Tag: United Nations
Stay tuned
With Hamas rockets striking near Jerusalem and Israel bombing Gaza and mobilizing ground forces, it looks as if another Gaza war is in the offing. It is hard to understand how this will benefit either Palestinians or Israelis, but I credit foreignpolicy.com with trying to provide answers. On the Israeli side, the answer comes in an interview with former general Shlomo Brom, who sees the answer in deterrence:
What I mean by deterrence is manifesting to Hamas and other armed groups that the costs they will pay much outweigh the benefits that they are deriving from the launch of these rockets. And for that, you need from time to time a Cast Lead Operation.
Cast Lead was the name of the last Gaza ground invasion, in the winter of 2008/9.
On the Hamas side, the answers come from Hussein Ibish:
The [rocket] attacks are part of the case for the transfer of paramount leadership away from the exiles and to the Hamas political and military leadership in Gaza, which portrays itself as doing the ruling and the fighting.
He adds:
If the PLO goes forward with its initiative at the United Nations [to push for membership] and Israel and the West react with significant punitive measures, Hamas is better positioned than ever to be the direct political beneficiary. Indeed, it will never have been closer to its cherished aim of seizing control of the Palestinian national movement — and possibly even the PLO itself — from its secular nationalist rivals.
So what we’ve got here is an Israeli need to restore credible deterrence in the lead-up to a January 22 election and a Hamas Gaza interest in gaining political ground, vis-a-vis both its own “external” leadership and the PLO.
War rarely goes according to plan. The current situation in nearby parts of the Middle East is so fluid and volatile–especially in Egypt, Syria and Jordan–that it is easy to anticipate that there will be unexpected consequences. Already we’ve seen two supposed taboos–against rocket attacks on Jerusalem and against Syria firing into Israel–violated. There may be a lot more surprises in store, not only for Israelis and Palestinians but also for Americans and Europeans. Stay tuned.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No patriot
I enjoyed a pleasant Sunday afternoon walk through Pristina yesterday. Its alleys are crowded. But it also boasts vistas. Variety is one of the things that makes a place interesting. And with variety comes the unexpected, both good and bad.
Normally I wouldn’t comment on what amounts to an individual criminal act. The bad is inevitable. But the wounding Saturday evening of a Serb traveling south of the Ibar river just a few miles from where I am spending a couple of days merits a blog post, because it has broader significance.
The country I am enjoying on my third visit this year is a peaceful one that has established institutions rating a positive EU report suggesting it is ready to negotiate a Stabilization and Association Agreement. This is a big deal, not only for the benefits that will accrue to Kosovo once the agreement is signed but also for the seal of approval “contractual relations” (i.e. signing an agreement) with the EU will give to Pristina’s still young institutions, which are now more or less at the half-way point of recognition as sovereign by other UN member states.
The safety of Serbs is one of the key ingredients in determining EU attitudes on contractual relations. Brussels wants to know that the Pristina institutions are committed to protecting everyone who lives in or visits the territory under their control, without regard to ethnicity.
Of course 100% security is not possible, and I’ll admit that I am a bit surprised that a former Serb police chief felt free to travel after dark in Kosovo. And there is of course no knowing the ethnicity of his attacker, who was reportedly masked. We’ll have to await the results of the police investigation.
But that is just the point. There should be a serious police investigation and some results, which are far too infrequent in such cases in Kosovo. Too many crimes against Serbs and other minorities go unsolved.
Whoever perpetrated the attack Saturday evening is putting at risk Kosovo’s claim to be ready to negotiate an important first step in its eventual accession to the EU. I don’t know the person’s identity or ethnicity, but this much I do know: he is no Kosovo patriot.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Pas de deux
After twenty years and more of objecting to Macedonia calling itself Macedonia and months of avoiding direct contact, even in the presence of the UN mediator, the Greek Foreign Minister sent a friendly message to his counterpart in Skopje at the beginning of October suggesting a memorandum of understanding “outlining the basic parameters of a possible mutually acceptable solution” including “the general principles governing good neighbourly relations.” A month later the Macedonian Foreign Minister responded in an equally friendly tone. What’s going on here? Are we really making progress on this silly but so far insoluble problem?
I doubt it. There are clear hints in the letters exchanged that no agreement is likely any time soon. The Greek letter and MOU fail to mention the Interim Accord of 1995, which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in December 2011 found Greece had violated. It requires Greece not to block Macedonia’s membership in international, multilateral and regional organizations under the name “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.”
Athens instead proposes a new MOU that includes the following language:
the name agreed upon [in the future] will be used by all erga omnes and for all purposes.
This means Macedonia would have to change its name throughout its constitution as well as in all its official correspondence, documents and buildings, a condition that Athens knows is unacceptable to Skopje. While one of my Greek readers has suggested that this is negotiable, there is no sign of that in the Athens letter or text.
The response from Skopje is likewise friendly but no more forthcoming. It brushes off the Greek proposal with mention of the Interim Accord, which it clearly prefers to the proposed MOU, and the ICJ decision, which went entirely in Skopje’s favor.
So what’s going on here, if not a move towards resolution of this dreadful dispute? It seems to me likely that both sides are trying to avoid responsibility for what happens in December, when the European Council will meet and likely decide not to offer Skopje a date for the start of EU accession talks, because of a Greek veto. Athens wants to be able to say that it offered a way out that Skopje rejected. Skopje wants to be able to say that it responded positively to the Greek initiative without result.
This is diplomatic ballet, likely coached by high-priced consultants on both sides. It would be fun to watch, if it hadn’t already gone on far too long.
Greece is in blatant violation of an ICJ decision. It is a testimony to European fecklessness that 26 EU members don’t dare tell Athens it needs to back down and settle for a definitive solution farther down the pike, when Macedonia is at the threshold of EU membership. Macedonian politicians of all stripes acknowledge that will be necessary.
Washington deserves no more credit than the 26. It allowed Greece to block NATO membership for Macedonia at the Chicago summit in May, while Macedonian soldiers were guarding NATO headquarters in Kabul.
Those seeking equity must do equity. The music and the pas de deux should stop. In the absence of a resolution of the name issue, Skopje should get a date to start EU accession talks and it should enter NATO as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as the Interim Accord requires, at the next NATO summit in 2014. Athens’ greatest leverage will come when Skopje is ready for accession. That is the time to settle the name issue.
Of course if Athens and Skopje decide they can settle the issue now, that’s all right too. I’ll be glad if they prove me wrong, but I doubt that is what is in the cards.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
Peacebuilding and corruption get a lot of attention this week. I hope “Frankenstorm” won’t affect too many of the events.
1. Global Corruption: Money, Power, and Ethics in the Modern World, Monday October 29, 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Choate Room
Speakers: Laurence Cockcroft, Michael Hershman, Claudia Dumas, Raymond Baker
Corruption is a key factor in sustaining appallingly high levels of poverty in many developing countries, particularly in relation to the provision of basic services such as education and health. It is also a major reason why increases in the growth rate in Africa and South Asia have failed to benefit large segments of the population. Corruption drives the over-exploitation of natural resources, capturing their value for a small elite – whether timber from Indonesia or coltan from the Congo. In the developed world, corrupt party funding undermines political systems and lays policy open to heavy financial lobbying.
Corruption has to be seen as the result of the interplay between elite ‘embedded networks’, political finance, greed and organized crime. It has been facilitated by globalization, the integration of new and expanding markets into the world economy, and by the rapid expansion of ‘offshore’ financial facilities, which provide a home to largely unregulated pools of finance derived from personal fortunes, organized crime and pricing malpractice in international trade.
This analysis probes beneath the surface of the international initiatives to curb corruption which have evolved since the 1990s. It indicates that there remain key ‘roadblocks’ to real reform which have to be addressed before major progress can be made. These include recognizing that the huge ‘shadow’ unrecorded economy in many countries is a reservoir of corrupt payments, that organized crime is a critical factor in controlling many political systems, that the finance to fund political parties always requires a pay-off which endangers political stability, and that ‘mispricing’ by local and international companies continues to prevent a just return to lower income countries participating in world trade.
RSVP for this event to pbenson@gfintegrity.org.
2. Diplomacy in Conflict: A Panel Discussion of US Foreign Policy in Times of Crisis, Monday October 29, 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Room 213
Speakers: Edward Gnehm, David Shinn, Patricia Lacina
In the wake of the tragedies at the U.S. outposts in Libya and Egypt, this event will serve as an opportunity to examine what goes on inside embassies and consulates during times of crisis. The panelists will discuss their experiences in the Foreign Service, the communication flow from leadership to staff on the ground, and other realities of diplomacy in conflict zones.
7:00 PM – 7:30 PM Pre-reception
7:30 PM – 9:00 PM Discussion
Register for this event here.
3. From Conflict Analysis to Peacebuilding Impact: Lessons from the People’s Peacebuilding Perspectives, Tuesday October 30, 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Rome Building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Rome Building Auditorium
Speakers: Janet Mohammed, Teresa Dumasy, James Ndung’U, Robert Parker
Rigorous conflict analysis is essential for all actors operating in settings of violence and social conflict. Many different assessment frameworks are in use by various international non-governmental and governmental institutions working in development, peacebuilding, and governance sectors, including US agencies. But analysis tools and the manner in which assessments are conducted vary widely, with mixed results.
Saferworld and Conciliation Resources are leading NGOs working internationally on programs and policies relating to conflict prevention and peacebuilding. The People’s Peacemaking Perspectives (PPP) project was a joint initiative implemented in close collaboration with a number of local actors and organizations on the ground. Panelists will present the conclusions of the PPP project and implications for US agencies and other institutions working in conflict settings using case studies in Kenya and other contexts. They will illustrate the benefits, success criteria and challenges to taking a participatory approach to conflict analysis.
This special event is co-sponsored by 3P Human Security, the Alliance for Peacebuilding, and the Conflict Management Program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).
Register for this event here.
4. Third Annual Conference: Preventing Violent Conflict, Wednesday October 30, 9:00 AM – 5:15 PM, USIP
Venue: USIP, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037
Speakers: Abiodun Williams, Jim Marshall, Nicholas Burns, Deborah Avant, Johnnie Carson, Robin Wright, Moeed Yusuf, Victor Cha, Lawrence Woocher, Michael Lund, Joseph Wright, Michael Lekson, Patrick Meier, Melanie Greenberg, Bertrand Ramcharan, Patricia Haslach, Chester Crocker, John Prendergast
Preventing violent conflict has been high on the agenda of several governments, international institutions, and non-governmental organizations in recent years. Last January, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared 2012 the “Year of Prevention.” These various actors have also taken necessary steps to develop frameworks for designing and implementing prevention strategies, as well as to enhance their institutional capacities for prevention. The justification for this is clear: conflict prevention is preferable to reactive approaches for moral, strategic, and economic reasons.
Yet from Syria to Mali, from Iran to the Korean Peninsula, effective conflict prevention remains an immense challenge. There is a need for a better understanding of how conflict prevention strategies can be applied to country-specific situations. To support this effort, USIP will convene experts and policymakers to discuss challenges and opportunities for conflict prevention around the world at its third annual conference on Preventing Violent Conflict.
The keynote address will be delivered by Ambassador Nicholas Burns, Professor at Harvard University and former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs. The first panel will highlight regional challenges in preventing future conflict. The afternoon panel will reflect on the roles and tools available to key prevention actors, including the U.S. government, the United Nations, regional organizations and civil society. This year’s conference includes four concurrent break-out sessions allowing participants to discuss specific challenges facing conflict prevention efforts, including the prevention of mass atrocities, nuclear proliferation, and violent transitions from authoritarianism.
The goals of this event are to spotlight the importance of conflict prevention; address specific challenges facing prevention efforts; and identify priority areas for USIP’s future work on conflict prevention.
Schedule for this event here.
Register for this event here.
5. What the UN Can and Should Do to Fight Corruption, Wednesday October 31, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM, UN Foundation
Venue: UN Foundation, 1800 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, DC 20036, Conference Room
Speakers: Frank Vogl, Janine Wedel, Nathaniel Heller
Frank Vogl, a founder of Transparency International, will discuss his new book “Waging War on Corruption- Inside the Movement Fighting the Abuse of Power” to begin the conversation on corruption and transparency worldwide. Vogl’s book has received positive reviews from media sources, having already been featured in The American and in interviews with Trust.org and Voice of America.
Professor Janine Wedel from George Mason University and Nathaniel Heller from Global Integrity will follow with brief remarks on the topic before all three speakers invite audience questions.
Please feel free to bring your own lunch to enjoy at this event.
Register for this event here.
6. The Missing Peace Symposium: Sexual Violence in Conflict and Post-Conflict Settings, Thursday November 1 through Saturday November 3, USIP
Venue: Attendance by webcast at www.usip.org/webcast or at USIP by invitation only
Speakers: Donald Steinberg, Zainab Hawa Bangura, Jody Williams, Patricia Sellers, Melanne Verveer, Wegger Christian Strommen, Abigail Disney
Sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict settings is increasingly recognized as a threat to international peace and security. From conflicts in the Balkans to the Democratic Republic of Congo and from East Timor to Guatemala, state and non-state armed actors have used sexual violence against women, men, and children to intimidate and to terrorize populations, and as a means of displacing people from contested territory, destroying communities and silencing victims. As these wars have ended, however, sexual violence often does not end—which, in turn, undermines reconstruction efforts and the transition to more stable, secure, and peaceful societies.
Despite the increased international attention to sexual violence as a weapon of war, including the adoption of UN Security Council resolutions, and important rulings in international criminal courts, initiatives to prevent or mitigate these violent acts continue to fall short. Existing international interventions may lack an integrated understanding of the causes for sexual violence and its implications for societies at large.
The United States Institute of Peace (USIP), the Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley, the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), and Stockholm International Peace Research Institute North America (SIPRI North America) will convene a group of scholars, policymakers, practitioners, and military and civil society actors to examine the issue of sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict settings, identify gaps in knowledge and reporting and explore how to increase the effectiveness of current responses to such violence.
See the conference schedule here.
7. Military Strategy Forum: The Future of the United States Army: Critical Questions for a Period of Transition, Thursday November 1, 10:30 AM – 11:30 AM, CSIS
Venue: CSIS, 1800 K Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, B1 Conference Room
Speakers: Raymond T. Odierno, John J. Hamre, David Berteau, Kim Wincup
Discussion with General Raymond T. Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army, and Dr. John J. Hamre, President and CEO of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Followed by Q&A with General Odierno, moderated by David Berteau, CSIS Senior Vice President and Director of the International Security Program, and Kim Wincup, CSIS Senior Adviser.
Discussion: 10:30-11:00 a.m.
Q&A: 11:00-11:30 a.m.
Sponsored by Rolls-Royce North America
Dress is business attire or working uniform
Register for this event here.
8. Linking the Caspian to Europe: Repercussions of the Trans-Anatolian Pipeline Agreement (TANAP) for Azerbaijan, Turkey, and the Region, Thursday November 1, 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM, Rethink Institute
Venue: Rethink Institute, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002, Suite 1125
Speakers: Michael J. G. Cain, Rovshan Ibrahimov, Michael Ratner, Fevzi Bilgin
The intergovernmental agreement recently signed between the governments of Azerbaijan and Turkey begins the next phase of the Trans-Anatolian natural gas pipeline project (TANAP). The pipeline, which is estimated to cost $7 billion, will transport 16 billion cubic meters of gas each year from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, with most of the gas volumes going to Europe. Deliveries of Azerbaijani gas are expected to begin in 2017, while project planning starts in 2013.
Although the volumes of gas reaching Europe are relatively small compared with the original Nabucco project, TANAP officially opens the coveted “southern gas corridor” to EU states. This corridor will provide Caspian gas directly to European markets not controlled by Moscow or Tehran. Despite the strong backing of the United States for Nabucco across several US administrations, the European goal of weakening Moscow’s resource influence on the economies of the European Union remains a distant dream. Considerations of power politics notwithstanding, European, US and Russian power probably did not ultimately determine Nabucco’s fate. Realist power politics had little role to play. Instead regional political and commercial considerations associated with the smaller TANAP project sealed Nabucco’s fate. TANAP emerged as the preferred pipeline to Europe from the Caspian, because of its local political and economic appeal. This suggests an important lesson for international relations in the 21st century-that regional politics when combined with commercial interests and local market development can trump geopolitical resource competition.
Why did realist politics among the great powers give way to the local interests of smaller regional states? This paper identifies several key internal domestic drivers of TANAP for both Azerbaijan and Turkey to better understand why TANAP prevailed over the much heralded, Western backed Nabucco pipeline project. These domestic factors illustrate how exploiting natural resources and geographic comparative advantages translate into increased political power for each state. The paper also shows how the construction and operation of TANAP will likely accelerate the economic integration of Caspian states while strengthening the economic and political linkages of Azerbaijan, Turkey and Georgia to Europe.
Register for this event here.
9. Becoming Nonviolent Peacemakers, Friday November 2, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM, Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs
Venue: Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, 3307 M Street, Washington, DC 20007, Suite 200, 3rd Floor Conference Room
Speaker: Eli McCarthy
Why do many US residents, Catholics and Catholic leaders among them, too often fall short of adequately challenging the use of violence in US policy? Even when community organizers, policymakers, members of Catholic leadership, and academics sincerely search for alternatives to violence, they too often think about nonviolence as primarily a rule or strategy. Catholic Social Teaching has been moving toward transcending the limits of these approaches, but it still has significant room for growth. In order to contribute to this growth and to impact US policy, McCarthy draws on Jesus, Gandhi, Ghaffar Khan, and King to offer a virtue-based approach to nonviolent peacemaking with a corresponding set of core practices. This approach is also set in conversation with aspects of human rights discourse to increase its possible impact on US policy.
Eli McCarthy, author of Becoming Nonviolent Peacemakers: A Virtue Ethic for Catholic Social Teaching and US Policy, will be joining us to discuss his new book and provide insights into these questions.
Register for this event here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Levant maelstrom
“Truce” – A caricture by world-renowned Syrian cartoonest Ali Farzat who once had his fingers crushed by Syrian security forces
The Eid al Adha truce broke down yesterday afternoon in Syria, with activists reporting 292 breaches by regime forces, who allegedly killed 116 people. Anti-regime demonstrations numbered 332. Damascus saw one big blast and many clashes. This strikes me as a particularly comprehensive list of reasons why the ceasefire could not last, with obvious bias towards the rebellion. Who wouldn’t be biased in that direction after 19 months of watching the regime kill its own people?
What now?
First there is the blame game. Regime and rebels will seek to pin the quick breakdown of the ceasefire on the other side. Neither will want its backers to react by cutting off arms, money and other support. The regime has little to worry about. The Russians and Iranians seem to be firm in supporting Bashar al Assad. The insurgents have more reason to be concerned. Turkey is getting wobbly. Washington is preoccupied until November 7 (and maybe for a few months after, if Romney wins). Saudi Arabia and Qatar are supplying ample arms and money but not seeing clear results. Extreme Islamists are increasingly prominent in the armed rebellion.
Brahimi will try hard to reinstate the ceasefire, arguing that each side should show restraint and police its own forces. This will work only if the rebels and the regime figure there is not much to be gained by continuing to fight. Even if they decide they have reached the “mutually hurting stalemate” that provides an opportunity for a ceasefire, it is difficult to see how it can work without third-party monitoring. Given the fate of the Arab League and UN observers earlier in the year, who would want to field another monitoring group?
I fear we are headed further into the abyss. With Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey increasingly at risk from spillover, the Levant may be condemned to a maelstrom of conflict whose eventual consequences could include assassinations, collapsed states, sectarian and ethnic war, economic implosion and safe haven for terrorists. Spread of the violence to the Gulf could make things worse. This cannot be ruled out. Even if Iran does not encourage it, Shia sentiment in Iraq, Bahrain and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia could significantly increase sectarian tensions.
The longer this goes on, the worse it is likely to get. Whoever wins the American presidency on November 6 needs to be thinking quickly about how to restore a modicum of order in the Levant. There are many options, none of them obvious winners:
1. Heavy arms for the (relative) good guys
2. No-fly zone (all of Syria or part)
3. Safe area inside Syria along the Turkish border
4. Political, economic and military support to liberated “ink spots” within Syria
5. Indictment of Bashar al Assad
6. Regime decapitation
7. Diplomatic push on the opposition to go to negotiations with the regime
These could also be mixed and matched. I’m sure there are other ideas out there as well, but this will do for a start. The important thing is block the descent into a regional maelstrom that will last for years and cause untold damage.
PS: The Red Cross on the humanitarian situation:
PS, October 29: Did I get Brahimi right?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace requires sacrifice
Eid al Adha, the feast that commemorates Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Ishmael (and Ishmael’s acceptance) in the Koranic version of the story, is starting relatively quietly in Syria. The ceasefire that both the Syrian government and some of the revolutionaries had agreed with UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, and the UN Security Council endorsed, has reportedly held in much of the country for the first few hours after Friday morning prayers today. Demonstrators are taking the opportunity to go to the street.
I have my doubts that the situation is “ripe.” The conflict is far from over. Both sides are hurting, but there is no “mutually hurting stalemate.” The rebellion has been gaining ground in Aleppo in recent days. Some of the rebels feel they have something to gain from continuing to fight. The Syrian army statement accepting the ceasefire was equivocal. It reserved the right to respond to the following:
First, the continuation of the armed terrorist groups’ gunfire against civilians and government forces and attacking public and private properties, in addition to using booby-trapped cars and explosive devices.
Second, attempts of the armed terrorist groups to reinforce their positions as of the beginning of this announcement or getting munitions or members.
Third, the facilitation of neighboring countries to let terrorists pass across the borders to Syria.
On the rebel side, the Free Syria Army accepted the ceasefire, but the radical Al-Nusra Front,which the Institute for the Study of War describes as a homegrown Salafi-jihadist group, did not, thus guaranteeing that the three conditions would not be met. It is hard to imagine a ceasefire holding for long under these circumstances.
That however doesn’t mean Brahimi was wrong to try. He should keep on trying. The ceasefire will give relative moderates both within the regime and among the opposition an opportunity to reassert themselves. He needs to give these people opportunities to express their opposition to continued fighting, reaching beyond the more belligerent components of both sides to find a constituency that will support a political process.
There will be many ceasefire “violations,” and the likelihood of a return to fighting is still high. The ceasefire has no monitoring mechanism. After a few days (or even a few hours) of rest, fighters on both sides may feel like going at it again. The regime is not going to want peaceful demonstrations showing the strength of the rebellion or rearming of the Free Syrian Army. The armed rebels are not going to want the regime to use the ceasefire to regain its balance and reset its strategy, which has accomplished little beyond destruction so far.
Brahimi and his team will need enormous patience and commitment. I wish them well. They will need the kind of faith Abraham and his son demonstrated. Peace requires sacrifice.
RSS - Posts
