Clinton Promises Peace on First Mideast Tour
Vowing action, aid and aggressive diplomacy to bring about “comprehensive” peace in the Middle East based on political solutions, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her widely anticipated appearance at an international donors conference for Gaza this week in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh — part of her first visit to the Middle East as secretary of state.
 She tried to make good on those promises by pledging $900 million in new U.S. assistance to the Palestinians and announcing that the Obama administration will soon dispatch two envoys to Syria to explore re-engagement with Damascus.
The former first lady and senator also personally committed herself to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking, which she said is “is in my heart, not just my portfolio.”
But the obstacles to peace quickly emerged during the secretary’s visit to the troubled region, which wrapped up this week with a stop to Europe.
Among the thorny issues: Only $300 million of the $900 million in U.S. aid would go directly to Gaza, with the rest going to bolster the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, highlighting the ongoing split between Hamas and Fatah; Israel is set to be headed by right-winger Benjamin Netanyahu, who’s resistant to a two-state solution; rocket fire from Gaza continues, while Israel refuses to allow building materials and other aid into Gaza; and Clinton herself has privately expressed doubts that Obama’s outreach to Iran will be successful, dampening hopes of a diplomatic rapprochement under the new president.
Hamas — which the U.S. and EU have labeled a terrorist organization — did not participate in the international gathering on March 2. Clinton in fact confirmed that the Bush policy of refusing to deal with Hamas would continue for the time being, taking a hard line against the Islamist movement that rules the Gaza Strip. “Hamas is not getting any of this money,” declared State Department spokesman Robert Wood, saying that the $300 million to meet “urgent” humanitarian needs in Gaza would be funneled through the United Nations and other groups.
The rest of the aid contains $200 million to support pay wages for the Palestinian Authority and $400 million for reform and development in the West Bank. The f ull $900 million package still needs congressional approval.
The conference was intended to raise funds for Gazan humanitarian aid and reconstruction after Israel’s 22-day assault that pummeled the coastal enclave of 1.5 million Palestinians. It raised a total of $4.5 billion in donations from 70 countries, far exceeding the Palestinian Authority’s request of $2.8 billion. But the United States and Israel have made it clear they want the money to go primarily to Hamas’s rival, the Fatah party headed by Mahmoud Abbas. “We have to shore up the Palestinian Authority,” Wood said. Clinton reiterated that stance during her meeting with Abbas today, saying: "The United States supports the Palestinian Authority as the only legitimate government of the Palestinian people."
Clinton also squashed the possibility of any U.S. overture to Hamas. “Hamas is not a country,” she said at a news conference Monday night in Sharm el-Sheikh (though neither is Fatah). “Everyone knows what Hamas must do, and it is up to Hamas … recognize Israel, renounce violence, and agree to abide by the prior PLO agreements.”
Israel is equally determined to isolate Hamas and keep it from firing rockets that have terrorized Israel’s southern communities for the past eight years. Israel cites that barrage of homemade Qassam rocket attacks as the reason for its January offensive in Gaza, which killed some 1,300 Palestinians, including about 400 children, and destroyed thousands of homes and businesses. Thirteen Israelis also died during the fighting.
Although both sides declared unilateral ceasefires in January, Israel hasn’t fully allowed aid to enter the beleaguered strip, and rocket attacks from inside Gaza haven’t completely stopped. In its effort to prevent Hamas from rearming itself, Israel has banned the importation of cement, steel rods and other material essential for reconstruction. But humanitarian groups complain that other kinds of aid have also been turned away, ranging from macaroni and lentils to paper and schoolbooks.
Meanwhile, the Israeli military says 130 rockets and mortars have been fired from Gaza since the unilateral ceasefires. Caretaker Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, speaking in Jerusalem at the start of his cabinet’s weekly meeting, warned: “If the rocket fire from Gaza continues, it will be answered with a painful, harsh, strong and uncompromising response from the security forces.”
Clinton too reaffirmed the “unrelenting” U.S. commitment to Israel’s right to defend itself, and declared “unshakeable” support for the Jewish state, regardless of what type of coalition government takes shape.
Still, those ties could be strained under the hawkish Netanyahu, who’s been tasked with forming Israel’s next government and who favors economic development in the West Bank over pursuing an independent Palestinian homeland.
Clinton seemed to publicly disagree with the prime minister-designate on the issue, arguing that “the inevitability of working toward a two state-solution is inescapable.”
Another potentially divisive issue may be Israeli settlements. The group Peace Now recently revealed that the Israeli housing ministry has been given initial authorization to build 15,000 new housing units in the West Bank.
State Department officials would not confirm if Clinton raised the issue of settlement expansion and loosening border crossings during her meetings with Israeli officials, although at a press conference with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, she did denounce the demolition of dozens of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, calling the actions "unhelpful."
Abbas — whose Fatah party is still in reconciliation talks with Hamas — was more forceful, declaring that "it is a clear message to us that whoever is undertaking these measures does not want peace."
At Sharm el-Sheikh, Abbas also made it clear that any progress in Gaza and the West Bank ultimately depends on resolving the conflict with Israel. Noting his appreciation of the $4.5 billion in donations, Abbas warned: “The reconstruction and development efforts will remain insufficient, powerless and threatened in the absence of a political settlement.”
On that front, he seems to have some consensus with Clinton, who emphasized: “Our response to today’s crisis in Gaza cannot be separated from our broader efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace.”
And with that one word, “comprehensive,” Clinton seems to have broken with the Bush administration’s policy of focusing exclusively on Israeli-Palestinian dialogue by stressing a broader Israeli peace with its Arab neighbors.
To that end, she announced the Obama administration will soon be sending two envoys to Syria: Jeffrey Feltman, acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, and Daniel Shapiro, the senior official for the Middle East on the National Security Council staff.
Israel held indirect talks with Syria brokered by Turkey over the Golan Heights last year, and although those talks were halted, many experts say an Israeli-Syrian peace deal is still attainable. In addition, Damascus — which in recent years aligned itself more closely to Iran — has signaled it is ready to engage Washington after years of diplomatic isolation.
Just last week, Feltman met with Syria’s ambassador in Washington, Imad Moustapha, at the State Department. Interestingly, Feltman, an ambassador to Lebanon during Bush’s second term, apparently angered the Syrian government enough that at one point, according to the Washington Post, State Department security officials were concerned that Damascus had ordered his assassination.
For her part, Clinton has expressed tepid optimism that talks can’t hurt, at least as far as Syria is concerned. Cautioning that “we have no way to predict what the future with our relations concerning Syria might be,” she nevertheless said “it is a worthwhile effort to go and begin these preliminary conversations.”
Clinton continued her Middle East conversations with Abbas in the West Bank on Wednesday, after meeting with Israeli leaders in Jerusalem on Tuesday. Following her Mideast tour, she switches gears and heads to Brussels for meetings with NATO foreign ministers.
After her first trip overseas to Asia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, top, headed to the Middle East to participate in an international donors conference on Gaza, as well as meet with Israeli and Palestinian officials. She was accompanied by the State Department’s special envoy George Mitchell, bottom photo left, who also traveled to region earlier to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu, who’s been tasking with forming Israel’s coalition government.
Top photo: U.S. State Department
Bottom photo: U.S. Embassy Tel Aviv/Matty Stern
Fighting for Iran’s Humanity
“I am an Iranian. I have been born in Iran. I was raised in Iran. I work in Iran, and I will die in Iran” — that’s the word from Shirin Ebadi, a Nobel laureate who will also undoubtedly continue her persistent campaign to promote human rights in her beloved but imperfect homeland.
 Ebadi spoke at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in early February just before Iran celebrated the 30th anniversary of its Islamic Revolution — and during those three decades, Ebadi has personally fought for democracy and human rights, especially legal rights for women, children and refugees. It’s been a long battle with consequences, for better or worse.
Most recently at the start of 2009, Ebadi’s home-office in Tehran was vandalized by scores of young men chanting “Death to the pen-pushing mercenary.” It was the latest in a string of run-ins with hardliners for Ebadi, whose Center for the Defense of Human Rights was shut down by Iranian authorities in December, shortly after the United Nations passed a nonbinding resolution calling on Iran to improve its human rights record.
But the 61-year-old human rights lawyer wasn’t deterred, and she promptly returned to Iran after her U.S. speaking tour, continuing the center’s activities even though it was closed down.
Yet Ebadi doesn’t harbor any visible anger toward President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. To the contrary, she is a moderate who criticizes both Western and Islamic powers and urges respectful dialogue between each — insisting that it take place at both the political and civil levels of society.
 “I don’t think that there are differences that cannot be resolved,” Ebadi told the Carnegie audience, speaking through a translator, of U.S.-Iranian relations “I think what exists is just a misunderstanding. In order to resolve the problems, I have always talked about dialogue with no preconditions,” she added, noting her optimism on the issue with the election of President Barack Obama, who appears open to engaging Tehran.
But while the “presidents and parliaments” of each country must talk to each other, Ebadi stressed that cooperation must also take place among the people.
To that end, she pointed out that there are 2 million Iranians living in the United States. “If each Iranian who lives in the United States has at least five members of his or her family in Iran, just imagine how many people would like to have a good relationship between the two countries,” she said.
And regardless of Ahmadinejad’s hostile rhetoric or what comes of Obama’s overtures to Iran, this people-to-people engagement can and must continue. Admitting that both the Iranian and U.S. governments tend to be suspicious of human rights activists, Ebadi said one way to press ahead with dialogue is to directly link up members of the same professions, encouraging teachers to interact with teachers, media with media, etc.
On that note, Ebadi faulted the U.S. government for not issuing enough student visas to foster civil society exchanges. But the brunt of her criticism was reserved for her homeland, where she’s been unwavering in her push for political, gender, religious and ethnic equality — a long-standing commitment that won her the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003, becoming the first Iranian to do so.
Although she acknowledged that Iran’s government came to power legitimately with a majority of the population supporting the 1979 revolution, Ebadi warned that legitimacy is bestowed from both the ballot box and respect for universal human rights.
She also emphasized that human rights is indeed universal, and cannot be defined by one particular religion, country or group. “If we accept that the Muslims can write an Islamic human rights declaration, then we have to accept that other religions do the same thing,” Ebadi said. “Human rights is an international concept. And it’s above the national laws of any country, even the constitution of any country.”
Yet Iran has been far from universal in applying human rights to its own people, Ebadi charged, complaining that discriminatory laws and practices divide the nation and oppress the weak.
In particular, the inequality is most stark for women, who make up half the country. Ironically, women occupy many upper echelons of Iranian society, working as doctors, professors and engineers, and making up about 65 percent of the country’s university students. Yet legally, their worth is half that of men — literally.
“Testification of two women in court equals testification of one man. A man can marry four wives…. If me and my brother go out to the street and we are attacked by a terrorist, for example, and we both lose limbs, the law predicts payment of compensation to my brother twice as much as it does to me,” explained Ebadi, who prior to the revolution, served as a judge during the Shah’s reign.
“After the revolution, I was told that I could not continue to be a judge because I was a woman. And I was demoted. I became the secretary or the clerk of the court that I used to be the judge in. I could not tolerate that situation,” Ebadi recalled.
“What we’re working on is to make the government, regardless of the name of the government, to observe human rights,” she added, noting that although the two regimes before and after the revolution are certainly different, neither earn high marks for human rights. “Things were different then — bad and different. Now they are bad and different,” Ebadi quipped. “In any way, bad is bad.”
Through it all though, Ebadi has worked to bolster the legal status of children and women, the latter of which played a key role in the May 1997 election of reformist President Mohammad Khatami. Since then, Ahmadinejad has regressed on many of those reforms, though progress is still tangible.
Today, for instance, Ebadi pointed out that technology is helping a younger generation of activists stay ahead of government censors. In fact, earlier this week on Feb. 24, it was reported that a group of some 70 Iranian students were arrested following a rare show of protest against government policies.
But a bigger worry for the country’s burgeoning youth is the economy and simply getting a job. To that end, Ebadi said that “70 percent of the workers will fall under the poverty line,” blaming enormous military budgets that dwarf education and health care — a problem in the United States.
But at the same time, Ebadi warned that human rights should not take a backseat to economic and political priorities — a subject that recently came up during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to China. Ebadi also chided both the United States and Iran for being consumed by the nuclear debate to the exclusion of all other issues, urging the two governments to refocus their discussions on human rights.
Why? Because human rights and politics are intimately intertwined, Ebadi said. “I believe that when I speak about a dialogue and negotiations between the civil societies of each country, that brings awareness to the people. And when people are aware of the issues, that will impact the way they vote. If we bring hatred to the world and just talk about hatred all the time, that will impact our votes. However, if we bring friendship and talk about commonalities between the two societies, then that will impact the vote as well.”
But Ebadi stressed that she doesn’t believe in any sort of forced regime change — quite the opposite. “I have said numerous times that I not only do not accept an attack on Iran — a military attack on Iran — I don’t even accept the threat of a military attack on Iran. And also all economic sanctions on Iran, because any economic sanction will deteriorate the situation of people, but does not hurt the government. And a threat of a military attack will result in the government becoming stronger and use national security as a result of oppressing people,” Ebadi said, arguing that any change must come from within. “The people demand respect for democracy and human rights in Iran and this demand can only take place in a peaceful situation.”
Top photo from left, Prince Albert II of Monaco, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi, and Nobel Literature Laureate Wole Soyinka pose for a photo following their participation in the Geneva lecture series, “Are Human Rights Universal?”
Bottom photo, President of Iran Addresses Press Conference
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses a press conference following his speech on the opening day of the 62nd session of the U.N. General Assembly in New York.
Top photo: Photo: UN / Jean-Marc Ferre
Bottom photo: UN / Mark Garten
Front page photo: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Fragile Central American Democracies Threatened
Special to the Diplomatic Pouch contributed by Larry Luxner
Central America’s seven democracies — already challenged by weak judicial systems, overburdened bureaucracies and rising gang violence — now have a new worry to cope with: Economic disruption caused by a falloff in crucial factory exports and a sharp drop in family remittances from the United States.
 That’s the conclusion of a panel of experts who spoke at a Feb. 19 gathering titled “Democracy in Central America: How Strong?”
The event, organized by the right-leaning Hudson Institute, attracted 130 people and brought together Jorge Vargas, a professor at the University of Costa Rica; Anne Krueger, former IMF official and now professor of international economics at Johns Hopkins University; former State Department official Caleb McCarry, and John Walters, former director of the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy.
The picture varies widely throughout Central America, which covers 324,000 square miles, comprises 41.3 million people and has a total gross domestic product of $107 billion.
Vargas pointed out that “except for Costa Rica and to some extent El Salvador, the rest of the countries rank among the worst in terms of unequal distribution of income in Latin America, a region already noted for unequal distribution of income,” he said, noting that in four countries — Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua — per-capita GDP is now below that of India.
 “Central American societies are no longer rural but urban societies, and with that comes the challenge of how to deal with populations with rising expectations,” Vargas continued. “The last municipal elections in Nicaragua were blatantly fraudulent — the first fraudulent process since authoritarianism was vanquished in the region. In most countries, even the ones that have not dared to perpetrate fraud, institutions are politicized and partisan. The situation is worse in Nicaragua, but El Salvador should be watched closely too.”
Overall, according to Vargas, “all Central American countries have weak or nonexistent regulations for private funding of political parties, and everywhere in the region, political parties are in deep trouble. The worst case is Guatemala, and the rule of law and accountability is particularly weak in Honduras.”
Walters, who served as the Bush administration’s “drug czar,” told participants that Central America’s main problem is that “the basic institutions of justice have been inefficient.” He pointed to armed gangs in Mexico and El Salvador, and the dramatic surge in drug-related violence throughout the region. “They have not been accessible to many people in these countries, and they don’t protect individuals even when it’s most needed.”
One indication of this is the amount of money Central American countries spend on their judicial systems — less than $10 per capita annually in Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama, according to Vargas. The figures are slightly better for Costa Rica ($29.90) and El Salvador ($23.70). While in both Panama and Nicaragua, there are fewer than two public defendants for every 100,000 inhabitants.
“As the first decade of the 21st century comes to a close, the region faces real risks of state failure in some cases,” Vargas said, suggesting that Costa Rica and Panama might even form a G-2 mini-bloc to protect themselves from their poorer neighbors. “As a Central American, I am bracing myself for dangerous times.”
Krueger’s outlook isn’t very reassuring either.
Citing a recent World Bank study on the ease of doing business in 180 countries, she said Central America showed “truly discouraging results” that do not bode well for the region’s short-term economic future.
“Panama ranked 81st on the list, and Panama was the best of them. Nicaragua was next-best at 107th, Guatemala ranked 112th and Costa Rica 117th,” she said. “When it came to protection of investors, Costa Rica was 164th. Costa Rica has obviously done very well in the past, but lately has fallen behind. Finally, Honduras ranked 133rd. With those numbers, no matter how good the economy is, it’s still going to be a problem. The picture is not a good one.”
Small size and distance from main markets is no excuse for poor economic performance, she added, pointing to Singapore and New Zealand as prime examples of successful economies that are relatively small and far away from centers of population.
“Between 2002 and 2006, the world economy never had it so good,” said Krueger. “Those are years in which the prudent policy would have been to run fiscal surpluses in the good years, so there would buffers in the bad years. Yet Central American countries all ran deficits every year from 2002 to 2006. That means they gave away whatever latitude they might have had to better cope with the economic difficulties we’re all having now.”
The impact of the U.S. financial crisis on Central America cannot be measured yet — though one early effect has been a drop in family remittances. In Mexico, the largest single recipient of wire transfers and other cash payments from the United States, remittances have fallen 12 percent, from $24 billion in 2007 to $22 billion last year.
“Remittances are critical to macroeconomic stability in these countries, and to dollarization in El Salvador,” said Vargas. “This is a huge issue in Central America, and it’s having a direct hit on their monetary policies.”
From top, former State Department official Caleb McCarry; Jorge Vargas, a professor at the University of Costa Rica; John Walters, former director of the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy; and Anne Krueger, former IMF official and now professor of international economics at Johns Hopkins University, participated in a Hudson Institute event titled “Democracy in Central America: How Strong?”
Photos: Larry Luxner
Obama’s Inheritance Could be His Legacy
Special to the Diplomatic Pouch contributed by Patrick Haggerty
Earlier this year, David E. Sanger, the longtime White House correspondent for the New York Times, added to the long list of tomes detailing the challenges facing the Obama administration with his new book, a sobering narrative that in a sense reflects George W. Bush’s legacy as much as it does Barack Obama’s.
 “The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power” primarily focuses on the security issues that have developed since the Bush administration’s Iraqi adventure in 2003. But while the book is based on the Iraq war, it actually mentions very little of the conflict. Sanger calls the war a “great distraction,” something that consumed Bush, but from there he goes on to systematically break down the issues that slipped through the net of an administration at war.
The first 100 pages or so are dedicated solely to the Iranian nuclear threat and the man behind it: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Sanger’s account of the Iranian president’s diatribes at the United Nations and Council on Foreign Relations borders on the hilarious, though he leaves the reader with a more serious sense of the difficulties ahead: “If the dinner was a glimpse of what it would be like to negotiate with Iran, if we ever got that far, this probably wouldn’t end well,” Sanger writes.
From Iran, he jumps to many hotspots from Afghanistan — where he echoes the sentiment that Bush’s strategy went awry — to North Korea and China, both of which Sanger argues used the distraction of the Iraq war to expand their own regional and international influence, China economically and North Korea militarily. Sanger — who before Washington was chief of Times bureau in Tokyo — spends some time discussing our future with China and the many opportunities to mutually benefit from China’s development. Sanger’s excitement at the prospects is in fact palpable as he outlines ideas to forge an environmental alliance, greater economic balance, and bring China fully onto the international stage.
Throughout the book, you’re taken in by Sanger’s impressive ability to obtain insider information. Working as the White House correspondent for the better part of a decade, combined with his 26 years with the Times, Sanger clearly gained access to top officials, as evident through his snippets of conversation with figures such as Condoleezza Rice, Michael Hayden and Robert Gates. And Sanger’s knack for squeezing facts from nameless administration aides and officials is almost uncanny.
It’s no secret how Sanger feels about Obama’s predecessor. At the same time, he provides a lucid, frank explanation of why problems developed, although at times, his exasperation with Bush breaks free and overshadows the measured, journalistic analysis you see in most of the book. In the end, Sanger’s overarching tone is one of remorse and regret, highlighting the many missed opportunities he discusses in the book.
Sanger has been on a speaking tour around town promoting “The Inheritance,” most recently at the Middle East Institute on Feb. 19. The partisan overtones that sneak into the book were almost nonexistent as he explained the adventures he had and the people he met while writing it. It wasn’t the recollections of a liberal or conservative, but a seasoned journalist in top form.
The book is a testament to Sanger’s years of experience reporting both at home and abroad. His book not only delves into present-day problems but looks at their root causes and histories, as well as possible solutions. His final words in the epilogue “Obama’s Challenge” seem to offer two paths, one in which Obama seizes the moment and delivers on the change he’s promised, becoming a celebrated American hero. Or one in which history passes him by and events over take him if he’s unable to seize control of the agenda he has inherited from Bush.
Whatever the case, “The Inheritance” offers solid ideas in an enjoyable read for those both familiar with politics and Beltway outsiders. It’s a good primer on Obama at the beginning, and leaves the reader eagerly waiting for the next chapter.
Front page photo: Center for a New American Security
THE WASHINGTON DIPLOMAT
P.O. Box 1345 Silver Spring, MD 20915-1345
Tel: 301.933.3552 Fax: 301.949.0065
www.washdiplomat.com
|
