Tag: Iran
Beware the tradeoffs
Important decisions are pending the next few days on Syria. The two key immediate questions are these: will the Arab League extend its human rights monitoring mission? Will the UN Security Council finally condemn the crackdown?
The Arab League mission has not been able to protect civilians or notably reduce the intensity of the crackdown. But the observers are bringing out large crowds of peaceful demonstrators and documenting abuses, which are two good results. The Arab League should decide the issue of whether their mission should be extended not on the basis of whether they have “succeeded,” but rather on the basis of what will be most helpful to peaceful protests and civilian protection. Syria needs more observers for these purposes, not fewer. UN training for them is just beginning. At least another month is required before the Arab League gives serious consideration to abandoning the mission, and even then it will be important to consider the consequences for peaceful protest and civilian protection. No one should be fooled by the Qatari advocacy of armed Arab League intervention: it isn’t going to happen.
A UN Security Council resolution on Syria would vastly improve the odds for real success of the Arab League mission. The day Bashar al Assad feels the cold hand of Prime Minister Putin pushing him aside is the day the game changes fundamentally in Syria. But Russia has little interest in handing the West a victory in Syria, especially if it would mean losing an important naval base on the Mediterranean. Putin will move against Bashar only if doing so will help to save this asset, not lose it. That is a high price for the Syrians to pay, but it may not be avoidable. That’s one tradeoff.
Then Bashar would have only Iran as a key pillar of international support. Americans think of Syria and Iran as two separate issues, but to Tehran they are just related theaters of struggle with the U.S. Loss of Syria as an ally and link to Hizbollah in Lebanon would be a serious blow to Iran, which is in a spiral of heightening tensions with the U.S. over the strait of Hormuz, planned sanctions that will reduce Iranian oil exports and most fundamentally the Iranian nuclear program. July 1 is emerging as the consensus date for Europe and the U.S. to implement new sanctions. That will be in the midst of a U.S. electoral campaign in which the Republican candidate–most likely Mitt Romney, but it really doesn’t matter who it is–will be pushing for military action.
Iran is supposed to meet with the Americans and Europeans in Turkey still this month to discuss the nuclear impasse. Even the Israelis seem to think the Iranians have not yet decided to build nuclear weapons. Syrians should want to watch that closely: it is not impossible that they will be sold out in exchange for a nuclear deal. It is hard to picture the U.S. winning on both the Syrian and nuclear fronts, but if the Administration succeeds at that I’ll be the first to offer heartiest congratulations!
Let there be no doubt: if Washington has to choose between stopping Iran short of a nuclear weapon and toppling Bashar al Assad, it will choose the former, not the latter. That’s a second possible tradeoff.
Beware the tradeoffs. They are a lot of what diplomacy is about.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Do candidates help or hinder diplomacy?
The press is asking today about the effect of the Republican presidential candidates’ statements on foreign affairs. One journalist puts it this way:
I’m trying to put together a quick story today on how the somewhat bellicose tone on foreign policy in the GOP debates is playing overseas – Turkey’s government put out a statement today denouncing Rick Perry, for instance, for saying Turkey is a country ruled “by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists.”
There’s also been a lot of tough talk on China and Iran.
…How meaningful this is – does it matter that other countries get upset, do such statements have long-term implications, etc.
I think the general reaction among foreign policy analysts is that this election is about domestic issues, and it shows. Rick Perry’s remark about Turkey is only the latest—and maybe the most egregious—in a series of uninformed statements on international issues, some clearly made to pander to domestic campaign donors (Palestinians don’t exist, all the people in the West Bank and Gaza are Israelis, etc). No one with any brain matter would perceive the government in Turkey as Islamic terrorists, and they are not.
Some of this display of ignorance is plainly so ridiculous that it causes ripples but no permanent damage. I’d put the Perry remark about Turkey in that category. Other statements are more damaging: if Palestinians don’t exist, there is no need for a two-state solution, which casts doubt on the American commitment to that outcome. I would have a hard time believing that either Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum is committed to a two-state solution after their statements on the Palestinians, who surely would find it even harder to believe.
The belligerence towards Iran risks boxing the United States into war before it has exhausted diplomatic means, including ratcheting up the sanctions. While it is hard to believe that Americans would be happy to engage in another Middle East war, that is clearly what most of the Republican candidates (exception: Ron Paul) are pressing for. They know Obama will resist, so it is a good game: if he doesn’t destroy Iran’s nuclear installations, they can say he looks weak. If he does, they’ll have to line up to salute, as they have on the killing of Osama bin Laden, but that won’t help Obama much if the consequences are negative for the United States.
On China, I imagine that Beijing has gotten so used to the bashing that there is little these candidates can say that will surprise them. I know from my experience abroad as a U.S. diplomat that it can be useful to show that there is a domestic U.S. constituency to which our diplomacy has to be responsive. The question is when does it become counter-productive, hardening the adversary and exciting his own domestic constituency on the other side of the argument? There really is no problem in candidates saying that they are concerned about American jobs and see unfair Chinese competition (exchange rate manipulation, working conditions) as part of the problem. It is when they start specifying remedies that won’t work or will cause an effect opposite to what is intended that things get dicey. Our relationship with China, which holds an inordinate amount of U.S. debt, is a delicate one. Indelicate statements risk doing some real harm.
My bottom line: sometimes they help, sometimes they hinder. But ignorance really never shows well.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
2. US-Israel and Iran: Looming Military Confrontation? Atlantic Council, January 17, 3-4:30 pm January 17, 2012
Please join the Atlantic Council’s Iran Task Force on January 17 for a public briefing on the rising conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran. Tensions are mounting as the United States and Europe tighten economic sanctions against Iran, and Iran responds with a ten-day naval exercise in the Persian Gulf, and threatens to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, the United States and Israel are preparing for their own joint military exercise, “Austere Challenge 12.” Are the chances for a military confrontation between Israel and Iran and between the United States and Iran increasing? Would Israel consult the United States before attacking the Iranian nuclear program? What would be the consequences for the region and world economy?Panelists will discuss these issues, the impact of the domestic political climates in Israel and the United States on Iran policy, and possible diplomatic approaches to the Iranian nuclear program.
The Iran Task Force, co-chaired by Atlantic Council Chairman Senator Chuck Hagel and Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat, seeks to perform a comprehensive analysis of Iran’s internal political landscape, its role in the region and globally, and any basis for an improved relationship with the West.
A discussion with
Michael Eisenstadt
Director, Military and Security Studies Program
Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Bruce Riedel
Senior Fellow
Brookings Institution
Introduction by
Shuja Nawaz
Director, South Asia Center
Atlantic Council
Moderated by
Barbara Slavin
Senior Fellow, South Asia Center
Atlantic Council
To attend, RSVP with your name and affiliation (acceptances only), to southasia@acus.org.
3. “The Western Balkans and the 2012 NATO Summit,” U.S. Helsinki Commission Hearing, B318 Rayburn, January 18, 2 pm
As the United States and other NATO allies prepare for their summit in Chicago on May 20-21, this hearing will assess the current relationship with NATO of each of the countries of the Western Balkans with the goal of deeper engagement and further enlargement. While further enlargement of the European Union after Croatia’s entry next year remains a more distant goal, greater Euro-Atlantic integration has the potential to increase stability in the Western Balkans now, and strengthen the Alliance in the process. The focus of the hearing will be on what Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia need to do meet their respective Euro-Atlantic aspirations, including the building of democratic institutions and adherence to the rule of law at home. The hearing will also look at the potential contribution each could make to the NATO alliance, as well as NATO’s continuing role in deterring further violence and conflict in the Western Balkans.
Witnesses Scheduled to Testify:
Nida Gelazis, Senior Associate, European Studies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Daniel Serwer, Professor and Senior Fellow, Center for Transatlantic Relations, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (will particpate via Skype)
Ivan Vejvoda, Vice President for Programs, German Marshall Fund of the United States
The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the U.S. Helsinki Commission, is an independent agency of the Federal Government charged with monitoring compliance with the Helsinki Accords and advancing comprehensive security through promotion of human rights, democracy, and economic, environmental and military cooperation in 56 countries. The Commission consists of nine members from the U.S. Senate, nine from the House of Representatives, and one member each from the Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce.
4. Author Event: Arsalan Iftikhar, “Islamic Pacifism” Busboys and Poets, January 18, 6 pm.
Arsalan Iftikhar will discuss and sign his book, “Islamic Pacifism: Global Muslims in the Post-Osama Era”. Arsalan Iftikhar is an international human rights lawyer, global media commentator, founder of TheMuslimGuy.com and global managing editor of The Crescent Post. Additionally, he is also a regular weekly legal affairs/political commentator for the National Public Radio (NPR) show Tell Me More with Michel Martin and a contributing writer for CNN.com and Esquire Magazine (Middle East edition). Co-sponsored by the Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). http://bbpbooks.teachingforchange.org/book/9781463553128. Free and open to everyone.
5. Taiwan’s Presidential and Legislative Election: Implications for Cross-Strait Relations, U.S. Policy and Domestic Politics.
Featuring FPRI Senior Fellows
Shelley Rigger Davidson College
Vincent Wang University of Richmond
Terry Cooke GC3 Strategy, Inc.
Jacques deLisle Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania
Register for webcast/teleconference
In the January 14, 2012, elections, Taiwanese voters faced a choice between giving a second term to Ma Ying-jeou—who has pursued a policy of closer economic ties and broader rapprochement with the Mainland and who has drawn criticism for lackluster leadership, economic inequality and drawing to close to the PRC—and Tsai Ing-wen—whom Beijing and opponents in Taiwan portray as reckless proponent of independence and a threat to the economic gains achieved or promised by Ma’s policies. In voting for a legislature—for the first time held jointly with the presidential election, the Taiwanese electorate face a similar choice between retaining a supermajority for Ma’s KMT or giving Tsai’s DPP a larger share.
FPRI Senior Fellows Shelley Rigger, Vincent Wang, Terry Cooke and Jacques deLisle assess the elections’ meaning and implications: Why did the winners win and the losers lose? What does the outcome portend for cross-Strait relations during the next four years? What is likely to be the impact on U.S. policy toward, and relations with, Taipei and Beijing? What are the implications for the future of Taiwan’s democracy and for the significant economic, social and foreign policy decisions Taiwan’s government faces in the near term?
Shelley Rigger is the Brown Professor of East Asian Politics at Davidson College in Davidson, North Carolina. She has a PhD in Government from Harvard University and a BA in Public and International Affairs from Princeton University. She has been a visiting researcher at National Chengchi University in Taiwan (2005) and a visiting professor at Fudan University in Shanghai (2006). Rigger is the author of two books on Taiwan’s domestic politics: Politics in Taiwan: Voting for Democracy (Routledge 1999) and From Opposition to Power: Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party (Lynne Rienner Publishers 2001). She has published articles on Taiwan’s domestic politics, the national identity issue in Taiwan-China relations and related topics. Her current research studies the effects of cross-strait economic interactions on Taiwan people’s perceptions of Mainland China. Her monograph, “Taiwan’s Rising Rationalism: Generations, Politics and ‘Taiwan Nationalism’” was published by the East West Center in Washington in November 2006.
Vincent Wang is Professor of Political Science and Chairman of the Department at the University of Richmond, specializing in international political economy and Asian studies. He has been a Visiting Professor or Fellow at National Chengchi University (Taipei), National Sun-Yat-sen University (Kaohsiung, Taiwan), El Colegio de Mexico, and Institute for Far Eastern Studies, Kyungnam University (Seoul, South Korea). He received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. His latest and forthcoming publications cover the China-India rivalry, the rise of China, and China-Taiwan relations.
Terry Cooke is a Senior Fellow in FPRI’s Asia Program and the principal director of GC3 Strategy, Inc., an international consultancy specializing in sustainability-related technologies and capital linkages between Asia and the U.S. Previously, Dr. Cooke was Director of Asian Partnership Development for the Geneva-based World Economic Forum. He has advised the Lauder Institute on global business outreach as a member of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School’s Department of Management. Dr. Cooke was a career-member of the U.S. Senior Foreign Service, with postings in Taipei, Berlin, Tokyo and Shanghai.
Jacques deLisle is Director of FPRI’s Asia Program and Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania, specializing in US-China relations, Chinese politics and legal reform, cross-strait relations, and the international status of Taiwan.
Particpants will be able ask questions online or via the telephone. You may also submit questions via email: questions@fpri.org.
Friday, January 20
12:00 – 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time
This event is available exclusively
via webcast and teleconference.
Register for webcast/teleconference
- For more information contact 215 732 3774, ext 102 or fpri@fpri.org.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The limits of R2P
The Arab League, meeting today in Cairo, got it right: it is not their human rights monitors who have failed, it is the Syrian government that has failed to fully implement its commitments to withdraw from cities, stop the violence and release prisoners. More monitors are needed. Their withdrawal would allow the regime to intensify its crackdown.
Unfortunately the League failed to ask the UN Security Council to weigh in, a potentially important step towards a resolution condemning the regime’s repression of the demonstrations. It will be far more difficult for Russia to block such a resolution if the Arab League calls for it.
Is military intervention in the cards? I don’t think so, and I think it is a mistake for anyone to encourage the demonstrators to think so. One of their signs reportedly called for an alien invasion. Syrians are desperate and don’t understand why there is so much international hesitation.
This is why:
- Russian opposition to anything that might lead to a U.S. or NATO military strike against the Assad regime, which provides Moscow with an important naval base at Latakia.
- Chinese opposition, which likely has more to do with not wanting a precedent for a military strike on Iran, a major oil supplier.
- American interest in cutting back military commitments and nervousness about precipitating a civil war in Syria, where the opposition to the regime is still not strong and united.
- European concerns of the same varieties, especially at a moment of great concern about budget deficits and the stability of the euro.
- Anxiety in the region and elsewhere that military action could have unintended, negative consequences for Turkey, Israel, Iraq and Lebanon.
So, yes, of course we need a Security Council resolution that denounces the violence and calls on the regime to implement fully the Arab League agreement. It would be good if it also called for deployment of UN human rights monitors, either alongside or within the Arab League contingent. But it won’t be backed up with the threat of force.
Some will complain that responsibility to protect (R2P), the UN doctrine under which the NATO led the intervention in Libya, requires military action against the Assad regime. But responsibility to protect is a principle that applies in the first instance to the authorities of the state in which rights are being abused. How quickly, even whether, it leads to outside international intervention depends on the particular circumstances, which are not favorable in the Syrian case.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Righting the civilian/military balance
Someone might imagine that I would be unhappy with the President’s strategic guidance for the Defense Department, released last week. It reiterates many of the U.S. military’s more traditional roles: counter-terrorism and irregular warfare, deterring and defeating aggression, projecting power, countering weapons of mass destruction, maintaining nuclear deterrence. It also re-emphasizes some relatively new areas: outer space and cyber space as well as support to homeland defense. Its implications in many of these areas are unclear, maybe even still undetermined. Certainly who watch the Defense budget more than I do aren’t sure yet.
But it includes a clear and unequivocal step back from stability operations like those in Iraq and Afghanistan (and before in Bosnia and Kosovo), the design and implementation of which preoccupied me for at least 15 years. This is the President’s guidance on stability and counterinsurgency operations:
In the aftermath of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States will emphasize non-military means and military-to-military cooperation to address instability and reduce the demand for significant U.S. force commitments to stability operations. U.S. forces will nevertheless
be ready to conduct limited counterinsurgency and other stability operations if required,operating alongside coalition forces wherever possible. Accordingly, U.S. forces will retain and continue to refine the lessons learned, expertise, and specialized capabilities that have been developed over the past ten years of counterinsurgency and stability operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, U.S. forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations.
In another section of the document, the guidance also suggests that U.S. forces will be:
...able to secure territory and populations and facilitate a
transition to stable governance on a small scale for a limited period using standing
forces and, if necessary, for an extended period with mobilized forces.
Surprise: I find all of this eminently reasonable, provided the civilian and reserve capacities are built up in a serious way. It is a mistake to use active duty fighting forces in roles that might be carried out at least as effectively by civilians, whether government officials or contractors. Our non-military means are however still lacking. Despite Hillary Clinton’s well-intended Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, we are still far from having in the State Department and USAID the capabilities required.
This matters. It was the lack of civilian capacity to deal with post-victory stability and governance in Afghanistan that allowed the Taliban to regroup and regenerate. It was the lack of civilian capacity to deal with post-victory stability in Iraq that turned a quick victory into an eight-year nightmare. If ever we need to deal with a post-war or post-revolution Iran or Pakistan (whether the war involves the U.S. as a belligerent or not), or even post-Assad Syria, we will clearly lack adequate civilian capacity, and the military’s reservists won’t suffice either.
So yes, let’s get the military out of the peacebuilding/statebuilding/nationbuilding/postconflict stabilization/reconstruction business as much as possible. Let’s use reservists when possible, as we have for years in Kosovo and Bosnia. As civilians in uniform, they have talents and experience that active duty forces often lack. But let’s not forget that we might still have to do these things, despite the best intention of the Administration to avoid it. If even 10 per cent of what the military saves in following the President’s strategic guidance were to be spent on civilian capacity, it might be enough. But there is no sign of anything like that happening yet.
So yes, I am happy with the strategic guidance, but it has to be backed up with budgetary allocations to the civilian side of our foreign policy apparatus to make it practical. Righting the balance requires not just words but money and people.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A stage for a lying murderer?
Burhan Ghalioun, head of the Syrian National Council (SNC), suggests “an international conference on Syria to stop the atrocities and the killings,” in the likely event that the SNC plea for a “safe area” goes unheeded. I’d be the first to admit that the record of international conferences in stopping anything is mixed at best. Certainly the international conference on Yugoslavia in the 1990s was not 100% effective, though some of its spinoffs like the Badinter commission played an important role in clarifying the rules of the game.
I wonder whether this is an idea worth exploring, admittedly out of desperation. So far, the Russians and Chinese have stymied the UN Security Council. It is much harder for them to stymie an international conference, where there is no formal veto and a good deal of pressure to come up with a consensus statement. The Iranians may even be tiring of what Bashar al Assad is costing them. If the Syrian government refuses to attend, as well it might, that would enable the SNC to speak for the Syrian people.
The Americans would want to go to such a conference knowing exactly what they could hope for by way of results. It seems to me a conference statement denouncing violence on all sides (yes I know that the regime is by far the bigger offender), endorsing the mission of the Arab League human rights monitors and noting the failure of the Syrian government to cooperate fully with them is not out of reach. I don’t know that it would help much, but anything that undermines the legitimacy of the Assad regime is at this point useful.
Could a conference give Bashar al Assad a bully pulpit that would be useful to him in reaffirming his legitimacy on the world stage? Yes, but that’s what we’ve got diplomats for: to stage manage this so he comes off as the lying murderer he is.
Tomorrow is Friday. Let’s hope the demonstrators turn out in numbers, building on last week’s extraordinary showing. Here are Arab League monitors documenting violations by the Syrian Army near Deraa yesterday:
Or if you prefer, here is first-hand testimony of a former Defense Ministry official:
RSS - Posts
