Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the Center for National Policy (CNP) for facilitating a dialogue between members of the Arab and Muslim diplomatic communities and legislators on the Hill. On September 8th of this year, the Center…
Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the Center for National Policy (CNP) for facilitating a dialogue between members of the Arab and Muslim diplomatic communities and legislators on the Hill.
On September 8th of this year, the Center for National Policy hosted a discussion between the Honorable Jim Turner and members of the Arab and Muslim diplomatic communities as a way of re-framing the debate on the War on Terrorism. I applaud the CNP for their continued efforts to properly inform both the American public and their elected officials on the complex issues facing policymakers.
I would like to commend Representative Turner and my former colleague Tim Roemer for their participation in this invaluable discussion and for their active interest in fostering a better relationship with minority communities both domestically and abroad.
To Win the War on Terror
A Discussion With The Honorable Jim Turner And Members of the Arab and
Muslim Diplomatic Communities--Moderated by Tim Roemer
About the Event
This event is part of a series of discussions being
organized by the Center for National Policy to help reframe
the debate on the War on Terrorism. CNP seeks to deepen both
the public's and elected officials' understanding of the
complex issues involved in the growth and spread of radical
Islam, and to increase awareness of initiatives that promise
to advance moderation and constructive reform.
To accomplish these goals, CNP organizes small group
discussions that bring together prominent policy experts,
elected officials, and public opinion specialists to explore
new strategies to address both immediate and long-term
threats. CNP drafts summaries of these conversations and
makes them available to lawmakers on Capitol Hill and
policymakers in the Executive Branch, as well as academics,
journalists, and the public at large.
About CNP
The Center for National Policy (CNP) is a non-profit, non-
partisan public policy organization located in Washington,
DC. Founded in 1981, the Center's mission is to engage
national leaders with new policy options and innovative
programs designed to advance progressive ideas in the
interest of all Americans.
The goal of the Center is to promote the transfer of ideas
and information from experts to public officials, and
therefore better serve American citizens and the public
interest.
Working with a small core staff, CNP brings together
policymakers and experts from a range of organizations,
including other think tanks, business, labor and academia, to
encourage new thinking, promote public awareness and catalyze
action.
The Center uses public opinion research, as well as
substantive and political analysis, to frame options and make
recommendations. The Center's programs include active media
outreach and extensive use of the web as well as more
traditional methods of dissemination.
In October 2003, Timothy J. Roemer was named President of
CNP. Formerly a seven-term member of Congress from Indiana,
he most recently has served as a member of the bipartisan 9/
11 Commission. His predecessors as president include
Madeleine K. Albright, prior to her service as U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations; the late Kirk O'Donnell,
who was chief counsel to the Speaker of the U.S. House of
Representatives Thomas P. `Tip' O'Neill, and Maureen S.
Steinbruner, currently serving as CNP Vice President and
Senior Policy Advisor.
Introduction
It has been clear for some time that winning the war on
terror is not only a military and security challenge. With
numerous al Qaeda leaders captured or killed, the threat is
now more diffuse but just as deadly. Increasingly the
question is, are we taking more terrorists out of the picture
than are being created every day in the streets and madrassas
all over the Arab and Muslim worlds?
The United States needs a strategy for winning the war that
both deals with today's terrorists but also, most
importantly, works to deter and suppress the growth and power
of tomorrow's. U.S. Representative Jim Turner, Ranking Member
of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, put forward a
series of initiatives to accomplish this, in his report,
``Winning the War on Terror.'' At the invitation of the
Center for National Policy, he joined three ambassadors to
the U.S. from Muslim nations, and representatives from two
other Middle Eastern embassies and the European Commission,
for a discussion of his initiatives and related issues.
After an introduction by Congressman Turner framing the
questions, CNP President Tim Roemer moderated a discussion.
The session was off the record, except for the comments cited
here.
Supporting voices of moderation in the Middle East
Representative Turner stressed the fact that in fighting
the war on terrorism the United States needs to look beyond
targeting active terrorists and securing the homeland, to
supporting voices of moderation in the Middle East as well as
those advocating positive change. His report addresses the
question of how to prevent the rise of future terrorists
though a number of important initiatives.
These include:
Building bridges to the Arab and Muslim world, which must
involve not only diplomacy programs but also fully engaging
in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
Improving education for Arab children;
Stimulating economic development;
Stabilizing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq; and
Promoting political reform in the Middle East and moving
toward greater democracy.
Representative Turner pointed out, however, that if these
types of initiatives are to be successful, it will require a
tremendous political effort both at home and abroad. He noted
that ten of the 9-11 Commission's 41 recommendations are
geared toward preventing the rise of future terrorists--but
these have received little public attention. Meanwhile,
polling indicates that the U.S. image abroad--not only in the
Middle East, but across the globe--has declined dramatically
in the past two. years. It is essential that Americans
understand why this is so, and what needs to be done to
change it.
The war on terror, Turner affirmed, is not a war on Islam.
But the United States needs to find ways to communicate its
intentions much more effectively. Finally, the United States
must engage in a partnership with its allies in the Middle
East and in Europe if any of the ideas he and others have put
on the table are to be effective.
A Battle of ideas
Participants generally agreed with the spirit of
Representative Turner's remarks, and that fighting the war on
terror must involve a battle to win the minds of those in the
Arab and Muslim worlds. In the short-term, we must confront
the immediate, day-to-day threats from those who participate
in acts of terrorism, rooting out known terrorist groups and
their leadership, and preventing wherever possible the
emergence of new groups of activists. This is primarily a
security issue, which involves the U.S. engaging with
security and intelligence services internationally. As one
participant observed, it is important to understand that
``threats don't stop at anyone's borders.''
But the United States must also have the patience to
confront what participants see as a significant generational
challenge within the Islamic world. Fully eliminating the
terrorist threat is a task that will take perhaps ten or
twenty years. If the United States is to be effective over
the long-term, it must have some patience, and focus on
accurately defining terrorism--and identifying exactly who
the enemy is--in the minds of both Americans and Middle
Easterners.
Participants pointed out that the number of people in the
Middle East--and Muslims specifically--who actively support
terrorism is in actuality very small--perhaps only a few
thousand. But as recent polling shows, the numbers who are
angry at the United States is much greater. The false
assumption on the part of Americans that these two groups are
one and the same needs to change if the U.S. image abroad is
to change. The 9-11 report, for example, made it very clear
that the problem of terrorism is not about faith, yet this
issue has not been reflected in the current debate in the
U.S. about the Commission report. It is important to
distinguish between those who support terrorism and those who
are angry at America because the solutions to dealing with
both problems are very different.
As one participant observed, it is the people in the
middle--in the Middle East as well as in the United States--
who need to have their minds changed about the nature of the
war on terrorism. The war on terror is not only America's
problem. If the U.S. wants to find support for partnership
with the Arab and Muslim world, it will have to begin by
showing the benefits of such a partnership to the people in
the middle-center on both sides of the relationship.
More forceful policy initiatives and efforts on the part of
the U.S. will make an immediate impression. Participants
agreed that a commitment by the United States to seriously
engage with the Israeli-Arab conflict is absolutely
necessary. An ambassador said that the shift of public
opinion against the U.S. in Turkey is attributable to two
factors: What is happening in Iraq; and what is not happening
in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Another Ambassador said,
``You have to seriously address the problem in Israeli-
Palestinian conflict--not necessarily solve it.''
In addition, actions to support economic development in the
Middle East, such as providing economic assistance and
scholarships, supporting WTO accession, and other steps to
enhance job opportunities could show tangible benefits and
demonstrate an American commitment to a broader, positive
Middle East agenda. This should be the core of the argument
to convince the U.S. Congress and American people that such
proposals are part of the solution and that military action
is not the only tool to use against the terrorist threat.
Homegrown reform
Participants echoed Representative Turner's argument that
it is essential that the U.S. support moderate forces in the
Arab world, to ensure that they prevail over extremists. As
another participant pointed out, some of the extremists'
arguments on important issues such as women's rights are very
weak, and they have no agenda of their own. Tim Roemer noted
the recent op-ed by President Musharraf of Pakistan calling
for ``enlightened moderation'' makes exactly this case.
Responding to Turner's ideas for promoting political,
economic, and educational reform in the Middle East,
participants agreed that any of these proposals would be
beneficial. But they urged that the U.S. not try to lump
together the whole region but recognize that different
approaches are needed for different countries. Participants
emphasized the importance of homegrown reform. ``It's very
hard to address the problem [of terrorism] by lumping
together the entire region and imposing reforms on them.'' It
was also noted, for example, that a U.S.-Jordanian
partnership to increase exports from Jordan to the U.S. has
been highly successful, doubling household income in poorer
areas of the country and creating over 22,000 job
opportunities mostly in poverty areas, 85 percent of which
have been for women. It was pointed out, however, that such a
program would not necessarily be right elsewhere. Regionally-
generated initiatives, perhaps assisted by foreign aid, may
meet with more success than unilateral efforts created
thousands of miles away.
Several participants stressed that the U.S. must avoid the
appearance of imposing its own reforms on other countries.
They pointed out that media audiences in the Middle East
closely watch the American political process. The recent
Democratic and Republic National Conventions received far
more airtime from television stations in the Middle East
than in the United States. The point was made that
extremists are watching, and they will certainly exploit
the perception that ``the Americans are telling us what to
do'' to oppose reform initiatives.
It was noted that the particularly sensitive issue of
educational reform in Saudi Arabia, for example, was unable
to find support in the Kingdom once the U.S. Congress
vociferously supported it. ``Secular'' education in
particular was characterized as a `non-starter': the very
word ``secular'' can be a form of insult in the Kingdom.
Similarly, the word ``democracy,'' per se, has some negative
connotations in the Middle East--though this is not the case
for many of its specific attributes, such as transparency,
civic participation, free elections, and so on. One diplomat
said, ``This is a conflict within Islam. We must support
reason and try to assure that this wins--not terrorism.''
``America has become an excuse for our problems,'' as one
participant noted. But this is a cultural reality that the
U.S. must understand if it wants its reform efforts to be
effective.
The European perspective
It was noted that European nations have been engaged with
the Middle East for almost 50 years. More recently, the
European Union has been working with the United States
specifically on the problem of extremism in the Arab and
Muslim world, both through direct E.U.-U.S. dialogue and on
the G8 track. The European Union endorses the general
argument that solutions must come from within the region, but
with attention to regional differences. It is the EU point of
view that there can be no ``one size fits all'' solution. It
was suggested that Representative Turner's proposals largely
fit into the European interpretation, with its emphasis on
building bridges, fostering educational improvements and
cultural exchange, but the point was made that regional
cooperation is also necessary. Where the U.S. is still
focused only on bilateral trade agreements in the Middle
East, for example, the E.U. is trying to negotiate regional
trade agreements. The E.U. also sees accession to the World
Trade Organization by nations in the Middle East as
important, and as in itself a way to promote reform.
On the whole, the European Union view is that it has been
listened to by its U.S. counterparts, but there is still some
frustration that long-time European efforts and investments
of human and financial capital in the Middle East have not
been recognized.
Although fresh ideas are appreciated, it is important to
the E.U. that no initiatives are introduced into the region
that will either distract from or complicate those programs
already in place. Instead, new initiatives need to be
streamlined and coordinated with existing projects. The
Israeli-Arab peace process, for example, was described as at
the heart of these efforts.
Speaking from a European perspective, it was observed that
the U.S. should recognize that it has the power to put issues
on the table--but a fine balance needs to be maintained
between acting with haste and acting too slowly. ``Like a
bowl of soup,'' one participant observed, ``if you eat it too
fast, it
burns you; if you let it go cold, it's tasteless.''
How and where to begin?
Some participants noted the need for the U.S. to be
sensitive to the fact that countries have their own
timetables for reform. Americans too often look for quick-fix
solutions to problems, and think only in short-term, two-year
cycles, whereas reformers in the Middle East are willing to
work for generational change. Yet it was also noted that
external prodding can sometimes be important and even vital
for bringing much needed reform. Turkey, for example, has had
to accelerate the process of reform in order to meet European
Union requirements. One participant remarked, ``Cultural and
religious sensitivities should not be an excuse for not doing
what needs to be done.''
But where exactly should the longer-term battle against
extremism begin? Participants presented differing views.
Education was acknowledged to be clearly a key factor in
winning the battle of ideas, and school systems may therefore
be the most sensible point to start any initiative that aims
to prevent the rise of future terrorists. One diplomat said,
``You must support the voices of moderation and reason . . .
they must prevail. When you introduce the sensitive issue of
education reform, it must be seen as a national homegrown
plan and not U.S.-inspired.'' But this is a long-term effort
which will have results only over the longer term. The need
for judicial reform was also cited as important to promoting
confidence in the rule of law.
Most participants advised putting economic reform slightly
ahead of political reform in the Middle East. The point was
made that political reform can be achieved in part by
motivating people to use the political options that they
already have. Creating job opportunities, however, and
providing people with immediate and tangible benefits, can
foster participation by providing hope that reform is a
better way to move forward than revenge. As one Senior Middle
East diplomat put it, ``Economic reform must come first
because we need to give people hope that this way is the
better way.''
Separately, several participants said that it is essential
for the U.S. to achieve progress in key policy areas, such as
stabilizing Iraq and seriously engaging in the Israeli-Arab
conflict, to improve its image abroad and communicate its
message effectively.
Summary
The participants in the discussion fundamentally agreed
that there is a need for more effective long-term strategies
to counteract the challenge of extremist ideologies in the
Arab and Muslim worlds. Some caution was expressed about new
U.S. initiatives, especially if unilateral. Congressman
Turner's multilateral and tailored approach was applauded as
a place to begin dialogue over these issues. One Middle East
Ambassador summarized the situation in the following way:
``We all realize we have a problem. We all realize we want to
solve it. We are on the same side.''
Several participants called for additional discussions such
as this one, to address these and other initiatives, as well
as some key existing problems. It was agreed that such
discussions are vitally needed to broaden understanding,
improve communication and facilitate concrete programs of
cooperation among the U.S., the EU, and various Middle
Eastern countries.