Tag: ISIS
Peace picks, March 26 – April 1
- Will the Russians Meddle in Latin American Elections? | Monday, March 26 | 9:30am – 11:00am | Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS) | Register here |
2018 will see presidential elections in several countries across Latin America, notably in Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, and Venezuela. This event will discuss Russia’s strategic interests in Latin America, including how the region should prepare for potential Russian meddling in upcoming presidential elections. Featuring Javier Lesaca (Visiting Scholar, School of Media and Public Affairs, GWU) and David Salvo (Resident Fellow, Alliance for Securing Democracy, GMF).
This event will be webcast live.
___________________________________________________________
- The New Geopolitics of Turkey and the West | Monday, March 26 | 10:30am – 12:00pm | Brookings Institution | Register here |
Turkey’s relations with the United States and the European Union are under significant strain, and they are likely to remain difficult ahead of Turkey’s parliamentary and presidential elections, scheduled for 2019. Ankara and Washington remain at loggerheads over the way forward in Syria; several EU member states have been calling for an end to the accession process; and Turkey’s domestic politics are raising further questions about Turkey’s place in the trans-Atlantic alliance. Yet, there is much at stake: Turkey is facing threats from terrorism, struggling to manage 3.5 million Syrian refugees, and dealing with the aftermath of a failed coup. Europe and the United States have shared interests in addressing regional challenges with Turkey, especially as Russia seeks to expand its influence in the region. So how should the West handle this important but challenging ally? Featuring Eric Edelman (Roger Hertog Distinguished Practitioner-in-Residence, SAIS), Kemal Kirişci (Director, The Turkey Project, Brookings), Amanda Sloat (Robert Bosch Senior Fellow, Center on the United States and Europe), and Stephen F. Szabo (Senior Fellow, American Institute for Contemporary German Studies). Lisel Hintz (Assistant Professor of International Relations and European Studies, SAIS) will moderate the discussion.
___________________________________________________________
- US in a Post-ISIS Iraq and Syria: Realigning Allies and Constraining Adversaries | Monday, March 26 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Hudson Institute | Register here |
In the Post-ISIS Middle East, Iran, Bashar al-Assad, and Russia continue to pose challenges for the U.S. as the Trump Administration develops its policy for Iraq and Syria. Turkey’s expansion of its Syria operations has the U.S. and NATO allies concerned that Turkish actions in the region run counter to NATO goals. Additionally, cooperation between Russia and Iran continues to disrupt the balance of power in the region. Hudson Institute will host a panel to explore U.S. options to realign our allies with traditional NATO and U.S. positions, hold adversaries responsible for atrocities, and prevent security backsliding in the region. Featuring Hillel Fradkin (Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute), Michael Pregent (Adjunct Fellow, Hudson Institute), Jennifer Cafarella (Senior Intelligence Planner, Institute for the Study of War), and Dr. Nahro Zagros (Vice President, Soran University).
___________________________________________________________
- Addressing the Ongoing Humanitarian Crisis in Nigeria | Monday, March 26 | 2:00pm – 3:30pm | Brookings Institution | Register here |
Widespread violence has plagued Nigeria over the years, with an epicenter of activity in northeast parts of the country. Much of this violence is related to the Boko Haram insurgency, although other battles between ethnic groups have also intensified, largely over land and partly due to a growing drought. Despite some success by Nigerian security forces in tamping down violence, lives continue to be lost and communities displaced. All of this is ongoing as the country prepares to hold elections next year. Featuring Alexandra Lamarche (Advocate, Refugees International), Mark Yarnell (UN Liaison and Senior Advocate, Refugees International), and Vanda Felbab-Brown (Senior Fellow, Brookings). Michael O’Hanlon (Senior Fellow, Brookings) will moderate the conversation, while adding his own perspectives.
___________________________________________________________
- Russian Influence in Moldova | Monday, March 26 | 3:30pm – 5:00pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
Since emerging from the Soviet Union as an independent country, the Republic of Moldova has faced various challenges. Moldova, together with Ukraine and Georgia, were “captive nations” of the former Soviet Union; today, the three countries are still affected by Russian interference. For Moldova, the autonomous region of Transnistria raises questions regarding the state’s path forward with various international bodies, and the Kremlin still has clear influence in Moldovan politics. With Moldovan parliamentary elections approaching this year, the stakes are high for Moldova’s future as a free, whole, and secure European state. Featuring Ambassador John Herbst (Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council), Dr. William Hill (Global Fellow, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and Professor, National Defense University), Dumitru Mînzărari (State Secretary for Defense Policy and International Cooperation, Ministry of Defense, Republic of Moldova), and Agnieszka Gmys-Wiktor (Program Officer, National Endowment for Democracy). Mark Simakovsky (Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council and Vice President, Beacon Global Strategies) will moderate the discussion.
___________________________________________________________
- Elections in Tunisia and Hope for Democratic Reform | Thursday, March 29 | 10:00am – 11:30am | Middle East Institute | Register here |
Leading up to long-awaited municipal elections, Tunisia is at a crossroads. The beginning of 2018 saw widespread protests and social unrest in both cities and rural areas, as economic stagnation and unemployment continue to worsen. However, the vote currently set for May 6 signals an opportunity for Tunisian youth, women, and minorities to make their voices heard. How might the elections encourage confidence among Tunisians in a transparent democratic process? Could the results promote or undermine Tunisia’s fragile stability? How can the international community better support Tunisia and its government to address the rising social tensions? The Middle East Institute is pleased to host Ambassador Fayçal Gouia (Ambassador of Tunisia to the United States) and Elie Abouaoun (Director, Middle East and North Africa Programs, USIP) for a panel discussion to examine Tunisia’s political challenges—both local and national—ahead of the elections. Paul Salem (Senior Vice President for Policy Research and Programs, MEI) will moderate the discussion.
___________________________________________________________
- Securing Their Roles: Women in Constitution-Making | Thursday, March 29 | 10:00am – 11:30am | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register here |
Women’s participation in drafting constitutions leads to more equitable legal frameworks and socially inclusive reforms, laying the groundwork for sustainable peace. Yet new research from Inclusive Security reveals that while 75 conflict-affected countries oversaw significant reform processes between 1995-2015, only one in five constitutional drafters in these environments have been women. As actors from Syria, Libya, and other countries marked by violence are taking steps towards building new constitutions, USIP and Inclusive Security are convening a panel to draw out lessons for policymakers by discussing women’s roles in constitution-making, gender equality in constitutional provisions – including in relation to constitutions developed with an Islamic identity—and their implications for long-term, inclusive peace and security. Featuring Palwasha Kakar (Senior Program Officer, Religion and Inclusive Societies, USIP), Marie O’Reilly (Director of Research & Analysis, Inclusive Security), Amira Yahyaoui (Founder, Al Bawsala), and Jason Gluck (Policy Specialist, Political Dialogues and Constitutional Processes, UNDP). Carla Koppell (Vice President, Applied Conflict Transformation, USIP) will moderate the discussion.
___________________________________________________________
- Ukraine’s Future Leaders on the Front-lines of Change | Thursday, March 29 | 4:00pm – 5:30pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
In the four years since the end of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine has not answered its most important question: how will the country ensure democratic values in its future development? Much of Ukraine’s hope lies in its young leaders who will drive the country forward in the coming years. Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) has been fortunate to provide a year-long residency to some of these future leaders as part of the inaugural year of the Center’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program. This event will feature this year’s Ukrainian leaders Oleksandra Matviichuk (Chairwoman, Center for Civil Liberties), Dmytro Romanovych (Member, Reform Delivery Office of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine), and Olexandr Starodubtsev (Head, Public Procurement Regulation Department, the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine). They will each discuss their own perspectives on opportunities and challenges to democracy and development in their home country, as well as objectives for strengthening public administration, civil society, and economic reforms upon their return to Ukraine With introductory remarks by Ambassador John Herbst (Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council) and a keynote address by Dr. Francis Fukuyama (Mosbacher Director, CDDRL, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University). Melinda Haring (Editor, UkraineAlert, Atlantic Council) will moderate the discussion.
___________________________________________________________
- After Syria: The United States, Russia, and the Future of Terrorism | Friday, March 29 | 10:00am -11:30am | Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS) in partnership with EastWest Institute | Register here |
The collapse of Islamic State control in Syria has been hailed in both Russia and the United States as a victory over terrorism. Both credit their country’s military involvement with victory. But the war that continues in Syria also lays bare Moscow and Washington’s conflicting definitions and approaches when it comes to terrorism, insurgency, and combat operations. Moreover, even if a path to stabilization in that country is found, America and Russia will continue to face terrorism and terrorists at home and abroad. The ways in which these two crucial countries respond as the threat evolves will shape both their own polities and the world as a whole. Featuring Dr. Kim Cragin (Senior Research Fellow for Counterterrorism, National Defense University), Dr. Ekaterina Stepanova (Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Unit, Institute of World Economy and International Relations), Dr. Irina Zvyagelskaya (chief research fellow, Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Oriental Studies), and Dr. Seth Jones (Harold Brown Chair; Director, Transnational Threats Project; and Senior Adviser, International Security Program, CSIS). Dr. Olga Oliker (Senior Adviser and Director, Russia and Eurasia Program, CSIS) will moderate the discussion.
This event will be webcast live.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
It’s the region, stupid
The Middle East suffers from a whole range of problems. War and conflict are besetting wide parts of the region and have caused massive destruction as well as displacement in several countries, including Syria and Yemen. Climate change has brought about enormous environmental degradation such as desertification and water scarcity. At the same time, stressed domestic economies are increasingly unable to provide job opportunities for the region’s disenchanted youth. The Middle East faces enormous challenges that transcend borders and hence require answers that narrow-minded national policy making is no longer able to provide. Indeed, the region is today in dire need of regional responses.
On March 7, the Middle East Institute presented a roadmap of how future cooperation should look like in the Middle East. Resulting from Track 1.5 initiative involving current and former officials and senior experts from across the Middle East as well as from China, Europe, Russia, and the United States, the so-called Baghdad Declaration outlines 12 good neighborhood principles for the region. The discussion featured three major participants in the Middle East Dialogue. Naufel al-Hassan, deputy chief of staff to Prime Minister Haider al Abadi of Iraq, Abdullah al-Dardari, who serves as a senior advisor on reconstruction at The World Bank, and MEI’s senior vice president for policy research and programs Paul Salem provided their perspective on the Baghdad Declaration and the Middle East’s future. A full recording of the event is here:
Regional integration is already prevalent in the Middle East. Abdullah al-Dardari stresses that, excluding oil and gas, intraregional trade accounts for some 40% of total trade in the Middle East; taking the informal economy into consideration, this figure might even reach 60%. Moreover, the Middle East has the world’s highest level of intraregional level of remittances. Paul Salem underlines this observation and adds that only because of the high level of existing regional interdependence and interaction conflicts were able to spread that easily across the Middle East. However, the integration of today is neither well-structured nor reflected in the political relationships between Middle Eastern states.
The region is still in dire need of better cooperation among its members. Al-Dardari argues that the model of country-based economic growth has reached its apex in the Middle East. Self-sustained economic development is no longer possible as national labor markets, productive bases, and consumption levels have become too narrow. Instead, only regional economic integration and the resulting creation of an open regional market can attract extensive investment and the money needed to rebuild war-ravaged countries: an estimated one trillion dollar of assets has been destroyed since 2011. Naufel al-Hassan also points out that political and environmental challenges such as transnational terrorist networks and water scarcity go beyond the problem-solving capacities of single states and require common answers. In the same vein, the region’s governments can only bring back hope to the Middle East’s youth when they collaborate on providing decent job opportunities. A new regional framework is hence not an option, but a necessity.
Although the contemporary conflicts in the Middle East seem to make increased regional cooperation almost impossible to achieve, change is possible. Salem stresses that other regions of the world were able to transition from a conflict system to a stable order. Not even a century ago, Europe suffered from two wars which much exceeded the level violence that has beset the contemporary Middle East. Yet Europe has been able to overcome its international divisions and conflicts and has established a strong system of cooperation, the European Union. At the same time, the Middle East has proven to be able to move beyond regional standoffs, as the surmounting of rivalry between Egypt and Saudi Arabia of the 1950s has demonstrated. We can thus be hopeful whereby al-Hassan emphasizes that a new stage of integration has already begun. To defeat ISIS, the region has displayed a new level of cooperation, which can serve as a blueprint for future efforts to unite in face of political, economic, and environmental challenges.
A better future is hence possible for the Middle East. The Baghdad Declaration offers a distinct vision that can show the path towards deeper integration in the region. When this transition will materialize will however depend on the readiness of the region’s current leadership to cease hostilities and acknowledge that small-minded national agendas cannot act as a remedy. For the sake of the Middle East and its people, this change of mentality and political outlook should occur soon.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, March 5 – March 11
- Oil in Iraq: Pathways to Enabling Better Governance | Monday, March 5 | 2:00pm – 3:30pm | Middle East Institute | Register here |
Despite setbacks from the war against ISIS, Iraq remains the world’s fourth largest producer of oil, second only to Saudi Arabia among OPEC states. However, the administration of this vital natural resource has been plagued by corruption and disputes over how revenues should be allocated to promote equitable economic growth. How can Iraq harness oil revenue to strengthen institutions, grow the economy, and empower Iraqis to rebuild their society? How are relations between Baghdad and Erbil and other sectarian tensions complicated by the “resource curse,” and what can be done to overcome it? The Middle East Institute is pleased to host a panel discussion examining options and priorities for improving governance in Iraq, featuring Erin Banco (investigative reporter for the Star-Ledger and NJ.com), Alan Eyre (US Department of State), Omar Al-Nidawi (Gryphon Partners), and Jean Francois Seznec (Scholar, MEI). The panel will be moderated by Randa Slim (Director of Program on Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues, MEI). ___________________________________________________________
- Preventing Conflict to Create Pathways for Peace | Tuesday, March 6 | 9:00am – 10:30am | United States Institute of Peace | Register here |
Violent conflict today is surging after decades of relative decline. Direct deaths in war, refugee numbers, military spending, and terrorist incidents have all reached historic highs in recent years. Today, the consequences of failing to act together are alarmingly evident, and the call for urgent action has perhaps never been clearer. To answer this call, the United Nations and the World Bank Group are launching their joint study, “Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict” to share how defense, diplomacy, and development should work together to successfully keep conflict from becoming violent. Join the U.S. Institute of Peace to hear from experts on how the international community can promote better policies and programs to pave the way forward to peace. Featuring Oscar Fernandez-Taranco (Assistant Secretary-General for Peacebuilding Support, United Nations), Franck Bousquet (Senior Director, Fragility, Conflict & Violence, World Bank), Deqa Hagi Yusuf (Minister of Women and Human Rights Development, Somalia), and Nancy Lindborg (President, U.S. Institute of Peace), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- Performance and Prospects for Russia’s Economy | Tuesday, March 6 | 2:00pm – 3:30pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
After a difficult transition to a market-based system in the 1990s, the Russian economy experienced rapid growth into the 2000s. However, in the last few years, falling gas prices, Western sanctions and diminishing foreign investments, and a continued lack of effective structural reforms have taken a toll on the economy and the citizens of the Russian Federation. The Russian economy has been buffeted by increasing re-nationalization of enterprises and international sanctions. It remains energy-focused, and highly oligarchical. Although recovering slightly, the trajectory and sustainability of the Russian economic model is under intense scrutiny. The possibility of additional sanctions just adds to the uncertainty. This panel, entitled “Performance and Prospects for Russia’s Economy,” will explore the development of Russia’s economy, including its place in the international economic system, and its prospects for the next decade. Featuring Dr. Sergey Aleksashenko (senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Brookings Institution), Dr. Anders Åslund (Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council), Elizaveta Osetinskaya (Fellow, University of California, Berkeley). Ambassador Clifford Bond (Former Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Coordinator for Assistance to Europe and Eurasia, US Department of State) will moderate the discussion.
___________________________________________________________
- Governor Geraldo Alckmin of São Paulo on Brazil’s Economic and Political Outlook in an Unpredictable Election Year | Wednesday, March 7 | 9:30am – 12:00pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
Elected four times to lead São Paulo, Brazil’s richest and most influential state, Governor Geraldo Alckmin is widely expected to run in October’s presidential election. This will be a second attempt to reach the Palácio do Planalto for Alckmin, who lost to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2006. Despite his low polling numbers—and widespread rejection of establishment politicians—seasoned political analysts believe the governor could emerge as a strong centrist candidate backed by the middle class and the business community, and someone who—if he wins—could build the alliances needed to govern in Brazil’s coalitional political system. However, the race is highly unpredictable and will likely remain so for months. Join the Wilson Center for a conversation with Governor Geraldo Alckmin; speakers and panelists include Paulo Sotero (Director, Brazil Institute), Cassia Carvalho (Executive Director, Brazil-U.S. Business Council), and Roberto Simon (Director, FTI Consulting), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- The Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership: Implications for Global Trade | Wednesday, March 7 | 2:00pm – 5:00pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
On March 8, representatives of eleven countries will meet in Chile to sign the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), creating a massive free trade bloc connecting 500 million people and economies with a combined GDP of over $10 trillion. Signatories include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The current agreement includes several major economies that will have a profound influence on the future of global trade and investment. The United States withdrew from negotiations in January 2017. Join the Wilson Center to discuss the economic impact of the agreement for member and non-member countries and the future of integration of the Asia-Pacific region and the Western Hemisphere. Featuring the Honorable Carlos Pareja (Ambassador to the United States, Peru), the Honorable Ashok Kumar Mirpuri (Ambassador to the United States, Singapore), and Jeffrey J. Schott (Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- Regional Cooperation in the Middle East: The Baghdad Declaration | Wednesday, March 7 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | Middle East Institute | Register here |
Since 2014, the Middle East Institute has convened the Middle East Dialogue, a Track 1.5 initiative involving current and former officials and senior experts from across the Middle East as well as from China, Europe, Russia and the United States. These meetings focus on the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, and on the principles and architecture of a new regional cooperation framework in the Middle East. At the Dialogue’s most recent meeting in Baghdad, the group issued a consensus document outlining Good Neighborhood Principles for the Middle East. Is a new regional cooperation framework possible in today’s Middle East? What are the principles and institutional architecture that would underpin this framework? What are the obstacles? What are realistic interim confidence-building measures? How can the international community assist in moving this process forward? MEI is pleased to host a panel discussion involving participants from the Middle East Dialogue. Featuring Naufel Alhassan (Deputy Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister of Iraq), Abdallah Al-Dardari (Senior Advisor on Reconstruction in the MENA, World Bank), and Paul Salem (Senior Vice President for Policy Research and Programs, MEI). Randa Slim (Director of Program on Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues, MEI) will moderate.
___________________________________________________________
- How Film Captures the Roles of Women in War and Peace | Thursday, March 8 | 9:30am – 12:00pm | United States Institute of Peace | Register here |
Ten years ago, the film Pray the Devil Back to Hell premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival, where it won the award for Best Documentary for its powerful depiction of the nonviolent women’s movement that helped bring an end to Liberia’s bloody civil war. Since its release, producers and directors have taken up the challenge to tell the stories of the often-invisible lives of women in conflict. These films have brought forward women’s critical voices to the stories of war and peace, and amplified the global agenda of Women, Peace and Security. Join USIP on International Women’s Day to discuss how film has been an innovative tool for translating policy frameworks into social change. This event will bring together the worlds of film and policy to celebrate the progress that has been made in advancing women’s roles in peace and security, and spreading their stories. Featuring Abigail Disney (Filmmaker & President and CEO, Fork Films), Michelle Bekkering (Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, USAID), and Suhad Babaa (Executive Director, Just Vision), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- Japan-Korea Relations 20 Years After the Kim-Obuchi Summit | Thursday, March 8 | 2:00pm – 7:00pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | Register here |
Nearly twenty years ago, the leaders of Japan and South Korea raised hopes for “a new Japan-Korea partnership for the twenty-first century,” backed by an action plan to foster broader cooperation and closer people-to-people ties. Although progress has been made, disagreements over history have stymied the desired transformation in their relationship, even as North Korean nuclear threats grow. This half-day conference—featuring scholars and former officials of that time from Japan, South Korea, and the United States—combines a look back with a look ahead, reflecting on what types of polices and initiatives have succeeded or failed since 1998 and why. Speakers and panelists include Douglas H. Paal (Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Carol Gluck (George Sansom Professor of History, Columbia University), and James Zumwalt (CEO, Sasakawa Peace Foundation USA), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- US-Sudan Relations: What’s Next? | Thursday, March 8 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
Following the Trump administration’s October 2017 decision to lift most economic sanctions against Sudan, the Atlantic Council sent task force members to Sudan in January 2018—the third delegation in two years—to conduct research in three critical, related areas: governance and political reform; economic reform and impediments to investment; and prospects for greater cultural engagement. The resulting issue briefs put forward recommendations for the United States and Sudan to continue their positive engagement in a way that serves US interests but also supports peace, security, and inclusive governance for the Sudanese people. Featuring Dr. J. Peter Pham (Vice President for Research and Regional Initiatives, Atlantic Council), Ambassador Tim Carney (Former US Ambassador to Sudan), and Dr. Jeffrey Herbst (Co-Author, Making Africa Work & former CEO of the Newseum), among others. Kelsey Lilley (Associate Director, Africa Center, Atlantic Council) will moderate the discussion.
___________________________________________________________
- Anti-Corruption and the Fight for Democracy in Russia | Friday, March 9 | 10:00am – 11:30am | Wilson Center (co-organized with Freedom House) | Register here |
Russian activists Nikita Kulachenkov and Mikhail Maglov will talk about their work exposing corruption in Russia from abroad and the impact that these investigations have on the Kremlin’s legitimacy. They will also discuss how illicit financial flows from Russia, including real state and luxury goods, reach the West and what can be done to stop them. Featuring Charles Davidson (Executive Director of the Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute), Nikita Kulachenkov (Forensic Investigator, Anti-Corruption Foundation), and Mikhail Maglov (Former Activist of “Solidarnost”).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria worsens
Alarm bells are ringing loud in Syria:
- Israel has shot down an Iranian drone launched from a Syrian base at which Russians were present;
- Syria has shot down an Israeli F16 with a missile system supplied by Russia, opening what Hizbollah has termed a new phase in the conflict;
- The Israelis responded by trying to destroy a good part of the Syrian air defense system;
- Turkish troops have crossed into a Kurdish-controlled Afrin in western Syria, where they lost a helicopter yesterday, and President Erdogan is threatening to send them also to Manbij farther east, where US troops are still deployed and cooperating with the Kurds;
- US forces and local allies last week defended themselves aggressively against a Syrian/Iranian attack in eastern Syria;*
- Syrian, Iranian, and Russian forces are pushing north through Idlib province, the north of which Turkey controls.
There is now a real risk of Turkish/US clashes, conflict between Israel and Syria, Iran or Russia, as well as between Turkey and its erstwhile Russian and Iranian partners and between the US and Syria or Iran, not to mention Russia. The geopolitical takeover of what we have been thinking of as a civil war seems inevitable, as Mara Karlin suggested in Congress last week it was becoming. This is the kind of multi-sided mess in which miscalculation, miscommunication, escalation, and confusion are far more likely to prevail than reason or self-interest.
The US is in a particularly vulnerable position. It depends on Turkish bases for the air cover it gives its own, Kurdish and allied Arab troops in eastern Syria, but Washington has been unwilling to enforce Vice President Biden’s promise to Turkey that the Kurds would leave Manbij and remain east of the Euphrates. Turkey sees America’s Kurdish allies as a terrorist threat, because they are allied with Kurdish insurgents inside Turkey. While the Turks might like to see Washington stay in Syria and restrain the Kurds, Ankara is not yet satisfied that the Americans are doing that. Damascus, Tehran, and Moscow want the US out. The US has been saying it would stay, mainly to prevent the resurgence of the Islamic State and counter Iranian expansionism in the region, but how its few thousand soldiers can do that isn’t clear, especially as they are losing some Kurds to the fight in Afrin.
What are Washington’s options?
It seems to me there are basically three:
- Sit tight, continuing to cooperate with the Kurds and to repel forcefully any Syria, Iranian, or Russian attacks, with the attendant risks.
- Get out, letting the Turks and Kurds go at it and yielding Syria to uncontested Iranian and/or Russian hegemony, perhaps hoping they will end up at each others’ throats.
- Negotiate deals that would allow the Kurds autonomy within Syria (as in Iraqi Kurdistan) in exchange for restraint in acting against Turkey and require the Russians to push the Iranians (and affiliated militias) away from the Israeli border in exchange for US withdrawal.
None of these options is attractive, but better ones are just not available. It is too late to revive the moderate opposition or push Assad out. The US does not have the kind of vital interests in Syria that would justify expanding its military footprint there, though that may of course happen if we sit tight. Force protection may require it, and mission creep would likely ensue.
I’m inclined towards Option 3, not least because it would restore relations with Turkey and get the Iranians and their proxies away from the Israeli border. But it admittedly involves a high wire act without much of a safety net. The Russians might like the Iranians out of their way, but they may not have the clout to make it happen. US withdrawal could vitiate any promises the Syrian Kurds make to Turkey.
Option 1 risks a disastrous attack on the few thousand US troops in Syria, not only by Iran or Syria but also by Turkey. Option 2 risks Iran taking over Syria and using it to launch attacks against Israel, with or without Russian connivance. Option 3 could of course devolve into 1 or 2, as circumstances dictate, but it keeps those options open in the meanwhile.
Let’s hope someone in a White House rocked wife abuse scandals and national security issues or someone in a State Department shedding its most experienced officers can spare a few moments for Syria as it worsens.
*PS (February 13): It now appears the Americans and allied Kurds killed about one hundred Russian “contractors” fighting with the Assad forces in their attack on the Americans in eastern Syria. While Washington worries about a budget and an infrastructure plan that are going nowhere as well as spousal abuse among White House employees, the war in Syria is definitely worsening.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ugh
President Trump last night read slowly from a teleprompter and convinced much of America’s media that he could behave soberly and offer an opportunity for bipartisan action on immigration and infrastructure.
Less visibly, the speech was full of indications that danger lies ahead. This is a radical Administration. The President harbors ambitions that could get the country into lots of trouble.
Among these is a commitment to purging the Federal government of his opponents, who admittedly are many. As Slate notes, he called on Congress
…to empower every Cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers—and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.
This is a blatant attack on the Civil Service (and presumably also the Foreign Service), which he wants to replace with loyalists. He is accomplishing just that at the Justice Department already, where he has fired a Deputy Attorney General, an FBI Director, and a Deputy Director. All were well-respected professionals. Less visibly, hundreds and perhaps thousands of professionals are leaving other government departments. Trump will try to replace them with people who share his views on immigration, climate change, abortion, race, and the economy.
The President’s economic braggadocio failed to acknowledge that job growth was marginally faster under his predecessor, that record low unemployment for blacks had already been achieved before he was inaugurated, and that the benefits of his income tax cut go overwhelmingly to the very rich. Nor did he mention the big declines in the stock market yesterday and the day before, claiming credit only for the big run up in stocks since his inauguration. It would be odd indeed if the market had not reacted positively to his massive corporate tax cut, but I won’t be surprised if stocks now correct. Since he has claimed credit for the rise, he deserves blame for any fall.
Turning to foreign policy, the President prioritizes fair trade. So far he has done nothing to achieve it. He abandoned the Trans Pacific Partnership, which would have given the US a leading role in Asian trade. The 11 other countries involved are proceeding without the US, and without the provisions on labor and environmental standards the US championed. His renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement is going slowly, not least because so many American companies benefit from it. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with Europe is moribund. The US trade deficit has increased under Trump.
He also prioritizes immigration, blaming illegal immigrants for murdering two Long Island girls. But crime rates among immigrants are lower than in the general population. He wants an immigration bill that would provide a path to citizenship for people brought to the US illegally as children, but it would also fund his dubious “great wall” and shifts immigration away from family unification and diversity towards more “qualified” white people, even though current immigrants are already more qualified than native-born Americans.
Turning to more conventional foreign policy issues, the President said:
Around the world, we face rogue regimes, terrorist groups, and rivals like China and Russia that challenge our interests, our economy, and our values. In confronting these dangers, we know that weakness is the surest path to conflict, and unmatched power is the surest means of our defense.
Then he promises to boost defense spending in general and nuclear weapons in particular. The latter have little to do with current challenges, and the former is proving inadequate to meet them.
Yes, ISIS as an organized military force that controls territory in Iraq and Syria has been largely defeated, but no one expects its militants to evaporate into thin air. The civilian assistance efforts needed to counter the terrorists as they head underground–building inclusive and effective governance and economies–are nowhere to be seen in this Administration’s plans. Instead, Trump threatens to cut foreign aid to countries that vote against the US in the UN General Assembly, a threat that failed to garner support for the US move of its embassy to Jerusalem. Such heavy-handed conditioning of US assistance on a single issue irrelevant to US interests is guaranteed to reduce American influence abroad.
North Korea is the toughest of this Administration’s foreign policy challenges. Trump offered nothing in response to the threat its missiles and nuclear weapons pose. Instead he waxed eloquent North Korean oppression. This implies an American commitment to regime change, which is precisely the wrong thing to be signaling if you want to somehow limit Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs. Kim Jong-un sees them guarantees of regime continuity and will pursue them as long as thinks the US is out to overthrow him.
What was missing from the speech? Trump failed to mention the rules-based international order the US has painstakingly built since World War II, Russian interference in the US election, and his own Administration’s refusal to follow Congressional instructions to levy additional sanctions on Moscow. Putin is still pulling the strings. Ugh.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria strategy
Secretary of State Tillerson today in a speech at the Hoover Institution outlined US goals in Syria. Tobias Schneider summarized them succinctly on Twitter:
- Enduring defeat of ISIS & AQ in Syria
- Political resolution to Syria conflict (w/o Assad)
- Diminishing Iranian influence
- Create conditions for safe refugee return
- Syria free from WMD
Those sound in principle desirable to me, though they leave out an important one: preventing instability in Syria’s neighbors, including Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan (all more or less US friends if not allies).
The problem lies one step further on in defining a strategy: the ways and means. Tobias and others on Twitter see this set of goals as a license for an unending US commitment to remain in Syria and to “stabilize” it. Hidden under that rock, which Tillerson was careful to say was not a synonym for nationbuilding, lies a commitment to guess what? Nationbuilding.
But let’s deal first with the the ways and means issue. As I see it, this is all we’ve got going for us in Syria:
- US military presence and capability, including control through proxies of major oil-producing wells and maybe a proxy presence along the borders with Israel and Jordan.
- A UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution (2254) that outlines a political process to prepare a constitution, hold elections, and begin a transition to a democratic system.
- The US veto in the UNSC over any successor resolution that approves and advances the political process.
- US aid to parts of Syria outside Assad’s control, US clout in the IMF and World Bank, and influence over European and Gulf aid.
Is this enough to deliver the five goals? I doubt it. Take just refugee return: it requires that people not be forced back but that they return of their own volition. The trickle (50,000 Tillerson said) who have returned in the last year are truly a drop in the bucket. Most refugees (upwards of 5.5 million if I remember correctly) won’t return until Assad and his security forces are gone, or at least blocked from acting in parts of Syria. Likewise the political resolution, diminishing Iranian influence, and getting rid of WMD also depend on getting rid of Assad, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Even the enduring defeat of ISIS and Al Qaeda likely require Assad to be pushed aside, as he has consistently used his forces preferentially against the moderate opposition rather than the extremists, with whom his regime had an excellent cooperative relationship when US forces were in Iraq from 2003 to 2011. Assad will want to keep some of them around even now, as they help to justify his brutal repression of the Syrian population.
But getting rid of Assad means, let’s face it, rebuilding the Syrian state, which is unlikely to survive in a form able to deliver on the above goals once he is gone. He has made sure of that by waging war against his own population for six long years.
Remember too: he has Russian and Iranian backing to remain in power.
Without better means, it looks to me as if the US is in Syria for a long time and will ultimately fail. That’s not an attractive proposition. The question is whether it would be better to leave now, or soon. Do we have to stay to do nationbuilding? How can it be done best? How long will it take? How much will it cost? More on that in a future post.
RSS - Posts
