POMED Notes: HFAC Hearing on Middle East Transitions

On Wednesday, the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia held the first in a proposed series of hearings entitled, “Shifting Sands: Political Transitions in the Middle East.” Testimony was given by a panel featuring, Elliott Cohen, Ph.D, Professor of Strategic Studies at The Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, J. Scott Carpenter, Keston Family Fellow at Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Michael Makovsky, Ph.D, Foreign Policy Director at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Statements and questions were issues by Chairman Steve Chabot (R-OH), Ranking Member Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Brian Higgins (D-NY), and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). Other committee members in attendance were Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), Gerald Connolly (D-VA), and Theodore Deutch (D-FL).

Continue reading below, or click here for the pdf.

Chairman Chabot opened by reaffirming the purpose of the hearing: to approximate the political trajectory of the political transitions in Middle East, and examine the effectiveness of US policy toward them. He remarked that the region’s protest movements have been anti-regime, and not anti-U.S. or –Israel; and that their aims are to rewrite the social contract in those countries. Chabot criticized the Obama administration dithering, vacillating and contradicting itself in its official policy toward events in the region. He argued that the U.S. needs a clear mission for the Middle East as a whole. Otherwise, it will appear indecisive, non-committal and opportunistic.

Ackerman followed, stating that while foreign aid is essential to U.S. foreign policy, the Middle East does not merit a Marshall Plan due to the unique political and economic facts of the region. He warned that these transitions are likely to be long-term and that ideologies will compete there while “we so righteously celebrate.” Ackerman stressed attention to developments, saying “the Middle East is coy at the moment of becoming.” He added that “now is not the time to be a superpower on the cheap.”

Rohrabacher declared his support for the “Reagan Doctrine,” which he defined as “let the people fight their own fights.” He argued for the effectiveness of this policy by comparing the Middle East now to Eastern Europe at the fall of the Soviet Union.

In Cohen’s opening statement, he warned against taking liberal forces in the region for granted, dismissing the phrase “arc of history” in this context. With regards to protest movements in current struggle with an Arab autocratic regime, such as Bahrain, Cohen stated that the U.S. should always be a friend of liberty, but in a qualified way and acknowledge openly that inconsistency is necessary. With regards to Libya, he supports the intervention but wishes it would have been executed earlier. He was also dismayed by the half-heartedness of our involvement and stressed the potential demonstration effects of the outcome in Libya.

Carpenter recently returned from a fact-finding mission to Egypt and Tunisia. He concluded that Tunisia will be the first to consolidate democracy but that Egypt would prove the bellwether for the region. For the way forward, he recommended that clear signals be given to Egyptian political actors that the new government must uphold its international obligations, namely the peace treaty with Israel, that loans collateralized on democratic progress be issued in the short term, that the U.S. undermine Iran’s soft power in the region by reinvigorating the Green Movement and the Saudis be prevented from self-fulfilling the prophecy of sectarian conflict within the Gulf countries.

Makovsky, as an energy specialist, focused more on oil policy. Specifically, he recommended that Iraq’s oil sector be developed to counter Iran’s economic growth. He criticized the administration’s general approach to Iran as dithering.

Questioning revealed that the Chairman and the three panelists were in agreement on the issues of Bahrain, Libya, Iran and Yemen. Marovsky warned that Yemen was unstable, but added that the basket case argument did not serve U.S. interests in Yemen or Pakistan in the long term. He also criticized the Obama administration for being skeptical of the Green Movement in Iran and not wanting to be “out front” in support of such movements. He recommended that the U.S. renew bolster its public diplomacy efforts to convey its values abroad. Cohen added that more U.S. engagement is needed in Libya to prevent the situation from deteriorating. He also recommended civil society aid through the Democratic and Republican institutes, which he said were small investments. Broadly, Cohen argued that policymakers take regional dynamics into account, citing Tunisia as an example that was not intrinsically important prior to the unrest. Carpenter added that a separate strategy should be developed for North Africa.

Chabot also criticized Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for referring to Syrian President Bashar Assad as a reformer. Ackerman defended the Secretary on the grounds that she was citing others’ opinions.

Higgins, who recently returned from a trip to the region, expressed his admiration for Turkey as a globally integrated society that could serve as a model. He noted his concern for the recently convicted Egyptian blogger, Mikhail Nabil, highlighting the importance of youth and technology in the region.

Rohrabacher raised asked whether the Libyan rebels could pay back the coalition for the cost of intervention. When the panel said it was unable to answer the question, he speculated on cost saving schemes in Afghanistan.