|
|
From the POMED Wire
In a post entitled “Islam and Democracy” at the Pickled Politics blog, Sid looks at the “long, messy and painful process” towards democratic government in three non-Arab countries from the Muslim world…
The arrest of Riad Seif, leader of Syria’s largest opposition coalition, is a “a clear sign that the Assads, once engaged and afforded any sense of legitimacy, tend to misbehave even more not less,” writes Ammar Abdulhamid.
This afternoon, Georgetown University’s Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding hosted a discussion on the current political environment in Pakistan…
|
POMED House Parties
POMED regularly works with individuals who host small get-togethers at their homes to build awareness and support for POMED. If you would like to learn more about hosting such an event, please contact Caroline Brennan at caroline.brennan@pomed.org.
|
|
We need your support!
In order to continue to expand our work, POMED needs your support. Please consider making a donation through our secure, online donation site.
Click Here to Donate to POMED
|
|
Dear Friends,
This week marked the beginning of the Bush Administration’s final year in office, and it will leave behind a complicated legacy in terms of US support for democracy in the Middle East. On the one hand, President Bush repeatedly raised his voice in support of democracy in the region, bringing new attention to the challenge, pushing back against old prejudices, and drawing clear connections between the interests of Americans and the welfare and liberty of individuals around the world. But words were far too infrequently supported by constructive action. Even worse, the invasion of Iraq proved a disastrous setback for both the standing of the US and the very cause of democracy at home and abroad.
But the time has now come to look forward toward the future. Over the next twelve months, the Project on Middle East Democracy, alongside our allies, will be working hard to develop and bring to light innovative new policies by which the next administration - Republican or Democratic - can mark a sharp turn in US policy toward the region. The next president will have a unique opportunity to demonstrate in words and actions that the US is indeed committed to supporting democratic progress in the region, but that Americans reject the notion that the military can or should be used as an instrument for bringing about democratic change.
At the same time, much work must be done to rebuild a broad-based US coalition in support of non-violent democracy promotion efforts. Without substantial bipartisan backing, US policies will be halting and inconsistent, and, as a consequence, unlikely to succeed for any length of time. POMED is dedicated to fostering dialogue and building consensus in Washington about the broad set of tools the US has for supporting democratic change.
Finally, POMED is committed to building dialogue between supporters of democracy in the US and Middle Eastern countries. Until American policymakers are better able to access and learn from individuals who can speak to local realities, US efforts will continue to flounder. By promoting shared understanding about values and policies, POMED’s programs lay the groundwork for more legitimate, more sustainable, and ultimately more successful political reform initiatives in the future.
All the best,
Andrew
|
POMED Updates
Recent Event on Iraq
On Thursday, January 24, POMED and the International Republican Institute (IRI) co-sponsored a panel discussion entitled “From the Ground Up: Assessing Efforts to Promote Local Democratic Governance in Iraq.” The discussion focused on how US actors could best support local democratic development, what obstacles are faced, what type of programs have been effective/ineffective over the past 4 years, and what lessons may be drawn from Iraq for future post-conflict reconstruction efforts.
Panelists included Christopher Holzen, Resident country director in Iraq for IRI (live via video teleconference from Amman, Jordan), Erin Mathews, Washington D.C.-based Director of the Iraq Program for the National Democratic Institute; Paul Hughes, Senior Program Officer in the Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations at the U.S. Institute of Peace, and Ambassador Joseph Saloom, former director of the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office. The discussion was moderated by Thomas Garrett, Director of Middle East and North Africa Program for the International Republican Institute (IRI) and Andrew Albertson, Executive Director of the Project on Middle East Democracy.
For full notes on the content of the event, click here.
Upcoming Event on Religious Freedom
Next month, POMED will team up with the Middle East Program of the Woodrow Wilson Center to co-sponsor a panel discussion entitled, “Religious Freedom and Democratization in the Middle East: Links and Challenges.”
A panel of three experts will examine the state of religious freedom in the Middle East and address questions including:
- What consequences does the absence of religious freedom pose for US interests in the region?
- What connections should policymakers draw between the advance of religious freedom in Middle Eastern countries and the fate of democratic reforms?
- How can the U.S. promote religious freedom and democratization simultaneously, and what risks does that raise in the Middle Eastern context?
The speakers will be: Thomas Melia, Deputy Executive Director of Freedom House, Thomas Farr, former Director of the State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom, and Joe Stork, Deputy Director of the Middle East and North Africa Division at Human Rights Watch and principal author of the recent report on Egypt, Prohibited Identities: State Interference with Religious Freedom.
The discussion will take place on Friday, February 22, at 10:00 am at the Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. Please RSVP by contacting: rsvp@pomed.org.
|
|
|
Steps Toward Women’s Rights in
Saudi Arabia?
By Stephen McInerney,
Director of Advocacy, POMED
The royal family in Saudi Arabia has long been decried as one of the world’s most repressive regimes. In Freedom House’s annual survey of political rights and civil liberties, released earlier this month, the House of Saud maintained its ranking as one of the seventeen most repressive governments in the world. Perhaps most infamous is the particular lack of rights for the half of the Saudi citizens who are female. When King Abdullah ascended to the throne following the death of his half-brother King Fahd in 2005, many had high hopes that his rule would bring reform and greater freedom to Saudi Arabia, and to women in particular. But the reforms of the first couple of years of King Abdullah’s rule were markedly underwhelming, and the area of women’s rights was essentially ignored.
However, the past two weeks has quietly seen a flurry of small steps toward greater rights for women in the kingdom. Last Monday, January 21, it was reported that the Saudi government had ruled to permit women to stay in hotels without the presence of a male guardian, effective immediately. On the same day, government officials also confirmed that a decision had been reached to remove the ban on women drivers, with a decree to that effect to be issued before the end of 2008. Lifting the ban on driving would be a move of great symbolic value, as Saudi Arabia is the only country to prohibit women behind the steering wheel, and this fact is the most often cited example to demonstrate the oppression of Saudi women. Also, on Tuesday, January 29, it was revealed that the Saudi Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs has approved the establishment of the first women’s rights organization in the kingdom, to be known as Ansar al-Mar’ah (patrons/supporters of women).
In addition, last Friday, the first-ever women’s soccer game was played in a large stadium in Dammam between teams of two Saudi universities, with the stands full of female fans and the score reported in local newspapers. Within a few days, it was announced that the Saudi government will establish women’s sport clubs in the country. This is a far cry from the recent past of soccer in Saudi Arabia - just last year a professional men’s game was interrupted by the official on the field so that security personnel could remove the one female in attendance - a 12-year-old girl enjoying the game with her family. Although there have been some reports of complaints by local residents and the governor of the Eastern province over last week’s game, it seems that opposition has been milder than in the past, perhaps encouraging the government to move forward with women’s sport clubs.
Why Now?
This string of announcements does follow a period of intensified scrutiny and key interactions with the West, as well as some increasingly bold internal demands for reform. In December, the sentencing of a 19-year old rape victim to 200 lashes and six months in prison for being alone in a car with a man who was not her relative sparked international outrage. Following widespread condemnation, including the introduction of three bills in the U.S. Congress demanding that all charges against the victim be dropped, King Abdullah announced his decision to pardon the girl. In UN meetings that followed in Geneva in January, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women challenged the Saudi delegation on numerous aspects of gender inequality in the kingdom. In response to concerns raised in these meetings, the UN has now announced that the UN special rapporteur on violence against women will visit Saudi Arabia from February 4 to 13 and give a series of reports on the findings of her visit to the UN Human Rights Council.
January also saw President Bush pay a visit to the kingdom during his eight-day visit to the Middle East. On January 14, as Bush arrived in Riyadh, the State Department officially notified Congress of a controversial agreement to sell 900 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) advanced missile systems to Saudi Arabia. The sale had been delayed in the fall by strong opposition within Congress, which considerably raised the profile of numerous concerns with regard to the Saudi regime including its fostering of extremism, its destabilizing ties to insurgent groups in Iraq, and the repression of its own people.
Conclusions
In short, the Saudi regime deserves credit for these apparent openings in terms of women’s rights. Given the timing, the moves appear to be at least partly the result of constructive pressure from the international community including the United States. Needless to say, the Saudi regime still has a very long path to tread in terms of women’s rights and equality, but hopefully these measures signal the beginning of a long period of steady progress, rather than merely an isolated burst of activity. The recent moves can also be taken as encouraging evidence that international diplomatic pressure can yield results. But it is critical that such pressure on the Saudi regime not abate once the long-awaited arms deal is finalized in February and a few positive steps have been taken. It is also essential that recently announced measures such as the lifting of the driving ban be carried out as planned - authoritarian Arab regimes have become increasingly adept at timing announcements of reform to relieve international pressure, then failing to carry out the steps as promised once the outside attention has diminished. If those conditions are met, and the recent moves turn out to be merely the beginning of women’s rights reform in Saudi Arabia, then the steps taken in January 2008 will have been very important indeed.
|
|
Legislative Update
After adjourning for 2007 just before Christmas, the House returned for the 2008 session on Tuesday, January 15, with the Senate following one week later. The three week adjournment saw several important developments in the Middle East, including President Bush’s eight-day visit to the region, the official notification of the sale of advanced JDAM missile technology to Saudi Arabia, and the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan. Congress has wasted no time in reacting to these developments, and the latter half of January has been full of legislation and committee hearings aiming to address challenges in Middle East policy.
Pakistan
On January 15, the first day back in session, Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) introduced H.RES.912, condemning the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and reaffirming the commitment of the American people to promote a free and democratic Pakistan, directly to the floor of the House, where it was approved the following day by a roll call vote of 413-0. The bill “urges the people and Government of Pakistan to be relentless in its pursuit of a democratically-elected government, including the holding of free and fair elections at the earliest possible opportunity,” and “expresses its support for the freedom of the media, the ability of political parties to express their views without restriction, and the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan.”
Iraq
On Tuesday, January 15, the Iraq Strategic Agreement Review Act of 2008, H.R. 4959, was introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT),to provide for congressional consultation with respect to any long-term security, economic, or political agreement with the Government of Iraq. The bill states that no funds made available by any Act of Congress may be used toward any agreement with the Government of Iraq unless the agreement is in the form of a treaty, ratified by the Senate under Article II of the Constitution.
Arms Deal with Saudi Arabia
On January 14, the State Department officially notified Congress of a controversial agreement to sell 900 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) advanced missile systems to Saudi Arabia. This notification had been delayed in the fall after a November letter signed by 117 members of Congress urged the President to delay official notification of the sale until the new year, so that Congress could consider the deal outside of the year-end appropriations crunch. Under the Arms Control Act of 1976, Congress has 30 days in which to consider a sale after the official notification from the White House and can block the deal by passing a joint resolution of disapproval. In this case, that 30-day period will expire on February 13. This $120 million sale of advanced weapons technology is the most controversial portion of an overall package of arms deals with the Gulf states worth $20 billion.
Following the long-awaited official notification, the next day Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) introduced Joint Resolution of Disapproval H.J.RES.76 in an attempt to block the sale. “disapproving the issuance of a letter of offer with respect to a certain proposed sale of defense articles and defense services to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.” The resolution does have a bipartisan group of 102 co-sponsors, but the office of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Tom Lantos effectively put an end to efforts to block the deal by declaring that he had no intention to bring the joint resolution before his committee for consideration.
Iran
On January 17, the Iran Diplomatic Accountability Act of 2008, H.R. 5056, was introduced by Rep Barbara Lee (D-CA),to provide for the appointment of a high-level United States representative or special envoy for Iran for the purpose of easing tensions and normalizing relations between the United States and Iran. On January 18, H.R.5084 was introduced by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT), requiring the Secretary of State to conduct ongoing assessments of the effectiveness of all existing sanctions against Iran. On January 18, a letter was submitted by fifteen members of the House to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI), urging him to remove Section 229 of the Defense Authorization Act (see below). This section addresses the Iranian nuclear program and commits the United States to defending itself from this threat. The fifteen signees argued that this section of the bill was contradiction of the December 3, 2007 National Intelligence Estimate. This request was not heeded, and this section remained in the final bill.
FY 08 Defense Authorization Bill
A new version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, H.R.4986, was passed by the House on January 16 by a 369-46 vote and by the Senate in a vote of 91-3 on January 22, and presented to President Bush on Thursday, January 24. The bill is nearly identical to an earlier version of the Defense Authorization bill, H.R.1585, which had been passed by the House and the Senate in December but was then vetoed by President Bush on December 28. The main difference in the new bill is that it omits a provision regarding lawsuits against countries that sponsor terrorism that the President feared could have opened the U.S. to liability lawsuits related to actions in Iraq that occurred under the rule of Saddam Hussein.
Title XII of the bill contains “Matters Related to Foreign Nations,” including provisions addressing the Iraqi refugee crisis, authorizing funds for military and counterterrorism training, and requiring reports on progress toward political and counterterrorism benchmarks in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. For more detail on these and other relevant portions of the bill, as well as a look at provisions that did not make it into the final bill, see this POMED report from last month.
On January 28, President Bush signed the bill into law, but in the accompanying signing statement, Bush asserted that four provisions of the bill, including one prohibiting the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq, violate the constitutional powers of the executive and that his administration is not bound to abide by those provisions.
|
|
|
|
|
