Tag: Iran
Better than nothing
Welcome though it must be, it is difficult to applaud today’s guilty verdicts at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslovia (ICTY) for Radovan Karadzic, the wartime president of Republika Srpska. Coming more than 20 years after the end of the Bosnian war, this is certainly justice delayed. Karadzic, who hid for 15 years and has been on trial for five, will now appeal and eventually serve out the rest of his life in relative luxury in a first-class European prison. Few of his victims or their surviving families will feel much “closure” from this outcome. His supporters will see the ICTY verdict as selective and prejudiced against Serbs.
Worse, people who support his political program of independence for Republika Srpska are very much in charge there. I can’t get too excited about the naming of a university dormitory in his honor. What bothers me far more is RS President Dodik’s repeated advocacy of independence for an entity that was founded on ethnic cleansing, murder, rape and genocide committed against Bosniaks and Croats that Karadizic commanded from 1992 to 1995. Since then, only the current Syrian war has done as much damage proportionally as the deaths and displacement inflicted on Bosnia during those years.
Dodik is an elected official and no doubt represents the views of a majority of his Serb constituency. It might even be argued that naming a university dormitory for Karadzic is damning with only the requisite faint praise. But Karadzic was convicted of one count of genocide (acquitted on another), five of crimes against humanity and four violations of the rules and customs of war, including murder, terror, unlawful attacks against civilians and taking of hostages. How easy should the students sleep in such a dormitory?
This is not the same as an American university named after slaveholders George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. America today doesn’t celebrate them for holding slaves but rather for other contributions to a society still trying to come to terms with what we recognize as the crimes against humanity they and their contemporaries committed. Washington was our revolutionary military commander and Jefferson the author of the declaration of independence that declared all men created equal, quite the contrary of his personal behavior.
Karadzic and Dodik have demonstrated much more consistency than our founders. They have not deviated from claiming that Republika Srpska belongs to the Serbs who rightfully wrested most of the towns and much of the rural area from Muslims, Croats and others who had lived there for centuries. For them all people are not created equal and military success is its own justification. Those ideas are inconsistent with today’s standards, as enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the now voluminous laws of war. Dodik’s modest virtue is that he merely espouses odious ideas. Karadzic’s crime was that he acted on them.
The conviction puts Belgrade in an awkward spot. I expect lots of nationalist Serbs there to praise and defend Karadzic and denounce the tribunal. But I certainly hope the Serbian government understands that its aspirations to EU membership are inconsistent with even modest official complaints. The Serbian parliamentary election campaign may tempt some to don the nationalist mantle. But for anyone wanting to maintain good relations with Washington and Brussels doing so would be a big mistake. It is bad enough that Karadzic for years managed to hide in Serbia. Compounding that felony would be a bigger mistake.
I understand those who will say that justice delayed is justice denied. But in this case justice delayed is better than the only realistic alternative: no justice at all. It would have been worse had Karadzic managed to remain at large, in Serbia or elsewhere, or if he had–like Slobodan Milosevic–died in prison. I’m not celebrating: these verdicts come far too late. But I’m not disappointed either: Karadzic led a criminal enterprise whose basic ideas Dodik still espouses. For the sake of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as the Balkans region, better to have a clear decision of the Tribunal than not to have anything at all.
PS: For those who have the stamina, 1.75 hours of verdicts:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Better than expected, but not good
Two weeks into the cessation of hostilities in Syria and just a weekend before proximity talks are scheduled to reconvene in Geneva, UN envoy Stefano De Mistura is saying that the chances for peace have never been better. There is, he says, “momentum” behind both humanitarian assistance and de-escalation. His hopes for a political settlement come from the newfound agreement of Moscow and Washington as well as the backing of others in the international community.
All of that is true, but it is a low bar. The prospects for a political agreement in Syria have long been dim to negligible. The current momentum comes from putting aside the central issue: whether Bashar al Assad will continue in power. Moscow and Tehran show no sign of dropping their support for him, even if both say repeatedly that they are not wedded to him. Washington might like to abandon the opposition entirely, but even if it does some of them will continue fighting as long as Assad is in power.
The cessation of hostilities has however held better than I and many others anticipated. The question is why. It seems to me that the Iranians and Russians had achieved most of their objectives and needed to consolidate their gains. In recent weeks, they and the Syrian armed forces were responsible for the vast majority of the attacks. If they had continued much longer they’d have ended up laying siege to the opposition-held part of Aleppo, where several hundred thousand people remain. That would have made them responsible for either starving them or feeding them. Better to stop when they did and let the international community do the heavy lifting required and pay the bills.
The United States has spent upwards of $5 billion on humanitarian relief in Syria, much of it through international organizations. Russia and Iran to my knowledge have spent nothing through the international community, though the Russians have dropped a few pallets of food in a feeble effort to get some credit. Many sieges continue in Syria. I’ve seen no comprehensive account of where humanitarian aid has been delivered and where not, but the relief provided so far will have been marginal and temporary at best. Nor have tens of thousands of political prisoners been released.
The Syrian government and their Russian allies continue to pummel some rebel-held areas from the air. They do not target only the Islamic State and Jabhat al Nusra, extremists not covered by the ceasefire. They have also attacked civilians in areas close to Damascus and in other parts of Syria. The Syrian Network for Human Rights reports 435 ceasefire violations, as of yesterday. That’s an average of about 30 per day.
People in opposition-held areas are appreciating the respite from war, which has engulfed civilian areas of central and northern Syria since the Russians started bombing in September. It should be no surprise that they have taken advantage of the opportunity to go out in the streets to demonstrate against Bashar al Assad. Syrians are not lacking in courage and conviction.
Bashar al Assad isn’t either. He has announced parliamentary elections for April 13, in an effort to preempt talk of a political transition. I see no sign that he is headed out the door.
So yes, things are better than expected, but they are not good. Or as Fadl AbdulGhani, Director of the Syrian Network for Human Rights, puts it:
I would say that on a scale between terrible and bad, the truce has been a marginal success—but this is only based on the limited options facing Syrians.
Odds are still against a political settlement that will lead to transition.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Superbowl, Academy awards, election debate
I’ve missed all three: I didn’t watch the Superbowl, the Academy awards or last night’s Republican debate. I suppose this makes me downright anti-American, but I’ve got what I regard as good reasons to skip all three.
The Superbowl is the ultimate American sports event. It features sudden rushes of activity and physical collisions so violent that they are maiming and killing the participants at a terrifying rate. I’ve always wondered how the Romans found gladiatorial contests appealing. I know now. It is simply inhumane to continue to play this sport as it is played today. A parent who would encourage a kid to play tackle football is a child abuser.
The Academy awards are easy to skip. They were always boring. The failure this year to nominate any black people makes them more so. Chris Rock, whose monologue I read, did little to convince me this is anything but gross and inexcusable prejudice by people who know better. Hollywood has often been a trailblazer when it comes to responding to prejudice. How could it allow itself to sink to symbolizing it?
I’m sure last night’s Republican presidential debate was more entertaining than the Academy awards. But I’ve had enough, not only of Trump’s vulgarity but also of Cruz and Rubio’s attempts to match him.
That said, Trump represents an important slice of the American public, in particular blue collar whites who have benefitted little from the extraordinary economic recovery of the last seven years, topped off last month with almost 250,000 new jobs created. But unfortunately he has chosen to appeal to them with barely disguised racism and grossness, from within a political party that has blocked many attempts to level the playing field and redistribute some of the benefits of the expansion in their direction.
I’d like to see the end of two great American traditions. The Academy awards are the most likely to go first. They have lost a large part of their audience because they are boring and irrelevant. Unfortunately football is still thriving, but young people are increasingly turning to soccer. I hope that trend continues, with the long-term consequence of removing football from its exalted place as the leading American professional sport.
As for the Republican debate, it suggests the party is imploding. It may well nominate Trump, who as a major party candidate is more or less guaranteed one-third, maybe even 40%, of the vote. But he is a loser with all the voters who are counting for more these days in getting over 50%: independents, women, blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians. Most of my Republican friends will prefer to vote for Clinton, but of course that over-intellectualized elite counts for little.
It is also possible the Stop Trump movement will succeed and nominate someone like Senators Cruz or Rubio, or Governor Kasich. But in doing so it will lose Trump’s appeal to white blue collars, who are likely to stay home in droves. In any event, it looks as if the economy will be in good shape for November. If anything, its momentum is on the rise, which is the single most important factor in determining US election outcomes.
This is Hillary Clinton’s election to lose. She might do that. The Benghazi issue is fading, not least because of her own performance in Congressional testimony. There simply is no there there. But the question of her unclassified, private email server is still bubbling. Most Democrats don’t seem to care, but she could be indicted. Even if that doesn’t happen, the poor judgment she showed in following a precedent Republican Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condi Rice had set will weaken her with some independents.
Foreign policy will be an issue in this election, even if not a primary one. The threat of Islamic extremism, Russia’s misbehavior in Ukraine and Syria, the Chinese economic and military challenge, and US support for its European and Middle Eastern allies (especially Israel) will all figure, one way or another. The Republicans will bash President Obama’s two big (and popular) recent achievements: the Paris climate change agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. They will have a harder time with Trans-Pacific Partnership trade trade agreement, which Clinton opposes but the Republican establishment supports.
What won’t matter in the election or in the world are the Academy awards and the Superbowl. Nor in the end will Trump. He’ll either be nominated and lose or be edged out somehow and some other Republican will have to figure out how to make Clinton lose, which is unlikely but no impossible.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks February 29-March 4
- Analyzing the Results of the February 26 Iranian Elections | Wednesday, March 2nd | 10:00-11:30 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The event will analyze the results of the February 26 elections for the Consultative Assembly and the Assembly of Experts, focusing on how these elections will influence Iran’s domestic and international policies. Panelists will also discuss recent political and economic developments in light of the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Speakers include Bernard Hourcade, Global Fellow at the Wilson Center and Senior Research Fellow Emeritus at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Suzanne Maloney, Deputy Director of Foreign Policy and Senior Fellow at the Center for Middle East Policy, Energy Security and Climate Initiative at Brookings Institution, and Mohsen Milani, Executive Director of the USF World Center for Strategic & Diplomatic Studies (CSDS) at the University of South Florida and Professor of the Dep’t of Gov’t & International Affairs. The moderator will be Haleh Esfandiari, Public Policy Fellow and former Director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
- Libya: What’s Next? | Wednesday, March 2nd | 3:30-5:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In recent weeks, policymakers in Western capitals have expressed an increasing willingness to intervene militarily against the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) in its Libyan coastal stronghold of Sirte, driven in part by an uptick in devastating attacks on Libya’s oil ports by ISIS fighters and the group’s expanding influence along Libya’s coast. Please join the Atlantic Council on March 2, 2016 for a discussion on the protracted struggle for political and military control over Libya. Claudia Gazzini will share her expertise and research on Libya’s recent developments, the rise of ISIS, and recommendations for the development of Libya’s institutions based on recent visits to Tripoli. Karim Mezran will moderate the discussion. As Senior Analyst for Libya, Dr. Claudia Gazzini oversees and directs International Crisis Group’s reporting and analysis on Libya. Dr. Karim Mezran is a Senior Fellow at the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, where he focuses on the political developments of North Africa.
- Internet Freedom in the Age of Dictators and Terrorists | Thursday, March 3rd | 10:00-11:30 | The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe | The original promise of the internet as a mechanism for free exchange of information and greater democratization seems a dream from a distant past. Authoritarian leaders in China, Russia and around the world seek to build walls around their country’s internet and censor incoming information and online discourse, while in free societies we are grappling with the right balance between security and privacy of online information in the face of terrorist threats. The briefing will focus on internet freedom broadly, including censorship and surveillance; and trends in how internet companies are evolving to handle increased government requests from law enforcement. In addition, panelists will discuss the role of export controls in ensuring that U.S. and European technologies do not contribute to human rights abuses. The following panelists are scheduled to participate: Lisl Brunner, Director of Policy and Learning, Global Network Initiative, Rebecca MacKinnon, Director, Ranking Digital Rights, and Tim Maurer, Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
- Anatomy of Authoritarianism in the Arab Republics | Friday, March 4th | 10:00-11:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Dr. Joseph Sassoon’s book, Anatomy of Authoritarianism in the Arab Republics, investigates the system of authoritarianism in eight Arab republics through the prism of more than 120 memoirs of senior officials and opponents. This book aims to enrich the understanding of authoritarianism that prevailed in these countries and the difficult process of transition from authoritarianism that began after 2011. Joseph Sassoon, Associate Professor at Georgetown University and former Fellow at the Wilson Center will give a talk, while Henri J. Barkey, Director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center will moderate.
- Beyond 2016: Security challenges and opportunities for the next administration | Tuesday, March 1st | 9:00-4:15 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | On March 1, the seventh annual military and federal fellow research symposium will feature the independent research produced by members of the military services and federal agencies who are currently serving at think-tanks and universities across the nation. Organized by the fellows themselves, the symposium provides a platform for building greater awareness of the cutting-edge work that America’s military and governmental leaders are producing on key national security policy issues. With presidential primary season well underway, it’s clear that whoever emerges in November 2016 as the next commander-in-chief will have their hands full with a number of foreign policy and national security choices. This year’s panels will explore these developing issues and their prospects for resolution after the final votes have been counted. During their keynote conversation, the Honorable Michèle Flournoy will discuss her assessment of the strategic threat environment with General John Allen, USMC (Ret.), who will also provide opening remarks on strategic leadership and the importance of military and other federal fellowship experiences. After each panel and discussion, participants will take audience questions. Panel information and panelists may be found here.
- Human Rights Abuses in Putin’s Russia | Wednesday, March 2nd | 2:30-4:00 | Atlantic Council | On February 27, one year ago, Boris Nemtsov was gunned down just steps away from the Kremlin. His murder has since become the symbol of the increasing oppression and human rights abuses in Russia under President Putin. To mark the one year anniversary of Boris Nemtsov’s death, the Senate Human Rights Caucus and the Atlantic Council will host a discussion on human rights abuses in Putin’s Russia. This briefing will also seek to examine the current political environment in Russia and address important questions, including: What human rights violations are occurring? How can policymakers support human rights in Russia? This will be a conversation with Senator Mark Kirk, Illinois senator, U.S. Senate, Carl Gershman, President of the National Endowment for Democracy, Rob Berschinski, Deputy Assistant of State for the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor for the U.S. Department of State, and Paula Dobriansky, Senior Fellow for the JFK Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. John Herbst, Director of the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council will introduce and moderate the event.
- Violence and Gender: The Other Side of Pakistan’s Urban Unrest | Wednesday, March 2nd | 3:00-4:40 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Much of the international focus on violence in Pakistan’s cities tends to revolve around terrorism perpetrated by Islamist extremist groups. In reality, a variety of other major factors drive violence in urban Pakistan as well—including issues associated with water access, waste disposal, transport, and drugs and alcohol. In these cases, gender considerations play a key role. Canada’s International Center for Development Research (IDRC) and the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) recently funded a two-year research project examining how gender and violence intersect in the megacity of Karachi, Pakistan’s financial capital and largest city, and in the twin cities of Islamabad/Rawalpindi, the federal capital and home to military headquarters, respectively. The research was jointly undertaken by the Institute of Business Administration in Karachi and King’s College in London. This event will highlight some of the project’s major findings and possible implications for international assistance programs in urban Pakistan. Speakers include Amiera Sawas, Researcher at Imperial College, London, and Daanish Mustafa, Reader of the Department of Geography at King’s College, London.
- The Syrian Jihad: A Book Launch with Charles Lister | Friday, March 4th | 12:00-1:15 | Middle East Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to announce the U.S. launch of the latest book by terrorism expert and Middle East Institute Resident Fellow Charles Lister, The Syrian Jihad: Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Evolution of an Insurgency (Oxford University Press, 2016). In the book, Lister assesses and explains the emergence of Sunni jihadist movements within Syria’s fledgling insurgency, charts their evolution, and situates them within the global jihadist project. Unprecedented numbers of foreign fighters have joined such groups, who will almost certainly continue to host them. The book scrutinizes the strategic and tactical lessons learned from other jihadist conflict zones, as well as the complex interplay between al-Qaeda and the Islamic State and how their relationship has influenced the jihadist sphere both inside Syria and worldwide. Copies of the book in limited number will be available for purchase and signing at the event. MEI Vice President for Policy and Research Paul Salem will moderate.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The cessation of hostilities that won’t
I’m getting press queries about the cessation of hostilities in Syria, which goes into effect a midnight Damascus time tonight. Here are some of them, along with answers:
- What chance does this ceasefire have of working?
Little. Without any neutral monitors or agreement on what cannot be targeted, parties on both sides will accuse the other of violating without any possibility of determining who is right. In any event, the Russians have published a map indicating very small areas covered by the cessation of hostilities:
2. Won’t the excluded groups, Islamic State and al-Nusra, simply keep on fighting?
Yes. ISIS at least is largely separate from the moderate opposition, so it can be targeted in principle without necessarily hitting others. Al Nusra is embedded in opposition controlled territory, so targeting it will hit moderate opposition as well.
3. Do you think the cessation of hostilities will simply allow Syrian regime/Russians to cement their gains?
It will help them consolidate their gains, yes. Cement would be going too far, however. They are gaining territory where housing, infrastructure and commercial property has suffered enormous damage. Moscow is repeating what it did to Grozny in Chechnya. But neither the regime nor the Russians has the resources to followup with reconstruction. Nor do I think they can restore Assad’s authority over much of the population.
4. Has John Kerry really been forced into an impossible position because of the Russian intervention?
Yes, but the impossible position is determined also by President Obama’s unwillingness to intervene on the side of the opposition or provide them with the means they require to defend themselves from the Russians, Syrian government forces, Iranians, and Iraqi militias arrayed against them.
5. There’s talk the US may attempt to partition off part of Syria – is that realistic?
It might one day have been possible to create a safe area/no fly zone controlled by the opposition. But it is much harder today with Russian planes operating over much of Syria. Some opposition-controlled territories are likely to survive, but they will be few and far between.
6. Why not just divide Syria? Isn’t that what is happening anyway?
Formal, juridical partition of Syria is simply a bad idea. It would open the question of other borders in the region and beyond, putting at risk our Turkish ally as well as the unity of Iraq. Washington will not want to create a precedent that would help the Russians justify what they did in Crimea or what they are trying to do in eastern Ukraine, never mind South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria. The Americans have a big stake in maintaining the notion that national borders should not be changed by military action.
That said, Syria is likely to end up a far more decentralized country than once it was. That is not necessarily a bad thing and might allow for different parts of the country to be governed more to the liking of their inhabitants.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A cessation of hostilities unlikely to last
It took a week or two, but the US and Russia have finally come up with a joint statement whose Annex specifies the terms for the cessation of hostilities in Syria.
Basically it says to the government and opposition fighters (other than those belonging to the Islamic State, Jabhat al Nusra and other terrorist groups) that they need to accept the terms by noon Thursday or risk attack from midnight Friday onwards. The terms include a commitment to participate in the UN-facilitated political process convened under Security Council resolution 2254, to cease attacks, to allow humanitarian access, to refrain from acquiring territory and to proportionate use of force in response to violations.
The US and Russia are to delineate territories the adherents control and provide the capacity to prevent attacks against those who adhere to the agreement, including a working group and communications facilities to investigate noncompliance. No neutral observers are to be deployed. The UN’s special envoy (Stefano De Mistura) is to provide the secretariat for the effort.
The Syrian regime responded quickly. It announced parliamentary elections for April 13, in an obvious effort to short-circuit the UN political process and present the international community with a fait accompli in the form of yet another fraudulent election outcome. No serious opposition will be prepared to participate in an election occurring that quickly under the disastrous conditions existing in Syria today.
I imagine many of the opposition fighting forces will accept the cessation of hostilities. They are on the ropes after weeks of ferocious and indiscriminate Russian bombing. The civilians in areas they control are desperate. The Americans will do their best to twist arms and deliver their friends, including by threatening to cut off support.
The Russians swear up and down they will do everything necessary to deliver the Syrian government. That is hard to believe after their mendacious behavior of the last few months, when they used the cover of international negotiations to mount their offensive. More likely, the Russians as well as the Iranians will use any lull in the fighting to reinforce the Syrian army, Hizbollah and Shia militia fighters from Iraq for the resumption of the war.
Unless someone comes up with a way of getting Bashar al Assad to commit to give up power on a date certain, I expect any cessation of hostilities to be a hiatus, possibly a very short one, not the beginning of a serious political process. Assad’s calling of elections is a clear signal of his disdain for the Geneva 1, Vienna 2 and other internationally negotiated agreements intended to end the war with a political transition.
The Russians aren’t going to force him out after doubling down on their bet last fall and winning back strategically important territory from the opposition. From Moscow’s perspective, this cessation of hostilities is an opportunity for its allies on the ground to consolidate control and get ready for the next round.
There is no indication that Washington is prepared to do likewise for the opposition, who not only lost important territory to the Russian-backed offensive but also find themselves without the anti-aircraft and other weapons they require if they are to perform any better next time around.
Russia is winning a war in Syria the United States refuses to fight, or let others fight. But in doing so, Moscow has alienated most of the Syrian population and guaranteed it will lose the peace.
RSS - Posts
