Tag: Jordan
Fascinating but lopsided
Few think tanks can assemble the President of the United States, the Secretary of State and a Prime Minister (via video link) for a serious discussion of issues like the Iranian nuclear program, the Israel/Palestine peace process and the war in Syria. That’s what Brookings’ Saban Forum did this weekend. Even more impressive is that they said interesting things. As the Israeli daily Haaretz noted:
…if you piece together the details and principles that were set forth matter-of-factly by Obama and much more forcefully by Kerry, and if you mix in a bit of reading between the lines, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Israel and the Palestinians are engaged in negotiating a “framework agreement” that will include elements of a final status agreement but will be carried out in stages.
And that there will be an interim period in which Israel maintains security control of some of the West Bank. And that the United States will play a major role in providing security along the border with Jordan. And that there will be a declaration of principles that will be based on various peace formulas discussed in the recent past, from the Clinton Parameters of 2000 and onwards.
And, most significantly, that Israel is well aware that the reference points for such a declaration will include the 1967 borders, a Palestinian presence in Jerusalem and a mutual recognition of each other’s “homeland.”
This is pretty hefty stuff. You wouldn’t want to try to cash the check written on this account yet, but you would be wise to hold on to it. Read more
Peace picks, November 11-15
The Federal government is closed Monday for Veterans Day but the rest of the week has lots of peace and war events. The Middle East Institute Conference (last item) is not to be missed:
1. How to Turn Russia Against Assad
Tuesday, November 12th, 2013
6:00pm
Rome Building, Room 806
1619 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Samuel Charap
Senior Fellow for Russia and Eurasia, IISS
Jeremy Shapiro
Visiting Fellow in the Foreign Policy Program, Brookings Institution
Chair: Dana Allin
Editor of Survival and Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy and Transatlantic Affairs, IISS
A light reception will follow
No RSVP Required
For More Information, Contact SAISEES@jhu.edu or events-washington@iiss.org
Samuel Charap is the Senior Fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies based in the IISS–US in Washington, DC. Prior to joining the Institute, Samuel was a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow at the US Department of State, serving as Senior Advisor to the Acting Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security and on the Secretary’s Policy Planning Staff.
Jeremy Shapiro is a visiting fellow in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution. Prior to re-joining Brookings, he was a member of the U.S. State Department’s policy planning staff, where he advised the secretary of state on U.S. policy in North Africa and the Levant. He was also the senior advisor to Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Philip Gordon, providing strategic guidance on a wide variety of U.S.-European foreign policy issues. Read more
Yes, Virginia, there is a Syrian opposition
A colleague writes in reaction to the news of Syrian rebel groups abandoning the exile Syrian Coalition in favor an alliance with Islamist extremists:
Can it get any worse for the opposition? Can anyone provide a serious, authoritative read out on the opposition? Is there any ‘there there’?
Authoritative, no, but I’ve met with quite a few Syrian opposition people over the past couple of years. And I’ve supervised an effort to begin mapping Syrian civil society, which is varied, sincere and energetic if not robust.
There is a there there. Secular Syrian civil activists started the rebellion against Bashar al Asad and they have continued it, even as violence engulfs them. They have thought long and hard about the “day after.” They have examined options for governing Syria. They have formed political parties, councils and coalitions. They have lobbied for stronger US and other Western support. They have formed a Supreme Military Council and a political Coalition. Read more
Peace picks, Sept 30 – Oct 4
Fine, timely events this week in DC:
1. Reform Under Rouhani: Assessing Positive Change in Iran
Monday, September 30, 2013, 9 – 10.30 a.m.
The Stimson Center, 12th Floor
1111 19th Street, NW, Washington , DC
Speakers:
Ramin Asgard, former U.S. diplomat and former director of the State Department’s Iran office in Dubai
Arash Ghafouri, consultant to presidential candidates in 2013 election
Opening remarks
Klaus Linsenmeier, Executive Director, Heinrich Boell Foundation North America
Moderator:
Geneive Abdo, Fellow, Middle East Program, Stimson Center
To RSVP for this event, please click here.
The election of President Hassan Rouhani has led Iran’s political leadership to indicate that reconciliation between the Islamic Republic and the United States could be a distinct possibility.
In the immediate aftermath of talks at the U.N. General Assembly, please join the Heinrich Boell Foundation North America and the Stimson Center for a discussion on the positive social and political changes in Iran, the role of the Iranian youth in changing the political culture, and the implications of the Rouhani presidency on the future of US – Iran relations. Read more
Heartbreak and loveless marriages
Wedenesday morning’s event at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was yet another panel focused on Syria, focused on the interests and perspectives of the domestic and international parties currently involved in the crisis. Moderated by Marwan Muasher of the Carnegie Endowment, the discussion included Ambassador Nasser al-Kidwa, deputy to Arab League Envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi, Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment, Paul Salem of the Carnegie Middle East Center, and Andrew Weiss also of the Carnegie Endowment.
Ambassador al-Kidwa focused his remarks on the future of negotiations in Syria. He believes the Geneva Communiqué drafted last June is still relevant today and provides practical solutions for Syria. The US decision not to strike on Syria but rather focus on placing Syria’s chemical weapons under international control shows its commitment to the Geneva Communiqué. The framework agreement on chemical weapons between the US and Russia is a positive development.
The UN is currently working on a resolution that will mostly likely incorporate much of the strong language used in the US-Russia agreement. Al-Kidwa believes that it will be adopted under Chapter 7 with some language regarding using necessary force if there is no compliance from the Assad regime. He sees a real possibility for negotiations between the opposition and the Assad government. He argues that regional players and the international community have an unusually important role. Read more
Still on the roller coaster
The Russia-US agreement on a Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons is certainly a breakthrough with respect to chemical weapons, if it is implemented with anything like the thoroughness and timeliness specified. John Kerry has delivered on paper what President Obama has wanted: an end not just to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but destruction of Syria’s capability to make them and use them by the middle of 2014.
But the agreement, even fully implemented, does nothing to solve three other problems: Bashar al Asad’s continued hold on power and attacks on Syria’s civilian population, radicalization of his opposition and his supporters, and destabilization of the region. The number of people killed in chemical weapons attacks is no more than 2% of the total casualties in the past 2.5 years. While the August 21 attack is said to have killed more than 1400, which would almost surely make it the most horrific single incident of the war, that number are killed more or less every week by more conventional means.
There is no reason to believe that this agreement, even if fully implemented, will reduce the overall level of violence and casualties. The agreement makes Bashar al Asad indispensable. Neither Russia nor America will want to see him deposed until the job is done. That of course gives him a license to kill and good reason to delay implementation as much as possible. There has already been an uptick in regime violence. He will certainly try to dawdle. The Chapter VII threat of military intervention in the agreement is clear, but not automatic or unilateral: Read more