Reports from around the world

Should top U.S. goal be democracy?

Editor's note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter," published by Times Books, and editor of a book assessing former President George W. Bush's administration, published by Princeton University Press.

Princeton, New Jersey (CNN) – When the Egyptian people took to the streets of Cairo to protest the oppressive government of President Hosni Mubarak, they instantly challenged one of the most powerful strains of U.S. foreign policy thinking.

In American diplomatic circles, the “realists” have long argued that the U.S. must be primarily focused on national self-interest, rather than concentrating on trying to promote democracy and human rights in other countries.

They object to the style of idealism promoted by President Woodrow Wilson, who envisioned that war and diplomacy could transform international relations by establishing cooperation among nations, allowing for the self-determination of people and ending war for all time.

Nowhere has the power of realism been stronger than in U.S. Middle East policy. For many decades the U.S. has supported Arab governments whose behavior fundamentallycontradicts democratic ideals. U.S. policymakers concluded that there were no other options.

It is impossible, they said, for democracy to take root in the Middle East given the history of the region. To protect strategic interests such as access to oil, they felt it essential to make peace with bad rulers.

Realism has been challenged on the left and the right. During the 1970s, the human rights movementpushed the U.S. to embrace the political and civil rights of others as a legitimate claim in U.S. foreign policy.

The realists have been highly skeptical about Egypt. They warn that revolution in Egypt couldopen the door to Islamic fundamentalism, as in Iran in 1979, and cost the U.S. and Israel one of their most loyal allies.

Should the Egyptians be able to withstand the response of the Mubarak government and be able to establish a truly democratic and secular government, the results would be dramatic. These turbulent weeks could be remembered in the same way the nation remembers the late 1980s and early 1990s, when conditions that seemed inevitable in the Soviet empire suddenly were not.

However, if Mubarak stifles the revolution, or fundamentalism takes hold, realists will, for a long time, point to Egypt as the prime example of why we cannot hope for much better than the status quo when it comes to the Middle East.

(The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Julian
E. Zelizer.)