Hot Topic: The Price Of Diplomacy
(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
In Egypt, where the president speaks Thursday, Emergency Law was recently extended. According to Human Rights Watch, that means authorities can "detain persons arbitrarily and try them in special security courts that do not meet international fair trial standards." Freedom of expression, religion and assembly are limited. Last year, according to the State Department, "security forces used unwarranted lethal force and tortured and abused prisoners and detainees," largely without consequences. During President Hosni Mubarak's 28 years in power, dissidents have been harassed and imprisoned. Student political groups are prohibited at the university where Mr. Obama plans to speak, and deans are chosen by the administration; one student blogger was recently jailed for two months for "public agitation."
When he arrived in Saudi Arabia, President Obama did not publicly discuss human rights issues. Of the country's head of state, King Abdullah, he said this: "I've been struck by his wisdom and his graciousness." The White House said following a private meeting that the two men discussed "a wide range of issues," including energy and Middle East peace, but human rights abuses was not listed among them.
The president told the BBC before the trip that while there are "obviously" human rights issues in some Middle East countries, it is not the U.S.'s role to lecture.
"The danger, I think, is when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture," he said, adding that America should focus on being a "role model."
"We're not going to get countries to embrace our values simply by lecturing or through military means," Mr. Obama told National Public Radio before the trip. As for Mubarak, the president has called him a "stalwart ally."
The president's decision to not make human rights abuses a central theme of his visit has prompted criticism from civil rights advocates, who talk, in the words of Human Rights Watch Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson, of "the growing perception here that human rights are a second-rank concern."
Mr. Obama's tone on human rights appears to be grounded in a desire not to jeopardize his larger goals. While Mr. Obama will likely touch on the issue in his Cairo speech – his speechwriter promises "a forthright discussion" of "democracy, human rights, and related issues to that" – he does not want to antagonize his hosts and/or complicate efforts to reboot the troubled relationship between the United States and Muslim world.
Particularly pointed criticism from the United States of practices by Middle Eastern governments would likely complicate his public relations effort to win 1.6 billion Muslim hearts and minds, particularly in the wake of well-publicized revelations about torture and the killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan by the U.S. military.
Human rights groups see in the president's approach not pragmatism but unacceptable moral compromise, however. "Ignoring human rights abuses by U.S. allies won't help bring about the change so many Saudis and Egyptians long for," said Whitson. "It will instead reinforce the perception that Washington's interests are tied to autocratic leaders, but not to the Arab people."
Ayman Nour, an Egyptian political opponent of Mubarrak imprisoned on forgery charges he calls false, told the Telegraph that he is "astonished with the approach that ignores civil society and political parties."
"We see there is a retreat from campaign promises and that there is an attempt to separate American principles and American interests," he said.
The comment goes to the heart of the challenge facing the president. Pushing moral governance is never simple in a world in which alliances are sometimes built in part on a willingness to look the other way; the United States has a long history of supporting undemocratic and/or oppressive governments that, despite their flaws, are thought to help U.S. interests. Egypt presently receives billions in U.S. aid.
Mr. Obama has cast himself as the face of a more moral American government, one that does the right thing (refusing to torture, for example) despite pressure to do otherwise. But the right thing can be elusive. Saudi Arabia is emerging as a key ally in the effort for Middle East peace, for example. Does that mean it's OK to look past human rights abuses as part of an effort to build potentially-crucial relationships? How, in other words, does one gauge the course of action that ultimately serves greater good?
Let us know your thoughts below.
Obama's Trip: Complete Coverage
- Obama "Will Not Forget" Concentration Camp
- "Moment Is Now" For Mideast
- Transcript: Obama & Merkel
- Lara Logan: Arab World Saw Obama's Speech As Historic
- e-Jihadists Rail Against Obama's Speech
- Analysis: New Language Key In Obama Speech
- Obama Urges "New Beginning"
- Full Transcript Of Remarks | Full Video
- Key Passages
- Obama Checks Out Sphinx And Pyramids
- World Watch: Egyptians Hope Obama Words "Turn Into Reality"
- Bob Schieffer: Obama's Speech "Remarkable"
- Reza Aslan: Remarks On Women's Rights Could Start Debate
- Ari Fleischer: Obama Speech Too "Balanced"
- Photo Gallery: Obama In Egypt
- Hot Topic: The Price Of Diplomacy
- Interview With Egyptian Prime Minister
- Opinion: Busting Down Stereotypes In Cairo
- Opinion: What The Syrians Wanted Obama To Say
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 438 Comments
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 258 Comments
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor 107 Comments
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test 69 Comments
- Will tornado relief funding escape politics?
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony 215 Comments
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- Va. GOP candidate won't apologize for comments on abortion, gays
I get it that you disagree with my view on why we invaded Iraq. Sory about that but I dont buy into the polically correct "hate america" and/or hate Bush philosophy. there were many reasons for invading Iraq, WMD was only one. Saddam Hussein sabre ratling is well documented in articles throughout the '90s. widen your understanding and read a few. Also, explain the documented occurance of Husseins use of poison gas on his own people when he attacked the Turks for their dissent of him. Finally, explain the celebration in the streets of Bagdad when US troops first arrived.
But, since you didnt comment on the rest of my post, I assume you have no problems with those parts.
1. Iraq previously was lead by a brutal dictator who opressed his people much like Egypt does today. In fact, Iraq waged war on its neighbors and sometimes sects of its own people. Iraq invaded Kuwait with little or no provocation in 1990. On being defeated they retreated via a "scorched earth" policy.
2. Throughout the '90s Iraq practiced a policy of defiance and threats toward the West. Often threatening major destruction on its neighbors and the US.
3. After 9/11 there were numerous Iraqi claims of involvement and declarations of future actions. These were public, on al Jazera, not something we can blame on our CIA.
4. The above actions can all be blamed on a corrupt government headed by Saddam Hussein. We can still claim the Iraqi people were peace loving and innocent in these previous acts of war and provocation.
So, america chose to "help" the opressed Iraqi people and help itself by toppling their dictator, Saddam Hussein.
5. We toppled the Saddam Hussein government with fewer casualties than any other modern war, even fewer than in Kosovo when we freed the Muslims from Christian lead massacres. Our claim for doing this was based on the repeated threats from Saddam Hussein, his previous acts of war, his previous massacres of his own people, the Turks, and reports that the Iraqi people would welcome our help in toppling their oppressor.
6. HOWEVER, after toppling Saddam Hussein, declaring an intent to establish a new democracy, and beginning to restore infrastructure, the Iraqi people began a "war" against our troops as we attempted to restore the damage we had inflicted so we could go home in relative honor.
7. THE MAJORITY OF CASUALTIES IN THE IRAQ WAR HAPPENED AFTER WE HAD TOPPLED sADDAM HUSSEIN, ESTABLISHED FREE ELECTIONS, AND OUR DESIRE TO GO HOME.
8. Its hard to believe that the Iraqi people were innocent bystanders in the many car bombings, roadside attacks, and sabotage that occurred AFTER Saddam Hussein was removed. Of course there are innocent people, probably the majority, but the fact is that we lost over 4,000 soldiers to the violent citizens, not the Iraqi army.
So, its hard to believe that the US can help the civil rights of any country without being blamed for "war crimes". In this case, Obama is right. Tell them they have a great country and should work out their own problems. We are staying home until they threaten us directly.
"Men have extensive power over women, who cannot drive vehicles or work without permission. Abuse of migrant workers is common, and torture is "widespread and committed with impunity," according to Amnesty International. One possible punishment for theft is amputation. Homosexuality, blasphemy, "witchcraft" and some other non-violent offenses are punishable by death. "
The above is okay and waterboarding isn't?