60-Second Expert: Democracy in the Middle East

Foreign Policy In Focus/Institute for Policy Studies
June 22, 2009, Noor Iqbal and Stephen Zunes
In Cairo last week, President Barack Obama addressed the Muslim world, calling for a “new beginning” in the search for peace and prosperity in the Middle East. What he failed to address in this widely anticipated speech, however, were the repressive and corrupt regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. While eloquently promoting democracy, religious freedom, and women’s rights, Obama ignored the human rights abuses that have become routine under the 28-year dictatorship of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak. Similarly, on his visit to Saudi Arabia, the president refrained from publicly criticizing King Abdullah’s brutal theocracy.
    Surely, Obama could have taken a firmer stance against the Saudi and Egyptian governments. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are heavily tied to the United States both militarily and economically, giving Obama the necessary leverage to pressure their leaders into more tolerant, democratic practices. Yet Obama remains reluctant to criticize America’s Middle Eastern allies or label their rulers as “authoritarian.” In this respect, he continues in the footsteps of the Bush administration, which turned a blind eye to human rights in the interest of maintaining geopolitical alliances.
    Obama’s silence on this issue may prove to be more harmful than helpful. By alienating and inciting the anger of young, disenfranchised Arabs and Muslims — a group of people most likely to join the ranks of radical Islamists — America’s continued support for the dictatorial regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia places Americans at risk of another anti-American reaction. Perhaps it is not America’s role to enforce top-down transitions to democracy. But it should not actively hinder the growing grassroots movements towards democracy in the Middle East by propping up tyrannical regimes.

Why American Neo-Cons Wanted Ahmadinejad to Win

Huffington Post, July 18, 2009| Updated May 25, 2011
The only people happier than the Iranian elites over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s apparently stolen election win Friday, were the neoconservatives and other hawks eager to block any efforts by the Obama administration to moderate U.S. policy toward the Islamic republic. Since he was elected president in 2005, Ahmadinejad has filled a certain niche in the American psyche formerly filled by the likes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi as the Middle Eastern leader we most love to hate. It gives us a sense of righteous superiority to compare ourselves favorably to these seemingly irrational and fanatical foreign despots. Better yet, if these despots can be inflated into far greater threats than they actually are, these supposed threats can be used to justify the enormous financial and human costs of maintaining American armed forces in that volatile region… [source]

Iran’s Stolen Election Has Sparked an Uprising — What Should the U.S. Do?

Huffington Post, July 16, 2009, by Stephen Zunes [source]
As the fraudulent outcomes in the presidential races of 2000 in the United States and 2006 in Mexico demonstrate, elections can be stolen without the public rising up to successfully challenge the results. There have been cases, however, where such attempted thefts have been overturned through massive nonviolent resistance, as in the Philippines in 1985, Serbia in 2000, Georgia in 2003, and Ukraine in 2005. It is unclear as of this writing how the people of Iran will react to what increasingly appears to be the theft of their presidential election. So far, protests have been scattered, lacking in discipline and therefore easily suppressed. A general strike is planned, however, and a more cohesive and strategic resistance movement may emerge.

How Clinton and the Democrats Made Possible Israel’s Settlements Expansion

Huffington Post July 16, 2009 by Stephen Zunes [source]
President Barack Obama has inherited a difficult challenge in pushing Israel to end the expansion of its illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. With the right-wing Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu categorically rejecting the idea of a freeze and with Democratic-controlled Congress ruling out using the billions of dollars of U.S. military aid to Israel as leverage, the situation remains deadlocked.

Will Democrats Finally End their Support for West Bank Settlements? (Part Two)

Huffington Post, July 10, 2009
(This is the second of a two part series: click here for part one)
Recent calls by President Barack Obama for the government of Israel to freeze the expansion of Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank marks a sharp reversal from Democratic Party policy toward the Israeli colonization of Palestinian land. Indeed, for the past 20 years, Democrats in Washington have largely supported such Israeli expansionism in which Israeli occupation forces confiscate Palestinian land in territories seized in the June 1967 war to build Jewish-only communities… [source]

How Not to Support Democracy in the Middle East

Foreign Policy In Focus/Institute for Policy Studies, June 8, 2009
President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo to the Muslim world marked a welcome departure from the Bush administration’s confrontational approach. Yet many Arabs and Muslims have expressed frustration that he failed to use this opportunity to call on the autocratic Saudi and Egyptian leaders with whom he had visited on his Middle Eastern trip to end their repression and open up their corrupt and tightly controlled political systems. [source]

As Obama Tries to Shift the Debate, Will Democrats Continue to Endorse Israel’s Colonization of the West Bank

Alternet June 6, 2009 by Stephen Zunes [source]
President Barack Obama has inherited a difficult challenge in pushing Israel to end the expansion of its illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. With the right-wing Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu categorically rejecting the idea of a freeze and with Democratic-controlled Congress ruling out using the billions of dollars of U.S. military aid to Israel as leverage, the situation remains deadlocked.

Telling the Lebanese How to Vote

Huffington Post, July 7, 2009, |Updated May 25, 2011:
In recent visits to Lebanon, both Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made clear that the United States would react negatively if the March 8th Alliance — a broad coalition of Islamist, Maronite, leftist, nationalist, and pan-Arabist parties — won the upcoming parliamentary elections. These not-so-subtle threats have led to charges of U.S. interference in Lebanon’s domestic affairs. What prompts U.S. concerns is that the largest member of this coalition is Hezbollah, the populist Shiite party which the United States considers to be a terrorist organization. [source]

 

Defending Israeli War Crimes

Foreign Policy In Focus/Institute for Policy Studies
May 28, 2009, by Emily Schwartz Greco and Stephen Zunes
In response to a series of reports by human rights organizations and international legal scholars documenting serious large-scale violations of international humanitarian law by Israeli armed forces in its recent war on the Gaza Strip, 10 U.S. state attorneys general sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defending the Israeli action. It is virtually unprecedented for state attorneys general — whose mandates focus on enforcement of state law — to weigh in on questions regarding the laws of war, particularly in a conflict on the far side of the world. More significantly, their statement runs directly counter to a broad consensus of international legal opinion that recognizes that Israel, as well as Hamas, engaged in war crimes. [source]

Interview: The Afghanistan Mess (audio)

CourageToResist.org May 10, 2009: “Middle East scholar Dr. Stephen Zunes talks about how U.S. imperial hubris helped create, and continues to deepen and intensify the deadly chaos in Afghanistan. “The war not only was raised some moral and legal questions, but it has not resolved the situation, it has made matters worse. The problem is that there has been a gross oversight on the military side of the equation. The really important issues have been overlooked…”

Pelosi the Hawk

Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS April 27, 2009, by John Feffer & Stephen Zunes
Reports by international human rights groups and from within Israel in recent weeks have revealed the massive scale of war-crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law, committed by Israeli forces during their three-week offensive against the Gaza Strip earlier this year. Despite this, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has steadfastly stood by her insistence that the U.S.-backed Israeli government has no legal or moral responsibility for the tragic consequence of the war.

This is just one episode in a long history of efforts by Pelosi to undermine international humanitarian law, regarding actions by a country she has repeatedly referred to as America’s most important ally in the Middle East. It’s also part of her overall right-wing agenda in the Middle East. As the powerful Speaker of the House, Pelosi could very well undermine efforts by President Barack Obama in the coming years to moderate U.S. policy toward that volatile region. [source]

The Stealing of the Iranian Election

[Huffington Post, July 15, 2009] It is certainly not unprecedented for Western observers to miscalculate the outcome of an election in a country where pre-election polls are not as rigorous as Western countries, particularly when there is a clear bias towards a particular candidate. At the same time, the predictions of knowledgeable Iranian observers from various countries and from across the political spectrum were nearly unanimous in the belief that the leading challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would defeat incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decisively in yesterday’s presidential election, certainly in the runoff if not in the first round. This also appeared to be the assumption among independent observers in Iran itself…

The Budget’s Foreign Policy Handcuffs

Foreign Policy In Focus, March 20, 2009 [source].
by Emily Schwartz Greco, Stephen Zunes
Hopes that a Democratic administration with an expanded Democratic congressional majority might lead to a more ethical, rational, and progressive foreign policy were challenged with last week’s passage of the 2009 omnibus budget bill, which included many troubling provisions regarding the State Department and related diplomatic functions…

The U.S. and Afghan Tragedy

Foreign Policy In Focus, February 18, 2009 [source]
By Khushal Arsala, Emily Schwartz Greco, Stephen Zunes
One of the first difficult foreign policy decisions of the Obama administration will be what the United States should do about Afghanistan. Escalating the war, as National Security Advisor Jim Jones has been encouraging, will likely make matters worse. At the same time, simply abandoning the country — as the United States did after the overthrow of Afghanistan’s Communist government soon after the Soviet withdrawal 20 years ago — would lead to another set of serious problems…

Neocons 1, Obama 0

Foreign Policy In Focus, March 16, 2009 [source]
By John Feffer, Stephen Zunes.
The Obama administration’s choice to head the National Intelligence Council (NIC) recently withdrew in face of a concerted right-wing attack. Veteran diplomat Chas Freeman would not have had to face Senate confirmation. Instead, he had to face attacks in the right-wing press and blogosphere. His withdrawal was a victory for Bush-era neoconservatives and their allies regarding intelligence and broader Middle East Policy…

Presentation: Nonviolent Action in the Islamic World

Nonviolent-Conflict.org, March 11, 2010:
Dr. Stephen Zunes,
Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, discusses the long history of strategic nonviolent action throughout the Islamic world, in the Middle East and beyond. Based in part on the social contract implied in Islamic teachings which advocate the withdrawal of obedience from unjust authority, nonviolent civil insurrections have played a major role in the struggle for freedom and human rights for more than a century. Dr. Zunes, looks at case studies from Iran, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Mali, Western Sahara, Indonesia, Pakistan, and others…

Obama and Israel’s Military: Still Arm-in-Arm

Foreign Policy In Focus/IPS  March 4, 2009
by John Feffer, Stephen Zunes | [source<] In the wake of Israel's massive assault on heavily populated civilian areas of the Gaza Strip earlier this year, Amnesty International called for the United States to suspend military aid to Israel on human rights grounds. Amnesty has also called for the United Nations to impose a mandatory arms embargo on both Hamas and the Israeli government. Unfortunately, it appears that President Barack Obama won't be heeding Amnesty's call.

Congressional Support for Israel’s War on Gaza Shows Bipartisan Hostility toward International Law

Huffington Post, March 19, 2009 | Updated May 25, 2011
By Stephen Zunes [source]
Last month’s decision by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, backed by an overwhelming majority of her Democratic colleagues, to go on record in support of Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip does not give much hope that the expanded Democratic majority will be much more sensitive to human rights than we have seen after years of Republican rule. In a direct challenge to the credibility of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Red Cross and other reputable humanitarian organizations, an overwhelming bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress went on record in a January 9 vote that the Israeli armed forces bear no responsibility.