Tag: Lebanon
Peace picks December 7-11
- Conflict Prevention and Resolution Forum: The Future Of Goal 16: Peace and Inclusion In the Sustainable Development Goals | Tuesday, December 8 | 9:30-11:00am | SAIS | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) make a clear link between conflict and development, thanks to the powerful language about peace in the preamble to the along with the inclusion of Goal 16 on “peaceful and inclusive societies.” This emphasis recognizes that protracted conflict undermined the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in many countries, and it creates a new international focus on peacebuilding as one of the solutions to development challenges.How did the international community shift its thinking toward peace and inclusion in the SDGs, and where do we go from here? The inclusion of peace as a goal in the SDGs was not a foregone conclusion, and panelists will discuss both how advocacy helped ensure a role for peacebuilding in the SDGs and what that means for the next 15 years. They will also discuss the challenge that remains for governments, organizations, and individuals to implement and evaluate these global goals.
- Implementing Camp David: US-GCC Security Cooperation Since The Summit | Tuesday, December 8 | 12:30-2:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | President Obama convened leaders from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states in May 2015 to discuss reassurance and security cooperation in light of the P5+1 nuclear agreement with Iran. The United States and Gulf Arab monarchies agreed to improve future cooperation on ballistic missile defense, counter-proliferation, counterterrorist financing, cybersecurity, and a range of other issues. Six months after the summit, with the Iran deal secured and amidst the Middle East’s continuing crises, US-GCC security cooperation remains critically important. What have been the notable successes and challenges since Camp David? To what extent has progress been made in key areas? Has the region’s security situation benefitted from US-Gulf cooperation in light of the continuing fight against ISIS and other crises? Speakers include: James L. Jones, President, Jones Group International, Nawaf Obaid
Visiting Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Barry Pavel
Vice President, Arnold Kanter Chair, and Director, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security Atlantic Council, Frederick Kempe President and CEO
Atlantic Council, and moderated by Karen DeYoung, Senior National Security Correspondent, Washington Post. - Syria: Steps Toward Peace Or Deepening Intractability? | Tuesday, December 8 | 5:30pm | Brookings Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Soon to be in its sixth year, the conflict in Syria remains as deadly as ever. The consequences of an increasingly complex and seemingly intractable civil war are now also being felt internationally to an alarming degree. Recent attacks in Beirut and Paris warn of the danger of Syria’s continued breakdown. With nearly 300,000 people recorded killed, 12 million others displaced, and vast refugee flows overwhelming Syria’s neighbors and now Europe, finding a solution is nothing short of urgent. Recent multilateral meetings in Vienna demonstrated renewed diplomatic determination to negotiate peace for Syria, but significant differences remain between the conflict’s principal power-brokers.This Brookings Doha Center policy discussion aims to explore the current status of the Syrian conflict and the roles being played by an ever expanding list of actors. Does a moderate opposition still exist in Syria, and if so, what does that mean? Does the Vienna process provide hope for a durable political solution? How can the armed opposition play a role in shaping a political solution in Syria? What is the future of Salafi-jihadi militancy in Syria and what are the local, regional, and global ramifications? Speakers include, Mouaz Al Khatib, Former President, National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, Noah Bonsey, Senior Analyst Syria, International Crisis Group, Charles Lister, Visiting Fellow, Foreign Policy, Brookings Doha Center.
- Manning the Future Fleet | Wednesday, December 9 | 10:00-11:00am | CSIS | REGISTER TO ATTEND| The Maritime Security Dialogue brings together CSIS and U.S. Naval Institute, two of the nation’s most respected non-partisan institutions. The series is intended to highlight the particular challenges facing the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, from national level maritime policy to naval concept development and program design. Given budgetary challenges, technological opportunities, and ongoing strategic adjustments, the nature and employment of U.S. maritime forces are likely to undergo significant change over the next ten to fifteen years. The Maritime Security Dialogue provides an unmatched forum for discussion of these issues with the nation’s maritime leaders.
- Breaking the Silence: Societal Attitudes Toward SGBV In Syria | Wednesday, December 9 | 2:00- 3:30pm | Syria Justice and Accountability Centre | REGISTER TO ATTEND | As the Syrian conflict continues with increasing levels of violence, reports have emerged indicating that government forces and extremist groups are using sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) as a tool of war. However reliable information on SGBV remains scarce due to social stigma and survivors’ fears that they may be ostracized from their communities if they come forward with their stories. As part of its efforts to ethically and comprehensively document all violations of the conflict, including SGBV, SJAC commissioned a report from the Syria Research and Evaluation Organization (SREO) to assess Syrians’ attitudes towards survivors and perpetrators of SGBV. The results were surprising. Speakers include: Ambassador Steven E. Steiner, Gender Advisor USIP, Shabnam Mojtahidi, Legal and Strategy Analyst, Syria Justice and Accountability Center, Cindy Dyer, Vice President of Human Rights, Vital Voices, and Sussan Tahmasebi, Director of MENA, ICAN.
- Cyber Risk Wednesday: 2016 Threat Landscape | Wednesday, December 9 | 4:00-5:30 pm | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | On the cyber front, 2015 paints a dark picture. The year has been filled with massive data breaches, disruptive cyberattacks, and espionage. Neither government agencies nor private companies were safe. Nations have become increasingly comfortable with fighting their battles online, using covert cyberattacks to accompany traditional warfare in on-going conflicts in Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Will 2016 be any different? While data breaches and hybrid warfare are likely to continue, Internet users’ awareness of cybersecurity issues has reached an all-time high, companies are pouring investments into strengthening their cyber defenses, the United States and China were able to reach a deal banning commercial cyber espionage despite the countries’ otherwise lukewarm relations, and the privacy issues are getting prime time attention. Speakers include: Luke Dembosky
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for National Security
US Department of Justice, Jason Healey Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Atlantic Council, Ellen Nakashima National Security Reporter The Washington Post, and Mark O’Hare
Director, President, and CEO, Security First Corp. - Implementing Counterinsurgency In Afghanistan: Lessons From Village Stability Operations And Afghan Local Police (VSO/ALP) | Thursday, December 10 | 11:00 am | Institute of World Politics | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In 2010, towards the end of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan, US Special Operations Forces (SOF) and their international partners experimented with a new way of implementing counterinsurgency, Village Stability Operations (VSO) and Afghan Local Police (ALP). VSO/ALP is based on a “bottom-up” rather than “top-down” approach that focused on soldiers interacting with local Afghan populations, supporting traditional local tribal governance, and training local security forces. In this discussion, Dr. Lofdahl will review lessons which can be drawn from the VSO/ALP experience in Afghanistan. Speaker: Dr. Corey Lofdahl, Senior Scientist at Charles River Analytics.
- Planning for Korean Unification: What Is Seoul Doing? | Thursday, December 10 | 12:00-1:30 pm | The Heritage Foundation | REGISTER TO ATTEND | South Korean President Park Geun-hye has made Korean unification a central tenet of her foreign policy strategy. More so than her predecessors, she has made reunification a tangible objective. Despite repeated attempts at reconciliation, North Korea has rejected dialogue and criticizes President Park’s unification outreach as unrealistic, seeing it as a threat to regime stability. Issues to be addressed would include the blueprints of Korean unification, how to overcome North Korean resistance, and how to achieve or pay for it. To learn more about South Korea’s plans for achieving unification, join us for a discussion with three distinguished members of South Korea’s bipartisan Presidential Committee for Unification Preparation. Speakers include: Dr. Chung Chong-wook, Vice-Chairman of the Presidential Committee for Unification Preparation, Dr. Moon Chung-in, Professor of Political Science, Yonsei University, and Dr. Kim Byung-yeon Professor Economics, Seoul National University.
- Hope, Innovation, Activism: The Critical Role Of Millennials In Afghanistan | Thursday, December 10 | 12:00 – 1:30pm | Rumi Forum | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Ambassador Dr. Hamdullah Mohib will explore why this demographic matters — the role of millennials in Afghan society today, and the important role they have to play in the country’s future on December 10, 2015. A young man builds an aircraft from scratch; a teenage boy builds an internet connection out of trash scraps; a young woman uses her savings to found a coding school for girls and a women-run IT company; a group of students initiate a recycling campaign to clean up their city; young people rally on social media and in the streets to protest the unjust killing of a young woman. These are stories from Afghanistan that you don’t hear about. Roughly 75% of the population in Afghanistan is under the age of 35. While much of the media focuses on the challenges of the new government and the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan today, the country’s hopeful, innovative, educated and active millennial population is defining and building the country’s future.
- Climate Security and Migration | Friday, December 11 | 10:00am – 12:00 pm | Center for New American Security | REGISTER TO ATTEND | On December 11, please join CNAS for a public event on climate security and migration. We will explore questions of how the United States, in collaboration with foreign partners, multilateral institutions, and civil society, should tackle future climate migration. What are the key initiatives, institutions and challenges involved in successfully addressing climate migration? Does the issue of climate migration fit our current framework and processes for dealing with migration? What should the international community be doing now? The events over the summer and fall in Europe, albeit not due to climate change, were illustrative of the scale of the challenges involved for policymakers and security leaders. Climatic change will add another layer to the challenges the global community will face in addressing migration, including explicitly climate change-driven migration, in the years ahead. Speakers include: Hon. Sharon E. Burke, Senior Advisor, New America, Dr. Daniel Chiu, Deputy Director, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Atlantic Council, Sherri Goodman, CEO and President, Consortium for Ocean Leadership, and CDR Jim Moran, Senior Strategist, Emerging Policy, Deputy Commandant for Operations U.S. Coast Guard
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks Nov 23-27
- The “Pitiless” War: A Strategy After the Paris Attacks | Monday November 23rd | 10:00 – 11:15 | German Marshall Fund | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In the aftermath of the November 13 terrorist attacks in Paris committed by the self-proclaimed Islamic State group (ISIS), French President François Hollande declared that “….we are going to lead a war which will be pitiless.” What is the proper military, intelligence, and diplomatic response to counter to these recent brutal attacks against Western targets? What role will the United States play going forward? What does Europe need to do differently to meet this threat? What should the transatlantic alliance do about Syria and Iraq? With Hollande scheduled to meet U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington on November 24, and with these questions in mind, The German Marshall Fund of the Unites States (GMF) is pleased to invite you to an on-the-record discussion. Speakers include: Ambassador James Franklin Jeffrey, Philip Solondz Distinguished Fellow, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy; Matthew G. Olsen, Former Director, National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC); Derek Chollet, Counselor and Senior Advisor for Security and Defense Policy, The German Marshall Fund of the United States; Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
- The Deteriorating State of Human Rights in China | Monday, November 23rd | 12:00 – 1:30 | CATO Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Since assuming the presidency of China in 2013, Xi Jinping has become the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Zedong, centralizing his authority over the Communist Party, the military, and the government. Eminent scholars and civil rights activists from China will describe the deterioration of human rights under Xi’s rule, citing the rise of arbitrary arrests and detentions; a crackdown on academic freedom; the persecution of some ethnic groups; and increasing restrictions on journalists, the internet, religious organizations, and other groups in civil society. The speakers will discuss those developments within the context of other policies, including a new national security law, an anti-corruption campaign, and economic measures in the face of a significant growth slowdown. Speakers include: Chen Guangcheng, Visiting Fellow, Catholic University; Teng Biao, Associate, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard Kennedy School; and Wei Jingsheng, Chairman, Wei Jingsheng Foundation; with comments by Xia Yeliang, Visiting Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute; moderated by Ian Vasquez, Director, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute.
- Understanding ISIS: Paris, Beirut, and U.S. Policy Webinar | Monday, November 23rd |4:00 – 5:00| Institute for Policy Studies | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Terrorism survives wars, people don’t. Last week’s attacks in Paris left over 100 people dead. In Beirut, car bombs killed 43 people. Shortly before these attacks, President Obama defended his “war on terror” and said that ISIS was contained. As the civilian death toll rises and the refugee crisis grows, the U.S. global war on terror continues — and continues to fail, ultimately because you can’t bomb terrorism out of existence. In this 1-hour webinar, IPS Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis will discuss the new developments in Paris and Beirut, in the refugee crisis in Europe and the U.S., and discuss solutions that promote true diplomacy over military action.
- A New Cold War? The West and Russia | Monday, November 23rd | 5:30pm | Foreign Policy Research Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the prospect of protracted confrontation between Russia and the West has so far met with an uncertain response on the part of the West. Has a new Cold War begun, and how should America and its allies respond? Nikolas Gvosdev, a frequent commentator on Russian and Eurasian affairs will explore these issues. He was the Editor of The National Interest magazine and a Senior Fellow at The Nixon Center in Washington, D.C. He received his doctorate from St Antony’s College, Oxford University, where he studied on a Rhodes Scholarship. His work has appeared in such outlets as Foreign Affairs, The Financial Times, The Los Angeles Times, and Orbis, and he has appeared as a commentator on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, National Public Radio, and BBC.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tatters
American policy in Syria has supported the “moderate” opposition and sought the removal of Bashar al Assad. Four and a half years into the rebellion there, extremists have largely sidelined the moderate opposition in the center of the country. Russia and Iran are doubling down on their support for Bashar al Assad, who is well on towards fulfilling his prophecy “either me or the jihadis.”
Washington has also wanted to protect Syria’s neighbors from its civil war. Efforts to contain the war’s effects have been no more successful than the efforts to win it. With more than 4 million refugees unsettling Syria’s neighbors and 7 million displaced inside the country, it will take decades to restore the region to some semblance of order. The Islamic State has taken over one third of Iraq. The war has embroiled Turkey in renewed conflict with its own Kurds. Lebanon and Jordan hang by threads to a semblance of order. Israel faces extremists just a few miles from the Syrian territory it occupies on the Golan Heights.
Attention in the press is focused on the Pentagon’s failed efforts over the past year to train and equip viable “moderate” forces to fight against the Islamic State in Syria. Few Syrians sign up. They prefer to fight Assad. The vetting process is long and arduous. Of the few who have gone back to Syria, most have ended up dead, captured or intimidated into turning over equipment and weapons to extremists. The rebalancing of the military equation that John Kerry had rightly recognized as necessary to altering the outcome in a direction the US would find agreeable is simply not occurring.
Enter the Russians. Moscow’s deployment of fighting forces, including attack aircraft, to Latakia would not be necessary if the Assad regime were doing well. Moscow’s immediate military goal is to block the advance of opposition forces towards western Syria, where both the heartland of the Alawite population and Russia’s naval base lie. Its bigger purpose is to protect the regime and foil America’s intention of replacing it with something resembling a democracy. Moscow won’t distinguish in its targets between extremists and moderates but will seek to rebalance the military equation in a direction opposite to what Kerry had in mind.
The advancing opposition forces in the center of the country are mostly Sunni extremists, not moderates. Extremists have agreed to a population exchange with Hizbollah that will clear Sunnis from near the strategically important border with Lebanon and Shia from extremist-held areas farther north. Population exchange aids cantonalization: Syria will soon be a patchwork of areas of control: the regime in Damascus and the west, Kurds along much of the northern border with Turkey, relatively moderate opposition in the south and some Damascus suburbs, assorted Islamist extremists in the center and the Islamic State in the center east. Enclaves will be overrun or traded. Confrontation lines will congeal. Stalemate will ensue.
None of this is good news for either Syrians or Americans. But it is not the worst news.
The viability of the patches will depend on two factors: the strength of the military forces that control them and how effectively they are governed. The regime has been protecting and governing the areas it controls well enough that they have attracted a significant inflow of people, including many whose sympathies are with the opposition. The Islamic State governs brutally in the territory it controls, but has lost some in the north to Kurdish forces, who have set up representative governing structures that include Arabs and appear to be functioning relatively well, their lives made easier by the de facto truce between the Kurds and the Assad regime.
The relative moderates have arguably been less effective than the regime, the Islamic State and the Kurds in governing the areas they control. This is important. The war can be lost on the battlefield. But it has to be won in city hall. The local councils that have formed more or less spontaneously in many “liberated” areas are not doing well. Strapped for cash and untended by the opposition Syrian Interim Government, in many areas they are unable to deliver much except political squabbling among themselves. While unquestionably better than nothing, they lack both legitimacy and technical capabilities as well as connections to a broader political framework. Western aid to local councils has sometimes done more harm than good.
The US military effort in Syria is visibly in tatters. But it won’t matter much if the less visible civilian effort conducted in areas controlled by relative moderates doesn’t improve dramatically.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Beyond refugees
On Friday the United States Institute of Peace and Atlantic Council jointly hosted an event titled Middle East Strategy Task Force: Beyond Refugees. The panelists included Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State, Stephen Hadley, former National Security Advisor, David Miliband, President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee, USIP President Nancy Lindborg, and Antoine Frem, Mayor of Jounieh, Lebanon.
Manal Omar, USIP Acting Vice President of the Middle East and Africa Center delivered opening remarks on the goals and findings of the task force’s research. The goal of the group is to outline a strategy that moves beyond refugees and focuses on rebuilding societies for a brighter post-conflict future. She highlighted one important finding: starting with small areas will be much more successful than looking for national solutions. But the strategy for the Middle East must be a global one. Current international aid is insufficient.
Albright said destruction of whole societies in the Middle East is not only a humanitarian emergency, but a political crisis. The international community’s lack of action to end the violence should be seen as a political failure. The lack of effort by the international community is disappointing. The policy failures in the Middle East are clear, even if solutions are difficult to reach.
Lindborg cited four reasons why pushing forward is challenging. Over 60 million people globally are displaced. Funding limitations prevent accomplishing all that is pledged to do. Second, the institutional architecture for providing assistance is not fast enough. Research suggests that in some situations handing out cash rather than food is better for the local economy. Third is the failure to provide education and prevent a “lost generation.” Lastly, security is a challenge. A solution must tackle the heart of the crisis.
Miliband, focused on Europe and the refugees. The feeble response by Europe is not just threatening the refugees, but the European Union as a whole. Refugees must be distributed across the EU. Even though Europe is getting the most attention, it is important to remember that 85% of refugees are in poor countries. He agreed with Lindborg that handing out cash is a better option than physical aid because it empowers the people, limits waste and boosts economies. Miliband concurred with Albright that political solutions are needed to stop the killings.
Lebanon currently hosts 1.2 million refugees. One out of four people in the country are refugees. Mayor Antoine Frem noted that this pressure has exasperated preexisting conditions. The country is a quasi-stable state with severe debt, political, and sectarian issues. Frem stressed that Lebanon alone cannot solve the crisis.
Asked if Russia and the United States would be able to work together, Albright responded “yes,” there is the potential for cooperation, but the difficult part is figuring out the political solution. She added:
…if the Russians really do think that they have some influence on Assad, they can be a part of this and say, ‘we can discuss whether you are in the government or not, but we cannot discuss it if you are dropping barrel bombs’ and they should use their influence that way. The Russians wish to be seen as a normal country. I think it would be useful if they said something that made clear that barrel bombs are not the way to deal with civilians.
She added that it is important not to forget Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
Another question asked about the feasibility of a safe zone. Both the moderator Hadley and Miliband spoke in favor of establishing such an area. Hadley argued that a safe zone must exist strictly for humanitarian purposes to protect civilians rather than to train fighters.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Uncensored
Iran’s Fars News Agency asked me some good questions. Parts of the interview were included in this article, but parts were also cut, as one might expect. I am publishing here the full text, which I hope will find its way into print also in Iran:
Q: What is your opinion about Iran’s plan to resolve the Syria tension?
A: As I understand Iran’s “plan,” it involves 1) a ceasefire, 2) formation of a national unity government, 3) a rewritten constitution and 4) national elections. This is an outline many can accept, even if some might quarrel with the order.
But “the devil is in the details” we say in English:
1) How does the ceasefire come about? Who monitors and enforces it? What sanctions are there against those who violate it? What if some armed groups refuse to participate in it?
2) Who participates in the national unity government? Does Bashar al Assad step aside or remain as president? How is the security of opposition people participating in a national unity government ensured?
3) Who rewrites the constitution? Within what guidelines? How is a new constitution approved?
4) Who calls elections? Who supervises them? Who ensures a safe and secure environment for the campaign as well as the elections? Who counts the votes?
I suspect there will be many more differences over these questions than over the four-point “plan.”
Q: The UK recently announced that the conflict in Syria will not be resolved unless Russia and Iran use their influence on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to help reach a political solution. What do these signals mean?
A: I’m not sure what the UK meant. It is certainly the consensus in Europe and the US that there is no political solution in Syria if Bashar al Assad insists on staying in power. His opposition won’t stop fighting as long as he is there. Iranian and Russian support enables him to remain. I see no sign that either Moscow or Tehran is prepared to risk losing their influence in a post-Assad Syria, which will surely resent the enormous support they have provided him.
Q: What are Turkey’s roles in Syria and the region? Do you confirm its policy in the Middle East?
A: Turkey has four main interests in Syria: it wants Bashar al Assad gone, it wants Kurds in Iraq and Syria to stop supporting the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey, it wants defeat of the Islamic State, and it wants Syrian refugees to return to Syria. The proposed “safe zone” in northern Syria and the Turkish attacks on the Kurds and Islamic State aim to achieve all four objectives, though success is still a long way off.
Q: We know that Turkey had zero foreign policy sometime and it had gains some achievements but today it has taken distance from that. What were and are their problems?
A: As noted above, it has problems with Bashar al Assad, with the Kurds, with the Islamic State and with refugees.
Q: Why is the west silent on Turkey’s support for Daesh?
A: The West has longed implored Turkey to close its border to Daesh fighters and supplies. They have tightened up a lot since ISIS attacked inside Turkey.
It is a figment of Tehran’s imagination that the West is silent. Or maybe a creation of Iran’s propagandists. One of the things most resented in the West is Iran’s implication that the West is not really opposed to Daesh. Nonsense is the polite word we use for that allegation.
Q: Has the US-led coalition succeeded against Daesh?
A: No, but it has had some successes, taking back about one-quarter of the territory Daesh once controlled, depriving it of some of its revenue and killing quite a few of its commanders.
That one-quarter is mostly Kurdish-populated territory. Taking back Sunni-populated territory, especially in Iraq, is proving far more difficult.
Q: How can Muslim countries across the region led by Iran stand against Daesh?
A: The Sunni Muslim countries of the region don’t want to be led by Iran. They are fighting Daesh, but as part of a Western-led Coalition. Iran is also fighting Daesh, but coordination is difficult so long as Iran fails to distinguish between Daesh and more moderate Syrian fighters. From the Western and I think Arab perspectives, it looks like Iran is fighting to defend Assad for sectarian reasons more than it is fighting Daesh.
Q: Let’s go to Iraq. How do you evaluate the ongoing Iran/ Iraq relation? What about the future?
A: Iran has supported Iraq’s response to Daesh quickly and effectively, fearing Daesh success in Iraq would mean trouble sooner or later also for Iran.
But it has used the opportunity in particular to support Shia militias (Hashd, Popular Mobilization Units). That is a mistake, because it exacerbates sectarian tensions in Iraq and increases the likelihood of a breakup of the Iraqi state that Tehran says it does not want.
It seems to me that a strong but non-threatening and unified Iraq is what Iran should be aiming for. I don’t see it doing that at present. Instead the IRGC is pursuing a less wise policy of arming and otherwise supporting sectarian forces that will make keeping the Iraqi state together very difficult.
Q: What is your opinion about latest Russia military developments and build up in some parts of Europe and the Arctic? I do not mean Ukraine at all.
A: The Russians have legitimate interests in the Arctic. But past experience suggests they will try to bite off more than they can chew. They are already overextended in Ukraine and the Middle East. Putin has strong domestic political support, but he lacks the money and military capacity to sustain his aggressive foreign policy.
Q: And thank you for your participating. Could you please explain about Iran/West relations after the deal?
A: I don’t see Iran/West relations much changed, except for the prospect of much greater trade and investment, especially between Europe and Iran, once sanctions are lifted. But Iranian authorities have reiterated their hostility to the United States, which always gets a lot of coverage here.
Washington doesn’t care much about that but wants Iran to stop threatening Israel’s existence and subverting Gulf neighbors through a highly sectarian policy of supporting Shia forces (sometimes political, sometimes military), especially in Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen, Lebanon and Kuwait. Iran and the US share an interest in defeating Daesh, but active cooperation on that requires that Iran stop subversion of American friends and allies in the region. As we know only too well, subversion breeds resentment, not influence.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Refugees are not the problem
The flow of refugees into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa is now attracting widespread attention. The 71 Syrians who suffocated last week in a truck in Austria, and the three-year-old who drowned in the Mediterranean, have done what close to 250,000 dying in Syria over the past 3.5 years (that’s an average of about 200 per day) could not: they have mobilized public opinion. Germany and Sweden are rightly praised for opening their doors. Hungary is trying to seal itself off. The Americans may take more than the trickle of refugees they have accepted so far, but still an insignificant number. The UN is appealing for funds, which have been sorely lacking. More than $8.4 billion is needed.
But refugees are not the root of the problem. Nor are the ones who arrive in Europe and the US the Syrians most in need or most at risk. They are the symptom–a relatively small and distant one–of a much larger and more challenging problem: the multi-sided conflict in Syria, to which we’ve become unfortunately inured. Four million people have managed to escape Syria, mostly fleeing to neighboring countries. They are the relatively fortunate ones, when not jammed into a truck in Austria or drowning in the Med. Seven million have been displaced inside Syria, where relief is much harder to find.
Of course problems are much more visible when up close and personal. But we need to keep the focus on the disease, not only the spreading ripple of symptoms.
The disease has its origins in the Syrian dictatorship’s response to peaceful pro-democracy protests. Determined to stay in power, it cracked down violently, concentrating its efforts against relative moderates and the majority Sunni community, both of which were a real threat to Bashar al Assad’s hold on power. The natural result was the growth of Sunni extremism, which has helped Bashar demonstrate that the only alternative to his rule is Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. To this day, his forces continue to focus disproportionately not on jihadi terrorism but rather on those who say they want a secular, democratic state.
There is no way to run this history backwards. The extremists will not disappear if Assad falls. It is highly unlikely that relative moderates would replace him. The best we can hope for now is to create some relatively safe places inside Syria where moderates can govern, providing protection for civilians and beginning to service their needs so that they don’t flee.
The northern area that the Americans and Turks are contemplating for this purpose is hardly ideal. Large parts of it are barren rural areas over which control will be hard to establish. Turkomans populate much of the border area with Turkey, along with Kurds against whom the Turks have been fighting. The Kurds already control much of the rest of the border, where the key to making things safer for civilians will be cooperation between them and the Arabs who live both among them and farther south.
The area along the Jordanian/Syrian border in the south is another possible protected zone, one dominated by relatively moderate Sunni insurgents, including some with US training, and the non-Muslim, Arab Druze. The Druze have tried to hold their fire and avoid close alignment with either the regime or the insurgents. Self-preservation is their priority. Bringing them into closer alignment with the insurgents would require giving them the confidence that they will be protected from the vindictive reaction of the regime.
Protected areas north and south would not solve Syria’s problems, but with Coalition (read US plus at least some European and Gulf) support, they might begin to stem the tide. If nothing is done to enable Syrians to remain in their country, it is a virtual certainty that next year’s outflow will be much greater than this year’s, with economic and political consequences for both the neighboring countries and Europe that will dwarf what we are seeing today. But the refugees will still not be the root of the problem.
RSS - Posts
