'This is unfair' say Iraqis on US panel threat
Dec 06 1:35 PM US/Eastern



A call for President George W. Bush to reduce US support to Iraq if Baghdad fails to improve security drew a sour response from Iraqi politicians, who said Washington had an obligation to back their government.
"The US calls itself an occupying force in Iraq and, according to the Geneva Conventions, if you are an occupier then you are responsible for the country," said parliamentarian Mahmud Othman, a Kurd.

"They have no right to to do this. This is unfair."

Bassim Ridha, a top advisor to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, said the White House has to support Baghdad "all the way".

"If they do not support the government then it will look as if they do not do what they preach," Ridha said. "We need their support to go forward."

A high-level, bipartisan panel urged Bush Wednesday to act to halt a "grave and deteriorating" crisis in Iraq by holding talks with Iran and Syria and starting to withdraw US combat forces.

The report said Washington must step up action -- including the threatened reduction of political, military and economic support -- to make the Iraqi government improve security.

Haidar al-Abadi, a member of Maliki's Dawa party and close associate to the prime minister, said most of the panel's recommendations, including a dialogue with Iran and Syria and increased training for Iraqi security forces, had been expected.

But the threat to reduce support was new.

"We were told there would not be pressure as such," said Abadi. "In our dialogue with the US administration, we said that we would work together."

While recognized US concerns over where its money goes, he emphasized that this was everyone's fight.

"We are all in the same boat; we are not fighting only internal criminals but we are fighting international terrorism," Abadi said. "We need support for that."

The Iraq Study Group also proposed a major drawdown of US troops in Iraq, including the withdrawal by 2008 of all combat brigades not necessary for force protection.

Not all lawmakers saw the report in a negative light, with one even saying it gives an opportunity for the government to address the grievances of its fractious components.

"There are measures, I think, that if Maliki commits to, will spare it from these threats of withdrawing support," said Zhafer al-Ani of the Sunni Iraqi Concord Front, the largest Sunni bloc in Iraqi parliament.

Despite being part of the national unity government, Sunnis have accused Maliki and his fellow Shiites of running the country in an sectarian manner, and of freezing them out of the decision-making process.

Ani detailed a series of measures the government could take to address Sunni grievances, which he said would go a long way to meeting the recommendations of the study group.

"Most importantly, the Iraqi government in its decisions, needs to show a national face and not a sectarian one," he said.

Even before the report came out, the prime minister of the Kurdish autonomous region, Nechirvan Barzani, dismissed its significance -- at least for Kurds.

"None of the people in the Iraqi Study Group have ever visited the Kurdish region," he said in a press conference just hours before the reports release.

"They haven't asked us about our opinion so we think there will be great shortcomings in the report."

On Tuesday, Maliki announced plans to resume efforts at achieving national reconciliation and for holding a regional conference -- two key recommendations of the report.

However, since taking office, Maliki has issued a number of calls for national reconciliation, and the Arab League has had a conference in the works for well over a year that has never materialized.

Relations between the sectarian and ethnic-based parties in the national unity government have become so strained, that journalists were barred last week from covering parliamentary debates to keep from publicizing the harsh exchanges.

In Baghdad itself, a six-month-long US-Iraqi operation to pacify the restive capital has yet to stem the grim daily diet of violence

December 6, 2006
Where's Gates on China?
POST: What to Expect from Bob Gates, By Blake Hounshell, Carolyn O'Hara
Here's the link to the post from Foreign Policy that Tom gave a quote for. His part:
How Gates views China, says strategic planner Thomas P.M. Barnett, is “the most important question one can ask of him.” The job of the secretary of defense is to “translate policy choices into budgets,” notes Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies—and China policy plays a leading role in shaping budget and procurement choices in the United States. Taiwan has been neglecting its own defense recently, says Cordesman, even as China is growing stronger militarily and economically. Gates testified privately last week that China “seeks to integrate Taiwan peacefully if possible.” Nevertheless, he affirmed the Bush administration’s policy of maintaining “capabilities to resist China’s use of force or coercion against Taiwan.” No shift in China policy would mean “no significant shift of resources from the Big War crowd to the much-stressed Army and Marines,” says Barnett.

Is American Support for Middle Eastern Dissidents the Kiss of Death?
Print Mail

By Michael Rubin
Posted: Tuesday, December 5, 2006

MIDDLE EASTERN OUTLOOK
AEI Online
Publication Date: December 5, 2006

Click here to view this article as an Adobe Acrobat PDF.

No. 2, December 2006

Speaking at the National Endowment for Democracy on February 4, 2004, President George W. Bush declared, “True democratic reform must come from within. . . . When the leaders of reform ask for our help, America will give it.”[1] Less than a year later, at his second inauguration, he reiterated his freedom agenda: “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”[2] While many dissidents welcomed his words, the administration became bogged down on how to implement them. At the heart of the foreign policy debate was the question of whether U.S. embrace of and support for dissidents helps or hurts them. Does moral or financial support advance reform or impede it?

The struggle for freedom is a defining principle of the United States. The Declaration of Independence defines “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as unalienable rights. In the nineteenth century, the United States supported South American liberation movements and, in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, established electoral systems in Cuba and the Philippines.[3] At the end of World War I, President Woodrow Wilson declared the common theme of his Fourteen Points to be “the principle of justice to all peoples and nationalities, and their right to live on equal terms of liberty and safety with one another.”[4]

World War II shattered the notion that an age of liberty was at hand. As the Cold War dawned, Washington cast aside its emphasis on democracy and liberty. Cold War polarity, inaugurated at Yalta, permeated the Middle East. Successive administrations eschewed reform and democracy, instead basing policy on realist strategic calculations of which countries fell in which superpower’s sphere of influence.[5] As Graham Fuller, a former vice chair of the National Intelligence Council, explained, “The ideology of anticommunism as a guiding principle of foreign policy came to overshadow an emphasis on democracy and freedom.”[6]

Many in the foreign policy establishment opposed the freedom and democracy agenda,[7] but Congressional activism helped overcome their resistance. Henry Kissinger opposed the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which linked trade with the Soviet Union to that country’s treatment of Jewish emigration, for fear that it could disrupt other diplomatic initiatives.[8] Under Kissinger, the State Department refused Helsinki Commission staff access to classified cables and balked at commissioners’ travel to Eastern Europe.[9]

Democracy and liberty did not again become a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy until Ronald Reagan’s administration.[10] “Our mission today,” Reagan told the British parliament on June 8, 1982, “is to preserve freedom as well as peace.” He called for active support for those struggling for liberty, declaring, “Democracy is not a fragile flower; still, it needs cultivating,” and urged activism: “While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take concrete actions to move toward them.”[11] The following year, Congress established the National Endowment for Democracy.[12] Supporting freedom, whether through nonviolence or with arms, was a consistent theme during the remainder of Reagan’s presidency.

While State Department officials worried that Reagan’s characterization of the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” could impede detente,[13] the collapse of the Communist superpower validated Reagan’s emphasis on human rights and liberty. Although realists had questioned the wisdom of supporting dissidents, the liberated dissidents affirmed the importance of Western public support and moral clarity. Natan Sharansky, imprisoned in the Soviet gulag from 1977 to 1986, wrote that knowing that there was international concern for human rights led him and other Soviet dissidents to redouble their protests.[14] The “evil empire” speech, while roundly condemned by diplomats in Washington and other Western capitals, emboldened democrats. “We dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth,” Sharansky recalled.[15] Ilya Zaslavsky, a democratic bloc leader in the Soviet Congress of People’s Deputies, credited Reagan rather than Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev with originating the perestroika reforms.[16]

Cold War No Longer

After the Cold War, the Middle East’s autocratic republics and powerful monarchies remained impervious to the spread of democracy that took root in Latin America, Africa, and east Asia. Democracy in the Middle East was not a priority for Washington. Gary C. Gambill, editor of the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, noted that Egypt and Jordan, the largest recipients of American foreign aid among Arab countries, did not hold internationally monitored elections in the 1990s.[17] While their leaders cited the threat of Islamist radicals as reason to eschew reform, their security services targeted peaceful, liberal dissent.[18]

Throughout the 1990s, the United States and Europe voiced a desire to promote reform in the Middle East. In 1995, delegates of fifteen European Union members and seven Arab states met in Barcelona to discuss not only preservation of security and stability in the Mediterranean basin, but also promotion of democracy, good governance, and human rights.[19] But Brussels then backpedaled on its commitment to promote Middle Eastern democracy.[20]

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks sparked debate in Washington about the importance of democracy promotion in U.S. foreign policy. Lorne Craner, assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor between 2001 and 2004, outlined the poles of the argument when he said: “[Some hoped] the shock of 9/11 . . . would diminish the diplomatically inconvenient issues of human rights and democracy. Others, many of whom had served in the Reagan administration, drew parallels between the 1980s and a post-9/11 world. In the 1980s, they believed, the U.S. success was in part due not only to stating what America stood against--Communism--but also in enunciating a counter-vision of democracy and freedom.”[21] More than five years on, the debate rages, and consensus eludes policymakers. Recent experiences with dissent and reform in Iran and Egypt, though, suggest that overt support for dissent does not taint genuine reformers, but rather that it advances crucial U.S. interests.

Iran: Confusing Reform with Dissent

Nowhere has the question of how to promote democracy been more controversial than in Iran, where President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s administration continues to stonewall International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors as it returns to the Islamic Republic’s radical revolutionary roots.

Facing stalemate on the diplomatic front, in 2005 Congress allocated $3 million for democratization in Iran.[22] Although paltry, the funding set a precedent. R. Nicholas Burns, under secretary of state for political affairs, explained that the Bush administration was taking a page from Ukraine and Georgia’s playbooks, where pro-democracy groups--in part funded by Western sources--led “people-power” revolutions unseating old-guard dictatorships.[23]

On February 15, 2006, the Bush administration proposed increasing its spending to promote political change inside Iran to $85 million.[24] The allocation was less than met the eye. By November 2006, the State Department had directed less than $10 million to democracy programs.[25] Part of the reason for the failure to use the money fully and effectively was that senior diplomats believed that financial support might do more harm than good. According to a senior State Department official who briefed the press on background as the original request for funding went through, “We don’t have blinders on. We don’t want to hurt the people we are trying to help.”[26]

The diplomats’ reluctance was backed by many area experts and academics. Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian studies program at Stanford University, said, “Anyone who wants American money in Iran is going to be tainted in the eyes of the Iranians.”[27] Amitai Etzioni, a professor of international affairs at George Washington University, argued that “American support for regime change only damages [the reformists’] cause and makes the mullahs dig their heels in deeper.”[28]

There are two sorts of prominent Iranian dissidents who opposed American aid. The first kind, those who seek reform but not systematic change and are often labeled “reformists” by the Western media, is the Iranian equivalent of Communists under Gorbachev who sought to reform the implementation of Communism but did not object to its ideology. The other group of dissidents opposes U.S. assistance based on a misreading of U.S. policy goals.

Among those in the first group is Hossein Derakhshan, a prominent blogger who argued in the New York Times that Bush’s advocacy for democracy “effectively took one of the world’s most closely watched nuclear programs out of the hands of a reformer and placed it into the hands of a hard-line reactionary.”[29] With the stroke of a pen, he sought to foist blame for the Iranian electorate’s reaction to eight years of Khatami’s broken promises onto Washington. While the New York Times amplified his view, it was not long before Derakhshan showed his true colors and discredited himself as an authentic reformer. In a September 2006 posting, Derakhshan endorsed coerced confessions, prompting among both reformist peers and dissidents “a mixture of bewilderment and outrage.”[30]

The most prominent figure in the second camp is former Revolutionary Guard member-turned-investigative journalist Akbar Ganji. In January 2001, an Iranian court sentenced Ganji to ten years of imprisonment for attending a conference in Berlin at which he allegedly damaged state security. His real “crime,” however, was his blaming Iran’s intelligence service for the murder of prominent dissidents.[31] In May 2005, he launched a hunger strike, declaring: “No one should be imprisoned--not even for a second--for expressing an opinion.” As his health faltered, the White House issued a statement of solidarity, saying, “The President calls on all supporters of human rights and freedom, and the United Nations, to take up Ganji’s case and the overall human rights situation in Iran.”[32] He ended his hunger strike on August 17, was released from prison five months later, and four months after that began a speaking tour in the United States.

As he traveled through the United States, Ganji was vocal in his opposition to funding other dissidents. “What we need in our fight for freedom is not foreign aid but the conditions that would allow us to focus all of our energies on the domestic struggle and to rest assured that no one is encouraging the regime’s oppression,” he explained.[33] Such sentiments, though, reflect poor U.S. public diplomacy more than the taint of outside assistance. Ganji spoke of how both the Iranian media and opposition circles discussed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s request for assistance to support Iran’s democratic opposition. He commented that the allocation became “particularly controversial after an article in The New Yorker on March 6, 2006, suggested that this money might be used in an attempt to change the regime in Tehran with the help of Iranian democrats, particularly those living abroad.”[34]

The article which caused such waves, though, was neither authoritative nor accurate. While seasoned Iran-watchers treat with skepticism the exaggerations of exile groups, the article’s author, Connie Bruck, treated them uncritically. She also allowed herself to become an agent by which former administration officials like Richard Armitage and Richard Haass could criticize and mischaracterize the democracy-promotion agenda. Armitage, for example, falsely suggested that both the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice President sought to support the Mujahideen-e Khalq, a terrorist group hated by ordinary Iranians.[35] The Iranian audience reads such words as official script, not the product of unique personalities. Had former Bush administration officials not sought to use Iran as a game board upon which to play out venal Beltway battles, and had the White House or State Department moved quickly to correct the matter, such inaccuracies might not become accepted wisdom among Iran’s democracy activists.

Ganji confirmed his antipathy for U.S. aid by boycotting a meeting with President Bush, preferring instead to meet with radical intellectual Noam Chomsky.[36] Here, too, his decision is less reflective of the attitude of dissidents in Iran and more reflective of the views of his handler. Organizing his tour was Goudarz Eghtedari, an Oregon-based peace activist who hosts a “progressive” radio show in Portland that has featured Chomsky, a number of outspoken opponents of the Bush administration, and supporters of engagement with the Islamic Republic.[37] Some academics Ganji visited spoke privately about his handler’s overt politicization.

Ganji’s experience also undercuts the notion that U.S. aid is responsible for Tehran’s crackdown on dissent. While the Iranian government has used U.S. support for the democracy movement in Iran as an excuse to detain dissidents--most notably former National Endowment for Democracy fellow Ramin Jahanbegloo[38]--the Islamic Republic has a long history of targeting dissidents. It was Ganji’s exposure of the internal mechanism of this repression that led to his imprisonment.

Omid Memarian, an Iranian journalist and a visiting scholar at the University of California, enunciated concerns similar to Ganji’s when he suggested that the taint of U.S. support facilitates the hard-liners’ crackdown. “Now that the U.S. government is openly taking about providing money to Iranian dissidents and opposition groups,” he explained. “These officials can openly and blatantly make accusations against any critical voice of being supported and financed by the U.S. government, thus making it even easier for the government to suppress them with little resistance or concern.”[39] And, while the Iranian government did crack down on non-governmental organizations (NGOs), context suggests that blaming Washington is out of place. Hamid Reza Taraqi, the head of the hard-line Islamic Coalition Party, foreshadowed the crackdown well before the announcement of U.S. aid when he told the Iranian daily Etemad, “[It is] impossible to deal with the people’s demands by setting up NGOs.”[40] When Ahmadinejad proceeded to slash NGO budgets upon assuming office, he reallocated the money to mosques and seminaries, the cornerstones of his constituency. Such shifts are consistent with changes of administration inside the Islamic Republic.[41]

Egypt: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

Can direct U.S. assistance to dissidents and reformers work? In Egypt, it has. In 1988, Egyptian-American sociologist and democracy activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim founded the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies. The center, which trains civil-society activists, publishes reports, and monitors elections, has made no secret of its acceptance of grants from U.S. and European foundations, including the National Endowment for Democracy.[42] Egyptian government harassment grew in proportion to the center’s activity. On June 30, 2000, Egyptian security detained twenty-eight employees and associates, and suspended the center’s operations for three years.

The Egyptian government singled Ibrahim out for more severe punishment. On July 29, 2002, a Cairo court convicted him of embezzlement, receiving foreign funds without government authorization, and tarnishing Egypt’s image.[43] But rather than acquiesce (and in contrast to the policies of previous administration), the Bush administration pushed back: on August 14, 2002, the White House suspended a $130 million aid package to Egypt, making its resumption conditional on Ibrahim’s release and improvement in the Egyptian government’s attitude toward human rights.[44] The Egyptian foreign minister was defiant, declaring, “Egypt does not accept pressure and will not bow to pressure and everyone knows that,”[45] but within six months Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak acceded to the U.S. demand.[46] The White House won Ibrahim’s release, and Mubarak--under sustained pressure--held an unprecedented contested presidential election.

Washington’s success appears more striking next to Mubarak’s backsliding and his crackdown on dissent that accompanied the Bush administration’s 2006 decision to deemphasize democracy as a U.S. foreign policy goal in the region. As U.S. pressure subsided, Mubarak cancelled municipal elections, arrested political opposition, and cracked down on judicial independence. Less than sixteen months after Condoleezza Rice spoke at the American University in Cairo and declared that “[t]he fear of free choices can no longer justify the denial of liberty,”[47] she stood beside Mubarak’s foreign minister and neglected to mention democracy in her statement.[48] One day after Egyptian police broke up a peaceful, pro-democracy demonstration, Vice President Dick Cheney received Mubarak’s son (and anointed successor).[49]

The juxtaposition of Washington’s early success with its subsequent failure illustrates the wisdom of dissident support. The supposed “taint” of Western support did not dissuade Ibrahim from accepting foreign funding. Syrian blogger and democracy activist Ammar Abdulhamid explains, “The reality is that Arab liberals are currently fighting to retain the last foothold that liberal values still have in the Arab world. In this they have no choice but to cooperate with external forces, at the risk of being denounced as traitors or pawns of the West.... [They] have no choice but to seek external sources of funding and expertise to support their various activities.”[50] It is also telling that--as in Iran--the most vocal opponents of funding dissidents in Egypt are those who support preservation of the current regime.[51] Hence, Hani Shukrallah, editor of Al-Ahram Weekly, argues the United States “should just stay away,” calling U.S. aid “the kiss of death.”[52]

Mechanisms of Supporting Dissent

While support for dissent may complicate diplomacy, it remains crucial for reform. Realists may argue, as Henry Kissinger once did in a Soviet context, for gradualism in Washington’s approach to Middle East reform, but the dominance of hereditary republics--in which presidents secure the succession of their sons--immunizes the region from such an approach. If an autocrat’s goal is his son’s succession,[53] then he will be disinclined to engage in any reform which might endanger the succession. Despite European engagement, there has been no improvement in the Iranian government’s respect for human rights.[54]

Nor is silence effective. Because the White House, prior to the current administration, did not publicly demand the release of Arab political prisoners, Arab regimes did not need to release imprisoned dissidents in order to ingratiate themselves to Washington.[55]

While silence is counterproductive, failure to sustain support is worse. Take the case of Libyan democracy activist Fathi El-Jahmi. Speaking in the East Room of the White House on March 12, 2004, Bush noted the release earlier that day of the Libyan dissident imprisoned in 2002 for advocating free speech and democracy: “It’s an encouraging step toward reform in Libya.”[56] Two weeks later, Colonel Muammar al-Qadhafi rearrested El-Jahmi and the White House has been silent since.[57] The emboldened Libyan regime backtracked on reform and El-Jahmi remains imprisoned.[58] White House failure to back up its rhetoric causes the United States to hemorrhage credibility.

How should Washington support dissent? At the very least, the president and senior administration officials should use their bully pulpits to bestow moral support on dissidents. In the 1980s, Reagan’s support for the Gdansk shipyard workers catalyzed a process that reverberated throughout the Eastern bloc. Twenty-five years later, the Bush administration has responded to action by the Islamic Republic’s first independent union with silence.[59] In such cases, concern about a backlash against dissidents does not apply. They have already chosen to risk repression. In the case of the Iranian bus drivers’ union, union executive Mansour Ossanlou had already gone to prison for his belief in freedom.

Dissidents represent not only themselves; they personalize broader movements. Although in 1981 the world focused on Lech Walesa, the leader of Poland’s Solidarity movement, he represented tens of thousands of others. Dictators understand the importance of symbols and so should Washington. Ganji’s importance to Iranians and his supporters abroad is rooted not in his individual case, but rather in his role as a symbol of the scores of other political prisoners who remain incarcerated in Iran. Mubarak has jailed losing presidential candidate Ayman Nour, and Libyan leader Qadhafi has imprisoned El-Jahmi--not for their alleged crimes, but for the cause they represent. Rather than “taint” such dissidents, international attention places accountability for their health and safety upon regimes that normally feel immune from such scrutiny. As in Eastern Europe, it is the political prisoners and dissidents who provide the best hope for peaceful change. Diplomatic pressure is beneficial for America, now and for the future.

But how should the U.S. aid dissidents? Covert aid often backfires. Once exposed, the taint becomes overwhelming.[60] Overt foundation support is an option, but the involvement of embassies--as is the case both with Middle East Partnership Initiative and Foundation for the Future funds--often leads to conflicts of interest, as the diplomats’ desire for stability trumps their willingness to support effective reform.

Washington should not, however, expect its money to create democracy. Dissidents are self-created. They establish their credentials at the grassroots. Those who fund their activity solely from external sources--as many expatriate Iranian groups seek to do--have little legitimacy or effectiveness. But once grassroots networks are established, there is no reason why their work should not be amplified by infusions of outside support, especially when repressive governments throughout the Middle East seek to monopolize resources.

What should Washington’s role be? Support for dissent and reform is an investment. Some investments succeed; some fail. Rather than condescend to decide what is good or bad for reformers in the Middle East, U.S. policymakers should establish metrics to measure the success of their investment. In the case of the Ibn Khaldun Center, the wisdom of the National Endowment for Democracy’s support is clear. The value of labor organizations in Iran, bloggers in Tunisia, and anti-militia activists in Lebanon should be equally clear. Taint is often a far greater impediment in the mind of Washington policymakers than it is among authentic dissidents, reformers, and liberal activists in the streets of the Middle East.

Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at AEI.

AEI research assistant Jeffrey Azarva and editorial assistant Evan Sparks worked with Mr. Rubin to edit and produce this Middle Eastern Outlook.

Click here to view this article as an Adobe Acrobat PDF.

Notes

1. The White House, “President Bush Discusses Importance of Democracy in the Middle East,” news release, February 4, 2004, available at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040204-4.html.
2. The White House, “President Sworn into Second Term,” news release, January 20, 2005, available at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050120-1.html.
3. Joshua Muravchik, Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America's Destiny (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1992), 114-116.
4. Woodrow Wilson, “Fourteen Points” (speech to a joint session of Congress, January 8, 1918).
5. Checking the spread of Soviet influence was a dominant theme in State Department cables from the region. See, for example, various documents in U.S. Department of State,
Foreign Relations of the United States, vols. 11-14, available through http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/; and the excellent survey in George Lenczowski, Soviet Advances in the Middle East (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1971).
6. Graham E. Fuller, The Democracy Trap: The Perils of the Post-Cold War World (New York: Dutton, 1991), 244.
7. John Lewis Gaddis, The Cold War: A New History (New York: Penguin, 2005), 189.
8. Henry Kissinger, Years of Upheaval (Boston: Little, Brown, 1982), 982; John Lewis Gaddis, The Cold War, 183-184.
9. Orest Deychakiwsky, interview by Roma Hadzewycz, “The Helsinki Commission on Its 20th Anniversary,” Ukrainian Weekly, June 30, 1996, available at www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1996/269607.shtml.
10. Dinesh D’Souza, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader (New York: Free Press, 1997), 149-172.
11. Ronald Reagan, “Address to Members of the British Parliament,” in Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1983), 742-748.
12. National Endowment for Democracy Act, U.S. Code 22 (1983) §§4411 et seq.
13. George P. Shultz, Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State (New York: Scribner, 1993), 166-269.
14. Natan Sharansky, Fear No Evil (New York: Random House, 1988), 163.
15. Natan Sharansky, “Afraid of the Truth,” Washington Post, October 12, 2000.
16. Joshua Muravchik, Exporting Democracy, 4.
17. Gary C. Gambill, “Explaining the Arab Democracy Deficit, Part II: American Policy,” Middle East Intelligence Bulletin 5, nos. 8–9 (2003), available at www.meib.org/articles/0308_me1.htm.
18. Saad Eddin Ibrahim (conference remarks, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, January 13, 2006), available through www.aei.org/event1222/.
19. European Commission, Euro-Mediterranean Conference, Barcelona Declaration, November 27–28, 1995, available at http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/euromed/bd.htm.
20. Roberto Menotti, “Democratize but Stabilize: Democracy in the Middle East,” Middle East Quarterly 13, no. 3 (2006), available at www.meforum.org/article/943.
21. Lorne Craner, “Will U.S. Democratization Policy Work?” Middle East Quarterly 13, no. 3 (2006), available at www.meforum.org/article/942. For another perspective, suggesting both the inapplicability of the Eastern European example and that the U.S. government should limit its overt support for Middle Eastern liberals, see Jon B. Alterman, “The False Promise of Arab Liberals,” Policy Review, no. 125 (2004), available at www.policyreview.org/jun04/alterman.html.
22. Barbara Slavin, “U.S. Aims to Spend Money in Iran,” USA Today, April 11, 2005.
23. Steven R. Weisman, “U.S. Expands Aid to Iran’s Democracy Advocates Abroad,” New York Times, May 29, 2005.
24. U.S. Department of State, “Secretary Condoleezza Rice: Opening Remarks Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,” news release, February 15, 2006, available at www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/61262.htm.
25. U.S. Department of State, “Iraq Democracy Funding,” press briefing transcript, November 3, 2006, available at www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/75535.htm. Those receiving State Department grants were almost entirely outside Iran. See also Farah Stockman, “Rice Wants Funds for Democracy Initiative in Iran,” Boston Globe, February 16, 2006.
26. Farah Stockman, “Rice Wants Funds for Democracy Initiative in Iran.”
27. See Steven R. Weisman, “U.S. Expands Aid to Iran’s Democracy Advocates Abroad.”
28. Amitai Etzioni, “Time to Make a Deal with Iran,” USA Today, May 2, 2006.
29. Hossein Derakhshan, “Democracy’s Double Standard,” New York Times, January 28, 2006. Nobel laureate and human rights activist Shirin Ebadi also seeks reform within the Islamic Republic and eschews outside assistance or notions of systematic change. See David Ignatius, “Nobels with a Message,” Washington Post, October 14, 2003.
30. Danny Postel, “Ramin Jahanbegloo, Hossein Derakhshan and openDemocracy,” openDemocracy, September 22, 2006, available at www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-irandemocracy/jahanbegloo_postel_3930.jsp.
31. Akbar Ganji, Tarikhaneh-’e ashbah [Dungeon of Ghosts], (Tehran: Tarh-e Naw, 1999).
32. The White House, “Statement on a Call for the Unconditional Release of Akbar Ganji in Iran,” news release, July 12, 2005, available at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050712-5.html. United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan declined the call to speak out on Ganji’s behalf. See Eli Lake, “Annan Claims Ignorance on Iran Dissident,” New York Sun, July 14, 2005.
33. Akbar Ganji, “Money Can’t Buy Us Democracy,” New York Times, August 1, 2006.
34. Ibid.
35. Connie Bruck, “Exiles: How Iran’s Expatriates Are Gaming the Nuclear Threat,” The New Yorker, March 6, 2006, 48-63.
36. Andrew Gumbel. “Iranian Dissident Akbar Ganji Swaps Hunger for Hollywood,” Independent (London), August 12, 2006.
37. Iranian.com, “Hunger Strike in Support of Prisoners of Conscience in Iran,” news release, July 15, 2006, available at www.iranian.com/News/2006/July/PressRelease.pdf. See also Voices of the Middle East (KBOO 90.7 FM, Portland), radio program archives, available at www.voicesofthemiddleeast.com.
38. Danny Postel, “Ramin Jahanbegloo, Hossein Derakhshan and openDemocracy.”
39. Omid Memarian, “Iran: Activists Fear U.S. ‘Help’ Could Spur Crackdown,” Inter Press Service, May 10, 2006.
40. Quoted in Bill Samii, “Iran: Times Get Tougher for NGOs,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, August 11, 2005.
41. Ibid.
42. See the Ibn Khaldun Center’s website at www.eicds.org/english/introductory/about.htm.
43. “Democracy Activist Again Convicted in Egypt,” Associated Press, July 29, 2002.
44. See Peter Slevin, “Bush, in Shift on Egypt, Links New Aid to Rights,” Washington Post, August 15, 2002.
45. Howard Schneider, “Egypt Dismissed U.S. Stand Against Extra Aid,” Washington Post, August 16, 2002.
46. Lucy Fielder, “Egyptian Court Acquits Activist,” Reuters, March 18, 2003.
47. Condoleezza Rice, public remarks (American University, Cairo, Egypt, June 20, 2005), available at www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/48328.htm.
48. U.S. Department of State, “Condoleezza Rice: Remarks with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit after Their Meeting,” news release, October 3, 2006, available at www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/73525.htm.
49. Peter Baker, “Mubarak’s Son Met with Cheney, Others,” Washington Post, May 16, 2006.
50. Ammar Abdulhamid, “Arab Liberals: The Last Hope for Reform,” Daily Star (Beirut), August 31, 2004, available at www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=7884.
51. Lee Smith, “The Kiss of Death: Why Do Arab Reformers Claim U.S. Support Is Hurting Them?” Slate, November 24, 2004, available at www.slate.com/id/2110126/.
52. See Kareem Fahim, “The Challenger,” Village Voice, September 28, 2004, available at www1.villagevoice.com/news/0439,fahim,57120,1.html.
53. Daniel Sobelman, “Gamal Mubarak, President of Egypt?” Middle East Quarterly 8, no. 2 (2001), available at www.meforum.org/article/27.
54. Amnesty International, Report 2006, Annual Report, 2006, available through www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/index.html; see also previous reports for 2000–2005.
55. Gary C. Gambill, “Explaining the Arab Democracy Deficit, Part II: American Policy.”
56. The White House, “President, Mrs. Bush Mark Progress in Global Women’s Human Rights,” news release, March 12, 2004, available at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040312-5.html.
57. Claudia Rosett, “Dial a Dissident,” Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2004.
58. “Gadaffi’s Son Leaving Libya,” Gulf Daily News (Bahrain), November 11, 2006.
59. Ebrahim Madadi (vice president of the Syndicate of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company), letter to Juan Somavia (director-general, International Labour Organization), May 30, 2006.
60. Joshua Muravchik, Exporting Democracy.

Related Links

AEI's Dissent and Reform in the Arab World conference series

Report: Iraq Situation Serious, But Not Lost
By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6, 2006 – The Iraq Study Group released its findings today in a report made available this morning to President Bush and Congress, and later to the general public.

"We believe that the situation in Iraq today is very, very serious," former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the bipartisan panel commissioned by Congress to examine the way ahead in Iraq, said at a news conference following the report's release.

"We do not know if it can be turned around, but we think we have an obligation to try, and if the recommendations that we have made are effectively implemented, there is at least a chance that you can see established a stable government in Iraq and stability in the region," Hamilton said. "The task ahead of us is daunting -- very, very difficult -- and we recognize that, but it is not by any means lost."

Members of the study group agree with the administration's goal in Iraq: to create a country that can govern, sustain and defend itself, former Secretary of State James Baker, co-chair of the group, said at the news conference. However, the group believes a new approach is needed in Iraq, he said.

"As a matter of humanitarian concern, as a matter of national interest, and as a matter of practical necessity, it is time to find a new way forward, a new approach," Baker said.

The report recommends a five-fold increase in the number of U.S. forces training Iraqi troops, he said, but does not endorse a large-scale increase in U.S. forces overall, a "stay the course" solution, or a division of Iraq into three autonomous regions.

The Iraq Study Group included a total of 79 recommendations in its report, Baker said. These recommendations cover military, political and diplomatic issues, as well as criminal justice, oil, reconstruction, the U.S. budget process, the training of U.S. government personnel, and U.S. intelligence, he said.

The group's three most important recommendations are equally important and reinforce each other, Baker said. The first is a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the U.S. to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly. The second recommendation is prompt action by the Iraqi government to achieve milestones, particularly on national reconciliation. The third is a new and enhanced diplomatic and political effort in Iraq and in the region.

"The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations," the group's report states. "By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq.

"At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams, and in training, equipping, advising, force protection, and search and rescue," the report states. "Intelligence and support efforts would continue. A vital mission of those rapid reaction and special operations forces would be to undertake strikes against al Qaeda in Iraq."

It is clear that the Iraqi government will need assistance from the United States for some time to come, especially in carrying out security responsibilities, according to the report.

"Yet the United States must make it clear to the Iraqi government that the United States could carry out its plans, including planned redeployments, even if the Iraqi government did not implement their planned changes," it states. "The United States must not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq."

"Our group offers and supports each and every one of our recommendations unanimously," Baker said. "We of course recognize that some people will differ with some of these recommendations; we nevertheless hope very much that in moving forward, others will wish to continue to broaden and deepen the bipartisan spirit that has helped us to come together."

Hamilton and Baker both said that if the group's recommendations are effectively implemented, the chances for success in Iraq will be greatly improved.

After receiving the report this morning, President Bush pledged to take the recommendations seriously and act in a timely fashion. "This report gives a very tough assessment of the situation in Iraq," Bush said. "It is a report that brings some really very interesting proposals, and we will take every proposal seriously, and we will act in a timely fashion."

Related Articles:
Bush: Administration Will Take Iraq Study Group Report Seriously, Act Quickly

Related Sites:
Iraq Study Group Report

December 6, 2006
Good move by Maliki
ARTICLE: Iraqi Premier Moves to Plan Regional Talks, By EDWARD WONG and HELENE COOPER, New York Times, December 6, 2006
With ISG proposal out, asking for dialogue with Syria and Iran, and the Bush White House already many times on the record saying "no way," we see Maliki deciding to take the ISG's advice and--by doing so--snubbing Bush again pre-emptively.
Good move by Maliki. Establishes his independence a bit more. Logical move. Makes him seem responsive to ISG.

Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett on December 6, 2006 11:26 AM Permalink | TrackBacks (0)
The divvying up of the Middle East begins financially
ARTICLE: “Asia Finding Rich Partners In Mideast,” by Heather Timmons, New York Times 1 December 2006, p. C1.
Fascinating bit showing how Asia’s increasing resource pull on the region is changing everything. Still our blood, but now both their oil and their petrodollar recycling.

Nothing speaks to the reordering of the global economy more than this, because it shows how the rise of the New Core has effectively shoved it between the oil-rich states and their usual target for petrodollar recycling--the Old Core West.

What was traditionally shopped around in London and New York in terms of public offerings of Chinese companies is now quite often offered up exclusively to the Saudis and other Middle Eastern investors. It starts, this relationship, at the top:

While China has long sought to cultivate closer ties with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries because of its need for oil, a tour of China, India and other Asian countries this year by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and a state visit to Riyadh by President Hu Jintao in April have done much to encourage nonoil financial transactions between the countries.
HSBC calls this new flow “east-east” transactions, or from “mid” to “far,” I say.

So now the oil-rich Middle East recycles through the New Core East and the New Core East, in turn, recycles its trade surplus with the Old Core West.

In short, we’ve been disintermediated. Not a bad thing. In fact, a rather nifty expression of the “economic reformation” dynamic I described in BFA (plus a Knoxville column way back when; plus a staple slide in my current brief) that links the “lead geese” in Islamic Asia to the local replicators in the Middle East (one thinks naturally of Qatar, starring in the role of “Singapore”).

It is estimated that the Middle East will buy upwards of $20-30 billion dollars of Asian assets next year, compared to just $3.2B of U.S. assets this year (excluding the “nefarious” private equity firms).

Quick, somebody tell Michael Moore his soda-straw view of global energy finance is now both wrong and hopelessly outdated!

What’s interesting it that this east-east stuff is actually increasing Western banks’ profile in both ends of this dyad: they want to be more present in the Middle East to get in the way of this money flow and in the Far East to do . . . well . . . the same:

… bankers who work in the Middle East and Asia say they are looking at a promising pipeline of pending mergers, and negotiations are just beginning on dozens of others.
“We’re definitely seeing a big jump in terms of deal flow between the Middle East and Asia, and Southeast Asia and China in particular,” said Georges Makhoul, president at Morgan Stanley for the Middle East and North Africa.

No secret as to why this flow picks up:

The Middle East’s oil and gas is vital for China, Japan and all the fast-growing markets in the Asia-Pacific region. And the Middle East’s capital and liquidity generated by all that oil wealth is searching for investments with high returns, rather than low-return government bonds like United States Treasury securities.
Quick! Somebody tell Tom Friedman that China is funding both sides of the war on terror!

“Yes,” says the Chinese magnate years later, “your point is both true and completely irrelevant.”

I say again, lock in China at today’s prices.

In the end, this growing connectivity between Asia and the Gap Middle East is good and welcome and inevitable. The thicker the ties, the better the connectivity.

A number of countries in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf Cooperation Council have developed an Asia strategy that looks far beyond energy trade, noted the former OPEC director of research, Adnan Shihab-Eldin, in a report prepared for an International Monetary Fund meeting in Singapore this September. Already there are several free trade agreements pending between the gulf council and China, India and other Asia countries. They are expected to be signed long before a free trade agreement between the gulf and the European Union, he said.
Trade between the Middle East and Asia more than doubled from 2000 to 2005, reaching $240 billion last year. That number reflects rising oil consumption and prices, but it also includes a tripling of exports from China, India and Pakistan to the gulf.

Asian countries, particularly China and India, have made their own strategic plans clear in the Middle East as well …

As I have said many times before, the U.S. alone cannot possibly hope to connect the Middle East to the world, even as the Big Bang strategy of shaking things up grabs most of the headlines and--yes--even pushes it a bit as our aggressive approach in the region surely drives the Chinese toward closer ties to what they consider to be the most stable regimes in the region.

So yeah, the Middle East is joining the world, and the more it interacts with Muslim emerging markets in Asia, the better the positive influence these “lead geese” have on the region’s evolution.