Accountability should not wait
On September 27, the Middle East Institute and the Pro-Justice jointly hosted a panel to launch the new book, Blacklist: Violations Committed by the Most Prominent Syrian Regime Figures and How to Bring Them to Justice. Blacklist identifies and provides detailed information on nearly 100 individuals accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria over the past eight years. The book sheds light on the crimes themselves and outlines potential political and judicial avenues available to bring the perpetrators to justice.
The panel consisted of Anne Barnard, a New York Times journalist who has extensively covered the conflict in Syria, Wael Sawah, the president and director of Pro-Justice and former executive director of the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression, and Charles Lister, a senior fellow and director of the Countering Terrorism and Extremism program at MEI. The event was moderated by Joyce Karam, who is the Washington correspondent for The National and adjunct professor at George Washington University.
The Syrian conflict is approaching its ninth year and increasingly becoming forgotten by the international community. Lister gave a broad overview of wartime consequences to remind the panel and audience of the ongoing atrocity. Syria is a disastrous humanitarian crisis with roughly 500,000 deaths since 2011. The conflict has an extensive history of war crimes, most of which are perpetuated by the central government of Syria. The Assad regime is responsible for 89% of civilian deaths, 99% of torture deaths, 89% of arbitrary arrests, and 85% of forced displacements. Barnard noted that even before the conflict, there were high rates of detention in the elaborate prison system established throughout the Assad dynasty, but as the conflict escalated from 2011 onward, the situation worsened. The UN has labeled the prisons in Syria as exterminate conditions with a system of sadistic torture and high levels of disease.
Sawah continued by saying that these facts and figures are important to note because without accountability and justice, there will never be a lasting peace in Syria. He stated that Blacklist is an important publication to act as an open guide to identify the perpetuators and assist legal professionals in creating a foundational narrative to work towards holding those responsible of crimes against humanity. Barnard agreed and said that the industrial prison system has fostered the ability of the regime to commit these crimes. 100,000 Syrians have not been located after their time detained. It is important to work towards identifying the fates of these people to take initial steps towards reaching justice through administering accountability.
Lister discussed how legal accountability does not seem likely for Assad and high-ranking members of the regime because the general perception is that the Syrian conflict has been won by the regime. He notes that it is far from over, but in the short-term sanctions on these individuals can restrict their international travel and ability to act as legitimate statesmen. Doing so will isolate the regime and not allow it to operate with impunity.
Sawah talked about the pivotal role Hezbollah, Russia, and Iran have played in enabling the Assad regime to survive throughout the civil war. The regime would have collapsed by 2013 without their support. They must be held accountable for their support of Assad and their own war crimes. Lister echoed this by mentioning the Russian precision strikes on civilian hospitals in opposition-held regions. He suggested that the US needs to begin an investigation of Russian war crimes to develop a portfolio of reports to name and shame their heinous actions against Syrian civilians.
The panel agreed that continued investigations such as Blacklist are needed to reach a stable peace in the future. Without making accountability for injustices, opposition groups will flourish, and civilians will continue to disdain the regime.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
How Libya might recover
Libya’s internationally recognized Prime Minister and Chair of the Presidential Council, Fayez al Sarraj, spoke today at SAIS, where I introduced him and my Foreign Policy Institute colleague Hafed al Ghwell moderated the Q and A. Sarraj leads the Government of National Accord (GNA) headquartered in Tripoli. This is my effort to summarize not what he said but my conclusions from it. I’ll post the video as soon as we have it.
Libya’s situation is dire. Former Qaddafi General Khalifa Haftar, having taken control of Benghazi and much of the east and south, launched an attack on Tripoli almost six months ago. His forces have bogged down fighting against an array of four or five militias defending the capital. In the meanwhile, Sarraj is trying to restore some sort of unified, democratic governance. He puts his hopes in political dialogue conducted in a National Conference. But political dialogue in Libya has failed more than once to resolve its conflicts, which are made worse by the substantial oil and gas resources at stake there. Oil production is up to 1.2 million barrels per day (from 150,000 when Sarraj took over three years ago).
Sarraj still insists on dialogue, approval of the draft constitution (or some variant of it), elections to decide who will govern, and a National Reconciliation Commission to manage transitional justice and accountability. Backed by Russian mercenaries, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, Haftar wants to take the country by force. He has repeatedly betrayed political agreements in favor of military efforts. Abu Dhabi and Cairo support Haftar with weapons and money (supposedly because they don’t like the Islamists who support Sarraj). Sarraj explicitly advocates a “secular” government and says his government continues contacts with the Emirates and Egypt.
Sarraj also says his government has a good relationship with the US, especially on fighting terrorism. The Americans conduct drone strikes in Libya and militias that support Sarraj fought the Islamic State in Sirte. But President Trump some months ago did take a phone call from Haftar and appeared to be leaning in his direction, until it became clear that the general was not going to succeed quickly. Sarraj hopes that good relations with the Americans at lower levels will prevail and suggests that the US could be more helpful in clearing away obstacles to the GNA’s success.
It was not clear how that success might be brought about, but there were hints. While now unwilling to continue to negotiate with Haftar, Sarraj sees some hope in talking with the Tobruk-based House of Representatives (HOR), which once upon a time authorized Haftar’s forces. Some of its members already meet in Tripoli and more might be convinced to do so. Separating the HOR from Haftar would undermine his political legitimacy, if not his military capability.
But the key to success is likely also to require realigning the international forces at work in Libya. Haftar’s supporters need to realize that he will not succeed militarily. If they then decide to back the UN-recognized GNA, the odds for its success would increase sharply.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 27
This looks to me like an excellent case study of the interagency process, where the “deep state” of career professionals shares concerns about unsettling behaviors and someone develops a formal “medical log” like the one for Captain Queeg in the Caine Mutiny.
The whistleblower, identified as a CIA person assigned to the White House by NYT, was probably part of an interagency working group on Ukraine. They probably met regularly in NSC offices and discussed various matters. “What is Giuliani doing in this?” “What do we tell Kyiv about their request for a meeting?” “How do we follow up on the president’s phone call?” “I was really troubled by that.” “Did you see what they did with the MemCon?” “Where do we stand on the aid?” “Why did they recall the ambassador?”
NYT’s Peter Baker got more details and confirmation of the whistleblower’s narrative.
Giuliani made his case to the WSJ.
NYT has more on the US ambassador.
Amy Zegart defends the process.
Although
the congressional focus has been on Trump’s seeking political
ammunition against Biden, some lawyers note that his “favor” request
came just after Zelensky mentioned buying Javelin antitank missiles,
perhaps raising other legal questions.
BTW, Chairman Schiff has indicated his members may need to return to DC before the end of the recess.
Despite the looming impeachment fight, the committee trying to find ways to “modernize” the Congress and make it more collegial offered some suggestions yesterday.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Wishful thinking
There is so much wrong with President Trump’s behavior relative to his phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky that it begs for enumeration:
- He solicited foreign help for his election campaign.
- He used his public position to enhance his private interests.
- He suggested a connection between Ukraine’s cooperation in replying to his request for a favor and his willingness to allow Congressionally-mandated aid to go to Ukraine.
- He or his immediate subordinates attempted to cover all this up by hiding the record of the phone conversation in a highly classified computer system explicitly not intended for this type of material.
- He subsequently has threatened the life and freedom of the whistleblower who drew attention to the malfeasance.
There is little question but that this behavior merits impeachment, along with lots of other things he has done. These include the obstruction of justice that Special Counsel Mueller documented in detail and his public appeal for Russian help in the 2016 election, not to mention his preference for believing President Putin over US intelligence agencies. We haven’t even begun to see a serious investigation of Trump’s finances, which will almost surely provide more impeachment fodder.
Impeachment in the House is a foregone conclusion now. The only real questions are when will it happen and how will the Senate react thereafter?
Speaker Pelosi has a choice between early impeachment, say late this year or early next, and late impeachment, late enough so that the Senate would not be able to conduct the trial before the November 3 election. It is not clear to me what she will choose, and perhaps she hasn’t decided yet. Processes of this sort have their own rhythm, which is likely slower than some would like. But if it appears that Republicans would back impeachment and conviction, Pelosi might try to move fast to take advantage of the momentum.
How will the Republicans react? So far the members of both House and Senate are circling the wagons, trying to protect Trump. Polling confirms that choice. But that could change. The rash of Republican retirements from the House is clearly due in part to discomfort with Trump and his likely impact on members’ prospects in the 2020 election. There have been a few similar announced retirements from the Senate, but there the defensive phalanx seems much better organized and grounded. Mitt Romney is everyone’s best hope for breaking ranks, but he has so far been cautious to a fault.
Trump remains defiant and unapologetic. His phone call was “perfect” and his opponents’ claims are fake news. He is good at counter-punching, but my sense is that most Americans are getting tired of the reality show. That, of course, is wishful thinking on my part.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Outage yesterday
Apologies for our “suspension” yesterday. Peacefare needed to do some security-related maintenance. All done in record time. Now up as usual.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
L’état, c’est moi
The intel community whistleblower complaint made public today focuses mainly on President Trump’s aggressive effort to enlist Ukrainian President Zelensky’s help in the 2020 election. But the campaign law violation is the least of the issues, as Robert Litt, former General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, made clear on NPR this morning. The main point is that the President used the call to pressure a foreign leader to help his political campaign, using a hold on aid to Ukraine as leverage.
This is classic use of public position for private gain, the very definition of corruption. It is an abuse of power that may also rank as extortion and bribery, with the aid used as a bribe. Trump has no compunction about this, because he recognizes no distinction between his private interests and those of the nation. L’état, c’est moi is his guiding principle.
Impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanors” is the proper response under the constitution, which provided this remedy explicitly for this problem: abuse of public office. The House of Representatives will now come up with a bill of particulars, likely to include not only this phone call but also obstruction of justice in the Russia probe, acceptance of “emoluments” from foreign governments, and use of government funds to enrich Trump’s several failing real estate ventures. The Democratic-controlled House should be able to vote impeachment well before the November 2020 election.
The Republican-controlled Senate shows some minor signs of departing from 100% loyalty to Donald Trump, but still there is no reason to believe the two-thirds vote required to remove him from office is possible, no matter the validity of the charges. Timing of impeachment is therefore an important issue: should the Democrats do it quickly, taking advantage of their current momentum, but giving the Senate ample time in which to acquit the President? Or should impeachment come shortly before the election, perhaps even making completion of a trial in the Senate impossible before the election?
Either way, the 2020 election is shaping up as a referendum on Trump. There will be lots of weighty issues: above all the domestic economy, taxes, health care, tensions with Iran, China, and Russia. But in the end the main issue will be whether the country is in good hands or not. Right now, more than half the country disapproves of the President’s performance, lots of potential Democratic candidates are polling well against Trump, and even a generic Democrat beats him on the national level. But 2016 demonstrated how little any of that matters: the presidency is decided in the electoral college, not in the popular vote, and polling more than a year out has little relevance.
Reelecting Trump would do exponentially more damage than electing him in the first place. As I’ve argued elsewhere, the tide already is turning against Trump’s ilk in other countries: Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson, Abdul Fatah al Sisi, Erdogan, Mohammed bin Salman, and Netanyahu are all in trouble, even if they manage to cling to power. Trump’s victory would stem the tide. Trump’s defeat would demonstrate unequivocally that the age of would-be autocrats ruling by personal fiat is finished.
If Americans want to be governed as the constitution provides, by law rather than personality, they’ve got to ensure that the state is far more than a person and his interests. The opportunity will come on November 3, 2020.
RSS - Posts
