Tag: United States
The road to Damascus still runs through Moscow
Michelle Dunne and Dimitri Simes got it wrong in yesterday’s discussion on the PBS Newshour of Russia’s role in Syria. They failed to understand the main reason the Obama Administration hesitates to buck Moscow and offered a precedent–the 1999 Kosovo intervention–that can’t be mechanically applied in today’s conditions.
If only Syria were at stake and the Russians were tacitly on board, it would be foolish, as Simes suggested, for the Americans to hesitate to act without UN Security Council (UNSC) approval. They acted without approval in Kosovo without any serious backlash from Russia, which in 1999 was in no position to offer much resistance.
But that is not the current situation. Iran is also on the chess board. If the United States attacks Syria without Moscow’s concurrence, it will lose Russian participation in the P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran. Your top national security priority for the moment is stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but you would put that goal at risk for the sake of Syria? Whether you believe stopping Iran can be done by diplomatic means or you think that military action will be required, you want to keep your powder dry and the Russians on side as much as possible.
Russia to boot is not the basket case it was in 1999, when it winked and nodded at NATO’s attack on Serbia, which after several months ended Belgrade’s repression and the expulsion of the Albanians from Kosovo. Simes conveniently forgot that Kosovo briefly threatened real problems between the United States and Russia, when Moscow seized the Pristina airport before NATO forces arrived there. But Russia was too weak and too broke to do anything more than putter around the runways. Moscow today is far better equipped with armed forces, hard cash and diplomatic support to respond than it was in 1999.
The key to solving the Syria problem is convincing Moscow that it risks losing everything when the Assad regime comes down. Diplomatic persuasion, not military action, is what is needed. At some point, Russia will realize that protecting its port access in the Mediterranean and its arms sales to Syria requires support to the successor regime. If Moscow fails to jump ship in time, the Russians will go down with it.
Moscow sounded a bit desperate yesterday underlining that its arms sales to Bashar al Assad violate no UN resolution or international law. True enough. What they violate is common sense and human decency. No one should be surprised that this is difficult for Vladimir Putin to understand. He is after all having his own problems with demonstrators. But even he by now understands that helicopter gunships are not the right way to deal with dissent.
When President Obama sees President Putin at the G-20 meeting in Mexico next week, Syria should be high on the agenda. The road to Damascus still runs through Moscow.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What does civil war meme?
Yesterday UN peacekeeping under secretary general Herve Ladsous suggested that Syria is indeed in a civil war:
Yes, I think we can say that. Clearly what is happening is that the government of Syria lost some large chunks of territory, several cities to the opposition, and wants to retake control.
The Syrian government denies it, insisting that its operations are aimed at suppressing terrorists.
What is the significance of the “civil war” meme? The conflict in Syria appears to meet the formal definition of civil war:
a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies
There may be some doubt as to how “organized” the Free Syria Army really is, but it seems, as Ladsous suggested, to be organized enough to control at least some territory. The Syria conflict certainly meets the threshold of 1000 casualties the academics require to label a conflict “war.”
The Syrian government prefers the counter-terrorism meme because it puts the conflict in a context that justifies vigorous state action. President Obama abandoned the “war on terror” metaphor long ago, but it continues to fight extremism with all the means at its disposal. Why shouldn’t Bashar al Assad do likewise?
If the conflict in Syria is a civil war, it does not follow that international intervention is appropriate. The United Nations will generally avoid engagement in such situations until the “warring parties” offer their consent. Consent in Syria so far is certainly nominal: the government allows the UN observers in and permits them to move around a bit, but it has not implemented the six-point Annan plan. The Free Syria Army has renounced the ceasefire that never really took effect.
During the Bosnian conflict, the label “civil war” was used mainly by those who opposed international intervention. While intervention in civil wars by neighbors, super powers and other interested parties has often occurred, in the American political lexicon “civil war” has usually been used to justify a wait and see attitude. If they are fighting among themselves, why should we get involved? It’s dangerous and potentially counterproductive if we prolong a conflict that might just burn itself out.
The meme that works in favor of intervention in the U.S. is a liberation meme, provided the government of the country in which the conflict occurs is not a friendly one. The Kosovo Liberation Army was an example, as was the NATO-led intervention in favor of the Libyan National Transitional Council. Not for nothing was the war in Iraq termed Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The Free Syria Army would like to be seen as part of such a liberation meme. So far, that has not gotten it direct American assistance. But yesterday’s revelation that Russia is providing attack helicopters to the Syrian army will likely open the spigot of clandestine transfers by Saudi Arabia and Qatar to the Free Syria Army a bit wider.
That won’t necessarily bring an end to a war that already threatens to destabilize Lebanon and in due course other neighbors. International intervention can lengthen and spread wars, whether they be termed anti-terrorist, civil or liberation.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Nikolic starts well, now let’s have fun
Tomislav Nikolic’s inauguration as President of Serbia went well: he pledged Serbia to a European future, committed himself to resolving regional problems through dialogue and promised future prosperity in return for hard work. He did not of course repeat his controversial remarks of recent days seeming to justify the Serb assault in the early 1990s on the Croatian town of Vukovar and his denial of genocide at the Bosnian town of Srebrenica.
He did however necessarily commit himself to
protect the Constitution, respect and safeguard the territorial integrity of Serbia and try to unite all political forces in the country in order to identify and implement a common policy on the issue of Kosovo-Metohija.
This means that he maintains Serbia’s claim to all of Kosovo, despite loss of control over 89% of its territory and more or less the same percentage of its population. As required by the constitution, he denies the validity of the 2008 declaration of independence and recognition by 90 sovereign states.
The key question for today’s Serbia is whether and how Nikolic resolves the contradiction between his commitment to a European future for his country and his commitment to holding on to Kosovo. No Serb politician wants to admit that this contradiction exists, but it does and they all know it. Twenty-two European Union members have recognized Kosovo’s independence. They will be unwilling to accept Serbia into their club unless it accepts Kosovo’s sovereignty and establishes “good neighborly relations” with the democratically validated authorities in Pristina.
Belgrade has been inclined to put off any resolution of this contradiction for as long as possible. That is understandable. It involves a trade-off that is unappetizing: either give up Kosovo, or give up the EU.
But the failure to make a clear choice distorts judgment on other issues important to Serbia’s future: relationships with Russia, the United States and NATO as well as Serbia’s relationship with Kosovo’s Albanian citizens (Kosovo’s Serb citizens will presumably choose to remain Serbian citizens, though some have also accepted Kosovo citizenship).
The United States and the EU have been reluctant to press Serbia hard on its choice between the EU and Kosovo, for fear of undermining former President Boris Tadic and strengthening Nikolic’s more nationalist forces. It might appear that there is no longer need for that reluctance with Nikolic in the presidency. But there is a real possibility that Tadic will become prime minister and lead the first government of Nikolic’s mandate. That would enable Serbia to renew its diplomatic manipulation of the West on the Kosovo vs. EU issue.
Nikolic in the past has been more inclined to advocate partition of Kosovo than to give up all claim to it. This proposition won’t go anywhere. The Americans and the Europeans are solidly against it, because it would precipitate a domino-effect of partitions in Macedonia, Bosnia, Cyprus and perhaps farther afield. The Kosovars would ask for the Albanian-majority area of southern Serbia in trade, something Belgrade would not want to offer. More importantly: it is not in the interest of most Serbs who live in Kosovo (outside the northern area Serbia would hope to claim). The Serbian church, whose important sites are all in the south, is solidly opposed.
I’ll hope that Nikolic defies the odds and gets courageous about Kosovo: it is lost to Serbian sovereignty. All politicians in Belgrade, including Nikolic, understand that, but no one wants to accept responsibility for it. Some of my Serb Twitter followers and email correspondents assure me there is not a chance in hell Nikolic will: that’s why they voted for him. They want him to choose Kosovo over the tarnished EU.
They may well be correct, but I’ll wait to see what Nikolic does. His first test will be implementation of the agreements already reached with Pristina. Tadic did precious little to make them operational. If Nikolic wants to stick his predecessor with responsibility for them, he’ll demand that they be implemented by a newly named prime minister, whether it be Tadic or someone else from his Democratic Party.
Nikolic could also change Serbia’s policy on United Nations membership for Kosovo, thus forcing Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic to preside in his new position as General Assembly president over Pristina’s acceptance into the UN. Watching that would be worth almost any admission price.
I’m not holding my breath for any of this to happen. Just saying it would be fun.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
Not a slow week, but one with a bit longer term focus than some:
1. Persian subversion: Can America withstand an Iranian oil shock? AEI 10-11:30 June 12.
1150 Seventeenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
(Two blocks from Farragut North Metro)
In recent months, Iranian saber rattling has shaken energy markets. Although sanctions targeting Iran may raise the price at the pump, inaction is also costly: allowing Tehran to pass its nuclear threshold will endanger security in the Persian Gulf and may lead to even greater oil price hikes.
Against the backdrop of the Iranian nuclear crisis, American policymakers are increasingly considering ramping up domestic oil production and alternative energy. How much can shale oil, new pipelines and offshore oil production shield the U.S. economy from instability in the Persian Gulf and Iran’s leverage over world oil prices? How do the recent bankruptcies of U.S. solar energy firms affect American alternate energy strategy? Join a panel of foreign policy, national security, energy and transportation experts for an open discussion.
If you cannot attend, we welcome you to watch the event live on this page.
9:45 AM
Registration
10:00 AM
Panelists:
Elliott Abrams, Council on Foreign Relations
Gen. (ret.) James T. Conway, 34th Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps
Sam Gilliland, Sabre Holdings
Daniel Yergin, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates
Moderator:
Michael Rubin, AEI
11:30 AM
Adjournment
2. Japan-Korea-China Economic Relations, 9-10:30 June 12
Washington 20006
As Korea strives to be a global leader, the country has concluded several bilateral and multilateral Free Trade Agreements since 2003 and is currently negotiating additional agreements while laying the groundwork for a Korea-Japan-China FTA and considering the resumption of negotiations with Japan. Japan’s trade strategy also continues to evolve as it develops a new growth strategy after the natural disasters of 2011. Both Korea and Japan are carefully watching the developments around TPP. In the meantime, China has become the largest trading partner of Korea and Japan and the three countries recently signed a trilateral investment agreement as a potential first step toward a trilateral trade accord.
The seminar will assess the current status of the Korean and Japanese trade policies in light of the implementation of the KORUS FTA and the continued discussion of the TPP, Korea-China FTA and Korea-Japan-China FTA.
3. 2012 GPI Launch: How Can Global Peace Metrics Inform Foreign Policy? CSIS, 9-10:30 June 12
Please join us for the results of the sixth annual Global Peace Index and inaugural Positive Peace Index:Tuesday, June 12, 2012
9:00 AM – 10:30 AM
B1 Conference Center, CSIS
1800 K St. NW, Washington, DC 20006
A Panel Discussion With
Amb. William Garvelink, Senior Adviser, U.S. Leadership in Development, Center for Strategic and International Studies (Moderator)
Anne-Marie Slaughter, Bert G. Kerstetter ’66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University (Opening Remarks)
Lawrence Wilkerson, Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy, William and Mary College
Josh Rogin, Staff Writer, Foreign Policy
Emily Cadei, Foreign Policy Reporter, Congressional Quarterly
Michael Shank, U.S. Vice President, Institute for Economics and Peace (GPI Results Presentation)
In a world often described by crisis and conflict, which countries are the most peaceful? How do we measure peace and its economic value? How can peace metrics inform U.S. foreign policy?
The Global Peace Index (GPI) is the first-ever analysis to methodically rank countries on their peacefulness and identify potential determinants of peace. Comprised of a range of indicators measuring the absence of violence in society, the GPI takes into consideration both internal and external factors, and measures 99% of the world’s population.
For the first time, this year’s report includes a Positive Peace Index (PPI), highlighting the key institutional factors associated with creating peaceful and resilient societies. The PPI ranks countries by their institutional capacity to move away from violence and towards peace.
The GPI is produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), guided by an international panel of independent experts and supported by the Economist Intelligence Unit, which collates the data and calculates the rankings in conjunction with the IEP.
Please RSVP to achang@csis.org
4. Culturally-Based Approaches to Peacebuilding in Pakistan, SAIS (Kenney) 9:30-11:30 June 12
With Libya’s first nationwide democratic election quickly approaching, serious progress on political and institutional development is essential as the country proceeds with its transition. While re-establishing security remains vital in the short term, many long-term development challenges also require immediate attention, including building effective, accountable institutions at the national and local levels; developing an independent and diverse civil society; establishing and protecting a free, professional press; and reforming the military, police, and other security forces. Meanwhile, Libyans must engage in a national dialogue on how to ensure adequate representation in government for women, youth, and and various tribal and ethnic groups. By smartly leveraging domestic resources and international assistance, the Libyan people could be well-positioned to build a prosperous and free country.
What will the assembly elections – originally slated for June 19th but now expected to be delayed until July – look like? What are the major political forces emerging in the country and how are they preparing for the elections? How will the election of a national assembly affect the role of the National Transitional Council (NTC)? What are the top priorities for the Libyan government, particularly regarding institutional reform? How can Libyans develop a robust civil society and ensure freedom of opinion, press, and assembly? Which best practices from other state-building efforts would be most appropriate for the Libyan case? In particular, how might various models of federalism and decentralization be useful? And what is the most constructive role for international actors to play in supporting capacity-building, among other needs?
Director of Iraq, Iran, and North Africa Programs, Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations, U.S. Institute of Peace
Executive Director, POMED
President, American-Libyan Council
Associate Director, Sustainable Security and Peacebuilding Initiative, Center for American Progress
Click here to RSVP for the event.
We’ll also be live-tweeting from the event, so follow the conversation at #POMEDLib. If you’d like us to ask one of your questions, we’ll try to include a few from our virtual audience.
Please contact Anna Newby at anna.newby@pomed.org with any questions, or call (202) 828-9660, ext 23.
6. The State of Health in Afghanistan: Implications for Economic Stability, Security and Women, USIP, 3:30-4:30 June 12
Despite the number of negative trends in Afghanistan, tremendous achievements have been gained in the health sector. Most notable is the programming on maternal health, which has contributed to a significant decline in infant and child mortality rates. The percentage of female healthcare worker has risen dramatically in USAID-funded healthcare facilities.
How has the health sector improved the overall health of a country? What can we learn from the Ministry of Health that might be applied to other sectors? How has the sector supported economic stability and security? What are the country’s health goals as Afghanistan prepares for its security and political transitions in 2014?
Please join USIP’s Center for Gender and Peacebuilding, in collaboration with the Afghan Embassy, the Department of State and USAID, for a panel discussion on the health sector’s contribution to economic stability and security in Afghanistan leading to 2014. The minister of Public Health of Afghanistan, Honorable Dr. Soraya Dalil, will discuss the “state of health” in Afghanistan. She will be joined by U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer and Michele Schimpp, deputy director for USAID’s Afghanistan and Pakistan Task Force.
Panelists
- The Honorable Dr. Soraya Dalil
Minister of Public Health - Ambassador Melanne Verveer
Ambassador at Large for Global Women’s Issues, U.S. Department of State - Michele Schimpp
Deputy Director for Afghanistan and Pakistan Task Force, USAID - William Byrd, Discussant
Senior Expert in Residence, U.S. Institute of Peace - Kathleen Kuehnast, Moderator
Director, Center for Gender and Peacebuilding, U.S. Institute of Peace
7. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR): Complementarity or Cooperation between State, USAID and the NGO Community, USIP, 9-4:30 June 15
After Secretary of State Hillary Clinton introduced the QDDR as a major step in elevating development alongside diplomacy as a key pillar of American foreign policy, many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) welcomed the QDDR as the beginning of a better coordinated and more effective approach to global development. USIP and Webster University will host a day of discussion about how the QDDR complements NGO efforts in development, humanitarian relief and conflict management as well as the current challenges and opportunities that result from the QDDR.
This discussion will be built around presentations from senior United States government officials from the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development and from leaders in the NGO community. These will be followed by panel discussions that combine the perspectives of policymakers and NGOs on the topics of economic development, public health, education, human security, and human rights.
USIP was among the organizations that contributed ideas to the development of the QDDR, particularly in the areas of stabilization and conflict prevention. Discussion of the QDDR and its goals will enhance the effectiveness of both NGOs and the U.S. Government in global development and conflict prevention efforts, particularly in building local capacity and promoting innovation.
-
What in the QDDR is relevant to the work of NGOs and private voluntary organizations (PVOs)?
-
How will the objectives of the QDDR affect NGOs and PVOs?
-
Where is there complementarity in the following areas?
- Conflict Prevention
- Capacity building
- Development of effective civil society
- Humanitarian aid
- Contributions of new technology
Download Conference Agenda
Speakers
-
Nancy Lindborg
Assistant Administrator, USAID -
Melanie Greenberg
President and CEO, Alliance for Peacebuilding -
Lindsay Coates
Executive Vice President, Interaction -
Ambassador Robert Loftis
Former Acting Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, the Department of State -
David Wilson
Dean of Humanities, Webster University -
Jeff Helsing
Dean of Curriculum, U.S. Institute of Peace
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Rumors of America’s demise are exaggerated
If you don’t want to be live-tweeted, don’t speak to a group in their 20s! My 5-7 minutes or so presentation at the G8 & G20 Youth Summits at George Washington University this morning generated close to two dozen tweets.
What I said, or should have said according to my notes, was pretty much this:
1. Contrary to what one often reads, my generation is not leaving the world worse off. It is leaving as a legacy a freer, wealthier and more peaceful world than the one it inherited.
2. But just because of that it is also a more uncertain world, where leadership is more difficult than when the United States and the Soviet Union faced off in nuclear confrontation. The demands made of leadership also shift in a more democratic and peaceful world, with greater emphasis on economic challenges and we hope less on security dilemmas.
3. Even if America’s relative weight in the world is declining by some measures, the much-rumored demise of America is greatly exaggerated.
4. The United States retains its inherent advantages: two large, protective oceans, two cooperative neighbors north and south, immense natural resource wealth, global military superiority, a dynamic economy and political system.
5. It also has other advantages that make it specifically well-adapted to the current world order: an ability to pivot (as it is currently trying to do, from the Atlantic to the Pacific) and a high degree of interconnectedness with the rest of the world. Anne-Marie Slaughter in particular has been vocal in point out how important interconnectedness can be.
6. Interconnectedness is an interesting source of power, because it works at both ends: I may be able to leverage my connection to you, but you may also be able to leverage your connection to me.
7. We need to learn to use this interconnectedness to strengthen each other, not to undermine each other, and to improve the world order.
In the Q and A, Barbara Slavin and I differed on Iran and Syria. I think President Obama is not taking military action on Syria because it would lose him Russian and Chinese participation in the P5+1 talks with Iran. Barbara thinks the U.S. is hesitating because of uncertainty about the consequences in a Syria with a divided opposition. We may also differ on Iran’s nuclear intentions, but writing about that I may get it wrong, so I’ll desist.
There were a lot of good questions, but the one that sticks in my mind is about how we will manage the rise of China. A great deal depends on which China rises. If it is an increasingly autocratic and militarized China, the task will be far more difficult. If, as suggested in recent remarks by Wen Jiabao (I was mistaken this morning when I cited Hu Jintao), China finds it needs democratic political reform to manage its own internal problems, things will be a lot easier.
Next generation: you were well-represented today!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ahmed Shafiq for president
I know I’ll get lots of flak for this post, which Al-Monitor.com published yesterday under the headline “Vote Shafiq: Warts and All, Mubarak Ally is Better Choice.” Tens of thousands of Egyptians rallied Tuesday to protest Shafiq’s candidacy. I’d be more likely to attend that than a pro-Shafiq rally. There is still a court challenge to his candidacy to be decided. If he is barred and the third place candidate (Hamdeen Sabahi) put in his place, the arguments made here would need to be adjusted, but I would still see virtue in blocking a Muslim Brotherhood monopoly on power. Please read on before getting upset:
No one interested in seeing Egypt as a thriving democracy would want to vote for either of the two candidates remaining in the June 16-17 runoff. Freedom and Justice (Muslim Brotherhood) party candidate Mohamed Morsi is an uninspiring second choice, nominated when the original candidate was barred. Former Air Force General Ahmed Shafiq was President Hosni Mubarak’s last prime minister. He accomplished nothing of note in that position and is certainly a remnant of the Mubarak regime overthrown by the January 2010 revolution.
The choice is unappetizing to one-third of the electorate, but the circumstances make Shafiq preferable. The Muslim Brotherhood already controls 48% of the seats in the first post-revolution Egyptian parliament. If Morsi wins the presidency, the Muslim Brotherhood will own Egypt. Its principal rivals in parliament are Salafists, who will try to steer Egypt in their more strictly Islamic direction. Only a president from the more “secular” side of politics — one with at least some appeal to non-Muslims and less religious Muslims — can restore some sense of balance, even if he is an anti-revolutionary figure.
RSS - Posts
