World Affairs Council of Greater Richmond

What’s Next for Yemen?

2011-06-15T09:24:00.000-07:00

The political situation in Yemen is quickly deteriorating and it took a dramatic turn earlier this week when the President was injured in an attack at the palace mosque. He was flown to Saudi Arabia and at this point it uncertain whether or not he will return to Yemen. The attack was the culmination of months of rival tribes vying for power and intense government opposition. The public has been calling for the president’s resignation and is anxiously awaiting the outcome of this most recent development. The situation is even more pressing since the president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, is an important ally in the US War on Terror and has allowed the US to use its airspace and to carryout risky drone attacks in the country. However, Yemen is also the home base of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) which has been identified as the most pressing threat to American national security. The US cannot afford to have Yemen turn into the next Afghanistan; a failed state that is an ideal home base for radicalism and terrorism.

Yemen is strategically important for two reasons. First, there are oil pipelines that crisscross the country and that connect to major pipeline networks in Saudi Arabia. Secondly, it is situated in a geographically significant location. It has access to the Bab el Mandeb (the Gate of Tears), the strait which links the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. A regime change and continued instability have the potential to disrupt the oil supply lines and cut off shipping routes which will then negatively affect the global price of oil. It could also potentially place control of that strategic waterway in the hands of terrorist groups who would use that control to their advantage.

In addition to this threat, Yemen is the poorest country in the Middle East with more than half of its population living below the poverty line (The New York Times). Yemen is also believed to be the first country which will run out of water (The New York Times). It faces a separatist movement in the south and a Shiite rebellion in the north. These facts combined with the current political situation have created an atmosphere of desperation and frustration in the country that makes it especially vulnerable to radicalism.

Washington is in a precarious position since the Saleh administration is seen as an essential ally in the region. Unfortunately, the Saleh government has used American money to battle protestors in an attempt to stay in power. Yemeni citizens have a right to renounce the corruption in their country and call for independent elections just as many other countries in the region have done since the Arab Spring began. Washington is urging Saleh to stop down and accept a Gulf State-brokered transition plan which he has already refused there times. John Brennan, the top US national security advisor, is currently in the region trying to negotiate a peaceful end to the violence. He has the challenge of urging the regime change while simultaneously preventing an al-Qaeda takeover and stabilizing the economic aspects of the conflict.

If Saleh resigns, there is no guarantee that the new regime will continue to act as cooperatively vis-à-vis counterterrorism. There is also no guarantee that tribal rivalries will not spur the country into civil war once they commence their struggle to fill the power vacuum. The uncertainty surrounding Yemen’s future means that Washington must take measures to ensure that Yemen does not become the next Afghanistan and increase its support for the AQAP. To achieve this, Washington should continue to pressure the Saleh government to accept the transition plan. It is obvious that the people of Yemen are ready for an end to the corruption and poverty and if Saleh does not step down on his own, Yemen’s citizens may back the AQAP when left with no other choice. The Obama administration should commit to continuing its financial support of the country in an effort to fight radicalism and provide the future regime with an incentive to cooperate in fighting terrorism. Yemen faces a turning point that will have substantial consequences for the US and the Middle East. It is imperative that the outcome does not resemble the one in Afghanistan in 1989 which led to the Taliban’s and Al-Qaeda’s rise to power.

~ Allissa Aronovici

Egypt’s Revolution

2011-03-31T08:01:00.000-07:00

Last week the world witnessed the downfall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak after thirty years as Egypt’s autocratic ruler. This astonishing event was the culmination of an 18 day demonstration in Tahrir Square, also known as Liberation Square, carried out by all strata of the Egyptian population. Chants of the young and old, the rich and poor, the secular and religious, all combined as one voice to demand the demise of Mubarak’s reign. After his resignation, the Supreme Military Council took over the country and dissolved the Parliament, suspended the Constitution, and called for elections within the next six months.

Mubarak’s resignation is a result of the Egyptian people fighting for their own freedom and a right to a better life. This protest was a call for better jobs, more participation in government, and an end to corruption. It was not an American attempt to overthrow the regime or a coup by hard core Islamist movements. This relatively peaceful protest was a homegrown demand for better government and a brighter future. It remains to be seen whether or not this can be achieved, but the demonstration set the possibility in motion.

While this move towards increased freedom and government accountability should not be overlooked, fears for the new political situation are starting to surface. Israel has expressed its fear that Egypt’s new government will not honor their peace treaty thus eliminating one of its only allies in the region. It remains to be seen how Israel-friendly an incoming government may be, although the military has announced that Egypt will honor its international treaties. So while the regime change may be disconcerting, it is still too early to tell what the future will bring and how regional politics will be affected.

Change is always scary because the outcome is never predictable. Indeed, the Iranian Revolution and the Palestinian elections did not turn out the way Washington would have hoped. Still, fears that Islamic insurgents will turn Egypt into the next Afghanistan seem too premature. Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood, the leading Egyptian opposition group, has renounced violence and provides social and medical services to the Egyptian public rather than advocating fundamentalist ideologies. Washington must overcome its fear of Islamic terrorism and give the results of this revolution a chance to play out. This transition will hopefully spur what will become a more democratic era in the Middle East. Protests in Iran, Yemen, Algeria, and Bahrain have also erupted this week and the protestors hope to replicate the Egyptian revolution and achieve what the Egyptians have achieved in their own countries.

This wave of protest is inflaming the Middle East and has the potential to dramatically restructure the politics of the whole region. It also has the possibility of rooting out Islamic terrorism by holding Middle Eastern governments accountable and ending some of the frustration and desperation of their populations. If the public believes that it has better representation in the government and the economy and job markets are stimulated, a majority of their grievances are no longer valid. Perhaps in the end, internally driven protests will have a greater effect on inspiring democratic reforms than foreign-led invasions. In his column in the New York Times, Rodger Cohen suggests that we should “overcome 9/11 through 2/11: the road to reconciliation leads not through Baghdad or Kabul but through Tahrir” (The New York Times). Only time will tell if this turns out to be true, but it seems worth it to try.

~ Alissa Aronovici

Another Try?

2010-12-08T08:08:00.000-08:00

Israeli and American newspapers are reporting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has agreed to a 90-day freeze on residential building in the West Bank. This is a crucial development in the stalled peace talks and will provide the impetus needed to resume the direct talks which fell apart earlier this fall. The 90-day period will be non-renewable and is hopefully enough to bring the Palestinians back to the negotiating table, even though the freeze will not include settlements in East Jerusalem.

The most recent round of negotiations (direct talks) broke down in September after the ten month building moratorium expired. (Haaretz Online). The Palestinians have refused to resume direct, or indirect, talks while Israeli settlers are building in what they view as their future capital. Almost two months after the disintegration of the talks, the Israeli Prime Minister has agreed to extend the settlement building freeze. This move should be interpreted as his willingness to move forward in the peace process while illustrating the fact that Israel will support its words with actions. By complying with Washington's requests for a freeze, Israel is demonstrating its genuine desire to participate in peace negotiations. This is a necessary compromise if progress is to be made; but heavy sacrifices will have to be made on both sides and this is far from the last or most difficult one.

It has been reported that the Israelis were persuaded to cooperate by a package of incentives. According to an article on Al-Jazeera, there are two main components of the incentive package. First, the United States would give Israel around 20 fighter jets. Second, that the U.S. would veto United Nations resolutions that would take action against Israel, such as the Gaza Flotilla Inquiry or the Goldstone Report (Al-Jazeera Online). It would also prevent the Palestinian Authority from obtaining international recognition for a unilateral declaration of statehood (The New York Times). This guarantee eliminates the possibility of the international community recognizing Palestinian statehood without Israel's consent. While the military incentive does not seem that different from the support Israel already receives from Washington, the guarantee of a veto regarding United Nations resolutions is a major step. This will give the Israeli government an ounce of protection from international accusations vis-à-vis its actions to maintain security. While navigating the unpredictable future of peace negotiations, this assurance will go far to reassure Israeli citizens.

Perhaps this latest development has been reported on too prematurely. It still has to be approved by Netanyahu's cabinet and the Palestinians must agree to reconvene the talks as well. However, if this opportunity is to be fully taken advantage of, it must be seen by both sides as the moment to seize upon mutual cooperation and make strides towards negotiating a final peace agreement. Realistically, a final border agreement will not be possible in three months. However, a preliminary outline, which identifies which settlements would stay in Israeli hands and which would be given to Palestinians, could be agreed on in this limited time frame. If this preliminary outline could be established, it would make the settlement freeze irrelevant since by then it will have been determined which land Israel will retain or forfeit. If genuine progress is to be made, the next three months will be the true test of both sides' commitment to a two state solution.

~ Alissa Aronovici

The Floods in Pakistan

2010-09-28T13:47:00.000-07:00

Last month, Pakistan’s monsoon season announced itself with the worst flooding the country has seen in almost a decade. The floods have now enveloped most of the country and affected over 4 million people. 1600 citizens have died while thousands more are still stranded without food or drinking water (The New York Times). This natural disaster will continue to adversely affect the Pakistani people and their economy for years to come. To deal with this catastrophe, the United States, the United Nations, and the Pakistani government must take action.

There are four major aspects to this situation and each must be carefully analyzed and solved in order for Pakistan to survive this disaster. The first, and most immediate, is the humanitarian and health issue. The spread of waterborne diseases is a huge threat as is the food shortage resulting from the large amount of destroyed crops and farm land. The economic aspect is another central concern. Bridges, roads, and other infrastructure have been washed away and destroyed in the floods. International economic aid will be necessary to rebuild Pakistan’s lost infrastructure and development projects. It will also be essential to help farmers rebuild crop land; this is a large part of the country’s income and how most families sustain themselves.

The remaining issues are political. One of these concerns is the United States and Pakistan relationship. This is an opportunity for Washington to show the Pakistani people that we have the best intentions and that we will be a long-term partner in their development and recovery process. The Obama administration should use this catastrophe as a chance to overcome Pakistani distrust of our motives and push for greater cooperation. The United States must provide increased support and display a keen interest in this area of the world at this critical time. Providing economic and humanitarian aid will go far with both the government and people of Pakistan.

Perhaps most importantly, if the United States and Pakistan don’t do enough, Islamic groups will step in and provide the much needed aid to struggling citizens. This has happened in the past, and in other countries, and there is certainly a high probability for this to occur again. The greatest political consequence of the floods is the possibility that Pakistani militant groups will step in to fill the void. The Pakistani government must do everything it can to prevent this from happening. However, without economic aid, there is little chance of achieving this. Pakistan needs the international community’s support to maintain stability in the face of this devastation.

~ Alissa Aronovici

The Gaza Flotilla and Gilad Shilit

2010-07-26T08:29:00.000-07:00

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is meeting with President Obama this week to discuss the sanctions on Iran, the peace process, and the Gaza blockade. This meeting will be a stark contrast from their most recent one in which relations between the two leaders were reported to be tense and no photos were taken. This is an opportunity for both sides to express their positions and to show the international community that their diplomatic relationship is still intact despite policy disagreements.

After last month’s flotilla incident and the harsh criticism that Israel received in the aftermath, Israel has put forth a concerted effort to ease the Gaza blockade. It has allowed in previously blacklisted items, such as mattresses and school materials. This reduction in prohibited items was a reaction to worldwide criticism of the blockade and its effect on the civilian population in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli military has also initiated an investigation into the violence that occurred on the Turkish ship, the Mavi Marmara. The investigation panel includes two international figures from Ireland and Canada; this is an attempt to appease the calls for an international and independent investigation which Netanyahu has vetoed. After the results of the Goldstone Report, it is not surprising that the Israeli government is reluctant to allow an international investigation.

Now that Israel has made these concessions, it is up to the Palestinian leaders to reciprocate. One way to demonstrate this reciprocation is for Mahmud Abbas and the Arab countries to pressure Hamas into negotiating a deal with Israel for the release of Gilad Shilit. The kidnapping of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shilit is one of the top domestic issues in Israel today. For four years, Shilit has been in the hands of the terrorist organization Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It was shortly after his kidnapping that the Gaza blockade was enacted. If the group is not willing to release Gilad Shilit, it must allow the Red Cross access to him. This would give the Israeli public and government proof of life and act as a good faith gesture.

Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel is willing to release up to 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the release of Gilad Shilit (Reuters). A prisoner exchange seems like the only realistic solution for getting Shilit back. This would be a real triumph for Netanyahu who is facing domestic criticism over building freezes, among other things, in the West Bank. Adding to the pressure is the fact that Shilit’s parents are in the middle of a march from their home in the north of Israel to Jerusalem. This march is an effort to call attention to the fate of their son and remind the Israeli government that public opinion is on their side. It has also demonstrated the ineffectiveness of both the Israeli and Palestinian governments to move forward with the peace process

Although the events of the Gaza flotilla raid were mired in violence and suspicion, the political outcome may have a more positive effect. The easing of the Gaza blockade was a necessity and Israel needed to show the international community that it was willing to cooperate. The flotilla raid prompted a much needed modification in Israeli policy and we have not seen the last of its repercussions. This step will decrease the criticism Israel receives from humanitarian organizations and potentially move them one step closer to direct talks with the Palestinians. President Obama has called for a transition to direct talks before September which is when the building freeze is set to expire. If a prisoner exchange could also be achieved by this date, it seems that a genuine attempt for direct talks could be realized.

~ Alissa Aronovici

Saudi Arabia and Women’s Rights

2010-06-15T07:18:00.000-07:00

A recent article in the Jerusalem Post described an incident in which a Saudi Arabian woman beat up a religious policeman. The woman was at an amusement park in the company of a male friend when they were approached by the policeman. After he interrogated them, she began kicking him and it resulted in his hospitalization. This episode received national coverage and reinvigorated a debate about women’s rights in Saudi Arabia.

This incident is remarkable for several reasons. It illustrates that Saudi Arabian women may be growing tired of the restrictions enforced on them and are ready to take action against them. In this patriarchal society, women’s rights are not a priority and the time may have arrived that Saudi women are no longer willing to accept this. Rare occurrences like this also point out the negative feelings that many Saudis have towards the religious police. These law enforcement officers have a negative reputation among the Saudi Arabian population but are still supported.

Saudi Arabia adheres to one of the strictest forms of Islam and is a very traditional society when it comes to females and their place in society. It has a strict law that requires women to be accompanied by a male guardian; it could be a father, husband, brother, or some other relative. Without the above supervision, women are unable to leave the house, even if it’s to go to the hospital or to school. The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice employ religious policemen who patrol the streets looking for violators of this law (Jerusalem Post). This law is reinforced by the Saudi government, the courts, and society.

It must be acknowledged that Saudi Arabia has taken steps to increase women’s freedom, especially in the last two years. Last fall, the head of the religious police in Mecca declared that there was no legal justification in the Quran for the segregation of men and women (Jerusalem Post). Although this declaration sparked an outcry, it was supported by the Saudi King. Going further, Saudi Arabia accepted a recommendation of the United Nation’s Human Right’s Council to abolish the archaic law of male guardianship. Unsurprisingly, these actions have spurred a national controversy and sparked debate over a sensitive issue.

While these steps have been taken to initiate change, they are mostly symbolic and have no genuine impact. Women are still required to get their husband’s approval when leaving the house and the virtue police are still allowed to punish women socializing with non-familial males. In order to bring about genuine changes, public opinion must support these new initiatives and be willing to break with traditional cultural norms.

These occurrences appear to be the beginning of a transformation in Saudi Arabia. However, there is still a tremendous amount of work to be done in order to bring about authentic change. There are two necessary steps that must be taken to make this happen. The first is that more women must be willing to stand up for themselves, and for each other, and fight for their equality. The second component is that the government, especially King Abdullah, must support these changes. It is imperative that he turns them into reality and not just talk. The government and royal family need to follow through on their promises to their people. There are forces in Saudi Arabia that have made progress in women’s rights but they need more attention, support, and encouragement.

The woman who stood up for herself in the amusement park should be applauded for her bravery and sense of justice. The normal penalty for this type of behavior is a lashing followed by imprisonment. Although her punishment has not been revealed, imprisonment and lashings seem hypocritical in light of the reforms the Saudi King has promised to implement. Let’s hope this woman’s actions initiate real change in this country.

~ Alissa Aronovici

The Road to Peace

2010-05-18T13:06:00.000-07:00

This week, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton addressed the American Jewish Committee, a Jewish advocacy organization, in Washington D.C. Her remarks came at a critical point in the stalled Middle East peace process. George Mitchell, the United States special envoy to the Middle East, is attempting to once again restart proximity talks and will be making another trip to Jerusalem next week. More importantly, both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership have recently stated that they are ready to make concessions in order to jumpstart the negotiations. The Palestinian Authority is willing to accept temporary borders while the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has eased restrictions in Gaza and has slowed down the pace of building in East Jerusalem.

The Secretary’s speech contained several important points regarding the Middle East peace process as well as direct warnings for Iran and Syria. Secretary Clinton reiterated Washington’s commitment to Israel’s security despite the recent disagreements over building in East Jerusalem. By reaffirming the countries’ alliance, Clinton sent a message to the rest of the world in which she made clear that even if they don’t always see eye to eye, the United States will do its utmost to protect Israel’s security and right to exist. Just as importantly, she also declared that Palestinians have a right to their own state. Clinton posited that a two state solution is the most beneficial resolution for all sides; Israel, Palestinians, and the region as a whole.

The past few weeks have shown that the Obama administration has an end goal of peace and will not overlook old habits that obstruct this aim. This seems to be the best opportunity to firmly establish peace that the Middle East has had in several decades. Obama is an American leader who is viewed in the Arab world as not having a predetermined bias towards Israel. The events which occurred recently between the US and Israel have proved this point. The Palestinians have two leaders, Salam Fayyad and Mahmoud Abbas, that are fighting corruption, building government institutions, and willing to negotiate with Israel since they understand that this is the only way to achieve a Palestinian state. If this opportunity is not taken advantage of, the chance to establish peace may be eclipsed by other developments.

Aside from the stubbornness and genuine fears of the Israelis and Palestinians, there are other factors at work in the region. Iran and Syria and their unpredictable behavior are obstacles to regional stability. Secretary Clinton addressed these issues in her speech as well. She warned Syria that there would be dire consequences if it continued to transfer weapons to the militant group Hezbollah. This seems to be a direct response to unconfirmed reports that Syria transferred long-range Scud missiles to Hezbollah, the Islamic militant group based in Lebanon (Al-Jazeera). Iran was also criticized for its continued defiance of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations’ nuclear monitoring organization. The actions of these countries derail the peace process and destabilize the entire region. These steps insinuate that Arab states are trying to derail any resumption of peace negotiations.

Clinton addressed this specific issue towards the end of her speech. She emphasized the necessity of other Arab states and the Arab League to lend their support to the Palestinians and their leaders. If the surrounding Arab states support the development of a Palestinian state, they must do more to illustrate this. Recognition of Israel and increased financial aid for the Palestinians, specifically at Salam Fayyad’s discretion, are only two of the steps that should be taken. The Arab League owes it to the Palestinians to legitimize their claim to statehood by increasing their support for this goal both financially and diplomatically. Without this crucial backing, the Palestinians face an even tougher road to independence.

Syria’s provocative actions and Iran’s nuclear ambitions are both destabilizing factors that detract form Israeli and Palestinian efforts to negotiate. There are also internal factors, such as Israeli building in East Jerusalem and Palestinian support for Hamas and Hezbollah, that contribute to this stalemate. However, it is imperative that these negative influences be overcome and that the regional Arab community works harder to lend support to the aspiration of Palestinian statehood. The motivation on the Palestinian and Israeli sides seems to be moving in the right direction, but it is only with these combined efforts that any genuine progress can be accomplished. The failure to establish a Palestinian state and finalize a peace agreement will have dismal consequences and the time to accomplish these goals may be running out sooner rather than later. This fact makes the realization of these goals that much more imperative. As Secretary Clinton stated in her speech, “a two-state solution coupled with a regional peace promises a future of prosperity. The status quo promises only more violence and failed aspirations” (State Department).

~ Alissa

President Obama's summit meeting on nuclear non-proliferation and its impact on the global community

2010-04-21T10:56:00.000-07:00

This past week the largest international summit meeting on nuclear proliferation was held in Washington. President Obama hosted 46 world leaders in order to discuss nuclear weapons, nuclear technology, proliferation, and unsecure stockpiles of enriched uranium and plutonium. Emphasizing the threat of nuclear terrorism, the American president sought to illuminate this growing problem and garner international cooperation to prevent it.

President Obama is attempting to gain international support for imposing harsher sanctions on Iran. In the coming month, the United Nations Security Council will meet to vote on this matter. However, this decision necessitates obtaining Chinese agreement since up to this point China has threatened to block any action with their veto power. The Chinese are reluctant to go along with increased sanctions as it will harm their diplomatic relations with Iran and could potentially limit their Iranian oil supply. Now that Washington has promised to aid China in finding other sources of oil, the Chinese have no real reason to object to increased targeted sanctions.

The American administration has already received Russia’s agreement for targeted sanctions and has been negotiating with China in recent weeks to complete the required consensus. Both the Russian and Chinese leaders were present at the conference and appeared open to discussions regarding sanctions. Furthermore, the Chinese President Hu Jinato went further than he has to date and agreed to cooperate.

While there has already been criticism that the conference and its results were not effective, there is no denying that Obama has gone further than those before him in bringing world attention and international cooperation to this issue. He was able to get Canada, Mexico, and Ukraine to agree to turn over their enriched uranium and enact stricter security measures around nuclear facilities. By including Europe, Asia, and Latin America in the deliberations, Obama has turned nuclear security into a world problem and not just an American agenda against Iran. This gives more credibility to his call for Iranian sanctions and will hopefully result in increased support for these initiatives.

One of the issues which was stressed during this conference is the fact that the world’s stockpiles of enriched uranium and plutonium are largely unregulated and stored in unsecured facilities. The majority of these materials are leftover from the Cold War and are not currently in use (New York Times). These nuclear material sites pose a huge risk for international security. They leave dangerous nuclear ingredients open to theft and give countries the option to turn them into weapons. In the past, the main fear of nuclear weapons was that superpowers would use nuclear weapons against each other; this concern was minimized through mutual nuclear deterrence. However, today the fear has morphed into a much scarier and unpredictable scenario. The current concern has two main components. The first is that rogue states will sell nuclear technology and materials to terrorist organizations. The second is that the terrorist groups will simply steal these materials and construct their own weapons to use against the United States and other countries. It has been established that Al-Qaeda, along with other terrorist organizations, is searching for nuclear materials. In fact, according to a 2010 Nuclear Threat Initiative Report, there have been 18 documented cases of theft of nuclear materials (CNN).

Nuclear proliferation threatens the entire international community and more pressure needs to be applied to states who contemplate selling nuclear technology and materials. Additionally, greater precautions must be taken to protect and dispose of some of this excess material along with an increase in the transparency of the steps countries take to facilitate this. While this nuclear proliferation meeting and its results were a good start, much more must be done to bring about genuine change. These steps should be mandatory versus voluntary and international institutions should play a greater role in bringing these goals to fruition.

~ Alissa Aronovici

Israel, Palestine, and the United States: What’s next?

2010-03-24T13:22:00.000-07:00

Two weeks ago, diplomatic relations between the United States and Israel took an unexpected turn. During Vice President Biden’s trip to Israel, the Israeli government announced a plan to construct 1600 new housing units in East Jerusalem. This move embarrassed the Obama administration, which was attempting to restart proximity talks, while simultaneously angering Palestinians. It led to Palestinian demonstrations in the Old City and East Jerusalem and culminated with Israel deploying 3,000 troops to the area. Fears of a third Palestinian intifada, or uprising, were alleviated last Wednesday as tension began to dissipate. However, a highly public disagreement ensued between Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This diplomatic row is one of the worst public disputes between Washington and Jerusalem in recent decades.

Secretary Clinton demanded a public gesture of reassurance from Israel in order to confirm that it is committed to restarting the peace negotiations. In the last few days, Israel has responded to this request. In a good faith gesture, Netanyahu announced that Israel would ease the Gaza blockade and release some Fatah prisoners (Haaretz). The Prime Minister, however, is standing firm on the issue of these new building plans. While apologizing for the timing of the announcement, he has refused to call off the planed construction. In fact, Netanyahu has pointed out that construction in East Jerusalem has been a part of the agenda of previous Israeli administrations and furthermore it was never part of last year’s building freeze. It is important to consider the precarious situation that Netanyahu finds himself in. His coalition depends on right-wing parties who will not tolerate a decrease in the construction of new settlement units. So if he were to contradict this ill-timed announcement, he might risk the collapse of his coalition government.

This week both Netanyahu and Clinton will attend the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in Washington. Netanyahu will also meet with President Obama during his trip. Additionally, after delaying his trip during the height of the disagreement, George Mitchell, the US special envoy to the Middle East, will also be arriving in Israel (Jerusalem Post). These meetings will be an opportunity for both sides to clarify their expectations of each other and smooth over any lingering animosity.

Building in East Jerusalem is one of the major obstacles to securing a peace settlement in the Middle East. The Palestinians consider East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state and resent what in their eyes’ is the continued Israeli occupation. Going even further, critics see the continued building as a sign that Israel does not realistically want a two state solution; or at least not one that includes East Jerusalem. But it seems likelier that Netanyahu is trying to find the balance between satisfying his coalition partners and making concessions towards the Palestinians. Whichever interpretation you believe, the issue of the final status of Jerusalem and the matter of settlements are essential components of the peace process.

Perhaps, in the end, this dispute will produce a positive result. Israel may have needed a catalyst to galvanize it into making real concessions. It is time that both the Palestinians and the Israelis sit down at the negotiating table and discuss the controversial but important topics; these include the status of Jerusalem, refugees, security, borders, and settlements in East Jerusalem. These are sensitive issues for both sides but without a genuine desire for peace, these obstacles will not be overcome. The Israelis and the Palestinians need to decide if they have had enough fighting and are ready to live with a two state solution. If this is the case, proximity talks and mediators seem secondary. The most important step is tackling these contentious topics from the beginning; otherwise, the peace process will continue to be at a standstill.

~ Alissa Aronovici

Whats going on with Syria?

2010-03-02T10:42:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad held a joint press conference with Iran’s leader Ahmadinejad in which he criticized US policy in the Middle East and reaffirmed the Iranian-Syrian relationship (Washington Post). These statements follow recent American efforts to open up diplomatic relations with Syria. On February 17^th, President Obama announced that he was appointing Robert S. Ford as the new Ambassador to Syria. This appointment is the first since 2005, when America withdrew its ambassador in the wake of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. Was this press conference Syria’s way of responding to US gestures of political good will? It seems to be a public rejection of America’s offer to reestablish diplomatic relations. More importantly, it appears that Syria has chosen a side; by publicly aligning itself with Iran, Syria has drawn a clear line between itself and the United States.

Since 2005, the United States has tried to isolate Syria because of its interference in Lebanese politics and support of terrorist organizations. However, as tensions with Iran rise and the country becomes closer to gaining nuclear weapons, the US administration has reevaluated its policy towards Syria. President Obama is searching for more moderate Arab allies to support sanctions against Iran and thought that Syria could be persuaded to participate. By directly engaging with Syria, Obama was hoping to create distance between Syria and Iran. His actions seem to have had the opposite effect. Perhaps the carrot approach has come too late.

The Syrian response is disappointing, even if not entirely unexpected. Syria is a major player in the politics of the Middle East and it appears it is ready to take on a more pronounced role. There are three major regional issues in which Syria is deeply involved. The Middle East peace process is the most obvious. Israel captured the Golan Heights during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and Syria demands that the territory be returned in order to negotiate a peace settlement. If Syria and Israel were to establish peace, Syria would have more incentive to cease its support of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The second issue is Iran and it’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. As the US tries to deter Iran, it is searching for allies in the region. By engaging with Syria, America is attempting to create distance between Syria and Iran and allow Syria to take a more moderate stance. The other important concern is the Iraq war. Syria has allowed its border with Iraq to remain porous and perhaps even encouraged foreign fighters to use it as a way to enter the country.

These issues demonstrate the important role that Syria plays in the Middle East. Syria is directly involved in and affected by many of the problems facing the region. It has the potential to act as an integral player in the negotiation of a Middle East peace settlement and to become a major player in the regional politics once US and NATO forces leave Iraq. However, it remains to be seen whether or not Syria will take further actions to assert its support of Iran and rejection of the United States. But if President Assad’s recent statements are any indication, it seems the US may have lost a valuable partner in its search for more moderate allies in the Middle East.

~ Alissa Aronovici

Israel & Iran's Quest for Nuclear Weapons

2010-02-05T10:58:00.000-08:00

In a press conference earlier this week the Israeli Vice Premier Moshe Ya’alon stated his opinion regarding Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. He stated that “the plan is to stop it, be it through regime change in Iran or through, with no other choice, the use of force in order to remove Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons” (Jerusalem Post). The bottom line is that allowing Iran to become a nuclear power is not an option for Israel.

However, this quote illustrates questions that Israel is now facing concerning the topic of a nuclear Iran. First, considering the continuing protests of Iranian opposition leaders and their supporters, it is unclear what Iran’s future political situation will look like. Although the disputed elections took place last June, demonstrations are still occurring, especially as the anniversary of the Revolution draws closer. It’s uncertain whether or not the Iranian public will demand change on its own or if the momentum of last summer has been lost. The second point is whether or not the time is right for the use of force as a last resort. Will Israel wait to see if harsher UN sanctions will make a difference to the Iranian regime or if Russia and China will take a firmer stance? And the third matter is only insinuated. Will Israel act alone if it decides that the time is right for a pre-emptive attack?

Although it is not a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel is believed to be the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons. Thus, it is obvious that if Iran becomes a nuclear power it will drastically change the balance of regional politics. Perhaps more importantly for Israel, it will give Iran the ability to directly strike Israel and wipe it off the face of the map, just as Ahmadinejad has promised. Israel has bombed nuclear facilities before; most recently in Syria in September 2006. It has the capacity to do this. It’s left to be seen whether Israel will carry out a pre-emptive strike unilaterally or with the United States’ support. The Netanyahu government seems to be running out of patience and is ready for the international community to take a stronger stand.

The possibility of a nuclear Iran concerns the whole world, including Iran‘s more moderate neighbors. Allowing Iran to become a nuclear power will have a rippling effect across the Middle East. It could destabilize the entire region and create an arms race. It is the responsibility of the international community to prevent fulfillment of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The Obama administration’s plan to allow Iran to continue to enrich uranium but then send it abroad for fuel development is a good start. But it must be followed up with actions and consequences if Iran refuses to cooperate. If Iran rejects the proposed deal, Israel may not have other options.

~ Alissa Aronovici

Meet our Intern!

2010-02-05T10:22:00.000-08:00

Meet Alissa Aronovici, our newest intern. We are so excited to have Alissa join us!

Alissa earned her bachelors degree in International Relations from the College of William and Mary in 2006. She is currently a graduate student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and is pursuing a master’s degree in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies. She speaks Spanish and French and is studying Hebrew and Arabic as part of her degree program. She has traveled throughout Europe and the Middle East. Upon graduation she hopes to work for the US government or with an international non-governmental organization.

Alissa will be writing our blogs for us, so do keep an eye out for her latest postings!

Pakistan's Educational System: Dysfunction & Extremism

2009-10-19T12:09:00.000-07:00

According to the World Bank, nearly half of the adult population of Pakistan can't read, and primary enrollment remains the lowest in South Asia.

Extremist groups are recruiting impoverished Pakistani children by offering free education, thereby indoctrinating the next generation, by exploiting the lack of educational opportunity. While some efforts by the Pakistani government have been put forth, there are still many challenges ahead.

One problem: the government-mandated curriculum. All registered public & private schools are required to teach Islamiyat [Islamic studies], using material that directly contradicts the goals and values of a progressive, moderate, and democratic Pakistan. The curriculum includes text books that contain hate material and encourage prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination towards women, religious minorities, and other nations. In 2004, Pervez Hoodbhoy, professor and chairman of Islamabad-based Quaid-i-Azam University wrote in Foreign Affairs: "Pakistani schools - and not just madrassas [Islamic religious schools] - are churning out fiery zealots, fueled with a passion for jihad and martyrdom.

Few people educated in public schools are able to move up the ladder of social mobility, and the government, in its new national policy, concedes that access at all levels to educational opportunities remain low.

The 2009 National Education Policy says Pakistan's weak education results from poor implementation of policies, and a lack of commitment to education. Currently, the government spends a mere 2.7 percent of it's gross domestic product on education. There are nine colleges which teach intermediate and degree level classes, but they only accept males, as noted by a 2008 research study by a Peshawar-based independent nonprofit organization.

The 9/11 Commission report, released in 2004, said some of Pakistan's religious schools served as "incubators for violent extremism. The rise of the Taliban in the 1990's, brought reports thatmany of the group's leaders were educated in the madrassas, which has only fueled concern regarding these religious schools. Adding to the concern, are reports of Pakistan's tribal area providing suicide attackers in Afghanistan. A 2007 report by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan found that suicide attackers in Afghanistan "draw heavily from madrassas across the border in Pakistan. The report also noted that recruits were drawn from Afghan refugees settled in Pakistan.

There has been some measures by recent Pakistani governments to reform theses religious schools, but they have been met with little success. The first educational reform was issued in 2001, the second in 2002, yet only 500 maddresses have reported accepting the curriculum reform.

Since 2002, the United States Agency for International Development has invested over $682 Million to reform Pakistan's education system. In September 2009, the U.S. Congress approved a new bill authorizing $1.5 billion a year in nonmilitary aid for the next five years starting in 2010.

However, concerns remain in how best to disburse the aid money for maximum impact. Some experts say a large portion of development assistance is spent on international consultants and overhead costs. Lack of coordination between the central government and the local authorities who are in charge of implementing educational reforms add to the problem.

An increasing number of experts point to the growth of low-cost private schools that are generally more efficient than public schools and recommend boosting the private sector to help reform the system. Public-private partnership models are also recommended. Understanding parental choice is also critical for any meaningful educational reform. Many parents opt out of the educational market rather than send their children to madrassas for full-time instruction.

Factors such as physical distance to schools and presence of female teachers are usually considered an important determinant for girls' education. In other cases, stipends can help to encourage parents to send their children to school when incentives other than quality of education are a determinant in enrollment. The World Bank started a program in 2003 of paying a stipend to families to ensure they send their daughters to school.

Weigh in with your thoughts/comments....

Polarizing Iran

2009-08-06T05:49:00.000-07:00

Supreme Leader Khamenei endorsed the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a formal ceremony on Monday, with a formal inauguration held on Wednesday, August 5th.

Protests over the election are still ripping the country apart, with trials over the weekend of more than one hundred people (many of whom are prominent Iranian players), who called the election a fraud - indicating the rigidity and confusion of the regime. Although the trials were meant to prove the election was not fraudulent, the court itself was handled in such a manipulative way (no lawyers were present, among other oddities) that it is confirming many doubts.

What is also poignant is the unusualness of the confirmation ceremony. For the first time in 20 years, the election was not shown on TV, and Iranians were only shown a few pictures. What’s more, a majority of the key players were missing. It is customary for a former president, even if the current president is re-elected, to be present for the ceremony to assist in the "passing of the mantle." Neither former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (head of the Expediency Council) or former President Mohammed Khatami were there.

It is becoming more and more clear that Khamenei's camp continues to believe that they can solve this problem by exerting more pressure, using violence and accusing its opponents of treason. This has caused lines to be drawn even more clearly, with speeches and actions causing tragic occurrences on the streets of Iran and tremendous amounts of violence against protesters, polarizing the country even further.

Hot Topic - Diplomacy in the Obama Administration

2009-08-04T10:58:00.000-07:00

Today's hot topic [President Bill Clinton's trip to North Korea] is full of controversial talking points.

With relations between the US and N. Korea decidingly unfavorable, it is no wonder that the Obama Administration would tap a figurehead of such notoriety (President Clinton has been likened to the "Rock Star" of governmental figure heads) to act as its envoy in securing the two imprisoned American journalists. Some say doing so only rewards the N. Koreans for their bad behavior by delivering something they crave - status and bragging rights .

Does President Clintons journey undermine the public stance of his wife, Secretary Clinton? It comes perilously close to negotiating with terrorists. She has also caused a personal rift between herself and the N. Koreans by calling them "unruly children" who demand attention.

Secretary Clinton has made it clear that negotiations for the release of the two American prisoners, and the nuclear talks are completely separate issues. Calling to mind President Clintons nuclear negotiations with N. Korea in the 1990's while in office, it is hard to imagine that the issue was not addressed when he was picked up at the airport by Kim Kye-Gwan [lead North Korean Nuclear Negotiator] or at dinner when he met with Kim Jong II.

John Bolton, an outspoken hardliner of the Bush Administration, said "If you wanted to divorce the kidnapping, abduction issue of the two reporters from the nuclear issue, you couldn't have picked a less likely envoy than president Clinton."

Stay Tuned...

2009-07-31T11:52:00.000-07:00

Next week the Richmond World Affairs Council will be launching our updated website! Viewer's will be able to follow us on Twitter, view programs on YouTube, and "Ask a Board Member," all of which are just a few items on the list of new offerings.

Once you have checked out our new and improved look, please stop by and let us know what you think!

Welcome to our first blog of the Richmond World Affairs Council!

2009-07-31T11:45:00.001-07:00

This is so exciting - The Richmond World Affairs Council has finally embarked upon the Social Media networking journey that has hit the world of marketing, publishing, and news. Please join in on the discussions, commentary, and don't hesitate to speak up!