Month: May 2016
The Bytyqi brothers
“Don’t worry, we’ll resolve [the Bytyqi murders], and I think that it’s our job, it’s our duty to do it…. [Resolution will] happen very soon or much sooner than anybody might expect.”
— Serbian PM Aleksandar Vucic, June 4, 2015 at SAIS
Many of you were present at SAIS approximately one year ago when Prime Minister Vucic promised expeditious resolution on the Bytyqi case – the case of three American citizens and brothers that were kidnapped, executed and dumped into a mass grave by Serbian special forces at the end of the Kosovo war.
But in the year that has transpired, virtually nothing has happened. Witnesses have not been given clear signals that they will be protected. No charges have been filed. Suspected war criminals, however, are faring much better. Goran Radosavljevic, a prime suspect in the case, remains a key advisor to Prime Minister Vucic and President Tomislav Nikolic and their Progressive Party. Despite repeated requests, the Bytyqi family has not been given updates on any future plans to move the case along.This wasn’t the first promise that Prime Minister Vucic had broken to US officials (including Vice President Biden, Secretary Kerry, and National Security Advisor Rice), the American public, and the Bytyqi family. He had previously promised to resolve the case by the end of the Summer 2014. After missing that first self-imposed deadline, he promised in November 2014 to resolve it by end of March 2015.
I’d have preferred this note read “has failed to fulfill his promises to the family…,” but that’s just me. Here is the full recording of the Prime Minister’s appearance at SAIS on June 4, 2015 (please let me know if you discover at which point the above quotation about the Bytyqi brothers appears):
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Hope fades
The Syria peace talks, never substantial, are evaporating. The chief negotiator for the opposition has quit. The Russians and the Syrian government continue to bombard pretty much whomever they like in dozens of raids every day, though Administration officials assure me that the Russians insist on some restraint. That wasn’t apparent yesterday in a bombing near Idlib’s main hospital.* Sieges have not been lifted, prisoners have not been exchanged and most humanitarian supplies are still blocked.
On the main issue in the talks–the formation of a transitional governing body with full executive authority (TGBFEA)–there is no progress reported, despite a looming deadline of August 1 for beginning the transition. The Syrian government and the Russians continue to insist that Bashar al Assad preside over the TGBFEA. The opposition rejects that proposition, but its deteriorating military situation gives it little leverage in the negotiation. The Americans have been unable to convince the opposition to yield. Even if some moderates do, they will be unlikely to be able to deliver the armed groups–moderates as well as extremists–to a political solution that leaves Bashar al Assad in place.
The question of Assad is a secondary one for the Americans, who are mainly concerned to pursue the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS). Pentagon equipped, trained and advised Syrian Democratic Forces (mainly Kurdish but partly Arab) are making progress in investing Raqqa, ISIS’s more or less capital. But ISIS has responded with attacks farther west aimed at cutting off a main supply route from Turkey to relatively moderate forces in Aleppo and farther north. If Kurdish forces prove necessary to block this move, Ankara will have apoplexy, since that could give them control of the last remaining portion of the Syrian/Turkish border that they do not already own. ISIS knows how to drive a wedge between the supposed Coalition partners fighting against it.
Things are going a bit better in Iraq, where more or less government-controlled forces have surrounded Fallujah, which ISIS has been using to launch suicide attacks in Baghdad, and are beginning the effort to liberate it. Kurdish forces have also moved towards Mosul, though any effort to liberate what was once Iraq’s second-largest city still seems far off.
Sectarian strife increasingly threatens military success in Iraq, with Iranian-backed Shia militias prominent in investing Fallujah and apparently determined to play a role in its liberation, despite the express wishes of Prime Minister Abadi. He remains under political pressure in Baghdad but has been unable to assemble the parliamentary quorum and majority needed to approve a new, more technocratic government and much-needed anti-corruption reforms.
With the Syrian regime refusing to allow humanitarian convoys into besieged cities, talk has grown of airdropping aid. That’s an expensive and ineffective proposition that should be used only in limited and extreme circumstances. It is no substitute for the truckloads required in major population centers. Nor will it do anything to end the war. Bashar al Assad is happy to tie up the international community in interminable discussions of humanitarian access because it helps him to avoid the search for a political solution and the inevitable end to his rule it would entail.
Hope for the peace talks is fading. Syria is headed for more war. It is at moments like these that sometimes someone does something fundamental to alter the equation. What that might be, and who will act, isn’t at all clear to me.
*I originally said “of Idlib’s main hospital.” Later reporting suggests that was inaccurate.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks May 31-June 3
- The Iran nuclear deal: Prelude to proliferation in the Middle East? | Tuesday, May 31st | 9:30-11:00 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) adopted by Iran and the P5+1 partners in July 2015 was an effort not only to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons but also to avert a nuclear arms competition in the Middle East. But uncertainties surrounding the future of the Iran nuclear deal, including the question of what Iran will do when key JCPOA restrictions on its nuclear program expire after 15 years, could provide incentives for some of its neighbors to keep their nuclear options open. In their Brookings Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Series monograph, “The Iran Nuclear Deal: Prelude to Proliferation in the Middle East?,” Robert Einhorn and Richard Nephew assess the current status of the JCPOA and explore the likelihood that, in the wake of the agreement, regional countries will pursue their own nuclear weapons programs or at least latent nuclear weapons capabilities. Drawing on interviews with senior government officials and non-government experts from the region, they focus in depth on the possible motivations and capabilities of Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates for pursuing nuclear weapons. The monograph also offers recommendations for policies to reinforce the JCPOA and reduce the likelihood that countries of the region will seek nuclear weapons. On May 31, the Brookings Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative will host a panel to discuss the impact of the JCPOA on prospects for nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Brookings Senior Fellow and Deputy Director of Foreign Policy Suzanne Maloney will serve as moderator. Panelists include H.E. Yousef Al Otaiba, ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the United States; Derek Chollet, counselor and senior advisor for security and defense policy at the German Marshall Fund; Brookings Senior Fellow Robert Einhorn; and Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow Richard Nephew. Following the discussion, panelists will take questions from the audience.
- East Asia on the Brink? The Impact of the Arms Trade and Nationalism on Regional Security | Tuesday, May 31st | 10:00-11:30 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Rapidly rising military expenditures, entrenched regional rivalries, intractable territorial disputes, and a surge in nationalism across East Asia today have often been compared with Europe on the eve of World War I. Prospects for heightened regional tensions certainly remain high, which will force the United States to adjust its own strategy as a Pacific power. Join us for a discussion on the newly emerging security agenda in East Asia to assess how rising nationalism in China, Japan, and South Korea is complicating U.S. alliance management. The dynamics of the arms trade in East Asia and how U.S. policies on arms exports may be inadvertently undermining other aspects of U.S. strategy for the region will also be analyzed. Speakers include Thomas U. Berger, Wilson Center Fellow, and Jonathan Caverley, Wilson Center Fellow.
- The Rise of Gulf Arab Cities | Tuesday, May 31st | 2:00-3:15 | Middle East Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host Emirati commentator and MEI non-resident scholar Sultan al Qassemi for a discussion about the growing role of Gulf Arab cities. Qassemi argues that cities like Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Doha are eclipsing the Arab world’s traditional centers of power and culture, positioning themselves as global hubs, driven by investment in energy, finance, education, culture, and transportation. How is their growing political and cultural clout shaping regional dynamics and what impact is their influence having on long-standing alliances?
- President Obama in Hanoi: Vietnam-U.S.-China Relations in Transition | Wednesday, June 1st | 3:30-5:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | President Obama visited Vietnam in late May of 2016, against the backdrop of growing uncertainty in the South China Sea. Vietnam-China relations are steeped in 2,000 years of shared culture and deep distrust. Like its Southeast Asian neighbors, Hanoi must balance its relationship with China and the United States with increasing care. It is a party to the Trans Pacific Partnership, but is also a founding member of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. While Vietnam values its economic relationship with the PRC, it prefers an enhanced American regional security role to the prospect of Chinese military dominance. Please join us for an assessment of President Obama’s Vietnam trip and a discussion of how Vietnam’s response to Chinese and American competition and cooperation in the region will affect the American rebalance. This event is part of the Wilson Center’s Weighing the Rebalance Series, a joint effort of the Asia Program and the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States. Sandy Pho, Program Associate, Kissinger Institute on China and the United States, will moderate. Speakers include Hung M. Nguyen, Nonresident Senior Associate, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Marvin Ott, Wilson Center Senior Scholar, and Yun Sun, Senior Associate, Henry L. Stimson Center.
- CNAS Book Launch—“The Mirror Test” by Kael Weston | Wednesday, June 1st | 5:30-7:30 | Center on New American Security | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) invites you to attend the book launch for The Mirror Test, a new memoir by Kael Weston, who served seven years in Iraq and Afghanistan with the US Department of State. CNAS will host a panel discussion on the issues raised in The Mirror Test, including how America is viewed in the world, how the nation views itself, and the difficult intersection between diplomacy and combat in a war zone.The panel will also include Thomas Pickering, former US Ambassador to the UN and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and S. Rebecca Zimmerman, Associate Policy Analyst at the Rand Corporation focusing on U.S. and international special operations. The event will be moderated by Phillip Carter, CNAS Senior Fellow.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Thunder should roll for them all
I have added just a little to what I said last year on Memorial Day, which in the US is tomorrow:
I spent my high school years marching in the Memorial Day parade in New Rochelle, New York and have never lost respect for those who serve and make sacrifices in uniform. Even as an anti-war protester in the Vietnam era, I thought denigration of those in uniform heinous, not to mention counterproductive.
It is impossible to feel anything but pride and gratitude to those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Kosovo, Bosnia, Panama, Somalia, Kuwait and Iraq during the previous decade. Nor will I forget my Memorial Day visit to the American cemetery in Nettuno accompanying Defense Secretary Les Aspin in the early 1990s, or my visit to the Florence cemetery the next year. These extraordinarily manicured places are the ultimate in peaceful. It is unimaginable what their inhabitants endured. No matter what we say during the speechifying on Memorial Day, there is little glory in what the troops do and a whole lot of hard work, dedication, professionalism and horror.
That said, it is a mistake to forget those who serve out of uniform, as we habitually do. Numbers are hard to come by, but a quick internet search suggests that at at least 2000 U.S. civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus quite a few “third country” nationals. They come in many different varieties: journalists, policemen, judges, private security guards, agriculturalists, local government experts, computer geeks, engineers, relief and development workers, trainers, spies, diplomats and who knows what else. I think of these people as our “pinstripe soldiers,” even if most of them don’t in fact wear pinstripes. But they are a key component of building the states that we hope will some day redeem the sacrifices they and their uniformed comrades have endured.
We are losing that long war. Not because our soldiers lack courage or technology, but rather because our civilian instruments for preventing war and rebuilding afterwards are inadequate. The Islamic State has made operating in many conflict zones nigh on impossible for American civilians, whom we now even need to count among the prisoners of war and missing in action. But there will be no victory in Libya, Syria or Yemen without the effective civilian instruments needed to restore some kind of inclusive governance to states torn apart by uncivil war.
Host country civilians killed in all these conflicts far outnumber the number of Americans killed, by a factor of 100 or more. Numbers this large become unfathomable. Of course some–and maybe more–would have died under Saddam Hussein, the Taliban or Muammar Qaddafi, but that is not what happened. They died fighting American or Coalition forces, or by accident, or caught in a crossfire, or trying to defend themselves, or in regime prisons, or in battle with extremists, or in internecine violence, or because a soldier got nervous or went berserk, or….
Memorial Day in this age of “war among the people” should be about all those, civilian as well as military, non-American as well as American, not only about the uniform, the flag or the cause. Thunder should roll for them all.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This is a great America, again
President Obama’s remarks at Hiroshima yesterday are worth reading:
Seventy-one years ago, on a bright, cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and the world was changed. A flash of light and a wall of fire destroyed a city and demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself.
Why do we come to this place, to Hiroshima? We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in a not so distant past. We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 in Japanese men, women and children; thousands of Koreans; a dozen Americans held prisoner. Their souls speak to us. They ask us to look inward, to take stock of who we are and what we might become.
It is not the fact of war that sets Hiroshima apart. Artifacts tell us that violent conflict appeared with the very first man. Our early ancestors, having learned to make blades from flint and spears from wood, used these tools not just for hunting, but against their own kind. On every continent, the history of civilization is filled with war, whether driven by scarcity of grain or hunger for gold; compelled by nationalist fervor or religious zeal. Empires have risen and fallen. Peoples have been subjugated and liberated. And at each juncture, innocents have suffered, a countless toll, their names forgotten by time.
The World War that reached its brutal end in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fought among the wealthiest and most powerful of nations. Their civilizations had given the world great cities and magnificent art. Their thinkers had advanced ideas of justice and harmony and truth. And yet, the war grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes; an old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints. In the span of a few years, some 60 million people would die — men, women, children no different than us, shot, beaten, marched, bombed, jailed, starved, gassed to death.
There are many sites around the world that chronicle this war — memorials that tell stories of courage and heroism; graves and empty camps that echo of unspeakable depravity. Yet in the image of a mushroom cloud that rose into these skies, we are most starkly reminded of humanity’s core contradiction; how the very spark that marks us as a species — our thoughts, our imagination, our language, our tool-making, our ability to set ourselves apart from nature and bend it to our will — those very things also give us the capacity for unmatched destruction.
How often does material advancement or social innovation blind us to this truth. How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause. Every great religion promises a pathway to love and peace and righteousness, and yet no religion has been spared from believers who have claimed their faith as a license to kill. Nations arise, telling a story that binds people together in sacrifice and cooperation, allowing for remarkable feats, but those same stories have so often been used to oppress and dehumanize those who are different.
Science allows us to communicate across the seas and fly above the clouds; to cure disease and understand the cosmos. But those same discoveries can be turned into ever-more efficient killing machines.
The wars of the modern age teach this truth. Hiroshima teaches this truth. Technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us. The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution, as well.
That is why we come to this place. We stand here, in the middle of this city, and force ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell. We force ourselves to feel the dread of children confused by what they see. We listen to a silent cry. We remember all the innocents killed across the arc of that terrible war, and the wars that came before, and the wars that would follow.
Mere words cannot give voice to such suffering, but we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again. Someday the voices of the hibakusha will no longer be with us to bear witness. But the memory of the morning of August 6th, 1945 must never fade. That memory allows us to fight complacency. It fuels our moral imagination. It allows us to change.
And since that fateful day, we have made choices that give us hope. The United States and Japan forged not only an alliance, but a friendship that has won far more for our people than we could ever claim through war. The nations of Europe built a Union that replaced battlefields with bonds of commerce and democracy. Oppressed peoples and nations won liberation. An international community established institutions and treaties that worked to avoid war and aspire to restrict and roll back, and ultimately eliminate the existence of nuclear weapons.
Still, every act of aggression between nations; every act of terror and corruption and cruelty and oppression that we see around the world shows our work is never done. We may not be able to eliminate man’s capacity to do evil, so nations –- and the alliances that we’ve formed -– must possess the means to defend ourselves. But among those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear, and pursue a world without them.
We may not realize this goal in my lifetime. But persistent effort can roll back the possibility of catastrophe. We can chart a course that leads to the destruction of these stockpiles. We can stop the spread to new nations, and secure deadly materials from fanatics.
And yet that is not enough. For we see around the world today how even the crudest rifles and barrel bombs can serve up violence on a terrible scale. We must change our mindset about war itself –- to prevent conflict through diplomacy, and strive to end conflicts after they’ve begun; to see our growing interdependence as a cause for peaceful cooperation and not violent competition; to define our nations not by our capacity to destroy, but by what we build. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Remember Nagasaki
The Obama Administration has been desperately trying to counter any suggestion that the President’s visit to Hiroshima today represented an apology, which would add to the “apology tour” narrative the Republicans have tried to stick on him. The Japanese government is cooperating by denying that it expects one. There is no point in asking for what you know you won’t get. The United States notoriously does not apologize. This is sad and unbecoming, not the least because the United States is not shy about asking other countries to apologize.
But, it is fair to ask, is there anything to apologize for?
The argument in favor of the first use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima is pretty strong, if you ignore the indiscriminate killing of civilians that was already a feature of the war: President Truman was anxious to avoid a large-scale invasion of Japan, which would have cost many American lives, and to end the war quickly. Prolongation of the war would have not only cost American but also Japanese lives. It would also have put at risk America’s capacity to sustain the war effort. If you thought Japanese unconditional surrender vital to US national security, the bombing looked like the quickest and most effective way of achieving the goal. No wonder President Truman embraced it.
Why not perform a demonstration rather than bomb a city? The short answer seems to be that the Americans feared the test might fail. Saving face is not only a Japanese concept.
The arguments in favor of bombing Hiroshima don’t apply to Nagasaki, attacked three days later, before the Japanese had determined for sure that the bomb used was an atomic one. The bombing of a second city looks gratuitous in retrospect, but at the time it was considered just a continuation of the effort to get Japan to surrender. It is unclear whether Japan would have surrendered if only Hiroshima had been bombed, but it is all too clear that the Japanese had insufficient time to make that decision before Nagasaki was bombed.
There is an important lesson here. War is politics by other means. Its purpose is to convince the enemy to do what you want him to do. It is important to leave him the time and space required to comply. Sure, Japan might have surrendered in the three days after the Hiroshima bombing, but it is hard now to see how allowing a week would have hurt the American cause. A week might have saved almost 40,000 lives.
But they would have been Japanese lives. At the time, they weighed little, if at all, in the American calculus. That, if anything, is what the Americans might consider apologizing for: the failure to minimize the loss of Japanese lives. The bombing of Nagasaki was at best overly hasty and at worst completely unnecessary. Is it too much to ask that we acknowledge those facts?
I suppose so. The President barely mentioned Nagasaki today. The second bombing has been lost in the press coverage of the President’s visit to Hiroshima, just as it has been lost in the popular consciousness in the US ever since 1945. We would do better to remember.
RSS - Posts
