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
Speaking at the Asia-Pacific Forward Forum in Taipei, former Singaporean minister for foreign affairs George Yeo (楊榮文) proposed a “Chinese commonwealth” as a potential framework for political integration between Taiwan and China. Yeo said the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait is unsustainable and that Taiwan should not be “a piece on the chessboard” in a geopolitical game between China and the US. Yeo’s remark is nothing but an ill-intentioned political maneuver that is made by all pro-China politicians in Singapore. Since when does a Southeast Asian nation have the right to stick its nose in where it is not wanted
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has released a plan to economically integrate China’s Fujian Province with Taiwan’s Kinmen County, outlining a cross-strait development project based on six major themes and 21 measures. This official document by the CCP is directed toward Taiwan’s three outlying island counties: Penghu County, Lienchiang County (Matsu) and Kinmen County. The plan sets out to construct a cohabiting sphere between Kinmen and the nearby Chinese city of Xiamen, as well as between Matsu and Fuzhou. It also aims to bring together Minnanese cultural areas including Taiwan’s Penghu and China’s cities of Quanzhou and Zhangzhou for further integrated
During a recent visit to Taiwan, I encountered repeated questions about “America skepticism” among the body politic. The basic premise of the “America skepticism” theory is that Taiwan people should view the United States as an unreliable, self-interested actor who is using Taiwan for its own purposes. According to this theory, America will abandon Taiwan when its interests are advanced by doing so. At one level, such skepticism is a sign of a healthy, well-functioning democratic society that protects the right for vigorous political debate. Indeed, around the world, the people of Taiwan are far from alone in debating America’s reliability
As China’s economy was meant to drive global economic growth this year, its dramatic slowdown is sounding alarm bells across the world, with economists and experts criticizing Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for his unwillingness or inability to respond to the nation’s myriad mounting crises. The Wall Street Journal reported that investors have been calling on Beijing to take bolder steps to boost output — especially by promoting consumer spending — but Xi has deep-rooted philosophical objections to Western-style consumption-driven growth, seeing it as wasteful and at odds with his goal of making China a world-leading industrial and technological powerhouse, and