Obama Administration Unsupportive of Middle East Democracy?
January 29th, 2010 by Jessica
Steven Stanek and Matt Bradley, in an article for The National, comment on the Obama Administration’s committment to democratic reform in the Middle East. Stanek and Bradley compare former President Bush’s approach of democracy promotion through the use of military force to President Obama’s more relaxed stance. The authors comment that democracy promotion is rarely mentioned by President Obama in discussions of foreign policy. They underscore this view by referring to recent cuts in funding for democracy promotion in Egypt and Jordan.
The article also quotes Marina Ottaway, director of the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endownment for International Peace, as vocalizing disappointment, stating, “Certainly there has not been a lot of emphasis on democracy promotion.” Ottaway recommends that the president engage the Arab countries in discussions of political reforms and the best way to enact these reforms while respecting the culture of the region.
In her speech last month at Georgetown Univeristy, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the Administration’s approach to democracy promtion as one of of “principled pragmatism,” utilizing tatics that reflect the “realities on the ground.” While strong statements have been made by various members of the administration, Stanek and Bradley report, other parties are concerned that U.S. strategic aims will overshadow moral and ideological considerations.
In another article for The National, foreign correspondent Matt Bradley explores the ramifications of President Obama’s budget cuts to funds earmarked to support democracy in Egypt in Fiscal Year 2010. He reports that such cuts will remove programs aimed at teaching people from smaller impoverished towns, many of them women, the importance of democracy. Citing POMED’s July 2009 report, Bradley states that proposed cuts will also most strongly affect those organizations that remain unregistered with the Egyptian government, an act that many speculate will prove detrimental to democracy promotion in the long run.
While the article does offer criticism, there are those who voice support of Obama’s policy agenda. Bradley quotes former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Richard Murphy as saying, “I think it’s the more realistic, pragmatic approach to say that there’s a limit to the number of friends we’ve got in this world, and let’s work with them and hope to inspire them with our own example.”
Posted in Democracy Promotion, Egypt, Foreign Aid, Jordan, US foreign policy | Comment »
POMED Report: “Strategies for Engaging Political Islam”
January 29th, 2010 by Josh
Political Islam is the single most active political force in the Middle East today. To offer insights into this critical issue, the Project on Middle East Democracy partnered with the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung to bring together scholars and experts from the Middle East, the United States, and Europe. Moderated by Nathan Brown, Director of George Washington University’s Institute for Middle East Studies, guests discussed the topic “Strategies for Engaging Political Islam: A Middle East, U.S. and EU ‘Trialogue.’” Panelists included Ruheil Gharaibeh, Deputy Secretary-General of Jordan’s IAF; Mona Yacoubian, Special Adviser to the Muslim World Initiative at the United States Institute of Peace; Zoé Nautré, Visiting Fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations; and Shadi Hamid, former research director and current vice-chair of POMED’s Board of Directors, and also currently the Deputy Director of the Brookings Doha Center.
To read the full report, which draws upon the participants’ observations and recommendations, click here. Otherwise, continue reading below the fold.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Elections, Foreign Aid, Freedom, Islam and Democracy, Islamist movements, Multilateralism, Muslim Brotherhood, Political Islam, Reform, Reports, US foreign policy | Comment »
Iran: U.S. Sanctions Following Human Rights Violations, Political Instability, & Nuclear Uncertainty
January 29th, 2010 by Jessica
In a post for The Cable, Josh Rogin comments on the Iran sanctions bill that passed the Senate late last night. During debates over S.7299, Senator John McCain voiced concerns that the bill primarily focused on security issues and did not address sanctions for Iranian officials guilty of human rights violations and abuses against civilians engaging in peaceful political activity. McCain proposed an amendment that would allow visa bans, asset freezes, and financial restrictions on persons found guilty of the aforementioned offenses. Time restrictions led to a compromise: McCain agreed to withdraw his amendment if Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed to address the substance of the amendment in the conference report concerning the bill. The bill passed the senate with an overwhelming majority.
The passing of S.7299 follows the hanging of two Iranian activists, who were reported to be active participants in anti-government protests. Evan Hill reports that the two protesters, Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour, were accused of attempting to overthrow the Iranian government and being enemies of God. Nasrin Sotoudeh, Rahmanipour’s lawyer, told sources that she was only allowed to meet with her client once and her participation in the court proceedings was denied. Sotoudeh also said that allegations leveled at Zamani and Rahmanipour were false and that their confessions were made in light of threats against the accused’s families. Nine more Iranians have been accused of similar crimes with identical sentencing being imposed.
White House spokesman Bill Burton commented harshly on the hanging of the two individuals, “We see this as a low point in the Islamic Republic’s unjust and ruthless crackdown on peaceful dissent. Murdering political prisoners exercising their universal rights will not bring the respect and legitimacy that Iran seeks.” Previously critical of a hard-line stance on Iran, the Obama administration has begun to favorably consider tougher sanctions. In an interview with CNN, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commented, “Our assessment is that sanctions will be tough and clearly aimed at the Iranian economy, but that the international community does not have a choice . . . This is not meant to punish Iran; it’s meant to change their behavior, and it’s not meant as a target at any one person. It’s meant to change the calculation of the leadership.”
Posted in Congress, Human Rights, Iran, Legislation, US foreign policy, sanctions | Comment »
POMED Notes: “Bahrain’s Vision Amidst Regional Realities”
January 29th, 2010 by Josh
The Middle East Policy Forum along with the Distinguished Women in International Affairs Series sponsored an event featuring Houda Ezra Ebrahim Nonoo, Bahrain’s Ambassador to the United States. Ambassador Nonoo presented remarks on the relationship between the United States and Bahrain and commented on Bahrain’s role in the Persian Gulf.
Ambassador Nonoo began with an overview of Bahrain’s diplomatic posture towards a number of pertinent issues. She echoed Bahrain King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa’s call for a fresh start to peace talks and quoted the king as saying: “The biggest mistake has been to assume that you can simply switch on peace like a light. We should move towards real peace now by consulting our people and by reaching out to Israelis to highlight the benefits of a genuine peace.”
For POMED’s notes in PDF, please click here. Otherwise, continue below the fold.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Bahrain, DC Event Notes, Human Rights, Islamist movements, Israel, Mideast Peace Plan, Palestine, US foreign policy | Comment »
SOTU: Reaction to the Foreign Policy Sections
January 28th, 2010 by Josh
Despite the relative dearth of foreign policy pronouncements in last night’s State of the Union, some are voicing displeasure with what they see as the speech’s simplistic view of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. IraqPundit is astonished that President Obama implied a forthcoming end to the Iraq war simply by virtue of withdrawing the remaining U.S. troops. “Surely he must know that just because he pulls some U.S. troops out of Iraq not much will change. The terrorists will continue to murder.”
Over at The Cable, Josh Rogin interprets this brief passage as Obama taking “credit for the one problem that seems to be resolving itself.”
Contrary to IraqPundit, Juan Cole views the Iraq line as Obama’s strongest foreign policy declaration within the speech, noting that it signals Obama’s recognition of Iraq as “irrelevant to the war on terrorism” and makes it “quite clear that the U.S. military is departing Iraq on the timetable worked out with the Iraqi parliament.” However, Cole is less pleased with Obama’s rhetoric on Iran, which he sees as “essentially a capitulation to Neoconservative themes on Iran, rather than retaining Obama’s central plank of keeping negotiating lines open to Tehran.” He also dismisses the efficacy of sanctions to do anything other than “keep a country weak and harm civilians.” They can not, according to Cole, produce regime change.
Commenting on the Obama’s priorities, Laura Rozen isn’t surprised with the “downgrading of foreign policy emphasis in the speech.” She relays a revealing conversation she had last week with a Democratic strategist who predicted that by early mid-summer, it will only be Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan on the president’s agenda. “The president is now a war president and an economy president,” the strategist said.
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Diplomacy, Iran, Iraq, Neocons, US foreign policy, sanctions | Comment »
State of the Union: Excerpts on Foreign Policy
January 28th, 2010 by Josh
President Obama delivered his first State of the Union Address last night, focusing mostly on domestic issues such as job creation, alternative energy investment, and the budget deficit. Although foreign policy took a back seat, the speech did include a few notable passages, including one on the potential for Iranian sanctions should Iran’s leaders continue their diplomatic belligerence:
Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons. That’s why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions — sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That’s why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise.
Obama’s only mention of Iraq and Afghanistan came in the context of troop deployments and deadlines. For Iraq:
We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.”
For Afghanistan:
In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops and training Afghan Security Forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance, reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans - men and women alike.
With regard to universal principles of justice, Obama briefly alluded to America’s history of supporting those who seek empowerment:
America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores… That’s why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran… For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity. Always. Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals.
We will highlight commentary on the speech and its significance throughout the day.
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Freedom, Iran, Iraq, US foreign policy | 1 Comment »
Iran: New Opposition to Sanctions, More Pushback on Haass
January 27th, 2010 by Josh
Laura Rozen of Politico catches an interesting development in the ongoing debate over the Iran sanctions bill. Leery of the legislation’s current construction, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers and the National Foreign Trade Council sent a joint letter[PDF] to National Security Advisor Jim Jones and National Economic Council Chairman Larry Summers voicing opposition to the bill. The letter decries the “unilateral, extraterritorial, and overly broad approach” of the proposed sanctions which would “undercut rather than advance [the] critical objective.” Rozen points out that these groups also seek a greater degree of presidential discretion as part of any legislation — a point which the administration has itself been quietly pushing in negotiations with congress.
Elsewhere in Iranian policy, Richard Haass’ Newsweek column continues to ignite a firestorm of debate. Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett issue a response on their blog, The Race for Iran, pointing to Haass’ role in formulating policy toward Iraq in the months leading up to the U.S. invasion in 2003. They see eerie similarities between Haass’ erstwhile pronouncements (via then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, whom Haass helped to advise) of “enough” with respect to Iraq and his rhetoric toward Iran today. Highlighting the sizable disconnect between Haass’ level of certainty about Iranian politics and his relative lack of factual evidence in support of those judgments, the Leveretts fear that the recent Newsweek piece “is likely to do real damage to American interests in Iran and the Middle East more broadly.” They issue an ominous warning that following Haass’ advice will put the United States on a “similarly misguided and counterproductive policy course” to that of Iraq seven years ago.
Posted in Diplomacy, Human Rights, Iran, Multilateralism, US foreign policy, sanctions | Comment »
Yemen: Debating What the U.S. Approach Should Be
January 27th, 2010 by Maria
Following the failed Christmas day attack, analysis on how to best deal with Yemen continues in the press. The New York Times reports that some analysts worry that, if handled incorrectly, a sudden rush of aid to Yemen “could reinforce patterns of patronage that have contributed indirectly to Yemen’s culture of extremism.” The Majlis speculates that, given some of the statements U.S. officials have made about Yemen’s security situation, that the U.S. might like the Yemeni government to “increase its ability to take care of its own security threats.” The Center for American Progress’ Danya Greenfield argues for the investment of “much needed U.S. assistance in good governance, anti-corruption efforts and economic reform alongside military assistance” as the “best chance at enhancing the long-term stability of Yemen and preventing radicalization.”
Today’s conference on Afghanistan in London will include a look at Yemen and its likelihood of becoming a failed-state in the Middle East. The Majlis is skeptical about how effective the conference will prove to be, and writes that the main outcome for Yemen will be an international “Friends of Yemen” organization — as opposed to any additional monetary aid from Western countries. Mai Yamani cautions that the conference will potentially do more harm for Yemen if it choses to focus only on its al-Qaeda problem, rather than tackle issues of greater concern: its “political and social stability within the country.” Egypt says it will support Yemen at the conference, while Iran says it is boycotting the conference altogether.
Posted in Egypt, Iran, US foreign policy, Yemen, al-Qaeda | Comment »
Iran: More Calls for Regime Change
January 27th, 2010 by Josh
Echoing Richard Haass’ recent piece in Newsweek (covered here), Robert Kagan — a senior associate for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — uses his column in the Washington Post to unequivocally call for President Obama to prioritize regime change in Iran above all other diplomatic options. Claiming that Obama has a “once-in-a-generation opportunity over the next few months to help make the world a dramatically safer place,” Kagan promotes regime change as “the best non-proliferation policy.” But the longer Obama waits, he says, the greater the risk that Israel may lose patience and feel compelled to attack — a scenario which Kagan warns may only strengthen the pillars of the regime.
Gregg Carlstrom at The Majlis comments that Kagan “makes some good points” about both the futility of airstrikes as well as the short-term nature of a nuclear deal. However, he tends to think that Kagan’s prescriptions are “overly optimistic, to say the least.” He continues, “Iranian reformists are sharply divided on whether economic sanctions — even targeted ones — would help or hurt the Green Movement.” Much like Hooman Majd and Blake Hounshell, Carlstrom also senses a degree of uncertainty towards revolution within the reform movement itself. Regardless of any policy’s potential efficacy in the abstract, “The U.S. government cannot steer the Iranian people towards regime change,” he says. “If the regime falls, it will be because Iranians decided to topple it — not because of anything that happens on Pennsylvania Avenue.”
In other Iran news, a foreign ministry spokesman announced Iran’s intention to boycott the upcoming London Conference on Afghanistan, calling it a futile effort which will not rectify “past erroneous approaches.”
Posted in Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Iran, Reform, US foreign policy | Comment »
Balancing Act: National Security and Democracy Promotion in the Middle East
January 26th, 2010 by Maria
Daniel Cassman at Partnership for a Secure America writes on the tension U.S. foreign policy meets when it tries to address national security concerns while promoting democracy in the Middle East. Cassman points to a period in the mid-2000’s when it seemed that interests in advancing democratic principles in the region and those that would safeguard against national security threats were “perfectly aligned.” As the events in the Middle East began to unfold (he cites failed and unfavorable elections in Egypt, Iraq and Palestine), however, it became quite clear that national security and democracy promotion will oftentimes be at odds.
“What happens when an autocratic nation is a crucial American ally and democratic elections in that country risk bringing power to more radical leaders?” he asks. “We grant aid or coordinate military operations with these governments, lending them legitimacy and material support. By reinforcing such governments, we deal democracy a blow.”
Cassman suggests that U.S. foreign policy should develop a framework that helps prioritize U.S. interests for times when tensions arise and “push us in different directions.” He lists four factors especially crucial in this decision-making process that include: the immediacy of the national security threat; the nature of our cooperation with the autocratic government; how U.S. aid will affect the regime; and how strategically important the country is as an ally to the U.S.
This tension has certainly been relevant to the current administration: President Obama has chosen to remain largely silent on Iran’s Green Movement in order to be able to engage the regime in a discussion about its nuclear program; it has also chosen to increase aid to an autocratic Yemen in order to counter its al Qaeda militants.
Posted in Egypt, Human Rights, Iraq, US foreign policy, al-Qaeda | Comment »
Iran: Should Regime Change be the Official U.S. Policy?
January 25th, 2010 by Josh
The foreign policy community is abuzz about a Newsweek column written by Richard Haass, president of the well-respected and influential Council on Foreign Relations. Haass, an admitted “card-carrying realist” who believes that “ousting regimes and replacing them with something better is easier said than done,” concedes a degree of frustration with the realist approach toward Iran and declares that he has “changed [his] mind” about how to best produce positive results. Instead of relying upon the virtues of diplomacy to build international support for robust sanctions, Haass believes we should be “focusing on another fact: Iran may be closer to profound political change than at any time since the revolution that ousted the shah 30 years ago.” He calls upon western governments to formulate and sufficiently resource new Iran policies that simultaneously support the opposition and weaken the pillars of the regime.
Passport’s Blake Hounshell reacts by writing, “As regime change policies go, I’d rather have Haass’s than, say, John Bolton’s.” But he remains skeptical about the prospects for an Iranian political overhaul, pointing to an incisive Hooman Majd article that paints the green movement as primarily concerned with civil rights, not revolution. “In short,” Hounshell says, “betting on regime change is a hope, not a plan.”
However, one conceivable way for this “hope” to manifest is through severe economic turmoil, and Andrew Sullivan senses ominous “economic rumblings” from the newly-imposed limits on cash withdrawals which then triggered a mild run on two Iranian banks. This comes on the heels of a report that Iran will “knock three zeros from its national currency” in an effort to recover some of its lost value.
UPDATE: Over at his blog on Foreign Policy, Stephen Walt offers a rejoinder to Haass, writing that his “foolish” proposal will only help inflate America’s sense of self-righteousness. “No one in the United States can be confident that Iran is close to ‘profound political change,’” Walt retorts, “we simply don’t have enough information to know what is happening in Tehran.” He further attacks the notion that regime change will spur a top-down moderation toward the nuclear issue, pointing out that key members of the opposition maintain strong support for Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Posted in Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Protests, Reform, US foreign policy | 1 Comment »
Iraq: Does the Administration Really Support the Electoral Blacklist?
January 25th, 2010 by Josh
In a bit of a surprise, al-Arabiya relays an AFP report that shows Vice President Biden expressing the U.S. administration’s support for the recently released blacklist of Ba’th affiliated candidates. Biden traveled to Baghdad last Friday in a visit which signaled for many observers the administration’s discomfort with the current trajectory of Iraq’s electoral season. However, Biden quickly dismissed any notion that the U.S. would intercede, saying “I want to make clear I am not here to resolve that issue. This is for Iraqis to do, not for me.”
Meanwhile, Spencer Ackerman parses Biden’s language and derives a different conclusion than AFP, stating, “You can’t fairly look at [his] statement and say Biden blessed the process.” On the other hand, Ackerman notices a fair amount of subtlety within Biden’s remarks, conceding that perhaps Biden’s “soft touch” failed to “emphasize the dangers of a second sectarian election.”
IraqPundit uses this news to take a swing at President Obama for allowing Ahmad Chalabi, whom the writer sees as “the brains” behind the blacklist, to manipulate the elections. Even more concerning than Chalabi’s “stealthy” entrenchment within Iraq’s political infrastructure, however, is what the writer sees as passive engagement from the international community over the issue of free and fair elections. “Somebody better get their act together and let the Iraqi people decide who should run the country.”
UPDATE: A series of car bombings killed at least 36 people in Baghdad today, reigniting fears that sectarian violence might escalate in advance of the March elections. The coordinated attack was the first of its kind in more than 6 weeks.
Posted in Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Elections, Iraq, Political Parties, Sectarianism, US foreign policy | Comment »
Internet Freedom: Reaction to Clinton’s Speech
January 22nd, 2010 by Josh
Although the political punditry largely applauded Secretary Clinton’s remarks yesterday on the virtues of Internet freedom, Evgeny Morozov of Foreign Policy is disappointed that the speech failed to address a “broader strategy” for engaging censorship in a post-Cold War environment. Observing a number of contradictions in Clinton’s articulation of forward-thinking U.S. policy — specifically regarding cyber-attacks — Morozov writes that without a more coherent view on the ethics of cyberwarfare, the “U.S. State Dept will be accused of duplicity. We can’t be tolerating cyber-attacks in one context and criticizing them in another.” He further worries that this speech signals an over-reliance upon anachronistic policies that subscribe to the view, “let’s make information available and see what happens.”
Elsewhere, Freedom House issued a press release hailing the secretary’s vision for utilizing online technologies to battle authoritarian repression. “We are encouraged to see the Obama administration focusing their efforts on this issue,” it said, “and [we] look forward to seeing it implemented in policy.”
Though it abstains from judging the potential impact of Clinton’s speech, the National Iranian American Council calls attention to a particular line that “framed Internet freedom as a human rights issue,” notable since this inextricably linked Internet freedom to the principles “enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
Over at the Cable, Josh Rogin relays an interesting piece of news from State Department official Jared Cohen, who announced that U.S. policy will begin to treat corporations as stakeholders in the effort to “promote and defend” online freedom. “This notion of shared responsibility between companies,” he said, “will likely suggest collaborative efforts to promote human rights and democracy.”
Posted in Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Freedom, Human Rights, Technology, US foreign policy | Comment »
Iran: U.S. Support for Opposition Movement Can Be a Diplomatic Asset
January 21st, 2010 by Maria
As Iran’s Green Movement continues, many are still wondering whether or not the United States can openly support the resistance while simultaneously dealing with Iran’s nuclear program. Insideiran.org is reporting that many opposition leaders in Iran fault the U.S. for legitimizing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by engaging him on the issue of Iran’s nuclear advancements. Others are saying that dialogue with a leader who is committing human rights violations is “business as usual.”
Insideiran.org has also published an interview with Fatemeh Haghighatjoo, a former member of the Iranian parliament, who says the U.S. should “carefully and delicately support the opposition movement.” One of the ways Haghighatjoo recommends the U.S. can help is by providing technical support for the country’s Internet and satellites in order to facilitate the flow of information since the Internet is having such a dramatic impact on the success of the opposition movement. She says that the opposition is symbolizing what she believes is Iran’s current transition into democracy.
James K. Glassman and Michael Doran are arguing in the Wall Street Journal that the United States needs to create a foreign policy strategy toward Iran that will result in “changing the character of the Iranian leadership.” They write that this can be achieved in several ways, including: providing moral and educational support to the opposition movement, increasing communications within Iran, and implementing economic sanctions on the country. “Everything that we do, everything that we say…should be coordinated to meet this goal,” they write.
Mehdi Khalaji’s article in The Guardian reasons that the U.S. should take advantage of the opposition movement in Iran; Khalaji writes that not only can protesters serve as “a strategic ally” in U.S.-Iran relations with regard to Iran’s nuclear program, but that that the U.S. should be supportive of their movement because of their desire for democracy and peace in their country and the region. “Support for human rights in Iran is not only a matter of morality. It should be a strategic priority for the west.”
UPDATE: Dove-tailing off the earlier interview with former MP Haghighatjoo, Insideiran.org’s Shayan Ghajar calls attention to an address given by Iranian Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, in which he criticizes both Ahmadinejad as well as the opposition Green Movement. Ghajar believes Larijani exemplifies the frustrations of a significant number of Iranian conservatives who are “alienated…by Ahmadinejad’s ultra-conservative camp with its heavy-handed foreign and economic policies,” but still strongly “dislike the Green Movement’s calls for sweeping reform, feeling that they are agitators tainted with Western ideology.”
Posted in Democracy Promotion, Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, US foreign policy | Comment »
Secretary Clinton: The Utility of Online Technologies
January 21st, 2010 by Josh
In remarks this morning at the Newseum, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for the proliferation of Internet freedom as a mechanism to strengthen human rights and promote global prosperity. “Today I’m announcing,” she said, “that over the next year, we will work with partners in industry, academia, and non-governmental organizations to establish a standing effort that will harness the power of connection technologies and apply them to our diplomatic goals”– some of which were articulated in an earlier Clinton speech at CGD (which we covered here). The secretary expressed unequivocal support for “a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas” and alluded to its demonstrated value in “connecting students in the United States with young people in Muslim communities around the world to discuss global challenges.”
Clinton also attributed the recent swell of opposition protests in the Middle East and elsewhere to the ubiquity of social media — particularly in Iran, where “online organizing has been a critical tool for advancing democracy and enabling citizens to protest suspicious election results.” Cognizant that repressive regimes may increasingly block access to online technologies, Clinton announced that the United States is making Internet freedom a priority at the United Nations by including it as a “component in the first resolution we introduced after returning to the United Nations Human Rights Council.” This initiative dove-tails with the recent passage of the Voice Act, a piece of legislation intended to combat Iranian censorship by removing firewalls imposed by the regime.
The secretary mentioned a few items of particular relevance to POMED’s event held yesterday at the Capitol Visitor Center (full notes here). More precisely, she espoused a strong commitment toward the Civil Society 2.0 Initiative, a concept that POMED conference participant Mohammad Azraq said incorporates new social networking technologies to facilitate more meaningful discussions within Middle Eastern countries. Elsewhere in her speech, Clinton referenced Bassem Samir, a POMED conference participant from Egypt, as one of the 30 bloggers and activists detained by Egyptian authorities last week. We’re happy to report that after being released, Bassem made it safely to the U.S. where he spoke at POMED’s event and attended meetings with administration officials.
Posted in Egypt, Freedom, Human Rights, Journalism, Reform, Technology, US foreign policy | Comment »
Obama: Criticism of the President’s Handling of Human Rights in His First Year
January 21st, 2010 by Maria
President Obama’s first year in office has many offering an analysis of the administration’s peaks and lows throughout the past year. Many are paying particular attention to the president’s foreign policy strategy and are criticizing his performance on human rights issues.
Independent Minds has an piece by Kate Allen, the UK Director of Amnesty International, who writes that the president’s first year has been one where “the rhetoric and value statements have been fine” but “the reality has been anything but,” claiming that the U.S. has been “far too muted” in its advocacy for democratic freedoms around the world. Joe Stork echos these thoughts in the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s recent Arab Reform Bulletin. He says President Obama used all the right words to encourage human rights and freedom in the Middle East in his June, 2009 Cairo speech, but that the administration’s “promotion of human rights with abusive Middle Eastern governments, however, has been ambiguous and, in some cases, negligent, raising concerns that the U.S. is still operating under a universe of double standards…” Several news sources are also citing an interview the president gave earlier this week, where he says reviving peace talks in the Middle East have been “really hard” and admits his administration might have overestimated its ability to persuade meaningful conversation in the region.
As criticism over the administration’s treatment of human rights issues surfaces, Democracy Digest is reporting on Human Rights Watch’s annual report which indicates that authoritative regimes “have deliberately targeted and intensified attacks against human rights and democracy advocates over the past year.” The report cites several Middle Eastern countries accused of these violations including Iran, Egypt and Afghanistan.
Posted in Afghanistan, Democracy Promotion, Egypt, Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Mideast Peace Plan, US foreign policy | Comment »
Iran: Authors discuss Obama’s Policy toward Iran and Offer Recommendations
January 19th, 2010 by Jessica
Majid Sharifi writes in an article for the Huffington Post on the critical juncture in U.S.-Iran relations. Sharifi voices concerns that the hard-line approach being undertaken to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions may have the undesirable affect of causing Iran to pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He believes that this approach, on the heels of the Green Movement, may inadvertently cause a civil war.
Sharifi writes that by building U.S. credibility, Obama’s policies toward Iran could be well served both in the democratization process and the administration’s goal to ease Iran’s nuclear threat. The alternative option, according to Sharifi, is undesirable given its dependency on violence and the characterization of Iran as, “an existential, immediate, and undeterrable threat.” He urges the Obama administration to limit coercive policies, maintaining that previous attempts at hard-line tactics have failed to produce the desired effect.
Sharifi summarizes the political difficulties facing the Iranian government. Attempts to compromise with leaders of the Green Movement will force ideologically loyal followers to commit to civil war. Alternatively, attempts by the government to be more repressive may further empower the Green Movement. Given Iran’s internal turmoil, Sharifi recommends that the Obama administration “allow the dynamics of state/society relations to run on its own clock,” while simultaneously concentrating on targeting hard-liners and defending human rights.
Robert Kaplan of the Atlantic, echos Sharifi’s reservations in regards to military options against Iran in an effort to quell the country’s nuclear ambitions. Throughout his article, Kaplan recommends that the administration model policies concerning Iran with Ronald Regan’s policies with the Soviet Union: support democracy openly in all discourse, while leaving open the opportunity to negotiate with government officials.
Both Kaplan and Sharifi recommend that the current administration capitalize on this potential Iranian reformation by keeping in sight the long-term goal of democratization in Iran, Islamic reformation, and stabilization in the region. In order to do this, the short-term goal of ending Iran’s nuclear program must not be handled in a heavy-handed way.
Posted in Iran, Reform, US foreign policy, Uncategorized, sanctions | Comment »
Just Released: New Issue of the Arab Reform Bulletin
January 14th, 2010 by Josh
The new issue of the Arab Reform Bulletin, published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, highlights ongoing political battles in Palestine, Jordan, Libya, and Egypt. Helga Baumgarten, professor of political science at Birzeit University in Palestine, uses her column to explore the question, “Who will be Arafat’s true successor?” The increasingly complex nature of the Palestinian political infrastructure has thrown a wrench into the traditional power equation which presumed, “whoever leads Fatah will lead the PLO, and the leader of the PLO will be elected president of the PA.” Though Mahmoud Abbas managed to win power immediately following Yasser Arafat’s death, Baumgarten largely dismisses him as a viable long-term option since he “lacks the charisma, mass popular base, and free access to external funds necessary to exercise control as Arafat once did.” After consideration, Baumgarten settles on four men who have what she believes is a sufficient balance between entrenched domestic ties and external (read: U.S.) friendships in order to challenge for a position of power: 1) Mohammed Dahlan, former head of Preventive Security in Gaza; 2) Jibril Rajub, Dahlan’s West Bank counterpart as head of the Preventive Security; 3) Tawfiq al-Tirawi, the former head of General Intelligence in the West Bank; and 4) Hussein al-Sheikh, another high-ranking official from the Palestinian security sector.
Elsewhere in the issue, George Joffé of the Centre of International Studies at Cambridge takes a critical look at Saif al-Islam Gaddafi’s ascension within Libyan politics, noting that he recently achieved the second most powerful post in the Libyan political hierarchy despite his ideological differences with his father, current Libyan president Muammar al-Gaddafi. Joffé maintains that “the significance of this appointment cannot be overstated,” although “it remains to be seen how compromised [Saif al-Islam’s] reform agenda might be” due to his “domestication within the current Libyan political system.”
With regard to Jordan’s recent parliamentary dissolution, journalist Ibrahim Gharaibeh examines the potential areas of political consequence. He senses newfound optimism emanating from domestic Islamist movements, writing that “there are changes to the electoral law rumored that might favor their interests.” The original election law was instituted in 1993 following a previous decision by King Abdullah to disband parliament, and Gharaibeh predicts that the government may use the space created by this most recent dissolution “to embark on a series of social and economic reforms to meet the goals of IMF and WTO programs.”
For an overview of Issandr Amrani’s article on Egyptian electoral politics, published in the Bulletin as well, see our earlier post here.
Posted in Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Palestine, Political Parties, Publications, US foreign policy | Comment »
Obama: Analysis of the President’s First Year of Foreign Policy
January 14th, 2010 by Maria
As President Obama nears the end of his first year in office, considerable analysis on his foreign policy performance is appearing in the press. While most agree the president began his term with a policy tone starkly different from President Bush, some are beginning to wonder if that is starting to change. The Guardian’s Olivia Hampton writes that the president’s initial call in his now-famous Cairo speech last June for a “new beginning” with the Muslim world is getting buried in the shadows of the unsuccessful Christmas day attack. Hampton believes Muslims are becoming increasingly “weary and disenchanted by too many promises and too few concrete changes from Obama to bridge the growing divide.” Robert Kagan assesses Obama’s foreign policy as a serious shift from previous administrations in that it has parted ways from a decades-long strategy of advancing American hegemony by instead managing what it regards to be “America’s unavoidable decline relative to other great powers.”
An opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal reflects even more serious criticism of the administration’s first year of foreign policy decisions. Eliot A. Cohen argues the president’s first year in office has been “a year of international displays of presidential ego, sometimes disguised as cosmic modesty.” One of the major departures from President Bush’s foreign policy agenda has been, he writes, the silence on the spread of democracy, freedom and human rights. Democracy Digest offers a different perspective, writing that President Obama and his administration have been starting to show more active positions on Iran’s opposition movement, representing clear support for democracy and freedom in the country; it continues, however, to be cautious about any expectations for regime change.
Posted in Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Protests, US foreign policy | Comment »
Afghanistan: Reaction to the Afghan Survey
January 12th, 2010 by Josh
In response to the just-released Afghanistan survey (see our previous post here), Max Boot from Commentary digs through the data to reveal what he believes is positive news. While conceding that a strong minority subscribes to the position that Afghanistan is moving in the wrong direction, Boot takes heart in the finding that 63 percent of Afghans are supportive of the continued presence of U.S. troops. More important than this public base of support, however, is what Boot terms the “public revulsion against the enemy [U.S. troops] are fighting, the Taliban.” The survey finds that only 8 percent of the population support the Taliban fighters, leading Boot to conclude that “there is a considerable base of public support that our troops can tap into.”
Elsewhere, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent calls the results “eye opening” and observes a significant and positive shift from BBC’s last poll in September, 2009, when only 44 percent of Afghans believed their country was “on the right track.” Ackerman suspects that the dramatic rise in U.S. favorables could result from General McChrystal’s emphasis upon the behavior of U.S. troops, prompting Andrew Sullivan to praise the removal of “gung-ho Cheneyism” that he blames for the deterioration of “decency, humaneness and professionalism that once was globally understood as the core of the US military.”
Posted in Afghanistan, Democracy Promotion, Military, Public Opinion, US foreign policy | Comment »
