Syria’s future
It would be foolish to have much hope well into the sixth year of the Syria’s wars that Saturday’s meeting of the US, Russian, Iranian, Saudi, Turkish and Qatari foreign ministers will lead to a way out of the current impasse. But it is reasonable to ask what would make the meeting more than just one more boon to Lausanne’s luxury hotels.
The current situation is not propitious. Syria’s government is feeling confident as it rides a ferocious wave of mostly Russian and Iranian attacks on the opposition-held neighborhoods of eastern Aleppo, which it is “cleaning.” It figures the fall of Aleppo will be a tipping point leading to government victory in much of more populated Syria. The government has already negotiated an end to sieges of several areas near Damascus, transporting their populations in an effort to adjust their demography. President Assad has no intention of welcoming back the more than 7 million Syrians who have fled the country. He wants, and thinks he can get, a Syria over which he can restore his autocratic rule by violent means.
At this point, the only thing that would increase the likelihood of a negotiated diplomatic solution is a change in the military balance that threatens Assad. There are ways that might be accomplished without directly engaging Russian forces, which the Americans don’t want to do: stand-off attacks on the Syrian air force or on Hizbollah ground forces or giving more and better weapons to non-extremist opposition forces, to cite two examples. The Americans are hesitant to move in that direction for fear of hitting commingled Russians or enabling an extremist takeover. They have spent the last week or two pondering options.
Washington isn’t likely to do anything before Saturday, but if Secretary of State Kerry can go to the Lausanne meeting with an option to re-balance the military equation in his pocket he might be able to make some diplomatic progress. He needs a credible threat, one Moscow and Tehran feel they need to forestall, to get a serious cessation of hostilities. The beginning of serious talks on transition is likely a bridge too far. Iran and Russia have doubled and quadrupled down on their bets favoring Assad. They are unlikely to risk losing him, since any successor regime that is even remotely democratic would throw them out.
What happens if/when Aleppo falls? Assad will force the opposition adherents out, either leaving eastern Aleppo destroyed and deserted or repopulating it with loyalists. Will the government and its allies then turn its attention to Idlib, where there really are extremists (and infighting among them)? Or will they try to drive farther north to the Turkish border, risking clashes with Turkish and Turkish-backed groups advancing there?
Or will they be content to rest on their laurels? That seems unlikely. Many of us, including me, have underestimated Assad’s sticking power and his determination to retake territory. Now that he is on a roll, he won’t want to stop. Nor will the extremist and non-extremist forces leave him alone. I’m afraid more war rather than less is still in Syria’s future.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This is not the October surprise
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump apologized yesterday for NATO’s 1999 bombing of Serbia:
The bombing of Serbs, who were our allies in both world wars, was a big mistake…Serbians are very good people. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration caused them a lot of harm, but also throughout the Balkans, which they made a mess out of.
For someone who has found it difficult to apologize for anything, even his avowed practice of sexually assaulting women, this is pretty rich. Why would he do it?
First and foremost is that the bombing was carried out pursuant to orders from Bill Clinton. Trump is trying hard to run against the former president, one more clear sign of his disdain for women. There are days Trump concentrates his fire far more on Bill than on Hillary, or on Hillary only to claim that she was an enabler of Bill’s affairs. Women who feel themselves victims of their husbands’ misbehavior aren’t likely to appreciate that, but Trump could care less.
Just as important is the Serb presence in mid-western states, especially Ohio. Trump has been slipping in the polls there and no doubt figures Serb voters, who have already lined up in his favor, will appreciate his latest foray into the Balkans. Trump seems to have an insatiable appetite for appealing to people already slated to vote for him, rather than reaching out to independent or undecided voters, never mind women and minorities. All the above are abandoning him in droves. The Albanians and Bosniaks likely to be offended by the apology are concentrated in states already regarded as “safe”: Albanians in solidly Democratic New York and Bosniaks in mostly Republican Missouri.
Some have suggested that the apology is one more bit of evidence of Russian influence. It might be so. But I think the first two explanations are more than sufficient.
No doubt this apology will be heavily covered in the Balkans and please some people no end, while infuriating others. But both factions should understand that it will attract precious little attention in the United States, where the Balkan interventions of the 1990s are largely forgotten, and no serious effect on the outcome of the election, which if held tomorrow has a 90% chance of deciding in favor of Hillary Clinton. If there is to be an October surprise that affects the outcome, other than the several we have already survived, it isn’t going to be this.
PS: The Trump campaign has denied the interview (in which the apology was supposed issued) was ever made.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Russian views on Syria
On Tuesday the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies hosted a discussion with Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak, Russian Federation Ambassador to the US.
Ambassador Kislyak acknowledged that things are not developing in the best fashion for Russian or US interests. The US has been taking unfriendly steps towards Russia, including the imposition of sanctions and calls to isolate and pressure Russia. He warned that these approaches do not work with Moscow. Russia, he said, has tried hard to work with the US and sees many opportunities for cooperation. These are being missed, but it is not Russia that started or is fuelling the current situation.
Regarding Syria, Kislyak believes that the US and Russia have a common enemy in terrorism. Russia is even more vulnerable to the risks of revived terrorist groups due to its regional proximity and an estimated 4000 Russian speakers fighting in Syria. Syria must continue to preserve the state as the alternative is total failure, which would be a greater problem for everyone. Russia came to Syria on the invitation of its government to assist in the fight against terrorism, no more and no less. Russia’s presence is consistent with international law, as opposed to the presence of other states that have not received the permission or invitation of the sovereign Syrian state.
Commenting on the current situation in Aleppo, Kislyak said that East Aleppo is controlled by Al Qaeda and other “so called” opposition forces who are holding the population hostage. He offered examples of Al Qaeda executions of civilians attempting to leave. He denied that hospitals have been bombed in Aleppo and stated that the Russians never attack civilians. If hospitals had been bombed it was because they had not been identified as such. The Russians are only targeting Al Qaeda. When they request that the US provide information of who is Al Qaeda and who is opposition they never receive a helpful response to deal with the issue in a precise manner. According to Kislyak, the US has been promising since February that the opposition would be separated from Al Qaeda but this has not happened.
Russia is still open to cooperation with the US on Syria. Priorities going forward are to stop the fighting, delineate between opposition forces and Al Qaeda, and start building the environment to start negotiations.
There are clearly areas of common interest for cooperation between the US and Russia on Syria. Both agree that Jabhat al-Nusra is an Al Qaeda force which must be dealt with. A totally failed state will be fertile ground for such groups. There is a disagreement however on the nature of the groups fighting Assad, with Kislyak denouncing ‘opposition forces’ as an American term. If Russia was invited by Assad to combat terrorists, and follows Assad’s definition of all opposition groups as terrorists, there is a fundamental gap in understanding that must be filled before progress in negotiations can be successful. There remains however the issue of separating moderate opposition forces from the complex network of militant groups operating in Syria, which the Russians see as one Washington must take on.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No seal of approval
I’ve taken some flak for meeting with former Macedonian Prime Minister Gruevski on his visit to Washington last week. Here is a sample:
I would like to ask you something, please don’t give a chance together anymore to politicians like Gruevski to seat with you. They will again and again misuse you for their purpose. And if you go and read some newspapers this night you will find he already did it. Milosevic had done it so many times using meetings with west politicians on TV to show the people that ‘he is in line with the western politicians’ and that he was the one they like to speak with….You who have been our hope that it can be better future for our people back home. At least please do not do that ahead of so significant elections that may happen in Macedonia. Just figure out how many people will read what you wrote and how many people will see the picture of you and Gruevski on how many TV all under the cup of the corrupted government.Yet it is up to us aways not to you to bring him down, out of power. I admit I may ask to much from you.
You do ask too much, but let me explain why.
I am a university professor, no longer a government official. When a foreign politician comes to the US and asks to talk with me, I rarely say “no.” Mine is a society based on the free exchange of ideas. I treasure that exchange, even with people with whom I disagree or criticize. Meeting with me is no endorsement. It is only an acknowledgement that you exist and have something to say that I might want to hear. I even happily provide opportunities for people I disagree with to speak at SAIS, where they will be intelligently and politely challenged on all fronts.
Of course I know that in their home countries some of these politicians will try to exploit a meeting with me or other American academics to burnish their reputations at home, even claiming at times that I have given a good democracy seal of approval. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am blunt and forthright in telling politicians what I think. I also try to publish material that informs the inquiring public what my attitude on the main issues is, while maintaining the confidentiality of the actual conversations, which is only polite.
I may of course make mistakes. If I am smart enough to realize what they are, I try to publish something that corrects them. I am confident that these corrections are read by the politicians in question, even if no one else pays them mind.
Let there be no doubt about my attitude towards other politicians, from Macedonia or elsewhere. They are welcome at SAIS, so long as the US government will give them visas to visit. Opposition leader Zaev, whom I don’t know, or parliamentary leader Sekerinska, whom I do know, would be just as welcome as Gruevski and his colleagues. I don’t play favorites, even if I might have them.
My personal preference will always be for politicians seriously committed to democracy and rule of law. That includes free and fair elections, an independent judiciary, transparent, accountable, and inclusionary governance. But I am only too well aware that few will meet that standard in every respect. Talking to them about how they can move in the right direction is for me an obligation, not a seal of approval.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Cheerless
I spent the long Columbus Day weekend in West Philadelphia hunting US citizens not yet registered to vote and campaigning for Clinton/Kaine and the downballot Democrats. I bagged none of the former and had only a little trouble selling the latter. One woman said the campaign was such a mess so she wouldn’t think of voting. She repeated that refrain with every attempt I made to get past it. A man of 45 or so said it was a big decision given the state of the country and the world. My suggestion that Clinton was far better than Trump for both made no headway with him. My best guess: he was a military retiree, judging from his upright bearing. Why military people support Trump, who has been brutal in his criticism of both leadership and troops, is beyond me.
Other than that, I found a lot of mostly black people unhesitating in their support for Clinton. Many were elderly. It is surprising how many require oxygen or are otherwise severely disabled. Some were Muslim. There is often a sign on the door announcing that fact and asking that people remove their shoes to come indoors. I also found a lot of empty homes, especially Sunday afternoon, when many people were presumably at church. Or just didn’t want to answer an unknown door knocker. Functioning doorbells are few and far between. We left a bit of campaign literature most places, and stickers announcing that the deadline for voter registration in Pennsylvania is Tuesday.
The mundanity of the door knocking was a sharp contrast to last night’s debate, which we tuned into only towards the end after enjoying a really good dinner with a former college professor at Talula’s Garden, one of Philadelphia’s finer. Too many words have already been spent for me to add anything new about Trump, but let me just confirm that the man knows nothing about what is going on in Syria and has more in common with the world’s petty dictators than he has claim to lead the free world. Besides, an avowed sexual assault perpetrator blaming her husband’s infidelity on Hillary Clinton is a strange strategy for winning women’s votes.
Trump still has a 20% chance of winning the election, according to 538’s “polls plus” forecast. But as the Trump sex tape and last night’s debate debacle sink in I imagine he’ll go lower, before the race tightens again as election day approaches. A big issue for Republicans now is whether to cut themselves loose from Trump’s sinking anchor, in a desperate effort to save their House and Senate majorities as well as the dignity of their party, or stick with him until he hits rock bottom. Speaker Ryan has chosen the former. I’ve heard people argue that the Rs shouldn’t abandon the angry white working class men who are his core constituents. But if they don’t, demographic change will make it virtually impossible for them to win the White House for a long time to come.
My candidate may be doing well, but this is a cheerless election. Trump is fighting with low blows, including Russian intelligence leaks of Clinton-related emails, fulfilling one of his foolishly expressed day dreams. Now Trump is even imitating Putin by promising to jail his opponent. He is desperate and will stop at nothing. But he also has a significant portion of the electorate backing him. It was never going to be easy to elect the first female president. Doing it right after the first black president is doubly difficult.
The best antidote for Trump’s poison is a decisive victory for Clinton, which I would define as more than 300 electoral votes. That would not erase the memory of Donald Trump’s ugly campaign, but it would send a clear message to future candidates that they can’t win with misogyny and racism.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, October 10-14
- Conflict Prevention and Resolution Forum: Fragile States and Conflict Prevention Challenges | Tuesday, October 11th | 9.30am – 11am | Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | click HERE to register
Approximately 1 billion individuals live in “fragile and conflict-affected countries” across the world. A fragile state is considered one in which a lack of governmental capacity leaves citizens vulnerable to a range of shocks, amongst which violence prevails. With a lack of funding for conflict prevention in fragile states, these countries are left without recourse. It is important to examine the lifesaving role conflict prevention can provide these countries as they move towards sustaining long term peace and social cohesion.
Join us on October 11th for an in depth discussion with two leading experts:
Nancy Lindborg, President, United States Institute of Peace
Ozong Agborsangaya-Fiteu, Senior Operations Officer, World Bank FCV
The discussion will be moderated by:
Daniel Serwer, Director of the Conflict Management Program, SAIS.
The experts will discuss their work in fragility, conflict and violence and provide recommendations for promoting peace in the most fragile segments of the world.
- The Current State of US-Russian Relations with Ambassador Kislyak | Tuesday, October 11th | 4.30pm – 6pm | Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | click HERE to register
Dean Vali Nasr, The Foreign Policy Institute and the SAIS Russia-Eurasia Club cordially invite you to join Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the US, for a discussion on “The Current State of US-Russian Relations.” The conversation will be moderated by Ambassador Shirin Tahir-Kheli, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Institute.
Ambassador Kislyak currently serves as the Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the United States, and previously as the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2003 to 2008. Prior to that, he served simultaneously as the Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the Kingdom of Belgium and as the Permanent Representative of Russia to NATO in Brussels, Belgium, from 1998-2003.
- US Foreign Policy on Transitional Justice | Tuesday, October 11th | 5pm – 6.30pm | Center for Strategic and International Studies | click HERE to register
The Human Rights Initiative invites you to attend a Book Launch and Conversation: U.S. Foreign Policy on Transitional Justice
Please join the Human Rights Initiative for the launch of U.S. Foreign Policy on Transitional Justice, (Oxford University Press, 2015) by Dr. Annie Bird. Featuring Keynote Speaker Stephen Rapp, Former Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, U.S. Department of State, and author Dr. Annie Bird
- RAND Study: ‘Money as a Weapon’ Works in Afghanistan | Thursday, October 13th | 10am – 11.30am | US Institute of Peace | click HERE to register
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are raising new debate on their complex mixing of military operations and relief and development work. This includes CERP, which U.S. forces in Afghanistan have called “money as a weapon system.” Last year the U.S. government’s Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction raised questions about the accounting for $2.2 billion in CERP funds. RAND experts Charles Ries and Daniel Egel have completed a study on the impacts of CERP projects in Afghan localities. Their research finds that CERP projects improved local economic conditions and security for Afghans, helped build U.S. forces’ rapport with local residents, and eventually led to reduced hostilities. The authors will discuss their forthcoming RAND report, “Investing in the Fight: Assessing the Commander’s Emergency Response Program in Afghanistan.”
Scott Worden – Director of Afghanistan, U.S. Institute of Peace
Ambassador Charles Ries – Vice President, International at RAND
Daniel Egel – Economist, RAND
Stephen Lennon – Director, USAID Office of Transition Initiatives
- The Middle East and the Next Administration | Thursday, October 13th | 1pm – 3.30pm | Middle East Policy Council | click HERE to register
Please join us for our 86th Capitol Hill Conference on Thursday, October 13th from 1:00 p.m to 3:30 p.m. Our panel will offer diverse perspectives on the challenges for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and opportunities for the next administration.
Speakers:
Chairman, Projects International Inc.
Former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia
Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense
Former President, MEPC
President, Arab American Institute
Member, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
Author of Arab Voices: What They Are Saying to Us and Why it Matters
Senior Fellow & Director, Middle East Security Program, Center for a New American Security
Former Senior Professional Staff Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Former Iran Team Chief, Office of the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy
Former Special Advisor on the Middle East, Office of the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy
- State-Building and Economic Development in Palestine Without a Political Horizon: The Promise and Pitfalls | Thursday, October 13th | 2pm – 3.15pm | New America Foundation | click HERE to register
The possibility of relaunching meaningful peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians is remote given the political realities in both countries. The challenges facing states across the Middle East—civil conflict, refugee flows, and the threat posed by terrorism—have dominated the policymaking space to the exclusion of Israeli-Palestinian peace. The priority seems now to have become one focused on preventing violent extremism from taking root in Palestine, shoring up the Palestinian institutions of government and supporting economic development and opportunity for Palestinians until the environment is ripe for a comprehensive agreement.
On October 13, New America will host an expert panel from Al Shabaka—The Palestinian Policy Network—that will explore the promise and pitfalls of development and “economic peace” in the absence of a political horizon in the occupied Palestinian territory. The panelists argue that a focus on economic development should complement rather than be seen as a substitute for progress on the political front. They also examine efforts to nurture the Palestinian social, political, and cultural fabric as the occupation enters its 50th year.
Introduction:
Zaha Hassan, Esq. – Middle East Fellow, New America
Panelists:
Nur Arafeh – Jerusalem-Based Al-Shabaka Policy Fellow
Tareq Baconi – DC-Based Al-Shabaka Policy Fellow
Nadia Hijab – London-Based Al-Shabaka Executive Director
- A New Strategy for US-Iran Relations | Friday, October 14th | 12pm | Atlantic Council | click HERE to register
Atlantic Council Strategy Paper Series – A New Strategy for US-Iran Relations
A conversation with:
Ellen Laipson – Distinguished Fellow, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Atlantic Council
Michael Connell – Director, Iranian Studies Program, Center for Naval Analyses
Amir Handjani – Fellow, Truman National Security Project
The implications of the P5+1 nuclear agreement with Iran for the regional order could include prolonged instability and insecurity, but also new opportunities. Dynamic and innovative thinking on how regional and international stakeholders can help tackle present and future challenges and work toward a more secure and stable Middle East is very much needed. A New Strategy for US-Iran Relations, written by Ms. Ellen Laipson, Atlantic Council distinguished fellow and president emeritus of the Stimson Center, constitutes an important addition to this larger conversation. Dr. Michael Connell, director of the Iranian Studies Program and the Center for Naval Analyses, and Mr. Amir Handjani, board director at the Atlantic Council and Truman National Security Project fellow, will join Laipson for a discussion of this latest installment in the Atlantic Council Strategy Paper series.
The paper features a foreword by former US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and proposes a US policy towards Iran that carefully balances effective deterrence and containment measures with more proactive engagement, with the goals of reducing the prospects for military confrontation with Iran and improving the regional security environment. Laipson’s strategy rests on several policy themes: expanding diplomatic engagement, sustaining security cooperation, improving mutual understanding, clarifying economic and financial opportunities, and protecting the nonproliferation success. Notably, this is not a plan for navigating the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but rather is a forward-looking strategy document for the next decade.
RSS - Posts
