Cambridge Union’s decision to debate the global threat posed by the Arab Spring may, understandably, come as a surprise to many onlookers. After all, the Western commitment to democracy and freedom, ideals shared by protesters from Tahrir Square to Tripoli, seems unequivocal.

There are laws passed every year to promote religious and civic freedom, and the notion of people not being allowed to decide their own futures seems to us barbaric. Leaders in the West were not so long ago, falling over themselves to praise and support the protesters in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya for daring to demand freedom and democracy from their brutal authoritarian leaders. So how then did the Arab Spring and its advent of ‘Western’ ideals such as democracy and freedom, come to be seen as a potential security risk?

Following the recent spate of elections in the region, it seems the West has remembered why it spent so long propping up undemocratic and authoritarian regimes across the Middle East. Fear. A fear of what would likely replace that dictator if the people were given a democratic voice. Put plainly, a fear of Islamist government.

In many cases, the existing regime, however despotic, was considered preferable to this likely democratic alternative. At least a Middle Eastern tyrant was kept at arms-length, and was usually willing to co-operate on issues that were real vote-winners: terrorism, trade and oil imports all came in exchange for small inconsequential favours like weapons, intelligence and photo-ops.

What the West now fears is the prospect of an Islamist government which may be fundamentally unwilling to do business with them. What then happens when we need oil or intelligence?

Furthermore, chief amongst fears in the West currently is that, because many Islamist parties desire the creation of Islamist states, they will become havens for terrorist groups who wish to attack the West. However, this fear seems for the most part, totally unfounded, with the three victorious Islamist parties in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt respectively pledging to enter into coalition governments to fully represent their people, Muslim and Christian alike. This hardly seems like the basis for a new state which supports Jihadist terror attacks against the Christian West.

This fear of Islamist governments is not a new phenomenon. Only five years ago, Hamas’ comprehensive victory in Palestinian elections was actively boycotted by the West. Which brings me to the next reason the West is afraid of allowing the people of the Middle East to rule themselves: they don’t always share America’s foreign policy aims, particularly in relation to Israel.

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, the democratically elected majority party in the country, has faced opposition from the army after querying the country’s relationship with Israel. Judging by their silence on this issue, perhaps America has reconsidered its commitment to exporting democracy. If a President who cannot guarantee the protection of Israel by keeping a handle on its enemies is almost certainly doomed to defeat, then Middle Eastern self-determination becomes a hindrance rather than an ideological goal.

In short, next week the Cambridge Union plans to debate the threat posed, not merely by the Arab Spring, but by the prospect of an Islamist government taking charge in the Middle East. It is assumed that this will pose a security risk to the West and its interests; threaten trade and oil imports and upset their Israeli allies.

The hypocrisy we witness in Western governments extolling the virtues of democracy, whilst fearing the will of another populous aspiring to our same democratic ideals is evident and unacceptable. The issue at hand has shifted from one of revolution against oppression to a fearful glance eastwards at neighbours who are different enough, seemingly, to justify a fear the consequences of empowering them.