If pursued, such a realignment would be based on tackling a raft of critical matters ranging from resolving the Afghan conflict to addressing the security crisis in Sudan (I will endeavor to unpack each of these in the weeks and months ahead).

A related question I have been wrestling with is when, and how, the administration should address structural challenges within the Muslim world that may not directly involve the U.S. but still impact global stability. These include challenges such as those facing the education and employment sector in the Arab world and government service delivery in Pakistan. If the Obama administration embraces a true realignment strategy will it have the bandwidth to also tackle these other intra-Muslim world matters? Should it?

Furthermore, and of particular concern today, how should the administration address issues like the democracy deficit in the Muslim world? The problems caused by the Bush administrations disastrous democracy promotion plan are evident and President Obama used his Cairo speech to break with Bush when he stated that “No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.”

Unfortunately such a statement, no matter how well intended, cannot remove the U.S. from the democracy debate. The democracy deficit is a series problem within the Muslim world and the U.S., due to its support of governments ranging from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, cannot be considered a bystander.

In fact it is Cairo that occupies my thinking today as I dig into my U.S.-Muslim world realignment research.

The Guardian just published an article based on an interview it completed with former UN nuclear weapons chief Mohamed ElBaradei. ElBaradei believes, with justification, that the western policy of supporting Middle East autocrats at the expense of democracy has led to a rise in extremism and he calls for a reevaluation. In a substantive interview he noted that:

“The west talks a lot about elections in Iran, for example, but at least there were elections – yet where are the elections in the Arab world? If the west doesn’t talk about that, then how can it have any credibility?. “Only if you empower the liberals, if you empower the moderate socialists, if you empower all factions of society, only then, will extremists be marginalised.”

The Guardian also reports that ElBaradei is considering a run for President of Egypt and that he is likely to face intimidation from the State’s security complex. This reality poses a challenge for the Obama administration, particularly if it seeks to pursue realignment.

Should the U.S. use its leverage with countries ranging from Egypt to Saudi Arabia to close the democracy deficit while also pursuing realignment? Alternatively, does the shadow of the U.S. invasion of Iraq preclude serious engagement of the democracy issue by the Obama administration? There are no easy answers but these questions will likely have to be addressed in the months ahead.

No related posts.

In the hours after Congress acted last Sunday, the White House announced that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was one of the first two global leaders to call and congratulate Obama on his domestic victory.

Now, it is reasonable to assume that the Saudi leader was not particularly concerned about health care reform itself but recognized that its passage would strengthen Obama domestically and perhaps reignite his desire to be remembered as a transformative President not simply at home but also abroad.

In 2008 Obama ran a campaign that, in part, portrayed his very election as a step towards resetting U.S. relations with the international community. Further more, by illustrating his understanding of specific hot button issues ranging from Indo-Pakistani disagreements in Kashmir to the harm caused by the Bush administrations “war on terror”, Obama suggested that he would prioritize tackling the policy matters that had corroded relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world and thus undermined U.S. national security.

His early actions as President, from the appointment of Middle East envoy Mitchell to his historic Cairo speech, collectively suggested that Obama was looking to move beyond simply the reset offered by his election and was seeking a fundamental realignment between the U.S. and the Muslim world that would transform the international arena.

Unfortunately, this early promise has not, thus far, been realized and for many ordinary citizens and policy analysts alike there has been a growing skepticism as to whether Obama would be able to achieve such a realignment and, in some quarters, a questioning of whether he wished to use his Presidency to pursue it.

However, some foreign policy experts and U.S. political observers, including Abdullah, may have identified something else at play that explains the Obama administrations inability to advance its national security agenda thus far. 

Upon taking office Obama faced, perhaps inevitably, opponents willing to test his mettle at home and abroad. By initially failing to secure significant policy and political victories, the new President was pushed back on his heels and arguably lost the focus and transformative desire on display during the campaign. Abdullah, and others, have recognized that with the health care victory Obama has another opportunity to set and implement an ambitious global agenda.

Of course, no one can claim to know whether Obama wishes to prioritize a true transformation of US-Muslim world relations. While his campaign rhetoric and initial Presidential actions suggest that he has such instincts, and unquestionably U.S. national security would benefit from such a move, the end of the story has yet to be written.

Clearly, the passage of health care provides the political boost to such efforts and his year and a half as President may have provided Obama with a picture of what he will have to do and sacrifice to realign relations between the US and the Muslim world. The question now is whether he will choose to follow this difficult path.

No related posts.

I don’t feel ready to prescribe a specific 2010 game plan at this moment but wanted to share one of the more interesting pieces I have reviewed on the internal dynamics in Iran.  Michael Fischer outlines four possible ways in which the internal situation could evolve in the months ahead….it makes for interesting reading and this request from Michael is a very reasonable one:

It is important for Iran’s future and that of the world that more attention be focused on these alternative outcomes, so as to avoid the worst of them. Iran needs less our intervention or sanctions than an insistent questioning of who the players and their connections and alliances are.

What do you think about the scenarios outlined by Michael? Are there others that the administration needs to consider?

No related posts.

It is clear that failure to address the enduring Arab-Israeli conflict severely impedes our ability to advance new interests in the Middle East. Those challenges are especially noteworthy as we look to begin strategic negotiations with Iran.

He goes on to outline the core of the President’s plan:

The president made it clear that the United States wants permanent status negotiations to begin without preconditions based on the parameters from past negotiations: security for Israel and Palestine, refugees, borders and Jerusalem. The president added that the United States seeks peace agreements on all fronts, including with Syria and Lebanon.

Anyway, I think it is a terrific piece — you can read the entire op-ed here.

No related posts.

For those of us who have been frustrated by the delays in this process the President’s remarks today were very welcome. In particular I was encouraged by this portion of his statement:

Simply put it is past time to talk about starting negotiations — it is time to move forward. It is time to show the flexibility and common sense and sense of compromise that’s necessary to achieve our goals. Permanent status negotiations must begin and begin soon. And more importantly, we must give those negotiations the opportunity to succeed. And so my message to these two leaders is clear. Despite all the obstacles, despite all the history, despite all the mistrust, we have to find a way forward. We have to summon the will to break the deadlock that has trapped generations of Israelis and Palestinians in an endless cycle of conflict and suffering. We cannot continue the same pattern of taking tentative steps forward and then stepping back. Success depends on all sides acting with a sense of urgency. And that is why I have asked Secretary Clinton and Senator Mitchell to carry forward the work that we do here today. Senator Mitchell will meet with the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators next week. I’ve asked the Prime Minister and the President to continue these intensive discussions by sending their teams back to Washington next week. And I’ve asked the Secretary of State to report to me on the status of these negotiations in mid-October.

There is little doubt that the path to a final status agreement will be a tough one but I agree with the President that it is a national security imperative. The question to be answered is whether supporters of a two state solution can provide the political support needed to allow the negotiations to be completed. With that in mind I was encouraged by this letter from prominent faith leaders (see below).

Letter in Support of a Comprehensive Middle East Peace:

An American National Interest Imperative

We come from varied ethnic backgrounds and religious faiths that are diverse.   We are Democrats and Republicans.  We are veterans of war and of the struggle for peace.  Together, we are all Americans.

We find common cause in supporting strong U.S. leadership to achieve a negotiated, sustainable resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict – a fundamental American interest that crosses racial, ethnic and religious lines.

We support President Obama’s determination to provide sustained, hands-on diplomatic leadership to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to an end through the creation of two viable, secure and independent states living side by side in peace and security.

The President has made resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a top priority since his very first day in office, and we commend his leadership.  We applaud the vision the President has laid out for peace in the Middle East and the challenge he has laid down to all of us to help work for peace and a more positive future for the people of the region and the world.

This is a moment of great opportunity and urgency.  After decades of tragic conflict, many Israelis and Palestinians despair of the possibility of peace.  While the international community and majorities of the Israeli and Palestinian people are committed to a two-state solution as the best option for achieving peace and security, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

We express our support for U.S. leadership to chart a path to a better future and to the following principles:

• We support both Israel’s right to exist in security and the right of the Palestinian people to a viable, sovereign and secure state of their own.

• A peace agreement will need to fulfill UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and resolve critical issues of importance to the parties including refugees, borders, Jerusalem, settlements, and security.

• The Israelis and Palestinians, however, have not – on their own – been able to reach agreement.  After nearly two decades of negotiations, we believe bold American leadership can help Israelis and Palestinians make the difficult decisions necessary to achieve lasting peace and hold the parties to account should they fail to honor their commitments.

• We support the sense of real urgency that the President brings to the issue and his determination to reach a negotiated resolution to the conflict during his first term in office.

• At the appropriate time, we will support the Administration if it decides to present proposals for a just and equitable solution that provides dignity, security and sovereignty for both peoples.

• Finally, we believe a peace agreement should be comprehensive – encompassing Syria and Lebanon as well as normalization of relations between Israel and the countries of the Arab world.  We support the idea of a comprehensive regional peace that builds on the Arab Peace Initiative, with its offer of recognition and normalization of relations between Israel and all Arab nations in exchange for resolution of all outstanding issues.

Both sides must take steps to move the process forward, and we support the President’s efforts to end Israeli settlement growth and to halt Palestinian violence and incitement. It is now time to move to the next stage of diplomacy and to address the tough issues that must be resolved to bring this conflict to an end.

There are many who will attempt to block the path to peace.  They may believe that the status quo favors their interests or that time is on their side.  The President should know that we understand the status quo is unsustainable and time is of the essence.  We will stand with him as he promotes a fair and just resolution to this long-standing conflict and asks all parties to make the difficult but ultimately necessary compromises for peace.

We pledge to work with the President, to forge the path to peace and security for the Middle East.  We also pledge to work with those in both societies who seek peace, justice, and security, and to stand up for those who hope for a better future for themselves and for the generations that follow.

Sincerely,

Frank Anderson
Former Chief, Southeast Asian Division, CIA
President, Middle East Policy Council

Dr. Ziad Asali

President, American Task Force on Palestine

Robert Barkin

President, Jewish Reconstructionist Federation

Jeremy Ben-Ami

Executive Director, J Street

Ambassador Warren Clark

Executive Director, Churches for Middle East Peace

Debra DeLee

President, Americans for Peace Now

The Rev. Mark Hanson

Presiding Bishop, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

President, Lutheran World Federation

Father Theodore Hesburgh

President Emeritus, Notre Dame University

The Most Rev. Howard J. Hubbard

Bishop of Albany

Chairman, Committee on International Justice and Peace

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Dr. Joel C. Hunter

Senior Pastor, Northland Church

Member, Executive Committee of the National Association of Evangelicals

Rev. Bill Hybels

Senior Pastor, Willow Creek Community Church

Lynne Hybels

Advocate for Global Engagement, Willow Creek Community Church

Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon

General Secretary, National Council of Churches

Rabbi Peter Knobel

Former President, Central Conference of American Rabbis

Rabbi Charles Kroloff

Former President, Central Conference of American Rabbis

Imam Mohamed Magid

Imam and Executive Director, All Dulles Area Muslim Society, ADAMS Center, in Sterling, Virginia

Salam Al-Marayati

Executive Director, Muslim Public Affairs Council

Rev. John McCullough

Executive Director and CEO, Church World Service

Rev. Peter Morales

President, United Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick

Archbishop Emeritus of Washington

David Neff

Editor in Chief, Christianity Today

Rev. Gradye Parsons

Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (USA)

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

Imam of Masjid al-Farah, New York City

Dr. Bob Roberts, Jr.

Senior Pastor, NorthWood Church, Dallas, TX

Hon. George R. Salem, Esq.

Chairman, Arab-American Institute

Strategic Advisor, DLA Piper LLP

Roland Santiago

Executive Director, Mennonite Central Committee

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori

Presiding Bishop and Primate, The Episcopal Church

Ron Sider

President, Evangelicals for Social Action

Rev. John Thomas

General Minister and President, United Church of Christ

Dr. James Zogby

President, Arab American Institute

**This letter reflects the opinions of the individual signatories. Institutions are listed for identification purposes only**

No related posts.

No related posts.

Are there other experts, with recent on the ground South Asia experience, who you think would add to such a hearing?

No related posts.

First, in Israel we saw the government authorize the building of 300 new settlement homes in defiance of US calls for a halt to such activity. This raised concern among various commentators who rightly fear that if settlement activity continues it will end any chance for a two state solution. After this news broke, Middle East watchers wondered whether the Obama administration would react. They did not have long to wait.

US State Department Spokesperson Ian Kelly stated that a scheduled meeting between Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu and US Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell, originally slated to take place in Paris today, was postponed with no new date set. Kelly went on to note that:

“This was done because we want to give Special Envoy Mitchell a chance to meet with Defense Minister Barak, and that visit will take place on Monday where we hope to advance discussions on a range of issues.”

And to ensure that the linkage was made clear to all parties Kelly said the following:

“I’ll reiterate our – what we always say or what I always say and what others say: We oppose continued settlement activity. All parties have the responsibility to help create the context that will support renewed, meaningful negotiations that can be concluded quickly. The bottom line is that we expect all parties to honor their commitments. Our position is that settlement activity has to stop consistent with the Roadmap.”

Then, in a move likely to be carefully weighed in Iran but also in Israel, the Obama administration announced that the US was sending an Ambassador to Syria for the first time in four years.

It is clear that things are incredibly fluid in the Middle East at the moment — the White House needs to continue to be creative in advancing US interests in the region.

No related posts.

On a daily basis news reports suggest that the democratically elected government of Pakistan is struggling to contain militancy within its borders. The Taliban’s recent march into the Buneer district 60 miles from the capital Islamabad fed these fears and led Secretary of State Clinton to note:

“I think we cannot underscore [enough the seriousness of the existential threat posed to the state of Pakistan by the continuing advances…”

As tensions rise in the region, Americans and Pakistanis alike are waiting to see how the new U.S. policy, outlined in late March by President Obama, impacts the crisis.

There is a feeling within the administration that sustained U.S. and international focus is needed because the militant groups that grew so rapidly under the military government of General Musharraf are threatening the internal security of nuclear-armed Pakistan. This instability is also harming efforts to bring peace and security to bordering Afghanistan.

Despite the fact that many counter insurgency, security and South Asia experts and Pakistani gov comments have been urging the administration to curtail the use of strike drones in the Pakistani tribal region, the Obama plan seems to include an escalation.

U.S. government officials, speaking to the media on background, have suggested that the use of drones will increase and will move beyond the tribal areas of Pakistan into other provinces. This determination has been made despite the fact that misdirected attacks from these drones have led to civilian deaths,undercut efforts to build bridges with the people of the tribal region and are destabilizing broader Pakistani society.

The drone attacks are said to be fueling instability in part because they are leading to such high civilian losses. As top U.S. counter insurgency advisor, and author of the superb book Accidental Guerilla, David Kilcullen noted on the blog Small Wars Journal, the drone attacks “…increase the number and radicalism of Pakistanis who support extremism, and thus undermine the key strategic program of building a willing and capable partner in Pakistan…”

Kilcullen believes that the drones should be used as an “absolute, and rarely invoked, last resort” but it seems that his advice, and that of many other regional experts has been, at least for now, ignored by the administration.

The decision to press on with the drone strategy is confounding, particularly when one considers the data pulled together by Amir Mir, writing for The News International (a popular Pakistani English language paper). Amir Mir noted that:
“Of the 60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American drones in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. The success percentage of the US predator strikes thus comes to not more than six per cent.”

This Wednesday, President Obama will be hosting trilateral talks with Afghanistan and Pakistan. We strongly urge the President to use that opportunity to change course and, at a minimum, adopt the Kilcullen test and stop the escalation in drone use.

In the speech announcing his new Pakistan-Afghanistan plan, President Obama stated that the U.S. “will seek lasting partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan that serve the promise of a new day for their people.” Such relationships are harmed by the use of strike drones and we believe a new and better way forward should focus on development aid, political dialogue and protection of civilians.

To help make the case to President Obama we have launched an advertisement urging an end to escalation in drone use. To view it you can click here.

No related posts.

No related posts.