Month: October 2015
Governing Syria
I am writing from Gaziantep in southern Turkey, where I’ve enjoyed a week’s worth of meetings over the last three days. I came to have an upclose look at the Syrian Interim Government (SIG) and some of the rest of the Syrian exile presence in this bustling city of 1.5 million located 60 kilometers or so north of the border, including both nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and a couple of quangos (quasi-nongovernmental organizations). That is what I would call the Local Administration Council Unit (LACU) and the Assistance Coordination Unit (ACU), which are creations of the Syrian Opposition Council that predate the SIG.
Sorry for the acronyms. War generates them. It’s not only the Pentagon.
It is easy enough sitting in Washington to hear the worst about the SIG, SOC, LACU and ACU. President Obama himself has several times stated baldly that the Syrian opposition is incapable of taking over the country. The Syrian NGOs and quangos also come in for a great deal of disdain, as they are heavily dependent on US and European funding.
I can’t say the skeptics are entirely wrong. But they are definitely focusing on the empty part of the glass. What I’ve happily found here are serious people doing serious things with minimal resources and a great deal of commitment and optimism, despite the vagaries of international support.
Let me start with the SIG. It was created by the Syrian Opposition Coalition, a quasi-legislative body recognized by the US and other governments as the political (as distinct from the legal) representative of the Syrian people. The SIG looks like a government in exile: it has a prime minister, a deputy prime minister and ten ministries.
Some of these ministries have impact on the ground inside Syria. The education ministry approves curriculum and administers school examinations in “liberated” areas. The health ministry is said to have mobilized thousands of volunteers inside Syria. If you are an ordinary Syrian unable or unwilling to leave, it is no small thing that your kids are still going to school (even if not likely in a school building, as the regime has bombed most of those). And getting them vaccinated against polio is a big deal since the outbreak in eastern Syria a couple of years ago.
But the SIG has little traction with the armed groups fighting both the Assad regime and extremist groups like Jabhat al Nusra (an Al Qaeda affiliate) and the Islamic State. No one I met pretends that the Defense Ministry plays much of a role in the ongoing warfare. Located outside Syria without a defined and stable relationship with the fighting groups, the SIG looks to some like a Potemkin government sketched on flimsy paper with little governing authority.
I found at the top of the SIG a strong desire–even commitment–to move inside Syria, an ambition that has existed however for years without being realized. I was told an order to relocate the Education Ministry into an opposition-controlled area of northern Syria is already in effect. The best prospect for moving the rest of the SIG into Syria–until the Russians entered the war in recent days–was an area Turkey calls “the rectangle,” a 98-kilometer stretch of its border about 60-70 kilometers deep into Syria that the SIG was expecting to see cleared of its current IS rulers and protected from air and ground bombardment by the regime.
Civilians in Gaziantep, both Syrians and internationals, have been actively planning to move quickly into this area, once IS is cleared from it, with the essentials of post-war reconstruction: security, rule of law, governance, economic activities and humanitarian relief. Local councils for the main population centers already operate outside the “rectangle” but inside Syria. Plans for local police forces and border control are being drawn up. The SIG is surveying public facilities and potential economic activities in the area as well as planning to build accommodations for returning refugees on state-owned land. The Americans have hosted a “table top” simulation for civilian agencies to identify needs and capabilities, Syrian and international. Europeans are hoping that liberating the “rectangle” will help to stem the flow of Syrians out of Turkey into the Union.
No one yet knows whether the Russian air attacks will cancel these plans, but at the very least they are complicating the situation. How can the “rectangle” be protected from Russian attacks, which have focussed not on IS but on the Free Syrian Army? The Russian bombardment is driving younger Syrian fighters towards the Islamic State rather than away from it.
Moderate opposition Syrians are dismayed. In their eyes, what Putin has done merits a strong reaction. He is attacking the people America has said it supports. While they nod knowingly at President Obama’s assertion that Syria will be a quagmire for the Russians, Syrians think American failure to respond looks weak and vacillating. It will lengthen the war. I find it hard to disagree.
The Syrians I spoke with are also concerned about UN envoy De Mistura’s effort to set up four working groups to discuss issues that would have to be resolved in any peace settlement. They question the composition of the working groups and view the effort as a step backwards from the UN’s own Geneva 1 communique, which called for a mutually agreeable transitional governing body with full executive authority.
Few in the opposition would agree to any transition in which Bashar al Assad is not deprived of presidential powers early in the game. Most believe opposition fighters, especially but not only the more extremist ones, will continue the war if Bashar remains in place. The SOC is considering withdrawing from the UN effort, though it will come under a lot of international community pressure to participate. Many Syrians here want a negotiated solution, but not one that perpetuates the dictatorship and denies the country’s citizens the right to govern themselves.
Next up: the local administrative councils, the assistance coordination unit and the nascent Free Syria University, which represent perhaps the best the Syrian opposition has to offer.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Egyptian entrepreneurs
Last Wednesday, the Middle East Institute held its 3rd annual Egypt conference, entitled “Reducing Risks, Unlocking Potential,” with three expert panels. Here I focus on the final panel, ‘Economic Development and Entrepreneurial Innovation’, which explored the promise of the Egyptian economy and its human resources, as well as the significant challenges facing it before it can achieve real, wide-reaching development. Moderator Mona Mowafi (co-founder and president of RISE Egypt) anchored the discussion with an introductory question: ‘What kind of society does Egypt want to become?’ Starting from the understanding that Egypt has an underdeveloped economy, with low job creation and miles of bureaucratic red tape, the panelists described a dynamic country with great economic potential, and emphasized that social and political advances are necessarily tied to a more developed, innovative, and democratized economy.
Egypt does not lack either natural or human resources. It has a dynamic ecosystem for economic innovation, a view that perhaps reflects the panelists’ backgrounds. Seif Abou Zaid, CEO of Tahrir Academy, is an entrepreneur focused on education and governance, as well as how to connect the two. Mohamed Zaazoue, a neurosurgeon, founded Healthy Egyptians, with which he hopes to raise basic health education levels for all Egyptians. Their co-panelists are economists: Amr Adly is a consultant at the Carnegie Middle East Center, and Heba Elgazzar is a senior economist in Social Protection and Labor Global Practice at the World Bank. They used their practical experiences of navigating Egypt’s entrepreneurial environment to analyze the country’s potential.
Both Adly and Elgazzar highlighted the informal or personalized nature of several industries in Egypt, where jobs and professional relationships are based on personal ties and social networks. This can be both an asset and a drawback. It encourages practices such as ‘wasta’ – or cronyism (though this has political causes as well). Many people are left doing part-time or casual jobs, rather than full-time employment. But there are many locally-based small industries that thrive in their communities and are ‘entrepreneurial’ in their own sense – low-tech, but creative, as Adly pointed out.
Zaazoue insisted that Egypt’s youthful population and its human resources generally are the country’s biggest resource, which needs to be cultivated and invested in for the future. Elgazzar agreed that the resources are there, and that Egypt’s particularly urban character provides a clustering of skills, knowledge, and information, creating an excellent environment for economic innovation.
Abou Zaid why there hasn’t there been a transformative moment yet. Why aren’t these skills and knowledge being exploited? There are governmental and non-governmental barriers. One of the latter is access to finance. Adly also highlighted that though Egypt’s private sector is quite large, it does not operate within a framework that can transform annual growth into structural development of the economy as a whole.
Both Abou Zaid and Zaazoue are interested in policy-making and want to have an effect on Egyptian society at large, rather than just running successful businesses. But there is a bureaucratic ‘bottleneck’ which makes it difficult to get projects implemented through government ministries. There is also heightened hostility to non-profit organizations under Sisi’s government. So starting new businesses and trying to tie change to the market has been a way for both to pursue their goals.
Zaazoue first tried to speak with ministers about adding health education to school curricula, but when he got nowhere, decided to create games and cartoons about health which could be marketed for kids. Abou Zaid’s school was originally non-profit, but it was shut down under new laws governing funding for such organizations. He has had to explore setting up fee-paying accommodation in order to become a profit-making institution.
Elgazzar thought the government needs to pick one or two priorities and focus on them for the next several years. In her view, these should be education and job creation. Zaazoue would like to see foreign capital directed into education and health systems, instead of military and security budgets. High-quality education, better schools, and more democratized education, will have an effect on growth potential, bring more women into the work force, and serve to change people’s attitudes about seeking out new work.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, October 5-9
- Toward a “Reaganov” Russia: Assessing trends in Russian national security policy after Putin | Monday, October 5th | 10:00 – 11:30 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | During their recent speeches before the United Nations General Assembly, Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama traded strong words on issues from Ukraine to arms control to Syria. The exchange between the two presidents unfolded as questions about Russia’s long-term foreign policy ambitions and grand strategy return to the forefront of policy debate. To better understand what lies ahead in Russian foreign and security policy, analysts must explore variances between Russian strategic culture and the agenda put forward by President Putin. Disentangling these differences will be crucial for U.S. policy planning of the future. Brookings Senior Fellow Clifford Gaddy joins Michael O’Hanlon, author of “The Future of Land Warfare,” to discuss their research on the issue, focusing on five possible paradigms for the future of Russian grand strategy. Former ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer, presently the director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative at Brookings, will also participate in the panel.
- United States and China: Trends in Military Competition | Monday, October 5th | 12:00 – 1:00 | RAND Corporation | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Over the past two decades, China has poured resources into upgrading its military. This modernization, coupled with China’s increasingly assertive position in the waters surrounding the mainland, has caused concern in Washington and capitals across Asia. Recently, a team of RAND researchers led by Eric Heginbotham released The U.S.-China Military Scorecard report. This study is the broadest and most rigorous assessment to date of relative U.S. and Chinese military capabilities based entirely on unclassified sources. Join us to discuss the evolution of Chinese military capabilities in specific domains (air and missile, maritime, space, cyber, and nuclear) and the overall trend in the regional military balance over time; how Chinese relative gains could affect the strategic decision-making of Chinese leaders; steps the United States can take to limit the impact of a growing Chinese military on deterrence and other U.S. strategic interests. Eric Heginbotham is a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation specializing in East Asian security issues.
- Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East | Tuesday, October 6th | 10:00 – 11:30 | Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Join The Center for Transatlantic Relations in a discussion on nuclear Middle East. This discussion with feature Yair Evron, professor emeritus, Department of Political Science, Tel-Aviv University and senior research associate for the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel-Aviv. Additionally, Ambassador Robert E. Hunter, senior fellow for Center for Transatlantic Relations will participate in the discussion.
- The Pivotal Moment: How the Iran Deal Frames America’s Foreign Policy Choices | Tuesday, October 6th | 12:00 – 1:00 | The Heritage Foundation | REGISTER TO ATTEND | At the core of the debate over the Iran deal are two distinct visions of what American foreign policy should be. In contrast to the politicized efforts to frame foreign affairs as a choice between isolationism, regime change, or some nebulous choice in between, the controversy over the efficacy of the Vienna Agreement represents the real difference between the alternatives being offered to the American people. This discussion aims to frame the distinctions between progressive and conservative foreign policy and the choice they represent for the nation as it considers what kind of statecraft to expect from the next administration. Speakers include: Colin Dueck, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute, and Kim Holmes, Distinguished fellow, The Heritage Foundation.
- Children of Monsters: An Inquiry into the Sons and Daughters of Dictators | Tuesday, October 6th | 1:00 | Institute of World Politics | REGISTER TO ATTEND |Have you ever wondered what it would be like to be the child of a Stalin or Hitler, a Mao or Castro, or Pol Pot? National Review’s Jay Nordlinger asked himself this. The result is Children of Monsters: An Inquiry into the Sons and Daughters of Dictators, an astonishing survey of the progeny of 20 dictators. Some were loyalists who admired their father. Some actually succeed as dictator. A few were critics, even defectors. What they have in common, Nordlinger shows, is the prison house of tainted privilege and the legacy of dubious deference.
- India and Pakistan: From Talks to Crisis and Back Again | Wednesday, October 8th | 8:30 – 10:00 | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The last few months have witnessed nascent efforts to restart high-level bilateral talks between Delhi and Islamabad dashed again by political maneuvering in both capitals. In addition, there has been an uptick in violence along the Line of Control in Kashmir and muscular signaling from both sides. Why has the latest effort between India and Pakistan to talk about the myriad issues between them fallen apart? What can we discern about the approach of Indian Prime Minister Modi toward Pakistan? How do civil-military politics in Pakistan inform its approach toward India? Are the two states doomed to a perpetual state of ‘not war, not peace,’ or is there hope for a way forward? Huma Yusuf , Wilson Center, and Aparna Pande, Hudson Institute, will discuss. Carnegie’s George Perkovich will moderate.
- What can Myanmar’s Elections tell us about Political Transitions? | Wednesday, October 7th | 9:30- 11:00 | Advancing Democratic Elections and Political Transitions consortium | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Elections are critical junctures in many transitions, providing clarity on whether a political transition is advancing or retreating – and Myanmar’s November 8, 2015 parliamentary elections promise to be such a watershed moment for the country’s potential democratic transition. Speakers Include: John Brandon, Senior Director at The Asia Foundation, Jennifer Whatley, Division Vice President, Civil Society & Governance at World Learning, Robert Herman, Vice President for Regional Programs at Freedom House, Jonathan Stonestreet, Associate Director of the Democracy Program at The Carter Center, Eric Bjornlund, President of Democracy International.
- A Saudi Arabian Defense Doctrine for a New Era | Thursday, October 8th | 10:00 – 11:30 | CSIS | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Saudi Arabia has in recent years consolidated its place as the preeminent Arab leader, regional stabilizer, and critical bulwark against terrorism and a nuclear Iran. The Kingdom’s growing security responsibilities require rapid and substantial military investments. Prince Sultan bin Khaled Al Faisal and Nawaf Obaid, visiting fellow and associate lecturer at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, will outline a comprehensive Saudi Arabian Defense Doctrine for a new era and explain why the Kingdom is likely to double down on defense and national security capabilities in the next decade.
- The EU Migration Crisis | Thursday, October 8th | 2:30 – 4:00 |Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | REGISTER TO ATTEND |Dean Vali Nasr and The Human Security Iniative of the Foreign Policy Insitute Invite you to a panel discussion on The EU Migration Crisis. Speakers include: Michel Gabaudan, president, Refugees International, Reka Szemerkeny, Ambassador, Hungary, Peter Wittig, Ambassador, Germany.
- Democracy Rebooted: The Future of Technology in Elections | Friday, October 9th | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | As technology plays an increasingly dominant part of our lives, its role in elections has come under scrutiny. We are at a crucial moment to review the policies that influence elections and the technology we use to execute them. Why can we call a car, book a hotel, and pay bills on our phones, yet elections are often still implemented with pen and paper? Legitimacy, access, credibility, and trust are the issues that will require policymakers and technologists to carefully script the implementation of technology in our elections. Speakers include: Governor Jon Huntsman, Chairman Atlantic Council, Secretary Madeline Albright, David Rothkopf, CEO and Editor-in-Chief FP Group, Pat Merloe, Director, Electoral Programs, National Democratic Institute, Mark Malloch Brown, Former Deputy Secretary General, UN, Matthew Masterson, Commissioner, Electoral Assistance Commission, Tadjoudine Ali-Diabacte, Deputy Director, Electoral Assistance Division, UNDPA, Justice Jose Antonio Dias Toffolio, President, Supreme Electoral Court, Brazil, Manish Tewari, Former Minister of Information, India.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Palestine’s way forward
With Palestine’s flag now flying at UN headquarters, the Middle East Institute held a discussion last week of Palestinian Politics and Strategy in Challenging Times. The event featured Husam Zomlot, Ambassador at Large for Palestine, and moderator Matthew Duss, President of Foundation for Middle East Peace. While Palestine has recently been overshadowed by other hot topics like the Islamic State and the Iranian nuclear deal, Zomlot shed light on current Palestinian thinking and options for the US.
Zomlot described Palestine as in limbo. The 1988 Palestinian offer of a two-state solution failed to deliver results. It was misunderstood to be a starting point for further negotiation rather than a compromise solution in which the Palestinians were giving up most of their territorial claim. Thereafter the Oslo accords, institution-building from the ground up, and the “peace process” have all failed.
It is time, Zomlot suggested, to give up on the current process. Things have changed for both populations. Israel today is not the same Israel it was thirty years ago and should not be treated the same. Nor is Palestine the same. The two sides cannot resolve the situation on their own. The “peace process” as currently pursued is designed to prevent rather than reach a peaceful outcome. The US generally has the right goals, but cannot reach them unilaterally.
That said, where to now? Palestinian political unity is vital. It will enable Palestinians to demand their rights even before they have a state. But is also high time that the US recognize the Palestinian state and cooperate with an effort to impose a two-state solution through a UN Security Council resolution.
Matt Duss asked how the idea of fighting for rights rather than land fits into current Palestinian politics.
Zomlot responded that the notion that a two-state solution is in Israel’s best interest so that it can be both Jewish and democratic may not be true any longer. Current Israeli decision makers may want the West Bank and East Jerusalem more than they want to be democratic. A second false premise is that Israel has to create a Palestinian state so that it can be accepted as part of the region. But Israel doesn’t want to be part of the Middle East. It associates itself with Europe.
Zomlot suggested the Palestinians now have to reassert their own identity and demand their rights. They should not abandon the goal of a two-state solution, but should insist first on their rights. US recognition and cooperation in passage of a UN Security Council resolution imposing an outcome on the parties would be a big step forward.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
More Russia in Syria
Hamid Bayati a few days ago asked some questions about Syria for publication by the Iranian Mehr News Agency in Farsi and in the Tehran Times in English. This was before the Russian strikes. I answered:
Q: According to recent developments it seems new era begins in Syria to bring peace to this country and Iran and Russia leading the efforts to kick out terrorist groups from Syria, how do you evaluate this issue?
A: From my perspective, the problem is more complicated than kicking terrorist groups out of Syria. The key question is what comes next. Most analysts here think Bashar al Assad will not be able to reestablish his authority over areas that have been in rebellion. If this is correct, political transition and countering terrorism have to proceed at the same time. President Rouhani’s notion that the terrorists can be defeated and only then will it be possible to talk about political reform is unrealistic.
Q: Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that any attempts to overthrow the government in Syria could lead to a failed state like Iraq or Libya, what is your idea about this view?
A: It could, but it needn’t. A negotiated political transition could provide the legitimate authority required to avoid a failed state. If a political solution does not happen, Syria will continue fragmenting into a patchwork of areas of control, with Kurds along much of the northern border with Turkey, relatively moderate insurgents in the south, extremists in the center and east, and the regime in Damascus and the west.
Q: In recent weeks we saw different news about Russia and China military activity in Syria, how do you evaluate this issue?
A: Chinese deployment is still a matter of speculation. Russia has already deployed
I doubt a couple of thousand Russians will be more effective than a similar number of Americans or Europeans. Russian air attack capabilities are significantly less accurate and effective than those of NATO countries. Collateral damage and the political backlash are likely to be greater.
The Russians can also expect to be targeted by suicide bombers, improvised explosive devices and other terrorist weapons. My guess is that Moscow has put itself on a slippery slope to much greater involvement in Syria, which cash-strapped President Putin can ill afford.
Q: Some experts say US agrees with Russia’s new approach in Syria? Is it true? If true what reasons led to West agree with Russia on Syria?
A: Washington unquestionably agrees that the Islamic State must be defeated, but the Americans are unlikely to align themselves openly with Russia in Syria, if only to avoid alienating the majority Sunni population there. US forces are not attacking Bashar al Assad’s forces, but Washington sees no solution in Syria without a commitment that he leave power. Moscow and Washington do however have to deconflict their military operations, to avoid any unintentional clash.
Q: What do you think about Iran, Russia, Iraq and Syria agreement on cooperation against Islamic State?
A: I think Iraq should get help from wherever useful help can be gotten. I doubt they will get much from Moscow, but that is for Baghdad to decide.
Russia will have to be cautious about appearing to align itself with Shia forces against Sunnis. President Putin is quite rightly concerned about Chechnyan and other Russian extremists. He should be expecting them to strike back not only in Latakia but also inside Russia. The notion that he can kill them all abroad and thereby prevent attacks at home echoes a line used by George W. Bush when the US invaded Iraq. It wasn’t true then and it is not true now.
In general, I don’t think enhanced Russian involvement in Syria and Iraq will make much difference to the course of the war there. Moscow deployed its troops because the Assad regime had weakened to the point that extremists were threatening western Syria, which is the heartland of the Alawite community and also hosts the Russian naval base at Tartous. The relatively modest deployment may block the insurgent advances, but it is unlikely to change the military balance much beyond that.
RSS - Posts
