Tag: United Nations
Ode to Jan Egeland
I guess this is funnier to those of us who know the charming Jan, but I hope others will enjoy it too:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Is Turkey going to war in Syria?
My Twitterfeed got spun up yesterday about NATO’s article 4 consultations, triggered by Syria’s shelling of a village in Turkeythat killed five Turks (all female apparently, including children). Turkey responded by shelling inside Syria and NATO issued a condemnation. Damascus apologized for its shelling, saying it won’t happen again. Par for the course.
More interesting, but little covered so far, is that Turkey’s parliament met today to authorize military operations inside Syria. These have almost surely occurred already clandestinely. Stories of dozens of Turks captured in Syria suggest as much. Now Turkish military operations in Syria may become overt, as they are in Iraq. I can’t find statistics, but Turkish air and artillery operations against Kurdish guerrillas in Iraq seem to occur on about a weekly basis, or maybe more frequently. The Turkish parliamentary action may portend a major escalation of international involvement in Syria, necessarily involving NATO and the United States, as its critics have feared.
Is this wise?
Certainly it might help to level the playing field for the Syrian opposition, which is suffering repeated bombing raids by the Syrian air force, not to mention Syrian army shelling by artillery and tanks. But any serious shift in the balance of power would likely require that the Turks attack the Syrian air defense system, which is reputedly a reasonably capable Russian one. Otherwise, Turkish military action will be limited to relatively ineffectual artillery bombardments, which won’t help much and will likely provoke a Syrian response in kind.
The Turks have long pondered a “safe area” along their border inside Syria, to limit the flow of refugees into Turkey proper. But they have not wanted to take down the Syrian air defense system on their own. I imagine they can do it, but it is clearly an act of war, one they will be reluctant to indulge in without UN Security Council authorization. Turkey will also need some pretty strong backing from the United States and other heavy hitting NATO members to take it on. American drones have already been playing an intelligence-gathering role, one the Turks will want to increase if they decide to take serious military action.
If they do, they can expect Syria to strike back assymetrically by supporting Kurdish guerrilla activity inside Turkey, something that is already on the rise. That would likely intensify Turkish military action targeted against Syrian Kurds. The spiral of violence is not likely to much farther than that, because Syrian capabilities are limited, especially given the current demands on Damascus’ security forces from inside Syria. In any event, no one in the Asad regime will care too much if the Turks are hitting the Kurds in northeastern Syria, possibly driving more of them into Iraq. Iraqi Kurdistan will presumably welcome them. Baghdad will not.
So I don’t see the possibility of Turkish military action against Syria as leading to an unlimited spiral of violence, but it would definitely represent an escalation and spreading of the conflict with important implications for the United States, NATO allies and Iraq. If Turkish military moves result in a rapid end to the Asad regime, that could be a good thing. If they don’t but instead enlarge and amplify the conflict, that would be a very bad thing.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The brighter side
Kosovo’s Minister for Economic Development, Besim Beqaj, stopped by last week to talk at SAIS. I was too busy with Yom Kippur and a wife’s illness to write him up quickly, but I doubt any of what he said is yet out of date. So here is my summary, with apologies for anything I’ve gotten wrong (the numbers are particularly difficult to keep track of–I’ll print corrections if you send them to me):
Kosovo found itself at the end of the NATO/Yugoslavia war in 1999 with a devastated economy and two big challenges: post-war reconstruction and transition from badly broken socialism to a free economy. Beqaj himself started his career as a teacher in the parallel education sytem, which undertook the schooling of Kosovo’s Albanians during the 1990s outside the official Belgrade-sponsored system. At the end of the war, 120,000 houses were damaged out of a housing stock of 400,000. Ninety-five per cent of the refugees and displaced people returned quickly, within two months.
Kosovo needed a state. Today it has one that declared independence in 2008 and substantially completed the implementation of Ahtisaari’s Comprehensive Peace Settlement proposal this year. Governance is decentralized, minority protection is enshrined in law, and 91 other states have recognized Kosovo, which is already a member of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and will soon be a member of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Kosovo’s breach last year of its IMF agreement has proven temporary. Within eight months it was back under an IMF program and will stay there.
The state-building process is not yet complete. The long pole in the tent is rule of law. Kosovo has asked for the EU rule of law mission (EULEX) to stay for two more years. Education needs a major upgrade. Unemployment is high, especially among the young.
Still, Kosovo has enjoyed high growth rates (estimated at 4.4% in 2012), 40% of its budget is devoted to capital investments in infrastructure, GDP has grown to 2700 euros/year, debt is under 7% of GDP and foreign direct investment last year amounted to 400 million euros. The road to Durres in Albania is a major improvement. The next infrastructure priority is the road to Skopje, which will start construction soon (I was relieved to hear that!).The Central European Free Trade Agreement provides access to a market of 25 million, in addition to trade agreements with both Europe and the United States.
The National Council for Economic Development has set five goals:
1. Maintaining fiscal stability (legislation limits government debt to 40% of GDP);
2. Improving the environment for investment by reducing red tape and empowering the private sector;
3. Privatizing state enterprises, with priority going to telecommunications (a competition is now in process), the energy sector and mining (much improved airport operations are already in private hands);
4. Revitalizing agriculture and food processing;
5. Developing human capital, including civic education.
All legislation implementing these and other priorities must be aligned with European Union requirements. Ninety per cent of Kosovo citizens would approve a referendum in favor of EU membership.
Kosovo still faces serious difficulties. The Serbian campaign against diplomatic recognition has hurt the state’s prospects and its ability to provide for practical things like “green card” insurance coverage for people who want to travel outside Kosovo by car. Smuggling into Kosovo and back into Serbia) on small roads in the north is costly to both Pristina and Belgrade. As much as $200 million euros in electric bills remain unpaid by Serbs living in the north, which remains a major issue.
It was left to me to ask the obvious question: what about corruption? The Minister replied that the perception is worse than the reality. He pointed to UNDP/USAID polling that suggests only 8% of the population has personal experience of corruption. Eighty-two per cent of the population knows of corruption only through the media or through talking with friends and relatives.
Alas, that same polling shows low levels of satisfaction (among both Serbs and Albanians) with the government, which gets most of the blame for the still difficult economic situation. Besim Beqaj and his colleagues still have a tough road ahead.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
An interesting development
This caught my eye yesterday:
Mass demonstrations broke out in more than 370 different locations across the country demanding rebel fighters to unite their ranks, have a centralised command and unified strategy to knock down the Assad regime, demonstrators also demanded the overthrow of the Assad regime.
This blurb is from the daily round-up of the Strategic Research and Communication Centre, a London-based Syrian opposition outfit.
There is nothing new about nonviolent demonstrations in Syria. Most days see well over 100 of them. But the armed struggle has completely overshadowed them, at least in the international press. If it bleeds, it ledes. Boom or bust seems to be the way the foreigners see it: if the opposition fails to take violent action, it doesn’t register on foreign eardrums.
What is interesting about this report is not only the number of different locations–I can’t remember a day with near 370 demos–but their purpose: to urge unity on the rebel fighters (in addition to the compulsoary call for the downfall of Bashar al Asad). This is an interesting use of the capacity for civic mobilization targeted not only on the regime but also on the opposition.
It is not unique. In Serbia after the 1999 Kosovo war the civic resistance demonstrated repeatedly in favor of unifying the fractious (but entirely civilian) opposition, which eventually led to its victory at the polls. But it is the first time I’ve seen it explicitly done in Syria (apologies to the civic activisits in advance if they’ve done it a dozen times previously).
This seems to me a good wicket. The Free Syrian Army was quick to respond. It has announced creation of the “Joint Leadership of the Military Revolutionary Councils,” which is said to include more than 80% of the rebel fighting groups. That could enable better country-wide coordination, which is key to stretching the capacity of the Syrian regime’s security forces to respond. Asad is fighting a counter-insurgency campaign that requires he clear, hold and build. Taxing his forces so that they are unable to hold and build even if they succeed in clearing is critical to opposition success.
What is still missing, even if greater military coordination is achieved, is a civilian political leadership. The basic message of the opposition is clear and unified enough: Asad has to step aside, then we’ll negotiate a democratic transition with the remnants of the regime. But it is not yet clear who will lead the effort and make crucial decisions. What does stepping aside mean? Does Bashar have to leave the country? Who is acceptable as a negotiating partner? Who can remain in their government jobs, who has to go? What will be the milestones in the transition?
There are lots of people claiming to have answers to these questions. What is needed now is the emergence of a genuine civilian leadership with enough legitimacy to decide these issues on behalf of both the civilian and the military opposition and ensure implementation of the decisions, including the prerequisite ceasefire. I trust UN/Arab League envoy Brahimi and his small mission are looking for them, even as Asad is trying to kill them. Let’s hope Brahimi succeeds and Asad fails.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
More talk, less eloquence, a bit of chicanery
The UN General Assembly, the ultimate talk shop, is providing a lot of opportunity this week to take the world’s pulse. Yesterday it was Egyptian President Morsy and Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Today it was Palestinian President Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Someone at the UN has good scheduling sense.
Ahmedinejad ended his peroration with this Messianic vision for the return of the Mahdi and Jesus Christ:
-The arrival of the Ultimate Savior will mark a new beginning, a rebirth and a resurrection. It will be the beginning of peace, lasting security and genuine life.
-His arrival will be the end of oppression, immorality, poverty, discrimination and the beginning of justice, love and empathy.
-He will come and he will cut through ignorance, superstition, prejudice by opening the gates of science and knowledge. He will establish a world brimful of prudence and he will prepare the ground for the collective, active and constructive participation of all in the global management.
-He will come to grant kindness, hope, freedom and dignity to all humanity as a girl.
-He will come so mankind will taste the pleasure of being human and being in the company of other humans.
-He will come so that hands will be joined, hearts will be filled with love and thoughts will be purified to be at service of security, welfare and happiness for all.
-He will come to return all children of Adam irrespective of their skin colors to their innate origin after a long history of separation and division linking them to eternal happiness.
Our brothers and sisters in Palestine must also taste the fruits of freedom and dignity. It is shameful that the free world accepts, regardless of the justifications provided, that a member of the international community continues to deny the rights of a nation that has been longing for decades for independence. It is also disgraceful that settlement activities continue on the territories of these people, along with the delay in implementing the decisions of international legitimacy.
I say it loudly to those wondering about our position vis-a-vis the international agreements and conventions that we have previously adhered to: we are committed to what we have signed on. We also support the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and are determined to pursue all efforts side by side with them until they regain their rights.
The obscenities recently released as part of an organized campaign against Islamic sanctities is unacceptable and requires a firm stand. We have a responsibility in this international gathering to study how we can protect the world from instability and hatred. Egypt respects freedom of expression.
One that is not used to incite hatred against anyone. One that is not directed towards one specific religion or culture.
A freedom of expression that tackles extremism and violence. Not the freedom of expression that deepens ignorance and disregards others. But we also stand firmly against the use of violence in expressing objection to these obscenities.
Settlement activities embody the core of the policy of colonial military occupation of the land of the Palestinian people and all of the brutality of aggression and racial discrimination against our people that this policy entails. This policy, which constitutes a breach of international humanitarian law and United Nations resolutions, is the primary cause for the failure of the peace process, the collapse of dozens of opportunities, and the burial of the great hopes that arose from the signing of the Declaration of Principles in 1993 between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel to achieve a just peace that would begin a new era for our region.
He backed this up with one of the more eloquent statements of the day:
The time has come for our men, women and children to live normal lives, for them to be able to sleep without waiting for the worst that the next day will bring; for mothers to be assured that their children will return home without fear of suffering killing, arrest or humiliation; for students to be able to go to their schools and universities without checkpoints obstructing them. The time has come for sick people to be able to reach hospitals normally, and for our farmers to be able to take care of their good land without fear of the occupation seizing the land and its water, which the wall prevents access to, or fear of the settlers, for whom settlements are being built on our land and who are uprooting and burning the olive trees that have existed for hundreds of years. The time has come for the thousands of prisoners to be released from the prisons to return to their families and their children to become a part of building their homeland, for the freedom of which they have sacrificed.
Netanyahu, usually more eloquent than Abbas, was less on this occasion:
To understand what the world would be like with a nuclear-armed Iran, just imagine the world with a nuclear-armed Al-Qaeda.
It makes no difference whether these lethal weapons are in the hands of the world’s most dangerous terrorist regime or the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization. They’re both fired by the same hatred; they’re both driven by the same lust for violence.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
An eloquent day
The day has overflowed with high-minded eloquence: Obama at the General Assembly and the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) and Romney at the CGI All solid, well-thought-through presentations. Obama focused on universal values and aspirations at the UNGA, then on human trafficking at the CGI. Romney focused on improving the way in which we provide assistance internationally.
I can’t really fault much of what either said. I agree with Obama that the violence we’ve seen in the past two weeks is inexcusable, that the video precipitating the demonstrations that killed American diplomats as well as dozens of Muslims is reprehensible, that our values nevertheless prevent it from being suppressed and also require an end to human trafficking. I also agree with his support for the Arab awakening and in particular for an end to Bashar al Assad’s reign of terror in Syria. I agree with Romney that we need to reshape foreign assistance so that it creates conditions for private initiative and growth, which too often it does not.
The real significance is, as usual, in what they did not say. Obama offered no new ideas or action on Syria. He did not mention North Korea and touched only once on Pakistan. I imagine Pyongyang got off easy because there are growing signs of economic reform there, and less bellicosity. It is hard to say anything nice about the People’s Republic, so better not to say anything. That’s more or less the case with reprobate Pakistan as well: the billions poured into its coffers seem to have bought neither economic development nor friendship. I’d like to see Romney’s approach to foreign aid applied in Pakistan. It is unlikely to be less fruitful than what we’ve done in the past, under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
There was no easing of the President’s rhetoric or substantive position on the Iranian nuclear program. He rules out containment and makes it clear the United States will do what is necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Romney may doubt his credibility, but I don’t. I think the United States is sliding inexorably towards being locked into military action against Iran if diplomacy fails, which it well might. Both political parties have staked out strong positions that will push any president in the direction of war if Iran moves definitively to build a nuclear weapon. That is a very good reason to make the diplomatic push as strong as possible, since war with Iran is not going to be a simple matter.
As for Romney, he may have a grand new vision of American foreign assistance, but little or no financing for it if Paul Ryan’s budget plans come to fruition. Unlike his grand critique of Obama, Romney’s aid ideas are well-crafted. Too bad none of it would be likely to happen if he were to become president. If Obama is smart–and there is every indication he is that–he’ll poach a bit from the Romney ideas in his second term. It won’t be plagiarism–these are ideas floating around already and in part adopted over the past four years. But Obama could and should be a lot bolder in demanding from aid recipients the kinds of serious reform that Romney alludes to.
So there is little new ground broken in today’s eloquence, but a good deal to suggest that a bipartisan foreign policy is not so far out of reach, even in our highly polarized times. That would be refreshing.
RSS - Posts
