Tag: Russia
What could go wrong?
Tucked away in Fred Hof’s latest post on Syria, is an extraordinary condemnation of the Obama adminsitration’s ineptitude on Syria:
The Obama administration did not anticipate that the Assad regime would use the Washington-Moscow agreement on chemical weapons as a free pass to terrorize civilian populations. When the administration pressed for the setting of a conference date, it did not intend for the regime to treat that date as an interim finish line, as it sprints for military advantage with the critical assistance of Iranian-raised militias and Russian rearmament. When the administration urged the nationalist Syrian opposition to commit itself to attending the conference, it had no inkling that Islamist rivals to the West’s opposition of choice would humiliate the recipients of US meals-ready-to-eat, medical kits, and pickup trucks.
None of these setbacks was difficult to anticipate. Many commenters wrote about how the chemical weapons agreement would make the Asad regime an essential partner to the international community and stabilize its hold on power. The speed-up of military efforts is canonical behavior before peace negotiations. The takeover of the opposition by Islamist forces had been widely anticipated, even if the particular seizure of supplies was not.
Now let’s anticipate the possible negative consequences of the January 22 (Montreux) and January 23 (Geneva) meetings, assuming that the Syrian opposition follows much Western advice and goes into them with a sincere list of nationalist figures, heavily loaded with minorities and not too offensive to the Russians, to staff the post-Asad regime. What might go wrong? Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Where do you find free cheese?
In what may be the biggest auction since Moscow and Washington vied for influence in various third world countries during the Cold War, Ukraine (pop: 45 million) is attracting some hefty bids. Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday upped the ante: he plunked down $15 billion to buy potentially worthless Ukrainian government bonds and cut the price of Russian natural gas (by what I figure is one third). At the same time, he said he wasn’t insisting on Ukraine joining his Eurasian customs union. He figures the European Union won’t be willing to match that.
That does not mean “game over,” because the demonstrators are still in Maidan calling for President Yanukovich to sign an association agreement with the EU, one that Catherine Ashton is claiming will not hurt Russia’s interests in Ukraine. It would open Ukrainian markets and force its producers to adjust, which is why Yanukovich is asking for another 20 billion euros (per year!) from Brussels. I suppose he may still get some substantial fraction of that, provided he didn’t make the mistake of promising Putin he would not sign with the EU. The parliamentary opposition is threatening to block the Russian deal, prompting the choicist comment I’ve heard on the situation: Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The world according to CFR
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) survey of prevention priorities for 2014 is out today. Crowdsourced, it is pretty much the definition of elite conventional wisdom. Pundits of all stripes contribute.
The top tier includes contingencies with high impact and moderate likelihood (intensification of the Syrian civil war, a cyberattack on critical US infrastructure, attacks on the Iranian nuclear program or evidence of nuclear weapons intent, a mass casualty terrorist attack on the US or an ally, or a severe North Korean crisis) as well as those with moderate impact and high likelihood (in a word “instability” in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq or Jordan). None merited the designation high impact and high likelihood, though many of us might have suggested Syria, Iraq and Pakistan for that category. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Sharp differences on Syria
Al-Monitor and Johns Hopkins SAIS teamed up last week for a full-day conference on “The United States, Russia and the Middle East”. The afternoon session had a panel on the Syrian regional crisis, which moderator David Sanger of The New York Times described as not the typical panel in Washington, with everyone getting along.
Josh Landis, Director of the University of Oklahoma’s Center for Middle East Studies, said the US is now mostly concerned with the al-Qaeda presence in Syria and the refugee problem affecting Syria’s neighboring countries. Inside Syria there are no good guys. The military cannot be a substitute for Assad. The idea that the military and Ba’th Party can stay in power if Assad is removed is fictional. These institutions are expressions of Assad. If there is no plan to remove Assad then the civil war inside Syria is going to continue. The only two alternatives for Syria would be either to partition the country or to allow Russia to support Assad with arms in order to regain control of the country. Neither option is good for the rebels. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, December 2-6
After a week of Thanksgiving festivities, here are this week’s top events:
1. CHP’s Vision for Turkey: An Address by Chairman Kılıçdaroğlu
Monday, December 2 | 11:30am – 1:00pm
Brookings Institution, Falk Auditorium, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
On December 2, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings will host Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, chairman of Turkey’s main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), for an address on Turkey, its foreign policy and its relations with the United States. In his remarks, Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu will offer CHP’s vision for the future of Turkey with a particular focus on Turkish democracy and economics. He will also reflect on Turkey’s role in its neighborhood and offer thoughts on its transatlantic relations.
Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu has served as the chair of the Republican People’s Party since May 2010. He was first elected in 2002 as a member of the Turkish Parliament for the Istanbul province. He was reelected as an MP in 2007 and served as CHP’s Group Vice President until declaring his candidacy for the leadership of the party. Prior to his political career, Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu served in numerous high-ranking positions in the Turkish Ministry of Finance and the Social Security Organization.
Senior Fellow Ted Piccone, acting vice president and director of Foreign Policy at Brookings, will introduce Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu. At the conclusion of his remarks, Brookings TUSIAD Senior Fellow Kemal Kirişci will moderate the discussion. After the program, Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu will take audience questions.
| Introduction |
| Ted Piccone Acting Vice President and Director, Foreign Policy The Brookings Institution |
| Moderator |
| Kemal Kirişci TUSIAD Senior Fellow and Director, Turkey Project The Brookings Institution |
| Featured Speaker |
| Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu Chairman Republican People’s Party |
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
When it rains
When it rains, it pours, or so it seems with diplomatic initiatives. Yesterday it was the six-month Iran nuclear deal. Today it is the United Nations announcement of a date for Syria peace talks: January 22, in Geneva.
Neither one faces easy implementation, but the Syria peace talks are the dicier proposition. A lot of things are still unclear, including who is invited and how they will be represented. But Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon was at pains to be clear about the purpose:
“full implementation of the Geneva Communique of 30 June 2012,” including the establishment of a transitional governing body with full executive powers, including over military and security entities.
This is word for word what the Syrian Coalition of Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (Etilaf) requires.
It is a tall order for Bashar al Asad, as it implies that the meeting aims to remove him from power, if not from Syria. Friends in Etilaf doubt the regime will show up for a meeting with this purpose. I think it more likely it will, but with people who cannot make serious commitments for Bashar al Asad, whatever their nominal titles. It is very unlikely that a one-day meeting is going to move us more than a millimeter closer to a negotiated settlement in Syria. I’ll be delighted if it does that much.
How, you should ask, are the two news items related? Did the nuclear deal pave the way for the Syria talks? Or vice versa, did some sort of unannounced side deal on Syria pave the way for the nuclear deal? Or are these two developments unrelated?
There are certainly some who have hoped that a nuclear deal would open the door to a broader rapprochement with Iran. That’s possible, but unlikely in such a short timeframe. Syria is no less vital to Iran and its “resistance axis” (which also includes Hizbollah and Hamas) today than it was before the nuclear agreement was reached.
It is far more likely that Iran and Russia, the Asad regime’s key allies, are hoping to find the Americans pliable on Syria and even willing to accept half a loaf now that they’ve had their top priority at least temporarily met. The Americans and their European partners (including Turkey) are worried about the rampant proliferation of extremists in Syria, reliant on Bashar al Asad to complete implementation of the chemical weapons agreement, and aware that things are going badly for the opposition military forces. It is not a good moment from Etilaf’s perspective to be negotiating an end to the regime.
There is, however, virtue in talking, if the UN can manage to get both the regime and opposition to Geneva with credible delegations. If, as I expect, the regime is nowhere near ready for Bashar al Asad to step aside, the obvious subject to discuss is the protection of civilians. The international norm against military attacks on civilian populations is at least as important as the international norm against the use of chemical weapons. It is violated in Syria on a daily basis.
The regime’s use of artillery, aircraft and missiles against civilian population centers should be ended. Moscow and Tehran have the leverage to make this happen. Without their financing and weapons supplies the regime wouldn’t last a month. Even if the Geneva meeting is unable to achieve its avowed purpose of creating a transitional government, it would be doing something worthwhile if it provides an opportunity for the Americans and Europeans to get Russia and Iran to pressure Asad to end attacks on civilians.
The Geneva meeting might also serve a useful purpose if it fails altogether, forcing the Americans to rethink strategy in Syria (as Fred Hof suggests). But if the Americans do nothing different after such a failure, the damage will be to the credibility of Etilaf and any other groups that go to Geneva. When it rains, it pours, especially on the heads of those who aren’t well supplied with protection.
RSS - Posts
