George Packer in The New Yorker has a short, but punchy, analysis of the “rights and wrongs” of the first year of Obama’s international engagement of both friends and enemies. As an ardent supporter from the beginning of this strategy, I think it’s important that we constantly assess its strengths and weaknesses. Packer discusses the early reluctance of the administration to risk rebuilding strained relationships abroad by prioritizing democracy or human rights. He credits Obama though for consistently offering a vision of hope in his speeches to citizens living in oppressive conditions, as well as with some innovative initiatives sponsored by the administration to give concrete outlets for uplift.
Ultimately, he concludes:
Obama is coming up against the limitations of engagement. What if people around the world want more than a humble adjustment in America’s tone and behavior? What if American overtures to nasty regimes fail, because those regimes have a different view of their own survival? Then the President will have to devise a fallback strategy—preferably one that answers the desires of the people who applauded in Cairo, and doesn’t leave another generation cynical about American promises.
It’s my hope that in analyzing U.S. policy toward Sudan over the last few months that I have appropriately framed the challenges facing the administration. Engagement, even with the likes of the Bashir regime, is the preferred strategy – but it must have limits. Silently acquiescing fully to political violence and oppression not only protects those in power from the range of influences of American foreign policy and that of our allies, it also undercuts the courageous efforts of reformers within these countries who are daily fighting for change.
This morning though we must give the administration some deserved credit. Yesterday, it sharply rebuked Egypt’s decision to extend yet again the “emergency law” that grants its security apparatus the right to arrest people without charge, detain prisoners indefinitely, limit freedom of expression and assembly, and maintain a special security court. From the State Department:
Today, the Government of Egypt announced that it is extending the State of Emergency for an additional two years. This extension is regrettable given the pledge made by the government to the Egyptian people in 2005. A broad range of Egyptian voices, including Egypt’s National Council on Human Rights, have called for the elimination of the State of Emergency…We are confident that Egypt can draft and adopt effective counterterrorism legislation that conforms to international standards for civil liberties and due process. And the United States urges Egypt to complete this legislation on an urgent basis and to rescind the State of Emergency within the coming months.
Egypt, as Packer writes, represents an “important test” for the administration’s policy of engagement. The fact that Obama delivered his famous speech to the Muslim world in Cairo makes it symbolic as well. Therefore, let’s applaud the administration for being on the right side of this issue – and then immediately expect even more. As the elections in Egypt near this summer and next year, it will only become more difficult to stand up for basic political and human rights while maintaining appropriate influence with the regime whereby we can convince it to enact gradual, but real change for its people.
no comment until now