Tag: Turkey
This week’s peace picks
Lots of good events in DC this week, several of them big all-day events. I’ll be away part of the week in Vienna–that’s my excuse for not going to everything. Write-ups for peacefare.net are, as always, welcome.
1. Unleashing the Nuclear Watchdog: Strengthening and Reform of the IAEA, Stimson, noon June 25
Event Details
On June 13, 2012, The Centre for International Governance Innovation released its long-awaited report, “Unleashing the Nuclear Watchdog: Strengthening and Reform of the IAEA.”
The report will be presented at an event on June 25 in Washington, DC, co-hosted by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute North America (SIPRI North America). CIGI Senior Fellow Trevor Findlay, author of the report, will present the report’s findings. He will be introduced by Dr. Chantal de Jonge Oudraat, executive director, SIPRI North America.
The release of “Unleashing the Nuclear Watchdog: Strengthening and Reform of the IAEA” marks the culmination of a two-year research project that examined all aspects of the Agency’s mandate and operations ― from major programs on safeguards, safety, security and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy to governance, management and finance. The report makes multiple recommendations, both strategic and programmatic, for strengthening and reform of the Agency. The project was a joint undertaking of CIGI’s global security program and the Canadian Centre for Treaty Compliance (CCTC) at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs (NPSIA) at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada.
Professor Findlay holds a joint fellowship with the International Security Program and the Project on Managing the Atom at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. He also holds the William and Jeanie Barton Chair in International Affairs at NPSIA and is director of the CCTC.
When & Where
SIPRI North America, Stimson Center
1111 19th Street NW
Twelfth Floor
Washington, DC 20036
3. Iran and the West: Oil, Sanctions, and Future Scenarios, SAIS room 500 BOB, 9-12:45 June 26
Room 500
1717 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC
| 9:00 – 9:15 | Light Breakfast |
| 9:15 – 9:30 | Welcoming RemarksAmbassador Andras Simonyi (Managing Director, SAIS CTR) |
| 9:30 – 11:00 | PANEL I Energy and Politics: Myths and Reality of a Complex InteractionSpeakers:
Claudia Castiglioni (Calouste Gulbenkian Fellow, SAIS CTR) Sara Vakhoshouri (President of SVB Energy International and former Advisor to Director of the National Iranian Oil Company International) Guy Caruso (Senior adviser in the Energy and National Security Program at CSIS, former administrator of the Energy Information Administration) Moderator: Robert J. Lieber (Department of Government and School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University) |
| 11:00 – 11:15 | Coffee |
| 11:15 – 12:45 | PANEL II The Future of Iran-West Relations: A Transatlantic PerspectiveSpeakers:
Michael Makovsky (Foreign Policy Director at the Bipartisan Policy Center) Abbas Maleki (Robert E. Wilhelm Fellow at Center for International Studies, MIT) Moderator: Suzanne Maloney (Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institution) |
4. Crisis Yemen: Going Where? City Club, 555 13th St NW, 10-noon June 26
June 26, 2012
Crisis Yemen: Going Where?
Ambassador Barbara Bodine, Lecturer and Director, Scholars in the Nation’s Service Initiative, Princeton University; and former U.S. Ambassador to Yemen
Mr. Gregory Johnsen, Ph.D. Candidate, Princeton University; author, Waq al-waq blog and The Last Refuge: Yemen, al-Qaeda, and America’s War in Arabia; and former Fulbright and American Institute for Yemeni Studies Fellow in Yemen
Dr. Charles Schmitz, Associate Professor of Geography, Towson University; President, American Institute for Yemeni Studies; and former Fulbright and American Institute for Yemen Studies Fellow in Yemen
Mr. Robert Sharp, Associate Professor, Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies, U.S. Department of Defense/National Defense University
Dr. John Duke Anthony, Founding President & CEO, National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations; former Fulbright Fellow in the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen; and official observer for four of Yemen’s presidential and parliamentary elections
5. Armed Drones and Targeted Killing: International Norms, Unintended Consequences, and the Challenge of Non-Traditional Conflict, German Marshall Fund, 12:15- 2 pm June 26
| Date / Time |
Tuesday, June 26 / 12:15pm – 2:00pm Register with host
|
|---|---|
| Location |
German Marshall Fund 1744 R Street NW, Washington DC, 20009
|
| Speakers | Mark R. Jacobson, Sarah Holewinski, Mark V. Vlasic |
| Description | A discussion of the dilemmas posed by the use of RPVs, or “drones to include the implications for alliances, international norms, and their use outside of traditional armed conflict. The panel will also address the unique capability this new technology presents as well as the potential for unintended consequences and “blowback.”Speakers include Sarah Holewinski, Executive Director of CIVIC (Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict) who is preparing a report on drones with the Colombia Law School Human Rights Clinic and Mark Vlasic from Georgetown University and Madison Law & Strategy Group PLLC who has served at the World Bank and the Pentagon and has authored a legal analysis of Targeted Killing in the Georgetown Journal of International Law. The event will be moderated by Dr. Mark Jacobson, Senior Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund and former Deputy NATO Representative in Afghanistan. |
6. Third Annual Conference on Turkey: Regional and Domestic Challenges for an Ascendant Turkey, National Press Club, 9-5 June 27
The Middle East Institute’s Center for Turkish Studies
in collaboration with the Institute of Turkish Studies present:
“Regional and Domestic Challenges for an Ascendant Turkey”
June 27th, 2012
9:00am-5:00pm
National Press Club
529 14th Street, NW 13th Floor
Washington, DC 20045
Conference Schedule:
8:45am – 9:00am: Registration
9:00am – 9:15am: Welcome
Ambassador Wendy J. Chamberlin, Middle East Institute
Gönül Tol, MEI’s Center for Turkish Studies
Ross Wilson, Institute of Turkish Studies
9:15am – 10:00am: Opening Keynote
Senator John McCain
United States Senate
10:00am – 10:30am: Keynote
Ömer Çelik
Deputy Chairman of the Justice and Development Party
10:30am – 10:45am: Coffee Break
10:45am – 12:15pm
Panel 1: Turkey’s Domestic Calculus: The Kurds, the Constitution, and the Presidential System Debate
Yalçın Akdoğan, Member of Parliament, Justice and Development Party
Ruşen Çakır, Turkish Daily Vatan
Michael Gunter, Tennessee Technological University
Levent Köker, Atilim University
Moderator: Michael Werz, Center for American Progress
12:15pm – 1:00pm: Lunch*
1:00pm – 1:45pm: Keynote
Ibrahim Kalın
Chief Adviser to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
1:45pm – 3:15pm
Panel 2: Turkey, the EU, and the U.S.: Evolving Partnerships Post-Arab Spring
Brice de Schietere, Delegation of the European Union to the U.S.
Ambassador W. Robert Pearson, IREX
Ambassador Ross Wilson, Atlantic Council
Yaşar Yakış, Center for Strategic Communication, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs
Moderator: Sharon Wiener, Koç University
3:15pm – 3:30pm: Coffee Break
3:30pm – 5:00pm
Panel 3: Turkey’s Leadership Role in an Uncertain Middle East
Amr Darrag, Freedom and Justice Party, Egypt
Joost Hiltermann, International Crisis Group
Yigal Schleifer, Freelance Journalist
Robin Wright, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Moderator: Abderrahim Foukara, al-Jazeera
*Complimentary lunch will be available on a first come first served basis
Follow @CSIS for live updates
The CSIS Southeast Asia Program will host its second annual conference on Maritime Security in the South China Sea June 27-28, 2012.
The conference is a timely policy level discussion of the complex and important issues around the South China Sea. The program will take place a week before Secretary of State Clinton departs for the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and Post-Ministerial Conference (PMC) in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Assistant Secretary of State for Asia and the Pacific Kurt Campbell will deliver the keynote speech on Wednesday, June 27 and Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), chairman of the Senate’s Asia Pacific subcommittee, will present a keynote address on Thursday, June 28.
In addition, CSIS is pleased to have recruited a world-class group of experts from Asia and the United States to initiate the dialogue around five key themes:
- Recent developments in the South China Sea
- South China Sea in ASEAN-U.S.-China relations
- Assessment of the South China Sea in a changing regional landscape
- Role of international law in resolving and managing territorial disputes
- Policy recommendations to boost security and cooperation in the South China Sea
Continuing disputes suggest there is a great need and interest to explore security in the South China Sea. We have invited approximately 20 experts to make presentations and will invite senior officials, executives, academics, and members of the media to participate in the dialogue. The full conference agenda is available here.
Please click here to RSVP by Monday, June 25, 2012. When you RSVP you MUST include the panels you wish to attend.You must log on to register. If you do not have an account with CSIS you will need to create one. If you have any difficulties, please contact imisadmin@csis.org.
8. Libya, One Year Later, CATO, noon June 27
Noon (Luncheon to Follow)
Featuring Diederik Vandewalle, Adjunct Associate Professor of Business Administration and Associate Professor of Government, Dartmouth College; Jonathan Hutson, Director of Communications, Enough Project to End Genocide and Crimes against Humanity; Benjamin H. Friedman, Research Fellow in Defense and Homeland Security Studies, Cato Institute; moderated by Malou Innocent, Foreign Policy Analyst, Cato Institute.
The Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
If you can’t make it to the Cato Institute, watch this event live online at www.cato.org/live and join the conversation on Twitter with the hashtag #CatoEvents. Also follow @CatoEvents on Twitter to get future event updates, live streams, and videos from the Cato Institute.
Some political commentators have called the Obama administration’s intervention last year in the Libyan civil war an “undeniable success” and one of “the greatest triumphs and signature moments in Barack Obama’s presidency.” One year later, however, Libya remains in crisis. Reports suggest that operatives linked to al Qaeda are active in Libya. Militias are detaining thousands of former regime loyalists and engaging in widespread torture. Instability remains rampant and has spilled into neighboring states. Moreover, President Obama’s unilateral decision to intervene contravened congressional war powers.
What do these troubling developments mean for the future of the UN’s “responsibility to protect”? Did the death of Muammar Qaddafi vindicate the intervention? Will Qaddafi’s example make other so-called rogue states less willing to relinquish their nuclear programs? Were political commentators premature in declaring NATO’s intervention a success? Please join us as leading scholars examine this under-appreciated and almost forgotten topic.
Cato events, unless otherwise noted, are free of charge. To register for this event, please fill out the form below and click submit or email events@cato.org, fax (202) 371-0841, or call (202) 789-5229 by noon, Tuesday, June 26, 2012. Please arrive early. Seating is limited and not guaranteed. News media inquiries only (no registrations), please call (202) 789-5200.
9. Sanctions on Iran: Implications for Energy Security, Brookings, 9-12:30 June 29
Next month, international economic pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran will intensify dramatically. Although Iran has been the target of various U.S. and multilateral sanctions throughout most of the past three decades, the latest measures are the most severe in history. These actions have been credited with reviving Iran’s interest in negotiations with the world, but they have yet to persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, and are creating new challenges for the international coalition that has sought to constrain Iran. They also pose new uncertainties for energy markets and the international economy at a precarious period in the global recovery and the U.S. presidential campaign.
On June 29, Foreign Policy at Brookings will host a discussion assessing the wide-ranging implications of the Iran sanctions regime and consider the prospects for a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue.
After each panel, participants will take audience questions.
Details
June 29, 2012
9:00 AM – 12:30 PM EDT
Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
For More Information
Brookings Office of Communications
events@brookings.edu
202.797.6105
Event Agenda
- 9:00Welcoming Remarks
- 9:15Panel One: Strategic and Energy Implications of Iran Sanctions
-
Moderator
-
-
-
- 10:45Break
- 11:00Panel Two: International Approaches to Iran Sanctions
-
Moderator
-
-
-
Tanvi Madan
Fellow
The Brookings Institution
-
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Shifting sands
Uncertainty is breaking out all over the Greater Middle East.
With Crown Prince Nayef’s death in Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud will soon have to look past its octogenarian leadership to the next generation, with all the uncertainties that implies. Will the next generation be as attached to religious and social Wahhabi conservatism as the current one? Will it open an era of serious reform?
The suspension of the UN monitoring effort in Syria presages an increase in violent conflict with a highly uncertain outcome. Russia seems determined to keep Bashar al Assad in power, though its Foreign Minister denies it. Iran will certainly exert itself in that direction. I doubt the armed rebellion can beat the Syrian security forces any time soon, but we could see a lengthy insurgency fed by Saudi and Qatari arms shipments through Turkey.
The only real certainty in Egypt is that the military is trying to hold on to power. Whether it can and what the consequences will be is highly uncertain, as are the results of today’s presidential election. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) has arrogated to itself legislative power, which means it now has to deal with Egypt’s economy and social problems along security and law and order. I don’t know any military establishments equal to that task, but the risk of new parliamentary elections may be greater than the SCAF wants to run. It could end up forced to rule Egypt, likely badly, for some time to come.
Iraq‘s Prime Minister Maliki has faced down a parliamentary rebellion but Al Qaeda has renewed its murderous attacks against the country’s Shia. If they succeed in reigniting Iraq’s sectarian warfare, the promise of a relatively democratic society that produces a lot of oil will evaporate, leaving a bitter residue.
Iran‘s Supreme Leader Khamenei has concentrated power as rarely before in the Islamic republic’s history, but American and Israeli threats of military attack against it nuclear program make prediction even a year out difficult.
After ten years of rule by Hamid Karzai, even Afghanistan faces the uncertainty of an election (to be held no one knows when in 2013 or 2014) in which he will not be running and an end to the NATO combat role shortly thereafter.
I needn’t mention next month’s elections in Libya or the aging leadership in Algeria, where military success in repressing Al Qaeda in the Maghreb seems to have pushed the militants into the Sahel, where they are destabilizing several other countries.
A region that enjoyed decades of stability–some would say stagnation, much of it autocratically imposed–now registers high volatility. Of course volatility can move in either direction: there are possible positive developments as well as negative ones. Tunisia has pushed the envelope in the positive direction. Yemen seems to be making progress against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and affiliates, though some think the government offensive and U.S. drone attacks are creating more extremists than they are killing. Morocco and Jordan have attempted some modest reforms that seem unlikely to suffice, but they may stave off open rebellion.
It is not easy to deal with uncertainty. Most experts would recommend triage and prioritization. Triage happens naturally. There are only a few Middle East problems that will make it to the President’s desk: Iran and Egypt most frequently, Afghanistan because of the American troops, and we can hope Syria when Obama meets with Putin this week at the G-20 in Moscow.
Prioritization of issues is harder. Even those who recommend it muddle exactly what they mean. Colleagues at the Carnegie Endowment recommend in a recent overview of the situation in the Middle East:
international actors should focus on a few, very specific issues for special emphasis, such as international human rights standards, the maintenance of existing treaty relationships, and the principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes.
But then they go on to recommend economic cooperation aimed at job creation, a non sequitur virtually guaranteed to disappoint expectations given limited U.S. resources and a track record of failure. Not to mention the difficulty of meeting human rights standards, since these require equal gender treatment not readily available in the workplace in many of the countries in question.
Shifting sands will make navigation in the Middle East difficult for a long time to come. I recommend to all my international affairs students that they learn Arabic, or another of the regional languages (Farsi most of all). Even if American oil production continues to reduce already low U.S. dependence on the Middle East, the global oil market and the extremist movements the region has spawned will ensure we remain engaged there for a long time to come, triage and prioritization notwithstanding.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Revolution, conspiracy or civil war? Yes
After a spectacular clear morning walking in the older parts of Istanbul and a visit to the Grand Bazaar, I took in a discussion of Syria this afternoon at Bahçeşehir University moderated with distinction by Samir Aita of le Monde Diplomatique, who noted the key role of the youth movement in Syria, whose cohort faces a disastrous job market with no more than one in five finding even inadequate employment. Control of the Syria by a small, rich rent-seeking elite is no longer acceptable to the younger generation.
He wanted to know whether Syria is experiencing a revolution, a conspiracy or a civil war? Will there be a military or a negotiated solution? If the latter, who should negotiate, how will they attain a modicum of unity and what roles should international powers play, in particular Qatar, Russia and Turkey?
I am not going to identify the respondents by name, even though this was a more or less public event. I don’t want my reports in someone’s file.
A young Syrian activist confirmed it was a revolution but suggested that the civil (nonviolent) revolt needs to split from the military (violent) rebellion, because a democratic outcome requires the former and not the latter (which will lead to civil war). Military intervention will not bring what the Syrian opposition wants. Success in Syria means a democracy established without international intervention.
Confusion reigns in Syria. The Syrian National Council (SNC) has been fragmented among ethnic/sectarian communities in a way that does not reflect Syrian reality. The regime has built a strategy quickly that divides the opposition and drives it in a violent direction. The opposition will be willing to negotiate with secondary members of the regime as well as with Russia and Iran, who are mainstays of the regime, but not with Bashar al Assad.
A Lebanese political scientist living in Paris suggested the Syrian revolution is undergoing three simultaneous processes: militarization of the rebellion because of regime violence (which will create big demobilization challenges in the post-Assad period), territorialization (which will create big governance issues after Assad) and regionalization, with spillover and external interference that makes the conflict increasingly a proxy war among foreign powers (which may ignite a regional conflagration). For the Iranians, the conflict in Syria is now an existential one and they will continue to support Bashar al Assad, but only up to a point, when they feel they have to abandon him to limit their losses. Israel would have preferred that Bashar stay in power, but they have now concluded that the best solution is to replace him with a strong military regime, to block jihadists from taking over.
Negotiation will eventually be necessary, but only on the conditions of the regime’s surrender, in particular amnesty, and an exit for Iran and Russia from their support to Bashar al Assad. There is also a need for negotiation within the revolution on a minimal united front: the role of Islam in the future of Syria, the position of minorities, and international guarantees and assistance.
For the moment, the Annan plan is the only political game in town. To succeed it needs some sticks for use against the regime and as many as 3000 monitors (there are currently fewer than 300) as well as a clear commitment to transition away from Bashar al Assad. If the Annan plan fails, there will be civil war.
A Syrian Kurd underlined that the Kurds have suffered 60 years of oppression in Syria and want to see a real revolution. But the regime is trying to make the rebellion into a sectarian and ethnic conflict. The Kurds fear their efforts will be viewed as separatism. There really is a conspiracy, by the regime, to make the revolution into a civil war. That is increasingly successful, with the conflict framed as Islamists against the Alawites. There will be no military solution without a political one. The Kurds are willing to participate in a unified opposition, but they want to hear an answer to the plan that they have already put forward. They want to see a tolerant society emerge from this revolution.
Another young Syrian activist underlined that the student movement has been in existence since 2001, when Bashar al Assad came to power. The goals have always been freedom, dignity and citizenship. The demonstrators often chant “We are all Kurds, we are all Arabs, we are all Syrians.” The Free Syria Army cannot win a war with the regime. The international powers all have their own agendas, the U.S. with Russia and China and Qatar wanting to export gas to Europe via Syria.
Little did I expect at the end of the presentations to find the session hijacked by hostile remarks from Turks in the audience on the Kurdish question. I should have known. The questioners had heard little about Syria, only about how the Kurds would get what they wanted from the Syrian revolution. The news was not welcome. One of the Syrian Arabs was unequivocal in reply: the Kurds will decide their own destiny.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Talking Turkey
There were Turks in town this week. Well-informed ones who spoke off the record at a meeting that included other luminaries. Here are some of the conclusions from the discussion.
Zero problems with neighbors, Turkey’s avowed foreign policy based on realpolitik, blew away in the gusts of idealism associated with the Arab spring. Turkey now has growing problems with neighbors, especially Syria and Iran but also Iraq.
Syria. Turkey misread Bashar al Assad. Ankara thought he would step aside, but that reflected a misunderstanding of the nature of the Ba’ath regime and an underestimation of the difficulty of getting Bashar out. In fact, Turkey generally lacks people who understand the Middle East well, and even experts who speak Arabic.
With the U.S. reluctant to intervene, Turkey is paralyzed, fearing that anything it does will worsen its own problems with the Kurds and increase refugee flows. Prime Minister Erdogan’s voice is much stronger than his policies. He lacks domestic political support for any further move against Bashar al Assad. There is little popular sympathy for the Syrian revolution in Turkey. Ankara says it supports an inclusive Syrian National Council (SNC), but in practice Turkish support goes mainly to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, the dominant influence within the Syrian National Council, not to secularists.
Turkey wants the Syrian Kurds to support the revolution, but it isn’t willing to support their desire for decentralization. Ankara pressured the SNC to deny the Kurds what they want, causing them to withdraw from the SNC entirely.
Iran. Turkish relations with Iran have deteriorated sharply. The traditional highly competitive but non-hostile relationship is turning ugly, despite rapidly growing bilateral trade. The balance is sharply in Iran’s favor. Iran will not back down on Syria. Nor will Turkey. Tensions are bound to escalate. It is not clear where the breaking point lies, but there is no sign that it can be avoided.
Iraq. Turkey has improved its relations with the Iraqi Kurds (particularly Kurdistan Regional Government President Barzani) in an effort to influence the Syrian Kurds. But Ankara’s relationship with Baghdad has taken a turn for the worse. Turkey is competing for influence in Iraq with Iran.
Bottom lines: A few years ago, Ankara had hopes for zero problems with neighbors and was knocking on the door to the Europe. If Assad survives, Turkey will now face increasing Middle East turmoil that it has little capacity to manage and no European prospect. Ankara has bitten off more than it can chew in Syria and has little idea what to do about it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ineffective solutions to the wrong problem
John Kerry’s renewed advocacy of safe zones and possible arming of the Syrian opposition provokes me to repeat what I’ve said before: these are ineffective solutions to the wrong problem. If you want to protect civilians, the worst thing you can do for them is to concentrate them in one place where Bashar al Assad can be sure he will be killing his opposition. And if you want to bring Bashar down, an armed opposition is one of the slowest and least effective ways to do it.
First, safe areas, corridors, or whatever you want to call them. They will not be safe because the UN Security Council declares them safe. Remember the safe areas in Bosnia and the UN protected areas in Croatia. They were target-rich environments, because that is where the enemies are. To make areas safe, you have to destroy the Syrian army’s capability to attack them, in particular with aircraft (including helicopters), missiles, artillery and armor.
In order to do that, you have to take down the air defenses. Think Libya times five or maybe ten, because Syrian capabilities are significantly greater. Libya was impossible without the jump start the U.S. gave the operation. And there is someone out there who thinks Jordan and Turkey will do Syria on their own? The EU and the U.S. are simply not going to engage in this effort–they have too much else on their minds, and the Americans want to keep the Russians on side for the nuclear negotiations with Iran.
Second, arming the opposition. This is already happening to some extent–small arms circulate widely in the Middle East. But small arms aren’t going to stop armor, artillery and aircraft, or even mass arrests and torture. An assassin could of course get lucky, but armed rebellion has little prospect for overthrowing Bashar, whose army and other security services have remained cohesive. We can of course feed an insurgency in Syria, but that is no quick solution. Insurgencies typically take decades to succeed, and they more often don’t.
These propositions are not only ineffective. They would take things in the wrong direction. Safe areas would attract mainly Sunni Syrians, thus increasing the sectarian segregation that the civil war has already begun. Arming the opposition would also drive away from its ranks the relatively few Alawites, Christians, Druze and others who have joined its ranks.
Sectarian warfare comparable to what happened in Iraq in 2006-7 is just about the worst outcome imaginable in Syria from the American perspective. Odds are it would overflow to Lebanon, Iraq and maybe even Turkey and Jordan.
If you want to intervene militarily in Syria, the United States should lead the effort and target the command and control of the Syrian armed forces, including Bashar al Assad himself. Talking about half measures that won’t work but instead make things worse is not helpful.
The consequences of a serious military strike on the regime are unpredictable. Would Bashar be killed? Who would take over? Would it intensify the civil war? How will Iran react? This too is a solution that could make things worse.
The Annan plan, even not 100% effective, starts looking like a reasonable proposition when you take a good look at the alternatives. We should stop talking smack about it and do our best to support it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ingredients of success
I’m spending the day at the “The Arab Spring: Getting It Right,” the annual conference of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy in lovely Crystal City. Here are a few highlights.
The first session focused on the ingredients for successful democratic transitions. Here are my quick notes:
Dan Brumberg, Georgetown, in the chair:
- Systemic problems need systemic solutions: if you get rid of torture, you need forensics.
- Need process of consensus and pact-making.
- Religion is an important dimension of identity that needs to be part of that process.
Jason Gluck, USIP: constitution-making
- People need to know why they need a new constitution. What are the core principles they want enshrined there?
- Egypt: battles over timing, constitutional committee reflect lack of answers. Exclusiveness undermines the constitution-writing body.
- Tunisia: using simple majority, not consensus, in committees writing the constitution, with little outreach to civil society beyond Tunis.
- Libya: only four months for constitution-writing, which doesn’t allow deep consideration or public participation. Inclusivity is in doubt.
- Process matters more than constitutional content. Because it makes for legitimacy. Making a constitution is a political, not a legal exercise. It incarnates core values of the state and society.
- Not a drafting exercise but a national dialogue about needs and aspirations.
- Inclusive, participatory, consensual, transparent, deliberative processes are more likely to have good results.
Alfred Stepan, Columbia: transition needs these elements:
- Legitimate constitution written by a representative group.
- A government results from popular vote.
- Powersharing (with military or religious authorities) is not necessary
- The government has to have real authority over policy.
- Civil society more important in deconstructing autocracy than in reconstructing the state, which requires political society and leadership.
- Major transitions (end of WWII, 1989) have required international support, but Arab awakening is getting much less external assistance.
- Brumberg: ironically, opposition consensus building happens more in autocratic society like Tunisia rather than in more open one like Egypt.
Tunisia has been successful because parties have been talking with each other and developing consensus (pact-making) for a long time (since 2003)
Laith Kubba, National Endowment for Democracy: getting it right means avoiding chaos or crisis. Indicators:
- Military “neutralized” and under civilian control: Tunisia OK, Egypt not and militias are the problem in Libya.
- Security apparatus has to shift from protecting regime to protecting state.
- Economic equity has to increase.
- State institutions need to emerge that allow society to be free, including at local level.
- Democratic culture, including associations, free but responsible press.
- New elites emerging in political parties, youth groups, think tanks.
- Education improving.
Big risk: those who reject democratic culture as a foreign import.
Comment from a Tunisian participant, whose name I missed:
- Traditional solidarity was important in Tunisia. Reduced likelihood of revenge.
- So too was role of women.
The second session focused on regional and global impacts:
Radwan Ziadeh, Syrian National Council and Carr Center, Harvard
- Syria is not like Tunisia, Yemen or Libya. It is now more like Bosnia: international community hesitancy, political opposition cannot deliver so Free Syria Army is taking over, regime crimes are systematic.
- Hoping for protection of civilians in a safety zone along Turkish border by an Administration that includes people who made the mistakes in Bosnia.
- Three hundred observers are insufficient.
- Need for military action without UN Security Council approval, but UNGA (137 countries) and Friends of Syria provide cover.
- Everyone looking for U.S. leadership, but Washington is inhibited by domestic considerations, lack of oil interest.
- Arabs lack resources and legitimacy to act.
Brian Grim, Pew Research Center: Religion and the Arab Spring
- Government restrictions on religion are increasing in more countries and those with greater population before Arab spring.
- Problem is especially strong in Middle East and North Africa (MENA), where constitutional guarantees for religious freedom are not strong and apostasy laws are prevalent, enforced both by governments and social hostilities.
- Restrictions on conversion 80% in MENA, where both government violence and social hostilities are prevalent.
Caryle Murphy, Woodrow Wilson Center: A View from the Gulf (especially Saudi Arabia)
- Arab Spring affects Saudi Arabia externally: Egypt, Bahrain, Iraq.
- Saudi effort is to manage and keep it away from the Gulf.
- Foreign policy activism: GCC confederation? First step with Bahrain?
- Riyadh is disappointed in the U.S., lack of confidence in U.S. willingness to intervene.
- Arab Spring also affects Saudi Arabia internally: TV, internet and Twitter have made young Saudis more aware of the rest of the world and want to be more like it. Ditto those studying abroad.
- But impulse is still evolutionary, not revolutionary. Unemployment is the big youth problem. Government is aware but will it move fast enough to accommodate youth demands for jobs and more freedom?
- Society still very conservative, political consciousness very limited, including both secularists and Islamists.
- Petitions for constitutional monarchy, Umma party formation led to government clampdown.
- Eastern Province: Shia very unhappy.
- Religion is a focus of debate, which is important because it is the foundation of legitimacy.
Aylin Unver Noi, Gedik University (Turkey): Regional Alignments
- Ankara has shifted foreign policy towards Middle East.
- Sunni resistance camp emerging, pro-Palestinian, Islamist-led, democratic governments.
- Revolution in Syria would cause it to join this camp, as Jordan might.
- Turkey concerned with Kurdish aspirations, especially PKK activities in Syria.
RSS - Posts
