International Crisis Group on the Syria Crisis

The International Crisis Group (ICG) recently posted a statement regarding potential intervention in the Syrian conflict. ICG outlines potential scenarios if the US were to engage in military action against Syria, none which are positive, and poses suggestions for alternatives that do not include military intervention. The statement can be found on the ICG website, and I have included the full statement here:

Assuming the U.S. Congress authorises them, Washington (together with some allies) soon will launch military strikes against Syrian regime targets. If so, it will have taken such action for reasons largely divorced from the interests of the Syrian people. The administration has cited the need to punish, deter and prevent use of chemical weapons - a defensible goal, though Syrians have suffered from far deadlier mass atrocities during the course of the conflict without this prompting much collective action in their defence. The administration also refers to the need, given President Obama's asserted "redline" against use of chemical weapons, to protect Washington's credibility - again an understandable objective though unlikely to reso nate much with Syrians. Quite apart from talk of outrage, deterrence and restoring U.S. credibility, the priority must be the welfare of the Syrian people. Whether or not military strikes are ordered, this only can be achieved through imposition of a sustained ceasefire and widely accepted political transition.
To precisely gauge in advance the impact of a U.S. military attack, regardless of its scope and of efforts to carefully calibrate it, by definition is a fool's errand. In a conflict that has settled into a deadly if familiar pattern - and in a region close to boiling point - it inevitably will introduce a powerful element of uncertainty. Consequences almost certainly will be unpredictable. Still, several observations can be made about what it might and might not do:

• A military attack will not, nor can it, be met with even minimal international consensus; in this sense, the attempt to come up with solid evidence of regime use of chemical weapons, however necessary, also is futile. Given the false pretenses that informed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and, since then, regional and international polarisation coupled with the dynamics of the Syrian conflict itself, proof put forward by the U.S. will be insufficient to sway disbelievers and skepticism will be widespread.

• It might discourage future use of chemical weapons by signaling even harsher punishment in the event of recidivism - an important achievement in and of itself. Should the regime find itself fighting for its survival, however, that consideration might not weigh heavily. Elements within the opposition also might be tempted to use such weapons and then blame the regime, precisely in order to provoke further U.S. intervention.

• It could trigger violent escalation within Syria as the regime might exact revenge on rebels and rebel-held areas, while the opposition seeks to seize the opportunity to make its own gains.

• Major regional or international escalation (such as retaliatory actions by the regime, Iran or Hizbollah, notably against Israel) is possible but probably not likely given the risks involved, though this could depend on the scope of the strikes.

• Military action, which the U.S. has stated will not aim at provoking the regime's collapse, might not even have an enduring effect on the balance of power on the ground. Indeed, the regime could register a propaganda victory, claiming it had stood fast against the U.S. and rallying domestic and regional opinion around an anti-Western, anti-imperialist mantra.

Ultimately, the principal question regarding a possible military strike is whether diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict can be reenergized in its aftermath. Smart money says they will not: in the wake of an attack they condemn as illegal and illegitimate, the regime and its allies arguably will not be in a mood to negotiate with the U.S. Carefully calibrating the strike to hurt enough to change their calculations but not enough to prompt retaliation or impede diplomacy is appealing in theory. In practice, it almost certainly is not feasible.
Whether or not the U.S. chooses to launch a military offensive, its responsibility should be to try to optimize chances of a diplomatic breakthrough. This requires a two-fold effort lacking to date: developing a realistic compromise political offer as well as genuinely reaching out to both Russia and Iran in a manner capable of eliciting their interest - rather than investing in a prolonged conflict that has a seemingly bottomless capacity to escalate.
In this spirit, the U.S. should present - and Syria's allies should seriously and constructively consider - a proposal based on the following elements:

1. It is imperative to end this war. The escalation, regional instability and international entanglement its persistence unavoidably stimulates serve nobody's interest.
2. The only exit is political. That requires far-reaching concessions and a lowering of demands from all parties. The sole viable outcome is a compromise that protects the interests of all Syrian constituencies and reflects rather than alters the regional strategic balance;
3. The Syrian crisis presents an important opportunity to test whether the U.S. and the Islamic Republic of Iran can work together on regional issues to restore stability;
4. A viable political outcome in Syria cannot be one in which the current leadership remains indefinitely in power but, beyond that, the U.S. can be flexible with regards to timing and specific modalities;
5. The U.S. is keen to avoid collapse of the Syrian state and the resulting political vacuum. The goal should thus be a transition that builds on existing institutions rather than replaces them. This is true notably with respect to the army;
6. Priority must be given to ensuring that no component of Syrian society is targeted for retaliation, discrimination or marginalisation in the context of a negotiated settlement.

Such a proposal should then form the basis for renewed efforts by Lakhdar Brahimi, the joint United Nations/Arab League envoy, and lead to rapid convening of a Geneva II conference.
Debate over a possible strike - its wisdom, preferred scope and legitimacy in the absence of UN Security Council approval - has obscured and distracted from what ought to be the overriding international preoccupation: how to revitalise the search for a political settlement. Discussions about its legality aside, any contemplated military action should be judged based on whether it advances that goal or further postpones it.

One Million Syrian Children Refugees

UNHCR has just reported that one million Syrian children have crossed the Syrian border to seek safety from the uprising against President Assad, which began in March 2011. Three-quarters of those children are under the age of 11. An additional two million children are currently displaced within Syria. And more than 100,000 people have been killed in the conflict.

[Photo: UNHCR]

International news outlets were airing footage of an alleged chemical attack against Syrian civilians, which was recently confirmed by the US White House as being credible. One heartbreaking video I watched last night from Al-Jazeera showed a young father crying while cradling his two dead children, both of who looked no older than eight.

It is shameful that the world is standing by and letting Syrian civilians be slaughtered. I am certainly not one to rush towards military intervention, but there must be something that can be done to curb the human rights abuses. I look forward to hearing the US and other countries' plans for intervention; considering how many children are being affected in this conflict, a plan may be too little, too late.

Abuse and Recruitment of Children in Central African Republic

This week, the BBC reported that over 100,000 children in the Central African Republic (CAR) are being sexually and physically abused, recruited for armed groups, and suffering from malnutition and malaria. This is the result of what UN chief Ban Ki-Moon has called "a total breakdown of law and order" after Michel Djotodia overthrew President Francois Bozize in March of this year. Djotodia has "promised" to step down after elections scheduled for 2016, but a lot more damage can come to children and their families in three years of instability and violence. The article continues to describe the complete collapse of the health care system and destruction of whole villages. Children are obviously a major population that will be negatively affected by the political chaos in CAR.

[Photo: AP]

The Increasingly Strong Connection Between Climate Change and Conflict

Tim McDonnell of Mother Jones magazine recently wrote an excellent piece connecting global warming and violent conflict. McDonnell cites a survey published in Science, which:

"...takes a first-ever 30,000-foot view of this research, looking for trends that tie these examples together through fresh analysis of raw data from 60 quantitative studies. It offers evidence that unusually high temperatures could lead to tens of thousands more cases of "interpersonal" violence—murder, rape, assault, etc.—and more than a 50 percent increase in "intergroup" violence, i.e. war, in some places."

There are many potential reasons for this connection between climate change and violence. There are obvious connections between climate change and natural disaster, which oftentimes goes hand-in-hand with violence. Some researchers claim that warm weather contributes to increased inner-city violence (cue: Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing), such as the recent increase in murders in Chicago. Another reason is exceptionally high and low rainfall impacting agricultural production, which in turn can lead to interpersonal and intergroup violence.

The factors contributing to this connection is piquing the interest of researchers. Hopefully, new studies will draw stronger connections to causality, and perhaps suggest how violence can be lessened and even prevented.

[Photo: Medyan Dairieh/ZUMA Press]

Syrian Refugees in Jordan

A few days ago, I received the following email from my friend Yuhki Ohnogi, who I met when working in Nablus. I thought that it would be important to share:

I'm right now in Irbid, north of Jordan. Since May, I've been taking an Arabic course here. Irbid is located very close to the border with Syria and 2km away from Irbid is the second largest refugee camp in the world- Zaatari refugee camp. The camp is accommodating 150,000 refugees from Syria. Although they are free from all miserable fighting, their life is far from comfortable. Because of lack of support from international communities, every day they wake up to ask themselves as to how to survive for a day. Even though they are provided with basic living items, they have to sell them to make some money to buy food. Technically, they can not work in Jordan without going through an official work permit process, which is now impossible. Recently, I came across this organisation called "Voice". They work with the Syrian youth who are living in Zaatari refugee camp. They interview the people in the camp and collect their stories.

Yukhi also included this link to the organization's website.

My Neighborhood

My Neighborhood is a documentary about settler expansion in the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem. The film is narrated by seventh-grader, Mohammed, who sagely and poetically describes the violent changes to his home and his neighborhood as a result of settler expansion. The film explores Mohammed's feelings towards the settlers and his evolving opinions about the Israeli people. It's short (about 25 minutes), yet extremely powerful.

Palestinian Child Labor in Israeli Settlements

Al-Jazeera published an article today about Palestinian children working in Israeli settlements. Israeli settlements have been deemed illegal according to international law. In the Jordan Valley, there are approximately 60,000 Palestinians and 9,500 Israelis living in 37 settlements.

Between 10000 to 20,000 Palestinians work inside Jordan Valley settlements, which varies according to the season. Five to ten percent of these numbers are child workers. These children often forgo school in order to make money for their families, who are often in or on the brink of poverty. There is a high drop out rate in the Jordan Valley because of the weak educational system, lack of adequate infrastructure, and Israeli restrictions on building new schools for Palestinians. According to a 2012 report from the Ma'an Development Centre, during the 2011/2012 school year, there were 10,000 children living in this area who started the school year in tents, caravans, or tin shacks. The report also notes that nearly one-third of schools here lack adequate water and sanitation facilities.

Children have been employed by settlers to clean, lift boxes, pick and package vegetables and fruit, working in extreme heat (up to 50-degrees Celcius) for eight to nine hour shifts. They earn approximately 50-90NIS ($14-$25) per shift, which is about 25-50 percent what they are entitled to under Israeli labor laws.

The short article is worth reading, as it touches upon the tough decisions children make in deciding to work in this context, including the push and pull factors hat influence their decisions.

[Photo: Ma'an Development Centre / Al Jazeera]