Tag: Lebanon
Peace picks, October 14-18
Today is officially a holiday and the government is still “shut down,” but there are good war and peace events this week in DC:
1. U.S. Policy in the Arab: World Perspectives from Civil Society
In collaboration with the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND)
Monday, October 14, 2013 – 11:15am – 12:45pm
New America Foundation
The United States has long shaped developments in the Arab world, but the 2011 popular uprisings and subsequent period of unrest have diminished U.S. influence and credibility in the region. More recently, Washington’s reluctance to militarily intervene in Syria and passive reaction to political changes in Egypt have further damaged its image in the eyes of Arab populations. While media coverage of regional events focuses on governments and street protests, the voices of civil society organizations are often marginalized or unheard.
On October 14, the New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force and the Arab NGO Network for Development will host a distinguished panel of researchers, academics, and activists from Arab civil society organizations. The panelists will present civil society priorities and perspectives on U.S. policies in the region, and will specifically debate whether these policies advance popular aspirations for democracy and sustainable development.
PARTICIPANTS
Kinda Mohamadieh
Policy Advisor, Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND).
Mahinour El-Badrawi
Researcher, Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights (ECESR)
Mohamad Loutfy
Campaign Coordinator, The Campaign on World Bank Safeguards and Disability
Senior Advisor, The Lebanese Physical Handicapped Union (LPHU)
Rana Khalaf
Activist, Syrian League for Citizenship
Moderator:
Research Associate, Middle East Task Force, New America Foundation
RSVP: http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/us_policy_in_the_arab_world Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Palestinians displaced, again
In 1948, approximately 90,000 Palestinians sought refuge in Syria during the Arab-Israeli War. Sixty-three years later, in 2011, the Palestinians who had created new lives in Syria became refugees yet again, but this time in the wake of the Syrian revolution. On Monday, Georgetown University hosted a discussion titled “Displaced Again: Palestinian Refugees from Syria.”
Samar El Yassir, the Lebanon Country Director for American Near East Refugee Aid (ANERA), talked about the bleak situation Palestinian refugees face in Lebanon. In September 2012, there were only 10,000 Palestinian refugees in the country. But just over a year later that number has increased to about 92,650, according to UNRWA records, and it is estimated to reach 180,000 refugees by the end of 2013. In addition to the Palestinians, there are about 900,000 more refugees in Lebanon who have sought refuge from the oppressive Assad regime. The one million refugees in the country, whose numbers are equivalent to about a third of the population, live in cramped conditions awash with crime and corruption.
The number one concern for refugees in Lebanon is shelter. Refugees either live with host families, rent shelters for between 150 to 300 Lebanese pounds, or squat in partially built structures. Recently, it has become increasingly hard for refugees to pay rent since the Syrian pound has lost much of its value and is worth about three times less than the Lebanese pound. For those who have found jobs, the average salary is about 100 to 300 pounds per month, and this barely covers the price of rent. About 25 percent of all refugee shelters are inadequate, which means they have little or no access to water, have primitive bathrooms, have open vents or doors, and have no kitchen. The incessant struggle with living conditions, especially in the midst of the winter months, only compounds the economic woes that Palestinian refugees face in Lebanon.
Among working age Palestinian refugees, there is an astonishing 90 percent unemployment. This is largely due to the fact that Lebanese law prevents them from working in many sectors of the country’s workforce. As a result, the job market is very competitive, and most families cannot even afford three meals a day. These dire conditions have led many families to give in to child labor in order to maximize their income, which takes children away from their studies. Even children who do not have jobs often are not in school for two main reasons—the curriculum is often taught in French, not Arabic, and there is no space in Lebanon’s classrooms. As El Yassir said, “The best way to ‘normalize’ life is to put children in school.” These educational hardships make it difficult to facilitate change in the region and improve the lives of refugees displaced from Syria.
Noura Erakat, a human rights attorney and activist, gave a brief history on Palestinian refugees in the region and talked about their lack of support and basic rights. In 1948, the Syrian government took great pride in harboring Palestinians and supporting their cause. Once inside Syria, they were allowed to start new lives and essentially lived as equals to the native Syrians. But a few months into the 2011 Syrian revolution, the Assad regime began to target Palestinian refugees, which initiated their massive influx into Lebanon and Jordan.
It would make sense that the Palestinian refugees who are displaced by the uprising in Syria would fall under the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR). But instead they remain under the authority of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). This means that the Palestinian refugees’ futures depend on the work of a largely underfunded United Nations agency that already has its hands full in the Levant. They continue to suffer from lack of diplomatic and legal support as they live in limbo in the 12 Palestinian refugee camps that are scattered across Lebanon.
The future for Palestinian refugees in Lebanon remains bleak. It is imperative that the international community help these oppressed people rebuild their lives, lest we have a lost generation of youth on our hands. Such civil society organizations as ANERA play an important role in improving these refugees’ lives by setting up assistance programs that provide food, shelter, medication, clothes, education, and counseling. But with a million more refugees estimated to flee from the violence in Syria over the next year, it will be essential to improve aid programs in the Levant in order to provide for this vulnerable group.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Yes, Virginia, there is a Syrian opposition
A colleague writes in reaction to the news of Syrian rebel groups abandoning the exile Syrian Coalition in favor an alliance with Islamist extremists:
Can it get any worse for the opposition? Can anyone provide a serious, authoritative read out on the opposition? Is there any ‘there there’?
Authoritative, no, but I’ve met with quite a few Syrian opposition people over the past couple of years. And I’ve supervised an effort to begin mapping Syrian civil society, which is varied, sincere and energetic if not robust.
There is a there there. Secular Syrian civil activists started the rebellion against Bashar al Asad and they have continued it, even as violence engulfs them. They have thought long and hard about the “day after.” They have examined options for governing Syria. They have formed political parties, councils and coalitions. They have lobbied for stronger US and other Western support. They have formed a Supreme Military Council and a political Coalition. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Heartbreak and loveless marriages
Wedenesday morning’s event at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was yet another panel focused on Syria, focused on the interests and perspectives of the domestic and international parties currently involved in the crisis. Moderated by Marwan Muasher of the Carnegie Endowment, the discussion included Ambassador Nasser al-Kidwa, deputy to Arab League Envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi, Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment, Paul Salem of the Carnegie Middle East Center, and Andrew Weiss also of the Carnegie Endowment.
Ambassador al-Kidwa focused his remarks on the future of negotiations in Syria. He believes the Geneva Communiqué drafted last June is still relevant today and provides practical solutions for Syria. The US decision not to strike on Syria but rather focus on placing Syria’s chemical weapons under international control shows its commitment to the Geneva Communiqué. The framework agreement on chemical weapons between the US and Russia is a positive development.
The UN is currently working on a resolution that will mostly likely incorporate much of the strong language used in the US-Russia agreement. Al-Kidwa believes that it will be adopted under Chapter 7 with some language regarding using necessary force if there is no compliance from the Assad regime. He sees a real possibility for negotiations between the opposition and the Assad government. He argues that regional players and the international community have an unusually important role. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Still on the roller coaster
The Russia-US agreement on a Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons is certainly a breakthrough with respect to chemical weapons, if it is implemented with anything like the thoroughness and timeliness specified. John Kerry has delivered on paper what President Obama has wanted: an end not just to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but destruction of Syria’s capability to make them and use them by the middle of 2014.
But the agreement, even fully implemented, does nothing to solve three other problems: Bashar al Asad’s continued hold on power and attacks on Syria’s civilian population, radicalization of his opposition and his supporters, and destabilization of the region. The number of people killed in chemical weapons attacks is no more than 2% of the total casualties in the past 2.5 years. While the August 21 attack is said to have killed more than 1400, which would almost surely make it the most horrific single incident of the war, that number are killed more or less every week by more conventional means.
There is no reason to believe that this agreement, even if fully implemented, will reduce the overall level of violence and casualties. The agreement makes Bashar al Asad indispensable. Neither Russia nor America will want to see him deposed until the job is done. That of course gives him a license to kill and good reason to delay implementation as much as possible. There has already been an uptick in regime violence. He will certainly try to dawdle. The Chapter VII threat of military intervention in the agreement is clear, but not automatic or unilateral: Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What Congress should do
I have resisted comparisons between Syria and Bosnia, or Syria and Kosovo, as the global and regional circumstances are different. It does no good to draw conclusions that just don’t apply in a distinct situation. Bashar al Asad is not Slobodan Milosevic, the Middle East is not the Balkans, Yeltsin’s Russia is not Putin’s Russia, Obama’s United States is not Clinton’s. Distinct times and places make for dicey comparisons.
But as the Congress considers what to do about Syria, some of its members will no doubt want to think about the Balkans, where American bombing campaigns twice ended wars that seemed interminable. So better to help them get it right than to suggest they ignore the precedents.
My starting assumption is that Bashar al Asad did in fact use chemical weapons against Syria’s civilian population on August 21 and several other occasions. If like Vladimir Putin, you think this “utter nonsense,” stop reading here.
If Congress decides to authorize military action, it needs to understand what President Obama has known for a long time: we stand on a slippery slope. How Bashar al Asad will react is anyone’s guess, but we know that Milosevic reacted to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia by escalating his effort to ethnically cleanse Albanians from Kosovo. Likewise, the Bosnian Serbs reacted to the red line known as the “Gorazde rules” intended to protect UN designated safe areas by attacking Sarajevo. NATO responded by escalating in turn. If Bashar al Asad repeats chemical attacks, or sponsors terrorist attacks against American assets around the world, Washington needs to be prepared to escalate.
But bombing and escalation are not a policy. Nor is a well-targeted and time-limited bombing campaign an appropriate response to mass murder of civilians with chemical (or any other) weapons. Bashar al Asad is not a military problem. He is a political one. The military is a blunt instrument that should be wielded within the context of a broader political strategy to end his rule in Syria, block an extreme Islamist takeover, and put Syria on course towards a more open and democratic society.
The bombing in Bosnia was extensive, eventually reaching the communication nodes of the Bosnian Serb army. It was those tertiary targets that changed the course of the war, because the Serbs were unable to protect their long confrontation line with the Federation forces once they lost their classified communications capability. But even this extensive bombing might have been fruitless, or borne bitter fruit, had it not been accompanied by a diplomatic strategy, which today we associate with the Dayton agreements and Richard Holbrooke but at the time was associated with President Clinton and National Security Adviser Tony Lake.
Likewise in Kosovo, the NATO bombing followed on Yugoslav rejection of the Rambouillet agreement. The war ended with UN Security Council resolution 1244, which was the political counterpart of the military-technical agreement providing for withdrawal of Yugoslav troops from Kosovo. Resolution 1244 imposed UN administration on Kosovo to develop democratic institutions and rule of law, with a view to an eventual political decision on Kosovo’s final status. NATO did not set removal of Milosevic as a war objective. But he was gone within one and a half years as the result of an election he called and a mass nonviolent movement that demanded he accept it.
I am not privy to the Administration’s military planning, but a serious political strategy would continue to aim for a power-sharing arrangement that shoves Bashar al Asad aside. The diplomacy would likely benefit from broader military action (against the Syrian air force, Scuds and artillery) than is currently contemplated, especially if it aimed at tilting the battlefield in the opposition direction. I don’t know if the Congress is willing to point in that direction, as it might require deeper American commitment than we can afford at present. But at the very least Congress should insist on stronger support for the Syrian opposition.
Is there an American interest in getting more deeply involved? Continuation of the war will likely cause state collapse in Syria as well as weaken Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and possibly Turkey. Al Qaeda affiliated extremists in both Iraq and Syria will be the beneficiaries. Kurdish irredentism is a likely consequence. The Syrian war has the potential to reshape the Levant in ways that are inimical to American interests. If Congress is going to worry about military action in response to chemical weapons use by Syria, it should also worry about a political and military strategy to counter longer-term threats to Middle East peace and stability with potentially gigantic costs to the United States.
RSS - Posts
