[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 17]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 23447-23449]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 COMMENDING THE CENTER FOR NATIONAL POLICY FOR FACILITATING A DIALOGUE 
     BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE ARAB AND MUSLIM DIPLOMATIC COMMUNITIES

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. HAROLD E. FORD, JR.

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 8, 2004

  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the Center for 
National Policy (CNP) for facilitating a dialogue between members of 
the Arab and Muslim diplomatic communities and legislators on the Hill.
  On September 8th of this year, the Center for National Policy hosted 
a discussion between the Honorable Jim Turner and members of the Arab 
and Muslim diplomatic communities as a way of re-framing the debate on 
the War on Terrorism. I applaud the CNP for their continued efforts to 
properly inform both the American public and their elected officials on 
the complex issues facing policymakers.
  I would like to commend Representative Turner and my former colleague 
Tim Roemer for their participation in this invaluable discussion and 
for their active interest in fostering a better relationship with 
minority communities both domestically and abroad.

                        To Win the War on Terror


A Discussion With The Honorable Jim Turner And Members of the Arab and 
         Muslim Diplomatic Communities--Moderated by Tim Roemer

                            About the Event

       This event is part of a series of discussions being 
     organized by the Center for National Policy to help reframe 
     the debate on the War on Terrorism. CNP seeks to deepen both 
     the public's and elected officials' understanding of the 
     complex issues involved in the growth and spread of radical 
     Islam, and to increase awareness of initiatives that promise 
     to advance moderation and constructive reform.
       To accomplish these goals, CNP organizes small group 
     discussions that bring together prominent policy experts, 
     elected officials, and public opinion specialists to explore 
     new strategies to address both immediate and long-term 
     threats. CNP drafts summaries of these conversations and 
     makes them available to lawmakers on Capitol Hill and 
     policymakers in the Executive Branch, as well

[[Page 23448]]

     as academics, journalists, and the public at large.

                               About CNP

       The Center for National Policy (CNP) is a non-profit, non-
     partisan public policy organization located in Washington, 
     DC. Founded in 1981, the Center's mission is to engage 
     national leaders with new policy options and innovative 
     programs designed to advance progressive ideas in the 
     interest of all Americans.
       The goal of the Center is to promote the transfer of ideas 
     and information from experts to public officials, and 
     therefore better serve American citizens and the public 
     interest.
       Working with a small core staff, CNP brings together 
     policymakers and experts from a range of organizations, 
     including other think tanks, business, labor and academia, to 
     encourage new thinking, promote public awareness and catalyze 
     action.
       The Center uses public opinion research, as well as 
     substantive and political analysis, to frame options and make 
     recommendations. The Center's programs include active media 
     outreach and extensive use of the web as well as more 
     traditional methods of dissemination.
       In October 2003, Timothy J. Roemer was named President of 
     CNP. Formerly a seven-term member of Congress from Indiana, 
     he most recently has served as a member of the bipartisan 9/
     11 Commission. His predecessors as president include 
     Madeleine K. Albright, prior to her service as U.S. 
     ambassador to the United Nations; the late Kirk O'Donnell, 
     who was chief counsel to the Speaker of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives Thomas P. `Tip' O'Neill, and Maureen S. 
     Steinbruner, currently serving as CNP Vice President and 
     Senior Policy Advisor.

                              Introduction

       It has been clear for some time that winning the war on 
     terror is not only a military and security challenge. With 
     numerous al Qaeda leaders captured or killed, the threat is 
     now more diffuse but just as deadly. Increasingly the 
     question is, are we taking more terrorists out of the picture 
     than are being created every day in the streets and madrassas 
     all over the Arab and Muslim worlds?
       The United States needs a strategy for winning the war that 
     both deals with today's terrorists but also, most 
     importantly, works to deter and suppress the growth and power 
     of tomorrow's. U.S. Representative Jim Turner, Ranking Member 
     of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, put forward a 
     series of initiatives to accomplish this, in his report, 
     ``Winning the War on Terror.'' At the invitation of the 
     Center for National Policy, he joined three ambassadors to 
     the U.S. from Muslim nations, and representatives from two 
     other Middle Eastern embassies and the European Commission, 
     for a discussion of his initiatives and related issues.
       After an introduction by Congressman Turner framing the 
     questions, CNP President Tim Roemer moderated a discussion. 
     The session was off the record, except for the comments cited 
     here.

           Supporting voices of moderation in the Middle East

       Representative Turner stressed the fact that in fighting 
     the war on terrorism the United States needs to look beyond 
     targeting active terrorists and securing the homeland, to 
     supporting voices of moderation in the Middle East as well as 
     those advocating positive change. His report addresses the 
     question of how to prevent the rise of future terrorists 
     though a number of important initiatives.
       These include:
       Building bridges to the Arab and Muslim world, which must 
     involve not only diplomacy programs but also fully engaging 
     in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
       Improving education for Arab children;
       Stimulating economic development;
       Stabilizing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq; and
       Promoting political reform in the Middle East and moving 
     toward greater democracy.
       Representative Turner pointed out, however, that if these 
     types of initiatives are to be successful, it will require a 
     tremendous political effort both at home and abroad. He noted 
     that ten of the 9/11 Commission's 41 recommendations are 
     geared toward preventing the rise of future terrorists--but 
     these have received little public attention. Meanwhile, 
     polling indicates that the U.S. image abroad--not only in the 
     Middle East, but across the globe--has declined dramatically 
     in the past two. years. It is essential that Americans 
     understand why this is so, and what needs to be done to 
     change it.
       The war on terror, Turner affirmed, is not a war on Islam. 
     But the United States needs to find ways to communicate its 
     intentions much more effectively. Finally, the United States 
     must engage in a partnership with its allies in the Middle 
     East and in Europe if any of the ideas he and others have put 
     on the table are to be effective.

                           A battle of ideas

       Participants generally agreed with the spirit of 
     Representative Turner's remarks, and that fighting the war on 
     terror must involve a battle to win the minds of those in the 
     Arab and Muslim worlds. In the short-term, we must confront 
     the immediate, day-to-day threats from those who participate 
     in acts of terrorism, rooting out known terrorist groups and 
     their leadership, and preventing wherever possible the 
     emergence of new groups of activists. This is primarily a 
     security issue, which involves the U.S. engaging with 
     security and intelligence services internationally. As one 
     participant observed, it is important to understand that 
     ``threats don't stop at anyone's borders.''
       But the United States must also have the patience to 
     confront what participants see as a significant generational 
     challenge within the Islamic world. Fully eliminating the 
     terrorist threat is a task that will take perhaps ten or 
     twenty years. If the United States is to be effective over 
     the long-term, it must have some patience, and focus on 
     accurately defining terrorism--and identifying exactly who 
     the enemy is--in the minds of both Americans and Middle 
     Easterners.
       Participants pointed out that the number of people in the 
     Middle East--and Muslims specifically--who actively support 
     terrorism is in actuality very small--perhaps only a few 
     thousand. But as recent polling shows, the numbers who are 
     angry at the United States is much greater. The false 
     assumption on the part of Americans that these two groups are 
     one and the same needs to change if the U.S. image abroad is 
     to change. The
     9/11 report, for example, made it very clear that the problem 
     of terrorism is not about faith, yet this issue has not been 
     reflected in the current debate in the U.S. about the 
     Commission report. It is important to distinguish between 
     those who support terrorism and those who are angry at 
     America because the solutions to dealing with both problems 
     are very different.
       As one participant observed, it is the people in the 
     middle--in the Middle East as well as in the United States--
     who need to have their minds changed about the nature of the 
     war on terrorism. The war on terror is not only America's 
     problem. If the U.S. wants to find support for partnership 
     with the Arab and Muslim world, it will have to begin by 
     showing the benefits of such a partnership to the people in 
     the middle-center on both sides of the relationship.
       More forceful policy initiatives and efforts on the part of 
     the U.S. will make an immediate impression. Participants 
     agreed that a commitment by the United States to seriously 
     engage with the Israeli-Arab conflict is absolutely 
     necessary. An ambassador said that the shift of public 
     opinion against the U.S. in Turkey is attributable to two 
     factors: What is happening in Iraq; and what is not happening 
     in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Another Ambassador said, 
     ``You have to seriously address the problem in Israeli-
     Palestinian conflict--not necessarily solve it.''
       In addition, actions to support economic development in the 
     Middle East, such as providing economic assistance and 
     scholarships, supporting WTO accession, and other steps to 
     enhance job opportunities could show tangible benefits and 
     demonstrate an American commitment to a broader, positive 
     Middle East agenda. This should be the core of the argument 
     to convince the U.S. Congress and American people that such 
     proposals are part of the solution and that military action 
     is not the only tool to use against the terrorist threat.

                            Homegrown reform

       Participants echoed Representative Turner's argument that 
     it is essential that the U.S. support moderate forces in the 
     Arab world, to ensure that they prevail over extremists. As 
     another participant pointed out, some of the extremists' 
     arguments on important issues such as women's rights are very 
     weak, and they have no agenda of their own. Tim Roemer noted 
     the recent op-ed by President Musharraf of Pakistan calling 
     for ``enlightened moderation'' makes exactly this case.
       Responding to Turner's ideas for promoting political, 
     economic, and educational reform in the Middle East, 
     participants agreed that any of these proposals would be 
     beneficial. But they urged that the U.S. not try to lump 
     together the whole region but recognize that different 
     approaches are needed for different countries. Participants 
     emphasized the importance of homegrown reform. ``It's very 
     hard to address the problem [of terrorism] by lumping 
     together the entire region and imposing reforms on them.'' It 
     was also noted, for example, that a U.S.-Jordanian 
     partnership to increase exports from Jordan to the U.S. has 
     been highly successful, doubling household income in poorer 
     areas of the country and creating over 22,000 job 
     opportunities mostly in poverty areas, 85 percent of which 
     have been for women. It was pointed out, however, that such a 
     program would not necessarily be right elsewhere. Regionally-
     generated initiatives, perhaps assisted by foreign aid, may 
     meet with more success than unilateral efforts created 
     thousands of miles away.
       Several participants stressed that the U.S. must avoid the 
     appearance of imposing its own reforms on other countries. 
     They pointed out that media audiences in the Middle East 
     closely watch the American political process. The recent 
     Democratic and Republic National Conventions received far 
     more airtime from television stations in the Middle East than 
     in the United States. The point was made that extremists are 
     watching, and they will certainly exploit the perception

[[Page 23449]]

     that ``the Americans are telling us what to do'' to oppose 
     reform initiatives.
       It was noted that the particularly sensitive issue of 
     educational reform in Saudi Arabia, for example, was unable 
     to find support in the Kingdom once the U.S. Congress 
     vociferously supported it. ``Secular'' education in 
     particular was characterized as a `non-starter': the very 
     word ``secular'' can be a form of insult in the Kingdom. 
     Similarly, the word ``democracy,'' per se, has some negative 
     connotations in the Middle East--though this is not the case 
     for many of its specific attributes, such as transparency, 
     civic participation, free elections, and so on. One diplomat 
     said, ``This is a conflict within Islam. We must support 
     reason and try to assure that this wins--not terrorism.''
       ``America has become an excuse for our problems,'' as one 
     participant noted. But this is a cultural reality that the 
     U.S. must understand if it wants its reform efforts to be 
     effective.

                        The European perspective

       It was noted that European nations have been engaged with 
     the Middle East for almost 50 years. More recently, the 
     European Union has been working with the United States 
     specifically on the problem of extremism in the Arab and 
     Muslim world, both through direct E.U.-U.S. dialogue and on 
     the G8 track. The European Union endorses the general 
     argument that solutions must come from within the region, but 
     with attention to regional differences. It is the E.U. point 
     of view that there can be no ``one size fits all'' solution. 
     It was suggested that Representative Turner's proposals 
     largely fit into the European interpretation, with its 
     emphasis on building bridges, fostering educational 
     improvements and cultural exchange, but the point was made 
     that regional cooperation is also necessary. Where the U.S. 
     is still focused only on bilateral trade agreements in the 
     Middle East, for example, the E.U. is trying to negotiate 
     regional trade agreements. The E.U. also sees accession to 
     the World Trade Organization by nations in the Middle East as 
     important, and as in itself a way to promote reform.
       On the whole, the European Union view is that it has been 
     listened to by its U.S. counterparts, but there is still some 
     frustration that long-time European efforts and investments 
     of human and financial capital in the Middle East have not 
     been recognized.
       Although fresh ideas are appreciated, it is important to 
     the E.U. that no initiatives are introduced into the region 
     that will either distract from or complicate those programs 
     already in place. Instead, new initiatives need to be 
     streamlined and coordinated with existing projects. The 
     Israeli-Arab peace process, for example, was described as at 
     the heart of these efforts.
       Speaking from a European perspective, it was observed that 
     the U.S. should recognize that it has the power to put issues 
     on the table--but a fine balance needs to be maintained 
     between acting with haste and acting too slowly. ``Like a 
     bowl of soup,'' one participant observed, ``if you eat it too 
     fast, it burns you; if you let it go cold, it's tasteless.''

                        How and where to begin?

       Some participants noted the need for the U.S. to be 
     sensitive to the fact that countries have their own 
     timetables for reform. Americans too often look for quick-fix 
     solutions to problems, and think only in short-term, two-year 
     cycles, whereas reformers in the Middle East are willing to 
     work for generational change. Yet it was also noted that 
     external prodding can sometimes be important and even vital 
     for bringing much needed reform. Turkey, for example, has had 
     to accelerate the process of reform in order to meet European 
     Union requirements. One participant remarked, ``Cultural and 
     religious sensitivities should not be an excuse for not doing 
     what needs to be done.''
       But where exactly should the longer-term battle against 
     extremism begin? Participants presented differing views. 
     Education was acknowledged to be clearly a key factor in 
     winning the battle of ideas, and school systems may therefore 
     be the most sensible point to start any initiative that aims 
     to prevent the rise of future terrorists. One diplomat said, 
     ``You must support the voices of moderation and reason . . . 
     they must prevail. When you introduce the sensitive issue of 
     education reform, it must be seen as a national homegrown 
     plan and not U.S.-inspired.'' But this is a long-term effort 
     which will have results only over the longer term. The need 
     for judicial reform was also cited as important to promoting 
     confidence in the rule of law.
       Most participants advised putting economic reform slightly 
     ahead of political reform in the Middle East. The point was 
     made that political reform can be achieved in part by 
     motivating people to use the political options that they 
     already have. Creating job opportunities, however, and 
     providing people with immediate and tangible benefits, can 
     foster participation by providing hope that reform is a 
     better way to move forward than revenge. As one Senior Middle 
     East diplomat put it, ``Economic reform must come first 
     because we need to give people hope that this way is the 
     better way.''
       Separately, several participants said that it is essential 
     for the U.S. to achieve progress in key policy areas, such as 
     stabilizing Iraq and seriously engaging in the Israeli-Arab 
     conflict, to improve its image abroad and communicate its 
     message effectively.

                                Summary

       The participants in the discussion fundamentally agreed 
     that there is a need for more effective long-term strategies 
     to counteract the challenge of extremist ideologies in the 
     Arab and Muslim worlds. Some caution was expressed about new 
     U.S. initiatives, especially if unilateral. Congressman 
     Turner's multilateral and tailored approach was applauded as 
     a place to begin dialogue over these issues. One Middle East 
     Ambassador summarized the situation in the following way: 
     ``We all realize we have a problem. We all realize we want to 
     solve it. We are on the same side.''
       Several participants called for additional discussions such 
     as this one, to address these and other initiatives, as well 
     as some key existing problems. It was agreed that such 
     discussions are vitally needed to broaden understanding, 
     improve communication and facilitate concrete programs of 
     cooperation among the U.S., the E.U., and various Middle 
     Eastern countries.

                          ____________________