The Christian Science Monitor reports that Barack Obama is not planning to rush into negotiations with Iran upon taking office. The economic crisis, plummeting oil prices, and the desire to not embolden President Ahmadinejad ahead of Iranian elections in June, all point to an Obama policy of–to bring back a campaign oldie–extended and careful “preparation” rather than precipitous unconditional engagement.
In the Jerusalem Post, Aaron David Miller argues that “an [Israeli-Palestinian] agreement now or perhaps for the foreseeable future that resolves conclusively the four core issues (borders, Jerusalem, refugees and security)” is not possible. He notes that it is nice knowing what a final solution will look like, but that’s not nearly enough to overcome vertiginous levels of political dysfunction on both sides.
Miller advises Barack Obama to simply manage the Palestinian issue, and “go all-out for an Israeli-Syrian agreement,” which he believes is doable and important to improving America’s regional standing.
Well circle Wednesday on your calendar now, because the Iraqi parlimentary vote on the SOFA scheduled for today has been postponed in order to give lawmakers a bit more time to fight study the accord’s provisions.
Juan Cole notes that the support of the Sunni MPs is essential to legitimize the agreement, as “without their support, the agreement would likely be seen as a joint Shiite-Kurdish conspiracy.”
Though the Kurds are too busy inching ever-closer to independence to embroil themselves in conspiracies with Baghdad. The Post reported yesterday that Kurdish officials recently received three planeloads of weapons and ammunition from Bulgaria, without so much as a heads-up to the central government. The report hints, rightly, that the Kurds’ challenging of the limits of their autonomy will be the flashpoint issue as the U.S. draws down its military presence.
In the LA Times, Natan Sharanskywrites of one policy he hopes Barack Obama will adopt from President Bush: personally meeting with and supporting democratic dissidents around the world. While he praises the president for meeting with over 100 embattled dissidents during his time in office, he notes that “such meetings must be backed with clear and consistent action to press regimes to become more open and free.” Sharansky argues that Obama is in a much stronger position to advance political freedoms around the world, and he is optimistic about the President-elect’s will to do so.
In the Daily News Egypt, Ron Kampeas writes that Bahrain “is softly encouraging the US-led push for democratization in the Middle East as the means toward stabilization.” In showcasing his country’s commitment to pluralism, last week in New York King Hamad bin Issa Al-Khalifainvited expatriate Jews to return home to Bahrain, and offered to allocate land for new homes. Adding to his recent philosemitic credentials, the king has also appointed Jews to high level government positions.
To balance out this feel-good oddity, check out the POMED notes from this recent event on Bahrain, in which the speakers described the systematic oppression and marginalization of the majority Shia by the ruling Sunnis.
Soner Cagaptay of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy has some suggestions for Obama’s Turkey policy. And the U.S., Iraq, and Turkey “have condemned the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) as a “terrorist organisation” and formed a joint committee to combat them, the US embassy said Thursday.”
Attorney General Michael Mukasey has an op-ed piece in today’s Wall Street Journal weighing in on the ruling to release five Algerian detainees from Guantanamo Bay. He outlines several guidelines the new administration should follow if it chooses to close the much maligned prison: 1) “Congress must make clear that release from the Guantanamo Bay military base does not mean that a detainee is entitled to enter the United States;” 2) “habeas corpus proceedings must protect the integrity of classified information and prevent disclosing that information to our enemies;” 3) “Congress should establish sensible and uniform procedures that will eliminate the risk of duplicative efforts and inconsistent rulings, and strike a reasonable balance between the detainees’ right to a hearing and our national security needs.”
Unnamed military sources have toldRichard Tomkins of the Washington Times that, “at least some units of the 4th Infantry Division in Baghdad would begin obtaining warrants from Iraqi legal authorities next month before making arrests or searching homes for weapons caches and other contraband in noncombat situations.”
Matthew Lee of the Associated Press also reports “[t]housands of contractors, both private Americans and non-Iraqi foreigners working in key roles for the United States in Iraq, will lose immunity and be subject to Iraqi law under new security arrangements…Iraq will have “the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over” such workers, who are employed in various support roles for the U.S. military, including food service, transportation and sanitation…” And Nancy A. Youssef at McClatchyadds, “Private security contractors operating in Iraq could face Iraqi prosecution for acts committed when they supposedly had immunity from Iraqi law, U.S. officials said Thursday.”
The outcome still remains in the air as some Iraqi Parliamentarians seem to be channelling both Barack Obama and 12th-century Imam al-Ghazzali by avoiding ratification of SOFA to instead make pilgrimage to Mecca. Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistaniis not as amused at their religio-political syncretism as I am.
On Wednesday November 19th, The Hudson Institute held a day long conference entitled, “Iran, Hezballah, and Hamas: Tehran’s War on the West by Proxy.” Participants included Martin Kramer, Scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Harvard’s Olin Institute; Tony Badran, Research Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Shmuel Bar, Director of Studies, Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya; Jonathan Schanzer, Director of Policy, Jewish Policy Center; Matthew Levitt, Senior Fellow and Director, Washington Institute’s Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.
Panelists agreed that Iran was a serious threat to regional peace, but while most panelists argued that Hezbollah and Hamas were fronts for Iran and interested only in continued violence, a minority disagreed, saying instead the situation was more complicated.
On Tuesday November 18th, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) hosted an event entitled, “Can Obama Untangle the Iranian Challenge: Prospects for a New Iran Policy.” Speakers included Senator Thomas Carper; Senator Arlen Specter; Congressman John Tierney;Former Assistant Secretary of State James Dobbins; Dr. Farideh Farhi; Joseph Cirincione; moderated by NIAC President Dr. Trita Parsi.
All participants agreed that the Obama administration should seize the initiative to engage Iran, but differed on how best to accomplish the task. Disagreement centered on using threats of military action to coerce Iran, and the utility of “carrot-and-stick” language in any future dialogue with Tehran.
There was an altercation inside the Iraqi Parliament yesterday as lawmakers debated the Status of Forces Agreement. The tense session is evidence that the accord’s passage is, alas, far from a done deal.
Michael Allen at Democracy Digest points to a thread at the CFR Forum in which Peter Beinart asks the house: “how central is the promotion of liberal democracy to a liberal foreign policy?”
“Does a liberal foreign policy have to make democracy and human rights central to America’s relationship with, say, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, China or North Korea? Or can liberals comfortably say that questions of domestic, regional and international security take precedence given America’s lack of influence, and perhaps lack of wisdom, when it comes to the internal affairs of other states?”
Michael Allen also has a good run-down of the responses so far, from the likes of Will Marshall, Matt Yglesias, and Anne-Marie Slaughter.
In the Post, Mohamed Eljahmi, brother of jailed Libyan dissident Fathi Eljahmi, reminds us of the Libyan government’s miserable human rights record. As Libyan tyrant Moammar Gaddafi rejoins polite society, receives congratulatory phone calls from the U.S. president, and son Saifgets an audience with Secretary Rice, Libya remains a police state and democracy advocates like Eljahmi languish in Gaddafi’s dungeons.
The writer laments U.S. inaction and hypocrisy: “[U]nder the Bush administration, the State Department continues to engage Arab dictators at the expense of dissidents who support transitions to peaceful, modern societies.”
At the Daily Star, Ozlem Gemici and Rehan Rafay Jamil have a very interesting article in which they find parallels in the struggles of Turkey and Pakistan to reconcile issues of religion, secular governance, and military intervention in domestic politics. They trace the efforts of Turkey’s AKP and Pakistan’s PPP to overcome the legacy of their countries’ founding ideologies. Each party ostensibly has a political mandate, yet they are constrained in similar ways from enacting their programs.
This sounds like a fantastic thesis topic if anyone’s looking.
