Middle East Times / Insight Monday, July 13, 2009
By Farooq Mitha

Could a meeting between President Barack Obama and Syria’s President Bashar Assad take place? In a recent interview with the Britain’s Sky News, Assad informally invited Obama to meet with him in Damascus and his wife, First Lady Asma Assad, offered to host the Obama family in Damascus’ historic Old City.

These are the latest signs of the warming relations between the U.S. and Syria since President Obama took office, as he lives up to his campaign promise to use the strength of the United States’ diplomacy to engage countries not aligned with the U.S. during the Bush years.

It’s too early to tell if Obama’s strategy of engagement with Syria will produce results. Since taking office the president has sent envoys from the State Department and National Security Council to Damascus, and more recently sent George Mitchell as his special envoy to the Middle East to meet with Assad.

In addition, contacts have taken place between Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and U.S. military officials have visited Damascus. Most recently, the U.S. announced in late June it would send an ambassador back to Damascus after a four-year absence.

Will the U.S. get what it wants from Syria? The Obama administration is looking for a few things. The list begins with security cooperation to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. While Syria argues that this is a border issue, the U.S. disagrees, saying that the problem is a policy from Damascus that welcomes foreign fighters and helps traffic them from airports across the border.

The U.S. would also like Syria to take further steps to normalize relations with Lebanon while helping maintain Lebanon’s stability through its influence over Hezbollah , and to use its influence over Hamas to support Palestinian efforts to achieve political reconciliation and a unity government.

Washington is likely hoping to peel Syria away from its strong alliance with Iran, but this outcome is very unlikely due to Syrian reliance on Iranian military and intelligence support. The best-case scenario is for the U.S. and its Sunni Arab allies to lessen the Syrian regime’s dependence on Iran by offering it stability and economic development from increased foreign investment that would follow any political reconciliation.

Damascus has its own wish list as well. Sending George Mitchell to Damascus and announcing the commitment to send an ambassador is a good start. Syria also wants an end to the U.S. sanctions placed on it, although the Obama administration is unlikely to lessen the economic pressure without significant Syrian movement on the U.S.’ political agenda.

While there are several sanctions against Syria, the general prohibition on most U.S. exports (except for food and medicine) deters foreign companies that rely on U.S. technology.

As Syria’s oil production steadily declines, it faces a dismal economic future unless it can reform its economy and attract significant foreign investment. Syrian economists worry about the future, despite the possibility that Syria may be accepted into the EU Association Agreement in 2009.

Syria has also consistently asked for the United States to push for direct talks with Israel over the Golan Heights and to serve as a mediator, although Assad has publicly doubted whether the Israeli government of Bibi Netanyahu is ready to talk.

The Obama administration is wise in giving engagement a chance with Syria. But it must be careful not to give too much too fast.
The relationship with Damascus must be a quid pro quo relationship with various measuring points. Syria is a relatively poor state, which derives its regional importance from its ability to undermine U.S. regional political objectives through its support of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and foreign fighters in Iraq.

The interesting question is what the Syrian price would be in return for giving up any one of these cards it holds? And would President Obama be willing or able to meet the price, especially if it depended on the cooperation of the Israeli government?

Recent media reports indicate that diplomatic efforts are, at least superficially, moving in a positive direction. Lebanon appears close to forming a government and its elections went rather smoothly. Further, an Arab rapprochement between Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria is making progress with rumors of an upcoming Saudi-Syrian summit that could include Lebanese Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri.

This is a significant development because of Hariri’s ties to Saudi Arabia and Arab Sunni tensions with Syria’s alliance with Iran; the latter being Persian and Shia. Much of this has been playing out in Lebanon with Syrian-Iranian support for Hezbollah and a series of assassinations that included the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, the result ended up forcing Syria out of Lebanon.

Now, back to the initial question of a meeting between Presidents Obama and Assad. In a YouTube debate during the presidential campaign, Obama said he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria to search for common ground.

Of the entire list, Syria is the only country that seems serious about working with the new administration towards cooperating on common interests. While it is unlikely that President Obama will be on the next flight to Damascus, the prospect of such a meeting in the future is an intriguing proposition.
–
Farooq Mitha is an international policy specialist and is a Fulbright Fellow from the University of Florida currently based in Amman, Jordan.

Farooq Mitha is an international policy specialist and is currently a Fulbright Fellow in Amman, Jordan. He holds degrees from the University of Florida and the University of South Florida and has been published in domestic and international publications.

Nearly one month ago, President Barack Obama gave a historic speech in Cairo to the Arab and Muslim worlds. I was privileged to be able to travel across the Middle East after the speech to get a real sense as to how the Arab public feels about President Obama and his vision of U.S. relations with the Arab world. What I learned is that the road to better relations is long and that President Obama’s speech was only the first step in what requires sustained efforts on both sides to improve our relationship with the Muslim world.

One common theme I heard across the region was the dramatic change in tone coming from Washington. President Obama is well liked and is perceived as somebody who genuinely wants to find common ground with the Muslim world in a way that can be mutually beneficial. His actions of signing the order to close Guantanamo Bay, giving his first interview as President to an Arab network and keeping his promise to deliver an address to the Muslim world showed that he is willing to tackle the complicated issues in the region.

In addition, there is a sense that President Obama understands the Arab and Muslim worlds far better than his predecessor. In his Cairo address, President Obama used all the right words and terminology. The President quoted from the Qur’an, Islam’s sacred text, and also quoted traditions from Prophet Muhammad while using the phrase “Peace be upon him” after saying his name. These gestures go a long way in the Muslim world.

The next steps the administration must take will be challenging. The appointment of Farah Pandith as Special Representative to Muslim Communities by the State Department is a good start. However, the Muslim world is by no means monolithic and the Arab world is currently very pessimistic about the prospects for change in the region’s political climate.

The key political issues in the Middle East that create the largest divide between the Arab world and the United States are clearly the war in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Arab world is supportive of President Obama’s phased troop withdrawal from Iraq, but is unconvinced that the United States will turn over full sovereignty of the country to the Iraqis.

Further, the Arab street is more cynical about the prospects for a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While President Obama’s initial steps such as his call to the Israelis to stop settlement growth have been well received, people are really waiting to see tangible changes to the situation on the ground. The public has genuinely lost hope in a process that it says has seen many summits and accords, but no positive change in the realities of everyday life.

People in the region are increasingly apathetic to politics in general. Most are indifferent to processes they see leading nowhere and to political systems they have no power to change. Others cite the Palestinian elections of 2006 as evidence that their voices will always be drowned out by what the international community seeks to impose on them. While others just too busy struggling to survive and provide for their families, believing the election of President Obama has no impact on their lives.

Moreover, as much as people may like President Obama, they feel that his influence over America’s long term foreign policy agenda will be minimal as he belongs to and is a product of an establishment that does not yield to change easily. There is a sense that the President will not take the bold steps required to significantly improve relations because if he did he would not get re-elected for another term.

While these signs don’t seem very encouraging there is potential to break major ground with the Muslim world. President Obama must keep pushing his agenda to end the war in Iraq for the creation of a Palestinian state. Additionally, the administration should work on other issues in the region, which the President addressed in his speech, such as women’s rights, the development of civil society and poverty.

President Obama has a significant amount of political capital to spend in the region. While the Arab and Muslim worlds are plagued with pessimism, some are cautiously optimistic that we are beginning a new era of relations between Islam and the West. To be successful, the Obama administration will need to undertake a multi-faceted approach, which can address the key political issues in the region in a way that shows people on all sides the practical benefits of peace and better relations between the Muslim world and the United States.

My firend Elahe Amani writes about women globally with focus in Iran and Afghanistan. -Lynn Cole

Jelveh and Aung San, Defending Humanity, Defending Conscience

By Elahe Amani

Friday 29 May 2009

Jelveh Javaheri of Iran and Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma have many differences at personal and political level. But, other than sharing the same biology, they have one thing in common, they both are prisoners of conscience by authoritarian states in countries where respect for human rights and human dignity is undermined and violated.

Aung San Suu Kyi, the acclaimed Burma leader and Nobel Peace Laureate in her famous speech “ All we want is our freedom” in 2003 said “As I travel through my country, people often ask me how it feels to have been imprisoned in my home —first for six years, then for 19 months. How could I stand the separation from family and friends? It is ironic, I say, that in an authoritarian state it is only the prisoner of conscience who is genuinely free. Yes, we have given up our right to a normal life. But we have stayed true to that most precious part of our humanity—our conscience.”

Aung San Suu Kyi was confined to a dilapidated house for 13 of the last 19 years, the woman known to the Burmese as ’the lady’ remains their prime minister-elect. She has been detained under house arrest by the country’s military regime under article ten of the 1975 state protection act, which permits the government to imprison anyone for up to five years. With her latest term of house arrest due to expire tomorrow, the Nobel peace prize laureate faces five years in prison over politically-motivated charges that she breached the terms of her detention. She is a prisoner of conscience.

Jelveh Javaheri, the young, vibrant and inspiring women activist in Iran like Aung San Suu Kyi has given up a “normal life” to stay true to her conscience and strive to change the discriminatory laws against women and girls in Iran. She, like thousands of Iranian women and men, demand what belongs to her and other women as human beings which is rights and dignity. She is also in detention and a prisoner of conscience.

Change for Equality, on May 2nd reported that six members of One Million Signatures Campaign, the campaign to change the discriminatory laws, were arrested during and after a peaceful demonstration which was held to celebrate May 1st. The police forces attacked the demonstrators even before they congregated and left many of the people with bloody faces.

There were more than 150 arrested and among them was Campaign activist Kaveh Mozafari, Jelveh’s husband. Jelveh was home when the intelligence forces raided their residence taking everything that potentially might have been useful to fabricate a case for pressing a charge against them including unthinkable and random items such as , Jelveh and Kaveh’s University degrees!!

They asked Jelveh Javaheri to go with them for questioning at the local office. Jelveh, being arrested before knew her rights and asked for a court order but there was no legal document ordering her arrest. With the use of force, three security guards arrested Jelveh while her mother who was witnessing the scene, yelled at the guards, “ You are putting handcuffs on the hands of freedom”. The Security Branch of the Revolutionary Courts charged her with actions against national security and collusion with the intent to participate in a protest, and disruption of public order. According to reports by Jelveh herself, she objected to these charges and explained that she was arrested in her home and had not participated in any protest. After conducting investigations officials realized their mistake. No new charges have been brought against her since she was not even at the protest.

Many of the workers, students and all Campaign activist who were arrested on May 1st peaceful gathering, are released but Jelveh and her husband remain in detention. A wide range of human rights, labor activists and women’s rights groups and websites including but not limited to Change for Equality, Kanoon Zanan, and Feminist School condemned the brutal and violent suppression of May Day peaceful gathering and demanded an end to the illegal detention of Jelveh Javaheri, a founding member of the One Million Signatures Campaign and women’s rights defender and Kaveh Mozafari, also a women’s rights defender and a Campaign member.

Of all the women who were arrested on May 1st, Jelveh is the only woman who is still in detention. In a recent interview of Radio Zamaneh with Jelveh’s mother who witnessed her arrest, she said “My daughter was dragged out barefoot and taken away as part of her husband’s property! There is no other reason for her arrest and on-going detention”.

The Irony of the May Day encounter with protesters lies in the fact that the Iranian government which has a tall records of human rights violations, claims to be the government of “ Mostazafin ”, the government of poor, oppressed and economically marginalized people, the government of the toiling masses. The statesmen of Iran shake hands with leaders like Chaves, allow posters of Che Guevara to be distributed and Che’s mural be painted on the public walls while crashing May Day celebrations and signing economic treaties with global economic powers that compromises the best interest of Iranian people. They claim to be at the front line of struggle against “Big Satan and Global Estekbar” (loosely means global arrogance) and question human rights violations in Iraq and Guantanamo, yet violating the rights of people to freedom of speech and assembly, inflicting violence on a peaceful gathering on the International Worker’s Day and detain rights activists illegally and on unfounded charges or even without any charges. This is Turbo Hypocrisy!

The realities of our world and complexities that the intersection of global patterns such as globalization, militarization and the rise of religious fundamentalism present, charge all progressive people, women rights defenders, social justice activists and human rights organizations and communities to set their minds free of the old paradigms and look at the world with a lens sensitive to gender, race, economic and social stratifications. As Audre Lorde said “There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives.” The global struggle of conscientious people for rights, dignity, democracy and justice are all part of the fabric of humanity that women like Jelveh Javaheri and Aung San Suu Kyi are standing firm to defend. They inspire all of us to be true to the most precious part of our humanity—our conscience.

A friend who currently is in Jordan recently published this.  It is highly relevant to Lebanon’s upcoming elections. – Lynn Cole

Special to The Sun By Farooq Mitha

On a recent trip to Beirut, I was astonished when I visited Dahiya in the southern suburbs of Beirut.

The area is one of Hezbollah’s strongholds in a country that has felt the brunt of war for decades. It is also the part of Beirut that was severely damaged in the 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon.

Now, nearly three years later, buildings destroyed in the 2006 war are continuing to be rebuilt with Hezbollah subsidizing the rent of those whose homes were destroyed. If Israel’s goal was to bring down Hezbollah, the war in 2006 had the opposite effect.

Being in the southern suburbs of Beirut, one doesn’t feel that they are in the heart of Hezbollah’s territory. Life continues as normal and the streets are busy with people living their daily lives. The only visible signs of Hezbollah in the area are pictures of the organization’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah flags, pictures of its other leaders scattered sparsely throughout the streets and low-ranking Hezbollah officers directing traffic.

We are often told in the west that Hezbollah is a fringe organization in Lebanon, but driving through southern Beirut doesn’t lead to this conclusion.

Its supporters are not limited to Shi’a Muslims only, but consist of others including Christian, Druze and Sunni parties.

In fact, a scene that struck me was seeing an officer from Hezbollah directing traffic alongside a police officer from the Lebanese government, working together to preserve order.

With Lebanon’s elections approaching in June signs can be seen across Beirut sponsored by several political parties, including Hezbollah, saying, “Lebanon First.”

One wonders how the United States will deal with the results if Hezbollah increases its representation in the Lebanese government. Currently Hezbollah holds 14 seats out of Lebanon’s 128 member Parliament, 11 of 30 seats in the cabinet, and in 2008 was granted veto power in Lebanon’s Parliament in an Arab-brokered deal.

These facts show the increasing role of what we have traditionally called non-state actors in Middle East politics and the blurring of what defines a non-state actor. For example, Hezbollah and Hamas, two organizations tagged with this label, both have significant roles within their respective governments. Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006 and continues to govern the Gaza Strip.

How will the new administration respond to these political realities?

As we push for democracy in the Middle East, will we continue to dismiss the results of elections if the parties we prefer don’t win?

I am not suggesting that these groups have acceptable political agendas or that the United States should immediately engage these groups directly. However, groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are relevant and retain significant support amongst several segments of society.

This is true not only in their respective countries, but also across the region.

It is impossible to imagine sustainable peace in the region without at least the implicit cooperation of these groups.

Recently the British government announced its intentions of directly engaging the political wing of Hezbollah. Additionally, a delegation of British MPs met with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Damascus, and Meshaal was recently invited to address a gathering of British MPs in the United Kingdom via video conference.

Rumors also surfaced after President Obama’s election that his administration would open up low-level contact with Hamas.

The actions being taken by the British have put the spotlight on the United States as Hezbollah’s leaders say they have assurances from the West that it will not boycott the group if it wins the upcoming elections. Secretary of State Clinton and Vice President Biden, on their recent visits to Lebanon, simply called for elections free from outside interference, but did not indicate how the United States would respond if Hezbollah was to win.

With the unsuccessful and ideological policies of the Bush administration behind us, pragmatism is beginning to prevail.

To bring real, sustainable peace to the region it will be important for the Obama administration to develop a clear policy that protects the United States and its allies, while realizing the practical significance of all key players in the region.

Farooq Mitha is an international policy specialist and is currently a Fulbright Fellow in Amman, Jordan, from the University of Florida.

March 2009

HYPERLINK
“http://www.sfcg.org/imagesnew/newsletter/2009-03/washpost_logo_small.gif“Washington
Post Logo

Muslim Sent Home
A Legal Visa Holder Meets Unreason at Dulles

By John Marks
Monday, March 2, 2008; A17

On Jan. 26, my office received a call from an immigration agent at Dulles International Airport, who said that my colleague Rashad Bukhari had been refused entry to the United States. He was not charged with anything, the agent said, and would be eligible for a future visa.

HYPERLINK
“http://www.sfcg.org/imagesnew/newsletter/2009-03/Rashad-Bukhari-small.jpg”

John Marks Rashad Bukhari

In fact, when Rashad arrived at Dulles, his Pakistani passport contained a valid, multi-entry visa, issued less than two years before by the U.S. State Department in Islamabad. He used this visa in 2007 to enter the United States without difficulty. Rashad is 36, and he worked for two American organizations, including the U.S. Institute of Peace, before he joined us at Search for Common Ground in 2007. He is Urdu-language editor of our HYPERLINK “http://www.commongroundnews.org/index.php“Common Ground News Service, whose goal is to build bridges between the Muslim world and the West.

Immigration officials at Dulles could have easily verified all of this if Rashad had been allowed to make a phone call or if they themselves had chosen to check. Rather, they detained him for 15 hours, temporarily took away his cellphone and laptop, and eventually put him on a plane back to Pakistan. They prepared a transcript of the encounter in which an official justifies the United States not honoring Rashad’s visa by saying, “You appear to be an intending [sic] immigrant.”

Rashad answered that he has a wife and three children in Pakistan, that his job is based there, that he had a return ticket and that he had no intention of remaining in the United States.
Rashad later told us that the agent said — in words that do not appear in the transcript — that if he “voluntarily” withdrew and did not try appealing to more senior immigration officials, he would have a chance to return to the United States after getting a new visa; otherwise, he would face a five-year ban. In either case, Rashad was told, he would have to leave.

Faced with this Hobson’s choice, Rashad “voluntarily” left the country. Rashad noted afterward, “The immigration officer was actually very polite and remained nice to me. We chatted a little about my work and about international politics. He said, as an individual, he regretted the decision, saying he saw me as a good man. He repeatedly suggested that I should come back again with a new visa. He told me that he had studied history and politics and said that the work I am doing is more important than any military action.”

Since Sept. 11, 2001, I have heard of many incidents similar to this one. My first reaction when I was told about Rashad’s treatment was: In dealing with immigration and visa issues, nothing can be done.

And no, I do not believe that what happened to Rashad, who is Muslim, would have occurred to, say, a white Englishman of the same age.

I travel frequently to Muslim countries, and I know there is a widely held perception that the United States is not a welcoming place for Muslims. This has done serious damage to our national reputation at a time when improving the U.S. image in Pakistan and other Muslim countries and rallying support against extremism are major American foreign policy objectives.

I also know that, only days before this incident, Barack Obama declared in his inaugural address, “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”

I hope that means the Obama administration will carry out a full review of policies and procedures regarding how immigration officers deal with Muslims from other countries. There need not be a contradiction between securing our borders and providing equitable treatment to all those who wish to enter the United States legally.

And, on the human level, it would be wonderful if the federal government apologized to Rashad and to others who have been badly treated at our airports and borders.

Rashad later told me, “My friends in Pakistan, as well as in [the] U.S., are equally disturbed and upset. I prefer to go where I am welcome. Please understand how many layers of impact such incidents create. At a personal level, it puts a stain on my record and a question mark over my future international travel; at a more general level, it reinforces the negative reality that we at Search for Common Ground are trying to shift. I understand that security agencies need to protect their country from harm. And I support them. But unnecessary screening and overreacting because of distant fears and suspicions do not get us anywhere.”

Rashad concluded his message with the hope that what happened to him will be a “catalyst for positive change.” Would that this will be the case.

The writer is president and founder of Search for Common Ground, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that works to find peaceful solutions to conflict around the world.

On Oct. 4, about 60 law students attended a mediation skills workshop sponsored by UF Law’s new alternative dispute resolution student organization Gators Alternative Dispute Resolution (GADR). GADR faculty advisor, Professor Leonard Riskin, began the event by welcoming professional mediator Lynn Cole of the Florida Academy of Professional Mediators and
Mediators Beyond Borders. Cole shared with the students some of the skills she uses every day in her private mediation practice in Tampa, such as mediation laws and some of the fundamental principles of conflict resolution. Although the workshop focused on civil mediation in the Florida court system, Cole drew on her extensive experience in international
alternative dispute resolution to explain how these same skills could be used all over the world with all types of clients. Not only did the attendees learn the ins and outs of conducting mediation in Florida, they got a chance to put this knowledge to use during an extended role-playing exercise.   Afterwards, Cole led a large discussion where students were encouraged to share and analyze what they had learned. Pending approval from the Florida Bar, attendees will receive Continuing Mediation Education credit for Florida Bar mediation certification. A representative from Lexis Nexis was also on hand to teach about the research tools and ADR literature that every mediator must know. GADR encourages everyone to sign up on TWEN to learn about more alternative dispute resolution opportunities.’