Our First Yemen Exchange, in partnership with the Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies (http://www.sanaacenter.org/), has now wrapped up! Congratulations to Adam Baron, Farea Al-muslimi and Aisha Jamal for bringing more than two dozen speakers representing a range of different perspectives to meet our participants. Stay tuned for the Second Yemen Exchange this Fall.
A partial list only of some of the speakers during the five days in Beirut:
Farea Al-Muslimi & Adam Baron, “Overview/Introduction”
Mansour Rageh, “Overview of Yemen’s economy two years after the war”
Maged Al-Madhaji, “Overview of Yemen’s politics”
Mustapha Noman, “Regional politics in Yemen”
Yasser Al-Roaini, “National Dialogue Conference outcomes”
Ali Ashal, “The past, present and future of the Islah Party”
Abdulkarim Makdishi, “Tribes and future roles in Yemen”
Yezid Saygh, “A regional overview and policy approaches”
Abu Bakr al-Qirbi, “Saleh and the General People’s Congress Party”
Zaid al-Thari, “The Houthi/GPC alliance”
Maysaa Shujaa Al-Deen, “Regional complexities in Yemen/Sectarianism”
Khaldoun Bakuhail, “Hadramawt”
Ammar al-Aulaqi, “Aden overview/Aulaqi tribes/youth”
Bilquis al-Lahabi, “The Yemeni women’s rights movement”
Ramon Blecua, “Europe and Yemen”
Tawfeek Al-Ganad, “A History of modern Yemen”
Abdulrahman al-Saqqaf, “The Socialist Party vision for Yemen and the South”
Ghaida Al-Rashidi, “The Southern Issue”
ICG’s Joost Hiltermann laments letting Syria war go on too long; Forgets 2011 “Slow-motion Suicide” report
Anne Barnard quotes Crisis Group’s Joost Hiltermann in her recent piece on Syria as saying: “We’ve thrown values by the wayside, but also not been able to act in our own interests, because we let things go too long,” said Joost Hiltermann, a Dutch citizen who is the Middle East director for the International Crisis Group…”
Unfortunately there is no reference to Crisis Group’s key, 2011 report entitled “The Syrian Regime’s Slow-motion Suicide” (imagine, this was the title in the early months of the revolt) which helped prepare the ground for precisely that which Joost is now lamenting.
Indeed, the Slow-motion Suicide report, authored by Peter Harling, staked out a morally and strategically deficient vision of the gathering Syria conflict (especially for a conflict mitigation NGO) – saying there was little the international community could do.. in the summer of 2011. This position ultimately paved the way for Noah Bonsey’s 2015 Crisis Group report calling for an acceleration of the armed conflict through US military-led intervention.
I wrote about both of these turns by ICG in 2015, but also wrote a NY Times op-ed along similar lines in February 2012 where I specifically took out reference to Crisis Group after a series of back and forth discussions with Rob Malley and Peter. By 2015, however, in my view ICG needed to come in for specific criticism.
In July 2011, a mere four months into the Syria revolt, the venerable, Brussels-based conflict-mitigation NGO, International Crisis Group (ICG), released a lengthy report with the provocative title, “The Syrian Regime’s Slow-motion Suicide.”
“The situation has reached an apparent stalemate,” the report’s authors declared, “but it would be wrong to bet on the status quo enduring. Economic conditions are worsening; should they reach breaking point the regime could well collapse. Predominantly Allawite security forces are overworked, underpaid and increasingly worried. They could conclude that the regime is unsalvageable and defect, precipitating its end.”
By projecting such certainty that the regime was essentially in its death-throes, and then ignoring any serious discussion about how Russia, Iran or Lebanon’s Hezbollah might possibly intervene to change the calculus (the trio are barely mentioned in the report), ICG laid an important intellectual plank for the erroneous assumption that was then gathering steam in so many world capitals: It was just a matter of time before the regime led by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad imploded.
Regrettably, ICG’s overconfidence in regime suicide not only encouraged the premature and disastrous rejection of diplomacy that has helped prolong the Syria war. It also essentially abdicated the main role for which peace, promotion, and conflict mitigation NGOs exist in the first place: Advocating for strong international engagement and negotiated solutions that regard the safety of civilian populations as paramount.
“The international community’s options remain limited,” the report concluded. “The world’s cautious attitude has been a source of deep frustration and even anger for the protesters. That is entirely understandable, yet such caution might well be a blessing in disguise. The regime is unlikely to respond to international pressures, regardless of their provenance. Ultimately, the burden lies with the protesters…”
Should a leading NGO dedicated to active, international involvement in crises simply throw up its hands and say there isn’t much outside actors can do other than watch? And might not good-faith diplomacy — instead of a false choice between military intervention or passivity — offer the best way to minimize any fallout if the regime doesn’t end up committing suicide?… Read on at HuffPost
“In Syria, We Need to Bargain with the Devil”/New York Times, February 2012
Lebanese Forces Leader Samir Geagea has made the case that the Hezbollah press tour on the border the other day was a “strategic mistake.” He may be onto something when it comes to two points: 1) Contrary to the Hezbollah commander on the tour, the border defences do NOT demonstrate that Israel has somehow changed, for the “first time,” to a defensive fighting posture. Indeed, the enhanced doming of the border and airspace is precisely meant to work symbiotically by freeing Israel’s massive offensive firepower. 2) This enhanced “doming” – The Great Dome of Israel – does not therefore show Israel is somehow “deterred.” In fact, it demonstrates that Israel is actively trying to degrade Hezbollah’s ability to project offensive power and that it’s leadership likely feels much more confident about this effort (whether the confidence is borne out in the next war is a different question). This means that Israel is LESS likely to be deterred in the future.
In my view, the Media Office tour – which also played into their opponent’s hands by displaying arms in violation of UNSCR 1701 – will not enhance deterrence on the Israeli side (not least because it didn’t demonstrate any added Hezbollah ability) and in fact will probably raise greater alarm on the Lebanese side since it makes more visible all of the impressive Israeli actions that the state has taken to better protect their populations. This is in fact a key political, strategic and moral failure on the side of all Lebanese political parties and the Lebanese state – a state that Hezbollah is an intricate part of and partially responsible to/for in the coming period.
“…Hezbollah, which is fully immersed in the Syrian war and has lost more than 1,000 of its fighters there, clearly has no appetite for a fight. But Salem Zahran, a Hezbollah-aligned analyst on the tour, said another war between the two was inevitable and was tied to the Syrian conflict, where there have been flare-ups with Israel in the Golan area south of Damascus.
The next war will not take place only on Lebanese territory, but also in Syria and “inside occupied Palestine,” Zahran said.
He said Hezbollah wanted to send a message through the tour, in case Israel was preparing for war. “The message is I see you, and I have another scenario for you.”
It is indeed mystifying how the New York Times does not mention the “Rafik Hariri” name of the Atlantic Center – and all of the implications which this funding and affiliation obviously brings – when The Times itself published a long investigation about… the foreign funding and biases of the whole DC think tank circuit only a few years ago:
Strangely Ben Hubbard mentions that the analyst is from Saudi Arabia – signifying that he can somehow speak for Arabs – but doesn’t mention the affiliation beyond what will seem like a neutral think tank to most readers.
Later on Noah Bonsey is quoted without reference to his vigorous support for a US-led military intervention/bombing campaign in Syria… only ICG is mentioned, which similarly does not help to inform the reader about who they are hearing from as analysts.
“A lot of this is an emotional response, but nothing about this strike suggests that the fundamentals of the Syria conflict have shifted,” said Noah Bonsey, a Syria analyst with the International Crisis Group.
I wrote a response to Noah’s ICG paper which called for US Intervention here:
“When NGOs Call For Military Intervention in Syria: The Case of the International Crisis Group”/Huffington Post, September 2015
Translated this weekend by our Mideastwire.com:
On April 8, the Sumariya News website carried the following report: “The leader of the Sadrist movement, Sayed Muqtada al-Sadr issued a statement on Saturday regarding the American raids on Syria where he called on America and Russia to stop harming Syria and on President Bashar al-Assad to resign. Sumariya News received a copy of Al-Sadr’s statement where he said: “The American president must not go too far through his statements, positions and thoughtless decisions. This will not only harm America but also the entire international community. He must not shove himself into a new holocaust, the price of which might be paid by everybody. Syria might constitute a new Vietnam for them.”
“He added: “He cannot have double standards. He is bombarding the unarmed civilians in Mosul but at the same time condemning the chemical attacks against the civilians [in Syria]. Are the internal and external hands working against Syria not enough and does the country need America’s negative role too knowing that the only affected party consists of the Syrian people?” Al-Sadr went on to say: “I believe it is likely that Trump’s decision to raid Syria now constitutes a permission for ISIL to expand into other regions. America often sponsors terrorism and we have been used to this on many instances.”
“He then said: “If America wishes to support peace, then it must support the dialogue and the people in all areas including Palestine or Burma or Bahrain or others. It cannot be biased for one side but not the others.” Al-Sadr added: “Let it be known to everyone that America’s military intervention will be useless. Indeed, America has announced it is raiding ISIL in Iraq; however, terrorism is still prevailing over our holy lands and the [American] intervention was utterly useless.” He went on to say: “I believe that these decisions will lead the region into a conflict especially with the presence of other flags claiming to be working for liberating or rescuing the wounded Syria, which has become a place for the hideous political conflicts.”
“Al-Sadr called on everyone “to pull out from Syria and to let the people make the decisions since the people are the only ones who have the right to self-determination…” Al-Sadr asked America to “stop its harm. The same goes for Russia and the rest of the groups.” He indicated that “I believe it is fair for President Bashar al-Assad to tender his resignation and step down for the interest of the beloved Syria and in order to spare the country from the scourges of wars and the control of the terrorists. Thus, the authority will be given to popular sides who can stand against terrorism to rescue the Syrian lands at the soonest possible time. This will constitute a historical, heroic position before it becomes too late…””
My piece last year, here, responding to Thanassis Cambanis’s paper for TCF where I lay out why the military intervention ideas thrown out over the years are so dangerous (especially) when it comes to Syria… and why you can lay out such a case and still think the Assad regime is among the worst in the modern Middle East (a modern Mid East where, we must remember, so many awful regimes have been created and/or sustained by Great Power agendas).
I warned of the strategic and moral calamities that would likely follow any effort to bring about a “controlled collapse” of Assad – either through direct intervention or through militarized proxies – in 2011 and 2012 here:
“In Syria, We Need to Bargain with the Devil”/New York Times, February 2012
“A Third Way on Syria Is Possible”/Huffington Post, May 2011