Continue reading or click here for the PDF.

Stephen McInerney opened the event by noting there is little examination of Iran’s internal dynamics in Washington, even though they are extremely important to understanding the trajectory of the country. He added that while Iran’s elections are far from free and fair, they can still be important. Nazila Fathi began her remarks by stating that the election—whether rigged or not—is an opportunity to gauge the state and that the winner will impact Iran’s domestic and foreign policies. She said that the Guardian Council’s rejection of Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei was predictable, but that Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani’s application had generated palpable excitement and his rejection was a surprise. Fathi said it has been viewed as a rejection of the Islamic Republic itself and even of Khamenei’s legitimacy. She said there are now two options: Khamenei may allow both rejected candidates to run in a last minute decision to feign democracy, or the election will proceed with only the eight approved candidates. Fathi noted that the three purportedly reformist candidates do not have large followings, but that in 2009 Mir-Hossein Mousavi did not either until the reformist camp threw its support behind him just before the election. She argued that Saeed Jalili and Ali Akbar Velayati are most likely to win as Khamanei favors them. Fathi said that Jalili was a hardliner while “Valeyati is the man who perhaps will follow a more compromising path.” She concluded by saying that things look bleak but Iranians will look back on the 2009 uprising as a time when they shook the foundation of the Islamic Republic.

Mariam Memarsadeghi said that in Iran, reform is a “very loaded word” because the reform era is the Khatami period, and the reformists are a very specific group of people in a broad spectrum of political actors. Those that want a democratic transition include, but are not exclusively, reformists, and those who are opposed to government-led reform are also opposed to the reformists. She noted that external observers apply the term reformists to a wide variety of actors. Memarsadeghi said that many who protested in 2009 had not voted for the ‘reformist’ candidates, but wanted full-blown democracy. She said Iran is “a totalitarian system that gets more totalitarian by the day,” and that such systems cannot be reformed from within. She said Khamanei understands that he cannot afford to loosen his grip anywhere without things unraveling, which is why none of the approved candidates are legitimate political actors and there are more than 2500 political prisoners in Iran. She argued that the regime’s primary goal is “to die before the people get them.” Memarsadeghi said that in negotiations with Iran it is essential to include human rights issues. The regime wants to avoid this conversation by keeping the focus on the nuclear program. She said the U.S. needs to be clear and be on the side of the people.

Amb. John Limbert noted that the election is an Iranian event, and if the U.S. attempts to make it about them, it will tie itself in knots and make bad decisions. He recommended not letting Iran make the election about the U.S. and that the U.S. should shut up about it. Limbert said the election does have the benefit of Ahmadinejad no longer being president, as he was considered toxic and impossible to deal with. He argued that if the election is as legitimate as the 2000 U.S. presidential election, Obama should send a note of congratulation to the winner. Limbert advocated for avoiding inflammatory, unhelpful language. He said he does not expect a break in the U.S.-Iran estrangement until the senior clerical elites lose their grip, allowing a creative, dynamic, well-educated population to express itself.

McInerney opened the Q&A by asking about the role Ahmadinejad was likely to play leading up to the elections and the impact of regional developments on Iran. Limbert said Ahmadinejad could not do much without his favored candidate in the race, and that a lot of his attraction was his personality, populist policies, incorruptibility, and not being a cleric. He added that everyone knows that the Arab Spring matters but is pretending otherwise. Memarsadeghi noted that more protesters took to the streets in Tehran than any Arab city, but that the Arab regimes were weaker, particularly in Egypt and Tunisia where their alliances with the West were liabilities. She said the repression they tried was “childish” compared to what Khamenei has done. She disputed that Ahmadinejad was incorruptible, noting that his supporters had benefited significantly during his rule. Fathi remarked that Ahmadinejad would struggle to have an impact because his support base is small. She said the same factor may explain why Khamenei would prefer Jalili, as he would be easier to dismiss if necessary. Fathi mentioned a cartoon of Ahmadinejad chiding Mubarak for not creating a Basij force. She said the Basij and Revolutionary Guard are benefiting from the status quo and do not want to see any change.

In response to audience questions, Fathi said Khamenei rejected Rafsanjani to avoid his control being challenged. She said that Khamenei will not compromise on the nuclear issue as he wants to have the legacy of making Iran a nuclear power. She added that Iran has been responsive to pressure on human rights issues. Memarsadeghi agreed that it was effective and important to put pressure on the Iranian regime regarding human rights, as it has always backed down. She said the regime will always attribute calls for human rights and democracy to the U.S. adding, “You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t, so you better do it!” She argued that Bush White House statements led to the release of Akbar Ganji, and that the Iranian people want President Obama to support them. Limbert agreed that the election would not change the nuclear situation, and that it was time to look for issues where agreement was possible. He agreed that “silence is not the way to go” on human rights, but said the U.S. has to be smart and careful to avoid feeding Iran’s propaganda machine or supporting groups like MEK. Memarsadeghi argued that such concerns must not be an excuse for staying silent.

Memarsadeghi stated that “if we’re going to take democracy seriously, then elections are the time to talk.” She asserted that the Canadian and French governments should not be ahead of the U.S. when it comes to issues of freedom and democracy. Fathi argued that the Revolutionary Guard had taken the place of the founding fathers of the Islamic Revolution, in part because Khamenei, as a mid-ranking cleric, was preferred not to work with more senior ones and started pushing some of them out. Memarsadeghi said that the regime wants people to think that pressing for human rights will prevent progress on the nuclear front. She said that holding individuals personally accountable for human rights violations has been effective. She recommended getting down to the prison and interrogator level and “naming and shaming” as much as possible. She also advocated for convening an assembly of free nations in support of a free Iran. Limbert agreed that the nuclear negotiations were not going anywhere and should not be an excuse to ignore human rights issues.

Photo Credit: AFP

Thousands of Yemenis demonstrated in Aden on Tuesday, calling for the south to regain independence. The protesters were responding to exiled southern leader Ali Salem al-Baid‘s calls to commemorate his 1994 declaration to break away from the north. Meanwhile, the National Dialogue Conference (NDC) continued, despite one of its participants being kidnapped. The Development, Good Governance, and State Building Working Groups started their field visit to the Al-Mahra governorate, while visits to Aden, Sayoun and Shabwa were delayed. Working groups are to submit their reports by May 28, and presentations to the mid-term general assembly will start on June 8. A lecture by an Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader criticizing NDC participants as “enemies of sharia” and “supporters of the devil” began circulating widely online. In a cable to Yemen’s foreign minister, Secretary of State John Kerry commended Yemenis’ participation in the NDC and said that the U.S. “will continue to support the Yemeni people in their efforts to build a unified, stable, democratic and prosperous Yemen.”

Writing for The National, Faisal al-Yafai argues that “the southern issue remains the biggest question” for the NDC, and that by not genuinely addressing southern grievances, President Hadi is making the political transition harder. Al-Yafai recommends that Hadi offer a “‘grand bargain.’” In an interview for Foreign Policy, Jeff Gedmin finds that Nobel Laureate Tawakkol Karman believes that the NDC can succeed and remains optimistic about Yemen’s future. On the MENASource blog, Danya Greenfield and Hazim Al-Eryani note that “groups from all around the country have been able to articulate their grievances on the national stage.” However, they express concern that “Yemen faces a Catch-22 where the Dialogue requires the support of a currently weak state to succeed. State capacity has become both a precondition for and a measurement of success.”

Photo Credit: AFP PHOTO/JOHN THYS

In a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry obtained by The Cable, General Salim Idris, commander of the Syrian opposition fighting force, reiterated his request that the United States provide the opposition with weapons and suggested increased support was a precondition for participation in peace talks with representatives of Bashar al-Assad‘s government. For the U.S.-Russia backed negotiations to succeed, he explains, “we must reach a strategic military balance, without which the regime will feel empowered to dictate, or at least stall for precious time to achieve gains on the ground under the cover of diplomacy.” President Obama has, thus far, ruled out shipping any weaponry to opposition fighters, and has insisted a political solution must be achieved in order to resolve the conflict.

At a press conference with Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh yesterday, Kerry signaled that the U.S. will provide more aid to the opposition should Assad’s government refuse to participate in the international effort to bring both sides of the conflict together to negotiate a political transition. “Let me also make clear, in the event that we can’t find that way forward, in the event that the Assad regime is unwilling to negotiate Geneva 1 in good faith, we will also talk about our continued support and growing support for the opposition in order to permit them to continue to be able to fight for the freedom of their country,” he said, adding that inaction to end the fighting was “unacceptable.”

Kerry also expressed concern over the threat of sectarian violence spilling over into Lebanon. Since Sunday, 20 people have been killed in sporadic fighting in Tripoli between Lebanese fighters supporting rival factions in neighboring Syria. President Obama called Lebanese President Michel Suleiman Monday to urge the country’s armed forces to prevent Hezbollah fighters and weapons to flow across the border.

For POMED’s full summary continue reading or click here for the PDF.

The Budget and Performance Summary describes a new Department of State-USAID Joint Strategic Goal Framework where the old Strategic Goals 2,3 and 4 – Governing Justly and Democratically, Investing in People, and Promoting Economic Growth and Prosperity, respectively – are merged into a new Strategic Goal 3. The updated goal is to “expand and sustain the ranks of prosperous, stable and democratic states by promoting effective, accountable, democratic governance; respect for human rights, sustainable broad-based economic growth, and well-being.” The Agency Priority Goals within this Strategic Goal include democracy, climate change, food security and global health. Of the $47 billion total budget request, 5 percent is allocated to programs supporting Strategic G0al 3.

In the Performance Overview and Analysis section, CBJ notes: “In FY2014 the Department’s top priority in the Middle East is to promote continued political reforms across the region and strengthen civil society as a means toward realizing the aspirations of the people.”

The Bureau of International Organization Affairs

The Bureau of International Organization Affairs (IO) requests $70.2 million, a 0.02 percent increase from FY2012. Included in the list of IO’s priorities is “the continued emphasis on supporting successful political and economic transitions in frontline states.” The CBJ notes that while “frontline states” usually refers to Afghanistan and Iraq, “the U.S. must also consider the dramatic political upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa.” The CBJ also states that IO “will continue its investment in strengthening the [UN Human Rights Council], and will also reinforce its commitment to humanitarian response, gender issues, and democracy promotion.”

The Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs

The Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA) requests $585.8 million, a 25.5 percent decrease from FY2012 (this decrease is largely attributed to a reduction in Iraq-related spending). The CBJ states NEA’s top priority is “to support the democratic transitions and political reforms across the Middle East and North Africa and strengthen civil society actors as a means toward realizing the aspirations of the people.” Specifically, the CBJ states, “Nurturing nascent civil society organizations is a top priority,” and, “NEA will continue to encourage all governments to renounce violent responses to peaceful protests and to continue to pursue meaningful reforms that open political participation to all members of society, including women, youth, and minority groups.”

In Iraq, the CBJ describes a change from last year’s political stability and government effectiveness indicator:  “this year’s indicator does not measure the rule of law or control of corruption in Iraq. By focusing more in Iraq’s political stability and governmental effectiveness, we hoped to underscore the importance that security and internal cohesion play in ensuring Iraq’s development as a sovereign, stabile (sic) and self-reliant U.S. partner.”

Within the NEA’s budget is a $39.9 million request for “Arab Spring Regional Impact” for all NEA posts to “increase their engagement with a broader array of actors, especially outside governments and outside capitals.” This money includes “support for the Office of Middle East Transitions, mission operations in Tripoli and Yemen, growth in Tunisia, protective powers arrangements in Syria, and the creation of a Consulate General in Alexandria, Egypt. The request also includes coverage for unexpected increases in direct response to policy directives to advance support for the region’s democratic transitions, including the resumption of diplomatic activities in Syria.”

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) requests $26.8 million, a 12.8 percent increase from FY2012. The CBJ states, “Events in the Middle East and North Africa remind the world of the challenges human rights defenders face. The U.S. Government is assisting more human rights activists and organizations through expanded rapid response funds that provide more targeted assistance to the needs of activists under threat.” The CBJ also points out “the continuing and growing backlash against civil society in other parts of the world means there will be a likely growth in the need of rapid response funds to human rights activists and organizations.”  $1.6 million in diplomatic policy and support for DRL is also included for DRL’s “diplomatic engagement in priority countries worldwide such as Bahrain, Burma, China, Egypt and Russia.”

Additionally, DRL “has primary responsibility for Leahy Amendment human rights vetting of hundreds of thousands of military training and military assistance cases each year, which is requested at $2 million for funding and staff… The Department is on target to process over 160,000 vetting requests annually.”

The Office of the Legal Advisor

The Office of the Legal Advisor requests $45.6 million, a 1.7 percent increase from FY2012. This request includes $200,000 “to support full U.S. participation in the Venice Commission, an expert advisory body on rule of law reform and compliance with fundamental rights. The Justification of Request states, “After the Arab Awakening the Commission is supporting constitutional and legal reform to Libya, Tunisia, Morocco and Jordan, countries where the U.S. has an interest in participating in assisting developing strong democratic institutions.

The Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

The Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (PM) requests $44.1 million, a 0.8 percent increase from FY2012. An example of PM’s “critical work” is the Bureau’s “efforts to reduce conventional weapons proliferation in North Africa and the Middle East.” Additionally, “PM will continue to ensure the sale and export of defense articles is transparent, consistent, and predictable, and is implemented in a manner that supports U.S. objectives, allies and friends, and the U.S. defense industrial base…”

Conflict Stabilization Operations

The Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO) requests $45.2 million, a 49 percent increase from FY12.  CSO’s past work includes “helping the Transitional National Council take charge in Libya” and offering “non-lethal support to the civilian opposition in Syria.”  The increased request will be “focused primarily on high-impact engagements… [that] may include Middle East and North Africa (MENA) transition countries…”

International Organizations and Conferences

For contributions to international organizations, the State Department requests $1.57 billion a 1.4 percent increase from FY2012. The CBJ notes several benefits to the United States from different international organizations. It pointed out that the United Nations “coordinated the humanitarian response effort to assist and protect over three million Syrians affected by the conflict both inside and outside of the county; played an integral role, via the UN Support Mission in Libya, in conducting the first democratic election in Libya in more than forty years; played a crucial role in brokering agreement in November 2011 in Yemen on a National Dialogue that will lead to the drafting of a new constitution and the taking of other critical steps in Yemen’s ongoing transition from decades of dictatorial rule to stable, democratic society;” and “continued monitoring Iran’s human rights violations through a Special Rapporteur on human rights, who issued a report in October 2012 documenting credible allegations of torture and cruel and degrading treatment executions of political prisoners, and mistreatment of prisoners.” The CBJ also noted that the International Labor Organization (ILO) identified “cases in which significant violations of labor rights have been alleged, including in Bahrain” and will continue to promote protection of labor rights as human rights.  In addition, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) “provided emergency support to Jordan’s Ministry of Education to help them cope with the influx of school-age Syrians.

The CBJ pointed out that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) “rapidly approved Turkey’s request for the deployment of Patriot missiles to defend against threats resulting from the Syrian conflict, and acted to protect civilians and enforce a ‘no fly’ zone and arms embargo in Libya.”   Finally, recent accomplishment of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) includes support to the G-8 Deauville Partnership with Arab Countries in Transition “through initiatives to promote good governance, improve business integrity, enhance anti-corruption efforts, modernize public governance structures, strengthen investment and promote tax reform…”

Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities

The State Department requests $2.1 billion for the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities account, a 14.6 percent increase from FY2012. This budget will fund the U.S.-assessed share of UN peacekeeping operations for the UN Disengagement Observer Force on the Golan Heights, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon, the UN Mission Referendum West Sahara, and the UN Presence in Syria.

National Endowment for Democracy

The State Department requests $103.4 million for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a 12.2 percent decrease from FY2012. The CBJ stats, “NED grantees are often at the forefront of meaningful democratic change around the world,” adding, “As a voice for women’s rights and freedom of expression, the organization has quickly become a media and women’s rights resource in the [Middle East].” The CBJ notes, “For FY 2012, NED originally set a baseline of awarding 1,225 grants. NED exceeded this total by awarding 1,392 grants in FY 2012. NED has planned targets of awarding 1,250 grants in FY 2013 and 1,260 grants in FY 2014.” In describing NED’s activities in MENA, the CBJ states, “NED will give priority to difficult transitions in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen” as well as a “lifeline for democrats in closed regimes such as Iran, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Gulf.  Turkey will remain a priority as an example critical to transitions in the region.”

For full meeting notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.

Chairman Menendez opened the discussion on S.960, the Syrian Transition Support Act, by stating that the bill was not a choice between arming and not arming Syrian rebels, but a choice to allow U.S. intervention in a responsible fashion or “leaving it to others who will simply arm the extremists.” He said the bill “includes thorough vetting mechanisms to ensure that we are exceedingly careful about who we arm and train.” He pointed out that the legislation focuses a great deal on training, which would help build relationships and influence the groups the U.S. supports. Senator Corker, who co-sponsored S.960 with Menendez, said the bill would lay out a strategy to cause the balance to change. He argued that the bill “looks at the day after” the fall of Assad and would support moderate groups that would help lead the transition.

Senator Casey argued the “branding element” of S.960 was important because opposition groups should know the aid is coming from the American people. He stated his disappointment that no new assistance was proposed in the bill but said he would support regardless because it is “in our direct national security interests to address this.” Casey then said he would introduce amendments to address medical neutrality, the post-Assad democratic process, transitional justice, and accountability to uphold human rights. Senator Rubio also said the legislation was in the direct national security interest of the United States. He mentioned that America’s ally Jordan fears the “rise of an unfriendly government” in Syria, and argued that the fall of Assad would be one of the “most significant sanctions” on the Iranian regime. Senator Coons said he agreed with Casey and Rubio. Senator McCain argued that the U.S. should be doing more than what S.960 calls for, but said he would support because it will send a message to Assad, the opposition, and the Syrian people. Senator Kaine said he was pleased to support S.960.

Senator Risch said he would support the bill but that it wasn’t easy because he doesn’t have the “same level of confidence” his colleagues have in the Syrian opposition. He pointed out that Syrian society is very complex. Senator Udall said, “We have to ask: ‘who are we arming?’ I don’t think we know.” He asked for more hearings so the committee could hear from the experts. He also pointed out that the Obama Administration was hesitant to arm the rebels. Senator Menendez responded to Udall’s concerns stating, “We have had several hearings,” and argued that the committee knows certain elements of the opposition that it can support. He also called attention to the “strict vetting rules” laid out in S.960. Senator Murphy associated himself with the concerns of Udall. He said the American Congress and Senate Foreign Relations Committee needs to learn from history. “We are not very good at pulling political strings in a region we don’t understand,” he argued. Senator Boxer argued the legislation is clearly not an authorization of force. She said the bill was a way to “shape” the situation in Syria “just a little bit,” and added, “I feel good about it.” She also added that the bill would send a message to Russia that they cannot support a dictator.

The committee then held a vote on Senator Casey’s amendment ensuring protection of civilians, medical neutrality, and a democratic process that uphold human rights after Assad. The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote. Additionally, a Manger’s package of amendments was agreed to by a voice vote.

Senator Paul then stated his concerns with S.960. He said the Syrian conflict was a “murky war” and that it was not a good idea to get involved. He offered an amendment that would not authorize the use of force in Syria. He stated that while his colleagues had good intentions, “in your rush… you may be arming Islamic rebels” who could shoot Christians. Senator Corker responded to Paul’s concerns saying S.960 clearly does not authorize the use of military force but that Paul’s amendment to forbid it could lead to the creation of a terrorist safe-haven in the future. He challenged Paul’s remarks about rebels killing Christians saying the purpose of S.960 was to support moderates in order to avoid that exactly. Senator Rubio also responded to Paul, reiterating the point that S.960 clearly does not authorize the use of force. He added that the conflict was “not the War of 1812″ with two clearly defined sides. He said that currently the best equipped rebel fighters are the radical groups and this creates a “perverse incentive” for moderate rebels to align with the radicals. He noted that Assad was already killing Christians and that S.960 would try to stop that and does not support violence against civilians. Senator Paul’s amendment failed by a roll call vote of 2-15 with Senators Paul and Udall voting in favor.

Senator Udall then introduced an amendment limiting the arms provided to the opposition. It would allow small arms but category II and IV weapons would require a waiver. He said the opposition “must show they can manage and maintain” a chain of custody before heavier weapons are provided. Senator McCain voiced his disagreement with Udall saying, Udall “wants to use shotguns against scud missiles.” McCain said the amendment would limit the opposition to an unfair fight. He added that it would be better to not have S.960 at all if the opposition was restricted under the provisions Udall proposed. Senator Corker urged a “no” vote on Udall’s amendment. Senator Rubio pointed out that pro-Assad forces are well armed and radical Jihad forces are well armed, leaving the moderate opposition with little support. He argued that foreign policy “is about our national influence,” and said that if the U.S. was not involved at all then “we are guaranteed to have no influence in a post-Assad Syria.” Senator Udall argued that McCain’s remarks mischaracterized his amendment. Senator Menendez said the Udall amendment would “neuter” the purpose of S.960 and urged a “no” vote. Senator Udall’s amendment failed by a roll call vote of 4-14 with Senators Udall, Durbin, Murphy and Paul voting in favor.

Senator Paul then offered an amendment to strike Title V from S.960, the title that authorizes the President to provide lethal weapons. He acknowledged that it went “one step further” than the Udall amendment that had just failed but said it was important to get a vote on record. “You will be funding allies of al-Qaeda,” he warned. Senator Menendez rejected the idea of arming al-Qaeda rebels and pointed out that al-Qaeda is already well armed. Senator Rubio “categorically” rejected Paul’s claim. He said no one would vote to arm al-Qaeda, and said that moderate parties are the only ones under-armed at present. He pointed out that the vetting process is very strict in S.960. Senator Corker stated that the “thrust” of S.960 was to shift the strength away from Assad and al-Qaeda. Senator Paul’s amendment failed by a roll call vote of 2-15 with Senators Paul and Murphy voting in favor.

Senator Menendez then called for a committee vote on the bill. S.960, the Syrian Transition Support Act of 2013 was ordered reported by a roll call vote of 15-3. Senators Udall, Paul, and Murphy voted against. Senator Menendez then called for a committee vote on S.Res.143. The World Press Freedom Day Resolution was agreed to by voice vote.

Photo Credit: Corbis

Iran’s Guardian Council announced the list of approved candidates for Iran’s June presidential election. The council approved eight candidates, six of which are “ultraconservatives” loyal to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The approved candidates include Saeed Jalili, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator; Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, the current mayor of Tehran; and Ali Akbar Velayati, former foreign minister. The council barred Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president and major player in the Iranian revolution, and Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad‘s adviser and chosen successor, from competing. The two hopefuls are political rivals of the hard-line conservative establishment. The Council is not required to disclose its reasons for disqualifying a prospective candidate. Following the announcement Wednesday, Ahmadinejad said he would ask the council to reverse its ban on Mashaei.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Rafsanjani was a potentially appealing candidate for reformist voters who planned to refrain from participating if presented with a slate of hard-line candidates. His exclusion from the election may affect voter turnout and attitudes toward the election. Writing for Foreign Policy, Yasmin Alem speculates that the political repercussions of the decision could include attempts by Ahmadinejad to punish Khamenei and his supporters for excluding Mashaei. The president is responsible for conducting elections, giving Ahmadinejad the ability to make the process difficult for Khamenei supporters. He could also release documents implicating public officials linked to Khamenei in corruption scandals. According to The Guardian, Jalili is thought to be Khamenei’s preferred candidate.

Photo Credit: State Department

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited Oman on Tuesday to help finalize a $2.1 billion defense pact. In a joint statement, the U.S. and the Government of Oman announced ”a deal for the acquisition of a U.S. manufactured ground based air defense system.” A State Department official said the deal advances U.S. commercial interests and will further integrate the Gulf Cooperation Council’s defense systems. In remarks with the Omani Minister responsible for defense affairs,Kerry said, “President Obama and the United States are very grateful for the role that Oman plays in the region as an important force for peace and stability.” Kerry was also expected to discuss the conflict in Syria and Iran’s imprisonment of two American-Iranians with Oman’s leaders, including Sultan Qaboos.

On Wednesday, Bahrain’s leading opposition party, Al-Wefaq, announced that it would stop participating in the country’s national dialogue for two weeks. The party cited what it called “the deliberate delay and absence of positive response” on the dialogue by the official party, “escalated repression…which has reached its peak by attacking Ayatollah Sheikh Issa Qassim’s house,” and the sentencing of prisoners of conscience. Earlier in the week, Bahrain’s attorney general denied a report that claimed the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry recommendations on freedom of expression had not been implemented.

On Monday, Qatar’s Emir, Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa al-Thani, said that “it is most useful and safest to achieve change gradually through reform and dialogue,” in comments at the Doha Forum. He added that “whoever rejects reforms and changes and cannot absorb new facts and modern requirements will be changed by the needs of history and the passage of time.” Al-Thani noted that he stressed gradual change “to prove that what we had done was required in the current stage of history.”

Photo Credit: Thierry Ehrmann, Flickr

Algeria and its president Abdelaziz Bouteflika have weathered the storm of Arab Spring revolutions that toppled governments in many surrounding countries. The Atlantic Council’s Karim Mezran writes, however, that the country “may be teetering on the brink of a crisis, with the three pillars of the regime’s stability—its powerful military, abundant revenues from hydrocarbons, and the façade of a democratic political system—beginning to crumble.” Mezran points first to the “low intensity guerrilla war” that is “challenging the state’s military strength and its ability to secure its borders.” He also notes that “despite Algeria’s enormous wealth in oil and gas, the population suffers from poverty, unemployment, and citizen discontent.” Additionally, recent reports that Bouteflika may be seriously ill, coupled with a the lack of a clear successor, points to “a political crisis at the top of the state apparatus.” With presidential elections approaching in 2014 Mezran argues “the Algerian political system is headed to an interesting confrontation.” The Council on Foreign Relations’ Elliot Abrams agrees, arguing, “Algeria is worth more attention than it is getting. Its immunity to change may be wearing thin.”

Mezran’s assessment is in line with a recent Carnegie Endowment report “The Price of Stability in Algeria,” which states, “If left unaddressed, the social, economic, and political grievances festering beneath the surface in Algeria could rapidly escalate into popular revolts that threaten the regime’s stability.” The report’s author, Lahcen Achy, says, “Algerians often experience political exclusion, and the country lacks an open political system or effective civil society organizations that would channel people’s grievances.” Achy argues, ”To stave off collapse or violent regime change, Algeria needs deep political and economic reforms conducive to sustainable and equitable economic expansion, increased public participation in politics, and effective accountability of political leaders.”

For the full event notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.

In his opening statement, Chairman Royce said the hearing would look at the economic factors behind the unrest in the Middle East. He stated that a lack of property rights and rule of law, and endemic corruption, had contributed to the economic hardship of tens of millions. Royce said that the uprisings called into question American policies toward Arab governments and presented “an historic opportunity to advance reforms that would economically empower impoverished individuals.” He argued that economic repression led to the protests, which called for economic liberty. Royce said that if we don’t consider the economic forces behind the Arab Spring, “then no amount of U.S. aid will bring prosperity to the region…we need a major shift in how we view these countries.” Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) entered Ranking Member Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)’s statement into the record. Deutch recounted the barriers to registering businesses and economic struggles in MENA countries. He said the U.S. needs to make “a true commitment to promoting democracy and human rights, substantial economic investment, and a serious attempt to address corruption.” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) said that there was “no one cause” of the Arab Spring and that tensions had been simmering for years. She cited poverty, unemployment, and most importantly, the lack of any real foundation of democracy as major problems. Ros-Lehtinen argued that the MENA countries cannot grow their economies and build wealth without drastically reforming their governments and laws. She concluded that “we’re stuck in a vicious cycle unless democracy comes to the Middle East.”

Hernando de Soto argued that entrepreneurs need things like titles, limited liability, and property to raise capital and get credit. He revealed that 85% of Arab enterprises did not have these things, with many of them only working in the informal economy, making unemployment numbers a sham. He noted that Bouazizi and other self-immolators were actually protesting the expropriation that is possible without rule of law. De Soto concluded that the U.S. can play a massive role in this area because it was born around the idea of freedom and property. Madeleine Albright stated that “People want to vote but they also want to eat and economic frustration has contributed much to the unrest we see in the Arab world.” She noted that there is an “an intimate connection between legal rights and economic development.” Albright argued that the U.S. can and should help the transitioning countries, including by “bringing people in the Arab region together with the authors of change” around the world. She emphasized that the U.S. “has neither the desire nor the power to dictate what happens in the new Arab democracies – but we can still exert a positive influence by fulfilling requests for technical aid and by remaining steadfast in support of democratic principles.” She concluded that “we will all do better if Arab societies are able to create a new model for governance in their region.”

Royce asked de Soto about his work in Egypt during Mubarak’s rule. De Soto stated that the issue in Egypt was not property rights, but the right to property rights. He added that if you are poor in MENA and truly not employed for more than three months, you would likely die, so most of the people listed as unemployed are actually working, just outside of the formal economy. He said that 380 million Arabs had invented ways of creating wealth. He argued that entrepreneurs are only as good as their legal environment, which is very bad in MENA where civilization was based on bad economic ideas.

Deutch asked Albright about the factors that contribute to successful transitions and what role the U.S. can play. She said that people need access to justice, and emphasized the legal empowerment of the poor. Albright said that elections are necessary but not sufficient, as democracies need rule of law, a legislative branch, and an opposition party. She noted that it is hard to have property rights if there is not a rule of law to enforce them. Albright argued that the U.S. needs to help with governance, and not just its own model. She said economic development has to be encapsulated within political development. She noted that the National Democratic Institute had brought people from Chile and Central Europe to North Africa to consult and help with leaders there, and that “imposing democracy is an oxymoron.”

Ros-Lehtinen, noting that Egypt President Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood had almost a year in power but failed to implement economic reforms, asked Albright if the U.S. should be conditioning its military and economic aid to Egypt. Albright said she would not withdraw funds from Egypt but would like to see more money go to various democratic forces, though the government is making it difficult for some groups to operate. Ros-Lehtinen asked if Albright would advocate for requiring certain benchmarks, and Albright argued that the U.S. should say what it wants, but that she would not have it be a way that the U.S. would cut off aid. Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ) asked how the U.S. can pressure Egypt on issues like violence against Copts without leveraging the aid and threatening to cut it off. Albright said that by totally cutting off aid, you lose whatever leverage you have had. She said that instead, the U.S. must clearly say what it wants.

Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AK) asked if the U.S., World Bank, and IMF were focusing enough on constitutional issues. De Soto said that elections were important but probably not the most important, especially if they are not held by district. He emphasized the importance of getting voter lists right and getting meaningful feedback, for which there is no international formula. Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA) asked what the U.S. can do to help the Egyptian opposition. De Soto said the U.S. must understand that it is coming from the perspective of having property rights as a result of the development of common law. He added that property will change the relationship between people and government.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) asked whether the MENA Incentive Fund requested in the president’s budget should focus on developing property rights rather than mainly governance. De Soto said yes, because property rights will make democracy viable, and that property the essence of a political issue. He added that the budgets for putting property rights into place at not that big, and emphasized that purely political reforms do not attend to the reason that people protested. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) noted that radical Islamists are not opposed to property rights and entrepreneurship, but de Soto said they will still be under fire if they don’t provide the conditions to allow those things to develop.

Photo Credit: Mohammad Hannon, File/Associated Press

At a meeting of the International Press Institute, Jordan’s Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour discussed Jordanians’ increased demand for freedoms of expression and press. Ensour stated that “the Arab Spring has opened new horizons and created more demands” for broadening these freedoms. He added, “Obviously, we’re not yet where we want to be, but we are determined to continue.” Ensour promised further liberalization and cited statistics of Jordanians’ internet use as evidence of increasing freedom. According to the prime minister, Jordan ranks third in active social network use in the Arab World and two-thirds of the population has access to the internet.

Participants in the meeting complained that Jordan’s reforms have been insufficient in addressing these demands. Nidal Mansour, head of the Amman-based Center for Defending Freedom of Journalists, said, “The Press and Publication Law has been and continues to be a sword on the necks of all journalists in Jordan.” The law requires websites dealing with “press materials” to register with the Department of Press and Publication, pay a fee, and appoint an editor who is accountable for all content, including reader comments. It also allows the department to block websites deemed to be in violation of the law. Although some limits on expression have loosened since the uprisings began, restrictions remain, including a ban on publicly criticizing the king, surveillance of journalists by intelligence agencies, and arrest of journalists and bloggers.

Last week, Congressman Gregory Meeks introduced a resolution recognizing the partnership and friendship between Jordan and the United States. The resolution praises Jordan’s cooperation in counterterrorism efforts and assistance with Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations and its  maintenance of open borders with Syria. The resolution also notes  that “Jordan is a leader for progress and tolerance in the Arab world and recently held parliamentary elections, as part of a political reform movement.” A bipartisan group comprised of Reps. Boustany, Deutch, Engel, Faleomavaega, Cleaver, Fortenberry, Grimm, Hastings, Lowey, Moran, Schiff, and Weber co-sponsored the resolution.