The Foreign Service Journal, January 2009

J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 9 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 41 and public statements about human rights abuses even in countries where we have important relationships, such as China or Russia. What is new is the attempt to take a holistic approach to democracy promotion in the Arab world. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, a Near Eastern Affairs Bureau–led re- view of our policy toward the region concluded that the United States needed to significantly increase efforts to promote reforms addressing the needs and desires of the people, and not just the governments. That analysis tracked closely with the 2002 United Nations Development Pro- gram’s Arab Human Development Report , a frank study by Arab scholars that identified three “deficits” in the region. According to that report, the freedom deficit, the women’s empowerment deficit and the knowledge deficit not only prevent the Middle East from fulfilling its poten- tial, but put it in danger of falling ever further behind in the globalized economy. Such stagnation might create fer- tile ground for breeding extremists. The U.S. policy review concluded that we should pursue democracy promotion in the Arab world on two tracks. The first track is diplomatic, urging governments to recognize that reform is in the long-term interest of both the people and the regimes. The second track is programmatic, using U.S. assistance funds in direct support of reform efforts. TD in the Arab World: A Coherent Approach TheMiddle East Partnership Initiative, launched inDe- cember 2002, was the embodiment of this new policy and an effort to craft a coherent approach to transformational diplomacy for the Arab world. It was based on twin as- sumptions: that democratic development would only be sustainable if home-grown, and that top-down, govern- ment-led reform was unlikely to lead to significant change unless accompanied by bottom-up demand from the peo- ple. MEPI was therefore designed as a flexible program tool to provide concrete support directly to reformers in the region instead of to, or through, governments. Basing the program at the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs was a signal that it would be an inte- gral part of our day-to-day foreign policy. MEPI’s four-pil- lar structure — democracy, economic growth, education, women’s empowerment — was aimed at addressing the shortcomings outlined in the UNDP report. The challenges to make MEPI work effectively were formidable — and many still are. Within the State De- partment, both the pro-reformpolicy and the programming to support it represented a major shift in the way we did business in the region. NEA lacked the bureaucratic struc- tures and experienced personnel for developing and man- aging these types of assistance programs. Our regional posts faced similar problems, because staff members with program experience were few in number and already had full-time jobs. There was little prospect in the short run of adding new embassy personnel to assume the new respon- sibilities. In addition, some posts had only limited contacts among the local activists in civil society that MEPI was tar- geting. Externally, the obstacles loomed even larger. Middle Eastern governments paid lip service to democratic reform, but varied greatly in their actual commitment—withmany dead-set against it. To make matters worse, civil society in most of the countries was weak, badly organized and ham- pered by restrictive legislation and/or repression by the state. Given those obstacles, MEPI has come a long way in five years. On the internal front, NEA created the Office of Partnership Initiatives, now staffed with 27 area and grants specialists from both the Civil Service and Foreign Service. And in 2004 twoMEPI regional offices opened in Abu Dhabi and Tunis, with two Foreign Service officers and six local specialists in each. These personnel coordi- nate activities with embassies and consulates, perform out- reach to potential partners, develop and oversee programs, and contribute to public diplomacy efforts. The Crux of TD As our permanent presence in each country, U.S. em- bassies and consulates have become central to the process of identifying reform priorities, funding opportunities and potential partners for MEPI programs. In many ways, this F O C U S Peter F. Mulrean, a Foreign Service officer since 1988, is counselor for refugee and migration affairs at the U.S. mis- sion in Geneva. Prior to that, he was director of the Mid- dle East Partnership Initiative Regional Office in Tunis from 2004 to 2008. Among many other assignments, he served as deputy director of the Office for the Promotion of Human Rights and Democracy in the Bureau of Democ- racy, Human Rights and Labor. There he was responsible for policy direction and assistance programming in sup- port of human rights and democracy in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and Eurasia.