Tag: Democracy and Rule of Law
Peace Picks | March 9 – 13
A Conversation on National Security with General Petraeus | March 9, 2020 | 2:00PM – 3:00 PM | Brookings Institute | Register Here
More than 18 years after the 9/11 attacks, the United States has shifted its focus to competition with near-peer great competitors while still deterring rogue states like Iran and North Korea. During the latter years of President Obama’s administration and the early years of President Trump’s — through the 2018 National Defense Strategy, in particular — the U.S. has placed China’s ascendance at the heart of national security policymaking. But ongoing challenges with Russia, Afghanistan, the broader Middle East, and the Korean peninsula will continue to demand U.S. attention and resources.
General David Petraeus — former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and commander of multinational forces in Iraq during the President George W. Bush-era surge — is a distinguished practitioner and analyst of national security. On March 9, he will join Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon in a wide-ranging conversation on the international security environment, the state of the armed forces, and the emerging threats facing the United States.
Africa Symposium 2020: Advancing Africa’s Governance, Peace, and Security | March 11, 2020 | 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM | Wilson Center | Register Here
Please join the Institute for Defense Analyses and the Wilson Center Africa Program on Wednesday, March 11 for the Africa Symposium 2020, “Advancing Africa’s Governance, Peace, and Security.” Access and download the full program agenda below.
In 2020 Africa embarks on its fourth decade of political and economic liberalization. Over the last 30 years, many nations of the continent have moved beyond reliance on military governments and controlled economies. Many have moved into the middle-income category, established norms for elections and political stability, and created institutions to manage conflicts.
But, with 54 countries, Africa’s progress is uneven. Africa embarks on the next decade with uncertainty over the democratic dividend and new challenges to peace and security. At the same time, there are new internal and international stakeholders that test the status quo and demand a share of Africa’s future. Each of these factors has implications for the U.S. government’s engagement with Africa and its strategic interests on the continent. Africa Symposium 2020 will reflect on the democratic dividend; Africa’s conflict management mechanisms; important stakeholders, such as women and youth; and Africa’s evolving international relations.
Speakers
Keynote Speaker: Major General Christopher E. Craige, U.S. Africa Command
Whitney Baird, Deputy Assistant Secretary for West Africa and Security Affairs, Bureau of African Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Pete Marocco, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs, Department of Defense
Lina Benabdallah, Assistant Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Wake Forest University
Jaimie Bleck, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame
Judd Devermont, Africa Program Director, Center for Strategic and Internatioonal Studies
E. Gyimah-Boadi, Co-founder and Executive Director, Afrobarometer
Sandra Pepera, Director, Gender, Women and Democracy, National Democratic Institute
Marc Sommers, Former Fellow, Independent Consultant,
Paul D. Williams, Global Fellow, Associate Professor of International Affairs, Elliot School of International Affairs, George Washington University
General Norton Schwartz, President and CEO, Institute for Defense Analyses
Monde Muyangwam, Africa Program Director
Magdalena Bajll, National Intelligence Manager for Africa
The Way Forward in Syria: Idlib, US Policy, and the Constitutional Process | March 11, 2020 | 9:00 AM – 1:00 PM | Arab Center Washington DC | Register Here
The Harmoon Center for Contemporary Studies (HCCS), the Syrian American Council (SAC), and Arab Center Washington DC (ACW) will convene a conference in Washington DC exploring the way forward in Syria. The conference will focus on updates on Idlib, the developing humanitarian and refugee crises, Turkey’s involvement, and US policy toward Syria.
9:00 AM: Keynote Address: Challenges for US Policy in Syria
Khalil E. Jahshan, Executive Directorm Arab Center Washington DC
Zaki Lababidi, President, Syrian American Council
Keynote Speaker, Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, US Special Representative for Syria Engagement and the Global Coalition
10:00 AM: The continuing Humanitarian Crisis and US Policy in Syria
Wa’el Alzayat, CEO, Emgage Foundation
Wendy Pearlman, Associate Professor of Political Science, Northwestern University
Zaher Sahloul, President of MedGlobal
Valerie Szybala, Independent Consultant and Former Executive Director of The Syrian Institute
Yaser Tabbara, Strategic and Legal Advisor and Co-Founder, the Syrian Forum
Marwa Daoudy (Chair), Assistant Professor, Center for Contemporary Arab Studies in the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
12:00 PM: Keynote Luncheon: US Policy Response to The Humanitarian Crisis in Syria
A Conversation with the United States National Security Advisor | March 11, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM | The Heritage Foundation | Register Here
The world is awash in security challenges. China’s rapid militarization; Russia’s attempts to intimidate NATO, at large, and the Baltic States, in particular, and its propping-up the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria; Iran’s consistent support to terrorist groups across the Middle East, sustained development of missile technologies now able to reach Europe, and use of nuclear blackmail to force Europe’s hand in supporting its nuclear ambitions; Nicolas Maduro’s death grip on Venezuela that threatens the complete collapse of the country and the spillover of instability into neighboring states in South and Central America; large swathes of Africa beset by violent Islamist radical groups…the list is long. The role of the President’s National Security Advisor, in part, is to coordinate the activities of the vast array of agencies that support understanding and responding to such a world. Leading the work of the National Security Council, and serving as the ‘honest broker’ for intelligence estimates and policy recommendations to the President, Robert O’Brien, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, must determine how best to ensure all relevant offices across the Executive Branch support the President’s efforts to ensure America’s security interests are addressed.
Please join us for a discussion with Robert O’Brien, a rare public opportunity to hear directly from him about his current work to streamline the National Security Council, make information coming to the President more focused and relevant, and the implementation of security decisions more timely and effective.
Speakers
Kim R. Holmes, Executive Vice President
Robert C. O’Brien, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Global Trends in the Rule of Law | March 11, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
As we enter a new decade, troubling developments around the rule of law continue to raise concerns for the future of fair and functioning societies. Since 2009, the World Justice Project (WJP) has documented these trends in its annual WJP Rule of Law Index, now covering 128 countries and jurisdictions in the new 2020 edition. Based on more than 130,000 household surveys and 4,000 legal practitioner and expert surveys worldwide,the 2020 Index provides citizens, governments, donors, businesses, and civil society organizations around the world with a comprehensive comparative analysis of countries’ adherence to universal rule of law principles.
Join USIP and the World Justice Project (WJP) as we delve into the findings from the WJP Rule of Law Index 2020. WJP’s chief research officer will review important insights and data trends from the report. This will be followed by a panel discussion on the underlying factors behind the results, as well as the policy implications for those invested in strengthening the rule of law.
Speakers
David Yang, Vice President, Applied Conflict Transformation,
U.S. Institute of Peace
William Hubbard, Chairman of the Board of Directors, World Justice
Project
Sanjay Pradhan, keynote, Chief Executive Officer, Open Government Partnership
Alejandro Ponce, report presentation, Chief Research Officer, World Justice Project
Elizabeth Andersen, Executive Director, World Justice Project
Maria Stephan, Director of Nonviolent Action, U.S. Institute of Peace
Margaret Lewis, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University
Philippe Leroux-Martin, moderator, Director for Governance, Justice and Security, U.S. Institute of Peace
U.S.- China Relations and Global Impact | March 12, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | Turkish Heritage Organization | Register Here
Speakers
Louisa Greve, Director of Global Advocacy, Uyghur Human Rights Projects
Robert Ross, Professor of Political Science, Boston College Associate. John King Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies, Harvard University
Sophie Richardson, China Director, Human Rights Watch
Robert Spalding, U.S. Air Force Brig. General (ret.)
Information, the internet, and democracy: Transatlantic challenges – European responses | March 12, 2020 | 3:00 PM | Atlantic Council | Register Here
The Atlantic Council welcomes H.E. Věra Jourová, European Commission Vice President for Values and Transparency, for a town hall conversation on “Information, the Internet, and Democracy: Transatlantic Challenges – European Responses.”
As the European Commission Vice President for Values and Transparency, Commissioner Jourová is responsible for ensuring that the European Union and its member states adhere to its Charter of Fundamental Rights, including in the online space. She plays a lead role in preparing the EU’s Democracy Action Plan and is also key in EU discussions about online content, privacy, and rule of law. Vice President Jourová provides opening remarks focused on some of the key challenges from rapidly evolving technology and what they could mean for citizens and for democratic processes and institutions across the Atlantic. She looks forward to a conversation with the audience about the EU’s plans to address these challenges.
Army Air and Missile Defense | March 13, 2020 | 9:30 – 11:45 am | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register Here
Air and missile defense is one of the U.S. Army’s six modernization priorities. Major General Robert Rasch and Brigadier General Brian Gibson join CSIS to discuss what the Army has accomplished in this field, its priorities, and expected future developments. Following, a panel of experts will also discuss AMD developments and offense-defense integration.
Event Schedule
9:30-10:30: Conversation with Major General Robert Rasch, Army PEO for Missiles and Space, Brigadier General Brian Gibson, Director, Army Air and Missile Defense Cross-Functional Team, and Dr. Thomas Karako, Director, CSIS Missile Defense Project.
10:30-10:45: Coffee break
10:45-11:45: Panel discussion featuring Brian Green, Senior Associate (Non-resident), CSIS International Security Program, Barbara Treharne, Senior Analyst, Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization (JIAMDO), and RADM Arch Macy (USN, ret.), JIAMDO Director, 2008-2011.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Big trouble
No one should minimize the health impact of COVID-19, the corona virus originating in Wuhan, China. It is spreading rapidly and will likely make a lot of people sick. The death rate is high–over 2%. It hits older people especially hard and kills younger people much less. President Trump’s effort to portray the virus as not so bad is deplorable.
That said, the impact is likely to depend on how the world reacts as much as on the virus itself. This is obviously true for public health measures: getting sick people isolated and treated correctly will surely lower the risks both to others and to them. The virus has already tested the Chinese and Iranian public health systems. While the initial Chinese reaction in Wuhan was inexcusably slow, WHO is praising China’s vigorous response since. In Iran, the response appears to have been much less effective. In both countries, the publics are unconvinced of their respective governments’ veracity. Health epidemics are going to prove a tough test for governments unused to telling the truth.
That applies to the US as well. President Trump has wisely delegated responsibility to Vice President Pence, whose credibility is far higher than his own. But Pence did not do well as Governor of Indiana in responding to HIV. Nor will he be free to do and say what he wants. His primary responsibilities will be to prevent the American experts Trump boasts about from saying anything to contradict the President and to take the rap if the virus spreads widely in the US. He can’t be fired, but he can be denied renomination.
There is also a risk of overreacting. In retrospect, it is clear that Washington and most of the rest of the world overreacted to 9/11, not only by grounding all aircraft immediately thereafter for longer than necessary but also by launching two wars that each have killed about as many Americans as the initial attacks, plus many thousands of Iraqis and Afghans. In the aftermath of dramatic events, officials want to err on the side of caution–there is no reward for taking additional risks. The World Bank has already cancelled a big conference in DC for next week, despite the absence of COVID-19 here. I suppose the reasoning was that people would be coming from abroad, but remote participation might well have reduced if not eliminated the risk they would have posed.
President Obama handled the Ebola outbreak well: he reacted quickly and did what was needed to keep it in Africa and deal with it there. It is already too late for containment in the current outbreak. The initial Chinese delay eliminated that possibility, and in any event Trump had already dismantled the White House apparatus set up for early reaction. Now we need to try to isolate those infected and ensure that we don’t overreact in ways that cause unjustifiable harm.
The damage to the stock market is already gigantic, though not necessarily irreversible: US markets have declined more than 10%. Only time will tell if that reflects weakening economic fundamentals, caused by disruption of supply chains as well as dampening demand, or is an overreaction. Certainly it illustrates that the United States has a great deal to lose from Chinese economic failure. Maybe a good deal more to lose than from Chinese success, which is vital to American industry and agriculture.
The virus is also having a political impact. Whatever WHO thinks, Chinese are complaining bitterly about their government’s response, and Iranians won’t be far behind. There is nothing wrong with that: citizens should expect their governments to protect public health and criticize them when they fail. But neither Iran nor China permits a serious challenge to their autocratic regimes. Excessive rigidity there could spawn dissent and even cause collapse.
The United States does allow a political alternative to come to power. That is potentially the silver lining. Kakistocracy is only tolerable if it doesn’t appear to matter. If the corona virus makes it clear that we can ill afford incompetence and mendacity, the Trump Administration could be in big trouble.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Consensus is hard
Following elections in September and October, Tunisia is having difficulty forming a government. Presiding is a populist president without a political party who has in the past proposed radically overhauling the entire system, abolishing political parties, and creating a form of direct democracy.
On February 19, the Middle East Institute hosted a panel discussion on “The State of Tunisia’s Democratic Transition and the Power and Perils of Consensus Politics.” The discussion featured four speakers:
Daniel Brumberg, director of Democracy and Governance Studies at Georgetown University and a senior non-resident fellow at POMED,
Sharan Grewal, an assistant professor of government at the College of William & Mary,
Mohamed-Dhia Hammami, a scholar at Wesleyan University in the College of Social Studies and Government, and
Sabina Henneberg, a postdoctoral fellow in the African Studies Program at SAIS.
William Lawrence, a visiting professor of political science and international affairs at American University, moderated
Current context
Hammami attributed the difficulty of forming a government to the fragmented parliament and the president, whose lack of party affiliation contributed to the disarray. President Said designated Elyes Fakhfakh as the new prime minister because of Ennahda’s inability to gain enough votes to form a new government. Fakhfakh excluded Heart of Tunisia from his coalition because of Nabil Karoui’s corruption cases, scandals, and lobbying with the Israelis. Ennahda withdrew its support from Fakhfakh to call for a government of national unity. A new parliamentary election would be risky. President Said thus invited UGTT, which is a labor union with political legitimacy, to act as a mediator between Fakhfakh’s government and opposing parties.
Consensus politics
Brumberg indicated that social, ideological, political, and geographical divisions in the society show Tunisia’s divisions. Identity politics reflect concern of exclusion, make a majoritarian system difficult. For a diverse group to achieve consensus, parties have to postpone difficult issues, such as economic reforms, the need for a supreme court, and security reforms. Brumberg believes that there’s no alternative to deal with Tunisia’s pluralistic structure other than reaching a consensus. If Tunisians were to move beyond the consensus, to deal with the issues that have been postponed and approach a majoritarian system, it could be troubling for the entire state.
Grewal added that consensus politics was important from 2011 to 2014 during the establishment of the constitution. The transition to democracy should be done only once rules are set. The national unity government in 2015 continued the transition, thus postponing divisive issues. The parties thereby escaped blame for failed policies and avoided bringing back the polarization that plagued 2012-13.
Henneberg attributed the 2012-13 polarization to Ennahda’s inexperience, insecure domestic context, and the rise of opposition to the Egyptian Islamist government. She agreed that Tunisia required an inclusive consensus to write a successful constitution. This resulted in the establishment of the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet to overcome the polarization.
Ennahda’s concerns
Hammami argued that Ennahda is in favor of sustaining consensus politics, which helps it to survive. Ennahda’s support for including Heart of Tunisia in the parliament was due to the lack of consensus to pass political, security, and economic reforms. Grewal noted that Ennahda also has concerns about Fakhfakh, who might repolarize politics.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Normalizing impunity
President Trump has launched an all-out assault on judicial independence. In just the last few days, he has publicly attacked the prosecutors and judge in the case against his friend Roger Stone, tweeted his own control over the judicial system, and pardoned a few mostly white white collar criminals. Attorney General Barr has also reportedly intervened to end several investigations related to the President, including one focused on the President’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
Empathy is not the President’s strong point. He is not doing this because he thinks the people involved are innocent or even unjustly accused and convicted, though that is what he asserts. This is an attack on the justice system intended to normalize impunity, especially for the kinds of crimes his own coterie and he himself commit. Anyone who still thinks he won’t pardon Roger Stone and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is closing their eyes to the obvious: Trump is preparing the ground for those pardons and likely also one for himself, issued just before leaving office. He is also warning prosecutors that they should not bother with new cases against him or his friends.
His adversaries are another matter. Former Vice President Joe Biden is still in the crosshairs, despite his dramatic decline in the polls. Bernie Sanders is leading and will no doubt soon be the subject of Senate or Justice Department investigations, as will the fast rising former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Whoever rises to the top in the campaign for the Democratic nomination can expect the same treatment. Impunity for the President and his friends will be temporary if Trump loses in November.
Two thousand former Justice Department employees have signed on to a letter protesting what is going on and calling for the Attorney General’s resignation. There are rumors of rebellion among current employees in the Justice Department, and Federal judges are holding an emergency meeting to discuss the situation. But I doubt much will result. Trump is extremely sensitive to criticism, but his response to it is to attack his critics. Barr’s only achievement at the Justice Department is protecting the President, and his only complaint has been that the President’s tweets make that harder to do. Neither of these men can be expected to back down. Both will redouble their efforts.
There is not much that can be done about this. The pardon power is unlimited. The Justice Department’s supposed independence in criminal matters is more traditional than statutory. The courts are independent, but respect for their decisions and independence is not obligatory. A president can say pretty much what he wants about judges, prosecutors, indictees, and jury forepeople. Past presidents have generally avoided saying anything or getting themselves involved in individual cases. This one thinks he can get away with it.
The one avenue open to prosecutors that the president doesn’t control is the states. Their prosecutors and courts can pursue criminals without seeking or getting permission from the Federal government, except in cases where the Feds claim doing so could endanger their own investigations. That claim has been asserted in cases against some of Trump’s pals. I trust state prosecutors will not easily yield in the future, as it is clear enough that those assertions in this Administration are intended to protect criminality, not pursue it.
The world is watching this extraordinary attack on the rule of law. No American diplomat will be able to recite her talking points about corruption and abuse of power without a quiet giggle, and occasionally a big guffaw, from whoever she is trying to convince to pursue white collar criminals. The example America sets is vital to its diplomatic standing. President Trump’s normalization of impunity will be copied in many countries around the world. Putin, Duterte, Netanyahu, Orban and other would-be autocrats will be admiring the gall.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No surprise
Attorney General Barr’s decision to overrule prosecutors who had asked for a 7-9 year sentence for one of President Trump’s cronies should be no surprise. Barr is a vigorous advocate of a unitary executive, which means he believes the President has complete authority over the entire executive branch and can do as he likes
The President Barr serves is someone who likes to protect his friends and supporters, regardless of their legal infractions. He has pardoned an Arizona sheriff convicted of criminal contempt of court and racial profiling as well as a Special Forces officer convicted of a war crime. He is packing the Federal courts with unqualified toadies. What more do you need to know about President Trump’s respect for the rule of law?
The much-vaunted “independence” of the Justice Department is a tradition, not of particularly long standing. Deference to professional prosecutors has proven politically advantageous to many presidents. It relieves them of the burden of deciding controversial issues and enables them to stay above the fray.
Trump however knows that independent institutions will not put up with his multitudinous lies. He cannot afford to let professionals make decisions that put his friends in prison. They might turn against him.
He prefers to enter the fray and frighten the government’s professionals into submission. An FBI director who won’t agree to protect the President? Fire him. A whistle blower in the National Security Council? Out him. An ambassador in Kiev who is not subservient? Fire her. A much-decorated military officer and another ambassador who testify in Congress when subpoenaed? Punish the former and fire the latter. Intelligence analysts who fail to support the President’s views? Deny their unanimous conclusions about Russian interference in the 2016 US election and praise President Putin’s denials.
The objective here is clear: it is 100% control over the entire executive from top to bottom. That can’t be achieved if there are people who can make decisions independently. So purges are necessary, not just to punish but also to warn those who remain in place that toeing the line is not optional. For every professional fired, many more are intimidated.
The people Trump targets will not be assassinated or even jailed. But they will live the rest of their lives fending off threats from the President’s over-zealous supporters, who can rely on not being prosecuted so long as Trump holds office. Some of the professionals will get book contracts, but most will suffer dramatic declines in income and difficulty finding jobs. The three prosecutors who resigned yesterday to protest the Attorney General’s decision to reverse their recommendation on sentencing will not be getting good assignments at Justice. They’ll likely all soon join the one who quit.
None of this will be apparent to people who get their news on Fox, which will portray the President as the victim of secret cabals, the “deep state,” plotting to unseat him. The Republicans in Congress know what the President is doing is wrong and would vigorously object if he were a Democrat. But their concerns about being “primaried” (challenged in Republican primaries this year) or dissed by the President outweigh their sense of decency. Senator Mitt Romney and Congressman Justin Amash stand alone in protesting Trump’s abuse of power. There is no sign anyone else will join them.
The November 3 election will be judge and jury on President Trump’s claim of complete control over the executive branch and his efforts to protect himself and his friends from punishment for their criminal offenses. Bernie Sanders looks to be the front runner in the Democratic primaries so far, but these are early days. Super Tuesday March 3 will give us a much better indication of who is likely to carry the Democratic standard.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Accountability now
During Syria’s conflict, the Assad regime has continued committing many war crimes. Although de-escalation zones were established to mitigate conflict violence, the number of displaced Syrians increased. On February 5, Arab Center Washington DC hosted a panel discussion and a book review on the topic of Accountability in Syria: Achieving Transitional Justice in a Postconflict Society. The discussion involved three speakers: Radwan Ziadeh, a senior fellow for the Arab Center Washington DC, Mai El-Sadany, the legal and judicial director at the Tahrir Institute, and Mohammad Alaa Ghanem, a Syrian academic and pro-democracy campaigner.
War crimes
Ziadeh noted that because justice and accountability are left out in the Geneva and Astana talks, he wrote the book Accountability in Syria to call for attention to war atrocities and raise the issue of accountability. He listed five crimes that the Assad regime has committed in the last eight years.
- Use of air force: Opposition areas have been exposed to heavy, systematic, widespread, and indiscriminate bombing. While only 1% of victims killed by barrel bombs are opposition but 99% of victims are civilians. Other governments have failed to prevent the Syrian government from utilizing barrel bombs.
- Use of prohibited weapons: The Assad regime has utilized prohibited chemical weapons 37 times.
- Siege: Half a million of Syrians live besieged by Assad’s “surrender or starve” strategy.
- Torture and sectarian crimes: The regime carried out systematic torture at its secret prisons.
- Forced displacement: Displacement aims to remove people who have been disloyal. Forced displacement induces both the demographic change and the flight of Syrian refugees.
Forced displacement
Ghanem says that ceasefires, such as the Idlib and Daraa de-escalation zones, are a prelude to liquidation. Political analysts in Washington misunderstood ceasefires, which they thought would constitute a win-win solution that could empower local communities. Instead, ceasefires emboldened and benefited Assad’s regime, which used them to induce demographic change. He presented three purposes of ceasefires:
- Ceasefires have helped the Assad regime to conquer more territories by setting up a 1-2 year de-escalation period to relinquish oppositions’ heavy weapons and evacuate fighters.
- Ceasefires serve to relieve shortage of Assad’s manpower by freeing up regime resources to focus on other priority areas.
- Ceasefires provide an illusion of political process by designating areas for reconstruction while permitting the regime to commit systematic sectarian cleansing.
Remedies
El-Sadany argues that it’s time for justice now. Three tools are available for accountability:
- Documentation: Civil society, journalists, and lawyers should act together to preserve history and contribute to truth. For example, the New York Times utilizes open source investigation.
- UN Mechanisms: The United Nations has disappointed Syrians because of UN Security Council vetoes and the failure to make a referral to International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the UN Human Rights Council’s commissions of inquiry serves accountability by fact-finding and investigating crimes and perpetrators. In addition, the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) was created to prepare files and assist the investigation and prosecution of crimes.
- Prosecution outside Syria: Syria is not a party to the Rome Statute and the UNSC has failed to refer its crimes to the ICC. But prosecution in other states is still possible.
El-Sadany proposes that the international community needs to amend, strengthen, and improve accountability mechanisms. Advocates should lobby their governments for more funding for accountability efforts and improved human rights laws. Lawyers should translate materials, especially on universal jurisdiction, into Arabic to reach Syrian victims and civil society.
RSS - Posts
