Tag: Syria
David Case, senior editor at GlobalPost, caught up with me as I headed out yesterday to give a talk to Marine Corps officers. Here is his edited version of what I said, with a few minor editorial amendments of my own (I know, it needs more, but I hesitate…):
GlobalPost: How would you characterize today’s bombing? Does this mark a turning point in the civil war? Is this the beginning of the end for the Assad government? Or is this merely a temporary setback?
Daniel Serwer: A lot of people will tell you this is the beginning of the end for the Assad government, but they’ve been saying that for 6 months and in some cases for a year.
I think it’s really too early to tell. It’s certainly a big strike against the Assad regime. But it’s very difficult to predict at this moment whether it really is a turning point in that victory for the rebellion is imminent – or whether it’s a turning point in that even more chaos is around the corner.
It could also be the beginning of a transition to democracy, or a temporary setback for Assad, though it’s very difficult for me to picture how he’s going to re-impose order even on Damascus, never mind beyond. But that doesn’t mean Assad is coming down. It just means it’s going to be a chaotic situation.
The attack appears to be highly sophisticated, succeeding in taking down several key figures at once. What does this tell us about the rebels, their ability to infiltrate the regime?
Certainly someone was able to infiltrate rather well. Who it is and how they did it is still unclear, but that they were able to infiltrate the very inner circle of the regime is quite clear. I’m not sure I would necessarily describe that as highly sophisticated, but it does suggest some weaknesses in the regime structure.
Will the loss of these key people make it much more difficult for Assad to run Syria?
Yes. These are experienced people who are at the top of the hierarchy. Yet it would be foolish to imagine that there won’t be deputies who will step into their places, that he won’t find someone else. He’s not really running Syria anyway at this point. He’s running his side of the civil war and there are enough people who believe their lives are at stake that he’s going to find people who will fight this war for him.
Both the Free Syrian Army and the Islamist rebel group Liwa al-Islam are claiming responsibility for the attack. If it was indeed the Islamists who staged the bombing, is this cause for concern for the West?
Yes, it’s cause for concern. I think the real concern has to be about what happens after the Assad regime goes. If it falls to an Islamist group that is not oriented towards the democratic transition, that’s going to be quite different than if it falls to relatively democratically oriented people in the Syrian National Council. I think it’s very unclear what the post-Assad direction of Syria is likely to be.
If Syria fell to Islamists, what would be the most significant concern?
Let’s not talk about Islamists. The Syrian National Council has lots of Islamists — the Muslim Brotherhood is well represented there.
The real question is, if it falls to extremists and they are able to exert control, you could end up with a group in charge of Syria that is highly intolerant of its several minorities — Christian, Alawite, Druse and Kurds. You’d be living with a very serious risk of a post-Assad Syria that is not a liberal democracy.
According to live feeds from Damascus, Syrians are quite fired up about the bombing. What will this do to rebel morale?
I would imaging that it will heighten morale significantly, but morale is not the only factor behind who wins in warfare. The fact that the rebels are crowing at the moment should not blind us to the very real possibility that there lie ahead some very bad days, even for the rebellion in Syria.
The day after the Assad regime is a very dangerous at which many lives are at risk. We need to ask ourselves whether the international community is really ready for that day.
How should the international community respond?
I think a Security Council resolution that reiterates the need for a democratic transition in Syria is in order, additional sanctions are in order, but I also think that the international observers should be renewed, because an international presence in Syria if the Assad regime comes down will be necessary. And if it doesn’t come down, it’s also necessary, in order to maintain a level of transparency.
The observers haven’t been able to do what we would like them to do — which is to arrange a peaceful transition. But they have been able to give us some transparency about what’s happening in Syria. They’ve assigned responsibility for some of the atrocities, and that’s a very positive factor in keeping the international community informed.
I may be the only guy on earth who thinks the international observers are useful, but I think they have been.
You mentioned that the day after an Assad fall would be a particularly dangerous one. Can you elaborate on that, and contrast it to post-Gaddafi Libya, which hasn’t been flawless but they did manage to pull off elections.
Right. They’ve been doing quite nicely in Libya.
The short answer is that, first of all, Syria’s conflict has been very violent. Second, the Syrians are much less united against the regime than the Libyans were. And the Syrians don’t just lack military unity, but also political unity. The Syrian National Council has found it very difficult to put forth a vision for the future of Syria that everyone can share. And Syria is a much more diverse society in terms of ethnicity and sects. It has very significant minorities, a number of which are strong supporters of the Assad regime.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
In response to a Chicago Council on Foreign Relations poll showing Americans mostly unsupportive of bombing Syrian air defenses or sending troops there, @MaydaySyria this morning tweeted:
We don’t’ care, we don’t need you and your coward #Obama.
Certainly the armed opposition is showing a lot of daring. Today’s attacks in Damascus include a bombing that killed the Syrian Defense Minister, his deputy and possibly other major figures in the Syrian security establishment.
The Syrian army today responded:
the General Command of the Army and the Armed Forces stresses resolution to decisively eliminating the criminal and murder gangs and chasing them out of their rotten hideouts wherever they are until clearing the homeland of their evils.
It added:
whoever thinks that by targeting some leaders they could twist Syria’s arms is deluded, affirming that Syria, people, army and leadership, is today more determined to counter terrorism with all its forms and cutting off the hand of whoever thinks to harm Syria’s security.
So it looks as if the contest between the Asad regime and its inchoate opposition will be settled (or not) by force, not negotation.
The escalating violence in Damascus is occurring–not incidentally–at just the moment the UN Security Council faces a decision on whether to extend its observer mission in Syria. The Syrian opposition has generally wanted it withdrawn, because of its ineffectiveness. The Russians and the Asad regime have been trying to keep it alive.
I’m entirely on the side of the Syrian opposition in their efforts to bring down Bashar al Asad, but I’d like to see the UN observers stay. They have played a useful role in reporting the various massacres Asad has indulged in as well as its flaunting of the Annan peace plan with the use of heavy weapons in populated areas. I don’t see how reducing the transparency of what is going on in Syria will be helpful to ensuring a successful transition there. If the Asad regime survives and continues the violence against its opponents, the observers could continue to play a limited but useful role in reporting on what they see.
But I confess to another motive as well: if Asad goes, Syria is going to need an international presence to help keep the peace. The UN monitors could form the vanguard of such a peacekeeping force. Where we will find the needed numbers I have no idea. Once Asad falls, Syria will have numerous armed forces still in motion. Keeping them separate and protecting the civilian population will be no easy task. Conventional back-of-the-envelop calculations based on Syria’s population and geographic size would suggest a peacekeeping force of 50,000 or so. I have no idea where such a number would come from, though I can well imagine that Moscow will be offering.
If the international community fails to prepare for post-Asad Syria, there is a strong likelihood of massive violence against the regime’s supporters and sympathizers. Some will be able to protect themselves in Alawite strongholds. Others will flee to Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. But some will be trapped and vulnerable. “Politicide,” the murder of a particular political group, often follows revolution. It would be a serious mistake for the international community not to anticipate the need to protect Alawites, Christians, Druze and Sunni who remained loyal to Asad.
Much as I might wish the fall of the regime, I’ve got to recognize that what comes then is just as important. Excitement about current events should not blind us to future risks. If Syria implodes in a violent spasm of sectarian violence, or even breaks up, the Levant could find itself in chaos for years. Getting Syria onto a path toward unity, stability and eventually democracy is not going to be easy.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Al-Monitor yesterday published this piece, which they titled “Libya Hurtles Toward Democracy.” That’s not quite my message, but have a read for yourself:
Returning from observing the July 7 Libyan elections last week, it was hard for me to believe that Libya — a pariah state for most of my adult life — might be on the path to democracy. Why, I wondered, did the elections go so well? Why were the results so “good” from a US as well as Libyan perspective? What are the implications of the results for the US and the region?
Based on my experience in Benghazi, the answers so far are encouraging, although significant challenges remain.
The elections went well because that is what the Libyans wanted. Without exception, the politicians I spoke with rejected last-minute appeals to vote for Islamists, as well as even more extreme Islamist and “Federalist” views opposed to voting at all. At least some of the Federalists, who want a commitment to a Libya formed from its three historic regions, have acknowledged defeat and proclaimed that the Libyan people have spoken in an election that drew 62% participation. Most Libyans wanted to vote and felt invested in the electoral process, which was organized and paid for by the Libyans themselves.
The assistance the Libyans got from the United Nations and US-backed organizations such as the National Democratic Institute and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems was wide-ranging, but did not deprive Libyans of ownership. Relatively quick sanctions relief ensured that the National Transitional Council’s coffers were full. When I asked the manager of the tallying center in Tripoli how he managed to get the ballots and tally sheets to the capital so fast from far-away Tobruk, near the border with Egypt, he responded, “I sent the plane.” Elections conducted in many municipalities during the spring were in some ways a practice run and whetted the electoral appetite.
Libyans won’t be happy to hear me say it, but I suspect that there were elements of Muammar Gadhafi’s legacy involved in the success of the elections. Hatred for Gadhafi gave Libyans a stronger sense of collective identity than many experts had anticipated. One Libyan election observer, asked at the end of her 12-hour vigil at the polling place whether she had ever imagined a free election in Libya, said, with vehemence, “never!” Her determination was a reaction to decades of oppression.
The Gadhafi regime also gave Libyans a lot of discipline. Entrusted with setting up the polling places, the nation’s school teachers posted instructions on classroom walls and arranged furniture and cardboard voting booths as shown in the posters provided by the Libyan High National Election Commission.
Last but not least, the Gadhafi regime had always promised Libyans self-government even if they were never allowed to exercise that right. No one in Libya has anything good to say about the Green Book or the Jamahiriya (Gadhafi’s “republic of the masses”), but Libyans have a clearer concept of self-governance than many people I know who have also lived under autocracy for decades.
As an election observer, my role was to watch and report. Mostly I found myself checking the “yes” boxes: the polling centers were accessible and free from adverse influence; the polling center staff was present; polling procedures were implemented correctly; voting was secret and free of apparent fraud or disruption. More often than not, Libyan observers were also present at the polling stations I visited. They also thought the process was conducted properly. There were separate polling stations for men and women, with relatively few women observing in the male polling stations. The polling stations in a camp for displaced people and in a disability center were set up and operating in the same way.
Not only the process, but also the election results were good. The leader of the winning coalition is Mahmoud Jibril, whose doctoral thesis and portrayal in a Wikileaks cable, show him to be a certifiable wonk and technocrat. He also proved to be a good politician. Eschewing secularism, he managed to get dozens of smallish, liberal parties to unite, then campaigned vigorously all over Libya. His Islamist opposition was more divided and less rooted than Jibril’s coalition.
It would be unwise to suggest that the results necessarily have broad implications for Libya’s western neighbor Tunisia, where the transition is already going reasonably well, or Egypt, where the transition is confused and messy. Nor will Libya echo strongly in Yemen, already embarked on a Gulf Cooperation Council-designed transition, or in benighted Syria. But Syrians and Libya’s western Maghreb neighbors, Morocco and Algeria, would do well to study carefully the way Libya is managing its transition. If the pro-revolution Syrian National Council could muster even a fraction of the cohesion the Libyans have shown, there might be some hope for a peaceful transition once Syrian President Bashar al-Assad falls.
The age of Algeria’s leaders will compel some sort of transition there as well, likely beginning with presidential elections in 2014. If the Moroccan king wants to avoid cataclysm, his tentative steps in the direction of constitutional monarchy should be bolder than they have been so far.
Perhaps the most important lesson of Libya is that the polarization of Islamists and secularists can be avoided. When everyone is Islamic, it hardly matters who is an Islamist. Islam, like Christianity in most of the West, should be a religion, not a source of political division. Europe and America will find it far easier to improve relations with a moderate, Islamic Libya than a sharply divided Egypt.
Libya still runs serious risks. Everyone points towards the militias, which provided good security for the voting in many areas but also clashed in a few, disrupting the polls in Kufra and Ajdabiya (south of Benghazi). While still vital to security in some places, the militias gradually have to be reined in and absorbed into state security forces and civilian society. These young militants have enjoyed a heady time. It will not be easy for them to accept a less exciting life. There are also tribal conflicts, often over smuggling routes, that continue to threaten the transition, especially in the south. And there are regional tensions between east and west that will have to find solutions in the constitution to be written and approved in a referendum next year.
The biggest challenge will be handling oil and gas revenue. If that is not done equitably, accountably and transparently, all bets are off. Only two countries on earth with hydrocarbon-dominated economies have managed their wealth reasonably well: Norway and East Timor. If Libya becomes a third, it might really be on the path to democracy.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
1. Syria: What Lies Ahead, Woodrow Wilson Center, 12-1 pm July 16
July 16, 2012 // 12:00pm — 1:00pm
What if the Syrian opposition doesn’t unite? Are the Alawites preparing for a separate state? Are the Kurds? What is the likely impact of a Sunni dominated Syrian government on the region? How much U.S. intervention is the right amount? Joshua Landis discusses these questions and the future of Syria.
Location:
6th Floor, Woodrow Wilson Center
Event Speakers List:
-
Associate Professor and Director, Center for Middle East Studies, University of Oklahoma and author of “Syria Comment,” daily newsletter on Syria
2. War and Protest in Sudan, Center for American Progress, 1-2:30 pm July 16
The one-year anniversary of South Sudan’s independence is fast approaching. South Sudan and Sudan have seemingly stepped back from the brink of all-out war, but they have yet to resolve many outstanding issues within the context of the ongoing North-South negotiation process. Meanwhile, conflict is deepening in a number of Sudan’s regions, while the pro-democracy movement – led by youth, civil society organizations, and opposition political parties – is protesting Sudan’s dictatorship. This violence and unrest poses significant implications for South Sudan and the region at large.Join us for a discussion that will address these multiple and interconnected challenges and explore ways to build peace and security within and between the two Sudans.The Enough Project will also debut a short video – shot in South Sudan – highlighting the reflections of South Sudanese and Sudanese on the occasion of South Sudan’s first anniversary of independence.
Featured speakers:
Sarah Cleto Rial, Program Director, My Sister’s Keeper
Francis Deng, Former U.N. Special Advisor for the Prevention of Genocide
Omer Ismail, Senior Advisor, Enough Project
John Prendergast, Co-founder, Enough Project
Moderated by:
John C. Bradshaw, Executive Director, Enough Project
Refreshments will be served at 12:30 p.m.
RSVP
RSVP for this event
For more information, call 202-682-1611
Location
Center for American Progress
1333 H St. NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Map & Directions 
Nearest Metro: Blue/Orange Line to McPherson Square or Red Line to Metro Center
3. The U.S. & the Greater Middle East, Center for a New American Security, 12-2 pm July 17
Event Time and Location
Tuesday, July 17, 2012 – 12:00pm – 2:00pm
Constitution Ballroom-Grand Hyatt Washington
1000 H Street NW Suite 400
Washington, DC 20001
The U.S. and the Greater Middle East
Election 2012: The National Security Agenda
This event has been moved to the Constitution Ballroom Grand Hyatt Washington. Event registration is now closed. You can view the live event webcast on this page.
On Tuesday, July 17, join the New America Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Center for a New American Security for an in-depth discussion of the opportunities and challenges posed to the United States by events in the Greater Middle East. Panelists will discuss electoral transitions following the Arab Spring, the changing role of Turkey, and Iran’s regional and international profile. Ambassador Dennis Ross will provide introductory remarks.
This event continues a unique collaboration among these institutions in the presidential campaign season, “Election 2012: The National Security Agenda.” Past conversations covered the U.S. role in the world, policy in East Asia, and the national security budget.
Schedule:
12:00 p.m. — Registration and Lunch
12:30 p.m.-2:00 p.m. —Panel Discussion and Q&A
Featured Speaker
Ambassador Dennis Ross
Counselor, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Former Special Assistant to President Obama
Former National Security Council senior director for the Central Region
Former Special Advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
Panelists
Dr. Marc Lynch
Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security
Danielle Pletka
Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies
American Enterprise Institute
Former Director for Iraq on the National Security Council under Bush and Obama administrations
Senior National Security Studies Fellow, New America Foundation
Moderator
Director, National Security Studies Program
New America Foundation
CNN will livestream this event on the
Opinion page. On Twitter? Follow
#natsecurity2012 for updates throughout the series.
About the Series:
This fall’s presidential election comes at a critical moment for the United States and the world. The demands for U.S. leadership are substantial–particularly in the dynamic Middle East and Asia-Pacific–yet fiscal challenges are forcing reductions in defense spending, sparking new thinking about American engagement with the world. In this important election season, many Americans will look to the next U.S. president to repair the economy, but he will nonetheless inherit complicated military and diplomatic engagements and govern as commander-in-chief of the globe’s most powerful nation. As a result, the discussion of national security issues must take a central role in the 2012 presidential election.
This event is the fourth in a series of campaign-season seminars on the critical issues of U.S. foreign and defense policy, sponsored by AEI, the Center for a New American Security and the New America Foundation.
4. Electoral Reform in Lebanon: What’s in Store for 2013, Aspen Institute, 12:30 pm July 17
The U.S.-Lebanon Dialogue Program will host “Electoral Reform in Lebanon: What’s in Store for 2013” to launch Dr. Ekmekji’s new policy paper exploring the complexities of Lebanon’s confessional society and avenues for reform in its electoral system. During this conversation, experts will discuss Dr. Ekmekji’s paper in light of the debate on democratic representation and the rights of minorities in Lebanon, Syria, and the region. The panelists will also offer actionable recommendations for lasting reform that reflects Lebanon’s democratic prospects, leading up to the parliamentary elections in 2013.
Dr. Arda Arsenian Ekmekji is the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Haigazian University in Beirut, Lebanon. She is professor of intercultural studies and a member of various non-governmental organization boards in Lebanon, such as World Vision and the Middle East Council of Churches. She was the only female member on the National Commission for a New Electoral Law (2006) and on the Supervisory Commission for the Electoral Campaign (2009).
We hope you will join us for what will be an interesting and informative discussion on:
July 17, 2012 at 12:30PM
The Aspen Institute
One Dupont Circle
Suite 700
Washington, D.C.
Please contact Sarah Harlan at sarah.harlan@aspeninst.org or 202-736-2526 to RSVP. We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Featuring
Dr. Arda Ekmekji, Dean of Arts and Sciences, Haigazian University – Beirut, Lebanon; Author, “Confessionalism and Electoral Reform in Lebanon”
Mr. Hassan Mneimneh, Senior Transatlantic Fellow, German Marshall Fund of the United States
In a moderated discussion with
Mr. Leslie Campbell, Senior Associate and Regional Director, Middle East and North Africa (MENA),
National Democratic Institute
5. Democratization in the Arab World, Carnegie, 12:15-1:45 pm July 18
Wednesday, July 18, 2012 – Washington, D.C.
12:15 PM – 1:45 PM EST
Based on the democratization experiences of other countries, what are the chances that the Arab Spring will lead to a flowering of democracy? In a new book, RAND Corporation experts extensively analyze past democratization examples over nearly four decades and analyze the Arab revolutions that up-ended longstanding authoritarian regimes.
Laurel Miller and Jeffrey Martini of the RAND Corporation will discuss what the successes and setbacks of other transitions from authoritarianism suggest about the problems ahead for Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere, and how they might be overcome. Carnegie’s Thomas Carothers will discuss and Marina Ottaway will moderate.
6. Can Pakistan Grow Again? Atlantic Council, 3:30-5 pm July 18
Please join the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center on July 18 for a public discussion entitled, “Can Pakistan Grow Again?” with deputy chairman of the Planning Commission of Pakistan Nadeem Ul Haque.
In the face of major domestic, regional, and international political and economic difficulties, Pakistan’s growth rate has suffered in recent years, falling well behind the growth of its population. Unemployment is rampant, especially among the burgeoning youth population. Rising urbanization is creating new challenges for policymakers. A low tax-to-GDP ratio is often cited as a major hindrance to growth. Yet, there are many other underlying economic issues behind Pakistan’s problem. Dr. Haque will offer his views on how growth may be regenerated in Pakistan and the potential pitfalls that lie ahead.
A discussion with
Nadeem Ul Haque
Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission
Government of Pakistan
Moderated by
Shuja Nawaz
Director, South Asia Center
Atlantic Council
| DATE: |
Wednesday, July 18, 2012 |
| TIME: |
3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. |
| LOCATION: |
Atlantic Council
1101 15th Street, NW, 11th Floor,
Washington, DC 20005 |
To attend, RSVP with your name and affiliation (acceptances only) to southasia@acus.org.
Nadeem Ul Haque
Dr. Nadeem Ul Haque is the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission of Pakistan, the agency responsible for managing growth and development policies in the country. As a key member of the economic management team of Pakistan, he has led the country-wide research and consultative effort for the development of the “framework for economic growth,” which emphasizes economic reform for sustained long-term productivity. The framework has been approved by all levels of the government of Pakistan and has been implemented into policy.
Dr. Haque has over twenty-four years of wide-ranging operational and research experience from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), including leading technical assistance missions, and policy and research teams. With a strong background in economic analysis and policy development, Dr. Haque has published numerous publications including books and papers in academic and policy journals. Dr. Haque holds a PhD in economics from the University of Chicago.
7. Oslo: Twenty Years Later, IIACF, 9 am-12 pm July 19
Oslo – Twenty Years Later
Capitol Hill – Washington, D.C.
July 19th, 2012
9:00am – 12:00pm
No meaningful negotiations have taken place in almost two years, yet the death of the peace process remains a taboo topic in Washington. Recently, both Palestinian and Israeli voices have bemoaned the lack of progress. Mahmoud Abbas is rumored to be, once again, flirting with the idea of dissolving the Palestinian Authority. Yossi Beilin, considered one of the architects of the Oslo Peace Accords, has said it is time to move on.
After 20 years and little positive progress, the time has come to reevaluate our thinking and try a new approach – it is the only hope of moving towards a lasting peace.
Join the IIACF on Thursday, July 19th from 9:00am to noon as we bring together journalists, policy experts and government officials who are shaping the future of peace in the Middle East.
Download event flyer here.
Event Details
- Date: 07/19/12
- Location: Longworth House Office Building, Room 1539
- Address: 45 Independence Avenue SW, Washington D.C.
8. Diplomacy in Syria: U.S.-Russia Relations and International Intervention, Center for National Policy, 12-1 pm July 19
Please join CNP President Scott Bates and an expert panel for a discussion on the current state of the U.S.-Russia relationship, Russia’s evolving foreign policy posture, and the corresponding implications for the crisis in Syria.
Featuring:
Jeff Mankoff
Adjunct Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program,
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Mark Adomanis
Contributor, The Russia Hand, Forbes Magazine
*A light lunch will be served*
Where
Center for National Policy
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 333
Washington, DC 20001
202-682-1800
Map
Click here
When
Jul 19 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm
9. Can Libya Really Become a Democracy?, SAIS, 2-3:30 pm July 19
“Can Libya Really Become a Democracy?”
Hosted By: Conflict Management Program and the Middle East Institute
Time: 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM
Location: Room 417, The Nitze Building (main building)
Summary: Christopher Blanchard, research manager at the Congressional Research Service, will discuss this topic. For more information and to RSVP, contact
itlong@jhu.edu.
10. Assad’s Coming Downfall?, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 9:30 am July 20
- Foundation for Defense of Democracies
- Middle East & North Africa
| Date / Time |
|
| Location |
1726 M Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036
|
| Speakers |
David Enders, Ammar Abdulhamid, John Hannah, Reuel Marc Gerecht |
Unbeknownst to most Americans, reports suggest that the rebels fighting Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad may have taken control of a growing portion of the country, and may now be closer to wresting it away from him altogether. While some Syrian soldiers have defected to Turkey, many more are deserting, or simply refusing to fight. Is Assad’s central authority breaking down? Are new power brokers emerging? If so, how can the United States and its allies prevent further humanitarian catastrophe?
To assess these questions and others, FDD is pleased to host a breakfast conversation with:
David Enders, a Pulitzer Center grantee on Crisis Reporting, recently returned from a month of reporting alongside the rebels fighting Bashar Assad’s government in Syria. Author of Baghdad Bulletin, a firsthand account of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, he has reported from the Middle East for news outlets ranging from The Nation to The National, Al-Jazeera, Vice, and the Virginia Quarterly Review.
Ammar Abdulhamid, a fellow at FDD, is a leading Syrian human rights and democracy activist, and also director of the Tharwa Foundation, a grassroots organization that works to break the Assad government’s information blockade by enlisting local activists and citizen issues to report on developments inside Syria. Before founding Tharwa, Mr. Abdulhamid served as a fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He has briefed the President of the United States and testified before the U.S. Congress, and has appeared in many media outlets, including the New York Times.
John Hannah is a senior fellow at FDD, before which he served as national security advisor to Vice President Richard B. Cheney. Mr. Hannah has served in a range of senior policy positions in both Democratic and Republican administrations, as a senior member of Secretary of State James A. Baker’s Policy Planning staff during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, and later as a senior advisor to Secretary of State Warren Christopher under President William J. Clinton. Mr. Hannah’s articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal, and he blogs regularly at ForeignPolicy.com and National Review Online.
Reuel Marc Gerecht is a Senior Fellow at FDD and a former Iran analyst at the CIA’s Directorate of Operations. He focuses on the Arab Revolt, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism, and intelligence. Mr. Gerecht is the author of The Wave: Man, God, and the Ballot Box in the Middle East, Know Thine Enemy: A Spy’s Journey into Revolutionary Iran, and The Islamic Paradox: Shiite Clerics, Sunni Fundamentalists, and the Coming of Arab Democracy. He is a contributing editor for The Weekly Standard and a correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, as well as a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and other publications.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Speakers painted a bleak picture of a lebanized Iraq, weakened by internal divisions and unable to craft coherent regional policies, at a Middle East Institute event today.
Ambassador Samir Sumaida’ie, former Iraqi ambassador to the United States, likened contemporary Iraq to a leaking ship, barely floating on the regional political waters as storms rage all around. The Ambassador bemoaned the lack of support for secularists after the American invasion and lambasted American support to Iraqi Sunni and Shi’a Islamists. This policy worsened sectarianism. The United States left Iraq with a constitution that forbids discrimination on the basis of religion, but with an unwritten political pact that “lebanizes” the executive branch, with the presidency Kurdish, the prime ministry Shi’a and the speaker of parliament Sunni. This built-in sectarianism weakens the Iraqi state.
These internal divisions are at the heart of Iraq’s tepid relations with its Arab neighbors, who are standoffish, especially towards the Shi’a and Kurds. The Kurdistan Regional government conducts its own foreign policy, including a representative in Washington. The Ambassador is pessimistic about Iraq’s immediate future in the region: “it is in a crisis, but the horizon seems to be more of the same.” Only if Iraq improves its internal cohesion and mends fences with Kuwait and Turkey can it avoid being engulfed by the ongoing political firestorms raging in Syria.
Kenneth Pollack, Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute, focused on the “brightly burning” Syrian flame. Like Ambassador Sumaida’ie, he bemoans Iraq’s internal lebanization, especially with regard to policies towards Syria. There is no coherent Iraqi policy, but rather multiple Iraqi policies toward Syria. The complex interplay of internal factionalization within Iraq’s weak state muddles its external relations, as each faction approaches the region in general, and Syria in particular, with an eye towards its own interests. The Kurds see events in Syria as an opportunity, not a threat; Masoud Barzani is strengthening ties to Turkey, trying to reassure the Turks that Kurdish interests are aligned with their own in the case of Syria. Sunni tribal leaders also see Syria as more of an opportunity than a threat: Syrian Sunnis in their view are throwing off the yoke of an Iranian-backed Shi’a minority. If it can happen in Syria, the thinking goes, why not in Baghdad? Despite some sympathy for the Syrian opposition, Iraqi Shi’a associated with Moqtada al Sadr are still wary of developments there, which threaten a regime aligned with Tehran. Prime Minister Maliki fears spillover from Syria that may damage Iraqi stability and security. This multiplicity of Iraqi approaches to Syria is driven by internal Iraqi political divisions, and is emblematic of the larger foreign and domestic policy problems facing Iraq.
Gregory Gause, professor of political science at the University of Vermont characterized Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy toward Iraq as passive. The Saudi view of Iraq and the Maliki government is negative, because they view the prime minister as an agent of Iran. The Saudis have done little or no outreach to Kurds or Iraqi Shi’a, and even with the Sunnis they have made no real appeal to Arabism. Saudi policy toward Iraq is a policy of complaint, not outreach. Saudi elites are focused on what appears to them a losing struggle for influence in the Middle East against Iran. This struggle for influence in the region plays out not through armies, but through contests for influence in the domestic politics of weak Arab states. The Saudis find Sunni allies, and Iran finds Shi’a allies. This sectarian alignment is counterproductive for the Saudis, because it gives Arab Shi’a in the region no choice but to ally with Iran. Ultimately, this will cause long-term problems for Saudi Arabia, Iraq and America, as it creates an atmosphere where al Qaeda type ideas can flourish. Other GCC states have largely followed Saudi Arabia’s lead.
John Desrocher, Director of the Office or Iraq Affairs at the Department of State focused on the positive, in terms of Iraq’s relations to its regional neighbors: Iraq and Kuwait have made “considerable progress in terms of resolving disputes,” relations with Jordan have improved, Saudi Arabia named an ambassador to Iraq for the first time since 1990, and Qatar airways now flies to Iraq. However, internal political divisions in Iraq have led to “real political gridlock” both in terms of domestic policy and regional relations.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
The defections in the last few days of a senior Syrian republican guard commander and Damascus’ ambassador to Iraq could be a tipping point. It has taken a remarkably long time for cracks in the regime to show. But these two defections could be the beginning of an avalanche, one that would sweep away Bashar al Asad’s murderous regime.
If so, we need to begin considering seriously whether the international community and the Syrian opposition are ready for the difficult days ahead. Syria, unlike Libya, has limited oil resources and frozen assets abroad. It is a more diverse society than Tunisia, with significant Alawite, Christian, Druze and Kurdish minorities. It has seen a great deal of violence.
So what should we be expecting? The country will be broke at the end of this year and a half of contestation. It will have several armed forces on its territory: the Syrian army and intelligence forces (including non-uniformed thugs), the Free Syria Army and various neighborhood watch and other militias. Sectarian resentment against Alawites, who form the mainstay of the regime even if some have joined the revolution, will be ferocious. Some Christians and Druze will also be afraid of retaliation. Large numbers of regime supporters may flood into neighboring countries (there are still hundreds of thousands of Qaddafi-supporting Libyans in Tunisia and Egypt). Refugees now in Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon will flow back into Syria to reclaim and defend their homes. Weapons will be circulating freely, with some risk that the regime’s heavier armament and chemical weapons will fall into the hands of malefactors. Sunni extremists (whether Al Qaeda or other varieties) will see a chaotic situation and try to take advantage of it.
I see no sign that the international community is ready for post-Asad Syria. I know why: we are tired of doing post-war reconstruction, which has posed expensive and seemingly insurmountable difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’d like Syria to be like Libya and Tunisia, which are taking reasonably good care of themselves. Or like Yemen, which is bumbling along under the former autocrat’s vice president with help from the UN and the Gulf Cooperation Council. Or at worst like Egypt, where the military is clumsily trying to steer a revolution that has managed so far to avoid massive violence.
I doubt that is possible in Syria. Too much blood has been spilled for the revolution to entrust the army with steering anything, even itself. The army is unlikely to evaporate, as Qaddafi’s did in Libya. While many of its draftees will happily go over to a revolutionary regime, the elite units of the republican guard are unlikely to do that. Nor will the Alawite paramilitaries known as shabiha.
I’ve seen little sign of serious thinking or preparation for the big challenges ahead: creating a safe and secure environment, separating combatants, minimizing sectarian violence, providing for returnees and refugees, re-establishing law and order, beginning a political transition and somehow funding the effort. Nothing about the Syrian National Council’s performance in recent months suggests that it is capable of handling the situation with the modicum of legitimacy and skill that the Libyan National Transitional Council managed. Nothing about the Syrian army’s performance suggests that it could do even as well as the shambolic performance of the Egyptian Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. Nothing about the UN’s performance in trying to implement the Annan peace plan suggests it can take on Syria and be effective.
We are in for a rough ride in Syria. Post-war transitions are difficult in all situations. This one will be among the toughest.
PS: Nothing in Steve Heydemann’s The End Game in Syria convinces me the situation is better than the doubtful one I describe above.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
RSS - Posts
