Is the U.S. retarding Arab reform?

from Daily Star:

Two related and important issues that are widely debated these days among analysts, citizens and foreign military invaders of the Middle East are: Why has the pace of democratic reform been so inconsistent over the years, and what is the impact of the new American policy of promoting reforms in this region? It is critically important that the political debate, and the related diplomatic and cultural negotiations between Arabs, Americans and Europeans over these issues, be conducted with much more honesty than was the case, for example, with the thin debate over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before that country was attacked.

This trend has been driven by three related forces: homegrown demands for dignity and better governance by the citizens of the Middle East; increasingly vulnerable and more thinly legitimate Arab regimes that find it difficult to maintain the existing political and economic order; and external pressures to reform and modernize (mainly from the U.S., but also from Europe and other industrialized democracies).

In private conversations and public lectures here in Beirut this week, Hudson has outlined the strengths and weaknesses of the Arab democratic reform movement, and the role of the United States in it. Among the significant points he makes is that Arab liberalism has moved erratically in the past few decades, largely due to four factors: the strength of the authoritarian modern Arab security state, the fear of Islamists taking over political space that is opened up, the impact of economic stresses and imbalances, and the distorting effect of regional conflicts.

On the positive side, however, he points to several other trends now driving Arab reforms: the activism of a dynamic and democratic civil society, the mass media's capacity to inspire activists in one country by showing the breakthroughs of their colleagues in other Arab or foreign countries, and the structural changes required of governments if they wish to join global trading systems such as the World Trade Organization or bilateral free-trade agreements. On top of this, and perhaps most importantly, he says, authoritarian Arab regimes and leaders themselves sense their own growing weakness and inability to maintain their one-party power structures, because they see that their countries simply do not function very well in today's globalized, market-driven world.

Hudson clearly warns against the U.S. embracing Arab democrats and reformers too closely and "contaminating" them, because of the region's widespread deep suspicions of American motives and anger at American policies, especially in Palestine and Iraq. Many Arabs, he notes, fear that Washington's calls for reform hide deeper aims of regime change in other countries in the region.

Arab democratization will also bring in changes that might appear to contradict existing U.S. policies or values, including democratically elected religious leaderships with close links to Iran, governance systems based on sectarian, religious and ethnic sharing of the pie, and Arab state policies that are critical of the U.S.

Syria Heralds Reforms, But Many Have Doubts

DAMASCUS, Syria, May 17 -- Beset by U.S. attempts to isolate his country and facing popular expectations of change, Syrian President Bashar Assad will move to begin legalizing political parties, purge the ruling Baath Party, sponsor free municipal elections in 2007 and formally endorse a market economy, according to officials, diplomats and analysts.

Emboldened opposition leaders, many of whom openly support pressure by the United States even if they mistrust its intentions, said the measures were the last gasp of a government staggering after its hasty and embarrassing troop withdrawal last month from neighboring Lebanon.

The debate over the changes comes during a remarkable surge in what constitutes dissent in this country of 18 million. For the first time in years, opposition figures and even government allies are openly speculating on the fate of a party that, in some fashion, has ruled Syria since 1963 in the name of Arab nationalism, and today faces perhaps its greatest crisis. The debate points to the most pressing questions in the country today: Can Syria truly reform itself and what might follow?

"We understand that democracy is a process -- a historical and political process -- but we are on the right track, and we have begun the mechanisms that will take us forward," said Imad Shueibi, who directs the Data and Strategic Studies Center in Damascus and says he is aligned with reformers within Assad's government. "This will be the first step."

Dissidents are dismissive of the government's capacity to sincerely reform. They see similarities between government moves here and in Egypt, the Arab world's most populous country, where President Hosni Mubarak has sought to introduce measured but controlled change.

"We have an archaic authoritarian regime, which is now a burden on itself. They want to streamline it and make it more attractive," said Yassin Hajj Saleh, a leftist dissident imprisoned for 16 years and freed in 1996. He calls the moves "the modernization of authoritarianism."

"The old model has ended, it is outdated, its age has passed," he said, "and they want to renew it."

Assad, who seems to remain popular in Syria, has pointed to next month's congress of the Baath Party as the centerpiece of the promised reforms. The congress, which has become the talk of the capital, was last convened in 2000 after Assad inherited power from his father, Hafez Assad. In the wake of the withdrawal from Lebanon, expectations were high that the congress might inaugurate a Syrian equivalent of glasnost. In past weeks, through the state media, those hopes have been steadily ratcheted down.

Clashes with Israel put Hizbullah back in global spotlight

By Linda Dahdah
Daily Star staff
Monday, May 16, 2005

BEIRUT: As clashes between Hizbullah and Israeli forces continued over the weekend, international reactions brought the disarming of the Lebanese resistance group back into the spotlight only a few weeks before the start of parliamentary elections.

On Saturday, the French Foreign Ministry said France was disturbed by the "resumption of fire over the past three days on the frontier zone between Lebanon and Israel."

In a statement, the Foreign Ministry's spokesman said: "In this period of preparation ahead of the elections, which will be crucial for Lebanon, we call on all parties involved to show the utmost restraint and to respect the calm needed for this vote to be carried out well."

"We call on all parties to immediately cease all attacks and to exercise calm and restraint," said U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher late Friday.

"This is an especially sensitive and critical time for the Lebanese people, who will be voting in parliamentary elections ... This opportunity for reaffirming democracy in Lebanon must not be undermined by militias pursuing their own agendas," Boucher said.

"These incidents highlight the urgent need for full and immediate compliance by all parties with UN Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1583," he added.

Resolution 1559, adopted early last September, calls for all militias in Lebanon to disarm, targeting Hizbullah and Palestinian factions in refugee camps. Resolution 1583, adopted in January 2005, calls on Lebanon to assert full control over its border with Israel, explicitly stating that the UN sees no merit in Lebanon's claim to Shebaa Farms.

Since Friday, Israeli artillery and aircraft continued to pound the outskirts of Lebanese border villages early Saturday.

These clashes are the fiercest in four months and come after the Shiite group's second drone flight over Northern Israel earlier last month.

On Friday, Hizbullah said it had only opened fire on Israeli positions in the disputed Shebaa Farms district after Israeli machine-gun fire hit the Lebanese village of Kfar Shouba.

Lebanese security forces had added that Israeli air raids also hit the towns of Khiam and Rmeish, further west.

Israeli officials denied the accusations and launched retaliatory shelling saying it had destroyed four Hizbullah bases.

Hizbullah politburo member Rima Fakhry charged Saturday that Israel had cynically provoked the flare-up to intensify Western pressure on the resistance group.

"Lebanon's political elite is preoccupied with the forthcoming parliamentary elections and there's a tacit agreement here to postpone discussion of the question of Hizbullah's weapons. But that's not in Israel's interests, so they provoked this escalation in a bid to reopen the issue," she said.

Although Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon denied the Jewish state was interestd in any escalation on the border, European diplomats based in Beirut thought Israel had deliberately provoked Friday's flare-up.

"Israel wants to raise tension on the border to step up the pressure and secure the implementation of Clause Two of Resolution 1559" on militia disarmament, one diplomat said.

Meanwhile, Israeli officials declared "Hizbullah wants to trap Israel by unleashing a military conflagration in South Lebanon that would justify its continued existence as a militia."

"Having been on the defensive since the departure of the Syrian Army from Lebanon, Hizbullah wants to appear as a guarantor of Lebanese soverignty at Israel's expense in order to win more votes in elections that look bad for them right now," the declaration said.

After three decades of Syrian control, Lebanon is preparing to hold its first general elections without a Syrian military presence.

However, Isrraeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said Friday: "We are following events in Lebanon closely. The Syrians continue to play a certain role despite announcing their troops have withdrawn."

As the situation went back to normal Sunday, Israeli aircraft continued their daily violations of Lebanese air space. - With AFP