A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum

The Forum for the Future was supposed to be an instrument of George W. Bush's Middle East freedom agenda. Seven years later, it embodies everything that was wrong with it -- and the Arab street is taking matters into its own hands.

BY JAMES TRAUB | JANUARY 14, 2011

Senior Western and Arab diplomats as well as leaders of civil society gathered this week at the seventh annual Forum for the Future in Doha. In the background was the chaos and violence provoked by the incompetence and paralysis of Arab regimes: riots in Tunisia and Algeria, the killing of Christians in Egypt, the collapse of the government in Lebanon. You will thus be relieved to learn that the draft recommendations for action by the forum call for the support for "science, technology and innovation" and "corporate social responsibility," as well as the establishment of "youth exchange programs" and a "Gender Institute." That ought to calm the waters.

The Forum for the Future is one of the remnants of U.S. President George W. Bush's campaign to promote democracy in the Middle East that the Barack Obama administration, despite initial skepticism, has embraced. Scott Carpenter, deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs during Bush's first term, says that as they contemplated how to press for change in the region, he and his colleagues looked back to the model of the Helsinki process in the Cold War, in which the Soviet Union reluctantly accepted a series of human rights principles in exchange for commitments from the West on technology transfers and the like. The premise was that you could work with regimes, rather than simply confront them. "We wanted to have buy-in from the states to the degree that we could," Carpenter says. The Forum for the Future was launched in 2004 to bring together the governments of the G-8 countries, Arab regimes, and Arab civil society groups under a charter laying out principles on both modernization and democratic development. The NGOs would hold the states to their pledges as human rights activists had done with the Soviet Union.

It didn't work out that way. At the second meeting of the forum, in Bahrain in 2005, Bush administration officials tried to pass a declaration of principles, but Egypt and Tunisia, among others, objected to a passage welcoming all NGOs. They insisted that only officially registered groups -- i.e., tame ones -- could be included. The Bahrain declaration collapsed. Forum members did authorize the creation of the Foundation for the Future (someone apparently had a penchant for gee-whiz names) which is based in Amman and distributes grants to local NGOs, many of them genuinely worthy organizations doing difficult work on human rights and the rule of law. But the initial hope that these groups would hold Arab states accountable died in Bahrain as well. "The strategic purpose," Carpenter concedes, "hasn't been fulfilled."

Actually, it's worse than that. "The Arab foreign ministers," as one prominent figure in the democracy-promotion world said to me, "have learned from these meetings exactly how to thwart democracy, not how to help it." The sessions have taught local leaders the dangers of Western-supported and genuinely autonomous NGOs, and regimes across the Arab world have cracked down on them. Many human rights groups have been hounded out of existence; only the most reliably docile ones are permitted inside the forum's doors. At last year's event, in Marrakesh, the invited NGOs were actually locked out of the room until Western diplomats got them admitted. In advance of the current meeting in Doha, Bahey el-Din Hassan, head of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, criticized the forum as a "debating club" with no interest in democratization. When I called him in Cairo, Hassan said that he had been invited to Doha, but declined to go. Although the forum provides a useful setting for people like him to meet one another and sit down with, and even criticize, government officials, Hassan said that he would rather see it die than permit Arab leaders to continue using it to proclaim their commitment to democratic change. It is, he said, "a waste not only of time but of resources."

JOSEPH BARRAK/AFP/Getty Images

 

James Traub is a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and author of, most recently, The Freedom Agenda. "Terms of Engagement," his column for ForeignPolicy.com, runs weekly.

ITONLYSTANDSTOREASON

12:31 AM ET

January 15, 2011

Timing and Tone

Clinton's timing and tone suggest she is less worried about appeasing the critics in Washington than sending the appropriate message for the ears in the region. Given the riots, the rulers might be open to considering a path for controlled change.

 

WINSTON SMITH 9584

1:27 PM ET

January 15, 2011

Good article...insightful.

Any government which is a democracy will face pressure not to assist, enable, and legitimize other oppressive, autocratic governments...even if they are 'allies'. Our (the United States') foreign policy, a legacy of the post WWII world and the Cold War, needs major, major reform...it's no wonder why so many throughout the Middle East have a poor opinion of the U.S.'s foreign policy...we're supporting and propping up, through military, intelligence, and economic 'assistance', dictatorships which oppress their citizens...no American administration wants chaos, but this needs to end.
The 'Forum for the Future' is a farce, it's window-dressing on a terrible foreign policy...one more thing, the need to deal with terrorism can't be used as yet another in a long line of excuses as to why our foreign policy shouldn't significantly change and we shouldn't stop supporting oppressive Middle East dictatorships.

 

OLIVER CHETTLE

11:44 AM ET

January 17, 2011

This analysis is correct as

This analysis is correct as far as it goes, but it is not "comprehensive" because it ignores the two main causes of American hypocrisy: Zionism and oil. I don't know the author's background, so I can say whether this is out of blindness of cynicism, but the damage is the same either way.

America needs to do two specific things to support the modernisation of the Middle East: stop supporting Zionism, and invest in green energy. More broadly, it should back off, and stop getting involved with the regimes in the region. As long as Israel and Exxon remain more important to the American government than the well being of the Arab people, America's claims to be committed to reform will be treated with contempt, and rightly so.

 

MARTY MARTEL

9:40 AM ET

January 29, 2011

Change to what?

Mr. Traub recommends US to support ‘the change’ instead of ‘status quo’ in the middle east, but change to what?

All indications are there that if Mubarak’s regime was to collapse in Egypt, Islamic fundamentalists will most likely come to power because they have the largest non-government political organization there.

Democratic dispensation in Pakistan after Musharraf has exposed the true nature of Islamic fundamentalist character of Pakistan as witnessed by public outpouring of support for the killer of Punjab governor. And democratic government also has been subservient to Pakistani Army when it comes to supporting Taliban factions sheltered in Pakistan and killing US/NATO troops daily in Afghanistan since 2001.

Democratic elections in Palestinian territories brought radical Hamas to power.

Same scenario will repeat in Algeria if military rule was to crumble.