Tag: Sudan
Syria is not hopeless
Bashar al Assad continues to defy international pressure by cracking down violently on peaceful protesters in Syria. The internationals are running out of ideas about what to do: Arab League suspension, contact group, tightening sanctions against economic mainstays of the regime, helping the Syrian National Council (SNC) unify and project a program, renewed pursuit of a UN Security Council resolution and ambiguity about whether military force will be used are on Robert Danin’s list, which isn’t much different from Andrew Tabler’s.
What Danin and Tabler are trying to do is accelerate Bashar al Assad’s departure. I wish them luck in that, and I hope we do all they recommend. But I think we need also to prepare for a long siege. Bashar is trying to outlast the protesters, and he might well succeed unless they, and we, get smarter.
They need to get clever about new ways of defying the regime and demonstrating widespread support. The streets are dangerous these days, and the use of violence by some of the demonstrators is going to make it worse. Some stay at home, general strike or boycott-type demonstrations are in order. As Chenoweth and Stephan point out, it is much harder for the regime to respond to these. And much less risky for the demonstrators if they do nothing but fail to appear for work. More coordinated evening banging on pots and pans is another possibility. Do it twice and everyone will understand its significance.
The internationals also need to prepare for the long haul. This means using the time available to get the SNC up to snuff, with a serious plan and program for the future. Yeh, I know there are proposals for this working their way through the State Department, but too slowly for my taste. It also means talking with the Russians about their naval base at Latakia. They are sure to lose it if they don’t switch sides before Bashar falls. The trick is to convince them that his fall is inevitable and they may as well help make it happen, in hope of ensuring their basing rights for the future.
We also need to press for international human rights monitors. They appear to have been part of the Arab League deal (a written copy of which I still haven’t seen). At some point, the regime may give in to these, because it will want confirmation that it has defeated the protests. If Bashar continues to refuse them, he only embarrasses himself.
Syria is not hopeless. But it may take a long time.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
As the weekly “peace picks” post has been taking me too long to assemble, and this week I’ve let it slide until Monday morning, I’m going to try doing less formatting and more cutting and pasting. As always, best to check the sponsoring organizations’ websites for registration, cost, RSVP and other information. And don’t forget the Middle East Institute’s annual conference at the Grand Hyatt November 17. The week is heavy on Afghanistan:
2. Afghanistan in 2011: A Survey of the Afghan People
Webcast: This event will be webcast live beginning at 9:30am on November 15, 2011 at www.usip.org/webcast.
On November 15, the U.S. Institute of Peace will host the Washington launch of The Asia Foundation’s “Afghanistan in 2011: A Survey of the Afghan People” — the broadest, most comprehensive public opinion poll in the country. The report covers all 34 provinces, with candid data gleaned from face-to-face interviews with more than 6,000 Afghan citizens on security, corruption, women’s rights, development, the economy, and negotiating with the Taliban.
This marks the seventh in the Foundation’s series of surveys in Afghanistan; taken together they provide a barometer of Afghan public opinion over time. With support from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the findings help inform national leaders, scholars, donors and the policymaking community focused on Afghanistan and the region. Join USIP and The Asia Foundation for a presentation of this year’s findings, and analysis of what the seven years of findings indicate for Afghanistan’s recent past, and the country’s future.
This event will feature the following speakers:
- David Arnold, introduction
President
The Asia Foundation - Tariq Osman, panelist
Program Director, Kabul
The Asia Foundation - Sunil Pillai, panelist
Technical Adviser, Kabul
The Asia Foundation - Sheilagh Henry, panelist
Deputy Country Representative, Kabul
The Asia Foundation - Andrew Wilder, moderator
Director, Afghanistan and Pakistan Programs
United States Institute of Peace
3. Can Less be More in Afghanistan? State-building Lessons from the Past to Guide the Future
USIP, November 17, 10-noon
Ten years after the U.S.-led intervention in Afghanistan initiated a new, post-Taliban order, the success and sustainability of the international community’s ambitious state-building project is being questioned. Though billed as transformative, it is unclear whether the state-building investments and reforms of the past decade can be sustained, or will represent a job half-done.
With the Afghan engagement now at a critical juncture, marked by the convening of another Bonn conference in early December, international donor assistance budgets to Afghanistan are declining, prompting a need to look back as well as forward. Why has deeper and broader engagement been repeatedly attempted despite concern that many efforts have had limited and sometimes counter-productive effects? How can lessons from the past help to identify reasonable ways forward? Please join USIP for a discussion with a panel of leading experts to discuss this important topic at a critical juncture in the state-building history of Afghanistan.
- Astri Suhrke, panelist
Senior Researcher, Chr. Michelsen Institute
Author, When Less is More: the International Project in Afghanistan - J. Alexander Thier, panelist
Assistant to the Administrator and Director, Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs
U.S. Agency for International Development - Michael Semple, panelist
2011-2012 Carr Center Fellow
Harvard Kennedy School
- Andrew Wilder, moderator
Director, Afghanistan and Pakistan Programs
United States Institute of Peace
4. Afghan Perspectives on Post-Transition
-
Thursday, Nov 17, 2011 | 10:30 am – 11:30 am
The Center for Strategic and International Studies presents
Afghan Perspectives on Post-Transition
featuring remarks by
Mr. Mohammad Haneef Atmar
Former Afghan Minister of Interior
Sponsored by ANHAM
Thursday, November 17, 2011
10:30AM – 11:30AM
CSIS B1 Conference Center
CSIS 1800 K. St. NW, Washington, DC 20006
CSIS will present the first in a series of speeches and Q&A sessions on perspectives for Afghan governance and issues following the 2014 transition. Our speaker for this first event is Mr. Mohammad Haneef Atmar. Mr. Atmar served as one of Afghanistan’s leading Ministers during his terms in office as the Minister of Interior (2008-2010), Minister of Education (2006-2008) and as Minister of Rural Rehabilitation and Development (2002-2006). We hope you can join us or send a representative.
| November 17, 2011 | 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm | ||||
|
Please join the Better World Campaign, the United Nations Association of the USA and National Capital Area Chapter for a panel discussion on Sudan & South Sudan: United States and United Nations Engagement with
Princeton Lyman U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan and Francois Grignon UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations moderated by Peter Yeo Thursday, November 17, 2011 1:00– 2:30 p.m. 2103 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC a light lunch will be served R.S.V.P. |
||||
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Congratulations! What now?
Independence happened at midnight. Statehood and sovereignty will take decades more.
For South Sudan this is as much opportunity as it is challenge. Sudan was not working for the South, which is fortunate indeed to have an opportunity now to make its own future. The development challenges are obvious: Africa’s newest country is also one of its poorest and most illiterate. Oil, which it has in abundance, is not necessarily a cure–more resource-rich countries fail at serious development than succeed.
But in addition to its development problems, South Sudan faces serious challenges to its statehood and sovereignty:
- Abyei: Ethiopian peacekeepers will be arriving, but twice the North has failed to observe the outcome of arbitrations. There is still a long way to go before the border is agreed and demarcated.
- South Kordofan and Blue Nile: The agreement on these two Northern areas where Southern sympathies are strong reads well enough, but will it be implemented?
- Citizenship: The North seems determined to deprive Southerners living in the North of citizenship there. This could lead to massive displacement.
- Oil transport: So far as I can tell, there is still no agreement on transport of oil produced in the South through the North so that it can exported from Port Sudan.
- Debts: no division has yet been agreed. This often takes some time, and it may also be a way of sweetening other deals.
- South/South conflicts: various militias and tribes in the South feel excluded, are unhappy with their slices of the political pie and could challenge the state’s monopoly on the legitimate means of violence. That spells trouble.
No new country is born without challenges. South Sudan may have more than its share, but it also has great advantages: most of its population is delighted with independence, it has oil, and quick recognition and admission to the UN seem assured. It also has the good wishes of most of the world, most especially the United States, which has provided a lot of support.
Time to get on with the hard part: achieving sovereignty and building the state. Maybe that’s the answer to “what is the what?”
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Independence is over-rated
Yes, that’s what I said: over-rated. Despite the inspirational words, the declaration of July 4, 1776 didn’t change much. Seven years of war ensued. That didn’t settle it either: the British continued to interfere with American shipping, so we fought another war in 1812 (-15). Friendship with Britain did not begin until late in the 19th century, and the “special relationship” is a product of the 20th.
My Kosovar and Southern Sudanese friends are discovering that things haven’t changed much.
The NATO/Yugoslavia war over Kosovo ended in June 1999. Seventy-six countries have recognized Kosovo since its independence in February 2008, but Belgrade is using Russia to block Kosovo’s entry into the United Nations General Assembly, which is the modern world’s equivalent of universal recognition. Pristina is now engaged in discussions of practical issues with Belgrade, with modest results, but good neighborly relations are still far off. The promise of eventual EU membership–much sooner for Belgrade and much later for Pristina–may keep things on track, but there are no guarantees.
Sudan’s independence will be declared July 9. Despite extensive arrangements for this eventuality in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed between Khartoum and Juba in 2005, things are not going smoothly. The Abyei region is still contested, despite two arbitration decisions. Ethiopian peacekeepers are now being deployed there, after Khartoum’s army displaced more than 100,000 people last month. There is instability in two northern states, Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan, where southern sympathies are strong (and some of the sympathizers armed). There are still no agreements on crucial issues: citizenship for northerners in the South and southerners in the North, division of assets and debt, as well as oil revenue and oil transport from the South through the North.
Independence can be declared, but it is sovereignty and statehood that really count. Neither is a function of saying, only of doing. They are acquired through practice, not expression. The three concepts are often confused, and in a well-established state they in fact are congruent. But they are three distinct concepts: statehood depends on the existence of an organized distribution of political power, sovereignty on the state having a monopoly on the legitimate means of violence, and independence–a relative term–on the sovereign state being able to make its own decisions without seeking the approval of others. Neither Southern Sudan nor Kosovo is yet a fully independent sovereign state, though I trust both will make it in due course.
There will be a lot of ups and downs along the way. There certainly were in the United States. The Washington, DC I visited as a child was a segregated city, not by law but by preference of the white majority. Many times while I served abroad in the U.S. Foreign Service I was asked whether a black president was possible. I always said “yes,” but I wasn’t at all sure it would happen in my lifetime. It did, and a lot of people had to change their conception of what it means to be American for it to happen (which is why I’m not surprised that some haven’t changed and are still worrying themselves about the President’s birth certificate).
This process of infusing new meaning into old concepts is important to acquiring statehood and sovereignty: an inclusive concept of what it means to be Southern Sudanese or “Kosovan” is vital to organizing political life and exercising a monopoly on the legitimate means of violence. If some people are excluded, or demoted to second class citizenship, the state will be less than worthy and sovereignty less than complete. So I conclude with Marvin Gaye’s effort to infuse new meaning into an old German drinking song, not so much because I like the results, but because I like the process:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Two areas agreement
I’m still studying it, but I thought the “framework” agreement reached yesterday in Addis Ababa between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (North) on political partnership and political and security arrangements in Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan of enough interest to put out there quickly.
Thabo Mbeki led this African Union High Level Implementation Panel effort, which is intended to end the threat of violence in the leadup to Southern Sudan independence July 9 in two northern Sudanese states where sympathies with the South are strong (and some of the sympathizers armed).
Comments from the well-informed on this agreement and its likelihood of implementation would be most welcome.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
An Arabic student and Middle East scholar
The Middle East Institute, where I studied Arabic through several levels to little avail, has kindly taken me on as one its scholars and this week published an interview covering my career and views on several ongoing conflicts. Here is what they published:
Q: Tell me a bit about your early career. What led you to government service? How did you become involved with peace-building initiatives and mediation?
A: It was all the girl’s fault. I first worked in international affairs at the United Nations, hired by the father of someone I dated in college. I had a scientific background through a Master’s degree in physical chemistry. He needed someone to deal with environmental issues — this was 1970 and we were really just beginning to think about such things. After I finished my doctorate at Princeton, the State Department hired me as a science and technology specialist, dealing mainly with nuclear and missile proliferation issues in Rome and Brasilia. I later worked energy issues and became Economic Minister, Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge’ d’affaires at the US Embassy in Rome.
I did not really get involved in peace-building and mediation until the Bosnian war, when I landed in Sarajevo in November 1994 in a plane hit by small arms fire during the landing. It’s been peace-building all the time since then.
Q: You are currently teaching at George Washington University, Georgetown University, and Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. After careers devoted to both government service and peace-building and conflict resolution initiatives, why did you turn to teaching?
A: It was always my intention to teach, and over the years I have enjoyed lecturing in many different settings. It was about time that I taught my own courses. I just got my student evaluations from last term — both gratifying and humbling. The classroom is an intellectual feast and challenge.
Q: On your blog (www.peacfare.net), you have written that the US must remember that “Afghanistan matters” and the country’s fate and success lies in what the US leaves behind. What is your vision of the Afghanistan that the United States needs to leave behind and how might the US reach this goal?
A: I said in the Washington Post last July that the [US] President [Barack Obama] should specify an end state and suggested: “an Afghanistan that provides no safe haven to terrorists, ensures equal rights to all its citizens and maintains its sovereignty with international help but without foreign troops on its territory.” He seems inclined, however, to stick with only the “no safe havens” part. I think that is hard to achieve without the other pieces.
Q: Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said that Afghans are starting to view NATO as an occupying force, warning that NATO air strikes could lead to a national uprising in Afghanistan. In your opinion, is there potential for a large movement within the country? If so, what might this look like and what implications would this have for US-Pakistani relations?
A: I guess even Karzai is inspired by the Arab Spring, but he should remember that the protests are against local leaders, not against the US.
That said, he is an elected president who clearly is at the limit of what he can tolerate, even if you discount some of what he says as political cover. Of course, there already is a movement against the US presence — we call it the Taliban. Fortunately, most Afghans don’t like it any better than they like our presence. The way to square this circle is with more capable Afghan forces doing most of the heavy lifting.
US-Pakistani relations raise their own complex set of issues, on which I confess I am a neophyte and hesitate to comment. I would just note that whatever we think we’ve been doing does not seem to be improving the situation.
Q: With regard to the situation in Iraq, you wrote on your blog that “the US, UN and Iraqis need to get their heads together sooner rather than later on how to handle Arab-Kurdish disputes, especially as resistance to a continuing US troop presence after the end of this year seems to be strengthening.” What are the core concerns in this debate?
A: Kurds want to extend the territory of Kurdistan to include areas that they claim are historically Kurdish (especially Kirkuk Governorate), guarantee themselves a substantial percentage of Iraq’s national oil revenue, and govern themselves with minimal reference to Baghdad, especially in exploration for and production of new oil discoveries. Arabs want to ensure that Iraq is not divided, either de facto or de jure, and that oil exploration
and production is planned and operated in accordance with a national framework. The Americans don’t want Arabs and Kurds to come to blows, something that seems less likely as they are making a lot more money by cooperating than they would otherwise. I think the UN can help them find a way of untying these knots.
Q: In a March Washington Post article, you discussed the possibility of the United States earning returns on the “enormous investment” in Iraq if it becomes a “reliable, high-volume supplier of oil to world markets” and “can defend itself with only a modicum of U.S. support,” while also holding “relatively free and fair elections that put in power people who reflect the wide diversity of the population and feel real pressure to deliver services efficiently.” What can the US and Iraq do to ensure that Iraq moves toward this ideal state of affairs?
A: I’ve just finished a short brief on this subject. Here are its conclusions:
The following US assistance would reduce a number of risks to Iraqi democracy and help to create the kind of pluralistic society that will generate its own stronger opposition and state institutions:
- support to the Parliament, constitutional court, elections commission, and related civil society organizations, especially for women;
- continued military education and training;
- UN assistance in resolution of Arab/Kurdish issues;
- encouragement to export oil and gas to the north and west;
- assistance for protection of religious and other minorities;
- cooperation in designing a plan to distribute some oil revenue to citizens.
Q: In spite of reports of a tentative agreement between northern and southern Sudan, many people are skeptical about the efficacy of negotiations and the implementation of the established terms, especially with the recent seizure of Abyei. Do you believe that peaceful solutions are possible in this situation, or do you think we will see continued violence in the area, especially as we approach the proposed July 9 date for southern independence?
A: At this point I think the South is so concerned with maintaining peace and stability in advance of independence that it will do its best to avoid further problems up to and even past July 9. Diplomatic recognition will be much easier if independence does not lead to war. Of course the North may not cooperate fully, but I do expect restraint from the South. That said, the seizure of Abyei is likely to cause serious problems in the future,
if there is no negotiated solution.
Q: Given your use of blogs, Twitter, and other social media outlets, what are your thoughts on the significance of Internet activism in the “Arab Spring”? Do you believe that social media sites can and/or will play a part in state-building projects and the “end game” in these national movements, or are they simply useful for the initial stages?
A: Social media seem a lot better suited to organizing a demonstration than establishing a supreme court. That said, I don’t think we’ve reached the limit of human ingenuity, and social media may well prove useful in overcoming the obvious democracy gap in many post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction operations. But we should also note that media only enable you to do things you want to do — the movements generating change
use the media, not, I hope, the other way around.
Q: On your blog, you indicated that with regard to the current situations in Syria, Yemen, and Libya, it should be US policy “to listen to the locals, and follow their lead if we can figure out what it is” and support their efforts. How can the US support these protestors in their effort to promote democratic ideals, and not make the mistake of settling for a government for government’s sake and the perhaps false promise of stability?
A: It’s difficult. Embassies are not places that interface easily with 18-year-old protestors. And when they do, they may get in hot water with the host government. Many years ago in Italy, I wanted to invite a bright young activist to a meeting on alternative energy technologies. A name check turned up indications that he was a member of what the Italian government regarded as an extreme-left, vaguely anarchist political group. I somehow managed to convince the Embassy that it would be okay. He went on to study and work in the US and is today the distinguished head of an important industry association in Italy. Those are the risks you need to take if you really believe in democratic ideals.
I like the model we’ve developed: NGOs out hunting for talent and providing training, visits to the US, projects run by local people, without too much “Chief of Mission” control. You may not, however, find a lot of State Department officials who agree with me.
RSS - Posts
