Picture from Flickr used under a Creative Commons license.

Kim Ghattas writes for BBC News  about the fine line the White House walks when discussing election protests, and the regime’s response, in Iran. Obama will be forced by his own constituencies in America to speak out as police beatings and tear gassing becomes more violent. However, the more support Obama lends to the opposition, the more he actually hurts it because of the way that America is perceived in the country. According to Ghattas, “the challenge has been threefold:

• keeping faith with the hundreds of thousands of Iranians who have taken to the streets without undermining their credibility in a country where the US is routinely called the “great Satan”
• condemning the violence used to quell the protesters without cutting off all chances of talks with Iran should the current leadership remain in power
• maintaining a cautious tone in referring to the protesters without ending up on the wrong side of history should the opposition emerge on top at the end of the struggle”

However, Obama’s overtures to negotiate with Iran no matter who the president is has changed the political tone inside the country, removing one of the hardliners’ strongest supports and creating space for greater debate. Now, it is unclear what the results for Iran will be and whether Obama will be able to negotiate with the country’s leader.

Photo from the White House Flickr Stream used under a Creative Commons license.

PCR presented a panel yesterday on the implications of Obama’s speech to the Muslim world with Ambassador Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat of the Republic of Indonesia, Shaun Casey, Associate Professor of Christian Ethics, Wesley Theological Seminary, and Amr Ramadan, Deputy Chief of the Mission, Embassy of Egypt, moderated by Nadia Bilbassy-Charters, Senior U.S. Correspondent, Middle East Broadcasting Center. The panel participants discussed the effects of the speech on their respective parts of the world, implications for the future of U.S. policy towards the Muslim world, and suggestions for America’s path forward.

Listen to the audio: Building on President Obama’s Speech in Cairo

This position is at the National Defense University (NDU) in the Research Directorate of the Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS). The mission of NDU is to educate senior military and civilian leaders through teaching, research, and outreach in national security strategy, national military strategy, and national resource strategy; joint and multinational operations; information strategies, operations, and resource management; acquisition; and regional defense and security studies. NDU is a learning organization founded on knowledge management and is a center of excellence and innovation for professional military education in joint, multinational, and interagency operations.

The purpose of this position is to conduct research on national security strategy and regional security affairs in South Asia and/or the Middle East. Six attributes are critical to this position. First, the Distinguished Research Fellow should be able to demonstrate deep knowledge in one or both of these regions. Second, incumbent should be fluent in at least one of the non-English languages of the region, including Farsi, Arabic, Urdu, or Pashto. Third, the Distinguished Research Fellow should have a good grasp of strategy and some background in either national security affairs or political economy, and thus capable or contributing to integrated strategic assessments. Fourth, incumbent should be an accomplished and prolific writer, capable of producing publishable prose on a regular basis. Fifth, incumbent should be an exemplary professional, capable of briefing and addressing the most senior defense, interagency, and international audiences. Sixth and finally, the Distinguished Research Fellow should be capable of teamwork and exhibit performance that would reflect well on the Institute, the National Defense University and the United States Government.
 
Applicants should have a doctoral degree with progressive professional experience in a relevant area; equivalent exceptional expertise in research/policy analysis will also be considered; evidence of maturity as a scholar including a record of continuing research and service contributions within a given field of study; a record of publishing books, monographs, and articles in recognized professional journals; and significant professional research experience as a senior national security analyst in either the Federal Government or a national security/defense policy related institution or industry. You must be a U.S. citizen to qualify for this position.

What Muslim World?
By Scott Carpenter, Soner Cagaptay
Foreign Policy Posted June 2009

Flikr photo by Oberazzi used under a Creative Commons license.

There’s one big problem with addressing the Muslim world: it doesn’t exist.

Praying for change: Obama wants to recast the U.S. image in the Muslim world. But first, he has to use the right name.
Even before U.S. President Barack Obama utters a word of his long-anticipated June 4 address to “the Muslim world,” there is already a problem with the rhetoric. As well meaning as it sounds, the term “Muslim world” is a trap. There is no unified Muslim world. And describing it as such legitimizes the idea that it is “us vs. them” — just the sort of divided world that al Qaeda wants to create.

To see the trouble with the term “Muslim world,” one needs only to try and define it. Who is included in the Muslim world? What countries — or individuals — make the cut, and who defines it? Is half-Muslim Nigeria a part of the Muslim world as much as the Islamic Republic of Iran? And how do different sects in internal conflict, like the Sunni and Shia of Iraq, reconcile their placement in a single “world” to American eyes? Are extremists — such as the Taliban or al Qaeda — lumped together with secular Muslims?

No one questions that a religion known as Islam exists or that many Muslims believe in their global community, the ummah. As a theological reference, however, the ummah is vaguely analogous to the belief that all Christians are part of the body of Christ. It is a powerful spiritual metaphor, but not a visceral part of every believer’s identity. A Muslim in Turkey, for example, might define himself as an Istanbullu first, a Turk second, and a Muslim third — or the other way around, depending on his mood or even the time of day. (When the soccer club Galatasaray is playing, he is only a fan!) No one would claim that Guatemalans, Germans, or Guineans are the same because they are Christians, and it’s equally nonsensical to lump Turks, Trinidadians, and Tunisians together simply because they also happen to be Muslim.

This term is not only an analytical error - it’s also a critical public diplomacy mistake. “Muslim world” unfairly and singularly assigns adherents of Islam into a figurative ghetto. And particularly in the post-September 11, this relegation carries a real moral hazard: By lumping together extremists, secularists, and everyone in between, the term “Muslim world” legitimizes the idea that all of the group’s members are locked in deadly conflict with the non-Islamic world. If this sounds dangerously close to the message through which Islamist ideologues push for jihad, it is. Extremists are the only Muslim group that strongly advocates tying all Muslims together politically, in a united global community. In their ideal world, the modern nation state would be replaced with a new caliphate under Sharia law. Every time the United States speaks to the “Muslim world,” then, it inadvertently legitimizes the extremists’ vision.

Thankfully, President Obama has a chance to get it right. He got off to a good start on May 4 in Ankara, where he admirably addressed the Turkish people as democrats embedded in Europe. He appealed to them as allies in the struggle against Islamist extremism while challenging them on sensitive issues, including reconciling with neighboring Armenia. At the tail end of the speech, however, he made that critical rhetorical slip: “Let me repeat: The United States is not at war with the Muslim world.”

This time, as he speaks on June 4, the “Islamic world” should not make a rhetorical appearance. Instead, Obama could accentuate the rich diversity of Muslim communities around the world, referencing the Sufis of Morocco, the Shiites of Iraq, and the Sunnis of Singapore. He should recognize their accomplishments within their communities while stressing other parts of their identities, such as nationality.

As he did in Turkey, Obama should offer his broad audience a challenge. There are deep problems within Muslim communities around the world. Islamist extremists continue to push their agenda of violence and chaos. Obama should off encouragement to the British, Egyptian, Algerian, and Iraqi Muslims (among others) who are already fighting back, taking on those extremists and reclaiming their communities. And he should recognize that the Muslim world is a figment of Osama bin Laden’s imagination.

Scott Carpenter is director of Project Fikra at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He previously served as deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs in the United States Department of State.

Soner Cagaptay is director of the Turkish research program at the Washington Institute and author of Islam, Secularism, and Nationalism in Modern Turkey: Who is a Turk?

Flikr photo used under a Creative Commons license.

PCR’s Karen von Hippel was interviewed for the Harvard International Review about the future of Somalia. She says:

For the first time in years, I am mildly optimistic about events in Somalia. I haven’t been at all over these past 19 years, since the state collapsed in January 1991. There are a number of ‘ifs’ that could really give Somalia a chance.

Afghan Star, a documentary that follows Afghanistan’s version of American Idol, just won a Sundance award and is now in major cities across America. The film description:

 After thirty years of war and five devastating years of Taliban rule, pop culture is beginning to return to Afghanistan and millions are tuning in to the wildly popular American Idol–style television competition Afghan Star. Two thousand people audition to compete for a cash prize and a record deal, and when viewers vote for their favorites via cell phone it is, for many, their first encounter with the democratic process. Winner of the Directing and Audience Awards in Sundance’s 2009 World Documentary competition, Havana Marking’s timely and moving film follows the dramatic stories of four young finalists—two men and two women—as they hazard everything and even risk their lives to become the nation’s favorite performer. By observing the Afghani people’s relationship to its pop culture, Afghan Star is the perfect window into a country’s tenuous, ongoing struggle for modernity. What Americans consider frivolous entertainment is downright revolutionary in this troubled part of the world.

The television show is hugely popular and a great example of the idiosyncrasies that characterize Afghan life. Check out the website to see when it will be showing near you. It begins in Washington, DC on July 17 at the E St. Cinema. See you there!

Photo from the White House Photostream used with a Creative Commons license.

Conflict and Religion in U.S. Foreign Policy: A New Way?

Building on President Obama’s Speech in Cairo with:

Ambassador Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat of the Republic of Indonesia

Ambassador Sameh Shoukry of the Arab Republic of Egypt

Shaun Casey, Wesley Theological Seminary

Nadia Bilbassy-Charters, Middle East Broadcasting Center

Karin von Hippel (moderator), Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project at CSIS

Thursday, June 18, 2009
10-11:30 AM in Conference Room B1
CSIS, 1800 K St NW, Washington DC 20006

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace… This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
-President Obama, Cairo Speech, June 4, 2009

President Obama’s speech to the Muslim world has expanded the discourse on religion in U.S. public dialogue.  From dealing with violent extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the ongoing conflict in Israel and Palestine, there needs to be an improved understanding of faith in U.S. foreign policy.  But how does this translate to concrete actions and a way forward for improving U.S. engagement, not just with Islam, but with religious societies, particularly in conflict-prone settings around the world?

To RSVP, please contact Justine Fleischner at JFleischner@csis.org.

Flikr photo by Barefoot Photographers of Tilonia used under a Creative Commons license.

Most of what we hear about aid projects in Afghanistan is their shortcomings. babatim, a contractor working on a small-scale project in Jalalabad has a more optimistic point of view - at least for the type of intimate, micro-level project he is working on. He writes in Free Range International:

[We] were asked to provide cash for work projects in largest of the contested urban areas in Afghanistan – a six month project designed to provide cash payments to the poorest of the poor while also providing a work force to those municipalities in support of large not to sexy projects like canal cleaning, refuse removal, and public health initiatives (like treating all shallow wells in the city during breakouts of water borne pathogenic disease.) The program is an 80/20 split – 80% of the money goes to the payment of labor, 20% to project materials – the only money leaving the country under this program is the salaries of the project managers and Filipino finance managers. Every other cent is spent in Afghanistan with the exception of an administrative fee paid to my parent company. There are no security teams, no armored vehicles, no guarded compounds no nothing – just a small life support payment for the 2 internationals to rent guesthouse rooms and pay for food.

He says his program is having greater than expected success, though it addresses the same problems as dozens of other aid projects, because he is able to travel more freely and connect with local people better than the staff in other places.

We are two months into our program and the results have been above expectations. We are conducting massive clean ups of critical canals… There are hundreds of aid workers and probably thousands of military people who could do this job just as well and probably better than we are. But they do not enjoy the freedom of movement which is a fundamental requirement for effective aid delivery. They would operate just like we are if they could – but they can’t due to current force protection rules which add billions of unnecessary costs to our aid packages.

He also suggests cutting food miles for the troops in Afghanistan (though a commenter is concerned about the safety of the proposition):

We are trying to tell the Afghans to stop growing poppy and instead grow fruits and vegetables for export but we won’t even buy the stuff they grow to feed our troops. This ungodly expensive logistical tail – which is tenuous at best as it most of it runs through Pakistan - can be trimmed fast by moving the combat troops off post and allowing them to be housed and fed on the local economy.

In the end, he suggests small military-civilian teams stationed around the country with close ties to the community and most of all, a team of well-paid and trained Afghans. Read his article for his full description of successful aid work in the least stable parts of Afghanistan.

Flikr photo by army.mil used under a Creative Commons license.

The US military is embracing Web 2.0 in an effort to counter the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the media. According to NPR:

Already, the USForces twitter page has been used by officials to announced the death of a U.S. soldier (from non-combat injuries) and to post such news as the killing of four militants by Afghan and coalition forces in Wardak Province. Col. Gregory Julian, public affairs officer for U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, has a Twitter page of his own as well.

Follow US Forces in Afghanistan on Twitter, friend them on Facebook, and be sure to check out “Drug Bust - Afghanistan-style” on YouTube.

Flikr photo by Al Jazeera English used under a Creative Commons license. 

Fighting between the Taliban and the Pakistani military continues in Swat Valley. Since no reporters are allowed into the zone, it is difficult to ascertain exactly what is going on, though the government claims it is close to success. Tim Foxley is concerned that this battle resembles the 2001 US-led invasion, and will lead to the same resilient insurgency that rose up in Afghanistan:

I can’t help noticing the parallels between this operation and the original Oct 01 – Jan 02 US-led Coalition intervention against the Afghan Taliban.   In those days the Afghan Taliban had been ruling Afghanistan as a sort of government, organised for - and engaged in - broadly conventional warfare against the Northern Alliance.  They really had no option other than to fight back against the Coalition on broadly conventional terms.  Although, to my memory, the outcome back in Nov 2001 was by no means certain, once the Taliban frontlines started to unravel, their armed forces came apart rapidly.

The humanitarian crisis is worsening because there is little infrastructure in place to support the millions of people who have fled the fighting. The BBC reports on the aftermath of battling in Mingora:

The International Red Cross said it was “gravely concerned” by the humanitarian situation in Swat. Water and electricity were not available, there was no fuel for generators, most medical facilities had stopped operating and food was scarce, it said. “The people of Swat need greater humanitarian protection and assistance immediately,” said Pascal Cuttat, head of the organisation’s delegation in Pakistan.

After the military succeeds against the Taliban, Pakistan will be left with millions of internally displaced people and plenty of infrastructure to replace. According to reports, the IDPs are not receiving the support they need yet:

The government has been overwhelmed by the human tide that has washed over the northwest as about 2 million people have fled fierce clashes in Swat. With Pakistan experiencing its largest exodus since the nation’s partition from India in 1947, only a fraction of the displaced civilians are receiving assistance in government-run camps. The rest are fending for themselves or getting help from private charities, including some that are allied with the very forces the Pakistani army is fighting in Swat.

IDPs are being forced to turn to organizations with links to the groups fighting the government. Moreover, the Post points out, insecurity breeds extremism.

Refugee camps in Pakistan have been prime recruiting grounds for militant groups ever since the Soviet invasion forced millions of Afghans to cross into Pakistan in the 1980s. Now, concern is growing that this latest wave of displacement will create a fresh crop of Pakistanis with grievances against the government and loyalty to groups that seek to undermine the state through violent insurgency.

CHUP! points out that the mass migrations are causing tensions not just for the IDPs themselves, but also for their host regions, and creating instability from fears of “Talibanization” and existing ethnic tension.

While ethnic tension between Pashtuns and Sindhis is not a new phenomenon [riots between the groups began in the mid-1980s], the recent rise of immigrant Pashtuns into the province, particularly in Karachi, have sparked increased violence and unrest.

The United Nations requested $543 million in support, and the US has already pledged $110 million. The displacement that the offensive in Swat caused may become a more persistent problem than the Taliban advance itself.

Hello everyone! My name is Alyssa Bernstein, and I’m the summer intern at PCR focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan. I am a rising senior at Yale University majoring in Modern Middle East Studies. I just returned from a year abroad in Egypt, at the American University in Cairo, and Jordan, at a small program called SIT.

In Jordan, I researched whether the non-resolution of the Palestinian state is preventing Jordan from democratizing; (my conclusion: not necessarily, but it is certainly being used as an excuse). The topic centered around my interests in democratization, nationalism and ethnic divides, and the effects of foreign development aid on internal politics.

Over the past year, I became interested in America’s involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well.  CSIS’ work in the region was among the first things I read, especially PCR’s on-the-ground analysis and Anthony Cordesman’s pragmatic assesments.

I’m glad to be spending the summer helping a group that has influenced me, and looking forward to learning how it influences Washington. One of my tasks here at PCR will be updating the blog. My interest in the Middle East began with the Iraqi war blog Baghdad Burning, and so it’s great to jump into the fray. Look out for updates, and we always welcome comments.

Note: I took the photo in Sabra refugee camp in Beirut.

Last week PCR hosted an event: Improving Development Assistance in Afghanistan. Jim Drummond, DFID Director for South Asia, and Mark Ward, Special Adviser on Development to the SRSG for UNAMA, lead the discussion, moderated by Karin von Hippel. Audio from the event is available at the CSIS Events page.

President Obama in Cairo
Rick Barton and Liora Danan
June 3, 2009

In Cairo on Thursday, President Barack Obama will once again wade into the difficult issue of religion. More than 1 billion listeners around the world will be paying particular attention.

Since day one of his presidency, with his choice of Evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation, President Obama has dealt with religion.

In Turkey this April, Obama promised a partnership with the Muslim world based on listening and mutual respect, a common rejection of extremist ideology, and a concrete commitment to specific programs in education, health care, trade, and investment.

And in a commencement speech at Notre Dame last month, Obama sought to soothe controversy by appealing to commonalities across religions. He encouraged graduating students to remain firm in their religious beliefs without demonizing those of differing convictions, stressing the universality of the “golden rule.”

He has faced a Muslim world wary that the United States is at war with Islam and a significant percentage of Americans convinced that his stance on abortion is at odds with the will of God.

Each time, President Obama has responded with an emphasis on religion’s potential to unify.

To succeed in Cairo, Obama must combine the reassurances made in Turkey with the open engagement with religion demonstrated at Notre Dame. At South Bend, Obama directly credited Catholic leaders and communities with bringing about social change. By acknowledging the capacity of religious movements to drive development work and religious principles to resolve conflicts, Obama can likewise make significant progress in repairing relations with the Muslim world.

The dangers of the old approaches are clear. Leaving religion out of the analysis results in misunderstanding its often-critical roles in society and politics and fails to harness its potential to contribute to peace and growth. A binary approach to religion—the good versus the bad—has led to misguided efforts to influence Islam’s development through “empowering moderates” and restraining nonviolent, fundamentalist expressions of Islam. While the government’s conceptualization of Islam may have received less media attention than its military invasion of Iraq, it may prove one of the government’s costliest mistakes post-9/11.

Over the past few years, we have seen religion as a misunderstood and neglected element for strengthening policy approaches toward states at risk. In the 2007 CSIS report Mixed Blessings: U.S. Government Engagement with Religion in Conflict-Prone Settings, we recommend steps that could improve how the U.S. government approaches religious issues abroad.

Conceptually, the government must expand beyond a threat-based, Islam-focused analysis of religion and embrace a broader understanding of world religions. The perception that the United States is a Christian nation that favors and discriminates on that basis must also be addressed. At the same time, the State Department should broaden its approach to international religious freedom, prioritizing religious tolerance, and conflict prevention.

Of course, full engagement with religion requires more than rhetoric. Religious expertise should be represented at key levels of the government. The undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs should be responsible for representing religious dimensions at the principals level, and the ambassador-at-large for religious freedom should be present at senior State Department meetings. The geographic bureaus at the State Department should be tasked with expanding religious expertise, and public engagement on this issue should be promoted, perhaps through a national commission or online communities.

Cairo presents an opportunity to set the right tone for religious engagement moving forward. Obama will have a full agenda for this talk including promoting an Israeli-Palestinian solution and encouraging a regional peace that navigates the sensitive relationship with Iran. As he pursues a new kind of partnership with Muslims around the world, he will also need to allow a meaningful role for religion.

Obama’s Notre Dame speech was effective because he presented concrete examples of religion working for good. In Turkey, his promises of respect for Islam resonated most when he recognized the positive impact that Muslim communities have had on him personally. In Cairo, Obama should acknowledge not just Islam but religion in general as a global force with the potential to contribute to security, justice, and social and economic well-being. A new focus on changing the U.S. government’s approach to religion has infinitely more promise than previous, misguided efforts to change a religion.

Rick Barton is a senior adviser and codirector of the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.  Liora Danan was the lead author of Mixed Blessings: U.S. Government Engagement with Religion in Conflict-Prone Settings (CSIS, 2007) and is an adjunct fellow with the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy.

Flikr photo: President Barack Obama bows his head during the invocation at the University of Notre Dame’s commencement ceremony, May 17, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The Pak Institute for Peace Studies has published a report based on a two-day conference held May 4-5, 2009, focused on international responses to violent extremism.  Five thematic session were held during the conference that correlate with the report:

Genesis and definition of radicalization/extremism
State response towards the challenged of extremism and terrorism
Role and efforts of civil society and media to counter radicalization
Extremism: emerging challenges
Recommendations and future outlooks

FULL REPORT