Month: May 2013
Peace Picks, May 6th-May 10th
Lots of Egypt, Pakistan and other interesting events in DC this week:
1. Where is the Cultural Revolution in Egypt Headed? Monday, May 6 / 12:00pm – 1:00pm , Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
Speakers: Margot Badran
Drawing on her experience and observations in Egypt over the past two and a half years since the outbreak of the revolution, Badran will look at changes in the everyday lives of Egyptians. She will focus on gender ideas and practices as part of the process of cultural and religious transformation underway and place this in the shifting political contexts.
Register for the event here:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/where-the-cultural-revolution-egypt-headed
2. Egypt in Transition, Monday, May 6 / 12:15pm – 1:45pm, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Ahmed Maher, Jawad Nabulsi, Leila Hilal, Peter Bergen
As Egypt’s revolutionary process derails, a myriad of political actors are struggling to form a new consensus about how to resolve the current political crisis and start rebuilding the state. The country’s uprising gave birth to a new generation of leaders that are working to seize this transformative moment to redefine their country.
Please join New America’s Middle East Task Force for a conversation with two prominent members of Egypt’s civil society. We will discuss the turmoil facing Egypt, the upcoming legislative elections, next steps for the ‘youth of Tahrir,’ and Egypt’s future trajectory.
Register for the event here:
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/egypt_in_transition
3. Amidst Iraq’s Turmoil: What Can We Do?/ Monday, May 6 / 2:00pm – 3:30pm, US Institute of Peace
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
Speakers: James Jeffrey, Dan Serwer, Mike Pillinger, Sarhang Hamasaeed, Manal Omar
For well over a year, Iraq’s political, security, economic, and social well-being continues to be shaken by internal and external events that have implications for stability in the country and the region. Despite gains, recent events on the ground have taken a swift turn. Internal displacement, the rise of armed groups, and recourse to violence present serious challenges in maintaining peace and sustained development within the country. As international attention has shifted to Syria and North Africa, the hurdles that Iraq faces internally need to be considered in light of these regional circumstances. Cross-border migration, a large number of returnees, and a growing influx of Syrian refugees too have a destabilizing force in Iraq.
How are Iraqis coping with the current crisis, and how can they be better engaged by the international community? What policy levers do the U.S. or other international actors have to help promote stability? What lessons can be applied across the increasingly porous and insecure boundaries of the Middle East?
The International Organization for Migration and the U.S. Institute of Peace invite you to a panel discussion on these urgent issues on May 6th from 2:00pm to 3:30pm.
Register for the event here:
http://www.usip.org/events/amidst-iraq-s-turmoil-what-can-we-do
4. The Drone Next Door, Tuesday, May 7 / 9:00am – 1:45pm, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Will Saletan, Paul Gosar, Rosa Brooks, Missy Cummings, Michael Toscano, Shane Harris and more
Drones have become essential to the American way of war. They’ve given the military nearly constant surveillance from the sky, and allow for quick attacks from afar. And now, like countless other technologies forged in the heat of battle, drones are making their way to the home front, pressed into civilian service. Call them drones, unmanned aerial vehicles, or remote-control planes; these high-tech devices have appealed to Border Patrol and local law enforcement, but also to conservationists, journalists, hobbyists, and more. How do we decide who gets to have their own set of eyes in the skies? What does it mean for your privacy and safety if your neighbors get their own drone?
Register here:
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/the_drone_next_door
5. Pakistan’s General Elections 2013: Stakes and Prospects, Tuesday, May 7 / 12:00pm – 1:30pm, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Simbal Khan, Daniel Markey, Malik Akbar, Steve Inskeep
On May 11, 2013, for the first time in Pakistan’s history, the country will hold general elections after a legislature has completed its term. While much attention has been paid to security’s effects on the elections, other key factors, such as demography, will also influence the outcome. Of Pakistan’s 90 million voters, 40 million will be voting for the first time. This makes the election seem more open than ever. Simbal Khan, Malik Siraj Akbar, and Daniel Markey will discuss the key factors the stakes and prospects for Pakistan’s elections. Steve Inskeep, host of NPR’s Morning Edition, will moderate.
Register here:
http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/05/07/pakistan-s-general-elections-2013-stakes-and-prospects/g1os
6. The International Response to Syria’s Humanitarian Catastrophe, Tuesday, May 7 / 12:15pm – 1:15pm, Middle East Institute
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036, Choate Room
Speaker: Valerie Amos
The Middle East Institute is pleased to welcome Valerie Amos, the UN under-secretary-general for Humanitarian Affairs, for a discussion about the humanitarian crisis inside Syria. Now in its second year, the Syrian conflict has generated more than 1.3 million refugees and left 4.25 million internally displaced. According to the UN, some 6.8 million people are in desperate need of assistance. And yet security limitations on the ground in Syria have made the delivery of emergency relief extremely challenging. Amos will lay out the current conditions inside Syria as well as put forward suggestions for what more the international community can be doing to alleviate the crisis.
http://www.mei.edu/events/international-response-syrias-humanitarian-catastrophe
7. Religion and Politics in Revolutionary Egypt, Wednesday, May 8 / 9:00am – 10:30am, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Nathan J. Brown, Jonathan Brown, Jocelyne Cesari
In the wake of Egypt’s revolution, a sea change is undeniably under way: Islam is playing a different and more powerful role in Egyptian public life. But focusing on the growing influence of Islamic forces masks an unpredictable evolution proceeding underneath the surface. The Muslim Brotherhood, Salafis, and a host of state institutions dedicated to Islam are themselves being reshaped by their growing involvement in politics, often in ways that are difficult to predict and even more difficult for their leaders to control. Join us for a discussion at the Carnegie Endowment where Nonresident Senior Associate Nathan J. Brown will present his new paper Islam and Politics in the New Egypt. Jocelyn Cesari of Harvard University and Jonathan A. C. Brown of Georgetown University will offer their comments.
Register for the event here:
http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/05/08/religion-and-politics-in-revolutionary-egypt/g0n8
8. Case Study: Regulating the Private Health Sector in Afghanistan, Wednesday, May 8 / 12:00pm – 1:00pm, O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law
Venue: Georgetown University Law Center, 111 G Street, NW ∙ Washington, DC 20001, E.B. Williams Library, Room 358
Speakers: Michele Forzley
Afghanistan is transitioning from a system in which government provides services to one in which government is the regulator of a changing public health care system and a new emerging private health sector. In the years since the Taliban era ended, the Government of Afghanistan has taken many steps to encourage the development of a market economy and in 2012 its Cabinet passed a law to regulate the private health sector. This law empowered and directed the Ministry of Public Health, (MoPH) to undertake the regulatory functions of licensing, setting standards, monitoring, evaluating performance of private health actors and enforcing the law with sanctions. To implement this new law, many of the departments of the MoPH will have to develop new procedures and forms and undertake additional or new regulatory functions. In accordance with the current national health policy objective of good governance, these new procedures and functions must reflect good governance and rule of law principles. Since last year, Professor Forzley has been working as a consultant and legal advisor to assist the Afghanistan MoPH to implement the new law in accordance with rule of law and good governance principles. Her presentation will cover a background on Afghanistan, its health system and the new private sector, the main functions of the new law, how procedures and systems are being developed to reflect good governance principle and future planned work.
More info here:
Click to access May8_MicheleForzleyBrownBag.pdf
9. Auditing Afghanistan, Wednesday, May 8 / 12:15pm – 1:45pm, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: John F. Sopko, Peter Bergen
The United States has spent tens of billions of dollars on the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, and making sure that money goes where it is supposed to go has been one of the toughest jobs of the conflict. As America transitions control of security operations and other governance processes to the Afghans, this job will become even harder.
The New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program is pleased to welcome the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) John F. Sopko on May 8 for a discussion on Afghanistan’s upcoming transition, and some of the most worrying trends he sees in the way U.S. taxpayer dollars are used in the country.
Register here:
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/auditing_afghanistan
10. The Future of American-Iraqi Relations, Wednesday, May 8 / 7:00pm, Al-Hewar Center
Venue: Vienna Community Center, 120 Cherry Street, S.E., Vienna, VA
Speakers: Phebe Marr
A conversation with Dr. Phebe Marr, a prominent American historian of modern Iraq with the Middle East Institute, about “The Future of American-Iraqi Relations.”
Dr. Marr has been research professor at the National Defense University and is a retired professor of history at University of Tennessee and Stanislaus State University in California.
More info here:
http://www.alhewar.com/newevents.html
11. Human Rights in Tunisia’s Transition: A View from the Field, Thursday, May 9 / 10:00am – 11:30am, Project on Middle East Democracy
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
Speakers: Amel Azzouz, Amna Guellali, Daniel Brumberg, Stephen McInerney, Joyce Kasee
Between 2012-2013, Tunisia’s political scene has witnessed increasing polarization and occasional violence, culminating in the assassination of Chokri Belaid in February 2013. In this context, Tunisia’s National Constituent Assembly is considering the third and perhaps final draft of its proposed constitution. The constitution-writing process has been protracted by disagreements about allusions to Islam and cultural values, and the primacy of human rights as they are internationally defined.
As Tunisia is led by a provisional government, how does the country rank on human rights, addressing political violence by intolerant groups, protecting freedom of expression and the rights of women and minorities, and writing a constitution that safeguards the rights of all Tunisians?
Register here:
http://www.usip.org/events/human-rights-in-tunisia-s-transition-view-the-field
12. Governance Opportunities and Challenges for the Incoming Pakistani Administration, Thursday, May 9 / 2:00pm – 3:30pm , Atlantic Council
Venue: Atlantic Council of the United States, 1101 15th Street, NW, 11th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005
Speakers: Alex Thier
Please join the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center for “Governance Opportunities and Challenges for the Incoming Pakistani Administration,” a conversation with Alex Thier, assistant to the administrator, Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs, US Agency for International Development.
Pakistan’s General Election is set for May 11 and regardless of which party comes to power, the next administration will face a number of daunting challenges related to successful governance. High unemployment, circular debt in Pakistan’s energy sector, and widespread corruption only hit the tip of the iceberg when it comes to severe challenges that Pakistan is facing. The election results could also bring a shift in the central government’s relationship not only with the provinces but also with the people. Despite this, every challenge also presents an opportunity for Pakistan.
USAID’s program in Pakistan has been working on transforming a number of these challenges into opportunities, including supporting energy sector reforms, encouraging trade liberalization, and increasing political parties’ responsiveness to constituent concerns. USAID’s Alex Thier will speak to these efforts and offer his insight on how Pakistan, amongst all its transitions, can make the governance choices that will accelerate a positive trajectory of economic and civic growth.
RSVP to:
southasia@acus.org
13. Egypt’s Revolution, Two Years On: Transition in Distress?, Thursday, May 9 / 2:30pm, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Venue: 1150 22nd St NW Washington, DC 20037
Speakers: Anwar E. El Sadat and Helmy el-Gazzar
As part of the 2013 Soref Symposium, the Washington Institute will host a conversation with Anwar E. El Sadat, founder and chairman of the El Sadat Association for Social Development & Welfare and a former member of the Egyptian parliament, and Helmy el-Gazzer, from the shura committee of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.
This event is open to the press and will also be streamed live at: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/.
14. U.S. Defense Policy in the Middle East, Thursday, May 9 / 7:00pm, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Venue: 1150 22nd St NW Washington, DC 20037
Speakers: Chuck Hagel
The keynote address of the 2013 Soref Symposium will feature remarks by U.S. defense secretary Chuck Hagel, as he discusses U.S. military and security policy in the Middle East.
This event is open to members of the media and will be streamed live at https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Game of Drones
The debate over the use of drones falls into three paradigms: legal, practical and moral. The panel hosted on Wednesday by the Bi-Partisan Policy Center (BPC) followed this pattern.
John Bellinger, a lawyer and former adviser to the Department of State, said legally, it is permissible to use Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to kill leaders who plot against the United States. Under international law, use of force is permissible under an imminent threat or during ongoing hostilities.
Hina Shamsi of the ACLU replied that the United States does not conduct drone strikes under those guidelines. No evidence is required that a plot is taking place. During wartime, Thomas Kean, the co-chair of the BPC’s Homeland Security Project, we may suspend civil rights and take otherwise illegal actions, but the US drone program is going beyond that and conducting actions illegal even in wartime.
A crucial problem is lack of transparency. The Obama administration needs to prove that what they are doing is lawful. So far they have not succeeded. Who is making the decisions? What are the legal standards? Who are the targets and why? Restricted access to White House legal memos on the drone program inhibits Congress from constructing an adequate legal framework and from conducting oversight. Bellinger posed the question, once meant to be a controversial joke, now an impending reality: “Will drones be Obama’s Guantanamo [controversial legacy]?” Shamsi warned that transparency is necessary for a healthy democracy. The drone program threatens our democracy’s health.
Philip Zelikow, former counselor at the Department of State under George W. Bush, presented a defense and explanation of how the administration approaches the use of UAVs. The argument centers on how to conduct warfare with a group like Al Qaeda, a non-state actor, spread out over multiple nations. First, he explained, you need to define a doorway that once entered allows you to kill people. Having passed through the doorway, you ask ‘which people can I kill?’ You have to set standards. Zelikow advocated a: “rule of law” approach. The doorway should be public, debated and discussed, to ensure a healthy democracy. Who you can kill should be defined carefully as someone who directly participates in hostilities.
Bellinger pointed out that the rest of the world operates within a human rights paradigm. The drone issue heavily affects international response and regional blowback. No other nation has publicly agreed with our drone program. To others, the US appears indifferent to civilian casualties. The perception of America as ruthless undermines our legitimacy as a world power. Shamsi added that America needs to be concerned about the precedent it sets for the rest of the world. Sooner or later, other countries and non-state actors will get drone technology. “We need to consider,” she added, “if we want to live in the world that we are currently defining.”
Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times posed the question of how and why drones are used in countries where American is not at war. Is the bar different for targeted killings in Yemen or Pakistan? What does this new style of war mean for regional repercussions and blowback? Drone strikes gone awry, in these areas especially, generate fear and hatred. They also lead to increased radicalization and motivate extremism.
The time has come for a renewed debate on the use of military force, including drones. The enemies are not conventional ones. We need public discussion on what is permissible, legally, practically and morally.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Bosnia: the fighting continues
American lawyers ask me from time to time to testify in immigration cases for people from the Balkans. If they can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in the country of origin, a court will allow them to stay in the US. I am generally skeptical. The Bosnian war ended in 1996. The Kosovo and Macedonia wars in 2001. Hundreds of thousands of people have returned to their homes. Discrimination and ethnic quotas are common. Interethnic violence happens but is rare. Are there really places that are still unsafe?
The answer is yes, as my mailbox revealed this week. Here’s a note from a friend:
The editor in chief at Tacno.net [an internet-based news outlet], Ms. Štefica Galić, and her first assistant Amer Bahtijar are in serious jeopardy from both Croat and Muslim militant nationalists in their town, Mostar. Those otherwise mutually hostile extremists have now virtually unified against my friends because of Tacno.net’s anti-nationalist editorial policy that promotes tolerance and cooperation between peoples and countries in the region. Seriousness of the situation is such that Štefica and Amer are in danger even when going to a restaurant for lunch, because literally no part of the town is safe for them.
The problem is that local police are unwilling to protect them even though they are notified about all the threats and everything that’s going on. Last year Štefica was physically attacked by local Croat nationalists in her hometown Ljubuški (also in Herzegovina). Fortunately, she suffered rather minor injuries on that occasion, but when she reported the incident to the local police, the officers almost laughed at her, implicitly supporting the assailants. The authorities reacted, albeit fairly reluctantly, only after the U.S. Ambassador to OSCE intervened.
Now, the threat is even bigger than last year. So, I want to ask if you possibly have any idea what could be wise for them to do in such a situation, or if you know someone…who is influential enough to help them somehow?
The short answer is “yes,” so I am doing what I can to alert people to what is going on, including in this post. But what is really going on?
My correspondent went on to write:
The main reason is that during the war [Štefica] and her late husband, Neđo Galić, were rescuing local Muslims (Bosniaks) from a Croat concentration camp in their hometown Ljubuški. Last year, Svetlana Broz, a granddaughter of the Former Yugoslavia’s President Tito, filmed a documentary about their heroic deeds, which actually served as a pretext for local Croat extremists to attack Štefica in the street (the attack took place just a couple of days after the movie was premiered at the local cinema in Ljubuški and they were openly menacing Štefica all the time). Ms. Broz’s NGO also granted Štefica an award for civil courage.
This is not about ethnicity per se. It is about a much more profound divide in the Balkans: between ethnic nationalists and anti-nationalists. The ethnic nationalists have managed to keep Mostar, an important city in southern Bosnia, divided since the early 1990s, when clashes there helped initiate a series of wars. The political economy in Mostar depends on this division, which gives Croat and Bosniak nationalists political monopolies and the opportunity to divide the pie and drain resources from their own communities.
This would be far more difficult if Bosniaks and Croats got along well enough to sit in the same institutions together. They would watch each other with care. The failure to reintegrate Mostar’s institutions has left both the Croat and Bosniak populations at the mercy of their, forgive the expression, blood-sucking ethnic nationalists.
That is why the anti-nationalists are such a threat. They don’t get a lot of votes. But they are unreliable when it comes to covering up corruption and past ethnic crimes (as well as threatened ones). The people who threaten them do so for good reason. The European Union, which spent upwards of $100 million on reintegration in Mostar, should ask for its money back. The inter-ethnic war may be finished in Mostar, but the fighting continues between the nationalists and anti-nationalists.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Inviolability is like beauty
Unwilling to pledge adherence if a referendum on the Belgrade/Pristina normalization agreement fails, the Serbian opposition and its allies in northern Kosovo are instead going to court.
This is a smart move. A referendum would have be likely to show majority support for the agreement in Serbia, where people are far more concerned about jobs and the economy than political arrangements for a relatively small number of Serbs in northern Kosovo. The popular Deputy Prime Minister Vucic and his coalition partner Prime Minister Dacic are solidly in favor of the agreement they negotiated.
I am not a lawyer, but it is not difficult to anticipate at least part of the case the opposition will make. Article 8 (Territory and Border) of the 2006 Serbian constitution reads:
The territory of the Republic of Serbia is inseparable and indivisible.
The border of the Republic of Serbia is inviolable and may be altered in a procedure applied to amend the Constitution.
Part of the preamble reads:
Considering also that the Province of Kosovo and Metohija is an integral part of the territory of Serbia, that it has the status of a substantial autonomy within the sovereign state of Serbia and that from such status of the Province of Kosovo and Metohija follow constitutional obligations of all state bodies to uphold and protect the state interests of Serbia in Kosovo and Metohija in all internal and foreign political relations.
Let’s leave aside the fact that this constitution was only passed because Kosovo Albanian names were not counted on the voting list, thus enabling the constitutional referendum to meet the requirement that 50% of registered voters participate. That’s true but likely irrelevant seven years after the fact. Does the normalization agreement alter the “inviolable” border of the Republic of Serbia, which seems to require an amendment to the constitution?
Inviolability, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The normalization agreement certainly provides for the reintegration of the judicial, police and electoral systems of northern Kosovo into those of the Pristina-based institutions, which are outside Belgrade’s authority. It also implies that Kosovo is an independent and sovereign state that will proceed on the path to the European Union independent of Serbia. Belgrade has also agreed to an EU-invented border/boundary regime that is normally practiced only at an international border.
Still, the normalization agreement does not alter the Serbian border. The Serbs in Kosovo will govern themselves at the municipal level and participate in an association of Serb municipalities. They can receive assistance from Belgrade. I can imagine a court decision that simply confirms that the border has not changed. I can also imagine a court decision that declares the agreement in violation of the constitution. And then there are all those in-between possibilities: a decision not to decide for procedural reasons, a decision that the court is not competent to rule on matters of this sort….
Any judicial process will take time. If the Serbian government does what it is now saying it will do, implementation of the agreement will come well before a court decision, fait accompli. Delaying implementation to see how things will turn out would put at risk Belgrade’s big prize: the date for EU accession talks to begin. Dacic and Vucic won’t want to do that. Most of Serbia’s citizens won’t either.
So implementation will proceed. Those who take this case to court run the risk of winning so late that it makes no difference. But if they win it will mean that Serbia’s eventual entry into the European Union will require, as many of us have suspected, a constitutional amendment. That’s hard to picture, but not long ago it was hard to picture meetings between Dacic and Thaci. Inviolability, like beauty, may not last forever.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Americans are coming
President Obama, bless his heart, is sending John Kerry off to Moscow next week to convince the Russians that something needs to be done about Syria’s use of chemical weapons. Yesterday’s leak that the President is considering supplying weapons directly to the opposition is presumably intended to strengthen Kerry’s hand in what must be an uphill push.
The smart money is betting the Russians won’t budge. I’m not so certain, but in any event Obama is doing the right thing to pursue them. He may eventually have to act without Russian concurrence, in order to maintain American credibilty in the eyes of the Iranian and North Korean regimes. But it would be far better reach a political accommodation that ends the Asad regime with the Russians on board, so as not to endanger their cooperation in the nuclear talks with Iran or the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Obama needs Moscow for both.
Kerry’s push could get some help from unexpected quarters. Missiles were fired yesterday at a Russian civil aircraft flying over Syria. There is no reason to believe the opposition has the capability to target aircraft at an altitude anywhere near 9000 feet. If they did, they would surely use the capability against the Syrian air force. The Russians were already busy denying that they were urging Hizbollah to withdraw from Syria. Someone in Moscow has to be scratching his head and asking if Russia is on the right side in Syria.
Russia need not change its mind and come over to the opposition. Great powers rarely do that. Russia wants to convince the world it is again a great power. A wink and a nod would suffice. That’s what Moscow did in Kosovo in 1999. The UN Security Council resolution legalizing that intervention passed after the war.
The really vital interest for Russia in Syria is to avoid a Sunni extremist takeover, which Moscow fears would infect its restive Muslim population in places like Chechnya and Dagestan. Here Obama and Putin are in the same sinking boat. What they’ve done so far has increased the likelihood of an extremist takeover in Syria, not decreased it. If Russia is serious about dealing a blow against jihad in Syria, it is becoming eminently clear that Bashar al Asad is not the guy to do it.
The Russians do not believe that Asad has used chemical weapons. I trust Kerry will be going to Moscow with a gaggle of intel analysts in tow to make the case. It will not be easy. The Russians don’t trust anything we say. Our record, from the Tonkin Gulf to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, is not a great one. Let’s leave aside “Remember the Maine!”
But I think there is good reason to believe chemical weapons have been used in Syria, likely to test our reaction to their use. If we don’t react, they’ll be used a bit more, slowly erasing that (red) line in the sand.
Obama might like to just ignore the challenge, as chemical weapons are no better at killing people than conventional arms and a good deal more difficult to handle. That’s where Iran and North Korea come in. If he fails to react to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, how will he convince Tehran or Pyongyang that there is a credible threat of military action against their nuclear programs? That threat is vital to any possibility of diplomatic success with either of them.
This gloomy picture could change dramatically if Moscow decides it has bet on the wrong horse and decides to abandon Asad. It’s not likely, but it’s highly desirable. Obama and Kerry are right to try.
RSS - Posts
