Tag: Turkey
Peace picks February 1-5
- Fifteen Years of Fighting Terror: Lessons for the Candidates | Monday, February 1st | 1:00-2:30 | Open Society Foundations | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Despite a significant investment of personnel and money, current policies have mostly failed to stop violent extremism and instability from spreading across the Middle East and North Africa. Saferworld, a London-based NGO that works for peace in more than 20 countries, will release three reports analyzing lessons from 15 years of counterterror and stabilization efforts in Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen. The reports conclude that the U.S. approach to counterterrorism, stabilization, and state building has been counterproductive—and could be improved by focusing strategically on peace, relying less on the military, taking a tougher line on bad governance, and working more closely with civil society. An expert panel will discuss the policy and operational impacts of the recommendations derived from these case studies. The panel discussion will be followed by Q & A. Speakers include Larry Attree, Head of Policy for Saferworld, Sarah Chayes, Senior Associate for the Democracy and Rule of Law Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Richard Fontaine, President of the Center for New American Security. Scott Shane (moderator) is a national security reporter for the New York Times.
- Pin-Down Diplomacy: How Wrestling Promotes US-Iran Ties | Tuesday, February 2nd | 9:30-11:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Much as “ping-pong diplomacy” helped break the ice between the United States and China in the 1970s, “pin-down diplomacy” between the wrestlers of the United States and Iran has been instrumental in changing perceptions about Iranian and American society, and building bridges between sports communities and ordinary citizens. The Atlantic Council’s Future of Iran Initiative invites you to a discussion about athletic exchanges between the United States and Iran and the role they have played and can continue to play in promoting better understanding between the peoples of these two long-time adversaries. Speakers include Greg Sullivan, Senior Adviser for Strategic Communications and Public Diplomacy in the State Department’s Office of Iranian Affairs. James Ravannack has been President of USA Wrestling, the national governing body of amateur wrestling in the United States, since August 2006. Christina ‘Kiki’ Kelley is Team Leader for the US Men’s Greco-Roman wrestling team for the Olympic cycle culminating in Rio 2016. Bahman Baktiari is Executive Director of the Salt Lake City-based International Foundation for Civil Society, an organization that explores fundamental social and political shifts underway throughout the Middle East and North Africa and focuses on bridging cultural gaps and fostering a discourse of understanding. Barbara Slavin, Acting Director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council will moderate.
- Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz on Iran’s Nuclear Agreement | Tuesday, February 2nd | 11:00-12:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The International Atomic Agency (IAEA) has certified that Iran has curbed its nuclear program by taking a number of steps including dismantling two-thirds of its installed centrifuge capacity, reducing its stockpile of enriched uranium and removing the core of its Arak heavy water reactor. As a result, the U.S. has lifted nuclear-related sanctions. Please join us for a discussion with Secretary Moniz on exactly what steps Iran has taken, how the United States can be confident that Iran’s breakout time to a nuclear weapon has been extended to at least one year, what lies ahead for the nuclear deal and what challenges remain.
- Implications of the Collapse of Oil Prices for the Middle East | Tuesday, February 2nd | 3:00-4:30 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The collapse of the oil prices has shocked both producers and consumers worldwide. As the most important producing region of the world, the Middle East has been particularly affected; state revenues are down, and cutthroat competition for market share and low global demand translates into greater challenges and uncertainty. The regional economic outlook is unclear, and questions remain about the potential long-term impact of sustained low oil prices. Three experts will analyze the geopolitical and financial aspects of the sharp decline in oil prices on both importing and exporting countries in the Middle East. Speakers include David Gordon, Senior Advisor at Eurasia Group, Aasim M. Husain, Deputy Director of the Middle East and Central Asia Department at the International Monetary Fund, and Franziska Lieselotte Ohnsorge, Lead Economist at the World Bank. Henri J. Barkey, Director of the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center, will moderate the event.
- Iranian Public Opinion on Foreign Affairs on the Eve of Parliamentary Elections | Wednesday, February 3rd | 10:00-11:30 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Ebrahim Mohseni, Senior Analyst at the University of Tehran Center for Public Opinion Research will present findings from a new study of Iranian public opinion on the upcoming Iranian parliamentary elections, regional security issues, and expectations from the JCPOA. Three experts on Iran will comment on the survey results and discuss prospects for the February 26 elections, highlighting possible domestic, regional, and international implications. Panelists include William Miller, Senior Scholar at the Kennan Institute and the Wilson Center, Paul Pillar, Researcher of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, and Robin Wright, Wilson Center-USIP Distinguished Fellow. Henri J. Barkey, Director of the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center will moderate.
- Kurdistan: Re-Inventing Itself, Yet Again | Wednesday, February 3rd | 10:00-11:30 | Center for Transatlantic Relations, Johns Hopkins SAIS | REGISTER TO ATTEND | This year will be a difficult year for the people of Kurdistan. The crash in oil prices, the unrelenting war against ISIS, and the presence of 1.8 million Syrian refugees and displaced Iraqis have precipitated a dire financial crisis for the Kurdistan Regional Government. Join us for a discussion on how to move forward, both regionally and internationally, in light of these challenging times facing Kurdistan. Sasha Toperich, Senior Fellow and Director of the Mediterranean Basin Initiative CTR SAIS will make opening remarks. Hemin Hawrami, Head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party Foreign Relations Office, will offer the keynote address. Panelists include Salam Mohammad Islam, Chief Executive Director at the Rwanga Foundation, and Awat Mustafa, Senior Board Member and Head of Operations and Projects at the Barzani Charity Foundation. Rebeen Pasha, WYLN Senior Fellow at the Mediterranean Basin Initiative will moderate.
- North Korea’s fourth nuclear test: How will Pyongyang’s neighbors and the U.S. respond? | Wednesday, February 3rd | 10:00-11:30 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | North Korea’s recent nuclear test and possible upcoming satellite launch underscore the increasing dangers posed by North Korea’s weapons development program and its implications for international security and the integrity of the non-proliferation regime. The United States and its partners in Northeast Asia must develop and execute a coordinated strategy to address these ever larger risks, but will differences among the relevant countries prevent realization of a shared strategy? What are the longer-term implications should North Korea sustain its weapons development? On February 3, the John L. Thornton China Center and the Center for East Asia Policy Studies at Brookings will host an event to assess the wider implications of North Korea’s recent nuclear test, weigh the possible responses by the Republic of Korea, Japan, and China, and then consider the impact on U.S. policy. The event will be moderated by Senior Fellow Richard Bush, and the panelists include Senior Fellows Katharine H.S. Moon, Jonathan Pollack, and Sheila Smith of the Council on Foreign Relations. After the discussion, the panelists will take audience questions.
- Turkey’s politics and foreign policy: Bridging the populism/realism gap | Thursday, February 4th | 3:30-5:00 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Under the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), populism has become a pervasive feature of the “new” Turkey. In the latest Turkey Project Policy Paper, Nora Fisher Onar of George Washington University’s Institute for Middle East Studies explores the tension between populism and realism as a driver of uncertainty in Turkey’s domestic and foreign affairs. The paper examines the sources, evolution, and consequences of AKP populism since 2002, including the problematic disconnect between anti-Western domestic rhetoric and the recent need for pro-Western pragmatism as Turkey’s regional ambitions have been confronted by the disorder spilling across its borders. On February 4, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings (CUSE) will host a panel discussion to explore the tone and substance of Turkey’s politics and foreign policy as the country emerges from a polarizing electoral cycle. Fisher Onar will present the conclusions of her new paper, “The Populism/Realism Gap: Managing Uncertainty in Turkey’s Politics and Foreign Policy.” Following her remarks, Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Alan Makovsky of the Center for American Progress, and Kadir Ustun of the SETA Foundation will offer their perspectives. The discussion will be moderated by Brookings TUSIAD Senior Fellow Kemal Kirişci. After the program, panelists will take questions from the audience.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The confessional/ethnic temptation
Henri Barkey writes in The American Interest:
The U.S. government [should commit] itself to the creation of a confederal democratic Syria that is divided along confessional and ethnic lines. In its most elementary form, the new Syria would be divided along three main areas, Alawi/Christian, Sunni, and Kurdish, with Damascus remaining as the capital although temporarily run by a UN administration.
How simple! How neat! How symmetrical!
How homicidal.
I’d be the first to admit that something like this confessional/ethnic cantonalization is emerging from the chaos of Syria’s civil war. The Kurds have established several cantons of what they are calling “Rojava” along the Turkish border. Alawites, Shiites and Christians are retreating from central Syria to the west. The Islamic State dominates a good part of the east, though there is no single “Sunni” area but rather a patchwork of them. Ultimately some sort of equilibrium may emerge organically that resembles what us conflict management nerds call a mutually hurting stalemate, one of the key conditions for a negotiated outcome.
But that is a different proposition from US advocacy of confessional and ethnic cantonalization, which implies someone in Washington or New York drawing lines. That would lead quickly to ethnic cleansing, because each group would seek to establish unquestioned dominance over its own territory. There is no single concentration of Sunnis. Creating one can be done, but only by force. What will happen to Alawites and Christians who have managed to survive in Sunni areas through the war, but now find themselves on the wrong side of some line drawn in Washington? What will happen to the Sunnis who inhabit western areas of Syria, none of whose provinces were majority Alawite before the war? Those who don’t “belong” will be chased out, forced across the lines into what someone in Washington or New York has designated as their homeland.
If you don’t like Sykes-Picot, you are sure not to like Henri’s proposition.
The only group in Syria that would jump at it is the Islamic State. It would get recognition of its dominance in parts of eastern Syria. That alone should give any American pause. It should also have made the editors of a publication called The American Interest hesitate.
Worst off would be Damascus, where Henri proposes the UN govern, temporarily. But Damascus is as mixed as all of Syria, with significant populations of Sunnis, Shia, Alawites, Kurds and Christians. Ethnic cleansing there would take particularly brutal and unforgiving forms as each of those groups tries to protect itself from others and dominate the capital. Where would UN capability to prevent that from happening come from? Who is going to deploy peacekeeping forces quickly and effectively to back up a UN administration?
Consider also the regional impact. The Kurdish PKK would get official recognition of its safe haven in Syria, from which it could continue to attack Turkey. Ankara won’t go along with that. Islamic State ambitions to control Anbar and Ninewa provinces in Iraq would get a big boost. Baghdad wouldn’t accept that. Some in Beirut would be tempted to think about a “greater” Lebanon, incorporating turf from Syria. The Jordanian border, on both sides of which there are the same tribes, would be at risk.
The United States already has a perfectly good vision for the future of Syria: an inclusive, pluralistic polity that settles its issues peacefully within well-established institutions. That’s not what is lacking. It is the political will and resources to make it happen that are missing.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Hangups: why and who
The Syria peace talks did not begin as projected in Geneva today, though they are likely to convene before the end of this week. Secretary of State Kerry is doing his damndest to make it happen. What are the hang ups? Is he wise to press so hard?
There are two big hangups: why talk and with whom. Or in diplomatese: the agenda and the shape of the table.
Why is the bigger issue. The Syrian opposition, backed by Washington, wants to talk about transition of power away from Bashar al Asad to a “governing body with full executive powers.” That 2012 formula has been repeated ad infinitum since, either explicitly or implicitly (by reference to the June 2012 United Nations communique in which it first appeared). The regime has made it clear it will not negotiate about transition in Geneva. Nor did it last time the UN tried for a political solution, two years ago. Bashar al Asad’s delegation will stick with an anti-terrorist pitch, backed by the Russians and Iranians. The military gains the regime has made against its opponents since Russia’s intervention in the fall mean it is feeling little pressure to yield.
While the Russians never tire of saying that they are not wedded to Bashar al Assad, everything they do suggests the opposite. There is good reason for this. Moscow has no hope of a welcome in Syria by a serious successor to the regime, so the Russians are sticking with what they’ve got.
Iran even more so. Tehran has risked Hizbollah, Iraqi Shia militias it supports and Revolutionary Guard forces in Syria, certainly losing thousands. Though Syrians in my experience are little inclined to sectarianism, the approximately three-quarters of the population that is at least nominally Sunni is not going to easily forget what Iran and its proxies have done to prop up a dictator. Nor will the Alawites and Shia who have backed the regime want to find out what the majority population is inclined to do in retaliation. So having Iran at the table, entirely justified by its role in the conflict, is no easy formula for a solution.
In addition, there are other “who” problems. The fragmentation of the Syrian opposition, often cited as a serious obstacle, is not such a big problem this time around. With Saudi sponsorship, the main opposition forces other than al Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al Nusra and the Islamic State have chosen a High Negotiation Commission (HNC), headed by former regime Prime Minister Hijab, and a negotiating team. The main body of the opposition is, in fact, remarkably unified this time around, at least for the moment.
The problem is that there are forces claiming to be opposition that lie outside the HNC, which does not recognize them as such. They come in two flavors: Kurdish and so-called “internal” opposition, both heavily favored by Moscow.
The Kurds who count are affiliated with the Kurdish PYD militia who are fighting in northern Syria against the Islamic State with US support. Washington doesn’t want them excluded from the talks, even if they are affiliated with the Kurdish militia waging a rebellion inside Turkey. Moscow agrees, not least to give Turkey grief.
Moscow also backs elements of the “internal” opposition who aren’t regarded by the opposition forces represented in the HNC as real opposition. Russia is trying to force internal opposition figures into the HNC delegation, likely in exchange for allowing some of what Moscow regards as extremist groups also to join. From Moscow’s point of view, the more unmanageable and fractious the HNC presence in Geneva, the better. The last thing Moscow wants is for the Syrians to choose their own delegation, which would be heavily anti-Russian.
The HNC seems determined to reject Kurdish participation in its delegation, not least because the Kurds often clash with opposition brigades represented there and collaborate with the regime in territories the Kurds largely control. But of course that may mean separate Kurdish representation, which in some ways is precisely what the mostly Arab HNC should not want to see. Separate Kurdish representation in the talks could well favor Kurdish ambitions for a separate federal unit within Syria, like the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq. The Syrian Kurds are calling theirs “Rojava.”
With all these complications, is Secretary Kerry wise to insist?
Richard Gowan argues that there are reasons to proceed, despite the odds: possible progress on humanitarian issues, keeping a peace process alive because it may eventually lead somewhere, and most of all the need Washington and Moscow are feeling to limit their recent competition and try for some cooperation in the aftermath of the Iran nuclear deal. Even a failure, in this view, has the virtue of trying.
My own inclination is towards skepticism, not least because failure at this point will likely mean another tw0-year hiatus. Secretary Kerry is a far greater risk-taker than most of his predecessors. He tried with Israel and Palestine far beyond the point at which others would have given up. The result is an impasse that may last a long time. He pressed forward with Iran on nuclear issues to good effect. Will his Syria effort look more like the former or the latter? More likely the former, with catastrophic consequences for millions of Syrians.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks January 18-22
- Assessing the outcomes and implications of Taiwan’s January 2016 elections | Tuesday, January 19th | 10:30-12:00 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | With Tsai Ing-wen, leader and presidential candidate for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), ahead in the polls against the Kuomintang (KMT) party candidate Eric Chu and People First Party (PFP) candidate James Soong, it appears Taiwan voters will elect a new ruling party on January 16. The Legislative Yuan elections are still up for grabs, and will dictate the degree of initiative a Tsai administration will have. Across the Taiwan Strait, Beijing has expressed its concerns, most notably through the November 2015 meeting between Xi Jinping and Ma Ying-jeou, on how it feels a DPP-led government should approach cross-Strait relations. The four-month transition period leading up to the May 20 inauguration will be a critical time for the new government to lay out its policy agenda and work to establish a platform for cross-Strait relations. On January 19, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies (CEAP) at Brookings and the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) will host Joseph Wu, Secretary General of the Democratic Progressive Party, for a keynote address on Taiwan’s election outcomes and implications going forward. Richard Bush, Chen-Fu and Cecilia Yen Koo Chair in Taiwan Studies and director of CEAP at Brookings, will provide an introduction, and Bonnie Glaser, senior adviser and director of the China Power Project at CSIS, will moderate a discussion after the address. Following the discussion, Wu will take audience questions. To register for this event, please email ChinaPower@csis.org.
- Asia-Pacific Rebalance 2025: Capabilities, Presence and Partnerships | Wednesday, January 20th | 9:00-11:00 | Center for Strategic & International Studies | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Center for Strategic and International Studies was tasked by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 with conducting an independent assessment of the Asia-Pacific rebalance first announced by President Obama in 2011. Four years into the rebalance the Department of Defense should receive high marks for sustained attention to the Asia-Pacific, but challenges in the region are increasing. The United States will need to continue and in some cases accelerate investments in regional relationships, posture, operational concepts, and capabilities if it is to achieve the strategic goals of the rebalance. Please join us as we present the findings of this important report and host a discussion of the importance of this vital region to U.S. national security in particular and global peace and prosperity more broadly. This panel discussion features Mark F. Cancian, Senior Adviser of the International Security Program at CSIS, Michael J. Green, Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan Chair at CSIS, Dr. Kathleen H. Hicks, Director of the CSIS International Security Program, and Andrew Shearer, former Australian National Security Adviser. Dr. John J. Hamre, CSIS CEO, will make the introductory remarks. Zack Cooper, Fellow and Japan Chair at CSIS, and John Schaus, CSIS Fellow, will present their report findings.
- North Africa in Transition: The Struggle for Democracies and Institutions | Wednesday, January 20th | 2:00-3:00 | International Institute for Strategic Studies | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The 2011 Arab uprisings began in North Africa and toppled the leaders of Tunisia and Libya, but the forces that wreaked this profound change also touched their fellow Maghreb states of Algeria and Morocco. North Africa in Transition, the latest IISS Adelphi book, examines how the politics, security and economies – which were largely stable for decades prior to 2011 – have changed in the four states. It asks why the popular revolutions in Tunisia and Libya did not spread to Algeria and Morocco; how the revolutionary states have fared since 2011; why Libya descended into a deadly civil war while the others did not; and whether the sitting governments in Algeria and Morocco have applied sustainable strategies to address the new political climate.Please join the IISS-US for a policy discussion and Q&A session about North Africa and its importance to Western interests, chaired by Executive Director Mark Fitzpatrick. This event is on the record and will be webcast live on the IISS website. Copies of the book are available for sale on our website or after the event. Speakers include the following: Ben Fishman served for four years on the US National Security Council, including as Director for North Africa and Jordan from 2012 to 2013. Haim Malka is a senior fellow and deputy director of the Middle East Program at CSIS, where he oversees the program’s work on the Maghreb. John Desrocher is Deputy Assistant Secretary of Egypt and Maghreb Affairs in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the Department of State. Mark Fitzpatrick is the Executive Director of the IISS-US and the Director of the IISS Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Policy Programme.
- Congressman Hun Many: The Future of U.S.-Cambodia Relations | Wednesday, January 20th | 2:30-4:00 | U.S.-Korea Institute and John Hopkins SAIS | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The U.S.-Korea Institute and the Southeast Asia Studies program at Johns Hopkins SAIS present a discussion with Cambodian Congressman Hun Many. The youngest parliamentarian in the National Assembly of Cambodia, and son of Prime Minister Hun Sen, Congressman Hun Many will be sharing his insights on Cambodia’s foreign policies and relations with the U.S., Korea, China and other regional players. Karl Jackson, professor at Johns Hopkins SAIS, will moderate the discussion.
- Top Priorities for Africa in 2016 | Wednesday, January 20th | 3:00-4:30 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | 2016 will be a crucial year for African countries as they seek to respond to shifting dynamics in the global economy. Mitigating the adverse effects of China’s economic slowdown, tumbling commodity prices, and the U.S. interest rate rise in 2015 on the region will demand serious policy reform and investment in African economies—so will maintaining the continent’s trade competitiveness, given the rise of mega-regional trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Domestic issues including stagnating industrialization and job creation, rapid urbanization, and governance and security threats could undermine the continent’s upward-trending development trajectory; however, if managed prudently with timely action from African policymakers in 2016, the continent could equally recover from external and internal shocks, accelerate regional growth, and further expand the benefits of growth to the more than one billion people living throughout Africa. On January 20, the Africa Growth Initiative at Brookings will host a panel of leading Africa experts on the most pressing challenges facing the continent in 2016. The panel will be moderated by Mark Goldberg, editor of U.N. Dispatch, and will include Ambassador Hassana Alidou of Niger, as well as Brookings experts Joshua Meltzer, Witney Schneidman, Eyerusalem Siba, and Amadou Sy who will offer their expertise on these important issues and provide recommendations to national governments, regional organizations, multilateral institutions and civil society on how to contend with these priorities in the year ahead. The event follows the release of the new Foresight Africa report, a collection of issue briefs, viewpoints, and infographics on the major issues for Africa in 2016. Join the conversation on Twitter using #ForesightAfrica.
- The ISIS Threat to U.S. National Security: Policy Choices | Thursday, January 21st | 9:00-11:30 | Middle East Policy Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Middle East Policy Council invites you and your colleagues to our 83rd Capitol Hill Conference. Live streaming of this event will begin at approximately 9:00am Thursday, January 21st and conclude at 11:30. A questions and answers session will be held at the end of the proceedings. Speakers include William F. Wechsler, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Mark Katz, professor at George Mason University, Charles Lister, Resident Fellow at the Middle East Institute, and Audrey Kurth Cronin, Director of the International Security Program at George Mason University. Richard Schmierer, former ambassador to Oman, will moderate the discussion.
- Turkey in 2016: Domestic Politics, EU Relations and Beyond | Thursday, January 21st | 3:00-4:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Since the November 2015 elections in Turkey, questions have arisen surrounding the future of domestic politics and the country’s relationships with the West. The government has had difficulties managing burgeoning and increasingly more complex political, security and economic challenges. This panel will look at the year ahead and discuss these issues with a wider perspective on domestic politics, foreign policy and relations with the European Union. How will a new AK Party government confront its domestic and foreign policy problems – ranging from the Kurdish question to Syria and Russia – and pursue relations with the EU and the West in general? What is the current EU perspective on relations with Turkey? What other major issues are at stake? Henri Barkey, Director of the Wilson will moderate this talk. Bulent Aras, Senior Fellow at the Istanbul Policy Center, Michelle Egan, professor at American University, Fuat Keyman, Director of the Istanbul Policy Center, and Amberin Zaman, columnist at Al Monitor are the speakers for this event.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What to do about Syria?
On January 5, CFR hosted a panel discussion entitled “What to do About Syria” which also aired on HBO. The discussion was designed to resemble a National Security Council meeting. Panelists included Philip Gordon, Senior Fellow, CFR, Paul Pillar, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Center for Security Studies, Georgetown University, and Michael Doran, Senior Fellow, the Hudson Institute. Richard Haass, President, CFR, moderated the discussion.
Paul Pillar stated that none of the multiple sides in the Syrian conflict appears poised to win in the near future. The Russian military intervention that began in September has shored up the regime. The regime still controls roughly 1/4 of the country in a North-South strip. There are non-ISIS opposition areas, largely in the northwest but also near the Golan, as well as large areas of ISIS control in the east and Kurdish control in the north. There are hundreds of opposition groups and many coalitions. Over the past year, ISIS has had neither a net loss or a net gain of territory in Syria, but has lost territory on balance when Iraq is included.
Pillar explained that on the diplomatic front, the Vienna process led to the International Syria Support Group, whose members agree on the need for a ceasefire and political settlement. The Saudis held a meeting in Riyadh in December and agreed that Assad did not have to leave until after negotiations are held. The US adopted UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which calls for a ceasefire. The recent suspension of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran shouldn’t have a huge impact beyond the enmity we already knew existed.
Philip Gordon described the current situation as a dynamic stalemate. The attrition of regime forces is unlikely to cause the regime’s collapse because of outside support from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. The main battle in Syria doesn’t involve ISIS; it’s between the regime and the non-ISIS opposition. The Vienna Process is a positive step. However, the diplomatic gaps between the Saudis and the Iranians remain large.
Michael Doran believes that the US has essentially dropped its demand that Assad leave by pushing his departure so far into the future that it will not happen on Obama’s clock. This frees up the Obama administration to discuss deconfliction with Russia and Iran, a shift the Saudis dislike.
Gordon summarized US policy in Syria as such: since 2011, when Obama declared that Assad must go, US policy has been to strengthen the moderate opposition, in order to pressure the regime to negotiate. So far that hasn’t worked, but it remains US policy. Doran is right that the
definition of what a political transition would look like has evolved. As it became clearer that Russia and Iran would prop up Assad, diplomats examined other types of transitions that might be more feasible. There has been an effort to unify the opposition but it remains fragmented because our partners support different groups. We have tried to build the capacity of the opposition groups, but it has not been enough; they are fighting a professional military backed by Russia and Iran. The president has authorized force against ISIS, using the legal basis that ISIS threatens the Iraqi government; Obama lacks a legal basis to target the regime.
Doran spoke of the limits of our support for the non-ISIS opposition. Iran and Russia have backed the regime and there has not been comparable activity from our side. The train and equip program failed because we found few recruits willing to fight ISIS exclusively. We also work with the Kurds who are aligned with the PKK. We have alienated our Sunni allies. Our position on Assad is critical to mobilizing Sunni support against ISIS. The US would also need ground forces, perhaps in a 1:5 ratio with our allies.
Gordon clarified that the US does support the opposition militarily and politically. We just don’t provide specifics.
Pillar stated that even though the US is a superpower, it may not be able to satisfactorily solve Syria. It’s not in the US’s interest to take sides in the Sunni-Shia conflict. We should place more emphasis on the diplomatic track because tamping down the war is most important.
Gordon outlined two policy options going forward. First, the US could take out Assad militarily, but this could generate more refugees and cause a power vacuum. The better option is to prioritize a ceasefire to stop the war; this is more important than a political transition. Gordon clarified that he is not proposing an alliance with Russia and Iran, but ending the conflict roughly along the lines of the current reality on the ground. Local areas would gain autonomy, but this would stop short of a partition, so as not to set a precedent of carving out new states in the region.
Doran questioned Gordon’s attachment to the integrity of Syria, but largely agreed with his vision for an end state. However, he reiterated that such an arrangement wouldn’t be possible without ground forces. Haass proposed that the US think seriously about supporting an independent Kurdistan as part of a deal, since the Kurds are the most effective fighting force against ISIS.
Pillar highlighted potential positive effects of the Russian military intervention. Russia will draw the ire of radical Sunnis, and Russia will gain more leverage over Assad. Russia also has an interest in tamping down the conflict; it doesn’t want to prop up a beleaguered Assad forever.
An audience member asked how we might prevent revenge attacks once the conflict ends. Pillar pointed out that under Gordon’s autonomous regions proposal, groups would have a diminished ability on the ground to carry out revenge attacks. Haass contended that, contrary to Western notions of pluralism, a future map of Syria must reflect more homogeneity than heterogeneity.
Gordon addressed an audience question about why the US sees fighting ISIS as in its national interest versus fighting the regime. The US has identified ISIS as a threat because it kidnaps Americans and seeks to destabilize regional partners. We have identified discrete steps we can take to degrade and destroy ISIS. Taking out Assad would require an effort like the invasion of Iraq; we should not minimize the cost and consequences of such an effort. The notion that taking out Assad would yield a positive outcome requires a larger suspension of disbelief than the notion that the Iranians and Russians might agree to a ceasefire if the US drops its demand that they abandon Assad.
Another audience member asked whether we need the Saudis to agree that ISIS is a fundamental threat to their existence. Pillar contended that it would be ideal if the Saudis would follow their own interests more intelligently. In the past, the Saudis have faced the threat posed by Al Qaeda; persistent diplomacy and tough love talks will be required to get them to do the same with ISIS. Gordon noted that it is difficult to explain to countries what we think their interests should be. Saudi Arabia is more concerned about Iran than ISIS and Turkey is more concerned about the Kurds. Doran contended that the Saudis and the Turks have defined their interests correctly; we are wrong about what their interests are.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, January 4-8
- Stability and Human Security in Afghanistan in 2016 | Monday, January 4th | 10:30-12:00 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In 2016, the year of the U.S. presidential election, the international community will mark another milestone in its 15-year engagement in Afghanistan. Despite billions of dollars spent by the international community to stabilize the country, Afghanistan has seen little improvement in terms of overall stability and human security. The situation on the ground for Afghans continues to be grave, and while the international coalition suffered the least number of casualties in 2015, casualty levels have greatly increased for Afghan security forces. Security for the Afghan people has also deteriorated in large swaths of the country, further complicating humanitarian response. Afghan civilians are at greater risk today than at any time since Taliban rule, with a dramatic increase in the numbers of mostly young Afghans fleeing their country. Afghanistan’s economic situation also remains poor, and major political challenges lie ahead in 2016.In response to these troubling trends, President Obama decided to keep more than 5,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan through the end of his presidency. Looking at and beyond the coming year, what are the key security, economic, political, and humanitarian challenges and opportunities that need to be addressed in Afghanistan?On January 4, the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at Brookings will host an event focused on the current status of the war and stabilization effort in Afghanistan. Panelists include Che Bolden, federal executive fellow at Brookings; Jason Cone, executive director at Doctors Without Borders; Brookings Senior Fellow Vanda Felbab-Brown; and Ann Vaughan, director of policy and advocacy at Mercy Corps. Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon, and author of “The Future of Land Warfare” (Brookings Institution Press, 2015), will moderate the discussion.
- Insight Turkey 5th Annual Conference: Turkish Foreign Policy After Elections | Wednesday, January 6th | 8:30-4:30 | SETA Foundation | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Foundation for Political, Economic, and Social Research (SETA) will hold its annual conference on Turkey on Wednesday. Panel topics include: Neighboring Civil Wars; The Kurdish Question as a Regional Challenge; and the US-Turkey Relationship. The keynote address will be given by Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister, Mehmet Şimşek. Please see here for a full schedule and list of participants.
- Iraq: Can Good Governance Erode Support for Militants? | Wednesday, January 6th | 1:00-2:30 | US Institute for Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Extremist groups like ISIS have seized control in swaths of Iraq and Syria in part because they tout themselves as an alternative to corrupt and inept government at all levels. Join USIP on January 6 to hear about new research by the global humanitarian and development organization Mercy Corps on the connection between citizens’ perceptions of governance and public support for armed opposition. Panelists will explore how good governance may erode the pull of sectarian identity politics, and showcase instances when governance successes have appeared to reduce support for armed opposition and violence. USIP experts will discuss the research results in light of what the Institute’s staff and partners on the ground have learned in the course of their conflict mitigation and peacebuilding work. Panelists include Nancy Lindborg, President at USIP; Dr. Jacob N. Shapiro, Associate Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; Michael Young, Senior Advisor a Mercy Corps; Dr. Elie Abouaoun, Director of Middle East Programs at USIP; and Sarhang Hamasaeed, Senior Program Officer at USIP.
- Readout on the Paris Climate Agreement: What Was Achieved and What Comes Next? | Thursday, January 7th | 10:30-12:00 | Center for Strategic & International Studies | RSVP to attend | The CSIS Energy and National Security Program is pleased to invite you to a discussion on the Paris Agreement reached at the 21st Conference of Parties meeting under the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change (COP21). To help us understand what the new climate agreement means for future U.S. and international efforts to combat climate change, Paul Bodnar, Senior Director for Energy and Climate Change, National Security Council, The White House, will discuss what the agreement entails and what actions the U.S. government and the international community are likely to focus on in the coming years. Sarah Ladislaw, Director and Senior Fellow with the CSIS Energy and National Security Program, will moderate the discussion.
- The Great Tradeoff: Confronting Moral Conflicts in the Era of Globalization | Thursday, January 7th | 12:15-1:30 | Peterson Institute for International Economics | Online Event – Open to Attend | The Peterson Institute will release its latest book, The Great Tradeoff: Confronting Moral Conflicts in the Era of Globalization, by Steven R. Weisman, the Institute’s vice president for publications and communications. The book has an important theme that there is a moral case to be made for globalization, but the case is far from simple. American Enterprise Institute (AEI) President Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI); Steven Rattner, former counselor to the secretary of the Treasury; and Stelios Vasilakis, the Stavros Niarchos Foundation’s Director of Programs and Strategic Initiatives, will be discussants at the book launch on January 7, 2016.The global financial and economic crisis that began in 2008 highlighted the profound moral concerns long surrounding globalization. In his book, Weisman addresses the questions whether materialist excess, doctrinaire embrace of free trade and capital flows, and indifference to economic injustice contributed to the disaster of the last decade, and whether it was ethical to bail out banks and governments. The Great Tradeoff blends economics, moral philosophy, history, and politics, and Weisman argues that the concepts of liberty, justice, virtue, and loyalty help to explain the passionate disagreements spawned by a globally integrated economy. The Institute is grateful to the Stavros Niarchos Foundation for its generous support of this project and of the Institute’s prior research in this interdisciplinary area.
- GULAG: Gone but not Forgotten | Friday, January 8th | 10:00-11:30 | Woodrow Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | GULAG, a system of Soviet forced labor camps, was officially shut down more than half a century ago, but its memory remains a topic of dispute. Only a few of the camps’ survivors and former employees are still alive and can share their stories and reflections. For her book, 58th Uneliminated, Elena Racheva interviewed those affected by the GULAG and will recount some of their remarkable stories. She will also analyze what role the memory of these camps plays for the newer generations of Russians. Professor Kathleen Smith will discuss commemorative projects in Russia, and how they have changed over the course of Russia’s independence.
- Uncivil Rites: Palestine and the Limits of Academic Freedom | Friday, January 8th | 12:30-2:00 | The Palestine Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In the summer of 2014, renowned American Indian Studies professor Steven Salaita had his offer of a tenured professorship revoked by the University of Illinois Board of Trustees. Salaita’s employment was terminated in response to his public tweets criticizing the Israeli government’s summer assault on Gaza. His firing generated a huge public outcry, with thousands petitioning for his reinstatement, and more than five thousand scholars pledging to boycott the University of Illinois. His case raises important questions about academic freedom, free speech on campus, and the movement for justice in Palestine. In this book, Salaita combines personal reflection and political critique to provide a thorough analysis of his controversial termination. He situates his case at the intersection of important issues that affect both higher education and social justice activism. A light lunch will be served at 12:30; the event begins at 1:00.
RSS - Posts
