National Security Policy Weekly banner
This Week
  • Sudan's Election Paradox, Adam O'Brien
  • An Important First Step in Closing Guantanamo, Ken Gude
  • Analyzing the Lebanese Election Results, Mona Yacoubian
  • A Historic Decision on Cuba, Stephanie Miller
  • Obama's Comprehensive Approach to the Mideast, Daniel Kurtzer
  • What Does a Smaller World Mean for Human Rights?, Nina Hachigian and William Schulz
Expert Commentary
  • Balancing Openness with National Security, Ken Gude
  • Obama and U.S.-Israeli Relationship, Matthew Duss
This Week


Adam O'Brien, "Sudan's Election Paradox," Enough, June 10, 2009
In February 2010, Sudan is scheduled to hold its first democratic elections in 24 years. General elections are required by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, or CPA, which the ruling National Congress Party, or NCP, and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, or SPLM, signed in 2005 to end a second civil conflict between northern and southern Sudan that lasted two decades, killed 2 million people, and displaced 4 million more. Sudan’s upcoming national election poses a series of thorny questions for the international community, and, to date, these questions have not been acceptably resolved.

Click here to read the full report.

Ken Gude, "An Important First Step in Actually Closing Guantanamo," Center for American Progress, June 9, 2009
Ahmed Ghailani was transferred today from the prison at Guantánamo Bay to a New York City court—just before a panicked Congress delays such transfers—to stand trial for his role in the 1998 East Africa Embassy bombings. Ghailani’s transfer marks the first demonstration of the Obama administration’s commitment to closing Guantánamo and putting U.S. detention policy back on firm legal footing. President Barack Obama can use the trial as an example to reassure Americans that the U.S. justice system is well equipped to prosecute suspected terrorists, and U.S. maximum security prisons are capable of keeping Americans safe.

Click here to read the full article.

Mona Yacoubian, "Analyzing the Lebanese Election Results," Middle East Bulletin interview, June 9, 2009
"I think they’re important in several respects. First, it’s important to note that these are the first parliamentary elections to take place in Lebanon that are truly free of any sort of Syrian influence since before the civil war. While the last elections took place after the Syrian military withdrawal, they were still undertaken using an old electoral law that had significant Syrian influence in it. So that’s point number one. Point number two, it does offer an important look into Lebanese dynamics and clearly shows some sense of concern among some communities in Lebanon with Hezbollah’s power, and I think that’s why we saw March 14 emerge victorious from this vote. Many analysts, myself included, felt the vote would be much closer. The fact that March 14 did as well as it did, scoring 71 seats in the parliament, suggests an important shift among many in the Christian community who had previously backed General Michel Aoun."

Click here to read the full interview.

Stephanie Miller, "A Historic Decision on Cuba," Center for American Progress, June 5, 2009
The Obama administration’s willingness to accept Cuba’s reentry into the Inter-American system—provided Cuba agrees to embrace democratic principles—was overwhelmingly supported by the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. As a result, it was seen by many, including the President of Honduras José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, as an end to the Cold War mentality that dominated U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America for years after the war’s end. Now that Washington is no longer the main obstacle to Cuba’s reintegration into the OAS, it is up to Cuba to make the reforms necessary to respect the principles at the heart of the Inter-American system.

Click here to read the full article.

Daniel Kurtzer, "Obama's Comprehensive Approach to the Mideast," Middle East Bulletin interview, June 5, 2009
"[W]hat the president is unfolding – and I say unfolding to distinguish it from announcing a strategy – is a strategy in which the president indicates that the parties have things they have to do on the ground. Those are necessary but not sufficient in order to create an atmosphere that can sustain negotiations. And at the same time, I am confident that he is talking to the leadership about the negotiations, so that you’ve got movement along a wide front. It doesn’t say that you have to do one, two and three before you get to four. Basically, it says, we know where we want to get to, and it means you have to do a lot of things simultaneously. You have to be doing the changes on the ground, you have to be preparing for substantive talks and you have to be conditioning your public to understand that there may be hard decisions to come. So you’re moving across a wide front rather than in a sequential manner. And that’s why I would call this an unfolding strategy rather than some announceable game plan."

Click here to read the full interview.

Nina Hachigian and William Schulz, "What Does a Smaller World Mean for Human Rights?," Center for American Progress, June 3, 2009

In June 1989, the Internet was a whisper. The news of the massacre at Tiananmen Square came through phone calls, faxes, and reporter’s accounts. Looking back on those events, many opined that the pro-democracy demonstrations would have unfolded differently had they occurred just a few years later, in the already booming Internet age. That may well be true, but the explosion of technology in the last 20 years has made the challenge of promoting individual rights in China from the outside more complicated, not less.

Click here to read the full article.


Expert Commentary

TPMMuckraker - Ken Gude says he believes the administration's argument for the continued classification of Abu Ghraib abuse photos is a strong one, but arguments against the release of interrogation documents is less so: "There has to be a time in which the government can lawfully withhold information from the public that could be harmful. ... [but] I think [the new argument] undermines the administration's claims that really all it's interested in is security. I'm worried that they're losing that credibility."

Reuters - Matthew Duss discusses recent statements by President Obama calling for a clear halt to Israeli settlement expansion: "I don't think the quality of the relationship or the strength of the relationship will really change, but I think President Obama has made clear that Prime Minister Netanyahu's political problems are not our problems. We have policy priorities that we feel are necessary for our security and for our interest in the region."

General Odom

SeeProgress Button

Middle East Bulletin Logo

Enough Campaign Logo


Event Resources

Restoring Credibility on Human Rights and Democracy
June 15, 2009, 12:00 PM - 1:30 PM

The Obama administration portrayed its release of legal memos on torture and harsh interrogation, the closing of Guantanamo, and its reevaluation of military commissions as the first steps toward restoring our government's moral integrity and adherence to the rule of law. These steps also play an important role in rebuilding U.S. capacity to support human rights and democracy in the Middle East.

Please join the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED), the Heinrich Boell Foundation, and the Center for American Progress for a panel of writers and scholars to discuss how the Obama administration's recent steps have improved U.S. credibility on human rights and democracy in the Middle East, as well as what steps are the most important for the United States and Europe to take to restore credibility on human rights and democracy in the region.

Click here for additional information on speakers and to RSVP.

Sign up:
Policy e-newsletters
The Progress Report

To unsubscribe, click here

Support the Center for American Progress

Comments, questions:
Email Us

National Security Policy Weekly is a product of the Center for American Progress
www.americanprogress.org | contact us | unsubscribe