by Emile Nakhleh
As President Obama begins his second term and John Kerry becomes the new Secretary of State, they are faced with worrisome uncertainty in Egypt, civil war in Syria, repression in Bahrain, a moribund peace process, and a defiant Iran. In order to help create a stable Middle East [...]]]>
by Emile Nakhleh
As President Obama begins his second term and John Kerry becomes the new Secretary of State, they are faced with worrisome uncertainty in Egypt, civil war in Syria, repression in Bahrain, a moribund peace process, and a defiant Iran. In order to help create a stable Middle East and shore up American influence and security in the region, they must act boldly and precipitously.
An act of boldness would be for Secretary Kerry to hold a summit with the presidents of Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and Tunisia to devise a post-autocratic vision for the region. This vision must be grounded in tangible commitments to democracy, justice and human rights.
As representatives of the new Middle East, these leaders and their citizenry would heartily welcome engaging with the US and with other world leaders on the region’s future. Arab publics expect the US to lead up front.
Unfortunately but realistically, Arab reformers and democrats do not anticipate world leaders to act on their own without American leadership and involvement.
Washington should use its economic and military leverage with courage and consistency over the next four years to bring about a less violent Middle East for its peoples and for the international community. Following is a blueprint for a more robust diplomatic re-engagement with two key countries.
Egypt
American diplomacy should help Egypt become more stable through working closely with President Mohamed Morsi and his government. The Muslim Brotherhood is the majority party in parliament, and US diplomats and other world leaders should not shy away from engaging it.
The Egyptian people, not outsiders, will determine whether the MB will be re-elected and for how long. Egyptians have made it clear that they won’t tolerate replacing an old secular dictatorship with a new Muslim one. The Muslim Brotherhood’s credibility as a majority party hinges on its ability to provide for the daily needs of Egyptian citizenry.
In communicating with the Muslim Brotherhood and other political parties, however, American and European diplomacy should strongly push for opening up the political system and respect for the rule of law.
MB leaders, including President Morsi, should speak out forcefully against the repugnant fatwas that some radical Salafi clerics have issued recently advocating violence against peaceful regime opponents, including women, secularists and Christians.
European diplomats also should work closely with the private sector to provide entrepreneurial and job creation initiatives. Historically, the MB has been pro-business and could be an effective partner in promoting economic growth in Egypt. The Islamically rooted Turkish ruling AKP could be a useful model on how to reconcile Islamic ideology with modern business practices.
Egyptian youth should be afforded the opportunity to invest in new start-ups and entrepreneurial initiatives through creative economic aid strategies. Post-Mubarak Egypt cannot move forward without massive job programs and the opportunity for Egyptian youth to build a prosperous future.
Secretary Kerry should follow up on President Obama’s Cairo speech in June 2009 by robustly engaging mainstream Islamic groups across the region in an effort to delegitimize extremists and energize moderates. As a Senator and a Presidential candidate, John Kerry supported engaging mainstream Muslim communities both for moral and national interest reasons.
When I briefed him during his Presidential campaign, he endorsed engaging mainstream Muslim majorities, arguing that military strikes alone did not fend off terrorism. Universal democratic values of good governance and tangible programs that benefit vast majorities of Muslims are much more effective in undercutting the radical message, whether in the Middle East, Africa, or South Asia.
Syria
Regional, American, and European diplomacy should take the lead in bringing the brutal civil war to an end. The understandable concern about the rise of radical, Salafi jihadism should not cripple Washington’s ability to work with the opposition to expedite the regime’s demise.
In a post-Assad environment, the secular multi-ethnic and multi-sectarian Syrian political culture could be a strong antidote against radicals and jihadists.
Washington’s inaction and inability to form an effective international coalition on behalf of the Syrian opposition has emboldened the Syrian dictator. Ensuing regime repression has created lawlessness and chaos, which in turn favors jihadists. On the other side, Hizballah and Iran have been arming and training militias to spread terror and defend the regime.
Iran has been the region’s most vociferous defender of the Syrian tyrant. The reported recent assassination of a senior Revolutionary Guard officer in Syria is an example of the deepening Iranian role and presence in that country.
If the regime is not toppled soon, Iran and Hizballah would pose an even more ominous regional threat than Assad.
Advocates of “leading from behind” in Washington use the so-called Syrian “exceptionalism” argument as a justification for non-action. Although this strategy was designed specifically for Libya, it should not be used as an excuse. Western non-action in Syria is no longer morally defensible or politically acceptable.
What to do?
Jettison the Libya analogy and arm the opposition with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons necessary to defeat the regime. Second, Secretary Kerry should initiate immediate consultations with selected opposition groups and with neighboring states on how to establish a post-Assad government. The consulting process could be messy and contentious. But it’s necessary.
Recent media reports indicate the White House has nixed a proposal by the State Department, the Defense Department, and the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. If these reports are correct, the administration’s position is nothing short of shameful.
Pro-democracy activists in the region view the President’s statement in the State of the Union that he would maintain pressure on the Syrian dictator as hypocritical and lacking credibility. They view American posture toward the Syrian dictator as lackadaisical and cynical.
They correctly ask, “How many more thousands of Syrians have to be killed before Washington and its international partners decide it’s morally justifiable and politically prudent to act?”
Photo: President Barack Obama speaks at Cairo University in Cairo, Egypt, Thursday, . In his speech, President Obama called for a ‘new beginning between the United States and Muslims’, declaring that ‘this cycle of suspicion and discord must end’.
]]>Anti-Western protests across the Arab Islamic world denouncing the anti-Islam video, reportedly produced in the United States, is a serious test for the new democratic governments in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere.
It is time for the new Arab democracies to explain to their peoples publicly and forcefully that [...]]]>
Anti-Western protests across the Arab Islamic world denouncing the anti-Islam video, reportedly produced in the United States, is a serious test for the new democratic governments in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere.
It is time for the new Arab democracies to explain to their peoples publicly and forcefully that individual actions in Western countries, no matter how offensive, do not reflect the policies of Western societies or their governments.
Western societies are diverse and complex and like Muslim societies should not be held responsible for the acts of one or more extremists, even if such acts are insulting to religion or the holy text.
Budding Arab democracies are producing diverse new leaders, ideologies, and centres of power, which their former dictators had stifled for decades. If Arab democracy hopes to succeed, it should not be a welcoming place for the narrow-minded, exclusivist Salafi ideology, which preaches hate and intolerance. Arab governments must act decisively to curb the rising tide of radical Salafism in their midst.
At least four factors are driving ongoing mass protests across the region. First, the newfound sense of democracy and empowerment, which former dictators kept under a tight lid, gives people the freedom to hit the streets whenever they see the urge to express their views on an issue. Once they get used to the idea of freedom of assembly, Arab publics would be less inclined to leave their jobs and hit the streets regardless of the cause.
Second, pervasive anti-Americanism, which has carried over from the (George W.) Bush to the (Barack) Obama administration because of perceived anti-Islamic policies, has been an undercurrent in the latest demonstrations.
Third, radical Salafis, who oppose what they call man-made democracy and peaceful relations with the West, have used the protests to undermine the nascent democratic experiment in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, and stir up anti-Western feelings in the Arab “street”. Salafi so-called jihadists have also been trying to hijack the anti-Assad revolution in Syria and paint it with the brush of extremism.
Finally, Al-Qaeda and its franchise groups in Yemen, North Africa, Iraq, and elsewhere have tried to use street protests to mask their terrorist plots against Arab regimes and Western personnel and interests in the region.
As Arab democracy takes root, governments must educate their citizens on the nature of Western democracies and the freedoms of speech, expression, and association that are the hallmark of democratic societies anywhere in the world.
Anti-religious vitriol and hate speech against Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, or Sikhs in the United States, for example, are usually renounced by most of the faithful. But they are begrudgingly tolerated, even by American Muslims, as part of the cultural and political mosaic of life in the United States.
For years, my analysts and I briefed senior policymakers that the Muslim world is diverse and complex and that only a small minority of them are extremists and terrorists. We judged vast majorities of the 1.6 billion Muslims are mainstreamers and reject the terrorist narrative, which Osama Bin Ladin and Al-Qaeida have advocated in the name of Islam.
We assessed that in the service of our national interest, our leaders should not paint the entire Muslim world with a broad brush of terrorism. Presidents Bush and Obama, for the most part, accepted the analysis and acted on it. They frequently stated the war on Al-Qaeida and global terrorism was not a war against Islam and that the West and the Muslim world share many common values.
By the same token, violent demonstrations and wanton destruction by volatile groups, many of whom have not even seen the offensive You Tube video, could lead some in the West to view the entire Muslim world as a place short on rational discourse and long on mob frenzy.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced the anti-Islam amateurish video in the strongest terms. She emphasised the U.S. government and people have nothing to do with it and abhor its content and message.
While not much open source information is available on the tragic death of Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi, the orchestration of the attack and weapons used reflect Al-Qaeda’s mode of operations. The terror organisation’s affiliated or franchise groups have executed similar operations in the region.
What is most tragic about the ambassador’s untimely death was his genuine commitment, in word and in deed, to engaging in a serious dialogue with Muslims.
He believed that Americans and Muslims shared many values, including love of family and a commitment to fairness and justice. Unfortunately, radical elements in those demonstrations whether Salafis or Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists, oppose dialogue and view the non-Muslim West as “infidels”.
Most mainstream Muslims do not share this view and in fact welcome economic, political, and cultural relations with Western countries, including with the United States. Thousands of Muslim students are studying in colleges and universities in the United States, Australia, Canada, and Western Europe.
Radical Salafi leaders and preachers who have condoned, encouraged, and participated in violence and destruction in the recent demonstrations should be held accountable by their governments for the deaths, injuries, and property destruction that have occurred. Because of their tyrannical ideology and actions, these radical Salafi leaders and activists have lost the right to take part in the democratic transition.
Millions of Arabs marched in the streets last year denouncing the repression of their regimes. Fallen dictators used fear and torture to deny their people the most basic human and civil rights. They kidnapped, jailed, and killed pro-democracy writers, poets, filmmakers, comedians, and bloggers despite the peacefulness of their demands.
Radical Salafis must not be allowed to hijack the newly won democratic rights.
The new social media, which helped spread the message of hope and optimism during the heady days of the Arab Spring, unfortunately has a downside. The “Innocence of Islam” video is the latest symbol of that side.
- Emile Nakhleh is former director of the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program at CIA and author of ‘A Necessary Engagement: Reinventing America’s Relations with the Muslim World’.
]]>