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.

(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:
https://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

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share