Tag: Syria
An interesting development
This caught my eye yesterday:
Mass demonstrations broke out in more than 370 different locations across the country demanding rebel fighters to unite their ranks, have a centralised command and unified strategy to knock down the Assad regime, demonstrators also demanded the overthrow of the Assad regime.
This blurb is from the daily round-up of the Strategic Research and Communication Centre, a London-based Syrian opposition outfit.
There is nothing new about nonviolent demonstrations in Syria. Most days see well over 100 of them. But the armed struggle has completely overshadowed them, at least in the international press. If it bleeds, it ledes. Boom or bust seems to be the way the foreigners see it: if the opposition fails to take violent action, it doesn’t register on foreign eardrums.
What is interesting about this report is not only the number of different locations–I can’t remember a day with near 370 demos–but their purpose: to urge unity on the rebel fighters (in addition to the compulsoary call for the downfall of Bashar al Asad). This is an interesting use of the capacity for civic mobilization targeted not only on the regime but also on the opposition.
It is not unique. In Serbia after the 1999 Kosovo war the civic resistance demonstrated repeatedly in favor of unifying the fractious (but entirely civilian) opposition, which eventually led to its victory at the polls. But it is the first time I’ve seen it explicitly done in Syria (apologies to the civic activisits in advance if they’ve done it a dozen times previously).
This seems to me a good wicket. The Free Syrian Army was quick to respond. It has announced creation of the “Joint Leadership of the Military Revolutionary Councils,” which is said to include more than 80% of the rebel fighting groups. That could enable better country-wide coordination, which is key to stretching the capacity of the Syrian regime’s security forces to respond. Asad is fighting a counter-insurgency campaign that requires he clear, hold and build. Taxing his forces so that they are unable to hold and build even if they succeed in clearing is critical to opposition success.
What is still missing, even if greater military coordination is achieved, is a civilian political leadership. The basic message of the opposition is clear and unified enough: Asad has to step aside, then we’ll negotiate a democratic transition with the remnants of the regime. But it is not yet clear who will lead the effort and make crucial decisions. What does stepping aside mean? Does Bashar have to leave the country? Who is acceptable as a negotiating partner? Who can remain in their government jobs, who has to go? What will be the milestones in the transition?
There are lots of people claiming to have answers to these questions. What is needed now is the emergence of a genuine civilian leadership with enough legitimacy to decide these issues on behalf of both the civilian and the military opposition and ensure implementation of the decisions, including the prerequisite ceasefire. I trust UN/Arab League envoy Brahimi and his small mission are looking for them, even as Asad is trying to kill them. Let’s hope Brahimi succeeds and Asad fails.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Obama’s second term international priorities
I admit to being cheered last weekend looking at the TPM Electoral Scoreboard. It has President Obama over the 270 electoral votes needed to win, counting only the states that strongly favor, favor or lean in his direction. All the toss-up states save North Carolina are showing thin margins in favor of the President. Key Senate races in Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Virginia are likewise showing small margins for the Democratic contenders. It is still a long time (and three nationally televised debates) to election day, but the drift for the moment is clear.
The President is also getting over 50 per cent approval for his handling of foreign policy. Far be it from me to want to rain on his parade, but I think he should do more and better on international issues in the future.
The President hasn’t had much to say about what he would do on foreign policy in a second term, apart from completing the U.S. turnover of security responsibility to the Afghans (as well as withdrawing more troops) and preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, preferably by diplomatic means but if necessary using force. He hasn’t said much on the Middle East peace process (such as it isn’t), maintained silence on Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s re-concentration of power, showed reluctance to do anything about Syria, hesitated to challenge China, and lacks new ideas on Pakistan and Russia.
I don’t say all this is wrong. Hesitation with China definitely beats Romney’s bellicosity, which will create the animosity we need to avoid. China has already revalued its currency significantly, something the President might want to take more credit for. It is not at all clear to me what he can do about Pakistan or Russia at this point. Maybe let them stew in its own juices for a while, until they soften up. The choices in Syria are difficult ones. Doing anything more will have real costs.
America needs, as the President never fails to say, to put its own house in order. Nation-building at home he calls it. But I would still like to know what his foreign policy priorities will be in 2013-17. The fact that Mitt Romney has failed to force Obama to specify more clearly his future foreign policy priorities is just one of the many shortcomings in a Republican campaign that will be remembered for its many unforced errors and lapses in good judgment.
But there are a few things even a convinced Obamista like me would like to see the President do or say. With no need to worry about re-election after November 6, I hope he’ll get tough with both Israelis and Palestinians. Admittedly he tried during the first term, insisting on a complete settlement freeze. But this was an ill-conceived formulation that led to intransigence on both sides rather than progress. The situation in Syria has deteriorated so badly that it may be worth another run in the Security Council at a no-fly zone. Once the Americans are down to whatever minimum numbers are required in Afghanistan, I hope Obama will find ways to toughen his stance with Pakistan. Iraq, too, needs a bit tougher love.
But none of these things comes close to the big one: avoiding a nuclear Iran and the proliferation of nuclear weapons it will precipitate. This is the overwhelming first priority, as it threatens a shift in the balance of power in the Middle East and a sharp increase in the risks of war, even nuclear war, there. Israel lacks the means to do serious and permanent damage to Iran’s nuclear program with conventional weapons, but it has all it needs to obliterate Iran with nuclear weapons.
If we fail to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the prospects are grim. What do you think Israel is likely to do if it perceives that Iran is getting ready to launch a nuclear weapon targeted on Tel Aviv? Will it wait and see whether the Iranians are, as many people think, “rational actors”? Or will it try to ensure that none of Iran’s missiles will ever get to launch? Launch on warning, which is what the Israelis will most likely do, is inherently unstable.
Lots of my colleagues are having second looks at containment, because the prospects for conventional military action against the Iranian nuclear program look so limited. Admittedly, containment is the fallback position.
But containment with two convincing rational actors who have the better part of an hour to make decisions, the best conceivable communications with each other and no serious threat to regime survival other than a single adversary is one thing. Containment with two actors who each believe the other is irrational (both could even be right), one of whom has less than full confidence in regime survivability even without a war, maybe 10 minutes to make decisions, and no reliable communications is something else. Yes, India and Pakistan have survived almost 15 years without using nuclear weapons on each other, and the increasing trade between the two creates disincentives to war. But a nuclear exchange between the two is still far more likely than war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. And we are a long way from trade between Iran and Israel as a barrier to conflict.
Andrew Sullivan, in a fit of hopefulness, comments:
To date, Obama’s response has been like Reagan’s: provide unprecedented military defense systems for Israel, deploy our best technology against Iran, inflict crippling sanctions, and yet stay prepared, as Reagan did, to deal with the first signs of sanity from Tehran. Could Obama find an Iranian Gorbachev? Unlikely. But no one expected the Soviet Union to collapse as Reagan went into his second campaign either, and it had not experienced a mass revolt in his first term, as Iran did in Obama’s. And yet by isolation, patience, allied unity, and then compromise, the unthinkable happened. I cannot say I am optimistic—but who saw the fall of the Berlin Wall in October 1984?
Hope however is not a policy. What should Obama do to try to resolve the Iran nuclear issue in a second term?
The Administration has been understandably reluctant to put a serious package of incentives for Iran to forgo a nuclear weapon on the table before the U.S. election. Negotiating a deal with Iran is not going to help on November 6. But I hope after November 6 the Administration will make a direct and convincing offer to Tehran: temporary suspension of enrichment, a full accounting of past activities, tight and unfettered safeguards, no enrichment ever above 20%, no stockpiles of enriched uranium in a form that can be further enriched, and a permanent commitment not to seek nuclear weapons in exchange for full sanctions relief. That would be a policy, not a hope.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A really bad day
The Muslim world has had a busy Friday trashing U.S. embassies and killing Muslims. The latest death toll I’ve seen is seven, but who knows.
The day was a losing proposition all around. The United States suffered serious damage not only to its embassies but to its international standing. Muslims lost people and respect in the West, where no doubt anti-Muslim extremists will take action against mosques and argue that the day proves that Islam is not a peaceful religion. Al Qaeda got to display its flag amid at least the appearance of popular support.
The Arab awakening took an ugly turn that will reinforce skepticism about it worldwide. Syrians might be the biggest losers in the long term: those who are on the fence about intervention there will not want to risk creating yet another opportunity for extremism. Not that it is better to ignore the homicidal maniac who runs that country, but it is certainly easier than doing anything about him. My Twitter feed is full of Arab commentary about the stupidity of protesting a dumb movie when Bashar al Asad is killing thousands, but that entirely justified sentiment won’t change the import of a truly ugly day.
Ironically but not surprisingly, the one place where dignity prevailed was Libya, where it all started. The president of Libya’s parliament, in essence the chief of state, laid a wreath at the American embassy in honor of the Americans killed in Benghazi. Libyans know perfectly well that the Americans and NATO saved them from the worst depredations of Muammar Qaddafi. Except for the Qaddafi supporters, they are overwhelmingly grateful and friendly. That was amply apparent at the Atlantic Council’s event on Libya yesterday, when the Libyan ambassador (and every other Libyan who spoke) made affection for slain Ambassador Chris Stevens amply evident.
I am afraid the lesson of the day is one we already know: transitions to democracy take time and resources. Our effort to get off cheap and easy in Libya is not working out well. We need to be thinking about how we can help Tripoli gain control of the armed groups on Libyan territory and help the Libyans achieve a measure of reconciliation with those who supported the Qaddafi regime. We also need to work with the Libyans to bring the murderers to justice.
Egypt’s President Morsi has finally come around to recognizing that his hesitancy about blocking the violence was a big mistake. I have some sympathy with those who would use massive U.S. assistance to Egypt–debt forgiveness, military aid and development assistance totalling more than $3 billion–as leverage. There is no way the American public is going to support continuing it unless Cairo starts singing a friendlier tune and reining in extremism, not only in Cairo but also in Sinai. Tunisia is next in line for tough love, though the government’s behavior there has generally been better than in Egypt.
Yemen is a more complicated case. We get lots of support and freedom of action in our war against Al Qaeda in Yemen. No one will want to put that at risk. At the same time, we need to be paying a whole lot more attention to Yemen’s deeper problems: poor governance, underdevelopment, and water shortages. They are what make the country a haven for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Mitt Romney and his acolytes may want to pretend that all these problems can be solved if only the American president is shows resolve and therefore the United States is respected. But as Joe Cirincione pointed out in a tweet, the two worst Muslim terrorist attacks on the United States occurred under Presidents Reagan and Bush. The Romneyites presumably don’t think they lacked resolve, which is something best reserved for top priority conflicts with other states. And those rare moments when you think you know where Osama bin Laden is hiding.
I can well understand Americans who want to turn their backs on the Muslim world and walk away. But that will not work. It will come back to haunt us, as terrorism, oil supply disruption, massive emigration, mass atrocity or in some other expensive and unmanageable form. Muslims, in particular Arabs, are going through a gigantic political transformation, one whose echoes will reverberate for decades. We need to try to help them through the cataclysm to a better place, for them and for us.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
GOP critique: Russia and Latin America
This is the fifth installment of a series responding to the Romney campaign’s list of ten failures in Obama’s foreign and national security policies.
Failure #7: A “Reset” With Russia That Has Compromised U.S. Interests & Values
The “reset” with Russia has certainly not brought great across the board benefits to the United States, but things were pretty bad between Washington and Moscow at the end of the Bush Administration, which had started in friendly enough fashion with George W. getting good vibes from Putin’s soul. Bush 43 ended his administration with a Russian invasion of a country the president wanted to bring into NATO. Neither our interests nor our values were well-served by that. But there was nothing we could do, so he did nothing.
A reset was in order. With Putin back in the presidency, it should be no surprise that it hasn’t gotten us far, but certainly it got us a bit more cooperation during Medvedev’s presidency on Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan than we were getting in 2008. The Russians are still being relatively helpful in the P5+1 talks with Iran and the “six-party” talks on and occasionally with North Korea. Their cooperation has been vital to the Northern Distribution Network into Afghanistan.
The Republicans count as demerits for President Obama his abandonment of a missile defense system in Europe, without mentioning that a more modest (and more likely to function) system is being installed. They also don’t like “New START,” which is an arms control treaty that has enabled the U.S. to reduce its nuclear arsenal.
I count both moves as pluses, though I admit readily that I don’t think any anti-missile system yet devised will actually work under wartime conditions. Nor do I think Iran likely to deliver a nuclear weapon to Europe on a missile. It would be much easier in a shipping container.
The fact that the Russians could, theoretically, increase their nuclear arsenal under New START is just an indication of how far behind the curve we’ve gotten in reducing our own arsenal and how easy it should be to go farther. The Romneyites don’t see it that way, but six former Republican secretaries of state and George H. W. Bush backed New START.
The GOPers are keen on “hot mic” moments that allegedly show the President selling out America. This is the foreign policy wonk version of birtherism. In this instance, they are scandalized that he suggested to then Russian President Medvedev that the U.S. could be more flexible on missile defense after the November election. The Republicans see this as “a telling moment of weakness.” I see it as a statement of the screamingly obvious. Neither party does deals with the Russians just before an election for some not-so-difficult to imagine reason.
More serious is the charge that President Obama has soft-pedaled Russia’s backsliding on democracy and human rights. I think that is accurate. The Administration sees value in the reset and does not want to put it at risk. The arguments for targeted visa bans and asset freezes against human rights abusers are on the face of it strong.
The problems are in implementation: if someone is mistreated in a Russian prison, are we going to hold Putin responsible? The interior minister? The prison warden? The prison guards? How are you going to decide about culpability for abuses committed ten thousand miles away? And if the Russians retaliate for mistreatment of an American citizen in a Louisiana State penitentiary, what do we do then? While many of the people involved may not care about visas and asset freezes, where would the tit-for-tat bans end up?
Russia has unquestionably been unhelpful on Syria, blocking UN resolutions and shipping arms to the Asad regime. The Russians have also supported Hugo Chávez and used harsh rhetoric towards the United States. But what Romney would do about these things is unclear. His claim that Russia is our number one geopolitical foe is more likely to set the relationship with Moscow back than help us to get our way.
Failure #8: Emboldening The Castros, Chávez & Their Cohorts In Latin America
I’m having trouble picturing how the octogenarian Castros have been emboldened–to the contrary, they are edging towards market reforms. Obama’s relaxation of travel and remittance restrictions has encouraged that evolution. It would be foolhardy to predict the end of the Castro regime, but cautious opening of contacts is far more likely to bring good results than continuation of an embargo that has never achieved anything.
I’d have expected the Republicans to compliment Obama on getting the stalled trade agreements with Colombia and Panama approved, but instead they complain that he waited three years while negotiating improvements to them that benefit U.S. industry. Given the difficulty involved in getting these things ratified, it is unsurprising that President Obama doesn’t want to reach any new trade agreements in the region, or apparently anywhere else.
Hugo Chávez looms large for the Republicans. They view him as a strategic threat. Obama thinks he has not “had a serious national security impact note on us.” That Chávez is virulently anti-American there is no doubt. But to suggest that he seriously hinders the fight against illicit drugs and terrorism, or that his relationship with Hizbollah is a threat we can’t abide, is to commit what the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead called the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness.” We’ve got a lot bigger drug and terrorism challenges than those Venezuela is posing.
Except for Mexico, Obama has not paid a lot of attention to Latin America. That’s because things are going relatively well there. If Chávez goes down to defeat in the October 7 election and a peaceful transition takes place, it will be another big plus, one that will redound to Obama’s credit. There are other possibilities, so I’d suggest the Administration focus on making that happen over all the other things the GOP is concerned about.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
There is far too much happening Monday and Tuesday in particular. But here are this week’s peace picks, put together by newly arrived Middle East Institute intern and Swarthmore graduate Allison Stuewe. Welcome Allison!
1. Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Political Progress in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Monday September 10, 10:00am-12:00pm, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, The Bernstein-Offit Building, 1740 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Room 500
Speaker: Patrick Moon
In June 2012, the governing coalition in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had taken eighteen months to construct, broke up over ratification of the national budget. In addition, there has been heated debate over a proposed electoral reform law and the country’s response to a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. Party leaders are once again jockeying for power, and nationalist rhetoric is at an all-time high in the run-up to local elections in early October.
Register for this event here.
2. Just and Unjust Peace, Monday September 10, 12:00pm-2:00pm, Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace, & World Affairs
Venue: Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace, & World Affairs, 3307 M Street, Washington, DC 20007, 3rd Floor Conference Room
Speakers: Daniel Philpott, Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Lisa Cahill, Marc Gopin
What is the meaning of justice in the wake of massive injustice? Religious traditions have delivered a unique and promising answer in the concept of reconciliation. This way of thinking about justice contrasts with the “liberal peace,” which dominates current thinking in the international community. On September 14th, the RFP will host a book event, responding to Daniel Philpott’s recently published book, Just and Unjust Peace: A Ethic of Political Reconciliation. A panel of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scholars will assess the argument for reconciliation at the theological and philosophical levels and in its application to political orders like Germany, South Africa, and Guatemala.
Register for this event here.
3. The New Struggle for Syria, Monday September 10, 12:00pm-2:00pm, George Washington University
Venue: Lindner Family Commons, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Room 602
Speakers: Daniel L. Byman, Gregory Gause, Curt Ryan, Marc Lynch
Three leading political scientists will discuss the regional dimensions of the Syrian conflict.
A light lunch will be served.
Register for this event here.
4. Impressions from North Korea: Insights from two GW Travelers, Monday September 10, 12:30pm-2:00pm, George Washington University
Venue: GW’s Elliot School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Room 505
Speakers: Justin Fisher, James Person
The Sigur Center will host a discussion with two members of the GW community who recently returned from North Korea. Justin Fisher and James F. Person will discuss their time teaching and researching, respectively, in North Korea this Summer and impressions from their experiences. Justin Fisher spent a week in North Korea as part of a Statistics Without Borders program teaching statistics to students at Pyongyang University of Science and Technology. James Person recently returned from a two-week trip to North Korea where he conducted historical research.
Register for this event here.
5. America’s Role in the World Post-9/11: A New Survey of Public Opinion, Monday September 10, 12:30pm-2:30pm, Woodrow Wilson Center
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004, 6th Floor, Joseph H. and Claire Flom Auditorium
Speaker: Jane Harman, Marshall Bouton, Michael Hayden, James Zogby, Philip Mudd
This event will launch the latest biennial survey of U.S. public opinion conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and is held in partnership with them and NPR.
RSVP for this event to rsvp@wilsoncenter.org.
6. Transforming Development: Moving Towards an Open Paradigm, Monday September 10, 3:00pm-4:30pm, CSIS
Venue: CSIS, 1800 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, Fourth Floor Conference Room
Speakers: Ben Leo, Michael Elliott, Daniel F. Runde
Please join us for a discussion with Mr. Michael Elliot, President and CEO, ONE Campaign, and Mr. Ben Leo, Global Policy Director, ONE Campaign about their efforts to promote transparency, openness, accountability, and clear results in the evolving international development landscape. As the aid community faces a period of austerity, the panelists will explain how the old paradigm is being replaced by a new, more open, and ultimately more effective development paradigm. Mr. Daniel F. Runde, Director of the Project on Prosperity and Development and Schreyer Chair in Global Analysis, CSIS will moderate the discussion.
RSVP for this event to ppd@csis.org.
7. Campaign 2012: War on Terrorism, Monday September 10, 3:30pm-5:00pm, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Falk Auditorium
Speakers: Josh Gerstein, Hafez Ghanem, Stephen R. Grand, Benjamin Wittes
With both presidential campaigns focused almost exclusively on the economy and in the absence of a major attack on the U.S. homeland in recent years, national security has taken a back seat in this year’s presidential campaign. However, the administration and Congress remain sharply at odds over controversial national security policies such as the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. What kinds of counterterrorism policies will effectively secure the safety of the United States and the world?
On September 10, the Campaign 2012 project at Brookings will hold a discussion on terrorism, the ninth in a series of forums that will identify and address the 12 most critical issues facing the next president. White House Reporter Josh Gerstein of POLITICO will moderate a panel discussion with Brookings experts Benjamin Wittes, Stephen Grand and Hafez Ghanem, who will present recommendations to the next president.
After the program, panelists will take questions from the audience. Participants can follow the conversation on Twitter using hashtag #BITerrorism.
Register for this event here.
8. Democracy & Conflict Series II – The Middle East and Arab Spring: Prospects for Sustainable Peace, Tuesday September 11, 9:30am-11:00am, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, ROME Building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speaker: Azizah al-Hibri, Muqtedar Khan, Laith Kubba, Peter Mandaville, Joseph V. Montville
More than a year and a half following the self-immolation of a street vendor in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia, Arab nations are grappling with the transition toward sustainable peace. The impact of the Arab Spring movement poses challenges for peaceful elections and establishing stable forms of democratic institutions. This well-versed panel of Middle East and human rights experts will reflect on the relevance and role of Islamic religious values and the influence of foreign policy as democratic movements in the Middle East negotiate their futures.
Register for this event here.
9. Israel’s Security and Iran: A View from Lt. Gen. Dan Haloutz, Tuesday September 11, 9:30am-11:00am, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036, Falk Auditorium
Speakers: Lt. Gen. Dan Haloutz, Kenneth M. Pollack
While Israel and Iran continue trading covert punches and overheated rhetoric, the question of what Israel can and will do to turn back the clock of a nuclear Iran remains unanswered. Some Israelis fiercely advocate a preventive military strike, while others press just as passionately for a diplomatic track. How divided is Israel on the best way to proceed vis-à-vis Iran? Will Israel’s course put it at odds with Washington?
On September 11, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will host Lt. Gen. Dan Haloutz, the former commander-in-chief of the Israeli Defense Forces, for a discussion on his views on the best approach to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Brookings Senior Fellow Kenneth Pollack will provide introductory remarks and moderate the discussion.
After the program, Lt. Gen. Haloutz will take audience questions.
Register for this event here.
10. Montenegro’s Defense Reform: Cooperation with the U.S., NATO Candidacy and Regional Developments, Tuesday September 11, 10:00am-11:30am, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Room 211/212
Montenegro has been one of the recent success stories of the Western Balkans. Since receiving a Membership Action Plan from NATO in December 2009, in close cooperation with the U.S. it has implemented a series of defense, political, and economic reforms, which were recognized in the Chicago Summit Declaration in May 2012 and by NATO Deputy Secretary General Vershbow in July 2012. Montenegro contributes to the ISAF operation in Afghanistan and offers training support to the Afghan National Security Forces. In June 2012 it opened accession talks with the European Union.
Register for this event here.
11. Inevitable Last Resort: Syria or Iran First?, Tuesday September 11, 12:00pm-2:00pm, The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies
Venue: The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, 901 N. Stuart Street, Arlington, VA 22203, Suite 200
Speakers: Michael S. Swetnam, James F. Jeffrey, Barbara Slavin, Theodore Kattouf, Gen Al Gray
Does the expanding civil war in Syria and its grave humanitarian crisis call for immediate international intervention? Will Iran’s potential crossing of a nuclear weapon “red line” inevitably trigger unilateral or multilateral military strikes? Can diplomacy still offer urgent “honorable exit” options and avoid “doomsday” scenarios in the Middle East? These and related issues will be discussed by both practitioners and observers with extensive experience in the region.
RSVP for this event to icts@potomacinstitute.org or 703-562-4522.
12. Elections, Stability, and Security in Pakistan, Tuesday September 11, 3:30pm-5:00pm, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Frederic Grare, Samina Ahmed
With the March 2013 elections approaching, the Pakistani government has an opportunity to ensure a smooth transfer of power to the next elected government for the first time in the country’s history. Obstacles such as a lack of security, including in the tribal borderlands troubled by militant violence, and the need to ensure the participation of more than 84 million voters threaten to derail the transition. Pakistan’s international partners, particularly the United States, will have a crucial role in supporting an uninterrupted democratic process.
Samina Ahmed of Crisis Group’s South Asia project will discuss ideas from her new report. Carnegie’s Frederic Grare will moderate.
Register for this event here.
13. Islam and the Arab Awakening, Tuesday September 11, 7:00pm-8:00pm, Politics and Prose
Venue: Politics and Prose, 5015 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20008
Speaker: Tariq Ramadan
Starting in Tunisia in December 2010, Arab Spring has changed the political face of a broad swath of countries. How and why did these revolts come about–and, more important, what do they mean for the future? Ramadan, professor of Islamic Studies at Oxford and President of the European Muslim Network, brings his profound knowledge of Islam to bear on questions of religion and civil society.
14. Beijing as an Emerging Power in the South China Sea, Wednesday September 12, 10:00am, The House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Venue: The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 2170 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Speakers: Bonnie Glaser, Peter Brookes, Richard Cronin
Oversight hearing.
15. The Caucasus: A Changing Security Landscape, Thursday September 13, 12:30pm-4:30pm, CSIS
Venue: CSIS, 1800 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, B1 Conference Center
Speakers: Andrew Kuchins, George Khelashvili, Sergey Markedonov, Scott Radnitz, Anar Valiyey, Mikhail Alexseev, Sergey Minasyan, Sufian Zhemukhov
The Russia-Georgia war of August 2008 threatened to decisively alter the security context in the Caucasus. Four years later, what really has changed? In this conference, panelists assess the changing relations of the three states of the Caucasus — Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan — with each other and major neighbors, Russia and Iran. They also explore innovative prospects for resolution in the continued conflicts over Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the possibility of renewed hostilities over Nagorno-Karabakh. This conference is based on a set of new PONARS Eurasia Policy Memos, which will be available at the event and online at www.ponarseurasia.org. Lunch will be served.
RSVP for this event to REP@csis.org.
16. Author Series Event: Rajiv Chandrasekaran, “Little Afghanistan: The War Within the War for Afghanistan”, Thursday September 13, 6:30pm-8:30pm, University of California Washington Center
Venue: University of California Washington Center, 1608 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speaker: Rajiv Chandrasekaran
In the aftermath of the military draw-down of US and NATO forces after over ten years in Afghanistan, examinations of US government policy and efforts have emerged. What internal challenges did the surge of US troops encounter during the war? How was the US aiding reconstruction in a region previously controlled by the Taliban?
Rajiv Chandrasekaran will discuss his findings to these questions and US government policy from the perspective of an on-the-ground reporter during the conflict. This forum will shed light on the complex relationship between America and Afghanistan.
Register for this event here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
GOP critique: Israel and Syria
This is the fourth installment of a series responding to the Romney campaign’s list of ten failures in Obama’s foreign and national security policies.
Failure #5: A Damaged Relationship With Israel And A Moribund Peace Process
No question: the peace process is moribund and the relationship with Israel damaged. The question is who is responsible? Do you blame President Obama, who tried to halt Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank in order to create space for negotiation, or Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who refuses to halt the settlements and shows little sign of being interested in the two-state solution that would be the objective of renewed negotiation?
I’d fault Netanyahu, but there are wrinkles here. Obama’s insistence on a full settlement freeze was a bridge too far. His insistence on starting negotiations with the 1967 lines as the basis for land swaps was not. Netanyahu, who made a tremendous stink about this last year, within months dropped his opposition.
That Obama does not like Netanyahu is clear, but the exchange the Republicans cite with French President Sarkozy is ambiguous and unimportant.
As for funding UNESCO, the implication that Obama is planning to violate U.S. law in order to fund the organization even though it admitted Palestine as a member is nonsense. The Administration has made it clear it may seek a waiver under the law, not violate it. In any event, UN bodies do not recognize states; only states can recognize states. Palestine is recognized by over 100 states, which makes it no surprise that it is able to garner the votes to enter international organizations. The only way to deal with this issue without damaging important U.S. interests is to prevent Palestine from applying for membership (or delaying a vote). That is what the Administration has been doing, so far successfully.
Far more disturbing though than these relatively small issues is the big one: Mitt Romney has not pronounced himself in favor of a two-state solution. Nor can he, as he receives ample funding from Sheldon Adelson and other supporters who oppose the two-state solution, want Israel to hold on to the West Bank and support settler efforts to hold onto what they term “Samaria and Judea.” This is an extremist position guaranteed to lead to strained relations between the United States and all Arab countries.
Failure #6: No Coherent Policy To Stem The Humanitarian And Strategic Disaster In Syria
The Republican claim is this:
President Obama has implemented no coherent policy to shape events in this vital region, wasting over a year and a half as the situation has grown worse and options are being foreclosed. Some 20,000 people have been killed, the region is in turmoil, malign powers and actors have greater influence over the situation than the United States does, and Syria’s stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons are at risk of falling into the wrong hands.
But Romney puts forward no alternative. His declared approach is virtually identical to Obama’s:
Mitt Romney believes the United States should pursue a strategy of isolating and pressuring the Assad regime to increase the likelihood of a peaceful transition to a legitimate government. We should redouble our push for the U.N. Security Council to live up to its responsibilities and impose sanctions that cut off funding sources that serve to maintain the regime’s grip on power. We should work with Saudi Arabia and Turkey to call on Syria’s military to protect civilians rather than attack them. This effort would aim to drive a wedge between Assad and his military, minimize violence, and increase the possibility that the ruling minority Alawites will be able to reconcile with the majority Sunni population in a post-Assad Syria. And we should make clear that the United States and our allies will support the Syrian opposition when the time comes for them to forge a post-Assad government.
The only real difference with Obama is that Romney fails to mention non-lethal material aid to the Syrian opposition, which the Administration is providing, along with encouraging lethal assistance from Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
The sad fact is that there are no good options out there, but if Romney wants to oppose Obama he should choose one: arm the opposition, no-fly zone, safe area, provisional Syrian government. If he is unwilling to do that, but instead states a policy identical to Obama’s, he should admit that he supports the Administration’s approach, ineffectual though it has been. Citing Democrats critical of the Administration but not supporting their policy prescriptions–or something else distinct from the Administration’s approach–is disingenuous.
I happen to agree with the Republicans that “when America doesn’t lead, instability and danger grow.” But there is no bipartisan consensus on what to do beyond what is already being done, and Romney knows it. If he is not suggesting something more than what we are doing already, he should say so.
RSS - Posts
