Tag: European Union

Syrian refugees: beyond the numbers

Last week, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy explored the response of the international community to the Syrian refugee crisis in an event titled Beyond the Numbers: Inside the Syrian Refugee Crisis at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Cameron Hudson,  director of the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum led the discussion.

Asked about what might happen now, Bassam Barabandi, former Syrian diplomat and co-founder of People Demand Change, said Syrians will continue to leave if Assad and ISIS remain because they feel as though nothing in Syria will provide a future. Those that have left are in search of a long-term solution with opportunities, which explains why they are choosing Germany over Egypt even though Egypt is less dangerous to reach and shares a similar culture.

Philipp Ackermann, Deputy Chief of Mission at the German Embassy, was asked about Europe’s response to the crisis and if pressuring the regime is possible. Ackermann replied that Russia’s aggression has complicated the situation. We should pursue a diplomatic path, even though that will be difficult because a new future for Syria is not possible with Assad. German society has been very welcoming, and 40% of Germans have volunteered in some way. However, the mood is going to change once the pressures kick in. What is needed is a European system to manage the influx with a distribution key for how many each country will take in so that everyone shares the burden.

Asked about the refugees’ overall sentiment, Margaret Brennan, a diplomatic correspondent for CBS News, replied that those in camps do not feel as though they have escaped. Life in the camps is not filled with hope. Nor is it sustainable. Many are leaving the camps in search of a future. Sadly, it took a little boy face down on a beach for the world to notice and to bring the human aspect into this humanitarian crisis. Media attention skyrocketed

David Pollock, Kaufman Fellow at the Washington Institute, was asked “how can we shrink the gap between rhetoric and reality?” He responded that the reputation of the US has and continues to suffer from insufficient action. Washington has not been generous in resettling refugees or in pursuing an end to the conflict. Pollock thought a military solution is the only option even though it is risky, messy, and may have unintended consequences. Certainly two years ago military action would have been appropriate. Now it is more difficult.

Barabandi added that sending money is not a solution, but instead fuels the problem. The US lost a key opportunity to befriend the Syrian people as well as the greater Middle East. Now an important direction we should be taking is to improve education for Syrians.

The Gulf attracted two comments. Pollock said the US will never put pressure on the Gulf countries to take refugees. That would be unproductive. Where they can be of assistance is financial aid for Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and maybe Europe. Brennan suggested deciding through whom to funnel financial aid is a problem. A solution for the refugees will require an even spread of responsibilities.

Tags : , , , , , , ,

Peace picks, October 19-23

  1. Breaking Through: Dismantling Roadblocks to Humanitarian Response for Syria | Monday, October 19th | 9:00 – 11:00am | American Red Cross | REGISTER TO ATTEND | With over half the Syrian population displaced and civilian casualties increasing, international concern continues to grow. As this crisis intensifies, however, barriers to access, relocation, and justice hinder the humanitarian response. Join the American Red Cross on October 19th to discuss these roadblocks and how the humanitarian community can overcome these challenges. Speakers include: Jana Mason, Sr. Advisor for Government Relations & External Affairs, UNHCR, Hind Kabawat, Director of Interfaith Peacebuilding, Center for World Religions &  Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution (CRDC), George Mason University.

  2. The Syrian Refugee Crisis: Balancing Humanitarian and Security Challenges | Monday, October 19th | 11:00 – 12:30 | Bipartisan Policy Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND |The civil war in Syria has caused one of the largest displacements of persons in recent history, creating humanitarian, political, and security challenges that the United States and its allies now confront. More than half of Syrians—some 12 million—are displaced. Of that number, more than 4 million have fled Syria’s borders, with millions living in neighboring countries in the region. As EU and U.S. leaders work to address this flow of refugees, the Islamic State extremist group has boasted of disguising thousands of terrorists as refugees in order to infiltrate them into Western countries, and a recently released report by the House Homeland Security Committee’s bipartisan task force found that international efforts to secure borders and stem the flow of foreign fighters have been woefully ineffective.Join the Bipartisan Policy Center for a discussion on the humanitarian and security dimensions of the refugee crisis and how the two can be balanced and should be reconciled to create a coherent U.S. and global policy response. Speakers include: Kelly Gauger, Deputy Director, Refugee Admissions, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, DOS, Larry Yungk, Senior Resettlement Officer, UNHCR, Adnan Kifayat, Senior Fellow, German Marshall Fund, Dr. Lorenzo Vidino, Director, Program of Extremism, GWU’s Center on Cyber & Homeland Security, Brittney Nystrom, Director for Advocacy, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.
  3. The Morality of Nuclear Deterrence | Monday, October 19th | 12:30 – 2:00 | Stimson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The humanitarian consequences of using nuclear weapons are now central to the debate about the future of nuclear deterrence, owing to the efforts of a new global movement. Just within the last few weeks, Pope Francis has called for complete nuclear disarmament on ethical grounds and the new leader of Britain’s Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, has said that, as prime minister, he would never authorize nuclear use. Join us for a discussion about the morality of the possession and use of nuclear weapons. Is there indeed a contradiction between the strategic goals of nuclear deterrence and its moral dimension? Could the use of nuclear weapons ever be justified? And do humanitarian considerations have any implications for states’ nuclear posture or employment policies? Speakers include:  James M. Acton, Co-Director of the Carnegie Endownment’s Nuclear Policy Program, Drew Christiansen,  Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Global Development, Georgetown University, Elbridge Colby, Robert M. Gates Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security, and Thomas Moore, Independent Consultant.
  4. Beyond the Headlines Obama and Putin: Battlefield Syria | Monday, October 19th | 6:00 | Women’s Foreign Policy Group | REGISTER TO ATTEND |Karen DeYoung is the senior national security correspondent and an associate editor of The Washington Post. In more than three decades at the paper, she has served as bureau chief in Latin America and London, a correspondent covering the White House, US foreign policy and the intelligence community, as well as assistant managing editor for national news, national editor and foreign editor. She was a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She is the recipient of numerous journalism awards, including the 2009 Overseas Press Club award for best coverage of international affairs, the 2003 Edward Weintal Prize for diplomatic reporting, and the 2002 Pulitzer Prize awarded to The Washington Post for national reporting.Steven Lee Myers has worked at The New York Times for twenty-six years, seven of them in Russia during the period when Putin consolidated his power. He has witnessed and written about many of the most significant events that have marked the rise of Vladimir Putin: from the war in Chechnya and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine to the Winter Olympics in Sochi and the annexation of Crimea in 2014. He spent two years as bureau chief in Baghdad, covering the winding down of the American war in Iraq, and now covers national security issues. He has also covered the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House during three presidential administrations.
  5. Will the Afghan State Survive? | Tuesday, October 20th | 1:30 – 2:30 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The recent events in Kunduz have lead experts to speculate about whether Afghanistan can defend itself against the Taliban. While the political and security aftermath of these events continues to unfold, questions are  being raised about the Taliban’s next moves and the resilience of the Afghan state institutions. Is there a new threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), which may shift the focus in a region known to reject foreign presence? Will further troop reductions in prospect under President Obama’s withdrawal schedule lead the United States to rely more heavily on its European partners? What can we expect from the NATO Warsaw Summit and the Brussels Conference? Can the United States, China, and Iran work together towards peace for Afghanistan? Speakers include: Ambassador Franz-Michael Mellbin, special representative of the European Union to Afghanistan, and The Honorable James B. Cunningham, senior fellow and Khalilzad chair, South Asia Center, Atlantic Council.
  6. Dangerous Intersection: Climate Change and National Security (2015 Eli-Miriam Hamilton Keare Policy Forum) | Tuesday, October 20th | 3:30 – 5:30 | Environmental Law Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND |While addressing the graduates of the Coast Guard academy last spring, President Obama told the assembled ensigns that climate change would be a defining national security issue for their time in uniform. Earlier this fall, in a village facing immediate threats of sea level rise, he told Alaskan Natives that “if another country threatened to wipe out an American town, we’d do everything in our power to protect it… climate change poses that same threat now.” The president has raised a red flag over an issue that has concerned defense officials and the national security establishment for several years now, as well as the environmental community.On October 20, 2015, over 700 environmental lawyers, scientists, engineers, economists, and other professionals will gather in Washington, D.C., to honor an exemplary figure in environmental policy. Just prior to the annual Award Dinner, ELI holds its principal policy event of the year, the ELI-Miriam Hamilton Keare Policy Forum. This year, the topic will be “Dangerous Intersection: Climate Change and National Security.” Speakers include: Capt. Leo Goff, Ph.D., Military Advisory Board, Center for Naval Analyses (moderator), John Conger, Performing the Duties of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment, U.S. Department of Defense, Francesco Femia, Founding Director, The Center for Climate and Security, Alice Hill, Senior Advisor for Preparedness and Resilience, National Security Council, The White House, Thilmeeza Hussain, Voice of Women – Maldives, Co-Founder, Marcus King, John O. Rankin Associate Professor of International Affairs, GWU.
  7.  Summer Practicum Report on Water and Peacebuilding in the Middle East | Tuesday, October 20th | 6:00 – 8:00 pm | American University School of International Service | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Join the School of International Service and Center for Israel Studies for a research presentation hosted by the Global Environmental Politics Program in the Abramson Family Founders Room.
  8. The South Caucasus Transportation and Energy Corridor: Update in Light of Nuclear Deal with Iran | Wednesday, October 21st | 5:00 – 7:00 | SAIS | REGISTER TO ATTEND |Several US administrations contributed to the revival of the East-West transport corridor connecting the Caspian region with Europe via South Caucasus. Functioning elements of this infrastructure are already moving significant volumes of oil and gas, but the potential of this route is only partially realized. Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Georgia are developing new elements of infrastructure that should facilitate the flow of raw materials and finished goods between Asia and Europe. But without political and security support, this project cannot succeed.This forum, with speakers from academia and business, will analyze and offer views on the commercial and geopolitical context for development of the South Caucasus transportation corridor.  It will also look at the Shah-Deniz II/Southern Corridor energy project, as well as explore the impact of  the nuclear deal with Iran on regional energy and transportation landscape. 
  9. Libya: Failed or Recovering State | Wednesday, October 21st | 6:00 – 7:15 |Elliot School of International Affairs | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Ambassador Jones will discuss the current situation in Libya. Does the preliminary framework agreement to resolve the conflict that has divided Libya into two competing parliaments, governments, and military coalitions offer a legitimate path toward a stable Libya? Is there a role for the international community? If the agreement isn’t viable, what solutions are there? Ambassador Deborah K. Jones, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Minister Counselor, was nominated by President Obama to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Libya in March 2013.
  10. Leading at the Nexus of Development and Defense | Friday, October 23rd | 10:00 – 11:30 | CSIS | REGISTER TO ATTEND |Save the date for an armchair conversation with General John F. Kelly. General Kelly will discuss his career serving in the United States Marine Corps and the defining challenges he faced in maintaining U.S. and regional security. He will share his experience working in areas of conflict and supporting U.S. defense policy through effective development efforts. General Kelly is currently commander of U.S. Southern Command. A four star general, Kelly presided over much of the U.S. involvement in Iraq in 2003 and 2004, later returning to command Multi-National Force–West.

 

Tags : , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Early elections in Serbia

Last Friday Belgrade news agency Tanjug asked some questions. My answers were published today:

Q: There is a possibility for the early parliamentary elections to take place in Serbia early in 2016. At the national level, it is said that the reason behind holding the early elections is to once again legitimize the government’s reform policy. Which are, in your opinion, the aspects relating to holding the early elections that would be in line with the policy and interests of the EU and the US in Serbia?

A: Serbia has a constitution. So long as the procedures in that are followed, I don’t think either the EU or the US has a problem with early elections. If they in addition consolidate support for reform, that would be welcome in Brussels and Washington. But of course in a real democracy there is no guarantee that the election outcome will be what foreigners prefer. It is up to the citizens of Serbia to determine the outcome.

Q: Are there tendencies from abroad to reduce the impact of the Russian Federation on the Serbian government taking into consideration the closeness of individual political parties/partners to Russia?

A: Yes. Belgrade both historically and at present is closer to Moscow than Westerners think appropriate for a country that aspires to EU membership. Certainly Brussels and Washington would be happier if Serbia conformed its policies with EU sanctions on Russia. Many European countries have in the past maintained good relations with Russia. But Moscow’s current behavior in Ukraine and Syria makes that far more difficult than in the recent past.

Q: What kind of government Serbia needs in the light of international cooperation and assignments that need to be carried out in the course of the EU integration and addressing the Kosovo issue? Which political ideas in Serbia, aside from the ones that are promoted by the Serbian Progressive Party led by Prime Minister Vucic, are acceptable for the international community?

A: Serbia needs whatever government its leaders negotiate, based on the vote of its citizens. That’s the way parliamentary systems work. Anyone who is truly committed to democracy—including a free press and an independent judiciary—will find a warm welcome in the EU and US. They will also welcome any government committed to continuing with serious normalization of relations with Kosovo.

Q: What is in your opinion the goal of a possible government reshuffle, that is the change of the coalition partners of the Serbian Progressive Party, which according to opinion polls will certainly win a majority vote and thereby the mandate to form the government?

A: I try to stay out of other peoples’ government reshuffles. It is well-known in Serbia which parties and leaders are friendlier with Moscow and which are more aligned with Brussels and Washington. But Brussels and Washington don’t get to vote, only to continue to try to influence Belgrade’s policies in a way that makes European Union membership the outcome.

Tags : , ,

Cooperation is the solution

This week, the Center for Strategic and International Studies held an event titled Open or Closed Borders? Understanding Europe’s Challenge with guests Thomas Zwiefelhofer, Deputy Prime Minister of Liechtenstein, Catherine Wiesner, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and Shelly Pitterman, Regional Representative for the USA and the Caribbean, UNHCR. The Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic Heather A. Conley moderated.

Liechtenstein, although not a member of the European Union, is concerned with the refugee migration issue as a member of the Schengen Agreement enabling border-free travel. As minister of Home Affairs, Deputy Prime Minister Zwiefelhofer is in charge of border issues for Liechtenstein. He argued that the debate over the influx is tearing apart the EU. Solidarity is essential and the responsibility should not fall solely on countries directly affected. Over the past few months, European home affairs ministers have met to discuss and plan resettlement agendas. Ultimately, the quota of refugees for each country to host will be determined by factors like population, GDP, and unemployment to avoid future disputes on unequal hosting.

With a population of just 37,000, Liechtenstein must take special precautions. The country, with humanitarian traditions, has shown readiness to participate in resettlement. But as a small country it must be careful.  Zwiefelhofer asserted that Liechtenstein reserves the right to play the sovereignty card by capping refugee totals. He also argued for higher contributions to aid, especially for the UN World Food Programme.

although the number of refugees seems overwhelming, Shelly Pitterman emphasized that it is only 1% of Europe’s population, whereas refugees in Lebanon make up 25%. Assisting Syria’s immediate neighbors needs to be a priority. The challenges in Europe are manageable. Had there have been more leadership from the beginning, the problem would have been better addressed. Engagement by all states is key. Closing borders will not stop refugees, but rather make their journey “more dramatic.”

Catherine Wiesner shared the US prospective and basic position. Saving lives and maintaining human rights is the first priority. In order to do this, it is necessary to close the gap in funding. The problem demands shared responsibility. All those capable and with the power to do so should engage. Member states of the EU have different capabilities, but overall the burden of humanitarian assistance should be manageable.

The panel considered the question of normalization of mega conflict and the highest number of displaced persons to date. Pitterman argued political solutions and long term planning must coincide with humanitarian assistance. Wiesner commented that we have adapted to the new normal by reaching out to private donors. People are more inclined to donate to natural disasters than conflict, but private donors and programs like Google Match have been assets. As for the United States, increasing the number of resettled refugees and speeding up the process is in the works.

The common theme was a cry for unity and fairly-shared responsibility. A handful of nations cannot carry the burden. What Europe is experiencing is only a symptom of much bigger and deeper issues. Cooperation is crucial to resolving both those and the humanitarian crisis.

Tags : , , , ,

Counterproductive

I today attended a meeting with Republika Srpska (RS) Prime Minister Željka Cvijanović, who is in Washington talking about reducing government Bosnia’s bureaucracies and decentralizing the Bosnian state. I can agree with her general stance on those questions. But she neglected to mention in an initial brief presentation at a meeting hosted by Foreign Policy her President’s referendum proposals.

The current issue is a referendum called by the RS assembly on a vaguely worded proposition that challenges the authority of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s courts and of the High Representative who supervises implementation of the Dayton peace agreements reached almost 20 years ago:

Do you support the unconstitutional and unauthorized imposition of laws by the High Representative of the International Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, particularly the imposed laws on the Court and Prosecutor’s Office of BiH and the implementation of their decisions on the territory of Republika Srpska?

The High Representative has discussed the legal issues the referendum raises in a Special Report of the High Representative to the Secretary General of the UN on the Implementation of the GFAP in BiH. The law on the referendum has not yet been published in the Official Gazette. Instead of proceeding as usual with that, the RS President and government are using the threat of the referendum to extract concessions from the European Union, which is engaged with RS in a seemingly interminable dialogue on its justice system.

I will leave the legal issues to the lawyers. What is the diplomatic impact of what RS is doing?

What I told the Prime Minister is this: the referendum proposal is convincing a lot of people in Washington that RS is doing the wrong thing in such an objectionable fashion that it is making the unthinkable thinkable: sanctioning RS officials and even abolishing the entities, which are the heart of the Dayton agreements.

The reaction is less dramatic in the EU, which still hopes to engage the RS and the Bosnians in general in reform processes intended to soften the edges of the country’s entity structure and enable it to make faster progress towards becoming a candidate for EU accession. I wish the Europeans well in that effort, which is backed by the international financial institutions on which both entities and the state government in Bosnia depend. The EU reform plan means the Europeans are less likely to join the US in vigorous action against the referendum proposal.

That is too bad, because only when the RS sees Europe and the US closing ranks and getting ready to do something dramatic will it yield to sweet reason. That is what happened with the Brcko arbitration that reintegrated one of the most contested pieces of real estate in the country and with defense reform that unified the armies in Bosnia ten years ago. Until the Europeans and Americans decide to act together in a concerted way, we’ll see little progress.

Some will wonder why I even attended a meeting at which I was bound to hear propositions that I object to.

My general approach to life as a private citizen and professor is that I am willing to listen to any foreigner the USG allows into the country (and quite a few it won’t allow in). My willingness to listen is in no way an indication of agreement or even softness. I was absolutely clear that Dodik’s toying with the referendum and using it to extract concessions from the EU is damaging not only his reputation but the viability of the RS. Catastrophic was the term I used to describe the likely outcome.

I am saying so publicly as well so there is no doubt about my views. It is arguable that we needed to allow the RS to continue to exist at the end of the Bosnian war in order to make peace. The peace has lasted, and for that we should all be grateful. But institutions are not necessarily forever. If the RS continues on its counterprodutive path, Americans and Europeans should reach the logical conclusion.

Tags : , ,

The West turns a blind eye

On Thursday, the Center for Strategic & International Studies hosted a discussion on “Domestic and External Threats to the Euromaidan Revolutionaries in Ukraine.” Taras Kuzio, Senior Research Associate at the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies at University of Alberta as well as a non-resident Fellow at SAIS’s Center for Transatlantic Relations, gave a presentation centered on his new book, Ukraine: Democratization, Corruption, and the New Russian Imperialism. The discussion was moderated by Jeffrey Mankoff, acting director and senior fellow at CSIS’s Russia and Eurasia Program.

As Russia has expanded its intervention in Syria, Western attention to the conflict in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region has waned. Kuzio’s book presents an in-depth analysis of economic, governance, and rule of law issues in Ukraine grounded in historical perspective concerning the country’s relationship with Russia. Kuzio starts with Stalin’s death in 1953, traces socialization of new Ukrainian elites in the 60s-80s, and describes the disappointments of the late 80s, which would lead to independence in 1991. There are many marked continuities over the past 20 years between the 2013/14 Euromaidan demonstrations, the Orange Revolution of 2004, and independence.

The Euromaidan revolutionaries’ face serious challenges:

  • Rotating elites have dominated the government for the past 20 years (current president Poroshenko included);
  • Disgruntled masses use anti-elite populist rhetoric;
  • There are no real political parties;
  • The judicial system rewards criminal activity;
  • Oligarchs rule the slow-growing economy;
  • The middle class is small;
  • The shadow economy is large – up to 50% of Ukraine’s GDP.

These factors hamper reform. US and EU efforts to promote it have not been focused on the right things. The disgruntled public supports only some of the necessary economic, fiscal, and energy reforms because they would also lead, for example, to higher utilities bills for citizens.

The issue of oligarchs, corruption, and static elites is central. President Poroshenko himself has been a significant business figure, and oligarchs in general have many ties to power, including owning large television channels that often guide political support and mobilization. What is needed are strong messages in favor of judicial and anti-corruption reform. Oligarchs and corrupt officials should go to prison for their crimes, but the route to this cannot be internal. The current Prosecutor’s Office is one of the most significant sources of corruption in Ukraine today. It protects elites. The fact that Poroshenko – and other leaders before him – not only has not disbanded it, but appointed two incompetent heads, is worrying. Western European countries have often been a safe haven for oligarchs, financially and sometimes politically.

The recent conflict has helped shape Ukrainians’ attitudes toward the EU and NATO, with a majority now viewing them positively and wish to join. However, there is little support for this in Western Europe, and Ukraine – having received less funding from the EU than Eastern Europe did – is slow to implement real reforms. This makes it near impossible for integration to occur.

Since 2007 a tide of extreme nationalism and xenophobia has been rising in Russia, exemplified in Putin, which the West long ignored. It claims Ukraine as its own and Ukrainians as “little Russians.” Russian policy denies Ukrainians self-determination and would institute a semi-colonial state in Ukraine. Condescending or xenophobic Russian attitudes toward Ukrainians have a deep history: while Russia has long sought to claim it, Ukrainian dissenters as far back as 1918 have been accused of collaborating with or being funded by the West, Zionists, the CIA, etc.

Ukraine’s biggest plus is its strong civil society and healthy tradition of dissent. As a pluralist society, Ukraine will not be prone to either ethnic nationalism or authoritarianism. Local elections approach at the end of the month. Democratization will progress. But Kuzio nevertheless finds Ukraine in a difficult position – reforms would have been easier in 2005 before the crash, just after the Orange Revolution, but the elites continually put them off, leading to Euromaidan.

The West has too long turned a blind eye toward both corruption in Ukraine and the worrying development of ethnic nationalism and xenophobia in Russia.

Tags : , ,
Tweet