By David M. Beatty

What will come of the Arab Spring is uncertain. Israeli-Palestinian relations are in gridlock.
Over the course of the last two weeks, in a succession of speeches, U.S. President Barack Obama has delivered his thoughts about the future of North Africa and the Middle East before audiences in Washington, London and Warsaw.
Obama’s performance had history written all over it. Here was his opportunity to write his legacy the way Woodrow Wilson did in his famous “Fourteen Points” speech at the end of World War I.

What the president offered was disappointing. Except for endorsing the 1967 borders between Palestine and Israel, he said nothing new. America is for freedom, democracy, human rights and economic development, he repeated, but there were none of the towering phrases of his Cairo speech or specific proposals for how to move forward.

Obama could easily have done a lot better. As a former professor of constitutional law, he could have talked about the lessons of America’s revolutionary experience. The American Revolution, after all, was first and foremost a revolution about the rule of law. In 1789, the Americans were the first to create a government of laws rather than a republic, like Rome for instance, that was governed by powerful men.

The president could have championed the rule of law the way Woodrow Wilson once made self-determination a fundamental principle of his preferred new world order. Although it has taken a long time, self-determination is an established principle of international law today. All the revolutions in the Arab world are occurring in independent sovereign states and the rule of law is relevant in each of them.

Tunisians and Egyptians are at a critical stage of their history. Both are organizing elections for national assemblies that will write new constitutions. Obama could have told them how the American revolutionaries struggled to find agreement over the basic features of their new democracy. He could have talked about how they addressed the problem of factions and conflicting interests by writing a constitution based on checks and balances, the separation of powers, federalism and the protection of minority rights.

The peoples of Tunisia and Egypt face the same challenge as the Founding Fathers in the United States: how to ensure that the governments they elect are not as repressive and corrupt as the ones they replaced. If they follow the American example, the most important thing they can do is entrench a bill of rights in their constitutions and establish an independent court of distinguished jurists to enforce it.

The most revolutionary thing the Americans did was make the judiciary the first branch of government. In 1789 it had never been done before, and today judges have shown they can provide an effective check against extremism and excess, whatever the cause, worldwide. Where judges are made guardians of the constitution, the transition to democracy and good governance has been much smoother. Revolutions that unfold without the guidance of judges, like the French and Russian revolutions, have a habit of bringing on extremism and excess.
With an independent court supervising the elected branches of government, conflicts between rival groups can be settled in a way that is balanced and fair. When they do their job, judges can ensure that parties like the Muslim Brotherhood act with toleration and restraint.

Arab jurists are familiar with this role. Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court has already demonstrated it knows what to do. On the question of what women can wear in public, for example, it upheld a law that allowed students to cover their hair, but not their face, with a veil. In its opinion, such a compromise advanced women’s internationally recognized human rights without violating Islamic law.

Had Obama made the rule of law the centerpiece of his speeches he could have sent the same message to Israel. If the rule of law is to be sovereign in North Africa and the Middle East, it’s not just the Arabs who have to alter their behavior. Washington must also insist on the supremacy of the law in its relations with Israel and in buttressing a resolution of the Palestinian question. Americans have tolerated serious violations of international law by Israel for too long. Most international lawyers think Israel’s settlement policy and military strategies that result in the disproportionate loss of civilian life are clear violations of international law. Obama should have told the Israelis to stop, or that he would cut off support if they refused.

Obama should know that giving speeches isn’t enough. Unless he backs up his words with deeds, history will judge him as harshly as it did Woodrow Wilson, who ultimately failed to deliver on many of his promises. Otherwise, Obama is at risk of becoming just another Yankee big talker; a cowboy who has too many outlaws as friends.

David M. Beatty is a jurist living in Beirut. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.