Tag: us

US “working closely” with India to resolve political crisis

The US has said it is “working closely with India” to resolve the political crisis in the Maldives.

“Our understanding is that we are pretty well in lockstep with India in terms of calling for unity and calling for a democratic, peaceful path forward,” said State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland.

“We welcome the efforts that all sides appear to be making to find a peaceful way forward,” she said.

“We also welcome the ongoing dialogue among Maldivians regarding the role of a unity government in addressing these issues and possibly creating the conditions for early elections. We’re continuing to urge all parties to work together to find a way through this,” she added.

Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake recently travelled to the Maldives to assess the situation.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Thousands rally as diplomats meet with press

United States’ Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake has encouraged the coalition of “former opposition” political parties affiliated with the new government to “work with all parties to reform and improve the capacity of the judiciary, the police and the election commission to ensure the election can be held in an orderly and peaceful manner.”

Large crowds gathered at MDP rally

Meeting the press this afternoon in the National Art Gallery, Blake said that “a number of good ideas” were being explored to “try and bring former President Mohamed Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) into the national unity government.”

Blake’s suggestion follows that of new President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan, who said on Saturday morning that he hoped some cabinet posts would be taken by the MDP: “I hope MDP will be part of my cabinet, and I will keep posts vacant for them.”

Nasheed’s supporters have criticised the legitimacy of Dr Waheed’s government and have refused to participate in his proposed ‘national unity’ government.

Challenged by a foreign journalist as to the legality of the transition, Blake said that US commitment was to the new government of the Maldives.

““The United states remains committed to working with all Maldivian people to ensure democratic and prosperous future for this important friend of the United States,” Blake said.

However he added said that there were “some questions regarding the transfer of power” and suggested that some sort of independent Maldivian commission be formed to investigate the issue, before arriving at conclusions.

As per the constitution, the Vice President is next in line for the presidency and the speaker of the parliament “has already said that the transfer of the power was constitutional.”

“Some people say it was a coup, some people say it was a peaceful and constitutional transfer of. power. That not for the US to decide, that is for Maldivians,” Blake said.

He did express concern over the “anti-semetic commentary” and strongly condemned it, and also praised Nasheed’s government “for working to improve [the country’s] relationship with Israel and show themselves as a modern and progressive government.”

Nasheed and his party supporters gathered in their thousands at the Artificial Beach in Male’, where they were shown a chronology of videos leading up the change of government. Crowd control police or military were nowhere to be seen, and the crowd eventually dispersed peacefully.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Is privatization only happening in the Maldives?

Privatization is one of the economic policies of modern governments, be it large or small, democratic or authoritarian, capitalist or socialist. Privatization is a global phenomenon. The trend towards privatization can be traced back to the 1970’s and 1980’s.

Firstly, it was President Jimmy Carter who in the year 1976 said American Administration ‘lacked administrative skills’ for the performance of daily work, which shook entire public administration and changed its traditional performance. This led to  the emergence of new approach in the discipline of Public Administration called ‘New Public Management’ (NPM) perspective.  The successor of Jimmy Carter was Ronald Reagan, who was convinced that the administration must undergo changes to tackle new problems. America was facing huge budget deficits and inefficiency, which Reagan accused as the result of the misallocation and mismanagement of public funds.
The idea which promoted privatization was that government is not the solution to the problem, but rather it is the problem to the solution.
In England Margaret Thatcher, then prime minister, was faced with similar situations. The public spending was increasing, as productivity and efficiency of public bodies were in decline. This also added fuel to the growing idea of free markets, deregulation and privatization. The government which governed least, or the ‘rolling back of the state’, was the idea behind privatization.

What about communist and socialist states?
For a long time China was regarded as an ‘inward looking’ and isolationist country. During the revolution in 1949 chairman Mao was much inspired by the writings of Marx and Lenin which led to establishment of the communist state. However in the year 1979 Chinese leadership felt it must compete in international trade to help boost their economy. Today China is regarded as the world’s second largest economy, with growth rates around 10% per year.

With the fall of the Berlin wall in the year 1991 the Soviet Union disintegrated. This marked the end of the rivalry between communist Russia and Capitalist America, and was regarded as a triumph for democracy and capitalism. This made the whole world believe that democratic states are the best states and capitalism is the best economic policy. To perpetuate the idea of capitalism and democracy which favored privatization, international institutions such as IMF, World Bank and WTO promoted ‘Washington Consensus’ in the interest of the West.

It is also interesting to note that the so-called socialist state of Cuba, under the leadership of Raul Castro, talked in favor of privatization. Cuba planned to layoff half a million state workers stating that too many workers with low productivity burdens the budget.

The Indian case
Indhira Gandhi was the champion of Indian socialism during the 1960’s. The word ‘socialist’ was added into the Indian constitution to direct its policies towards socialism. The nationalization of 14 Indian banks and its coal industry came when socialism in India was at its peak. However India entered into a debt trap by the end of 1990’s because of excessive wasteful public expenditures and inefficiency in the public sector. Therefore India adopted the new economic policy Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization (LPG) in the year 1991 under the leadership of the then finance minister Manmohan Singh.  Today India is regarded as one of the major emerging economies of the world with the growth rate of around 8% per year.

The Maldives
Privatization of the Maldivian economy has been a hot topic since 2008, with the arrival of the first popularly elected government under the leadership of Mohamed Nasheed. Since this government came into power one of its economic policies has been privatizing the economy. The sale of Male’ International Airport to Indian company GMR was one of the very first steps in this direction. As Maldives tries to expand its tourism sector the need for a modernized airport and efficient management arises to compete with its counterparts, such as neighboring Sri Lanka. The airport was not developing enough to compete and give decent service to the tourists. The airport remained as it was without a major improvement in infrastructure.

In the upcoming year the current government has decided to privatize 5 more companies. This includes STELCO, Maldives Post Limited, Island Aviation, Housing Development Corporation and Maldives In-Flight Catering. However the privatization of these 5 companies was rejected by the parliament, which stated that it violates Maldivian financial laws.

There were plenty of objections to privatization in England and the US during 1980’s, protests in India during the 1990’s and also in Maldives since 2009 against the idea of privatization. I acknowledge the protestors also have points to prove, such as the private sector‘s objective to maximize its profit at any cost and the widening of income disparities because of private sector.  I shall talk about the process and defects of privatization in another occasion.

Therefore the idea of privatization is a global phenomenon and is happening in most countries in the world. It is happening because of inefficiency, delay, corruption, red tapism and nepotism in the public sector, in the interest of delivering results the people expect.

What comes to mind is a couplet written by English poet Alexander Pope. He wrote, “For forms of government let fools contest; whatever is best administered is best.” Therefore it is very clear that whether it be a democratic, authoritarian, socialist or communist government, at the end of the day if that government is not able to administer and live up to its promises, then that government will lose popularity.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“I wanted to get rid of Gayoom at any cost”: Abdulla Luthufee’s Sri Lankan interview

Sri Lankan newspaper The Island has published a two-part interview with Abdulla Luthufee, a Maldivian businessman once sentenced to death for his role in the 1988 coup attempt.

“I wanted to get rid of [former President Maumoon Abdul] Gayoom at any cost. As the election process in my country never gave a reasonable opportunity to the opposition, I felt an outside force should be used to oust Gayoom,” The Island reported Luthufee as saying, on the 23rd anniversary of the November 3 coup attempt.

“Due to my close association with the then PLOTE (People’s Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam) leader Uma Maheswaran, I negotiated for the deployment of an 80-member strong PLOTE raiding party. In fact, we discussed the sea-borne raid since 1987 after the deployment of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in the Northern and Eastern Provinces of Sri Lanka in line with the July 1987 Indo-Lanka peace accord.”

Eighty Tamil mercenaries land on Male’ on November 3, 1988, and quickly took over the airport. However they were caught in a shoot out with military forces in Male’ and were forced to retreat after India deployed 1600 paratroopers to the Maldives on Gayoom’s request.

“Luthufee and another Maldivian had joined a heavily-armed PLOTE contingent on the night of October 29, 1988 on the Mollikulam beach,” writes Sri Lankan journalist Shamindra Ferdinando.

“They left the north-western shores at about 8.30am in two 40-foot long fishing trawlers. Luthufee had the support of several key persons in the Maldivian military, ex-Major Abbas Ibrahim, ex-Corporal Abdulla Shahid and Umaru Jamaal. The trawlers reached Male at 4:30am on November 3, 1988, and having secured the beach without a fight, the group divided into over half a dozen groups and moved to specific targets, including the army barracks, the President’s house and the Deputy Defence Minister’s residence,” Ferdinando writes.

Despite Luthufee’s professed confidence that the coup would be bloodless, nineteen were killed in heavy fighting after the plan fell apart when the PLOTE contingent tasked with taking over the army barracks opened fire on the base rather than entering through a lightly-guarded entry point.

“Had they entered the barracks, the majority [inside] would have thrown their weight behind us. We lost the group leader, and thereby the initiative,” Ferdinando reported Luthufee as saying.

“I didn’t want to kill anyone. I believed those loyal to Gayoom would give up quickly. They wouldn’t have been a match for the experienced PLOTE cadres. Unfortunately, due to hasty action on the part of the group tasked with seizing the army barracks, we gave the game away.”

Further support from rebels already in Male’ failed to materialise, “and the absence of their support made us vulnerable and automatically strengthened Gayoom’s position. But still we could have achieved our military objectives if those assigned to seize Gayoom had succeeded.”

Gayoom eluded the PLOTE team sent to his residence, and was able to contact the Maldivian ambassador in Colombo, Ahmad Abdulla “and Ali Manisha, his Singapore-based advisor.”

The-then Sri Lankan government offered elite troops to quell the coup attempt. Gayoom also reportedly requested assistance from both the UK and US governments.

Then US State Department spokesman Charles Redman told US media at the time that the Maldivian government had asked for assistance in putting down the coup attempt, prompting it to establish a working group to monitor the events.

“The United States and India want to protect the interests of the Maldives government because this is an elected government subject to attack and it has requested assistance,” Redman said at the time.

However eventually it was India that was able to quickly deploy paratroopers and force the rebels to flee.

“We didn’t have a way to escape as we allowed the trawlers to leave as we were confident of seizing control. There was total chaos,” Luthufee told The Island.

“During gun battles we lost two PLOTE personnel, while several received gunshot injuries. We retreated towards the Male’ harbour as Indian paratroopers landed in the capital. We didn’t have any other option other than to seize the Maldivian vessel, MV Progress Light. We got away at about 11am and left the bodies of two PLOTE cadres killed in action. Three PLOTE personnel trying to get away in a rubber dingy were captured.”

The retreating PLOTE group took a small group of hostages, including serving Transport Minister Ahmed Mujuthaba and his wife, and attempted to flee towards Java in Indonesia via waters between India and Sri Lanka.

“We believed the presence of hostages, particularly a minister and his wife, gave us an advantage over those pursuing us,” Luthufee told The Island. “An Indian military helicopter maintained constant surveillance, while we proceeded towards our target. But on the following day at about 4:30pm our radar picked up two objects, and we knew the Indian navy was on its way to intercept us. One of the vessels, subsequently identified as INS Gadavari fired at our ship, though it didn’t cause any serious damage. We kept on course. They contacted us over the ship’s radio and demanded the immediate surrender or face the consequences. A five-member Maldivian defence team, including Major Adam Saheer, was on the Indian warship.”

The pursuing vessel demanded that the fleeing rebels set course for either an Indian or Maldivian port.

“We refused to give in. We demanded mid-sea negotiations to settle the dispute. The Indians started firing at our ship at the behest of the Maldivians onboard their vessel. The PLOTE commander got in touch with their headquarters in Sri Lanka and sought instructions. They received instructions to execute one hostage and throw his body to the sea. In spite of the Maldivian minister in captivity making a desperate bid to avoid the execution of one of the hostages, the PLOTE took one person to the deck and shot him. They threw the body [overboard] and the Indians recovered it. The remaining hostages volunteered to come on the main deck in a bid to discourage the Indians from firing at us. But the Maldivians onboard the Indian warship wanted all of us killed,” Luthufee claimed.

INS Gadavari gave the rebels three hours to surrender unconditionally “or face the consequences.”

“We didn’t stop but proceeded towards Sri Lankan waters. We were about 30 nautical miles away from our position when the Indians opened up with big guns. The minister was among the persons hit during the initial fire. We didn’t fire back as Indian ships were out of the range of our guns. I directed the Filipino engineer to stop the engine. As I was watching him killing the engine, he was hit. We were ordered to jump into the sea and were rescued by the Indians immediately after we raised a white flag.”

Luthufee told The Island he was blindfolded and locked in a toilet on board the Indian vessel as the warships turned back towards Male’, leaving the MV Progress Light to sink behind them.

Speaking to Minivan News in November 2010, South Asian security expert Professor Stephen Cohen recalled his time at the US State Department and noted US involvement in tracking suspected players in the failed 1988 coup.

“It’s a little known fact,” he said. “A passing American vessel transiting in the area picked up the escaping ship and pointed [the pursuers] towards it. I had only just left the State Department but I heard about it. It was a pivotal moment in the country’s history, and its purpose was never quite clear.”
The INS Gadavari reached Male’ to a waiting crowd of Indian journalists a senior military officials, Luthufee recalls, and their presence “prevented Gayoom loyalists from harming us.”

According to The Island’s story, Luthufee was first taken before Gayoom and then to another island, where he was interrogated by Indian intelligence.

“I had an opportunity to tell Indian intelligence what was going on in my country. I have no doubt the Indians realized that the vast majority of people hated Gayoom and his cronies. I won the confidence of the Indians and I have no doubt those in charge of handling the Maldivian issue quickly recognized the need for reforms. Gayoom resented the Indian attitude and moved me to another prison on a different island, where I was held for 11 months,” Luthufee was reported as saying.

Once the Indian witnesses had departed he alleged he was tortured and humiliated in custody. He along with Ex-Major Abbas Ibrahim, ex-Corporal Abdulla Shahid, Ahmed Nasir and 12 captured Tamils received the death penalty, while three others received prison terms: Umaru Jamaal Sikka, Ahmed Ismail Maniku, and Mohamed Naeem.

“Under Gayoom the Maldivian judiciary was nothing but a farce. It was a tool in the hands of Gayoom and his cronies, who used and abused Maldivian law to pursue their agenda. They sought to consolidate their power at the expense of the freedom of the ordinary Maldivians, the vast majority of whom lived a simple life,” Luthufee was reported as saying.

Luthufee credited his survival to the intervention of Indian head of state Rajiv Gandhi, who reportedly summoned Gayoom to New Delhi on September 16, 1989, less than a month after the death sentences were passed, and demanded that they be repealed .

“All of us are grateful to those Indian intelligence officers for briefing the Indian political leadership regarding the Maldivian political crisis. Thanks to them, Gayoom couldn’t deceive the Indian leader,” Luthufee told The Island.

“Gayoom flew back to Male on September 17, 1989. Obviously, he was a dejected man. He declared that he didn’t want to shed anymore blood in Male and commuted capital punishment imposed on us to life imprisonment. We were moved to special cells, which were surrounded by a steel fence at the same facility where we were held. Gayoom’s men enjoyed torturing prisoners. They were rewarded by their masters for being beastly to their fellow countrymen.

Luthufee was reported in The Island as expressing no regret for his role in the failed coup.

“Even now, Gayoom is not happy being an ordinary Maldivian. The ousted leader wanted power at any cost and was trying to undermine the present leader. Maldivians should be cautious of those seeking to play politics at their expense.”

Read the article as it originally appeared in The Island:

Part one (English)
Part two (English)

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: US needs to strengthen ties with South Asia

Last week, the United States and India concluded the fourth strategic dialogue on Asia-Pacific regional affairs, illustrating the importance that Washington places on its relationship with New Delhi. India’s surging economy has deepened interest among US policymakers eager to advance bilateral ties with a large country in the region that shares a democratic identity. Factors contributing to this shift include China’s ascent as an economic and strategic power and the possibility that the US military may favor an offshore strategy in the future.

However, India should not be the sole hope on which US security strategy rests in South Asia. US relations with this new strategic partner are guaranteed to experience bumps, as evidenced by the recent rejection of US firms in the Indian Air Force’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition. Moreover, India has long maintained a strong non-aligned foreign policy tradition, enforced by policymakers who face continual domestic political pressures not to appear too pro-American. This is not to say that the US-India strategic partnership appears ready to fail. Still, one possible scenario could find relations with India not progressing as quickly as desired, while relations with Pakistan and Afghanistan remain in tatters, leaving minimal US relations with other South Asian states. Even if this scenario does not occur, the United States cannot afford to ignore the need to forge deeper strategic relationships with the smaller countries in the region.

Relations with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Nepal hold many unexplored possibilities and reasons for expansion.

First, as Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, Robert Blake pointed out in Congressional testimony earlier this year, all these countries are governed by democratically elected leaders. As with the “shared values” discourse supporting greater relations with democratic India, the United States has a similar foundation for fostering ties with these nations.

Second, three of these countries are maritime states. Given the importance of securing Indian Ocean sea lanes, through which 50 percent of the world’s container traffic and 70 percent of the world’s crude and oil products transit, it is in US interests to promote maritime security cooperation among South Asian countries and deepen defense ties with these navies as a form of burden-sharing in the Indian Ocean.

Further, smaller countries provide better test cases for realizing new strategic visions and more permissive environments in which to experiment than do the larger states of India and Pakistan, where constraints are omnipresent and the stakes are much higher. In the Harvard International Review, Doug Lieb has discussed the importance of analyzing international relations in “marginal states” that are often overlooked in a structural realist worldview that privileges the study of large countries. The smaller countries of South Asia could be easy wins for the United States, especially in the face of increasing Chinese dealings there.

US ties are probably the strongest with Bangladesh, a Muslim-majority and democratic nation. Given the country’s vulnerability to nontraditional security threats such as cyclones and earthquakes, the Bangladeshi military would appreciate increased help with weather forecasting technologies and cooperation on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief issues. Before the next environmentally related cataclysm occurs, the United States should further develop security relations with Bangladesh.

The Maldives, like Bangladesh, is a relatively pro-American Muslim democracy. It faces the challenge of countering Somali pirates and Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists from Pakistan seeking harbor on any one of its 26 atolls. The Maldives National Defense Forces would likely not be equipped to handle a potential Mumbai-style attack on its tourism industry and could benefit from US counter-terrorism assistance.

US relations with Sri Lanka have been strained due to charges of human rights violations during its defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2009. Yet as Sri Lanka’s economic and diplomatic ties with China grow, the United States must try not to alienate Sri Lanka given its strategic location in the Indian Ocean. In fact, the US Navy could benefit from exchanges with the Sri Lankan military. For example, learning the swarm attack tactics that were employed during the country’s civil war could help the United States prepare for the threat it may face from Iran in the Strait of Hormuz. In addition, the Sri Lankan navy could benefit from US assistance in transitioning its patrols from the north to the south, where roughly 300 ships pass the tip of the island daily.

Regarding Nepal as it draws down its forces and integrates Maoist rebels into the military as part of its peace process, US security cooperation and expertise could be critical in this operation.

Finally, judicial capacity-building would be another low-cost way to advance US ties with all these countries.

By comparison, China has been strengthening its ties to South Asian countries, especially in the form of infrastructure development. Chinese port construction in Chittagong, Bangladesh; Hambantota, Sri Lanka; Gwadar, Pakistan; and Kyaukpyu, Burma have all been cited as prominent examples of a supposed “string of pearls” that China may be seeking to build in an area outside its traditional sphere of influence. Regardless of actual Chinese intentions in South Asia, Indian analysts have voiced concern about being “encircled” by China’s economic, military, and diplomatic inroads with these countries, including Nepal.

In recognition of the growing challenges South Asia presents to the United States, experts are beginning to discuss ways of reorganizing the US government’s bureaucracy to address the region’s new realities. Bruce Riedel and Stephen Cohen have proposed the creation of a “South Asia Command” (SACOM) to overcome the seam issues posed by Pacific Command (PACOM) and Central Command (CENTCOM) separating India and Pakistan in US defense policy. Others have suggested an Indian Ocean Region Command (IORCOM). With such talk and broader discussions about a realignment of US force posture in Asia, now is the time to also examine relations with the smaller countries in South Asia and the prospects for building partner capacities in the region.

As the United States winds down its commitment in Afghanistan, while confronting unbounded uncertainty in its relationship with Pakistan, it can look to the promise of partnership with India only to a certain extent. If disappointments such as the MMRCA rejection happen too often, or if India tests nuclear weapons again and Washington re-imposes sanctions, the United States would be left without strong security partners in the region. For too long, the United States has ignored the potential benefits of fostering relations with the smaller countries in South Asia. Prospects for advancing US security ties with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Nepal deserve serious examination.

Nilanthi Samaranayake is an analyst in the Strategic Studies division at the Center for Naval Analyses in Alexandria, Virginia.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Government nominates, shuffles ambassadors

The President’s Defence Advisor, Amin Faisal, has been nominated for the post of Maldives Ambassador to India, Haveeru reports. Faisal was nominated to replace current Ambassador to India Abdul Aziz Yousuf.

Bangladeshi Ambassador Ahmed Sareer was also nominated as the Maldives’ Ambassador to the US, while the Ambassador to Singapore, Mohamed Haleel, was nominated for the Maldives’ ambassador post in Bangladesh.

Deputy Ambassador to Singapore Ibrahim ‘Mody’ Didi has been promoted to the ambassador post in Singapore. Ahmed Rasheed of Karankaage/Shaviyani atoll Maaugoodhoo was nominated as the Maldives Ambassador to United Arab Emirates (UAE).

A complete list of nominations was sent to the parliamentary National Security Committee today, Haveeru News reports.


Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MNDF officers attend air rally in Sri Lanka

Officers from the Air Wing of the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) participated in the 2011 Pacific Air Rally this week in Colombo. The event is held every two years, but this is the first time it has been held in Sri Lanka, Haveeru reports.

The rally, hosted by the Pacific Air Command of the US Air Force and the Sri Lanka Air Force, took place at the Ratmalana and Ampara Air Force bases between August 22 and 26.

MNDF forces participated in the Command Post Exercise, which focused on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief coordination between participating countries.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: They don’t hate your freedoms

In his landmark speech at Cairo University in June 2009, US President Barack Obama announced that “No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other”.

It was an apparent departure from the aggressive foreign policy of his predecessor, George W Bush, who was an advocate of revolutionary change in the Middle East, having stated in a 2005 speech that the United States would no longer “tolerate oppression for the sake of stability”.

Nevertheless, American commitment to its much-touted democratic values has always been a grey area – and the question has once again come to the fore in the wake of the ongoing Egyptian uprising.

The embattled current Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak, reigned for over 30 years – supported and funded by the United States.

Egypt is the second largest recipient of US aid after Israel – receiving up to $2 billion every year in economic and military aid; the tear-gas canisters thrown at protestors on the streets of Cairo have ‘Made in USA’ written on them.

The US continued to support the recently-ousted Tunisian president Ben Ali, despite recently leaked cables revealing that they were fully aware of the debauchery and corruption that marked his 23 year old regime.

The leaked cables mentioned a lavish 12 course dinner for the American ambassador at the beachfront home of Ben Ali’s son-in-law where, reportedly, there were “ancient artefacts, Roman columns, frescoes and a lion’s head from which water pours into the pool.”

The dessert – ice cream and frozen yoghurt – was specially flown in from Saint Tropez.

The United States also turned a blind eye when the winners of the Algerian elections were arrested, and a State of Emergency was imposed in Algeria in the early 1990s that would last nearly two decades.

In the past, the US has embraced dictatorships in Chile, Guatemala, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq – and continues to support despotic regimes in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and several tiny Gulf sheikhdoms – all apparently in the best interests of its national security.

America’s myopic vision of its ‘national interests’, however, has often come back to haunt them.

The Islamic revolution of 1979 that deposed the US-backed Shah of Iran, installed in its place a powerful, hostile theocracy that has refused to budge, and continues to ruthlessly crackdown on pro-democratic activists on the streets of Tehran.

The ‘Death to America’ chant that originated during this revolution continues to be the catchphrase of militant Islamist groups decades later.

It cost the US a disastrous war that continues to bleed their economy to oust former ally Saddam Hussein and today, CIA-trained Osama Bin Laden is the most wanted man in America.

Nevertheless, the US continues to pursue policies that risk their long term security in favour of short term political goals.

The US reactions to the uprisings in Iran and Egypt are a study in contrast; in 2009, they openly supported the pro-democracy ‘Green movement’ in Iran, since it was perceived to be in their immediate self-interests.

It was, however, only when the true magnitude of the Egyptian uprising became obvious that the less than enthusiastic US response changed to more vocal support.

Even more contentious is the manner in which the United States has responded to the democratic verdict of Arab people, on the rare occasions where they have exercised their democratic rights.

For instance, President George W Bush, who had emphatically promoted democracy as a part of his ‘freedom agenda’, refused to deal with Hamas despite their landslide victory in the 2006 elections in the West Bank that were unanimously declared by international observers as being free and fair.

Similarly, Hezbollah’s electoral victory in Lebanon was met with hostility.

Separate polls conducted by Zogby International and BBC reveal that even as the US pours billions in aid to Middle Eastern dictatorships, it has earned very little sympathy in return.

In a 2002 survey, 76 percent of Egyptians expressed disapproval of USA – two years later the number had jumped to 98 percent. In Saudi Arabia, another close US ally, the disapproval ratings have increased from 87 percent in 2002 to 94 percent in 2004.

Interestingly, the Pew Forum notes that there is general public admiration for American freedoms and prosperity though there was strong resentment at US foreign policy that deprived them of political freedoms.

Given this, the US should resist attempts to keep its political opponents such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt out of the democratic process – as it has only led to disillusionment with the democratic system in the past.

The paranoia of Islamist regimes shouldn’t prevent the US from accepting the rights of people to choose their own leaders, and shape their own destiny.

Indeed, in a democracy, even Islamist parties have to work hard to retain their mandate, as evidenced by Hezbollah’s defeat in the 2009 elections, and the victory of a US backed group.

The Arab uprisings have proven that the US must reconsider its policy of funding strong armed despots to suppress Islamist parties – as even the mightiest dictators cannot survive the wrath of an oppressed public.

Instead, America must address the root causes of the widely prevalent anti-American sentiment, not the least of which is their unflinching support of Israel despite their perceived military excesses, which are deeply unpopular in the Arab world.

The Israeli attack of an aid flotilla, the operation in Gaza, the Lebanon war, etc have all attracted condemnation from International Human Rights groups, but the American government missed the opportunity to get behind Arab outrage in these cases.

It continues to elude US policy makers that if only they would adopt a more even-handed approach towards the Israel-Palestine conflict, the entire Arab world would embrace America.

The present bitterness towards American policies is being exploited by Islamist parties in countries ranging from Iran to Pakistan to the Maldives to hide their own short comings and grab power.

America remains a very important and essential player that continues to be the embodiment of freedom and achievement. Whether it is their vibrant democracy, strong constitutional rights, scientific and technological achievements, or free enterprise and innovation, America provides a strong cultural leadership and acts as a guiding light for countries around the world.

Indeed, the recent Wikileaks cables revealed that popular American television sitcoms had a far greater impact in curbing extremism and promoting a cultural understanding of Western values in Saudi Arabia, than the millions of dollars spent on US propaganda in the region.

Perhaps it would be in America’s – and the world’s – best interests to answer the Arabs’ cry for dignity and freedom, and take a principled stance to help them usher in an era of political freedom and economic opportunity.

As President Obama said in his State of the Union speech in 2011, America is the first nation founded on an idea – an idea that everyone deserves the chance to shape one’s own destiny.

If the US wants to win the battle for hearts and minds of the Arabs, it must promote that ideal sincerely for all people, and acknowledge that freedom of speech and democratic representation are not just American values, but universal human rights.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Democratic Maldives an important global symbol: US State Department

The Maldives is a powerful symbol of a tolerant and democratic Muslim society, US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg said yesterday during a visit to the country.

Steinberg was responding to a question regarding the extensive US interest in a such a small and isolated island nation in the middle of the Indian Ocean – an interest apparently not extended to nearby countries such as the Seychelles.

“We have very practical interests in common, such as dealing with the challenges of climate change and piracy – security in this region is of enormous importance to us,” Steinberg said, in likely reference to US military interests in Diego Garcia, south of the Maldives.

However as importantly, Steinberg said, the Maldives’ embrace of democracy showed that convictions such as democracy and freedom of expression “are universal values that transcend culture, history and religion.”

“The Maldives comes from very different traditions and history, but people here aspire to the same goals that people around the world aspire to. That’s a powerful symbol, and shows that these are not just American ideals or Western ideals, but universal ideals,” he said.

Such a symbol, he explained, was of great value to the State Department.

“As I travel around the world and see the different ways in which different societies and cultures interpret democracy and human expression, I can point to the Maldives as an example – that’s as important as the practical cooperation.”

The Maldives, he explained, represented an emerging model for “a tolerant and democratic Muslim society”, and “could have enormous influence in the thinking of countries around the world, as you try to build this new model.”

Steinberg expressed admiration for the “remarkable efforts” on the international stage “for such a small country at the early stages of economic and political development.”

The upcoming local council elections, he said, we an “important step” in building that democracy, “and we have confidence that they will be calm and respectful.

Speaking to press assembled at the American Centre in the National Library, Steinberg noted that freedom of expression was “the oxygen of democracy.”

Challenged as to whether this moral position contradicted the US government’s pursuit of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who published hundreds of thousands of State Department diplomatic exchanges in a call for greater political transparency, Steinberg replied that the State Department “has a legitimate interest in protecting the confidentiality of some of the conversations we have, not the least of which [concern] human rights when we engage with people who are persecuted.”

“We place high emphasis civil society – unlike in the Maldives where I can meet freely with civil society, there are other far more repressive countries where we have to meet in confidence. People take great risk to meet with us and share their ideas. There is a responsibility to protect those confidences – there is an appropriate place for confidentiality in government but we also believe in the maximum openness that can be achieved. We have a strong commitment to freedom of information, and President Obama has worked hard to reduce our reliance on classified information. That’s very important to us.”

Concerning the State Department’s listing of the Maldives on its tier two watch-list for Human Trafficking last year, two weeks after the Maldives was given a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, Steinberg reiterated that “we recognise there are challenges, particularly labour trafficking and making sure people seeking economic opportunity are not exploited.

“This region, quite frankly, has particular challenges in dealing with forced labour and related issues on trafficking. What we are looking for is a road-map and a way forward. The watch-list is not intended to punish, but to motivate efforts to go forward.”

Specific areas raised with the Maldivian government by the senior US diplomat included the challenges of economic development, the need to strengthen education and build educational opportunities, as well as the challenges of confronting growing extremism “and how we can help promote tolerance in the Maldives.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)