|
|
We need your help!
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,
The current U.S. financial crisis brings into sharp focus the immensity of the challenges that will confront the next administration.
On inauguration day, the new president will inherit, among other pressing issues, two difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a bellicose and intransigent Iran, an Israeli-Palestinian peace process going nowhere fast, and a newly aggressive Russia.
Dire economic circumstances only complicate the picture: a crushing fiscal deficit, a recession, and pressing domestic needs will leave the president with fewer resources than his predecessors for confronting international challenges.
But the most important factor limiting the foreign policy of the incoming administration has nothing to do with material resource constraints, and everything to do with the values we ascribe to our policies: the United States has lost much of its credibility with the world.
Credibility matters. The gulf between words and actions that has characterized the last several years has driven wedges between the U.S. and its natural allies, while making predictions by our enemies seem prescient. The close juxtaposition of Bush Administration rhetoric about human rights and democracy with its treatment of detainees; the grandiosity of a will to transform a region alongside the failure to protect the people of New Orleans; bombastic rhetoric about economic reform in the lead-up to the crisis on Wall Street – all of these have undermined the faith of our friends and allies around the world, and therefore our capacity to forge partnerships in pursuit of objectives.
U.S. credibility can be restored, but not by retreating from the values and high standards Americans espouse. On the contrary, the way to restore the people’s faith in American policies – whether we’re talking about the regulation of financial markets, disaster preparedness, or U.S. engagement in the Middle East – is to take a frank and serious look at the state of our own policies, and to make the tough choices and necessary adjustments.
First and foremost, the U.S. must restore its credibility on human rights and democracy. It is inconceivable that the U.S. would jettison democracy – so central to our founding narrative and principles – as a touchstone of foreign policy. Moreover, a commitment to principle is broadly beneficial for U.S. interests. The U.S. is strongest when people around the world who work for democracy, human rights, economic prosperity, rule of law, and peace view the US as a ready ally rather than an obstacle to progress. Scaling back American commitments to these values is not a solution - instead, we need to return to the drawing board, carefully solicit the advice of our friends, and consider new ways to more effectively support these values abroad.
But before can we make positive steps forward, the U.S. needs to address the seminal failures of the past few years: torture, rendition, illegal detention, and the illegitimacy of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. In a cash-strapped budget year, the sticker price for denouncing these policies would be $0. Closing Guantanamo, detonating Abu Ghraib, shutting down the black prisons in Europe and elsewhere – each of these will bring legal and other challenges. But such costs pale in comparison to the damage that would be done by not taking decisive action at the outset of the next administration.
The critics are right: the U.S. can do little to support democracy in the Middle East until it takes serious, sustained, and very public steps to restore our credibility on human rights and democracy. But far from a rationale for inaction, that judgment provides a ready set of initial agenda items requiring clear statements and determined action. And such measures to restore credibility would be a solid first step, restoring international support for U.S. efforts to address the numerous other difficulties faced by the incoming administration.
Best,
Andrew
Andrew Albertson
Executive Director
Project on Middle East Democracy
andrew.albertson@pomed.org
(202) 422-6804
|
|
POMED Updates
Capitol Hill Event on Human Rights and Rule of Law in Egypt
On September 10, POMED sponsored a panel discussion on Capitol Hill entitled “Egypt Today: The State of Human Rights and Rule of Law.” Marc Lynch of George Washington University, former U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Nicholas Veliotes, and Michele Dunne of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace debated recent developments in Egypt, their implications, and possible reactions from the U.S. government. The discussion was moderated by POMED’s Director of Advocacy Stephen McInerney.
Marc Lynch opened by detailing a long list of deteriorating conditions regarding human rights and the rule of law. The other panelists generally agreed with the causes for concern, but there was strong disagreement over how the US should react to these issues, with Ambassador Veliotes arguing for the US to keep its hands off and not force reform upon the Egyptian regime, to avoid undermining the important US-Egypt strategic relationship. Michele Dunne agreed that the U.S. cannot be the impetus for change in Egypt, but it can and should add its support to the strong indigenous demand for change.
More detailed notes of the panel discussion are available here, and video recordings of the full event are available from Fora TV or from the Tharwa Foundation.
Event at GWU on U.S. Impact on Middle East Reform
On September 22, POMED and the Institute for Middle East Studies (IMES) at George Washington University’s Elliott School for International Affairs co-sponsored a discussion entitled, “A Time of Transition: U.S. Impact on Reform in the Middle East.” The featured speakers were leading Egyptian democracy and human rights activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim and Marc Lynch of the Elliott School at GWU, with POMED Executive Director Andrew Albertson moderating the discussion.
Ibrahim and Lynch agreed on the need for U.S. support for reform in the region, and critiqued previous such efforts, including the Bush administration’s Freedom Agenda, which was described as not seeking to change the fundamentals of power in the region, but rather, instrumentalizing democracy promotion to achieve other strategic goals. The two speakers agreed on a number of policy recommendations, including the conditioneing of U.S. assistance to autocratic allies on basic rights reforms. Click here for a more detailed description of the event.
Upcoming Event on Religion and the State
On Monday, October 6, POMED and the Frederich Ebert Stiftung will co-host a discussion entitled “Religion and State:A Middle East, E.U., and U.S. ‘Trialogue’.” The discussion will include Geneive Abdo; Century Foundation Fellow, Bob Edgar, President on Common Cause and former head of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the Unites States; Ibrahim El-Houdaiby, Board Member of ikhwaneb.com of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; and Dietmar Neitan, foreign policy advisor to the Chairman of the Social Democratic Parliamentary Group in the European Parliament. Click here for more details on this upcoming event.
|
|
|
Rice in North Africa: A New Maghreb Paradigm
By James Liddell, POMED Research Associate
Back in 2005, it appeared that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice set the tone for a new approach to engagement with the broader Middle East by asserting an end to U.S. pursuit of stability at the expense of democracy. While many critics have noted progressive backtracking from this bold initiative, Rice’s trip to North Africa in the first week of September is yet one more sign that U.S. foreign policy has come full circle to a more pragmatic realism.
With much of the spotlight on America’s historic rapprochement with Libya, visits to Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco were largely overshadowed. A closer look at what was said on these short trips reveals the cementing of a new paradigm for dealing with the Maghreb: the primacy of anti-terrorism cooperation and economic interests over human rights and democracy.
Tunis, Algiers and Rabat-Business and Security First
After leaving Libya, Rice landed in Tunisia where President Ben Ali has been ruling with an iron hand since 1987 and was just nominated in July to run for a fifth term as president. Rather than criticize Tunisia for its continued erosion of press and internet freedoms, she focused on security cooperation and reaffirming our countries’ friendly relations. Rice was so hard-pressed to say something positive that she commented on the “extraordinary” status of women’s rights – largely promulgated by the country’s founding father Habib Bourguiba more than 50 years ago. Although she did briefly mention “the course of reform” while in Tunis, there was no indication that this process went further than a talking point at a press conference.
Next, Secretary Rice headed to Algeria where she spent just several hours. In Algiers, Rice met with President Bouteflika whom she referred to as a “wise man” and a “statesmen.” Bouteflika, who took office in 1999 after fraudulent elections, is expected to push for a constitutional amendment allowing himself to run for an all-but-guaranteed third term in the 2009 presidential elections. Once again, democracy was left off the agenda, as security cooperation and economic ties took center stage.
Secretary Rice ended her trip in Morocco with a two-day stop in Rabat where she was received by Foreign Minister Fassi Fihri. In addition to security cooperation, the two discussed the growing economic partnership between Morocco and the US, including a FTA and, most recently, a 700 million dollar Millennium Challenge Account compact. As in Algiers, Rice brought up the Western Sahara dispute, but brought no new ideas to the table. While she did express that there was more to be done in the area of reforms, the diplomatically calibrated tone of partnership and friendship was not to be offset with targeted criticisms.
A New Maghreb Paradigm
By putting security and economic interests as top priorities for the region, the Bush administration has created a paradigm which will only serve to reinforce itself. If terrorism is the greatest concern for the US, then “stirring Western anxieties” can only buy closer cooperation and greater anti-terrorism funding. Due to the rise in terrorist activity in the region – led by both Al Qaeda in the Maghreb and veterans returning from the Iraq war – Maghreb regimes will not even need to exaggerate the threat.
As Rice’s visit displayed, closer security cooperation makes it easier for these countries to brush off American pressure on the other issues. The same can be said of economic interests. In Libya, Rice acknowledged that economic and commercial aspects were an important part of the visit as American companies yearn to do business in a country which had long been off limits. In both Tunisia and Algeria, American firms have invested heavily in the oil and energy sector. Algeria is the world’s fourth largest exporter of gas and has the 14th largest oil reserves, five slots behind Libya.
One of the key challenges the U.S. faces in supporting democracy in North Africa is leverage. European countries, namely France, are far bigger trading partners with Maghreb countries and have expressed little desire for democratic reform. But the tragedy is that in putting security concerns and economic interests ahead of democracy and human rights, America is aligning itself more firmly behind the same policy that it had acknowledged the need to change in order to bring about real reform.
Shifts in recent years away from democracy and human rights have not gone unnoticed by the North African public, including reformers and rights activists who feel abandoned by the West and particularly betrayed by the United States after soaring rhetoric promised support for their struggle. Tunisian rights activist Sihem Bensedrine has voiced this frustration eloquently: “The problem for us is that, if our dictator was alone, and we only had to fight against our dictator, then we know how to do this. But when our dictator is supported by the large democratic countries, then we have to fight the whole world, and it’s too much for us.” Ignoring the rights of North Africans undermines U.S. credibility across the region and only makes U.S. relations more dependent on unreliable autocrats.
To be fair, Rice’s recent visit was widely seen as a courtesy call, a farewell tour not meant to deliver any policy breakthroughs or ruffle any feathers. But in any case, in four months time a new administration will face a clear choice: continue to subjugate the rights of North African citizens to short-term economic and security interests, or shatter this paradigm with a comprehensive new approach that recognizes that democracy and human rights are not only compatible with economic and security interests, but essential to securing such interests in the longer term.
|
|
Legislative Update
September was a very busy month in Congress, which returned from a five-week recess that included the national conventions of each party, with the intention of finishing all necessary business for the year in order to adjourn by the end of the month. A long-planned target date of adjourning by September 26 was derailed by the financial crisis on Wall Street and the need to approve a large bailout plan. This crisis did also complicate passage of a number of other bills, including the Defense Authorization Act and a continuing appropriations resolution, although both were eventually passed and signed by President Bush. A bill transforming the Human Rights Caucus into a formal commission was passed, and a number of other stand-alone bills were introduced this month addressing U.S. policy in the region.
Annual Appropriations and Authorizations
S.3001, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, was passed by the Senate on Sept 17 and by the House on Sept 24. The bill authorizes $612.5 billion in funding for the Departments of Defense and Energy, including $70 billion for several months of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In order to pass the bill in the Senate, a cloture motion was passed, omitting consideration of more than 100 amendments that had been offered.
On Sept 24, the House voted 370-58 to pass H.R.2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. This includes a continuing resolution which funds most government programs at Fiscal Year 2008 levels until March 6, 2009. New appropriations were included only for the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs, all with considerable increases over FY2008. On Sept 27, the Senate passed the bill in a 78-12 vote and sent it to President Bush to be signed.
Human Rights/Democracy Promotion
On Sept 17, Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) introduced H.Res.1451, establishing the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in the House of Representatives, and the bill was passed by a voice vote under suspension of the rules on Sept 24. The Commission will replace the existing Human Rights Caucus, will be led by an executive committee with 4 members from each party, and will receive appropriations from the accounts designated for the House of Representatives for the necessary staff and resources for the Commission. This will solidify the role of the institution within Congress and make it less dependent on the personality of its changing leadership.
On Tuesday (9/23), Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced S.3546, a bill to establish the National Center for Strategic Communication to advise the President regarding public diplomacy and international broadcasting to promote democracy and human rights. The bill was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Iraq
A number of bills were introduced in September regarding the war in Iraq, but few were taken up by any committees. On Sept 10, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced H.R.6846, the Iraq Security Agreement Act of 2008, to ensure that any agreement with Iraq containing a security commitment or arrangement is concluded as a treaty or is approved by Congress. On Sept 17, Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA) introduced S.3509, the Support for Vulnerable and Displaced Iraqis Act of 2008, a bill to address the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Iraq and potential security breakdown resulting from the mass displacement of Iraqis inside Iraq and as refugees into neighboring countries.
Several bills were introduced attempting to limit U.S. expenses in Iraq and to shift the financial burden to the Iraqi government. These included H.Res.1431, introduced by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), calling on the Dept of Defense and the Dept of State to withhold funds for any new reconstruction projects in Iraq until the Iraqi Government reimburses the United States for previous reconstruction costs. Rep. John S. Tanner (D-TN) introduced a similar bill, H.R.7028, limiting U.S. assistance for infrastructure projects in Iraq in light of the Iraqi budget surplus of more than $50 billion. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) introduced S.3470, requiring United States Government representatives to present to the Government of Iraq a plan to establish an oil trust. And Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA) introduced H.R.5167 to condition several provisions of the defense authorization act on the compensation by the current Iraqi government of American victims of Iraqi torture and terrorism during Saddam Hussein’s rule.
Other Legislation
On Sept 18, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced H.R. 6951, prohibiting the use of funds by the Central Intelligence Agency or the Department of Defense to provide covert or clandestine assistance for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Iran. The bill declares that “Engaging in covert or clandestine activities intended to undermine or overthrow the Government of Iran is antithetical to democratic values and respect for the rule of law,” and prohibits such activities except in the case of a declaration of war against Iran by the U.S. Congress.
On Sept 22, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) introduced S.3531, the Afghan Freedom Support and Security Act, a bill that appropriates up to $3 billion a year until 2013 to provide assistance to Afghanistan in a consistent and coordinated fashion. The bill appoints a Coordinator responsible for all U.S. non-military assistance, who reports directly to the President. It provides for monitoring and evaluation of assistance, as well as congressional oversight.
|
|
|
