied to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but with the same fundamental historical flaws. And then we even have contrary logic: the recent attack(s) upon Coptic Christians in Egypt, after three decades of Mubarek's "benign" rule and over a millennium of pluralism under a variety of "Muslim" rulers.. Perhaps it is repressed political will that seeks out alternative avenues of expression, including against the other. God is then hijacked for the occasion as the only non-compromised authority. How convenient that He is not expected to protest, at least directly and verbally, at the injustice to Him as well as the intended victims to be done in his name. Self-indulgent arguments for and against despots are too easy to mine in the Arab world if you know what you want to find and then can sell it to your and their masses as treasures of wisdom. Dialogue in Caricatures: Assuming though that most objective people come out in favor of democracy, rather than despots, as being in the long term good for the development of society, how does official Washington or should it even try to influence the course? Sooner or later, every discussion on this point seems to cul-de-sac on the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. Failure to progress toward greater democracy in the Arab world cannot be conveniently blamed on the "Special Relationship between the US and Israel." The vastly diminishing ability of official Washington though can be at least in part attributed to the failure of such "Special Relationship" to deliver a resolution, even tangible progress toward a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It really no longer even matters who is to blame, as it has gone on for far too long. All, at one time or another, have held the "ring of peace" within their grasp only to hold out for a more favorable political dowry. The latest Israeli government has not helped most recently, with many of its members having at best an obfuscating attitude toward even the US Administration's initiatives for peace. President Obama's Administration has lost the initiative and this time around the perception that this is more of the same could be especially disheartening for those who held out hope that the US was still capable of being the difference. However, it would be cliche-ish if this article ended on the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. Rather, we should consider broader lack of success or coherent US policy in the region, and certainly beyond Iraq. Perhaps what has most cost the US standing is the perception that the "rule of law," is selectively applied to complement US interests and prejudices. Internal American debates - from the "Ground Zero Mosque" to the "intolerant Christian right" launching a new "Crusade" - have undermined the message of official Washington and those of us, (including me), who believe that the American political/open society model is superior in the modern world. What should be our greatest American asset, a free and creative media is perceived as producing more myth rather than creating a fair image of a society that deserves special consideration to be emulated. Of course, our American understanding of the Arab is also not helpful, especially when it is condensed into a caricature shaped by prejudice and preconceived results. Most critically, we Americans cannot allow ourselves into the more than once repeated mistake of accessing the Arab world by monolithic design. Cooperation Most Recently Defined by Rendition & Torture: So, should the US play a role? Official Washington frequently deplores the current lack of democracy in the Arab World and in speeches and press releases verbally calls for change. Democracy though is frequently at best chaotic. At worse, change can be even more volatile and at least for the moment appear to flow against our tangible interests or special relationships. Unfortunately Washington's latest engagement with some Arab regimes that we despise in public has been a joint venture in private in rendition and torture. Official Washington too frequently comes across as the partner who is demanding something new from the spouse to keep the relationship going but then asks why the dinner is not cooked, the garbage taken out and the can of beer not brought to him as he settles on the sofa in front of the TV. Official Washington will have to settle more for observer than actor. Unfortunately America's ability to promote a positive course, consistent with US interests and values may be indirect at best. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has announced her intention to investigate reports of recent violence and abuses that preceded the revolution. (The announcement by the UN High Commissioner Navi Pillay is almost breathtaking by its apparent scope and willingness to engage for progressive change on democratic values human rights - see our film report linked here - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/movie/tunisia-revolutionhuman-rights/24101). It is a good way to promote American political values, and the US has only hypocrisy to avoid. We have to live down our own inadequacies as well as that of at least some resistant Arab regimes over the last few lost decades. We Americans have a good model to exhibit for others to consider, even with its warts and clumsiness. And change is inevitable regardless of Washington's guiding arm. By Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey Links to Film Reports - "Tunisia Revolution?/UN Investigates Human Rights": diplomaticallyincorrect.org/films/movie/tunisia-revolutionhuman-rights/24101