The end

So, you've finished our program and are ready to be posted abroad. I would like to both congratulate you for your dedication and professionalism, and thank you for sharing your experiences and knowledge withe me. I can honestly say that I've learned more about Middle Eastern politics from my conversations with you than from years of reading. It has been a great experience for me, and I hope you feel that it's been helpful for you as well.

A recommendation: keeping a blog like this has countless benefits. When you're abroad, you can keep your families abreast of what's happening in your lives. It can also be really helpful for Emirati diplomats who will follow in your footsteps to read about your experiences in Shanghai and Kabul. If you do write about your time there, please keep me informed.

Thanks again, and good luck with the new jobs. I hope to see you again.

This week in the Oval Office: Mahmoud Abbas. Groundwork for Cairo. Heaven's South Gate.

A couple of articles on Abbas' trip to Washington to meet with Obama.

A column in today's Washington Post with a pretty good take on the complexities involved in putting together a diplomatic solution to Israel and Palestine. It's written as an open letter to President Obama:

You will not, of course, take Netanyahu's no as a final answer on the settlements. You are right when you say they are not only a huge obstacle to regional peace but also a stain on the global reputations of Israel and the United States. But the settlements cannot be treated in isolation or used as trophies with which to win Arab favor. They will eventually have to be for the most part evacuated as part of a give-and-take in which Israel's legitimate security concerns are addressed. For Netanyahu, agreeing to freeze settlements is tantamount to declaring them chips to be bargained away. He will require a good bit more than is on offer now from the Palestinians and other Arabs to make that move.

Getting ready for Obama's trip to Cairo. Getting ready to mark 20 years since Tiananmen. Anything going to happen in Beijing? Likely not.

The revolving door in the Oval Office

So, next up in Washington: Mahmoud Abbas, or, as the National calls him, "Mr. sorry, I can't". The article states that Abbas meeting with Obama is essentially as waste of time, as he can't deliver anything:

Long proclaimed as the Palestinian leader to complete the two-state peace that President Obama seeks, politically Mr Abbas has been hopelessly enfeebled, primarily as a result of his fruitless obeisance to Washington. So weak has his political authority become that, as the Israelis correctly point out, he cannot negotiate effectively on behalf of his people.

The key, according to the author, is in America pledging to work with a a Fatah-Hamas unity government, which the Bush admin famously fumbled. What do you think? Any chance the US is willing to accept Hamas?

Another link: Jordan's Foreign Minister, from last week, telling us why there is a real window of opportunity for a peaceful solution right now.

This happens, who gets the Nobel? This happens AND Afghanistan and the Taliban come to a negotiated peace, Obama is officially beatified. Until, of course, the election in Iran, and North Korea implodes.

Peace in Afghanistan?

The NYTimes has a must-read article from Dexter Filkins, one of the great war correspondents writing today. The story? That negotiations are under way in Afghanistan/Pakistan between the Taliban and the intermediaries of the Afghani government on a potential peace agreement.

The US isn't involved, and is commited to sending 20,000 new troops, so it could be that the Taliban wants to get something put together while they still have some bargaining chips.

Can we assume that the Obama effect has anything to do with this?

While the talks have been under way for months, they have accelerated since Mr. Obama took office and have produced more specific demands, the Afghan intermediaries said.

And what does the Taliban want in an agreement?

The first demand was an immediate pullback of American and other foreign forces to their bases, followed by a cease-fire and a total withdrawal from the country over the next 18 months. Then the current government would be replaced by a transitional government made up of a range of Afghan leaders, including those of the Taliban and other insurgents. Americans and other foreign soldiers would be replaced with a peacekeeping force drawn from predominantly Muslim nations, with a guarantee from the insurgent groups that they would not attack such a force. Nationwide elections would follow after the Western forces left.

I wonder, how would an end to the war affect your posting, Yousef? And do you really think we can expect to see an end to hostilities very quickly?

Should we be reading anything into this?

It's been reported today that Mubarak has canceled his trip to Washington to grieve for his recently-deceased grandson. Of course, he's going to be hosting President Obama in a couple of weeks, so this meeting was probably not essential, but given the long line of leaders from the Middle East passing through the Oval Office in recent weeks, it's surprising that Mubarak would pass on the opportunity. He's also really old - 81 - so it could be that he's just not up for the travel.

Foreign Policy has an article this month claiming that Obama's approach to the Mubarak visit would give an indication of his approach to human rights, always a contentious issue with the previous administration. Guess we'll have to wait and see now.

A snippet:

For all his soaring rhetoric, Obama is a realist. He is suspicious of grand schemes to remake the world or of policies driven by moral mission; he will need to be convinced that pressing stubborn allies to respect human rights will advance U.S. interests -- that it is the smart thing to do, not just something that makes Americans feel good. Fortunately, the sober case for promoting human rights is easy to make. Realism argues for reclaiming this tradition, not rejecting it.

Admittedly, in the Middle East, the United States did derive some strategic benefit from its years of uncritical partnership with autocratic regimes, including access to oil and cooperation against Iran and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. But a realist would also have to acknowledge that it suffered strategic costs, as al Qaeda and other violent groups exploited America's closeness to dictators to build support for their cause, and authoritarian governments stifled moderate opposition movements that could have competed with extremists. In fact, leaders like Mubarak actually gave more space to Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood than to more secular-minded democratic activists, to create the illusion that that the only alternative to their rule was an Islamist takeover. When it bought that lie, the United States reaped not just popular resentment but a rising security threat.

Go read the rest.

Abu Aardvark

Mark Lynch is establishing himself as one of America's foremost Middle East scholars, and his blog on Foreign Policy Passport is a must-read. Today, a couple of links. The first is his take on the public opinion poll that we looked at in class today. The second is an analysis of the Arabic language press on the Obama-Netanyahu meeting. Good links, good food for thought.

What is Obama getting himself into?

More on Obama's foray into the Middle East peace process. From the Economist, a sobering article claiming that many in the region are less than enamored with a changing American role.

First of all, Israel wants the US to address Iran before Palestine. Iran wants less talk and more action. Syria is shocked that the US has renewed sanctions against it. Hizbolla and Hamas don't like that they're still on the outside looking in, but hopeful that George Mitchell might do something about that. Even if something is worked out, it appears that a long list of actors have to then be considered, each with their own interests which aren't necessarily compatible with the process or each other.

If there is any doubt that diplomacy is an incredibly complex job in the Middle East, the sheer number of problems behind every possible solution should quash it, and The Economist seems to admire Obama's mettle in diving in, but is realistic about the chances for success.

Here's the money quote:

But by raising expectations of a big diplomatic push, Mr Obama risks damaging American credibility more, should his efforts prove vague or toothless. Huge obstacles remain, not just regional saboteurs but also an American Congress still reluctant—though a shade less so than before—to flout Israel’s wishes. But behind the as-yet-undefined specifics of American policy, there appear to lie some new assumptions that augur well for success. One is that regional peace must be sought as a goal, not a process. Another is that the region’s troubles are all linked. Perhaps the most important is that in seeking to fix things, America will be acting neither out of charity nor in pursuit of ideological ambition but simply in its own national interest.

America and the Middle East

So, Obama's upcoming speech in Cairo is one of the biggest stories in the region, and in the coming weeks there's going to be a lot of busy diplomats and leaders setting the stage. Of course, Netanyahu's visit to Washington is crucial, and there's been a tonne of press coverage in the past week. From the Financial Times, some unsolicited advice for President Obama and its reading of the lay of the land:

Mr Obama’s job now is to tell Israel it can have peace or it can have occupied land, but not both.

Mr Netanyahu, and a palpably rattled Israeli leadership, want to change the subject. There can be no movement on the Palestinian conflict, they say, until the threat of Iran’s nuclear ambitions has been resolved. On the contrary, says the US administration: we intend to resolve this conflict, and turn negotiations into a wider Arab-Israeli settlement through the Arab League peace plan, and thereby build unity in the region to confront Iran – with a deal or with isolation. Joe Biden, vice-president, George Mitchell, special envoy to the Middle East, and Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama’s unimpeachably pro-Israeli chief of staff, have all told the Israeli government and its allies in Washington that the West Bank settlements have to stop. That, of course, will not be enough.

The Economist has pretty much the same opinion:

For the first time in many years, an Israeli government is scared stiff that an American administration may squeeze it until its pips squeak. That is surely a good thing, if it makes the Israelis more amenable to giving the Palestinians the fair deal—in essence, a proper state of their own—that might bring peace to the two peoples and to the wider region of the Middle East. So when Barack Obama meets Binyamin Netanyahu in the White House on May 18th, he must be tough with him.

So while most agree that the US has to get tough with Israel and push for a two-state solution (which Netanyahu opposes, at least publicly), Israel wants assurances on Iran first. This reflects the complexity of resolving anything in this part of the world; every problem needs to be precluded with a solution to something else first. In this case, it would be a good idea to try to separate Iran from the issue and work on that separately.

Some good news for Obama: his favorable ratings in the UAE are the highest in the Middle East, and the highest of the US for anytime since 2002.

almost six in 10 Arabs in the Emirates say their attitude towards America has improved since the election of Mr Obama, with two-thirds expressing the belief that the Obama administration will bring positive change to US-Arab relations.

Obama's popularity in the Middle East, according to the Financial Times, creates a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for a two-state solution.

Lots of links, and lots of news. What do you think?

Video - I hope if finally works...

Here's a video link of an interview with Palestine's chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat. Timely and interesting.

Redrawing the Middle East

It was more controversial than I anticipated, but I can understand why. So, here's the article explaining the author's reasoning behind the map. A snippet:

Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make every minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried. Elsewhere, reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous as their current proponents expect. The boundaries projected in the maps accompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant “cheated” population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia, but still fail to account adequately for Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and many another numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting wrong can never be redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire.

Yet, for all the injustices the borders re-imagined here leave unaddressed, without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East.

Read the rest and tell me what you think.

UAE nuclear energy, and NYTimes hearts Oman

A few links for today. First of all, a couple of articles about the UAE/US nuclear energy deal. The press was largely positive shortly after it was announced, and this article says that the UAE offers a model that Iran could learn from. Since then, there has been some domestic pressure on congress in the States, and the bill hasn't gone before the House yet. Last week a columnist strongly criticized the deal, basically stating that the deal would most likely result in a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. This article takes issue with that perspective.

Also, for some reason that I can't seem to find, the NTTimes has a crush on Oman this weekend, posting two articles over the past two days. The last time Oman got a headline? The cyclone in June, 2007. What's going on?

Obama in Cairo

A couple of links about Obama's scheduled trip to Egypt to address the Muslim world. First, the Wall Street Journal says the choice of Egypt showcases its importance not only in Islam but also in the Middle East, which is a similar point to that you both made on Sunday. There is an accompanying video here.

The NYTimes also weighs in, claiming that by choosing Egypt, the Obama administration is signaling support to President Mubarak after 8 years of feeling 'unappreciated and bullied' by the Bush admin. It also highlights some of the possible domesetic concerns in choosing Egypt from an American point of view, namely how Obama will address - if at all - human rights and democracy.

The main section of the article:

But even if Mr. Obama manages to satisfy on the Palestinian question, he will have to step carefully around the issue of human rights and democracy. It is a treacherous subject, almost a no-win situation for any outsider.

If he presses Cairo on freedom issues, he risks alienating a government he needs for strategic reasons. He could also incite anger among average Egyptians who almost instinctively recoil at outsiders’ telling them what to do. And yet, if he does not raise the issues, he could be taken to task for conveniently overlooking a serious point.

“We have not seen any American commitments in supporting democracy and respecting the wishes of Arab and Muslim people,” said Essam el-Arian, a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned but tolerated organization that is the only real opposition movement in the country and supports the application of Islamic law. “It can be summed by measuring American interests with American values.”

There is, however, a way to navigate the issue of human rights, said Saad Eddin Ibrahim, an Egyptian democracy advocate living in self-imposed exile because the government has threatened to jail him. He said he recently spoke with Mr. Obama’s advisers and suggested that the speech address the “infrastructure of democracy, which to us is the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, free media, autonomous civil society and gender equality.”

“If those five things are emphasized without talking about democracy as such, we democrats in nondemocratic countries would be more than happy,” he said.

Some links on China

Today we were talking quite a bit about China, which is a country I am fascinated with and is the main focus of my research. As we spoke a bit about relationships in China, I'm linking to a couple of sites that deal with Confucianism - specifically, the 5 relationships that guide it. The codes of behavior are carefully scripted for the relationships between ruler and subject, father and son, elder brother and younger brother, husband and wife, and friend and friend. Interestingly, there's nothing here about relationships among strangers, which explains (at least to me) the way Chinese people drive.

Also, I showed you a few iconic photographs of Chinese factory workers. They are the work of Canadian photographer Edward Burtynsky. A google images search has turned up some wonderful images that give you a sense of just how grand a scale everything is in China. Coming from Canada, I had thought that I was used to big - big skies, big mountains, big open spaces - but China is enormous in every way. It's the story of the coming century, and I think Noura is very fortunate to be going there with such an intriguing job.

Finally, from a military perspective, this short story by Ha Jin - one of my favorite authors - offers a great perspective of Chinese strategic thought.

Stories for tomorrow

Three stories to discuss for tomorrow's class.

The first looks at the Taliban's interpretations of Islam and Sharia law and how it has created a backlash in Pakistan.

The second is an Intelligence Security Diary, which summarizes security news from around the world. This one focuses on China, Iran, and North Korea, each of whom present different diplomatic challenges for the existing international order. There are a lot of useful vocabulary items in this, and I'll highlight them with you tomorrow.

The last one is a short memo on the long-discussed American decline. Basically, the writer explains why he disagrees that the global economic crisis means the end of American hegemony.

What say you?

In the news today...

A compelling story today is President's Obama's plan to give an address to the Muslim world out of Egypt. He has announced that he will speak in Cairo next month. Egypt is both an obvious and controversial choice; as the most populous Arabic state it is an important actor in the Middle East and a key American ally, but at the same time, Americans are uncomfortable with being seen as too close to autocratic President Mubarak. Complicating the matter, the Mubarak administration's most viable opposition in a hypothetical democratic election would be the Muslim Brotherhood, whose Islamist reform agenda makes the US nervous.

The Egyptian visit is being interpreted as a sign of supporting stability over democracy in the Middle East.

A snippet:

For their part, one of the Brotherhood’s leaders said the organisation feels no particular affinity toward Mr Obama. Instead, the Egyptian people are looking for material policy changes, not empty words, said Muhammed Habib, the organisation’s second-in-command.

“It’s not about feelings and passion and all that, it’s about what could happen to change the American policy in the Muslim world,” said Mr Habib. “Will they still be seeking hegemony in the Arab world to support the Zionist state? Will the American bases remain in Iraq? This all needs clarification and a stance.”

Also in Cairo, the Foreign Ministers of the Arab League are meeting prior to a trip to Washington for President Mubarak, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and Palestinean leaders. The Ministers are gathering to come up with a joint approach to dealing with Israel's new right-leaning government.

Finally, another story that caught my eye comes out of Amman, where Pope Benedict XVI is addressing Muslim leaders. Of course, he has had a troubled past with speaking publicly about Islam, and to his credit, acknowledged and apologized for this. He then went on to speak about the double-edged sword of religion in politics:

"Some assert that religion is necessarily a cause of division in our world and so they argue that the lesser attention given to religion in the public sphere the better," he said.

"Certainly, the contradiction of tensions and divisions between the followers of different religious traditions, sadly, cannot be denied.

"However, is it not also the case that often it is the ideological manipulation of religion, sometimes for political ends, that is the real catalyst for tension and division, and at times even violence in society?"

Good subscriptions

Yesterday I showed you a website, Foreign Affairs Passport, that offers a daily summary of news in international politics. I receive an email update every day linking to their top stories, which is a great way to stay on top of the news. Other email subscriptions I have are from the Council on Foreign Relations, America's most influential international relations think tank. I get a news summary, but more interesting, a round up of op-ed pieces from newspapers around the world. Lots of different perspectives are presented on whatever issues are big that day, and I end up getting a lot more newspapers in my bookmarks.

American Diplomacy and problems in Pakistan

Some links from my surfing today. First, one of America's most senior diplomats argues that it is imperative to meet and negotiate with leaders like Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A snippet:

Are McCain and Palin correct that America should stonewall its foes? I lived this issue for 27 years as a career diplomat, serving both Republican and Democratic administrations. Maybe that's why I've been struggling to find the real wisdom and logic in this Republican assault against Obama. I'll bet that a poll of senior diplomats who have served presidents from Carter to Bush would reveal an overwhelming majority who agree with the following position: of course we should talk to difficult adversaries—when it is in our interest and at a time of our choosing.

The rest of the article is here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/165650/output/print

Also, we spoke this morning of the difficulties in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region. Here is an article about the tension between the government in Pakistan and their Taliban guests in Swat. This, to me, is the most difficult and important parts of the world, and I think any diplomat going to either state is going to have a big job to do. Of course, with anything, there is a right way and a wrong way to do it.

Welcome

Hi everyone, and welcome to our blog. For now, this is a site to collect links that might be useful or interesting for you. I'm also going to post links to stories that will generate some discussion, enhance your vocabulary, and offer some different perspectives on the news. If you are interested in posting here as well, let me know and I'll walk you through the process of registering with Blogger.com, creating a profile, and posting.

Enjoy!