Coming Elections in Syria, Sponsored Today by: Chlorine Gas

Officials claim that Syria has handed over nearly 90% of its chemical weapons stores. Percentages are easy figures when they fail to elaborate on how those numbers are derived. Intelligence has existed for some time that suggests Syria will fail to disclose its full chemical weapons stockpiles and hold on to some instead. Moreover, easily-weaponized agents could be hidden away, particularly if they are not being sought and the world believes Syria has included those in its concessions. Such concerns over dual-use components hover over rogue states like a constant fog. As long as some internal control is maintained, it isn't so hard to imagine clandestine operations of all kinds. Syria has even threatened Israel and other spillover, something that one imagines would be difficult were the government fighting to its last man and materiel for domestic control.

If (nearly) 90% of those chemical weapons are handed over, why is Syria still employing chemical weapons, as the recent chlorine gas attack indicates? Apparently, chlorine gas is not included on the list of chemical weapons Syria is giving up, although it is banned. Who knew that the agreement in Syria allowed for such leniency and compromise as to which weapons it could keep and which it must give up? At the same time, the government continues to direct blame to the rebels, who have less incentive and even less means to launch chemical weapons strikes. It just doesn't entirely add up.

Amid the conflict, al-Assad's government has set a date for new elections -June 3, 2014. That's correct - about six weeks from now, Syrians all across the country are going to go the polls to elect their new leader. That is, except for the over 150,000 people killed and millions who have fled the country as refugees - they won't be voting, but the show must go on. The United Nations has suggested to Syria that it avoid having elections during a civil war. It is unlikely there will be any significant challenger (though a puppet challenger may be brought in). Why even go through the trouble? It is not really all that possible to gloss over this kind of electoral travesty.

Playing Politics at the United Nations

Earlier this month, Iran named Hamid Aboutalebi as its United Nations ambassador, a move that quickly strained US-Iran relations that had been slowly thawing. It is alleged that Aboutalebi was intimately part of the 1979 takeover of the US embassy in Tehran, which spiraled into a 444-day hostage crisis. Aboutalebi claims he was merely a translator; however, this role does not detract his contribution to the hostage-takers objectives. Regardless of his specific role or duties, Aboutalebi participated, which makes his appointment instantly controversial and instantly problematic.

With the United Nations building in New York, it is the US who issues visas to ambassadors and staff. There doesn't seem to be a record of an ambassador being denied a visa previously, although lower-level staff have been denied and other applications have been rescinded or plans have changed. One of the higher profile incidents was Yasser Arafat being denied a visa to speak at the UN in 1998. The 1947 agreement establishing the United Nations headquarters in New York requires the US to open travel for UN purposes. However, the US has maintained its right to restrict access nonetheless, and has established the precedents that would allow it to do so. No country has previously elected to test the limits of the agreement or the repercussions.

The US has taken the first step by denying the visa for Aboutalebi on the tail of a Congressional bill that would deny Aboutalebi on national security grounds. At the same time, Iran is standing its ground and refusing to select another ambassador. Domestically, there is fairly strong consensus on the denial.

Internationally, the ramifications can be extensive. Aboutalebi, albeit a potentially minor participant, was still a participant in one of the most significant violations of diplomatic norms and laws of the twentieth century. To make a diplomatic case out of the incident, given his background, would almost be ironic. At the same time, negotiations about Iran's nuclear stores will be strained by this incident. There exists no win-win situation here - someone will need to back down.

Stalled Talks, Grand Confusion in Syria

Given that this story is a few days old, this post will be fairly brief.

The Syrian peace talks have not exactly been going splendidly. Neither side seems to be at the talks for the same reasons and the fighting continues all the while. The talks are practically an exercise in futility.

UN mediator Lakhdar Brahimi recently blamed the al-Assad regime for hampering the talks for refusing to discuss a transition of power. This should really come as no surprise. The government came to the talks indicating that it would refuse to discuss regime change. The opposition came only for that reason. It seems as if the talks were doomed from the start. Apart from discussing Syria's future, the talks have never even been on the same page.

It will be impressive if the UN, as well as the two sides who are backed by their respective world powers, can re-energize the talks to really begin to talk about facts on the ground and move toward some sort of path toward resolution and peace, however slow that may be.

A Fundamentalist Divide: Al Qaeda Separates Itself from ISIL

It seems you can be "too much," even for al Qaeda. On Monday, the terrorist group formally cut off its relationship with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS). This declaration follows al Qaeda's demand that ISIL remain separate from the al Nusra Front, al Qaeda's branch in Syria, which ISIL has attempted to consolidate into itself over the past year. In fact, it is apparent that ISIL and al Qaeda have been at odds for several years, dating to the mid 2000s. While it is unlikely that the two groups will become equal rivals, it is, at the same time, clear that they may view themselves that way in the near future. In the ongoing infighting of Syria's opposition forces, al Qaeda has propped up its links to the al Nusra Front and ISIL signed a truce with Suqour al Sham. Consolidation in the region could mean less infighting, but could also lead to a severely split opposition, making it more difficult for outside powers to support either side.

(Map of ISIL operations, Source: Red24)

Critically, al Qaeda's declaration may reflect which battle it now envisions as more winnable - Syria or Iraq. While it has made occasional gains in Iraq, al Qaeda forces, by and large, have been continually beaten back. Moreover, the continued presence of American troops and related support hinder operations in Iraq. Syria, meanwhile, has limited Western interference while it collapses - The Economist's "The Death of a Country" piece ran nearly a year ago - leaving a potential vacuum of power in all but al Assad's western strongholds. In the end, this could make Syria's near term future only more violent, a fact that is difficult to imagine given the United Nations' February 4 report detailing the violence there today. 

Disarming a nation's WMD: not as easy as first thought

Syria's "voluntary" acceptance to give up its chemical weapons arsenal in light of horrific video showing the effects of a gas attack on its own population is, by all means, an unprecedented solution. Even the United Nations admits to as much. It will take well into 2014, at best estimates, to complete the process; even though it is unclear how much WMD Syria even has. One major unknown is that both sides remain locked in a civil war, so there is a disarmament process within a country still at war. Giving up the chemical weapons is certainly a much brighter prospect than being ground zero for the next major international conflict, but in the end, does it solve the problems in Syria, or even help lead to their resolution?

Disarmament is a tricky process. Germany was, in many senses, disarmed between the world wars - that didn't end too well (World War II). The list of nations that have successfully dabbled (armed, not just researched), peaceably disarmed, and then integrated into  international community norms is short. You could make the case for South Africa, but its disarmament was tied to significant sanctions because of apartheid. It was apartheid's end that really brought South Africa within norms. You may say Libya; however, similar sanctions decimated the entire economy (and the energy industry in particular). In addition, Libya under Gaddafi still came toppling down years later. Three former Soviet states inherited WMD (Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine), but all returned them, having no ability to maintain them long-term and limited capacity to use them. Iraq? Well, that went south years later. No great example exists.

In many senses, Syria is a test case. What will be the effect on Assad's government? How will this affect the Syrian Civil War? What implications exist for the greater Middle East? These are all unknowns that rest on the progress of the chemical disarmament.

Previous Illexum Posts on Syria:

• Unthinkable? No. Unprecedented? No. Ignored. Yes. - Syria Today (September 5, 2013)
• UN good at counting; everything else - not so much (June 13, 2013)
• Foreign Arms in Syria (June 2, 2013)
• Can't Trust Anyone (in Syria) (May 19, 2013)
• The Chorus Grows Louder: Syria & WMD (April 28, 2013)
• Raise Your Hand if You Saw Chemical Weapons (March 21, 2013)
• Annan Resigns, Endgame Approaches? (August 2, 2012)

UN good at counting; everything else - not so much

A new report from the United Nations (UN) human rights commission indicates that the death toll of the Syrian Civil War stands at nearly 93,000 (Full report here). This is not the first time the UN has released a report on the Syrian death toll. The list only includes those whose names and locations of death are known, thereby all-but guaranteeing that the actual toll of the war is much higher. The UN seems to be great at compiling sources and counting reports of deaths. It is not unimaginable that a team of graduate students could likely do the job (and there are databases of civil war deaths and civilian deaths of wars - example here).

The biggest missing piece is action, or even a call to action. The UN was created to (emphasis ours):

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

That is Article 1, Section 1 of the United Nations Charter. That is the first thing that was considered - the basis of all else. It's spirit is not being upheld. That is not to say how many articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are being outright ignored - to which, surprisingly, Syria voted in favor of.

In fact, the current UN report concludes most irreverently:

"Examining reported killings is an important step in understanding violence in Syria. But it is only a first step. Further analysis is necessary to answer substantive questions about patterns of violence during this conflict."

It seems to completely gloss over the fact that this is not a historical conflict where historical data is being examined - this is happening now - today. The next step is not to answer "substantive questions about patterns of violence during this conflict." The next step is to use this evidence to encourage a stand against the violence and bringing the conflict to an end.

Previous Illexum posts on Syria:

Foreign Arms in Syria (June 2, 2013)

Can't Trust Anyone (in Syria) (May 19, 2013)

To Do What Feels Necessary (May 4, 2013)

The Chorus Grows Louder: Syria & WMD (April 28, 2013)

Raise Your Hand if You Saw Chemical Weapons (March 21, 2013)

Israel Bombs Syria, Everyone Stays Quiet (January 31, 2013)

The French are Invading! (Sort of)

Well, not exactly. Or at least it's not clear yet what they're doing, apart from some form of military "support" with the troops organization by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to repel rebellious forces aligned with al-Qaeda. It's not even clear if French involvement is limited to air support, which is sorely needed, or also actively includes ground forces stationed in the region. Mali has been spiraling down a black hole for a while, and it has been particularly bad for at least six months.

Nonetheless, everyone seems happy with the party, so long as they don't have to participate. The United Kingdom, European Union, and the United States all extended support for the mission and French involvement. None hinted at physical support, even though some weapons in the hands of the rebels may be the result of those made available to Libyan rebels and in the wake of Libya's rebellion. The United Nations, having urged an African-led counter to the rebels in UNSC 2071 (October) and reaffirmed it in UNSC 2085 (December), is also pleased that the Security Council does not seem inept.

However, does any of this really have to do with any of these countries or pan-national bodies? Mali was under French colonial power until its independence in 1960. Since the waves of independence in Africa, France has consistently displayed a willingness to use military force to support post-independence governments. Although France is using Security Council resolutions to back its participation, there is little question that French forces would have otherwise assisted. The French have spent the past half-century attempting to use military force to attempt to fix substantive flaws in colonial administration that led to much post-independence violence, hatred, and bickering.

So while France continues to show its role in Africa, a role that it wants to have given the still potential impact of African countries and economies on trade, energy, and precious mineral availability, the United States is missing an opportunity. Wasn't AFRICOM created for specifically this purpose? Instead, AFRICOM seems to be sitting quietly in Germany, watching at best.

It remains to be seen what will come of this military intervention. Will the rebels be driven back, or will it falter? The only given so far is who is sitting this one out.

When do we start helping Israel with the Middle East's dirty work?

In 1981, Israeli planes bombed and destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor just south of Baghdad. The operation was vehemently lambasted by the United Nations. At the same time, many believe that the attack set back a developing nuclear weapons program by at least a decade. This not to say that work on weapons of mass destruction halted entirely after the attack, but that efforts to meet those ends were harmed. Even the expansion of those efforts and their hidden nature did not, it seems, bring Iraq back to where it would have been had the reactor remained.

More than 20 years later, in 2007, Israeli commandos and planes destroyed a nuclear reactor in Syria. Reaction, this time around, was softer with largely silence throughout the Middle East. Reports quickly confirmed that the destroyed facility was an undeclared nuclear reactor with possible military implications.

Come to 2012, and the question of Iranian reactors lingers. Israel has been repeatedly asked to back off and avoid repeating the 1981 and 2007 incidents. It seems though, that patience is wearing thin. For Israel, the question is not of politics, or even military ability; the question is existential. Will the Israelis carry out a third strike on a nuclear reactor in the Middle East in (just about) 30 years?

This time around, the environment is different. Calculations are more complex. The Israeli public is arguably more comfortable with the international environment and more wary of a war with a (relative) neighbor, or at least one with the missile capacity to rock Israeli cities and towns.

The US, the West, and the UN, have tiptoed around the issue of Iranian nuclear development for years. Perhaps it is time we draw a hard line and help our supposed ally, thereby possibly also avoiding an all-out conflict that could drag in other neighbors, including those with fledgling democratic reforms.

Civilian Deaths Down In Afghanistan; U.N. Unhappy

Even in a short U.N. press release such as this, there are numerous questions about how to gauge success in Afghanistan or success of counter-terrorism in general.  Civilian casualties caused by international and pro-government forces were down 25%, and those forces were responsible for only 10% of all civilian casualties.  Anti-government forces, meanwhile, were responsible for 80% of civilian casualties, and their assassinations of pro-government officials, use of IEDs, and attacks on schools, were all on the rise.  Overall, civilian casualties were down 15%.

From that data, one could point to numerous successes, including the improved efforts of pro-government forces to minimize civilian casualties.  On the other hand, protecting civilians from Taliban and other insurgent attacks -- though extremely difficult -- is a necessary component of any successful counter-terrorist effort.  If a government cannot keep its citizens safe, then those citizens will continue to lack faith in that government.  The Taliban is likely too embedded into Afghan society to ever be eradicated by military means alone; rather, any lasting peace in the region will almost undoubtedly involve bringing the Taliban to the table.  Until then, the war will continue to wind down to a bloody end, if indeed an end is in sight.

Annan Resigns, Endgame Approaches?

Kofi Annan resigned today as the UN-Arab League envoy to Syria.

To start, this decision was neither courageous nor timely. Moreover, Annan did not all-out resign, but rather chose to accept the inevitable and request that his position not be renewed when it expires, in nearly a month (August 31).

This peace plan and partnership with the Arab League never had any bite. Both sides undermined the agreement as well as its principles. The end result: more death and destruction.

The only hope is, Annan's resignation turns the tide, displays that peaceful coexistence with Syria's current leadership is untenable, and ends the silent partnership between certain nations and Syria's neptocracy. Acceptance of the status quo, or its waverings, may finally open up to a new Syria.