Tag: us

US envoy meets opposition leader

The Egyptian regime has always been weary of opposition forces consulting with foreign powers, especially if that foreign power is the US. The history of the last fifty years in the Middle East, after all, is of Arab states trying to influence each other, infiltrate parties and gain a foothold to spread their particular take on what the Arab nation should look like. Regimes like Saddam Hussein’s and Hafez Al Assad’s spent generously on cultivating opposition groups in other countries, and the Egyptians and Saudis went through a period of fomenting coups against each other. When it came to the US — after all the current regime’s main patron along with a few Gulf princes — they are particularly sensitive: after all they stand to lose their livelihood. For this reason, the government has always cracked down very hard on any attempt by the Muslim Brotherhood to hold contacts with American diplomats, as was attempted about a year ago (and this is one occasion about which we know about because it also involved European diplomats.)

Which is why the indignation at the meeting between US Ambassador to Egypt David Welch and the head of the irrelevant left-wing party Tagammu is pretty silly. Take a look at this:

Other opposition circles, and especially the Nasserist Party, were furious about the meeting. Nasserist leader Diaaeddin Dawoud said his party strongly condemned El-Said’s decision to sit and speak with Welch on behalf of the opposition alliance. “This meeting would have been all right if it had only concerned the Tagammu Party,” Dawoud said. He questioned, however, El-Said’s decision to agree to the meeting on behalf of the opposition alliance, considering “Welch’s tendency to always act like a new High Commissioner in Egypt,” and in light of his being “the ambassador of a country whose soldiers are killing Iraqis”.

According to Dawoud, “El-Said’s meeting with Welch has definitely tarnished the opposition’s image.”

Nasserist Party Secretary-General Ahmed Hassan even threatened to withdraw from the alliance, and condemned El-Said for choosing not to inform the bloc before agreeing to the meeting with Welch.

Even the NDP was upset. Its Secretary-General Safwat El-Sherif told the independent Al-Osbou newspaper that it was unacceptable that coordination among local opposition parties become coordination with “external forces”. El-Sherif described El-Said’s meeting with Welch as being “dangerous and negative, not only for partisan life, but also for the parties in the opposition alliance”.

The NDP secretary-general said that Welch should not act like a high commissioner. “He is just a representative of a foreign country, and must not exceed that limit.”

I can understand the other opposition being jealous or even genuinely indignant, since they generally have a strong stance against American policy in the region. But for the head of the regime’s own party to object is laughable. The regime is itself America’s biggest client! And his veiled threats about the meeting being “dangerous and negative, not only for partisan life, but also for the parties in the opposition alliance” is distasteful. All it shows is the insecurity Egyptians feel, across political lines, about being an American client state — the fact that the US ambassador really does have an influence akin to the British High Commissioner. Most of the time, they deny that reality.

(I should clarify that I don’t think the US directly controls Egypt, but simply that it is a if not the major player in Egypt, in a macro sense. The reality is one of negotiation, maneuvering and opportunism.)

Quote of the day

From the Wall Street’s Journal alerts:

U.S. soldiers grilled Rumsfeld about the lack of armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt response. “You go to war with the Army you have,” the Pentagon chief said.

The full story is here but requires subscription.

I hope someone said, “No sir, we go to war with the army you give us.”

Pentagon, Republicans kill 9/11 commission bill

When you’ve been living in a military dictatorship for several years, this kind of thing sends a shiver of recognition:

House Republican leaders blocked and appeared to kill a bill Saturday that would have enacted the major recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, refusing to allow a vote on the legislation despite last-minute pleas from both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to Republican lawmakers for a compromise before Congress adjourned for the year.

The decision to block a vote on the landmark bill, which would have created the job of a cabinet-level national intelligence director to oversee the C.I.A. and the government’s other spy agencies, came after what lawmakers from both parties described as a near-rebellion by a core of highly conservative House Republicans aligned with the Pentagon who were emboldened to stand up to their leadership and to the White House.

The bill would have forced the Pentagon, which controls an estimated 80 percent of the government’s $40 billion intelligence budget, to cede much of its authority on intelligence issues to a national intelligence director.

“What you are seeing is the forces in favor of the status quo protecting their turf, whether it is Congress or in the bureaucracy,” said Senator Susan Collins, the Maine Republican who was the chief Senate author of the failed compromise bill, in what amounted to a slap at her Republican counterparts in the House.

The chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, Thomas H. Kean, a Republican and the former governor of New Jersey, said that the lawmakers who blocked the vote should be held accountable by the public, and he blamed senior Pentagon officials as well.

“I think there’s no question that there are people in the Pentagon who want the status quo, and they fought very hard with their allies in Congress for the status quo,” Mr. Kean said.

Meeting Anonymous

Choice quotes from Meet The Press with Michael Scheuer, the rather bizarre author of Imperial Hubris:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you and our viewers from your book this quote: “U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious: We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency–not criminality or terrorism–and our policy and procedures have failed to make more than a modest dent in enemy forces.”

Do you believe we’re losing the war on terror?

MR. SCHEUER: I think without question we’re losing the war on terror, sir, not because they are stronger than us but because we resolutely refuse to recognize the motivation of the enemy is grounded so thoroughly in their religion and their perception that American policies are a threat to annihilate that religion. And that’s not to say we should sympathize or empathize with their position, but certainly if you’re going to destroy your enemy, you better understand what he’s about.

. . .

MR. RUSSERT: I want to read something else from your book. “The military is now America’s only tool and will remain so while current policies are in place. No public diplomacy, presidential praise for Islam, or politically correct debate masking the reality that many of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims hate us for actions, not values, will get America out of this war.”

“Actions, not values.” What are the actions that created this hatred in the Muslim world?

MR. SCHEUER: Our foreign policy, sir, about six items that bin Laden has isolated. I think if has a genius, that’s one of them. He has created an agenda that appeals to Muslims whether they are fundamentalists or liberals or moderates. Our unqualified support for Israel is one. Our ability to keep oil prices low, enough for Western consumers, is another. Our presence on the Arabian peninsula certainly is another. Our military presence in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, in Yemen, in the Philippines, in other Muslim countries is a fourth. Our support for governments that are widely viewed as suppressing Muslims–Russia and Chechnya, for example, the Indians in Kashmir, the Chinese in Western China. But perhaps most of all, our policy of supporting what bin Laden and I think much of the Muslim world regards as tyrannical governments from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, whether it’s the Al Sauds, the Kuwaitis, the Egyptian government, the Algerian government. He’s focused Muslims on those policies and it is a very resonant agenda.

MR. RUSSERT: When you say “unqualified support for Israel,” I received an e-mail from a former colleague of yours at the CIA and it said that Scheuer’s basic premise is blame the Jews, that the reason we’re in this fix is because of our support for Israel.

MR. SCHEUER: No, that’s hardly the case. Indeed, the Arab-Israeli problem for so long was just a minor annoyance in the terms of our perception in the Muslim world.

MR. RUSSERT: When you say “politically correct debate,” what are you talking about?

MR. SCHEUER: Yeah. What I’m talking about is an American landscape littered with politicians who have dared question our relationship with Israel. No one is advocating dumping Israel as an ally. We have, unfortunately for America, a long history of abandoning allies. But there is a perception in the Muslim world, and I think there’s a perception on the part of many Americans, that the tail is leading the dog on this case. And perception, for better or worse, is often reality.

MR. RUSSERT: So what would you do?

MR. SCHEUER: I think we need to take a position with Israel that suits American interests.

MR. RUSSERT: Such as?

MR. SCHEUER: Such as perhaps being more insistent on some arrangement with the settlements. Certainly, no one is going to withdraw the protective umbrella of the United States, but at some point, Americans need to look after their own interests first.

MR. RUSSERT: But do you believe that being “tough on Israel” would in any way change Osama bin Laden’s agenda or desire to destroy America?

MR. SCHEUER: His agenda is not to destroy America, Mr. Russert. He simply wants us out of his neighborhood. He wants us out of the Middle East. And I’m not–no, it would not change his agenda, but my point here is that America has a choice between war and endless war with the forces led by Osama bin Laden. And at some point, we need to take actions in our own interests that limit his ability to grow in power and popularity in the Muslim world.

“Humiliating Our Friends”

Marc Lynch takes a look at the Bush administration’s efforts to spread democracy in the Middle East:

The problems with Bush’s approach to democratic reform in the region run deeper than a lack of seriousness or poor execution. The core problem lies in the administration’s clear contempt for Arab public opinion, a contempt which is keenly felt by those Arab moderates who actually share the goals of political, economic and cultural reform. The administration is divided between hawks, who believe that Arabs respect force and can be either browbeaten into submission or else easily repressed by friendly dictators; and neoconservatives, who believe that greater democracy will naturally produce pro-American attitudes. Both theories have been painfully disproven over the last few years, as repeated demonstrations of American strength combined with soaring democracy rhetoric have produced only ever-greater levels of anti-American sentiment. But faced with clear evidence of failure, the administration refuses to change course.

There are a few other good passages in that piece, it’s worth reading.

Neo-cons vs. realists

I have been working on this post on the future of US policy in the Middle East on and off since before the elections, but now that Bush has won it seems more useful. My feeling is that the neo-cons kept a low profile during the past six months to help with the Bush campaign, but will be back in force once the president decides who gets what job. So here’s a round-up of articles I’ve read that discuss the forthcoming reshuffle of Bush’s cabinet and White House staff below. It’s long so you can only see the whole thing by clicking “more” below.

Continue reading Neo-cons vs. realists

Obama’s flip-flops

Ali Abunimah, the Palestinian-American whose work I greatly admire (and whose daily press round-up on Palestine, Iraq and the Middle East is a must-read), has written a great editorial on the implications for the Middle East that Bush’s victory has. While I encourage you to read the whole thing, one of the most interesting parts of the article is about Barack Obama, the new superstar of Democrat politics, and how he has (like so many others before him) abandoned a nuanced stance on the peace process to endorse the Israeli position:

Against this background, Bush has shifted the goal posts of the Palestine-Israel debate such that Likudist thinking is now viewed as centrist. This was demonstrated by Kerry’s campaign which warmly endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s policies. But the bankruptcy of the discourse was brought home in a most personally disappointing way.

Illinois swept Barack Obama, a rising star in the Democratic party, into the United States Senate with a stunning 70 percent of the vote – a rare Democratic gain. Obama, whom I’ve met many times, has served as my local state senator in the Illinois legislature. I found him to be an inspiring politician, not least because he appeared to understand Middle East issues and take progressive views supporting Palestinian rights and opposing militarism. He participated in many events in the Chicago-area Arab community including a 1998 fundraiser with Edward Said as the keynote speaker. I even made contributions to his campaigns.

But following Obama’s nationally-televised address at the Democratic National Convention everything seemed to change. In the campaign’s final weeks, Obama proclaimed his support for tough sanctions and military strikes against Iran if it refused U.S. demands to give up its nuclear programs. According to the Chicago Tribune, Obama now says that the onus of peace in the Middle East “is on the Palestinian leadership, which … must cease violence against Israelis and work ‘to end the incitement against Israel in the Arab world.” The unique fact about Obama’s campaign is that he did not need to parrot the pro-Israel lobby’s standard line to get elected. He ran effectively unopposed. Such a capable and ambitious man must have calculated that any hope of higher office requires that he not offend when it comes to Israel and its interests. This begs the question: If a man like Obama will not speak frankly when it comes to Israel, what hope is there for a change in U.S. policy coming from within the establishment?

As they say in right-wing blogs, indeed.

Levine: We’re all Israelis now

Mark Levine, a historian of the Middle East and noted leftist activist, writes that we’re all Israelis now:

As I watch George W. Bush celebrate his reelection I realize I never could have imagined just how much like Israelis we would become. Think about it: in Israel, the majority of Jewish citizens support the policies of Ariel Sharon despite the large-scale, systematic (and according to international law, criminal) violence his government deploys against Palestinian society, despite the worsening economic situation for the lower middle class religious voters who constitute his main base of support, despite rising international opprobrium and isolation. Sound familiar?

As for the country’s “liberal” opposition, it’s in a shambles, politically and morally bankrupt because in fact it was a willing participant in creating and preserving the system that is now eating away at the heart of Israeli society. Aside from occasional plaintive oped pieces by members of its progressive wing, the Labor Party can and will do nothing fundamentally to challenge Sharon’s policies. Why? Because they reflect an impulse, nurtured by the Labor movement during its decades in power, that is buried deep in the heart of Zionism: to build an exclusively Jewish society on as much of the ancient homeland as possible, with little regard for the fate of the country’s native inhabitants.

(Via Juan Cole.)

“We want to elect the American president”

Syrian journalist Yassin Al-Haj Saleh says out loud what many Middle Easterners think: they would a say at who is going to be the next president of the US, since he is going to have such a hold over their lives.

We ought to take seriously the findings of a recent global opinion poll in 23 countries and consider joining the citizens of the world in electing the next American president. Making this proposition a reality should be very simple since it rests on a fundamental and democratic tenet: decisions taken by the resident of the White House affect the destiny of countries, peoples and individuals all over the world. In other words, the latter is the president of the world and it is only right for those who are at the receiving end of any authority’s decisions to express their opinion and participate in its election.

[…]

The decisions of Mr. Bush or Kerry will affect the future of my country as well as my own destiny as a member of the Syrian and Arab democratic opposition, and this will manifest itself most evidently in the next few months. I therefore see American policies as coming from the corner of power and hegemony rather than those of solidarity with the weak and in defense of the persecuted. I do not need to witness the daily killings of Palestinians to dismiss any illusions I might have concerning the American project in our region, for those who want to see justice in Iraq and Syria cannot at the same time lend support to a professional killer’s work in Palestine. That is why I see American policy in the “Middle East” (this terminology itself does not give due recognition to the peoples of this region) as being the other face of the Syrian ruling elite that does not recognize the right of the Syrian people to make up their own mind and decide on their own future. American policies in the area therefore are a mixture of dictatorship and cultural condescension, as was manifested in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal a few months ago.

It seems to me that to democratize the Middle East we need to liberate ourselves from not one but three authorities: autocratic power structures throughout the region; the authorities above the law, i.e. Israel; and the most overreaching authority of all, the United States of America. None of these authorities, as far as the “Middle East” is concerned, is genuinely democratic.

U.S. policies in the region always had a far greater impact on our destiny than the Americans ever dared to admit, and this impact is only second to that of the local ruling dictatorships that could always count on the support of the U.S. as long as they carried out their designs and fulfilled their every request. Today the latter wants to control us under the pretext of liberating us, and the former want to preserve their power under the pretext of standing steadfast in the face of external threats.

American legitimacy

Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson take Robert Kagan and others to task in The Sources of American Legitimacy, an article why the Iraq war and the Bush doctrine of ignoring international law, the international community and the United Nations has imperiled the US. They take aim, notably, at Kagan’s argument that

“Contrary to much mythologizing on both sides of the Atlantic these days, the foundations of U.S. legitimacy during the Cold War had little to do with the fact that the United States helped create the UN or faithfully abided by the precepts of international law laid out in the organization’s charter.”

Kagan’s recent book, Of Paradise and Power, which argued that Americans were from Mars and Europeans from Venus and would never agree on foreign policy in general and military intervention in particular. It was the most articulate argument against what Donald Rumsfeld called “Old Europe” by one of the brightest neo-con thinkers. Tucker and Hendrickson’s answer to it is timely and well-argued, without all the wishy-washiness of terms such as “soft power.” They are particulary good when making the argument that the pre-emptive wars envisaged under the Bush doctrine are not only illegal, but dangerous and unrealistic:

Such illegal uses of force are in fact unnecessary for U.S. security and actually imperil it. The Iraq war clearly illustrates both points: not only did containment and deterrence offer a perfectly workable method of dealing with Saddam’s Iraq, but the consequences of the U.S. occupation have also made Americans much more insecure. Those consequences include daily attacks on American soldiers, the inflammation of opinion in the Muslim world (encouraging new recruits for al Qaeda), and the possibility of further wars arising from the potential disintegration of the Iraqi state.

The baleful results of the Iraq war are also relevant to the dangers posed by the acquisition of nuclear weapons by North Korea or Iran, two instances in which preventive war is often urged. As with Iraq, “preventive” attacks would be remedies worse than the disease and could mean catastrophic war in both regions. U.S. threats of “regime change” also undermine the more reasonable policy of dissuading either state from acquiring such weapons through measures short of war-that is, through a mixture of negative sanctions and positive inducements. The prospects of a grand bargain with either Pyongyang or Tehran would be enhanced were Washington to abandon its not-so-secret wish to bring about the downfall of these regimes.

Good reading if you follow these policy debates.