Tag: Syria
Idlib in crisis
The United Nations reported over 900,000 newly displaced Syrians in northwestern Syria since December 2019. This number is currently increasing due to the violence in Idlib. This tragic reality served as the foundation of the Middle East Institute’s event on February 21, 2020, titled The Crisis In Syria’s Idlib. The discussion was moderated by Alexander Marquardt, Senior National Correspondent at CNN, with participation from Charles Lister, Senior Fellow and Director of the Countering Terrorism and Extremist Program at the Middle East Institute, Elizabeth Tsurkov, Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and Doctoral student at Princeton University, and Zaher Sahloul, President and Founder at MedGlobal.
“Unprecedented” Situation: Idlib
The panelists accentuated the “unprecedented” nature of the current situation in Idlib. Unlike Syrians in other “de-escalation” zones, the residents of Idlib have nowhere to go. The Turkish border is closed. The 2.8 million people in Idlib are trapped, fearing for their lives. Tsurkov underlined that there is a genuine fear among the population in Idlib that they are all going to die. Lister believes there are close to 2 million people on the border, IDP camps have been entirely full for months, and people are forced to sleep outside in freezing fields.
Sahloul provided a more historical overview of the conflict in Syria, reemphasizing that the humanitarian crisis has been ongoing for over nine years. Assad’s tactics focus on attacking civilian infrastructure; this is an attack against humanity, as schools, markets, and hospitals are constantly being bombed and destroyed. The majority of people are not being killed by bombs, but by chronic disease and lack of available doctors and treatment facilities.
Tsurkov added that the people in Idlib do not want to stay and wait for the regime to capture them as they fear being placed in regime prisons, which essentially serve as “extermination sites.” She notes that even people who are employed by the Syrian government are afraid of remaining under regime control because they have seen what happens too often: execution.
The International community’s failure to respond
Lister in dismay noted that the UN is unable to act. A French proposed statement to declare Idlib a crisis could not pass in the Security Council due to a Russian veto. Assad has recaptured around 35-40% of northwestern Syria in under a year. The key regime objective has been achieved: to control the north/south M5 highway. The next objective, control of the east/west M4 highway has not yet been accomplished.
The panelists emphasized that Erdogan is feeling huge political pressure not to allow any refugees over the border. Turkey has lost 18 observation posts in Idlib, but Turkish-controlled forces did fire at Russian jets. Turkey has established an end of February deadline for the regime to withdraw from Idlib. The panelists doubted this aspiration will be achieved.
Sahloul emphasized that the UNHCR office warned nongovernmental organizations in Syria last year of an additional million displaced people predicted in the next year. Therefore, Sahloul argues, the UN should not be surprised. He cited the lack of UN observers in Idlib and the failure of the UN Secretary General to visit Idlib as evidence of UN disinterest.
What could/should happen?
Tsurkov believes that if the Russian and regime warplanes that conduct horrific bombing and displacement of civilians were threatened and risked being shot down, the bombing would stop. Therefore the US and international community should raise the stakes for Russia and Assad by not only intervening when chemical weapons are used, but also when civilians are bombed.
All the panelists suggested that Turkey should not stand alone in this crisis. While Turkey has made many deplorable policy decisions in Syria, Ankara is also currently the only force trying to stop the regime. Lister said that Turkey has no choice but to gradually escalate its force presence and strength in the region. Turkey has to find a way to force a stalemate or ceasefire.
The only alternative to regime or Turkish control of Idlib is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), whose ancestry includes Al Qaeda. In response to this alternative, Tsurkov professes that local support for HTS is limited and dwindling, due to its recent military losses, but Gaza-fication of Idlib (control by an extremist group) would be better than millions fleeing and mass slaughter.
She believes the only plausible alternative is Turkish-controlled Idlib. Sahloul emphasized that HTS would not be able to govern; it was tolerated only because of the stability it brought. Lister noted that HTS has been officially reaching out to conduct interviews with the international community so that its image can be more aligned with stability and governance than with terrorism. Or at least can be viewed as better than the alternative.
The panelists conclude that the the international community should be providing funds and urging the parties to achieve a ceasefire as a way of stabilizing the situation. Lister urges the US, at a minimum, to utilize diplomacy and put pressure on Russia.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 19
– Background on Trump visit to India.
– CNN says USD/P Rood is being forced out.
-IG finds waste in US support for Syrian forces.
– Congress debates Libya policy.
– A smart idea for how to prepare for future war better.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks|February 17-23
Understanding China’s Economic Slowdown: Countering Belt and Road and Beijing’s Plans to Dominate Global Innovation| February 18, 2020 | 11:30 AM – 1:30 PM | Hudson Institute | Register Here
Amid a time of open challenges to the United States for strategic and economic leadership in the Indo-Pacific by General Secretary Xi Jinping, China’s economic growth is at its slowest pace since 1992. Through the development of political and economic plans such as the Belt and Road Initiative and Made in China 2025, China is attempting to set global development standards while simultaneously increasing other nations’ dependence on China’s technologies and its financial and developmental practices.
What is the significance of the Chinese economic slowdown and its implication for the U.S. and its allies? How can we accurately assess Chinese strengths and weaknesses, and how do we more effectively counter Beijing’s policies and actions that undermine U.S. and allied interests?
Join Hudson Institute for a conversation with experts on what China’s attempts to redefine development standards and practices means for the United States in the era of great power competition. The event will draw on John Lee’s recent report, China’s Economic Slowdown: Root Causes, Beijing’s Response and Strategic Implications for the U.S. and Allies and his upcoming report, Ambition and Overreach: Countering One Belt One Road and Beijing’s Plans to Dominate Global Innovation.
Speakers:
Patrick Cronin: Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Thomas Duesterberg: Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Nicholas Lardy: Anthony M. Solomon Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute
John Lee: Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
——————————————————————————————————————–
Censorship and Self-Censorship in Russia| February 18, 2020 | 3:30 PM – 5:00 PM | Wilson Center | Register Here
State control on information and media and aggressive pressure on journalists seeking to maintain their independence are critical elements of the modern Russian state. Although the Russian constitution has an article expressly prohibiting censorship, in reality censorship is a constant factor in the life of the Russian media. Censorship is carried out both directly and indirectly by state pressure and through self-censorship by journalists. In partnership with IREX, the Kennan Institute will host three well-known Russian publicists, analysts, and commentators, Konstantin Sonin, Konstantin Eggert, and Gleb Cherkasov, to discuss censorship and self-censorship in Russia and its role in Russian society.
Speakers:
Konstantin Sonin: John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy
Konstantin Eggert: Independent journalist, political analysts and communication consultant
Gleb Cherkasov: Journalist; Former Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Kommersant
Sergey Parkhomenko: Senior Advisor, Jounalist, “Echo of Moscow” Radio; Former Editor-in-Chief, Itogi, Vokrug Sveta
——————————————————————————————————————–
Ending Our Endless War in Afghanistan: Washington Perspectives on a U.S.-Taliban Agreement| February 18, 2020 | 4:00 PM – 5:15 PM | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
After over a year of intensive talks, press reports indicate that an official agreement between the U.S. and Taliban is imminent. The agreement reportedly begins with an immediate reduction in violence by all sides, followed by the signing of a U.S.-Taliban agreement. This would lead to intra-Afghan peace negotiations, accompanied by a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops. Implementing and verifying each step in this process will require meticulous diplomacy, but this reported agreement could mark a major turning point in the effort to end the war in Afghanistan.
Speakers:
The Honorable Stephen J. Hadley: Chair, Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace; former National Security Advisor
The Honorable Michele Flournoy: Co-Founder and Managing Partner, WestExec Advisors
Ambassador Douglas Lute: Senior Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to NATO
Ambassador Richard Olson: Senior Advisor, U.S. Institute of Peace; former U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
Scott Smith: Senior Advisor, U.S. Institute of Peace
——————————————————————————————————————–
Conservative Nationalism in the Age of Trump| February 20, 2020 | 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM | Carnegie Endowment | Register Here
The driving force of nationalism within the Republican party is squarely in the spotlight, with the U.S. 2020 elections in sight and questions of how the United States will approach diplomatic, economic, and military issues in the balance. In his new book, Age of Iron: On Conservative Nationalism, Colin Dueck examines the strengths and weaknesses of President Trump’s foreign policy and the overarching role of conservative nationalism in the past, present, and future of U.S. foreign policy. He will be joined in conversation by Danielle Pletka and Richard Fontaine, with Carnegie’s Ashley J. Tellis as moderator.
Speakers:
Colin Dueck is a professor in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and a non-resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
Richard Fontaine is the chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).
Danielle Pletka is a senior fellow in foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where she focuses on U.S. foreign policy generally and the Middle East specifically.
Ashley J. Tellis holds the Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs and is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, specializing in international security and U.S. foreign and defense policy with a special focus on Asia and the Indian subcontinent.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Bridging strategies: Infrastructure efforts in Southeast Asia in an era of great power competition| February 20, 2020 | 12:00 PM | Atlantic Council | Register Here
As the geographical heart of the Indo-Pacific, Southeast Asia will play a critical role in determining the region’s political, military, and economic trajectory for decades to come. As a rapidly growing region home to more than 655 million people, Southeast Asia has become a priority destination for US and Japanese infrastructure investment in the Indo-Pacific, as well as Chinese infrastructure efforts under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
How do these regional infrastructure projects fit into intensifying strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific? Are the new G20 Principles for Quality Infrastructure compatible or competitive with China’s BRI? How can the US, Japan, and other likeminded allies and partners best operationalize these principles in the region? Ultimately, what are the geopolitical and security implications of the evolving infrastructure investment landscape across the Indo-Pacific?
The Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the United States and the world. The Center honors General Brent Scowcroft’s legacy of service and embodies his ethos of nonpartisan commitment to the cause of security, support for US leadership in cooperation with allies and partners, and dedication to the mentorship of the next generation of leaders.
Speakers:
Mr. Bart W. Edes: Representative of the North American Office, Asian Development Bank
Mr. Jonathan Hillman: Senior Fellow, Simon Chair in Political Economy, and Director, Reconnecting Asia Project, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Mr. Makoto Lyori: Visiting Fellow, Asia Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Dr. Miyeon Oh: Asia Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Ms. Shannon Tiezzi: Editor-in-Chief, The Diplomat
——————————————————————————————————————–
The Impact of the Conflict on Human Rights in Syria| February 20, 2020 | 4:30 PM – 6:00 PM | Johns Hopkins University | Register Here
The Commissioners of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (Chair Professor Paulo Pinheiro, Commissioner Karen Abuzayd and Commissioner Hanny Megally) will discuss recent conflict dynamics in Syria and their impact on the human rights situation. In this context, the Commission will discuss their recently published report on child rights violations.
Speakers:
Paulo Sergio Pinheiro: A Chairman of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry for Syria
Karen Koning Abuzayd: A Commissioner of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry for Syria
Hanny Megally: A senior fellow at the New York University Center on International Cooperation
——————————————————————————————————————–
The Crisis in Syria’s Idlib| February 21, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:00 PM | Middle East Institute | Register Here
Nearly 600,000 people have been displaced in northwestern Syria in the last two months, in what is now the biggest humanitarian crisis in nine years of war. The brutal military assault being conducted by the Syrian government, Russia and Iran shows no signs of abating and has in recent weeks sparked direct and deadly clashes between Syrian and Turkish troops. Hospitals and schools continue to be struck from the air, IDP camps have reached capacity and humanitarian agencies are warning of an impending humanitarian disaster.
Since the Syrian government and its allies began an offensive on Idlib in the Spring of 2019, approximately 25% of the opposition-controlled territory has fallen – roughly 75% still remains. Amid this ongoing crisis and unprecedented levels of civilian displacement and human suffering, the international community appears to have been rendered powerless. The Middle East Institute is pleased to host a panel discussion on the situation in Idlib, in order to discuss the nature of the crisis and the international response; the geopolitical dynamics at play; concerns over terrorism; and what possible paths might exist to resolve the situation.
Speakers:
Zaher Sahloul: President and Founder, MedGlobal
Elizabeth Tsurkov: Fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute
Charles Lister: Senior Fellow and Director of the Countering Terrorism and Extremism Program, MEI
Alexander Marquardt: Senior national correspondent, CNN
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Accountability now
During Syria’s conflict, the Assad regime has continued committing many war crimes. Although de-escalation zones were established to mitigate conflict violence, the number of displaced Syrians increased. On February 5, Arab Center Washington DC hosted a panel discussion and a book review on the topic of Accountability in Syria: Achieving Transitional Justice in a Postconflict Society. The discussion involved three speakers: Radwan Ziadeh, a senior fellow for the Arab Center Washington DC, Mai El-Sadany, the legal and judicial director at the Tahrir Institute, and Mohammad Alaa Ghanem, a Syrian academic and pro-democracy campaigner.
War crimes
Ziadeh noted that because justice and accountability are left out in the Geneva and Astana talks, he wrote the book Accountability in Syria to call for attention to war atrocities and raise the issue of accountability. He listed five crimes that the Assad regime has committed in the last eight years.
- Use of air force: Opposition areas have been exposed to heavy, systematic, widespread, and indiscriminate bombing. While only 1% of victims killed by barrel bombs are opposition but 99% of victims are civilians. Other governments have failed to prevent the Syrian government from utilizing barrel bombs.
- Use of prohibited weapons: The Assad regime has utilized prohibited chemical weapons 37 times.
- Siege: Half a million of Syrians live besieged by Assad’s “surrender or starve” strategy.
- Torture and sectarian crimes: The regime carried out systematic torture at its secret prisons.
- Forced displacement: Displacement aims to remove people who have been disloyal. Forced displacement induces both the demographic change and the flight of Syrian refugees.
Forced displacement
Ghanem says that ceasefires, such as the Idlib and Daraa de-escalation zones, are a prelude to liquidation. Political analysts in Washington misunderstood ceasefires, which they thought would constitute a win-win solution that could empower local communities. Instead, ceasefires emboldened and benefited Assad’s regime, which used them to induce demographic change. He presented three purposes of ceasefires:
- Ceasefires have helped the Assad regime to conquer more territories by setting up a 1-2 year de-escalation period to relinquish oppositions’ heavy weapons and evacuate fighters.
- Ceasefires serve to relieve shortage of Assad’s manpower by freeing up regime resources to focus on other priority areas.
- Ceasefires provide an illusion of political process by designating areas for reconstruction while permitting the regime to commit systematic sectarian cleansing.
Remedies
El-Sadany argues that it’s time for justice now. Three tools are available for accountability:
- Documentation: Civil society, journalists, and lawyers should act together to preserve history and contribute to truth. For example, the New York Times utilizes open source investigation.
- UN Mechanisms: The United Nations has disappointed Syrians because of UN Security Council vetoes and the failure to make a referral to International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the UN Human Rights Council’s commissions of inquiry serves accountability by fact-finding and investigating crimes and perpetrators. In addition, the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) was created to prepare files and assist the investigation and prosecution of crimes.
- Prosecution outside Syria: Syria is not a party to the Rome Statute and the UNSC has failed to refer its crimes to the ICC. But prosecution in other states is still possible.
El-Sadany proposes that the international community needs to amend, strengthen, and improve accountability mechanisms. Advocates should lobby their governments for more funding for accountability efforts and improved human rights laws. Lawyers should translate materials, especially on universal jurisdiction, into Arabic to reach Syrian victims and civil society.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria isn’t over
On October 6 last year President Trump and Turkish President Erdogan had a telephone call that altered US policy in Syria. The White House released a statement that the United States Armed Forces would not support or be involved in the Turkish operation into northern Syria. The US no longer deemed ISIS to have a territorial ‘Caliphate,’ leading the Administration to leave the area. This phone call resulted in the abandonment of a strong US ally, the Kurds in northeastern Syria, to face Turkey alone.
This policy shift served as the foundation of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy policy forum titled The New Status Quo in Northeast Syria: Humanitarian and Security Implications on January 23. The forum was composed of Gonul Tol, Founding Director of the Middle East Institute’s Turkish Studies Program, Wladimir van Wilgenburg, coauthor of the 2019 book, The Kurds of Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity, and Conflicts, and Dana Stroul, Kassen Fellow in The Washington Institute’s Geduld Program on Arab Politics.
SDF still functioning
Van Wilgenburg, who recently returned from a trip into northeastern Syria, utilized this map to illustrate the presence and role of geopolitical actors.
The yellow portion of the map is controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which continue to control significant territory. Having visited Syria post-October, he noted the increase of Russian vehicles on the roads, replacing American trucks. Overall, van Wilgenburg stated that the situation on the ground has not changed tremendously; however, the Kurds are scared of possible upcoming demographic changes due to Turkish plans for the creation of refugee resettlement camps in the region.
Van Wilgenburg emphasized that the biggest problem for the SDF is that they still lack recognition from Damascus and are not official participants in peace talks. The economy is much better than in the areas the Syrian government controls, particularly with regards to electricity and water services. While Assad isn’t willing to make concessions to recognizing SDF, he does understand that without the 80,000+ SDF fighters, there would be a huge vacuum, as Syrian forces are not large enough to maintain the SDF territory. SDF is in a weaker state than it was prior to October, but it is still functioning, as long as the cease-fire holds.
Erdogan is worried about his domestic support
Gonul focused on Erdogan’s foreign policy, which is connected directly to his domestic policies. While Turkey’s hope was to create a Turkey-controlled safe zone stretching all the way to the Iraqi border with the capacity to host 1-2 million Syrian refugees, that has not happened. The pocket of Turkish controlled-area is significantly smaller than Erdogan’s intentions.
According to Gonul, Erdogan has not been speaking about Syria as much on local news because the topic is closely tied to domestic Turkish politics and his own status. Turkey is hosting close to 4 million refugees from Syria. This weakens Erdogan, as anti-Kurdish sentiment is strong and blames Erdogan for allowing so many refugees in.
Turkish Kurds have captured a historic 13% of the vote and deprived Erdogan a parliamentary majority. With the Kurds supporting the Turkish opposition, President Erdogan lost local elections in March. Erdogan is trying to marginalize and criminalize the Kurdish opposition. Gonul suggested that Erdogan’s failure to meet his goals in Syria has led to his shift of attention to Libya.
Turkey has also not delivered on capturing Idlib, where there are tensions between Ankara and Moscow. Despite their fragile relationship, Erdogan will not act in Syria without a Russian “green light.” Between tensions with Russia and the United States, Turkey is squeezed in Syria. Gonul does not believe Erdogan will defy the United States in Syria, as the threat of sanctions could strain the already weak Turkish economy.
Why the US Government should care about Syria
Stroul brought the conversation to a more global and US-centric arena, highlighting the core findings from the Syria Study Group report in 2019. She emphasized that Syria is of interest to the US for multiple reasons, but mainly because it represents a geostrategic nexus of threats facing the US: terrorism, Iran and it’s power projection into the region, and Russia and Great Power competition. Stroul disagreed with the notion that the conflict is over, suggesting that it is only entering a new phase. Stroul emphasized that since the Trump/Erdogan phone call there is no longer the same trust between the SDF and the US. This will lead to major consequences in the region.
All three panelists emphasized that refugees are not going to return to Syria at present despite Erodgan’s plan. Van Wilgenburg added that most of the refugees in Turkey that Erdogan is referring to are actually from Aleppo and other more western cities in Syria. They will not want to be relocated to northeastern Syria.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Pompeo is a failure
Here is Secretary of State Pompeo in an interview with Mary Louise Kelly of NPR that demonstrates unequivocally his unfitness for office:
First he defends withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran nuclear deal), which has led inexorably to Iran acquiring more of the materials required for nuclear weapons. In self-defense, he simply asserts “we’ll stop them,” with no evidence whatsoever. That’s because there is none.
Then he declares himself happy with the Administration’s Ukraine policy, which he claims the State Department controls, and says he has defended every single State Department official. This despite the fact that he has not defended several officials who testified in Congress and that Rudy Giuliani was conducting Ukraine policy outside State Department channels.
In any event, listen to the end, since Kelly then reports on a subsequent conversation with the Secretary, in which he berates her for asking about Ukraine in ways that are simply unacceptable, even if unsurprising. No one should expect this Administration to show even minimal respect for a media professional. It prefers the hacks at Fox News who do its bidding.
Pompeo, again not surprisingly, also has bigoted views on Muslims and counts right-wing extremists among his greatest admirers. That may seem obscure or irrelevant to many Americans, but stop a moment to consider how the 1.8 billion Muslims on earth look at a country that has a bigot as Secretary of State.
The simple fact is that Pompeo is not qualified to lead American foreign policy, which is failing in the most important challenges he faces. In addition to precipitating Iran’s return to pursuit of nuclear weapons, the Administration is presiding over a stunning array of failures:
- North Korea continues to produce nuclear weapons and improve its missiles.
- Venezuela’s President Maduro continues in power.
- Russia continues to occupy a good slice of Ukraine.
- Iran and Russia are winning back control of Syria for President Assad.
- Iraqis are pushing back against the presence of US troops.
- The American “deal of the century” for Israel and Palestine stands no chance of acceptance by the Palestinians.
- The trade war with China has been suspended with few gains, in order to provide American farmers some relief before the 2020 election.
I could go on, but the overall picture is clear: “America First” foreign policy has failed, often because it has amounted to “America Alone.” Our major European allies (that’s now France and Germany, with the UK out of the European Union) are no longer cooperating voluntarily with the US. They can do better withholding cooperation and only giving in when they can get something in return from a transactional president. A few weaker reeds like Poland, Hungary, Italy as well as post-Brexit Britain may be more on board with this Administration, but mainly because of their own nationalist domestic politics. The sense of shared mission to make the world safer for democracy has evaporated. Its now every country for itself.
Lots of us, including me, thought Pompeo might be a relative success compared to his disastrous predecessor, Rex Tillerson. But succeeding as Secretary of State in an administration as wrong-headed about the world as this one just isn’t possible. It will take a decade or more to rebuild US influence in the world once Trump is out of office. Two decades or more if he wins a second term.
RSS - Posts
