You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Middle East' tag.
After five months in the Middle East and far too many hours on airplanes, I’ve settled in for a summer with Americans for Informed Democracy. I’ll be AIDemocracy’s Global Development Campaign Intern for the next two months before starting my final year at American University. If it weren’t for the frightening level of humidity, I’d be overjoyed to be back in Washington.
At this point, I’m smiling before people have even finished asking me where I studied abroad. If mentioning my first semester in Nairobi, Kenya, doesn’t cause people’s eyes to pop out of their heads, telling them I’ve just arrived from Cairo, Egypt, certainly does. When they’ve recovered from their shock, most people smile and ask me how I liked Africa and the Middle East. I can’t help feeling that they’re inwardly wondering why a sweet girl like me would choose to live in the big, scary, developing world with the Muslims, starving children, and deadly water-born diseases. Maybe that’s just my own paranoia.
I’m frustrated, I suppose, that my study abroad choices generate so much surprise. First of all, Kenya and Egypt are not scary places. There are certainly dangerous conflict zones in Africa and the Middle East, but there are many more beautiful places full of kind people who will draw you into their homes and lives with both arms. Second, these are the two regions about which Americans know the least—aren’t those the places I should be going as a student? I was in Nairobi following Kenya’s violently contested December 2007 elections, in Egypt following Obama’s inauguration, and in Syria for his historic address to the Muslim World. How could professors, government officials, or the American media possibly teach me more about global politics, ethnic and religious conflict, and the perspectives of people in other parts of the world? We should really be surprised that more students aren’t studying in Cairo, Nairobi, Damascus, Accra, Amman, or Abuja.
A trip through your local supermarket will tell you that things have gotten expensive. Yesterday, I was in line at my school’s salad bar, only to notice prices have increased by several dollars.
But here in the United States, we’re fortunate enough to count on certain protections to shield us from devastating food price increases. In the Middle East and parts of Africa, however, people face a significantly different reality.
Last year, the global food crisis ripped through much of the Middle East. Skyrocketing prices and staggering crop production left many citizens throughout Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt frantic for food. But the problem of food cost inflation has virtually fallen off the world news radar since the financial crisis has plunged countries further into economic turmoil. But, price hikes continue to have serious impact on families and, despite best attempts to meet the immediate need, the issue of food security remains unresolved.
Oxfam reports that net prices of staple foods have skyrocketed by 150 percent during 2007 and 2008, crippling the impoverished in developing countries. Estimates suggest that the number of malnourished people worldwide has increased by a whopping 119 million.
In the Middle East in particular, food costs soared. In Egypt for example, the cost of wheat is reported to have tripled. Prices of meat, fruit, and beans in this country have also increased by 25 percent.
These difficult circumstances left families with little to do but starve or riot for just prices. The New York Times reported last year that violent food protests in Yemen killed up to a dozen people.
Moved by the pressure of an angry, hungry populace, the Arab world has chosen to explore uncharted territory and invest in agriculture in the most unlikely of places–the fertile banks of the White Nile in Southern Sudan. With the help of this foreign investment, the Sudanese government is now plowing $5 billion in new agribusiness, much of which is designated for export to countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. So, while crops of pumpkin, beans, eggplant, and other local staples such as sorghum are now producing steadily along the river’s shore, the final product is being exported across the Red Sea rather than addressing domestic food needs in Darfur.
Sudan receives an enormous amount of food aid each year. And yet, Sudan has incredible potential for self-sufficiency. Last year, for example, the country exported the same amount of sorghum as it received from the United States in emergency food aid: 283,000 tons. Officials from the UN World Food Program go as far to say that Sudan could one day play the role of Africa’s breadbasket.
But the Sudanese government seems to be keen on increasing its own profits at the expense of its own hungry people. It continues to withhold crucial natural resources from 2.5 million displaced citizens, who languish in camps across, run off their land by the government’s harsh counterinsurgency policies. Meanwhile, international foreign aid and humanitarian organizations pick up the bill to keep the innocently displaced alive.
On June 27, 2007, Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair was appointed Middle East Envoy to work as a peacemaker in the region on behalf of the US, the EU, the UN and Russia. The announcement of his appointment came just hours after Mr Blair stood down as UK Prime Minister. The analyst might be tempted to hypothesize that this nomination falls in Mr. Blair’s political calculations to get a decent out-of-office job after he leaves the prestigious 10th Downing Street. Such hypothesis is not weak due to Blair’s strong sense of political calculations that earned him three consecutive terms in office, a record in UK politics. However, the analyst might also hope that the still dynamic Blair is sent to fix a political chaos he contributed to maintain in the Middle East. In this case, his task might not be easy as it will require he changes tactics.
Tony Blair seems to be aware of the difficult task involving his nomination as Middle Envoy. Recent media reports indicate that he suggests that stability and peace in the Middle East require a huge and intense amount of work. The first step in this work is gaining the parties’ trust. If Blair has already gained Israel’s trust for being their ally, it is more difficult for him to gain the Palestinians’ trust for the same reason. Obviously Abbas, the Palestinian Authority and his party Fatah salute Blair’s appointment. However, the Palestinian movement Hamas criticises Blair’s nomination, sending negative signals to cooperating with the new Middle East Envoy. Hamas accuses Blair of lacking honesty and neutrality. But in a recent statement Blair has assured the international community to work hard for a peaceful two-state solution to the Israelo-Palestinian conflict. UN officials trust Blair as a key player able to bring energy to the Middle East peace process.
If Tony Blair is to succeed in bringing positive energy and constructive peace to the Middle East, he must learn to embrace the qualities of a peacemaker. In other words, the newly appointed Middle Envoy must learn to be a neutral facilitator. He must learn to reach out to both sides in the conflict without taking a side. This requires other tactics than political calculation tactics. Political calculation usually involves people’s manipulation aimed at more or less egoistic goals of political or social successes. Peacemaking requires compassion for others, reflective listening of others, negotiation with others to allow the empowerment of local capacity for peace. Time will tell us whether Tony Blair will be able to show compassion, to listen, and to help develop local capacity for peace in the Middle East. Of course, the Former UK Prime Minister has the assets and abilities to be a good peacemaker. We wait and see how he will uses his great assets!
Jacques KOKO, Senior Political Analyst -Americans for Informed Democracy
All the time we hear about "radical Islam" and our fight against it, but never a clear definition of what that either "radical Islam" means or what our fight against it entails exactly. Too many people, pundits and politicians prominent among them, have decided that the West (whatever the heck that means anymore) is at war with Islam in general –all sects and expressions thereof– and every part of the world where Islam is the dominant faith.
Fareed Zakaria injects some desperately needed sanity into the discourse:
The split between Sunnis and Shiites—which plays a role in Lebanon as well—is only one of the divisions within the world of Islam. Within that universe are Shiites and Sunnis, Persians and Arabs, Southeast Asians and Middle Easterners and, importantly, moderates and radicals. The clash between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestinian territories is the most vivid sign of the latter divide. Just as the diversity within the communist world ultimately made it less threatening, so the many varieties of Islam weaken its ability to coalesce into a single, monolithic foe. It would be even less dangerous if Western leaders recognized this and worked to emphasize such distinctions. Rather than speaking of a single worldwide movement—which absurdly lumps together Chechen separatists in Russia, Pakistani-backed militants in India, Shiite warlords in Lebanon and Sunni jihadists in Egypt—we should be emphasizing that all these groups are distinct, with differing agendas, enemies and friends. That robs them of their claim to represent Islam. It describes them as they often are—small local gangs of misfits, hoping to attract attention through nihilism and barbarism.
The greatest weakness of militant Islam is that it is unpopular almost everywhere. Even in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has some roots, it was widely reviled. And now, when Taliban fighters occasionally take over a town in southern Afghanistan, they disband the schools, burn books, put women behind veils. These actions cause fear and resentment, not love. Most Muslims, even those who are devout and enraged at the West, don’t want to return to some grim fantasy of medieval theocracy.
And by the way, in Sarajevo, a city estimated to be more the 80 percent Muslim, no one gives a hoot about Salman Rushdie’s knighthood.
And just a soon as it had begun, it was over. The two-day Rabat, Morocco, conference was a great success, drawing inquisitive, engaged young people from the US and Morocco to discuss two big issues: democracy and security. While the first day included discussions by three panels of experts, the second day was dedicated to youth dialogue (hence the “American-Moroccan Youth Dialogue” title).
On account of the caffeine delivery delay, we started the day a half hour late, but made up the time throughout the day. We divided the 40-odd participants into four groups, making…? That’s right, 10 for each group. (And we’re not math majors). The groups were given the first topic—“ Democracy”—and were told to discuss for 1.5 hours. Clearly, you could spend years discussing this topic and could approach this topic from many angles. We wanted to give each group the opportunity to speak about what they found most interested and to see what direction the discussion led. I hopped from room to room, and was very impressed and surprised by some of the comments, especially from the Moroccan side. Several young Moroccans were very outspoken and critical of the king and his policies (especially regarding the alleviation of poverty). The Moroccans felt they were able to share these thoughts and these criticisms, which I took to mean one of two things. Either, they felt that this forum was a “safe space” in which criticisms of the king’s policies would be accepted, or they are not afraid to speak out against unpopular policies in general. Either way, I took this is a very good sign.
The second 1.5 hour discussion session was dedicated to “Conflict and Security.” Terrorism in Morocco is completely rejected, deemed “un-Moroccan” and “un-Islamic.” Perhaps even more so than the Americans, the Moroccans spoke about the threat of domestic terrorism and the pressing need to begin to address root causes of terrorism—especially poverty and education. Throughout both sessions, groups were developing policy recommendations addressed to the Moroccan and American Government that were to be voted on and, optimally, ratified in the afternoon.
After lunch, the large group reconvened and debated the 33 draft policy recommendations under the titles: Education, Media, Moroccan Politics and Governance, Combating Terrorism, and American Democracy Promotion Projects. In the democratic tradition, we welcomed amendments (2) and debate about each recommendation. At the conclusion of debate, each participant voted on secret ballot “yes” or “no” to the recommendation. After three hours of debate and amending, we ultimately ratified 20 recommendations (by getting a majority of votes from both nationalities). We were all very pleased with the result, this body of recommendations we had organically created through democratic practice—consultation, voting, consensus.
Laurel Rapp
Rabat, Morocco
Written on May 26
The first day of the Rabat, Morocco, conference has just come to a close! We’re all exhausted, but very pleased with the way it turned out! Al Jazeera (Qatar-based pan-Arab TV station) was there broadcasting introductions and two of the three panels all day, which adds a bit of excitement to the mix. In the US, Al Jazeera is perceived as quite negative, portraying a skewed image of the US to the world, but for all of the Middle East, it’s THE moderate news source. But I’ll return to press coverage later…
I kicked off the conference to a room of 80+ with a welcome and introductions including a picture of the rather dismal world opinion of the US. I detailed the purpose of the two-day conference, to increase cross-cultural understanding, to give young people a voice because they so often fall on deaf ears, and to create a space for Americans and Moroccans to discuss their countries’ policies in a neutral forum. Conference partners James Liddell of the Project on Middle East Democracy (Georgetown-based student group) and the President of the Moroccan Center for Strategic Studies spoke about the importance of such a dialogue at this very critical time in history.
Introductions were followed with some very knowledgeable and renowned scholars, activists, and politicians. The first day had three panels entitled:
1) “Talking About Democracy”
2) “US Democracy Promotion Projects in Morocco”
3) “Security in the context of US-Morocco Relations”
All of the panels were fascinating, but perhaps the most fun to watch due to the tension among the panels (and the one that received the most bizarre and misinformed press coverage) was the third panel.
The third panel included the President of the research center partner organization, a Moroccan from a local NGO currently staging a boycott against the American Embassy, and an American Government representative. Awkward? Younes Foudil of the Moroccan NGO participating in the boycott went head-to-head with Craig Karp, the seasoned diplomat from the American Embassy in Rabat (in a very civilized and respectful way, as professionals do, of course. Sorry kids, little to no Jerry Springer action).
Karp, of the Embassy, generously told Foudil that he was encouraged by the development of Moroccan civil society and its realization that boycotting and striking are powerful tools to social change (even boycotting his work….quite generous). Despite the impressiveness of all three panelists, the audience directed a barrage of questions solely at Karp—questions ranging from—more or less—“how do you sleep at night” to more nuanced, less personally offensive questions about official policy towards the contested southern region of Morocco (or region south of Morocco, depending on who you talk to). The first day ended on a high note with applause and positive energy that participants will take to tomorrow’s day of dialogue.
And now for some comic relief: As we all filed outside to the pool terrace of the hotel for Moroccan mint tea and cookies in our business suits, we came across a rather curious sight. Right in the middle of our tea break space was a European couple lounging by the pool facedown, in bikini and speedo, I had to chuckle to myself as Al Jazeera started setting up its cameras to interview us and had to move to avoid this h’shuma (shameful according to Islam) sight.
Laurel Rapp
Rabat, Morocco
Written on May 25, 2007
Only a few days away from the third and final conference in the “Bringing the World Home Series,” and we’re still trying to manage several (ok, one) diplomatic crises. This conference series, sponsored by AID and POMED (the Project on Middle East Democracy) very successful opened in Amman, Jordan, in mid-April. Prince Hassan of Jordan and Boutros-Boutros Ghali were honored guests and speakers, participants engaged in productive, exciting dialogue, and the event got excellent pres (which is always nice!). We then moved to Cairo in early May, where we welcomed Americans and Egyptians from around the world (as far as New Zealand, Bosnia, and Washington DC) as we hotly debated American foreign policy in the region, listened to experts, and ultimately enjoyed a dinner cruise on the Nile.
And then it was back across North Africa to Rabat, Morocco, (where I currently live) to finish up the preparations for the Rabat conference that is to take place May 25-26. We have a great selection of panelists and qualified youth participants who represent a variety of viewpoints—always makes for interesting dialogue to say the least. Our three panels are currently on “Talking about Democracy,” “US Democracy Promotion Projects in Morocco,” and “Conflict and Security.” Recent developments at the US Embassy and Consulate in Morocco, however, may have doomed the appearance of the US Embassy representative scheduled for the third panel—whose presence is currently hanging by a thread—while my co-chair and I sit at the edge of our seats, biting our nails. Without going into painful and obscure detail, the US Embassy is currently under much scrutiny after a political gaffe (did he misspeak? Or does he truly not recognize Moroccan claims to the Western Sahara) on the part of the American Ambassador in reference to contested territory in southern Morocco (which is a generally obscure conflict for all of the world with the exception of Morocco, Algeria, and the UN). This coupled with the closing of the US Consulate in Casablanca following a suicide bombing last month, American Government officials in Rabat aren’t Morocco’s favorite people right now; American Government officials claim that the Consulate has yet to open due to security concerns, while many Moroccans have interpreted it as a symbolic statement against the Moroccan population.
In any event, what this means for us is that the Embassy has become very sensitive to media, and after hearing that Al Jazeera wanted to film portions of the conference, they’ve suddenly gotten cold feet. Understandably. Yet, we think it’s very important for both a Moroccan and an American Government official to be present to explain official policy. So, the jury’s still out in regards to the appearance of our US Government official. I’ll keep you posted.
Laurel Rapp
Rabat, Morocco
Written on May 22
Una’s note: Laurel blogged these a while back, but they didn’t show up, so I’m posting them now. The Cairo conference took place May 3-5.
Report 1.
Bringing the World Home: An American-Egyptian Youth Dialogue on U.S. Policy
After a two week lull, the second conference in the three-part “Bringing the World Home” series was held this weekend at the American University in Cairo. Unlike the Amman conference that focused on democratization in Jordan, the Cairo conference was to assess US policy in Egypt and the Middle East. The evening opening ceremony was open to the public, drawing many Egyptians from the environs and Americans studying at the university. The American contingent was decidedly smaller, bringing about 10 students from around the world (Europe, North Africa, New Zealand, the US) and about five Americans studying abroad in Cairo.
The keynote speaker, Ambassador Sobeeh, spoke very briefly about U.S. policy in the region, more specifically about the state of Israel. He was somewhat coolly receive by the American participants for his strong, unbalanced words against Israel and his general failure to address U.S. policy outside of its unconditional support of Israel.
The evening continued with speeches of introduction by sponsoring organizations, including my presentation of AID and a short film the Egyptian delegates prepared on the importance of the conference. The film was a series of still images, and our initial concern surrounding the film (which initially featured many anti-American images), came to represent a variety of positions.
Report 2.
Cairo Conference Day 2
The first full day of the conference was very intensive—several panels, a lot of discussion in small groups, and informal conversations scattered in between.
Friday kicked off on a good start. The first panel on “US Democracy Promotion Strategy” was composed of a professor from the American University of Cairo, conference chair Rashad Mahmood, and Saana al-Banna, the great granddaughter of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. After an overview of the six phases of American foreign policy as seen by Prof Lynch, Rashad and Saana discussed impediments to US democracy strategy in the region.
After the panel, students went off to their small discussion groups to delve deeper into issues covered by the panel. I attended a rather large group, perhaps 20 Egyptians, 4 Americans. Clearly, the topic we were to be discussing is INCREDIBLY controversial and difficult. Unfortunately, some of the Egyptian participants went on the offensive against the outnumbered Americans, lambasting US foreign policy in their region, lamenting the double standards of its policy, and supporting claims with faulty or no evidence. One 19-year old Egyptian student claimed that because of America’s moral depravity (claiming that most Californians walk around naked all the time—a suspect claim at best, but then again, I’ve never been to CA myself. Neither has he coincidentally.) Little to no substantive solutions were offered to complaints (we were charged with preparing policy recommendations stemming from the discussion). The Americans left feeling rather frustrated and upset.
I found the afternoon panel on “US and Regional Conflicts{“ incredibly interesting. The two panelists—representatives from the US Dept of State and the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, spoke about US involvement in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War in Lebanon this summer. The American deleaguate was generally optimistic about America’s role in the Middle East, although did admit to concerns about the War in Iraq. The Egyptian deleguage discussed, among other things, his personal relationship with September 11 (in Washington at the time) and how it changed the world forever and set the US on a new, more aggressive course.
Afternoon discussions seemed to be generally more productive. People listened to each other, questioned in a more respectful way. Many Egyptian participants concurred that the US should stop its support for Israel and begin supporting Arab countries in the region more. Several Egyptians were concerned with the powerful “Zionist Lobby” in the US, concerned that it did not represent the wishes of the American people. I and several others responded to this concern—I think there is a general misperception in the Arab world about a) the power of the pro-Israel lobby and; b) the degree to which Israel is supported by the American people. I would argue that the majority of Americans feel some kinship with Israel as this little chunk of land is the spiritual homeland for a large percentage of America’s population. I do believe that Americans care what happens to Israel and that it’s partially our responsibility to protect Israel as we were instrumental in its establishment. In any event, it was important for participants on both sides to hear the mainstream views of Egyptians and Americans, understand that we both hold misconceptions about the other side, and move to a more productive place once these have been debunked.
The first full day concluded with a talk on Islam from the Bridges Foundation, an organization that organizes educational programs about the true tenants of Islam.
Report 3.
Cairo AID Conference, May 5
Saturday was a full day of debate, discussion, and really delving into the issues we’d been discussing in passing the previous day. We broke down into smaller groups (about 8), which turned out to be an excellent way to talk about the issues in a non-confrontational way. Each group offered policy recommendations that were later combined into a list of 35.
After the morning panel on “War of Words,” I gave a presentation on effective international communication. I had a whole presentation prepared that discussed methods of bringing what you’ve learned home to your communities and presenting it ina way that they will relate to. After Friday’s events, I realized that we didn’t even know how to really talk to one another and brining the messages home is the second step; the first is communication. I gave a presentation on the do’s and don’t of communication. Participants did an exercise that made them stand in the shoes of another; the American participant was the Egyptian Ambassador the US and the Egyptian the American Ambassador. With this role reversal, the ambassadors were charged in presenting their government’s position, strategic interests, and concerns for its foreign policy. Participants said that it was a very effective way of understanding the other’s positions and misconceptions of Egypt’s and the US’s interests and goals.
The afternoon was dedicated to voting on the policy recommendations put forth by small group discussions. We voted on 35 resolutions ranging from the need for increased cultural exchange programs between the US and the Arab world to the importance of respecting UN resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Participants were welcome to make two amendments to the recommendation, after which point, secret ballot voting occurred. The votes are now being tabulated, and I look forward to see what passed and what was voted down.
By the end of the two days, progress had been made. We both understood the others’ positions better, were aware of misperceptions that our counterparts possessed of us, and came together to create and vote on policy recommendations. Compared to the general harmony of the Amman Conference, Egypt was a bit of a wake-up call in terms of the general hostility towards the US government and Americans. What was interesting to both sides, I think, was that although we expected to share very little common ground, we happened to agree on many of the issues when we got down to it. I hope we will bring the lessons learned in Cairo back to our communities and share these messages.
Following recent developments in the US foreign policy orientation to Iran, the analyst is tempted to hypothesize that the Bush Administration faces a dilemma of intimidation and diplomacy regarding Iran. Official documents and media reports indicate the US resistance to have direct talks with Iran. BBC reports that "the US has had no formal ties with Iran since the 1979 Iranian revolution". The Bush Administration publicly echoes Washington’s tough positon on Iran whenever they have the opportunity to do so. US Vice-President Dick Cheney follows this logic of toughness and intimidation when he warns Iran over its programs of developing nuclear weapons and restricting sea traffics.
However, early May 2007, at a recent international conference about Iraq, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shortly met with Iran’s foreign Minister. Even though official reports stressed that such a meeting did not mean a direct talk with Iran, political analysis observes that US move as a strategic indicator of the US progressive inclination to direct dialogue with Iran. Evidences in international negotiations demonstrate and support that a simple meeting (whether it is short or long) is a powerful symbol that annonces conflicting parties’ willingness to enter negotiation phases, after they have reached a stalemate.
The US has interests in negotiating with Iran for peace in Iraq and in the Middle-East. A certain awareness of historical ties built by the Ottoman Empire does not allow the policymaker to isolate Iraq from Iran. Iraq was the political and cultural heart of the Ottoman Empire, while Iran was like the body of it. In the same way there is crisis when the heart is separated from the rest of the body, the crisis in Iraq will continue as long as Iran is not involved on the table for national problem-solving in Iraq. Obvisously, the Iraqi crisis fuels crisis and instability in the Middle-East. The EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is aware of such reality when he recently urged Washington to engage in direct talks with Tehran. It is extremely important that the Bush Administration gives full priority to diplomacy. Vice-President Dick Cheney’s ongoing visit in the Gulf intends to ask allies such as Saudi Arabia to help the Iraqi government. Such diplomatic offensives are positive and commendable. Nevertheless, they still desperately need to be extended to Iran and Syria in order to be efficient and successful. Only humble diplomacy can foster peace in Iraq and stability in the Middle-East.
Jacques KOKO, Senior Political Analyst -Americans for Informed Democracy
