Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Political Geography Syria

121. Addressing Lebanon's Refugee Crisis and Development Challenges

Author:
Randa Slim and Philippe Lazzarini
Publication Date:
05-2017
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Middle East Institute (MEI)
Abstract:
Lebanon is facing overwhelming socioeconomic, security, and demographic challenges as the civil war in neighboring Syria enters its seventh year. Since the start of the crisis, Lebanon has received $4.9 billion in assistance, but demands on the country's resources, services, and civil order remain heavy. Without a political solution to the Syrian conflict, humanitarian and development aid cannot deliver and sustain sufficient results for the refugees or for the Lebanese people. How will Lebanon continue to deal with these conditions? The Middle East Institute (MEI) and the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Foreign Policy Institute (SAIS-FPI) were pleased to host Philippe Lazzarini, the United Nations deputy special coordinator in Lebanon. He discussed opportunities and challenges for shifting the international response to Lebanon's Syrian refugee crisis beyond short-term humanitarian and stabilization efforts to a more sustainable economic growth strategy.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, United Nations, Foreign Aid, Refugees, Economic Growth, Syrian War, and Development Aid
Political Geography:
Middle East, Lebanon, and Syria

122. Critical Junctures in United States Policy toward Syria: An Assessment of the Counterfactuals

Author:
Mona Yacoubian
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
More than any other foreign policy crisis during the Obama administration’s eight years, the Syrian conflict has engendered enormous debate about what the United States might have done differently: Could this catastrophe have been avoided? In particular, might different decisions at critical junctures in US policy debates have diminished the level of killing and atrocities? This paper explores these questions based primarily on interviews with former US officials and nongovernmental Syria experts.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Syrian War, Atrocities, Chemical Weapons, Bashar al-Assad, Containment, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Middle East, Syria, North America, and United States of America

123. Evaluating Counterfactual US Policy Action in Syria, 2011-16: A Review of Empirical Evidence from Related Cases

Author:
Daniel Solomon
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
In public and policy debates about the US response to the conflict in Syria, comparisons to past responses to international cases of mass atrocity have become a fixture. In these debates, analysts use lessons from those past responses to forecast the likely consequences of US policy action in Syria or to speculate about the counterfactual consequences of actions not taken at various junctures. Comparisons to historical cases of international response provide important mental models for policy makers seeking to use specific tools and strategies to respond to the risk or occurrence of mass atrocities.2 For example, Barack Obama has said that his unwillingness to pursue military action against the government of Bashar al-Assad in response to its use of chemical weapons in August 2013 resulted in part from his dismay at the instability that followed the military operation that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) led against Muammar Gaddafi’s forces in Libya in 2011.3 For Obama, the risk that even limited military action in Syria could become “another Libya” was enough to remove a range of possible military options from consideration. Which counterfactual US actions, if any, might have prevented or mitigated violence against civilians in Syria? This paper uses a systematic review of empirical studies of international responses to mass atrocities and related phenomena to evaluate these contemporary debates about US policy action in Syria.4 The purpose of this review is to evaluate plausible alternative avenues the US may have taken to prevent or mitigate mass atrocities against civilians in Syria. This analysis centers on “minimal rewrite” counterfactuals, in which a different policy action at a specific, time-bounded juncture in the US policy process on Syria might have led to a different outcome in violence against civilians. “Minimal rewrite” counterfactuals are opposed to socalled miracle world counterfactuals, which would require significant changes to the structural or contextual conditions that shape US policy.5 The paper centers on three policy actions that the US government debated—and in some cases implemented, to a limited degree—at various junctures since the conflict began in March 2011: (a) lethal support to the armed Syrian opposition, (b) limited strikes against Syrian government targets, and (c) no-fly zones. Although those US officials sometimes debated these options during overlapping junctures, the paper addresses opposition support and the direct military options as separate phenomena. The paper uses a review of historical, qualitative and quantitative studies of related cases and policy actions to assess the extent to which these actions may have affected the scope and severity of subsequent atrocities in Syria.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Syrian War, Atrocities, Counterfactuals, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Middle East, Syria, North America, and United States of America

124. A Survey of Expert Judgments on the Effects of Counterfactual US Actions on Civilian Fatalities in Syria, 2011 - 2016

Author:
Lawerence Woocher
Publication Date:
08-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Abstract:
The survey focused on four “minimal rewrite” counterfactuals: (a) President Obama’s not calling publicly for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to “step aside” in 2011, (b) the vetting and arming of moderate rebels in 2012, (c) the use of airstrikes to enforce the “red line” against chemical weapons use in 2013, and (d) the choice of an “Assad first” strategy instead of an “ISIS first” strategy in 2014.1 Respondents were asked to make probabilistic assessments on whether the counterfactual actions would have resulted in fewer civilian fatalities over the subsequent 12 months. They were also asked to cite the most important factors that led to their assessments and to identify other US government actions that would have been more effective in reducing civilian fatalities at the time. The clearest findings are (a) on average, respondents did not rate any of the four main counterfactuals very highly: neither the median nor the mean response on any of the four key counterfactual estimates was as high as 50 percent; and (b) very little consensus existed among respondents about the effect of the counterfactual actions on civilian fatalities over the subsequent year. The data reveal greater consensus on what the “most important factors” were, yet some striking disagreement on key analytical points. Finally, the most frequently cited ideas of other actions that would have helped reduce civilian fatalities were various types of (direct or indirect) military actions.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Syrian War, Civilians, Atrocities, Counterfactuals, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
Middle East, Syria, and United States of America

125. After The Jarabulus Offensive: How Far Will Turkey Shift Its Syria Policy?

Author:
Soner Cagaptay
Publication Date:
09-2016
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Abstract:
The July 15 attempted coup, which exposed rifts within the Turkish military, coupled with the August 9 meeting between Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian president Vladimir Putin, and the Turkish incursion into Syria on August 24, appear to signal a change in trajectory for Turkey’s Syria policy. Since Erdogan’s ouster of Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu in May 2015, Turkey has already implemented some significant foreign policy shifts, including normalization with Israel and a desire to mend ties with Russia.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Foreign Policy, Civil War, Peace Studies, and International Affairs
Political Geography:
Russia, Turkey, and Syria

126. Chinese Military Promises Aid to Syria

Author:
Peter Wood
Publication Date:
08-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
Although it is highly unlikely that China will deploy a large force or even, as one widely disseminated and erroneous report suggested, its aircraft carrier to fight in Syria, it is clear that China is increasing the visibility of its support for Bashar al-Assad’s government to improve its level of influence in whatever resulting post–civil war government emerges.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Humanitarian Aid, Bilateral Relations, Military Affairs, and Conflict
Political Geography:
China, Middle East, Asia, and Syria

127. What does Turkey want in Syria and why?

Author:
Suat Kiniklioglu
Publication Date:
01-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF)
Abstract:
This first paper in the DCAF-STRATIM paper series by Suat Kiniklioglu analyses the development of Turkey's policy towards Syria since the start of the Arab Uprisings. It illustrates the factors which contributed to the shift in Ankara's foreign policy focus towards Syria; from its role as the strongest advocate for regime change, to the sole focus on the prevention of a Kurdish consolidated geographical and political entity in Syria. The author describes how Recep Tayyip Erdoǧan and Ahmed Davutoǧlu saw the Arab Uprisings as a unique Turkish moment that could allow the country to regain its long-lost international grandeur. Ankara detected that the Muslim Brotherhood was on the rise in the region. In Tunisia, the Ennahda Movement; in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhvan); and in many other Middle Eastern countries - including Syria - Ikhvan-affiliated movements were on the march.€ The author concludes that, contrasting with the initial enthusi­asm about a "Turkish Moment" when the Arab Uprisings erupted, Ankara will have to settle, it seems, for a much more modest outcome than originally envisaged in 2011.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Arab Spring, Military Intervention, and Syrian War
Political Geography:
Turkey, Middle East, Arab Countries, and Syria

128. In Defense of The “Obama Doctrine”

Author:
John R. Murnane
Publication Date:
10-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
In a series of interviews with Jefferey Goldberg in the April 2016 Atlantic, President Barack Obama provided a much-needed and sober reappraisal of the limits of American power and a realistic view of U.S. foreign policy based on a careful assessment of priorities, or what Goldberg calls the “Obama Doctrine.” The heart of the president’s approach is the rejection of the “Washington Playbook.” Obama told Goldberg, “there’s a playbook in Washington that presidents are supposed to follow. It’s a playbook that comes out of the foreign-policy establishment. And the playbook prescribes responses to different events, and these responses tend to be militarized responses.”1 According to the Playbook, military power and the “creditability” it provides is the principle instrument of American foreign policy; it has been accepted wisdom at think tanks and among foreign policy experts since the end of World War II; Obama has challenged this dictum.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Government, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Middle East, United Nations, Syria, North America, and United States of America

129. Connecting Countries to Stabilize the Middle East

Author:
Heidi Larbi
Publication Date:
06-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Middle East Institute (MEI)
Abstract:
This Policy Paper is part of The Middle East Institute's Regional Cooperation Series. Throughout 2016, MEI will be releasing several policy papers by renowned scholars and experts exploring possibilities to foster regional cooperation across an array of sectors. The purpose is to highlight the myriad benefits and opportunities associated with regional cooperation, and the high costs of the continued business-as-usual model of competition and intense rivalry. Infrastructure serves as one of the key tools available to enhance regional cooperation and build toward an integrated Middle East. Under the reign of the Ottoman Empire, the Middle East and North Africa was an integrated web of railways, arterial and trading routes, much of which has disappeared over the last century. A region unaccustomed to division has since fragmented, with each state erecting numerous barriers that hinder integration—from trade tariffs to poor customs services. The economic potential and benefits for the region as a whole lies within deeper integration. This paper explores feasible possibilities for short-term and long-term infrastructure integration across several key sectors: energy, I.C.T., transport and facilitation.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Regional Cooperation, Infrastructure, and Political stability
Political Geography:
Iraq, Middle East, Yemen, and Syria

130. Toward a Regional Framework for the Middle East: Takeaways from other Regions

Author:
Ross Harrison
Publication Date:
12-2016
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Middle East Institute (MEI)
Abstract:
This Policy Paper is part of the Middle East Institute's Regional Cooperation Series. Throughout 2016, MEI will be releasing several policy papers by renowned scholars and experts exploring possibilities to foster regional cooperation across an array of sectors. The purpose is to highlight the myriad benefits and opportunities associated with regional cooperation, and the high costs of the continued business-as-usual model of competition and intense rivalry. While the prospects for creating a regional architecture in the Middle East may seem grim currently, it is a crucial time to begin thinking about regionalization as a long-term project. The ongoing conflicts in the Middle East are likely to continue over the course of the coming decades, but it is possible that game-changing events could occur that create the political will necessary for adversaries like Saudi Arabia and Iran to cooperate. By looking at steps taken in Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America, this paper analyzes the conditions conducive to creating a regional order and how they arise at critical moments in history. Getting regionalization right can help create a pathway toward a regional institutional architecture and will be fundamental to establishing stability in the region.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Regional Cooperation, Water, and State
Political Geography:
Iraq, Middle East, Libya, Yemen, and Syria