DOCSLIB.ORG

Islam - Washington's New Dilemma :: Middle East Quarterly

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Islam - Washington's New Dilemma :: Middle East Quarterly Islam - Washington's New Dilemma :: Middle East Quarterly http://www.meforum.org/289/islam-washingtons-new-dilemma Islam - Washington's New Dilemma by Benjamin Gordon Middle East Quarterly March 1996, pp. 43-52 http://www.meforum.org/289/islam-washingtons-new-dilemma Benjamin Gordon is a consultant at Corporate Decisions, Inc., Boston, and a recent graduate of Yale College. Does the U.S. government have a coherent policy toward fundamentalist Islam? Fundamentalists themselves are convinced not only that Washington has a policy but that it is a consistent and aggressive one. Iran's former ambassador to the United Nations, Said Raja'i Khourasani, asserts that the American position "has not changed" over the years: "The language is always the same -- it is threatened or it is threatening."1 On the other side, scholars and diplomats tend to see incoherence in policy toward fundamentalists as they do about foreign policy in general. Richard Haass speaks for many when he holds that "public statements by administration officials about the purposes of U.S. foreign policy have been inconsistent or simply ambiguous.2 In fact, neither side is entirely correct. While there has been a coherent policy, it has changed over time. Since 1979, when Iranian fundamentalist Muslims overthrew Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Washington has undergone a series of subtle shifts in its policy toward fundamentalist Islam. From Presidents Reagan to Bush to Clinton, the U.S. government has migrated from rhetorical confrontation to timid outreach to outright accommodation. The following analysis focuses on official U.S. statements about fundamentalist Islam.3 The statements deal with four main issues: the root cause of fundamentalist Islam; its role in democratization; the question of "moderate" versus "extremist" fundamentalists; and U.S. policy. By examining these statements, we can trace the evolution of official U.S. thinking; explain these changes, noting areas of consistency and inconsistency; and conclude with policy recommendations. THE REAGAN AND BUSH FOUNDATIONS Reagan administration. U.S. policy toward fundamentalist Islam incubated during the Reagan administration, which began a year after the 1979 revolution in Iran and ended just before a wave of fundamentalist electoral victories took place in the Middle East. Consequently, the Reagan administration had little need to develop a comprehensive policy on this subject. At a time when fundamentalist Islam wore a revolutionary face and sought power through acts of violence, an aggressive policy of containment against the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iranian-sponsored terrorist organizations sufficed. 1 of 13 26.9.2014 23:37 Islam - Washington's New Dilemma :: Middle East Quarterly http://www.meforum.org/289/islam-washingtons-new-dilemma Accordingly, administration officials alluded to fundamentalist Islam in simple and consistently hostile terms.4 Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy discussed fundamentalist Islam's "revolutionary and sometimes violent nature," as well as its "ideology of an extreme nature."5 Undersecretary of State Michael Armacost labeled the Islamic Republic of Iran a "messianic, radical state."6 Secretary of State George Shultz referred to fundamentalist Islam as a form of "radical extremism."7 President Reagan suggested using the Arab-Israeli peace process to engage Arab moderates against a rising tide of anti-Western fundamentalists.8 These allusions suggested a growing awareness of the challenge but they did not coalesce into a comprehensive policy. Bush administration. The face of fundamentalism began to change in the late 1980s. Fundamentalist electoral victories in Turkey, Jordan, and Kuwait came to a head in December 1991 in Algeria, when the Islamic Salvation Front (Front Islamique du Salut--FIS) swept the first round of Algeria's parliamentary elections and appeared to poised to gain power in the second round. Seeking power through the ballot, not the bullet, these fundamentalists created a set of quandaries for American policymakers that remain in place today. When military rulers cancelled the elections in January 1992, the U.S. government was confronted with a dilemma: Should it insist on elections, even though they would likely bring the anti-Western (and probably nondemocratic) FIS to power? Or should it side with the less anti-Western but certainly nondemocratic military government? The Bush administration initially hedged its response. Asked how to define U.S. policy toward political fundamentalist Muslims in Algeria and elsewhere, Secretary of State James Baker avoided the topic: "I think we'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis."9 Prodded by the events in Algeria, a policy began to emerge. On June 2, 1992, Assistant Secretary of State Edward Djerejian delivered a speech at the Meridian House in Washington.10 As the first major U.S. government statement on fundamentalist Islam, it merits special attention. Shifting away from the simple confrontational approach of the Reagan administration, Djerejian offered something more ambiguous and pragmatic. He highlighted the "diversity" and "complexity" of "this renewed Islamic emphasis" and described fundamentalist Islam in cautiously optimistic terms, portraying the groups involved as "seeking to reform their societies in keeping with Islamic ideals." He emphasized that the movement was driven by "believers," adding, "We detect no monolithic or coordinated international effort behind these movements." As for fundamentalists' gaining power through elections, Djerejian equivocated. Yes, he encouraged democratization as an alternative to authoritarian rule: Those who are prepared to take specific steps toward free elections, creating independent judiciaries, promoting the rule of law, reducing restrictions on the press, respecting the rights of minorities, and guaranteeing individual rights will find us ready to recognize and support their efforts, just as those moving in the opposite direction will find us ready to speak candidly and act accordingly. 2 of 13 26.9.2014 23:37 Islam - Washington's New Dilemma :: Middle East Quarterly http://www.meforum.org/289/islam-washingtons-new-dilemma But Djerejian also tempered his commitment to free elections: "We are suspect of those who would use the democratic process to come to power, only to destroy that very process in order to retain power and political dominance." In a line much quoted in subsequent years, he added an implicit reference to Algeria: "While we believe in the principle of `one person, one vote,' we do not support `one person, one vote, one time.'" On the fundamental choices -- between fundamentalist Islam and autocratic rule, and between democratic principles and status-quo pragmatism -- Djerejian did not take a clear stand. In contrast to the Reagan administration, which equated fundamentalists and extremists, Djerejian indicated that all of the one are not necessarily the other. "Our quarrel," he stated, "is with extremism and the violence, denial, intolerance, intimidation, coercion and terror which too often accompany it." This curious list included three characteristics associated with military-terrorist groups (violence, coercion, and terror) and three with political groups (denial, intolerance, and intimidation). Djerejian then elaborated on the characteristics of extremist groups: Those who are insensitive to the need for political pluralism; those who cloak their message in another brand of authoritarianism; those who substitute religious and political confrontation for constructive engagement with the rest of the world; those who do not share our commitment to peaceful resolution of conflict, especially the Arab-Israeli conflict; and those who would pursue their goals through repression or violence. Specific as they were, these guidelines failed to address the key question: At what point does a fundamentalist group become extremist? Is, for example, the FIS extremist? Djerejian's oblique definition permitted the Bush administration great flexibility. As for U.S. policy, Djerejian rejected the cold war paradigm ("The Cold War is not being replaced by a new competition between Islam and the West") and dismissed the notion that fundamentalist Islam had replaced communism: "The United States Government does not view Islam as the next `ism' confronting the West or threatening world peace." He advocated a response to extremism rooted in material improvements of socioeconomic conditions, citing "the pursuit of viable economic and social development programs, privatization, and adequate educational and vocational training opportunities." The Meridian address codified a clear Bush administration stance on some issues: fundamentalist Muslims were not influenced by Iran but homegrown and independent; their political actions were primarily reformist in nature; and they did not necessarily threaten the United States. In sum, the speech suggested an ambiguous accommodation of fundamentalism. A CLINTON DOCTRINE? The Clinton administration inherited the Meridian House approach and sought to refine it as fundamentalist Islam gained in strength from Algeria to Egypt to Jordan; and as the Israel-PLO 3 of 13 26.9.2014 23:37 Islam - Washington's New Dilemma :: Middle East Quarterly http://www.meforum.org/289/islam-washingtons-new-dilemma Declaration of Principles spurred new fundamentalist violence. A first signal of the Clinton doctrine came during the April 1993 congressional testimony of Acting Coordinator for Counterterrorism
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New Report ID
    Number 21 April 2004 BAKER INSTITUTE REPORT NOTES FROM THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY OF RICE UNIVERSITY BAKER INSTITUTE CELEBRATES ITS 10TH ANNIVERSARY Vice President Dick Cheney was man you only encounter a few the keynote speaker at the Baker times in life—what I call a ‘hun- See our special Institute’s 10th anniversary gala, dred-percenter’—a person of which drew nearly 800 guests to ability, judgment, and absolute gala feature with color a black-tie dinner October 17, integrity,” Cheney said in refer- 2003, that raised more than ence to Baker. photos on page 20. $3.2 million for the institute’s “This is a man who was chief programs. Cynthia Allshouse and of staff on day one of the Reagan Rice trustee J. D. Bucky Allshouse years and chief of staff 12 years ing a period of truly momentous co-chaired the anniversary cel- later on the last day of former change,” Cheney added, citing ebration. President Bush’s administra- the fall of the Soviet Union, the Cheney paid tribute to the tion,” Cheney said. “In between, Persian Gulf War, and a crisis in institute’s honorary chair, James he led the treasury department, Panama during Baker’s years at A. Baker, III, and then discussed oversaw two landslide victories in the Department of State. the war on terrorism. presidential politics, and served “There is a certain kind of as the 61st secretary of state dur- continued on page 24 NIGERIAN PRESIDENT REFLECTS ON CHALLENGES FACING HIS NATION President Olusegun Obasanjo of the Republic of Nigeria observed that Africa, as a whole, has been “unstable for too long” during a November 5, 2003, presentation at the Baker Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • 6086 AR Cover R1:17.310 MFAH AR 2015-16 Cover.Rd4.Qxd
    μ˙ The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston annual report 2015–2016 MFAH BY THE NUMBERS July 1, 2015–June 30, 2016 • 900,595 visits to the Museum, the Lillie and Hugh Roy Tuition Attendance Revenue $3.2 Other Cullen Sculpture Garden, Bayou Bend Collection and $2.1 5% 3% $7.1 Gardens, Rienzi, and the Glassell School of Art 11% Membership Revenue $2.9 • 112,000 visitors and students reached through learning 5% and interpretation programs on-site and off-site FY 2016 • 37,521 youth visitors ages 18 and under received free Operating Operating Revenues Endowment or discounted access to the MFAH Fund-raising (million) Spending $14.2 $34.0 22% 54% • 42,865 schoolchildren and their chaperones received free tours of the MFAH • 1,020 community engagement programs were presented Total Revenues: $63.5 million • 100 community partners citywide collaborated with the MFAH Exhibitions, Curatorial, and Collections $12.5 Auxiliary • 2,282,725 visits recorded at mfah.org 20% Activities $3.2 5% • 119,465 visits recorded at the new online collections Fund-raising $4.9 module 8% • 197,985 people followed the MFAH on Facebook, FY 2016 Education, Instagram, and Twitter Operating Expenses Libraries, (million) and Visitor Engagment $12.7 • 266,580 unique visitors accessed the Documents 21% of 20th-Century Latin American and Latino Art Website, icaadocs.mfah.org Management Buildings and Grounds and General $13.1 and Security $15.6 21% • 69,373 visitors attended Sculpted in Steel: Art Deco 25% Automobiles and Motorcycles, 1929–1940 Total Expenses: $62 million • 26,434 member
    [Show full text]
  • The Syrian-Israeli Peace Process and the United States from Hope To
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Ghent University Academic Bibliography FACULTEIT POLITIEKE EN SOCIALE WETENSCHAPPEN VAKGROEP STUDIE VAN DE DERDE WERELD The Syrian-Israeli Peace Process and The United States From Hope to Impasse 1991-2000 Ahmad Soltani Nejad June 2004 Dissertation submitted for the degree of doctoral in political Science Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ruddy Doom 2 Table of contents Acknowledgements 3 Maps 4 1. Introduction 7 2. Theoretical Framework 21 3. U.S.-Syrian relations 41 4. The Madrid Peace Conference 67 5. The Oslo Peace Process 90 6. Slow Progress After Oslo Accords (1993-1994) 108 7. Progress on the Syrian-Israeli track (1994- 1996) 124 8. Deadlock in the Syrian-Israeli negotiations (1996- 1999) 138 9. Shepherdstown Talks (January 2000) 155 10. Syrian perspectives on the main issues of the peace process 173 11. Conclusions 193 Documents 211 Bibliography 214 3 Acknowledgements I am greatly indebted to several people and institutions for their assistance in the formation and completion of this study. I am grateful to my supervisor Prof. Ruddy Doom who has always been helpful throughout the conduct of this research. With his generous support I was able to come to the University of Ghent and later on pursue my research at the University of Arizona as an Exchange Visiting Scholar. The Center for Middle Eastern Studies there provided the opportunity for me to pursue my research with specialists at the University and to access the resources that I needed to conduct this research. I am grateful particularly to Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Readings in European Security Full Text
    READINGS IN EUROPEAN SECURITY READINGS IN EUROPEAN SECURITY VOLUME I WORKING PAPERS OF THE CEPS-IISS EUROPEAN SECURITY FORUM NOS. 1-9 FRANÇOIS HEISBOURG, CHAIRMAN MARC HOUBEN, KLAUS BECHER & MICHAEL EMERSON, EDITORS CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES BRUSSELS INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SECURITY STUDIES LONDON CEPS and IISS gratefully acknowledge financial support received for the European Security Forum from the Boeing Corporation, Compagnia di San Paolo, the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, NATO and SAAB. ISBN 92-9079-407-0 © Copyright 2002, Centre for European Policy Studies & International Institute for Security Studies. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without the prior permission of the Centre for European Policy Studies or the International Institute for Security Studies. Centre for European Policy Studies International Institute for Strategic Studies Place du Congrès 1 Arundel House 1000 Brussels, Belgium 13-15 Arundel Street, Temple Place Tel: 32 (0) 2 229.39.11 London WC2R 3DX, United Kingdom Fax: 32 (0) 2 219.41.51 Tel: 44 (0) 20 7379 7676 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 44 (0) 20 7836 3108 Website: http://www.ceps.be E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.iiss.org READINGS IN EUROPEAN SECURITY VOLUME I WORKING PAPERS OF THE CEPS-IISS EUROPEAN SECURITY FORUM CONTRIBUTORS DANA H. ALLIN ALEXEI G. ARBATOV NADIA ALEXANDROVA ARBATOVA VLADIMIR BARANOVSKY KLAUS BECHER ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN IVO H. DAALDER DMITRY DANILOV MARTA DASSÙ ALAIN DIECKHOFF EDWARD P.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Contents
    LIST OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………..…………………… i PART I: DOCUMENTS WITH A RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND …….................……….…….…. 1 1. JEWISH STATEMENTS AND POSITIONS ………………………………………….…..………. 3 Communication from Chief Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Dushinsky to the United Nations Ad Hoc Palestine Committee, 18 November 1947 …………………………………………………………………. 3 Memorandum on Jerusalem Sent by Chief Rabbi of the Orthodox Community in Palestine, Yosef Tzvi Dushinsky, to the UN, 19 November 1947 ……………………………………………………. 3 Communication from the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of America to Karel Lisicky, Chairman of the UN Palestine Commission, 13 April 1948 ……………………………………………………………………. 4 Memorandum by Neturey Karta of the Orthodox Jewry, Jerusalem, to the UN Secretary-General, 18 July 1949 …………………………………………………………………………..………………………. 4 Memorandum on the Conditions of Ashkenazi Jews from the Council of the Ashkenazi Jewish Community, Jerusalem, 21 February 1950 …………………………………………………………………. 6 World Jewish Congress (WJC), Declaration on Jerusalem, Adopted at the WJC 8th Plenary Assembly, Jerusalem, January 1986 ………………………………………………………………….……. 8 Proclamation of the Third International Christian Zionist Congress, Jerusalem, 29 February 1996 [Excerpts] ……………………………………………………………………………………………..………. 9 Rabbi Zalman B. Melamed, ‘The Word - From Jerusalem’, Aired on Arutz-7, 26 September 1996 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10 The Orthodox Union Response to President Clinton’s Waiver of Jerusalem Embassy Act Funding Sanction, 18 June 1999 ……………………………………………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • A U.S. Visa for an Islamic Extremist? | the Washington Institute
    MENU Policy Analysis / PolicyWatch 121 A U.S. Visa for an Islamic Extremist? by Martin Kramer Jun 30, 1994 ABOUT THE AUTHORS Martin Kramer Martin Kramer is The Washington Institute's Walter P. Stern Fellow and author of one of its most widely read monographs, Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America. Brief Analysis or nearly a year, Sheikh Rashid Ghanoushi has been seeking an American visa. Ghanoushi, the most F prominent Islamist in the West, is the leader of Al-Nahda (The Revival), Tunisia's major Islamist grouping. Al- Nahda is now banned in Tunisia, and Ghanoushi resides in Britain. He would like to visit the United States this summer, where he hopes to address religious and academic audiences. Until now, the U.S. government has denied him entry, because of his political views and the opposition of the Tunisian government. But Ghanoushi's visa application is currently under active review. Last week, Tunisia apparently indicated it would regard a U.S. decision to admit Ghanoushi as "a hostile act." Still, there are some who believe Ghanoushi's visit to the United States would send a positive signal to "moderate" Islamists everywhere, and provide an opening for a dialogue with them. But is Ghanoushi a "moderate?" In the past, Ghanoushi has urged violence against U.S. interests, and he continues to demand Israel's destruction. Might an American visit send precisely the wrong signal? Who Is Rashid Ghanoushi? Rashid Ghanoushi was born in 1941 in the south of Tunisia. As a student in Damascus and Paris, he embraced the doctrines of the Muslim Brotherhood, which he disseminated on his return to Tunisia.
    [Show full text]
  • MIDDLE EAST WATCH OVERVIEW Human Rights Developments The
    MIDDLE EAST WATCH OVERVIEW Human Rights Developments The Middle East and North Africa remain plagued by severe human rights problems. The torture of political detainees is commonplace, and often routine. Extrajudicial executions and executions after trials lacking in due process take place with regularity in Iraq, Iran and, to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia. In the past, the Syrian authorities have been guilty of this abuse as well. Arguably, the killing of suspected militants in Egypt and the Israeli-occupied territories, when arrests could have been effectedCa feature of the civil strife plaguing both regionsCalso constitute extrajudicial executions by government agents. In counterpoint, armed underground groups often assassinate suspected opponents in these regions, as well as in Algeria. The officially sanctioned persecution of religious or ethnic minorities, or the absence of government protection in the face of attacks by members of the majority community, is an endemic problem in parts of the Middle East. For instance, during 1992, Palestinians and Bedoon residents of Kuwait endured unrelenting pressures aimed at forcing them out of the country; Baha'is and evangelical Christians faced renewed persecution in Iran. The arbitrary detention of government opponents is also rampant throughout the region. From Morocco to Iran, tens of thousands are in jail on politically motivated grounds; even the Kurdish authorities, ruling over an autonomous enclave of some 3.5 million people in northern Iraq, resorted in late 1992 to the detention without charge of hundreds of sympathizers of militant parties. The end of the Cold War and subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union transformed prospects for the promotion of human rights in the Middle East and North Africa (the Maghreb states).
    [Show full text]
  • Camp David's Shadow
    Camp David’s Shadow: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Question, 1977-1993 Seth Anziska Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2015 © 2015 Seth Anziska All rights reserved ABSTRACT Camp David’s Shadow: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinian Question, 1977-1993 Seth Anziska This dissertation examines the emergence of the 1978 Camp David Accords and the consequences for Israel, the Palestinians, and the wider Middle East. Utilizing archival sources and oral history interviews from across Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, the United States, and the United Kingdom, Camp David’s Shadow recasts the early history of the peace process. It explains how a comprehensive settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict with provisions for a resolution of the Palestinian question gave way to the facilitation of bilateral peace between Egypt and Israel. As recently declassified sources reveal, the completion of the Camp David Accords—via intensive American efforts— actually enabled Israeli expansion across the Green Line, undermining the possibility of Palestinian sovereignty in the occupied territories. By examining how both the concept and diplomatic practice of autonomy were utilized to address the Palestinian question, and the implications of the subsequent Israeli and U.S. military intervention in Lebanon, the dissertation explains how and why the Camp David process and its aftermath adversely shaped the prospects of a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians in the 1990s. In linking the developments of the late 1970s and 1980s with the Madrid Conference and Oslo Accords in the decade that followed, the dissertation charts the role played by American, Middle Eastern, international, and domestic actors in curtailing the possibility of Palestinian self-determination.
    [Show full text]
  • Ivterviews Avd Covsultatiovs
    INTERVIEWS AND CONSULTATIONS United States Edward Abington Robert Malley Elliott Abrams John Marks Gary Ackerman Aaron Miller Madeleine Albright Robert Pelletreau Richard Armitage Thomas Pickering James Baker Colin Powell Samuel Berger Seymour Reich William Burns Bruce Riedel Lincoln Chafee Steven Riskin Stephen Cohen Dennis Ross Edward Djerejian Brent Scowcroft Richard Haass Steven Spiegel Gamal Helal George Tenet Jeffrey Helsing Toni Verstandig Martin Indyk Edward Walker Herbert Kelman Robert Wexler Daniel Kurtzer James Wolfensohn Anthony Lake Anthony Zinni Nita Lowey James Zogby David Makovsky XV xvi NEGOTIATING ARAB-ISRAELI PEACE Arab League Ismat Abdul Majid Amr Moussa Egypt Ahmad Aboul-Gheit Dina Khayat Wa’el Al Assad Ahmed Maher Mohammed Bassiouny Tarek Ragheb Rawi Camel-Toueg Nihal Saad Ali Dessouki Omar Suleiman Osama El-Baz European Union Marc Otte Israel Ami Ayalon Itzhak Molcho Moti Cristal Yohanan Plesner Shai Feldman Itamar Rabinovich Eival Gilady Jonathan Rynhold Gidi Grinstein Ivri Verbin Dan Meridor Dov Weisglass Einat Wilf Jordan Adnan Abu Odeh Mohammed al-Masri Mohammed Abu Ruman Marwan Muasher Jawad Anani Jamil Nimri Mustafa Hamarneh Osamha Obeidat Abdul-Ilah al-Khatib Ibrahim Seif INTERVIEWS AND CONSULTATIONS xvii Palestinian Authority/PLO Yasir Abed Rabbo Akram Hanieh Ziad Abu Amr Samir Huleileh Nisreen Haj Ahmed Issa Kassassieh Ma’en Areikat Ghassan Khatib Khaled Elgindy Mouin Rabbani Saeb Erekat Mohammed Rachid Salam Fayyad Khalil Shikaki Saudi Arabia Adel al-Jubeir Syria Riad Daoudi Walid Mouallem Ziad Haidar Sami Moubayed Ibrahim Hamidi Bouthaina Shaaban Marwan Kabalan Farouk al-Shara Hind Aboud Kabawat Samir al-Taqi United Nations Terje Rød-Larsen.
    [Show full text]
  • Baker Institute
    RICE UNIVERSITY’S BAKER INSTITUTE 2012 ANNUAL REPORT 2012 ANNUAL REPORT “Our intellectual capital, the foundation of our work, has never been more talented or more capable of addressing ... challenging problems. For the Baker Institute to stay on the leading edge of our country’s most pressing issues, we must remain diligent in our research, unbiased in our approach and assured in our recommendations. With the assistance of those who support the Baker Institute, I am confident that we will continue to meet those challenges and continue to provide Rice University with a policy institute of which we can all be proud.” —The Honorable James A. Baker, III Honorary Chair, James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy 11.15.11 Looking ahead to the November 2012 elections, members of the Baker Institute Student Forum debate a top campaign issue: jobs and the economy. This annual report encompasses Year at a Glance 4 the activities of the institute for Mission 5 fiscal year 2012 from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2012. Honorary Chair 6 Founding Director 7 Policy in the Classroom 8 Research Programs 9 Students 28 Financial Summary 30 Board of Advisers 32 Fellows and Researchers 35 Research Staff 38 Awards, Distinctions and Scholarships 38 Rice Scholars 39 Administrative Staff 40 Donors 41 2012 Annual Report | 3 Year at a Glance 21 rice scholars 21 research programs 24 e-newsletters 40 fellows and policy researchers 53 classes taught 69 publications 70 events 73 student interns 137 blog posts 186 countries reached on the web 4 | Rice University’s Baker Institute Mission Rice University’s Baker Institute By bringing statesmen, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think scholars and students together, tank in Houston, Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Multilateral Framework for the Middle East O I at Dr
    s r Working Paper Series January 2009 fai f A al n A New Multilateral Framework for the Middle East o i at Dr. Joel Peters n Associate Professor er Government and International Affairs t Virginia Tech n I d n a t n e m Joel Peters is Associate Professor of Government and International Affairs in the School of Public and International n Affairs, Virginia Tech, USA. From 1992-96 he as an Associate Research Fellow in the Midde East Programme at the Royal Institute for International Affairs (Chatham House), London, where he directed a research project on the Multilateral Arab-Israeli Peace Talks. He is the author of Pathways to Peace; the Multilateral Arab-Israeli Peace er Talks (London; The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1996). v The Government and International Affairs Program at the School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA) Virginia Tech is located at Virginia Tech’s main campus in Blacksburg and in the Washington DC metro area in Old Town Alexandria. The program offers two post-graduate degrees focusing on globalization, governance and global security: A Masters in Public and International Affairs (MPIA) and a Ph.D. in Planning, Globalization and Governance (PG&G). For details: http://www.gia.vt.edu Go © Joel Peters - email: [email protected] Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Abstract The numerous policy challenges facing the United States and the international community in the Middle East are interrelated. This demands the adoption a comprehensive approach to the region rather than a set of bilateral initiatives. Any new diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict should look beyond the Israeli- Palestinian and the Israeli-Syrian bilateral issues at stake and situate those negotiations within a broader comprehensive regional approach.
    [Show full text]
  • PATRON of ISLAM? by Daniel Pipes and Mimi Stillman*
    THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT: PATRON OF ISLAM? By Daniel Pipes and Mimi Stillman* The U.S. government has, almost without realizing it, developed a position toward the religion of Islam, not in theological terms but regarding such issues as Islamism and terrorism in the name of Islam. Whether Republican or Democrat, the leaders' statements defend Islam as a moderate and peaceful religion which extremists distort; more surprisingly, they also promote Islam in the United States. Islam has dominated American public life on contexts, that tradition is still a strong one. two occasions, once during the period of the When the “Real IRA” killed twenty-eight at Iranian hostage crisis from 1979 to 1981, a fair in Omagh, Ireland,(1) the U.S. and more recently since the attacks against president did not seize the opportunity to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on ruminate on the true nature of Catholicism. September 11, 2001. In both instances, Baruch Goldstein’s murderous rampage in Americans responded with outrage and Hebron spurred no commentary on Judaism puzzlement to the sight of ostensibly pious by the secretary of state. The Bharatiya individuals (Ayatollah Khomeini then, Janata Party, with its Hindu nationalist Usama bin Ladin now) sponsoring outlook, prompted no high-level analyses of unprovoked violence against American Hinduism on its coming to power in India. civilians. Each time, Islam became one of The same used to be the case with Islam. the most discussed topics in American In theory, anyway, it still is. At a festive public life. dinner she held for American Muslims in But the U.S.
    [Show full text]