Tag: Arab League
This week’s peace picks
Quiet until Thursday, when there is a boom of interesting events:
1. Domestic Politics and Cross-Taiwan Strait Relations: A Perspective of Taiwan, Johns Hopkins/SAIS, 812 Rome, noon-2 pm March 12.
2. Deradicalizing Islamist Extremists, Rumi Forum, noon-1:30 March 13.
Considerable effort has been devoted to understanding the process of violent Islamist radicalization, but far less research has explored the equally important process of deradicalization, or how individuals or groups abandon extremist groups and ideologies. Proactive measures to prevent vulnerable individuals from radicalizing and to rehabilitate those who have already embraced extremism have been implemented, to varying degrees, in several Middle Eastern, Southeast Asian, and European countries. A key question is whether the objective of these programs should be disengagement (a change in behavior) or deradicalization (a change in beliefs) of militants.
Dr. Rabasa will discuss the findings of the RAND monograph, Deradicalizing Islamist Extremists. The study analyzes deradicalization and counter-radicalization programs in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Europe assesses the strengths and weaknesses of these programs, and makes recommendations to governments on ways to promote and accelerate processes of deradicalization.
BIO:
Dr. Angel M. Rabasa is a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation. He has written extensively about extremism, terrorism, and insurgency. He is the lead author of The Lessons of Mumbai (2009); Radical Islam in East Africa (2009); The Rise of Political Islam in Turkey (2008); Ungoverned Territories: Understanding and Reducing Terrorism Risks (2007); Building Moderate Muslim Networks (2007); Beyond al-Qaeda, Part 1: The Global Jihadist Movement and Part 2: The Outer Rings of the Terrorist Universe (2006); and The Muslim World After 9/11 (2004). He has completed the research on patterns of Islamist radicalization and terrorism in Europe, and is currently working on a project on deradicalization of Islamist extremists. Other works include the International Institute for Strategic Studies Adelphi Paper No. 358, Political Islam in Southeast Asia: Moderates, Radicals, and Terrorists(2003); The Military and Democracy in Indonesia: Challenges, Politics, and Power(2002), with John Haseman; and Indonesia’s Transformation and the Stability of Southeast Asia (2001), with Peter Chalk. Before joining RAND, Rabasa served in the U.S. Departments of State and Defense. He is a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the International Studies Association, and the American Foreign Service Association.
Rabasa has a B.A. and Ph.D. in history from Harvard University and was a Knox Fellow at St. Antony’s College, Oxford University.
3. Sudan and South Sudan: Independence and Insecurity, Dirksen 419, 10 am March 14.
U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Full Committee
Presiding:
Senator Kerry
Panel One
Special Envoy for Sudan
U.S. Department of State
Washington, DC
Co-founder
Satellite Sentinel Project
Washington, DC
Co-founder
Satellite Sentinel Project, Enough Project
Washington, DC
4. Two New Publications Examining Iran, Stimson Center, 10-11:30 am March 15
Iran in Perspective:
Holding Iran to Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Technology
By Barry Blechman
Engaging Iran on Afghanistan:
Keep Trying
By Ellen Laipson
Stimson scholars, co-founder and distinguished fellow Barry Blechman and president and CEO Ellen Laipson have completed new studies that consider how to engage Iran in constructive negotiations. Dr. Blechman will discuss how to achieve greater progress on the nuclear front, while Laipson will outline ways to engage Iran over the future of Afghanistan.
** This event is on the record **
Please RSVP to RSVP@stimson.org – or call April Umminger at (202) 478-3442.
5. Why Does Russia Support the Assad Regime? Middle East Institute, noon-1 pm March 15
Location:
Russia’s relations with Syria – even under the Assad regime – have been more troubled than current press accounts of Moscow-Damascus ties indicate. But despite the internal and external opposition to the Assad regime that has risen up over the past year, the Russian government has defended it staunchly via its Security Council veto and other means. In his talk, Mark Katz will discuss why Moscow supports the Assad regime so strongly as well as why it is willing to incur the costs of doing so.
Bio: Mark N. Katz is a professor of government and politics at George Mason University who writes and lectures extensively on Russia and its relations with the Middle East. He is the author of Leaving without Losing: The War on Terror after Iraq and Afghanistan (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012), Reflections on Revolutions (St. Martin’s Press/Macmillan, 1999), Revolutions and Revolutionary Waves (St. Martin’s Press/Macmillan, 1997) and Russia and Arabia: Soviet Foreign Policy toward the Arabian Peninsula (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), among other publications.
Moderated by NPR’s Tom Gjelten
1:00-2:30 p.m., March 15, 2012
American Enterprise Institute, 1150 17th St. NW #1100 Washington, DC
CNN.com will livestream each event. On Twitter? Follow #natsecurity2012for updates throughout the series.7. South China Sea in High Resolution, CSIS 1:30-2:30 March 15
CSIS Southeast Asia Program is pleased to present the inauguration of its innovative new policy tool “South China Sea in High Resolution”.
Presented by
Ernest Z. Bower
Senior Adviser & Director, Southeast Asia Program, CSIS
Followed by an expert panel featuring:
Lieutenant General Wallace “Chip” Gregson
U.S. Marine Corps (Retired)
Admiral Timothy J. Keating
Former PACOM Commander, U.S. Department of the Navy (Retired)
The Hon. Stapleton J. Roy
Former U.S. Ambassador to Singapore, China, and Indonesia
Thursday, March 15, 2012
1:30 pm – 2:30 pm
CSIS B1 A/B Conference Facility
1800 K ST NW, Washington DC
We are honored to invite you to witness the inauguration of the innovative new CSIS policy tool called “The South China Sea in High Resolution” presented by Ernest Bower, the senior adviser and director of the CSIS Southeast Asia program. An outstanding panel of experts will discuss the presentation and key trends in the South China Sea and its importance to the United States.
The South China Sea in High Resolution presentation will address the myriad issues — ranging from geopolitical to economic to legal — arising from the disputes in the sea. The South China Sea is a topic of vital importance for the Asia-Pacific. American foreign policy rebalance towards Asia has further emphasized the significance of this region. The South China Sea connects the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China, but it contains sizeable natural resources and hosts the world’s busiest trade routes. Concerns about maintaining peace in the sea were raised by President Obama and other Southeast Asian leaders during the ASEAN Regional Forum and East Asia Summit in 2011.
Ernest Z. Bower is senior advisor and director of CSIS’s Southeast Asia Program.
Lieutenant General Wallace “Chip” Gregson (USMC, Ret.) most recently served as assistant secretary of defense, Asian and Pacific Security Affairs.
Admiral Timothy J. Keating (retired) is former commander of Pacific Command (PACOM) and the U.S. Navy’s U.S. Northern Command.
The Hon. Stapleton J. Roy is former U.S. ambassador to Singapore, China, and Indonesia. He is currently the director of the Kissinger Institute on China at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars.
Please RSVP to the Southeast Asia Program by noon on March 14. If you have questions, please contact Mary Beth Jordan at (202) 775 3278.
Event Schedule
10:15-10:30am: Welcome
10:30am-12:00pm: Panel 1, How Repression Breeds Religious Extremism – and How Religious Freedom Does the Opposite
Panelists: Johanna Kristin Birnir, Brian Grim, Mohammed Hafez, and Monica Duffy Toft (moderator)
12:00-12:30pm: Lunch
12:30 – 2:00pm: Keynote Discussion, Religious Freedom, Religious Extremsim, and the Arab Spring: Bush and Obama Administration Perspectives
Participants: Dennis Ross, Stephen Hadley, Elliott Abrams, and William Inboden (moderator)
2:15-3:30pm: Panel 2, Fostering Religious Freedom & Curbing Religious Extremism in the Arab Spring – Lessons for US Policy
Panelists: Jillian Schwedler, Samer Shehata, Samuel Tadros, and Thomas Farr (moderator)
Featuring
Stephen Hadley
Dennis Ross
Elliott Abrams
Participants
Johanna Birnir
Thomas Farr
Brian Grim
Mohammed Hafez
William Inboden
Jillian Schwedler
Samer Shehata
Samuel Tadros
Monica Duffy Toft
The Brookings Institution
August 04, 2011
Participants
Panelists
Khaled Elgindy
Visiting Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy
Shadi Hamid
Director of Research, Brookings Doha Center
Tamara Cofman Wittes
3:00 to 4:00 Panel 1: Domestic Issues
Scott Shemwell, Retired Business Professional, “ Challenges for the International Oil and Gas Markets: A Business Perspective ”
Xu Liu, Institute of European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies Visiting Scholar, GW; Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University, “The Environmental Factor in Russian Energy Policy ”
4:00 to 4:15 Coffee Break
4:15 to 5:45 Panel 2: Foreign Policy
Keun-Wook Paik, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, ”East Asia Energy Cooperation”
Dicle Korkmaz, Institute of European, Russian, and Eurasian Visiting Scholar, GW; University of Tampere, “Russian-Turkish Energy Relations ”
Oleksandr Sukhodolia, Institute of European, Russian, and Eurasian Visiting Scholar, GW; Fulbright Scholar, “Russian-Ukrainian Energy Relations ”
Discussion Chair: Robert Orttung, Institute of European, Russian, and Eurasian Assistant Director, GW
RSVP at: http://tinyurl.com/PanelGWU
Sponsored by the Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What now?
Bashar al Assad and his opponents have now both rejected Kofi Annan’s mission impossible. On behalf of the UN and the Arab League, he sought a ceasefire, followed by humanitarian aid and dialogue on a political solution.
This failure was not surprising. His was always a low-probability proposition. But the rejection came faster than I anticipated. I’d have guessed that Bashar would see some benefit in stringing Annan along.
Instead he slapped Annan’s proposition down without hesitation, grabbing some World Health Organization support for a Syrian Red Crescent mission to assess health needs in conflict areas. Not bad: wage war against your own population, then get the internationals to pay for your own cronies to assess the damage.
Bashar is feeling his cheerios. Russian support is holding. Arab threats to arm his opponents seem not much more than hot air at this point. Lots of small arms are getting in to Syria, but they won’t do much against Bashar’s armor and artillery. Defections are growing, but the numbers are small and they still have not reached into the inner circle.
It is a bit harder to explain the attitude of the opposition, which is feeling abandoned by the West and not much supported in the East. They’d have gained more from supporting Annan’s initiative, and then having Bashar reject it, than by opposing it from the first. They want Bashar out before dialogue can take place, which I understand perfectly well. But they just don’t have the horsepower at the moment to make it happen.
Many, though not all, in the opposition want arms for the Free Syrian Army, the network of defectors who have refused to fire on demonstrators and taken up the cudgels against Bashar. The problem is that arming the opposition will prolong the civil war and make it ever more sectarian, which is precisely what the West does not want.
The opposition’s main hope is international military intervention against Bashar, which still seems to me a distant prospect. An American military attack on Syria without Security Council approval and in the midst of a high-stakes diplomatic duel with Iran over its nuclear program is unlikely. Washington will want to keep its powder dry for the main battle. Europe is absorbed in its defense of the Euro.
A combined Turkish/Arab attack on Syria is theoretically possible. But without Security Council approval and extensive U.S. support, it risks political and military failure. There are already far too many hints of a broad and prolonged Sunni/Shia war in the Middle East. Do we really want to throw fuel on that fire?
This leaves us with few alternatives other than continuing to support the opposition, to isolate the Syrian regime and to press the Russians and Chinese to stop shielding Bashar from even a mild UNSC resolution. The only big question is whether the support should include whatever the opposition needs to take up arms. This includes not only the arms themselves but also intelligence support and training. The opposition lacks real-time information on the disposition of the army and its checkpoints, a deficiency that is too often deadly to militants trying to move around Syria.
I’ve opposed arming the opposition, on grounds that doing so militarizes the fight and shifts it to means that favor the regime. The same argument does not work for intelligence support, which is vital to protecting the opposition whether it takes up arms or not. Our overhead capabilities are stunning. If the opposition can organize itself to make effective use of real-time intelligence data to protect its adherents, we should be providing it.
I am at a loss as to what to recommend beyond that. This is one of those situations where there are bad options and worse ones. I don’t see a route out of the current impasse, other than the one Annan failed to sell to both sides.
What is happening in Syria is extraordinarily cruel and ugly. Bashar is mowing down people who are asking for no more than the freedom to decide their own fates. His moment of accountability will arrive, but for the moment we don’t seem to have a way of making it arrive sooner rather than later.
PS: Annan declared himself optimistic after a second meeting with Bashar al Assad today (Sunday). Hard to know what to make of that. The Arab League seems to have softened its demand that Bashar step aside, leading the Russians to sound a bit more helpful. The opposition should be getting ready to have its arm twisted to talk with the regime before Bashar is removed. Meetings at the UN Security Council this afternoon and tomorrow are likely to lead in that “optimistic” direction.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Negotiation time
With all the jabber the last few days about the use of force against both Syria and Iran, media attention is not focused on the prospects for negotiated settlements. But there are such prospects still, even if the odds are getting longer by the day.
Syria
International Crisis Group is out yesterday with a “now or never” manifesto rightly focused on prospects for UN/Arab League envoy Kofi Annan’s efforts:
Annan’s best hope lies in enlisting international and notably Russian support for a plan that:
Arming the Syrian opposition, which is happening already, is not likely to improve the prospects for a negotiated settlement along these lines. To the contrary, Western contemplation of safe areas and humanitarian corridors, loose Arab talk about armed the Syria Free Army, the occasional Al Qaeda suicide bombing and a Russian blank check for the regime to crack down are combining to plunge Syria into chaos. Someone may think that deprives Iran of an important ally, but it also spells lasting (as in decades-long) trouble in a part of the world where we can ill afford it.
The Americans have been mumbling about how arms will inevitably get to the Syrian opposition. This is true enough. But some visible support for Annan, and a behind the scenes diplomatic game with the Russians, would be more helpful to the cause of preventing Syria from becoming a chronic source of instability in Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan.
Iran
Netanyahu came but this time did not conquer. He needed President Obama to be forthcoming on an eventual military action against Iran as much as Obama needed him to refrain from aligning with Republican critics. It fell to Senator Mitch McConnell to crystallize the emerging U.S. position: if Iran enriches uranium to bomb grade (at or above 90%) or shows signs of having decided to build a nuclear weapon (design and ignition work), then the U.S. would respond with overwhelming force. This is the proposed “red line.”
We should not be fooled by McConnell’s belligerent tone. Even assuming very strict verification procedures, the line he proposes is a relatively expansive one that leaves Iran with enrichment technology and peaceful uses of atomic energy, which is what the Islamic Republic claims is its red line.
While the press was focused on belligerent statements, the P5+1 (US, UK, France, Russia, China + Germany) have apparently responded to Iran’s offer of renewed negotiations. Iran has also told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it can visit a previously off-limits nuclear site believed to be engaged in weapons research, but procedures have not yet been worked out.
Bottom line
I wouldn’t get excited about the prospects for negotiated solutions in either Syria or Iran. But if ever there was a time to negotiate, this is it. By fall, both situations will likely be too far gone, with serious consequences for the United States, the Middle East and the rest of the world.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s “peace picks”
Frighteningly busy week in DC. Experts bloom even before the cherry blossoms:
1. Chinese Heir Apparent, Xi Jinping and U.S.-China Relations, SAIS, rm. 806 Rome, 12-2 pm March 5
Since 2009, the Islamist insurgency known as Boko Haram has escalated its attacks across Nigeria, targeting the country’s security forces, politicians and innocent civilians – Muslims and Christians alike. The Nigerian government, led by President Goodluck Jonathan has demonstrated itself ill-equipped and unprepared to manage such a crisis, juggle economic woes, compounded by the country’s fuel crisis and political unrest.
Last summer, General Carter Ham, Commander of U.S. Africa Command, confirmed Boko Haram’s links to al-Qaeda. Only after Boko Haram bombed the United Nation’s headquarters in Abuja did Washington take notice of this emerging threat to international security. Not only is Nigeria the largest African oil exporter to the U.S. but its peacekeeping contributions are the largest on the continent, as is its population. In November 2011, the Sub-committee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence of the House Homeland Security Committee, chaired by Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA), released a report on Boko Haram’s threat to the U.S. homeland.
Join us as we assess Boko Haram’s threat to Nigeria, the region, and the United States.
Keynote Remarks by
The Honorable Patrick Meehan (R-PA)
Member, United States House of Representatives
Followed by a Discussion with
J. Peter Pham, Ph.D.
Director, Michael S. Ansari Africa Center, Atlantic Council
Ricardo René Larémont, Ph.D.
Professor of Political Science and Sociology, State University of New York at Binghamton
3. After Elections: Next Steps in Yemen’s Transition, IFES, 12-1:30 pm March 6
Where:
IFES
1850 K Street, NW, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20006
Yemen’s February 21 presidential election resulted in the end of President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s 32-year rule. While some questioned the purpose of a one-candidate election, many others hailed it as a crucial first step in Yemen’s transitional process.
As the country moves forward, please join for a conversation on the next steps in Yemen’s political transition that will address issues including:
- What are the priority issues for the constitutional committee?
- What will be the role of civil society, youth protesters and opposition groups?
- What challenges exist for reconciliation with entities such as Al-Hirak and the Houthis?
Featured Speakers:
Elobaid Ahmed Elobaid, Head of the UN Human Rights Training and Documentation Centre for South West Asia and the Arab Region
Grant Kippen, Chief of Party in Yemen, IFES
Ibrahim Sharqieh, Deputy Director of the Brookings Doha Center (invited)
Moderated by Michael Svetlik, Vice President of Programs, IFES
Please RSVP by registering online
NOTE: Lunch will be served.
4. Arab Spring or Islamic Winter? SAIS, Rome Auditorium, 2-3:30 pm March 6
A politically incorrect debate among Arab, US and European observers a year after the Arab uprisings.
A question and answer period will follow.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Rome Building Auditorium
Moderator: Kurt Volker, Senior Fellow, Center for Transatlantic Relations
Robbie Friedmann, Georgia State University
Karim Mezran, Johns Hopkins University
Daniele Moro, Visiting Scholar, Center for Transatlantic Relations
Pablo Pardo, Washington Correspondent, El Mundo
Daniel Robinson, Chief White House Correspondent, Voice of America
Samuel Tadros, Hudson Institute
5. Assessing the Implications of the Russian Presidential Election, Woodrow Wilson Center, 10-noon March 7i
Live Briefing from Moscow and DC
The Kennan Institute will sponsor a Moscow-Washington, DC seminar assessing the implications of the first round of the Russian presidential vote. U.S. commentators will be joined via video conference in Moscow with some of Russia’s leading political actors, including Alexei Navalny and Vladimir Ryzhkov.
Moderator: Blair Ruble, Director, Kennan Institute
Maria Gaidar, Founder, Democratic Alternatives (DA!), Russia
Ariel Cohen, Senior Research Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, Heritage Foundation
Henry Hale, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Affairs and Director, Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies, George Washington University
Stanislav Belkovsky, Director, National Strategy Institute, Moscow
By Videoconference from Moscow:
Moderator: Olga Bychkova, Journalist, Ekho Moskvy
Alexei Navalny, Attorney, Moscow Bar Association
Vladimir Ryzhkov, Professor, Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, and Chairman, Republican Party of the Russian Federation
Please note that seating for this event is available on a first come, first served basis. RSVP is required to attend. Please call on the day of the event to confirm. Please bring an identification card with a photograph (e.g. driver’s license, work ID, or university ID) as part of the building’s security procedures.
The Kennan Institute speaker series is made possible through the generous support of the Title VIII Program of the U.S. Department of State.
-
Henry Hale//Title VIII-Supported Research Scholar, Kennan InstituteAssistant Professor, Department of Political Science and International Affairs, The George Washington University
-
Ariel Cohen //Senior Research Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, Heritage Foundation
-
Director, National Strategy Institute, Moscow
-
Maria Gaidar //Founder, Democratic Alternatives (DA!), Russia
-
Journalist, Ekho Moskvy
-
Attorney, Moscow Bar Association
-
Professor, Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, and Chairman, Republican Party of the Russian Federation
-
Blair A. Ruble//Director, Kennan Institute and Comparative Urban Studies Project
6. The Saffron Revolution: Prospects for Democracy in Burma, Center for National Policy, noon-1:15 March 7
Featuring:
Former Senior Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security CouncilMarvin Ott
Former Deputy Staff Director of the Senate Select Committee on IntelligenceJennifer Quigley
Advocacy Director, US Campaign for Burma
*A light lunch will be served*
Where
Center for National Policy
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 333
Washington, DC 20001
202-682-1800
Map
Click here
7. Time to Attack Iran? U.S. Policy and Iran’s Nuclear Program, Carnegie Endowment, 7-8:30 pm March 7
6:00 – 7:00 PM
Networking Reception
7:00 – 8:30 PM
Debate
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Participants: Elbridge A. Colby, CNA
Participants: Jamie M. Fly, Foreign Policy Initiative
Participants: Dr. Matthew Kroenig, Georgetown University
Moderator: Eli Lake
Moderator: Newsweek and The Daily Beast
To RSVP, click here.
Despite diplomatic negotiations, international condemnation, and harsh economic sanctions, Iran continues to violate its international obligations by pursuing nuclear weapons capability. While some are still holding out hope for a negotiated solution, a different debate has emerged in the United States over whether it is now time for the use of military force to halt Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions.
Join the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) as it hosts a debate over the use of the military option against Iran’s nuclear program with Elbridge A. Colby (research analyst at CNA), Jamie M. Fly (FPI executive director), and Matthew Kroenig (assistant professor at Georgetown University) on March 7, 2012, at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW). Eli Lake, senior national security correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast, will moderate the discussion.
Background Reading
- Dr. Matthew Kroenig, “Time to Attack Iran,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2012.
- Elbridge A. Colby and Austin Long, “Why Not to Attack Iran,” The National Interest, January 11, 2012.
- Jamie M. Fly and Gary Schmitt, “The Case for Regime Change in Iran,” Foreign Affairs, January 17, 2012.
8. Who Owns the Syrian Revolution? The Roles and Challenges of Women and Minorities in the Syrian Uprising, USIP, 9:30-12:45 March 9
As the Syrian uprising enters its second year, uncertainty about the challenges confronting women and minorities looms especially large. Women have played a critical role throughout the uprising, with activists like Suhair al-Attasi, Razan Zaitouneh, and others emerging as leaders of protest and resistance to the Assad regime. Yet their contributions have often been overshadowed. Questions persist about whether women’s concerns and perspectives will be fully addressed, either in the current uprising or in a potential post-Assad Syria. How can Syrian women ensure that their voices are heard as the revolution unfolds and a new Syria takes shape?
Tensions around the future of minorities in Syria are also escalating. While the opposition includes Christians, Alawites, Kurds, Druze, and other minorities, the Syrian National Council (SNC), the most widely-recognized coalition of anti-regime forces, has struggled with the perception that it is not truly inclusive. It is often seen as heavily influenced by Islamists whose outlook toward minorities is viewed as uncertain, despite the SNC’s commitment to pluralism and tolerance. The Syrian regime, meanwhile, has characterized the opposition as a terrorist movement led by Sunni extremists. It has played, with some effect, on the fears of Syrian minorities about what their future might hold should the Asad regime be overthrown. As violence in Syria has escalated, moreover, sectarian tensions have become apparent. Can the uprising succeed without full support from Syria’s minorities? Will it be possible to prevent Syria from falling into sectarian conflict, and potentially a sectarian civil war?
To address these and other issues concerning the roles and challenges of women and minorities in Syria’s revolution, on March 9, from 9:30 am – 12: 45 pm, the U.S. Institute of Peace will hold two moderated discussion panels, co-sponsored with United for Free Syria and the Syrian Emergency Task Force.
9:30 am – 11:00am | Panel 1: Women and the Future of the Syrian Revolution
Speakers:
- Ms. Rajaa Altalli
Ms. Altalli is a Syrian political activist who serves as Director of International Relations for the organization Syrian Christians for Democracy.” She is a also co-founder of the Support Center for Syrian Minorities based in Washington, D.C. Ms. Altalli is a Ph.D. candidate in mathematics and geometric analysis at Northeastern University in Boston, and has taught mathematics at several universities in Syria.
- Ms. Farah Al Attasi
Ms. Al Attasi is a prominent author and commentator who appears frequently on Arab and American media to discuss Syrian affairs, as well as Middle Eastern issues and U.S. relations with Arab and Muslim worlds. She is currently Executive Director of the American Arab Communication & Translation Center (ACT), the founder and president of the Arab Information and Resource Center in Washington D.C., and owner of Zenobia Lounge, the first multicultural café and bookshop about the Arab and Muslim worlds. In addition, Ms. Al Atassi is the author of many publications in Arabic and English, including a collection of short stories titled “The Mask.”
- Marah Bukai
Ms. Bukai is a Syrian American author, academic researcher, and journalist who has dedicated her professional life to building bridges between the United States and the Arab and Muslim worlds through cultural dialogue. She has worked as senior media adviser at Vital Voices, a lecturer at the University of Maryland and Georgetown University, and is currently Public Diplomacy Program Specialist at FSI. Ms. Bukai is also the founder and chair of the Alwatref Institute for Humanitarian Studies, which aims to bridge the gap between East and West and increase the knowledge of the Middle East among American people. Bukai has five publications of poetry, including, most recently, a volume of poems titled “O,” that was published by Waref Publishing House in Washington, D.C.
- Rasha Alahdab, Esq.
Ms. Alahdab is a founding partner of Syrian Women for Syria, and a founding board member of Syrian Expatriates for Democracy. She is also a member of the Secretariat in the Syrian National Assembly and a member of the law office of the Syrian National Council, as well as a member of the law office of the National Change Current, a Syrian opposition organization.
- Ms. Rafif Jouejati
Ms. Jouejati is the CEO of a Virginia-based management consulting firm, and has been supporting the Syrian Revolution since March 2011. She currently serves as the English-language spokesperson for the Local Coordination Committees in Syria, the National Consensus Movement, and Activists for a Free Syria. She also supports the SNC’s Media Office by writing, translating, and editing press releases, statements, and other communiqués. Ms. Jouejati is also the Program Manager for the SNC-sponsored “A Thousand Years for Syria” initiative.
- Kathleen Kuehnast, Ph.D. (Moderator)
Director, Center of Innovation on Gender and Peacebuilding
U.S. Institute of Peace
11:00 am- 12:45 pm | Panel 2: The Roles and Challenges of Minorities in Syria’s Revolution
Speakers:
- Abed Alo, M.D.
Born in a Kurdish village north of Aleppo, Syria, Dr. Alo is a Surgeon and Fellow of The American College of Surgery. Dr. Alo has been active in the Syrian Kurdish Diaspora in the United States, and an active participant in and supporter of the Syrian pro-democracy movement since it’s inception. Dr. Alo will be speaking on behalf of the Syrian Kurdish community. Dr. Alo is also a member of United for Free Syria.
- Mr. Oudei Abouassaf
Born in Damascus, Syria, Mr. Abousassaf’s family is originally from the Druze-majority city of Sweida, in the south of the country. He is a member of the board of Syrian Expatriates in Support of the Syrian Revolution, Sweida. From 2009 – 2011 he held a position in the Department of Defense. Mr. Abouassaf was last in Syria in January 2011 and saw first-hand the situation on the ground in Syria. Mr. Abouassaf will speak on behalf of the Syrian Druze community.
- Mr. Oubab Khalil
Mr. Khalil, an Alawite, grew up in Lattakia province, Syria. He received a B.A. in law from Beirut Arab University in 2001, and he joined the Syrian Law Society Damascus Bar in 2003. Mr. Khalil immigrated to the United States in 2006, where he has been an outspoken critic of the Syrian government, and involved in promoting freedom and democracy in Syria; efforts to provide humanitarian aid to Syria; and raising awareness about the importance of establishing a secular and pluralistic state in Syria. Mr. Khalil is a member of the board of Syrian Expatriates Organization.
- Najib Ghadbian, Ph.D.
A Syrian academic and member of the Syrian National Council (SNC), Professor Ghadbian is associate professor of political science and middle east studies at the University of Arkansas. He is the author of several books and articles in English and Arabic. His Arabic book, “The Second Assad Regime: Bashar of Lost Opportunities,” was published in 2006. Dr. Ghadbian was a signatory to the Damascus Declaration and is currently active within the Syrian opposition abroad.
- Ms. Dima Moussa, Esq.
A Syrian-born attorney and member of the Syrian National Council (SNC), Ms. Mousa has been affiliated with the Human Rights Law Institute of DePaul University, focusing on Arab women’s rights. She has also volunteered with an organization that assisted Iraqi refugees in adjusting to life in the United States. In recent months, Ms. Moussa has been active in the Syrian-American community, serving as a media spokesperson for a key grassroots movements in Syria, in addition to independently working with activists inside and outside Syria. Ms. Moussa is fluent in Arabic and English, in addition to speaking Assyrian.
- Steven Heydemann, Ph.D. (Moderator )
Senior Adviser for Middle East Initiatives
U.S. Institute of Peace
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The revolution needs better terrain
How do you know when the revolutionaries are losing? When the world starts lining up to arm them. The latest to join this parade is the respected former National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, who rightly argues that the moral argument is overwhelming. The problem is that the strategic argument is not.
To his credit, Steve recognizes the counterarguments:
Arming Syrians seeking their freedom would have its costs. Bashar al-Assad will brand it as outside intervention and wrap himself in the Syrian flag. His efforts to rally especially uncommitted Syrians in defense of Syrian sovereignty will further divide an already-riven society. And it may not force the Assad regime from power anytime soon.
He even adds:
Saying that Assad has lost legitimacy and ultimately will fall is cold comfort. The longer this struggle goes on, the more militarized it will become. The more militarized it becomes, the more Syria’s future will be dictated by who has the most guns, not who gets the most votes. Look at the Libyan Transitional National Council’s struggle to control that country’s militias, and contrast that with the more democratic evolution in Tunisia.
And the more militarized the Syrian struggle becomes, the greater the opportunity for al-Qaeda. Events in Somalia and Yemen show how al-Qaeda thrives on chaos and violence. For the sake of preserving human life and a democratic future for Syria, the Assad regime needs to go now.
I agree with all of that, but the fastest and most effective way of making him go quickly is not arming the opposition. That would take years and at best create an insurgency, one that will frighten away the business and minority support that is so vital to the revolution’s success in Syria. There is no sign yet of NATO, U.S. or EU interest in intervening militarily to support it. Historically, most insurgencies are defeated, though it takes a long time for that to happen. That is the worst of all possible worlds for the United States: a lengthy military contest, increasingly fought along sectarian lines, with likely spillover to Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan.
What is the alternative? Those who want to displace Bashar al Assad need to shift the contest from the terrain on which he is strong–the military battlefield–on to the terrain where he is weak: political legitimacy and authority. This requires massive shows of popular support for displacing him, which are impossible under the wartime conditions the regime created in Homs over the past month.
The first requirement is a ceasefire. But a ceasefire is meaningless without neutral observers. The 160 or so Arab League observers/peacekeepers who have been withdrawn since the defeat of the UN Security Council resolution are nowhere near sufficient. Thousands will be needed. Why would Bashar let them in? Because he does not want the responsibility and expense of maintaining law and order, or feeding and housing people in the neighborhoods his forces have battered. He’ll want to keep close tabs on the effort and complain repeatedly about its ineffectiveness.
That’s all right so long as the international presence creates a relatively safe space for the citizens of Syria to begin governing themselves without respecting the authorities in Damascus. There will be less need for strikes or demonstrations–far better to focus on establishing and operating education and health systems that deliver services more effectively than the regime’s, which will have all but disappeared in the most ruined areas. Essentially, the internationals would be helping to create liberated areas. Bashar could object and even attack them, but if he does so he runs a far greater risk of international intervention than he has so far.
International legitimacy is another area in which Bashar is vulnerable. The Russians are the key in that sphere. Here is Putin’s latest:
“We don’t have a special relationship…It is up to the Syrians to decide who should run their country. We need to make sure they stop killing each other….”
Asked if Mr. al-Assad can survive, he said: “I don’t know. I don’t know. It’s obviously a grave problem. The reforms are long awaited and should be carried out. Whether the Syrian government is ready to reach a consensus, I don’t know.”
It is almost quaint for Putin to be talking about an autocratic government needing to reach a consensus, but apart from that false note this gives Bashar al Assad something important to worry about: whether he can hold on to the Russian veto in the Security Council after this weekend’s Russian presidential elections.
Internal and external legitimacy: that is the terrain on which Syria’s citizens need to contest Bashar al Assad.
PS: If you mix demonstrations with regime force, this is what you get (allegedly today in Homs):
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A serious military option
Chalk up one more for arming Syria’s rebels and creating safe corridors. To his credit, Roger Cohen also cites the counter-argument:
I hear the outcry already: Arming Assad’s opponents will only exacerbate the fears of Syria’s minorities and unite them, ensure greater bloodshed, and undermine diplomatic efforts now being led by Kofi Annan, a gifted and astute peacemaker. It risks turning a proxy war into a proxy conflagration.
What he does not do is consider a serious military option: decapitating the Syrian regime with a forceful strike against its command and control.
This mystifies me. Safe areas, enclaves, humanitarian corridors–whatever you call them–have consistently and repeatedly failed. They create target-rich environments, which in this case means the Syrian armed forces will attack them vigorously. Nor is arming the Free Syria Army likely to produce a balance of forces, as Cohen suggests. Just ask the Libyans: they’ll tell you they would have lost to Muammar Qaddafi had NATO not intervened from the air.
There is another option: once you’ve taken down the air defenses, a necessary first step no matter what, you can proceed to take down the command, control and communications of the regime. This was what changed the tide of war in Bosnia in the summer of 1995. Specifically, it was when NATO hit the communications nodes of the Bosnian Serb Army that it became incapable of defending the long confrontation line with the Bosnian Army. Something similar happened in the NATO/Yugoslavia war: hitting various security force headquarters in Belgrade and dual-use infrastructure signaled the kind of seriousness that convinced Slobodan Milosevic his regime was in peril. He yielded in Kosovo.
The problem is that you don’t know what will come next. Milosevic survived for more than another year, though he then fell to his own miscalculation in calling elections. There is no guarantee that you’ll get Bashar al Assad in a military attack, and even less certainty about what will happen if you do. He might well survive and would be unlikely to allow any serious electoral competition thereafter. These guys do learn from each other.
So here’s a thought: combine the threat of such a direct attack on the regime with Kofi Annan’s diplomatic efforts, offering Bashar a choice between a punishing attack on his security forces’ command, control and communications and a ceasefire with free access to all areas in Syria for humanitarian relief and international journalists. If he fails to deliver, you’ve still got the trump card in your pocket.
Of course if he calls your bluff, you’ll have to go ahead with the military attack, even without a UN Security Council resolution. A bit of diplomacy might at least generate an Arab League request, but it is hard to picture the Russians coming on board. If they do, well and good–I doubt Bashar survives even 48 hours once Moscow abandons him. If they don’t, you’ve still got to go ahead.
If you are not willing to do that, you are thrown back, as I am, to diplomatic means, wisely discussed this morning by David Ignatius in the Washington Post. Let’s not waste analytical talent and high-priced real estate in America’s leading newspapers on half-hearted military propositions that just won’t work. If you want war, go to war, not to humanitarian corridors.
RSS - Posts
