Dear Friends,

Amid the debates over institutions and elections, good governance and rule of law in the Middle East, there is a tendency to overlook a more fundamental challenge: the continued exclusion of half of society from public affairs.

Across the region, women are excluded from key decisionmaking roles by a combination of discriminatory laws, conservative social mores, and simple inertia.  Male domination of schools, the mosque, the media, and politics ensure that the exclusion of women is encouraged and perpetuated at every level of society.

This month, POMED had the distinct honor of hosting three extraordinary women leaders from the Middle East - Rama Chakaki, Rahma Hugaira, and Lama Hourani - for discussions about the struggle for female inclusion. All three presented frank testimony of the narrow rights enjoyed by women in their countries, yet at the same time, their own lives bear witness that old ways are beginning to change. Whether in the realm of entrepreneurship, journalism, or political activism, these three women have engaged in fields normally reserved for men, confronted the numerous obstacles in their path with determined optimism, and achieved remarkable success.

And they are not alone. Rama, Rahma, and Lama are part of an emerging and growing community of Middle Eastern women who challenge social conventions by entering the public sphere at the grassroots as well as the national level.  But at the same time, there is a danger that the movement for greater women’s rights will remain confined to such women activists - all three of our guests stressed the need to include men of the region in the struggle for women’s equality.

The hope for female inclusion is the same as the hope for politics generally: that by ensuring their voices are heard when public policy is being debated and determined, we can help to ensure that those policies serve their needs equally.

Too often the issue of gender is seen as peripheral to discussions of needed democratic reforms: a side issue.  Instead, we should view the exclusion of women as the most central and pervasive impediment to the expansion of political freedoms for 50% of all Middle Easterners. We at POMED hope that continued dialogue with women activists and leaders from the region will help raise the profile of the challenges they face and help U.S. policymakers and others to provide support in meeting those challenges.

All the best,

Andrew

Andrew Albertson
Executive Director
Project on Middle East Democracy
andrew.albertson@pomed.org
202-422-6804

POMED Updates

POMED and the Heinrich Böll Foundation Host Women’s Delegation from the Middle East

Last week, POMED and the Heinrich Böll Foundation were honored and excited to host a delegation of three women activists from the Middle East: Rama Chakaki, Founder and CEO of the Dubai-based The Baraka Group; Lama Hourani, Advisor to the PLO Secretariat General; and Rahma Hugaira, Co-Founder and Chairwoman of the Yemeni-based Media Women Forum.

The week consisted of a series of discussions and meetings with various non-profit and advocacy organizations. At a dinner round-table discussion on Monday entitled “U.S. Policy and Middle East Reform: Rethinking U.S. Efforts,” Chakaki, Hourani and Hugaira engaged graduate students of international relations in a dialogue on possible U.S. strategies to encourage democratic reform in the region.

On Tuesday, the visitors spoke at a panel discussion entitled “What Women Want: Voices from the Middle East,” along with Laura Schulz, Civil Society and Rule of Law Manager in the Office of the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) at the State Department. Click here to read POMED’s notes from the discussion.

The week culminated with a luncheon round-table discussion entitled “Engaging in Political Mobilization: The American and Middle Eastern Experience,” where stories were shared and experiences were exchanged with American political and social activists surrounding grassroots activism in public affairs.

POMED Concludes Middle East Conference Series; Representatives Will Visit DC  

POMED and Americans for Informed Democracy (AID) wrapped up its series of three Middle East “Global Young Leaders Forums” with a successful conference in Amman, Jordan on May 29-31.  The conference featured several distinguished guests, including George Washington University Professor (and blogger) Marc Lynch, Zainab al-Suwaij of the American Islamic Congress, and Kathryn Stevens of USAID.  The participants developed and ratified 19 policy recommendations during the conference.  In all three conferences, a total of 140 young Americans and Middle Easterners approved 55 policy recommendations.  To act as voices for those recommendations, six representatives elected by their peers will travel to Washington, DC July 26-30 to meet with legislators, policymakers, and other young professionals.  In addition, POMED and AID are conducting follow-up activities with all of the conference participants in each of the three countries.   Overviews of each of the three conferences, as well as the approved recommendations, can be found at:  http://pomed.org/activities/conferences/

Jerry Hyman Discusses Foreign Aid with Hill Staffers

On June 16, POMED was pleased to host Jerry Hyman, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and former director of the Office of Democracy and Governance at USAID, to speak with Congressional staffers on “Using Foreign Assistance to Support Middle East Democracy.”  This was the fourth in a monthly series of briefings entitled “Rethinking Democracy Promotion.”

Hyman drew on his many years of experience at USAID to address the variety of methods for supporting democracy and governance through foreign assistance, and the challenge of directing assistance where it is likely to have the most impact.  He also addressed the reform of foreign aid under the Bush administration and the outlook for foreign assistance under the next President.

For more information about this ongoing series, contact Stephen McInerney at stephen.mcinerney@pomed.org.

Doha Agreement Brings Temporary Calm to Lebanon but Avoids Tough Political Choices

By David Mikhail
POMED Policy Associate

“Obviously in any compromise there are compromises. This was an agreement that I think served the interests of the Lebanese people. And since it served the interests of the Lebanese people, it served the interests of the United States. We support the democratically elected government of Lebanon.”

The Doha Agreement, the subject of this resigned endorsement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in ending the presidential vacuum that had persisted in Lebanon for six months, yielded several checkmarks in the democracy column: the presidential appointment of General Michel Sleiman; increased hopes for the formation of a unity cabinet; and the return to smaller electoral districts, long called for as more equitable than the system in place since 2000.

But as the post-Doha political realities begin to emerge, it is clear that the agreement could ultimately represent yet another win for short-term, ephemeral stability rather than a catalyst for the longer-term reforms truly needed for democracy in Lebanon.

Lebanon after Doha

As of yet, Doha has not brought an end to Lebanon’s political deadlock, but merely transferred it from the parliament to the executive. The usual partisan bickering has emerged as Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, a member of the Future Movement, the largest party in the March 14 Coalition majority, has been unable to produce a unity government due to disagreements over the disbursal of cabinet portfolios. And even if agreement is reached on a unity government, the possibility of prolonged deadlock is dangerously high, as the opposition’s veto power will further decrease the already limited room for political maneuvering for Hariri and Siniora.

Meanwhile, northern Lebanon has continued to see fighting between militant Sunni jihadists and local Alawites, a Shiite sect. Though the fighting has clear sectarian roots, the Doha agreement likely served as a catalyst, as the perceived one-sided gains achieved by Hezbollah at the expense of the Sunni-based Future Movement have escalated pre-existing tensions into violence.

Along with the Sunni-Alawite fighting comes the question of whether the Future Movement, and in particular its leader, Saad Hariri, can continue to retain its base of support, including Sunni fundamentalists. In 2005, the party relied heavily on such groups to secure a parliamentary majority for the March 14 Coalition. However, the widespread perception that Hezbollah and Syria were the only winners in Doha, particularly given Hezbollah’s retention of their weapons in spite of the agreement’s call for a commitment against the use of force, has sapped the Future Movement of the political capital necessary for consensus building.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah continues to maximize its gains from Doha while its efforts to control Lebanon’s security apparatus have contributed to the deadlock over the cabinet. The specter of Hezbollah bringing the fight to Beirut streets - it was their successful military incursions and brief occupation of Sunni West Beirut that sparked the Doha talks - clearly continues to hang over the negotiations, resonating in Amal leader Nabih Berri’s recent remark that “If the matter of the government is not resolved by the end of the day (Friday, June 27), we will enter a negative phase.”

Electoral Reform

The second-most notable outcome of the Doha agreement was the creation of 26 electoral districts, representing a symbolic step towards reversing the 2000 electoral law that established the previous 14-district framework, widely seen as rooted in maintaining Syrian control.

However, while Doha does make reference to the draft legislation created by the Boutros Commission - formed in 2005 to address electoral reform and headed by former foreign minister, Fouad Boutros - the commission’s signature recommendation of moving toward proportional representation is ignored. Under the proposed Boutros legislation, 51 of the 128 parliamentary seats would be determined on the basis of proportional representation. With this provision now in the proverbial drawer, and given that years of gerrymandering have already consolidated sectarian followings, the expectation that these smaller electoral districts alone will significantly alter the status quo has diminished.

The Challenge Ahead: Reversing History

The legacy of Doha is not yet known, and in this regard it is much like the numerous peace plans and ceasefires we have seen with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the value of the agreement will be determined by whether political leaders utilize the breathing space they have acquired. If a real national dialogue to address Lebanon’s political ills occurs between now and the 2009 elections, then Doha will have been worthy of the support it has received from the United States and the United Nations. But if the Doha agreement has demonstrated anything so far, it is that Lebanon persists as an environment where hard choices are endemically avoided; whether it is March 14 accepting greater political representation for Shiites or Hezbollah relinquishing its weapons.

The U.S. has until now also avoided a tough decision. The Bush Administration has unsuccessfully marketed its security-based approach towards Lebanon as a democratic cause; throwing all of their support behind March 14, implicitly endorsing a framework that has systematically underrepresented the Shi’a, the largest group in Lebanon. The question is whether the U.S. role as security actor can evolve into that of an honest broker, calibrating their support for March 14 with an openness towards facilitating talks with all parties.

The Doha Agreement has been hailed as fitting the traditional Lebanese mantra of “No Victor, No Vanquished.” But if the post-Doha period is only used to continue Lebanon’s tradition of skirting the tough choices that democracy invariably requires, only the first half of this slogan will remain accurate.        

Legislative Roundup

The month of June was marked by a new version of the Fiscal Year 2008 war supplemental appropriations bill passed by the House.  The Senate had hoped to follow suit before adjourning for the current 4th of July recess but was unable to do so.  This will be a priority when Congress returns to session next week.  Also, both the House and the Senate were finally able to pass a joint budget resolution and begin markups of appropriations bills.  Throughout the month, a number of additional bills were introduced that addressed issues of human rights, Iraqi refugees, and other Middle East issues, but none were brought to a vote.

Appropriations

On Thursday (6/19), the House of Representatives passed H.R.2642, the Supplemental Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2008.  The bill approved $161.8 billion in war funding by a vote of 268 to 155.  Provisions included a prohibition on the use of military construction funds to establish permanent bases in Iraq and a requirement that State Department and USAID reconstruction aid be matched dollar-for-dollar by the Iraq government.  The bill contains not only the requested supplemental funding for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2008, but also “bridge funds” for Fiscal Year 2009, to be made available October 1, 2008, in anticipation of the   In addition to the war funding, the bill also contains $8.8 billion in foreign assistance ($5.2 billion in FY08 and $3.7 billion in FY09) for countries including Iraq, Jordan, and the West Bank.  The Senate had hoped to pass the latest version of this bill and send it to the President before adjourning for the current 4^th of July recess, but was unable to do so. 

Also this month, committee and subcommittee markups for Fiscal Year 2009 appropriations got underway, with subcommittee hearings within the House Appropriations Committee for 9 of the 12 annual appropriations bills.  The bills for Defense and for State and Foreign Operations remain to be marked up in July, with the State and Foreign Operations bill scheduled to be marked up by the House subcommittee on July 16^th and by the full appropriations committee on July 23^rd.  For a detailed look at the relevant portions of the President’s FY 2009 budget request, which will form the basis of the appropriations process, for democracy, human rights and governance in the Middle East, see this POMED Report released last month. 

Human Rights

A few bills were introduced toward the end of this month addressing concerns of human rights in the region. On June 23, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)introduced Senate resolution S.3177, calling on the President to appoint a White House Coordinator for Iraqi Refugees.  The Coordinator would be responsible for crafting and coordinating a policy to deal with the resettlement and humanitarian needs of Iraqi refugees.  The following day, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)introduced House resolution H.RES.1303, calling on the Egyptian government to respect human rights and freedoms of religion and expression.  The resolution criticizes Egypt’s treatment of religious minorities, journalists, and detainees.  On June 26, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)introduced House resolution H.RES.1310 expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Iran’s lack of protection for internationally recognized human rights creates poor conditions for religious freedom in Iran.

Saudi Arabia

On June 12, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) introduced resolution S.Con.Res.90, honoring members of the U.S. Air Force killed in the 1996 terrorist bombing of the Khobar Towers United States military housing compound in Saudi Arabia.  On June 18, Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) introduced House resolution H.R. 6298 to restrict nuclear cooperation with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  On June 25, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)introduced Senate resolution S.3193, a Senate version of Rep. Markey’s bill restricting nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia.

Other Relevant Legislation

On June 11, Rep. Tom Allen (D-ME) introduced resolution H.Con.Res.337 honoring Seeds of Peace for its 15^th anniversary as an organization promoting understanding, reconciliation, and peace in  the Middle East, South Asia, and other regions of conflict.  On June 19, Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) introduced resolution H.Con.Res.374 supporting the spirit of peace and desire for unity displayed in the letter from 138 leading Muslim scholars, and in the response of Pope Benedict XVI.  Last week, Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) introduced House resolution H.Res.1308, condemning the broadcasting of incitement to violence against Americans and the United States in media based in the Middle East.