Posted in DC Event Notes, Democracy Promotion, Egypt, Elections, Foreign Aid, Freedom, Islamist movements, Israel, Mideast Peace Plan, Muslim Brotherhood, NGOs, Political Parties, Reform, Turkey, US foreign policy, US politics, Women | 2 Comments »

December 12th, 2009 by Jason

As we reported earlier, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) has released a comprehensive and thorough report, called “Bastion of Impunity, Mirage of Reform,” on the state of human rights throughout the Arab world. The full report in Arabic spans 254 pages and chronicles in detail the backsliding on human rights in the region while also identifying a few points of optimism. In addition to the full report, CIHRS has released a translation of the report’s introduction written by their general director, Bahey eldin Hassan, as well as a 21-page summary of the report in English.

According to Hassan’s introduction, while there have been important strides to “ease repressive measures” in the Middle East under the Forum of the Future regional initiative, in no country were there “real constitutional, legislative, or institutional gains that could upset the balance of power between authoritarian regimes and the forces of reform.” Hassan blames this failure on the narrow focus on electoral reform at the expense of human rights, the contradictory actions of the G-8 countries, attempts by the Arab League to co-opt reform with their own homegrown initiatives, and the European and American fear of Islamist electoral victories. Finally, Hassan contends “the last spark in the initiatives was quashed once and for all with the arrival of a new US administration” apparently unwilling to support democracy rhetorically.

Now, Hassan warns that the minor gains made over the past five years are under a “counterattack by Arab governments. Among other examples of backtracking, the Arab league disabled the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which only had 10 of 22 signatory countries to begin with. As with the CIHRS report last year, Hassan concludes that “lack of political will on the part of most regimes in the Arab region was the key to understanding and explaining chronic human rights problems in the region.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Algeria, Arab League, Bahrain, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, EU, Egypt, Elections, Foreign Aid, Freedom, Gulf, Hamas, Hezbollah, Human Rights, Iraq, Islam and Democracy, Islamist movements, Israel, Jordan, Journalism, Judiciary, Kurds, Lebanon, Legislation, Military, Morocco, Multilateralism, Muslim Brotherhood, NGOs, Palestine, Political Islam, Political Parties, Protests, Public Opinion, Publications, Reform, Saudi Arabia, Sectarianism, Syria, Tunisia, US foreign policy, United Nations, Western Sahara, Women, Yemen | 1 Comment »

November 25th, 2009 by Zack

While Libyan leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi played host to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, he announced that he will personally intercede to bridge the rift between Egypt and Algeria.  Middle East Online is reporting that legislation has been proposed that will allow citizens to create civil associations “on condition that they are apolitical.”  To further the prospect that such a law will be adopted, Abdelrahman Boutouta, the head of a legal committee tasked with amending Libya’s penal code, confirms that he intends to decriminalize the creation and membership of NGOs, which previously carried the death penalty.    However, the report notes that Boutouta gave no time-frame for these changes.

Posted in Freedom, Judiciary, Legislation, Libya, NGOs, Reform, Turkey | Comment »

November 25th, 2009 by Jason

The Huffington Post reports that the P5+1 countries have prepared a resolution criticizing Iran’s nuclear program expressing their frustration with Iran’s inability or unwillingness to make a deal. Such unified measures have led Michael Crowley to ask whether Russia is “finally getting serious about Iran” and will cooperate with sanctions. Meanwhile, George Friedman analyzes the general concept of sanctions. He posits, “the ultimate virtue of sanctions is that they provide a platform between acquiescence and war.”

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, led by human rights activist Hadi Ghaemi, has condemned the “wholesale crackdown on Iranian students.” The government has arrested over 60 students in the past month in an attempt to preempt planned opposition protests on Student Day next month. Edith Novy at insideIran contends that the growing influence of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) “shows that Iran’s leadership is seriously threatened by the opposition and plans an unlimited crackdown for the foreseeable future.” Nonetheless, the opposition is not intimidated, as Mir Hossein Moussavi has declared, “This movement will continue and we are ready to pay any price.”

Many opposition members are paying a price in Iran’s multiple prisons. Muhammad Sahimi at Tehran Bureau explores the “long undistinguished history of prisons” in Iran and especially the emergency of a particularly harsh prison called Kahrizak. A doctor working at Kahrizak, Dr. Ramin Pourandarjani, recently died under suspicious circumstances after he came out publicly against the wretched conditions in the prison.

Meanwhile, the government has lifted the ban on the popular newspaperthat published a picture of a templing belonging to the illegal Baha’i religion. The government has arrested seven alleged members of Jundallah, the militant group that bombed a high-level meeting of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Sistan-Baluchestan province in October.

Posted in Freedom, Hezbollah, Human Rights, Iran, Journalism, Judiciary, Multilateralism, NGOs, Terrorism, US foreign policy, sanctions | Comment »

November 24th, 2009 by Jason

UNIFIL admitted that it has yet to be officially notified by Israel about any plan to withdraw from the northern half of the contested village of Ghajar. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will hold a cabinet vote tomorrow to decide the matter.

Writing on the MESH blog, David Schenker explores the implications of Lebanon’s new position on the U.N. Security Council. Schenker explains that Washington is rightly worried that Hezbollah, along with its allies Syria and Iran, could use the seat to their advantage and strain the bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Lebanon. Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch and the Lebanese Center for Human Rights urged an investigation into the detention and disappearance of Syrian opposition figure Nawar Abboud. Last December, plainclothes members of the Lebanese Military Intelligence took Abboud into custody from his office in Tripoli. He has not been seen since.

Finally, The Daily Star reports that the fifth Beirut Media Forum convened on Friday “to discuss the interaction between media, web use and social, political and religious mobilization in the Middle East.” According to political scientist Donatella Della Ratta, “the social Arab web is empowering citizen journalism and civic participation by giving voice to ‘ordinary people.’”

Posted in Hezbollah, Human Rights, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, NGOs, Political Parties, Syria, Technology, US foreign policy, United Nations | Comment »

November 23rd, 2009 by Jason

According to The Washington Post, U.S. officials are  ”abandoning for now their get-tough tactics with [President Hamid] Karzai and attempting to forge a far warmer relationship. They recognize that their initial strategy may have done more harm than good, fueling stress and anger in a beleaguered, conspiracy-minded leader whom the U.S. government needs as a partner.” Now, the U.S. is trying to balance pushing Karzai to undertake necessary reforms while not cornering him into forging alliances with warlords and drug kingpins.

In response, Rich Lowry at National Review Online argues that the administration “went way too far in pressuring, haranguing, and basically alienating” Karzai. He asserts there must be a balance between “holding his hand and pushing him.”  Jennifer Rubin at Commentary agrees, contending “we actually need to bolster the native government if we hope to defeat our mutual enemy.” As does Michael Crowley, who postulates that that Ambassador Holbrooke’s ”hard-driving style simply wasn’t suited for our Karzai problem.”

For this reason and others, William Kristol and Frederick Kagan argue that the political team in Afghanistan has been “weak […] ineffective and even counterproductive.” At the same time, Maureen Callahan at The New York Post profiles one former member of that political team, Matthew Hoh, who resigned two months ago because he believes the mission, not American civilians, is counterproductive.

Andrew Sullivan suggests this shift in tone with Karzai ”sets up the U.S. as not just a counter-terrorism, counterinsurgency force, but a long-term partner in building Afghan government and civil society. It suggests out [sic] mission in Afghanistan will be as much or more focued on Afghan governance and political stability as on finding and killing the Taliban.” But Stephen Kinzer in The Guardian warns against imposing Western values upon Afghanistan. He contends, “blinded to cultural differences and wedded to the one-size-fits-all, ‘world is flat’ concept, the West has pushed competitive elections onto Afghanistan […] Elections, however, have helped rob Afghans of democracy.” In agreement with Kinzer, George Gavrilis in Foreign Affairs cites the example of Tajikistan to argue that “rather than forcing free and fair elections, throwing out warlords, and flooding the country with foreign peacekeepers, the intervening parties [should opt] for a more limited and realistic set of goals.” Both Kinzer and Gavrilis prescribe a return to Afghanistan’s traditional decentralization of government.

Meanwhile, both The New York Times and The Guardian report that Afghan militias under the Community Defense Initiative have begun battling the Taliban across Afghanistan.  This development coincides with the observation by David Ignatius that “the U.S. approach in Afghanistan now is a mix of national and local, government and tribe, top-down and bottom-up.” He argues this mixed approach requires a commitment by the White House that “the fight in Afghanistan is worth the human, economic and political price.” Abe Greenwald at Commentary concurs, arguing the prospects of an “Afghan Awakening” is stymied by the uncertainty over whether the U.S. intends to stay the course.

However, others are not only against a troop increase, but for a troop withdrawal all together. The Congressional Progressive Caucus’ Afghanistan Taskforce has sent a letter to President Obama urging a new course that would: institute a timeline for troop withdrawal, prohibit funding for more troop surges, demand 80% of all U.S. resources be devoted to economic and political development, and more generally prioritize diplomacy and development over the use of force. William Polk goes even further at Informed Comment, arguing for a complete troop withdrawal and the necessity of a loya jirga, or grand assembly of tribes, that will help the Afghans “find their way back to their traditional way of governing themselves.”

Juan Cole asks “where is NATO going to get 400,000 well trained police and troops in a country with a 28% literacy rate? At the moment, 10% of the Afghan National Army is said to be literate.” Furthermore, Cole cites a USA Today article that reports the majority of Bagram’s detainees are mercenaries and not ideologically-driven, putting into question the notion that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are inexorably aligned. Finally, Sam Zarifi of Amnesty International contends ”when the Kabul government seeks accommodations with the very same human rights abusers - the warlords, the drug dealers, the corrupt local officials, and now, increasingly, even the Taliban - who’ve preyed on entire provinces for years, ordinary Afghans are entitled to feel betrayed and view both their government and international forces with a sceptical eye.”

Posted in Afghanistan, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Foreign Aid, Human Rights, Iraq, Military, Multilateralism, NGOs, Reform, Taliban, Terrorism, US foreign policy, United Nations, al-Qaeda | 1 Comment »

November 23rd, 2009 by Jason

Iran launched a series of war games this weekend as the international community expressed their frustration over troubled nuclear negotiations.

The Senate passed a resolution (S.R. 355) by unanimous consent condemning Iran for its multiple human rights violations. The bill was cosponsored by Carl Levin, John McCain, Bob Casey, Lindsey Graham, Bill Nelson, Bob Corker and Joe Lieberman. In response, the head of the National Iranian American Council, Trita Parsi, welcomed the resolution, explaining that “a U.S. approach to Iran that is singularly focused on the nuclear issue and neglects the human rights abuses in Iran will have limited success.” The United Nations also passed a resolution condemning Iran for its human rights abuses. While similar resolutions have passed for 15 consecutive years, this resolution focused the crackdown since the election this summer.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Democracy Promotion, Elections, Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Islam and Democracy, Journalism, Judiciary, Kurds, Legislation, Mideast Peace Plan, Military, Multilateralism, NGOs, Oil, Terrorism, US foreign policy, US politics, United Nations, sanctions | Comment »

November 19th, 2009 by Jason

The United States Institute of Peace and International Foundation for Electoral Systems hosted an event on Capitol Hill entitled, “Lebanon’s New Government: Toward Greater Consensus or Stalemate?” on Tuesday. Mona Yacoubian of the United States Institute of Peace, Democratic Staff Member Perry Cammack of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Richard Chambers of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems participated on the panel.

For a PDF version of POMED’s notes, please click here. Otherwise, keep reading below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in DC Event Notes, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Elections, Foreign Aid, Hezbollah, Islamist movements, Lebanon, Mideast Peace Plan, Military, NGOs, Political Islam, Political Parties, Reform, Syria, US foreign policy | Comment »

November 12th, 2009 by Jason

Democratic Front Party leader Osama Al-Ghazali Harb announced his willingness to run for Egyptian president. The announcement came during a debate amongst opposition parties and groups. Participants argued for the necessity of independent oversight of the elections, whether domestic or foreign. George Ishak stated his Campaign for Free and Fair Elections in Egypt has invited the Carter Institute to monitor Egypt’s upcoming elections, but final approval is up to the Egyptian government.

Nael Shama argues that questions over who will run for president should not overshadow the “more crucial” issue of political reform and governance in the post-Mubarak era. Shama contends, “to have a new man at the helm while the old political and legal structures remain intact would be nearly futile.” He argues that the end of the Mubarak presidency offers the perfect opportunity to “transition to a new era, characterized by democracy, liberty and the rule of law.” He specifically urges changes in the cumbersome requirements for a politicians to declare their presidential candidacy, the institution of term limits, judicial supervision of elections and the elimination of vague anti-terrorism laws.

Posted in Egypt, Elections, Freedom, NGOs, Political Parties, Reform | Comment »