Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 2003, pages 70-73

Human Rights

Prospects for Democracy in Bahrain

The National Democratic Institute (NDI) held a Nov. 14 briefing in Washington, DC on the Kingdom of Bahrain’s recent elections. NDI Director Leslie Campbell introduced members of the Institute’s unofficial observation team to Bahrain’s Oct. 24 to 31 parliamentary elections. In his introduction Campbell noted that the views expressed would be opinions. “We’ll give you subjective views of how we think the process of elections is going,” he said.

Bahrain has appeared to be a model for democracy in the Middle East, Campbell said, since King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa took power in 1999, reversing decades of suppression of political dissidents in that country. In February 2001, he proposed a set of wide-ranging democratic reforms that promised a restoration of participatory democracy, and Bahrainis overwhelmingly approved his charter.

However, Campbell contended, the reforms are not as far-reaching as some had hoped. “The King has given out some freedoms, but not what was expected,” he remarked. “You can find people in Bahrain who are happy and an equal number who are disappointed by the implicit promises made by the King.”

A major criticism of King Hamad’s reforms concerns an amendment to the 1973 constitution stipulating that legislative power will be split equally between an elected chamber and a consultative council appointed by the King. “The constitution handed down after a referendum was not what the opposition expected,” said Matthew Frumin, special counsel on international law at the law firm of Steptoe and Johnson. “This is part of what led to the boycott.”

Frumin was referring to the boycott of the election by four of Bahrain’s 15 political groups—including Al-Wefaq, the most influential Shi’i Islamic group—who charged that the step toward democracy did not go far enough. Opposition was strongest in the Northern District, which has a large Shi’i population, in contrast to the ruling family, which is Sunni Muslim.

The boycott did not stem from a weak party in danger of losing the elections. Rather, Campbell said, it was “born out of strength.” Religious societies won by a wide margin in municipal elections. Thus, as Amy Hawthorne of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace observed, “the religious parties knew they had a lot of leverage.” The opposition likely foresaw little to gain in taking part in the elections. Said Hawthorne, “Those who boycotted may have thought [the elections] were a chance to curtail their issues, not address them.”

This leads to the pertinent question, according to Campbell, of “whether the reforms represent a steady move toward democracy, or [whether] the transition is simply a tactical opening that may serve to reinforce the status quo.”

While expressing optimism that “the process went extraordinarily smoothly,” Frumin noted that a smooth election process may not indicate a genuine step in the direction of democracy. “It’s hard to know if the King is acting in good faith,” he said. “The elections may be a safety valve to defuse some tension and give international legitimacy to his regime.”

Frumin pointed to other issues that raised questions about King Hamad’s intention of instituting a fully democratic system. For example, Frumin said, prior to the parliamentary elections, the King initiated the redistricting of constituencies, which resulted in an unequal distribution of constituents. While the Northern, mainly Shi’i, district is most heavily populated, he noted, it did not receive greater representation in proportion to its numbers. Campbell called the King’s move in this regard “game playing.”

Looking to Bahrain’s political future, the members of NDI’s election observation team foresaw a host of potential problems. As Hawthorne noted, the Shi’i opposition is not represented at the moment, and parliament will have to somehow address the issues that concern this segment of the population.

The role of those elected also is unclear. NDI program officer May Taylor Dougherty noted that some candidates who lack political experience may have overly ambitious platforms that cannot realistically be accomplished within the limitations of their power and resources.

Although the speakers were uncertain of how Bahrain’s politics would take shape in the future, they had little doubt that, whether or not the country becomes a haven of democracy, its citizens’ negative opinion of U.S. foreign policy will remain unchanged. Said Frumin, “A move toward democracy in Bahrain is not about U.S. foreign policy. It’s not going to help their opinion of us.”

Asked what Bahrainis thought of the United States, Frumin responded, “Everywhere you went you heard criticism of U.S. policy. It was not an issue in the election, because there is no debate over it.” In fact, he added, “running in favor of the U.S. would be like running against social security.”

Overall, despite a slew of complications, the speakers were relatively optimistic about Bahrain’s prospects for democracy. “Everybody does want to move forward,” said Doherty. “They don’t want to return to the years when there were no freedoms.”

—Lisa Viscidi

Democracy in Yemen

Georgetown University hosted a Dec. 3 lecture by the National Democratic Institute focusing on its work in Yemen. The resident director of NDI’s Yemen program, Robin Madrid, is a long-time activist with Arab American organizations.

Madrid began by explaining the context within which NDI operates in Yemen. With its limited resources and high illiteracy rates, coupled with a high birth rate, Yemen presents many challenges to NDI’s mission of “strengthening democratic institutions.” In terms of its unification experience and the development of its political institutions, Madrid said, Yemen is a young country.

While NDI follows a classical approach of launching voter registration drives and holding elections, Madrid noted, at the same time, it also targets slower, long-term cultural change, aiming to “widen the vision of participants on what the state should do for them.”

In addition to boosting institutional change, continued Madrid, the underlying aim of NDI’s work is promoting democratization through decentralization. Despite the existence of laws, no plans were formulated to put them into action, she told the audience. NDI sought to help Yemen formulate such plans.

NDI works with Yemen’s newly developed supreme national election commission Madrid said, which, despite its lack of experience, did great work in registering eight million Yemenis to vote. NDI also works with local non-governmental organizations, which often monitor elections, she added, and also is involved in capacity building, training people to be involved in the election system.

NDI especially focuses on involving Yemeni women in the political process, Madrid said, since they traditionally have been underrepresented. The organization is preparing Yemeni women to run for office in the upcoming April 2003 elections, both as party nominees and as independents.

Madrid said that limitations on the work of international institutions and non-governmental organizations in Yemen have lowered expectations for more realistic goals. Although it is not decentralized, she noted, Yemen has a localized political process. In addition, she said, the opportunity for violent conflict is quite prevalent.

NDI worked with the country’s 300 local councils set up to oversee local developments and represent local interests. Madrid observed that it was very challenging to activate the councils when at times they had no money to spend. NDI worked with the 36 women from these councils, building a network among them to create necessary support within their respective councils, in addition to training them in campaigning for upcoming elections.

In addition, NDI has worked to help local councils understand and interpret newly passed government legislation, and has worked with Yemen’s three major political parties, including moderates in the Islah Islamist party. Finally, Madrid indicated that Yemenis perceive U.S. policy toward them as hostile, which could hamper NDI’s work.

—Asma Yousef

Future Reform in Iran

An Oct. 24 symposium at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC addressed the pressing question of future Iranian political reform in light of a recent shift in U.S. policy toward Iran. In the midst of a U.S.-led campaign to topple Saddam Hussain, experts debated how the Bush administration’s tough rhetoric will play out in foreign policy.

In contrast to the Clinton administration, which supported the reformist movement of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami following his election in 1997, President George W. Bush has downplayed the differences between Iran’s reformers and hard-liners, declaring solidarity with what he calls the Iranian people’s struggle for freedom. “Sounds to me like noble sentiments more than serious policy,” said panelist Shaul Bakhash of George Mason University.

Bakhash explained that, while Tehran has made some improvements, such as increased freedom of the press and a relaxation of rules governing social life, as well as a debate on the proper system of government, the reform movement has encountered setbacks in recent years due to weak leadership, lack of a broad-based political party, and a power structure that favors conservatives. President Khatami’s power is limited by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, who holds ultimate decision-making authority.

“The United States may hope to evoke internal discontent, but this is not lacking,” Bakhash said. While Khatami is still fairly popular, he explained, many young Iranians have become disillusioned with his leadership and now hope for his removal. Although Iranians are disgruntled with their leadership, however, they do not seem to embrace the U.S., as the Bush administration would like, he said. Panelist Nasser Hadian of Columbia University’s Middle East Institute concurred. “Unrest in Iran does not mean support for the U.S.,” he said.

Panelist Daniel Brumberg, visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment, called the Bush administration’s hope for a political upheaval in Iran “wishful thinking.” Rather, he noted, reform will likely occur through internal political divisions.

Politically, Iran is divided between reformists and conservatives. The two groups differ substantially in political ideology, the panelists agreed. Most importantly for American interests is that, unlike Iran’s conservatives, reformists there are open to dialogue with the West. Whereas hard-liners regard the war in Afghanistan as a plan to kill Muslims, Bakhash elaborated, reformists consider it an endeavor against terrorism. Reformists, he added, also take a more moderate stance on the Arab-Israeli conflict, advocating a two-state solution rather than the destruction of Israel, which conservatives advocate. “There is a fundamental ideological cleavage,” said Brumberg, “between reformers who want to separate religion from politics and conservatives who want to save religion by keeping it in politics.”

Hadian defined a type of ideologically-oriented radicalism whose followers feel they are performing a religious duty in trying to create a society based on Islam. These are irrational actors, according to Hadian, who cannot be dealt with through negotiations. Instead, he argued, they must be challenged with a re-reading of Islam. The reform movement, Hadian said, was a reaction to religious extremism, and “reformist victories can send a positive message to other Muslims who would challenge this ideological Islam.”

Because the reform movement sprouted from within Muslim society and as yet does not have ties to any one particular sect, it has the potential to be a powerful force in counteracting extremism. “The reform movement has common points that can be shared by all Muslim sects,” Hadian insisted. “It would be perceived as native and authentic, so it can have a major impact.”

A sustained and effective reform movement, the panelists agreed, would require strong internal leadership—a condition that, according to Bakhash, could well be met in the near future. “The reform idea has attracted [Iranians’] attention,” he noted, “and new leaders may emerge. The people of Iran can make a transformation by looking beyond Khatami.”

The panelists concluded that a gradual transition to democracy through an internal change in leadership is a more likely scenario than a democratic revolution sparked by a U.S.-led invasion of neighboring Iraq. “The assumption that huge changes will take place forms our policy toward the region,” said Brumberg, “but politics in the Middle East are extraordinarily local.” The regime, he added, “will not fall from the top, as the Bush administration believes.”

According to Bakhash, if the invasion is successful and Iraq becomes a “shining example of democracy,” Iranians may conclude that democratic change is in their own best interest as well. “If it’s a mess,” however, he warned, “the impact on Iran will be limited.”

—Lisa Viscidi

Hanan Ashrawi Speaks at Vanderbilt University

Addressing an audience of over 900 people at Nashville, Tennessee’s Vanderbilt University on Dec. 4, Dr. Hanan Ashrawi discussed prospects for peace and the likelihood of an independent Palestinian state. Ashrawi is the former spokeswoman for the Palestinian Authority and former minister of higher education and research with the PA. She later founded the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy. She recently won Sweden’s Olof Palme Prize.

In an attempt to place the Palestinian question in a global context, Ashrawi argued that the world is witnessing a serious paradigm shift—a rise of militarism, unilateralism, impunity and immunity, and the deprivation of the weak from the protection of the law.

In Palestine, she said, these, along with other issues, are being exercised because power politics for the strong prevail and the dehumanization and victimization of the weak persist. “We are witnessing a nation in captivity, [where] the ongoing longest standing military occupation…is being allowed to continue,” Ashrawi noted.

The situation in Palestine keeps deteriorating, she told the audience: “For the first time in Palestine, we are witnessing actual hunger, a resurgence of infant and childhood diseases, 30 percent malnutrition among children, re-emergence of anemia among child-bearing women, 70 percent of people living below the poverty level, 67 percent unemployment, constant incursions, a state of siege that has isolated every Palestinian town, city, and village from the others, internal curfews, assassinations, home demolitions, abductions, and mass arrests.”

Speaking on the need for reform in Palestine, Ashrawi maintained that any reform must be authentic and homegrown. While she believes that reform is necessary, Ashrawi maintained that the real issue is to deal with the occupation itself and to “wed the political process to the nation-building process.”

The current Israeli government, Ashrawi asserted, is the most lethal and destructive to date, as it combines the most extreme hard-line ideological political parties with extreme fundamentalist religious parties and militaristic individuals. “Its agenda is blatantly anti-peace,” she affirmed. “For the first time in history, we see a military occupation claiming self-defense and justifying its actions as a victim when the people under occupation are constantly blamed and labeled as the aggressors.”

Addressing the issue of suicide bombings, Ashrawi said she does not condone any act of violence committed against innocent civilians. “I do not believe that, because our innocents have been targeted, we should adopt the same tactics and target innocent civilians on the Israeli side,” she emphasized.

“I prefer Palestine to be pluralistic, democratic and tolerant,” she continued, pointing out that, despite the fact that Palestinians still own over 80 percent of West Jerusalem property, they have proposed that both East and West Jerusalem can be one open city, as two capitals for two states.

“I think it is time for the state of Palestine to rise before it is too late,” she warned. “It is a quest for freedom, dignity and independence. I have confidence ultimately that the will of the Palestinian people and likeminded people will prevail regardless of the threat of war in our region. There is no military solution,” she concluded. “It has to be a peaceful solution.”

Ashrawi’s well-received presentation was followed by several questions from the Vanderbilt audience. The event was sponsored by the University Speakers Committee, the Middle East Students Association, the Margaret Cuninggim Women’s Center, the International Awareness Committee, Project Dialogue, and World on Wednesdays.

—Rajaa Abu-Jabr

Letter From Bethlehem

Dear Friends,

As we were preparing to greet the Holy Feast of Ramadan and the Glorious Christmas Season with all the noble meanings and values inspired by these two holy occasions, the Israeli troops surprised us at dawn on Friday, Nov. 22, with a new incursion into Bethlehem. Muslims and Christians had been looking forward to the holidays to replace our children’s frowns with smiles and heal the wounds caused by the grave human and physical losses after five previous Israeli incursions into Bethlehem Governorate. Our holidays were intended to create tranquility and peace in our souls, but the Israeli invaders brutally disregarded and nullified the feelings of believers.

The Israeli tanks and armored vehicles which invaded Bethlehem, surrounding villages and our refugee camps, destroyed everything in their path, killing innocents and launching a widespread detention campaign among our people. Israeli troops demolished homes, destroyed our organizations and infrastructure, created fear and imposed collective punishment on the innocent people of our district. In particular, the curfew caused a tragic deterioration in our people’s living conditions and totally paralyzed all aspects of life in our factories, commercial and tourist shops, hospitals, schools, universities, churches and mosques.

Added to all this horror was Israel’s declaration that Bethlehem would be a closed military zone until Dec. 30, 2002. Thus, during this festive season, our people will be deprived of participating in their religious and social traditions that are hundreds and thousands of years old. Pilgrims and tourists are forbidden to travel to the town of Jesus’ Nativity to celebrate Christmas. Our people will be forbidden to worship in the Basilica of the Nativity, built over the birthplace of Jesus Christ. Such measures are unprecedented in the history of our town. Neither the Romans, the Muslims, the Turks, the Ottomans nor the British ever forbade religious worship at Christmas time in our town.

We have concluded that the Israeli government intends to escalate its aggression on the little town of Bethlehem. We strongly condemn this flagrant violation of our right to worship our God. There is no justification for this action except to achieve Israel’s internal political interests on the eve of the Israeli elections. We denounce these brutal practices that constitute war crimes and deny our human rights according to International Law.

We appeal to the United States government, to the European Union, the United Nations, to all religious bodies, and to both the Islamic and the Arab worlds to assume their historic responsibilities toward our just Palestinian cause. We call upon all of these agencies to intervene immediately with the Israeli government to force an immediate withdrawal of its military troops from our cities, villages and refugee camps. We ask these agencies to forbid this savage attack and oppression of our peaceful people, whose only wish is to live in freedom and dignity in our own land under a just and comprehensive peace according to U.N. Security Council resolutions and International Law.

We appeal to the world for justice and peace during the Holy Seasons of Ramadan and Christmas

For the Municipalities of Bethlehem, Beit Jala, Beit Sahour, Doha, and Al Khader,

Suzan Sahori

International Public Relations Officer

Beit Sahour Municipality

Beit Sahour

Palestine

Tel: +972 2 277 3830

Fax: +972 2 277 3520

www.beitsahourmunicipality.com <http://www.beitsahourmunicipality.com/>

Norman Finkelstein: Ethnic Cleansing Inevitable

In a Nov. 18 briefing at Washington, DC’s Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine (CPAP), Professor of Political Science Norman G. Finkelstein warned his audience that the serious discussion in Israel of “transfer”—a euphemism for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the occupied territories—is a sign of things to come.

Finkelstein ’s analysis is based in the history of the Zionist movement, the goal of which is the establishment of an ethnically “pure” Jewish state in Arab Palestine. There are only two ways to do this, he said: either to establish an apartheid system, wherein a settler minority rules over a native majority, or simply to “transfer” the native population elsewhere. In the early days of the Zionist movement, Finkelstein explained, the latter idea was not considered “totally illegitimate” by international law. After all, he pointed out, when World War I ended Turkey and Greece engaged in a massive population “exchange,” while at the same time serious thought was being given to the idea of expelling Jews from Poland.

The catch, Finkelstein added, is that the choice of transfer can only be made—in the words of Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion—during “revolutionary times,” that is, times of war or great conflict. These “revolutionary times” arrived for the Zionists in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, during which 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from the area that came to be known as Israel, and again in the 1967 war, in which another 200,000 Palestinians were sent packing. By then, said Finkelstein, international law had begun to assert itself a bit, and the occupied territories were never fully ethnically cleansed. So Israel went for its second option, namely the establishment of the world’s only surviving apartheid regime.

At that point Israel’s ethnic ambitions faced a serious threat, which Finkelstein called the Palestinian “peace offensive” of the mid- to late-1970s, and which would have ensured a multi-ethnic solution to the conflict. Israel’s recourse was to attack the Palestinians until they inevitably responded—at which point Israeli “retaliation” could be justified and the peace process halted.

Finkelstein provided an example from Lebanon, where, despite frequent Israeli attacks, a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)-Israeli cease-fire had held for 10 months. After one Israeli raid on Beirut killed almost 200 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, “the PLO was forced to respond” by shelling northern Israel. Then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon announced the ceasefire had been abrogated and invaded Lebanon, killing nearly 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinians in just four months. The majority of those deaths were civilians, Finkelstein noted, while, according to the Israeli government, the same number of Israelis—the overwhelming majority of them soldiers—have been killed in the entire 121 years of Zionist settlement in Palestine.

During the first Palestinian intifada, which began in 1987, the Israeli government had to reassess its options. The occupation was becoming too costly, and Israel was, in Finkelstein’s words, in need of “a Mandela to play the role of a Buthelezi.” That is, Israel needed a Palestinian leader with nationalist credentials such as Nelson Mandela’s, but who was willing to work with the Israeli government in the prevailing power structure, as did Zulu Chief Buthelezi with the South African apartheid government. At the same time, the PLO was starved for funds. These conditions brought about the Oslo accords—or, as Israeli historian Meron Benvenisiti called it, “occupation…by remote control.”

The situation stagnated until the July 2000 Camp David summit, where Arafat surprised Israel by turning down an offer of permanent occupation. Soon after, another Israeli provocation in the form of the lumbering Ariel Sharon visiting Arab East Jerusalem resulted in a new Palestinian uprising. According to Finkelstein , Israelis are now convinced that the choice of apartheid is no longer viable. Rather than consider a just peace, in order to ensure the ethnic sanctity of Jewish Israel, prominent Israeli politicians and religious leaders now are calling for ethnic cleansing, or “transfer.”

Finkelstein believes that the existence of a serious discussion of “transfer” indicates that somewhere, someone has a plan to actually carry it out. Israel’s leadership, he maintains, is only waiting for “revolutionary times” to present themselves in the form of an American attack on Iraq. According to Finkelstein , a “terrorist pretext” could be manufactured to provoke Palestinian militants, whose attacks would serve as the springboard for the ethnic cleansing of the territories. Israel then would find some local Palestinian leader to act as their “Buthelezi” in a much-reduced Palestinian entity, which would be presented to the world as a “state.”

—Courtesy CPAP report