Tag: Syria
Syria: is there hope?
Salon.com asked me to review recent events in Syria and their significance. They published it today under the heading “Has the Syria threat cooled?”:
Watching Syria is like looking through a kaleidoscope. The picture seems to change dramatically in response to the slightest jolt, but the components remain the same. The past week has seen lots of jolts, but no real change in the elements that make up the sad picture.
Inside Syria, the regime’s forces have started an ethnic cleansing campaign in the west intended to clear Sunnis from areas its Alawite supporters want to secure for themselves. The regime has also successfully pushed south toward the Jordanian border. In much of the rest of the country, there is lots of fighting but only marginal changes in the confrontation lines, which run through many urban areas, or between the urban centers and the countryside. Almost 7 million Syrians are now thought to need humanitarian assistance. The number could rise dramatically during the rest of the year.
Secretary Kerry’s visit to Moscow this week revived, once again, hopes for a negotiated settlement. He and the Russians agreed to try to convene a conference, even before the end of the month, that would include both the Syrian opposition and the Assad regime. The prospect of this conference will relieve President Obama of any need for a quick decision on unilateral action in Syria, since it would hardly be appropriate to preempt the conference. That is likely what both the Russians and the Americans wanted: more time.
Pressure had been building for action, including possible direct American shipment of arms to the opposition, safe areas for displaced people, a no-fly zone, or an attack on Syria’s air force and missiles, which are being used against civilians. Evidence that the regime has used chemical weapons put President Obama on the spot, as he has several times said that crossing this red line would change his calculus. American credibility, some thought, was at stake.
The ink was barely dry on the allegation of chemical weapons use when Carla Del Ponte, a Swiss member of a U.N. human rights inquiry for Libya, suggested that she knew of evidence that chemical weapons were used by the opposition rather than the regime. This allegation has little credibility, not only because of the technical difficulties involved but also because Del Ponte has a record of sensational allegations that are difficult to prove (or disprove).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria: conference time
Secretary Kerry’s visit to Moscow has yielded a proposal for a Syria “peace conference,” to be held as early as the end of this month. This is significant in at least two ways:
- the Russians and Americans both still prefer a negotiated transition (often misleadingly referred to in the press as a “peaceful” one);
- any dramatic increase in US assistance to the Syrian opposition will likely have to wait until the conference is held, or proves to be a mirage.
What are the prospects for success of this initiative? Not good unless Moscow and Washington are prepared not only to convene the event but also strongarm their respective friends (the regime and the opposition) into attending and settling. I am reminded of the interminable series of conferences on Yugoslavia that the European Community, as it was then known, convened in the early 1990s. The warring parties all showed up, if I remember correctly. But little was accomplished on the main issues until the Americans twisted President Izetbegovic’s arm at Dayton, compelling him to accept a peace agreement he thought unjust.
The main issue in the Syria conflict is power: who will control the government in Damascus? Russia and the United States a year ago agreed to a transition in which power would be delegated to a government with representation of both the Asad regime and the opposition. The American view is that this means Bashar al Asad would give up all power (and presumably opt to leave the country). The Russian view is that Bashar can stay and maybe even run in an election.
Sharp as this contrast is, the Americans and Russians have some common interests. Neither wants to see a victory for Sunni extremists. Both would want any opposition representation in a transition government to be predominantly moderate. Moscow and Washington will be particularly keen to emarginate Jabhat al Nusra, the Al Qaeda in Iraq affiliate that has established itself as a leader in the opposition fight against the Asad regime. Neither the Americans nor the Russians will want to see a post-Asad massacre of Syria’s Alawites and Christians, some of whom have been mainstays of the Asad regime. The Russians will want to maintain their port access in Syria. The Americans should be able to live with that. The Americans will want a more or less democratic outcome. The Russians will be able to live with that, so long as it does not open the door to haven for extremists who mount insurgencies in Russia’s Muslim-populated territories.
What would cause the regime and the opposition to agree to a negotiated settlement?
The opposition is having serious difficulties on the battlefield. Its fragmented forces are able to “clear” some countryside areas and parts of towns, but they are unable to “hold” and “build.” With 6.8 million Syrians now in need of humanitarian relief according to the UN, the opposition is simply overwhelmed. Air and artillery attacks on “liberated” areas make it impossible to meet the needs of non-fighting citizens. The regime intentionally targets hospitals, schools and bakeries, in an effort to demoralize people and get them to expel the rebel fighters. All the (necessarily non-extremist) opposition Syrians I’ve met from inside Syria support the idea of negotiating with the regime. In the parlance of conflict management, the secularists and moderate Islamists perceive the situation as “a mutually hurting stalemate” in which neither side can gain from continued fighting. The situation is therefore “ripe.”
The regime is less inclined to see things that way. It still has ample Russian and Iranian support. It is able to deliver humanitarian assistance to much of the territory it still controls. Valerie Amos, the UN’s humanitarian chief, noted yesterday at a Middle East Institute event that some opposition family members move to government-controlled areas when their (mostly) men go off to fight against the regime, because they are safer and food is more available. The Syrian army is exhausted, but the elite forces that do most of the fighting are not flagging, as they are mostly Alawite and view this struggle as an existential one.
So we do not have here a “mutually hurting stalemate,” even if some on one side perceive the situation as ripe (and likely many citizens sitting on the fence would too). Nor do we have a sense on both sides of a “way out.” Much of the opposition may be willing to talk, but they don’t want a negotiated solution that leaves Bashar al Assad in place. The regime stalwarts see no negotiated solution without him.
If you want a negotiated solution, which Moscow and Washington both prefer because it will give them more control over who gains power, what you’ve got to do is get the regime to perceive it cannot gain from continuing the fighting while not giving the opposition so much encouragement that it decides to continue. There are many ways Washington and Moscow can do this. But we’ll save the options for another day. We’ll also need to discuss who speaks for the opposition and for the regime, which is a non-trivial issue that will need to be resolved before any conference has a chance of success.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Still the beginning
A lot of the news today about Syria is not only about Syria. Keeping your eye on Syria means watching:
- Russia: Secretary Kerry will be in Moscow this week trying to close the gap with the Russians, who have not wanted a political solution that begins by requiring Bashar al Asad to step down. It would be hard to do better for Russia experts than Michelle Kelemen’s piece this morning on NPR, but I confess they did not hit hard on what I think is the best bet for Kerry. Russia and the United States share an interest in preventing an extremist Sunni takeover of Syria. The longer the violence persists, the more likely that outcome is. A concerted, UN Security Council push for a political settlement that moves definitively to a post-Asad regime would not only help the Russians save face but also provide the best chance of blocking extremists.
- Israel: The Israelis have conducted more air raids into Syria, ostensibly to stop war materiel from shipment to Hizbollah. The Syrian government, which in the past has not acknowledged Israeli attacks, denounced them on Sunday, thus providing an opportunity to claim Israel is in cahoots with Syria’s revolutionaries and also raising the odds on retaliation. It would appear the air strikes did not trigger Syria’s much-vaunted, Russian-supplied air defense system. Some say that is because the Israelis entered Syria from Lebanon. Whatever. It still suggests that Syria’s air defense capabilities are over-rated. The US should be able to do at least as well as the Israelis.
- Jordan: The Syrian border with Jordan is now largely in revolutionary hands and refugees are pouring across into a country that was already under severe internal strain from political protests and economic downturn. The UN is projecting a million Syrian refugees in Jordan by the end of the year. Many wonder whether Jordan’s monarchy can meet the challenges.
- Lebanon: Israeli entry into Syria from Lebanese airspace gives Beirut something all parties can denounce, but at the same time it illustrates all to starkly the parlous state of Lebanese sovereignty. Lebanese Hizbollah and Sunni fighters are already killing each other inside Syria. They also clash occasionally inside Lebanon. Hizbollah has made it absolutely clear that it regards preservation of the Asad regime as vital to its own existence.
- Turkey: There are already something like half a million Syrian refugees inside Turkey, which is now blocking them at the border. The Turks have wisely reached a ceasefire agreement with their own Kurdish (PKK) rebellion, thus limiting the damage Damascus can do by supporting Kurdish militants. NATO exercises at Incirlik, close to the Syrian border, were presumably scheduled some time ago, but they occurring now and signal that Turkey has backing in preventing spillover from Syria. But Turkey still faces dissent from its anti-Asad posture from its own Turkish-speaking Alevi population (second cousins to the Arabic-speaking Alawites of Syria).
- United Nations: Carla Del Ponte, a Swiss member of a UN inquiry commission into human rights violations, suggested yesterday that it was the rebels, not the government, that had used sarin gas in Syria. The former prosecutor of The Hague Tribunal concerned with war crimes in former Yugoslavia, she has a previous record of making controversial statements that are difficult to confirm or deny. Best to wait for the UN chemical weapons experts to pronounce on the subject.
I’ll be posting later today on how the Syria crisis affects different political forces inside Iraq. Suffice it to say: the news is not good there either.
Inside Syria, the regime has been ethnically cleansing western parts of the country, presumably in preparation for making them an Alawite stronghold.
What we are seeing are developments–refugees, military exercises and operations, political maneuvering, ethnic cleansing, chemical weapons allegations–that challenge the state structures in the Levant and put many of them under severe strain. The strain is likely to get much worse, as there is little evidence of anything that would prevent a further slide. We are still at the beginning of this tragic story, not near its end.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks, May 6th-May 10th
Lots of Egypt, Pakistan and other interesting events in DC this week:
1. Where is the Cultural Revolution in Egypt Headed? Monday, May 6 / 12:00pm – 1:00pm , Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
Speakers: Margot Badran
Drawing on her experience and observations in Egypt over the past two and a half years since the outbreak of the revolution, Badran will look at changes in the everyday lives of Egyptians. She will focus on gender ideas and practices as part of the process of cultural and religious transformation underway and place this in the shifting political contexts.
Register for the event here:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/where-the-cultural-revolution-egypt-headed
2. Egypt in Transition, Monday, May 6 / 12:15pm – 1:45pm, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Ahmed Maher, Jawad Nabulsi, Leila Hilal, Peter Bergen
As Egypt’s revolutionary process derails, a myriad of political actors are struggling to form a new consensus about how to resolve the current political crisis and start rebuilding the state. The country’s uprising gave birth to a new generation of leaders that are working to seize this transformative moment to redefine their country.
Please join New America’s Middle East Task Force for a conversation with two prominent members of Egypt’s civil society. We will discuss the turmoil facing Egypt, the upcoming legislative elections, next steps for the ‘youth of Tahrir,’ and Egypt’s future trajectory.
Register for the event here:
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/egypt_in_transition
3. Amidst Iraq’s Turmoil: What Can We Do?/ Monday, May 6 / 2:00pm – 3:30pm, US Institute of Peace
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
Speakers: James Jeffrey, Dan Serwer, Mike Pillinger, Sarhang Hamasaeed, Manal Omar
For well over a year, Iraq’s political, security, economic, and social well-being continues to be shaken by internal and external events that have implications for stability in the country and the region. Despite gains, recent events on the ground have taken a swift turn. Internal displacement, the rise of armed groups, and recourse to violence present serious challenges in maintaining peace and sustained development within the country. As international attention has shifted to Syria and North Africa, the hurdles that Iraq faces internally need to be considered in light of these regional circumstances. Cross-border migration, a large number of returnees, and a growing influx of Syrian refugees too have a destabilizing force in Iraq.
How are Iraqis coping with the current crisis, and how can they be better engaged by the international community? What policy levers do the U.S. or other international actors have to help promote stability? What lessons can be applied across the increasingly porous and insecure boundaries of the Middle East?
The International Organization for Migration and the U.S. Institute of Peace invite you to a panel discussion on these urgent issues on May 6th from 2:00pm to 3:30pm.
Register for the event here:
http://www.usip.org/events/amidst-iraq-s-turmoil-what-can-we-do
4. The Drone Next Door, Tuesday, May 7 / 9:00am – 1:45pm, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Will Saletan, Paul Gosar, Rosa Brooks, Missy Cummings, Michael Toscano, Shane Harris and more
Drones have become essential to the American way of war. They’ve given the military nearly constant surveillance from the sky, and allow for quick attacks from afar. And now, like countless other technologies forged in the heat of battle, drones are making their way to the home front, pressed into civilian service. Call them drones, unmanned aerial vehicles, or remote-control planes; these high-tech devices have appealed to Border Patrol and local law enforcement, but also to conservationists, journalists, hobbyists, and more. How do we decide who gets to have their own set of eyes in the skies? What does it mean for your privacy and safety if your neighbors get their own drone?
Register here:
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/the_drone_next_door
5. Pakistan’s General Elections 2013: Stakes and Prospects, Tuesday, May 7 / 12:00pm – 1:30pm, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Simbal Khan, Daniel Markey, Malik Akbar, Steve Inskeep
On May 11, 2013, for the first time in Pakistan’s history, the country will hold general elections after a legislature has completed its term. While much attention has been paid to security’s effects on the elections, other key factors, such as demography, will also influence the outcome. Of Pakistan’s 90 million voters, 40 million will be voting for the first time. This makes the election seem more open than ever. Simbal Khan, Malik Siraj Akbar, and Daniel Markey will discuss the key factors the stakes and prospects for Pakistan’s elections. Steve Inskeep, host of NPR’s Morning Edition, will moderate.
Register here:
http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/05/07/pakistan-s-general-elections-2013-stakes-and-prospects/g1os
6. The International Response to Syria’s Humanitarian Catastrophe, Tuesday, May 7 / 12:15pm – 1:15pm, Middle East Institute
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036, Choate Room
Speaker: Valerie Amos
The Middle East Institute is pleased to welcome Valerie Amos, the UN under-secretary-general for Humanitarian Affairs, for a discussion about the humanitarian crisis inside Syria. Now in its second year, the Syrian conflict has generated more than 1.3 million refugees and left 4.25 million internally displaced. According to the UN, some 6.8 million people are in desperate need of assistance. And yet security limitations on the ground in Syria have made the delivery of emergency relief extremely challenging. Amos will lay out the current conditions inside Syria as well as put forward suggestions for what more the international community can be doing to alleviate the crisis.
http://www.mei.edu/events/international-response-syrias-humanitarian-catastrophe
7. Religion and Politics in Revolutionary Egypt, Wednesday, May 8 / 9:00am – 10:30am, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Nathan J. Brown, Jonathan Brown, Jocelyne Cesari
In the wake of Egypt’s revolution, a sea change is undeniably under way: Islam is playing a different and more powerful role in Egyptian public life. But focusing on the growing influence of Islamic forces masks an unpredictable evolution proceeding underneath the surface. The Muslim Brotherhood, Salafis, and a host of state institutions dedicated to Islam are themselves being reshaped by their growing involvement in politics, often in ways that are difficult to predict and even more difficult for their leaders to control. Join us for a discussion at the Carnegie Endowment where Nonresident Senior Associate Nathan J. Brown will present his new paper Islam and Politics in the New Egypt. Jocelyn Cesari of Harvard University and Jonathan A. C. Brown of Georgetown University will offer their comments.
Register for the event here:
http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/05/08/religion-and-politics-in-revolutionary-egypt/g0n8
8. Case Study: Regulating the Private Health Sector in Afghanistan, Wednesday, May 8 / 12:00pm – 1:00pm, O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law
Venue: Georgetown University Law Center, 111 G Street, NW ∙ Washington, DC 20001, E.B. Williams Library, Room 358
Speakers: Michele Forzley
Afghanistan is transitioning from a system in which government provides services to one in which government is the regulator of a changing public health care system and a new emerging private health sector. In the years since the Taliban era ended, the Government of Afghanistan has taken many steps to encourage the development of a market economy and in 2012 its Cabinet passed a law to regulate the private health sector. This law empowered and directed the Ministry of Public Health, (MoPH) to undertake the regulatory functions of licensing, setting standards, monitoring, evaluating performance of private health actors and enforcing the law with sanctions. To implement this new law, many of the departments of the MoPH will have to develop new procedures and forms and undertake additional or new regulatory functions. In accordance with the current national health policy objective of good governance, these new procedures and functions must reflect good governance and rule of law principles. Since last year, Professor Forzley has been working as a consultant and legal advisor to assist the Afghanistan MoPH to implement the new law in accordance with rule of law and good governance principles. Her presentation will cover a background on Afghanistan, its health system and the new private sector, the main functions of the new law, how procedures and systems are being developed to reflect good governance principle and future planned work.
More info here:
Click to access May8_MicheleForzleyBrownBag.pdf
9. Auditing Afghanistan, Wednesday, May 8 / 12:15pm – 1:45pm, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: John F. Sopko, Peter Bergen
The United States has spent tens of billions of dollars on the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, and making sure that money goes where it is supposed to go has been one of the toughest jobs of the conflict. As America transitions control of security operations and other governance processes to the Afghans, this job will become even harder.
The New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program is pleased to welcome the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) John F. Sopko on May 8 for a discussion on Afghanistan’s upcoming transition, and some of the most worrying trends he sees in the way U.S. taxpayer dollars are used in the country.
Register here:
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/auditing_afghanistan
10. The Future of American-Iraqi Relations, Wednesday, May 8 / 7:00pm, Al-Hewar Center
Venue: Vienna Community Center, 120 Cherry Street, S.E., Vienna, VA
Speakers: Phebe Marr
A conversation with Dr. Phebe Marr, a prominent American historian of modern Iraq with the Middle East Institute, about “The Future of American-Iraqi Relations.”
Dr. Marr has been research professor at the National Defense University and is a retired professor of history at University of Tennessee and Stanislaus State University in California.
More info here:
http://www.alhewar.com/newevents.html
11. Human Rights in Tunisia’s Transition: A View from the Field, Thursday, May 9 / 10:00am – 11:30am, Project on Middle East Democracy
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
Speakers: Amel Azzouz, Amna Guellali, Daniel Brumberg, Stephen McInerney, Joyce Kasee
Between 2012-2013, Tunisia’s political scene has witnessed increasing polarization and occasional violence, culminating in the assassination of Chokri Belaid in February 2013. In this context, Tunisia’s National Constituent Assembly is considering the third and perhaps final draft of its proposed constitution. The constitution-writing process has been protracted by disagreements about allusions to Islam and cultural values, and the primacy of human rights as they are internationally defined.
As Tunisia is led by a provisional government, how does the country rank on human rights, addressing political violence by intolerant groups, protecting freedom of expression and the rights of women and minorities, and writing a constitution that safeguards the rights of all Tunisians?
Register here:
http://www.usip.org/events/human-rights-in-tunisia-s-transition-view-the-field
12. Governance Opportunities and Challenges for the Incoming Pakistani Administration, Thursday, May 9 / 2:00pm – 3:30pm , Atlantic Council
Venue: Atlantic Council of the United States, 1101 15th Street, NW, 11th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005
Speakers: Alex Thier
Please join the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center for “Governance Opportunities and Challenges for the Incoming Pakistani Administration,” a conversation with Alex Thier, assistant to the administrator, Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs, US Agency for International Development.
Pakistan’s General Election is set for May 11 and regardless of which party comes to power, the next administration will face a number of daunting challenges related to successful governance. High unemployment, circular debt in Pakistan’s energy sector, and widespread corruption only hit the tip of the iceberg when it comes to severe challenges that Pakistan is facing. The election results could also bring a shift in the central government’s relationship not only with the provinces but also with the people. Despite this, every challenge also presents an opportunity for Pakistan.
USAID’s program in Pakistan has been working on transforming a number of these challenges into opportunities, including supporting energy sector reforms, encouraging trade liberalization, and increasing political parties’ responsiveness to constituent concerns. USAID’s Alex Thier will speak to these efforts and offer his insight on how Pakistan, amongst all its transitions, can make the governance choices that will accelerate a positive trajectory of economic and civic growth.
RSVP to:
southasia@acus.org
13. Egypt’s Revolution, Two Years On: Transition in Distress?, Thursday, May 9 / 2:30pm, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Venue: 1150 22nd St NW Washington, DC 20037
Speakers: Anwar E. El Sadat and Helmy el-Gazzar
As part of the 2013 Soref Symposium, the Washington Institute will host a conversation with Anwar E. El Sadat, founder and chairman of the El Sadat Association for Social Development & Welfare and a former member of the Egyptian parliament, and Helmy el-Gazzer, from the shura committee of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.
This event is open to the press and will also be streamed live at: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/.
14. U.S. Defense Policy in the Middle East, Thursday, May 9 / 7:00pm, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Venue: 1150 22nd St NW Washington, DC 20037
Speakers: Chuck Hagel
The keynote address of the 2013 Soref Symposium will feature remarks by U.S. defense secretary Chuck Hagel, as he discusses U.S. military and security policy in the Middle East.
This event is open to members of the media and will be streamed live at https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Americans are coming
President Obama, bless his heart, is sending John Kerry off to Moscow next week to convince the Russians that something needs to be done about Syria’s use of chemical weapons. Yesterday’s leak that the President is considering supplying weapons directly to the opposition is presumably intended to strengthen Kerry’s hand in what must be an uphill push.
The smart money is betting the Russians won’t budge. I’m not so certain, but in any event Obama is doing the right thing to pursue them. He may eventually have to act without Russian concurrence, in order to maintain American credibilty in the eyes of the Iranian and North Korean regimes. But it would be far better reach a political accommodation that ends the Asad regime with the Russians on board, so as not to endanger their cooperation in the nuclear talks with Iran or the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Obama needs Moscow for both.
Kerry’s push could get some help from unexpected quarters. Missiles were fired yesterday at a Russian civil aircraft flying over Syria. There is no reason to believe the opposition has the capability to target aircraft at an altitude anywhere near 9000 feet. If they did, they would surely use the capability against the Syrian air force. The Russians were already busy denying that they were urging Hizbollah to withdraw from Syria. Someone in Moscow has to be scratching his head and asking if Russia is on the right side in Syria.
Russia need not change its mind and come over to the opposition. Great powers rarely do that. Russia wants to convince the world it is again a great power. A wink and a nod would suffice. That’s what Moscow did in Kosovo in 1999. The UN Security Council resolution legalizing that intervention passed after the war.
The really vital interest for Russia in Syria is to avoid a Sunni extremist takeover, which Moscow fears would infect its restive Muslim population in places like Chechnya and Dagestan. Here Obama and Putin are in the same sinking boat. What they’ve done so far has increased the likelihood of an extremist takeover in Syria, not decreased it. If Russia is serious about dealing a blow against jihad in Syria, it is becoming eminently clear that Bashar al Asad is not the guy to do it.
The Russians do not believe that Asad has used chemical weapons. I trust Kerry will be going to Moscow with a gaggle of intel analysts in tow to make the case. It will not be easy. The Russians don’t trust anything we say. Our record, from the Tonkin Gulf to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, is not a great one. Let’s leave aside “Remember the Maine!”
But I think there is good reason to believe chemical weapons have been used in Syria, likely to test our reaction to their use. If we don’t react, they’ll be used a bit more, slowly erasing that (red) line in the sand.
Obama might like to just ignore the challenge, as chemical weapons are no better at killing people than conventional arms and a good deal more difficult to handle. That’s where Iran and North Korea come in. If he fails to react to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, how will he convince Tehran or Pyongyang that there is a credible threat of military action against their nuclear programs? That threat is vital to any possibility of diplomatic success with either of them.
This gloomy picture could change dramatically if Moscow decides it has bet on the wrong horse and decides to abandon Asad. It’s not likely, but it’s highly desirable. Obama and Kerry are right to try.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Between Iraq and a hard place
World Politics Review published this piece I did for them on Iraq this morning, under the heading “Politically Exposed, Iraq’s Maliki Cracks Down.” They asked that I put up on peacefare.net only a few paragraphs, so I am afraid you have to go to their website to read the rest (you should be able to read it without paying):
While details remain uncertain about who started the fighting and exactly who did what to whom, last week saw a marked escalation in rhetoric and violence between mostly Sunni Arab protesters and Iraqi government forces under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s control. Peaceful protests turned into armed camps. Dozens were killed in the most intense clashes with security forces since Iraq’s virtual civil war in 2006-2007.
The Iraqi state is today much better equipped to hold its own against armed adversaries than it was six or seven years ago, when the U.S. played a crucial role in ending sectarian fighting, not least by negotiating to bring Sunni “Awakening” forces over to the government’s side. Maliki’s approach is less nuanced — his political coalition is not called “State of Law” for nothing. He feels justified using the state’s monopoly on the legitimate means of violence to subdue protesters who take up arms, even as he also promises investigations into any abuses.
The protesters feel equally justified. They view Maliki as increasingly sectarian and authoritarian. Torture is common in Iraq’s prisons. Iraq’s media are under pressure. Maliki has bypassed official processes to appoint personally loyal military commanders and undermined the independence of the central bank, the judiciary, anti-corruption investigators and other countervailing institutions. Several Sunni politicians have been accused of supporting terrorism and their personal security details subjected to arrest, with at least one guard dying in detention under suspicious circumstances…[go here Politically Exposed, Iraq’s Maliki Cracks Down for the rest]
RSS - Posts
