Month: August 2014
Drops and strikes
A grim President Obama announced last night that the United States is dropping humanitarian assistance to stranded civilians in Iraq and will also strike Islamic State (IS) convoys if the extremists move on Erbil, the thriving capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. IS has reportedly taken the Mosul Dam. Yezidis and Christians, both anathema to IS, have fled.
Continuing to do nothing had become more difficult than doing something, but the President’s moves are at the lower end of the military intervention spectrum. They fall in the temporary expedient category. They will do nothing to reverse IS gains but may save some lives and steer IS away from Erbil.
Those objectives rank high as immediate priorities, but they don’t solve long-term problem, which is the consolidation of IS control over a substantial portion of western and northern Iraq. From there it can threaten Syria, Kurdistan, Turkey and Shia-dominated southern Iraq. IS can also threaten Europe and the United States if it becomes a haven for international terrorists.
The drop that really matters is the political one. Prime Minister Maliki is said to be negotiating the conditions for stepping down from the prime ministry. He wants immunity from prosecution and and security protection. That would be a small price to pay for unfreezing the political situation in Baghdad, though Maliki is likely to remain a force in Iraqi politics for a long time to come. His State of Law coalition won the largest number of seats in the April parliamentary election and he won by far the most personal preference votes.
Moving Maliki out of the prime minister’s office may be a necessary step, but there is no reason to believe it will be sufficient. Whoever replaces him will have a difficult time reconstituting the Iraqi security forces and maintaining a governing coalition that necessarily has to include Sunnis and Kurds as well as Shia. New American military equipment will take time to arrive and the Iraqis will need time to learn how to use it effectively. There will be no instant reversal of IS gains because some brave new soul sits in the prime minister’s office.
Meanwhile in Gaza the 72-hour ceasefire has expired. Hamas immediately dropped more rockets on Israel. The Israelis are striking Gaza from the sea and air. My guess is that this will not last. Both sides seem at the end of their gains. But that does not mean there will be a serious political settlement that changes the situation in a fundamental way. We may just be in for another long pause before they go at it again. That would be a shame, above all for the people of Gaza. Israeli strikes and Hamas drops will solve nothing.
The politics of Gaza reconstruction
Both the New York Times and the Washington Post feature articles this morning on the destruction in Gaza and the need for physical reconstruction. Houses, mosques and factories are destroyed, infrastructure damaged, people displaced, the economy upended, the society traumatized. Close to 1900 people died and many times that number were injured.
Current estimates put the reconstruction bill at $6 billion. If the past is prologue, even that amount won’t restore Gaza to its pre-war state, which was already miserable due to two previous wars with Israel and seven years of embargo.
The physical conditions are not, however, the main obstacle to Gaza’s reconstruction. The big issue will be who is responsible for it, Hamas or the Palestinian Authority (PA), and what conditions will govern it. The Europeans are already proposing that the PA be in charge and that reconstruction be conditional on Hamas’ demilitarization. Their proposal is said to include:
Preventing the armament and strengthening of Hamas and the rest of the terror organizations in Gaza.
Rehabilitating the Gaza Strip in cooperation with the international community and the Palestinian Authority and enabling the transfer of humanitarian aid.
Setting up an international mechanism to prevent the entry of prohibited materials to the Strip and ensuring that materials such as cement and iron do not reach the terror organizations but are used only to rehabilitate Gaza.
Returning the Palestinian Authority and President Mahmoud Abbas to the Gaza Strip.
The possibility of returning the European Union’s Border Assistance Mission to the Rafah border crossing alongside the Palestinian presidential guard.
I have my doubts that anything like this can be accomplished, as it would depend on Hamas pretty much admitting defeat as well as accepting PA authority and continued international monitoring. It would also require the Europeans to re-enter Gaza. The language sounds more like an Israeli proposal to me than a European one.
From even before the end of the war, the Israelis have been tying reconstruction to demilitarization and reestablishment of PA authority in Gaza. The Egyptians will agree, as the current military-backed regime in Cairo despises Hamas and wants it defanged. Egypt’s Saudi and United Arab Emirates (UAE) backers are also likely to agree, because Hamas is a Muslim Brotherhood organization that rival Qatar supports. The question is whether the Saudis and the UAE will put their deep pockets at the service of Egypt’s and Israel’s efforts to do even more political damage to Hamas in the post-war period than was done during the war.
Another key question concerns the people of Gaza. Will they rally around Hamas, or will their pre-war souring on Hamas’ ineffective governance continue? Will the PA, not known for either speed or effectiveness, be able to take advantage of the situation to at least establish itself and its unity government as a serious player in Gaza, able and willing to provide humanitarian and reconstruction planning and assistance?
There are important political questions on the Israeli side of the equation as well. Israeli protests of the Palestinian unity government have faded in recent weeks. Has Prime Minister Netanyahu come to the realization that the unity government strengthens those in Palestine who are most willing to collaborate with Israel on security questions? Can he reverse his ill-conceived opposition to a technocratic institution that nudges Hamas in the right direction?
The question of accountability will also be important for Israel. There were a lot of Israeli strikes on civilian concentrations, including UN schools and other shelters, during this month-long Operation Protective Edge. Israel claims that it does its best to avoid civilians. Now it has to demonstrate that by seriously investigating and publishing detailed accounts of why it hit targets in which civilians were killed. Illegal targeting, if any, needs to be punished.
Post-war reconstruction is not only a physical activity. It is a political one as well.
The Africa summit
It is hard to do justice to the US/Africa Summit going on in DC this week. It has many facets, not the least of which was yesterday’s reception for the Timbuktu Renaissance given by the Brookings Institution. No Muzak there. But here is a video from colleagues at the Wilson Center Africa Program that does a good job of telling us the three main official themes: trade and investment, peace and security, and future governance, which I trust is an implicit comment on its current unsatisfactory state:
Only the PLO can beat Hamas
When former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad resigned in 2013, Thomas Friedman lamented the death of “Fayyadism.” “If there is no place for a Salam Fayyad-type in [Palestinian] leadership,” he wrote, “an independent state will forever elude you.” As fighting rages in Gaza, a two-state solution seems more elusive than ever. At the Atlantic Council on Thursday, Fayyad articulated his vision for lasting peace in the region.
Fayyad traced many of the current problems to failed implementation of the 1993 Oslo Accords. Oslo was supposed to solve the permanent status issue, and ultimately create a Palestinian state. In signing the accords, the Palestinians accepted a temporary extension of the occupation. This “provisional” extension has lasted more than twenty years and is at the root of current Palestinian indignation towards the ruling Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).
In 2011, Israel traded more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who had been captured by Hamas six years earlier. The next year, PLO President Mahmoud Abbas sought to gain recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations. Israel retaliated by authorizing construction of 3,000 additional housing units in the West Bank. The message, said Fayyad, is clear: violence trumps political solutions.
Abbas has paid dearly for his cooperation with Israel, with little to show for it. For many Palestinians, his party has come to represent weakness and capitulation. Hamas is seen as the last remaining pocket of resistance in a region that has all but abandoned the Palestinian cause. Hamas’ hand has only been strengthened by current war.
There can be no sovereign Palestinian state without Gaza, which has been ruled by Hamas for the last seven years. All parties, including Gaza, must be represented in any final-status agreement. And there cannot be agreement until the Palestinians demand, with one voice, a “date certain” for an end to the occupation.
Israel is mistaken if it believes it can “defeat” Hamas in the traditional sense. While Hamas has been in control of Gaza for seven years, it is not a state. Non-state actors measure winning and losing differently. As Henry Kissinger said, “The guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win.” Hamas can still rise from the rubble and claim victory.
Fayyad said that it is unreasonable to condition a ceasefire on total demilitarization of Hamas. Israel couldn’t achieve this even when they were occupying Gaza. The Hamas-PLO Unity agreement should remain in place, he added. It is time to hold another election. Without electoral legitimacy, neither faction can govern effectively.
The new order cannot look like the old one. It will not be easy, he said, but long-term reforms must be embedded in any lasting ceasefire agreement. The despair in Gaza is palpable, and it only burnishes Hamas’s credentials. As one woman told him recently, Gazans are alive “simply because there isn’t enough death to go around.”
In 1993, Palestinians recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace and security. Israel did not reciprocate. This goes to the heart of the disillusionment felt by most Palestinians. Fayyad was not optimistic about Israel’s willingness to recognize a Palestinian state. Since Oslo, he noted, politicians in Israel have been increasingly unfriendly to the idea of a two-state solution.
Israel will not vanquish Hamas militarily, Fayyad said. In the end, the only way to defeat Hamas is by empowering the PLO. This will only be possible is Israel ends its occupation of Palestine.
Civil society in the Syrian diaspora
While the war in Gaza dominates the news cycle, the carnage in Syria has been all but forgotten. Last week’s death toll of 700 people in 48 hours received scant coverage in the international media. Nonetheless, the civil war has given birth to a plethora of diaspora-based civil society organizations (CSOs), and their numbers to continue to grow. Some groups are apolitical, distributing food and medical supplies where they are needed. Others see humanitarianism as an opportunity to advance a political or religious agenda. As the chances for political reconciliation diminish, a number of civil society groups have emerged that eschew any political involvement at all.
Outside CSOs are split on the question of armed conflict. Some are involved in funding, or at least supporting, various armed factions within Syria. For instance, the Coalition for a Democratic Syria aims to protect “the Syrian people through a unified Syrian Armed Forces,” according to their mission statement. The Syrian American Council also lobbies for increased US aid for the Free Syrian Army, the loose coalition of rebels who are fighting both Assad and Islamist-aligned groups.
Other groups, including the UK-based Madani, argue that arming either side only fuels the conflict. Regional and international actors should instead be working towards universal disarmament. One of Madani’s objectives is to “combat the war economy” by tracing and publicly exposing organizations and governments who funnel weapons into the country. They are also working to demobilize fighters and reintegrate them into civilian life. The group is currently mapping Syrian CSOs, and aims to ultimately create a network out of willing groups.
Any negotiations are more likely to succeed when CSOs are included in the process. Including these groups can also lend more legitimacy to a deal once it has been struck. Unfortunately, CSOs were not at the table during the failed Geneva II talks in January. The opposition was represented by the Syrian National Coalition, which has tenuous links to groups on the ground.
The failure of Geneva II gave rise to several organizations that are focused exclusively on civic projects and development, distancing themselves from politics. The newly formed Syrian Civil Coalition is one such group. They seek to bridge the divide between rival factions by providing a neutral forum for “realistically moderate” discourse. The coalition does not have a political stance, stating “It is important to avoid any inclination that aims at serving one political party.”
Their impartiality makes these groups suspect, so their impact of on the ground is limited. Some organizations that refuse to clarify their political alignment, like Jusoor, have been accused of harboring pro-regime leanings. Some activists have indicated that groups with no position on either regime or rebel forces cannot represent them. This calls into question the extent to which moderate or nonaligned groups can effect change in Syria.
Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon are sheltering close to three million Syrians, relying largely on a network of humanitarian groups to provide for them. CSOs in Jordan already had a large presence to accommodate the wave the refugees who escaped the Hama massacre in 1982. Many of these groups are connected to the Jordanian or Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, and receive additional funding from Qatar. Some of the children of these refugees founded the Syrian Women’s Organization in 2006, which provides new arrivals with food, medicine, and even cash. Turkey is also home to a large number of CSOs. Following recent protests against Syrian refugees in Urfa, the Syrian al-Khabour Civic Forum met with local groups to try to diffuse the situation. The Turkey-based Syrian Business Forum, which has reportedly received millions of dollars from Qatar, may be a key player in a post-Assad Syria. The group is said to already have a significant presence in northern Syria.
Many Syrian refugees have come to play a critical, though often informal, role in the conflict. A network of activists has arisen alongside traditional aid agencies, many of which are no longer able to operate in many parts of Syria. These members of the Syrian diaspora regularly smuggle medicine, food, and even people across Syria’s porous borders. “We do everything: journalism, medical care, smuggling,” said Ahmed Almasri, a Syrian refugee who is based in Jordan. They rely on sympathetic truck and taxi drivers, as well as professional smugglers, to move their “products” in and out of Syria. A few groups, including the Islamic Charity Centre Society, have tacitly admitted to using these informal conduits to distribute aid.
This civil war has brought a dizzying array of competing political, social, and religious interests to the fore. While some CSOs are purely humanitarian driven, others are backed by outside groups with their own political agendas. Whatever their motivations, CSOs have come to play a crucial role within and outside of Syria.
Today, Assad’s regime is looking more like a criminal enterprise than a state. Even if he survives, these groups will remain critical to the well-being and survival of millions of Syrians. And if he does not, diaspora CSOs will play a decisive part in shaping that country’s future.
Trials and tribulations
This interview with Petrit Selimi, deputy foreign minister of Kosovo, appeared in Tribuna in Albanian and is republished here in English with Tribuna’s permission:
Tribuna: These days, US foreign service published the annual report on the religious freedoms and there it’s stated that the level of non-tolerance has increased. Did you as a Foreign Ministry have any communication with State Department regarding this report? What are the main concerns?
Petrit Selimi: We had permanent contacts with US Embassy and truth be told, report’s positive findings on the promotion of tolerance and interfaith dialogue in Kosovo are related to the efforts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Kosovo. State Department took note and mentioned a series of our projects within the public diplomacy, especially the international interfaith conference held in Peja, the multilingual web site interfaithkosovo.org as well as the organization of the week of Tolerance and Dialogue last year that included the unveiling of a memorial stone to the Kosovo Jewish Holocaust victims who perished in the WW2.
One does not win much votes with such engagement but it’s important we have continuation of the promotion of real Kosovo, where the faith communities historically have shown more tolerance and patience than hate.
Tribuna: Despite good words for the tolerance projects, this year the report also numbers cases of public show of intolerance. What was your reaction to these specific remarks?
Selimi: One of the crucial challenges that we face is the attempt to slowly eradicate the boundaries of what is religion and the state or the public. Traditional Islam in Kosovo has always been a part of personal and family domain and now we have a situation where few imams, inspired by preaching in some other parts of the world, aim to mix politics and faith.
In this way, being active from the position of the interpreters of the absolute truth, these imams speak of political issues in absolutist terms, as infallible statements. One imam has called our Albanian mothers, sisters, wives “whores” because they chose to love people before marriage or because they choose to wear clothes of their compatriot Rita Ora. Another imam spits hate in preachings and calls for Jews to be “finished.” A third imam justifies physical violence against magazines that write on the theme of sexuality.
These are still a minority but they often preach with an utter conviction and charisma that may create with some young people especially, a deep sense of self-victimization and frustration, especially when you take into account the social and economic conditions as well as the level of education. All of these create a reaction of anger which sometimes leads to the real physical violence. It now seems almost comic that some of these imams [upon seeing their names in the State Department report] now say that “we may have made mistakes in our preachings, we are only human”. Yes, I agree we are all humans. If we are also good believers on top of it, then we know that God certainly has far more mercy and will also be merciful to those that show little mercy in their sermons. Read more