Tag: United Nations

What difference do women make?

Posted in Bridget Gill - October 28, 2015 - 0 Comment

For the  15th anniversary of UNSCR 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security, on Tuesday the US Institute of Peace collaborated with five Scandinavian embassies to host the event “Global Security: What Does Gender Have To Do With It?” The event specifically examines what lessons may be learned from Scandinavian successes in gender equality and feminist policies, and comes in the wake of a new global report that explores the continuing – and some new – challenges for gender equality and women’s rights worldwide.

After Ambassador William Taylor, Executive Vice President of the USIP, gave the welcome, His Excellency Geir Haarde, Iceland’s Ambassador to the US, highlighted Scandinavian countries’ successes, including their long history of collaborating and sharing best practices, but also warned that even they must be vigilant against backsliding. This is especially important considering the global climate for gender rights: violent extremism, gender-based violence, systematic rape as a weapon of war, women being formally excluded from peace processes, and many other continuing challenges.

The keynote speaker, Elisabeth Rehn, former Minister of Defense for Finland and instrumental in achieving UNSCR 1325, took a global outlook. Nordic countries have indeed achieved much, but 1325 in particular ‘was born in Africa, in Namibia’. Rehn therefore highlighted the locality of all advancement initiatives. There is a crucial role for the UN, of course, in formalizing and institutionalizing such initiatives, and for world leaders as well, but Rehn pointed out that women the world over – as individuals – have different needs and expectations, and so naturally they need different projects as well.

Rehn also explored one of the central themes of the event: including women in peace negotiations and processes greatly enhances the success of negotiations and the sustainability of peace agreements, and counters violent extremism. Women’s participation can produce creative peace, which pays attention to the psychological aspects of reconstruction as well as the physical, and incorporates social, health, and education issues – especially for girls.

The expert panel featured Brigadier Flemming Kent Vesterby Agerskov of Denmark, who was Director of the Combined Joint Interagency Task Force in Afghanistan; Captain Anna Bjorsson, Gender Advisor at the Swedish Armed Forces Headquarters; Carla Koppell, Chief Strategy Officer at USAID; and Ambassador Dag Halvor Nylander, Norwegian Special Envoy to the Colombian Peace Process.

Agerskov offered insights into how incorporating women into his efforts to fight corruption and increase stability in Afghanistan heightened successes there. Like his fellows on the panel, he emphasized the need for decisive leadership on board with increasing women’s participation in all aspects of peace processes and civil society initiatives. Bjorsson stated that gender equality is a central policy of Sweden’s current government, following the principle that women and men must have the same power to shape society and their own lives. Creating a military with a gender-equal code of conduct and increased female participation makes it more effective in addressing different groups’ security concerns, as well as enhancing its reputation.

Koppell highlighted the relative successes of the USAID agenda on women’s rights in the past three years, with 50,000 women worldwide working for it in some capacity, but also stressed that this program needs to improve. For instance, they are behind on women mediators and dealing with non-state actors in countries where USAID projects are based, as well as in exploring the consequences for gender rights of new threats like climate change.

Nylander concluded with an illuminating overview on how the peace process in Colombia over the past three years has had the most success of any such process in confronting gender issues, such as sexual violence; integrating a gender perspective into all resolutions; and working with numerous women civil society activists and women’s NGOs. Importantly, though at first neither party (the Colombian government and FARC) fully acknowledged the importance of gender issues, they now are both supportive of these steps.

This panel did not have sufficient time to go into detail about local cases, but the speakers agreed on global themes and answered their initial question. UN reports and local experiences have shown that gender-inclusive settings with active participation from both men and women greatly facilitate negotiations and create enduring peace agreements. Women, like men, have roles to play at every level and at every step in the process, even in militaries. Hopefully, the next fifteen years will bring more progress.

Tags : , , , , , , , , ,

What the Russians are proposing

Posted in Daniel Serwer - October 28, 2015 - 0 Comment

Friday’s meeting on Syria in Vienna will include everyone but the Syrians: the US, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. I’ll be surprised if the Europeans don’t edge their way in as well. The Egyptians will try too.

A Russian proposal, so far ignored by the English-language press, will be on the table for the occasion. A Syrian source has assured me it is real. I am hoping it is. With gratitude to MEI intern Bridget Gill for the translation from  الشرق الأوسط here it is:

  1. Determining a ‘bank of targets’ shared between the nations which are conducting strikes in Syrian territory, and putting the factions that do not accept a political solution in the ‘target bank.’
  2. Freezing fighting forces, whether the FSA or the regime forces.
  3. Putting in motion a conference for dialogue that includes the Syrian regime, the domestic and external opposition, and the FSA. This is a dialogue which must produce:
    • A general amnesty
    • Release of all prisoners
    • Parliamentary elections
    • Presidential elections
    • Formation of a national unity government in which all parties are represented.
    • Conducting constitutional amendments that transfers several of the president’s mandatory powers to the government as an assembly (along the lines of the Lebanese model).
  4. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, personally promises that the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad will not stand as a candidate in these elections, but this does not prevent the candidacy of those close to him or other figures in the regime in these elections.
  5. The creation of a framework to integrate the brigades of the FSA with the regime army after the integration of the Syrian militias supporting the regime into the army.
  6. Russia assures that the amnesty will include all opposition figures domestically and abroad, even those who have picked up arms, and in exchange the opposition [must] commit not to pursue al-Assad and regime figures legally in the future, whether they choose to remain in Syria or to leave it.
  7. Breaking the siege in all besieged areas on the part of the regime, in exchange for [the opposition] lifting the siege on the regime’s besieged areas, and the opposition’s cessation of acts of aggression and nations’ freezing their arming of these parties.
  8. Russia preserves its military bases inside Syria, on the strength of a resolution from the Security Council.
  9. Russia has stipulated that some of the articles of the agreement be kept secret, among them the issue of al-Assad’s participation in the elections, out of fear of his losing control of the army and other armed forces.

I see lots of things wrong with this proposition, but it is certainly not one that should be dismissed out of hand. Assuming it is real, the Russians are essentially saying that they want out of their current bad bet on Bashar al Assad while preserving their military bases and influence in Syria. They don’t much care about the rest, though we can expect them to back someone in the elections who promises to do what Moscow wants.

The devil is of course in the other details. It wouldn’t be easy to get Moscow and Washington to agree on a target list. How would it be decided who accepts a political solution? Freezing areas of control would be difficult, as they are uncertain and often changing. Quid pro quo ending of sieges has been tried many times and hasn’t worked well so far. Amnesty for war crimes and crimes against humanity is not possible in the 21st century. Who conducts parliamentary and presidential elections? How is the transitional national unity government formed? How is this proposition related to ongoing United Nations-sponsored talks?

Too many people have seen the Russian intervention in Syria as a sign of Moscow’s strength. To the contrary: it was undertaken to prevent the Assad regime from losing vital territory in Latakia. Moscow is spending more than it can afford in blood and treasure on helping the Iranians preserve Assad’s hold on power. This proposal, while unacceptable in many respects, is a clear indication that the Russians are looking for a way out. While bargaining hard for improvements in this still unacceptable proposition, Washington will have to decide whether to give it to them.

Tags : , , , , , ,

Peace picks October 26-30

Posted in Bridget Gill - October 26, 2015 - 0 Comment
  1. 20th Anniversary of Dayton Peace Accords Series – The Balkan Wars of the 1990s: Reflection and Reconciliation | Monday, October 26th | 10:00-12:00 | Johns Hopkins, SAIS | REGISTER TO ATTEND | This event is hosted by SAIS’s Center for Transatlantic Relations (CTR), which is a non-profit research center that engages opinion leaders on contemporary challenges facing Europe and North America. The goal of the Center is to strengthen and reorient transatlantic relations to the dynamics of a globalizing world. Panelists: Thomas J. Miller, Former U.S. Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina; Robert E. Hunter, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO; and Robert M. Beecroft, Former OSCE Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Moderator: Sasha Toperich, CTR SAIS Senior Fellow and Director, Mediterranean Basin Initiative.
  2. Putin’s Crimea Gamble: Russia, Ukraine, and the New Cold War | Monday, October 26th | 10:30-12:00 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Since the time of Catherine the Great, Crimea has been a global tinderbox. Most recently, the world was stunned when the forces of Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded and seized Crimea in March 2014. In the months since, Putin’s actions in Crimea, eastern Ukraine and, more recently, in Syria have provoked a sharp deterioration in East-West relations. Basic questions have been raised about Putin’s provocative policies, his motivations, and the future of U.S.-Russian relations—and whether the world has now entered a new Cold War.On October 26, the Foreign Policy program at Brookings will host Nonresident Senior Fellow Marvin Kalb for the launch of his new book, Imperial Gamble: Putin, Ukraine, and the New Cold War (Brookings Institution Press, 2015). In Imperial Gamble, Kalb examines Putin’s actions in Ukraine, the impact on East-West relations, and how the future of the post-Cold War world hangs on the controversial decisions of one reckless autocrat, Vladimir Putin. Joining the discussion are Thomas Friedman, The New York Times columnist, and Nina Khrushcheva, professor of international relations at The New School. Brookings President Strobe Talbott will provide introductory remarks, and Martin Indyk, Brookings executive vice president, will moderate the discussion.
  3. A Global or Regional Future for Central Asia? | Tuesday, October 27th | 9:00-10:30 | CSIS | RSVP: rep@csis.org | The United States, China and Russia have developed competing visions for Central Asia. The U.S. and China both use the imagery of the Silk Road to describe their visions, but thus far dialogue between the two countries remains modest in scope and pace. At the same time, Russian-Chinese collaboration on Central Asia is growing quickly. What may be the future development of U.S.-Russia-China relationship in Central Asia? And why is Central Asia important for international security more broadly? Featuring: Ivan Safranchuk, Deputy Director of the Institute of Contemporary International Studies, Diplomatic Academy (Moscow); with Jeffrey Mankoff, Acting Director and Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program, CSIS, as discussant. The conversation will be moderated by Olga Oliker, Director and Senior Adviser, Russia and Eurasia Program, CSIS.
  4. Indonesia in the changing world: A conversation with President Joko Widodo of Indonesia | Tuesday, October 27th | 11:00-12:00 | Brookings | For more info: events@brookings.edu | On October 27, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies at Brookings will host President Joko Widodo of Indonesia for a discussion on the role of Indonesia in the changing world, focusing on economic opportunities and reforms, geopolitics, ASEAN, and international commitments. Brookings President Strobe Talbott will provide introductions and Congressman Brad Sherman of California will deliver opening remarks. Director of the Center for East Asia Policy Studies Richard Bush will moderate the discussion and conclude with his closing remarks. President Widodo took office in October 2014, defeating his opponent through an unprecedented, volunteer-based campaign that called for government reforms. Previously, he served as the governor of Jakarta (2012-2014) and as the mayor of Surakarta (2005-2012).
  5.  Captured News Media: The Case of Turkey | Tuesday, October 27th | 12:00-2:00 | Center for International Media Assistance | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Media capture –the systemic governance problem where political leaders and media owners work together in a symbiotic but mutually corrupting relationship – is a growing concern for media development around the world. It is becoming the dominant model of organization in a growing number of media markets, raising worrisome questions. Looking at the media market in Turkey as a case study, how does media capture affect journalists on the ground? What are the implications of media capture on Turkey’s upcoming elections? Join the Center for International Media Assistance at the National Endowment for Democracy in launching its latest report, “Captured News Media: The Case of Turkey” with an expert panel discussion featuring report author Andrew Finkel, Gönül Tol, Amberin Zaman, and Richard Kraemer.
  6. Global Security: What Does Gender Have to Do With It? | Tuesday, October 27th | 2:00-5:30 | US Institute for Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The imperative for women to participate fully in decisions about peace and security won unprecedented recognition 15 years ago with the U.N. Security Council’s adoption of Resolution 1325 calling for members to craft national plans to accomplish that objective. Now, the new U.N. Strategic Development Goals declare women’s equality as a precondition to resolving many of the world’s national and regional crises. Please join the U.S. Institute of Peace and the five Nordic Embassies on Oct. 27 for a discussion with Nordic representatives that have helped pave the way on the connections between gender and security.Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden are ranked as the top five countries in the 2014 World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index ratings. The discussion at USIP will explore the Nordic countries’ approach to gender equality and to global security more broadly. This event will celebrate the 15th anniversary of the landmark UNSC Resolution 1325 and the underlying principle that gender equality is at the core of peace and security. Speakers include: Mr. Geir H. Haarde, Ambassador of Iceland to the United States and Former President of the Nordic Council; Ms. Elisabeth Rehn, Former Minister of Defense of Finland and Independent Expert of the High Level Advisory Group for the Global Review on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325; Ambassador Dag Nylander, Norwegian Special Envoy to Colombia; Captain Anna Björsson, Gender Advisor at the Swedish Armed Forces Headquarters; Brigadier Flemming Kent Vesterby Agerskov, Chief at the Regional Command South and former Director of the Combined Joint Interagency Task Force Shafafiyat; and Ms. Carla Koppell, Chief Strategy Officer at U.S. Agency for International Development. Ambassador Donald Steinberg, President and CEO of World Learning, will moderate. Join the conversation on Twitter with #1325at15. A reception sponsored by the Nordic Embassies will follow the event from 4:00 pm – 5:30 pm.
  7. Democratizing Under Fire: Can Tunisia Show the Way? | Wednesday, October 28th | 10:00-11:30 | US Institute of Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | As Tunisia struggles to build a stable democracy from its 2011 Arab Spring revolution, it must overcome terrorist attacks, high unemployment, a refugee crisis and the threat of social turmoil. The stakes are region-wide, as Tunisia remains the only one of five Arab Spring countries to be treading a non-violent, democratic path. A critical figure in Tunisia’s evolution—Sheikh Rachid Ghannouchi, the leader of the Islamist movement Nahda—visits USIP, together with the Center for the Study of Islamic Democracy, on October 28 to discuss how his country can consolidate its progress.Tunisia’s success or failure in building a peaceful democracy is central to U.S. and international interests in a stable North Africa, Middle East and Arab world—an importance recognized this month by the award of the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize to key mediators in the country’s political struggle. After two attacks by militant gunmen killed scores of people and crimped the country’s vital tourist economy this year, the government imposed a state of emergency—a step that raised fears among many Tunisians about a return to the country’s decades of authoritarian, police-enforced rule.Disillusion among young Tunisians has made the country one of the biggest recruiting grounds for violent militant groups such as ISIS. As Tunisian youth circulate to battlefields in the Middle East—and as this nation of 11 million people hosts one million or more refugees from the civil war in neighboring Libya—how can Tunisia manage its borders, improve its security, prevent violence, and also strengthen democratic politics?In discussing these questions, Sheikh Ghannouchi is a vital voice. His movement, Nahda, led the first post-revolution government, which wrote the country’s new, more democratic, constitution. It is now a coalition partner in the secularist government led by President Beji Caid Essebsi. Sheikh Ghannouchi will deliver remarks on the challenges facing his homeland and its region. He then will join Ambassador William Taylor and author Robin Wright in a discussion that will include questions from the audience. Join the question on Twitter with #USIPTunisia.
  8. Minorities in the Syrian War and Implications for U.S. Policy | Wednesday, October 28th | 12:30-1:45 | Johns Hopkins SAIS – Rome Building | RSVP: raman2@jhu.edu | The Middle East Studies program hosts Faysal Itani, Resident Fellow at the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East at the Atlantic Council, to speak on this subject.
  9. Implications for Afghanistan: The Taliban Seizure of Kunduz | Wednesday, October 28th | 2:30-4:30 | US Institute of Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Taliban’s two-week seizure of Kunduz in September revealed weaknesses in Afghanistan’s security forces and unforeseen Taliban capabilities. It has generated deep concerns about stability, security, the future of the peace process, and underappreciated humanitarian issues. On October 28, USIP will convene experts to analyze Kunduz and its fallout, including President Obama’s decision to extend the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan beyond 2016. The fall of the northern city of Kunduz to the Taliban ignited serious concerns about the ability of the Afghan National Security Forces to maintain stability in their country. While Afghan forces recaptured Kunduz with international support, Taliban forces continue to pressure other northern cities while carrying out operations elsewhere.The government in Kabul and its backers are re-evaluating how security is provided. President Obama announced a reversal of his decision to remove all U.S. combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2016, saying that 5,500 would remain. While that decision had been under long discussion, it seems that Kunduz forced the issue. Meanwhile, pro-government factional leaders are urging Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to rearm local militias against the Taliban. Many analysts say predatory actions by existing militias were part of the problem in Kunduz. Since the takeover, reports of human rights abuses and humanitarian problems are emerging from Kunduz, and the Afghan government and international community seem ill-prepared to deal with the humanitarian crisis.Finally, the fall of Kunduz was a blow to Afghanistan’s “national unity” government, which so far has given the impression of being more focused on internal rivalries than on its core responsibilities. How did divisions within the government contribute to the fall of Kunduz? And might the city’s ordeal prompt better internal coordination?Please join USIP on Wednesday October 28 for a discussion among experts on these questions and what they may mean for stability in Afghanistan. Speakers include: Belquis Ahmadi, Senior Program Officer Asia Center, U.S. Institute of Peace; Deedee Derksen, King’s College London, Author, The Politics of Disarmament and Rearmament in Afghanistan; Ali Jalali, Distinguished Professor, National Defense University, Former Interior Minister of Afghanistan; and Christopher D. Kolenda, Former Senior Advisor on Afghanistan and Pakistan, Department of Defense. Scott Smith, Director for Afghanistan & Central Asia at USIP, will moderate.
  10. What is Next for Human Rights in Iran? | Thursday, October 29th | 2:00-3:30 | Freedom House | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Hassan Rouhani’s presidency has coincided with a deterioration of human rights. At least 800 individuals have been executed in 2015 – the highest number in 25 years. Over a thousand prisoners of conscience remain in Iranian jails, including American citizens, and many after serving their terms. Iran also has blocked efforts by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate abuses inside the country.Please join us for a discussion of the state of human rights in Iran today, and how the United States, the United Nations, and the international community should respond. Speakers include: Ahmed Shaheed, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran; Daniel Calingaert, Executive Vice President, Freedom House; and Mehrangiz Kar, Award-winning human rights lawyer and author. Carol Morello, Washington Post correspondent, will moderate.
  11. New Challenges to the Laws of War: A Discussion with Ambassador Valentin Zellweger | Friday, October 30th | 9:00-10:30 | REGISTER TO ATTEND | New technologies have altered the way nations conduct armed conflict. Advanced cyber techniques and autonomous weapons systems are two salient examples, and nations can wield these tools to great effect. As these technologies proliferate, international bodies need to consider how existing legal frameworks keep pace with on-the-ground realities.
    Join Ambassador Valentin Zellweger, Director General for International Law and Legal Advisor at the Swiss Foreign Ministry and a group of leading experts for a discussion on how the challenges posed by modern technology can be addressed within the existing laws of armed conflict (LOAC) framework. Ambassador Zellweger will particularly draw from past experiences, such as the regulation of private military and security companies in the Montreux process, in order to illustrate ways to address new challenges in LOAC. Other panelists include: Colonel Gary Brown, Professor of Cyber Security, Marine Corps University; Catherine Lotrionte, Director of the Institute for Law, Science and Global Security, Georgetown University; and David Simon, Counsel, Sidley Austin, LLP. Light refreshments will be served at 10:30 AM following the panel.
Tags : , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Governing Syria 2

Posted in Daniel Serwer - October 13, 2015 - 4 Comments

Last week, I suggested the Syrian opposition is in a better position to govern, at least in a part of Syria, than President Obama believes. But I also promised more on the local administrative councils, Syrian nongovernmental organizations, the assistance coordination unit and the nascent Free Syria University, all civilian activities that represent the best the Syrian opposition has to offer. Today I’ll try to fulfill that promise.

Local councils

Local councils are not unique in Syria. The Libyan revolution also spontaneously generated ad hoc municipal governing councils in 2011 and 2012. But the phenomenon seems to be unusually pervasive in Syria, with the count now about 425 according to the Ministry of Local Administration (MOLA). Most function at the local level, but some function at the city or provincial level. MOLA is trying to raise the number of provincial-level councils from 7-8 at present to 9-10 (out of 14 provinces) by the end of the year.

What do they do? The most recent and most comprehensive report is from last spring, by the Local Administrative Councils Unit (LACU), a creature of the Syrian opposition but not part of the Syrian Interim Government (SIG). A second survey by a Syrian NGO on their legitimacy is in progress. The LACU report suggests that, in addition to emergency response, the most common projects are in the areas of water, power, education, health, and hygiene (I suppose that includes waste management). But most projects are stalled, often because of lack of funding, especially for salaries. A few councils have set up a local police force. Some have set up courts. Many more local ones record marriages and property transactions, though they don’t always have access to regime records.

Where do they operate? Half of the local councils operate in liberated areas subject to bombardment. A handful operate in regime-controlled areas. About one-third operate in stable liberated areas.

How are the local councils formed? One-third were elected, sometimes in indirect elections (that is, a larger electoral assembly chooses them). Half are formed “by consensus.” They are overwhelmingly male–I was told fewer than 2% of the members are women. In rural areas the local councils may have less authority than armed groups, but in cities they hold more sway. Stories of local councils facing down armed groups there are common. The armed groups need the local councils to take care of civilian needs.

How are they funded? The international donors are dealing a great deal with the local councils, most often without coordination or reference to the Syrian Interim Government, which has no funds to provide to the local councils for projects. A few manage to collect some fees or taxes, but most rely on volunteer labor and international donor support. The local councils depend heavily for  legitimacy on their ability to deliver services, and secondarily on accountability and transparency. They are a genuinely bottom-up phenomenon.

Fully funding the local councils would require about $3.5 million per month for the salaries of about 10,000 workers. Supporting them fully to provide services and build projects would cost about $300 million per year, I was told.

Nongovernmental organizations

Syrian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) tend to be elite organizations run by well-educated people with good connections to international donors (that, anyway, is what I was told by an NGOer). The NGOs emphasize the right things: service delivery, accountability and transparency. But they also sometimes compete for service delivery with the local administrative councils, which often can’t meet donor requirements for documentation, monitoring and evaluation.

NGO activities inside Syria are however vital and impressive. They negotiate ceasefires and prisoner releases, deal with kidnappers, mobilize first responders, help open schools, promote intergroup dialogue, provide medical aid in besieged areas and counter violence against women. They are trying to organize an effort to allow NGOs to participate in UN peace talks. If the idea of a northern protected zone goes ahead, NGOs will have prepared Arabs, Turkmen and Kurds to return and decide on priorities for their future.

Education

Syrians have a particular concern with education. The SIG has managed to administer high school exams in liberated areas and in the neighboring countries (among refugees) for several years. One million students attend “field” schools in liberated areas and refugee camps, taught inside Syria by 25,000 volunteer teachers in apartments and basements (most school buildings in liberated areas have been bombed). There is a computer school for disabled students in Aleppo.

But many Syrian children are not in school. High school courses are on online, but the literacy rate is down to 50-60% among young people. More educated Syrians are leaving and going to Europe. In an effort to keep more young people in Syria, the SIG is planning to open in November a “Free Syria University” in liberated areas for 4-5000 students. Ten faculties will operate with 160 professors.

The Assistance Coordination Unit (ACU)

One of the big issues for international donors in dealing with Syria is whether they can rely on the money to get where it is supposed to go and have the impact it is expected to have. The ACU was set up as a quasi nongovernmental organization (quango) to meet these requirements. It gets money from international donors and invests it in projects, mainly for health, food, nutrition, housing and services.

Established in December 2012, ACU grew from $53 million in 2013 to close to $200 million in 2014. Meeting international auditing standards, it is paying teachers, civil defense workers, street cleaners. It is also buying wheat and vaccinating children. The goal is to help Syrians where they are, so that they won’t move elsewhere, which should ring a bell with Europeans.

My conclusions

I don’t want to paint too rosy a picture. It is easy to find criticism of the local councils, NGOs and quangos. None of these organizations is a sturdy and reliable pillar on which to lean. But I don’t want President Obama to continue painting too bleak an outlook either.

Syria has good people trying to meet colossal challenges with limited means. Yes, I would spend $500 million per year on these civilian activities aimed at making life more livable and the future more productive for a country that right now is costing us far more just to provide humanitarian relief. Certainly that amount would be far less wastefully spent than the Pentagon performance in trying to “equip and train”  Syrians to fight ISIS. Syria’s local administrative councils, nongovernmental organizations and quangos merit not just funding but our confidence and commitment.

Tags : ,

Palestine’s way forward

Posted in Heidi Liedtke - October 5, 2015 - 0 Comment

With Palestine’s flag now flying at UN headquarters, the Middle East Institute held a discussion last week of Palestinian Politics and Strategy in Challenging Times. The event featured Husam Zomlot, Ambassador at Large for Palestine, and moderator Matthew Duss, President of Foundation for Middle East Peace. While Palestine has recently been overshadowed by other hot topics like the Islamic State and the Iranian nuclear deal, Zomlot shed light on current Palestinian thinking and options for the US.

Zomlot described Palestine as in limbo. The 1988 Palestinian offer of a two-state solution failed to deliver results. It was misunderstood to be a starting point for further negotiation rather than a compromise solution in which the Palestinians were giving up most of their territorial claim. Thereafter the Oslo accords, institution-building from the ground up, and the “peace process” have all failed.

It is time, Zomlot suggested, to give up on the current process. Things have changed for both populations. Israel today is not the same Israel it was thirty years ago and should not be treated the same. Nor is Palestine the same. The two sides cannot resolve the situation on their own. The “peace process” as currently pursued is designed to prevent rather than reach a peaceful outcome. The US generally has the right goals, but cannot reach them unilaterally.

That said, where to now? Palestinian political unity is vital. It will enable Palestinians to demand their rights even before they have a state. But is also high time that the US recognize the Palestinian state and cooperate with an effort to impose a two-state solution through a UN Security Council resolution.

Matt Duss asked how the idea of fighting for rights rather than land fits into current Palestinian politics.

Zomlot responded that the notion that a two-state solution is in Israel’s best interest so that it can be both Jewish and democratic may not be true any longer. Current Israeli decision makers may want the West Bank and East Jerusalem more than they want to be democratic. A second false premise is that Israel has to create a Palestinian state so that it can be accepted as part of the region. But Israel doesn’t want to be part of the Middle East. It associates itself with Europe.

Zomlot suggested the Palestinians now have to reassert their own identity and demand their rights. They should not abandon the goal of a two-state solution, but should insist first on their rights. US recognition and cooperation in passage of a UN Security Council resolution imposing an outcome on the parties would be a big step forward.

Tags : , , ,

Let Ahmed go!

Posted in Daniel Serwer - September 28, 2015 - 0 Comment

Ahmed-Maher by GianlucaI am a fan of Ahmed Maher, who led the April 6 movement that catalyzed the Egyptian uprising in January 2011 and contributed to the Tamarod protests of June 2013 that brought General Sisi to power. Ahmed has remained an advocate of nonviolence, human rights and democracy despite a harsh prison sentence and even harsher prison conditions.

I have Egyptian friends who tell me what Ahmed did–demonstrate without a permit–would be a crime in Washington DC, not only in Cairo. That is true. But the permit would be easy to get, the fine would be small and the sentence a few days in jail, not three years, including large stretches of it in solitary confinement.

Egypt has pardoned and released hundreds of prisoners in recent days, apparently in the runup to now President Sisi’s speech at the UN today. Why not Ahmed and his April 6 comrades? I imagine it is because the government knows they are incorrigible. If released, they can be relied upon to continue protesting for human rights and democracy.

This puts President Obama, who spoke at the UN this morning about the importance of inclusive democracy and human rights as well as the futility of repression, in an awkward situation. Washington wants Egypt to remain at least as stable as it has been under President Sisi. But his use of repression rather than inclusion and respect for human rights is inconsistent with American values, policy and expectations.

A number of us have joined together in a letter to the President and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appealing to them to ask President Sisi for the release of the April 6 protesters. Nothing good can come of their continued incarceration. It is time to let Ahmed (and Ahmed and Mohamed) go.

 

Tags : , ,
Tweet