RSSУсе запісы з тэгамі: "Шадзі Хамід"

СТРАТЭГІІ ДЛЯ УПРАЎЛЕННЯ ПАЛІТЫЧНЫХ ІСЛАМ

ШАДЗІ ХАМІД

AMANDA KADLEC

Палітычны іслам - самая актыўная сёння палітычная сіла на Блізкім Усходзе. Яго будучыня цесна звязана з будучыняй рэгіёну. Калі ЗША і Еўрапейскі Саюз абавязаны падтрымліваць палітычныя рэформы ў рэгіёне, ім трэба будзе прыдумаць бетон, узгодненыя стратэгіі ўцягвання ісламісцкіх груповак. Усё ж, ЗША. Звычайна не хоча адкрываць дыялог з гэтымі рухамі. Дакладна, Выключэнне ЕС з ісламістамі стала выключэннем, не правіла. Там, дзе існуюць кантакты нізкага ўзроўню, у асноўным яны служаць мэтам збору інфармацыі, не стратэгічныя мэты. U.S. і ЕС маюць шэраг праграм, прысвечаных эканамічнаму і палітычнаму развіццю ў рэгіёне - сярод іх Блізка-Усходняя ініцыятыва партнёрства (MEPI), карпарацыя "тысячагоддзе" (МКК), Саюз для Міжземнамор'я, і Еўрапейская палітыка добрасуседства (ЕПС) - але яны мала што могуць сказаць пра тое, як выклік ісламісцкай палітычнай апазіцыі ўпісваецца ў больш шырокія рэгіянальныя задачы. U.S. а таксама дапамога і праграмаванне дэмакратыі ў ЕС амаль цалкам накіраваны альбо на аўтарытарныя ўрады, альбо на свецкія групы грамадзянскай супольнасці з мінімальнай падтрымкай у іх уласных грамадствах.
Надышоў час для пераацэнкі цяперашняй палітыкі. З верасня тэрактаў 11, 2001, падтрымка дэмакратыі на Блізкім Усходзе набыла большае значэнне для заходніх палітыкаў, якія бачаць сувязь паміж адсутнасцю дэмакратыі і палітычным гвалтам. Большая ўвага была ўдзелена разуменню варыяцый палітычнага ісламу. Новая амерыканская адміністрацыя больш адкрыта для пашырэння сувязі з мусульманскім светам. Тым часам, пераважная большасць асноўных ісламісцкіх арганізацый - у тым ліку Браты-мусульмане ў Егіпце, Ісламскі фронт дзеянняў Іарданіі (IAF), Партыя Справядлівасці і развіцця Марока (ПСР), ісламскі канстытуцыйны рух Кувейце, і Еменская партыя - усё часцей падтрымліваюць палітычныя рэформы і дэмакратыю як цэнтральны кампанент у іх палітычных платформах. У дадатак, шмат хто выказаў вялікую зацікаўленасць у адкрыцці дыялогу з ЗША. і ўрады ЕС.
Будучыня адносін паміж заходнімі краінамі і на Блізкім Усходзе можа ў значнай ступені вызначацца ступенню, у якім былыя ўдзельнічаюць ісламісцкім партыям, якія не гвалтуюць у шырокім дыялогу пра агульныя інтарэсы і мэты. У апошні час было распаўсюджана даследаванне, звязанае з сувяззю з ісламістамі, але мала хто выразна разглядае тое, што можа пацягнуць на практыцы. Ace Zoé Nautré, наведвальны супрацоўнік Нямецкай рады па замежных сувязях, ставіць, "ЕС думае пра ўзаемадзеянне, але не ведае, як". 1 У надзеі ўдакладніць дыскусію, мы адрозніваем тры ўзроўні "ўзаемадзеяння","Кожны з рознымі сродкамі і заканчваецца: кантакты нізкага ўзроўню, стратэгічны дыялог, і партнёрства.

Resolving America’s Islamist Dilemma: Lessons from South and Southeast Asia

Шадзі Хамід
U.S. efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East have long been paralyzed by the “Islamist dilemma”: in theory, we want democracy, але, in practice, fear that Islamist parties will be the prime beneficiaries of any political opening. The most tragic manifestation of this was the Algerian debacle of 1991 і 1992, when the United States stood silently while the staunchly secular military canceled elections after an Islamist party won a parliamentary majority. More recently, the Bush administration backed away from its “freedom agenda” after Islamists did surprisingly well in elections throughout region, including in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian territories.
But even our fear of Islamist parties—and the resulting refusal to engage with them—has itself been inconsistent, holding true for some countries but not others. The more that a country is seen as vital to American national security interests, the less willing the United States has been to accept Islamist groups having a prominent political role there. Аднак, in countries seen as less strategically relevant, and where less is at stake, the United States has occasionally taken a more nuanced approach. But it is precisely where more is at stake that recognizing a role for nonviolent Islamists is most important, і, here, American policy continues to fall short.
Throughout the region, the United States has actively supported autocratic regimes and given the green light for campaigns of repression against groups such as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest and most influential political movement in the region. In March 2008, during what many observers consider to be the worst period of anti-Brotherhood repression since the 1960s, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice waived a $100 million congressionally mandated reduction of military aid to Egypt. The situation in Jordan is similar. The Bush administration and the Democratic congress have hailed the country as a “model” of Arab reform at precisely the same time that it has been devising new ways to manipulate the electoral process to limit Islamist representation, and just as it held elections plagued by widespread allegations of outright fraud
and rigging.1 This is not a coincidence. Egypt and Jordan are the only two Arab countries that have signed peace treaties with Israel. Прычым, they are seen as crucial to U.S. efforts to counter Iran, stabilize Iraq, and combat terrorism.

Engaging Political Islam to Promote Democracy

Шадзі Хамід

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Americans have struggled toarticulate an overarching, long-term strategy for fighting religious extremism and terror in the Middle East. Most experts on both the left and right agree that promoting democracy will help address the root causes of terrorism in theregion, though they differ on to what degree. The reasoning is simple: If Arabs and Muslims lack legitimate, peaceful outlets with which to express their grievances, they are more likely to resort to violence. In one important 2003study, Princeton University’s Alan Krueger and Czech scholar Jitka Maleckova analyzed extensive data on terrorist attacks and concluded that “the only variable that was consistently associated with the number of terrorists was the Freedom House index of political rights and civil liberties. Countries with more freedom were less likely to be the birthplace of international terrorists.

Parting the Veil

shadi hamid

America’s post-September 11 project to promote democracy in the Middle East has proven a spectacular failure. Today,Arab autocrats are as emboldened as ever. Егіпет, Іарданія, Туніс, and others are backsliding on reform. Opposition forces are being crushed. Three of the most democratic polities in the region, Ліван, Ірак, and the Palestinian territories,are being torn apart by violence and sectarian conflict.Not long ago, it seemed an entirely different outcome was in the offing. Asrecently as late 2005, observers were hailing the “Arab spring,” an “autumn forautocrats,” and other seasonal formulations. They had cause for such optimism.On January 31, 2005, the world stood in collective awe as Iraqis braved terroristthreats to cast their ballots for the first time. That February, Egyptian PresidentHosni Mubarak announced multi-candidate presidential elections, another first.And that same month, after former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri wasshadi hamid is director of research at the Project on Middle East Democracyand an associate of the Truman National Security Project.Parting the Veil Now is no time to give up supporting democracy in the Muslim world.But to do so, the United States must embrace Islamist moderates.shadi hamiddemocracyjournal.org 39killed, Lebanon erupted in grief and then anger as nearly one million Lebanesetook to the streets of their war-torn capital, demanding self-determination. Notlong afterward, 50,000 Bahrainis—one-eighth of the country’s population—ralliedfor constitutional reform. The opposition was finally coming alive.But when the Arab spring really did come, the American response provide dample evidence that while Arabs were ready for democracy, the United States most certainly was not. Looking back, the failure of the Bush Administration’s efforts should not have been so surprising. Since the early 1990s, U.S. policymakershave had two dueling and ultimately incompatible objectives in the Middle East: promoting Arab democracy on one hand, and curbing the power and appealof Islamist groups on the other. In his second inaugural address, President George W. Bush declared that in supporting Arab democracy, our “vital interests and our deepest beliefs” were now one. The reality was more complicated.When Islamist groups throughout the region began making impressive gains at the ballot box, particularly in Egypt and in the Palestinian territories, the Bush Administration stumbled. With Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza high on the agendaand a deteriorating situation in Iraq, American priorities began to shift. Friendly dictators once again became an invaluable resource for an administration that found itself increasingly embattled both at home and abroad.The reason for this divergence in policy revolves around a critical question:What should the United States do when Islamists come to power through free elections? In a region where Islamist parties represent the only viable oppositionto secular dictatorships, this is the crux of the matter. In the MiddleEastern context, the question of democracy and the question of political Islamare inseparable. Without a well-defined policy of engagement toward politicalIslam, the United States will fall victim to the same pitfalls of the past. In many ways, it already has.

Resolving America’s Islamist Dilemma

Шадзі Хамід

U.S. efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East have long been paralyzed by the “Islamist dilemma”: in theory, we want democracy, але, in practice, fear that Islamist parties will be the prime beneficiaries of any political opening. The most tragic manifestation of this was the Algerian debacle of 1991 і 1992, when the United States stood silently while the staunchly secular military canceled elections after an Islamist party won a parliamentary majority. More recently, the Bush administration backed away from its “freedom agenda” after Islamists did surprisingly well in elections throughout region, including in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian territories.
But even our fear of Islamist parties—and the resulting refusal to engage with them—has itself been inconsistent, holding true for some countries but not others. The more that a country is seen as vital to American national security interests, the less willing the United States has been to accept Islamist groups having a prominent political role there. Аднак, in countries seen as less strategically relevant, and where less is at stake, the United States has occasionally taken a more nuanced approach. But it is precisely where more is at stake that recognizing a role for nonviolent Islamists is most important, і, here, American policy continues to fall short.
Throughout the region, the United States has actively supported autocratic regimes and given the green light for campaigns of repression against groups such as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest and most influential political movement in the region. In March 2008, during what many observers consider to be the worst period of anti-Brotherhood repression since the 1960s, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice waived a $100 million congressionally mandated reduction of military aid to Egypt.