You know things are bad when you lay siege to your own capital. They are worse if the rebels seize border posts. The worst is if you flee to your ancestral homeland, with the apparent intention of making a last stand there. It’s even bad if no one knows where you are. And its over the top bad if you start moving your chemical weapons, either to use them or to prevent them from falling into rebel hands.
Yes, Bashar al Asad’s days are numbered, but it is still unclear how many people he will kill before he meets his end. Even after he is gone, Syria could implode in a frenzy of violence. Bashar’s Alawite co-religionists are trying to carve out an enclave in the west, bombarding and murdering nearby Sunnis in the process. Damascenes are leaving for safer ground. Kurds are organizing themselves. Christians and Druze face a risky choice: Bashar, who has tolerated them, or a rebellion that may be far more Islamic than they will be able to tolerate.
An implosion inside Syria will necessarily have a broad impact in the region. Turkey is already hosting upwards of 100,000 refugees and supplying the rebels inside Syria. Jordan and Lebanon are also burdened with Syrians fleeing the violence. The refugee presence has aggravated sectarian tensions inside Lebanon, where Sunnis are anxious to support the Syrian rebellion while Shia (and Hizbullah) are standing by Bashar. Iraq has closed its border posts where the rebels have taken over, in an apparent effort to prevent the Sunni population of western Iraq from aiding the rebellion in Syria. The impact will be minimal: that border is like a sieve.
The Russian and Chinese veto yesterday of still another modest Security Council resolution has guaranteed that Bashar will not hear a unified international community voice asking him to step down. The Russians have doubled their bet on the regime and now stand to lose alliance, port and arms sales if the rebellion succeeds. The hopes of many, including me, that they would abandon ship when it became apparent that it was sinking are not being realized.
The Americans are providing both rhetorical and real, covert support to the rebellion, whose success would be a major blow against American enemies Hizbullah and Iran. But they have done little to prevent the kind of chaotic implosion that would spoil the triumph. They seem concerned mainly with the possible use of chemical weapons. My own guess–but it is only a guess–is that Bashar will find it hard to convince his soldiers to use them. It is difficult for soldiers, especially in 100+ degree weather, to protect themselves from chemical weapons. The soldiers will know how indiscriminate the effects are.
It is not clear how the international community would react to the use of chemical weapons. I might hope that would change some minds in Moscow and Beijing, but I’ve begun to wonder. It looks as if this is a challenge the current international system will fail to meet. The outcome will be decided by violence inside Syria. It is not going to be pretty.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
In response to a Chicago Council on Foreign Relations poll showing Americans mostly unsupportive of bombing Syrian air defenses or sending troops there, @MaydaySyria this morning tweeted:
We don’t’ care, we don’t need you and your coward #Obama.
Certainly the armed opposition is showing a lot of daring. Today’s attacks in Damascus include a bombing that killed the Syrian Defense Minister, his deputy and possibly other major figures in the Syrian security establishment.
The Syrian army today responded:
the General Command of the Army and the Armed Forces stresses resolution to decisively eliminating the criminal and murder gangs and chasing them out of their rotten hideouts wherever they are until clearing the homeland of their evils.
It added:
whoever thinks that by targeting some leaders they could twist Syria’s arms is deluded, affirming that Syria, people, army and leadership, is today more determined to counter terrorism with all its forms and cutting off the hand of whoever thinks to harm Syria’s security.
So it looks as if the contest between the Asad regime and its inchoate opposition will be settled (or not) by force, not negotation.
The escalating violence in Damascus is occurring–not incidentally–at just the moment the UN Security Council faces a decision on whether to extend its observer mission in Syria. The Syrian opposition has generally wanted it withdrawn, because of its ineffectiveness. The Russians and the Asad regime have been trying to keep it alive.
I’m entirely on the side of the Syrian opposition in their efforts to bring down Bashar al Asad, but I’d like to see the UN observers stay. They have played a useful role in reporting the various massacres Asad has indulged in as well as its flaunting of the Annan peace plan with the use of heavy weapons in populated areas. I don’t see how reducing the transparency of what is going on in Syria will be helpful to ensuring a successful transition there. If the Asad regime survives and continues the violence against its opponents, the observers could continue to play a limited but useful role in reporting on what they see.
But I confess to another motive as well: if Asad goes, Syria is going to need an international presence to help keep the peace. The UN monitors could form the vanguard of such a peacekeeping force. Where we will find the needed numbers I have no idea. Once Asad falls, Syria will have numerous armed forces still in motion. Keeping them separate and protecting the civilian population will be no easy task. Conventional back-of-the-envelop calculations based on Syria’s population and geographic size would suggest a peacekeeping force of 50,000 or so. I have no idea where such a number would come from, though I can well imagine that Moscow will be offering.
If the international community fails to prepare for post-Asad Syria, there is a strong likelihood of massive violence against the regime’s supporters and sympathizers. Some will be able to protect themselves in Alawite strongholds. Others will flee to Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. But some will be trapped and vulnerable. “Politicide,” the murder of a particular political group, often follows revolution. It would be a serious mistake for the international community not to anticipate the need to protect Alawites, Christians, Druze and Sunni who remained loyal to Asad.
Much as I might wish the fall of the regime, I’ve got to recognize that what comes then is just as important. Excitement about current events should not blind us to future risks. If Syria implodes in a violent spasm of sectarian violence, or even breaks up, the Levant could find itself in chaos for years. Getting Syria onto a path toward unity, stability and eventually democracy is not going to be easy.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
1. Syria: What Lies Ahead, Woodrow Wilson Center, 12-1 pm July 16
July 16, 2012 // 12:00pm — 1:00pm
What if the Syrian opposition doesn’t unite? Are the Alawites preparing for a separate state? Are the Kurds? What is the likely impact of a Sunni dominated Syrian government on the region? How much U.S. intervention is the right amount? Joshua Landis discusses these questions and the future of Syria.
Location:
6th Floor, Woodrow Wilson Center
Event Speakers List:
-
Associate Professor and Director, Center for Middle East Studies, University of Oklahoma and author of “Syria Comment,” daily newsletter on Syria
2. War and Protest in Sudan, Center for American Progress, 1-2:30 pm July 16
The one-year anniversary of South Sudan’s independence is fast approaching. South Sudan and Sudan have seemingly stepped back from the brink of all-out war, but they have yet to resolve many outstanding issues within the context of the ongoing North-South negotiation process. Meanwhile, conflict is deepening in a number of Sudan’s regions, while the pro-democracy movement – led by youth, civil society organizations, and opposition political parties – is protesting Sudan’s dictatorship. This violence and unrest poses significant implications for South Sudan and the region at large.Join us for a discussion that will address these multiple and interconnected challenges and explore ways to build peace and security within and between the two Sudans.The Enough Project will also debut a short video – shot in South Sudan – highlighting the reflections of South Sudanese and Sudanese on the occasion of South Sudan’s first anniversary of independence.
Featured speakers:
Sarah Cleto Rial, Program Director, My Sister’s Keeper
Francis Deng, Former U.N. Special Advisor for the Prevention of Genocide
Omer Ismail, Senior Advisor, Enough Project
John Prendergast, Co-founder, Enough Project
Moderated by:
John C. Bradshaw, Executive Director, Enough Project
Refreshments will be served at 12:30 p.m.
RSVP
RSVP for this event
For more information, call 202-682-1611
Location
Center for American Progress
1333 H St. NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Map & Directions 
Nearest Metro: Blue/Orange Line to McPherson Square or Red Line to Metro Center
3. The U.S. & the Greater Middle East, Center for a New American Security, 12-2 pm July 17
Event Time and Location
Tuesday, July 17, 2012 – 12:00pm – 2:00pm
Constitution Ballroom-Grand Hyatt Washington
1000 H Street NW Suite 400
Washington, DC 20001
The U.S. and the Greater Middle East
Election 2012: The National Security Agenda
This event has been moved to the Constitution Ballroom Grand Hyatt Washington. Event registration is now closed. You can view the live event webcast on this page.
On Tuesday, July 17, join the New America Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Center for a New American Security for an in-depth discussion of the opportunities and challenges posed to the United States by events in the Greater Middle East. Panelists will discuss electoral transitions following the Arab Spring, the changing role of Turkey, and Iran’s regional and international profile. Ambassador Dennis Ross will provide introductory remarks.
This event continues a unique collaboration among these institutions in the presidential campaign season, “Election 2012: The National Security Agenda.” Past conversations covered the U.S. role in the world, policy in East Asia, and the national security budget.
Schedule:
12:00 p.m. — Registration and Lunch
12:30 p.m.-2:00 p.m. —Panel Discussion and Q&A
Featured Speaker
Ambassador Dennis Ross
Counselor, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Former Special Assistant to President Obama
Former National Security Council senior director for the Central Region
Former Special Advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
Panelists
Dr. Marc Lynch
Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security
Danielle Pletka
Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies
American Enterprise Institute
Former Director for Iraq on the National Security Council under Bush and Obama administrations
Senior National Security Studies Fellow, New America Foundation
Moderator
Director, National Security Studies Program
New America Foundation
CNN will livestream this event on the
Opinion page. On Twitter? Follow
#natsecurity2012 for updates throughout the series.
About the Series:
This fall’s presidential election comes at a critical moment for the United States and the world. The demands for U.S. leadership are substantial–particularly in the dynamic Middle East and Asia-Pacific–yet fiscal challenges are forcing reductions in defense spending, sparking new thinking about American engagement with the world. In this important election season, many Americans will look to the next U.S. president to repair the economy, but he will nonetheless inherit complicated military and diplomatic engagements and govern as commander-in-chief of the globe’s most powerful nation. As a result, the discussion of national security issues must take a central role in the 2012 presidential election.
This event is the fourth in a series of campaign-season seminars on the critical issues of U.S. foreign and defense policy, sponsored by AEI, the Center for a New American Security and the New America Foundation.
4. Electoral Reform in Lebanon: What’s in Store for 2013, Aspen Institute, 12:30 pm July 17
The U.S.-Lebanon Dialogue Program will host “Electoral Reform in Lebanon: What’s in Store for 2013” to launch Dr. Ekmekji’s new policy paper exploring the complexities of Lebanon’s confessional society and avenues for reform in its electoral system. During this conversation, experts will discuss Dr. Ekmekji’s paper in light of the debate on democratic representation and the rights of minorities in Lebanon, Syria, and the region. The panelists will also offer actionable recommendations for lasting reform that reflects Lebanon’s democratic prospects, leading up to the parliamentary elections in 2013.
Dr. Arda Arsenian Ekmekji is the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Haigazian University in Beirut, Lebanon. She is professor of intercultural studies and a member of various non-governmental organization boards in Lebanon, such as World Vision and the Middle East Council of Churches. She was the only female member on the National Commission for a New Electoral Law (2006) and on the Supervisory Commission for the Electoral Campaign (2009).
We hope you will join us for what will be an interesting and informative discussion on:
July 17, 2012 at 12:30PM
The Aspen Institute
One Dupont Circle
Suite 700
Washington, D.C.
Please contact Sarah Harlan at sarah.harlan@aspeninst.org or 202-736-2526 to RSVP. We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Featuring
Dr. Arda Ekmekji, Dean of Arts and Sciences, Haigazian University – Beirut, Lebanon; Author, “Confessionalism and Electoral Reform in Lebanon”
Mr. Hassan Mneimneh, Senior Transatlantic Fellow, German Marshall Fund of the United States
In a moderated discussion with
Mr. Leslie Campbell, Senior Associate and Regional Director, Middle East and North Africa (MENA),
National Democratic Institute
5. Democratization in the Arab World, Carnegie, 12:15-1:45 pm July 18
Wednesday, July 18, 2012 – Washington, D.C.
12:15 PM – 1:45 PM EST
Based on the democratization experiences of other countries, what are the chances that the Arab Spring will lead to a flowering of democracy? In a new book, RAND Corporation experts extensively analyze past democratization examples over nearly four decades and analyze the Arab revolutions that up-ended longstanding authoritarian regimes.
Laurel Miller and Jeffrey Martini of the RAND Corporation will discuss what the successes and setbacks of other transitions from authoritarianism suggest about the problems ahead for Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere, and how they might be overcome. Carnegie’s Thomas Carothers will discuss and Marina Ottaway will moderate.
6. Can Pakistan Grow Again? Atlantic Council, 3:30-5 pm July 18
Please join the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center on July 18 for a public discussion entitled, “Can Pakistan Grow Again?” with deputy chairman of the Planning Commission of Pakistan Nadeem Ul Haque.
In the face of major domestic, regional, and international political and economic difficulties, Pakistan’s growth rate has suffered in recent years, falling well behind the growth of its population. Unemployment is rampant, especially among the burgeoning youth population. Rising urbanization is creating new challenges for policymakers. A low tax-to-GDP ratio is often cited as a major hindrance to growth. Yet, there are many other underlying economic issues behind Pakistan’s problem. Dr. Haque will offer his views on how growth may be regenerated in Pakistan and the potential pitfalls that lie ahead.
A discussion with
Nadeem Ul Haque
Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission
Government of Pakistan
Moderated by
Shuja Nawaz
Director, South Asia Center
Atlantic Council
| DATE: |
Wednesday, July 18, 2012 |
| TIME: |
3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. |
| LOCATION: |
Atlantic Council
1101 15th Street, NW, 11th Floor,
Washington, DC 20005 |
To attend, RSVP with your name and affiliation (acceptances only) to southasia@acus.org.
Nadeem Ul Haque
Dr. Nadeem Ul Haque is the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission of Pakistan, the agency responsible for managing growth and development policies in the country. As a key member of the economic management team of Pakistan, he has led the country-wide research and consultative effort for the development of the “framework for economic growth,” which emphasizes economic reform for sustained long-term productivity. The framework has been approved by all levels of the government of Pakistan and has been implemented into policy.
Dr. Haque has over twenty-four years of wide-ranging operational and research experience from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), including leading technical assistance missions, and policy and research teams. With a strong background in economic analysis and policy development, Dr. Haque has published numerous publications including books and papers in academic and policy journals. Dr. Haque holds a PhD in economics from the University of Chicago.
7. Oslo: Twenty Years Later, IIACF, 9 am-12 pm July 19
Oslo – Twenty Years Later
Capitol Hill – Washington, D.C.
July 19th, 2012
9:00am – 12:00pm
No meaningful negotiations have taken place in almost two years, yet the death of the peace process remains a taboo topic in Washington. Recently, both Palestinian and Israeli voices have bemoaned the lack of progress. Mahmoud Abbas is rumored to be, once again, flirting with the idea of dissolving the Palestinian Authority. Yossi Beilin, considered one of the architects of the Oslo Peace Accords, has said it is time to move on.
After 20 years and little positive progress, the time has come to reevaluate our thinking and try a new approach – it is the only hope of moving towards a lasting peace.
Join the IIACF on Thursday, July 19th from 9:00am to noon as we bring together journalists, policy experts and government officials who are shaping the future of peace in the Middle East.
Download event flyer here.
Event Details
- Date: 07/19/12
- Location: Longworth House Office Building, Room 1539
- Address: 45 Independence Avenue SW, Washington D.C.
8. Diplomacy in Syria: U.S.-Russia Relations and International Intervention, Center for National Policy, 12-1 pm July 19
Please join CNP President Scott Bates and an expert panel for a discussion on the current state of the U.S.-Russia relationship, Russia’s evolving foreign policy posture, and the corresponding implications for the crisis in Syria.
Featuring:
Jeff Mankoff
Adjunct Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program,
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Mark Adomanis
Contributor, The Russia Hand, Forbes Magazine
*A light lunch will be served*
Where
Center for National Policy
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 333
Washington, DC 20001
202-682-1800
Map
Click here
When
Jul 19 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm
9. Can Libya Really Become a Democracy?, SAIS, 2-3:30 pm July 19
“Can Libya Really Become a Democracy?”
Hosted By: Conflict Management Program and the Middle East Institute
Time: 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM
Location: Room 417, The Nitze Building (main building)
Summary: Christopher Blanchard, research manager at the Congressional Research Service, will discuss this topic. For more information and to RSVP, contact
itlong@jhu.edu.
10. Assad’s Coming Downfall?, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 9:30 am July 20
- Foundation for Defense of Democracies
- Middle East & North Africa
| Date / Time |
|
| Location |
1726 M Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036
|
| Speakers |
David Enders, Ammar Abdulhamid, John Hannah, Reuel Marc Gerecht |
Unbeknownst to most Americans, reports suggest that the rebels fighting Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad may have taken control of a growing portion of the country, and may now be closer to wresting it away from him altogether. While some Syrian soldiers have defected to Turkey, many more are deserting, or simply refusing to fight. Is Assad’s central authority breaking down? Are new power brokers emerging? If so, how can the United States and its allies prevent further humanitarian catastrophe?
To assess these questions and others, FDD is pleased to host a breakfast conversation with:
David Enders, a Pulitzer Center grantee on Crisis Reporting, recently returned from a month of reporting alongside the rebels fighting Bashar Assad’s government in Syria. Author of Baghdad Bulletin, a firsthand account of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, he has reported from the Middle East for news outlets ranging from The Nation to The National, Al-Jazeera, Vice, and the Virginia Quarterly Review.
Ammar Abdulhamid, a fellow at FDD, is a leading Syrian human rights and democracy activist, and also director of the Tharwa Foundation, a grassroots organization that works to break the Assad government’s information blockade by enlisting local activists and citizen issues to report on developments inside Syria. Before founding Tharwa, Mr. Abdulhamid served as a fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He has briefed the President of the United States and testified before the U.S. Congress, and has appeared in many media outlets, including the New York Times.
John Hannah is a senior fellow at FDD, before which he served as national security advisor to Vice President Richard B. Cheney. Mr. Hannah has served in a range of senior policy positions in both Democratic and Republican administrations, as a senior member of Secretary of State James A. Baker’s Policy Planning staff during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, and later as a senior advisor to Secretary of State Warren Christopher under President William J. Clinton. Mr. Hannah’s articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal, and he blogs regularly at ForeignPolicy.com and National Review Online.
Reuel Marc Gerecht is a Senior Fellow at FDD and a former Iran analyst at the CIA’s Directorate of Operations. He focuses on the Arab Revolt, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism, and intelligence. Mr. Gerecht is the author of The Wave: Man, God, and the Ballot Box in the Middle East, Know Thine Enemy: A Spy’s Journey into Revolutionary Iran, and The Islamic Paradox: Shiite Clerics, Sunni Fundamentalists, and the Coming of Arab Democracy. He is a contributing editor for The Weekly Standard and a correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, as well as a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and other publications.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Russia’s President said earlier this week:
It is better to involve Iran in the settlement (of the Syrian crisis)…The more Syria’s neighbors are involved in the settlement process the better. Ignoring these possibilities, these interests would be counterproductive, as diplomats say. It is better to secure its support. In any case it would complicate the process (if Iran is ignored).
Putin is right. UN/Arab League Special Envoy Kofi Annan is too: he also wanted Iran at Saturday’s meeting in Geneva, which is scheduled to include the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Turkey as well as Arab Leaguers Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar.
The Americans have been blocking Iran from attending, on grounds that Tehran is providing support–including lethal assistance–to the Assad regime. That is true. It is also the reason they should be there. So long as they meet the Americans’ red line–that attendees should accept that the purpose of the meeting is to begin a transition away from the Assad regime–it is far better to have them peeing from inside the tent out than from outside the tent in. No negotiated transition away from the Assad regime is going to get far if the Iranians are dead set against it.
If they agree to attend, it will cause serious problems inside Tehran with the Quds Force, the part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard responsible for helping Bashar al Assad conduct the war he declared yesterday on his own people. Discomforting the Iranians should be welcome in Washington. If Iran had refused the invitation, which was likely, it would have been far easier to drive a wedge between them and the Russians, who are at least saying that they are not trying to protect Bashar al Assad’s hold on power.
Of course if they were to attend the Iranians would have raised issues that make Washington and some of its Arab friends uncomfortable. Most obvious is Saudi and Qatari arms shipments to the Syrian rebel forces, who this week attacked a television station, killing at least some civilians. But that issue will be raised in any event by the Russians, whether the Iranians are there or not.
The Iranians would likely also raise Bahrain, where a Sunni royal monarch rules over a largely Shia population. The repression there has been far less violent and abusive than what Alawite Bashar al Assad is doing in Sunni-majority Syria, but the Iranians will argue that if transition to majority rule is good for the one it is also good for the other. Does it have to get bloodier before the international community takes up the cause of the Bahraini Shia? This argument will get some sympathetic noises from Iraq, which is majority Shia, but not from Sunni Qatar, UAE or Kuwait.
Turkey, meanwhile, has downplayed the Syrian attacks on its fighter jets, which I am assured by a Turkish diplomat were in fact on reconnaissance, not training missions, as Ankara publicly claimed. The reconnaissance flights routinely cross momentarily into Syrian airspace because it is impossible to fly strictly along the irregular border between the two countries. Damascus shot down one, probably as a warning to its own pilots not to try to abscond, as one did last week. Israeli jets also routinely violate Syrian airspace, but it is a long time since Syria took a shot at one of them.
The Turks seem to have gotten what little moral support they wanted out of consultations on the Syrian attacks at NATO earlier this week. Ankara has decided to low key the affair, thus avoiding further frictions with Syria, which can respond to any Turkish moves by allowing Kurdish guerrillas to step up their cross-border attacks into Turkey.
This is a complicated part of the world, where there are wheels within wheels. Much as I dislike saying it, Putin was right to try to get all the main players in the room, lest some of those wheels continue to spin out of control if their masters haven’t been involved in the decisionmaking. But that isn’t likely to change anyone’s mind in Washington, where electoral pressures preclude inviting Iran to a meeting on Syria. Let’s hope that the meeting is nevertheless successful and that the plan it produces can be sold after the fact to Tehran, which otherwise may prove a spoiler.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
I did a quick writeup of Senator McCain’s appearance yesterday at the Middle East Institute Turkey Conference, which is posted on their website this morning (thank a spam filter for the delay):
Senator John McCain was uncharacteristically subdued in a key note address yesterday to the Middle East Institute/Institute of Turkish Studies conference on Turkey. He prodded President Obama to be more outspoken in denouncing the Assad regime and advocated a “safe zone” inside Syria along the Turkish border, but only in response to a question. He discounted the likelihood of NATO action, which the Europeans oppose, and suggested that the U.S. and Turkey should form the core of a coalition of the willing to support the Syrian opposition with arms and training.
The Senator opened with a denunciation of the Syrian downing of a Turkish jet, calling it an unnecessary and unacceptable act of aggression. But then he turned quickly to focus on Turkey’s positive evolution into a more inclusive and representative democracy experiencing strong economic growth. He also noted troubling developments: Turkey’s jailing of journalists, its prosecutions of army officers and the deterioration of its relations with Israel.
The U.S., McCain said, should give wholehearted military and intelligence support to Turkey in its fight against Kurdish terrorists (the PKK). But the bilateral relationship should broaden its focus to free trade, military modernization, missile defense and strategic cooperation in Afghanistan, the Arab Spring and other contexts where democracy, human rights and rule of law are at stake. Turkey, he said, sets a standard for democracy in Muslim countries and is an attractive example to many throughout the Muslim world.
McCain appealed for stronger U.S. leadership in speaking up for the people of Syria and countering Russian and Iranian support to the Assad regime, which includes both arms and personnel. A “safe zone” on the Turkish/Syrian border would provide the fragmented and unreliable opposition with a place where it could coalesce. This would require intervention from the air (as in Bosnia and Kosovo) but not, he thought, boots on the ground (forgetting of course that on the “day after” U.S. troops were needed in both Bosnia and Kosovo). Asked about the Annan peace plan that provides for a peaceful transition, McCain reacted with disdain, saying that Bashar al Assad would have to be forced out.
The current situation, McCain emphasized, is not acceptable. Sectarian violence is on the increase, as is exploitation of the situation by extremists. It will only get worse if the U.S. fails to lead. It is not even leading from behind at this point. It is not enough for the White House to say that Bashar al Assad’s fall is inevitable. We have to make it happen.
McCain acknowledged American war weariness but underlined the moral imperative to speak out and to act. Absent from his remarks was consideration of the impact of American and Turkish air attacks to create a “safe zone” on Russian support for the P5+1 negotiations with Iranian on its nuclear program and on the Northern Distribution Network that supplies NATO troops in Afghanistan. Those who think Afghanistan and Iran should have priority in American foreign policy won’t go along with the Senator, almost no matter what Bashar al Assad does to his own people. A lot of what people think should be done in Syria depends on what your priorities are.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
I might wish that were the name of William Dobson‘s book about how dictators are adjusting to contemporary pro-democracy rebellions, as the original text of this post said, but really it’s Dictatorship 2.0. I haven’t read it but intend to do so, as there was a lively discussion of it yesterday at the Carnegie Endowment with Karim Sadjadpour chairing, Dobson presenting, Otpor‘s Srdja Popovic and Marc Lynch commenting.
It is hard to be an old style dictator today, Dobson avers. Really only North Korea is left, as Burma has begun to adjust. The plug can’t be pulled on communications, which means dictators need to get savvy and use more subtle forms of repression: targeted tax inspections, contested but unfree and unfair elections (preferably with the opposition fragmented), control over television and the courts, big handouts to the populace. Dictatorships today do not aim for ideological monopolies but rather to prevent and disrupt mobilization.
Oppositions have to adjust as well. Srdja outlined the basics: they need unity, planning and nonviolent discipline. They must be indigenous. Internationals can help, mainly through education and help with communications. Protesters need to avoid confronting dictatorial regimes where they are strong and attack them where they are weak. You don’t challenge Mike Tyson to box; better to play chess with him. This means avoiding military action in Syria, for example, and focusing on the regime’s economic weakness. The contest is between opposition enthusiasm and the fear the regime seeks to impose. Humor and “dispersive” tactics that do not require mass assembly in the streets (work and traffic slowdowns, boycotts, graffiti, cartoons) are increasingly important in reducing fear.
Marc emphasized the sequence of events in the Arab awakening: Ben Ali’s flight from Tunisia made people elsewhere realize what was possible, Mubarak’s overthrow in Egypt made it seem inevitable, Libya and Yemen were far more difficult, a reversal that has continued in Syria, where the regime has substantial support from Alawites and Christians afraid of what will happen to them if the revolution succeeds. The tipping point comes when perception of a regime changes from its being merely bad to being immoral.
So who is next? Saudi Arabia and Jordan are in peril, Marc suggested. Bahrain is living on borrowed time. Srdja suggested Iran, which is moving backwards towards an old style dictatorship after the defeat of its Green Movement, can only be challenged successfully if the protesters learn from their mistakes. They need better leadership and a focus on the state’s inability to deliver services. China, Dobson said, has been good at pre-empting large protests. Burma may not be adjusting quickly enough to avoid an upheaval.
I didn’t hear mention of Russia, Cuba, Algeria, and lots of other places that might be candidates, but no one was trying to be comprehensive. Wherever they may be, dictatorships will adjust to what they see happening elsewhere and try to protect their monopoly on power from those who challenge it. Their opponents will also need to adjust. It is thus in both war and peace.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags :
Bahrain, Burma, China, Cuba, Democracy and Rule of Law, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Libya, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen
RSS - Posts
