Tag: Iran
GOP critique: leaks and cuts
This is the third installment of a series responding to the Romney campaign’s list of failures in Obama’s foreign and national security policies.
Failure #3: “Unconscionable” Leaks Of Classified Counterterror Information From The White House That Have Been “Devastating”
Here I find myself in agreement with the Republicans: there have been too many leaks of apparently classified information. The trouble is this complaint comes from people who never said a word about leaks during the Bush administration. So to give the complaint more credibility, I think I’ll just reproduce word for word the main allegations, without the partisan hyperbole:
The damaging leaks include:
- Operational details about the Osama Bin Laden raid.
- Existence of a Pakistani doctor who assisted the United States in finding Bin Laden and who was later arrested and jailed in Pakistan.
- Revelation of a covert joint U.S.-Israeli cyber operation to undermine Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
- The existence of a double-agent who was key to unraveling the second underwear bomb.
- The White House’s process for determining the targets of drone strikes.
The Republican memorandum also cites Democratic concern:
- John Brennan, President Obama’s own counterterror chief and Deputy National Security Adviser, has called the leaks “unconscionable,” “damaging,” and “devastating.”
- Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has criticized the leaks and stated that they are coming from the White House. She said, “Each disclosure puts American lives at risk, makes it more difficult to recruit assets, strains the trust of our partners, and threatens imminent and irreparable damage to our national security in the face of urgent and rapidly adapting threats worldwide.”
The remedy the Republicans suggest is the right one:
Despite the damage done, President Obama has refused to support the appointment of a special counsel to investigate these leaks and hold those responsible accountable. The special counsel mechanism is designed for just such circumstances where the impartiality of normal prosecutors may be compromised because someone in the high chain of command in the White House may be implicated.
Holding people accountable for leaks of truly valuable classified information is a vital component of protecting national security.
Failure #4: “Devastating” Defense Cuts That Will Cede Our Status As A “Global Power”
I confess that my wonkiness does not really extend to budget, which I find fiendishly complicated even if arithmetically simple. The “massive cuts” President Obama has allegedly instituted to the defense budget are all cuts from projected increases, not cuts in the present budget. The Republicans cite two “cuts” in 2011: one of $78 billion and one of $400 billion. But they neglect to mention that the former would take place over 5 years and the later 10 years. They also neglect to mention the massive Pentagon increases over the previous ten years. Then they hold Obama responsible for the $500 billion in cuts (over 10 years) not yet made but scheduled for the January “sequester” if Congress does not pass a budget.
How is President Obama exclusively responsible for the sequester agreement passed in both Houses of Congress? Not clear, but Governor Romney is alleged to have opposed the agreement, which is easy enough since he is not a member of Congress. The President however failed to “steer” the Congressional super-committee to an agreement and has not accepted the Ryan budget plan:
In short, the Commander in Chief is holding our national security and our commitment to veterans hostage to his agenda of tax increases.
It would be at least as correct to say that the Republicans are holding our economy hostage to their agenda of tax cuts.
In all this budget talk, some fundamental facts are lost: the United States spends more on defense than the next 17 countries in the world combined, and all but a handful of those are allies or friends. There is little sign on the horizon of any conventional military threat to the United States for at least 20 years. The only immediate potential military challenge other than the war we are finishing in Afghanistan is the Iranian nuclear program, which is a war we or ally Israel will initiate. The Republicans know this, and the Ryan budget actually proposes a cut in Defense spending for fiscal year 2013, which starts on October 1:
Conventional military challenges may be few, but there are lots of non-conventional and largely non-military challenges in today’s world: weak and failing states, states transitioning to democracy, regional instability in the Middle East and East Asia, terrorist havens, economic collapse, pandemic disease…. The Pentagon budget is not going to help a lot with these challenges, and for many it is the most expensive, not the most cost-effective, way to go. Romney supports the Ryan budget, which makes massive cuts in the kind of civilian foreign affairs spending that would help us to meet those challenges.
The Republicans complain that the only program Obama is all too willing to cut is our military. This is not true. As the GOP never tires of pointing out, he has proposed (and convinced the Congress to pass) $716 billion in cuts to Medicare. The defense budget is by far the largest discretionary slice of Federal spending. There is not credible way to cut Federal expenditures and leave it untouched, much less pay for the increases that the Ryan budget plan proposes in the out years.
Obama’s purported defense budget “cuts” made so far would not cut the defense budget at all, but only slow its increase. The GOP allegation that the president is pursuing a policy of unilateral disarmament is false, as is the allegation that he has sent a message of weakness abroad, leading our friends to question our staying power and emboldening our adversaries. Our allies and friends in Europe and Asia are sticking close by and our adversaries–if you count as such al Qaeda, Iran, and North Korea–have a good deal to fear from an administration that has been tough-minded about tightening the screws.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
GOP critique: Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan
This is the second installment of a series responding to the Romney campaign’s list of failures in Obama’s foreign and national security policies.
Failure #1: No Results In Slowing Or Stopping Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program
True: Iran’s nuclear program has not stopped. Iran is enriching uranium at an accelerating pace, albeit likely slower than whatever pace it would have managed without the Stuxnet virus, sanctions and other measures. Romney claims Iran is “on the cusp of nuclear weapons capability.” Assertions of this sort have been made many times in the past. As of February, American officials believed Tehran had not made a decision to proceed to nuclear weapons. You can be sure we’d have heard about it if the situation has changed.
Iran is certainly closer to nuclear weapons than four years ago, but what Mitt Romney would or could have done about it isn’t clear. Certainly George W. Bush did nothing but threaten regime change, which likely redoubled Tehran’s determination. We don’t know what Romney would do, as he has refused to say, but his critique of Obama suggests at a minimum the following:
- No engagement with Iran. The unproductive multilateral talks would presumably be ditched.
- Support for the Green Movement and other efforts at regime change.
- Stronger sanctions, including no waivers for importers of Iranian oil.
- Stronger commitment to missile defense.
- Talk up the effectiveness and advisability of military options in order to reestablish the credibility of the military threat.
The trouble with this approach is that it was tried under George W. Bush and failed. That’s why Obama is trying something else. We may well have to go back to an “axis of evil” approach to Iran, but insofar as it threatens regime change it risks accelerating Tehran’s push for nuclear weapons. The Iranians regard nukes as a guarantee of regime survival, one that is needed more the greater the threat.
The notion that the military threat is necessarily more credible under Romney than under Bush is unconvincing. Obama hasn’t been shy about using military force. There is strong support across the political spectrum in the U.S. that Tehran not be permitted to get nuclear weapons. Iran will need to reckon with a military threat after November 6 whoever wins the election.
Failure #2: Endangering Our Mission In Afghanistan And Weakening Our Relationship With Pakistan
While giving credit to Obama for killing Osama, the Republicans claim the President is planning a withdrawal from Afghanistan by a date certain, without regard to conditions on the ground. This is at best inaccurate. What is planned is the turnover of primary security responsibility to the Afghans and withdrawal of a substantial portion, but not all, U.S. troops. The Republicans further claim that these decisions were not only unwise but also politically motivated and make it harder to ensure “that Afghanistan never again becomes a launching pad for terror like it was on 9/11.”
I don’t give presidents demerits for politically motivated decisions. Americans want out of Afghanistan. Obama is giving them as close to that as he thinks prudent before the end of 2014. Republicans complain that President Obama “has led our Afghan and Pakistani partners to doubt our resolve and hedge their bets rather than fully cooperate with us.” If hedging their bets means building stronger Afghan security forces and reaching a political settlement with the Taliban that meets the key American red line–no return of al Qaeda to Afghanistan–we shouldn’t be too concerned.
The Republican complaint that Obama failed to ensure a clean Afghan presidential election in 2009 is patently spurious. It was President Karzai’s responsibility to ensure a clean election. It was ours to try to prevent a dirty one and recognize one when it happened, which is what Washington and allied capitals did. The complicated story that ended in Karzai’s challenger, Abdullah, withdrawing would vitiate this Republican claim. Nor is it clear what Romney would do differently.
The Republicans also complain that the Obama administration is negotiating with the Taliban while they are killing U.S. troops and “know President Obama wants a deal more than they do.” I don’t really know how much the Taliban want a deal. Michael Semple, who knows about as much about Afghanistan and Pakistan as anyone on earth, believes that important elements of the Taliban do want a deal. It would be criminally negligent for the administration not to try its best to negotiate an early end to the conflict.
It is true that Obama is responsible for frayed relations with both Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has criticized Karzai, including for corruption as well as the election mess the Romney campaign points to, and conducted drone strikes inside Pakistan whenever the opportunity to kill al Qaeda militants presents itself. Those moves aren’t going to make you friends in Kabul and Islamabad. The Republicans attribute bad relations with Afghanistan and Pakistan to “the lack of resolute leadership from President Obama.” It would be closer to the truth to attribute bad relations to his stalwart pursuit of U.S. interests in both places.
Next up:
Failure #3: “Unconscionable” Leaks Of Classified Counterterror Information From The White House That Have Been “Devastating”
Failure #4: “Devastating” Defense Cuts That Will Cede Our Status As A “Global Power”
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
The dog days of summer are over as far as DC events are concerned
1. A Conversation with Rudwan Dawod on his Incarceration in The Sudan, Tuesday September 4, 2:00pm-3:30pm
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004, fifth floor conference room
Speakers: Rudwan Dawod, Tom Prichard, Michael Van Dusen
The Africa Program of the Woodrow Wilson Center would like to invite you to a presentation by Rudwan Dawod on Tuesday, September 4. Rudwan has been the facilitator for reconciliation and humanitarian projects with Sudan Sunrise since 2009, and is the project director for a reconciliation project in which Muslims from Sudan, South Sudan and the U.S. are rebuilding a Catholic Cathedral in Torit, South Sudan. In late May, Rudwan left his wife and home in Springfield, Oregon to travel to South Sudan to direct this inter-faith reconciliation project. During a lull in the project, Rudwan took a side trip to visit family in Sudan, and renew his Sudanese Passport. Concerned for the future of his country, and dedicated to peace and democracy, Rudwan attended a peaceful demonstration on July 3rd to protest the Sudanese government’s recent austerity policies, and ongoing violence in the Nuba Mountains, Blue Nile, and Darfur. Subsequently, Rudwan was arrested, beaten until unconscious, tortured, charged with terrorism, and retained in prison for 44 days. With the help of the advocacy community, the US government, and the media, Rudwan was eventually acquitted and released. Please join us to welcome Rudwan home and hear him tell his remarkable story.
Register for this event here.
2. Organizing the U.S. Government to Counter Islamist Extremism, Wednesday September 5, 12:00pm-2:00pm
Venue: Hudson Institute, 1015 15th Street, N.W. 6th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005
Speakers: James Glassman, Will Marshall, Douglas J. Feith, William A. Galston, Abram N. Shulsky
Lunch will be served. For all the progress the United States has made in fighting terrorist networks, there has been a general failure to confront the terrorism problem’s ideological center of gravity. A new Hudson Institute study examines how the U.S. government could mount an effort to address this failure by working to change the ideological climate in the Muslim world. The study identifies which types of governmental and nongovernmental organizations should be created to conduct this effort. Produced by Douglas J. Feith and Abram N. Shulsky of Hudson Institute and William A. Galston of Brookings, the study argues that the various Islamist terrorist groups around the world are linked by ideology— common beliefs about their duties as Muslims that spawn and intensify hostility to the United States and to the West in general. You are invited to a panel discussion in which two distinguished commentators will discuss the report with its authors: Commentators: James Glassman, Executive Director of the George W. Bush Institute and former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the George W. Bush Administration Will Marshall, Founder and President of the Progressive Policy Institute Authors: Douglas J. Feith, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the George W. Bush Administration William A. Galston, Brookings Institution Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in Governance Studies and former Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for Domestic Policy Abram N. Shulsky, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and former Defense Department official.
Register for this event here.
3. An Egyptian Point of View about the Arab Uprisings, Wednesday September 5, 7:30pm-9:00pm
Venue: Al-Hewar Center, 120 Cherry Street, S.E., Vienna, VA 22180
Speakers: Ashraf Al-Bayoumi
A conversation with Dr. Ashraf Al-Bayoumi. Egyptian professor and activist, about “An Egyptian Point of View about the Arab Uprisings.” (in Arabic)
Register for this event here
4. Infrastructure and Business Opportunities in North Africa, Thursday September 6, 8:30am-11:ooam
Venue: City Club of Washington, DC, 555 13th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004
Speakers: Carl Kress, Randa Fahmy Hudome, Steven Mayo, Deborah McCarthy, Cenk Sidar, Curtis Silvers, John Duke Anthony
A discussion on “Infrastructure and Business Opportunities in North Africa” featuring Mr. Carl Kress, Regional Director for the Middle East, North Africa and Europe Region, U.S. Trade and Development Agency; Ms. Randa Fahmy Hudome, President, Fahmy Hudome International; Mr. Steven Mayo, Business Development Officer, Project and Structured Finance, Export-Import Bank of the United States; Ms. Deborah McCarthy, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Finance and Development, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Mr. Cenk Sidar, Founder and Managing Director, Sidar Global Advisors; and Mr. Curtis Silvers, Executive Vice President, National U.S.-Arab Chamber of Commerce; moderated by Dr. John Duke Anthony, Founding President & CEO, National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations; Member, U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy and its subcommittees on Sanctions and Trade and Investment.
Register for this event here.
5. CISSM Forum: ‘The Future of Indo-Pak Relations,’ Thursday September 6, 12:15pm-1:3opm
Venue: University of Maryland, College Park, 7950 Baltimore Avenue, College Park, MD, 1203 Van Munching Hall
Speakers: Stephen P. Cohen
‘The Future of Indo-Pak Relations’, Stephen P. Cohen, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Register for this event here.
6. When ‘Ordinary People’ Join In: Understanding Moments of Mass Mobilization in Argentina (2001), Egypt (2011), and Ukraine (2004), Thursday September 6, 4:00pm-5:00pm
Venue: Elliot School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20052, Voesar Conference Room
Speakers: Olga Onuch
Olga Onuch, Newton Prize Fellow in Comparative Politics, University of Oxford This presentation examines the differences between moments of mass-mobilization and the long term process of activist mobilization that precedes them. Ukraine in 2004, Egypt in 2011, and Argentina in 2001 represent cases where a history of activist coordination was the basis for, and key instrument in, the mobilization of ‘ordinary’ people. The presenter will argue against the predominant focus on exogenous and economic factors and instead emphasize local actors and political variables in explaining the presence or absence of mass-mobilization. Part of IERES Petrach Program on Ukraine. Sponsored by the Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies.
Register for this event here.
7. The Arab Awakening and its Implications, Thursday September 6, 6:oopm-7:oopm
Venue: Georgetown School of Foreign Service, 37 St NW and O St NW, Washington, DC, ICC Auditorium
Speaker: Dennis Ross
Returning PJC faculty member, Ambassador Dennis Ross, will present a lecture on ‘The Arab Awakening and its Implications’.
RSVP requested. A light reception will follow.
Register for this event here.
8. Will the Ongoing Nuclear Talks with Iran Yield Better Results than Past Efforts? Friday September 7, 10:00am-12:00pm
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
Speakers: Trita Parsi, Mustafa Kibaroglu, Monica Herz, Michael Adler, Robert S. Litwak
The pursuit of an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program remains at the top of the nonproliferation agenda. The unsuccessful mediation effort led by Brazil and Turkey in May 2010 was followed by the adoption of more economic sanctions by the international community. Last April, the government of Iran resumed negotiations with representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Turkey and Germany. Four meetings have taken place in Switzerland, Turkey, and Russia. Talks are expected to continue after the U.S. presidential elections. Five experts will take stock of the negotiations in comparison with earlier efforts. Experts who participated in a February 2011 seminar on the Brazilian-Turkish mediation will return to the Wilson Center to assess the ongoing negotiations and possible outcomes.
Register for this event here.
9. Road to a Free Syria: Should “Responsibility to Protect” Apply to the Syrian Conflict? Friday, September 7, 12:00-2:00
Venue: Hudson Institute, 15 15th Street, N.W. 6th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005
Speakers: Marah Bukai, Naser Khader, Nasser Rabbat, Kert Werthmuller
‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P)—a widely acknowledged principle of international relations—holds that the State carries the primary responsibility for the protection of its population from mass atrocities and, moreover, that the international community has a responsibility to assist States in fulfilling this responsibility. A panel of distinguished experts will discuss the applicability of R2P to the Syrian conflict while shedding light on current events inside Syria, international reactions to those events, and projections for securing a stable and prosperous post-Assad Syria. Panelists: Marah Bukai, Syrian poet, Consultant, U.S. Department of State, and political activist involved in the Syrian revolution
Naser Khader, Adjunct Fellow, Hudson Institute, and former Member of the Danish Parliament
Nasser Rabbat, Aga Khan Professor and the Director of the Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Moderator: Kurt Werthmuller, Research Fellow, Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom
Register for this event here.
10. Stabilizing the Sinai, Churches for International Peace, Friday September 7, 12:00pm-1:30pm
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Art Hughes, Geoffrey Aronson
Rising lawlessness and violence and an increasing death toll in the Sinai Peninsula by terrorist and criminal elements since the fall of the Mubarak regime threaten the security of Egypt, Israel, and their 1979 peace treaty. The unresolved competition over governance in Egypt between the Muslim Brotherhood government led by President Mohammed Morsi on one hand and the Egyptian army on the other are complicating factors, as is the continued Israeli closure of Gaza, whose Hamas government has strong ties to the Egyptian Brotherhood.
Ambassador (ret.) Art Hughes and Geoffrey Aronson will discuss the stakes for all the parties, including the U.S., and suggest what is needed to restore peace in the Sinai.
Register for this event here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
1. Indonesia’s Performance and Prospects, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Tuesday August 28, 12:00pm-2:00pm
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace , 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Indonesia—the fourth most populous nation on earth and the world’s largest Muslim country—is a vibrant, decentralized democracy that has enjoyed rapid and resilient economic growth. What explains this success and will it continue? What impact, if any, will the 2014 presidential elections have on the country’s political and economic direction?
James Castle and William Wallace will join Carnegie’s Vikram Nehru to discuss Indonesia’s political and economic performance, as well as its prospects and challenges.
RSVP for this event here
2. Turkey’s Partnership for Security: The Next Phase, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, Tuesday August 28, 12:00pm-2:00pm
Venue: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22203
The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies’ International Center for Terrorism Studies will host a panel discussion, “Turkey’s Partnership for Security: The Next Phase,” from 12 noon – 2 pm on Tuesday, August 28, at the Institute. Co-sponsors of this event include the Inter-University Center for Terrorism Studies and the Inter-University Center for Legal Studies of the International Law Institute. Attendance is by registration only; please see below for details.
Program:
Moderator:
Prof. Yonah Alexander
Director, International Center for Terrorism Studies, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies
Panelists:
Prof. Sinan Ciddi
Executive Director, Institute for Turkish Studies, Georgetown University
Dr. Harold Rhode
Former Specialist for Middle Eastern Affairs, Office of Net Assessment, Pentagon
Additional panelists TBA
Closing Remarks:
Prof. Don Wallace, Jr.
Chairman, International Law Institute
Registration is required for general audience and press attendance. Please provide name and affiliation to Evan Lundh, Research Coordinator, icts@potomacinstitute.org or 703-562-4522.
3. Reality vs. Myth: What it’s Like to Live and Work in Post-Conflict Settings, Young Professionals in Foreign Policy, Tuesday August 28, 6:30pm-8:30pm
Venue: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006
Featuring:
Doug Brooks, Preisdent
The founder of the International Stability Operations Association, he is a specialist in African security issues and has written extensively on the regulation and constructive utilization of the private sector for international stabilization, peacekeeping, and humanitarian missions.
Jessica Mueller , Director, Programs & Operations
Editor-in-Chief, Stability Operations Magazine
As part of the leadership team at ISOA, Jessica is responsible for managing the Association’s programs and operations including communications, advocacy efforts, events, member committees and standards. As the Editor-in-Chief of the Stability Operations Magazine, she is responsible for content, design and distribution.
Jason Kennedy, Manager, Membership & Business Development
Jason works on the ISOA leadership team to oversee member services, develop membership, and coordinate opportunites for members, potential members and strategic partners to engage with the Association and the stability operations industry. His responsibilities span membership, business development, marketing/communications and partnership building.
Naveed Bandali, Business Development Manager for the Pax Mondial Group
Naveed Bandali is Business Development Manager for the Pax Mondial Group, an international operational support and capacity building firm that specializes in risk management, construction, medical services, and mine action & training services.
RSVP for this event here
4. Inside Iran’s Nuclear Program, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Wednesday, August 29, 12:00-2:00pm
Venue: Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1828 L Street NW Suite 1050, Washington, D.C. 20036Stern Library and Conference Room
At a time when the possibility of military action against Iran’s nuclear program is being hotly debated, a clear understanding of what Tehran can do and what it may be hiding is vital. To better inform this discussion, The Washington Institute and the Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University are copublishing a detailed, comprehensive, and interactive online glossary of terms related to Iran’s nuclear program and possible weaponization work. The new study, to be released this week, comes out just when the International Atomic Energy Agency is distributing its latest report on Iran in advance of the September 10 IAEA Board of Governors meeting in Vienna.
To discuss the new publication and the latest news on Iran’s nuclear activities, The Washington Institute will host a Policy Forum luncheon with the authors, Olli Heinonen and Simon Henderson.
Olli Heinonen, a senior fellow at the Belfer Center, previously served as deputy director-general and head of the Department of Safeguards at the IAEA, inspecting nuclear facilities in Iran and other countries.
Simon Henderson is the Baker fellow and director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at The Washington Institute. He has lived in both Pakistan and Iran and has written extensively on nuclear proliferation.
The event will be broadcast via livestream starting at 12:30pm here
RSVP for this event here
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
America should not play Asad’s game
David Rohde asks “Is Syria America’s Responsibility?” But he never really answers that question, which is a good one. Instead he answers another one:
We must embrace Syrian moderates and openly declare them our allies. Whether or not we should provide them with military aid is a separate debate. But if we are going to provide non-lethal aid we should do so wholeheartedly. We cannot say America is behind you — secretly.
Of course we can and have often said America is behind you secretly. The fundamental problem is not secrecy, it is whom to assist and how. There is a military opposition and a civilian one. I’d rather we pumped non-lethal support into the civilians, Islamist or not. They are organizing upwards of 100 peaceful demonstrations (often more than 150) each day in Syria. The military effort is scaring Allawites, Christians and others into supporting the regime. The day they go out into the streets to demonstrate–which they will not do so long as the Free Syria Army is attacking–is the day Bashar will be forced from power.
But let’s be clear: Syria is not America’s responsibility. What is happening there is Bashar al Asad’s responsibility. The “responsibility to protect” is in the first instance Syria’s. Russia and Iran, as Syria’s prime military allies, are also responsible for what is becoming an effort to frighten Syrians into submission through random, but sectarian, killing. This technique was used in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to establish the “republic of fear.”
I doubt it will work in Syria, because too many people have already lost their fear. But let’s be clear: there is a lot to be afraid of, as events in the past couple of days at Daraya, a community near Damascus, testify. Upwards of 200 people appear to have been murdered by regime forces. Don’t click on this video if you are even remotely squeamish:
It is of course difficult to suggest that people subjected to this treatment should not respond by defending themselves. They certainly have every right to do so. But it is not clear that revolutionary violence will win the day over a regime that is armed to the teeth and ready to kill. It is for Syrians to decide what the best strategy is. But those of us concerned to see the revolution come out on top and Syria eventually evolve into a democracy are rightly concerned when we see priority given to military assistance.
Revolution and war are political struggles. Empowering those who will take Syria in a democratic direction is what America should worry about. Those are the civilian activists, who risk being pushed aside because Bashar al Asad prefers a military fight he thinks he can win. We should not be trapped into playing his game.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A good idea
It is difficult to imagine a good reason for the persistence of the Nonaligned Movement, which will hold a summit meeting beginning tomorrow in Tehran. Its website does not appear to have been updated since the early years of the century, so it is hard to understand what it thinks it is doing. Hosted by Supreme Leader Khamenei, the week’s meeting will include distinguished representatives like Sudanese war crimes indictee President Bashir, Zimbabwean President Mugabe, Venezuelan President Chavez and North Korean President of the Supreme People’s Assembly Kim Yong Nam. It’s a wonder Bashar al Assad is not planning to attend.
Of course there are also other, far more reputable attendees: the Tunisian, Libyan and South African Foreign Ministers, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Australian UN ambassador (hard for me to understand what is non-aligned about Australia). And, most notably, newly elected Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.
If anything good might come out of such a meeting, I imagine it would come from the interaction of these democratic and would-be democratic states with the startling array of autocrats. I can hope that there is at least a bit of private criticism, as in “Robert, do you think it is in the interest of Zimbabwe that you continue to hold on to power?” Or “Hugo, tell me how you are doing in the polls.” But there is a real risk that such a conclave will be seen in some parts of the world as validating the legitimacy of the autocrats and undermining the citizens who oppose them.
That’s where National Iranian American President Trita Parsi’s idea comes in. He tweeted today that Morsi should meet with Green Movement leaders in Tehran, those brave souls who contested the 2009 presidential election as not free and unfair only to find themselves outgunned, outmaneuvered, beaten and defeated in the streets. A call on Mir-Hossein Mousavi, just returned to house arrest from a stay in the hospital, is one possibility. Or a visit with younger activists. Morsi, the product of successful street protests and a serious (if not perfect) election, should want to hear from Iranian protesters, unless he has already switched to his predecessor’s mentality, as the New York Times suggests.
But why only Morsi? He will be reluctant to do it alone, as he will not want to offend the hosts and put at risk whatever improvement in relations with Tehran he hopes to initiate. Better if the whole lot of more serious democratic leaders announce their willingness to meet with the Green Movement and others who are not on good terms with the Iranian regime, which claims it is not repressive.
I am not at all sure whether any Iranians would dare accept the invitation, as the consequences for them could be dramatic (and some Green Movement leaders are under house arrest). But that doesn’t mean the idea is a bad one. It would at least signal to the host that its more democratic “non-aligned” friends know what is going on. And it would signal to the Green Movement that the democratic world knows their plight and sympathizes with it.
RSS - Posts
