About the Center
Search
Outreach News
Teachers Consider US Policy in the Middle East
Published in 2005
[No download available]
For secondary school teachers, the task of illuminating the causes of—and reactions to—political events in the world can be a challenging one. This can be even more formidable when it comes to understanding current events in the Middle East. The United States’ policy of engagement in the region, especially since World War II, has been a subject of constant discussion and contestation among Middle Eastern and American scholars, policymakers, media analysts, and the general public. Indeed, the current renewed conflict in the region, and particularly the US invasion of Iraq two years ago, have added layers of complexity to our understanding of regional and international affairs.
To explore these issues, the Center’s outreach program organized a seminar for teachers on April 25th titled “US Policy in the Middle East: The Price of Engagement.” Thirty-seven educators from the District of Columbia and from nine counties surrounding the DC region, as well as teachers from Pennsylvania, New York, and North Carolina, attended this program. It was sponsored by CCAS and Georgetown’s National Resource Center on the Middle East.
The seminar began with a brief history of US policy in the Middle East by CCAS Director Michael C. Hudson. He said that as the successor to the British and French colonial powers in the region, the United States was initially welcomed as a non-imperial power that established schools and offered social services. However, after WWII, Washington became increasingly interventionist; Dr. Hudson characterized America’s historical objectives in the region as ensuring access to oil, supporting Israel, and containing the spread of Communism. He explained that even though the United States is currently unchallenged in political and military power, there is more dissonance than ever before in the Middle East regarding US policy in the region. He attributed this state of affairs to economic stagnation in the region, the rise of militant/political Islam, the cataclysmic events of and after 9/11, and the war in Iraq.
Three representatives from the US Department of State shared their expertise
with the group. Charles Dunne, a member of the US Secretary of State’s Policy Planning Staff, said that for years, support for Israel and safeguarding the world’s access to oil were two important cornerstones of US policy; after 9/11, it was clear to the Bush Administration that in order to serve US interests, a broader political and economic reform program in the region was needed. He characterized US policy priorities in the Middle East as encouraging reform and development of civil society; dismantling weapons of mass destruction; cooperating on the war on terrorism; improving America’s image through outreach to the Arab and Muslim worlds; promoting economic programs and bringing lagging economies into the global system; and building on successful elections to develop truly democratic governments. Laura Abrahams Schulz, from the Office of the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), outlined the mandate of her organization as partnering with indigenous organizations and governments to meet the human development goals of the region. This involves encouraging reform on the political level, especially through the rule of law and building civil society; in educational initiatives by investing in schools and universities, reducing illiteracy, and paying attention to the needs of the large number of Arab youth; in economic programs by providing technical assistance to strengthen indigenous organizations and inter-Arab trade; and in women’s issue by supporting women’s empowerment programming and educational programs focusing on women’s legal rights. Paul Sutphin, who serves as Deputy Director for Political Affairs for the Office of Iraq (Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs), spoke on “Iraq, the US and Democracy: Where We Are, What Lies Ahead.” He stated that the Bush Administration’s policy goal in Iraq is a stable, democratic, and prosperous country at peace with its neighbors. The successful elections of January 30, he explained, produced winners who were never politically empowered before in Iraq—the Shiites and Kurds. The transitional government now must produce a permanent constitution; however serious questions remain that must be addressed in the final document.These include resolving the role of Islam in the state: is it the source of law, or a source of law? In addition, the government needs to tackle the issues of federalism and minority rights and to move forward on the process of getting the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s party officials out of Iraq (“de-Baathification”)—those who are guilty of terror and corruption. Mr. Sutphin summarized Washington’s priorities in Iraq as completing the political process, defeating the insurgency, and carrying out reconstruction of the country.
Michele Dunne, Visiting Assistant Professor of Arabic at Georgetown and Editor of the Arab Reform Bulletin at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, spoke on democratization efforts and US policy in the region. She said that President Bush cares deeply about democracy promotion in the Middle East, believing that terrorism arises out of societies where there are few avenues for political expression. The US is in a unique position to advance democratization,
she explained, because of its strong influenceintheregion.Tothatend, she said that the focus of American initiatives in the region should not be exclusively on the Arab-Israeli conflictbut also on supporting democracy building. She noted that despite anti-American sentiment in the region, the United States has opened up the “political space” and launched opportunities for reform.
The final session centered on US policy toward Israel and Palestine. Raymond Tanter, Visiting Professor at Georgetown and former senior staff member at the National Security Council, examined the idea of crisis—especially war—as an opportunity for diplomacy and change. He provided an overview of US involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and of Arab and Zionist nationalist history. Dr. Tanter defined“roguestates”asthosethatadvocate the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In his view Iran is such a state, and he said that Iran represents the main threat against Israel at present. Thus, he said, there is no longer an “Arab-Israeli conflict”asthereisnoviablethreatagainstIsrael from an Arab state.
Ziad Asali, President of the American News Task Force on Palestine, disagreed with this assessment. He said that the Palestinians remain important players in the conflictand made a case for a Palestinian state as an important building block toward peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Dr. Asali asserted that Palestinians have a working democracy, despite living under occupation and suffering from poor economic conditions, such as high unemployment and incomes in the poverty range. He said that Palestinian Americans must understand that the US-Israel relationship is deep and unshakable and will not be compromised; instead of opposing the relationship itself, they must object strongly to and work to end Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land and its continued construction of settlements on occupied territories.
The seminar offered myriad points of view and provided educators with the opportunity to ask questions and discuss issues with policymakers, scholars, and analysts. They received a thick binder of resources that included texts of significantpolicy speeches regarding the Middle East and documents such as the “road map,” chapters from books, and suggestions of curriculum resources. The group enjoyed a Middle Eastern lunch after the seminar, during which they networked with each other and continued discussions sparked by the speakers’ informative—and at times provocative—presentations.
Related Content
No related content exists for this item.