Month: May 2013
No narrow way out
This rare interview with Salim Idriss, who (sort of) commands the forces in Syria that call themselves the Free Army, is telling. It demonstrates three things:
- The rebels are still in need of weapons.
- Their fragmented structure makes supplying them a dicey proposition.
- Disunity is a serious impediment to their military progress.
This is not an unfamiliar situation. It is comparable to the Bosnian army during the first year of that country’s miserable war, which started more than twenty years ago and went on for three and a half years before the Federation forces started winning and the Dayton accords ended it.
By then, the Bosnian (ABiH) was unified under General Rasim Delic and fighting in tandem with the Croat Defense Force (HVO) and the Croatian Army (HV) against the Republika Srpska army (VRS). But things hadn’t started that way. The HVO and the ABiH had even fought with each other in 1992 and 1993, just as some rebel forces inside Syria have in recent months.
Likewise in Kosovo, the Kosovo Liberation Army was not completely unified at first and fought occasionally with the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kosovo (FARK), a less well-known group that also fought against the Yugoslav security forces.
The Syrian rebel forces will need greater unity if they are to make further progress against the Syrian army, which has been gaining ground in the past few weeks. That is at least in part due to Iranian and Lebanese Hizbollah forces fighting inside Syria. The regime’s objective is to relieve Damascus and secure the route to the Alawite-populated areas of the northeast, where ethnic cleansing of Sunnis has been proceeding apace.
The rebel forces are also going to need more international help, at the very least arms supplies, but some want a much narrower focus. Aram Nerguizian wants American intervention to focus exclusively on chemical weapons and extremists among the rebels:
How U.S. military power could be used is to selectively target risks tied to proliferation of chemical weapons and other strategic capabilities in Syria. It could be used to contain and curtail the expansion of al Qaeda in the Levant and to prevent the preeminence of radical forces in the region.
The chemical weapons seem to me strategically irrelevant. If used, they have killed a tiny fraction of the more than 80,000 dead. It can still be argued that the President’s “red line” has to be enforced, lest failing to do so sends the wrong message to Iran. Certainly a credible threat of military force to block Tehran from getting nuclear weapons is vital to the diplomatic strategy the President is pursuing. But the notion that chemical weapons, like nuclear bombs, are “weapons of mass destruction” is hyperbole. Syria’s use of chemical weapons has nothing like the implications of Iran gaining nuclear ones. Finding and destroying Asad’s stocks of sarin and other poisons would be a major military enterprise, not the limited intervention some may imagine.
Extremists are likewise a difficult target to engage. Muslim extremists also emerged in Bosnia and Kosovo but were quickly undone once the fighting was over. That will be a far more difficult process in Syria, as it will not be getting the tens of thousands of NATO peacekeeping forces that made it happen quickly, and in retrospect easily, in the Balkans. But how, precisely, does one target Jabhat al Nusra in Syria? Do we really want to be hunting them down with drones while they are fighting the Asad regime? Or encouraging the Free Syria Army, which is less than fully effective against the regime forces, to engage against them while the extremists are fighting Asad? We have made it clear that Jabhat al Nusra is not acceptable to the international community, something the UN reinforced last week with financial sanctions. But do we really need to do more than that right now?
The higher priority is to focus on protecting civilians in Syria. The regime is targeting civilians in rebel-held areas daily, trying to make life there unbearable and governance impossible. The purpose is to get the civilians to expel the insurgents, in the hope doing so will provide some measure of relief from artillery and air bombardment. Protecting Syria’s civilian population from these ravages should be our priority concern.
The costs of failing to do so are high. US humanitarian relief in Syria could total $1 billion by the end of this year. Unless we focus on civilian protection we are not likely to recover some measure of confidence in Syria’s Sunni Muslim population and prevent its youth from further radicalization. A post-Asad Syria dominated by extremists will be a problem for the Middle East and the US for decades into the future. We should want a Syria that respects the rights of its citizens (regardless of sect or ethnicity) as well as its borders with Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon. That will take time and effort. There is no shortcut. A narrow focus on chemical weapons and extremists will not serve these broader strategic purposes. There is no narrow way out.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks May 13-17
1. Exploring Tunisia’s Investment Climate, Monday, May 13 / 11:00am – 12:30pm, Aspen Institute
Venue: Aspen Institute, One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20036
SPEAKERS: Don De Amicis, Daniela Gressani, Ziad Oueslati, Tom Speechley
Two years after the revolution, Tunisia’’s economy is at a turning point. The new government is struggling to address high levels of continued unemployment, while trying to attract increased international investment. With unemployment at 17% nation-wide and 30% in the interior, Tunisia must create jobs and investment in key sectors such as hospitality, agriculture, energy and technology. Partners for a New Beginning welcomes you to join us for a discussion on the opportunities and challenges to Tunisia’’s economic future. Panelists will explore the role of the international community and local government and private sector in supporting Tunisia’’s economic transition.
Register for the event here:
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/events/2013/05/13/exploring-tunisias-investment-climate
2. Egypt’s Litigious Transition, Monday, May 13 / 12:00pm – 1:30pm , Atlantic Council
Venue: Atlantic Council of the United States, 1101 15th Street, NW, 11th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005
SPEAKERS: Mahmoud Hamad, Yussef Auf
The judiciary has profoundly shaped Egypt’s transition by prosecuting former regime figures, restructuring government institutions, and reshaping a fluid legal framework. Judges blocked executive orders and dissolved the Islamist dominated parliament, drawing the ire of Islamist forces in power who now view the judiciary as a political enemy. Legal maneuvering, such as President Mohamed Morsi’s replacement of the prosecutor general and the Islamist led Shura Council’s debate over a judicial authority law that would severely curtail judicial influence, has heightened tensions between the judges and the government. What implications does this dynamic hold for the future of Egypt’s transition? Does the judiciary exert a moderating influence over the political process or has hyper-partisanship tainted its objectivity? Please join us for a discussion of these issues with Mahmoud Hamad, author of the new Atlantic Council issue brief, Egypt’s Litigious Transition, and Yussef Auf, a nonresident fellow at the Rafik Hariri Center.
Register for the event here:
http://www.acus.org/event/egypts-litigious-transition
3. Building on Progress in Afghanistan: 2014 and Beyond, Monday, May 13 / 2:00pm – 3:00pm , Center for Strategic and International Studies
Venue: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006
B1 Conference Center
SPEAKERS: Ajay Chhibber
Ajay Chhibber is United Nations Assistant Secretary-General and UNDP Assistant Administrator in UNDP’s Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific, managing UNDP programs in 39 countries, including Afghanistan. Representing UNDP’s unique perspective on development in Afghanistan, Mr. Chhibber will discuss the challenges and opportunities for Afghanistan’s development, particularly with the 2014 transition approaching.
Despite obvious shortcomings and many setbacks, Afghanistan has seen significant progress that is often overlooked in discourse on the future of the country. For instance, in just a decade, the number of mobile phones in Afghanistan has increased from zero to over 18 million. Meanwhile, some 3 million girls are attending schools in Afghanistan today-whereas under Taliban rule girls’ education was outlawed.
Please RSVP to PPD@csis.org.
4. Diaspora Engagement: Bridge-Building in Southeast Europe Roundtable, Monday, May 13 / 2:30pm – 6:00pm, United Macedonian Diaspora
Venue: United Macedonian Diaspora, 1510 H Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington, D.C.
SPEAKERS: Ambassador Josko Paro, Ambassador Srdjan Darmanovic, Tyson Barker, Robert Benjamin, Steven Bucci, Robert Hand, Ivana Howard
The Third Annual Southeast Europe Coalition Roundtable is being held in conjunction with the Third Annual U.S. Department of State’s Global Diaspora Forum (GDF). It is estimated that over five million Americans claim ancestry from Southeast Europe, or what is commonly known as the Balkans. Keeping in mind with this years GDF theme “Where Ideas Meet Action,” the Southeast Europe Coalition hopes to bring together diplomats, think tank experts, and Diaspora leaders to engage in an open discussion on current trends in the region, as well as how the Diaspora can build bridges among themselves and with U.S. and Southeast Europe stakeholders.
RSVP to:
amilovanovic@umdiaspora.org
5. Conflict Assessment: Comparing Research Methods and Conceptual Frameworks’, Tuesday, May 14 / 9:30am – 11:30am , Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS – Nitze Building, 1740 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Kenney Auditorium
SPEAKERS: Dayna Brown, Neil Levine, Bruce Hemmer, Paul Turner, Lisa Schirch
Dayna Brown, director of the Listening Project at CDA Collaborative Learning; Neil Levine, director of the Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation in USAIDs Office of Democracy and Governance; Bruce Hemmer, a research analyst at the Office of Learning and Training of the U.S. Department of States Bureau for Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO); Paul Turner, a CSO policy analyst; and Lisa Schirch founding director of the Alliance for Peacebuildings 3P Human Security program, will discuss this topic. Note: SAIS will host a live Webcast for this event.
Register for the event here:
http://sais-jhu.edu/events/2013-05-14-093000-2013-05-14-113000/conflict-assessment-comparing-research-methods-and
6. American Foreign Policy in Retreat? A Discussion with Vali Nasr, Tuesday, May 14 / 9:30am – 11:00am, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
SPEAKERS: Martin S. Indyk, Vali Nasr, Robert Kagan
For the past decade, a debate has raged about the future of American power and foreign policy engagement. In his new book, The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat (Knopf Doubleday Publishing, 2013), Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow Vali Nasr questions America’s choice to lessen its foreign policy engagement around the world. Nasr argues that after taking office in 2009, the Obama administration let fears of terrorism and political backlash confine its policies to that of the previous administration, instead of seizing the opportunity to fundamentally reshape American foreign policy over the past four years. Meanwhile, China and Russia – rivals to American influence globally – were quietly expanding their influence in places where the U.S. has long held sway. Nasr argues that the Obama administration’s foreign policy decision making could have potentially dangerous outcomes, and, what’s more, sells short America’s power and role in the world.
On May 14, Foreign Policy at Brookings will host Vali Nasr for a discussion on the state of U.S. power globally and whether American foreign policy under the Obama administration is in retreat. Brookings Senior Fellow Robert Kagan will join the discussion, which will be moderated by Vice President Martin Indyk, director of Foreign Policy.
Register for the event here:
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2013/05/14-dispensable-nation-american-foreign-policy?rssid=UpcomingEvents&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BrookingsRSS%2Ftopfeeds%2FUpcomingEvents+%28Brookings+Upcoming+Events%29
7. Drone Wars: Counterterrorism and Human Rights, Tuesday, May 14 / 12:15pm – 1:45pm , New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036
SPEAKERS: Ben Emmerson, Peter Bergen
On March 15, Ben Emmerson, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counterterrorism, released a statement that categorically declared the CIA drone program a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. That statement followed three days of secret meetings with Pakistani officials, who told Emmerson that they had confirmed 400 civilian deaths in drone strikes since the program began in 2004.
In Pakistan, popular support for CIA drone strikes is virtually non-existent. Although public opinion in favor of drone strikes remains quite high in the United States, the targeted killing campaign has come under increasing fire of late from human rights organizations, Congress, and even former U.S. government officials. The New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program is pleased to invite you to a conversation with Emmerson about his work investigating human rights violations in the war on terror, particularly in relation to the CIA drone program.
Register for the event here:
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/drone_wars_human_rights
8. Pakistan’s 2013 Elections: Assessing the Results and Impacts, Tuesday, May 14 / 2:00pm – 3:30pm, US Institute of Peace
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
SPEAKERS: Safiya Ghori-Ahmad, Arif Rafiq, Moeed Yusuf, Andrew Wilder
Pakistan’s general election scheduled for May 11th, 2013, will mark a further milestone in the country’s democratic development. While previous elected governments in Pakistan have completed their full terms in office, and political power has been peacefully transferred, expectations have been high that the 2013 elections would be the most free and fair ever in Pakistan’s history. This is in part due to the greater independence of the Election Commission of Pakistan, as well as the relatively ‘hands off’ role being played by the Pakistan military and intelligence agencies relative to past elections. However, the dramatic increase this past month in attacks by Islamist militant groups on candidates, political party workers and election offices, primarily targeting political parties viewed as ‘secular’ in the Pakistan contest – in particular the Awami National Party (ANP), the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) – are now raising serious questions about how free and fair the elections will actually be.
Please join the U.S. Institute of Peace on May 14, 2013 from 2:00pm until 3:30pm, for a panel discussion on the results of Pakistan’s May 11th elections, and the implications of these results for both for Pakistan, as well as U.S.-Pakistan relations. This event will be webcasted live beginning at 2:00pm on May 14.
Register for the event here:
http://www.usip.org/events/pakistans-elections-hopeful-future-or-unstable-one
9. U.S.-Pakistan Security Relations: From 9/11 to 2011, with an Eye on 2014, Tuesday, May 14 / 4:00pm – 5:15pm , Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
SPEAKERS: Simbal Khan
Soon after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the United States and Pakistan entered into a wide-ranging security partnership. The deal ushered in an era of volatile relations between Washington and Islamabad. During her time as the Wilson Centers 2012-13 Pakistan Scholar, Simbal Khan has been researching the U.S.-Pakistan security relationship, and at this event she will highlight her findings. She will also examine what the future may hold for U.S.-Pakistan security ties with the approach of the 2014 international troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Register for the event here:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/us-pakistan-security-relations-911-to-2011-eye-2014
10. U.S. Policy Toward Iran, Wednesday, May 15 / 9:30am , U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Venue: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Constitution Avenue and 1st Street, NE, Washington, DC
Room 419
SPEAKERS: The Honorable Wendy Sherman, The Honorable David S. Cohen
Register for the event here:
http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/us-policy-toward-iran-05-15-2013
11. Getting to a Two State Solution: A Regional Perspective, Wednesday, May 15 / 10:00am – 11:30am, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
SPEAKERS: Ghaith Al-Omari, Marwan Muasher, Gilead Sher, Aaron David Miller
Twenty years after the signing of the Oslo Accords, Secretary of State John Kerry,the latest in a series of U.S. envoys,is embarked on a serious effort to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. How will recent elections in Israel and the resignation of Prime Minister Fayyad influence his prospects? What about the impact of the Iranian nuclear issue and the civil war in Syria? Join us for a discussion with four regional experts with long experience in government, diplomacy, and national security affairs.
Register for the event here:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/getting-to-two-state-solution-regional-perspective
12. A Postmortem on Pakistan’s 2013 Elections, Wednesday, May 15 / 12:00pm – 1:30pm , Middle East Institute
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Choate Room
SPEAKERS: Arif Rafiq, Shamila Chaudhary, Simbal Khan, Daniel Markey, Marvin G. Weinbaum
In the wake of Pakistan’s recently concluded elections, this panel will offer insight and analysis into what the results are likely to mean for the future of the country and region. The speakers will reflect on the possible composition of a new government and the implications of the election for the future of Pakistan’s democratic system. In addition to the election’s domestic ramifications, the panelists will also address the possible effects of the elections for the United States and American foreign policy.
Register for the event here:
http://www.mei.edu/events/postmortem-pakistans-2013-elections
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Pakistan hat trick
This is pretty dramatic. That’s Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) in the lead, by a wide margin. More knowledgeable people are predicting he’ll have little difficulty getting installed for the third time as prime minister, relying if necessary on independent votes rather than a coalition with one of the other major parties.
There is a lot of reason for celebration. Turnout was high. Though the election was marred in some places by mainly Pakistani Taliban violence, it was peaceful in much of the country. The margin of victory makes allegations of irregularities relatively unimportant to the result, even if they undermine public confidence in some places. A good deal of effort went into purging the voter rolls and establishing the independence of the electoral commission. If the process proceeds as anticipated, Pakistan will accomplish its first transition from one elected government to another since independence.
Best as always to look the gift horse in the mouth. There are big problems. The largest by far arise from Pakistan’s parlous economic situation, which will require for its cure a major effort to ensure payment for electricity, deregulation of energy prices, an International Monetary Fund loan, a pickup in global demand and wise management of the budget on Nawaz Sharif’s part. The odds are bad for all of that happening smoothly while Pakistan suffers attacks from insurgent groups and completion of the American withdrawal from Afghanistan, ending an important boost to the Pakistani economy and a good reason for the Americans to be cooperative.
Nawaz Sharif’s victory came overwhelmingly from Punjab, Pakistan’s most populous province (more than half the population lives there, and more than half the parliament is elected there). His most noisy rival, star cricketeer Imran Khan, did well in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly the Northwest Province). The Pakistan Peoples Party, which holds a plurality of seats in the current parliament, looks likely to finish a weak second or possibly third in Saturday’s polling.
The main issues in the campaign were economic. The Express Tribune gave a “B” to Nawaz Sharif’s center-right party manifesto on economic issues, in particular energy, fiscal responsibility, reducing regulatory hurdles, and improving government efficiency. Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (Movement for Justice) also got a “B,” with the PPP and other parties lagging far behind. Of course party platforms are no more serious as an indication of how the parties will govern than they are in many other countries. It is perhaps indicative that no grade was given on corruption, which is a serious problem at all levels in Pakistan.
What does the return of Nawaz Sharif mean for Pakistani foreign policy in general and the United States in particular? Ahmed Rashid suggests Pakistan’s neighbors will welcome Sharif back, hope he can heal his relations with Pakistan’s army (which deposed, imprisoned and exiled him last time he was prime minister) and regain some measure of control over Pakistan’s foreign policy, which for years has been left mainly to the security forces. An improved relationship with Afghanistan is particularly important, but Pakistan also faces challenges in dealing with its Chinese ally, which does not appreciate Muslim extremism, and with Iran, from which it hopes to import much-needed natural gas despite US opposition. Anti-American sentiment is running high in Pakistan, in part due to drone strikes, but Sharif will need sympathy in Washington if he is to secure a big ($6-9 billion) IMF loan.
So the hat trick is to be celebrated, but Nawaz Sharif has his work cut out for him.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Pakistan’s electoral basics
It’s election day in Pakistan, which is not a place I know. I found this graphic a useful introduction to who is being elected to what and how (it’ll enlarge if you click on it a couple of times–first it gets smaller, then larger):
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria’s humanitarian catastrophe
This past Tuesday I moderated the Q and A for a Middle East Institute presentation by Baroness Valerie Amos, the UN’s Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, on “The International Response to Syria’s Humanitarian Catastrophe.” Here is the video, which is also up on the MEI website:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria: is there hope?
Salon.com asked me to review recent events in Syria and their significance. They published it today under the heading “Has the Syria threat cooled?”:
Watching Syria is like looking through a kaleidoscope. The picture seems to change dramatically in response to the slightest jolt, but the components remain the same. The past week has seen lots of jolts, but no real change in the elements that make up the sad picture.
Inside Syria, the regime’s forces have started an ethnic cleansing campaign in the west intended to clear Sunnis from areas its Alawite supporters want to secure for themselves. The regime has also successfully pushed south toward the Jordanian border. In much of the rest of the country, there is lots of fighting but only marginal changes in the confrontation lines, which run through many urban areas, or between the urban centers and the countryside. Almost 7 million Syrians are now thought to need humanitarian assistance. The number could rise dramatically during the rest of the year.
Secretary Kerry’s visit to Moscow this week revived, once again, hopes for a negotiated settlement. He and the Russians agreed to try to convene a conference, even before the end of the month, that would include both the Syrian opposition and the Assad regime. The prospect of this conference will relieve President Obama of any need for a quick decision on unilateral action in Syria, since it would hardly be appropriate to preempt the conference. That is likely what both the Russians and the Americans wanted: more time.
Pressure had been building for action, including possible direct American shipment of arms to the opposition, safe areas for displaced people, a no-fly zone, or an attack on Syria’s air force and missiles, which are being used against civilians. Evidence that the regime has used chemical weapons put President Obama on the spot, as he has several times said that crossing this red line would change his calculus. American credibility, some thought, was at stake.
The ink was barely dry on the allegation of chemical weapons use when Carla Del Ponte, a Swiss member of a U.N. human rights inquiry for Libya, suggested that she knew of evidence that chemical weapons were used by the opposition rather than the regime. This allegation has little credibility, not only because of the technical difficulties involved but also because Del Ponte has a record of sensational allegations that are difficult to prove (or disprove).
RSS - Posts
