RSSLahat ng Entries Na Naka-tag Sa: "Bush"

Reform in the Muslim World: The Role of Islamists and Outside Powers

Shibley Telhami


The Bush Administration’s focus on spreading democracyin the Middle East has been much discussed over the past several years, not only in the United Statesand Arab and Muslim countries but also around theworld. In truth, neither the regional discourse about theneed for political and economic reform nor the Americantalk of spreading democracy is new. Over the pasttwo decades, particularly beginning with the end of theCold War, intellectuals and governments in the MiddleEast have spoken about reform. The American policyprior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 also aimedto spread democracy in the Arab world. But in that case,the first Gulf War and the need to forge alliances withautocratic regimes were one reason talk of democracydeclined. The other reason was the discovery that politicalreform provided openings to Islamist political groupsthat seemed very much at odd with American objectives.The fear that Islamist groups supported democracy onlybased on the principle of “one man, one vote, one time,”as former Assistant Secretary of State Edward Djerejianonce put it, led the United States to backtrack. Evenearly in the Clinton Administration, Secretary of StateWarren Christopher initially focused on democracy inhis Middle East policy but quickly sidelined the issueas the administration moved to broker Palestinian-Israelinegotiation in the shadow of militant Islamist groups,especially Hamas.

Democracy and Islamist Parties

Mona Yacoubian

In the immediate aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, international pressure mounted for political reform in the Middle East, particularly the Arab world. For its part, the Bush administration elevated democracy promotion in the Middle East to a key strategic priority. The administration’s policy sprung from the belief that strong linkages exist between the Middle East’s long history of autocratic rule and the emergence of a transnational terrorist movement with its roots in many of those same countries. Numerous independent analyses likewise have suggested that the Middle East’s dysfunctional, autocratic political systems are helping to breed Islamist extremism.An Islamist “Tsunami”Yet, despite the critical importance assigned to political opening in the Middle East, a number of factors, including ongoing turmoil in Iraq and competing priorities of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), have intervened to complicate U.S. democracy promotion efforts. In particular, various Islamist parties’ strong showings in recent elections have added a new layer of complexity to U.S. democracy promotion efforts in the Arab world. Sa totoo lang, across the region, Islamist parties and organizations boast strong grassroots support. These groups represent a broad spectrum of views, ranging from moderate parties that have renounced violence to well-established terrorist organizations.Hamas’ resounding victory in the January 25, 2006 Palestinian elections, winning 74 out of 132 seats, is perhaps the most dramatic example of the power Islamists wield at the ballot box. Deemed a terrorist organization by the United States and Europe, the party’s rise to power has significantly complicated U.S. policy toward the Palestinian Authority as well as efforts to help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Similar concerns characterize Hizballah’s role in Lebanon. The terrorist organization won 14 of 128 seats in the Lebanese parliament in the June 2005 halalan, the first independent vote in thirty years following the withdrawal of Syrian troops. While Hizballah’s parliamentary presence is far outstripped by an anti-Syrian opposition bloc, the organization still holds significant sway over Lebanese politics and is the only political party to maintain an armed militia.

Dissent at Reporma sa Egypt: Mga Hamon sa Demokratisasyon

Verse M. Abul-Futouh

Sa nakalipas na dalawang taon, Nasaksihan ng Egypt ang malalaking demonstrasyon sa pangunguna ng mga bagong demokratikong kilusang lipunang sibil, kasama si Kefaya (Arabic para sa "sapat"), ang JudgesClub ng Egypt, mga pangkat ng adbokasiya ng mamamahayag, mga koalisyon ng lipunang sibil, at iba pang mga aktibistang karapatang pantao. Ang mga grupong ito ay nagtaguyod ng ilang mga dahilan kabilang ang isang independiyenteng hudikatura, ipinaglalaban ang halalan sa pagkapangulo, mga limitasyon sa termino ng pangulo, at ang pagpapawalang-bisa ng batas pang-emerhensiya. Habang karamihan sa mga kahilingang ito ay hindi pa natutugunan, ilang mga nadagdag, asexemplified ng 2005 presidential at parliamentary elections, ay ginawa.Gayunpaman, nananatiling titingnan kung magtatagumpay o hindi ang pagdagsang ito ng demokratikong sigasig sa paggigiit sa rehimen ni Pangulong Hosni Mubarak na gumawa ng mga makabuluhang hakbang tungo sa pagbubukas ng sistema at payagan ang mas malawak na demokratikong partisipasyon.. Ang mga pinuno ng Egypt ay hindi seryosong hinamon ng isang domestic oposisyon sa loob ng mahigit limang dekada. Sa likod ng afortress ng mga mahigpit na batas, nagawa ng rehimen na pahinain ang mga namumuong partidong pampulitika at panatilihin silang mahina, pira-piraso, at hindi makabuo ng anumang nasasakupan sa mga tao. Ang lipunang sibil ay nakagapos din ng mga batas na pumipigil sa kanilang pagbuo at mga aktibidad. Mula noong huling bahagi ng 1970s, pagsunod sa kasunduan sa kapayapaan ng Ehipto sa Israel, ang Egyptiangovernment ay nakatanggap ng hindi natitinag na pinansiyal at moral na suporta mula sa mga Kanluraning demokrasya—lalo na ang Estados Unidos. Egypt is seen as a staunch ally in the region, apartner in managing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Arab-Israeli relations, at, after the9/11 attacks, a valuable source of intelligence in the war on terror. The regime has usedthis support to maintain its suffocating grip on political activity.Then, starting in 2004, it seemed a new day had dawned for Egyptian reformers.Calls by the United States for Arab governments to democratize resonated strongly withincivil society, rapidly escalating domestic demands for radical political reforms. PresidentBush has often cited Egypt as an example of a developing democracy in the region. But theEgyptian regime is a hybrid of deeply rooted authoritarian elements and pluralistic andliberal aspects. There are strong state security forces, ngunit isa ring tahasang oppositionpress at isang aktibo, kahit napipigilan, sambayanan. Sa maikling salita, Ang Egypt ay ang perpektong modelo ng isang "semi-authoritarian" na estado, sa halip na isang "transisyonal na demokrasya." Patuloy na ipinapahayag ng gobyerno ni Pangulong Mubarak ang pangako nito sa liberal na demokrasya, na tumuturo sa isang malawak na hanay ng mga pormal na demokratikong institusyon. Ang realidad, gayunpaman,ay ang mga institusyong ito ay lubhang kulang. Ang naghaharing elite ay nagpapanatili ng ganap na monopolyo sa kapangyarihang pampulitika. Si Pangulong Hosni Mubarak ay nahalal noong Setyembre para sa ikalimang anim na taong termino sa panunungkulan. Upang umunlad ang mga demokratikong reporma sa Egypt,dapat gawin ang malaking institusyonal at legal na pagbabago.

TERORRIST DIASPORAS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

Shannon Peterson

David Goetze


Ever since the Bush administration’s declaration of a global war on terror after 9/11,academics and policymakers have sought ways to counter the global terrorist threat. However asJeffrey Record (2003) has noted, treating terrorism monolithically and failing to discriminatebetween terrorist groups and other actors reduces the ability to produce effectivecounterterrorism strategies. At saka, it can set actors “on a course of open-ended andgratuitous conflict with states and nonstate entities that pose no serious threat.” If terrorism andterrorist groups are not homogenous entities, then understanding the differences and similaritiesbetween groups is a crucial first step in constructing an effective counterterrorist response.This research seeks to better discriminate between terrorist groups by examining thegoals, tactics and images embedded in the narratives of terrorist or terrorist spawningorganizations. We define narratives as shared understandings of historical events and relevantactors that are used to justify past political actions or mobilize people for contemporary politicalactions as generally expressed through descriptions or charters issued by organizations orthrough statements of organizational leaders.2 Narrative, as noted by Benedict Anderson, formsthe underbelly of an “imagined community:” the glue binding a group of like-minded individualswho, “will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet inthe minds of each lives the image of their communion” (Anderson 6). Dahil dito, we believethat narratives are excellent sources for uncovering group conceptions of “self” and “others” thatare key in attracting and maintaining ties to diaspora communities, as well as related group goals,strategies and tactics. We argue that by comparing the goals, images and tactics embedded in thenarratives of these different organizations, we can shed insight on crucial differences andsimilarities between these terrorist groups. These insights not only help discriminate betweenterrorist groups and other organizations, but also shed insight on the evolution of suchorganizations themselves.Specifically, this research examines the narratives of four groups: the MuslimBrotherhood, Hamas, Al Qaeda and the Tamil Tigers. Two of these groups, Hamas and AlQaeda, have roots in the Muslim Brotherhood and therefore can be viewed as diasporas of thelatter. Gayunpaman, while the Muslim Brotherhood takes an evolutionary and nonviolent approachto goal attainment, Hamas and Al Qaeda advocate violence and terrorism to advance their cause,tactics that are also promoted by the fourth group in the analysis, the Tamil Tigers. Since theTamil Tigers have no connection with the Muslim Brotherhood, their inclusion in ourcomparative analysis allows us to determine how much of the commonality of goals acrossterrorist organizations pertains to common roots and how much pertains to commonality oforganizational type, function or tactics.