Photo Credit: AFP

Thousands of Yemenis demonstrated in Aden on Tuesday, calling for the south to regain independence. The protesters were responding to exiled southern leader Ali Salem al-Baid‘s calls to commemorate his 1994 declaration to break away from the north. Meanwhile, the National Dialogue Conference (NDC) continued, despite one of its participants being kidnapped. The Development, Good Governance, and State Building Working Groups started their field visit to the Al-Mahra governorate, while visits to Aden, Sayoun and Shabwa were delayed. Working groups are to submit their reports by May 28, and presentations to the mid-term general assembly will start on June 8. A lecture by an Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader criticizing NDC participants as “enemies of sharia” and “supporters of the devil” began circulating widely online. In a cable to Yemen’s foreign minister, Secretary of State John Kerry commended Yemenis’ participation in the NDC and said that the U.S. “will continue to support the Yemeni people in their efforts to build a unified, stable, democratic and prosperous Yemen.”

Writing for The National, Faisal al-Yafai argues that “the southern issue remains the biggest question” for the NDC, and that by not genuinely addressing southern grievances, President Hadi is making the political transition harder. Al-Yafai recommends that Hadi offer a “‘grand bargain.’” In an interview for Foreign Policy, Jeff Gedmin finds that Nobel Laureate Tawakkol Karman believes that the NDC can succeed and remains optimistic about Yemen’s future. On the MENASource blog, Danya Greenfield and Hazim Al-Eryani note that “groups from all around the country have been able to articulate their grievances on the national stage.” However, they express concern that “Yemen faces a Catch-22 where the Dialogue requires the support of a currently weak state to succeed. State capacity has become both a precondition for and a measurement of success.”

Photo Credit: AFP PHOTO/JOHN THYS

In a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry obtained by The Cable, General Salim Idris, commander of the Syrian opposition fighting force, reiterated his request that the United States provide the opposition with weapons and suggested increased support was a precondition for participation in peace talks with representatives of Bashar al-Assad‘s government. For the U.S.-Russia backed negotiations to succeed, he explains, “we must reach a strategic military balance, without which the regime will feel empowered to dictate, or at least stall for precious time to achieve gains on the ground under the cover of diplomacy.” President Obama has, thus far, ruled out shipping any weaponry to opposition fighters, and has insisted a political solution must be achieved in order to resolve the conflict.

At a press conference with Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh yesterday, Kerry signaled that the U.S. will provide more aid to the opposition should Assad’s government refuse to participate in the international effort to bring both sides of the conflict together to negotiate a political transition. “Let me also make clear, in the event that we can’t find that way forward, in the event that the Assad regime is unwilling to negotiate Geneva 1 in good faith, we will also talk about our continued support and growing support for the opposition in order to permit them to continue to be able to fight for the freedom of their country,” he said, adding that inaction to end the fighting was “unacceptable.”

Kerry also expressed concern over the threat of sectarian violence spilling over into Lebanon. Since Sunday, 20 people have been killed in sporadic fighting in Tripoli between Lebanese fighters supporting rival factions in neighboring Syria. President Obama called Lebanese President Michel Suleiman Monday to urge the country’s armed forces to prevent Hezbollah fighters and weapons to flow across the border.

Photo Credit: State Department

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited Oman on Tuesday to help finalize a $2.1 billion defense pact. In a joint statement, the U.S. and the Government of Oman announced ”a deal for the acquisition of a U.S. manufactured ground based air defense system.” A State Department official said the deal advances U.S. commercial interests and will further integrate the Gulf Cooperation Council’s defense systems. In remarks with the Omani Minister responsible for defense affairs,Kerry said, “President Obama and the United States are very grateful for the role that Oman plays in the region as an important force for peace and stability.” Kerry was also expected to discuss the conflict in Syria and Iran’s imprisonment of two American-Iranians with Oman’s leaders, including Sultan Qaboos.

On Wednesday, Bahrain’s leading opposition party, Al-Wefaq, announced that it would stop participating in the country’s national dialogue for two weeks. The party cited what it called “the deliberate delay and absence of positive response” on the dialogue by the official party, “escalated repression…which has reached its peak by attacking Ayatollah Sheikh Issa Qassim’s house,” and the sentencing of prisoners of conscience. Earlier in the week, Bahrain’s attorney general denied a report that claimed the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry recommendations on freedom of expression had not been implemented.

On Monday, Qatar’s Emir, Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa al-Thani, said that “it is most useful and safest to achieve change gradually through reform and dialogue,” in comments at the Doha Forum. He added that “whoever rejects reforms and changes and cannot absorb new facts and modern requirements will be changed by the needs of history and the passage of time.” Al-Thani noted that he stressed gradual change “to prove that what we had done was required in the current stage of history.”

Photo Credit: AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

From May 21 to May 27, Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to the Middle East. His visit will begin in Oman, and then he will move to Jordan, Israel, the West Bank. In Jordan, Kerry will meet with international partners to discuss solutions for the conflict in Syria. While in Jerusalem and Ramallah, Kerry will meet with Israeli and Palestinian leadership, respectively, to discuss how the United States can support the two countries in returning to peace negotiations. After a two-day visit to Ethiopia, Kerry will return to Jordan to participate in the World Economic Forum on the 26th.

Secretary Kerry’s first stop in Jordan will include a meeting with the Friends of Syria. The foreign ministers of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Britain, France, Germany, Turkey, and Italy will attend. The discussions of Syria planned for the trip are part of the United States’ ongoing efforts to find a solution to the conflict in the country. Kerry recently visited Russia to discuss the conflict and announced an international conference co-sponsored by Russia after talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. President Barack Obama also discussed the conflict this week with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan during the minister’s visit to Washington.

Photo Credit: Reuters/Mladen Antonov/Pool

Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed optimism Wednesday that the peace talks on the Syrian conflict they’re organizing will be successful. After a meeting with Lavrov in Sweden, Kerry said, “Both of us are … very, very hopeful that within a short period of time, pieces will come together so that the world, hopefully, will be given an alternative to the violence and destruction that is taking place in Syria at this moment.” Discussing the conference, British Prime Minister David Cameron said, “What is important here is to make sure we really put pressure on the participants to bring forward the necessary names for a transitional government and that we start proper detailed negotiations.” According to Kerry, the peace effort is based on the June 2012 Geneva communique, which advocated establishing a transitional government in Syria ”with full executive authority by mutual consent.”

Meanwhile, the United Nations passed a non-binding resolution urging a political transition to end the conflict in Syria. The resolution placed the onus of bringing an end to the civil war on President Bashar al-Assad‘s government. The resolution passed 107-12 with 59 abstentions, a drop in support compared to a similar resolution passed in August 2012 with only 31 abstentions. Some analysts say the number of abstentions indicate concerns in the international community about extremism among the Syrian rebels. Before voting began on the resolution, the U.N. raised the official death toll to Syria to 80,000, an increase of 20,000 since the beginning of the year. Vuk Jeremic, the president of the General Assembly, said, “most of these casualties [are] believed to be civilians.”

Photo Credit AFP

During a visit to Russia last week Secretary of State John Kerry announced that Russia would participate in a conference dedicated to the issue of Syria. Russia is among Syrian President Bashar al-Assad‘s staunchest international allies and has regularly vetoed UN resolutions against the regime while also supplying them with arms. Russia’s involvement in the conference opens a narrow window for providing a diplomatic solution to end the increasingly bloody conflict.  Britain and Israel, among others, have also welcomed Russia’s participation in the conference.

The details surrounding the conference remain unclear.  While initially the conference was expected to take place before the end of the month a spokeswoman for Kerry said it would more likely occur in June.  Today the Syrian government demanded details on the peace conference before it would agree to attend.  According to Reuters, Syrian Information Minister Omran Zoabi welcomed news of the conference but warned against any infringement of “national sovereignty.” The Syrian opposition, who is also expected to send representatives, has yet to confirm their participation.  The announcement of Russia’s participation in the conference has moderated debates through the West on whether or not to supply arms to the opposition. Many Western governments, including the U.S., have been hesitant to provide arms to the rebels. However, Western calls to arm the opposition have escalated recently amid reports that chemical weapons have been used in the conflict.

Fighting around Damascus between the government forces and the opposition continued  this week.  In a rare display of unity, 23 brigades from the opposition united in their efforts to take the town of Otaiba near the Damascus airport.  These 23 brigades came from both the Western backed General Command and Islamist groups.  They joined together this past weekend under an agreement to share both weapons and fighters.  According to Reuters, this unified segment of the opposition hopes to take Damascus airport in order to disrupt the regime’s supply lines.

For full event notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.

Nasr offered reflections on American foreign policy engagement with Afghanistan and Pakistan, focusing on the Obama administration’s strategic review for a military surge in the Afghan war and the failure of the U.S. to foster a viable peace settlement with the Taliban. Outlining the U.S. military strategy for the Afghan war, Nasr posited that a diplomatic option to bring the war to a close and craft a reconciliation process with Taliban fighters was “never really discussed or put on the table.” That missed opportunity resulted in negative outcomes of the war in Afghanistan and is indicative, he argued, of how the U.S. understands fighting wars – engagements without a broader political solution. “Afghanistan, in many ways, was a defeat for American foreign policy,” he charged, saying that those within the administration who held senior foreign policymaking positions believed that the Taliban did not want to talk, and viewed the military defeat of Taliban fighters more important than political negotiation. “Everyone said there was a diplomatic path in Afghanistan except the U.S….the military thought talk of diplomacy was weakness.” Furthermore, he charged that “If there is one fundamental assumption beyond addressing the Afghanistan security threat…is that broadly we don’t need to worry about the Middle East,” and pushed back against the notion that the U.S. can continue to stay only minimally engaged in the region. Serious threats to America’s strategic interests exist in the region, and unlike U.S. political and economic engagement in eastern Europe after World War II, the U.S. approach to the Middle East is “by and large a reactive policy.” Singling out Egypt and Syria, Nasr insisted that the U.S. must acknowledge the potential for destabilization unless America engages the transitions politically and economically.

Kagan reminded Nasr that his assessment missed important components, namely the poor situation that President Obama inherited when he came into office, both in terms of poor policies in the Iraq and Afghan wars under President Bush and terrible economic circumstances at home. “American interventionism is heavily influenced by those kinds of [economic] situations,” he said, adding that it would be difficult to imagine a president elected in 2008 that would not dial back political and economic engagement in the world under those circumstances. Similarly, he argued that the Middle East poses a uniquely difficult kind of problem for U.S. foreign policy. “[There’s] more going on than basic strategic and economic issues…the U.S. is still finding our way.” Kagan also questioned the feasibility of the U.S.’s policy of instituting a military surge deadline and how such an exit would be perceived in terms on negotiating a peace settlement with the Taliban.

Indyk opened the discussion to the audience and directed a question to Nasr concerning the use of nonlethal options to resolve war. Nasr commented that, in order to prioritize the work of the State Department during wars, a structural change in the system of leadership must occur that addresses diplomatic options. He highlighted the crisis in Syria and exemplified the focus in the media on American military intervention as the primary foreign policy question concerning Syria rather than what ancillary options could be deployed, such as organizing international partners and raising the specter of American “convening power,” in order to avoid destabilization. In the case of the work of the special representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, an attendee asked how a diplomatic option that is advanced by such high-ranking official could not be considered by the National Security Council or President Obama. Nasr answered that President Obama early on shot down a diplomatic option in Afghanistan, didn’t ask for other non-military options, and never met one-on-one with Holbrooke to discuss diplomatic efforts.

photo credit: Reuters

This weekend saw the end of the nearly two week siege of the foreign and justice ministries by armed militias in Tripoli.  The armed groups had besieged the ministries beginning in late April demanding the passage of a new political isolation law, which would ban any senior officials to have served during the over four decades of Muammar Gaddafi‘s rule.  The General National Congress passed the isolation law after the first week of the siege.  The law has been criticized by international observers as sweeping, unfair and could cripple the government.  The law’s passage under duress has led some to speculate that after seeing results, armed militias may resort to threats of violence and sieges to accomplish future goals.

Late Saturday, the militias withdrew from their positions surrounding the two ministries after having negotiated with a committee made up of government officials following widespread protests Friday denouncing the use of violence by militias.  Prime Minister Ali Zeidan announced that there would be a cabinet reshuffle “in the coming days” in response to the crisis.  The ministries are now guarded by interior ministry forces.

Meanwhile, in light of “unsettled situation” in the capital as well as the recent congressional attention paid to diplomatic security in Libya, the U.S. government announced its withdrawal of “non-essential” personnel from its embassy in Tripoli and put a Marine quick-response team and a special operations unit on alert. The British embassy in Tripoli as well as the British Petroleum (BP) oil group, one of the largest foreign companies active in Libya, both withdrew some of their staff in response to the rising instability.

For full hearing notes, continue reading or click here for a PDF.

Senator Menendez reminded the committee of the increasing strategic importance of the Maghreb and Sahel to America’s long-term security interests, as well as expressing the hope for a balanced approach to embassy security and the need to engage with the people of Libya and Chad beyond the diplomatic missions. Eager to capitalize on the popularity the U.S. enjoys among the Libyan people, Menendez asked how “to harness that goodwill to help the Libyan people shape a safe, productive, and inclusive democracy that has a healthy relationship with the United States,” despite the challenges of disarming militias and unifying the government.

Senator Tom Udall (R-NM) read a brief statement acknowledging Ambassador Jones’ qualifications and recommending her for the post of ambassador to Libya.

In her statement, Ambassador Jones expressed optimism for the success of Libya’s democratic transition, asserting that limited U.S. assistance during its tenuous transitional period gives the U.S. “the best opportunity to help support and strengthen a Libyan government that can be a long-term partner of the United States.” Recognizing the need to address immediate security concerns, Jones also argued that U.S. engagement is key to realizing a stable Libyan government: “It is in our national interest, both strategic and ideological, as well as Libya’s, to see it fulfill its potential as a stable and prosperous democracy, with a fully-developed and active civil society and geographic areas, with respect for human rights and international norms.” She added, “Libya’s development of its full national capacity and sovereignty will enhance our own security and economic well-being through regional security and cooperation…” Similarly, she expressed confidence that Libyans’ successes since the revolution – national elections, renewed oil production, and a reconstituted government – and its “advantages compared to other Arab states recently affected by dramatic political transition” bode well for the country’s democratic future.

Ambassador James Knight pledged to address the strategic goals of the U.S. in supporting the Chadian government’s efforts to “counter the growing threats to regional security and to maintain and widen its regional engagement,” as well as support its pursuit of democratic reform. He praised the government’s cooperation in regional humanitarian assistance and serving as a key partner to the international community’s peacekeeping efforts in the region and Mali in particular.

Senator Menendez, reflecting on developments over the weekend involving militia intimidation of members of the Libyan parliament to pass the contentious Political Isolation Law, asked Ambassador Jones how democracy could succeed with imminent threats to the government from armed groups and how she would engage with civil society. Jones stated that the U.S. needed an ambassador in Libya after nearly nine months of high-level diplomatic absence and said she intended to focus on three elements of engagement: security (disarming and training militiamen); governance (rule of law and reconciliation); and civil society (engaging with the Libyan people across multiple platforms). Her first goal, she stated, was to take a “terrain walk” in Tripoli to acquaint herself with the country. She added that the problem of security had reached beyond Libya into Syria and the Sahel and that “more than ever, we recognize that working with these issues is not a bilateral issue, but a global issue. We must work with other countries with assets and interests in the region” to dismantle MANPADS and chemical weapons and to prevent the proliferation of weapons.

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) stated that the U.S. had underestimated the challenges and security threats posed by Libya’s revolution despite America’s strategic interest in the country. “It’s really not a government: When you look at the militias, it’s remarkable the country is functioning.” He asked Ambassador Jones whether she would agree with his assessment. “Based on the briefs, I don’t know that we’ve underestimated,” she said, adding that the U.S. “has certainly had a setback” with not having an ambassador in the country since September. She reminded the committee that “progress after these transitions is unpredictable” and not “formulaic,” stressing that now was the time the U.S. needed to “double our efforts” in supporting the Libyan government’s democratic transition. “If we’re not there making efforts, we will certainly lose.” Asked by Senator Corker what her goals for the post are, Ambassador Jones indicated that her principle goal is to address the security and capacity vacuum experienced by the central government and that the approach must come from a number of arenas, including “getting civil society involved in supporting what they fought so hard to gain: democracy.” She added, “The Libyan people have more skin in this game than anyone.” In response to Senator Corker’s concern that militiamen would soon control cabinet posts, she expressed her determination to engage with anyone, including militiamen, who has “eschewed violence” and is committed to democratic transition. “All of these challenges are indicative of a people who want change. Authoritarian leaders do not develop civil societies, and we need to be prepared to step in and support civil society.”

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) echoed frustration that Libya’s democratic transition was “rough and incomplete” but expressed determination in supporting the democratic aspirations of the Libyan people. Referencing the Political Isolation Law that was passed by the Libyan parliament over the weekend, Senator McCain asked Ambassador Jones to assess what impact the law will have on the integrity of the Libyan government. She stated that she shared the senator’s view that “we owe Libyans our best in democratic transitions” and expressed her intent to address the new law with Libyan leaders in order to urge a rethinking of its application and conditions. “[I] hope I can influence that in terms of looking at the future of the country. I certainly believe the Libyan people fought too hard and want too badly a government of representation.” Charging that the administration has done very little to assist the Libyan government with security and military support since Qaddafi’s overthrow, Senator McCain urged Ambassador Jones to reach out to the administration in fulfilling her mission to assist Libya in becoming a functioning democracy.

Senator Menendez closed the hearing by stressing the importance of moving these nominations forward. “We can’t direct American assistance without an ambassador…[our] national interest and the ultimate outcome of Libya’s future can be helped, or we can allow it to be shaped…when American presence is absent.”

For full event notes, continue reading or click here for a PDF. 

Amb. James Jeffrey began the discussion by noting “worrying signs of sectarian division” in Iraq despite the country being a “success” for U.S. policy in 2011, when American troops were withdrawn. Despite these worrying signs, Jeffrey pointed to Iraq’s “constitutional structures” to which the Maliki government is adhering and said the recent agreement between the Iraqi government and the Kurds “is a sign of how things can go in the right direction.” “On the other hand,’ he noted, “the serious breakdown of security [throughout the country]… is very, very troubling.” Jeffery then said, “The U.S. has a key role [in Iraq]” and listed several reasons why America should remain engaged. These reasons included the “very significant relationships in play here,” specifically the U.S. relationship with the Iraqi government, “which is in the process of purchasing up to $14 billion of American weapons.” He also noted American allies in the region “who feel that if Iraq becomes unstable, that’s going to have an impact on them.” Other reasons for U.S. engagement in Iraq, Jeffrey argued, were the importance of Iraqi oil and Iraq’s longstanding position at the “center of the problems in the Middle East.” So, he argued, “The needs for the U.S. to maintain its relations there and to play as strong a role as possible, I think, are paramount in our manifest.”

In describing what the U.S. should do to help its relationship with Iraq, Jeffery said America should “deal better with the Syrian crisis,” continue providing and expanding counterterrorism support in Iraq, and “be very, very clear that there is no unity of Iraq without a constitutional democratic structure.” He concluded by saying there is no solution other than a constitutional solution.

Daniel Serwer described how the conflict in Syria was affecting Iraq. He said there are three views of the Syrian conflict among Iraqis: Prime Minister Maliki’s view, Kurdish President Barzani’s view, and the “Sunni perspective.” Maliki, Serwer argued, sees Syria as an extremist-led Sunni rebellion that could be a threat to Iraq if it succeeds. Serwer added that Maliki sees Bashar al-Assad as a “bulwark against something that he doesn’t want to see succeed.” Barzani and the Iraqi Kurds see an “opportunity and a risk.” There is an opportunity for the Syrian Kurds to get a federal arrangement like the Iraqi Kurds got after the fall of Saddam, but Iraqi Kurds risk offending their new friend, the Turks, if they overly support their Syrian counterparts. The Sunnis, Serwer argued, are hoping for a clear opposition victory in Syria. He then described a “powerful downward vortex that ends in chaos” emerging in the Levant and said it will take increased coordination between the Levant states to avoid this. “Some believe the U.S. should play a leading role in making this [coordination] happen,” Serwer said, adding, “I’m less convinced.” He argued that the U.S. doesn’t have the leverage it once had and that when the U.S. gets involved it can make the situation more dangerous for our allies. However, Serwer said, “I do believe we should play a strong supporting role.” He concluded by saying, “If I were to point to the most important factor in whether Iraq holds together or not, I would point to… oil,” adding, “As goes oil, so goes Iraq.”

Mike Pillinger focused on refugee issues within Iraq. He estimated that by the end of 2013, Iraq will have 300,000 Syrian refugees. He then described the work of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in Iraq. Specifically, they are working to open two new refugee camps in the Kurdish region and provide integration and livelihood assistance to incoming refugees. Pillinger noted that as the Syrian conflict grows, the international community has been shifting its focus away from Iraq. He argued that Iraq is still important as there are many people inside the country who are internally displaced and lacking the necessary resources to live.

Sarhang Hamasaeed focused on Iraq’s internal politics. He pointed to the fact that political leaders often discuss their demands through the media and expressed disappointment in the lack of “real dialogue.” He argued that Iraq needs a national dialogue led by the international community because the people on the street feel their leaders are divided beyond the point of reconciliation. He said that government institutions are unable to engage in real dialogue because they are “driven into sectarian and political divisions.” In addition, Hamasaeed said the Iraqi army is not trained to handle the country’s current security problems and to play a “peace-keeping and stability role.” Once the international community can get the different players back to the table, “civil society is ready to contribute,” Hamasaeed argued. Right now, civil society leaders who have been fostering negotiations between tribes and police forces feel the national divide is beyond their capabilities. He argued that the provincial elections in al-Anbar and Ninawa provinces, scheduled for July, may end some tensions, and he reiterated calls for an accelerated involvement by the international community which would help to reverse increasing sectarian and political divisions.

During the Q&A, Daniel Serwer described the prime minister’s governing style by saying, “Maliki is about power.” He stated the importance of having a strong opposition in a real democracy, saying, “in that sense, Maliki is right about majoritarian governments.” Amb. Jeffrey agreed that Maliki believes a majority government is better for ruling, but he argued a pluralistic government was better for Iraq. He noted that the U.S. has been successful in pushing back against Maliki’s decisions that do not have parliament’s consent. While Jeffery said Iraq is operating in a democratic constitutional system, he added, “It’s not going in a direction we would like.”