Moisés NaímEDITOR IN CHIEF

William J. DobsonMANAGING EDITOR

Michael C. Boyer, Christine Y. ChenSENIOR EDITORS

Kate G. PalmerDEPUTY MANAGING EDITOR

Preeti Aroon, Carolyn O’HaraASSISTANT EDITORS

Prerna MankadEDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Caroline NobertASSISTANT TO THE EDITOR

David Francis, Joshua Keating,Deniz Z. Ozdemir

RESEARCHERS

Travis C. DaubART DIRECTOR

Sarah N. SchumacherDESIGNER

Elizabeth GlassanosART & PRODUCTION ASSISTANT

Katherine YesterPRODUCTION ASSISTANT

Blake HounshellWEB EDITOR

Thomas R. StecWEBMASTER

CONTRIBUTING EDITORSJacques Attali, Paris; Jorge I. Domínguez,

Cambridge, Mass.; Yoichi Funabashi, Tokyo;Yegor T. Gaidar, Moscow; Andrés Ortega, Madrid;

Gianni Riotta, Rome

CONTRIBUTING WRITERDavid L. Bosco

EDITORIAL BOARDMorton Abramowitz, John Deutch, Lawrence Freedman,Diego Hidalgo, Stanley Hoffmann, Robert D. Hormats,

Thomas L. Hughes, Karl Kaiser, Jessica T. Mathews,Donald F. McHenry, Cesare Merlini, Thierry de Montbrial,

Joseph S. Nye Jr., Soli Özel, Moeen Qureshi, John E. Rielly,Klaus Schwab, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, Lawrence Summers,

Strobe Talbott, Richard H. Ullman, Stephen M. Walt

PUBLISHED BY

For e i gn Pol i cy1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20036Publishing Office: (202) 939-2230

Subscriptions: (800) 535-6343ForeignPolicy.com

©2007 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.All rights reserved. Foreign Policy and its logo are trademarksof the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, whichbears no responsibility for the editorial content; the viewsexpressed in the articles are those of the authors. No part of thispublication may be reproduced in any form without permissionin writing from the publisher.

4 Foreign Policy

[ L E T T E R S ]

o z z i e

NATIONAL MAGAZINEAWARD WINNER2007

GENERAL EXCELLENCE

To Legalize, orNot to Legalize?Ethan Nadelmann (“Think Again:Drugs,” September/October 2007)succumbs to the intoxicating allureof the legalization argument. It’s hardto blame him; legalization doesappear to offer an escape from prob-lems such as “corruption, violence,and organized crime.” But legaliza-tion only offers an illusory fix. Theproblems Nadelmann links to the waron drugs would linger well after anyend to it.

Although Nadelmann is quite satis-fied with “removing coca from inter-national antidrug conventions,” he issilent about his feelings towardcocaine, the more powerful productderived from coca. Imagine a worldwhere all drugs were legal. Vials ofcocaine would be produced by multi-national corporations and sold along-side packets of cigarettes and bottlesof alcohol at local stores. Instead ofneedle-exchange programs, couponsfor free needles would be distributed inperiodicals, perhaps even in ForeignPolicy. The needles themselveswould be made available near vendingmachines that dispense a drug, saymethamphetamine, just as matchesare sold near some tobacco machines.Does Nadelmann not consider thatan alarming prospect?

Moreover, even if certain drugs werelegal and commercial, it is likely thatgovernments, in the name of civilorder and public health, would stillfeel compelled to restrict levels ofintoxicating and addictive chemicalspresent in drugs. A black market fordrugs with higher concentrations ofintoxicating compounds would springup and be operated by criminalgroups, just as they are today. Andjust as the end of Prohibition in theUnited States did not eliminate orreduce organized crime and violence—or lessen the use and abuse of alco-hol—legalizing drugs is unlikely toproduce any significant improvement.

The ways in which drugs areentrenched in a vast array of interna-tional economic, political, and securityissues did not occur suddenly; theyevolved over time through the inten-tional and unintentional efforts ofnumerous actors, both legitimate and

illegitimate. The trade cannot bequickly reversed or controlled withavailable resources, even with the sus-tained and combined will of the inter-national community.

When it comes to drugs, we mustaccept an uncomfortable paradox:There will always be a drug trade insome form that will exist alongsidecontinued prohibition on the sale ofdrugs or restrictions on their con-sumption. But if legalization occursin the way Nadelmann envisages, theworld would simply become a night-marish illusion—one to which wewished we’d never succumbed.

—Paul Rexton KanAssistant Professor of National Security Studies

U.S. Army War CollegeCarlisle, Pa.

Nadelmann has an easy target whenhe attacks the rhetoric of the interna-tional drug control regime. There’sno doubt that a “drug-free world” isnonsense, and even those who utterthe phrase know that. The idea can-not be a serious basis for drug controlpolicies, and even its value as a rhetor-ical device is debatable. Moreover, ithas also been used to justify the rejec-tion of “harm reduction” policiessuch as needle-exchange programsand safe injecting facilities. Eventhough evidence of their effectivenessis weaker than advocates are willingto admit, these programs have sug-gestive evidence of benefit, no seriousevidence of any harm, and a compellinglogic and humanity.

The first half of Nadelmann’s essayargues for harm reduction, but the lastsection shifts smoothly to legalization.As we argued in Drug War Heresies(Cambridge University Press, 2001),there is little doubt that legalizingcocaine and heroin would reducemany of the harms that most concernus now. Crime would fall dramatically,the drug-market disorder that is thebane of so many inner-city communitieswould disappear, and, with careful

]For More OnlineWatch the drug debate continue asEthan Nadelmann squares off againstCraig Murray of the Office of NationalDrug Control Policy, atForeignPolicy.com/FPTV.

[

6 Foreign Policy

Lynn E. NewhouseASSOCIATE PUBLISHER & GENERAL MANAGER

Annette MunroeCIRCULATION DIRECTOR

Gina FalzaranoCIRCULATION ASSOCIATE

Jonathan W. McCloskeyBUSINESS ASSISTANT

Amy RussellDIRECTOR OF SALES

Maria San JoseADVERTISING SALES REPRESENTATIVE

Alexia SagemüllerCORPORATE PROGRAMS DIRECTOR

Cristina Hernández DroulersCORPORATE PROGRAMS ASSISTANT

Jeff MarnMEDIA RELATIONS MANAGER

Randolph F. ManderstamSYNDICATION COORDINATOR

SUBSCRIPTIONS & SUBSCRIBER SERVICESFOREIGN POLICY, P.O. Box 474, Mt. Morris, IL61054-8499; ForeignPolicy.com; e-mail:frnp@kable.com; (800) 535-6343 in U.S.; (815)734-1235 outside U.S.; Publications mail agree-ment no. 40778561. Rates (in U.S. funds):$24.95 for one year; $44 for two years. Canadaadd $9/yr. for postage and handling; othercountries add $15/yr. For academic rates, go toForeignPolicy.com/education.

ADVERTISING & FPCORPORATE PROGRAMS

Call (202) 939-2243.

NEWSSTAND AND BOOKSTORE DISTRIBUTION

Curtis Circulation Company, 730 River Road, New

Milford, NJ 07646-3048; (201) 634-7400.

BACK ISSUES

$10.95 per copy. International airmail add $3.00 per

copy; online: ForeignPolicy.com; e-mail:

fp@CarnegieEndowment.org.

MEDIA INQUIRIES

Contact Jeff Marn (202) 939-2242;

jmarn@CarnegieEndowment.org.

SYNDICATION REQUESTS

Contact Randolph F. Manderstam (202) 939-2241;

rmanderstam@CarnegieEndowment.org.

OTHER PERMISSION REQUESTSCopyright Clearance Center, Inc. (978) 750-8400;www.copyright.com.

PUBLISHED BY

[ Letters ]

planning, the connection between hivand injecting drugs could be broken.What is less clear, however, is howmuch drug use and drug dependencewould increase. Even if heroin useincreased by 50 percent, society wouldprobably be better off without the illeffects of prohibition. But if itincreased by 500 percent (still wellbelow the levels of alcohol or tobaccodependence), society would probablybe worse off. The average dose of anillegal drug would surely cause lessharm in a regulated regime, but if thenumber of those doses were toincrease markedly, the total harm tosociety could rise rather than fall.Legalization might be a good policyoption. But its advocates must acceptthe uncertainty of predicting anypotential consequences and acknowl-edge the transformation—rather thancomplete elimination—of the drugproblem that would remain.

—Robert MacCounProfessor of Public Policy

Goldman School of Public PolicyUniversity of California, Berkeley

Berkeley, Calif.

—Peter ReuterProfessor

School of Public PolicyUniversity of Maryland

College Park, Md.

Nadelmann’s article reflects the intensepolarization of the current U.S. drugpolicy debate. One side advocates “pro-hibition only,” which relies on lawenforcement, incarceration, and eradi-cation of drug crops in foreign coun-tries. The other side favors legalizationof drugs that are currently outlawed,such as heroin, cocaine, methampheta-mine, and marijuana. Nadelmann, whosupports legalization, ignores a range ofeffective approaches that lie betweenthese two policy extremes.

Contrary to Nadelmann’s view,demand reduction can be effective evenif drug abuse will never be entirely elim-inated. Antismoking campaigns, whichhave cut smoking rates by almost halfin the United States since 1965, arenot intended to reduce harm, asNadelmann believes, but rather to getsmokers to quit or prevent them fromstarting in the first place. Like smoking,drug addiction is a chronic, relapsingdisease. With similar investments in

prevention and treatment, drug useand addiction can also be reduced. Butfederal support for demand reductionis now about one third of the total drugbudget, and treatment is available foronly one in three of those who needhelp. Many prominent groups, includ-ing the American Medical Associationand the American Bar Association, pro-mote essentially a public-healthapproach to drug problems, whichgreatly increases education, early inter-vention, and access to treatment. Thebest way to cut drug consumption isthrough demand-side programs, notlegalization or prohibition.

—Mathea FalcoPresident

Drug StrategiesWashington, D.C.

Ethan Nadelmann replies:Mathea Falco is mistaken when sheargues that the current drug policydebate in the United States is intenselypolarized. In fact, it barely exists. Thedebates that are happening focus onissues such as drug treatment, criminalsentencing, needle exchange, medicalmarijuana, and government funding.Few people advocate either wholesaleprohibition or legalization—myselfincluded. I explicitly support a range ofoptions between those two extremes.Indeed, the organization that I found-ed and direct, the Drug Policy Alliance,is probably the leading organization inthe United States doing exactly that.

Falco and I agree, however, that drugabuse problems are best addressed bypublic-health approaches that emphasizeearly intervention and access to treat-ment. It’s a shame that zero-tolerancepolicies and drug-free ideologies so oftenstand in the way of embracing evidence-based interventions that have provensuccessful elsewhere.

Paul Rexton Kan is right that a blackmarket for drugs will always exist insome form. But that trade would befar less destructive if the market fordrugs were legally regulated rather thankept in the hands of criminals. Kan’sfacile caricatures of a post-prohibitionworld are a poor excuse for refusing tothink seriously about how best toreverse the extraordinary costs andharms of persisting with punitive pro-hibitionist policies.

Robert MacCoun and Peter Reuternote that “legalization might be a good

[ Letters ]

policy option,” but we must be wary ofits potential impact on drug use anddependence rates, which cannot be reli-ably predicted. Their well-consideredcomment gets it just right.

I do not argue that legalization is theanswer to the drug problem, but ratherthat it is the question that needs to beamply and honestly considered. Theglobal drug prohibition regime hasbecome the devil we know—its harmsand failings tolerated and ignoredbeyond all reason. It demands criticalassessment, but too often it is insulat-ed by the power of vested interests, bysimple inertia, and by dogmatic rejec-tion of legalization as a sort of secularheresy. It’s time to open the debate.

The Promise ofAmericanIntelligenceBy virtue of his long experience on theintelligence beat, Tim Weiner is wellqualified to critique the successes andfailures of the cia (“How to Make aSpy,” September/October 2007). Hisproposal to invest $20 billion in schol-arships during the next five years totrain a new generation of national secu-rity officers is right on target. Sub-stantially increasing the funding forscholarships targeting new recruits isvital if the United States hopes to nur-ture the development of intelligenceofficers who understand the language,history, and culture of foreign lands.

Weiner’s analysis is deeply flawed,however, in three ways. First, he claimsthat the United States has failed tocreate “a first-rate secret intelligenceservice.” Despite its failures, the U.S.intelligence community has been moresuccessful than any other espionageservice in history—in both its record ofaccomplishments and its ability tospeak truth to power. During the ColdWar, every important weapons systemfielded by the Soviets, from the H-bombto missiles, was heralded in advance byAmerican intelligence analysts. Thecia’s development of the U-2 spy planewas also a breakthrough in espio-nage. Moreover, one of the agency’sseveral useful officers in the SovietUnion, Oleg Penkovsky, providedinvaluable information about Soviet

Join a community of students from 62 countries—from NGO activists, executives of internationalorganizations, and experts in technology, media,and finance, to returned Peace Corps volunteersand recent college graduates—each desiring toeffect real change in the world. Here, you’ll combineinterdisciplinary study with practical problem-solvingskills, and gain new perspectives that can only be

found in the world’s most international city.

� Work directly with international practitionersand scholars

� Explore issues in global economics, povertyand development, cities and urbanization,international institutions, NGOs, human rights,conflict and security, and media and culture

� Learn from summer fieldwork experiencesaround the world

GRAD EXPO:Saturday, November 17 at 10:00 a.m.RSVP at www.newschool.edu/gradexpo

INFORMATION SESSION:Monday, December 3 at 6:00 p.m.66 West 12th Street, NYC

To RSVP and for more about the program, contact

admissions at 212.229.5630 or visit us online.

www.ia.newschool.edu

INTERNATIONALTHE NEW SCHOOL

New York is

is New YorkEARN A MASTER’S DEGREE IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

[ Letters ]

military capabilities. The list of solidachievements goes on.

Weiner also has an unrealistic yard-stick for measuring intelligence success.He seems to believe that the cia oughtto be able to forecast the future withperfect clairvoyance. That is simply notpossible. Information is usually scarceor ambiguous, and situations are oftenfluid. Clearly, the cia should have donebetter from time to time, but predictingthe future as history unfolds in its capri-cious way is difficult, to say the least.Not a single journalist, politician, orscholar anticipated the sudden collapseof the Soviet Union in 1991, for exam-ple. The best that intelligence agenciescan do is present policy officials withreliable data and a sense of possibleoutcomes, and, only rarely, precise pre-dictions. We can and must improveintelligence, but we will never banishmistakes altogether.

Finally, although Weiner’s focus onthe training of intelligence officers isimportant, it is only one of manyreforms that must be adopted to protectthe United States. Basic organizationalreforms are vital, including providingthe new director of national intelligencewith real authority to determine spybudgets and personnel. If the directorcontinues to lack authority, intelligencewill remain “stovepiped” within the 16secret agencies. The end result will notbe information sharing but bureaucrat-ic turf protection—the very malady thatcontributed so strongly to the tragicintelligence failure in September 2001.

—Loch K. JohnsonRegents Professor of Political Science

School of Public and International AffairsUniversity of Georgia

Athens, Ga.

Weiner would have us believe that thecia never gets anything right. He ismistaken in that conclusion, but heis correct that recruiting and retainingfirst-class people is the key to buildinga great intelligence service. He is alsoright to point out how hard it is tofind people who, as he puts it, “canhaggle in a foreign bazaar.” Unfortu-nately, he seems to believe that if wesimply spend enough money trainingAmericans to speak difficult languages($20 billion on training 100,000 indi-viduals), and pay them enough($100,000 per year as a startingsalary), the problem would be solved,

and the cia would finally get it right.If only it were so simple.

First, the U.S. Congress would neveragree to spend that much money onsuch an endeavor. Weiner surely knowsthat and is probably overstating hiscase for the sake of drama. Regret-tably, suggesting such an improbablesolution undermines the impact of hisvery important point.

Second, Weiner ignores the gains thatthe cia has already made in doing pre-cisely what he recommends. In the pastfew years, vast numbers of Americanshave applied to work at the agency. Injust the first six months of 2007, the ciareceived approximately 103,000 appli-cations, giving it a rich pool from whichto recruit. Of the agency’s new hires, 40percent have advanced degrees and 60percent have overseas experience. Duringthe past three years, thecia has increasedits overall language capability by almost50 percent, and it has boosted its profi-ciency in such critical languages as Ara-bic, Chinese, Farsi, Korean, and Pashtoby more than 60 percent.

Finally, Weiner does not address thetwo questions that I believe are even moreimportant than language proficiency

[ Letters ]

For more:www.bakerinstitute.org

“A bridge between the world of ideas and the

world of action.”

James A. Baker, IIIHonorary Chair

JAMES A. BAKER IIIINSTITUTE FORPUBLIC POLICY

NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION CONFERENCE:POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF MANAGING

OR PREVENTING PROLIFERATION

Senior Policymakers Convene at the Baker Institute November 9-11 Yevgeny Primakov to Deliver Keynote AddressFormer Prime Minister of the Russian Federation

THE PRICE OF GASOLINE:U.S. gasoline markets andoil import dependence

November 13Dr. Shirley Ann JacksonPresident, Rensselaer PolytechnicInstitute and former Chair, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

CivicScientistlecture series

“Aow

een thebridge betworld of ideas and the

orld of action.”w

er, IIIJames A. BakHonorary Chair

AJIPember 13vNo

Dr. Shirley Ann JacksonolytechnicPresident, Rensselaer P

Institute ormer Chair, U.S.and fNuclear Regulatory Commission

ciiviivCCi tsiisttineicSlecture series

IIIREKAB.ASEMATUTE FORINST

CYIC POLILBPU

rgor more:F

erinstitute.orwww.bak g

and cultural understanding. How canwe assure integrity in the system andempower intelligence officers to speaktruth to power? Even more important:Will presidents listen?

—Jeffrey H. SmithPartner, Arnold & Porter LLPFormer General Counsel, CIA

Washington, D.C.

The personnel situation at the cia isboth troubling and hopeful. As Weinerasserts, the inexperience of much ofthe agency’s workforce is a major prob-lem. But it also demonstrates thatmany Americans have responded tothe call for service after 9/11, despitethe cia’s low morale and its technicaland organizational problems. Thequestion is whether all those newbieswill stick around to become experi-enced officers. Since at least the 1990s,there has been a glass ceiling of sorts atthe five-year point in service at thecia; many officers leave as they nearthat threshold. Earlier this year, Gen.Michael Hayden instituted a reformprogram that, among other things,sought to break that barrier.

The jury is still out on whether Haydencan claim success, and there is clearlymuch work that remains to be done.Weiner is right to propose major invest-ment to create a far greater pool ofqualified linguists, but linguists are onlyone aspect of the solution. The cianeeds an entirely new operational for-mula—one that moves away from anexcessive reliance on technical capa-bility. Technological mechanisms havebeen seductive because they pull in vastamounts of data and can be planned forand budgeted. But they are indiscrim-inate and generate more raw intelli-gence than we can process, even as theyfail to provide the key intelligence frominside the enemy camp.

There must be a fresh approachpurely on the human intelligenceplane. We must adjust U.S. informa-tion policy, psychological warfare, andour approach to the war of ideas toencourage the recruitment of sourceswho spy for conviction, not cash. Dur-ing the Cold War, such people werecalled ideological spies. Recruiting andmaintaining these sources would itselfcontribute to the morale of cia caseofficers and the agency as a whole.We need foreign-language-speakingofficers to talk to these people, but

we also need them to be working to aformula that validates their dedicationand offers the best potential intelli-gence for the United States.

—John PradosSenior Fellow

National Security ArchiveGeorge Washington University

Washington, D.C.

Tim Weiner replies:Loch Johnson, Jeffrey Smith, and JohnPrados are three of the United States’best analysts of the strengths andweaknesses of U.S. intelligence. Likethem, I want the cia to succeed in itsmost vital missions—to know theenemy, to guard against surpriseattack, and to provide the presidentwith the information he or she needs tocreate a strategy for the conduct ofU.S. foreign policy and the projectionof U.S. power abroad.

I do not expect the cia to have amagic crystal ball. I do believe, how-ever, that the cia broke its word withits false reporting on the Iraqi arsenalin 2002 and 2003. That work calledinto question every aspect of theagency’s conduct of espionage andintelligence analysis. To quote JudgeLaurence Silberman, who led the presi-dential commission that investigatedthe weapons of mass destruction fias-co, “If the American Army had madea mistake anywhere near as bad asour intelligence community, we wouldexpect generals to be cashiered.”Instead, we got a new directorate ofnational intelligence—another layerof bureaucracy—when what wasneeded was a new generation of multi-talented spies and analysts.

Smith is encouraging when he reportsthat the cia’s Arabic, Chinese, Farsi,Korean, and Pashto language skillshave increased sharply. They wereshockingly low not long ago. Giventhe parlous state of White House-ciarelations since 2001, he is right to won-der if future intelligence officers willspeak truth to power—and whetherpresidents will listen. And Prados is onthe money when he notes that U.S. for-eign policy must change for the cia tohave a chance to win the loyalties offoreign agents. The lower the publicimage of the United States abroad, theharder it will be to recruit foreign spieswho will divulge secrets out of a sharedrespect for American values.

Engaging theBrotherhoodI read with great interest Marc Lynch’smemo to the Muslim Brotherhood’sChairman Mohammed Mahdi Akef(“Brothers in Arms,” September/October2007). I believe that this memo shouldhave been written not only to the chair-man but to all Brotherhood members, asthe Muslim Brotherhood is a democraticbody whose decisions are always madeafter proper consultations within itselected institutions.

In his memo, Lynch urges Akef to“use your political capital” andremain committed to democraticprocesses. But I feel that our commit-ment to democracy should not bethe real concern of Western intellec-tuals and policymakers; our belief indemocratic processes is ideological,not tactical. The real concern shouldbe the negative impact of govern-ment crackdowns on moderates andthe entire democratic process in theMiddle East. The Muslim Brother-hood is a moderate, mainstreammovement that is capable of over-shadowing radical ideologies, yet weare only able to do so effectively inan atmosphere of freedom.

Lynch advises Akef to “watch whatyou say.” I may have to partially agreewith him on that. Although Akef’s aimis winning the hearts of many Muslimswith a war of words, diverting themfrom radicalism, I believe that winningpeace in the world is a higher moralobjective. The Brotherhood is playinga unique role in the world today. Itacts as a safety valve—and sometimesthe valve needs to release excess pres-sure to avoid explosion.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a largeorganization representing a reformistschool of thought. During its histori-cal journey, different lines of thoughthave influenced the organization,enriching it by adding diverse ideasand opinions. It is therefore naturalthat some of the group’s leaders andmembers are more moderate and tol-erant than others. Some are morepragmatic and more willing to engagein dialogue than others. But it hasbecome increasingly clear over thepast couple of years that the Egyptianregime has taken a ruthless stanceagainst those moderate leaders.

Dialogue between moderate Islamistsand the rest of the world would threat-en the very existence of the authoritar-ian Egyptian regime. The regime seeksinternational support for its oppressionby portraying us as radicals, terrorists,or theocrats. It is only through dialoguethat such claims can be proven ground-less. Therefore, the regime has triedto prevent such communication fromtaking place by keeping the moderateleaders of the Brotherhood, such asDeputy Chairman Khayrat El Shater,behind bars, by resorting to illegalmeasures, and by engaging in a decep-tive smear campaign against the move-ment and its leadership.

Lynch’s memo lays the foundationfor healthy dialogue between moder-ate Islamists and the United States. Itseeks answers for questions shared bymany Americans, intellectuals and pol-icymakers alike. However, it is impor-tant to understand that Islamists, justlike other opposition groups in Egypt,are skeptical about the sincerity of theU.S. government in promoting democ-racy in the Middle East. Americans,just like Islamists, are thereforerequired to clarify their stances onsome issues to achieve mutual under-standing and boost the potential for ahealthy dialogue. This should includea stronger position toward the ongo-ing violations of human rights inEgypt—whether it is toward Islamistsor other Egyptians.

—A. FahmyLeading member of the Muslim Brotherhood

Chief Executive OfficerIkhwanWeb, the voice of

the Muslim Brotherhood in EnglishCairo, Egypt

Lynch does an excellent job of captur-ing the U.S. political establishment’sskewed debate about the MuslimBrotherhood—a debate premised onoutdated assumptions. Empirical evi-dence demonstrates that the Brother-hood is just as committed—if not morecommitted—to civil nonviolence thanother democracy movements that theUnited States has belatedly supportedin places such as the Philippines, SouthAfrica, and Indonesia. Yes, the Brother-hood is socially conservative. But thegroup is also politically pragmatic,believes in institutional development,and responsibly opposes authoritari-an government.

14 Foreign Policy

[ Letters ]

The question for Americans shouldbe: Why are we questioning theBrotherhood’s commitment to nonvi-olence, and not the Egyptian govern-ment’s appetite for repression? TheUnited States provides billions of dol-lars in military aid to Cairo, yet theState Department remains silent whenBrotherhood members are detainedwithout charge, tortured, and referredto military tribunals. The debatewould be far more constructive if itfocused on U.S. complicity in sup-pressing civil demonstrators and non-violent local opposition groups inEgypt. One step toward curbing vio-lence in the country would be to stopparticipating in it.

Until that happens, the MuslimBrotherhood’s leaders and supportershave little incentive to court theapproval of American politicians andacademics. Until the U.S. governmentrepudiates Hosni Mubarak’s repres-sive state, it would be imprudent, tosay the least, for the Muslim Brother-hood to try to win hearts and mindsin Washington.

—Joshua A. StacherPostdoctoral Fellow

Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public AffairsSyracuse University

Syracuse, N.Y.

“I never thought you were a bad con-sigliere, Tom. I thought Santino was abad don.”

Like the consigliere to the Corleonecrime family in The Godfather, Lynchgives sound advice to the supremeguide of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.But what good is sound advice to abad don? Mohammed Mahdi Akef isan old-guard Muslim Brother who hasleft behind a trail of anti-Americanincitement as long as the Nile. He hasproclaimed, “We have no relationswith the U.S. It is a Satan that abusesthe region, lacking all morality andlaw.” The prospect of his becomingAmerica-friendly is nil.

Lynch urges Akef to “demonstratethat, despite many policy differences,you share two fundamental goals withthe United States: democracy in Arabcountries and curtailing the influence ofal Qaeda.” But promoting democracyand defeating al Qaeda isn’t what Akefsells to his followers—they wouldn’t fol-low him if he did. The Muslim Brother-hood sells Muslim empowerment. It

[ Letters ]wants the Jews out of “Palestine” (thatincludes Israel) and the United States outof Egypt, Iraq, and everywhere else.Those “fundamental goals” have keptthis movement going for almost 80 yearsand through trying times. Why shouldthe Brotherhood adopt American goals?And why now? Akef has even statedthat he “expect[s] America to collapsesoon.” Unfortunately, he hears plenty ofAmerican “experts” announcing thatthey expect something similar.

Lynch himself slips into double talkwhen he downgrades the divide to“policy differences.” Importantly, Akefdoesn’t have “ambivalence” towardHamas terror; he supports it. Lynchalso misleads Akef by claiming thatthere is a debate about engaging theMuslim Brotherhood raging in Wash-ington. There isn’t. Because as tough asHosni Mubarak can be, he shares sev-eral “fundamental goals” with the Unit-ed States: stopping Islamist terror andkeeping the Pax Americana.

—Martin KramerWexler-Fromer Fellow

Washington Institute for Near East PolicyWashington, D.C.

in ForeignPolicy� EU FocusIn-depth treatment ofimportant European issuesand the transatlanticrelationship.

� This IssueThe emerging identity ofEurope and Europeans in the21st century and the EU’srole in helping shape it.

� CommentsE-mail to Delegation-USA-JBComments@ec.europa.eu

A M E S S A G E F R O M A M B A S S A D O R J O H N B R U T O N

HEAD OF DELEGATION

European Commission Delegation to the United States

Just what does it mean to be European in the 21st century? Who aretoday’s Europeans? How are they changing the EU and how is itchanging them? In this EU Focus, we tackle some of those questionsand a few tangible (and intangible) results flowing from our grand“European Project.“

And grand it is. Imagine the U.S., Mexico, and Canada (and others) dropping their bordersand allowing free internal movement of goods and people, developing a single currency,converging national laws across diverse sectors such as finance/banking and environmentalprotection, and increasingly functioning on the world stage as a unified entity.

Difficult to visualize? It’s exactly what we’re doing in Europe today—and for the last 50 years.Complex and exciting, our undertaking both provokes and requiresfar-reaching change on the part of individuals and society alike. Andperhaps most important for everyone in Europe, the EU has broughtunprecedented peace and stability to our formerly war-torn continent. www.eurunion.org

MASTER OF ARTS INInternational Commerce and Policy

Earn a degree that provides you with the practical skills to operate effectively in today’s global economy. Our unique program explores the intersection of international trade, politics, economics, commerce and technology.

Small classes taught by worldrenowned faculty

Conveniently located in the metroWashington, D.C. area

Full-time or part-time study

Affordable costs

To learn more, visitpolicy.gmu.edu or call 703-993-8099

Marc Lynch replies:Joshua Stacher and A. Fahmy both arguethat the repressiveness of EgyptianPresident Hosni Mubarak, not theMuslim Brotherhood’s commitment todemocracy, should be the core issueof discussion on Egypt. I agree whole-heartedly with condemning the illiberalpractices of a close American ally, butthe Egyptian government cannot be thesole focus of critical scrutiny.

The Brotherhood thus far hasdemonstrated considerable commit-ment to the democratic game in spiteof the regime’s crackdown, which hasearned it the backing of a wide rangeof human rights and democracy advo-cacy groups. But, ultimately, bothEgyptians and Americans want toknow what the Brotherhood would doif it were actually to come to power—and it is simply wrong to claim that nodoubts about its intentions remain.The political party platform that itreleased to a small number of Egyptianintellectuals a few weeks ago, with itsreferences to a religious council withpower over legislation, shocked manypeople and has only exacerbatedthose doubts.

I agree with Fahmy’s suggestion thatthe real focus should be the rank andfile of the Brotherhood—the activistswho form the base of the organiza-tion. But Mohammed Mahdi Akef is,in fact, the leader of the organization,leaving the Brotherhood open to cri-tiques like that of Martin Kramer.Perhaps Akef’s inflammatory state-ments are simply “red meat” to hisbase. But does that not tell us some-thing about the views of that base?

Kramer is right that the Brotherhoodsupports Hamas and generally oppos-es U.S. foreign policy. He does a dis-service, however, by reducing ourvision to those issues at the expense ofa wider view of the value of democracyand the need to combat extremism—two goals that many Americans share,and to which the Brotherhood mightmeaningfully contribute. Finally,Kramer succumbs to his own wishfulthinking when he claims there is nodebate in Washington about engagingthe Brotherhood. My own participationin those debates aside, the evidenceagainst his view can be found in therecent publication of articles exploringthis question in the two leading foreign-policy periodicals in the United States:

[ Letters ]

The Latest Federal

Mandate

e Live, interactive, immediate

e Access to federal newsmakers

e Federal news and informationyou need to do your job better

The “Federal Drive” with Mike Causey and Jane Norris, weekday mornings from 6 - 10

Keep up to date on the ever-changing demands of the business of government!

Federal News Radio AM 1050 and FederalNewsRadio.com – Your Source For Federal News…Now.

Federal News Radio is Washington’s ONLY all news radio station for and about the federal government.

Foreign Affairs , with Robert S.Leiken and Steven Brooke’s “TheModerate Muslim Brotherhood,” and… Foreign Policy.

GLOBAL MASTER OF ARTS PROGRAMGMAP

International Business & Economic LawInternational FinanceInternational NegotiationInternational PoliticsInternational OrganizationsInternational Trade Economics & InvestmentsLeadership and ManagementSecurity StudiesTransnational Social Issues

f l e t c h e r. t u f t s . e d u / g m a p

PREPARING THE WORLD’S LEADERS WITH A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

Classes begin in March 2008 and July 2008

Tomorrow’s leader must master politics and businessacross cultures and issues that transcend borders such asdiplomacy, trade, and security. The Global Master of ArtsProgram is an international studies master’s degreedesigned to deepen understanding of how legal, economic,and political forces shape global challenges.

Midcareer professionals maintain career responsibilitieswhile attending this intensive year-long program. With three2-week residencies and 33 weeks of Internet-mediatedstudy, participants collaborate with peers from around theworld and all sectors of global life: business, diplomacy,politics, and international service.

Foreign Policy welcomes letters tothe editor. Readers should addresstheir comments to fpletters@ceip.org.Letters should not exceed 300 wordsand may be edited for length andclarity. Letters sent by e-mail shouldinclude a postal address.

William D. Rogers,a former U.S. under secretaryof state and member ofForeign Policy’s editorialboard, passed away on Sept.22, 2007, at the age of 80.Rogers, a highly respectedforeign-policy advisor andfriend of FP, will be missed.