Month: December 2015
Opposition turmoil
Since our last post on the situation in northern Syria, everything has changed and nothing has changed. The world has witnessed terrorist attacks in Sinai, Paris, Beirut, San Bernardino, and elsewhere, which have contributed to increased international attention focused on ISIS and the crisis in Syria. Accusations, threats, ultimata fill the air, competing for space with French, Russian, British, US, and Turkish jets. Last week, in advance of the proposed next round of “Vienna” talks, an opposition conference was held in Riyadh, with representatives from a broad range of armed and political groups. The representatives agreed on a transition plan, following six weeks of negotiations and Assad’s departure, but it remains to be seen how much of it the regime and internationals will accept.
Neither the Kurdish PYD nor any of its affiliates were invited to Riyadh. They staged their own conference promising to begin a ‘Syrian Democratic Front’ in its liberated territories. Christian, Arab and Turkmen representatives also participated in the heavily Kurdish conference.
Meanwhile, on the ground in Aleppo, things continue to grind on. Villages have been taken and lost by all sides. Regime forces made gains under Russian air cover, taking the towns al-Hader and al-Eis south of the city, one day after they finally broke the siege on Kweiris airport to the east. Aleppo city’s opposition administrative council held elections mid to late November, with few problems and little disgruntlement. It continues to strain on a daily basis to provide services, especially water, with the limited resources available.
The Kurdish-dominated SDF has advanced in ISIS-held territory in the northeast, in a push toward Raqqa. But they are also operating in the countryside around Aleppo, reigniting tensions with opposition forces there. One analyst has called the stage on which these tensions are playing out, the A’zaz corridor, ‘the epicenter of the war’.
On November 18, fifteen groups allied themselves with SDF. Most are small and without much influence, but a couple stand out: Kurdish units local to Afrin Canton and an umbrella grouping named Jaysh al-Thuwwar now operate under the SDF banner. Jaysh al-Thuwwar is an amalgam including Jabhat al-Akrad (the Kurds’ Front), remnants of the Syrian Revolutionaries’ Army and the Hazm Movement, a few FSA brigades, Northern Sun, and the Turkmen Seljuks Brigade.
The details remain murky, but from November 27 clashes broke out between Jaysh al-Thuwwar and Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and FSA groups near A’zaz. Shots fired happened to coincide with Russian airstrikes, giving the advantage to Jaysh al-Thuwwar and intensifying the conflict, leading the Ahrar Syria Brigade to declare the Sheikh Maqsoud neighborhood in Aleppo a military zone and shell Kurdish positions there.
There ensued clashes in the countryside, some villages exchanged hands and some civilians were killed before a ceasefire was signed in Kashta’ar at the urging of Aleppo’s Consultation and Reconciliation Council. It does not seem to have held. Afrin Canton in particular is in a tense position, isolated as it is from the rest of Kurdish-controlled Rojava, but the hostilities are mutual and simmering. The Kurdish security service, Asayish, on December 8 arrested several activists in Afrin.
PKK! set the civil activists and white helmets free #Syria #Kafranbel pic.twitter.com/PmZrbnNo7r
— Raed Fares (@RaedFares4) December 12, 2015
Some argue that the Russian intervention and subsequent increased support for rebel groups from the US and others is inducing the rebel factions to unite. But in the past five years rebel groups have created and disbanded alliances, operations rooms, and joint commands frequently. Some last longer than others. In the north, Ahrar al-Sham and the Levant Front have proved relatively effective.
But the ongoing hostilities in Aleppo province highlight the tenuous nature of these unions. Last week there were two mergers that bear mention. First, the brigades Fursan al-Haqq and 101 Infantry Division have joined together as the Northern Division (al-Firqa al-Shamaliyya). Second, the existing Sultan Murad Brigade, already heavily populated with Syrian Turkmen, expanded to include several other Turkmen groups, including Sultan Mehmet Fatih. Both fall under the nebulous umbrella of the FSA.
The latter merger in particular highlights the surprising re-entry of Syrian Turkmen groups into the battlefield. The ISIS advance through Aleppo province in 2014 had dispersed many of the Turkmen forces and caused most to retreat from the province. Now the Turkmen could be reasserting themselves; at the very least, they have become a useful rhetorical card for Turkey in opposing both Russia and the Kurds. Erdoğan has cautioned Russia about bombing Turkmen areas of the northwest, such as Jabal al-Turkman in Latakia. After Turkey shot down the Russian jet, some posited it was done to protect Turkmen populations.
The conflict among opposition forces in the north is not drawn on clear-cut ethnic or sectarian lines. Though armed groups and political parties often try to represent the situation as black-and-white, ethnic and sectarian categories still bleed into each other. Jaysh al-Thuwwar and the SDF count fighters from all three ethnicities in their ranks. In Hasaka, they are also allied with Assyrian and Syriac Christian groups. The FSA, though largely Sunni Arab, likewise includes Kurd and Turkmen fighters. The FSA has a nebulous quality – yet their presence and their effect in battles against the regime is nevertheless real. Both Jaysh al-Thuwwar and the SDF, as well as their current opponents, include members who have been or still count themselves as part of the FSA.
It was rumored that the commander of Jabhat al-Nusra, Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, in an interview released on December 12th, claimed that there was no such thing as the FSA. (In fact, he stated ‘it is a group of factions that join under a name without any organizational links between them …. [the FSA] is not an army and it is not a group, but a banner and a name that have become common among the people’.) This sparked a reaction on a local level, as seen in the video below. No matter how nebulous, many Syrians on the ground are rooting for the FSA and identify with it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Normalization abnormalizes
Drilon Gashi* and Ard Morina** prepared the following post. It should not be understood to represent my own views.
As always, I am prepared to publish other well-reasoned posts or comments on this issue.
A recent decentralization agreement between Kosovo and Serbia has stoked fears that the process of normalization of relations between the two countries implies the abnormalization of Kosovo.
On December 3, Secretary of State Kerry seemed to make an unexpected stop in Pristina, Kosovo’s capital, meeting briefly at the airport with Kosovo’s leadership. Kosovo’s parliament has been dysfunctional in recent months due to the opposition’s tear-gassing of the chamber in six separate instances, most recently on Monday, December 14. The opposition led by Vetëvendosje (Self-Determination), a political movement that originated as a social activist group, has said the tear-gassing is the only way to oppose two recent Kosovo government agreements. The first, and most contentious, is an agreement with Serbia to create an Association of Serb-majority municipalities (mostly concentrated in the north of Mitrovica bordering Serbia and in other enclaves throughout Kosovo). The second is a border demarcation agreement with Montenegro to Kosovo’s west.
The use of tear gas has been widely condemned by the Western backers of Kosovo’s independence, with the European Union recently stating: “This kind of violent obstruction is neither acceptable nor will it solve any problem for the citizens of Kosovo.” The people in Kosovo, though, seem to offer a mixed reaction to the incidents. While many influential Kosovars have spoken out against the use of tear gas and against recent opposition protests, Vetëvendosje has seen growing support—a recent poll suggests the party is the second most favorable. The November poll results state that if elections were held today, 28% would support Vetëvendosje (up from 14% in June 2014) while 33% would support the Democratic Party of Kosovo (PDK), the leading party in current coalition government.
This reaction highlights the people of Kosovo’s anxiety regarding the latest agreement resulting from the European Union-facilitated dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia. Apprehension about the agreements from the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue is not new, but an Association of Serb municipalities stokes fears of a dysfunctional Kosovo. Worse, Kosovars fear it may lead to the country’s division. Doubts on the agreement have also been cited by Kosovo experts. Commenting on the Association of Serb municipalities, Daniel Serwer stated: “It is ethnically–not politically or geographically–defined and could become the kernel of separate Serb governing structures in Kosovo. That of course is the fear: a separate Serb entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina has rendered that country dysfunctional.” Serwer, however, believes that the Association could be implemented without compromising Kosovo’s territorial integrity.
Bosnia’s Republika Srpska, the Serb federal entity in the country, showcases an example of a failed territorial division based on ethnic lines, creating a legitimate cause for concern. Rather than trudging forward with the dialogue process, Kosovo, Serbia and the EU should focus more on sincerely addressing concerns raised and a deep crisis that could emerge from the agreement. Not doing so risks destroying the prospect of European Union membership for both Kosovo and Serbia, with the agreement leaving too many loose ends.
One important loose end is Serbia’s position towards Kosovo. Belgrade has not only shown its unwillingness to recognize Kosovo’s independence, but has aggressively campaigned to undermine it. The latest example was Kosovo’s attempt to join UNESCO, the UN science, education and cultural heritage body, where it lost the bid by two votes—due at least partly to Serbia’s active diplomatic affront to the candidacy. Serbia’s current foreign minister, Ivica Dacic, claimed that UNESCO membership for Kosovo was equivalent to “ISIS being admitted to the United Nations,” a statement that prompts the authors to mention that Dacic was a former political ally of Slobodan Milosevic, and is now one of Serbia’s most prominent leaders involved in the Kosovo-Serbia dialogue.
The objective of the dialogue led by the EU is “the normalization of relations between Kosovo and Serbia.” The process is largely open to interpretation. While the Kosovo government’s position is that the endgame of the process is Serbia recognizing its independence and both ending up in the EU, Belgrade sees the dialogue as an opportunity to maintain and deepen influence in Kosovo. Foreign Minister Dacic declared in 2013, “We expect Pristina to agree to our proposal for establishing a Union of Serb Communities, and we would like the European Union to act as a safeguard. This would provide us with a viable provisional solution, until we arrive at some sort of final decision on the status of Kosovo.” Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, December 14-18
- Reflections on Global History in the 20th Century: Towards a New Vision for the 21st Century | Monday, December 14th | 2:00-5:00 | Center for Strategic & International Studies | RSVP to attend | Join us for a dialogue among leading scholars of global history on the legacies of the 20th Century and the prospects for developing a more stable and prosperous world order in the remainder of the 21st Century. On this 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, participants in a CSIS research project will summarize key findings from a series of workshops and papers to be published in an edited volume in 2016. Speakers include: Yuichi Hosoya, Professor, Keio University; Satoshi Ikeuchi, Associate Professor, University of Tokyo; Sebastian Conrad, Professor of History, Freie Universitat Berlin; William Inboden, Associate Professor, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas-Austin; Jian Chen, Hu Shih Professor of History for U.S.-China Relations, Cornell University; Cemil Aydin, Associate Professor of History, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill; and Michael J. Green, Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan Chair, CSIS, and Chair in Modern and Contemporary Japanese Politics and Foreign Policy, Georgetown University. The event will conclude with a conversation with Zbigniew Brzezinski, moderated by John Hamre, President and CEO, CSIS.
- The Wisdom of a Grand Nuclear Bargain with Pakistan | Monday, December 14th | 3:30-5:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND |Earlier this year, various news outlets reported that the Obama administration was exploring a nuclear deal with Pakistan. The deal would work to better incorporate Pakistan into the global nuclear order, exchanging legitimacy for its accepting nuclear constraints. Many analysts believe Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program poses a substantial threat to international and South Asian security. One of four nuclear weapons states outside the normative and legal apparatus of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Pakistan is assessed to have the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world.The South Asia Center will convene a panel of experts including Dr. Toby Dalton, Co-Director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Dr. Sameer Lalwani, Deputy Director of Stimson’s South Asia Program, and Dr. Gaurav Kampani, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, to discuss policy options to address international concerns over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. The discussion will be moderated by Dr. Bharath Gopalaswamy, Director of the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center.
On Twitter? Follow @ACSouthAsia and use #ACPakistan. - Tajikistan’s Human Rights Crisis: Responses to Dushanbe’s Political Crackdown | Tuesday, December 15th | 10:00-12:00 | Freedom House | RSVP to Nigina Valentini with ‘Tajikistan Roundtable’ in the subject line | Tajikistan’s human rights situation has deteriorated precipitously over the past two years amid an ongoing crackdown on the freedoms of expression and religion, censorship of the internet, and aggressive attempts to jail all political opposition. Following violent skirmishes in September 2014 between Tajik government forces and alleged Islamist militants that made worldwide headlines, President Rahmon stepped up his campaign against the political opposition, ordering the closure of Central Asia’s only legally registered Islamic political party—the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan (IRPT)—arresting at least 78 of its members, and declaring the IRPT a terrorist organization. At the same time, political opponents abroad, including from the opposition “Group 24,” have been faced with extraditions, kidnappings, enforced disappearances and even assassinations in Russia, Turkey, and other neighboring states. In addition, the crisis is expanding rapidly, with a mass exodus of political activists from the country, and arrests of lawyers, journalists, and others from civil society.The speakers will provide new, fresh research from the field on Tajikistan’s current human rights crisis. They will also offer recommendations for policy responses by the US government, EU, and other international partners. The round table will be led by representatives of Tajikistan’s embattled civil society as well as experts on the human rights, political, and religious context. They include: Catherine Cosman, senior policy analyst, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; Muhitdin Kabiri, Chairman of the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan; Nate Schenkkan, Project Director Nations in Transit, Freedom House; Steve Swerdlow, esq., Central Asia researcher with Human Rights Watch; and Sobir Valiev, deputy head of Group 24, and deputy head of the Congress of Constructive Forces of Tajikistan.
- Turkey-Russia Conflict: What’s Next? | Tuesday, December 15th | 11:30-12:30 | Center on Global Interests | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The escalating tensions between Turkey and Russia—brought to a head with the Turkish downing of a Russian Su-24 bomber jet in late November—have exposed the competing objectives that presidents Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Vladimir Putin are pursuing in Syria. Since that incident Russia has adopted sanctions and restricted tourism to Turkey, while Moscow and Ankara have lobbied mutual accusations of collusion with the Islamic State. This is set against a historic backdrop of centuries of competition between the two states on the Eurasian stage.
With their ongoing disagreement over the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, along with Russia’s recent move to punish those who deny the disputed genocide of Armenians during WWI, the latest tensions now threaten to spill over into the Caucasus. What motivates each side in the dispute, and where can we expect it to go in 2016? How do domestic politics play into each president’s posturing? And what implications would a protracted Russo-Turkish split have on Eurasian, and Transatlantic, security? CGI is pleased to invite you to a discussion on this timely topic. Speakers include Michael Cecire, Foreign Policy Research Institute; Kemal Kirişci, Brookings Institution; and Maria Snegovaya, Columbia University; Anya Schmemann, Council on Foreign Relations, will moderate.
This event will take place at Johns Hopkins’ SAIS, Rome Building, and is on the record. Join the discussion with @CGI_DC - Reducing the Risk of Nuclear War in the Nordic/Baltic Region | Tuesday, December 15th | 12:00-1:30 | Stimson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Northern Europe is currently experiencing escalating political and military tensions that are rekindling fears of war between Russia and NATO. Any such conflict would inherently include a risk of nuclear weapons use. The Stimson Center, partnered with Project High Hopes, is examining the results of such nuclear exchanges and, more importantly, developing initiatives to avoid such catastrophes. This event includes a briefing of Stimson’s new report, “Reducing the Risk of Nuclear War in the Nordic/Baltic Region.” Participants include Barry Blechman, Co-Founder, Stimson Center; Alex Bolfrass, Stimson Nonresident Fellow, Managing Across Boundaries; and Laicie Heeley, Stimson Fellow, Budgeting for Foreign Affairs and Defense.
- Can South Sudan End Two Years of War? | Tuesday, December 15th | 12:30-2:00 | US Institute of Peace (on Facebook) | REGISTER TO PARTICIPATE | The peace agreement signed by South Sudanese government and opposition forces on August 26 promised to end nearly two years of brutal war. But fighting has continued, contributing to a delay in establishing a transitional government.The world’s youngest nation plunged into violence on December 15, 2013 during a power struggle, and soon ethnic rivalries dominated the conflict. Poor infrastructure, a severe economic crisis, and more than two million displaced people present significant challenges to implementing the peace process.USIP has designed this chat, via Facebook, to include South Sudanese citizens inside the country and abroad. Please join USIP experts and representatives from the Office of the U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan and South Sudan as they offer analysis and take questions. You can also post questions in advance on USIP’s Facebook page or on Twitter (#SouthSudanUSIP). Participants include Ambassador Donald Booth, @SUSSESSS, U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan and South Sudan, U.S. Department of State; Susan Stigant, @SusanStigant, Director of Africa Programs, USIP; and John Tanza @VOASouthSudan, South Sudan in Focus, Voice of America, who will moderate.
- Implementing the Iran Nuclear Deal: What’s Next? | Thursday, December 17th | 8:00-4:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Atlantic Council and The Iran Project invite you to a symposium on implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the historic agreement reached with Iran by the United States and other world powers earlier this year.The conference will examine how the implementation of this accord will impact the future of Iran’s nuclear program; the ways in which the lifting of sanctions will affect Iran’s economy and the US approach to implementation; and how implementation will impact US and Iranian bilateral and regional relations. The Conference will seek to develop a bipartisan approach to verification and the incentive dimensions of the implementation phase. Adam Szubin, Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, US Department of Treasury, will give the morning keynote address, and The Hon. Stephen Mull, Lead Coordinator for Iran Nuclear Implementation, US Department of State, will speak at lunch. Please see here for a full list of panels and participants.
- The Revolutionary Path to Reform for Ukraine’s National Police | Tuesday, December 15th | 4:00-5:30 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Among the many reforms underway in Ukraine, the effort to modernize the country’s police force stands out as a particular success. Ukraine’s police has had a reputation for corruption since Ukraine’s independence. Following the Euromaidan revolution, the Ministry of Internal Affairs with support from the US Department of State, replaced Kyiv’s police force in July 2015. Odesa and Lviv followed suit in August 2015 with plans to carry out similar reforms across Ukraine’s major cities. Since the reform began, 4,800 new police officers have joined the police force, and public support for the new police force remains high. The success of the police reforms signals that rapid and radical reforms are possible to achieve in a short time.The newly-appointed Chief of the Ukrainian National Police, Khatia Dekanoidze, played a critical role in launching Ukraine’s police reform. Ms. Dekanoidze will join the Atlantic Council to discuss her strategy to restructure, reform, and train the police force, as well as her plans to capitalize on the success and transform Ukraine’s police forces. Prior to her appointment, she served as an adviser to the Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov, playing a critical role in launching Ukraine’s patrol police reform. John Herbst, Director at Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council, will moderate the conversation.
- Women and Elections in Saudi Arabia | Thursday, September 17th | 12:00-1:30 | Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington | REGISTER TO ATTEND | On Saturday, December 12, women voted for the first time in Saudi Arabia’s municipal elections, with over 900 women running as candidates. This marks an opportunity to assess the advancement of women’s empowerment in Saudi Arabia.AGSIW Senior Resident Scholar Kristin Diwan will lead a discussion with Dr. Hatoon Al Fassi, a scholar, long-time women’s rights activist, and leader of the Baladi campaign pushing for women’s enfranchisement in the Kingdom, Dr. Rasha Hefzi (via Skype), Municipal Council candidate from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and Dr. Aziza Youssef, Professor of Computer Science at King Saud University and leading proponent of the women’s driving campaign in Saudi Arabia. They will discuss the political life and overall status of women in Saudi Arabia: What has been the experience of women candidates in the election and what challenges have they faced in their campaigns? How have women voters responded to the elections? Despite the newness of the democratic process in Saudi Arabia and the council’s short history and limited powers, is there potential for women to use the council as a platform to elevate their concerns?
- The Kremlin’s Actions in Syria: Origins, Timing, and Prospects | Friday, December 18th | 8:30-1:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The conference brings together a distinguished group of experts and opinion leaders from the United States, Russia, and the Middle East to engage in a strategic dialogue on the consequences of Russian intervention in Syria. The first panel will explore the evolution of the Syrian crisis and implications of Russia’s new policy, followed by a second panel discussion on the impact of Russia’s policy and its prospects. Please see here for a full list of speakers.
- India’s Security Interests in Southeast Asia | Friday, December 18th | 10:00-11:00 | Center for Strategic & International Studies | RSVP to attend | Join CSIS for a discussion featuring Jonah Blank, senior political scientist, RAND Corporation; and Vikram Singh, vice president for national security and international policy, Center for American Progress.
Blank will discuss the key findings of his recent report on India’s emerging partnerships in Southeast Asia, “Look East, Cross Black Waters,” and Singh will give his perspectives on the opportunities and challenges that India’s growing strategic interest in Southeast Asia will bring for the United States.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Over the low bar
I could easily cheer the climate change agreement reached yesterday in Paris: it is the first to gain universal adherence, it starts the process of limiting greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, it makes a big down payment on helping poorer countries join the process, it sends a strong signal to finance and industry about future directions, it is a big win for President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry, and it arguably initiates a process that will ratchet up restraints on emissions for decades to come.
But the sad fact is that the agreement does not do what many scientists think necessary to avoid catastrophic outcomes: limit future increases in global temperatures to 2 degrees centigrade or less. So yes, the agreement may be a turning point, and it is certainly a remarkable example of global governance aiming to meet the challenge of a long-term problem. It may even avoid the worst of the impacts global warming might have caused. But it won’t prevent island countries from being inundated and even submerged, or ferocious storms from ravaging many parts of the world. Nor will it prevent the United States and other countries with long coastlines from needing to spend fortunes to protect property and infrastructure, if they don’t want to lose to both to rising sea levels.
This is one of those triumphs that needs to be seen in perspective. Both what it achieves and what it fails to achieve are significant. But no agreement would have been far worse. Failure would have poisoned the subject for another decade or more, as politicians would have hesitated to revive it once more from its deathbed.
So the bar may be low, but getting over it is better than not getting over it. In foreign policy, that is cause enough for celebration.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Myanmar’s still long road ahead
On Wednesday, the Carnegie Endowment hosted a panel discussion on Myanmar’s November 8 elections: ‘What happened and what happens now?’ featuring William Sweeney, president and CEO of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES); U Aung Din, senior adviser at the Open Myanmar Institute; and Christina Fink, professor of practice in International Affairs at George Washington University, The panel was moderated by Carnegie Senior Associate Vikram Nehru.
Sweeney painted an optimistic picture of the elections, in which Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) won a staggering 80% of the three quarters of parliamentary seats up for contention in both lower and upper houses (the final quarter being reserved for the military). IFES had worked with Myanmar’s Union Election Commission for three years on several aspects of national elections: stakeholder engagement, updating the national voter list, voter education, women’s leadership, and inclusion of people with disabilities.
The breadth and inclusivity of the 33.5 million-person voter list was particularly impressive, with its complete digitization and incorporation of 6.5 million corrections, checked and checked again on a local level. Sweeney pointed out that an inaccurate or incomplete voter list is often the thing that prevents citizens from voting once they reach the polls.
Despite this promising achievement, there is still a long road ahead to reach stable democratic governance. There will be a four-month transition process. As Din pointed out, there are no clear candidates for president, nominated by parliament. The candidate has to be palatable to both parties and cannot have a military background. The constitution bars Suu Kyi from becoming president because her sons are British citizens, but she plans to play the leading role: ‘the president will have no authority,’ she has said.
This transition takes place in the context of long-running civil wars and ongoing peace processes. Fink stated that there is a complex field of contention, with multiple ethnic-minority armed groups arrayed against the military and a long history of distrust. The military and President Thein Sein aren’t united on strategy, with the army continuing to advance into ethnic minority territory.
While a ceasefire was finally signed in October, and passed on Tuesday, only eight of the fifteen armed rebel groups have signed the agreement, which Fink believes plays into the military’s favored strategy of divide and rule. Further, Suu Kyi and the NLD have not as yet weighed in on the issue of the conflict with ethnic rebels or the peace process, though Suu Kyi has has at least stated that her cabinet will have minority representation.
Though there were ethnic minority candidates running with the NLD, no ethnic-minority political party made significant gains in the elections, which also centers the focus on how Suu Kyi will deal with the issue of minority political representation. There were no Muslim candidates at all with the NLD – as Din pointed out, the NLD intentionally excluded them. In Sweeney’s view, lack of Muslim representation is something society at large, as well as all the political parties, will have to confront.
Myanmar is now in a transition period, economically as well as politically, which increases feelings of insecurity and sentiments of exclusionary nationalism amongst its populace, in Fink’s view. Sweeney highlighted interesting parallels with the debate about immigration and citizenship in Europe and the US, as much of Myanmar’s Muslim population immigrated to the country decades ago, and yet have not acquired citizenship.
With the accomplishment of successful elections behind them, Myanmar needs to continue to negotiate issues of citizenship and reconciliation in the hopes of building a more inclusive society.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Balkans in perspective
I’m taking off for the Middle East this evening, so rushing to put my affairs in order. I don’t know if I’ll get an opportunity to write today, but in the meanwhile here is an interview I did for Kosovo Radio and Television with Janusz Bugajski. It was broadcast on December 8 but recorded a few days earlier:
It seems to me Janusz, who knows the Balkans well, does a great job trying to get past the immediate headlines to deeper and broader issues.
RSS - Posts
