Tag: United Nations
The Islamic State is the easy problem
While the Obama Administration is leaking profusely plans for military intervention in Libya against the Islamic State, I spent a good part of yesterday with people worrying about what to do there beyond killing extremists. It is all too obvious that an air war without a political solution that mobilizes Libyans against the extremists could leave the country even more destabilized than it already is.
It is not so clear what to do about that. A political solution is on the table, but its implementation is stalled, perhaps permanently. Even if the diplomats succeed in their current efforts to get the Government of National Accord (GNA) sworn in, its move to Tripoli poses big security problems, as the capital is in the hands of 15 or more militias loyal to one of the country’s two separate legislative bodies.
Planning for a peacekeeping/stabilization mission is ongoing with the Europeans, including the British, French and Italians. The Americans won’t contribute ground troops but rather “enablers” like ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to the civilians among us) as well as whatever is needed (drones, aircraft, special forces) to attack ISIS.
There is a wide range of views on what kind of stabilization mission is desirable or possible. Some think a light footprint limited to Tripoli, or even limited to protecting the GNA and foreign embassies, will suffice and arouse little Libyan xenophobia, provided the strategic communications are adequate. Others note that experience elsewhere would require upwards of 70,000 international peacekeepers in a country the size of Libya requiring peace enforcement. A small force unable or unwilling to protect the Libyan population might arouse more resentment and resistance, not less. At the very least, major routes, cantonments of weapons, borders and oil facilities will need protection, either by internationals or Libyans.
Any stabilization force will require a GNA request, Arab League endorsement and a United Nations Security Council mandate. It will need to be able to supply and defend itself, including from Islamic State and other extremist and criminal attacks. Those are tall orders.
But Libya also has some characteristics that make peacekeeping relatively easy: it is close to Europe, has good ports and a long coastline, it is mostly flat and desert, with few places for spoilers to hide, other than urban areas. The population is mostly Arab (there are Berbers as well–remember the Barbary pirates) and overwhelmingly Sunni. The country’s immediate neighbors–Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria–are all anxious to end the instability and block the Islamic State from establishing a safe haven in Libya, though they don’t necessarily agree on how to do that.
Beyond getting the GNA up and running, what to do about the militias in Libya is the most difficult governance problem. The Finance Ministry, which still functions, has been paying many of them. Others, especially in the south and west, have already gone into private sector, running smuggling and other illicit businesses. Past efforts to build a united Libyan security force by training people outside the country failed miserably. Next time around it will have to be done in Libya. Many of the militiamen will need to be disarmed and demobilized, but there is little in the way of an economy to integrate them into. It is vital to remember that the militias are linked to local patronage networks, which need to be mobilized in favor of stabilization, not against it.
While the US and others have the tools needed to kill extremists, it is not at all clear that we have what is needed to help the Libyans sort out their differences and begin to govern in ways that will deny safe haven to the Islamic State, which already controls the central coastal town of Sirte. We suffer from PDD: paradigm deficit disorder. A hundred T.E. Lawrences prepared to deploy with the militias and help sort out their differences might suffice. But where would we get the 100 Arabic speakers with deep knowledge of the Libyan human terrain? We have all but forgotten whatever we learned about such things in Iraq and Afghanistan, erased because the administration was determined not to get involved again in statebuilding in the Middle East.
The Islamic State is the easy part of the problem. The hard part is figuring out how Libya will be stabilized and governed once it is gone.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Development and reconciliation in Sri Lanka
SAIS student Stephanie Billingham reports:
The tone was optimistic and conciliatory at USIP’s event with Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera last Thursday. Part of the weeklong inaugural “U.S.-Sri Lanka Partnership Dialogue,” the program consisted of Assistant Secretary of State Nisha Biswal‘s introduction and Foreign Minister Samaraweera remarks as well as a question of and answer session moderated by Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation.
Foreign Minister Samaraweera offered a brief history of Sri Lanka. Upon independence in 1948 it had one of the brightest futures among the former colonies, as the oldest Asian democracy with development indicators unparalleled in the developing world. Tragically, all that potential was lost. Devoid of strong enough leadership, Sri Lanka succumbed to inter-communal violence, unable to come to terms with its multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic, multi-religious population. This need to embrace diversity and ensure that it is protected is at the heart of the current “rainbow coalition’s” agenda, which will move forward with constitutional reform and reconciliation processes over the next year.
Samaraweera cited minority grievances as the driving force of extremism and the eventual cause of the war as well as the subsequent necessity of constitutional reform to protect minorities and their interests. There was a golden moment of opportunity for re-integration and welcome to the warring parties, which was “cruelly squandered to serve the dynastic ambitions of the ruling family at the time.” Victory was followed by a “rampage of triumphalism alienating the Tamil people further.”
That era ended with the coalition of the United National Party (UNP) with President Sirisena, which is ushering in a “new culture of consensus… and much needed political stability.” Sri Lankan political parties are moving beyond confrontation for short-term gains to acting for the benefit of the country as a whole. In particular, he mentioned the incredible work of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) in cooperating with the national coalition government, all parties working to “restore the dignity of our nation, our people, and our military.”
On the constitution, Samaraweera said that reforms are necessary to ensure that violence will never occur again. “All stakeholders [must] feel that their development is being cared for and their lives are improving.” The linkage between development and reconciliation is the issue to which the Foreign Minister pays the greatest attention, as Sri Lanka needs help from the international community to “kick-start the economy and catalyze our development journey.” The government’s strategy depends on encouraging foreign direct investment to make trade more competitive and improve productivity. Accordingly, the new government is “very seriously exploring the possibility of applying to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”
Samaraweera hoped in closing that with the aid of the international community, including the US, Sri Lanka will “finally succeed in creating a country where each individual can live and work with dignity, with self-esteem and confidence in the future.”
A question and answer period followed, which brought up multiple issues, the most important of which were demilitarization of the north and land release; international participation in the special tribunals; and devolution of powers.
On demilitarization in the North and East, Samaraweera reiterated the government’s commitment to slow but steady release of land back to civilians as well as reducing the number of soldiers by 37%. Furthermore, over the next few months, businesses owned and run by the military would be put under civilian administration and those soldiers involved in these activities removed from the area (but he did not comment on how those soldiers would then be employed).
Another question focused on the President’s recent statement that international participation is not needed in the special courts, despite the resolution Sri Lanka co-sponsored at the UN Human Rights Council that called for international involvement. Samaraweera responded that there are many ways in which the international community can be involved in the special tribunals, from prosecutors to investigators of war crimes. The government will hold to the resolution, he said.
One question concerned the inclusion of devolution of powers in the new constitution, addressing a key grievance of the Tamil population. Samaraweera stated that the new Constitution would protect minority rights and advance their interests, without responding specifically on devolution.
Samaraweera did not discuss one important aspect of Sri Lankan post-war stabilization: how the government will deal with the rise of Buddhist extremism, though he acknowledged that some religious leaders are fanning the flames of inter-communal distrust.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Leaving no one behind in fragile states
SAIS second year student Alexandra Martin reports from the World Bank’s Fragility Forum meeting this week in Washington:
The world appears to be particularly volatile these days, facing challenges that threaten and undermine development progress that has been achieved in the last decade. With an unstable MENA region and a disastrous war in Syria, the most alarming refugee crisis since the end of the World War II, and an increasingly fragile environment across the globe, the ambitious agendas of various international organizations are at risk.
From 1 to 3 March the World Bank is hosting the Fragility Forum 2016 under the theme “Take Action for Peaceful and Inclusive Societies.” Development, humanitarian, security and diplomatic actors are looking for ways forward in collaboration, in order to identify important new steps in reducing the underlying causes of fragility, conflict and violence. The World Bank Group has committed to achieve its own twin goals: to end extreme poverty by 2030 and to promote shared responsibility in a sustainable manner.
The opening panel of the Fragility Forum featured high level global personalities who discussed how to push forward the sustainable development agenda, including in particular the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16: peace, justice and strong institutions. Here are a few of the highlights:
Sri Mulyani Indrawati (COO, The World Bank) emphasized the twin goals of the Bank and reiterated that the current and emerging threats such as extremism and inequality jeopardize efforts at ending poverty. She also called for collective institutional action that would enable closer cooperation between humanitarian, development, government and peace-building communities.
Jim Yong Kim (CEO, The World Bank) reminded the participants that “we put at risk our collective hope” to achieve our goals. Inequality has substantially increased and instability has become “normal.” The current situation in the Middle East and North Africa, especially the ongoing war in Syria, creates spill-over not only in the region but also beyond. Violence against civilians, forced displacement and terrorism are now part of a new paradigm in which peace and development must go hand in hand and not sequentially.
Kim asked the participants at the forum to respond to six questions relevant for work in the fragile environments:
- Fragility is not limited anymore to low income countries. How do we cope with this phenomenon in middle income countries?
- How do we improve service delivery and technical capacity in low income countries?
- How can the humanitarian and development people work better together: one humanity, shared responsibility?
- Most of the refugees around the world don’t live in camps anymore, creating pressure on the local communities. How can we ensure that both refugee and local communities are well served and their needs met?
- There is not enough ODA to satisfy current needs. What are the innovative financial instruments which can be implemented? For example, the newly created MENA Financing Facility ($1 billlion).
- We don’t know enough about refugees, who they are, what they want, what are their skills and capabilities, whom they left behind. How can we better adjust our programs to meet their needs?
In conclusion, he highlighted the risk of paying attention only when there is an acute crisis, like the refugee situation in Europe now. Intervention without follow-on efforts creates instability. The World Bank is committed to work together with its partners and join efforts to find new ways forward.
UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson brought to participants’ attention the new “5P agenda”: people, planet, prosperity, peace and partnership. He cited the latest achievements at the global level, such as the SDGs and the Paris Agreement. “There is no peace without development, no development without peace and neither peace nor development without respect for human rights,” the UN DSG said while emphasizing that finding a settlement for protracted conflicts is increasingly difficult. There are several factors that trigger conflict: political rivalry, international interference, human rights violations, extremism or weak governance, but it is in everyone’s interest to find peaceful solutions to conflicts.
Eliasson conveyed three key messages:
- Preventing conflicts should become a top priority. This implies a better understanding of the early trends, before there is escalation. Much more pre- and post-conflict work is needed, from the first signs of instability to full recovery. Reducing the risks and building resilience remain an important objectives.
- The humanitarian needs must be reduced. Demands are overwhelming supply. 125 million people need humanitarian assistance today. The $16.4 billion UN response is falling short. The lack of funds affects peoples’ lives
- We must work together. To achieve sustainable peace, more targeted resources that reduce the sources of conflict must be put together. National ownership, national capacities and national leadership need to be supported with international technical assistance.
Last, but not least, Eliasson asked the participants to think about the shared humanity and responsibility that drive our actions and the importance to us all of responding to the expectations of impoverished people. Multilateral cooperation, combined with more credible institutions, are a way forward. Fragmentation of efforts is costly and ineffective. There are no quick and easy fixes to address the disillusion and grievances of the people worldwide.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Dear Hashim,
The Kosovo parliament yesterday elected Hashim Thaci President, to be inaugurated in April. Here is what I have to say to him today:
Congratulations! You have been privileged to lead the government for six years, including at independence, you have served more than a year as foreign minister, and now you will be chief of state. Not bad for a guy still under 50.
As you know all too well, such jobs come with responsibilities. They are like owning a boat: the first day and the last are the best.
For the next five years you face enormous challenges. The first is to heal the rift that your election has created in Kosovo’s polity. You won only on the third ballot and without opposition support. Parts of the opposition preferred to take to the streets and even to violence in an effort to derail, or at least diminish, your election.
I’ve got no sympathy whatsoever for the violence, which besmirches Kosovo more than you. That I am afraid is the purpose: the leadership of the violent protests opposes Kosovo statehood and wants instead to exercise the right of self-determination in order to join Albania, something that the Kosovo constitution prohibits. This is no less a threat to the state that you will represent than are the efforts by Belgrade to gain effective control over the Serb population of Kosovo. Both are anti-constitutional forces that will require a great deal of your attention and all the wisdom you can muster.
One of your greatest challenges will be to enlarge the sphere of moderate politics and transform these fringes of the Kosovo political space into something more like loyal oppositions. That will be enormously difficult, as the fringes despise each other even if they share a disdain for Kosovo’s statehood. Every move you make to be proper, fair and respectful to Serbs will find opposition among some Albanians. Any move you make to accommodate your Albanian critics will generate criticism in Belgrade. Your constitutional court’s wise guidance on implementation of the Association of Serb Municipalities should help on that especially contentious issue.
Even if it does, you will still face implacable opposition from part of your Albanian opposition, which not only loathes you personally but is also committed to ending the Belgrade/Pristina dialogue precisely because it helps to consolidate Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state. The best antidote will be the Kosovo state’s success in meeting the expectations of its people, many of whom are disappointed in the fruits of independence. There is far too much unemployment and underemployment, especially among young people.
I’d be the first to admit that the European economic recession is a primary factor in limiting Kosovo’s ability to provide jobs and prosperity to its own people. There is not a lot the Kosovo state can do to respond to that exogenous factor, especially since you wisely use the euro as your currency and therefore are unable to devalue. Nor is the president in charge of economic policy.
You can however do something about other factors that are shaping the public’s mood. Kosovo’s economic growth has in fact been relatively robust compared to Europe and the rest of the Balkans. Your citizens aren’t giving much credit for that because the benefits seem unfairly distributed. We have that problem in the United States too. In Kosovo, people believe nepotism, corruption and organized crime are the reasons. As president, you will need to set an example, as your predecessor has done, and insist on a level of probity, transparency and accountability that has too often been lacking, including in governments you have led.
The still pending European investigation of crimes committed against Serbs, Albanians and others after the Kosovo war will pose a particular problem for you. I imagine Brussels and Washington will continue to press for creation of a special court to try the accused. Because of the Marty report, which implied much but proved little, it is widely believed you may be among them. You will have to decide whether to use your new position to push ahead or to impede creation of the special court. You will also have to decide how to react if the Europeans bring an indictment against you personally.
Pristina’s relationship with Belgrade continues to fall short of what I would like to see. I believe it is important to convince Belgrade to recognize Kosovo’s sovereignty and territorial integrity sooner rather than later, if only by allowing Kosovo to become a member of the United Nations. This is not a big leap from the April 2013 political agreement that you negotiated, but it will require the same savvy diplomacy you employed as well as a lot of international community support, including from some of the European countries that don’t yet recognize Kosovo. International support will depend in large part on whether you are successful in convincing people that Kosovo is cleaning up its act, enforcing the rule of law and treating all its citizens equally.
Hashim: though strong politically within the governing coalition and your own political party, you are still a divisive figure domestically and an ambiguous one internationally. Your presidency will be an opportunity to overcome both defects. I know that won’t be easy. But I also know that you have demonstrated talents, ingenuity and determination that have served your country well in the past, both in war and peace. I wish you success in meeting the challenges ahead!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Besieged
The Atlantic Council hosted ‘Inside the Sieges: Scope and Implications of Besieged Syria’ on Wednesday. Mohamad Katoub, Protection Officer for the Syrian American Medical Society, Valerie Szybala, Executive Director of The Syria Institute, and Jan Jap van Oosterzee, Middle East Policy Lead at PAX led the discussion, while Faysal Itani, Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, moderated and Frederic C. Hof, Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council offered opening remarks.
Katoub began by explaining the circumstances he and his family were under when they left Damascus. He had no milk to feed his son, and the situation was becoming dire. In a besieged area, people will do anything to survive, and the main concern is to feed the children. Katoub’s family decided it was time to seek a better situation. Katoub, his wife, and son were able to leave Damascus, as it is easier to go through checkpoints as a family. Katoub stated plainly that he does not want asylum. He wants to be able to return to Syria, which will only be possible if peace is secured.
In Damascus, nearly 5,000 people have died from cluster bombs. Smuggling medication past checkpoints is very dangerous, and there are not enough vaccinations to serve the entire population. The situation in the newly besieged area of Aleppo shows just how much the UN resolution for humanitarian aid needs to be implemented. Civilians do not have food, vaccinations, medication, and are suffering from barrel bombs. The civilians of Syria cannot wait for negotiations to succeed in order to receive aid.
Oosterzee explained that PAX has been working in Syria since 2003 and has worked with civil society activists even before the uprising. PAX has worked with local councils since the conflict began, too. PAX has received questions on why they are so focused on exact numbers. Having the correct numbers shows if there is a pattern. One of the trends in Syria is how starvation has become a weapon of war. The situation looks worse based on the data. Oosterzee pointed out that a lot of international attention helps a little bit.
Szybala talked about The Syria Institute’s Siege Watch report, which was written because recognition is needed of what is actually happening on the ground in Syria. The United Nations is not reporting the real damage. For instance, the UN only recognizes only 181,000 people in Damascus under siege, while the real total is close to 500,000. This report’s information was collected from contacts on the ground, who submit surveys on population movements, deaths, and food amounts in their communities.
Siege Watch found that siege leads to economic collapse. Extortion and smuggling are far too common. Massive displacement occurs, from movement out of the area or from movement from one besieged area to another besieged area. Recruitment by the regime and extremist groups often takes place, as unemployment is high.
Current besieged areas include Idlib, Homs, Damascus and its countryside, and Deir Ezzor. Idlib is the only siege implemented by opposition troops. Civilians there have received airdrops from the Syrian government. The Syrian regime carries out a siege much more efficiently because it has the manpower and resources to do so. Collective punishment and the prevention of humanitarian aid are common. The Siege Watch report is critical to understanding the ground situation and to have exact information on war crimes.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A view from inside the nuclear negotiations
On February 9, Wilson Center hosted ‘Inside the Iran Negotiations: A Conversation with Chief Negotiator Ambassador Wendy R. Sherman.’ Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO of the Wilson Center, introduced Sherman, and Robert S. Litwak, Vice President for Scholars and Director of International Security Studies at the Wilson Center, prompted questions for Sherman to consider.
After nearly 20 months of negotiations, a nuclear deal with Iran was reached in 2015. The negotiations took place over a four-year period. The first two years of talks did not accomplish much, but Sherman was able to assess the Iranian mindset.
A major change occurred when President Hassan Rouhani assumed power. While Rouhani is a part of the revolutionary zeal and is a cleric, he is not a strict hardliner unwilling to compromise. He had to address the serious economic problems the regime faced, or else face dissent from dissatisfied constituents. After Rouhani came to power, Sherman took part in secret bilateral talks with Iran. Ultimately, the secret negotiations were brought to the formal table, as Iran proved it was serious about halting production of nuclear material.
The P5+1 formal negotiations proposed a comprehensive plan of action where Iran would no longer enrich uranium beyond a specified level and refrain from producing plutonium. Sherman claimed that this deal was written so Iran could never have a nuclear weapon. If Iran breaks its end of the bargain, the US will reimpose sanctions and military action will be considered.
She added that though sanctions never stopped Iran from producing nuclear material, they did bring Iran to the negotiating table. The nuclear deal is written as a long-term solution. It will remain durable because it is in everyone’s best interests to comply. The deal also guarantees access to Iranian facilities. Iranian production of nuclear material will be closely monitored. The only way for Iran to sidestep this deal would be to produce nuclear material covertly, which is nearly impossible.
Negotiations not only involved the US and Iran coming to an agreement, but also creating a solution the P5+1 could agree upon. Getting all actors to agree was a complex process. Sherman teased that she negotiated with the P5+1 countries the most, and only negotiated a fair amount with Iran. Outside actors affected the negotiation process, too. She dealt with Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu’s criticism of the deal, always remaining in contact with Israel throughout the negotiation period. The US also shared information about the process with Israeli experts and Gulf allies, and always looked for outside input.
Sherman said implementation will be a major challenge. The US received information that someone in Iran had injected gas into a more advanced centrifuge, which the Iranian negotiators seemed to know nothing about. Whether it was someone trying to sabotage the deal, or the restrictions were understood, is unclear.
If there is significant noncompliance in the future, a 30-day period is available to resolve the problem. Communication and transparency is key to this deal’s success. A channel of communication has been established, which has boosted US-Iranian relations, but it is unclear whether communication will generate trust. Grievances are deep on both sides.
RSS - Posts
