Former Syrian member of parliament and political prisoner Mamoun al-Homsi, Kurdish activist Djengizkhan Hasso of the Executive Council of the National Assembly of Kurdistan, and I recently met with US President George W. Bush in the Oval Office. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, National Security Adviser to the Vice President John Hannah and several other officials also attended the hour-long meeting.
Coming close on the heels of the Annapolis conference, which brought together representatives from all Arab states -- including Syria -- and Israel, many observers regarded our meeting as a signal of the Bush administration's refusal to normalize bilateral relations with Syria or strike any deals or bargains with its regime.
Indeed, these views may not be far off the mark. For, while talking to us, Bush did not try to mask his disdain for Syria's rulers, and he rejected the possibility of direct talks or any improvement in relations.
As such, the "positive body language" that Syrian Ambassador to the US Emad Moustapha said he detected during his brief encounter with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during the Annapolis meeting was outweighed by Bush's negative verbal language during our meeting. And we all know where the buck stops.
For our part, we underscored the worsening human rights situation in Syria. Indeed, no sooner did our meeting finish, and with the world commemorating International Human Rights Day, the Syrian regime launched a massive campaign of arrests and intimidation directed against some of the country's most prominent dissidents. Though many were freed within hours, some remain in jail.
This episode also highlights the need for continued emphasis on human rights and promotion of democracy. Indeed, growing cynicism in this regard is a dangerous trend, because this is the one issue that still appeals to the people of the Middle East and can help immensely in the Western powers' battle to win hearts and minds in our region.
Washington's "freedom agenda" is not the cause of its current travails in the Middle East. The problem has been a lack of consistency in promoting the agenda, failure to develop broader international support, and the behavior of the US itself, which has presented it as a martial plan, rather than a Marshall Plan.
Whatever the cause of these shortcomings, the lesson that US and European policymakers should draw is that the objective -- facilitating democratization and modernization -- remains valid, despite the need for a change in tactics.
Abandoning the freedom agenda would reaffirm the still-popular notion that all the US really cares about in the Middle East is oil and Israeli security, at the expense of everything else including regional development and the well-being of Arab and Muslim peoples.
This conviction continues to facilitate recruitment by extremist groups and must be countered to prevent the emergence of new fronts in the war on terror.
True, a freedom agenda will not change people's attitudes overnight, but if pursued consistently over time with bipartisan support in the US -- and more constant support in Europe -- it will have a chance to make serious headway.
There are many "ifs" here, but democracy activists can only live on hope or, as the late Syrian playwright Saadallah Wannous put it, they are condemned to it.
Despite Bush's mixed record, he still seems to share this hope. Will the same be true of America's next president?
Ammar Abdulhamid, a Syrian dissident and author, is the founder and executive director of the Tharwa Foundation, a US-based non-profit organization dedicated to improving inter-communal dynamics in the Muslim world, and a fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
An old Latin adage reads: Si vis pacem, para bellum. Translated it means: “If you wish peace, then prepare for war.” This adage has many variants and claims to authorship, but what is most important is its message for a peaceful Taiwan. Why should Taiwan prepare for war? The reasons are many and obvious. Certainly, such preparation is not because Taiwan wants war or is a warlike nation. Instead, the answer is found in its neighbor, China. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which rules China as a one-party state, is ambitious and troubled — and that combination makes war a viable option,
Unless Hollywood movies like Greenland, Deep Impact, and Armageddon have predictive powers and a rogue space rock is heading our way, stopping Chinese Communist Party expansionism is likely to prove the single most challenging and dangerous problem of our lifetimes. How can the United States, Taiwan, and other liberal democracies prepare for and prevent attacks from China? How can Washington bolster Taipei’s confidence when it doesn’t recognize Taiwan as a real country and, so far, lacks the political will to make major adjustments to its ossified China policy and Taiwan policy? How can Taiwan make itself heard on the world stage when
Hypersonic weapons are defined as armaments capable of traveling at speeds faster than Mach 5 and can be broadly classified into two types: hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV) and hypersonic cruise missiles. The former are launched into the upper atmosphere by ballistic missiles. The vehicle is then separated from the booster to maneuver, or glide, toward its target. The latter can be launched from a jet plane or rocket to reach supersonic speed before igniting a scramjet engine to achieve hypersonic speeds. As the US engages in a great-power competition with China and Russia, all three countries are racing to field hypersonic
As a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) cadet, I frequently get asked how quickly the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might overrun Taiwan if it invaded before 2040. My answer is that the PLA will not be able to take over Taiwan within that time frame, because the more eager the PLA is to complete the task in a short period, the more likely it would fail — and fail big. Having a slim chance of winning is what keeps the PLA from taking action. From time to time, some PLA leaders or keyboard fighters make threats — one of the