Reactions to the QDDR
December 16th, 2010 by Jason
The release of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) has so far been received with cautious optimism. Josh Rogin writes that several development NGOs have “praised” the QDDR, while also expressing skepticism: “Paul O’Brien, vice president of policy and advocacy campaigns for Oxfam America, noted that while the QDDR clearly puts ambassadors and chiefs of missions at the head of country teams as the so-call ‘CEOs’ of American diplomacy, it doesn’t tackle how the inevitable conflicts between short-term foreign policy objectives and longer-term development goals are resolved.”
Connie Veillette, writing at the Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance blog, says that there are “many things to like,” including a “focus on improving hiring, staffing, and filling the mid-level gap through more flexible mechanisms.” However, she does list several points of “unfinished business,” including “how will State and USAID grapple with managing more than two dozen government agencies engaged in some type of foreign assistance program?” Siddartha Mahanta sounds a pessimistic note: “the United States diplomatic corps might get a major boost in power and personnel. Realistically? They probably won’t.” He goes on to describe the political roadblocks facing the reforms, and how Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), who has advocated for cuts in the State Department budget and is set to become the chairperson of the House Foreign Services Committee, may prove to be uncooperative.
Posted in Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Foreign Aid, NGOs, US foreign policy, US politics | Comment »
Senate Releases FY2011 Budget Text
December 14th, 2010 by Jason
The Senate Appropriations Committee has released the text of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Omnibus Appropriations Act late Tuesday. Under the $1.1 trillion spending bill, $53.5 billion would be spent on State, foreign operations, and related programs, $3.1 billion less than requested. Should the language of the bill remain unchanged, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) would receive $128.5 million, $23.5 million more than requested and $10.5 million more than FY 2010 levels, while bilateral economic assistance would be funded at $22.97 billion, $1.6 billion below the requested amount and $1.12 billion above the FY 2010 level . Egypt, Israel, the West Bank/Gaza, and Jordan would be funded at the level requested, while Lebanon would be funded at the level requested, “subject to conditions.” The House and the Senate have until Saturday to either agree on an omnibus bill or pass a continuing resolution.
Posted in Congress, Foreign Aid, Legislation, US foreign policy, US politics | Comment »
“Quiet Diplomacy Has Not Succeeded”
December 9th, 2010 by Jason
Writing at the Arab Reform Bulletin, POMED’s former executive director Andrew Albertson examines the Obama administration’s efforts towards promoting democracy in the Middle East. Albertson praises the administration for it’s “mulitlateral” approach and for “work[ing] with Congress to make the necessary investments in democracy assistance,” by increasing support for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), and the Millennium Challenge Corporation. However, the administration has also fallen short in several areas. The pursuit of human rights and reform through “disconnected bureaucratic pathways” has led to a “struggle to integrate serious, long-term thinking about development into interagency policy planning.” Also, the president’s rhetoric has “at times seemed disconnected from the bureaucratic machinery necessary to back up words with action.” Ultimately, the Obama administration needs to “demonstrate stronger linkages between its rhetoric on human rights and political reform on the one hand, and policy consequences on the other.”
Posted in Civil Society, Diplomacy, Foreign Aid, Human Rights, Multilateralism, Reform, US foreign policy, US politics | Comment »
Republican Gains Will Likely Mean Cuts in Foreign Aid
November 3rd, 2010 by Anna
At Foreign Policy, Marc Lynch asserts that “there are real reasons to worry about the effects of a GOP-controlled Congress for Middle East policy.” He expresses concern that a Republican Congress might mean more hawkish policy on Iran, deference to Israeli settlement policies, and cuts in funding for the U.S. civilian mission in Iraq, “forcing the administration to scramble to deliver on its promise of a long-term civilian and political commitment.” At the Council on Foreign Relations, Senior Vice President James Lindsay similarly predicts that foreign aid will suffer under a Republican Congress, and at the Huffington Post, Marc Ginsberg writes: “the Obama Administration’s foreign aid program faces a very bleak future.” In Foreign Policy’s The Cable, Josh Rogin writes that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be more conservative following Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold’s loss. In another piece, Rogin adds that the next head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida, “is likely to seek cuts in the foreign-aid budget in her authorization bill.”
Posted in Elections, Foreign Aid, US foreign policy, US politics | Comment »
Egypt: Senate Resolution Success in Question
October 15th, 2010 by Jason
Ashraf Khalil writes in Al-Masry Al-Youm that the Egyptian efforts to scuttle S.Res. 586 appear to have worked, at least temporarily. “Washington observers say the measures carry an impressive roster of supporters from both major US parties, and were being fast-tracked to approval late last month […] In the end, the Senate failed to bring the resolution up for a vote before going into recess last month.” This inaction has frustrated the bill’s proponents. POMED’s executive director Andrew Albertson: “‘I think what you’re seeing here in Washington is growing, bipartisan frustration with the Obama Administration’s approach to this particular country […] The renewal of Emergency Law in particular was seen as a real slap in the face. The Senate’s resolution is just a reflection of that broader, growing frustration.’” The Washington Post published an article in September detailing Egyptian efforts to derail the bill.
Posted in Egypt, Elections, Foreign Aid, Freedom, US foreign policy, US politics | Comment »
Democracy Promotion: A U.S. Policy Tradition?
August 19th, 2010 by Jennifer
Michael Allen writing at Democracy Digest defends the importance of American democracy promotion abroad. Allen notes that democracy promotion as a key U.S. policy initiative does not currently enjoy popular support among policymakers, pointing to a July 2009 poll that found that 51% of Republicans, 63% of Democrats, and 62% of Independents do not believe that democracy promotion is America’s responsibility. Against allegations by some that former President George W. Bush’s Freedom Agenda represented a radical departure from traditional American realist policy, Allen quotes Colin Dueck, author of the forthcoming novel Hard Line: The Republican Party and U.S. Foreign Policy Since World War II, who states, “A common assumption or animating vision throughout the history of American diplomacy has been that the spread of democracy and trade overseas will create a more peaceful, transformed international system, friendlier to U.S. interests and to the democratic way of life.” However, Allen notes that Dueck also cautions that “democracy promotion overseas cannot be divorced from a truly well-informed sense of local political and cultural conditions.”
Posted in Democracy Promotion, US foreign policy, US politics | Comment »
Iraq: Changing of the Guard
August 16th, 2010 by Jennifer
Last Thursday, American Ambassador to Iraq Christopher R. Hill ended his 16-month tenure there, after having postponed his departure from his post in order to address the ongoing Iraqi political deadlock, and following the Senate’s confirmation of James F. Jeffrey, former Ambassador to Turkey, to fill his position. Immediately prior to leaving the country, Ambassador Hill announced that the main winners from the March elections are now only weeks away from a power-sharing deal. In an interview, Hill said that though Iraqi government formation remained “a very difficult proposition,” he felt that “the process is going forward, and as I get ready to leave here I see, really, frankly, the prospects that we’re going to see a new government as early as a few weeks from now.” Nevertheless, Anthony Shadid writing in The New York Times notes that “some Iraqi officials remained pessimistic about a deal” between Iyad Allawi and Nuri al-Maliki, since the potential arrangement would push influential players such as cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq to the sidelines. Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi, a candidate for prime minister and a leader of the Supreme Council, reportedly commented, “We are not happy about [the deal],” adding that it may ultimately “solve something and create a bigger mess.” Hill’s term as ambassador sparked criticism and controversy over the Ambassador’s personal lack of experience in the Arab world. According to Shadid, “The disagreements over Mr. Hill’s tenure speak to a far wider debate over the withdrawal from Iraq and the engagement of the administration in the future of a country that is no longer occupied, but not really sovereign, either.”
Posted in Democracy Promotion, Iraq, Political Parties, US foreign policy, US politics | Comment »
Steny H. Hoyer: Democracy Should Be A Pillar of U.S. Foreign Policy
June 28th, 2010 by Jennifer
Speaking on national security policy at Center for the Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) highlighted democracy promotion as one of four “crucial tools” to safeguard national security and combat threats such as international terrorism. Calling democracy, human rights, and economic freedom “the most powerful weapons in an ideological struggle,” Rep. Hoyer pointed to the fall of the Berlin Wall as evidence that “experience shows that the values of free societies can break down the strongest walls of oppression. And American foreign policy has, at its best and most creative, taken advantage of that fact to keep our nation more secure.”
Hoyer went on to detail lessons learned on democracy promotion from the Bush era, arguing that “democracy cannot be imposed by force; that elections alone do not equal democracy; that democratization and economic growth do not always go hand-in-hand; and that failing to lead by example weakens democracy around the world.” In that light, he called for a renewed U.S. commitment to recognizing and supporting democratic movements publicly, mentioning Iran and Egypt specifically in that regard. Hoyer emphasized his belief in a dovetailing of U.S. interests and values on this issue, proposing that working to enable greater democracy and freedom worldwide would bring American foreign policy into line with national ideals, while ultimately making the country safer as well. “All of our presidents have understood the value of pragmatism,” he stated, “but they have also understood that it must be balanced with America’s historic role as the advocate of democratic values and democratic movements around the world.
Hoyer also criticized policies that violate the rule of law and human rights on the home front, including use of torture, rendition, and extrajudicial detention.
Posted in Congress, Democracy Promotion, US foreign policy, US politics | Comment »
Iran: Green Movement Still Moving?
June 14th, 2010 by Farid
Despite the opposition’s cancellation of Saturday’s protests marking the one-year anniversary of the disputed presidential elections, there were nonetheless small, scattered protests, during which 91 people were arrested in the streets of Tehran. In an e-mail interview between reformist leader Mehdi Karoubi and CNN, Karoubi proclaimed, “the Green Movement today is stronger and more mature than last year.” Karoubi added that the future of Iran is in the hands of the people and the success of the Green Movement is secured by the diverse participation of its population.
In today’s interview with Mehdi Karroubi by LeMonde, he stated, “I am determined to bear everything to continue the fight…what is happening in Iran is a real betrayal of the people and the ideals of the revolution.” This was said after the attack on him by a group of thugs in Qom. In contrast to this optimism, Con Coughlin argues in the Telegraph that “the Green Movement, of course, is nothing like the force it was last year, when it succeeded in mobilising hundreds of thousands of anti-government protesters, who brought large swathes of the country to a standstill.”
However, according to an interesting piece by Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the obstacles facing the Green Movement are not simply the lack of mobilization into the street. Sadjadpour lists five key challenges that the Green Movement must overcome:
1. Go beyond street protests- also to emphasize the percentage of people willing to sacrifice for their cause rather than the mere number of protesters.
2. Organize abroad
3. Reach out to “Ali the plumber”- meaning that the the Green Movement must reach out to the working-class Iranians who are currently in favor of Ahmadinejad
4. Steer clear of Khomeini’s legacy- as Sadjadpour argues “No matter how you slice it, Khomeini can never be a credible or inspiring symbol for a movement that purports to champion democracy and human rights.”
5. Pick up the pace
In today’s piece by Juan Cole, the Green Movement is neither dead or unimportant. “It can survive and be influential if it finds new tactics or repertoires of sustainable collective action that cannot so easily be forestalled by the security forces, and if it identifies some simple, practical change it wants legislated other than the holding of new elections.”Nevertheless, Cole points out several concerns to the Obama administration in its policies to Iran: The U.S. will probably need to engage with a fairly stable regime in Iran and direct negotiations do not constitute betrayal of the Green Movement, do not expect any radical change in the nuclear issue if the Green Movement comes to power, and any strike on Iran by the U.S. or Israel will destroy any hope for political change reforms in Iran.
Posted in Elections, Events, Iran, Reform, US politics | Comment »
Obama’s West Point Speech: A Preview of the National Security Strategy?
May 24th, 2010 by Chanan
Several days after President Obama’s commencement address at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, pundits from across the political spectrum painted the speech as a preview for the U.S. National Security Strategy, which will be unveiled later this week. According to a piece of analysis by the New York Times‘ Peter Baker, such a strategy will include four main overarching principles: “to build strength abroad by building strength at home through education, clean energy and innovation; to promote “the renewed engagement of our diplomats” and support international development; to rebuild alliances; and to promote human rights and democracy abroad.”
Baker also characterized the speech as a public break with the Bush administration’s “emphasis on unilateral American power and the right to wage pre-emptive war.” Foreign Policy’s Will Inboden, however, thinks that Baker “overshoots” in his analysis. This speech, according to Inboden, actually reflected a structural continuation of the previous administration’s foreign policy. For example, “After spending much of his first year in office downplaying if not ignoring democracy and human rights promotion, he is now making democracy and human rights promotion one of the four pillars of his national security strategy.” In short, based on a variety of different factors “the President Obama of today acts and sounds considerably different than the one elected in November 2008.”
Nonetheless, the National Review’s Arthur Herman takes issue with Obama’s speech for two reasons: one, Obama appears to be sacrificing American military power for American diplomacy and multilateral institutions. Second, unlike other former presidents that advocated visions of a new world order following foreign policy successes (such as WWI and WWII), this president is “pushing his new multilateral “international order” hot on the heels of two important failures — in Iran and North Korea.” The Atlantic’s James Fallows sees the historical comparisons quite differently. He sees strong similarities with President Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address in 1960, where he advocated the importance of disarmament and diplomacy. In this respect, Fallows believed that Obama’s address “is a return to the best and most sustainable tradition of post-World War II American foreign policy.” He also, for the record, equates Obama’s governing ideology with “the intellectual father Obama doesn’t talk about” — Jimmy Carter.
Posted in Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Multilateralism, US foreign policy, US politics, Uncategorized | Comment »
Iran: Are Sanctions and Engagement Compatible?
May 21st, 2010 by Josh
Echoing the frustrations of others earlier this week, Roger Cohen uses his most recent New York Times op-ed to question the wisdom of the Obama administration’s “bristling” response to the trilateral nuclear fuel swap deal. Cohen believes that the president should have exclaimed, “Pressure works! Iran blinked on the eve of new U.N. sanctions. It’s come back to our offer. We need to be prudent, given past Iranian duplicity, but this is progress. Isolation serves Iranian hard-liners.” Instead, the administration not only distanced itself from the deal, but also insisted “on a prior suspension of enrichment that was not in the October deal.”
Over at World Politics Review, Nikolas K. Gvosdev asks “Where does this process go from here?” One possibility, he says, is that “the Obama administration could run up against a growing domestic U.S. consensus that both a U.N. resolution and congressional legislation are needed — that having one without the other is insufficient.” Gvosdev predicts that such a scenario may complicate diplomatic overtures in the future. But Time’s Tony Karon isn’t so sure, writing that a “two-track” complementary approach of punitive pressures and diplomatic engagement “may be Washington’s answer to Iran’s strategy of negotiating while steadily adding to its stockpile of nuclear material.”
Posted in Congress, Diplomacy, Iran, Legislation, US foreign policy, US politics, sanctions | Comment »
Sen. Conrad Receives Ire of Foreign Policy Community
April 30th, 2010 by Chanan
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has not been in good stead with the foreign policy community since announcing last week his decision to slash some $4 billion from the Obama administration’s $58.5 billion budget request for State and USAID for fiscal 2011.
The U.S. Global Leadership Coalition (USGLC) recently expressed their “deep disappointment” in Sen. Conrad’s proposal and also organized a letter signed by all eight living former Secretaries of State encouraging Congress to express their support for the full international affairs budget. The same argument has been made over the last week by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), and even U2 front-man, Bono. ”Development gets even less if Senator Conrad gets his way,” Bono said in a speech at the Atlantic Council’s annual awards dinner on Wednesday night. “So you peaceniks in fatigues have a job to do over the next few weeks.”
Posted in Congress, Legislation, US foreign policy, US politics, Uncategorized | Comment »
Mounting Pressure to Fully Fund Administration’s Foreign Affairs Request
April 28th, 2010 by Josh
Via Laura Rozen, the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition has coordinated an effort [PDF] by all eight living U.S. Secretaries of State to urge members of Congress not to cut the international affairs budget. This joint letter is part of a larger USGLC campaign that has enlisted the support of Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, 31 senators, as well as various congressional coalitions and caucuses [all in PDF].
You can read more about the Middle East-related components of the Obama administration’s FY2011 budget request in POMED’s recently released report.
Posted in Congress, Legislation, US foreign policy, US politics | 1 Comment »
Arab Media: Increase in Human Rights Reporting vs. House Bill That Limits Media Coverage
February 17th, 2010 by Maria
Committee to Protect Journalists reports that human rights reporting in the Arab media has seen an increase despite efforts to curtail such coverage by repressive Arab regimes. The release provides a good overview of the development of human rights reporting in Arab countries, noting key contributions from Al Jazeera, online journalism, and blogging. Developments have been particularly crucial in this region “where dictatorships far outnumber democracies.” Mohamed Abdel Dayem, CPJ’s Middle East and North Africa program coordinator, and Robert Mahone, CPJ’s deputy director argue that, “In the past year or so, [Arab] governments have pushed back against independent reporters and bloggers, but journalists believe that in the long run technology will make it impossible for all but the most authoritarian regimes to stem the tide of information.”
They cite Egyptian bloggers like Mohamed Khaled and Wael Abbas for having opened up human rights reporting in Egypt when they began posting video clips of police brutality in 2006. “Once people saw the footage, they had to know more,” Khaled told CPJ. “The story became so big that much of the broadcast and print media eventually covered it.”
Deyam and Mahone point to challenges many bloggers face from governments that have been putting up a counterattack to halt open reporting on human rights issues. “Egypt Tunisia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, among others, have at times suspended the operations of satellite news channels, particularly Al Jazeera, for highlighting sensitive human rights, political, or religious issues.”
Interestingly enough, the House recently passed a bill designed to prevent Arab satellite networks from broadcasting any material deemed to incite violence against Americans. NPR’s On The Media recently interviewed Marc Lynch about the bill, who criticized what he believes are provisions that would essentially outlaw Arab journalism. “Arab governments really don’t like Al Jazeera. They don’t like media freedoms and they want to control the media. They score some political points by telling the United States to back off, but I don’t believe for a second that they would be sad to see Al Jazeera muzzled,” he argues. “The strange thing is that the United States would put itself on the side of the muzzlers.”
Lynch has blogged that the bill runs counter to the principles Secretary of State Hillary Clinton highlighted in her speech on Internet freedom last month.
Posted in Bahrain, Egypt, Freedom, Human Rights, Journalism, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, US politics, Yemen | Comment »
Iraq: Election Fever, Calls for Active U.S. Engagement
February 5th, 2010 by Josh
Over at The Cable, Josh Rogin reports that Hill Democrats sent a letter[PDF] to President Obama urging the administration to maintain active engagement in Iraq to avoid letting “recent gains slip away.” Congressman Bill Delahunt, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, told Rogin that the recent election ruling prompted concerns among Congressional Democrats, who want Obama to not lose focus in the midst of “one of the most critical moments in terms of the Iraq adventure.”
Stephen Biddle, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, echoes the concerns voiced in the letter, saying that continued diplomatic engagement was crucial for the success of Iraq’s political reconciliation once U.S. troops withdraw.
Meanwhile, the New York Times editorializes that although the Iraqi appeals court correctly overturned a “disgraceful decision,” the ruling was not as “legally pure as one might like.” The crisis isn’t over, the Times says, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki should encourage parliament to start the campaign. “Instead of trying to keep competitors off the ballot, Iraq’s leaders should be debating their country’s many serious problems and telling voters how they will fix them.”
Posted in Diplomacy, Elections, Iraq, Sectarianism, US foreign policy, US politics | Comment »
State Dept: New Website for Human Rights Review
December 18th, 2009 by Jason
The State Department has launched a new website for the Universal Period Review (UPR) conducted by the U.N. Human Rights Council. The UPR, established in 2006, reviews the human rights records of all U.N. member states every four years. It seeks to “prompt, support, and expand the promotion and protection of human rights […] addressing human rights violations wherever they occur.”
According to a press release, the State Department will use the website to invite civil society to participate in the process by submitting their “ideas, comments and analysis.” In addition, an inter-agency U.S. government team will travel throughout the U.S. to “engage directly with civil society including grassroots organizations, not-for-profits, and citizens groups.”
Posted in Human Rights, NGOs, US politics, United Nations | Comment »
Iran: Gasoline Sanctions Counterproductive?
December 17th, 2009 by Jason
Debate still continues over the House passage of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA). Jeff Bergner argues the U.S. must “compel” Iran to negotiate through some combination of a naval embargo, targeted military action, a free leash for Israel, or crippling sanctions.
However, Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution argues against IRPSA. Instead, if the U.S. imposes enhanced sanctions, it must delineate clear and limited objectives, continue negotiations while imposing sanctions, seek international consensus, focus on direct and immediate costs, and target those responsible for human rights abuses, not the Iranian people.
Matt Duss agrees with Maloney, calling IRPSA not only “ineffective” but “counterproductive” as well. It offers “Iran’s hardliners a powerful propaganda lifeline, and would likely facilitate greater regime consolidation right at the moment that the conservative consensus around Ahmadinejad is starting to crack up.” Therefore it’s no wonder why the Green movement is against IRPSA and the administration is attempting to “put the brakes” on the Senate version.
Meanwhile, Eric Anderson urges to apply some “pragmatism to engaging with Iran” and realize that there is little the U.S. can do to stop an Iranian nuclear weapon. But Roger Cohen contends there is a lot the Iranian people can do. Therefore, when he is asked “where the ’stick’ is in Iran, [his] response is the stick is Iranian society - the bubbling reformist pressure now rising up from Iran’s highly educated youth and brave women.” Therefore, Cohen argues “the time has come to do nothing in Iran.”
Much of the push for enhanced sanctions stems from Iran’s failure to negotiate in good faith. Ray Takeyh in the Boston Globe explains how Ayatollah Khamenei created a new committee to oversee foreign affairs, comprised by members of Khamenei’s staff, the intelligence community and the head of the Revolutionary Guards. Takeyh argues it was this committee formed in October that scuttled the nuclear deal, not external dissent from opposition leaders and the Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani.
Babylon and Beyond offers further detail on the new trend of Iranian men posing in pictures wearing the veil out of solidarity with Majid Tavakoli, a student leader arrested for his activism. niacINsight reports that the government’s head of university affairs approximates 70 percent of university students oppose Ahmadinejad and has called for a stronger response against students and professors who are purportedly “weakening the regime.”
AFP reports that Iran’s judiciary also warned opposition leaders that it has accumulated enough evidence to try them, comparing them to “the regime’s most despised enemy, the People’s Mujahedeen.” Iason Athanasiadis observes that while the abuses of Evin Prison are well known, Iranians truly fear the “string of hidden detention sites” throughout Tehran.
Finally, niacINsight expresses its disappointment with Time Magazine over its decision to not include the Iranian people on their shortlist for Person of the Year, even though balloting showed greater support for the Iranian people compared to the second and third choices combined.
Posted in Congress, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Legislation, Military, Multilateralism, Oil, Protests, US foreign policy, US politics, Women, sanctions | Comment »
Secretary Clinton: Human Rights Speech in Arabic
December 17th, 2009 by Jason
The State Department has released an Arabic version of Secretary Clinton’s important speech on human rights this week. To read about the speech in English, please refer to our previous post.
Posted in Democracy Promotion, Freedom, Human Rights, Publications, US foreign policy, US politics | Comment »
Iran: House Passes Gasoline Sanctions
December 16th, 2009 by Jason
As expected, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (H.R. 2194) passed overwhelmingly in the House, with 412 voting for, 12 against, and 4 present. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl) explained she hopes to “impose sanctions so painful that they should threaten the Iranian regime’s survival.” The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Howard Berman (D-Cali.), emphasized how “Iran has had ample time to respond positively to President Obama’s generous engagement offer. Regrettably, the response has been only one of contempt.”
But there was congressional opposition to the bill as well. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) lamented how “we’re telling the Iranian people, ‘we have feelings of friendship for you. We like you so much, but we’re going to cut off your home heating oil.” Additionally, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) expressed his “strongest opposition” to this bill that represents “another significant step” towards war. Paul argued argued that history shows “it is citizens rather than governments who suffer most” under sanctions, which have been proven to only “strengthen regimes they target and marginalize any opposition.”
Laura Rozen reports the administration is “quietly working” to make modifications to the Senate version. Two issues being discussed are whether the sanctions would alienate America’s partners and whether the sanctions will be mandatory or allow the President to exercise discretion in their implementation. Under the House version, the president must seek a waiver in every case the sanctions would not be imposed.
In response to a letter sent by Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stating that the sanctions legislation “might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for our efforts,” Jennifer Rubin calls the administration “a crowd that’s allergic to leverage.”
Rozen also reports that the State Department has asked the Treasury Department to allow Iranians to download free mass market software that enhances their ability to communicate. In response, NIAC President Trita Parsi lauded the decision that makes sure “the policies of the U.S. government don’t unintentionally aid the Iranian government’s efforts to silence its people.”
In a likely response to the legislation, Iran has test-fired an improved Sejil 2 solid-fuel missile, which has a range capable of striking Israel and U.S. bases throughout the region. Meanwhile, Tehran Bureau reports that the Iran’s Prosecutor General has confirmed the rape of opposition members in prison but rejected the involvement of prison guards. In addition, hundreds of of pro-govenrment and pro-opposition students held rival rallies in Tehran yesterday.
Meanwhile, Mohammad Saeedi has resigned as deputy director of Iran’s atomic energy body. Meir Javedanfar suggests the resignation may indicate infighting within the regime over nuclear negotiations. The regime also seems split over what to do with Mir Hossein Moussavi and other opposition leaders. Mea Cyrus at Tehran Bureau observes “the Islamic Republic of Iran is so fed up with post-election protests that it is willing to adopt extreme measures to bring them to an end,” even if it means imprisoning or assassinating opposition leaders like Moussavi.
Masoud Golsorkhi explains how the regime’s efforts to discredit Majid Tavakoli have backfired because they have failed to understand that the green movement is “a post-modern, post-ideological civic movement” where women are at the “forefront.” Finally, Omid Memarian argues the opposition have “entered a new phase” in protesting the Islamic regime itself, and not just the contested elections.
Posted in Congress, Diplomacy, Iran, Legislation, Military, Multilateralism, Oil, Protests, Technology, US foreign policy, US politics, sanctions | Comment »
Iran: Gasoline Sanctions Debate Today
December 15th, 2009 by Jason
The House is currently debating the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (H.R. 2194), and they will likely pass the legislation before the end of today. That news likely comfort Ephraim Kam, who writes in Haaretz that the West must impose “harsher sanctions” and threaten Tehran with potential violence.
Nonetheless, niacINsight urges the U.S. to “stand with the Iranian people” by opposing the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which many members of the green movement have said would hurt the Iranian people and not the regime. Jamal Abdi warns such sanctions “may isolate us from our closest allies and biggest trading partners, pose momentous new challenges for our efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and the greater Middle East, undermine the Iranian people’s struggle for democracy, and once again place the United States on the gave path towards military confrontation.”
Instead, niacINsight hails the introduction of the Stand with the Iranian People Act (SWIPA H.R. 4303) introduced by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and the Iranian Digital Empowerment Act (IDEA H.R. 4301) introduced by Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA). Both of these acts were introduced yesterday. SWIPA would enable Americans and Iranians to work together to promote human rights or for projects like building hospitals and schools, while also imposing targeted sanctions on the regime and companies that work with it. IDEA would legalize the transfer of communication and anti-censorship tools between the U.S. and Iran.
Arguing in favor of SWIPA and IDEA and against IRPSA, Patrick Disney contends, “the yardstick for an effective Iran policy is not how much pain and suffering it will cause among innocent Iranians. Rather, changing the policies and behavior of Tehran’s repressive government should be our ultimate goal. This means that when it comes to sanctions, bigger is not always better.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Congress, Diplomacy, Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Islam and Democracy, Journalism, Judiciary, Legislation, Military, Oil, Protests, Technology, US foreign policy, US politics, sanctions | Comment »
