A Typology for Self-Determination: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Arab Spring Uprisings

Abstract

This paper explores the complexities of U.S. foreign policy during the Arab Spring, examining how the United States influenced movements for self-determination in Tunisia, Libya, and Bahrain. The paper uses case studies and existing literature on selfdetermination, revolutions, and secessions to establish a new typology that categorizes selfdetermination movements as “unassisted,” “assisted,” or “opposed” based on the external intervention they receive. I then apply this categorization to the three Arab Spring Cases. In doing so, the paper assesses the extent to which the United States prioritized geopolitical interests over the values it publicly espoused, such as human rights and democracy. It highlights the contradiction of the United States’ stated values and rhetorical commitments with the actual decisions it made to advance its strategic interests. The findings underscore the broader implications of realpolitik in international relations, suggesting that U.S. intervention, whether direct or tacit, often aligns with national interests rather than the genuine support for self-determination movements. This analysis provides insight into the inconsistency of U.S. policy during the Arab Spring and its lasting consequences for global governance and future U.S. policy decisions.