Tag: United Nations
Not promising
With the strategically placed town of Qusayr about to fall to Syrian army and Lebanese Hizbollah forces, the Syrian opposition coalition (SOC) is saying it won’t attend “Geneva II” peace talks without an end to the siege of Qusayr and a guarantee that any political settlement will ensure Bashar al Asad steps down. Even if those things were to happen magically, it is unclear who would represent the opposition at peace talks, as the SOC has been meeting in Istanbul and struggling painfully to broaden its base even as revolutionaries inside Syria complain loudly about its ineffectiveness.
The regime, emboldened by success on the battlefield and Russia’s decision to provide advanced air defenses, will not agree to either SOC condition.
Where does this leave the US?
We are left holding the diplomatic bag, trying to deliver a political solution in conditions that are not ripe for a settlement. Moscow and Tehran, while claiming to want a political solution and criticizing the West and its Gulf allies (Saudi Arabia and Qatar) for support to the revolutionaries, have been busily bolstering the Asad regime on the battlefield. President Obama is said to have ordered up plans for a no-fly zone, but there is no sign he is serious about implementing them in the face of continued Russian and Chinese vetoes at the UN Security Council.
There is also no sign as yet that the regime can reassert its authority over all of Syria. Large parts of both the north and the south are in revolutionary hands. But the regime has a good chance of securing the route from Damascus to the Alawite heartland in the west and the port at Tartus. Homs is likely the next big battlefield. Government forces there have been making slow progress against rebels in the city center. It may well fall with a whimper rather than a bang.
Meanwhile sectarian conflict is spreading to Lebanon and Iraq, even as both those countries export fighters into Syria. The involvement of Lebanese Hizbollah has important military implications not only within Syria but also in Lebanon and vis-a-vis Israel. Turkey has long harbored the Syrian opposition forces and has suffered a number of military and terrorist attacks from Syria. The sad fact is that only a quick (and unlikely) end to the civil war in Syria will save its neighbors from refugee flows, terrorist bombs, sectarian conflict,and the risk that they too may end up embroiled in a regional Levantine war.
So what is to be done?
If, like me, you are of the school that says diplomacy is getting other people to do what you want them to do, you’ve got to have doubts whether convening peace talks at this point is going to produce a settlement, however much you might like that to happen. They could be useful in clarifying positions, unifying the opposition, establishing some principles, making some contacts and defining better what is at issue, but it is highly unlikely that you are going to get a settlement when both sides think, however unrealistically, they may gain from more fighting and worry that an agreement to lay down arms could lead to slaughter when the other side fails to abide.
There is no trust at this point between the Asad regime and the revolutionaries. Neither side believes the other is serious about negotiating or about implementing a negotiated agreement. Unless one side or the other manages a military breakout that today seems unlikely, we are a long way from the end in Syria, which means the region will be under serious strain for a long time to come.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Schizoeurope
Britain and France have collaborated in getting the European Union to lift its arms embargo on Syria, opening the possibility of shipping arms to the opposition starting in July. But key European thinktanks are very much opposed to the idea: Julien Barnes-Dacey and Daniel Levy of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) wants de-escalation and Christopher Phillips of Chatham House criticizes what he regards as Britain’s flawed logic.
I have a hard time understanding their objections. Why would Syria’s arms suppliers (Russia and Iran principally) reduce the flow unless they see the real possibility that escalation will favor the opposition? Opening the possibility of future arms shipments will do more to give the Asad regime something to worry about than it will do to harden the opposition’s resistance to negotiation. It is far more likely that offering weapons conditional on their unified participation in negotiations (and being prepared to shut off the flow if they fail to participate seriously) will work.
Nor am I all that worried about weapons ending up in the wrong hands, so long as they are used to counter the regime. The neat distinction between jihadists and moderates is at least in part a figment of Western imaginations. However hard we try, some weapons will end up in the wrong places. Given the current political atmosphere in the US, better that happen to the Europeans than to us. We don’t need “fast and furious” on steroids.
Then there is the question of the Russia’s decision to export a new generation of air defenses to Syria, apparently decided in response to the European Union ending the embargo. If the Russians go ahead and if the Israelis fail to attack them before they are operational, they would presumably make it more difficult to impose a no-fly zone, if that were President Obama’s intention. But despite news reports, there is no real indication that the Americans are willing to patrol a no-fly zone, and the Israelis have good reasons to prevent the new air defenses from becoming operational, something that would take months if not years in the best of conditions. It is amusing to see people who oppose a no-fly zone worrying about the Russian move and premature to worry too much about an Israeli-Russian war, though the Israelis should certainly be concerned about how far Russia is prepared to go in arming Syria and Iran.
While in my view wrong about the impact of arming the revolutionaries, or more accurately opening up the future possibility of arming them, the ECFR offers a “strategy for de-escalation” worth looking at:
- a set of guiding principles
- a wide enough coalition committed to de-escalation, and
- a diplomatic strategy to get Geneva II off the ground.
The principles they draw from the Geneva I communique:
- All parties must recommit to a sustained cessation of armed violence
- No further further militarization of the conflict
- The sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic must be respected
- The establishment of a transitional governing body that can establish a neutral environment in which the transition can take place, with the transitional governing bodyexercising full executive powers. It could include membersof the present Government and the opposition and othergroups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent
- The Government must allow immediate and full humanitarian access by humanitarian organizations to all areas affected by the fighting
The most controversial is that fourth point, as it implies to the opposition and its supporters that Bashar al Asad will step aside while the regime and its supporters oppose that. Squaring that circle will be worth a Nobel Prize. But the Geneva I communique was not agreed by either the opposition or the regime, so getting them to sign up to something like these five points would be an important step forward.
The ECFR description of a possible de-escalation coalition is reasonable. The diplomatic strategy beyond that is brief and vague, basically proposing that Russia and the US bring the rest of the P5 on board for a non-Chapter 7 UN Security Council resolution.
The ECFR paper offers one particularly interesting idea on cessation of armed violence: this might be done in specific geographic areas, “rolling and expanding pockets in which ceasefires hold.” This of course would enable both sides to concentrate their forces in areas where there are no such ceasefires, intensifying the conflict in some areas even while de-escalating in others. The idea could have the great virtue of opening up more of the country to humanitarian relief and beginning the re-introduction of international monitors, assuming there is someone out there ready to take on that role.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks, May 28 to May 31
DC will be dark today for Memorial Day, but the rest of the week has ample and varied events:
1. Institutional Reform in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia, Tuesday, May 28 / 1:00pm – 3:00pm , Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Marwan Muasher, Frederic Wehrey, Ellen Lust, Jakob Wichmann
As Arab political transitions stumble and parties clash over the pace and direction of reforms, analysts are largely focused on the differences between political actors-Islamists, Salafis, liberals, and others-and the implications for political development. But critics argue that this distracts attention from trying to understand the critical institutional changes underway in these countries.
Register for the event here:
http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/05/28/institutional-reform-in-libya-egypt-and-tunisia/g5xy
2. Nuclear Terrorism: What’s at Stake? Wednesday, May 29 / 8:00am – 9:30am , American Security Project
Venue: American Security Project, 1100 New York Avenue, NW · Suite 710W, Washington, DC
Speakers: Jay M. Cohen, David Waller, Stephen E. Flynn, Stanton D. Sloane, Stephen A. Cheney
The U.S. is a leader in global nonproliferation efforts, from preventing new nuclear states to securing nuclear materials and technology. However, preventing nuclear terror also requires efforts on a domestic front. U.S. ports present a potential vulnerability and securing these ports requires improvement in the capacity to detect and secure nuclear materials that could arrive in shipping containers.
Please RSVP to:
events@americansecurityproject.org
For more information see:
http://americansecurityproject.org/events/2013/event-nuclear-terrorism-whats-at-stake/
3. A Syrian No Fly Zone: Options and Constraints, Wednesday, May 29 / 10:00am – 12:00pm, US Institute of Peace
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
Speakers: Steven Heydemann, Frederic C. Hof, David A. Deptula, Jon Alterman, Joseph Holliday
Now in its third year, with no end in sight, the Syrian uprising against the authoritarian government of Bashar al-Assad has brought devastation, death, and displacement to the country. Today, more than a quarter of Syrians have fled their homes. Some 250,000 Syrians have been killed, wounded, or are missing. By the end of 2013, half of all Syrians, more than 11 million people, could need assistance in what the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, has called the worst humanitarian crisis the U.N. has ever faced.
As violence deepens, with the Assad regime using ballistic missiles and, reportedly, nerve gas, against civilians, the U.S. and its allies continue to search for viable options to shorten the conflict, bring the regime and the opposition to the negotiating table, and place Syria on the path of political transition.
Few options have received as much attention as the idea of creating a no fly zone (NFZ) over part or all of Syria. The Syrian opposition has appealed to the international community to create a NFZ. Members of Congress have called on the Obama administration to embrace an NFZ as the most effective way to protect Syrian civilians and achieve a political solution.
While debate around the NFZ option intensifies, there has been far less attention to the military, diplomatic, and regional complexities that such a move would entail. To inform and deepen the debate over an NFZ for Syria, the U.S. Institute of Peace is convening a panel of distinguished experts to discuss the diplomatic, strategic, tactical, and political implications involved.
Webcast: This event will be webcast live beginning at 10:00am EST on May 29, 2013 at www.usip.org/webcast. Join the conversation and submit questions for the panel on Twitter with #SyriaNFZ.
RSVP for the event here:
http://www.usip.org/events/syrian-no-fly-zone-options-and-constraints
4. Serbia’s Challenges on Its Path to EU Accession, Wednesday, May 29 / 1:00pm – 2:00pm , Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
Speaker: Ljubica Vasic
Assistant Foreign Minister of Serbia Ljubica Vasic will discuss the challenges and opportunities that the Republic of Serbia faces on its path to European integration. Vasic will address key reforms that the country has introduced so far to advance its EU accession bid, and will explain why the European integration process is important for the overall development of the country. She will outline the steps that Serbia has taken to achieve one of its main foreign policy goals; EU membership.
Ljubica Vasic was appointed Assistant Foreign Minister of Serbia in January 2013. Previously, she served as a special adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and headed the Serb Parliamentary Delegation to the Council of Europe. Vasic began her political career in 2008, and has served as an adviser on European integration policies, and has been a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Serb National Assembly. Vasic holds two graduate degrees – in European Integration and in English Philology – from the University of Belgrade and the Unviersity of Kragujevac respectively, and is currently working on a doctoral degree at the University of Kragujevac. She is fluent in English, French, Italian, and Serb.
Register for the event here:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/serbias-challenges-its-path-to-eu-accession
5. Protecting People with Technology: Modernizing U.N. Peacekeeping , Wednesday, May 29 / 2:00pm – 3:30pm, Stimson Center
Venue: Stimson Center, 1111 19th Street Northwest, 12th Floor, Washington D.C., DC 20036
Speakers: Walter Dorn, Sarah Williamson
Protect the People, the Stimson Center, the Partnership for Effective Peacekeeping and the Better World Campaign present: Protecting People with Technology: Modernizing U.N. Peacekeeping
A conversation with Dr. Walter Dorn, author of ‘Keeping Watch: Monitoring, Technology & Innovation in UN Peace Operations’
As U.N. peace operations are asked and expected to do more in increasingly complex and dangerous environments, this discussion with Dr. Dorn will explore the challenges and opportunities of leveraging a broad spectrum of technologies to enable U.N. peace operations to more effectively and safely protect civilians.
Dr. Walter Dorn has also taught at the Pearson Centre and as a visiting professional in the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. He has served with the United Nations Mission in East Timor, the United Nations in Ethiopia, at U.N. headquarters as a training adviser and as a consultant with the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations. His book ‘Keeping Watch: Monitoring, Technology, and Innovation in UN Peace Operations’ was published in 2011 by U.N. University Press. Copies of his book will be available for purchase and signing.
Register for the event here:
http://www.stimson.org/events/protecting-people-with-technology-modernizing-un-peacekeeping/
6. Editing (Out) the Occupation, Thursday, May 30 / 9:00am – 10:00am , New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Linoy Bar-Geffen, Uri Misgav, Sarah Wildman
After nearly forty-six years of military occupation, two intifadas, a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and a stalled political process, the Israeli public seems to have lost whatever interest it had in the Palestinian issue. Public attention has turned inwards — looking at economic and social concerns. However a critical examination of these concerns, by necessity, requires an equally critical examination of the ongoing occupation.
New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force will host visiting Israeli journalists Uri Misgav and Linoy Bar-Geffen on May 30 for a conversation examining why the occupation is edited out of mainstream Israeli media and exploring how mainstream and alternative media can bring the occupation more forcefully into the Israeli national conversation.
Register for the event here:
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/editing_out_the_occupation
7. The Water-Security Nexus in Pakistan, Thursday, May 30 / 10:00am – 11:30am , US Institute of Peace
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
Speakers: Majed Akhter, Daanish Mustafa, Winston Yu
Because of overuse and misuse, Pakistan is headed toward a serious water crisis. The U.N. is expected to downgrade Pakistan from ‘water stressed’ to ‘water scarce’ by 2030. While issues between India and Pakistan often garner the most attention, water conflicts within Pakistan’s borders have the explosive potential to poison inter-ethnic and inter-provincial relations and turn simmering tension into violence. In a country where livelihoods depend heavily on reliable access to water, effectively managing water resources can transform a common lightning rod for conflict into an opportunity for building intra-communal cooperation and trust.
Please join the U.S. Institute of Peace on May 30, 2013 from 10:00 am until 11:30 am, for a panel discussion on USIP’s new PeaceWorks, ‘Understanding Pakistan’s Water-Security Nexus’, and the opportunities and pitfalls of peacebuilding through environmental policy in South Asia.
Register for the event here:
http://www.usip.org/events/pakistanwater
8. The Kaleidoscope Turns Again in a Crisis-Challenged Iran, Thursday, May 30 / 12:00pm – 1:30pm, Atlantic Council
Venue: Atlantic Council of the United States, 1101 15th Street, NW, 11th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005
Speakers: Yasmin Alem, Suzanne Maloney, Barbara Slavin
Please join the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center for the release of a new issue brief, “The Kaleidoscope Turns Again in a Crisis-Challenged Iran,” a discussion of Iran’s upcoming presidential elections. While the elections will not be free, fair, or competitive in a Western sense, they will be a barometer of the stability and durability of the Islamic Republic at a time of unprecedented external pressures and rising domestic discontent. Political factions will break down and regroup as a shrinking elite competes for diminishing spoils. The outcome of the elections and the manner in which they are conducted could also have important implications for Iranian policy going forward, including on the nuclear issue.
The Iran Task Force seeks to perform a comprehensive analysis of Iran’s internal political landscape, its role in the region and globally, and any basis for an improved relationship with the West.
RSVP with name and affiliation to:
southasia@acus.org.
9. Reviving U.S. Foreign Policy: The Case for Putting America‘s House in Order, Thursday, May 30 / 3:30pm – 5:00pm , Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution,1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Falk Auditorium
Speakers: Martin S. Indyk, Richard N. Haass, Robert Kagan
A rising China, climate change, terrorism, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a tumultuous Middle East, and a defiant North Korea all present serious challenges for U.S. foreign policy, but could internal factors actually pose the biggest threat to the United States, its security, and its position as a global leader? In his new book, Foreign Policy Begins at Home: The Case for Putting America’s House in Order (Basic Books, 2013), Richard Haass argues that U.S. national security depends on the United States addressing significant internal issues: repairing its crumbling infrastructure, improving education, reforming its immigration policies and reducing its burgeoning debt. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, contends that these shortcomings directly threaten America’s ability to project power and exert influence overseas; to compete in the global marketplace; to generate the resources needed to promote the full range of U.S. interests abroad; and to set a compelling example that can influence the thinking and behavior of other nations.
On May 30, Foreign Policy at Brookings will host Haass for a discussion on the challenging issues facing the United States at home and their impact on the successful pursuit of U.S. foreign and security policies abroad. Brookings Senior Fellow Robert Kagan will join the discussion. Vice President Martin Indyk, director of Foreign Policy, will provide introductory remarks and moderate the conversation.
After the program, the speakers will take audience questions.
Register for the event here:
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2013/05/30-us-foreign-policy-haass?rssid=UpcomingEvents&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BrookingsRSS%2Ftopfeeds%2FUpcomingEvents+%28Brookings+Upcoming+Events%29
10. Varieties of Democracy: Global Standards, Local Knowledge, Thursday, May 30 / 4:00pm – 5:45pm, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Michael Coppedge, Staffan Lindberg, Massimo Tommasoli, Richard Youngs
The global diversity of democracy continues to grow, providing practical and analytic challenges to national policymakers and the international community. Varieties of Democracy, a new collaborative of fifteen social scientists, seeks to provide the first comprehensive approach to the conceptualization and measurement of democracy. Two of the principal investigators, Michael Coppedge and Staffan Lindberg, from the Varieties of Democracy Project, will demonstrate how innovative, freely available data make new kinds of democracy research and project assessment possible for the first time. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance’s Massimo Tommasoli will comment, and Richard Youngs will moderate.
Register for the event here:
http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/05/30/varieties-of-democracy-global-standards-local-knowledge/g46e
11. Tunisia’s Democratic Future: An Address by Rached Ghannouchi, Friday, May 31 / 10:00am – 11:30am, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Falk Auditorium
Speakers: Martin S. Indyk, Tamara Cofman Wittes, Rached Ghannouchi
In Tunisia, where the Arab awakening began, the move toward a more open society is experiencing growing pains. Economic pressures exacerbated by the revolution and the war next door in Libya, extremist violence, and the country’s deep divisions over drafting its new constitution all present pressing challenges to Tunisia’s democratic transition. Will the country that kicked off the Arab revolutions continue to inspire the region’s drive toward democracy? What can Tunisian approaches to resolving political conflicts and reconciling Islamism and democracy teach us about the prospects for successful transitions elsewhere in the Arab world?
On May 31, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will host Rached Ghannouchi, co-founder and president of Tunisia’s Nahda Party, for a special address on the future of Tunisian democracy. Vice President Martin Indyk, director of Foreign Policy, will provide introductory remarks. Following Ghannouchi’s remarks, Saban Center Director and Senior Fellow Tamara Cofman Wittes will moderate the discussion and include audience questions.
Join the conversation on Twitter using #FPTunisia.
Register for the event here:
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2013/05/31-tunisia-democracy-ghannouchi?rssid=UpcomingEvents&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BrookingsRSS%2Ftopfeeds%2FUpcomingEvents+%28Brookings+Upcoming+Events%29
12. The Good Muslim and Religious Freedom, Friday, May 31 / 12:00pm – 2:00pm , Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, & World Affairs
Venue: Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, & World Affairs, 3307 M Street, Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20007, 3rd Floor Conference Room
Speaker: Mona Siddiqui
The complexities and challenges of religious freedom in contemporary Islam find many of their roots in the development of Islamic law and theology during the Middle Ages, a fact largely unknown to the general public. In a new book, The Good Muslim: Reflections on Classical Islamic Law and Theology, Mona Siddiqui, professor of Islamic and Interreligious Studies at the University of Edinburgh and associate scholar at the Religious Freedom Project, attempts to fill this void. The book explores a wide range of topics from divorce, slavery, and perspectives on evil, to virtue and friendship within both Shari’a and medieval Islamic philosophy.
Siddiqui will discuss these themes with Charles Butterworth, renowned Islamic Studies scholar and professor emeritus of Political Philosophy at the University of Maryland. Karen Rupprecht, Religious
Freedom Project program assistant, will moderate.
Register for the event here:
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/events/rsvp?id=the-good-muslim-and-religious-freedom
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The jig is up, time to waltz
Jerry Gallucci, who is an eloquent spokesman for the views of northern Kosovo Serbs, writes:
No matter what the Kosovo Albanians say to their internationals, the local Serbs do not believe that they will be allowed to remain in possession of the land, water and border with Serbia in the north should they be forced to accept Pristina law and control.
Let’s not dissemble. No one is intending to leave the local Serbs in control of the land, water and border with Serbia in the north. Under the agreement Belgrade and Pristina have signed onto, the local Serbs would govern themselves at the municipal level in most respects. Their property rights would be respected under Kosovo law. But sovereignty would clearly be exercised by Pristina, not by the locals or by Belgrade.
This means customs duties would be collected at the border. Pristina will manage the Gazivoda reservoir and other water resources. I assume this will be true also for the mines of the north. Whoever told the northerners that they would be allowed to walk off with most of Kosovo’s water supply and a good piece of its (so far as I know worthless) mining assets?
I get, as Jerry puts it, that in the north
the great majority simply refuse to accept rule from Pristina because they see it as eventually being used against them. They don’t trust NATO and the EU to remain and protect them.
They are correct. NATO will not be in Kosovo five years from now. The troop contributing countries want out. The EU likely won’t be there either. The EU rule of law mission has been extended only through mid-June 2014, but it isn’t very good at protecting anyone anyway.
In five years though, Kosovo can hope to be lining up to get candidate status and a date to start negotiations with the EU. So I fully expect the northern Serbs to find EU leverage used on their behalf, if need be.
Those whom Jerry describes as frightened and hating need to consider their serious options. They mock Pristina’s office in the north as “Potemkin,” but it is clearly intended to begin providing services there, and Pristina has made it clear it is prepared to expand economic development efforts in the north. Those who don’t want that are entitled to stay and vote their consciences, as Serbs south of the Ibar have done in recent years. Last time I passed through Štrpce/Shtërpcë there was a big sign painted in English on a rock at the entrance to town: “Kosovo Is Serbia” it read. Those Serbs who don’t want to stay should be entitled to leave. Belgrade should be prepared to absorb those who want to live under its rule.
Jerry describes the northern Serb resistance this way:
The northern Serb resistance so far has been almost entirely peaceful. Perhaps KFOR is simply more aware of the tensions in the north as the locals feel that they have been abandoned by their government as the price for EU admission.
KFOR knows better because of experience. Its soldiers have been injured. That’s one of the many reasons Chancelor Merkel decided she would not put up with the resistance any longer. And no one should doubt that northern Kosovo Serbs prevent return of Albanians, and exercise of UN and Pristina authority there, by the threat and use of force.
The truth is Belgrade has abandoned its claim of sovereignty over northern Kosovo as the price for beginning negotiations on EU admission, which won’t actually happen until after 2020. Making the best of this deal would require that serious people in the Serb communities of northern Kosovo sit down with the Pristina authorities, including Serb officials, and discuss the details, in order to ensure a smooth and peaceful transition.
The jig is up. Time to waltz.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Odd duck
I livetweeted Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s appearance in Washington at SETA (a Turkish thinktank for political, economic social research) yesterday, but the performance merited more. Maybe my numerous Turkish readers will find it interesting, even if the Americans don’t. I rarely attend such high-level public events, as little new gets said.
But Erdogan did not disappoint. Speaking in Turkish (I was listening to the simultaneous translation), his main theme was this:
no justice means no humanity, no dignity, and no peace.
He went on to talk about the “bottom billion” living on less than $1 per day, most of whom are innocent children, as well as the suffering in Somalia and Darfur. Personally moved by starvation and circumcision done with a simple knife on several children, he underlined the injustice of racism and discrimination, referring in particular to violence against Muslims in Myanmar.
Lack of justice in one place is a threat to justice elsewhere. Palestine is not a territorial issue but a justice issue. Israeli settlements are making a two-state solution impossible. Israel should release Palestinian prisoners and end the blockade. Hamas will have to be at the negotiating table. It was elected and then denied the right to govern. Israel has apologized for its raid on the Turkish aid flotilla. Compensation is under discussion. Then Turkey will press for an end to the occupation.
The twentieth century was one of war and injustice. The twenty-first century should be one of peace and justice. Turkish policy is based on justice and humanity. This is why Turkey supported the people in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria. But the UN Security Council is doing nothing. The system is blocked, and wrong. Humanity cannot be in the hands of one or two countries; the system has to be changed. Events like those of the 1990s in Bosnia and Rwanda are happening again, but the Security Council is doing nothing.
A world in which babies are slaughtered is not a religious world. This is not honorable and it makes me mad. When you witness things of this sort, you have a responsibility. Why is the media not covering the slaughter in Banias (Syria)? The babies dying are not only their parents, but also ours. You have to act. You have to stop these things. Society shares responsibility for this evil. There is a need for global conscience and justice. We have to see that the elements bringing us together are stronger than those that drive us apart. We have to help the poor and the weak. We cannot step on each other and remain connected to our ideals and faith.
Somewhere around this point, Erdogan took a diversion that I wasn’t able to capture tweeting but I’ll try to reproduce here. God’s justice, he said, is ever present but manifests itself at different times and places. He reminded the audience of the Koranic phrase
Bismillah al rahman al rahim
This is generally translated
In the name of God, most Gracious, most Compassionate
But, Erdogan said, its real meaning is that God has two aspects. The first he shows to everyone on earth during their lifetimes. This is the same for everyone (most Gracious). The second is reserved for the faithful in the afterlife (most Compassionate). I’m no theologian, but this struck me as a millenarian concept rather similar to that of the raptured Christians or the Puritans’ “elect.” No ecumenism in this second aspect. Only true believers enter heaven.
I imagine some aide in the front row was figuratively urging him to move on at this point, which is what he did. Turkey will fulfill its obligations, Erdogan said. We want to see more countries concerned about Syria, where the regime does not control much of the territory but uses its weapons to fire on the population. Asad has fired hundreds of missiles and used sarin gas.
President Obama is trying to do the right thing, but what is needed is UN Security Council action, which would accelerate the process. Russia needs to step forward. Turkey will continue to cooperate with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
In the Q and A, Erdogan said he would go soon to Gaza and the West Bank (he did not mention Israel). He is against war, but sometimes justice requires it. The clergy should help us avoid getting to that point by reaching across borders. An EU/US trade agreement is a fine idea, but it will need to take into account Turkey’s interests, as Turkey has a customs union with the EU. Turkey will continue to press China on respecting the rights of the Uighurs.
The session ended without questions about Kurds inside Turkey, imprisonment of journalists or other human rights violations. As questions were submitted in writing, the moderator presumably tossed those.
This is an odd duck: a religious and social conservative who has instituted vigorous free market economic reforms but also holds liberal internationalist views on the world, while ignoring those views when it comes to internal politics and human rights.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
CYA*
I repeat what I said yesterday: “The editing of the Benghazi talking points strikes me as unworthy of a news story on an inside page.” But if you want to understand what happened, here is as clear an account as I have seen, extracted from the emails the White House made public yesterday:
It is not clear who wrote this, but it was sent to Ambassador Susan Rice at the US mission to the UN on September 15 at 1:23 pm, apparently along with the approved talking points for her to use the next day. By way of explication, the SVTS is a classified videoconference, Morell was deputy director of the CIA, Rhodes and McDonough were top White House aides. They deferred to Sullivan at the State Department.
Morell’s “heavy editing hand” shows clearly on the marked up document:
It is clear from the other emails that Tori Nuland at State had objected to some of the items excised, but it is also clear that CIA carried the bulk of the drafting and excising responsibility. This is logical, as the facility in Benghazi was not a normal diplomatic post but principally a CIA facility. CIA had at least as much reason as State to get rid of references to prior warnings and extremists. While the White House deferred to State, CIA did the actual excising.
To make a long story short, this was a CYA* editing job, to which Susan Rice appears to have contributed nothing. She was the unwitting victim of a bureaucratic exercise of no particular interest or merit. Would it not have been better to spend the time and energy wasted on this issue instead on whether the U.S. should have done more to help establish rule of law in Libya after Qaddafi fell? Come to think of it, that would still be a good question on which to expend some time and effort.
*For my non-American readers, that’s “cover your ass.”
RSS - Posts
