1
   

Good Advice

 
 
rayban1
 
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 08:11 am
This is from the Clinton Secretary of State:

The Right Path to Arab Democracy

By Madeleine Albright and Vin Weber

Wednesday, June 8, 2005; Page A21

The Bush administration is right to support democratic change in the Arab Middle East. The question is how best to go about that delicate process. If we push too hard, we may add to the perception that we are trying to impose our will. If we fail to push hard enough, we may contribute to the view that America supports freedom for everyone except Arabs. To succeed, we must find a balance that combines a firm commitment to democratic principles and an understanding of the complexities of the Arab world.

In recent months we co-chaired a task force of experts organized by the Council on Foreign Relations to formulate recommendations for U.S. policy. Our report, "In Support of Arab Democracy: Why and How," argues that if Arabs are able to express their grievances freely and peacefully, they are less likely to turn to extreme measures and more likely to build open and prosperous societies. And in promoting democratic institutions in Arab countries, we should bear in mind that sudden, traumatic change is neither necessary nor desirable. Our goal should be to encourage democratic evolution, not revolution.


The Bush administration has been eloquent in expressing a commitment to democratic principles; its challenge is to implement that commitment effectively against the backdrop of turbulence in such places as Iraq, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. Given the Arab world's diversity, a country-by-country approach is required, but that approach should be based in every case on support for human rights and the fundamentals of representative government. To assess progress, the administration should encourage Arab leaders to develop and make public "pathways to reform" to guide the expectations of their citizens and create benchmarks against which the pace of change can be measured.

The administration should beware of crediting Arab leaders who engage in a pretense of democratic reform while omitting the substance. Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, for example, has asked parliament to approve multiparty presidential elections -- seemingly a positive step. But the system he is recommending would make it virtually impossible for truly independent parties to participate. Sham democracy should be exposed for what it is.

Arab countries will, of course, establish their own rules for democratic participation. To the extent the United States can influence that process, it should be in the direction of openness. Washington should support the participation of any group or party that has made a credible commitment to abide by the rules of democracy, including nonviolence and respect for constitutional procedures. It would be a mistake to exclude Islamist parties on the assumption that they are inherently undemocratic or prone to violence. The best way to marginalize violent extremists is to make room for as broad a range of nonviolent perspectives as possible. At the same time, we should emphasize the importance of minority representation. The current constitutional debate in Iraq is a case study of this challenge. The governing coalition has legitimacy because of the electoral support it received, but it will not be able to govern effectively unless minorities feel secure.

The United States is often portrayed unfairly in the Arab media. The solution is not to look for ways to pressure or punish Arab journalists but rather to support the expansion of independent media outlets. At the same time, U.S. public diplomacy should place new emphasis on democratic reform. America's Arabic-language satellite channel, al-Hurra, should include C-SPAN-style coverage of legislative hearings and political rallies in the United States and other democratic countries. Arabs should be exposed to the spectacle of free political systems in action, including the questioning of senior leaders by public representatives and the press.

Building democracy requires political will, but also a good deal of technical skill. While Arabs will have to provide the former, the United States and other democratic societies should be generous in sharing their expertise in such areas as improving education, fighting corruption, promoting investment and removing barriers to trade. Washington should also review its visa policies to ensure that, while those from Arab countries who may be dangerous are kept out, those who are not (the overwhelming majority) are allowed in without having to endure humiliating delays. Exchanges of all types between the United States and Arab societies will help promote crucial improvements in intercultural understanding.

Arab leaders should know that progress toward democracy will have favorable consequences for their relations with the United States and that the reverse is also true. Countries moving toward democracy should receive special consideration on such matters as trade and aid, while Washington should distance itself from governments that refuse over time to recognize the rights of their citizens.

Democratic development in the Arab world depends, as it does elsewhere, on internal debates about national identity, interests, values and purpose. The difference between democracy and the status quo is that decisions will flow from the many, not just the few. This does not guarantee that we will agree with those decisions or that they will be the right ones, only that they will be legitimate. That is enough.

Madeleine K. Albright, secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, is principal of The Albright Group LLC and chairman of the National Democratic Institute. Vin Weber, a former Republican representative from Minnesota, is chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 626 • Replies: 2
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 08:28 am
"While Arabs will have to provide the former, the United States and other democratic societies should be generous in sharing their expertise in such areas as improving education, fighting corruption, promoting investment and removing barriers to trade. Washington should also review its visa policies to ensure that, while those from Arab countries who may be dangerous are kept out, those who are not (the overwhelming majority) are allowed in without having to endure humiliating delays."

Why did she not incorporate the "ideas" when she had the opportunity while she was in office?
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2005 12:32 pm
Good question Woiyo, but I suppose you could say that she was somewhat hampered when she was Secretary of State, by the do nothing culture that existed at State and a do nothing White House that was paralysed by scandal.

Perhaps she has realized what can evolve when you have a President with a vision and the resolve to make that vision a reality.........She might switch sides. :wink:

Here is another article by a fair reporter with a little different slant which says the King of Jordan wants to accelerate, perhaps too quickly, and that Bush is trying to implement the very restraint urged by Albright and Weber.

We Need to Accelerate'

By David Ignatius

Wednesday, June 8, 2005; Page A21

AMMAN, Jordan -- When an Arab leader removes his chief of intelligence, it's a sign that some kind of serious internal shake-up is underway. And that's just what has been happening here as the storm of political reform settles deeper over the Arab world.

On May 5, King Abdullah removed the director of Jordan's General Intelligence Directorate, Gen. Saad Kheir. Though Kheir was widely respected for his skill in counterterrorism operations, the Jordanian monarch believed the intelligence chief had become an obstacle to the political and economic reforms he hopes to launch this summer.


The Jordanian moves are the latest evidence of the reform battle taking shape here, and in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. The Bush administration is pushing for reforms and is seen by many Arabs as a driving force. But the recent events in Jordan are a reminder that, in the end, all politics is local. Abdullah has been advocating reform for six years, but he has made limited progress because of entrenched domestic opposition. Now he has decided to move more aggressively.

Kheir was widely regarded as the second most powerful man in Jordan. As in most Arab countries, the intelligence service here maintains extensive files and a pervasive network of informants, which gives the intelligence chief considerable political leverage. Kheir was an especially effective spymaster and a favorite of former CIA director George Tenet. Abdullah has moved Kheir to the palace as national security adviser, where he can continue his anti-terrorism efforts.

Abdullah has taken other steps to shake up Jordan over the past two months, including forming a new government in April in which reformists are more prominent, installing a new chief of the royal palace and replacing the director of public security. Because these moves followed a trip to Washington by the king in late March, the chattering classes in Amman have speculated that they resulted from U.S. pressure. But there's little evidence of that. Indeed, when Abdullah explained his reform plans in a White House meeting in March, President Bush is said to have approved, but cautioned, "Take it easy."

"What the king found was that not all agencies were in line with his program," a top adviser to Abdullah said. "One arm was working against the other. People were confused. The king decided to bring in a team that was reformist and worked in tandem."

The top royal adviser explained the king's decision to replace the chiefs of intelligence and public security: "The intelligence agencies wanted to continue their grip on the country. They felt that by opening up, they might lose that grip. They confused security and policy issues. Being an intelligence agency in this part of the world, that's how they always operated."

Abdullah is also trying to address public worries about corruption. He plans to announce soon an ombudsman who will take over the anti-corruption department that was run by the intelligence agency. And he is moving to end government contracts for a prominent Jordanian businessman, Khaled Shaheen, who has been criticized in media reports for being too close to the palace and the security agencies. Shaheen's assistant said he was traveling and couldn't be reached for comment.

Jordan's economic reforms are being framed by the finance minister, Bassem Awadallah, who returned to government in the April reshuffle. He plans to announce in July a plan to reduce about $620 million in oil subsidies over the next two to three years, and to cut the budget deficit by about $600 million over the same period. He will also launch a roughly $500 million privatization of Jordan's telecommunications, power generation and phosphate mining industries. Awadallah has been a lightning rod for conservative critics, and attacks on him are likely to increase when the new fiscal measures begin to bite.

A "national agenda" of political reforms is being prepared by Marwan Muasher, a former foreign minister who became director of the royal court in the recent shake-up. He hopes to launch this plan in September with a series of 10-year targets, such as providing national health care, halving unemployment from the current 14 percent, and doubling per capita income. Abdullah is likely to call for a national referendum to endorse the package.

Jordan has been something of an oasis of tranquility in a turbulent neighborhood, and many Jordanians worry that the reform effort will bring instability. But Abdullah is convinced that the coming storm over reform is preferable to the hurricane that would result from inactivity. "We need to accelerate," says the top adviser. "We cannot stay where we are."

[email protected]


e!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Good Advice
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 11:56:53