Day: December 12, 2012
Recognition is the beginning, not the end
Reuters published my piece today, under the title, “Washington’s next steps on Syria”:
The United States has officially recognized the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. It has also designated al Qaeda in Iraq-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra, which often leads the fighting effort in Syria, as a terrorist organization, thus making it illegal for anyone to buy it even a cup of tea. This double-barreled political action, after months of hesitation, is intended to convey the message that Washington supports the relative moderates of the Syrian opposition wholeheartedly but wants to exclude from its ranks Sunni extremists.
The trouble is both moves come late in the game. At this point, U.S. influence may not be sufficient to accomplish the objectives.
A lot depends on the Syrians themselves. Most Syrians do not want to see sectarian slaughter following the current civil war. The question is whether they will be willing and able to restrain the Sunni extremists in their midst. It will take courage and commitment for today’s revolutionaries to speak up and protect Alawites, Christians, Druze and Shia who are suspected of supporting the Assad regime. Mass atrocity in the aftermath of political upheaval is more the rule than the exception. There is little sign that the international community will be able to mount a serious protection effort.
Jabhat al-Nusra would not hold the leading position it does today except for its relative effectiveness both on the battlefield and in providing services to liberated areas. The moderate Syrian opposition needs to get better at both if it is to compete effectively for mass support. It is trying. It has welcomed the Kurdish National Council into the Coalition and formed a new, more unified military command that excludes Jabhat al-Nusra. There was a meeting this week in Istanbul of the Civil Administration Councils from liberated areas in Syria. They need funds. A lot depends on their ability to provide food and shelter, pick up the garbage, open the schools, restore law and order. And it all has to be done in a fair and transparent way that avoids rumors of corruption and nepotism.
Much also depends on what Washington does to follow through. Once it recognizes as legitimate a government other than the one presided over by Bashar al-Assad, Washington can respond to that government’s requests for assistance. Humanitarian assistance is a no-brainer, but it will take patience and fortitude to get at least some of it delivered through the Coalition’s still primitive governing mechanisms. Political help is also desperately needed: the civil administration councils as well as the Coalition itself will need to construct a governing apparatus that is seen as both legitimate and competent, no easy task while bombs are falling around you.
The question of military assistance is still an open one. There are reports of military training in Jordan for Syrians preparing to try to secure Assad’s chemical weapons and to shoot down regime aircraft. An internationally enforced no-fly zone would be a major step, one that would tilt the battlefield in the revolutionary direction. Yet the Obama administration, anxious to avoid getting too deeply involved and not wanting to provoke the Assad-friendly Russians, is still hesitating.
On the economic front, Syria is in desperate condition. It is more akin to Egypt, which likewise has limited oil and gas, than Libya, a wealthy country with less than one-third of Syria’s population. Economic policy and Syria’s limited natural resources reside with whoever controls Damascus, so the liberated areas in other parts of the country will be doubly impoverished. The liberated areas need major and quick infusions of international funding.
Social conditions are appalling. More than 500,000 people are refugees, mostly in neighboring Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon. While the regime has been cooperating more with international relief efforts in recent weeks, there are likely several million people displaced internally, which makes for an enormous burden in providing food, shelter, sanitation and health care, even at the most basic level.
It is a good thing that Washington is recognizing both the virtues of the Coalition it helped to construct and the vices of Jabhat al-Nusra. But this is the beginning, not the end.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Who’s afraid of North Korea?
The North Korean launch of a satellite has spooked the experts. Many thought the rocket wasn’t ready or anticipated its failure. Things seem to have gone quickly and smoothly, a stark contrast to previous attempts.
Lots of countries can launch satellites. All the other current nuclear weapons states can do it. Why so much concern about North Korea? There are two reasons:
- North Korea is North Korea;
- the UN Security Council has prohibited Pyongyang from testing long-range missiles.
Pyongyang has repeatedly shown itself ready and willing to use force, mainly against South Korea, which is pretty much the only enemy it can reach with its current arsenal. Preoccupied with its own survival, the regime is bellicose and provocative towards not only the South but also towards Japan and the United States.
Even paranoids have enemies. Tokyo and Washington are no friends of Pyongyang and would be delighted to see the regime there tumble. Short of that, they would like to see it constrained. They have been successful twice in convincing the Security Council to levy tough requirements on North Korea.
The military threat to the United States from North Korea is not the principal problem. Even with this successful missile launch, it will be decades before Pyongyang is capable of seriously threatening any of its neighbors other than Seoul. The United States is safe from North Korean nuclear weapons for a good while into the future.
But North Korea’s belligerence is destabilizing regionally. Between North Korean belligerence and Chinese nationalism, Tokyo is not wrong to think about how it needs to beef up its defense capabilities. Even the Chinese have objected to the satellite launch, which most experts believe is a thinly veiled missile test.
Also important is the weight and prestige of the UN Security Council. There are many countries that do not stick to the letter of what the UNSC decides. But the (Chapter VII) resolutions on North Korea are unusually explicit and forceful on the ballistic missile issue:
- 1718 (2006) “Demands that the DPRK not conduct any further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile”;
- 1874 (2009) “Demands that the DPRK not conduct any further nuclear test or any launch using ballistic missile technology.”
Note that slight shift in language, obviously intended to include something like a satellite launch, which uses ballistic missile technology even if some might say a launch vehicle is not a “missile.” North Korean defiance, which extends also to many other aspects of these two resolutions, risks convincing others that the UNSC is a paper tiger.
So now it is up to the Security Council to respond. I imagine it will find a way to tighten sanctions or other measures against Pyongyang, an approach that has not worked overly well in the past but still checks the “we did something” box. It is in fact hard to think of anything else to do. No one should today be afraid of North Korea except South and North Koreans, who suffer mightily under the Kim regime. They may have to suffer more now that the regime boasts longer-range missiles with which to frighten its neighbors.
PS: For the Korean speakers among you (translations welcome), here is the official announcement (via @shanghaiist):
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Keep pedaling
My friends in Macedonia will expect me this morning to share their fury at the European Council, which yesterday once again postponed a decision on when accession talks with Skopje can begin. Spyros Sophos* wrote to colleagues and friends:
the Brussels outcome is shortsighted and disgraceful. It has the potential to undermine the stability of Macedonia and to reward the forces of nationalism and hatred in all the countries and communities involved.
He is right.
But I am not going to join the chorus denouncing the European Union, which ironically collected its Nobel Peace Prize this week. Instead, I am going to ask, what is this all about? what can be done to solve the problem?
It is about identity more than anything else. Macedonians claim to be distinct: to have their own language, culture and history. Bulgaria, one of the two countries blocking an EU consensus to open accession talks, has a problem with this. Sofia wants Skopje to acknowledge the common history, culture and language of the two now separate countries.
Greece, the other country blocking an EU consesnsus, has a different identity problem. It claims that Macedonia has no right to use an unqualified appelation that belongs to Greece, historically, culturally and linguistically. It also fears, or some in Athens say they fear, Macedonian claims to Greek territory. While I have seen no evidence for that claim, it is certainly true that Skopje would like Greece to acknowledge the existence of a Macedonian minority within Greece. That is not the only minority Athens refuses to acknowledge, as it claims its citizens are Greek, tout court. No hyphens in the land of Alexander.
For this American (unhyphenated by the way), all this is pretty indigestible and hard to take seriously when there is death and destruction in Syria, a satellite launch by North Korea, constitutional chaos in Egypt, progress towards nuclear weapons in Iran, a stalled Middle East peace process and several dozen other current problems that seem far more important. But that is precisely the point: however intractable Balkans identity problems may be today, they are not deadly to large numbers of people, as they were in the past. The EU is maddeningly slow and ponderous, but it has also managed to dampen the fighting spirits that generated war and slaughter only a decade or two ago.
The charm may not last. The bicycle analogy is pertinent: only forward motion keeps the Balkans from falling over into violence. The EU’s non-decision will generate nationalist passions inside Macedonia, strain relations with its large Albanian minority and further exacerbate relations with Bulgaria and Greece. If you ignore people because they don’t resort to violence, they might just learn the wrong lesson.
To continue to merit its Nobel Peace Prize, the EU needs to get beyond the current stalemate. I hope it can do that in six months time, when Macedonia comes up for consideration once again. The necessary instrument is lying close at hand: the Interim Accord that Athens and Skopje agreed in 1995 should allow Skopje to enter NATO as “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and to begin EU accession negotiations with that name. This is acceptable to Skopje and is not, it seems to me, offensive to either Bulgaria or Greece, which the International Court of Justice has found in violation of the accord.
Please, EU, keep pedaling to prevent the Balkans bicycle from falling over. The time for a definitive solution will come with Skopje’s accession.
*Apologies to Spyros Sophos: in the first posting, I mistakenly attributed this quote to someone else.
RSS - Posts
