Middle East Policy

The U.S. has adopted the promotion of freedom and democracy as a "vital part" of the war on terror. Some scholars and researchers especially in the U.S. believe there is a contradiction between these two goals. I think they have a short and deficient vision rests merely on direct use of violence, the policy that could not ever have a strategic and sustainable nature. Some others did not see a room for the Middle East democratization in the U.S. Middle East policy even after 9/11. I think that the U.S. has to undertake this task in the Middle East as a necessity and a guarantee of stability and U.S. interests in the Middle East in the long run. Stephen Hadley the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs has addressed the Council on Foreign Relations. In his remarks, he "discuss(ed) the nature of the enemy the United States faces in the War on Terror, and why the President’s agenda of freedom and democracy is a vital part of the War on Terror." He exp

I will post an interesting speech to the American Enterprise Institute by Mr. Entifadh K. Qanbar, an Iraqi politician. He illustrates his vision of defeating terrorism in Iraq. I want to emphasize the importance of listening to the Iraqis, and their primary responsibility for healing the situation in Iraq and achieving the nationwide consensus. This entails active initiative towards the Sunnis by the ruling majority to engage the Sunni masses constructively in the Iraqi affairs. Then, the Sunnis must make their choice and they must be aware that they will hold responsibility for that choice. The Iraqi project will proceed whatever the costs are. The entire Middle East is looking at Iraq as a democratic center, and the United States knows the Iraqi implications on the Middle East geopolitics, and its architecture of the international system. The regional settings, in my view, have a great share in the Iraqi current situation. The United States and the international community must seriou

Here is an excerpt of frank remarks indicates the U.S. position and priorities concerning human rights in the world: Creation of U.N. Human Rights Council Immediate U.S. Priority State Department's Lagon says current mechanisms are broken Washington -- Passage of a resolution to establish the proposed United Nations Human Rights Council is an immediate priority for the United States, says a top State Department official. The new body, as put forward by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, would replace the discredited Commission on Human Rights (CHR). “The new Human Rights Council should have fewer diversions, more credibility, and preferably fewer members,” Mark Lagon, lead official on many United Nations-related policies in State’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs, told those attending a B’nai B’rith conference on world challenges October 29. Lagon said membership would be key to the council’s effectiveness. “Currently,” he said, “some of the world’s most egregious

After the laughable direction of the futile play of the Egyptian presidential elections, Mr. Mubarak is doing his best to maintain the current system in the Middle East, which I believe that is based on the authoritarianism and relies on the interdependence of the Middle East regimes to maintain stability. This stability in their Middle East system means the regimes' security and lastingness. That is a very important point must be considered in the Middle East policy-making process. The despot makes his foreign policy on the considerations of his interior policy. He knows the necessity of the interior and foreign policies to be consistent because they belong to and represent the same decision-making system and intend to enable it as the intrinsic dynamics of the regime in power. And knows the indispensability of the compatible foreign context for his rule's integrity. The motives of Mubarak's Middle East recent initiative are understandable, but the nature of his initiative

The President of Iraq has made it clear what Iraq wants and what is his perspective of the situation. It is important to be read interestedly. Following is an article by Mr. Jalal Talabani the President of Iraq has appeared in The Times : Iraq's message to Mr Blair: we still need the troops that saved us from tyranny Jalal Talabani The Times October 10, 2005 EVENTS OF recent weeks have reaffirmed the need for the alliance between the new Iraq and Britain. The lesson of the ghastly drumbeat of terrorism, the rioting in Basra and the vile murder of the leadership of the Iraqi Anglican Church is that the battle of Iraq cannot be won by retreat or compromise, but by the vision and determination for which Britain is renowned. Above all, Britain owes no apology for delivering the enslaved people of Iraq from the hands of a callous tyranny. The challenge is to show fortitude in the face of horror so that we can finish the job that began in 2003 of uprooting dictatorship and implanting a

As I believe, the Middle East is stirring. Because that many relevant objective conditions are existent now or evolving, including media, communication, knowledge availability and the more integration and interdependent with the world, with a special attention to the change in the international input in the Middle East as a key factor. As a result, the nature of the relation between the state -which symbolized and reduced to the ultimate ruler- and the society has lost its stability and is undergoing another and sometimes different causes. I intentionally avoided talking about the relation between the state –actually the regime- and the single individuals, and this is a very important consideration. Actually, because it is somewhat early to talk about that as regards the Arab societies. The individualism is somehow an advanced thought and ideology for the Arab publics and the political individualism is something almost absent in the Arab common sense, as a direct effect of the authorit

I previously posted an opinion on the Iraq's federalism " On Iraq Integrity " represents the Sunni stance and criticizes adopting federalism in the new Iraq. Here is an opinion of different viewpoint: Iraq's federalism ensures justice By Ali al-Awsi 13 October 2005 aljazeera.net Since the establishment of the Iraqi state in 1921, there has been little improvement in democratic conditions for ordinary Iraqi citizens. Successive regimes have failed to get to grips with many issues, the main one being the discrimination among Iraq's regions, and this underlines the need for federalism as a solution to these persistent problems which have left Iraqis living under injustice and discrimination. Iraqis and Arabs alike have been living with values inherited from successive tyrannical regimes which left behind suffocating legacies and robbed the people of their will. That legacy has been based on consolidating the one-man-rule and establishing a climate of fear in which th

The Iraqi draft constitution has been adopted by the free will of the people of Iraq. Iraq is democracy now –in the narrow meaning at least- and the Iraqi people are free institutionally and by the force of law; the Iraqi-made law not just by the will of some other nations. This is a historic milestone in the Middle East history; the statue has been broken now and an Arabic people chose his destiny. The Middle East politics would undergo structural changes; the rulers would be frightened of the new reality, reflecting on their ability to cope with that besides their enabling resources, and the peoples of the Middle East would be inspired by democratic liberties and rights they don not have but they know that they can claim it now. Because the U.S. attitude has changed and even the Middle East has serious changes inside. It was easy to maintain a regional stable system in the Middle East, mainly a status quo, when it has not to bring prosperity and has the same essence across the differ

I have previously posted the Dr. Rice remarks before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee explaining the U.S. strategy on Iraq. Here is the New York Times report on the entire hearing including Dr. Rice's key answers: Rice, in Testy Hearing, Cites Progress in Iraq New York Times 10/20/2005 By STEVEN R. WEISMAN WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, facing tough questions about Iraq from Republican and Democratic senators, asserted that progress was being made in securing the country but declined to predict when American forces could withdraw or to rule out widening the war to Syria. In three and a half hours of hearings at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Ms. Rice was both conciliatory and combative, rebutting the gloomy assessments from senators of both parties but at the end offering a weary concession to Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois. "I understand that, yes, it might not work," Ms. Rice told Mr. Obama, referring to American pl

Dr. Rice laid out a three-part political-military strategy for achieving success in Iraq in her Remarks before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As usual, she was realistic, methodological and competent as a scholar and a skilful diplomat. She is aware of historical context of some disagreements between Iraqi sects ( I talked about that in a previous post) and aware of the de facto troubling points and has a comprehensive vision of healing toward a stable democracy; actually toward a de facto democratic representative system as a political way and framework toward the stable democracy. She stresses on the importance of building state institutions and infrastructure besides the responsibilities of the Iraqi government in her pursuit to introduce a comprehensive and realistic U.S. strategy; a strategy relies on surveying on-ground realities and action plans more than rhetoric. Her refusal to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq is the right sign to the Iraqi