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.

Photo Credit: Nawfel/AP

Following clashes last week in Tunisia between security forces and supporters of the radical Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia, violence flared again over the weekend in Kairouan and Tunis leaving several injured and one dead. Police arrested 200 members of the al-Qaeda affiliated group Sunday, including its spokesman, after the government earlier banned its annual congress scheduled to be held in Kairouan that day. Prime Minister Ali Larayedh accused the group of being involved in terrorism, warning, “We will deal with extremism firmly, we will be rigid.” Police also prevented the group from holding a smaller meeting in the Ettadamen district in Tunis later in the day, prompting clashes with Salafis who chanted “the rule of the tyrant should fall.” The Interior Ministry announced that Ansar al-Sharia is an illegal organization “that does not abide by the law.”

The Tunisian government, led by the moderate Islamist Ennahda party, has taken a firmer stance against the Salafis’ puritanical strain of Islam in recent weeks, a marked change in course from its previously non-confrontational approach that allowed Salafist groups to operate freely in Tunisia. But after largely neglecting repeated attacks and harassment of journalists and artists by hard-line Salafis, the government now fears the influence of some Salafist groups is undermining the authority of the state and poses a threat to public safety. Clashes along the Algerian border between Tunisian troops and members of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which is supported by Ansar al-Sharia, and the Islamist insurgency in nearby Mali have exacerbated the threat.

Also in Tunisia, the country’s main political parties reached consensus on a series of contentious issues at a national dialogue conference meeting over the weekend. Among the points agreed upon are the date for new elections, a new electoral law and a system to balance the powers of the president and prime minster, respectively.

Photo Credit: AP

Egypt’s National Salvation Front (NSF) criticized a draft NGO law over the weekend, saying the Muslim Brotherhood-backed bill is more restrictive than laws under former President Hosni Mubarak. The opposition bloc said the law “seeks to reproduce a police state by putting into law the role of security bodies in overseeing the work of civil society groups.” The bill stipulates that NGOs be vetted by a committee comprised in part of members of the security services and get official permission to receive foreign funding. According to the NSF’s statement, “This can allow these entities to refuse funding for rights groups that monitor elections or work to fight torture.” The NSF announced it would support an alternate bill drafted by a group of 50 civil society organizations.

The NSF has also formed an alliance with the Islamist, Salafist-dominated Al Nour party in an effort to limit the increasing power of the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Tamara Wittes, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, the Salafists stand to gain most in the partnership; they may appeal to voters since they are untested in Egyptian politics. Al Nour may pull votes from the Brotherhood’s “less-loyal constituents,” particularly in conservative rural areas. Analysts say that if the parties are successful in the elections, they could form a coalition government or achieve a majority in parliament, giving them the power to choose the prime minister.

Also in Egypt, two journalists at a newspaper critical of President Mohammed Morsi are facing criminal charges of defamation. Public Prosecutor Talaat Ibrahim, a Morsi appointee, ordered an expedited trial for Magdy El Gilad, editor in chief of El-Watan newspaper, and Alaa El-Ghatrify, the paper’s managing editor, on Sunday. These charges are based on claims that the paper defamed the head of a “local public opinion research center.”

Photo Credit: AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

From May 21 to May 27, Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to the Middle East. His visit will begin in Oman, and then he will move to Jordan, Israel, the West Bank. In Jordan, Kerry will meet with international partners to discuss solutions for the conflict in Syria. While in Jerusalem and Ramallah, Kerry will meet with Israeli and Palestinian leadership, respectively, to discuss how the United States can support the two countries in returning to peace negotiations. After a two-day visit to Ethiopia, Kerry will return to Jordan to participate in the World Economic Forum on the 26th.

Secretary Kerry’s first stop in Jordan will include a meeting with the Friends of Syria. The foreign ministers of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Britain, France, Germany, Turkey, and Italy will attend. The discussions of Syria planned for the trip are part of the United States’ ongoing efforts to find a solution to the conflict in the country. Kerry recently visited Russia to discuss the conflict and announced an international conference co-sponsored by Russia after talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. President Barack Obama also discussed the conflict this week with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan during the minister’s visit to Washington.

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

Daniel Calingaert introduced the panelists and noted several recent news pieces on the Syrian conflict.

Kinda Kanbar focused on rape and sexual violence in Syria, citing the research of human rights lawyer Laila Alodaat. She began by stating that Syrian women are in crisis. Kanbar provided statistics from Alodaat’s work on sexual violence in Syria, saying that 81 cases were recorded in March 2011. She pointed to a political ideology that tolerates sexual abuse and discrimination as a central problem, saying that this ideology is enshrined in legislation and litigation. She noted specific laws that exempt men from prosecution for killing or raping women under certain circumstances. She stated that legal reforms directed at changing these laws will only be effective if they are accompanied by a social, cultural, and political movement that eliminates the ideology that supports discrimination throughout Syrian society. Kanbar called for a more proactive role for judges in order to change these laws, efforts to integrate women into Syrian society and politics, and an efficient policy for disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of combatants.

Mohammed Aly Sergie described a surgical student enrolled in the University of Aleppo when the revolution began who has become deeply involved in activities related to the revolution. While many doctors left Aleppo as the area became more dangerous, this student remained in Aleppo to treat wounded rebels and regime soldiers. Through this role, he has built a reputation as an honest broker between the two sides. He was also elected to a position on Aleppo’s local administrative council. Sergie stated that the group of young doctors working in Aleppo has encountered the same problem faced by all organizations in Syria: a lack of funds. He noted the difficulty of establishing a transitional government and building legitimacy without funding. He argued that if organizations cannot deliver assistance to these doctors on the ground, they are “just an act of democracy” and do not change the situation.

Omar Hossino focused on relations between Syrian minorities. He noted the emergence of mediation groups addressing conflicts between minorities as reason for hope. These groups have emerged in areas of conflict between rebel groups and majority and minority groups. He cited two examples in which mediation between rebel ethnic groups and the Free Syrian Army has ended or prevented conflict between these rebel factions. He stated that these councils have forged mediated agreements in instances of ethnic fighting that did not include government forces. Hossino stated that efforts to solve local problems through a “local grassroots Syrian affair” have made him very hopeful for the future in Syria.

Oubab Khalil discussed stereotypes of the conflict in Western media, noting a tendency in the United States and the United Kingdom to characterize the situation in Syria as a conflict between Sunnis and Alawites and calling this characterization “disturbing” and “not true.” He stated that sectarian tensions exist but said, “We have not seen any systematic retaliations.” Khalil also emphasized the need for an interim government. He stated that “every struggle must end with a political solution, an enforceable one,” adding that once an enforceable political agreement is in place, they can move to a transitional government. On the subject of intervention, he praised the United States as the highest donor of humanitarian aid but stated that the U.S. and U.K. are not doing Syrians a significant favor by protecting civilians because this protection is an international responsibility. He also asserted the opposition’s belief in the Geneva Communique as a foundation for a solution to the conflict.

Opening the Q&A, Daniel Calingaert asked whether Hossino’s examples of mediation councils are isolated incidents and whether the work of these groups could be translated to a broader level. Hossino responded that they were not isolated examples but said the groups could not have a significant impact on national issues, arguing that it would be difficult to establish the legitimacy needed to act so broadly and would be difficult to translate their ability to address micro-level issues to a capacity for handling broad questions of war and peace. Calingaert also prompted Kanbar to discuss further the problem of reporting sexual abuse and the role of women in Syrian society. Kanbar agreed that there are difficulties in documenting rape, noting a particular reluctance of victims to come forward in certain areas of the country. She also called for greater representation for women, directing a call for a 30% quota for female representation in the opposition to Khalil. Khalil agreed that greater representation was necessary and responded by stating that a 60% quota that roughly matched women’s proportion of the population might be more appropriate. Kanbar agreed that this quota would be more desirable but expressed her belief that the National Coalition would not allow such a high quota.

On the issue of rape, Khalil emphasized empowering civil society to receive and assist victims of sexual abuse. On a related question on the role of women, Sergie described workshops hosted in southern Turkey by American organizations for young Syrian activists and recounted an encounter with two young men who were avidly “evangelizing” for women’s rights after attending a workshop. He claimed the U.S. is unable to create democracy but that “promoting values is probably the best avenue to go.”

Responding to a question on whether proto-ministry groups would remain active during and after the transition, Sergie stated, “These are the guys who are going to stay.” Hossino echoed this sentiment. Answering a question regarding the revolution’s chances for success without armed outside assistance, Khalil said, “If we had a level playing field, we could do it on our own.” He noted, however, that the opposition is fighting more than just Assad’s forces, pointing to Russian arms sales to the regime and the participation of Iranian and Iraqi forces in the fighting. He stated that the opposition may be able to dissolve the regime but they will not be able to return to the pre-war status quo without assistance and will eventually live in a failed state. Sergie agreed, adding that the weapons the rebels have received from other countries are “rudimentary” and are not a match for the capabilities of the regime. On the subject of foreign aid, Sergie stated that rebel groups are receiving money but the funds are insufficient. Khalil noted that there can be a substantial gap between when aid is pledged and when it is distributed.

When asked what concrete steps should be taken by the international community, Khalil called for stronger leadership, enforcement of a full or limited no-fly zone, lethal support, and increased humanitarian aid. He stated that balance of power on the ground must be achieved in order to achieve a political transition, saying it would change Assad’s calculus by showing the need for a power transition. Kanbar stated that they need to see a sign of goodwill from the regime that indicates it is ready for negotiations.

Photo Credit: Hamad I Mohammed/Courtesy Reuters

Bahraini authorities raided the home of a prominent Shia cleric, Ayatollah Sheikh Isa Qassim on Friday. Opposition group al-Wefaq said Qassim was not home at the time of the raid but there were women and children present. A leading human rights activist believes the house was raided in pursuit of fugitives who had fled from a neighboring house. Mohammed al-Maskati, president of the Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights, said this was the first time Qassim’s house has been raided and that it is “hugely offensive” for many in Bahrain. He added, ”People see him as a red line. I expect that this will cause a big reaction.”

Amnesty International called on the government of Bahrain to “immediately release five men sentenced to a year imprisonment for allegedly insulting the King of Bahrain in messages posted on Twitter.” Five men were tried separately and sentenced on March 15 to one year imprisonment. “The authorities in Bahrain seem to be using every trick in the book to stop people from expressing their views,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Middle East and North Africa Deputy Director at Amnesty International.

Writing for Foreign Policy, Marc Lynch discusses the lack of international attention to Saudi Arabia’s protest movement, specifically the stories of imprisoned activists Mohammed Fahd al-Qahtani and Abdullah al-Hamed, and their lawyer Abd al-Aziz al-Hussan. He points to “generic concern” from the U.S. government in response to crackdowns and a government “offensive against human rights activists and Sunni protesters.” Lynch argues, “Even if a revolution isn’t on the immediate horizon, it would be dangerous to assume that Saudi Arabia will forever be a ‘Kingdom of No Surprises.’”  He says the Saudi government should be reaching out to reformists and ”Washington should more effectively support the opening of political space for reformist voices in Saudi Arabia and all of its regional allies.”

Photo Credit: Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo

In a White House press briefing Thursday with visiting Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President Barack Obama reiterated his calls for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down but offered no new details on the administration’s approach to hastening a transition of power to the opposition. Erdoğan has indicated he would like to see the U.S. “assume more responsibilities and take further steps” in supporting anti-Assad forces, including a no-fly zone, and is expected to urge Obama to escalate America’s role in the conflict behind closed doors. At the press briefing, Obama avoided discussion of a unilateral military option and repeated his call for mobilizing the international community to push Assad out. “There’s no magic formula for dealing with a extraordinarily violent and difficult situation like Syria’s…what we have to do is apply steady international pressure, strengthen the opposition,” Obama said, adding, “I don’t think anybody in the region, including the prime minister, would think that U.S. unilateral actions in and of themselves would bring about a better outcome inside of Syria.” Absent from his remarks was talk of the U.S.- and Russia-backed peace conference between Assad’s government and the opposition, simply saying that it “may yield results.”

The White House released an op-ed to the Turkish Daily Sabah Thursday before Erdoğan’s visit in which President Obama expressed interest in working closely with Turkey, and in particular finding a solution to the conflict in Syria. “Most urgently, we need to keep working together to end the Assad regime’s horrific slaughter of the Syrian people.  Prime Minister Erdoğan and I will discuss how we can keep increasing the pressure on the Assad regime, strengthening the moderate opposition, and preparing for a transition to a democratic Syria without Bashar Assad.”

Photo Credit: Reuters/Mladen Antonov/Pool

Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed optimism Wednesday that the peace talks on the Syrian conflict they’re organizing will be successful. After a meeting with Lavrov in Sweden, Kerry said, “Both of us are … very, very hopeful that within a short period of time, pieces will come together so that the world, hopefully, will be given an alternative to the violence and destruction that is taking place in Syria at this moment.” Discussing the conference, British Prime Minister David Cameron said, “What is important here is to make sure we really put pressure on the participants to bring forward the necessary names for a transitional government and that we start proper detailed negotiations.” According to Kerry, the peace effort is based on the June 2012 Geneva communique, which advocated establishing a transitional government in Syria ”with full executive authority by mutual consent.”

Meanwhile, the United Nations passed a non-binding resolution urging a political transition to end the conflict in Syria. The resolution placed the onus of bringing an end to the civil war on President Bashar al-Assad‘s government. The resolution passed 107-12 with 59 abstentions, a drop in support compared to a similar resolution passed in August 2012 with only 31 abstentions. Some analysts say the number of abstentions indicate concerns in the international community about extremism among the Syrian rebels. Before voting began on the resolution, the U.N. raised the official death toll to Syria to 80,000, an increase of 20,000 since the beginning of the year. Vuk Jeremic, the president of the General Assembly, said, “most of these casualties [are] believed to be civilians.”

The panel will include Nazila Fathi, former NYT Tehran correspondent; Ambassador John Limbert, former Deputy Secretary of State for Iran;  Mariam Memarsadeghi of Tavaana E-Learning Institute for Iranian Civil Society; and Stephen McInerney, executive director of POMED. Click here to RSVP, and see below for panel details.

On June 14, the Iranian people will participate in an election to elect the Islamic Republic’s next President. While most observers do not expect the election to be free and fair, Iran’s political scene remains lively and competitive, within rigid ideological confines. The announcement of candidates by the Guardian Council and the subsequent campaign period could provide Iranians the opportunity to debate and challenge alternative approaches to the country’s future. Despite these openings, U.S. policy has focused primarily on nuclear negotiations and economic sanctions, while largely ignoring domestic politics or internal dynamics within Iran.

What events or issues are likely to define the campaign period in the weeks leading up to the election? What differences exist between the candidates, and what do these differences mean for U.S.-Iran relations? What policies and political forces have driven restrictions on reform initiatives, civil society organizations, and political activists? What opportunities might these elections present for U.S. policy regarding Iran? How can U.S. policymakers use the election to bring attention to issues beyond Iran’s nuclear program?