Iranian Agenda Syria’s Burden

By Ahmed al-Jarallah
This commentary was published in The Arab Times on 17/04/2011

Syria is standing at a crossroad in history not only due its dire need for reforms and its internal conditions, but also in terms of its relationship with the Arab and international communities. How will Syria liberate itself from being used as a tool for the implementation of the Iranian expansionist agenda? This has become a pressing issue. It is now a burden on the Syrian neck because most observers consider the country an obstacle to any Arab alliance in thwarting attempts of some international bodies to impose their own standards on the whole world.  

Ever since Damascus formed a strategic alliance with Tehran, it has ceased to be the pulsating heart of Arabism, as it was known in the mid-20th century. It has become a mere implementation tool for Iran. At every stage, it has always been with the other side. In Lebanon, it has been silent over the flagrant Iranian interference that thwarted efforts to build the nation for 20 years, allowing Hezbollah to kidnap all Lebanese and subject them to the Persian project.  

In Yemen, Damascus has ignored the massacre committed by the Houthis. In Gaza, it has allowed the Mullah regime to tear apart the Palestinians, leading to an unprecedented bloodbath. There was no protest whatsoever from Syria when Iran committed atrocious acts in Saudi Arabia. The oldest Arab capital did not express support for Bahrain during the implementation of the inordinate plan of the enemy. In Kuwait, the Iranian spy network was uncovered, but Damascus did not utter a word of support.  

Syria has transformed willfully into a front house garden for Iran in the region under the guise of resistance, confrontation and opposition to Israel. For 40 years, we have never heard a gun shot towards Golan and it has not been liberated by the Syria-Iran alliance. Syria has not allowed the Arab nations to solve the Palestinian crisis. It rather confronted the Palestinians to prevent the execution of peaceful resolutions. It has been calling for indirect talks with Israel not to liberate Golan, but to buy time for the Iranian nuclear project.  

It is really unfortunate that the heart of Arabism has started to pulsate for Persia. It now wants to pump the Persian blood into the veins of Arabism, and anyone who dares confront this project is attacked fiercely. Despite all these, the Arab wisdom remains committed to reclaiming Syria to put it back to its natural place.  

Syria has responded brutally. It has destroyed relationships up to the extent of disregarding norms. Damascus is facing a problem as its citizens continue to revolt against any supportive role in the Persian project. They have been trying to break the chain and remove the tapes placed on their mouths so they can shout out loud to demand for freedom.  

The Syrians who have rejected the plans and slogans of resistance before it started and stood against the reinforcement of war efforts to confront Israel and liberate Golan, know very well that Golan will be freed only through the concerted efforts of the Arabs. Liberation efforts will succeed if Syria stops being the subordinate of Iran, returns to the Arab motherly fold and regains its natural place. Syria must allow its people to stand up and make a firm request before it is too late.  

Syria can still accomplish internal reforms and dissociate itself from the Persian project. This is what the Syrians want and all Arabs as well. The people of Syria, who have been clamoring for freedom and an end to its subordination to Iran, know how to make future and historic decisions, far from the recommendations of a retarded ruffian regime whose only aim is to bring back the Persian Empire which has been forgotten for ages.    

This is the truth, no matter how harsh it may seem. We hope it will find a listening ear, though we know beforehand that tens of trumpeters will accuse us of working for Israel after reading this piece. This is the least of accusations that are like recordings on damaged CDs due to the excessive repetition.

Incommunicado: The State Of Tthe Gulf

 Mishaal Al Gergawi writes: Some governments do not make their positions clear on a set of issues fearing that developments might force them to reverse such positions
This commentary was published in The Gulf News on 17/04/2011

Nowadays, every time I read an article relating to the recent political developments in the Gulf I look for a government statement but rarely find one.

In these challenging times for Gulf states, a number of developments ranging from arrests of political activists in Gulf countries, the Iranian spy ring in Kuwait, the Omani government media blackout and the recent criticism the Saudi foreign minister received from fellow Saudis on social media over providing a very detailed interview to MSNBC's Tom Brokaw on the kingdom's future plans — demonstrate very clearly that GCC governments continue to be weak at communicating their positions to the public domain.

My suspicion is that the rationale behind this is to avoid feeding the issues at hand with more material that would in turn be debated and shared by local and foreign tweeters, bloggers, reporters, journalists and analysts.

This rationale is flawed since those commentators are commenting anyway. And in the absence of a clear public position a vacuum appears; one that can only be filled with a combination of speculation, rumours, exaggerations and fabrications.

A little over a year ago, I wrote an op-ed article titled ‘The world is run by those who show up'. The piece lamented Dubai's public media arms for failing to properly address the phenomena that was Dubai bashing.

In it I argued that the denial of such harsh criticism, which led to it being initially dismissed and eventually being viewed as purely motivated by personal grudges and metropolitan rivalries, allowed for those gross exaggerations to be taken at face value and were largely considered accurate reflections of the state of Dubai.

Official spokesperson

Like Dubai bashing, the regional unrest in the Gulf is varied in its polarising capacity. Most government media arms have dug their boots in and have become firmly entrenched in their positions. That their positions are correct is irrelevant. After all, how strong is a position that isn't communicated?

The Gulf countries continue to fail to recognise the value of having an official spokesperson that is both empowered and informed.

Of course this has a lot to do with GCC governments' hesitant tendency to clarify their positions on a set of issues for fear that further developments might force them to reverse such positions and charter new courses. This probably has a lot to do with the lack of an institutionalised public policy and the thorough research and scenario planning that would come with it. The view that this vague caginess strengthens their position is flawed. Most GCC governments believe that if an issue is ignored long enough it will be rescinded from societal memory. This was probably true in the cable and print media era but not in the current age of social activism and online discourse.

The fact that most government media arms are led by individuals who established their career in that previous era and, I suspect, outsource their twitter and facebook accounts to social media consultancy houses has a lot to do with this school of thought. For a region with at least two media free zones, three media conferences a year and a number of communication schools, we do a pretty bad job at communication.

In conclusion, I believe GCC governments urgently need the following:

•Set the record straight: There's a lot of negative speculation. A silent government is largely viewed as a guilty government and the worst quotes are the so and so did not respond to requests to comment on this story.

•Communicate the way forward: With respect to some countries, there is a sense that every day is taken as it comes and there is a lot of finger crossing. This only goes to increase concern about the way forward.

•Spokesperson: Appoint an official speaker who has the information (data, background information, etc) and is empowered to communicate it with the media. This allows for the governments to lead the conversation as opposed to continuously play catch up.

•Liberate the local media: There is so much that is miscommunicated by foreign media just because the local media can't discuss it at the level of granularity that the former can. This allows for the loss of much of the situation's nuances.

The Gulf, in my view, continues to face political, economic and social challenges of global relevance in the long term. While participating in the conversation is the least of our challenges and should be addressed immediately, it is as good a backdoor as we'll ever get into the complexity of those challenges. Otherwise, assumptions, insinuations and speculations will continue to dominate the public sphere; but such are the winds of our times and with them we must sail and prevail.

Mishaal Al Gergawi is an Emirati current affairs commentator.

Israel Perpetuating Its Occupation

By Musa Keilani

This commentary was published in The Jordan Times on 17/04/2011 

As the direct and indirect players involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continue to argue back and forth, Israel has been pressing ahead with its campaign to get rid of Palestinians from occupied Arab Jerusalem and change the geographic features of the city to suit its interests.

The Jordanian media have been raising the issue and calling for international action to prevent Israel from systematically violating international law, but while the issue remains under international attention, no one seems willing to take concrete action to challenge and foil the Israeli moves.

If only for technical purposes, the question that has to be raised is why Israel granted only “residence” permits to the Palestinians of Arab East Jerusalem although it declared that it was “annexing” the eastern half of the holy city after occupying it through military force in 1967.

Well, not that Israel could be expected to respect international law or the Geneva Conventions that prohibit the occupying power from changing the geographical or demographic features, or the cultural balance, of the land under its occupation. If anything, Israel has been engaged in a well-orchestrated effort to alter these features of the occupied territories since 1967.

The situation is even more ironic when we note that the suffering of the Jews was the reason for the Fourth Geneva Convention. A United Nations committee has observed that “the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 may be considered as the expression of the international community’s sense of revulsion at the treatment accorded to Jews who came under the Nazi regime during time of war and occupation and who were subjected to indignities, abuses and deprivations in gross denial of human rights”.

While Israel took advantage of this “positive” aspect of the international approach to Jews, it is not only denying the same benefits to the Palestinians under its occupation but also engaging in subjecting them to “indignities, abuses and deprivations in gross denial of human rights”.

The Israeli measures in Arab East Jerusalem clearly show that Israel is determined to hold on to the eastern part of the holy city, which it claims to be part of its “eternal and indivisible capital”. Israel clearly declared that it would not entertain any compromise over Arab East Jerusalem and it could be expected to maintain this position until one or another dramatic element is induced into the equation.

Latest figures indicate that Israel has expelled nearly 15,000 Palestinians from Arab East Jerusalem and is strengthening the eviction drive that is aimed at reducing the Arab population of the city while increasing the number of Jews by building more settlements there.

It is known that Arabs have a far higher population growth rate than Jews and Israel fears that the demographic features will act against its interests in a decade; hence its campaign to reduce the Arab population in areas that it is determined to keep in any future peace agreement with the Palestinians (not that there is any prospect for such an accord in the near future).

There are many laws and measures that Israel has devised to arbitrarily expel Arab Jerusalemites and to prevent the return of others who live abroad. These include the “absentee law”, which it uses not only to deny Arabs the right to live in Jerusalem but also to seize properties of Arabs in the occupied territories. The law “permits” Israel to strip Jerusalem Palestinians of their right to enter and live in the holy cityif they spend at least seven years abroad or acquire a foreign passport.

Israel would love to use such moves against its own Arab citizens, but is holding back because of fears of the political backlash the step would bring about.

One can easily imagine people like Avigdor Lieberman and others sigh in desperation because they are unable to realise their goal of an Arab-less Israel. To compensate, they opted to step up the campaign to evict as many Palestinians from Arab East Jerusalem as possible.

Another measure Israel has adopted in the demolition of Palestinian-owned buildings in Arab East Jerusalem, on the ground that they were constructed without permits, needed to be issued by the occupation authorities. Again, it is a measure that blatantly violates the Geneva Conventions which say that an occupying power should not build or demolish structures in the occupied land.

The increasing number of Palestinians being denied their right to enter and live in Arab East Jerusalem, the seizure and demolition of Palestinian property in the holy city and the stepped-up building of Jewish settlements there add a greater urgency to the need to arrive at a fair and just solution to the Palestinian problem.

Such prospect seems next to impossible under the geo-political considerations in the situation. 

The US, the key player in the peace process, is reported to have thwarted a European initiative to have the UN and the European Union, under the auspices of the Quartet of mediators, outline the basics of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. Obviously, the US acted upon the realisation that the European approach would complicate, rather than facilitate, the final outcome of any peace negotiations. 

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last week that President Barack Obama was to outline a new approach to the peace effort soon. One wonders what the new infusion in the effort could be, but the US should know that the Palestinians have sacrificed too much to accept anything less than full independence and statehood.

In the meantime, the Arabs, preoccupied as they are with the recent wave of unrest, should not let their attention shift away from the need to counter Israeli practices in the occupied territories.

It might not have an immediate effect on the facts on the ground, but the world should be continuously reminded of how Israel is trying to perpetuate its occupation of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim lands. The more time is wasted, the more assets Iran and other radicals gain in the region.

The Fall Of False Pragmatism

By Walid Choucair

This commentary was published in al-Hayat on 16/04/2011

 

The transformations and popular uprisings in the Arab world are leading to the end of the era of ideology, as some Arab thinkers are saying. However, they are also leading to the collapse of methods of political behavior and events that have become enduring aspects of Arab political life, after having held sway for decades over public opinion; these protests have done away with many notions and led to their re-evaluation.

With the retreat of the era of ideology that has dominated Arab political thought, other enduring notions have begun to replace what was planted by the tools of ideological analysis that dominated during the 20th century. In fact, there was an attempt by previous ideologies, which suffered defeats because of their failure at state-building, achieving development, distributing wealth and protecting national interests in the face of foreign threats, to adapt to the path of adopting pragmatism. But even this attempt has been unmasked, and is no longer able to protect the regimes that resorted to this policy of accommodation while retaining outdated ideologies. It appears that the pragmatism that was employed by rulers, which generated uprisings against them, was a false pragmatism. This is because it was a means to maintain their control over their countries after they moved away from the principles of these ideologies, which have come to constitute a wooden political discourse.

It became obvious that the pragmatism of some rulers was an attempt to meet the need for covering the transformation in their method of rule; they moved from being dictatorships that derived their continuity from a totalitarian theory of society, to dictatorships that engaged in a bit of economic openness whose benefits were restricted to a corrupt few. The pragmatism here was aimed at covering up for the deals and benefits, and the exercise of influence; it was a type of cover characterized by flexibility, an ability to negotiate, and an adaptation to modern concepts.

For oppressive regimes, pragmatism was a means to join lofty national and humanitarian principles with horrific means of oppression, whether through inducements, or the bloodiest possible intimidation.

In addition to the fall of false pragmatism, we have witnessed a collapse of the propaganda, used by rulers throughout their presence at the top. This rhetoric holds that their continuity is not only a domestic requirement to achieve broad ideological goals, but also an external need, or the stability of their countries’ relations with this outside world. The events of recent months have proven this external world is unable to protect these rulers. In fact, the outside world has been forced to adapt, despite itself, and contrary to its earlier calculations, to the will of people who are rising up against a situation created by the great powers. This situation came along with bargains that preserved the interests of these great powers, in exchange for guaranteeing the extension of legitimacy and the ability to survive to these regimes. Even if it wanted to, the outside world is no longer able to guarantee this continuity. In fact, the changes that are taking place in various countries over recent months have proven that the popular uprisings are not taking place because of the outside world; instead, they represent the accumulation of a domestic awareness, and the breaking of the barrier of fear of oppression, going so far as to see people face bullets with their chests. There has been a growing, radical awareness of the need for change.

The terror-causing religious fanaticism has also collapsed, without this meaning that this phenomenon has disappeared. There are extremist religious currents and currents that seek to merge religion and politics. However, the popular uprisings have demonstrated the failure of the model of extremism that leads to terror in treating society’s problems, and this has allowed the growth of an Islamist current that raises slogans bringing it closer to the principle of the separation of religion and the state. This has required a re-evaluation by even traditional Islamist currents, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, of their tactics and policies, in comparison with the Turkish model. The Turks have begun to accommodate themselves to streamlined economic liberalism, and this leads to their harmony with a bit of political liberalism. The “fuel” of the youth revolutions in all of the countries that have experienced popular action, has not come from these religious currents. Instead, it has appeared thanks to the situation of poverty, marginalization, ignorance, oppression and injustice, in all their forms. The notion that “religious extremism is an alternative to the existing regimes” no longer dominates Arab thinking, which is fearful of change. If this indicates anything, it is that democratic change is not coming from the Western experience, and is thus not the monopoly of hard-line groups, or of religious fanaticism.

The fall of many notions should convince many rulers that they should not use outdated methods and intellectual tools that justify oppression, because they are no longer viable, except to raise the level of popular mobilization to confront them.

Fears For The Middle East's Christians In The Wake Of The Arab Spring

The revolutions in the Arab world may further weaken Christianity's presence in the region

By Gerald Butt

This commentary was published in The Guardian on 16/04/2011 

The Arab world is turning over a new page at last. Not since Britain and France created nation states in the Middle East at the end of the first world war has the region experienced such an upheaval. It is still early to say what will be drawn on that blank page in terms of the shape and character of political systems. But as numerous groups jostle to form parties to contest elections, there are signs that the Middle East's tiny and dwindling Christian community will not be among the beneficiaries. Egypt is a key country to watch as it sweeps away the legacy 0f the Hosni Mubarak era, characterised by suppression of any group that challenged the dominance of the ruling party. With the president gone, the shackles are off. Among those exploiting this freedom are Egypt's fundamentalist Islamic groups – the Muslim Brotherhood, Gama'a al-Islamiya and others. All stress, as they form political parties, that they support the idea of a civil, rather than an Islamic, state. 

In the past, Gama'a al-Islamiya carried out acts of terrorism – including killing 58 foreign tourists at Luxor in 1997 – as part of its campaign to establish Islamic rule in Egypt. So how come the change of heart? "We want a civil state ruling with justice," said one of its leaders, Naji Ibrahim. "We are not afraid of this freedom because we are holding the strong message of Islam, which has an inherent strength that is stronger than any other idea." 

So, a civil state to begin with, but ultimately the implication is that Islam would be triumphant. With the Muslim Brotherhood, too, the most organised group, the professed desire to see secular rule continue in Egypt runs counter to its charter. This envisages an Islamic state throughout the Middle East, while at home the Brotherhood aims to "convey the mission of Islam to the people as a whole". There is no mention of Islam's duty to protect ahl al-Kitab (people of the book, Christians and Jews). 

So, not surprisingly, Coptic Christians are suspicious. Naguib Gobraiel, a lawyer for the Coptic Church, believes the Muslim Brothers are seeking "to delude people and make them think that their paradigm is not fundamentalist but conforms with the values of citizenship". 

But by forming their own – faith-based – parties, the Islamic groups are only conforming to the pattern elsewhere in the Arab world where democracy already exists. In Iraq and Lebanon politics is ensnared by sectarian divisions. As Iraqi Sunnis and Shias vie for power, the country remains in a state of collapse. Those at the bottom of the heap – including the Christian minority – are unrepresented and vulnerable. The Christian exodus continues. In Lebanon the growing power of the Shia Hezbollah organisation is challenging the Sunni establishment and the increasingly nervous Christians. Again, the Christian community is in decline. 

The irony is that Arab Muslims and Christians took to the streets together en masse to demand change – without heed of political or religious leaders. What is needed on the new blank page of Arab politics is a movement that can incorporate the diversity of these protesters, cutting across sectarian lines. 

In the absence of such a movement, Arab Christians risk being driven still further to the margins of society, while Sunni and Shia Muslims compete for influence. The most tempting option for Christians, under these circumstances, would be an air ticket out, weakening still more Christianity's presence in the region where it was born. So, the "Christian" west should, perhaps, be careful in applauding too soon the historic changes in the Middle East.

Syrian Leader Says He Will Lift Emergency Law

Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Syrian president Bashar al-Assad spoke to his newly formed cabinet as his address was shown live to the nation on Saturday, in Damascus.

By Liam Stack
This article was published in The New York Times on 16/04/2011

President Bashar al-Assad of Syria addressed his nation on Saturday in a televised speech aimed at appeasing a two-month-old protest movement that has posed an unprecedented challenge to his family’s four decades of rule, according to human rights groups.

In a speech at the swearing-in of a new cabinet, Mr. Assad announced a raft of new legal proposals, including a pledge to end the country’s 48-year-old emergency law within days, and he expressed sorrow for deaths that have taken place since antigovernment unrest began — perhaps more than 200, according to human rights groups.

“The blood that was shed in Syria pains us all,” he said, swearing in a cabinet named last week. “We are sad for every loss. We consider each of them martyrs.”

The speech was seen as an attempt at conciliation by a government that has faced down protests with a mixture of chilling violence and dry pledges to study policy proposals.

The emergency law, which gives the president and security forces expansive power to detain Syrians for any cause, has been a major target of protesters’ criticism since the unrest began in March, incited by the detention and torture of a group of university students caught spraying antigovernment graffiti. The repeal will come “before the end of next week,” Mr. Assad said.

But few analysts believe that much will change even if the law does. The emergency law has been the foundation of the Assad family’s entire reign, and the security forces’ enshrinement as the all-powerful right hand of the Assads is a fact of everyday life and death in Syria.

Indeed, in his speech, Mr. Assad signaled that he still felt the need for order trumped all else, saying that no further protests would be necessary — and implying that none would be tolerated — once the emergency law was repealed.

“The Syrian people are civilized and orderly: they love order and they do not like chaos,” Mr. Assad said, adding that the need remained to “strengthen the internal front” against “sabotage.”

But critics said the speech would not be enough to head off new protests, which activists said reached their biggest numbers just the day before when a column of tens of thousands marched from the Damascus suburbs in a bold effort to occupy one of the capital’s central squares. They were beaten back by security forces on Friday night, witnesses said.

“He is repeating an old speech, this is nothing new,” said Razan Zeitouneh, an activist with the Syrian Human Rights Information Link. “He mentioned dignity several times, but he didn’t mention who it is violating the people’s dignity.”

“The main issue, which is the security forces, was not mentioned,” she added, nor were demands to end of the practice of life-long presidency established by Mr. Assad’s father that many fear he intends to fulfill himself.

In addition to committing to the end of emergency rule, Mr. Assad promised to fight unemployment and to study the legalization of political parties, which are now banned, as well a law guaranteeing the right to peacefully assemble.

Radwan Ziadeh, a Syrian human rights activist and visiting scholar at George Washington University in Washington, said that the proposed lifting of the emergency law would do little to ease the power of the security forces because Syrian law contains a number of fail-safes intended to maintain their exceptional power.

Those measures include the Law Governing the General Intelligence in Syria, which has an article giving the security forces immunity from prosecution for any crime committed in the line of duty. “Many authoritarian regimes have something similar, but none of them actually use the word ‘crime,’ ” Mr. Ziadeh said. “The Syrian law uses the word ‘crime’ without any definition of what it means, so it could mean killing or torture. It is crazy.”

Meanwhile, protests continued in Syria on Saturday. In the coastal town of Baniyas, Osama El Sheikh, 40, who was shot in the stomach by pro-government forces while protecting a local mosque, died of his wounds, Ms. Zeitouneh said. Later, a large crowd of women protested in the street chanting, “God, Freedom and Syria,” shown in videos posted on YouTube.

Picking Up the Pieces

How the international community can help cement the dramatic progress of the Arab Spring

By Lael Brainard
This commentary was published in The Foreign Policy on 15/04/2011

Across the Middle East and North Africa, unprecedented upheavals are creating historic opportunities to expand the circle of democratic societies. But the success of emerging democracies like Egypt and Tunisia will hinge on building strong and inclusive economies that improve people's lives. Alongside our partners in the Middle East and Europe, the United States stands ready to support these democratic transitions through renewed multilateralism. As economic leaders convene in Washington this week for the G7 and G20 finance ministers meetings, we hope to advance this partnership.

Over the last two decades, under their previous authoritarian governments, Egypt and Tunisia moved toward market economies and privatization, but corruption and weak institutions created an uneven playing field, with the benefits of growth not widely shared. Where reforms occurred, implementation was often inconsistent. Whether it was a new firm seeking a license, a new university graduate applying for a job, or a newly married couple securing a loan, the rules of business, employment, and finance were unclear. The status quo too often protected incumbents and excluded new talent.

Today, the change under way in the Middle East calls for rethinking and reorienting the international community's engagement. These transitions are ultimately about allowing people to unleash their opportunities and expand their freedoms -- both political and economic. We can unlock sustained and shared growth by tapping the potential of a young generation, expanding the private sector, and creating accountable institutions. To be effective, our multilateral efforts must be guided by three main principles.

First, our support must directly expand opportunities for those who were left out or left behind. This means investing in young men and women. Youth are the largest and potentially most dynamic segment of the population, but they face unemployment rates near 30 percent and are often trapped in low-wage work. In Egypt alone, nearly 650,000 new job-seekers are entering the labor market every year in search of better opportunities. As transition economies respond to these pressures, they must resist a return to the models of the past: The public sector can no longer provide jobs for an expanding workforce in the face of scarce resources. Instead, a growing private sector, especially small- and medium-sized enterprises, must emerge as the source of sustainable jobs.

Second, resources must be linked to homegrown reforms. Recent events have demonstrated that citizens are demanding greater accountability and equity. Our investments must strive to improve economic governance and support a level playing field by promoting transparency and key reforms. In a more open environment, citizens would have access to fundamental information on budgets, laws, and public-sector finances. In an environment defined by predictable rule of law, their rights and contracts would be honored. And our programs must partner with and invest in civil society to promote accountable institutions.

Finally, our engagement will need to be long term and multilateral. Economic transitions will take many years, and formidable challenges lie ahead. While short-term assistance on the recovery is important, to be truly effective in underwriting a new, more inclusive growth model, we must be prepared to work through the setbacks and scale up successes. In Indonesia, for example, the Kecamatan Program, which started in 22 villages to provide financing to local villages for community-driven poverty reduction, has today been scaled up to more than 30,000 villages.

In 1989, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, as Central and Eastern European countries left communism behind, the world turned to the multilateral development banks to assist with these transitions through development investments, technical assistance, and support for reforms. In 1998, as Indonesia moved away from an authoritarian state, we relied on these banks once again. The world confronts a similar opportunity and challenge in the Middle East. The United States has recently led efforts to recapitalize the multilateral banks, enabling them again to provide critical support in a time of transition.

The World Bank, International Finance Corporation, and the African Development Bank have more than $4 billion potentially available for Egypt and Tunisia over the next year alone. This assistance will be an important pillar of broader U.S. engagement in addition to our bilateral efforts. The international community is also exploring how the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development can reorient its mission to support transitions in the Middle East and North Africa.

The young democracies in the Middle East and North Africa must deliver on their promise to their people. This journey has begun in Egypt and Tunisia, where a new growth path must be built on the strength of small businesses, thriving classrooms, and active communities. Through an enduring commitment to inclusion and reform, these countries can become cornerstones of a prosperous and dynamic region.

Lael Brainard is U.S. Treasury undersecretary for international affairs.