Tag: Democracy and Rule of Law
No free country without free women
Forty-two year old Ahmed al Sharaa is the leader of Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS). That makes him the de facto main power in Syria today. HTS led the successful assault on Syrian government-controlled territory that ended in the surprising fall of President Bashar al Assad.
Early indications
The question is how al Sharaa will use his power. We have some early indications. He has tried to reach out to the Syrian Kurds and other minorities. He has sought to reassure them that HTS intends to build an inclusive regime. But he has also appointed an interim government that HTS itself dominates. The ministers are the ministers of Idlib Province’s Syrian Salvation Government. It has ruled in Idlib for the last several years. The Health Minister is al Sharaa’s HTS-affiliated brother, who is a physician.
Al Sharaa’s political origins lie in Al Qaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq. The Americans imprisoned him there from 2006 to 2011. He established Jabhat al Nusra (JN) in Syria in 2012 with AQ support but broke with AQ in 2016. In 2017, JN rebranded to HTS, which established primacy in the parts of Idlib Assad did not control.
So al Sharaa is no cure all. His political pedigree is extremist. He was less draconian in Idlib than the Islamic State, but he was autocratic and jihadist. He applied what he called Sharia. Women and minorities were not treated equally with HTS-loyal men. His nom de guerre was Abu Mohammed al Jolani, that is father of Mohammed from Golan. Though born in Riyadh, his parents were from the Golan Heights, now in Israeli hands. He says the second Palestinian intifada radicalized him.
Current pressures inside Syria
Inside Syria, al Sharaa faces pressure from HTS cadres to reward them and to rule the way they would like. His coalition includes even more extremist forces. Its ideology is Islamist. Many of the fighters will have little use for minorities or women. They won’t bother with democracy. They will want an extreme version of Sharia that privileges men and their strict interpretation of Islam.
But al Sharaa also faces pressure from relatively liberal Syrians. Many of them want a secular regime based on equal rights, including for women and minorities. Pro-secular demonstrations have already occurred in Damascus. And al Sharaa has appointed a woman (for women’s affairs) to the interim government to respond to public pressure.
International pressures
The US, Europeans, UN, Turkiye, Arab Gulf states and others have united to call for an “inclusive” government in Syria. By this they mean one that includes minorities and women. Western governments are far less concerned about democracy than at times in the past. Islamist-governed Turkiye will want to clone something like its own semi-democratic system. Saudi Arabia and the UAE can live with that, even if they suppress pluralism and political Islam at home.
International leverage comes from two main sources. The first is al Sharaa’s need to get the Western countries to lift sanctions. That would allow international financing to flow. The second is Syria’s need for aid of all sorts. Once sanctions are lifted, the main lever will be aid flows, especially from the IMF and the World Bank. They have far greater resources available than those from individual governments.
Western governments are acutely aware of the Taliban precedent. The Taliban made all sorts of promises, but once in charge of Afghanistan they relapsed to extreme Islamism. Girls no longer go to school and they prohibit women from speaking and singing. No one in the West, or even in the Gulf, wants to finance that.
Triangulating
Whatever his own views, al Sharaa is a good triangulator. He is aware of the different pressures and looks for ways to respond, albeit only partially, to all of them. He has forsworn any new wars (read: with Israel) and has welcomed many different opposition forces to Damascus. Al Sharaa has met with foreign diplomats, including the Americans. He pledges himself to a unified and free Syria. He says he wants to implement UN Security Council resolution 2254, which calls for elections in 18 months. The Americans can depend on him to fight the Islamic State, which is more rival to HTS than ally.
But at some point there will be contradictions that he will need to resolve. The interim government is in place only until March 1. It is not clear how or with what it will be replaced. Nor is it clear how the new constitution al Sharaa has promised will be written and by whom. HTS has closed Syria’s courts. They will need to re-open under new management. Where will that come from? What laws will it apply? How will accountability be handled? What will be done to restore and ensure property rights? How will the health and education systems be reformed?
These would be difficult issues for any governance transition. They will need decisions that displease one constituency or another. It is not yet clear what kind of Syria will result. It could be a free and inclusive state. Or an autocracy like the previous one but with a different family in charge. Or Syria could break apart into warring fiefdoms. Al Sharaa won’t be able to decide, but his decisions will influence the outcome. Let’s hope he is wise beyond his 42 years.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Grenell’s special missions
President Trump has announced that Ric Grenell will be Presidential Envoy for Special Missions.
Ric, he says, “will work in some of the hottest spots around the World, including Venezuela and North Korea.” To my knowledge, this is a new job definition. In the past, presidents have often named special envoys for specific issues, not for “special missions” in general.
What he did in the past
Grenell was notorious in the first Trump Administration for mucking up several tasks. As Ambassador in Berlin he had a terrible relationship with the Germans. Without discussing the issues in private, he slammed German companies publicly for doing business with Iran and Russia. As a special envoy, Grenell tried to negotiate partition of Kosovo, transferring its Serb-majority northern municipalities to Serbia. That effort failed. He then spent several months as a highly partisan but interim Director of National Intelligence. In that job, he declassified documents he thought would embarrass Democrats.
Openly gay well before that was widely acceptable in the US, Grenell has been politically labile. He has worked for Mitt Romney, criticized Donald Trump, and lobbied for Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orban. He did not register with the Justice Department after signing a contract with Orban.
Venezuela and North Korea
President Trump in his first term notably failed in diplomacy with Caracas and Pyongyang. He recognized opposition candidate Juan Guaido as the rightful President of Venezuela. He even introduced him as such during a State of the Union address. But he failed to make it stick. President Biden is in a similar situation now. The US recognizes opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzalez as the winner of the July presidential election. But Nicolas Maduro remains in power.
The first Trump Administration likewise failed in its effort to reach an agreement with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Trump tried both threats and flattery to get Pyongyang to give up nuclear weapons, to no avail. North Korea is a de facto nuclear power with about 50 nuclear weapons. It also now has the fissile material needed to build at least another 50. The Biden Administration has not made any progress on the nuclear issue. It has also been unable to prevent Pyongyang from helping Russia with missiles and other conventional weapons.
So Grenell is taking on at least two difficult portfolios. Venezuela might be the easier, as Maduro appears weak and vulnerable. He allowed an election in which he was soundly defeated but claimed victory and refused to leave office. Kim Jong Un has not made that mistake. But even apparently strong regimes can be brittle and fall, as we have seen these last two weeks in Syria.
Good luck!
Good luck and timing are important factors in diplomacy. It’s possible Grenell will not fail this time around. I wish him good luck. America would be better off if Maduro concedes the presidency in Venezuela and Kim Jong Un surrenders nuclear capabilities.
The Balkans will be fortunate if Grenell stays busy with Venezuela and North Korea. He came close to precipitating disaster there in the first Trump Administration. Since 2021, Grenell has been involved with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner in hospitality investments in Serbia and Albania. It would be a gross abuse for him to get involved now in the Balkans. But in an Administration that doesn’t know what “conflict of interest” means, it could happen. Kosovo and Bosnia would be the victims.
Ukraine should also count itself lucky that it was not named as a “special mission”:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Will Syria stay together or fragment?
One of the threats to Syria now that Assad has fallen is fragmentation. In my experience, all Syrians say they want to preserve the country and its borders. But the conflicts among them and with neighboring countries can foil that goal and lead to partition.
The pieces of the puzzle
Syria’s population is mixed. Ninety per cent of its population is Arab. The rest is mainly Kurdish and Turkmen. More than 70% of Syrians are Sunni Muslim. But there are also various denominations of Christians as well as Alawites, Druze, Ismailis, Shiites and others. Damascus was thoroughly mixed. Several concentrations of Kurds were found along the northern border with Turkey, along with Turkmen and Arabs. The Alawite “homeland” was in the western, Mediterranean provinces of Tartous and Latakis. But they were a plurality and not a majority there. More Sunnis have sought refuge there, as under Bashar al Assad, an Alawite, those provinces were relatively safe.
The war is superimposing on this hodge-podge an additional dimension: military control of territory. Hayat Tahrir al Sham, the leader of the uprising, will control much of Idlib, Aleppo, Hama, and Homs. Turkey and its surrogates will control most of the northern border. They are trying to push Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) east of the Euphrates, an area the SDF already dominates. Other opposition forces will be in charge of the south and the Jordanian border. The Druze have long maintained their insular community in Suwayda. It is unclear who will dominate Damascus. The southerners are arriving there first, but it is hard to picture HTS settling for second fiddle there.
There are no clear pre-existing regional lines along which Syria might fragment, except for the provincial boundaries. But those do not generally correspond to ethnic or religious divisions. The pieces of the puzzle do not fit together. They overlap and melt into each other.
The divisive forces
That would be a good reason to avoid fragmentation. Homogenization of ethnic groups on specific territory would require an enormous amount of ethnic “cleansing.” Ordinary Syrians don’t want that. But there will be forces at work that might make it happen.
The Turkmen/Kurdish conflict has already removed a lot of Kurds from Afrin in the northwest and border areas farther east. Ankara backs the Turkmen and wants to prevent Kurdish access to Türkiye. This is because the Syrian Kurds have supported Kurdish rebels inside Türkiye. The Kurds have built their own governing institutions in eastern Syria. They might seek independence if they get an unsatisfactory political outcome at the end of the war.
The Alawites of Tartous and Latakia are dreading revenge from the rest of Syria for mistreatment under the Assad dictatorship. They could try to set up their own statelet, perhaps even attaching it to Lebanon. They could also try to chase the Sunni Arab population out, while importing as many Alawites as possible from Damascus. Many there served the Assad regime and will want out.
The unifying forces
Syria’s neighbors won’t want a breakup. Türkiye has the most clout because of its presence in Syria and support for HTS. Ankara will oppose even autonomy for the Kurds. Jordan and Iraq have less clout, but they won’t want fragmentation either. Nor will Russia and Iran, which supported Assad and are big losers due to his fall. Ditto Israel and the United States, which would fear radicalization of any rump Syria if its Kurds or Alawites secede. Israel doesn’t want a jihadist entity on its northern border.
HTS and other opposition forces will also resist fragmentation. They want to govern all of Syria, not a part of it. HTS has moderated its attitude toward non-Arab and non-Sunni Muslims. It has also tried to minimize revenge and has emphasized continuity of the Syrian state. But HTS is an authoritarian movement, not a democratic one. It remains to be seen how it will behave in practice.
The obvious solutions
The obvious solution is decentralization. Devolving authority to provincial and municipal institutions offers minorities opportunities to govern themselves, or strongly influence how they are governed. The Alawites and Kurds might be satisfied with decentralization, provided they also get reasonable representation at the national level. The Kurds already have their own institutions. Some non-Kurdish opposition areas in Syria have used local councils for governance since the 2011 uprising against Assad.
There are also power-sharing arrangements that can assuage minority concerns at the national level and lower levels. Quotas in parliament, reserved positions in the state hierarchy, and qualified majority voting in parliament or local councils. I’m not an enthusiast for these, as they often entrench ethnic warlords, but sometimes they prove necessary.
Syrians may invent mechanisms I haven’t considered. In any event it is they who should decide. The country will need a new constitution, then in due course elections. The existing road map for Syria’s political process is UN Security Council resolution 2254, which Assad stymied. HTS and the rest of the opposition can revive it and gain international support by doing so.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Thanksgiving anxieties are justified
Today is the autumn pause the United States calls Thanksgiving. It is pretty much the most popular holiday across the entire population, marked by people of all religions and ethnicities. Unlike so many other American holidays, it is mainly noncommercial. We gather with family and friends for a giant afternoon meal to say thanks for whatever blessings have graced us.
I’m fine
We are in Savannah this year with two sons, two granddaughters, and two grandsons. We’ll go soon to a cousins’ beautiful house on the marshes outside of town for the traditional family feast. We’ll eat and drink as much as we all like. The generations will meet, the youngest for the first time, or refamiliarize themselves. We are, so far as I know, a prosperous and happy family. The family quarrels that plague some Thanksgiving dinners will be, thankfully, absent.
That said, I can’t help but note that I will not be content. The election result is a good part of the reason. While my personal welfare is not at stake, I fear for my country and its less fortunate citizens and non-citizens.
The economic risks
It is hard not to notice that the risks ahead are great. The current economic recovery began in 2009 under President Obama. President Trump’s botched reaction to the COVID-19 epidemic interrupted it, but it got back on track with President Biden. The growth trajectory has passed its 15th year. We are overdue for a recession, even disregarding the announced policy choices of the new Administration.
President Trump’s re-election makes one all but certain. His insistence on raising tariffs and expelling immigrants will re-ignite inflation. The Fed will have to slow or even reverse the decline it has begun in interest rates. Trump’s announced effort to shrink the Federal government will fail to reach its goal of cutting $2 trillion. But whatever layoffs the new Administration achieves will contribute to unemployment. The budget cuts will also slow the economy.
The social risks
While the economy slows, the new Administration will be cutting holes in the social safety net. Abolishing the Obamacare subsidies for health insurance isn’t going to happen. But the Republican Congress will seek to reduce them. It will also try to limit access to Medicaid, which provides health services to the poor. Trump won’t cut Social Security benefits, but he will try to raise the age of eligibility. Trump will aim to extend the tax cuts he introduced in 2017, which favor upper incomes. That will also be fine with me, but it still isn’t right.
He will also further limit abortion and LGBTQ rights and make education more Christian, less liberal, and less public. These are the essential demands of his evangelical base.
The political risks
Trump wants to prosecute his detractors. His two nominees for Attorney General are people who would gladly do that. Even unfounded investigations will cost Democrats and journalists both time and money. Such investigations will help him keep political opposition from growing. The Supreme Court’s decision to give official presidential acts with immunity will help to unshackle his worst impulses. With the two Houses of Congress under Republican control, he has little to fear from that corner.
Trump will want to appoint more Supreme Court justices, to guarantee continuation of the Republican majority. Justices Alito and Thomas can be expected to retire so that he can name younger clones. Press speculation suggests Trump wants a new FBI director. This despite the fact that the one he appointed in 2017 would normally serve ten years.
Trump’s re-election will embolden his base. It will continue to gerrymander House districts, limit voting rights, and destroy diversity programs. The goal will be to make those who hold power in America as white and male as possible. That is already clear in the Cabinet he has been naming.
Foreign policy
Trump’s future course in foreign affairs is more difficult to predict. The President has a great deal of latitude in foreign policy. Trump’s appointments so far are a mixed bag. Marco Rubio as Secretary of State and Michael Waltz as National Security Adviser are well within the normal political spectrum. So too is Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg. He is an advocate of giving Ukraine what it needs to reach a satisfactory negotiated settlement with Russia.
None of those are friends of Russian President Putin. But Tulsi Gabbard is. If confirmed, she will be Director of National Intelligence. Teamed with a very partisan John Ratcliffe at CIA, Trump can be assured of no resistance from the intel community.
Trump’s choice of Mike Huckabee, an evangelical stalwart, as ambassador to Israel guarantees a pro-Netanyahu policy. On Palestinian issues, including Gaza and the West Bank, we should expect Trump to be even more pro-Israel than Biden.
On lots of other foreign policy issues, there are few indications. Waltz is a China hawk but it is not clear what that will mean for the American commitment to Taiwan. In the past, Trump has been a “maximum pressure” guy on Iran. But what that might mean now that Iran is a nuclear threshold state isn’t clear.
The State Department will no doubt suffer a serious purge as well as a massive voluntary exodus of talent. But will that liberate Trump to do as he pleases? Or will it limit capabilities and lead to focus on future issues? Hard to tell.
Bottom line
Trump menaces many of the values I am grateful for. Thanksgiving anxieties are justified.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Group rights encourage tyranny
My inbox floweth over. I’ve received two long letters arguing that the European Court of Human Rights should affirm its recent Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina decision. One comes mainly from the Bosnian diaspora in the US and Europe:
The other comes from the Democratization Policy Council:
The authors argue their cases well. Those concerned with the fate of Bosnia and Herzegovina should give them close attention.
What’s it all about?
I’ll take a less legalistic perspective and try to avoid reference to the details. The basic issue is the one Timothy Snyder refers to as “who belongs to the state”? But in the 21st century I think it better to ask “to whom does the state belong?”
The US constitution is clear on this question: it belongs to “we, the people.” This simple formula has many ramifications. American history has seen the individual rights originally reserved to rich, white men inexorably extended to all American citizens. The US Constitution recognizes groups rights only for American Indians. Sadly, the US government has honored those more in the breach than in the observance.
In the Balkans, most of the constitutions can be summarized in an equally simple formula: “we the peoples.” The Bosnian constitution specifically names Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs. It provides those groups with rights and powers in addition to those assigned to individuals and other groups. To gain power under this constitution you need to identify with one of the “constituent peoples.”
This all but guarantees the permanence in power of political parties that associate themselves with ethnic groups. Non-ethnic parties are disadvantaged. In its not-yet-final decision the ECHR has decided that this ethnonationalist constitution discriminates against people who do not identify with one of the ethnic groups. That makes it impermissible in a member state of the Council of Europe. The European Convention on Human Rights applies directly in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
What difference does it make?
It makes a big difference. Without the empowerment of ethnic groups, the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina would have many more ways in which to organize themselves and their politics. Ethnonationalist leaders would no longer have a monopoly on power. More conventional left and right parties could gain greater weight.
That is why the ethnonationalists, their co-nationals in Zagreb and Belgrade, and their apologists worldwide oppose the proposed ECHR decision. If implemented, it would disempower all of them. So they resist. The ethnonationalists have still not implemented a 2009 ECHR decision to allow citizens who don’t identify with the three main ethnic groups to serve in the presidency.
The Kovačević decision is more sweeping. It essentially requires a complete rewrite of the Dayton constitution that ended Bosnia’s 1992/5 war. Instead of group rights, individual rights would predominate. The geographical structure of the country, based on the warring parties, would have to be changed. The Croat/Bosniak Federation and Republika Srpska could dissolve in favor of strengthened municipal governance.
That would eliminate much unnecessary expenditure on intermediate levels of governance. In many municipalities, one ethnic group or another would dominate. But all municipalities would be required to respect the rights of the minority. At the “state” level, politicians would have the option of organizing across ethnic lines. Appealing to your own ethnic group would of course still be permitted. But access to power would no longer depend on ethnic identity.
Bosnians need to decide
How to rewrite their constitution is up to the citizens of Bosnia. But I don’t wish for them any less than I wish for myself. I would not trade my individual rights in the US for any form of group rights. That is because the courts can be relied on to enforce my individual rights. I wish nothing less for Bosnians: rule of law that guarantees implementation of individual rights. Power should flow from the choices of individuals, organized how they prefer. Forcing people into an ethnic mold is not freedom. Group rights encourage tyranny.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump’s cabinet of horrors
What wasn’t clear yesterday is today. Donald Trump’s national security and foreign policy appointments will be more like his extremist immigration nominees than like yesterday’s headliners. Marco Rubio at State and Michael Waltz as National Security Advisor are the only arguably sane appointments. They are the adults in the room, which means they won’t last. The others are right-wing crackpots. They’ll be around for four years.
The intel community
Intelligence gets the worst of it. The highly partisan John Ratcliffe as CIA director was a preview, not an anomaly. Tulsi Gabbard will become Director of National Intelligence, overseeing the (is it still 17?) intelligence agencies. Once a Democratic member of Congress, she is now a born again Trump Republican and Putin apologist. She is flaky and capricious.
It is difficult to picture either of these people telling Trump something he doesn’t want to hear. Which is what intel chiefs often need to do.
Diplomacy
In addition to Rubio, diplomacy gets Elise Stefanik as UN ambassador. A member of Congress from New York State, she is an avowed opponent of the UN. She will strongly oppose continued assistance to Palestinians.
Evangelical pro-Israel enthusiast Mike Huckabee will serve as ambassador in Jerusalem. A former Governor of Arkansas, he will provide strong support to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. He will also encourage those in Netanyahu’s coalition who want to annex the West Bank and Gaza.
Homeland Security
Kristi Noem, Governor of North Dakota who proudly shot a dog and a goat she “hated,” will run this mega-department. You can read about some of her other “batshit” moments here. She is a Trump enthusiast of course.
Defense
Pete Hegseth, a National Guard major, gets the Defense Department. The blatantly unqualified Fox News talking head opposes women and LGBTQ people in the military. He sports Christian tattoos, including “Deus vult” (God wills it). That is pretty much the equivalent of “insha’allah,” an expression Arabs use many times per day. But unlike the Arabic phrase, which everyone uses, the Latin one is used mainly by right-wing extremists, including neo-Nazis. Trump has charged Hegseth with getting rid of any generals who have promoted diversity, equity and inclusion.
SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson says Trump has declared war on the Pentagon.
Attorney General
Republican Congress Member Matt Gaetz will head the Department of Justice. The list of ethics charges against him is long. He will not just kill any cases the Justice Department is pursuing against Trump. He will also protect other Trumpkins while pursuing charges against Democrats.
What is this?
This is a cabinet of horrors. Its distinguishing characteristics are unquestioning loyalty to Donald Trump, right-wing devotion, and profound lack of experience and competence. What could go wrong?
RSS - Posts
