Blogs

Pressure Points

Elliott Abrams discusses U.S. foreign policy, focusing on the Middle East and democracy and human rights.

Latest Post

Reform in Syria and Syrian Schoolbooks

The optimism about changes in Syria should be tempered by a look at what is in, and what's out, in the new regime's schoolbooks.

Read More
Middle East and North Africa
Syria’s New Attack on Lebanon
Fears are expressed almost every day that the war in Syria will spread to Lebanon, or to all of Syria’s neighbors. The problem, however, is not that the war "will spread" as if by nature, inevitably, the way spilled water spreads, but that it will be spread--deliberately, by the Assad regime. And that is indeed what is happening. The assassination in Beirut of Wissam Hassan, by a huge car bomb, is only the latest in a long series of such murders of critics of the Assad regime. Hassan was a senior intelligence official, a Sunni, and the man who led the investigation of the murder in 2005 of former prime minister Rafik Hariri. That investigation led to the uncovering of evidence implicating both the Assad regime in Syria, and Hezbollah. How are we to understand what is happening in Lebanon? A Lebanese friend wrote me as follows today: "Lebanon is witnessing a return to the 2005-2008 period when Assad and Nasrallah, feeling that they were losing ground, orchestrated their series of political assassinations, bombings, armed clashes....until they finally got what they wanted through the Doha accord. Then miraculously all violence stopped. Now that they are losing again, they are resorting to the same tactics: assassinations attempts against March 14, Michel Samaha’s bombing plot, Tripoli’s fighting, weapons distribution by the Hezbollah to various militias and yesterday Wissam Hassan’s assassination. "Wissam will be the third IB (Information Branch) chief targeted after Samir Shahade and Wissam Eid. This is a terrible blow to the intelligence-security efforts in Lebanon against Bashar and his gang. The Information Branch is the only Lebanese security agency truly confronting the threats coming from Assad and Hezbollah. They deserve our unconditional support if we care to win our battle against the Iranian and Syrian regimes in Lebanon." Murder in Beirut is nothing new for the Assad regime; it is how Sunni and Christian opponents are dealt with. This car bomb killing in Beirut is only the latest piece of evidence as to why Assad’s survival threatens regional stability. Well over a year ago the President of the United States said Assad must go. It is time the United States adopted an active policy that would bring that day closer--saving thousands more lives in Syria and the lives of American allies in Lebanon as well.
Middle East and North Africa
Jordan and Palestine
The relationship between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the West Bank, which it ruled from 1948 to 1967, remains in question despite the late King Hussein’s renunciation of all claims to the West Bank in an interesting address to the Jordanian people in 1988.  Here are excerpts:   Arab unity between any two or more countries is an option of any Arab people. This is what we believe. Accordingly, we responded to the wish of the Palestinian people’s representatives for unity with Jordan in 1950. From this premise, we respect the wish of the PLO, the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, to secede from us as an independent Palestinian state. We say that while we fully understand the situation, nevertheless, Jordan will remain the proud bearer of the message of the Great Arab Revolt, adhering to its principles, believing in one Arab destiny, and committed to joint Arab action. Regarding the political consideration, since the June 1967 aggression we have believed that our actions and efforts should be directed at liberating the land and the sanctities from Israeli occupation. Therefore, we have concentrated all our efforts over the past twenty-one years of occupation on that goal. We did not imagine that maintaining the legal and administrative relationship between the two banks could constitute an obstacle to liberating the occupied Palestinian land. Hence, in the past and before we took measures, we did not find anything requiring such measures, especially since our support for the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination was clear. Lately, it has transpired that there is a general Palestinian and Arab orientation which believes in the need to highlight the Palestinian identity in full in all efforts and activities that are related to the Palestine question and its developments. It has also become clear that there is a general conviction that maintaining the legal and administrative links with the West Bank, and the ensuing Jordanian interaction with our Palestinian brothers under occupation through Jordanian institutions in the occupied territories, contradicts this orientation. King Hussein’s argument suggests that if conditions were to change over time, and if the PLO were to change its view, the Jordanian role might also change.  (There is a separate argument that in any event the King’s decision is void as violating the Jordanian constitution.  Article 1 states "The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is an independent sovereign Arab State. It is indivisible and inalienable and no part of it may be ceded." But neither Palestinian nor Jordanian leaders have spoken in public about a possible Jordanian role in the West Bank, and have often denounced any proposal for a link between the two as lending credibility to those Israelis who argue that "Jordan is Palestine." King Abdullah, the reigning monarch, said this in 2010: Jordan does not want any part of the West Bank. The only credible solution, is the two state solution. There is no Jordanian solution.... the Palestinians want their own state." In this context some October 9 remarks by Prince Hassan of Jordan, brother of the late King Hussein, are worth note.  Hassan is quoted in a MEMRI account of Jordanian press reports. The prince said that "the West Bank is part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which included both banks of the [Jordan] River" and added that Hassan "did not personally oppose the two state solution, but that this solution is irrelevant at the current stage." He later added that even if the two state solution does not materialize, there are other options. According to Hassan, "both sides, Arab and Israeli, no longer speak of a political solution to the Palestinian problem." He implied that even the Oslo Accords had met their end, and said that Arab losses from the Accords are estimated at $12 billion. The report added: "The attendees understood that Prince [Hassan] is working to reunite both banks of the [Jordan] River, and commended him for it." Prince Hassan later added: "The unity that existed between the west and east banks for 17 years... was arguably one of the best attempts at unity that ever occurred in the Arab [world]... I hope that I do not live to see the day when Jordan, or the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, relinquishes the land occupied in 1967 by the IDF, since it would bring us all to witness the humiliating end.... It remains to be seen whether this was a statement the prince now regrets making, and one that will never be repeated, or something more. As he has no position in the Jordanian government, he is ideally situated to put ideas such as these in circulation without suggesting that the Government of Jordan or King Abdullah II agree with anything he is saying. Yet his statement will inevitably lead to discussion on both banks of the Jordan about the future relationships between them--political as well as economic.
Human Rights
Where Do Our Rights Come From?
In the last few decades, "rights talk" has become increasingly common. But what is the origin of these "rights?" Why do we have the right to freedom of speech or religion or assembly? That is an easy question for Americans: our Declaration of Independence says We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. The main United Nations documents, the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR], are far more ambiguous, simply noting that "the peoples of the United Nations" have "reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights." (And where "the peoples" first affirmed that faith is entirely unclear.) The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is similarly vague, recognizing rights but never suggesting why they are rights and whence they came. But the UN’s second-highest official has just given us the answer: rights come from the United Nations itself. Jan Eliasson, the Deputy Secretary General (and a former Swedish ambassador to the United States) told a press conference on October 2 that you have this gift given to us by the [Universal] Declaration of Human Rights.... So you have to have to keep in mind, yes, this is the basis for, I hope, most of the countries in the world — the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression, since this is in the Universal Declaration.... That’s a very powerful "since." It implies that if those rights were not in the UDHR-- if that "gift" had not been given us in that document-- those rights would not exist. Indeed it implies that if the UDHR were amended, or if the UN were to adopt some limitations on freedom of speech or religion, those rights would cease to exist. Eliasson is a superb diplomat and a thoughtful, warm, and popular man, but his views here represent fully the intellectual trap into which UN bureaucrats and more importantly too many Europeans have fallen. The UN and its documents may be effective or ineffective at respecting and protecting peoples’ rights, but the UN cannot possibly be the origin of those rights-- any more than certain EU documents can. They are inherent in us as men and women, and the state or international institutions such as the UN have no right to denigrate them or take them away, or they are as shaky as a leaf or as a "gift" in the hands of bureaucrats and officials. There is of course a deeper problem here, which the secular Mr. Eliasson and the secular states of Europe cannot solve: if there is no God who endows us with rights, there really are no "rights" at all, just "gifts" the state may or may not hand us from time to time. The Polish constitution of 1992 is an interesting effort to have it both ways: We, the Polish Nation - all citizens of the Republic, Both those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, good and beauty, As well as those not sharing such faith but respecting those universal values as arising from other sources, Equal in rights and obligations towards the common good - Poland, Beholden to our ancestors for their labours, their struggle for independence achieved at great sacrifice, for our culture rooted in the Christian heritage of the Nation and in universal human values, Recalling the best traditions of the First and the Second Republic, Obliged to bequeath to future generations all that is valuable from our over one thousand years’ heritage, Bound in community with our compatriots dispersed throughout the world, Aware of the need for cooperation with all countries for the good of the Human Family, Mindful of the bitter experiences of the times when fundamental freedoms and human rights were violated in our Homeland, Desiring to guarantee the rights of the citizens for all time, and to ensure diligence and efficiency in the work of public bodies, Recognizing our responsibility before God or our own consciences, Hereby establish this Constitution of the Republic of Poland.... God, Christianity, culture, history, experience, "universal values," "other sources"-- this 1992, post-communist constitution throws all possible sources of rights into the basket. Certainly that’s better than viewing them as a gift from the United Nations. Mr. Eliasson ought to come up with a better formulation, lest it be thought that he actually believes what he said on October 2.
  • Iran
    Robert Gates and Israel: There He Goes Again
    This past week, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told an audience in Norfolk, Virginia that an American or Israeli strike on the Iranian nuclear sites would be "catastrophic" and that American officials should make it clear to the government of Israel that "they do not have a blank check to take action that could do grave harm to American vital interests." Mr. Gates’s view that such a strike would be catastrophic is less persuasive with a bit of context: he also believed the 2007 Israeli strike on the Syrian nuclear reactor would be disastrous, opposed it strongly, and urged that the entire relationship between the United States and Israel be brought into question if Israel went forward. In The Weekly Standard, I give an account of what happened in 2007 and conclude This story should be borne in mind when Mr. Gates now predicts with certainty, once again, that an Israeli or American strike (this time on Iran) will produce only "catastrophic" results, and expresses, once again, these negative views of Israel’s relationship with the United States.  To be sure, the case of Iran is very different from that of Syria. But the man who thought the attack on Syria’s nuclear program would be catastrophic may not be the most reliable judge of likely consequences—nor of the entire American-Israeli relationship.
  • United States
    Aid to Egypt: What’s the Rush?
    Texas Rep. Kay Granger has put a hold on $450 million in aid to Egypt, and this has caused consternation in the Obama administration. Granger is a member of the Committee on Appropriations and chairs the subcommittee on foreign operations, so she is a powerful figure. Her brief explanation of the hold is this: This proposal comes to Congress at a point when the U.S. - Egypt relationship has never been under more scrutiny, and rightly so. I am not convinced of the urgent need for this assistance and I cannot support it at this time.  As Chair of the Subcommittee, I have placed a hold on these funds. The State Department took a dim view of the hold, as follows: As the president made clear more than a year ago when he pledged a billion dollars in support from the American people to the people of Egypt if their transition stays on track and continues, and as the secretary said when we were in Cairo in July, on Friday we here at the State Department notified the Congress of our intention to disburse $450 million in budget support to the government of Egypt in two tranches,” she said. Thereafter, we had some interest in that from the Congress, so we are obviously going to have to work with the Congress in the coming days and weeks to explain why we think this money is so essential at a time of almost $12 billion in budget gap in Egypt, why we think supporting the democratic trajectory of Egypt in a phased way is in U.S. interests, because we obviously firmly do. Granger is right—not to block aid to Egypt forever, but to wonder why we must rush forward right now. To begin with, Egypt’s “democratic trajectory” under its new Muslim Brotherhood government is no sure thing. Consider this August statement from the Committee to Protect Journalists and entitled "Egyptian Government Attempts To Suppress The Media:" President Mohamed Morsi’s government and allies are pushing back against critical news coverage, suppressing critical journalists and state-run newspapers, putting a journalist on trial, and attacking three journalists on the street, according to news reports. "This is a troubling backward step that Egypt’s newly elected President Mohamed Morsi should not be taking," said CPJ Deputy Director Robert Mahoney. "We urge President Morsi to reverse this course immediately and demonstrate his commitment to press freedom." Moving forward with all the aid requested can be seen as simply dismissing such concerns and sending a message that they do not trouble us. Then there is the Morsi response when a mob attacked the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. Egypt is not Libya, where one can really question the ability of the police and military to keep order. The security forces in Egypt are strong enough, but were never told to act. On September 11 a crowd of about 2,000 was permitted to reach the walls of the U.S. Embassy and scale them, and tear down the American flag. Others circulated within the compound for hours, and we are lucky none of them harmed American personnel. This assault should never have been permitted, and Morsi has yet to offer a real apology for failing to protect our facility—the kind of full and sincere apology the Libyans have offered. Finally, why now? Egypt has apparently been in no great rush to conclude its agreement with the IMF. Moreover, where’s $450 million in cash from each of Egypt’s friends in the Gulf? For the most part, Gulf Arab oil producers have made deposits at the Egyptian central bank—but the money is supposed to stay there, not be spent. If we are serious about bailing out the Morsi government, why just hand money to Egypt instead of seeking some kind of agreement from other donors that they too will lend a hand? Why not demand that they match, or double, what we contribute? As things stand, we cannot be clear on the new Egyptian government’s economic policy, foreign policy, or respect for democracy. Here is part of the New York Times report on Morsi’s speech at the United Nations: Mr. Morsi rejected Mr. Obama’s broad defense of free speech a day earlier at the United Nations, saying “Egypt respects freedom of expression, freedom of expression that is not used to incite hatred against anyone.” “We expect from others, as they expect from us, that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references, and not seek to impose concepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us,” said Mr. Morsi, a former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. “Insults against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, are not acceptable. We will not allow anyone to do this by word or by deed.” So much for freedom of speech as we understand it. Rep. Granger did not say she thought Egypt was an enemy, or a lost cause; she said she cannot support the assistance “at this time.” That suspension of judgment seems wiser than a rush to embrace the new government of Egypt.