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
In September 2013, the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) quietly released an internal document entitled, “Coursebook on the Military Geography of the Taiwan Strait.” This sensitive, “military-use-only” coursebook explains why it is strategically vital that China “reunify” (annex) Taiwan. It then methodically analyzes various locations of interest to People’s Liberation Army (PLA) war planners. The coursebook highlights one future battlefield in particular: Fulong Beach, in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District, which it describes as “3,000 meters long, flat, and straight,” and located at “the head of Taiwan.” A black and white picture of Fulong’s sandy coastline occupies the
Early last month, China’s rubber-stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress (NPC), officially approved the country’s 14th Five-Year Plan. The strategy was supposed to demonstrate that China has a long-term economic vision that would enable it to thrive, despite its geopolitical contest with the US. However, before the ink on the NPC’s stamp could dry, China had already begun sabotaging the plan’s chances of success. The new plan’s centerpiece is the “dual-circulation” strategy, according to which China would aim to foster growth based on domestic demand and technological self-sufficiency. This would not only reduce China’s reliance on external demand; it would also
Interrupting the assimilation of Xinjiang’s Uighur population would result in an unmanageable national security threat to China. Numerous governments and civil society organizations around the world have accused China of massive human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and labeled Beijing’s inhumane and aggressive social re-engineering efforts in the region as “cultural genocide.” Extensive evidence shows that China’s forceful ethnic assimilation policies in Xinjiang are aimed at replacing Uighur ethnic and religious identity with a so-called scientific communist dogma and Han Chinese culture. The total assimilation of Uighurs into the larger “Chinese family” is also Beijing’s official, central purpose of its ethnic policies
In studies of Taiwan’s demographic changes, the Institute of Sociology at Academia Sinica has found that a mere 36.5 percent of men and 19.6 percent of women think getting married is an important life event. The institute also found that the government spending money or amending laws and regulations in order to encourage families to have children is having no impact on the birthrate. Opinions differ on whether this kind of change is a matter of national security, as Japan faces a similar situation, without having a negative impact on its economic strength. Fewer women are willing to marry and the divorce