Today at the National Press Club, a press conference was held to discuss the Mubarak government’s prominent role in the upcoming negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Hosted by The Coalition of Egyptian Organizations and the Egyptian Association for Change-USA and moderated by Tarek Khalil, the event featured a panel of Egyptian activists.
For full notes continue below the fold or click here for PDF
In a new op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Noah Feldman argues that American troops should stay in Iraq beyond 2011 to ensure stability while the country builds viable institutions and forms an identity irrespective of religious or ethnic groups. For Feldman, the U.S.’s 35-year-presence in South Korea is an example of how long-term military engagement can help incipient democracies progress in difficult neighborhoods: “No one would have predicted at the time that South Korea—war-torn like Iraq, and in dire need of reconstruction—was a candidate for successful democratization. […] The presence of U.S. forces provided a background security guarantee throughout that process, one that Koreans have used to good effect.”
In an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Kenneth Chasenargues that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s government has made significant progress toward building a functional state in the West Bank. Chasen cites recent economic growth, extensive modernization in Ramallah, and a “general atmosphere of busyness and safety” across the territory as proof of Fayyad’s success. While expressing concern about the “authoritarian manner” in which Fayyad has achieved these results, Chasen suggests that economic development may be a necessary precondition for future political development in both the West Bank and Gaza and recommends that the U.S. should increase its support for the Fayyad government.
The Center for a New American Security held a conference focusing on the changing role of the U.S. in Iraq, in light of the continuing drawdown of U.S. troops to 50,000 by September 1. Nathaniel Fick, CNAS’s Chief Executive Officer, moderated discussion by two leading Administration officials on Iraq: Michael Corbin, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq; and Colin Kahl, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East.
Writing in Foreign Affairs, Stephen Biddle, Fotini Christia, and J Alexander Thier reject assumptions that a stable system of government cannot be achieved in Afghanistan, arguing that “Afghanistan’s own history offers ample evidence of the kind of stable, decentralized governance that could meet today’s demands without abandoning the country’s current constitution.” They argue that the Karzai government has struggled because it is based on the model of centralized democracy. According to their analysis, “decentralized democracy and internal mixed sovereignty are both feasible and acceptable” options that would also fulfill U.S. strategic interests by preventing terrorist elements from reemerging. On the first option, they propose a power-sharing deal wherein the central government would retain authority over internal security and foreign policy, but many other powers would reside with local democratic governments, pointing out that such a scheme would increase government legitimacy and public support. They describe the second option as a political setup wherein significant powers would still be afforded to local governments, who would not be required to exercise democracy and transparency, so long as they did not cross three “redlines”: violating the state’s foreign policy; infringing on the rights of neighboring districts; and engaging in large-scale theft, narcotics trafficking, or exploitation of the state’s natural resources. While claiming that this option “offers a closer fit with the realities of Afghanistan,” Biddle, Christia, and Thier acknowledge that it “also carries risks and disadvantages that make it less consistent with U.S. interests than either centralized or decentralized democracy,” including its potential to lead to regression on human rights, women’s rights, and corruption.
Afghan President Hamid Karzaisparked grave concerns in the U.S. administration last week by ordering an investigation of two American anti-corruption units involved in the recent arrest of some senior officials in the Afghan government on bribery and graft charges, arguing that the units were acting outside of the Afghan constitution. Afghanistan’s attorney general indicated that Karzai intends to issue new regulations for the Major Crimes Task Force and Special Investigative Unit. According to Karen DeYoung writing in The Washington Post, “Karzai’s sharp reaction startled U.S. officials in Kabul and Washington, and has been the focus of a series of emergency, high-level meetings,” with one American official calling the situation the “most serious” crisis for U.S. efforts in Afghanistan since last year’s widely criticized elections. A senior U.S. official reported that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emphasized to Karzai last week that “any steps to undercut or remove powers or authorities from [the anti-corruption units] would be a step backwards.” Meanwhile, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), who heads the House Appropriations subcommittee in charge of funds for Afghanistan, commented that the move was “extremely troubling,” adding that “that money will not go forward until I get clearance that the promises and commitments that have been made by the Afghan government to work in good faith to stop corruption have taken place.” In comments to the subcommittee, U.S. Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke had previously stated that “if corruption isn’t dealt with, other things won’t succeed” in Afghanistan.
Political activity occurred in Egypt on various fronts over the weekend, in advance of the upcoming national elections. Hassan Nafaa, coordinator of the National Association for Change (NAC), argued that Egyptians can achieve reform independently, without foreign aid. Nafaa accused the U.S. of “trying to blackmail Egypt behind the veil of reform. But the fact is that the establishment of democracy in Egypt stands against US interests,” adding, “We do not accept American intervention in Egypt’s affairs.” Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood and the NAC announced over the weekend that they had gathered 341,000 signatures and 88,000 signatures for Mohamed ElBaradei’s reformist demands, respectively, which the MB called “a positive response on the part of the public” to the campaign. The April 6 reform movement also reported that it had distributed 15,000 leaflets listing the demands. Father Moussa, the bishop of youth for the Coptic Orthodox Church, criticized ElBaradei, stating that he has failed to offer a new proposal for political reform, and arguing that he should join an existing political party. Some analysts suggested that Moussa’s statements may indicate a move by the Church to distance itself from ElBaradei out of concern over a potential alliance between the reformist leader and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Regarding the opposition, the MB decided not to join a 4-party opposition coalition including the Wafd, Tagammu, Nasserite, and Gabha parties. Nevertheless, MB spokesman Essam el-Erian affirmed that “we hope to see all political forces unite against the corruption of the ruling National Democratic Party,” adding, “We aim to achieve democracy and political reform and end corruption.” Reports also emerged indicating that opposition parties will not boycott the upcoming parliamentary elections, as Nasserite Party Secretary-General Ahmed Hassan announced that his party will field 55 male and female candidates in the elections but will “request certain guarantees, such as judicial supervision of elections and a ban on interference by security services.” Hassan said that the Wafd, Tagammu, and Gabha parties have also decided to participate in the elections, while other reports noted that Tagammu is grappling with internal divisions over its list of candidates– a suggestion heatedly denied by Party President Refaat el-Saeed.
On the other side of the political spectrum, the Popular Coalition to Support Gamal Mubarak asserted its independence from the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), as its general coordinator, Magdi el-Kurdi, called for President Hosni Mubarak’s son “to stand for election over any other candidate, even President Hosni Mubarak himself.” Meanwhile, local analysts warned that recently launched propaganda poster campaigns for potential presidential candidates– including Gamal Mubarak, Mohamed ElBaradei, and Ayman Nour –”’should not distract political leaders from working towards guaranteeing the integrity of upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections’.” Amr el-Shobaki, a political analyst at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, argued that the flurry of pro-Gamal efforts indicated that “’ElBaradei’s signature campaign is manifested by a genuine desire for change and reform’,” adding, “This has terrified Gamal Mubarak supporters’.” Speaking at a meeting with 500 university students at the Leaders Preparation Institute, Gamal himself faced questions from students regarding the political situation in Egypt, with one student stating, “‘I’m scared that power will be inherited’,” adding, “You are accountable to God.” Gamal responded that he has always been “careful not to offend God,” and said that “it’s not yet time to determine who the NDP presidential candidate will be.”
The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing to discuss reconciliation and reintegration in Afghanistan. Touching on issues of governance and civil institution building, the hearing was twelve in a series the Committee has held on Afghanistan in the past 18 months. The Committee—chaired by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), with ranking Committee member Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-IN) in attendance—requested the testimony of three individuals: the Honorable Ryan C. Crocker, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and Pakistan; Zainab Salbi, founder and CEO of Women for Women International; and Dr. David Kilcullen of the Center for a New American Security.
In a recent commentary in The Daily Star, Rami G. Khouri questions the role of the Internet and social media in political activism in the Middle East. Noting that the U.S. is calling for USAID programs that would train youth in the Arab world and Iran in how to use such technologies for democratic activism and advocacy, Khouri poses two key questions: what is “the actual impact on political culture of young Arabs and Iranians who use [the] new media”; and what is “the most appropriate way for the US, or any other foreign party, to promote this sector”? Regarding the first point, Khouri suggests that activities such as blogging play a similar role to that of Al-Jazeera in the mid-1990s: they act as a “stress reliever” for those living under repressive regimes by offering some freedom of expression, but ultimately distract participants from engaging in real activism, and do not lead to any concrete political change. According to Khouri, this is because authoritarian regimes have learned to accomodate the free flow of electronic information, so long as it does not lead to actual political action on the ground.
To address the situation, Khouri advises the U.S. to remove contradictions in its policy on democracy promotion in the region, arguing, “One cannot take seriously the American or any other Western government that funds political activism by young Arabs while simultaneously providing money and guns that help cement the power of the very same governments the young social and political activists target for change.” He also proposes that the West must understand that youth in the Middle East use online activities primarily for “entertainment and vicarious, escapist self-expression,” not for the purpose of democratic activism, and that this medium therefore has limited potential to spark real progress.
In an interesting piece in The Huffington Post, Daoud Kuttab analyzes the situation of the youth in Arab countries, in light of a recent meeting of civil society leaders from Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, Palestine (both West Bank and Gaza), and Jordan, under the umbrella of “Naseej,” a five-year community development initiative launched by Save the Children in 2005 with funding from the Ford Foundation. The Naseej project seeks to engage young people, “who account for 60 per cent of the region’s population,” as “active agents in their own development and that of their communities.” The program uses an innovative concept of “by and for the youth” that Kuttab reports has “proved to be more effective than major multimillion dollar fancy projects.” With the project nearing the end of its funding mandate, Hania Aswad, its director, hopes to turn Naseej into a permanent institution.
Kuttab notes that Arab youth leaders expressed some concerns at the event, including restrictions placed on youth NGOs by Arab governments; the portrayal of youth organizations that receive foreign funding as Western “puppets”; and long-term sustainability and structure issues for youth civil society. Nevertheless, Kuttab commends Naseej for its relative success, arguing that such initiatives could eventually lead to a ground-up youth mobilization across the Arab world: “The energy of today’s young Arab leaders has certainly not reached the critical mass that is required for major change and reform. But it is clear that in a few years, if the present direction continues, with the current passion and commitment, we will witness such a critical mass whose impact will surely be felt throughout the region.”
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made important remarks on civil society, freedom of association, and democracy promotion at the 10th anniversary of the founding of the Community of Democracies in Poland this weekend. Clinton identified three essential “legs” of the stool supporting a free nation: representative government, a well-functioning market, and civil society, stating that these three pillars “lift and support nations as they reach for higher standards of progress and prosperity.” Calling Poland a “case study” in “how a vibrant civil society can produce progress” in a previously non-democratic nation, Clinton called for progress in the Middle East and in Egypt specifically on the issue of freedom of association. Commenting that in many countries, “the walls are closing in on civic organizations,” she added:
“The Middle East and North Africa are home to a diverse collection of civil society groups. But too many governments in the region still resort to intimidation, questionable legal practices, restrictions on NGO registration, efforts to silence bloggers. I hope we will see progress on this issue, and especially in Egypt, where that country’s vibrant civil society has often been subjected to government pressure in the form of canceled conferences, harassing phone calls, frequent reminders that the government can close organizations down, even detention and long-term imprisonment and exile.”
Clinton suggested that nations in the region that hold elections, but do not accept pluralism, opposition, and other key aspects of a democratic society, cannot be considered true democracies. In light of the challenges posed by repressive states worldwide, Clinton pledged that the United States will work with the Community of Democracies to develop initiatives in support of civil society. In that regard, she proposed that international efforts should include four elements: the Community of Democracies should establish an objective, independent mechanism to monitor repression of NGOs; the UN Human Rights Council should give specific attention to freedom of association as a human right; the Community of Democracies and the U.S. should work with regional and other organizations to take stronger action in defense of freedom of association; and finally, the international bodies involved should coordinate their diplomatic pressures to achieve results. Clinton also announced the creation of a new fund to support the work of NGOs, to which the U.S. intends to contribute $2 million.
Affirming the administration’s commitment to the matter, Clinton concluded, “We will continue raising democracy and human rights issues at the highest levels in our contacts with foreign governments.” President Obama issued parallel statements on the occasion, voicing the United States’ concern about “the spread of restrictions on civil society, the growing use of law to curb rather than enhance freedom, and widespread corruption that is undermining the faith of citizens in their governments,” and calling for enhanced partnership with the Community of Democracies to address these issues.
U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Margaret Scobeyissued remarks yesterday on U.S. democracy promotion in the Middle East and Egypt, reiterating President Obama’s affirmation in his 2009 Cairo address of the U.S.’s commitment to supporting democracy and promote human rights, as well as the its pledge to uphold the principles of freedom of speech, rule of law and justice, transparent and legitimate governance, and freedom of choice throughout the world. Scobey stated, “I am happy to report that we have been hard at work over the past year, both in Egypt and in the region, to make this vision a reality. I think everyone standing here today understands this is no easy task, and it can’t happen overnight, but I do think we are beginning to see results.” Scobey also said that President Obama has made clear that the U.S. does not seek to impose its specific system of government on other countries, but that it expects nations to build democratic, representative institutions according to their own traditions.
Scobey mentioned specific U.S. initiatives in Egypt in support of the goals outlined in the Cairo speech, including increased U.S. funding for post-graduate education; a doubling of the U.S. contribution to science and technology education; and projects to develop entrepreneurship in Egypt, including $455 million in new approved financing to establish 5 private equity investment funds. Scobey also stated, “we are focusing our support to democracy and human rights in Egypt through support to Egyptian civil society that can be the source of social and economic and political innovation that will benefit all of Egypt,” indicating U.S. support for Egyptian NGOs as a potential catalyst for democracy.
The Ambassador’s comments came on the occasion of an Independence Day celebration at the embassy, and against the background of escalating controversy, protests, and public outrage against Egypt’s human rights record following the alleged brutal beating and murder of Khalid Said by police. On that note, Al-Masry Al-Youm today released the second half of an interview with the victim’s uncle, Ali Qassem, who vowed that the family would seek an independent autopsy of Said’s body and work to see justice done on the case. Qassem also argued that the killing was premeditated, saying that police tailed Said for a month before his death, after they suspected him of circulating a video purportedly showing policemen carrying out a drug deal. Qassem thanked Egyptian demonstrators and human rights organizations for their support and encouraged Egyptian youth to keep protesting the Emergency Law, stating, “You can easily be assaulted in the context of the Emergency Law… Keep being active and expressing your solidarity in a peaceful and civilized manner. This is your country, not their country. You own its present and its future.”
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), chairwoman of the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs announced on Monday that she will not approve the inclusion of further aid to Afghanistan other than humanitarian assistance in the Fiscal Year 2011 Appropriations Act, citing government corruption and misuse of funds as her motivation for the cuts. Lowey stated, “I do not intend to appropriate one more dime for assistance to Afghanistan until I have confidence that U.S. taxpayer money is not being abused to line the pockets of corrupt Afghan government officials, drug lords and terrorists. Furthermore, the government of Afghanistan must demonstrate that corruption is being aggressively investigated and prosecuted.”
The Congresswoman’s remarks come in the aftermath of an annual report released in November of last year by Transparency International, which ranked Afghanistan second worst in the world in terms of its levels of corruption, coming behind only Somalia.
James Traub asks in Foreign Policy whether Afghan president Hamid Karzai is worth the battle in Afghanistan, commenting that he was able to brainstorm a list of only 5 reasons for staying the course and 10 for abandoning the U.S. effort, among them “Karzai is too corrupt” and “Karzai doesn’t believe in it.” Nevertheless, Traub concludes that the consequences of leaving the war-torn country could prove too high, as a U.S. withdrawal would be likely to strengthen Islamic radicalism worldwide, in his assessment. If the U.S. is to carry on, Traub proposes, it must push Karzai to “take governance seriously” and remove his corrupt allies, or otherwise “get out of the way” so that others can lead.
Meanwhile, a spokesman for Karzaidisagreed with the negative assessments of his government coming out of Washington, stating, “We are accountable for the money that international community is donating for Afghanistan and there is transparency in usage of these donations.”
The HouseCommittee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing yesterday to explore ways to improve the effectiveness of government efforts to promote democracy and human rights abroad through foreign aid. This was the latest in a series of committee hearings focused on foreign assistance reform,in light of Chairman Berman’s efforts to rewrite the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. The hearing sought to address challenges such as the need for greater coordination between U.S. foreign aid organizations; problems in the current structure, organization, and delivery capacity of aid institutions; and the inherent tension in agencies’ mission to build strong bilateral relationships with foreign governments while standing firm on support for democracy. POMED’s full notes on the hearing are below the fold or are available to view or download as a pdf. Read the rest of this entry »
After nearly a year of slow but visible gains in U.S. approval throughout the Arab world, the latest iteration of Gallup polling shows significant declines in four of the six states surveyed — perhaps reflecting what some have recently identified as a rather acute disappointment with what they see as a gap between Obama administration rhetoric and action. Egypt experienced the steepest fall from a two-year high of 37 percent approval last fall to 19 percent today. Algeria was next, dipping 13 percent from 43 to 30. Declines were relatively more mild in Iraq and the Palestinian Territories (3 and 4 percent respectively), both within Gallop’s margin of error.
Aside from surface-level favorability ratings, the poll’s so-called “internals” are fascinating as well. When asked what would improve their view of the United States, 55 percent of Egyptians cited “supporting the right of Muslims to elect their own government” as a “very significant” issue. Other priority responses in this category include: “pulling out of Iraq” (64 percent); “removing military bases from Saudi Arabia” (60 percent); “more direct humanitarian aid” (57 percent); and “greater technology transfer and exchange of business expertise” (57 percent).
Earlier today, Freedom House and the Project on Middle East Democracy co-hosted an event at the Capitol Visitor Center to explore the effects of President Obama’s new approach to the Arab World, the current challenges for democracy and human rights in the region, and the prospects for changes in U.S. policy to bring about a lasting impact. Tamara Wittes, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, provided remarks on how the president’s Cairo speech has shaped the last year of Middle East policy. Deputy Director of Freedom House Thomas. O Melia then moderated a group of 3 panelists: Dina Guirguis, Research Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; Andrew Albertson, Executive Director of POMED; and Stephen Grand, Director of the U.S. Relations with the Islamic World project at the Brookings Institution.
Click here for POMED’s notes in PDF, or continue reading below the fold.
One month after Shadi Hamid posited that Arab reformers were “nostalgic” for George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda,” prominent Egyptian rights activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim offers a similar argument [subscription required] in today’s Wall Street Journal by relaying the concerns from an Arab street that is, in his view, increasingly disenchanted with President Obama. In contrast to President Bush’s erstwhile policies that created a degree of political space through persistent “pressure on dictators,” Ibrahim views Obama’s agenda as “weak and inconsistent” — particularly in light of the administration’s reduced FY 2011 funding for democracy assistance as well as its “mild response” to Egypt’s two-year Emergency Law renewal.
Commentary’s Jennifer Rubinisn’t surprised with Ibrahim’s analysis, saying that he “reminds us of the list of Obama’s sins of omission regarding Egypt.” But Michael Allenpoints to a recent statement by Radwan Masmoudi, president of Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, who argues that although there was a slight delay between rhetoric and action, the last four or five months “have seen renewed emphasis being put again on improving relations with the Muslim world and dialogue and on implementing the promises of the Cairo speech.”
The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) hosted an event with Dr. Abdullah Abdullah – former foreign minister of Afghanistan and one-time independent presidential candidate – where he discussed a number of issues central to Afghanistan including the prospects for peace and effective governance as well as his expectations for the upcoming parliamentary elections.
Click here for POMED’s notes in PDF, or continue reading below the fold.
On the heels of Josh Rogin’s report yesterday, Scott Carpenter from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy has a piece up underscoring the varied reasons why an endowment for President Mubarak’s regime would be “bad for both American taxpayers and the Egyptian people.” Although he’s moderately encouraged that the Obama administration appears to be resisting both the scale and comprehensive nature of Egypt’s request — which calls for a “phasing out” of traditional U.S. aid in favor of a consolidated program of economic support under the endowment — Carpenter still views the $50 million already allocated under the December 2009 appropriations bill as “stunningly deferential to the Egyptian government,” and he’s shocked that Congress has yet to hit the brakes on a proposal that would “emasculate its oversight role regarding U.S. aid to Egypt.”
All told, Carpenter doubts the endowment will incentivize real change and he advises the administration to pause in order to review the objectives of the U.S.-Egypt aid relationship. Establishing negotiated benchmarks for increased assistance in targeted sectors, for example, will “create the promise of a win-win proposition” and, if done in direct partnership with the Egyptian cabinet’s economic team, may “maximize the impact of U.S. assistance.”
As POMED previously noted, the Obama administration has been mulling over a proposal that would establish a substantial aid endowment for the Egyptian government, free from congressional oversight and not subject to the annual process of appropriations. And today, only two days removed from the Emergency Law’s two-year extension in Egypt, Josh Roginsheds more light on the details of the endowment and explains how some critics, concerned over the negative momentum for reform in recent years, view the endowment as a “slush fund” that does nothing more than allow President Mubarak’s regime to secure much-needed aid “without being compelled to make progress on democracy and human rights.”
Rogin obtained a copy [PDF] of Egypt’s proposal — which requests more than $4 billion over a 10-year period to be administered by the Egyptian-American Friendship Foundation — as well as the State Department’s provisional counterproposal [PDF], a whittled-down $1 billion with several strings attached.
Yet for some, limiting the size and applying moderate principles of conditionality cannot save the endowment from its core flaw; that in the end, it will be seen as empowering Mubarak. “I don’t think there’s a way to do it that avoids that perception in the mind of Egyptians,” says Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. “Everything the U.S. does in its relationship with Egypt should be to promote political and economic reform … and to convince the Egyptian people we are in line with their aspirations.”
From the U.S. side, Jennifer Rubin believes the endowment is emblematic of President Obama’s “bizarrely misguided Muslim-outreach policy” that, as of yet, has not yielded any appreciable results.
