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

Former Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), a stalwart advocate of Pentagon spending now based at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, says he would have voted for the Iraq War even if he had known the Bush administration’s claims about WMDs were false.


Mike Pompeo (R-KS) is a conservative Republican congressman who was voted into office as part of the “tea party” surge in 2011 and nominated by Donald Trump to be director of the CIA.


Although better known for his domestic platform promoting “limited” government, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has expressed strong sympathies for projecting U.S. military power abroad.


James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) was one of Congress’s staunchest foreign policy hawks and a “pro-Israel” hardliner.


A self-styled terrorism “expert” who claims that the killing of Osama bin Laden strengthened Al Qaeda, former right-wing Lebanese militia member Walid Phares wildly claims that the Obama administration gave the Muslim Brotherhood “the green light” to sideline secular Egyptians.


Weekly Standard editor and PNAC cofounder Bill Kristol is a longtime neoconservative activist and Washington political operative.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Spurred by anti-internationalist sentiment among conservative Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration, the US is headed for a new confrontation with the UN over who decides how much the US should pay for peacekeeping.


Print Friendly

Decent developments in the Trump administration indicate that the neoconservatives, at one point on the margins of Washington’s new power alignments, are now on the ascendent?


Print Friendly

As the end of Donald Trump’s first 100 days as president approaches, it seems that his version of an “America-first” foreign policy is in effect a military-first policy aimed at achieving global hegemony, which means it’s a potential doomsday machine.


Print Friendly

Hopeful that Donald Trump may actually be their kind of guy, neoconservatives are full of praise for the cruise-missile strike against Syria and are pressing for more.


Print Friendly

Steve Bannon’s removal from the NSC’s Principals Committee doesn’t mean that he’s gone from the White House or no longer exerts a powerful influence on Trump. His office is still located very close to the Oval Office, and there’s nothing to indicate that his dark and messianic worldview has changed.


Print Friendly

Promoting sanctions that could undermine the Iran nuclear deal, pushing security assistance for Israel, combatting BDS, and more.


Print Friendly

Contrary to some wishful thinking following the Trump administration’s decision to “put Iran on notice” and seemingly restore U.S.-Saudi ties, there are little signs of apprehension in Tehran.


RightWeb
share