Ikhwanweb :: The Muslim Brotherhood Official English Website

Tue109 2018

Last update19:14 PM GMT

Back to Homepage
Font Size : 12 point 14 point 16 point 18 point
:: Issues > Reform Issues
Democratization in the Middle East – A Role for the US Government?
Many people throughout the world today rightly ask themselves why the United States government has become such a vocal advocate of democratization and broad political reform in the Middle East
Wednesday, November 23,2005 00:00
by WR,

Many people throughout the world today rightly ask themselves why the United States government has become such a vocal advocate of democratization and broad political reform in the Middle East.  For decades, the United States safeguarded its economic and political interests in the region through friendly relationships with autocratic Arab regimes.  However, speaking before the National Endowment for Democracy in November of 2003, President Bush said that, “60 years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty.”  Only ten months earlier, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had established the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), under the direction of the Department of State. According to information provided by MEPI officials, it is a presidential initiative that aims to “support economic, political, and educational reforms in the Middle East.”
The Middle East Partnership Initiative divides its goals for the region into four “pillars,” each focusing on a different aspect of development.  MEPI’s stated objectives include reform of the economic, political, and educational arenas, as well as reforms to provide equal opportunities for women in these arenas.  MEPI is currently in its third year.  By the end of 2004, MEPI had spent just over $103 million to meet its goals, and Congress allocated an additional $160 million since then.  
 
Economic reforms include supporting economic growth through expansion of the private sector.  Political reforms involve the expansion of the public sphere such that citizens have a choice in governance and there is respect for the rule of law.  Educational reforms are aimed at supporting educational systems that will provide both boys and girls with knowledge and skills to compete in the present economy.
 
MEPI works to support reform through several means.  These include providing technical assistance to government agencies in the region, allocating grants to non-governmental organizations to work with local politicians to improve their campaign skills, and providing funding for translating English-language books into Arabic for use in schools.  MEPI also distributes small grants to local grassroots civil society organizations working toward various reforms in the region.
 
Despite MEPI’s reformist rhetoric and stated reform objectives, the Initiative has received criticism from two prominent scholars of democratization and political reform in the Middle East, Tamara Cofman Wittes of the Brookings Institution, and Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
In November of 2004, Tamara Cofman Wittes wrote a piece entitled “The Middle East Partnership Initiative:  Progress, Problems, and Prospects.”  In it, she accused MEPI of lacking a “coherent strategy” for pursuing reform initiatives, of subsidizing Arab governments’ “attempts to build a kinder, gentler autocracy,” and of failing to win solid and tangible US government support for its programs and goals.
 
According to Wittes, MEPI’s lack of a coherent strategy for meeting its objectives is the result of substantial pressure on staff to quickly spend the money allocated to the Initiative in order to justify requests for additional funding.  In addition, the Initiative as a whole is under pressure to demonstrate quickly achieved short-term successes, despite the fact that other approaches to reform have greater potential to meet long-term reform goals.
At its founding, Wittes points out that MEPI was distinguished by a stated commitment to rejecting reform through programs and projects working specifically with Arab governments.  Instead, MEPI committed itself to prioritizing funding for and working with local grassroots civil society organizations in the region whenever possible.  Despite this, by the end of 2004 only 18% of the funds allocated to MEPI went to American or Arab NGO’s conducting work in the region.  In providing nearly 70% of allocated funding to programs favored by or directly benefiting current Arab regimes, Wittes says that MEPI is “effectively choosing to support regimes’ chosen strategy of “controlled liberalization.”
 
The above-mentioned obstacles would be less significant, Wittes says, if MEPI succeeded in winning policy support from high-level officials in the current Administration.  It seems that the President’s rhetorical commitment to reform in the Middle East remains strong, but evidence suggests that opportunities for discussions with Arab leaders about human rights and democratic political development are consistently missed.  In the end, Wittes writes that none of MEPI’s reform goals will ever be adequately achieved without sincere support from and action on the part of top Administration and foreign policy officials.
 
In February of this year, Thomas Carothers, who directs the Democracy and Rule of Law Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, issued a policy brief entitled “A Better Way to Support Middle East Reform.”  His critique of MEPI echoes many of the concerns Wittes expresses, but is coupled with a concrete method for reforming the Initiative to help it better attain its objectives.
 
Because many people in the region are suspicious of American intentions there, Carothers says that the only way MEPI will become effective is when it becomes a separate entity from the State Department and is “re-launched as a private foundation.”  Both the Asia Foundation and the Eurasia Foundation serve as precedents for this sort of reform initiative.  As government-funded but privately run foundations, they have proven to be viable alternatives to direct government sponsorship of reform in foreign countries. 
 
In addition to the negative impact of an association with the American government, Carothers says that the State Department is not the ideal place to house MEPI because the long-term vision for reform needed cannot be fostered in a “crisis-oriented and often politicized policy bureaucracy.”  If MEPI is removed from the State Department and reestablished as a private foundation, it will be staffed by people hired in a competitive and open process that will ensure a staff knowledgeable about the region and committed to achieving development there.  Also, as a private foundation the Initiative could receive funding from a wider range of sources and would be permitted to work closely with organizations on the ground in the region without having to worry about remaining with the confining boundaries of official government protocols.
 
In the end, President Bush’s calls for economic, educational, and political reform in the Middle East appear to be aimed at achieving a level of stability in the region.  While cozy relationships with autocratic Middle Eastern leaders remain difficult to change quickly or drastically, the President seems to understand that such changes are imperative to the region’s development and prosperity.  Though riddled with flaws and thus far unimpressive in its achievements, MEPI remains the single US governmental initiative dedicated to reform in the Middle East and retains the potential to become an effective means of positive change.                 

 


Posted in Reform Issues  
Add Comment Send to Friend Print
Related Articles
Bush’s love of dictator troubling
A Rare Opportunity for the Bush Administration
Iraq is now a Shiite Islamic Theocracy, thanks to Bush
Jimmy Carter Slams Bush On Human Rights
Egyptian House Speaker Accuses Washington of Foolishness, Calls Bush another Niron
Bush pressures to restore Dahlan’s good standing
U.S. Democracy Promotion During and After Bush
Is Bush planning an attack on Iran?:
Transformed By Her Bond With Bush
As Democracy Push Falters, Bush Feels Like a ’Dissident’
Analysis: Bush’s Sweeping Push For Democracy Is Sinking
Morsi: Bush’s Call for Peace Conference Flagrant Bias
What turned Brent Scowcroft against the Bush Administration?
Bush must keep in check Egypt’s desperate despot
Israelis Grow Troubled by Bush Priorities
Bush Says Iraq War Is Good for Israel
Bush’s Self-Evident Certitude
Bush turns a blind eye to repression in Egypt
The President of Iran’s Letter To President Bush
Mubarak’s Son Met Secretly With Bush and Cheney
High school student fails exam for criticizing Bush
Insights Into The World, Bush’s High Goals Reach Low Point
CAIR Asks Bush to Demand that Israel Allow Evacuation of Americans in Lebanon
Legal Group Says Bush Undermines Law by Ignoring Select Parts of Bills
Bush Administration concerned with the issue of Mubarak absence
MB Slams Bush for Equating Islam to Fascism
MB Condemns Both Terrorist Threats & Bush’s Statement
American Muslim Leaders Condemn Bush Islamic Facism Statement
Muslims angered by Bush’s “fascism” remarks
Bush Administeration in the zionist aggression against Lebanon
Lebanon pact disappoints U.S.; Bush admin wanted "Israeli" forces to destroy Hizbullah
Bush Mideast Doctrine Seen As ‘Disaster’ For Israel
Bush showered by fiercest criticism from Israeli politician
Bush’s Belief in a Worldwide Islamist Conspiracy is Foolish and Dangerous
Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor
Bush’s Hezbollah hangover
Bush Admin. Blamed for Arabs’ Hatred towards US, Fotouh says
Open Letter to President Bush Re: Democracy Promotion
Muhammad’s sword, Pope Benedict XVI in the service of George W. Bush
Bush’s Failed Policy of Kill, Kill, Kill
How Jesus Endorsed Bush’s Invasion of Iraq
Jordanian MB Dissatisfied With Bush’s Visit
Arabs may one day miss George W. Bush
Bush forcefully rejects direct talks with Syria, Iran
Paradoxes Doom Bush’s ‘New Strategy’ in Iraq
Israel never liked Bush’s democratization scheme
How do you like your democracy now, Mr. Bush?
The ’New Middle East’ Bush Is Resisting
The Bush administration’s new strategy of setting the Middle East aflame
Parties of God: The Bush Doctrine And The Rise of Islamic Democracy
“THE CHENEYBUSH WAR POLICY: CONNECTING THE DOTS”
Bush should push Musharraf on elections this year in Pakistan
Israel vs. Bush & the Neoconservatives on Syria?
Bush criticizes jailing of Egypt’s most prominent dissident
Bush Is Losing Credibility On Democracy, Activists Say
Bush Weighs Reaching Out To ‘Brothers’
Bush’s crusade to bring democracy to the Middle East is resulting in strengthening militant Islam
Bush’s dream of democratic Middle East
Bush’s Fake Sheik Whacked: