March 2009 Newsletter

Dear Friends,

I don’t know about you, but I’m excited to see the reception President Obama receives this week as he goes on his first overseas trip as president – at the G20 in London, then in France, Germany, the Czech Republic, and finally in Turkey. The flurry of diplomatic trips that have marked the first months of the new administration have reminded Americans that our envoys can be favorably received abroad, by governments as well as publics, particularly when we prioritize two-way dialogue and diplomacy. Restoring consultative partnerships with our core allies, even in the midst of a jarring economic crisis, is the first step toward rebuilding our capacity to achieve our diplomatic goals in the Middle East and around the world.

Moreover, the Obama Administration seems intently focused on tackling the toughest diplomatic challenges that confront the U.S. today: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and the Arab-Israeli peace process. Not only are these goals important in their own right, but if the U.S. can help bring progress on these issues, we will be far better positioned to advance our other goals and interests.

On the one hand, this approach is incredibly encouraging.  But at the same time, I’m beginning to become just a bit worried – and I wonder if you’re feeling the same way.

In the rush to focus our attention and resources on the highest priorities and most difficult diplomatic challenges, I worry that we may be neglecting other items that require sustained, focused attention over time – including peaceful support for democratic development in the Middle East.  And in the administration’s rush to enhance our working relationships with leaders like Premier Wen of China and Egypt’s President Mubarak, I’m worried that we may be willing to compromise on core values that the American people (and citizens around the world) celebrate on principle – not as more items that can be traded in a pinch.

My hunch is that President Obama and his administration have a certain sequence in mind: first, focus on putting out fires, rebuilding close partnerships with key allies, and restoring the credibility of U.S. leadership; then second, leverage that earned capital to support a more aggressive pro-development agenda in the Middle East and elsewhere, including support for more open, democratic, and law-based societies.

But until we see clear evidence of such a strategy, I’m worried. And in the meantime, the neglect of these values has real consequences. Civic leaders (and government officials) around the world saw Secretary Clinton’s dismissal of human rights in China and asked whether the U.S. will stand firm for civil and political liberties in their country. Cuts to democracy assistance in Egypt imply a tradeoff of our relationships with countless civil society leaders in exchange for our relationship with the Mubarak government. And the failure to make clear statements in support of democracy and human rights are statements in themselves, which Middle Eastern publics can read all too well.

It’s too early to rush to judgment, but it is important to send President Obama a message to ask him to clearly support democracy and human rights in the Middle East and the Muslim world. If you agree, I want to ask you to add your name to a special letter POMED helped organize together with the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy. Please take a look at the letter (more info below) and consider adding your name today.

Show your support by signing the letter to President Obama today.

And in the meantime, let us know: What messages do you want to send President Obama?

I look forward to reading your answers.

All the best,
Andrew

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

POMED Updates

Letter to President Obama

On March 10, POMED, along with the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) and 140 policy experts, scholars, and leading activists sent an open letter to President Obama urging him to make support for democracy and human rights in the Muslim world a priority. The letter stresses the need for a more consistent and credible policy that focuses on supporting gradual, indigenous democratic reform.

Not only has the letter generated a great deal of press (see here, here, and especially the great Washington Post editorial here!); we were also pleased to find out that it has sparked discussions at the State Department and the White House.

POMED will be working to build on this momentum while the iron’s hot, but we need your help. At this key moment in the debate, can you take a moment to add your name to this historic letter?

Early signatories included Francis Fukuyama, Mort Halperin, Peter Beinart, Larry Diamond, Jennifer Windsor, Robert Kagan, Bob Edgar, Reza Aslan, Matt Yglesias, Michele Dunne, Will Marshall, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Anwar Ibrahim, Ammar Abdulhamid, and more.

You can add your voice to this message to President Obama by signing the letter here.

Advisory Board

Speaking of signing on, we’re excited to announce three new members of POMED’s Advisory Board: Nathan Brown, Director of the Institute for Middle East Studies at George Washington University; Daniel Brumberg, Co-Director of the Democracy and Governance Studies program at Georgetown University and Acting Director of the United States Institute of Peace Muslim World Initiative; and Larry Diamond, Director of the Center for Democracy, Development, and Rule of Law at Stanford University.

POMED’s New Office

As many of you know, we have moved into our new office at 1820 Jefferson Pl., NW.  It’s taken us a couple months to get completely settled, but now we’re up and running – and we love visitors! If you’re in the neighborhood, please don’t hesitate to come and visit us.

POMED in Print

Beyond the coverage of our letter to President Obama, POMED’s Nicholas Danforth – our Research Associate monitoring Turkey – published a long piece in the journal Turkish Policy Quarterly, which is well worth a read. To get more of Nick’s insights, particularly ahead of President Obama’s much-anticipated visit to the country next week, check out his article below.

Also, while it’s not exactly “print,” POMED’s Shadi Hamid was invited to take part in the fascinating BBC debate show, “The Doha Debates,” moderated by Tim Sebastian and based in Doha, Qatar. The Oxford-style motion they debated was, “This House believes that political Islam is a threat to the West.”

March Legislative Roundup

In many respects, the 111th Congress really got underway in earnest over the past month, after January and much of February were dominated by debate over the economic stimulus bill.  In March, the Congress finally passed an omnibus appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2009, the budget committees took up the FY2010 budget resolutions, and a number of stand-alone bills addressing the Middle East were introduced.  

Pakistan

On March 18, H.Res.262, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), a bill which would express the concern of the House of Representatives about the actions of the Taliban in Swat, Pakistan, to restrict girls’ access to education, was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The bill urges the government of Pakistan to take appropriate measures to halt the restriction of access to education for girls being orchestrated by the Taliban and calls on the Secretary of State to address the matter and report to Congress about progress to enforce the right to education. On Thursday (3/12), Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) introduced H.R.1463, to restrict U.S. military assistance to Pakistan. 

Egyptian-Israeli Peace

On Tuesday (3/24), H.Res.282, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), a bill which recognizes the thirtieth anniversary of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The bill celebrates the success of the treaty and recalls the sacrifices made by Egypt and Israel to achieve peace. The bill also calls for strengthening the relationship between Egypt and Israel and for the United States to work to resolve conflict in the Middle East. It poses the recognition of the peace treaty as a potential mechanism for partner nations to overcome barriers to peace.

Looking Ahead: Obama’s Trip to Turkey
 
By Nicholas Danforth, POMED Research Associate

In announcing that he will visit Turkey in April at the end of a five-stop European tour that includes England, France, Germany and the Czech Republic, President Obama has already made an important statement about how America views Turkey. But showing up is only half the battle. With Turkey poised for potential breakthroughs on several issues that have long plagued its democratic evolution, the president will need to successfully navigate multiple obstacles in order to claim the visit as a success.

The Setting

Obama’s visit to Turkey comes at a crucial moment. There are credible reports that Turkey and Armenia plan to open their border and re-establish diplomatic relations before the end of April. This would be followed by steps towards a lasting settlement in Nagorno Karabakh, and the creation of a joint historical commission to investigate the Armenian genocide. On the related issues of ending terrorism by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and ensuring cultural rights for Turkey’s Kurdish population, many observers believe that the upcoming “Kurdish Conference” in Northern Iraq will see Turkey and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) agree to a plan in which the KRG promises to take real action against PKK bases in Iraq, PKK leaders accept asylum in Europe, and lower-ranking PKK members are given amnesty and allowed to return to Turkey. At the same time, ongoing revelations in the Ergenekon case that show just how close Turkey came to a coup in 2004 give hope that the trial, if handled properly, could represent a major victory over undemocratic forces within the country’s military.

At the same time, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) comes away chastened from Turkey’s March 29th local elections, having received almost ten percent fewer votes than in the summer of 2007. This is likely to curb some of the AKP’s more troubling authoritarian impulses, which were most recently revealed in a hefty fine for alleged tax violations leveled against a media group critical of the AKP. A weaker AKP may not be as active in promoting specific domestic reforms demanded by the EU, but major developments with Armenia, the Kurdish issue and the Ergenekon trial are no less vital for Turkey’s EU-accession process.

On the diplomatic front, the AKP faces continued challenges in trying to maintain and improve Turkey’s relations with America, Europe and Israel while also continuing to reach out to countries like Iran and Syria. The AKP has embraced the cliché of Turkey being a bridge between East and West, claiming that Turkey disproves the idea of a “clash of civilizations,” while also promoting Turkey as a mediator in diffusing these clashes when they occur. Often, though, they have found themselves in the unenviable position of being denounced by Western critics as too Islamist while Middle Eastern critics denounce their ties to America and Israel. Israel’s recent war with Hamas brought these tensions to a head. The war began right as Turkey’s efforts to mediate between Israel and Syria appeared on the verge of providing proof of AKP’s potential as an inter-civilizational mediator. Yet the undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Turkey’s hostile response made many people wonder where the AKP’s sympathies really lay. If Turkey could now serve as an intermediary between the Obama administration and Iran, it would be a perfect opportunity for the AKP to re-assert its claim that, under its leadership, Turkey is uniquely positioned to transcend the clash of civilizations. As it is, by paying Turkey such an early visit, Obama has already demonstrated that the AKP can harshly criticize Israeli actions in Gaza and engage Tehran and Damascus without sacrificing their relationship with America.

The Landmines

In this tumultuous domestic and foreign context, two particular questions have the potential to trip Obama up.

The first will be whether or how he addresses Turkey’s ongoing internal debate over secularism and democracy. Staunch secularists will see any reference to democracy as American support for AKP-instituted Sharia, while AKP supporters will see any reference to secularism as support for an anti-AKP coup. Yet there is also the risk that if Obama remains quiet on this issue both sides will take the opportunity to put words in his mouth and interpret his silence to fit their paranoid worldview. It is tempting to imagine a Turkish version of Obama’s 2004 convention speech, in which he expresses America’s support for a fully secular and fully democratic Turkey, one in which all women are free to wear headscarves but none are pressured to do so.

The second will be the question of recognition of the Armenian genocide. It seems inconceivable that Obama would return from Turkey only to destroy all the goodwill he generated by using the word genocide in his speech at the traditional April 24th commemoration. Still, there is the possibility that he will be unable to prevent Congressional Democrats from passing the genocide recognition bill that has already been introduced. Turkey clearly hopes that a major breakthrough in its relations with Armenia would prevent Congress from acting. In pushing to open the border in April, though, they may also hope to ensure that Turkish-Armenian rapprochement has enough momentum to overcome the hostile backlash that a congressional resolution would generate.

The Opportunity

The enormous curiosity that will greet Obama’s visit gives him the unique opportunity for him to speak directly to the Turkish population and be heard. By honoring Turkey with such an early visit, Obama demonstrates a high level of respect for the state, its autonomy, and its democratic development. If he can also speak candidly about America’s interests in the region while showing that America supports Turkey in its quest to become a liberal, secular, European democracy, he can begin to diffuse the paranoid hostility that now poisons America’s image in Turkey.