Blogs

Pressure Points

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

Latest Post

How to Topple Maduro

In Foreign Affairs magazine, I assess U.S. policy on Venezuela and argue that the only way to achieve U.S. goals is the collapse of the Maduro regime.

Read More
Bahrain: No Mood for Compromise
Medical personnel are the latest targets of a continuing crackdown in Bahrain. According to a recent posting by the Project on Middle East Democracy, "The Bahrain News Agency reports that the Military Public Prosecution is questioning 47 medical and paramedical employees for their involvement in ’the recent deplorable unrest which gripped the Kingdom of Bahrain.’” The personnel under investigation include 24 doctors and 23 nurses and paramedics. The report continues "Medical personnel were criticized throughout the unrest for treating those involved in the opposition and...medical treatment  was described as akin to supporting the opposition." But the crackdown is not limited to doctors and nurses. The Bahrain Center for Human Rights reports that “In recent developments, Bahraini authorities arrested two former members of Parliament from Al Wefaq political party: Matar Matar and Jawad Fairouz. MP Jawad Fairuz is known for highlighting government corruption and unfair distribution of lands as he attempted to bring the case to parliament. Matar Matar has been documenting violations and cases of disappearances and arrests through the Al Wefaq office.” Al Wefaq has been a moderate Shia voice, not involved in violent or extremist activities. The day before his arrest, Matar told al-Jazeera that the organization was committed to secular democracy in Bahrain. What these two reports show is that the elite of the Shia community is being targeted—the best educated, the middle class, and in the case of the two members of parliament the politically active. The path back toward compromise is made that much more difficult with every passing day. The sectarian divide is widening, for the Government of Bahrain is making the issue Shia versus Sunni rather than constitutional change. Similar reports come from NGOs in Bahrain. Shia workers are subject to mass firings; the press is being muzzled; detainees are being tried in military courts that deny due process, and four men were sentenced to death last week in military trials. As one report (not available on line) put it, “two and a half months since protests began in Bahrain, a government crackdown on opposition and dissent has left over 30 dead, more than 500 hundred people in detention and thousands either fired or suspended without pay. The government has launched a coordinated public relations and propaganda campaign aimed at justifying its treatment of the political opposition and Shi’a communities. The language used by government supporters often serves to deepen the sectarian divide in the kingdom and, in some cases, seems to seek to dehumanize the Shi’a majority.” NGOs in Bahrain report that the opposition still wants a negotiated settlement: In one email, I was told that “Despite the seemingly insurmountable obstacles in front of them, opposition societies continue to say that they are open to dialogue and desire reform through a negotiated process. They retain confidence in the trustworthiness of the Crown Prince as a potential interlocutor, though they have little faith he holds any power right now. Consistent in their demands, the opposition has remained committed to democratic reform under the structure of a constitutional monarchy and rejects the claims that its ultimate goal is the dismantling of the regime. Instead, leaders have called for a constituent assembly – inclusive of all sectors of Bahraini society – to debate and identify solutions to Bahrain’s current challenges.” But the opposition has not found a willing partner in the government: a member of Al Wefaq said “the authorities are just not in the mood” and government supporters have privately said that the government should wait to pursue any dialogue until security and safety is restored. The problem, of course, is that "security and safety" as defined by the government may mean a worse and longer crackdown on all opposition and on the leadership of the Shia community. The picture remains, then, very grim and the government seems unwilling now to follow any path to reconciliation. Perhaps the government, or at least a part of it, is counting on crushing the Shia and teaching them a lesson. Sadly for Bahrain, the only lesson such conduct can teach is that there will be no justice and no democracy until the royal family is gone. That outcome is more likely each day that serious negotiations about constitutional reform are delayed and repression of the Shia community continues.
Syria
Degrading the State
Syrian protesters hold a poster which shows Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi during a protest calling for al-Assad to step down in Amman on May 1, 2011. The poster reads, "The two sides of same coin". (Majed Jaber/Courtesy Reuters) Hundreds of Syrians have been charged with the crime of “degrading the state.” The news comes from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an independent human rights group. This “crime” carries a three-year sentence, and is reminiscent of Soviet-bloc criminal codes now gone except in Cuba. This is a useful reminder of the sort of regime that rules Syria: backward, resistant to any reform, bloody and violent, repressive, unchanging. Since last Friday, the Syrian state has been attacking the citizens of that country and killing hundreds. This is clearly an effort to kill off the protest movement before it can gain momentum on Friday, when people gather at mosques for prayers. And it is possible that for a while the regime will succeed. For the people of Syria are not getting the foreign support they deserve—including from the United States. The ambassador from Assad’s bloody regime still sits happily in Washington, lying to reporters and diplomats alike. Our own ambassador remains in Damascus even after the regime detained, hooded, and beat up one of our diplomats. The Obama Administration, which called for the departure of Ben Ali, Mubarak, and Qaddafi, won’t go that far when it comes to Assad. Nor did the sanctions adopted last week mention him. As I have said in previous blogs, this is a bad and indefensible policy. The fall of the Assad regime would mean the departure of an enemy, would be excellent news for the people of Lebanon as well as Syria, and would represent a tremendous strategic defeat for Iran and Hezbollah. The United States should give our full moral and political support to those struggling for freedom in Syria, and offer concrete assistance to human rights and pro-democracy groups that are aiming at the noble goal of “degrading the state.” In Assad’s Syria, the state is a mafia dedicated to violence and thievery.  The sooner it is degraded, the better.
Syria
Syria: Will Violence Beget Violence?
In a recent post, I wrote that “The spectacular news of Osama bin Laden’s killing by U.S. forces could not have come at a better time. Al-Qaeda’s message that violence, terrorism, and extremism are the only answer for Arabs seeking dignity and hope is being rejected each day in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, and throughout the Arab lands. Al-Qaeda and its view of the world are being pushed aside in favor of demands for new governments, free elections, freedom of speech and assembly, and an end to corruption." My friend Lee Smith, a superb analyst of  the Middle East and author of The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations, wrote me to raise a question about those words. He has a great concern, as I do, that the United States is not doing enough to pressure the Assad mafia in Damascus. We have not targeted Assad with sanctions, called for his departure from power, kicked his ambassador in Washington out or withdrawn our own from Damascus, despite the growing violence against the people of Syria. “My concern,” Lee said, “is that...the Sunnis in Syria are now getting the idea that the only way to bring down Bashar is through violence. In due course, a Zarqawi will come to lead them and he will sow mayhem not just in Syria but throughout the region. This White House is at odds with itself—and inadvertently cooking catastrophe.” Lee’s email points out two among the many reasons to call for a tougher policy against the Assad regime. First and more generally, if Assad murders hundreds of peaceful Syrian demonstrators and gets away with it, Syria will be teaching every dictator a lesson: “kill as many people as you need to; don’t do what Mubarak and Ben Ali did, just shoot.” If that is what Assad’s survival teaches, it will be a terrible precedent and Arab protesters will pay the price in Syria and elsewhere in the region. Lee’s second concern is that such regime violence will evoke an equally violent response from the Sunni majority in Syria. As moderates rarely lead such violent movements, it can be expected that extremists will. Thus those who say that we should not pressure Syria because the successor to Assad may be an extremist Sunni regime are in fact offering a self-fulfilling prophecy. Here again I agree with Lee, and believe that in Syria as elsewhere in the region region violence will beget a violent response. That is all the more reason for the United States to support far more strongly the peaceful protests in Syria. And all the more reason why we will all be better off the sooner Assad’s regime collapses.
  • Middle East and North Africa
    Osama bin Laden’s Death Weakens al-Qaeda in Arab World
    Here is a very brief video from the CFR web site, addressing how Bin Laden’s death affects al-Qaeda. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiRLLERBXCo
  • Middle East and North Africa
    Bin Laden, Obama, and the Arab Spring
    The spectacular news of Osama bin Laden’s killing by U.S. forces could not have come at a better time. Al-Qaeda’s message that violence, terrorism, and extremism are the only answer for Arabs seeking dignity and hope is being rejected each day in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, and throughout the Arab lands. Al-Qaeda and its view of the world are being pushed aside in favor of demands for new governments, free elections, freedom of speech and assembly, and an end to corruption. Bin Laden’s death weakens al-Qaeda and Salafi movements further by taking away their most powerful symbol. President Obama will bask in the satisfaction of all Americans that justice has finally been done—and done through an assault that combined the best of intelligence work with a courageous and well planned military operation. It is entirely appropriate that Mr. Obama and the administration get and take a fair amount of credit. It is therefore unfortunate that Mr. Obama seems to want more than that fair share the American people will naturally and rightly give him. His remarks last night were far too much laced with words like “I met repeatedly,”  “at my direction,” and “I determined,” trying to take personal credit for the years of painstaking work by our intelligence community. Mr. Obama might have noted that this work began under President Bush, but as usual he did not. It was also a mistake for him to use this occasion to deliver unrelated comments about “the pursuit of prosperity for our people” and “the struggle for equality for all our citizens.” A shorter and more straightforward announcement would have been more appropriate for this occasion. Once again here the White House appeared unable to get the messaging quite right, a failure magnified by the amateurish delay of more than an hour in Mr. Obama’s remarks. The White House told the nation at roughly 10 p.m. that the president would speak at 10:30 p.m. Had the president done so, he would have delivered fabulous and shocking news. By the time he actually spoke nearer to midnight his words were an anticlimax, for all the news had leaked. Whatever the cause of this delay—Mr. Obama editing the remarks for too long, or a belatedly discovered need to brief Congressional and world leaders—it suggested that the calm professionalism in the face of crisis shown here by our military and intelligence professionals has yet to be achieved in the White House. Al-Qaeda may redouble efforts to commit acts of terror, but its prestige and power in the Arab world are on the decline. The administration should turn back now to the cases of Libya and Syria above all, pushing further to end the vicious and violent regimes that rule those countries. As the republics of fear fall, al-Qaeda’s message will fall further into disrepute and the message of freedom that is now spreading in the Middle East will grow stronger. An update: The following reaction to Bin Laden’s death is from Maajid Nawaz, director of the London-based anti-extremist think tank Quilliam and emphasizes the timing of the event in the context of the Arab Spring: "Bin Laden’s death comes at a time when al-Qaeda is struggling to remain relevant. As events in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen have also shown, the Arab world has moved on since al-Qaeda was founded in the 1980s. A clear majority of Muslims around the world have decisively rejected al-Qaeda’s vision; people’s real concerns are now about poverty, unemployment and a lack of government accountability; not about establishing a caliphate and fighting a worldwide jihad against the West. Bin Laden’s death – combined with the events of Arab Spring – offers a clear chance for Muslims throughout the world to move on from the era of al-Qaeda and to find ways to achieve dignity, prosperity and social justice without resorting to violence. It is a chance too for jihadist groups around the world to reconsider their aims and methods, and to consider how they can help Muslims around the world rather than attacking them."