US Policy and the Arab Revolutions-- From Andrea

[Indhika Jayaratnam]

Last Monday Nail al-Jubeir, Director of Information at the Saudi
Embassy, said that change comes slowly to conservative Arab monarchies
like Saudi Arabia, but it does come. I would like to broaden the
question of change in Saudi Arabia to a discussion about US Policy and
the Arab Revolutions. How should the United States respond to the
turmoil in the Arab world—in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen?
Should it continue to provide more than $1.5 billion in aid to Egypt
if Islamists win the parliamentary elections this fall? How should the
US react to the violence committed against peaceful demonstrators by
the Syrian regime? Do you support the resolution the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee passed authorizing President Obama to continue US
military involvement in NATO’s Libya operation for one year?

[Ivan Ho]

I didn't know we invaded Libya. Invading Libya and setting up a no-fly zone are two totally different things.

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Lillian Hussong <lillian...@gmail.com> wrote:

Invading Libya and setting up a no-fly zone was a horrible idea.  So Obama thinks that what's going on in North Africa is bad.  Boo hoo, we all do.  But you DON'T just go on a whim and set up a no-fly zone without a clear and convincing explanation not to mention having it AUTHORIZED by Congress.  Honestly, he could have been impeached for something like that.  Even Democrats and Obama lovers were shocked at how the president could be so stupid as to just go ahead and act on his own accord.  

As for the Middle East and North Africa handling it themselves... this is a must.  Some people used to say that area would never be able to climb out of its old ways.  We would live to see a backwards Middle East forever-- wrong.  I'm so glad that younger generations have risen up to the government in fight for what they think should happen in their country.  

But there is a concern for how these countries should be run.  Take Saudi Arabia for instance.  Mr. Jubeir was giving all of this praise to his country just as one would expect in an embassy.  Praise for technology, praise for women's rights, praise this praise that.  While the country is definitely progressing, there is that lingering question of the way in which they think about culture and government.  I asked the question about wahabiyaa (or salafiyya) in conjunction to moving forward progressively in a modern era.  His tone changed for certain, and I'm glad it did.  You can give tons of praise, and that's fine, but women still don't have the right to vote.  Women still can't drive cars.  Girls can be married off at ten.  Men and women are not even allowed to use the same entrance when going to a shopping mall or public facility.  These are the basics of human rights-- things we completely shrug off or take for granted in the West.  There are six law schools in Islam.  Salafism (or wahabbism) is usually considered the most conservative.  Salafists often push for fiqh (jurisprudence) to lie solely on the Qur'an and the Sunnah.  It's going to be mighty hard trying to implement progressive reform when you have an incredibly strict Islamic law school to follow.

On a shorter note, I don't think the Muslim Brotherhood will make it too far in Egypt.  When the Tahrir protests broke out, the Muslim Brotherhood were raising Qur'ans in the air and protesters told them to stop because it wasn't the place for that kind of talk.  That's a pretty good sign-- I know that the Muslim Brotherhood denounces violence, but their attack is in their words.  Also, I have a good friend who lives in Egypt and she and others know firsthand that it's the Brotherhood that carries out secret assassinations against political figures or opponents to certain ideologies.  I doubt they'll get elected.

Oh, and one last thing.  Want to to find one way to cut down on spending here in America?  How about not approving the package of $3,075,000,000 (yes it's in the billions) to the Israeli military.  You can call them allies, but they're committing egregious human rights abuses against the Palestinians and it's time to tell them to stop.

--
"The highest function of the soul of man is the perception of truth; in this accordingly it finds its special delight." - al-Ghazzālī

[Adam Portoghese]

So so much to respond to, but I will try. 

UN Resolution 1973 allowed for the creation of a no-fly zone over libya and the protection of civilians. This was to be carried out at the behest of the UN member states. While vague, this is how the UN works. The US really only signed the measure at the last moment due to the pressing influence and concern of Susan Rice, who is our UN representative. She had been in the federal government during the Rwandan Genocide and watched as the international community did nothing. Not only did they do nothing, but they refused to use the word "genocide" because doing so would cause the international community to be legally bound to action. As a result 800,000 people lost their lives (a truly "Boo hoo" moment, Lillian). 

At the urging of our representative, who was witnessing Gaddfi forces approach Bengahzi (the main stronghold of the rebellion), President Obama gave the go ahead to support the measure. France and the UK immediately began airstrikes, and it was hoped that the EU could quickly turn the civil-war in favor of the rebels. Sadly, all that has since resulted has been a stalemate, despite overwhelming military strikes by the US and NATO. And the US hope for a quick end to the conflict is now a pipe dream.

It is no surprise that the President did not ask for Congressional support, because under the Warpowers Act he can command US military forces for 90 days without Congressional approval. But since that deadline has passed Congress has failed to cut off funding, thus a silent omission of US support for the campaign. If congress would like to give a "plan" it would be remarkable considering that Congress cannot even figure out domestic policy of late. But regardless the stalemate is continuing and is favorable to the US and West because it has somewhat removed from power. A return to power by him would be a worst case scenario, but in the short term a stalemate is fine. 

On the issue of Saudi Arabia. We heard the official line from the Saudi government. Anyone expecting them to apologize for not allowing women to drive is crazy. The truth of the matter is that Saudi Arabia is our ally, and until that status changes the US will not change its attitude towards it. Despite similar human rights issues between Libya and Saudi Arabia the US will never intervene in the way it has in Libya. Currently the US government works indirectly through NGOs for subtle change, but it is hard to dictate culture to another people. 

While most US foreign policy is hypocritical and contradictory anyone expecting the United States to be like Santa clause should seek mental help. We reward the bad and punish the good sometimes for the interest (or at least what passes as that) of the US public. Israel is a stable country in a sea of change and through military aid we assure that the US always has a base of operations in the Middle East. The billions that we give to Israel are easily offset, however, but the $2,000,000,000 we give to Egypt, the $200,000,000  we give to Bahrain, and however much we give to Saudi Arabia (we just approved $60 billion in sales, which some will be payed by the US). We give this aid because it is the US interest to do so. We are adept at choosing the lesser of two evils. Please get used to it

--
Adam Portoghese

aporto...@elon.edu

adampor...@gmail.com

407-712-3555

Elon University Class of 2012

Alpha Phi Omega- President

Model United Nations- Military Coordinator

Men’s Club Volleyball- Club Officer

[Ivan Ho]

"Oh shoot that's right Ivan I totally forgot that blowing up Qaddafi's compound and killing Qaddafi loyalists means setting up a no-fly zone.  How silly of me to think that trying to kill a dictator is what you do when you enforce a no-fly!

Dismantling communications and launching Tomohawks around the coastline is setting up a no-fly.  When you start killing ground forces and then also killing families that had nothing to do with it, THAT'S an invasion.  Military driven motives and politically driven operations separate.  There's a difference, read up on it"

Oh lord. Seriously? The Western imperialist colonial forces are trying to subjugate the Middle East with its awful capitalism. I suspected that NATO forces are killing families and citizens on purpose.  That must be it. Those Western dogs have no morals. 

Definition of INVASION - DICTIONARY

1: an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder

       U.N. Website - Speaking after the vote, representatives who had supported the text agreed that the strong action was made necessary because the Qadhafi regime had not heeded the first actions of the Council and was on the verge of even greater violence against civilians as it closed in on areas previously dominated by opposition in the east of the country.  They stressed that the objective was solely to protect civilians from further harm.

 Lebanon’s speaker stressed that the text would not result in the occupation of “one inch” of Libyan territory by foreign forces.  The representative of the United Kingdom pledged that partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Arab League were now ready to act to support the text.

The representative of the United States said that today, the Council had responded to the Libyan peoples’ cry for help.  The Council’s purpose was clear: to protect Libyan civilians.  The Security Council had authorized the use of force, including enforcement of a no-fly zone, to protect civilians and civilian areas targeted by Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi, his allied forces and mercenaries."

Read bold. All research. We have no ground forces in Libya. Thus it is not an invasion. Is the no-fly zone a mistake, that's your opinion. However, to say that the West is invading Libya is a down right lie.

[Nariman Saidane]

In response to Indhika's question about how the U.S should respond to the turmoil in the Arab world, it's seriously obvious that the U.S CANNOT afford to meddle in Middle Eastern affairs after more than a decade of involvement in a region where Americans are, to say the least, not looked upon as that warm cuddly friend that you can rely on. As a non-American, it's obvious that America only looks out for its own interest, and why shouldn't it? We only live in a realist-bound international community where abiding U.N resolutions only comes to the interest of a state like America when they see fit for it to.

The U.S has no business whatsoever meddling in the Arab revolutions. They are called revolutions for a reason, because the MENA people are demanding change from their OWN leaders, NOT from foreign leaders. The U.S should respond the only way that it can, by backing off and to stop sticking it's nose in other states business. If US foreign policy was so keen and TRULY had the intention of supporting a no-fly-zone in Libya for the sake of the 'protection of civilians', than why may I ask does the U.S not intervene in the massacre of civilians in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen? It's blatenly obvious that the U.S has turned a BLIND eye to countries where they don't have invested interests and the U.S will not turn around and show sympathy for the violence against the demonstrators in Syria. It's also obvious why NATO has reached a dead end in Libya, because they never had the intention of just protecting civilians. 

The question as to whether the U.S should continue to provide aid to Egypt if Islamists win the parliamentary elections is odd on two accounts. Firstly, as Lillian has already stated, the people of Egypt, and I can argue as well as Tunisians, are NOT interested in religious governemnt establishments but SECULAR ones. Therefore, regardless of the involvement of Islamists in the upcoming elections, it's the people who will choose what kind of government they want. Secondly, why is it assumed that just because Islamists are part of the election that the country is going to take a spin in the direction of a radical Islamic state? Let's just say even if it does, I highly doubt U.S will stop providing aid, it's not like Islamists in power have stopped the U.S before. Does no one take into account the secular Islamists in power in Turkey, is it not a possibility for this to happen within Egypt and Tunisa with the result of the Arab revolutions?

In regards to Nail al-Jubeir lecture at the Saudi Embassy, overall he must be commended for trying his best to spin the reality of what is the Saudi state in the best light possible. After hearing him answer numerous quetions about Saudi foreign policy towards diffeerent states in the Middle East, it should be obvious that when it comes to politics, it's all about regional security. When I asked him about what role the Saudi state is taking to change the status quo of Muslim women in Saudi, I was quite dissappointed with his answer. Not because he did not answer it in a sufficient matter but because he gave a pathetic answer. That it's up to society to change in order for the status of women to? What the hell does that mean? He argued that government policy cannot change societal behaviours, what kind of answer is that. IF the Salafists in power had the guts to let down their chauvinistic ijtihad of their islamic interpretation of the role of women, if the people could rise up as one and demand that women be treated as they were in the time of the prophet, with dignity and respect, than it would be easier for him to answer my question, however as long as the Monarchy is financially supported and there isn't a radical change in mentality in Saudi, change will be ever so slow in the holy land. 

--

Nariman Z. Saidane

BA Candidate Political Science, University of Alberta

International Human Rights Internship Program; 

The Protection Project, The John Hopkins University

Working Member and Lobbyist; Free Tunisia

@NariSaidane

memoryforforgetfulness.wordpress.com

'The highest function of the soul of man is the perception of truth; in this accordingly it finds its special delight." - al-Ghazzālī'

[Indhika Jayaratnam]

A quick clarification – Andrea Barron has been facilitating the discussion board for this semester. It is has been very interesting to read your responses to her thoughtful questions.  Thank you, Andrea, for leading these discussions and thank you to all the students for contributing!

[Terez Varkonyi]

It is in the best interest of the United States to be consistent with
its foreign policy in the Middle East – however, this idea has proven
to be too idealistic. It is true that each country has its own
features, different histories, politics, and economics; nevertheless,
the US must strive to uphold its democratic ideals without exerting an
imperialist agenda. It is a balancing act and thus far the United
States has been unsuccessful. Since the Cold War the United States
turned its back on democratic ideals by supporting Middle Eastern
dictators. The justification was a bipolar world in which the US hoped
to be a victor and allied itself with any government that was not
associated with socialist ideologies. After 1989, there was no longer
an excuse for US foreign policy to continue supporting dictators
except to maintain stability in the region.
The Arab Spring is an attempt by the local people to realizing a
democratic system. It is important to note that these are home-grown
movements that stem from local civil society, sharing of information,
and poor economic conditions. Therefore, each country must be dealt
with individually but overall the United States should support
democratic movements without intervening. Democracies and democratic
movements are not uniform and are particular to the places and people
they evolve from. Therefore, if the Muslim Brotherhood or other
Islamist parties win the parliamentary elections in Egypt the United
States should continue normal relations. If a government is
representative of the people, the United States should respect that.
It is important to note also that in a democratic system, ideological
parties must moderate themselves in order to sustain power. There many
studies done by political scientists that indicate that if an
ideological party is elected and remains extremists on certain issues,
the likelihood of getting reelected is minimal. Therefore, the United
States should have faith that democratic institutions, wherever, will
inherently become centered ideologically.
When it comes to the protests, which is prior to the establishment of
democracies, the United States should approach each country
differently – but, at all costs, avoid intervention in any case. The
United States should speak up and encourage regimes to accept the
demands of its people. Nevertheless, it should not intervene
militarily since these are national movements. The United States
should continue to condemn the brutal acts against civilians in Syria,
Yemen, and Bahrain. But I think that is all that can be done. The case
of Libya is different now, because there is continued foreign military
presence. Originally the United States should not have intervened, but
it did and it should uphold its responsibilities. I think that the
decision of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is good in theory
but I would have preferred a more short term resolution instead of
extending the operation for another year. The case of Libya is an
example of why the United States should not intervene within national
conflicts – this is the responsibility of the UN and neighboring
bodies who are most affected by the conflict.

On Aug 1, 10:52 pm, Indhika Jayaratnam <indhika.jayarat...@twc.edu>
wrote:

[Ivan Ho]

"The case of Libya is an
example of why the United States should not intervene within national
conflicts – this is the responsibility of the UN and neighboring
bodies who are most affected by the conflict."

Hmm.. That seems contradictory, since when was the U.S. not part of the UN? So you're telling the rest of the world to foot the bill and not the U.S. That's pretty damn selfish. 

[Farzaneh Perez]

I believe that America should not get involved in Middle Eastern Affairs.  So far, America has become involved in a matter that keeps prolonging itself and does not seem to ever reach an end.  Although the United States intervenes and invades with reasons that seemed (to an extent) justified, it has been a problem in the past for these reasons to suddenly vanish or have never existed, thus discrediting the United States.  For this reason, I believe that the United States should abstain itself from becoming involved with the Middle East when we clearly have greater problems to solve at home, such as deficits, unemployment, unreliable social security, and a poor education system compared to most international evolving countries.  Because of this, I believe that our intervention in the Middle East, as well as that in the other countries, is just a matter delaying our own betterment and the amount of money and lives invested in these interventions keep jeopardizing not only our own enhancement, but also that of the country which we invade since our presence is not always welcome. 

 

I do believe that the lecture by Nail al-Jubeir in the Saudi Arabia Embassy was splendid.  Moreover, I commend him for his personal ideology, even when it is not quite compatible with the ideology of his country.  Nevertheless, Nail al-Jubeir must speak on behalf of what he represents and make sure he projects the best image possible, in which case he has succeeded.