UKRAINE UP-DATE, WHAT NOW? RESPONDING AND KEEPING OUR HEAD AND LOOKING AHEAD

Ukraine Up-Date, What Now? Responding and Keeping Our Head and Looking Ahead

by Harry C. Blaney III

 

The Ukrainian revolution has now turned into a global crisis of Cold War proportions. Now is the time for caution, steadiness and resolution. If taken off course, the outcome could be a disaster for all sides, not least for the Ukrainian people. Wrong moves by Putin, the new Ukrainian government, European leaders, and America could turn a serious confrontation into a catastrophe for all. There is also the danger of doing nothing. Recent events in the Crimea and Putin’s statements indicate a radical and dangerous series of actions including his precipitous military intervention and veiled, and not so veiled, threats against all of the Ukraine. 

The most serious element of this crisis is the imperial madness of President Vladimir Putin who risks much to gain very little. Putin is trying to take Russia back to its dark ages of horrendous authoritarian rule over what is now a growing, more informed, and engaged citizenry. He is blinded by his geo-strategic ambitions and desire to use ruthless military force. He ignores the lost opportunities for Russia to modernize and take its place among the responsible and respected nations and for its people to finally gain the fruits of good government denied them for centuries.

He has shown the world that his “word” is worthless. Treaties binding countries to acts and norms are to Putin, much like Hitler’s pact was at Munich. Stalin was more cautious in the Cold War in not confronting a nuclear armed America than Putin appears as he willfully invades the Crimea. As the Olympics in Sochi showed and the Crimea invasion now shows, he wants to be on center stage and to appear again as the “great power” that can dominate with physical force but, in reality, remains an angry spent force on a global scale.

The Russian economy is still broadly, except for its military and energy sector which needs Western technology and investment, a “Potemkin Village”—a largely weak shell that provides little for most of its people who live lives of grinding poverty in a kleptocracy and authoritarian state. But it is all the more dangerous for its inherent weakness, not least any in the Kremlin willing to tell the truth to power.

Another dimension of this crisis is the calculations by other nations of the true implication of this act of war against a nation close to Russia, a former Warsaw Pact nation, and one that prizes its independence. Putin may calculate that this will cover other “Near Afar” nations that he sees as being in his “domain.” Yet the proper reaction must be fear of such an embrace. For Western Europe, the hope for a “honeymoon” with Russia of trade, arms control, and sense of moving towards cooperation and normality is fast disappearing. There will have to be a new calculation, and it will not be favorable to Putin or Russian hope for “normality.”

The visit of Secretary John Kerry to Kiev and calls by Obama to Putin, plus the work of Merkel and other Europeans diplomatically together are aimed at finding an acceptable way for Russia to back down, working for conciliation between Russia and the new Ukraine government, and providing assurances through the use of international monitors in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine that there will be no acts against “Russian” interests and people. All this depends on the hope that Putin will realize his act may be a bridge too far. It is doubtful that acts of killing of Russian-speaking Ukrainians by Russian troops will go down well, engender support by Russian citizens, or help long-term relations with Russia.

The US down payment of $1 billion of loans will be at least some immediate help in strengthening the new Ukrainian government, but much more will be required to give the Kiev authorities the means to exert effective authority and to make their military stronger. But the real necessities remain major funding along the lines of at least $15-25 billion dollars and assisting the new leaders in making the government work for the people, and to do so without corruption.

All of the above assumes that Putin has no taste to invade Ukraine proper aside from Crimea, but that is not assured. His reckless and provocative behavior up to now along with his military’s recent belligerent demands and threats in Crimea seem to indicate long-term aggressive objectives.

For the West, it is not wise to use threats that are not real and won’t be acted on if Russia persists in its Crimea invasion or goes beyond. Threats need to be believable, and one must have the will and resources to be credible. Yet, each sanction needs to be examined by possible counter acts by Russia, and a response to those have to be in place, again, realistic and measured. That will need some courage for all, especially the Europeans. Realistic sanctions that are on the table are financial and in related economic and trade areas. Others are ready to go, like suspension of military cooperation. DOD has already acted on most of these but has wisely left some key avenues of dialogue open. One does not close down avenues for dialogue with nuclear powers for spite or bad actions. Witness Iran, North Korea, and the Soviet Union.    

While the Europeans are saying strong words now, they are cautious to the point of greedy self interest (witness the Prime Minister Cameron’s leaked “memo,” saying the UK will not act against Russia to protect the interest of their banks), and the push back from Netherlands and Germany on real sanctions illustrates fear for their energy supply and other trade. The meetings at NATO, the UN, the EU, and OSCE all are likely to produce few immediate actions of consequence given the divisions and the hope, despite the reality of Putin’s actions, of many states that the Kerry et. al. diplomatic tract will bring some peaceful resolution. This European cowardice, and the case of UK duplicity, gives Obama even fewer tools of peaceful leverage over Russia.  

For America, the question should be not how to fight Putin, but rather how to make this confrontation end peacefully for all or at least not precipitate a nuclear war or major European conflict with global impact. The options need to be used with a long term vision of an outcome that holds open the door for not only a graceful way out but reinforces our determination to work to make Russia a responsible and helpful power with real democracy and personal security for its people – in effect an “open society.”

In the end, we need a strategic vision to counter Putin’s imperial and dictatorial ambitions at home and abroad. We need do so in a way that also demonstrates we are FOR the well being of the Russian people and for Russia becoming a place of true democracy, openness, rule of law, and prosperity alongside much of the rest of the developed world. We need to do more to make this distinction via public diplomacy, people-to-people exchanges, and our words and deeds over the decades.

We welcome your comments!

CYPRUS PLUS

CYPRUS PLUS

Alan D. Berlind

The recent post by this inattentive blogger (“A CYPRUS SOLUTION”) named various political and geographical entities that have substantial interests in the success of the discussions underway between the two Cypriot communities aimed at re-uniting them under a single sovereign banner:  Cyprus herself, the United States, Turkey, Israel and the European Union, with special mention of France and Italy.  One might have included Russia but did not, principally because its national interests did not seem to be obviously at play.  Wrong!

Last week’s tumultuous events in The Ukraine and, most importantly, Russia’s military intervention in The Crimea have created a political situation that would seem to require, or at least to provide an excuse for, retaliation before Moscow steps over the line in an attempt to ensure that The Ukraine returns to the “Soviet orbit” before getting too close to the EU.  Leaving that scary scenario to the government leaders most responsible for preventing or containing a wider war, we might review certain facts and figures that bring to the fore the possible economic/commercial consequences of a Cyprus settlement as discussed briefly in the earlier post:  the introduction into the European market of serious supplies of fossil fuels not available to date.

Russia is by far the largest supplier of both natural gas and crude oil to the nations of the EU.  The following approximate figures – which are constantly changing -   tell the tale.  As a whole, the EU imports some 40% of its natural gas from Russia via thirteen pipelines that follow three separate routes, with Ukrainian territory a major conduit.  The biggest importers by volume are Germany and Italy, but as many as ten EU members get over half of their supplies from Russia.   In addition, five non-EU countries, including most significantly for our purposes, Turkey, get well over half of their gas from the same exporter.  To complete the picture, Russia furnishes more than 30% of the EU’s crude oil needs.  As stated, these figures, as well as the prices that gas and oil bring, are in constant flux.

While the amounts to be produced by Cyprus’ new industry and the role to be played in European and other markets also remain to be seen, success in the current effort to re-create a single international entity on the island cannot but have an important effect well beyond its borders.

END

UKRAINE, A SAD MODEL FOR OUR GLOBAL FUTURE AND A WARNING?

UKRAINE, A SAD MODEL FOR OUR GLOBAL FUTURE AND A WARNING?

By Harry C. Blaney III

The upheavals in Ukraine, where we have witness continued conditions of unrest, uncertainty, needless deaths, and political and economic dysfunction, shows us a model of our larger world. Ukraine is but one example of a growing unstable, high risk, conflict-filled global landscape. If one looks over any major region, one finds major existing and emerging serious problems and signs of governmental and international failure.

Sadly, examples abound in Africa, in the Middle East, in Russia, in Latin America, and in Asia. In many of the areas, poverty and inequality, government and private sector corruption, greed, and incompetence are abundant. Ethnic and religious ethnic intolerance and hatred have created mass slaughter and savagery in places like Iraq, Sudan, Nigeria, Burma, Congo, Lebanon, and not least Syria. Even within the developed world, discrimination and enforced poverty of minority groups and immigrants have grown with the increase of racist and extreme right-wing groups as we are seeing in Greece, France, Italy, China, Switzerland, Britain, and yes, here in the United States.

The corrosiveness of these factors have divided citizens, created highly partisan politics and debates, and undermined collective action to fix basic social problems and address serious challenges to domestic progress. It has also been a destructive and major force preventing actions by the international community and its member states to take actions that would mitigate or prevent regional and global disasters, humanitarian crises, and conflict.

The Ukraine example provides a case in point. A country divided between East and West, a pervasive corrupt regime and business community, a language and historical split, a lack of steady democratic institutions that can adjudicate and create an environment where all people see their concerns addressed.

The other element in Ukraine is also the role of malevolent outside forces. This problem has also exacerbated almost all of the other regions of conflict, where we have seen terrorism and ethnic cleansing. In the Ukraine case, the role of Russia was and remains at this moment a cause for great concern and instability with the threat of a breakup of the nation, intervention of outside elements, rise of radical along with armed right-wing parties, and the application of external economic influences.

The Russian Foreign Minister has made threatening pronouncements, which have only made things worse, while Ukrainian nationalists have also acted with much foolishness, illustrated in the ban of the Russian language. Ukraine needs about $35 billion dollars to bail itself out of its economic debt and provide funds for the nation’s immediate needs, but have not yet put in charge the technocratic and non-corruptible officials needed to give confidence to any lender, whether the EU, the U.S. or the IMF, that the money will be use wisely. Russia has sent both signals of opposition to the new order in Ukraine and signals saying that Ukraine should remain united. It is uncertain what Putin’s ultimate game will be, since the loss of Ukraine to his plans for resurrecting the Russian /Soviet Empire has wider significance throughout the region.

One bad sign is news that Putin has put Russian troops on alert, which is not a helpful event. Ukraine, most agree, needs to be on good terms both with Russia and the West. Both sides should support this, unless Russia acts stupidly.

President Obama has been careful and cautions, as is his want, but all the indications are that America has played a major constructive role in this crisis trying both in drawing Russia in a cooperative stance and working to bring all the key players together. They have, however, rightly let the EU and Catherine Ashton get in front since at issue in all of this unrest has been the decision or lack thereof of Ukraine moving into closer cooperation with the EU and perhaps even one day being a member.    

These elements, as this is written, have both energized and almost paralyzed the existing Ukraine parliament faced with continued protests from all sides of the political spectrum and dangers, especially from the Russian population in the Crimea. Financial bankruptcy looms, and security of the population is still unsure, but there are signs that the population at large may be moving towards taking responsibility for their nation and daily life. Clearly, there is need to try to draw together not only the Ukrainian democratic factions, but also all the outside players to provide a peaceful and more easy space for the Ukrainian people to find solutions and be helped. Instead of being hindered in their search for domestic peace and a responsible government, the people should be able to obtain the necessary assistance that can make this possible.

Finally, the Ukraine is, like our complex modern reality, both similar and different from other arcs of instability. It needs to be seen as part of a dangerous global trend, but adjusted for its unique position and situation. Aid and support are required from outside, but interference undermining national unity or pushing division are not needed.

For America, we need to look at our own tools to make for a more peaceful and prosperous world and recognize we have fallen short due to the division in our own Congress and lack of public understanding of global realities. Ukraine and the other points of crisis prove we need better international institutions with more robust tools and resources to act in ways that solve systemic problems—ones that are accepted as helpers and not interested parties.

DEFENSE BUDGET (NEW ONE IN THE WORKS, MAYBE) AND PERHAPS A REAL, MODERN, FORWARD LOOKING DEFENSE POSTURE?

DEFENSE BUDGET (NEW ONE IN THE WORKS, MAYBE) AND PERHAPS A REAL, MODERN, FORWARD LOOKING DEFENSE POSTURE?

By

Harry C. Blaney III

Revealed on Monday February 24th was the defense budget for FY 2015, and the headlines were about the cuts to manpower mostly in the army. Yet, the most important questions of what ought to be our major objectives, an examination of the global security landscape, and finally, the right tools to employ has been given too little attention.

Defense policy and resources should not be budget driven, nor driven by special interest congressionally or even by the desires of the various services, and certainly not by the military-industrial complex which so far has largely called the shots due to their influence over Congress and their massive lobby machine. We have for far too long given the “greedy” and self-interested the upper hand on posture and strategy over the smart, forward-looking, relevant and cost-conscious force.

First, what needs to be said is that Hagel and his budget people are right in that our military force numbers need and should come down to a more reasonable level. That may make room for a higher quality level, better trained, and more focused armed forces rather than a bloated and often bureaucratic structure that hurts flexibility, innovation, being adaptable with agility and leanness, and better integration across all the services. Personnel costs need to be observed, along with big useless hardware.

Yes, the new DOD budget may hopefully be an all-important shift in American military priorities. The New York Times’ Thom Shanker and Helene Cooper, state in their recent article “Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the WW II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001…” And yes, this is a key move but not yet the last word in what will be a major budget fight.

Second, behind all this should be a hard and clear-eyed look forward into the strategic landscape and evolving trends that need either greater attention or at least more appropriate response—perhaps not military, but rather proactive tools that are far less costly than carelessly sending in the heavy amour and troops in areas of conflict, emerging unrest, or civil war, especially in areas that are not understood or so complex that military solutions create more problems than they solve.

What, then, are the questions that should inform our defense structure and deployment of resources, and are they worth the cost of the risks involved?

The first category is what I must call “existential high risks.” This includes above all the threat of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Here, we need to include the nuclear weapon states like Russia, China, Pakistan, India, North Korea, Israel, and possible incipient nuclear weapon states like Iran. Frankly, most of these states first require intensive diplomatic and intelligence efforts, rather than military might. War prevention, non-proliferation efforts, and confidence building and monitoring are among the key tools here, not military threats or action that could engulf the world in horrors beyond imagination. We need more resources here, not less, yet Congress, and let’s be frank, specifically the Republicans in Congress, want to add just those outrageously expensive weapons systems that have no or little role now or in the future and cut just those tools that address these first order threats with non-military tools that are appropriate and have often worked in the past. Military action against any state that has not normally stopped it from having nuclear weapons, but diplomacy and sanctions have.

Further, we and the Russians have massive nuclear weapons and stockpiles that threaten the existence of the entire globe and would be insane to ever use. Our most useful act of lowering our risks and preventing conflict is arms control measures, non-proliferation efforts, and building communities of security and peaceful cooperation on regional and global levels. Yet again, Congress seems to think we need more weapons or at least that we need to pour more and more billions into weapons that exist but are not relevant to the world today or in the future. They seem to wish to add mindlessly to them or “modernize” them when these programs are redundant and unnecessary, simply enriching the contractors in a variety of states.

The next order of priority are areas of MAJOR possible conflict that threaten America interests in a serious way or threaten to create major upheavals or conflict that can threaten a whole region of strategic interest to us and our allies. This includes the rise of China, and especially its nationalistic approach to disputed islands in the South China Sea and elsewhere. But also important are making sure that China’s rise is indeed peaceful and integrating China into the international community as a responsible and predictable state. Here, military efforts are not and should not be our main tools as they could provoke the opposite reaction than we seek, which would be in no one’s interest including China’s.

While it is appropriate to have a “pivot to Asia,” this should primarily be a diplomatic and economic effort, not military except to give to our friendly nations in the region a sense of security, thus, of common diplomatic war, avoiding cooperative purpose. While it requires some military resources, they do not have to be such to bust the key downward trend in military expenditure. The growing Chinese forces are now and into the foreseeable future but a fraction of our own strength, despite the efforts of our neocons and Chicago school hawks who blindly see China as a war threat, urging even more massive military and self-fulfilling counterproductive responses, reinforcing the right wing hawks in China.

Within this category is the possible conflict between India and Pakistan, both nuclear weapons states with long lasting antagonism. Here again, diplomacy, not military might, is urgently needed. The other area is the Middle East region and specifically, the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the Syria conflict that threatens the whole region, and the instability of Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and the regions of the Arab Spring. Again, some military effort exists here already, but the main tool must be diplomatic since finding common sense solutions of mutual security and reconciliation has to be the answer, rather than U.S. troops on the ground. I do not dismiss possible use of U.S. military or intelligence assets here in very careful and discrete ways to support multilateral effort, enforce peace, and deal with major humanitarian crises. But, this does not need F-35s, large tanks, bombers, or massive troop deployments verses peacekeeping and training. Solutions, in the end, must be made by political agreements and early efforts at mitigating conflicts. As the medical people say, “First, do no harm.”

The third area of priorities, which we have been focusing on to our cost this last decade and more, is terrorism, piracy, and related localized insurgencies and civil wars. Here, some military action is likely to persist as long as serious threats impinge upon U.S. security and that of our allies or key nations in which we have an important interest. But, we need to weigh a better “cost-benefit” assessment since too often our military actions have had a “blowback” effect which needs added attention.

The tools here are not massive deployment like the idiocy of Iraq which was unnecessary and ended only adding to terrorism in the region, but rather more careful intervention with others to prevent chaos and mass killing. These regions need serious efforts to address more fundamental economic and social decay problems, along with corruption and cruel authoritarian rule. Multilateral aid, education assistance, jobs, and means of upward mobility will do more than battalions of badly trained troops and planes dropping bombs carelessly. There will be times when we need Special Ops type of action, but they are not a panacea in place of development aid and helping social and political change. Thus, the troops that remain after the “quantitative” cuts need to be better supported, better prepared, and an adjunct of a larger strategy of dealing with underlying problems and contribute to long-term peaceful outcomes.

There are other areas where military activities are key, such as cyber-warfare and above all humanitarian intervention in cases of massive natural and other disasters, where their capabilities and training can be of immense help. This includes the quick introduction of medical assistance which often is lacking in many affected situations. The same goes for supporting peacekeeping efforts.

DOD will be again coming out with updates of posture statements, the CIA will be doing its regular “net” assessments. Not least, we hope the Department of State will again provide its multi-year assessment. With all of these it is up to the White House to set broad strategic and resource frameworks and priorities. The problems are our dysfunctional politics and flow of money into Congress, along with the greedy and myopic congresspersons who have the last budget vote and are more likely to have the last say than our citizens or our government leaders. Too bad they are not often motivated by serious reflection on American interests and risks or the desire for our engagement in the world to be really effective.

Finally, any deep examination of our strategic interests must include climate change and poverty since they are far more dangerous to the U.S. and our globe’s future than many of the other items we are spending so much money on.

Since the future is often not discernible, we need a more flexible and lean capability, rather than a massive and backward looking DOD. We need leaders of both vision and courage to see the trend and be moved more by the emerging facts and less on running the budget up for expensive toys that waste assets that can be better deployed.

We welcome your comments!

 

SYRIA UP-DATE: AFTER GENEVA II, THEN WHAT?

SYRIA UP-DATE: AFTER GENEVA II, THEN WHAT?

by

Harry C. Blaney III

 

President Obama in Washington during the visit of France’s president Hollande, has said that he was fairly pessimistic about progress in gaining peace and a transitional government in Syria. There are indications that the administration is engaged somewhat in new thinking about the Syrian conflict problem. But Obama indicated that use of military force was not at the top of options.

Meeting in Washington, U.S. President Barack Obama and French President Francois Hollande criticized Russian aims to block the resolution. Hollande said, “Why would you prevent the vote of a resolution if, in good faith, it is all about saving human lives?”

Obama said the U.S. isn’t moving closer to taking military action in Syria even with the stalemate in the fighting and concerns about missed deadlines on chemical weapons destruction. Specifically, he noted at a joint news conference with French President Francois Hollande in the East Room of the White House: “We still have a horrendous situation on the ground in Syria.” He added that the state of Syria is “crumbling” and “extremists have moved into the vacuum in a way that could threaten us over the long term.”

 

While saying he reserves the right to use military force, Obama said that “right now we don’t think that there’s a military solution, per se, to the problem.” At the news conference Obama called Russia a “holdout” and accused it of complicity in the Syrian regime’s policy of starving cities. “They cannot say that they are concerned about the well-being of the Syrian people when they are starving civilians, and that it is not just the Syrians that are responsible, the Russians, as well, if they are blocking this kind of resolution,” Obama said.

 

On the diplomatic front, The U.S. supports the new draft UN Security Council resolution because it is clear that prior efforts aren’t yielding the needed progress.

 

Yet, the reality is that the U.S. and also France, Britain, and other key involved allied states are in a odd of state of denial of on the ground realities but also in a true conundrum about what is possible, likely outcomes and risks of using either military resources or a concerted series of “sticks” like new sanctions and denial to the Assad regime of access to funds and military imports.

 

Some insight into administration thinking was revealed in a White House briefing at the time of the Holland visit. The briefing was by a “Senior Administration Official” but the views are authoritative: He said, “Well, on Syria, I think what we have sought to do is work on a number of lines of effort with countries like France that share a common view of the situation with us. One is how can we increase humanitarian assistance that can reach the Syrian people? And the U.S. is the single largest donor of humanitarian aid, but we also work with other countries to make sure that we are meeting humanitarian requirements articulated by the U.N., and that different countries are providing different types of assistance that meet the greatest needs inside of Syria.

 

“We’ve also been talking with the French and others about steps that the U.N. Security Council can continue to take to promote humanitarian access inside of Syria.  I’m sure that will be an area of discussion.

 

“We’ve also worked with the French to coordinate our support for the moderate opposition within Syria.  And we obviously provide a range of support, as well as a number of other countries that have worked together over the course of the last year or so.  And so, I think discussing how we can work together to strengthen a more moderate opposition, both to be a counterpoint, obviously, to the Assad regime, but also to isolate extremist elements inside of Syria that could ultimately pose a threat to France and the United States as well.  So I’m sure we’ll discuss how do we continue to support that moderate opposition.

 

“That’s directly relevant to the Geneva II process, because that opposition has come to the table quite constructively in Geneva II.  And as we work through that process towards a transitional governing authority, the more we are speaking with one voice in support of an outcome that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people I think the stronger that opposition will be at the table.  So we’ll want to discuss that issue as well.

 

“On Lebanon, we do regularly talk to the French about the situation in Lebanon.  The United States has taken some steps in recent months to increase our assistance to the Lebanese armed forces and to continue to speak up for the unity of Lebanon and for a peaceful resolution of political differences within Lebanon.

 

“Given France’s history, I’m sure it is quite likely that Lebanon may come up as a topic.  And, frankly, it comes up in the context of Syria, because many of the challenges we see in Lebanon are spillover from Syria, both because of the significant refugee population inside of Lebanon because of the role of Lebanese Hezbollah in supporting the Assad regime, which has been obviously quite destabilizing and concerning to us, and also because some of the violence that has found its way into Lebanon. So we will I think be addressing the situation in Lebanon as related to the ongoing crisis in Syria.”

 

Let me be a bit blunt, much of this briefing is opaque in terms of the reality, and otherwise fairly well known about ongoing actions. What is missing is a clear statement and agreed strategy for path toward a realistic and definitive solution to the ongoing killings and establishing some sense of security and stability and a measure of peace in the Syria and nearby neighborhood. There is a clear debate going on, and there is now more recognition by the White House, State and DOD that other tools including possible military action may be needed. This includes an added supply of weapons, and less likely but key for security of the populations, creation of some kind of “no fly zone(s) and secure areas” for the displaced population, and as I have suggested, the insertion at some point of multilateral peacekeeping forces to ensure security and stability.

 

Yet, the end game must include diplomacy. This means uniting the moderate opposition forces, getting Assad to step down, and assuring the Shia that they will be secure and be part of the new transitional government. It also means facing the Russians and getting them to accept the new order. But that can only be done in a context where Assad and the Russian realize their goals can’t be realized. And that can only take place in reality on the ground in Syria.  

 

In addition to this White House briefing the U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said in an e-mailed statement. “The Security Council needs to speak with one voice in the interest of the innocent men, women and children of Syria whose lives are hanging in the balance……. Every day the Council remains silent, we let down the Syrian people, and we fail to uphold our role as guardians of international peace and security.” A fine statement but, again, with no effective path to stop the killing or to get to the humanitarian needs.

 

On Wednesday February 12th, Russia said it would veto a U.N. resolution on humanitarian aid access in Syria if it remains in its current form. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said about the draft that its “aim is to create grounds for future military action against the Syrian government.” Thus, an impasse seems to be developing which may have to lead to new thinking on next steps. These next steps can be both diplomatic and economic but also taken through the use of limited but significant coercive action by a multilateral coalition of those nations supporting the opposition. The question remains do the key states have the political will and resources to act with a high level of assurance that they can be assured of success?

 

Frankly, it remains somewhat unclear whether and when any new strategy will emerge. However, the humanitarian crisis seems to be getting worse each day. Any promises by Assad are hollow given their detention of people leaving Homs and possible killings of civilians under supposed Syrian Red Cross and UN protection. The use of “barrel” bombs on civilians is Assad’s answer to the diplomacy tract at the moment.

 

The most recent development has been the dismissal of the commander of the Free Syrian Army and his replacement by another commander by the U.S. backed Supreme Military Council. It is reported that this has split the various commands on the ground, some of which still support the previous head. The new commander Abdul -Ilah al-Bahir is said to be backed by Saudi Arabia and may of the confidence of the U.S. But this act only highlights the many splits in the opposition and the difficulties of getting assistance to the opposition forces on the ground. Further, America appears directly looking at delivery of arms to filed commanders, but so far none have been reported by those commanders.

 

The situation on the ground is having more impact at the moment than the diplomacy in Geneva. For the moment, Assad’s forces and air force are pounding opposition centers and trying to close the borders against movement of opposition forces and refugees.

  

In sum, we need to keep the diplomatic tract open but also to think better of ways to exert real leverage over both Assad and even Russia. Those who are critical, including myself, need to keep in mind the high level of complexity, many risks of various actions, and the uncertainty of a good outcome. Yet from this writer’s perspective, we do have more tools than we are using. But such efforts require a high level of cooperation among the allies and opposition, good will, and resources than have been realized so far.

A CYPRUS SOLUTION

A CYPRUS SOLUTION

by Alan D. Berlind

Forty years after an attempted Greek coup was met with a Turkish invasion that seized some 40% of the Republic of Cyprus and left some 40,000 Turkish troops on the island, there are signs that a reunification may be in the cards, reportedly with active backing from Washington for reasons strategic, political and commercial.  Several other countries have more than a passing interest in a resolution of this long-standing problem, from which the European Union (EU) as a body would also profit.

A brief history is in order, if only because “rethinking national security” must include acknowledging the past along with planning the future.  The Greek coup attempt of 1974 was the work of a Greek military/police regime that had seized power in 1967 with the lame excuse of pre-empting election of a leftist government in Athens.  That takeover had met with minimal disapproval – a cut in military assistance – from the government of President Lyndon Johnson and none from the latter’s successor, Richard Nixon, or his chief foreign policy guru, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger.  Nevertheless, the regime was losing strength by 1974, which it hoped to recover by incorporating Cyprus into the Greek state.  Turkey, not about to see the Turkish-Cypriot minority swallowed up by its Aegean enemy, did not wait long to send in the troops.  The British Foreign Secretary at the time, James Callaghan, has written that he tried but could not get Kissinger, by then his counter-part, on the phone to discuss the problem.  The latter, we were to understand, was just too busy with various tasks following Nixon’s resignation in disgrace to devote time to Cyprus.

A proposed settlement, labeled the “Annan Plan” after United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Kofi Annan, was put to a vote in Cyprus in 2004 but was overwhelmingly and vengefully, defeated by Greek-Cypriots comfortable with the fact that Cyprus had already been assured entry into the EU regardless of the outcome, while Turkish-Cypriots voted in favor.  Over the succeeding decade, a determination by leaders of both communities to try again, combined with a perception of hard national interests in several other countries and persistent diplomatic efforts from various quarters, not least among them the current administration in the United States (U.S.), has led to agreement on new negotiations between the two Cypriot communities aimed at the restoration of a single universally-recognized sovereign state, with issues of domestic governance to be agreed between the two parties.

Of those “hard national interests” mentioned above, none is more important than the additional and alternative sources of energy being pursued world-wide and the discovery beneath the waters in the Cypriot exclusive economic zone of potentially massive supplies of natural gas, for either export (sale) by pipeline as is to nearby markets or by container as liquefied natural gas (LNG) further abroad.  Following exploration and findings by the American firm Noble Energy, a tri-partite Memorandum of Understanding has been executed with Total of France and Eni of Italy foreseeing joint exploitation and the establishment of a plant in Cyprus for the production of LNG.  Initial exploration has also revealed the existence of gas beneath waters shared by Cyprus and Israel, opening up the possibility of sales to energy-poor Turkey and an improvement in Israeli-Turkish relations, which have been in a parlous state for five years.

No less important than the resource question, the sine qua non of Turkish EU membership, still being pursued by Ankara, is the end of Turkish occupation of EU-member state Cyprus.  That the Turks understand this was best stated in an interview by Turkish Ambassador to Athens Kerim Uras: “The key to solving the Cyprus problem is natural resources and the key to the candidacy of Turkey to the EU is the solution of the Cyprus problem.”  Of course one cannot rule out Turkish tactical tinkering with the process to the very end as Ankara assesses the benefits of EU accession and weighs the importance of opposition thereto on clearly ethnic grounds within France, Germany, The Netherlands and Scandinavia.  EU membership aside, Greek-Turkish relations in general and disputes over longstanding Aegean issues in particular cannot but be eased by success in the Cyprus negotiations.  Nevertheless, those Aegean issues raise the matter of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), signed by all EU members and the EU itself (the only non-state party), but  rejected most prominently by Turkey and Israel, the former owing to UNCLOS’ full support of the Greek positions in the Aegean.  (The Israeli position is unrelated.)

On the diplomatic front, the U.S. Department of State has apparently been leading the way, with a recent visit to Nicosia by Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland and another by Secretary John Kerry rumored for this Spring.  Clearly, President Barack Obama has been convinced that a Cyprus settlement would serve the interests of the U.S. and its friends and allies in the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond.  Most important, however, has been the apparent determination on both sides of the Cypriot divide and in the capitals of their Greek and Turkish champions to find a mutually acceptable formula for unity.  Leading the way have been Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades and his Turkish-Cypriot opposite number, Dervis Eroglu.  Leaving aside the unhelpful but normal partisan griping on both sides, the level of mutual understanding can be seen in the recent announcement that the chief negotiators will be visiting and conferring with the most interested outside governments this month: the Greek-Cypriot negotiator in Ankara, and his Turkish-Cypriot opposite number in Athens.

An agreement will take time but is in the works, and all interested parties stand to benefit substantially if Cypriots and Turks and Greeks, having learned from the past, succeed in launching a new era of cooperation and progress.

END

SYRIA TOO MUCH POSTURING AND TOO LITTLE REAL DIPLOMACY AND REAL PRESSURE

SYRIA TOO MUCH POSTURING AND TOO LITTLE REAL DIPLOMACY AND REAL PRESSURE

by

Harry C. Blaney III

Once again there is continued unspeakable bloodletting in Syria. Now the guns have been turned on the convoys of humanitarian aid and relief and those escorting civilians out of the killing fields of Homs in Syria. Already, the conflict has left more than 100,000 dead and millions displaced and as refugees. It is high time that we had less posturing by all sides and a bit more serious diplomacy backed up by elements of sticks and perhaps a few carrots.

Despite the news that some more chemical weapons stocks have been placed on ships, this action has not stopped the brutal killing of Syrian civilians by the Assad regime. These deliveries have been delayed, and one has to wonder if this is not a deliberate ploy by the Assad regime to buy time for more killing.

Yesterday (2/11/14), there were two key items in the New York Times. One was an editorial “The Message From Homs” (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/opinion/the-message-from-homs.html?ref=todayspaper) which decried the horror of what is taking place in Homs and in other Syrian regions. It calls for diplomatic action and hopes for a Security Council vote to “improve on the pause and extend it to other populations centers.” Unfortunately, its suggestions all have the serious fault of needing Russia and Assad’s agreement, which is, frankly, next to impossible given how long they have supported butchery without end.

 The other article was an op-ed by Danny Postel and Nader Hashemi: “Use Force to Save Starving Syrians” (2/11/14) (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/opinion/use-force-to-save-starving-syrians.html?ref=todayspaper), which calls for honoring the goal that was part of the UN resolution for “responsibility to protect” once more, and it argues for the use of multi-lateral force if necessary.  It stated that before any multi-lateral operation, which would include providing air support, “Mr. Assad and the rebel groups should be put on notice that they have hours to lift the sieges.” They call for us to “confront” Russia with a choice to convince Assad to lift the sieges or “be left behind by an international community that is prepared to act.”

For two years, this blog has advocated using a robust international peacemaking /peacekeeping force to provide security zones and to protect civilians in Syria. America and countries like Britain, France, the Arab league, and hopefully Turkey, should participate. The time has indeed come to act, and there is little doubt in my mind that diplomacy needs to be backed up with a bit of “sticks” to change minds and perceptions of the ultimate outcomes.  There are a number of ways that international actions can be taken with NATO and the EU— recognition of a new Syrian government of moderate groups, and agreeing to intervene based on their invitation via a willing coalition that is strong enough and wide enough to gain common acceptance. This is already being done in Africa and has been done elsewhere. 

The Geneva II session will resume this coming Monday between the Syrian regime and a coalition of rebel groups with participation of the key powers, including the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and some Arab League countries. The United Nations is hosting the meeting. The first session made little progress except getting the two warring sides into the same room. There was no real cease fire, given the attacks on the convoys and civilians, and no agreement on a true transition to a new government without Assad in charge.

 At the moment, eyes are turning to a possible but increasing less likely resolution in the UN Security Council demanding humanitarian access and help to some 25,000 civilians in various pockets who are threatened by the Syrian government bombings and mass killings. As noted above, success of this effort will probably only result from clear threats that multi-lateral intervention by some kind of force will follow.

It seem neither the British, who first proposed the resolution, nor America and France, now engaged according to yesterday’s joint press conference in Washington with President Obama, have the will to put it on the table for an actual vote, but the trend is moving in that direction. A negative vote may give more support for direct international action. In any case, it is likely the Russians, acting to protect their genocide allies in Syria, and the Chinese, who do not want effort to save innocents killed by their government to set a precedent for the future, will veto such efforts. This inaction is due to cowardice or perhaps calculated prudence and fear by all sides.

One of the lessons of the Syrian tragedy is that the international community needs new tools, powers, and capacity to act under the UN agreed “responsibility to protect” mandate that can overcome the deliberate efforts of authoritarian regimes like Russia and China to prevent mass killings, “ethnic cleansing,” genocide, and massive humanitarian crises. This is a decades long project, and the question is whether there is some precedent that can now be set that will move the international community towards this objective.

Perhaps the time has come to establish new institutions for such action, based perhaps on a super-majority vote in the U.N. General Assembly and a majority vote of the entire Security Council without a veto. Otherwise, other options might be acting through old or new institutions like NATO, and/or the EU, or perhaps an offshoot of an United Nations agency, with its own decision making capacity, backed up by “coalition of the willing” of responsible powers with multi-lateral military force supplied by organizations like NATO and others that might join. In the end, teeth need to be applied to a world where brutality will only respond to countervailing force. However, even here the initial path should be via diplomacy.

We welcome your comments!