I was flipping through the newest issue of Foreign Affairs and what should I see but an ad for the hot-off-the-presses book by Mark Lynch, aka Abu Aardvark, on Arab media: Voices of the New Arab Public: Iraq, al-Jazeera and Middle East politics today. Here's the catalog description:

Al-Jazeera and other satellite television stations have transformed Arab politics over the last decade. By shattering state control over information and giving a platform to long-stifled voices, these new Arab media have challenged the status quo by encouraging open debate about Iraq, Palestine, Islamism, Arab identity, and other vital political and social issues. These public arguments have redefined what it means to be Arab and reshaped the realm of political possibility. As Marc Lynch shows, the days of monolithic Arab opinion are over. How Arab governments and the United States engage this newly confident and influential public sphere will profoundly shape the future of the Arab world.

Marc Lynch draws on interviews conducted in the Middle East and analyses of Arab satellite television programs, op-ed pages, and public opinion polls to examine the nature, evolution, and influence of the new Arab public sphere. Lynch, who pays close attention to what is actually being said and talked about in the Arab world, takes the contentious issue of Iraq-which has divided Arabs like no other issue-to show how the media revolutionized the formation and expression of public opinion. He presents detailed discussions of Arab arguments about sanctions and the 2003 British and American invasion and occupation of Iraq. While Arabs strongly disagreed about Saddam's regime, they increasingly saw the effects of sanctions as a potent symbol of the suffering of all Arabs. Anger and despair over these sanctions shaped Arab views of America, their governments, and themselves.

Lynch also suggests how the United States can develop and improve its engagement with the Arab public sphere. He argues that the United States should move beyond treating the Arab public sphere as either an enemy to be defeated or an object to be manipulated via public relations. Instead of wasting vast sums of money on a satellite television station nobody watches, the United States should enter the public sphere as it really exists.

Amen, to that last point in particular. And just maybe the much-hyped and much-criticized new public-diplomat-in-chief, Karen Hughes, has figured that out? One indicator is the decision to pull the plug on the innocuous teen-oriented Arabic lifestyle magazine, Hi. Another potential indicator is the doubling of the number of the State Department's media interviews in Arabic this year, to about 100, as reported by Steve Weisman, in a profile of Hughes in the NYT. Weisman also reports that Arabic satellite television is definitely on Hughes' radar screen.

Ms. Hughes departs from one common policy among top American officials. She appears on Al Jazeera, the popular Arabic satellite television station accused by the Pentagon of cooperating with anti-American extremists. This past week, Ms. Hughes sparred with a Jazeera moderator over Iraq, Israel and democracy in the Middle East. "I came here because I respect Al Jazeera," she said. "You have a large audience, and I wanted to address that audience to communicate with the Arab world."

Afterward, Ms. Hughes said that she had been advised not to appear on the station but that she disagreed.

"We have to be out there," Ms. Hughes said. "We may not like everything they report. They may be putting out misinformation. They may incite violence. But we have to be out there."

Marc Lynch has set up a separate blog for discussions of the book, reviews, and his book-promotion schedule, and you can buy it there through his Amazon links. For a good intro to his views, see this recent article in the Wilson Quarterly, Watching al-Jazeera.

cross-posted at American Footprints

As I've indicated previously, I've grown increasingly cranky about the amount of heat and smoke that's been generated over whether "democracy is on the march" in the Middle East, why, and what it should mean for America's (or Democrats', or the Left's, etc) grand strategy. A modest cure for my crankiness arrived from a surprising source today: Jim Hoagland. He offers a perspective I hope a great many people can embrace, so we can stop fighting the last (US civil) war over Iraq. It's time to look outward and forward to what should be the basic posture of US policy in the region.

The status quo is certainly shifting in the Middle East. Prospects for the resolution of long-frozen poisonous conflicts are emerging, with at least a reason to hope that resolution can take place within representative political structures rather than through violence, repressive autocracies, or foreign domination. And the US can support this process in a variety of constructive ways.

Jim Hoagland is being cautious about this Beirut Spring, not solely based on his first-hand experience in Lebanon over decades. His optimism is also tempered by some useful lessons he draws from the last two years in Iraq. As he notes:

Exaggerated optimism about Iraq -- mine included -- gave rise to post-invasion bitterness and exaggerated pessimism inside and outside the administration. The overreaction -- the swift, continuing alternation in perception between "success" and "failure" -- obscured the need for a speedy transfer of responsibility to Iraqis and helped delay elections there. The political runways in Iraq were overshot, successively, in opposite directions.

So what should the US be doing? Hoagland recommends the same recipe the US has begun to follow in Iraq -- first and foremost, staying focused on the really important goal, which is to facilitate the tortuous process by which the Lebanese themselves reach a new modus vivendi that will serve as the foundation for reconstructing their political system. From the US, what is required is a sense of balance, patience, and taking advantage of opportunities to collaborate with other nations with influence in the situation.

The best way to aid Lebanon's rebirth as a nation is to keep the focus on the intricate set of political negotiations over power-sharing that the Lebanese themselves must initiate, manage and make succeed once the Syrian boot is off their neck.
[...]
France and the United States have found common cause to press Syria's Bashar Assad to withdraw troops that were first sent to Beirut in 1976 with the approval of both powers. "Paris wants to stabilize Lebanon, and Washington wants to destabilize Syria," a diplomat in Europe said to me recently. "There's something for everyone."

Hoagland's warning about avoiding the roller-coaster of excessive enthusiasm and despair is not only a way of saying we must give the Lebanese opposition the time and space to negotiate with the other Lebanese political groups. It's also important that Americans don't lose their heads if things get sticky; to think that Syrian push-back or the political expression of Hizbollah require rushing in to ensure a desired outcome. The US won't be doing either itself or the Lebanese any favors if it allows itself to get sucked into one side or another of their semi-eternal multifaceted internal power struggles. As Hoagland notes, without even mentioning the Palestinians, whose presence in Lebanon has played a far from insignificant role:

Each of Lebanon's three large population groups -- Christians, Sunnis and Shiites -- has competitively and disastrously relied on outsiders to provide a margin of domination that none can achieve alone.

I personally have a good deal of sympathy for the reported reluctance of the Bush Administration to begin discussing the possible expansion of the UN's Interim Force in Lebanon to potentially fill the vacuums left by Syrian withdrawal and/or disarmament of Hizbollah. Lots of time to get to the point of asking "who, what, when, whether and how much." Offering the prospect of another outside force in the middle would seem to just encourage the Lebanese to continue their old ways of using outsiders for their own purposes.

The Bush Administration also appears to be alive to the same danger in Iraq -- of being pulled in by one group or another to "sort things out." A danger all the more acute given the necessity of some form of US military presence in Iraq for some time to come. Complete neutrality among the contending factions is clearly impossible -- all the more so when some of those factions are trying to kill your troops. Nor am I proposing the US is or should be indifferent to the broad outlines of a final outcome.

A delicate tightrope to walk, but one that will be easier to navigate if there is a widely shared view -- at least within the less extreme of American political groupings -- that US policy should focus on supporting a participatory process in which the locals sort out their own conflicts.

[UPDATE 12-24-04] The best reformers turn crises into opportunities. That's what the Orange revolution has been attempting in Ukraine, and that's what Rami Khouri, executive editor of Beirut's Daily Star is calling for, although on a far less dramatic scale.

As has become official, with the release Wednesday of a statement by UNDP (see below), the third annual Arab Human Development Report will not be issued by the UNDP itself but rather by a to-be-created organization located in the region. Khouri is calling on regional business and intellectual leaders to see this as a great opportunity to put their money where their mouths have been all these years: take the initiative and establish a truly independent regional think-tank and civic action center to promote reforms in the region.

If the timing of press initiatives is indicative, such an institution is already in the works and is to be discussed seriously this weekend in Beirut. We'll now have to see whether those Arabs who hold themselves out as dedicated to true reform are ready to take what would be an important symbolic step.

But first, let's review the bidding. It seems that the third Arab Human Development Report, to be published under the auspices of UNDP and which is devoted to freedoms and good governance, has stirred a number of hornets nests. The first is with the US, which was reported, initially by Tom Friedman (see initial story below), to have objected to a portion of the report critical of US policies in Iraq and Israel, and was forcing a publication delay. Various denials and confirmations of Friedman's story (official and unofficial) have appeared in the press. The story has over time expanded to include reported opposition by Egypt and other countries.

As of three days ago, it seemed there is general consensus that UNDP will not be the official publisher of the new AHDR, and if it is published it will be issued by a to-be-established organization. According to AFP, the criticisms of the draft report come from a fairly wide group of governments, not only Egypt but especially countries in the Gulf.

The draft "includes serious elements and others that need correcting," Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa told reporters Tuesday.

"There are problems preventing its release by the UNDP. We expect it to be issued by a third party," said Mussa, a former Egyptian foreign minister.

The Arabist Network has the transcript of an interview he conducted earlier this week with one of the principal authors of the report, Nader Fergany, as well as further perspective on the politics surrounding the issue of the first and second AHDRs.

And now Transitions Trends has the text of a press statement released by UNDP in which it denies that it is being threatened by the US government with withholding of funding if it issues the new AHDR. The text of the press statement needs to be read carefully, since it was clearly written with great care.

UNDP statement on Arab Human Development Report

New York, 22 December 2004—There have been numerous press reports in recent days concerning the Arab Human Development Report (AHDR), published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

The AHDRs are the product of an independent editorial team of Arab scholars, policymakers and practitioners. As such they are not statements of UN or UNDP policy, although UNDP, according to its mandate, has been and remains involved in programmatic follow up to many of the recommendations contained in the report.

One of the strengths of the AHDRs has been their status as frank, independent analyses of the state of human development in the Arab world. Different countries, both within and outside the region, have warmly welcomed some of the recommendations and views in previous reports while raising objections to others. That has been part of the aim of the reports: to catalyse constructive debate about how best to promote human development in the region. While at different times concerns have been raised by some Governments about the content of the forthcoming report, no formal discussions on editorial content have taken place, no Government has asked for their suppression, and press reports that the US has threatened to cut future contributions to UNDP in relation to the upcoming report are inaccurate.

Nevertheless, any report coming out under UNDP’s name must meet the high standards of impartiality expected of a UN agency. Further, the difficult political climate in the region makes our principal motive – finding common ground around reform – difficult. UNDP has for some time been exploring the possibility of helping to create a new, independent centre, situated in the region, that could become the institutional home of an editorially independent AHDR going forward. This would provide full freedom for the authors to promote their views while institutionalizing the series of reports as a representative voice of Arab civil society. This has always been our end goal and is fully consistent with the central message of the AHDRs that successful reform needs to be driven from within the region. UNDP, along with other partners, would directly support such a centre and remain actively involved in following up on key recommendations in current and future reports. Consultations are currently being held in the region to agree on the best way forward. Following these discussions, UNDP will be able to provide further details on the publication of the forthcoming AHDR on Freedoms and Good Governance in Arab countries, which is now in final stages of preparation.

There follows my comments at Transition Trends regarding the UNDP press statement:

Many thanks for following up on this story we've been watching with great interest at Liberals Against Terrorism and chez Nadezhda.

The wording of UNDP's release is more than a little telling. The key words are "formal," "asked" and "threatened."

Pretty clearly the following has happened. US staff from State or another agency have expressed to UNDP the likelihood that, given the various sources of great displeasure with Kofi Annan and the UN expressed on Capitol Hill these days, the Arab Human Development Report would be the last straw, and a brouhaha of over-sized proportions would explode. Since the text would be critical of both the US gov't and the Israelis, the Bush Admin wouldn't be able to defend UNDP vigorously. Congress has already cut the US' contribution to UNDP in the past, and there are some folks in the key committees who would be happy to have the new AHDR as an excuse to make further highly-publicized major cuts.

UNDP has realized that they can't leave themselves and the AHDR of Arab reformers at the mercy of the US Congress every year, simply because Congress has the power of the purse over UNDP's funding.

Rather than issue the third AHDR now, and then clean up the political mess later, they've tentatively decided to use the third AHDR as the first "product" of a to-be-created regional institution that can take over the process of issuing new reports going forward.

UNDP has issued the press statement because this whole matter is in the process of escalating out of control. At the very least, US State Dept wants a statement out there because otherwise it appears that Richard Boucher and other officials have been lying when they've said they haven't insisted on changes or forced UNDP to delay publication. Boucher, when he says they'd like the thing issued and that the US policies on reform in the region benefit from the contents of the reports, is in fact telling the truth from the perspective of the State Dept. He can't very well say, "We'd like it issued, but Congress would have a tizzy fit" when it's his party that controls Congress.

The question for UNDP now is what type of institution to set up, where, who will "own" it, how will it continue to be funded (especially if it keeps taking on the regional governments, it's not as if the Arab League is going to sponsor the thing). Can another multilateral, such as the World Bank, take on an oversight/governance function to give it some international credibility and protect it from regional governments without running afoul of the US Congress. How much will UNDP "seed" the funding of the new institution, etc. beyond transferring its ownership rights to the current draft. Gets very, very complicated for them.

We'll be watching how this develops with great interest. Keep us posted if you learn anything further! Thanks again.

So now the ball has moved to the Arabs' court, and to mix sports, Rami Khouri says "it's showtime!"

Set up an independent Arab Human Development Center

For all those activists and reformers in the Arab world who have worked for years to promote democracy, civil society and political freedoms, this may be the moment to act decisively to promote their goals in a practical manner.
[...]
The irony is that this third AHDR, which is now ready for printing but is still being held up by UNDP until the diplomatic controversy is resolved, focuses on political freedoms in the Arab world - an issue that the U.S. government has pushed in the past three years with exuberance and militarism that have sometimes verged on hysteria. The report, which is written by respected Arab scholars and activists, represents precisely what the U.S. wants to see happening in this region - free-thinking Arabs analyzing their societies and proposing means to make them more free, democratic, pluralistic, accountable, transparent and happy all over.
[...]
So what does the Arab world do in the face of this difficult situation? The urgent aim must be two-fold: The Arab world itself must move quickly to prevent damage to UNDP's credibility and programs because of its courage in publishing the first two AHDRs, and, the Arab world must find a way to continue this series of useful reports and make them more effective as instruments of Arab modernization, reform and democratization. For in the final analysis, these reports are not about the U.S. or UNDP. They are about us, the people, societies, identities and power flows in the Arab world.
[...]
The most sensible option to do this would be to establish a new, independent, pan-Arab think tank - an Arab Human Development Center - in the Middle East that would publish this report and subsequent ones every year. The talent and policy-making direction for such a center would come from the group of respected Arab individuals that wrote the first three AHDRs.

The key element is finding funding for the new center, and this is where Arab activists and democrats must step forward quickly and decisively. It takes only about $1 million a year to produce and publish each report.

Activist, reform-minded, democratic and wealthy Arab businessmen and women should get on the phones with one another in the coming week, round up $5 million to fund a new Arab Human Development Center for its initial three years or so, publish the third AHDR on time in January 2005, and announce the next three reports that will come out in subsequent years. The fourth report is scheduled to focus on women and the gender deficit in the region (I would suggest that the fifth and sixth reports focus on youth, and civilian control of the military-security systems in the area).

An indigenous research center publishing the AHDR annually should also initiate other activities to promote pan-Arab reform, including publishing annual surveys of political, press and personal freedoms, annual reviews of Arab military vs. human development spending, educational quality, gender- and youth-related rights, and other elements of modernity and sustainable national development. Civil society and, in some cases, possibly some government institutions, might join forces to monitor trends in these key areas, diagnose persistent problems and constraints, propose reform policies, and generate the coalitions in society needed to implement such policies.

Arab private businesses and individual investors have earned tens of billions of dollars in profits in recent decades and it is time for them to repay their societies by funding an independent research institution for pan-Arab human development. All those reform-minded Arab businessmen and women who have spoken out so eloquently at reform-focused gatherings in Dubai, Sanaa, Alexandria, Doha, Beirut and Amman must now step forward and take this process to the next critical level: establishing an independent, indigenous Arab human development research center that would provide quality research as well as play a critical advocacy and monitoring role in Arab societies. It is time for Arabs to protect the Arab human development reports, and to bring them home.

It would seem that action on this should be forthcoming in fairly short order. According to the same AFP article, one of the principal authors of the report, Nur Farahat, a law professor at Zagazig University in Egypt, has confirmed that efforts are underway to ensure the AHDR's release in January.

Farahat supervised the drafting of the legal aspects of the document entitled "Towards Consolidating Freedom in the Arab World."

He said the report's authors and consultants would meet in Beirut Sunday and Monday to review final preparations for launching the document.

Rami Khouri's "call to arms" was reprinted the same day in a number of English-language newspapers in the region, laying the groundwork for an announcement of further steps to "bring the AHDR home."

The establishment of an independent reform research center that was "owned" by Arabs, not by an international agency, would be a terrific step,. It would certainly have added importance and its voice would be enhanced by being seen to have been established in opposition to the US. This would also help remove some of the reformers' current taint of too-close alignment with US policies. The principal worrisome note was that sounded by the Arab League General Secretary, who seemed to indicate that the report would need to respond to a wider collection of criticsms from regional governments.

If such an institution is to be truly effective, it will have to be seen to be independent not only from US influence but from regional governments; that makes its funding and governance structure of special importance. It remains to be seen whether independent action is truly possible by academic experts who depend for their livelihood on funding of their universities or institutions by governments in the region. That is why Khouri's call for funding to come from individuals and investors, not from governments, may ultimately determine whether this is an opportunity that is grasped or the cause of another in a long line of disappointments.

---

[From Dec 21 2004] Maybe Tom Friedman isn't crazy after all! Or to be more precise, maybe his story about the Bush Admin sitting on the release of the UN's 2004 Arab Development Report wasn't just some particularly malicious and unfounded gossip he picked up from his buddies in Dubai.

The same day that praktike noted that Friedman seemed to be talking sense for once, there was a flurry out of which a State Department denial emerged. And that was the last I'd heard.

At the time, I'd assumed there was at least some smoke there -- that Friedman hadn't been totally suckered by someone why had virtually invented the tale from whole cloth, and that the US was in part responsible for the publication's delay. But I figured, given the complete denial from Boucher, that it must have been someone other than State (e.g. NSC) who was yanking the chains of the UN staff, and that State would straighten things out now the press was asking about the matter.

Well, Friedman may not have wanted to get into a slanging match with State over his sources, but someone else has picked up the baton. Rami Kouhri from the Daily Star -- who is generally pretty good on these sorts of things and who, BTW, was in Dubai at the same conference where Friedman picked up the UN story -- has the makings of a little expose in Tuesday's edition.

Democracy in the Middle East, but only on America's terms
U.S. anger over Arab development report threatens UNDP

Document describes impact of Israeli and American occupations on regional sentiment
[...]
Authoritative sources directly involved in the matter revealed that the U.S. State Department had accused the UNDP of publishing "false accusations" against the U.S. in the third report, which is finalized and ready for printing. The report has been held up since October due to this political problem. Last year the U.S. cut its funding of the UNDP by $12 million, to $89 million, making it clear that the cut reflected its displeasure with some of the contents of the Arab Human Development Report (AHDR).

UN officials believe that the report as it stands now is factual and fair. It has already been heavily edited to meet normal UN standards of fairness and accuracy, and in its present form it describes the impact of the Israel-Palestine and Iraq situations on sentiments and public opinion in the Middle East. The UN's dilemma is that it could never edit or change the text sufficiently to reflect Washington's view that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is "a man of peace" and that the American presence in Iraq is an act of "liberation," as one person involved in this matter noted privately. Yet publishing the report as it is would lead to a severe funding cut.

Options being explored now include suppressing the report (which would be a great blow to UNDP credibility), publishing the third AHDR in the name of the Arab writers and researchers who produced it, without the UNDP's name on it (which would effectively mean the end of the series of reports from the UNDP), or finding a way for this and future reports to be published by a third institution not linked to UNDP. Some UN officials fear that the U.S. could cut its entire budget contribution to UNDP in retaliation for the 3rd report being published in its present form.
[...]

Poor UNDP. No good deed goes unpunished. And the Bush Administration -- not only showing something less than a strong, principled commitment to free speech and opinion from Arab reformers, but also demonstrating a bit of recidivism on still-fresh pledges to not act unilaterally. Wonder whether that was on the agenda during the chats Kofi had with Colin and Condi the same day Richard Boucher was issuing fulsome denials.

The December 2004 issue is now online. Looks fascinating. Its focus is on Arab media and how it relates to reform. In addition to a number of country-specific articles, it has statistics, regional trends of various sorts, and information on journalists and funding.

Insights and Analysis

• Shattering the "Politics of Silence:" Satellite Television Talk Shows and the Transformation of Arab Political Culture By Marc Lynch
  Arab satellite news stations represent one of the Middle East's most potent forces for reform.
• Arab Satellite Television: Can It Rise Above Spectacle? By Jon B. Alterman
  Pan-Arab satellite TV has brought more open political talk into studios, but not yet more open politics on the ground.
• Privatization Alone Will Not Loosen Arab Governments' Grip on Broadcasting By Naomi Sakr
  Until Arab broadcasting is independently regulated, aspiring independent broadcasters will face pressures from above and below.
• Cyber-Struggle: Islamist Websites versus the Egyptian State By Omayma Abdel-Latif
  Islamist websites are trying to break the state's monopoly over the political and social agenda.
• Washington and the Challenge of Arab Press Freedom By William A. Rugh
  It is no simple matter for the United States to apply its cherished press freedom principles in its Middle East policy.
• Iraq: Nightmare of Violence Dashes Hopes for a Free Press By Borzou Daragahi
  Iraqi journalists face dangers from the insurgency, U.S. forces, and the Iraqi interim government.
• Kurdish Media After the War By Maggy Zanger
  Kurdistan is the most secure and economically thriving place in Iraq, but the Kurdish media are slow to take advantage of the situation.
• Media Reform in Syria: A Door Ajar? By Ammar Abdulhamid
  The Syrian regime is tolerating limited expressions of dissent in the media, but will reformers take advantage of the new opening?
• Still Shooting the Messenger in Morocco By Aboubakr Jamai
  King Muhammad VI has displayed an ambivalent, sometimes hostile attitude toward Morocco's new independent press.
• Egypt: Political Films and the Politics of Filmmaking By Walter Armbrust
  The politics of Egyptian film reflect an often complex mix of internal and external forces for change.

News and Views

• Statistics on the Arab Media
  
• Trends in Media Law Reform
  
• Trends in New Arab Media
  
• A Snapshot of the Iraqi Media Scene
  
• Reports on Press Freedom in Arab Countries
  
• Private Broadcasting in Palestine
  
• Al Jazeera Initiatives
  
• New Journalists' Associations
  
• U.S. Funding for Arab Media
  
• Views from the Arab Press

Read On
A roundup of new writings on Arab media and reform.

The Arabic edition of this issue of the Arab Reform Bulletin will be available by December 22 at http://www.alwatan.com.kw/arb.

Must be willing to work for little pay, under brutally repressive conditions. Employer is known for his self-aggrandizing, fickle, irrational nature, his terrible economic and social policies, and his disdain for expert advice. Nevertheless, this is the aesthetic challenge of a lifetime, and the situation is dire.

Sucher?

You say you want democracy in the Middle East. You may think the best hope is to bring democracy by gunpoint to Fallujah or to Sudan.

I disagree. I think you people have it mostly wrong.

Support this guy.

The small but vibrant Bahrainian blogging community had its first meetup last night. Chana'ad blogged it, and Mahmoud took some photos.

[UPDATE 10-29-04] by nadezhda

Things are getting a tad nastier in Bahrain's tug-of-war over free speech, and Mahmood in his den doesn't appear terribly optimistic about either the commitment to Freedom of Speech or the political IQ of certain MPs (Concentration Camps: A Natural Progression). Even with the apparent leadership of a modernizing crown prince, the forces of conservatism act as a dead weight. Mahmood's cri de coeur is, unfortunately, one heard all to frequently across the region when attempts at reform are taken.
   more »

Since I'm on the subject of blogging in the Arab world, here's a link to Iraqi Ur-Blogger Salam Pax's videos.

---

[UPDATE 10-27-04; original post 10-12-04] by nadezhda

And here's a link to Salam Pax' occasional blogging for the Guardian. His new entries are about his recent seven-day trip to Washington, which followed the showing of his videos in Canda. Blogging about watching simultaneously the presidential debates and the Red Sox-Yankees, he has time for a few notes on political chatter:

And that is another thing that seemed to be incomprehensible to one of my new Washington friends: when we were talking about the popularity of the clerical militia chief Moqtada al-Sadr I was asked how anyone could be fooled by someone who so obviously used religion to boost his own popularity and went for the lowest common denominator for popular appeal? I was saved by another guest who asked if we were talking about Bush or Sadr here.

I don't know enough about Egyptian politics to be able to say how unprecedented this is, but it is encouraging:

More than 650 politicians, activists and intellectuals issued a landmark joint statement saying they will push to amend Egypt's constitution to prevent Hosni Mubarak, the country's president for almost a quarter of a century, from standing for another term next year.

Mubarak, 76, has been Egypt's president and leader of the National Democratic Party since replacing his assassinated predecessor, Anwar Sadat, in 1981. His current six-year term ends in October, 2005 and he has not chosen a successor. In four previous presidential referendums, which require Egyptians to vote yes or no, he has been the sole candidate.

Some 689 people, ranging from Islamists to Communists and including 30 lawmakers, signed a petition Saturday in the name of The Popular Campaign for Reforms, an umbrella group formed last month to try to amend Egypt's constitution to limit a president to holding two terms only.

Among the signatories, including 26 human rights and civil society groups and opposition political parties, was the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest Islamic group, which has 17 members represented in the Egyptian parliament as independents.

The petition, a copy of which was faxed to The Associated Press, said maintaining the system of one-man rule in Egypt would be "an obstacle to all opportunities for reform and progress which the country needs in order to face political, social and economical challenges."

These included curbing the spread of corruption, deterioration of public services, price increases, fall in standard of living and rising unemployment levels, the petition said.

How will the U.S. react? It's time to see if we're serious about this whole "democracy in the Middle East" thing.

UPDATE [10:01 AM 10/25/04] by praktike: Issandr El Amrani of the Arabist network is optimistic yet cynical:

The left and the Islamists have taken some time to get together and find common ground, but at least they finally have. The group that’s still missing, though, is precisely the one Western powers would most like to see succeed the military regime: the “liberal” businessmen who have been nurtured for years as a rising force in Egyptian politics and are now – to a certain extent – represented by Gamal Mubarak and his cronies.

Hmmm.

Abu Aardvark has more analysis. Short version: it isn't unprecedented, and the fact that the reformers appealed to the AP is a sign of weakness. And Gamal Mubarak is being put forward within the NDP as a reformer, but he's an unknown quantity and he happens to be the son of a dictator, which undercuts his reformist credentials.