Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Islamist Governments Not the Enemy, Say Mideast Experts

U.S. policy must end its misguided fear of Islamist parties and concentrate on human rights, experts assert in open letter to Obama.

Print Friendly

(Inter Press Service)

Scores of Middle East and democracy experts released an open letter last week to U.S. President Barack Obama asking him to focus more of his foreign policy efforts at making reforms in the region, including boosting human rights.

Signed by over 120 academics, scholars, experts, and others, the letter said that previous U.S. policy had been "misguided" and "produced a region increasingly tormented by rampant corruption, extremism, and instability."

The signatories, ranging from liberal Democrats to neoconservatives, called for the Obama administration to "encourage political reform not through wars, threats, or imposition, but through peaceful policies that reward governments that take active and measurable steps towards genuine democratic reforms."

In doing so, the letter said the United States should end its "fear of Islamist parties coming to power" because most of them are "nonviolent and respect the democratic process."

Citing Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, the group said "the U.S. should not hesitate to speak out in condemnation when opposition activists are unjustly imprisoned."

The letter was coordinated by Radwan Masmoudi of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy; Shadi Hamid of the Project on Middle East Democracy; Geneive Abdo of the Century Foundation; Michele Dunne of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Stanford University professor Larry Diamond; and Freedom House‘s Jennifer Windsor.

The conventional wisdom in Washington is that Obama has scaled back the lofty rhetoric delivered by his predecessor, George W. Bush, about "promoting democracy" across the globe, which was implemented in a way that many critics charge was selective and hypocritical.

While Bush spoke glowingly of elections in Iraq, for example, he rallied forces against an elected government in the Palestinian Authority containing the unpalatable Hamas, and, in the name of stability, maintained relations with authoritarian dictators like Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

What the signatories are asking for is not a "continuation" of Bush policies, but instead "a new initiative" for democracy in the Middle East, said Geneive Abdo, a former journalist and fellow at the Century Foundation, at a press briefing launching the letter.

Abdo, an expert on Islamic studies, told a packed room of reporters at the National Press Club Tuesday that the repressive political situation in the region should not be seen as a battle between Islamism and authoritarianism.

She pointed out that opening up the political process will force all parties—not just Islamists—to be "more accountable to their electorate and republics."

Citing specific examples in Turkey, Indonesia, and Morocco, the letter said that, despite disagreement with some illiberal Islamist viewpoints, "the right to participate in reasonably credible and open elections has moderated Islamist parties and enhanced their commitment to democratic norms."

"There is no system I know where Islamists put in power by democracy have cancelled elections," said Saad Eddin Ibrahim, an Egyptian democracy activist, as he rose from a chair provided for him on the dais, apologizing for his bad legs due to torture he received in prison.

But embracing Islamists as legitimate political actors and democratic forces will have far-reaching goals for U.S. policy Saad Eddin Ibrahim—from the commonly named case of talking with a potential unity government in Palestine containing Hamas to negotiating with other religious groups like relatively moderate elements of the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Stanford University professor Larry Diamond said that in retrospect, those decisions aren’t always as difficult as they seem. At the press briefing, he looked to the example of the Sahwa, or Awakening movement, in Iraq, which co-opted former Sunni insurgents.

The members of the Sahwa, said Diamond, had almost certainly committed horrific acts against the United States and its allies, including possible terrorism, but the move to incorporate them is widely seen as having drastically improved security and stability there.

What’s clear from the letter and press conference, however, is that not making mention of human rights and democracy—or more strikingly, playing down expectations for them, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did on a recent trip to China—is unacceptable for U.S. goals around the globe.

"This is urgently in the American national interest," said Diamond, echoing the common criticism that repealing a predecessor’s policy is not enough. "We don’t have a policy now. Simply rejecting what Bush did is not a policy."

Diamond suggested that if the administration was serious about promoting democracy, it would begin crafting country-by-country policies.

At the press briefing, the signatories on hand said that, as well as diplomatic measures, so far absent in Clinton’s recent trips through Asia and the Middle East, economic measures could be taken to pressure for reform.

The groups suggested making economic aid conditional upon democratic and human rights reform—a tack that is not unprecedented. But Michelle Dunne, an expert on Arab politics, said that such pressures would need to be undertaken delicately without being too "blunt."

Dunne also cautioned against "picking players" and said that the whole focus on democracy was that the people of nations needed to choose their representatives for themselves.

The strength of the letter, said Diamond, was that it was not only a bipartisan effort, but more importantly, the signatories cut across ideological lines. 

Ali Gharib writes for the Inter Press Service and for PRA’s Right Web (www.rightweb.irc-online.org).

Citations

By Ali Gharib, 'Islamist Governments Not the Enemy, Say Mideast Experts”' Right Web with permission from Inter Press Service (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2009). Web location:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4988.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Political Research Associates   IRC logo 1310 Broadway, #201, Somerville, MA   02144 | pra@publiceye.org

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), former chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is a leading ”pro-Israel” hawk in Congress.


Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.


Huntsman, the millionaire scion of the Huntsman chemical empire, is a former Utah governor who served as President Obama’s first ambassador to China and was a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


Print Friendly

The very idea of any U.S. president putting his personal financial interests ahead of the U.S. national interest is sufficient reason for the public to be outraged. That such a conflict of interest may affect real U.S. foreign policy decisions is an outrage.


Print Friendly

The new US administration is continuing a state of war that has existed for 16 years.


RightWeb
share