To be a fly on that wall…

Yesterday (8/9/2011) the Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu met with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. Davutoglu went into the meeting telling the press that he had come to deliver a “strong message” to Assad – expressing that Turkey had “lost its patience” with the massacres in Syria. After nearly seven hours of meetings with Assad, Davutoglu was singing a very different tune. Citing close cultural connections, Davutoglu stated that the future of Turkey was “related” to that of Syria and that all contacts between the two countries would continue. Even more problematically, he stated that he was confident that in the coming weeks, peace would return to Syria and that Assad was capable of reforms that would satisfy the protestor’s demands. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in that meeting to hear what could have changed Davutoglu’s mind so drastically. 

It must have been the meeting, because nothing on the ground reflects any change in Assad’s stance. New assaults are starting right now. In the south, near the Iraqi border, near the Turkish border, tanks are shelling homes and businesses and soldiers are opening fire on innocent civilians. The death toll is believed to be around 2,000 and climbing.

The State Department had announced that the United States would be working with Turkey to pressure Assad into ending the killings. It appears from Davutoglu’s statements that that effort is not progressing enough. Yesterday we also heard that the Obama Administration is considering calling for Assad to step down formally and toughening the sanctions. However, without the support of Turkey, a tougher stance from the United States will have limited effect. A multilateral approach is necessary in Syria. Given that any sort of military option is out of the question, diplomatic action must be strong. Turkey holds huge importance in Syria. Trade has increased drastically in the past couple of years and ties among people living in the border area are strong. The killing in Syria must stop and Assad is no closer to stopping them. International pressure must be applied and it must include a strong stance from Turkey. Here’s to hoping the Foreign Minister changes his mind again.  

The GCC’s in Their Glass House is Throwing Stones

The governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain withdraw their respective ambassadors from Syria this week. This move is coupled with a statement from King Abdulla of Saudi Arabia condemning the violence in strong terms.

We’re encouraged by this movement from regional powers against the Assad regime. Since the start of Ramadan, the Assad regime has stepped up the war it is waging on its own people. More towns were attacked this weekend, more tanks shelled homes – raining bombs and gunfire on innocents and killing dozens if not hundreds more each day. The regime is clearly feeling the pressure, and instead of responding in the ways Assad promised – reform and dialogue – he’s trying to slaughter his people into submission. From the newest assault on Deir al-Zour, the New York Times quoted one activist saying: “They are shooting at us to kill us, not to scare us off.” 

Given this reality and the limited US and European leverage, HRF has called for regional pressure to be increased on Assad. The actions of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and with more action expected from Turkey, are exactly the sort regional pressure necessary. Once a regional consensus has been reached, Assad will be effectively isolated and it will be very difficult for the UN Security Council to justify inaction. As noted here, regional powers –especially Turkey – have far more leverage and credibility in Syria than the US, UK, or anyone in the West. The sooner a direct multilateral approach can pressure out Assad in favor of a legitimate, secure transition, the better for thousands of Syrians currently living in fear of their own government. 

Nonetheless, the actions of these Gulf countries do smack with irony. The hypocrisy involved in the King of Bahrain withdrawing his ambassador to Syria, citing the bloody crackdown, or the King of Saudi Arabia calling for “quick and comprehensive reforms” is truly staggering. HRF has done extensive work covering the abuses against pro-democracy and human rights activists in Bahrain. (Fantastic AJE special here) Dozens of people were killed in Bahrain, hundreds injured from the crackdown on protestors backed by the GCC. In a massive performance, the government led national dialogue talks, which started as a sham and ended as a waste of time when the opposition pulled out early on. For years GCC countries have censored, paid off, and simply eliminated all forms of opposition or any calls for real democracy. No form of democracy exists in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE despite some undeniably democratic aspirations from within the population. While the criticism of Assad is welcomed and a positive step towards breaking the taboo of regional leaders denouncing their own, the hypocrisy on display here cannot be ignored. 

The US government needs to be careful to avoid indulging this hypocrisy. While the United States was slow on responding to abuses in Syria, it was slower and less effective on the abuses in Bahrain. Traditionally, gulf countries have enjoyed a shield from US criticism on human rights abuses and anti-democratic crackdowns due to the entrenched oil trade and resulting partnerships. In contrast, the United States rarely pulls any punches on Iranian abuses (rightfully so). Imagine the US reaction to Iranians sending in hundreds of troops into Syria to aid the Assad regime – would it not be much harsher than when Saudi Arabia did the same in Bahrain? Fear of Iranian influence through the Shiite community is part of the reason the US is quiet on Bahrain, but by staying quiet it gives the Iranian regime opportunity to defend its actions with anti-American rhetoric. To build and maintain credibility in the region the United States needs to treat violence against Sunnis the same as violence against Shiites and abuses by allies the same as abuses by adversaries. That will mean consistent diplomacy in the field of human rights and as President Obama said: “speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe alike”.

Posner Speaks on Syria at Lantos Committee Hearing

This was originally written on July 13th. It has been edited and is not my work alone.  

Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner spoke before the House of Representatives Tom Lantos Committee on Human Rights yesterday. His remarks served as an update to evolving US policy in Syria, and a welcomed one at that. As a recap, in the past few days, the U.S. Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, visited Hama, “pro-regime” mobs retaliated with an attack on the American and French embassies, and Secretary of State Clinton stated that Assad’s regime has “lost legitimacy” and is not “indispensible” to US interests. While his condemnation of “gross human rights abuses” is well received, the impact of the current U.S. policy will be limited if no next step is presented. 

Clearly, American policy options on Syria are limited. The U.S. and Syria had strained diplomatic relationship before the start of the crackdown. Sanctions were also already in place and naturally the US holds almost no leadership role in the country, which is also one of the fiercest enemies to Israel, a US ally. The military option used in Libya is also not possible in Syria, because of poor strategic opportunity, diminished credibility for following Libya-like mandates, and lack of political will in the region. All this being said, the US can go further than Posner’s remarks, which stop at condemning the Assad regime without presenting any plan of action. The US should be publically pursuing a multilateral diplomatic campaign to see the peaceful transition of the Assad regime from power. 

While Posner mentioned the US and EU sanctions and UN Human Rights Council action, only passing reference was given to a resolution in the UN Security Council condemning the Assad regime. As HRF’s Neil Hick’s stated last week, the US must take public lead on the UNSC resolution and hold the Assad regime accountable. Security Council action, if successful, would isolate the Assad regime further and provide fertile ground for transition. 

Regional leaders, especially Turkey, must be engaged to secure their action to ensure a stop to the brutality and Assad’s peaceful transition from power. Turkey has already expressed outrage at the extent of the “savagery” and can logically be expected to increase pressure as it continues.  Public outreach to countries like Russia must take place, communicating that an end to the killing and a transition are not just items on a US agenda, but the responsibility of the international community towards human rights. Recent Russian mediation efforts in Libya, negotiating Qadhafi’s exit, is encouraging and the same type of action should pursued in Syria. Other Arab states must also be engaged. Taking a clear stance against Assad’s actions and for a change in government, completely in the hands of the Syrian people, would create distinct separation between Assad’s Syria and the reforms pursued elsewhere in the region. 

The State Department is right about the situation in Syria, but without a plan, the situation will get worse. 

Posner correctly referred to the hundreds of deaths since President Obama’s May 19^th speech as “needless”. That speech, like Posner’s remarks, was an opportunity to take an active role in stopping the abuses in Syria. Unless action is taken soon, there is no telling on how many more “needless” victims we’ll see. 

Pelosi and Boehner End the Page Program

I was crushed to hear that the Page Program was canceled. It's end is a sad day for the House of Reps. The following is a piece I wrote expressing my thoughts, sharing my experience, and giving some alternatives to this bad decision. I've already sent around some shorter versions, trying to get the word out. If you're a former page, or have heard about and believe in the program, please share. 

I was a page in 2006-2007, fall and spring for Rep. Nadler (D-NY)

Boehner and Pelosi Ends the House Page Program

Today House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi jointly announced to end the House Page program after 175 years of operation. To the hundreds of page alumni over the years this is a deeply disappointing and avoidable decision. We are disappointed not at the end of the program, but in the fashion in which the decision was made. 

I fear that in cutting the program and citing the costs, Pelosi and Boehner - in a fashion sadly typical these days - have failed to see the expenditure as an investment. The hundreds of successful, engaged page alumni ranging from Bill Gates to Rep. John Dingell and the many other sitting and former members of Congress would surely be found to be a high return on America’s investment. Broadly, the page program is proven successful at engaging American youth in public service for life. Many go on to serve in some capacity, and even those who don’t go on to be better voters and live civically educated lives – no small feat.

To speak briefly on my experience, the page program opened my mind to the world. It challenged me at a young age to take ownership of the issues of our time. I no longer could read the news passively. I can still rattle off the tidbits of wisdom our nation’s leaders shared with us. At 16 I felt I had a far more nuanced view of government than many far older and more experienced. I saw Members of Congress who honorably served every day, working ethically and diligently – people I would happily model myself after. Likewise I saw men and women I knew I didn’t want to become, both influences were equally beneficial. Further, my fellow pages formed perhaps the biggest part of my education. Night after night we stayed up late, debating, discussing and learning from one another. It was in that year I shaped many of my convictions, and at the same time learned how to change them. The page school also made a positive impact. Never before did I feel intellectually engaged like I did in page school, at 16 I was excited about assignments and issues for the sake of the process, not just to finish and get out of class. I started to figure out that year what I was academically curious about, what made me tick, and where my skills might lie. The teachers were professionals of the highest standard (which the articles today, quoting prices, ignored). They cared about the pages and where we ended up, and years later this continues to be true. 

I went from being a page my junior year to going to a United World College in Hong Kong, living and working with students from around the country under unusual circumstances flowed naturally to living and learning with students from around the world. My inside knowledge of government and politics meant that I was able to better wrap my head around other cultures, foreign national narratives and circumstances; compare them to our own and make connections on a universal level. I’m now a student at Princeton University planning a career in national and international service and I can say with the utmost honesty that without the page program I would be nowhere close to where I am now. I take seriously the huge investment of American tax dollars that was made in me and I know my fellow pages do too.

Obviously not all former pages feel the way I do. There are some who didn’t get nearly the same as I got out of the program and wouldn’t give it much credit for where they ended up. This is inherent in any youth program. As for scandals, I would like a list of Members of Congress who feel that rather than throw out colleagues who lack the basic decency required to be in a room with a 16 year old and behave, we should throw out the 16 year olds. 

In the past scandal was used as a reason to end the program, but today cost was cited. The method of announcing today’s decision, blaming costs, was deeply frustrating. There were multiple options Pelosi and Boehner could have chosen. They could have downsized the program or inform the Page board (specially set up for such purposes) that the program was at risk who would have in turn notified the alumni group. Rather than consult, Pelosi and Boehner took the high handed approach of simply abolishing a time honored, successful program. Pages have already left for the summer, presumable there are 16 year olds out there who thought they were coming in the fall, or have the chance to apply. But of course, when the special interest group is 16, can’t vote and don’t have much money, there’s not too much risk in angering them. 

The program is very expensive by any measure and was, in my opinion, overdue for an overhaul. Pages are paid a fairly high salary for the work. This is meant to make the experience affordable despite the fact that almost all of the program’s costs are covered. Removing the salary and replacing it with a modest living stipend would save money. Pages are also appointed on a partisan basis and are managed separately based on affiliation. The majority (usually) gets 2/3 of the 72 slots. This means twice the staff for supervision. Pages should be nonpartisan and require one supervisor. To further mitigate the costs, alumni and other private individuals should be contacted for donations. I won’t name too many notable alumni (except Bill Gates) but we know that it numbers thousands of successful individuals and setting up an endowment like system should be possible. To address the technology and efficiency issue, the work can and should be changed to make the experience rewarding for the pages and beneficial to the House. There’s no shortage of work to be done in the Capitol. We have options. There are ways to continue the program in a sensible fashion but instead of exploring these options, our leaders abandoned a good program, further removed America’s youth from the political process and left part of the Capitol’s history behind. 

Too Little Too Late

This is something I originally wrote as a blog for HRF, but was used in a much different form, so here's the original. Written on August 4th 2011.

Too Little Too Late – United Nations Finally says something on Syria

This week the United Nations Security Council issued a Presidential Statement (available here) on the situation in Syria. This statement, which given the parliamentary rules in the council is weaker than a resolution, comes only after over six months of continuous brutal crackdown and most recently outright assault from the Assad regime towards unarmed civilians. The statement is not attached to any sort of further action of any kind, such as intervention or sanctions, and simply expresses the council’s “concern”.

Albeit weak and late, the statement represents a significant diplomatic development which will further isolate the Assad regime. Notably, a Presidential Statement from the UN Security Council requires unanimity from the 15 members. This means that Russia and China finally agreed to make a statement which is an encouraging step. The recent signs coming out of Russia also seem to imply a slow policy shift on Syria, which could in turn convince China.  At least Russia is now acknowledging that the Assad regime needs to do something, although Russia seems to still think Assad will reconcile while he’s sending tanks to massacre civilians.

More action is immediately needed. In no uncertain terms, Assad is killing his own people by the hundreds. Artillery has been used on populated urban areas, refugees by the thousands are fleeing and destabilizing the region and there is no end in sight. All promises for reform and dialogue have been broken or ignored. Should this continue, and by all indications so far it will, strong multilateral action is necessary. The UNSC must pass a resolution stronger than the “watered down” presidential statement. The United States and European Union should also be vigorously engaging regional powers, especially Turkey, to take a strong stand against the violence and Assad. Turkey’s response to Assad’s most recent assault was its strongest yet and like Russia, might be increasingly convinced the Assad’s action make him illegitimate as a ruler and is destabilizing the region.

Further than a UNSC resolution, more sanctions could come from the United States and European Union, specifically targeting the Syrian energy sector. Several European nations continue to buy oil from Syria and the revenue from oil sales makes up a considerable chunk of the regime’s income. Travel bans and account freezes on regime officials and major supporters in Syria could also force a stop to violence. In terms of accountability for the crimes already committed, the UN should immediately open an investigation on the violence in Syria, and pending the results recommend the International Criminal Court take action.

While more measures are possible and necessary the Obama administration is right for treating Syria with the utmost caution. The US policy options in Syria remain limited. No military option has been – or should be – pushed for and the United States did not have much leverage over Syria before the crackdown. Also, despite the need for tougher measures, Ambassador Ford must not be pulled from Syria. Having an ambassador on the ground means a more direct link to activists and news on the ground. Despite Assad’s warning, Ford should be traveling in Syria and playing witness to the atrocities. US leverage and credibility in Syria is limited but if Ford’s reception in Hama last time is any indication, the Syrian people appreciate knowing that the world is watching.