Morally Usurped by Brutal Monarchs

Published in 2011 (Some dead links were deleted, and due to the update this was pushed to the top).
Matthew Mainen

President Obama entered office pledging to restore America’s moral standing in the world. But his response to the Arab Spring has thus far has left much to be desired. This week, however, the president allowed the U.S. unprecedented embarrassment as it stood on the sidelines as two of the world’s worst human rights violators – Saudi Arabia and Bahrain – along with Kuwait withdrew their ambassadors from Syria following its intensified crackdown. It’s time to reclaim the initiative.

The president’s cautious position is understandable. His predecessor’s hawkish Mideast policy in response to the unprecedented environment created by the September 11 attacks and rise of international Islamic extremism challenged ties with Europe and temporarily destabilized Iraq.

Obama’s policies, however, are far from dovish, and have not adequately mended ties with the Muslim world. He reneged on his campaign pledge to close Guantanamo Bay. He intensified drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, killing many civilians. And in an insult to American values, he personally approved Bahrain’s brutal crackdown on pro-democracy activists behind closed doors.

Some may argue that prudence with respect to containing Iran, despite the long-term consequences of enraging Bahrain’s population, determined the administration’s Bahrain policy. And containing al-Qaeda dictates the U.S. position in Yemen. But there’s no excuse for continued foot-dragging in Syria, which has killed over 2,000 protesters and has, this year alone, transported tens of millions of dollars worth of weapons to Hezbollah, a terrorist organization claiming the lives of hundreds of Americans and allied citizens.

Last month U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford visited Hama. This month, Syria laid siege to the city, killing 100 people in one day. Since his visit, Ford has remained generally confined to Damascus and nowhere near the protests. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait have sent a clear message to Syria, however, by withdrawing their ambassadors.

The move was politically motivated but nonetheless calculated to gain international sympathy. Syria is Iran’s only Arab-state ally, and an isolated Syria threatens Iran. A collapsed Syria hastens Iran’s demise. By taking a strong stand against Syria’s human rights violations, these states pursue their aims against an enemy regime under a humanitarian guise. They also hide their own transgressions.

In Bahrain, hospitals were converted to torture chambers where even doctors were not spared. Shia school girls were randomly selected and sexually threatened. Politicians were disappeared. And internationally renowned human rights activists such as Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, Hassan al-Mushama, and Professor Abdul-Jalil al-Singace sit in jail for life.

Bahrain’s crackdown was orchestrated by Saudi Arabia, a medieval regime that practices lashing, beheadings and amputations for relatively mundane crimes. Lebanese citizen Ali Sabat sits on death row for hosting a show in which he predicts the future. Hadi al-Mutif has spent the past 13 years and will spend the rest of his life in jail for making a joke about the Prophet Mohammad. Women are banned from driving, voting and traveling without a man’s permission. Shia are banned from government posts and judicial positions.

These aren’t the headlines in the mainstream media for these countries, though. An al-Jazeera article bylines the ambassadors’ withdrawal followed by a quote from Saudi King Abdullah: “What is happening in Syria is not acceptable…” When the words of an octogenarian absolute monarch match those of our secretary of state, the administration should up the ante. When that same absolute monarch is a chief human rights violator and has applied greater moral pressure, the administration is in trouble.

Prior to President Obama’s tenure and the Syrian crackdown, the American ambassadorship to Syria was left vacant by the Bush Administration. Syria was an ally of Iran, a sponsor of terror and a brutal dictatorship. This was not a country deserving of America’s highest local representative. Nothing has changed, except for the small fact that the Syrian people are now in a deadly struggle for freedom claiming scores of lives daily.

Ambassador Ford must be recalled, today. But to reclaim the moral high ground, the administration must go a step further by becoming the first country in the world to publically proclaim that it no longer views Syria’s Ba’athist regime as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. U.S. relations with the Muslim world will soar and America, not the world’s leading dictators, will make headlines for their humanitarian positioning.

By Matthew Mainen

Decision Time for Qatar

Published in 2011 (Some dead links were deleted, and due to the update this was pushed to the top).

It’s no secret that Qatar seeks regional leadership and influence. Last year, former Egyptian foreign affairs committee chairman Mustafa el-Feki went so far as to publicly accuse Qatar of attempting to inherit Egypt’s role as the Arab world’s powerbroker.

Qatar’s strategy has largely rested on its ability to dominate neighboring countries’ news media through its al Jazeera network. In a pan-Arab hearts and minds campaign unseen since the days of Nassar, Qatar uses al Jazeera to garner goodwill and manipulate Arab public opinion.

The network’s essential role in distributing information during the ongoing Arab uprisings has not gone unnoticed by pro-democracy movements and besieged leaders alike, but ironically, as the Qatari supported uprisings spread and continue, Qatar increasingly finds itself needing to choose between its leadership ambitions and its own undemocratic government and policies.

Even if it helped lay the groundwork, Qatar, as an absolute monarchy is unqualified to play a leadership role in what is quickly becoming the Arab world’s most pressing issue: democratic transition.

While there is no guarantee that even a single Arab state will emerge as a full-fledged democracy, the attempts invite the advice and guidance of democratic states, not autocracies, as was seen most prominently during the fall of the Soviet Union.

With tenuous democratization occurring in Tunisia and Egypt, highly likely in Yemen and at least parts of Libya and expected to emerge elsewhere, there is no better time for a politically ambitious state in the region to assert its influence. Such a state, however, must know a thing or two about democracy.

If Qatar wishes not to sit on the sidelines as representatives from the US and EU advise transitioning governments, then it must lead by example and make democratic changes to both its foreign policy and government.

Foreign policy wise, Qatar’s sending troops to Bahrain places it on the wrong side of the divide between democracy seekers and their leaders. Additionally, Qatar’s participation in the Saudi led intervention contrasts with its desire to escape Saudi Arabia’s shadow, an essential requirement for its emergence as the dominant Arab voice. This desire is best seen in Qatar’s maverick independent foreign policy in which it shares amicable relations with both Iran and Israel.

Relying on an impressive track record of ending Lebanon’s 18 month political crisis in 2008 and reaching a breakthrough in the Darfur conflict in 2010, Qatar can assert its leadership and independence by inviting members of Bahrain’s government and opposition to Doha for mediation.

At home, Qatar must embark on domestic political reform. While the monarchy will not be willfully abolished, Qatar can nonetheless embrace significant democratic elements

The process can start with the assembling of leading intellectuals, jurists, academics, moderate religious leaders and members of the royal family to draft a new constitution based on both the principles of a constitutional monarchy and Islam. This constitution will then be put to an internationally supervised referendum.

Although royal assent, the requirement that acts of parliament be approved by the monarch, is a formality in the West, it would be the rule for Qatar’s foreseeable future. To moderate this and ensure constitutional adherence, the parliament cannot be encumbered by unreasonable restrictions on dissent or political party formation.

Qatar must also show new Arab leaders and their electorates that it provides the same fundamental rights expected of emerging democracies. This includes guaranteed equality for its Shia minority, press and assembly freedom, and the rights of women.

Despite a continuation of Qatar’s monarchy, such a bold political transformation will give Qatar the credibility needed to assert true influence over nascent Arab democracies.

Qatar has a monumental opportunity to crystallize long-held ambition of attaining a direct and dominant role in the Arab world. Its actions in the coming months will determine if it will become a true leader or left to play a periphery role in a wave of democratization that its television network helped generate.