Political Hotsheet
June 3, 2009 4:17 PM

Hot Topic: The Price Of Diplomacy

(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
In Saudi Arabia, where President Obama arrived Wednesday morning, the legal system is based on Sharia, or Islamic law. It is illegal to spend time alone with someone of the opposite sex to whom you are not related, to drink, to smoke, or to engage in other behaviors deemed immoral. There is little freedom of expression and no freedom of religion. The media is state-controlled. The State Department has reported that religious police "intimidate, abuse, and detain citizens and foreigners" and has also reported on the "denial of public trials and lack of due process in the judicial system." 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.

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
Tags:
Human Rights ,
President Obama ,
Saudi Arabia ,
Egypt
Topics:
Hot Topic
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 12 Comments
by scottdavene June 4, 2009 10:56 PM EDT
Although, I personally am so far to the left, that even the even the democrats appear to me to be "right-wing," I consider myself to be a strict constitutionalist. It is my opinion that since its inception there has been an organized and systematic assault by the conservatives in the United States on the civil liberties written into the US Constitution. The ?War on Drugs?; ?War on Terror?; ?War on Communism? and a host of other wars waged by the right wing are really nothing more than a War on People--an excuse to erode civil rights to the point of non-existence. I invite you to my website devoted to raising awareness on this puritan attack on freedom: http://freethegods.blogspot.com/
Reply to this comment
by npkppprc June 4, 2009 12:56 PM EDT
So many Americans seem to have a great need for the two party system if one disagrees with a democrat they must be a republican and the hate words roll out of the computer, same for the opposite. You all need to be like (Mr. Rogers) Obama and want everyone to like you no matter if they want you and your way of life wiped out . These people are laughing at his weakness and stupidity.
Reply to this comment
by McHineguy June 4, 2009 11:26 AM EDT
Posted by Vet_Turner at 8:15 AM : Jun 4, 2009

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.
Reply to this comment
by Vet_Turner June 4, 2009 11:15 AM EDT
McHineguy -
That is a very warped sense of histort if Iraq over the last 20 years you just presented. I didn't know that Bush had released his book - beacause that it seems is where you got your information.

That we took on Iraq to liberate them from Saddam? Are you serious? Somewhere between 140,000 and 800,000 Iraqis have been killed since the war began and you call that a liberation? A liberation from life, I guess.

Saddam was not a good guy but at least he was trying to build Iraq into a new center of modern mideast.

And the threat of WMDs in Iraq - the reason we were given for going to into war was only an honorable lie to the American people and the world?

Your logic is disgusting and irritating to any thinking person. And to veterans of that war, a punch in the gut.
Reply to this comment
by McHineguy June 4, 2009 10:21 AM EDT
The dilema between supporting an opressive government and helping a people free itself is what got us into the Iraq war. The peopl often want a different government until they have it. Then, they either support violent dissent or at the least look the other way while others perform it. Lets look at Iraq ass a recent good example.

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.
Reply to this comment
by rational_1 June 4, 2009 10:11 AM EDT
Just re-read the first two paragraphs of this piece and see how well what they say reconciles with the oft-heard phrase, "Islam is the religion of peace". What a crock - these Middle Eastern theocracies are only at peace with you as long as you're behaving according to the abominable dictates of Sharia law. If they haven't already, the Brits will soon realize to their horror the consequences of allowing that Sharia infestation into their legal system.
Reply to this comment
by rocketjl June 4, 2009 10:11 AM EDT
You may all be right. However, there is not much we can do at this time. We will have to wait and see what the impact of the tour and speech are. We have to face the fact that the President did not seek our approval to make the trip or give this speech, so I feel he is pretty much on his own. All we can do is see what happens now and then decide whether our guy did a good thing or a bad thing.
Reply to this comment
by cdegolier June 3, 2009 8:01 PM EDT
I don't get it, you libs whine about "tortures" carried out on terrorists, but don't mind your leader making best friends with one of the worst dictators in the world, last list ranked him 5th.

"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?
Reply to this comment
by iam4honesty June 3, 2009 6:54 PM EDT
What ?!?! No bow and scrape ?
Posted by hoseobama


How quaint...

Republicans have nothing left but childish remarks.
Reply to this comment
by hoseobama June 3, 2009 6:30 PM EDT
What ?!?! No bow and scrape ?
Reply to this comment
by mutnauq4842 June 3, 2009 4:56 PM EDT
Here's hoping Obama hasn't forgotten how to tap dance-Iran, Israel, Egypt, and Saudi.
Reply to this comment
by wogerwabbit June 3, 2009 4:49 PM EDT
As Teddy said, "Walk softly and carry a big stick." That doesn't mean stirring up hornet nests with that stick. I like the idea that Obama is trying to mellow things out a bit in the world. Bush and his henchmen did a lot of damage to our credibility and we're not going to get it back by continuing the dime store cowboy act.
Reply to this comment
See all 12 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR
Discussed
  1. Senate Health Bill Faces Crucial Vote

    (264 recent comments)

HOTSHEET ON TWITTER