POMED Notes: “The Arab Spring, a Year On: How is America Faring? http://pomed.org/blog/2012/04/pomed-notes-the-arab-spring-a-year-on-how-is-america-faring.html/#more-33687On Monday, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars hosted a panel of regional experts to discuss the impact of the wave of changes in the Middle East. The panel featured Nathan Brown, professor of political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University,Ellen Laipson, president and chief executive officer of the Stimson Center, and Michael Singh, managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Wilson Center scholar Aaron David Miller moderated the discussion.

For full event notes, continue reading below or click here for the PDFAfter opening remarks fromAaron David Miller, Nathan Brown gave remarks addressing how America is faring during this time of change. Brown stated that how America is faring could be interpreted in two ways. First being how it is going for us, which Brown said is “completely irrelevant,” and second being how it has affected internal dynamics. Brown asserted that although not faring especially well, the U.S. is faring “better than expected.” The Arab world, said Brown, is different for three reasons. First, the U.S. has absolutely no practice in dealing with the societal level of the Arab world. Secondly, Brown said, “We wouldn’t know an Arab institution if it hit us in the face.” In other words, the U.S. has become accustomed to placing the responsibility of building institutions in the hand of one man, like Salaam Fayyad, and don’t truly understand Arab institutions. Thirdly, Arab societies don’t fully understand the changes happening to their own political systems, therefore policy-making for the U.S. naturally becomes more difficult. Brown concluded saying that as for how the U.S. is doing, “Not as bad as they could have.” He would give it “decent marks” for “effort” in three ways: for coming to the realization that its influence is limited, for focusing on a few key issues (Camp David, Economic considerations, and political liberties), and for reaching out to new actors.

Ellen Laipson explained that even without the events sweeping the Arab world in the last year, American leadership would be going through a change changing and arguably difficult time due to economic constrains, the redistribution of power internationally, and the U.S.’s subsequent change in focus toward more domestic affairs. As far as the U.S. has faired, Laipson said that she could not say if there had been any successes, but rather that American policy is in a time of transition and she could assure that American policy in the U.S. “will not look the same.” She discussed three principles that have manifested themselves in the change political landscape. First, the changes in the Arab world were not about the U.S.; the U.S. was not a principle driver of the change and it was not the principle beneficiary. Second, Laipson said two distinct factions had developed in the Middle East: the largely undemocratic Gulf countries and Monarchies and the more populist entities. Due to this development, U.S. policy makers have confronted a dilemma, which Laipson referred to as “tension between heart & head.” She said that although the “heart” of U.S. policy wants to act in solidarity with the democrats in the region, its head still thinks it wise to act in near term interests. The third principle that came about was that U.S. influence, whether economic or political, had been scaled back because some countries (like Egypt) have become less receptive. Egypt, said Laipson, is the hardest case to confront. The people of Egypt have begun to enunciate the end of dictatorship with the repudiation of American influence. Laipson compared the current feelings in Egypt to those which emerged in revolutionary Iran, where the Shah was directly associated with Western oppression. According to Laipson, these feelings were convenient for the players in Egypt to play on. Appealing to populism in Egypt, said Laipson, may be difficult for the U.S. to mange. Contrary to Egypt, Tunisia and Libya are “relieved that the U.S. cares about them again.” Laipson concluded prescribing a reconsideration of the U.S. policy model and how it is to act with society. She called for the rethinking of how the U.S. engages civil society, whose activities have become seen as subversive. “They want to reform on their own term,” said Laipson. She pointed out that in the FY13 bill, although there was a 1 billion dollar increase region wide, 5 billion dollars (the majority) went to “pre-existing security relationships.” There were also notable cutbacks on basic development activists such as education and heath. “Adjustments are not as dramatic as expected,” said Laipson. She highlighted the need to understand current trends on the societal level, such as the “culture wars” emerging in countries in transition; the lack of charismatic leadership, and the inability of policy makers to create much needed economic stimulation.

Michael Singh assessed how America is faring in the context of U.S. interests and what the U.S intends to accomplish in the Middle East. He stated that the degree of change in each country varies significantly. He noted that Syria and Yemen both have had ‘superficial’ changes, where as Libya and Egypt had undergone fundamental changes. Singh maintained that nothing has changed in terms of what the U.S. is trying to accomplish. He discussed his approach to teaching international relations in terms of a pyramid. At the top sits U.S. interests, followed by obstacles to obtaining those interests, and a strategy to overcome those obstacles. Singh defined U.S. interests in the following way: energy, free commerce, nonproliferation, counterterrorism, and political development. As our interests have not significantly changed, our strategy of ‘jury-rigging’ has changed significantly. Therefore updating our strategy requires that the U.S. has new obstacles to our interests. Singh also outlined some of the obstacles. First is the fact that the U.S. no longer “can pick up the phone and talk to one person.” The U.S. must engage more actors. Secondly, the emerging governments are going to be inherently anti-western and anti-Israeli because of the association with oppression. Singh said another obstacle is a higher level of conflict between the U.S. aligned blocs in the region and the “resistance” bloc. Singh called for the updating of U.S. strategy on three levels. First, the U.S. must realize the need for American leadership in the region. Singh said that our partners and allies in the region were waiting to see who would be taking the initiative, and said that the U.S. must then take the lead. Secondly, Singh said that the U.S. needs assistance from its allies in the region. After poorly handling our relationships with Saudi/Israel, Singh said that our allies are currently debating their relationship with us. “We need to act now to influence the debate,” said Singh. Finally, Singh said that democracy promotion must be at the forefront of the agenda because it is needed now more than ever. He maintained that the U.S. has no choice but to act in this aspect, because of our future interests in these countries. He ended emphasizing the need of the U.S. to “get out of the embassies.” “We only saw those officials that came to us,” said Singh, recounting his first days as a diplomat, “Our fortress embassies do not help us understand the societies or politics in these countries.”

[ED NOTES:SINGH, THE WINEP PRO ISRAEL WHORE AT LEAST CONFESSED TO THE U.S.AGENDA,..SECURE ENERGY, FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS(NEOLIBERALISM),AND AMDITS THE REGION IS DIVIED BETWEEN POPULIST GOV'S AND MOVEMENTS LIKE IRAN,SYRIA ,HEZBOLLAH OF COURSE,AND THE GCC MONARCHY PUPPETS...

BTW,I RECENTLY STARTED WRITTING A NEW SONG WICH SIMILARLY REFLECTS THIS..HERE'S A PREVIEW BELOW...ILL RECORD AN ALBUM SOON, THIS SUMMER CALLED ''THE UMMAH HAS AWOKEN,AND IT AINT WORSHIPPING DOLLARS''

''GULF MONARCHY COWARDS,HOST IMPERIAL POWERS''

''WHILE THE WEST SUPPLIES THE ARMS TO BRUTALIZE THE ARABS''

''THOSE PUPPET DICTATORS,NOT MUSLIMS THEY PAGANS''

''MODERN DAY PHARAOS ,ITS TIME TO DECAPITATE THEM''