Major New Developments in Syria--For Once, Not Entirely Bad

There's been big news on the Syria Front, and it could have significant implications for the fledgling peace process that is currently underway.

Syrian Kurds Poised to Declare Autonomous Region
Up first, the Syrian Kurds are planning to declare an autonomous, federal region within the areas of northern Syria that they already control. The formal declaration hadn't occurred at the time of this writing, but it appears it will fall short of declaring outright independence from Syria proper. On the contrary, the Syrian Kurds are suggesting this federalized model could be extended as a model for a Syria.

At the risk of sounding patronizing, it might be useful to clarify what precisely "federal" means in this context. In the US, the term "federal" has a confusing connotation to it. After all, in US history, it was the Federalist Papers that ultimately convinced the newly freed colonies to ratify the US Constitution which created a much stronger central government than before. Similarly, given how large and wide-reaching the US government is today, you could be forgiven for thinking of federal as short-hand for a powerful central government.

In its more native usage, however, it really means the opposite. A federalized system is one in which the central government typically has relatively little authority and leaves a lot of the decisions up to the various underlying subregions (states, provinces, cantons, etc.). That's what the Syrian Kurds are hoping for as the eventual outcome of the Syrian War.

And as models go, you could do a lot worse. From an economics standpoint, federalized systems are appealing for two key reasons. First, they offer the opportunity for experimentation with different policies, and would potentially allow citizens to more readily move to a region that fits their political or economic preferences. For instance, it's easier for me to move from Oregon to New Hampshire in the US, than it is for me to move from Oregon to, say, Switzerland. Ultimately, the federal system can allow subregions to compete against each other to lure people and businesses to their area. Over time, we would expect this to produce better policies than a governing system that is more monolithic.

In the context of an ongoing civil war, another aspect of federalism might be even more valuable. It virtually goes without saying that there is a lot of deep mistrust and resentment on all sides of the Syrian conflict. Given this, how likely is it that they are going to be able to agree on what the new government will look like? Will there be free and fair elections? Even if there are, will all sides really accept the outcome as final or just resume fighting if they don't get what they want? It's tough to see how this all ends well. But one thing that could be helpful is to lower the stakes. If a more federalized model is embraced, the central government is weakened and it matters less which people and parties get to lead it.

While, on the surface, the Kurdish proposal seems reasonable enough, it does not look like it is going to be well-received by many of the players in the peace process. The ruling Syrian government opposes it, the US opposes it, and Turkey is probably plotting more shelling or airstrikes against the Syrian Kurds as a response (unfortunately, that's not hyperbole). The US apparently rests its opposition to the move on the idea that the US will only accept a federalized solution if it emerges through the peace process. But this is obviously a bit ironic since the Syrian Kurds in question were excluded from said peace process (most likely at Turkey's behest). Indeed, their exclusion is what appears to have prompted this announcement in the first place.

As a clarification here, we should point out that we're not suggesting the US take any particular stance on the Kurdish announcement. We have previously argued, on the related question of outright Kurdish independence, that this is a very volatile and complicated issue that the US best avoid taking sides in. From the standpoint of the American people, that seems to remain the most sensible policy today as well.

But if the US is going to be sitting at the negotiating table, we'd probably prefer they were supporting a federal option instead of just reiterating the untenable demand that Assad must go. The former has at least some chance of since; the latter just ensures the war will continue.

Russian Force Withdrawal
The other big news story this week is that Russia announced they will begin removing most of their forces in Syria this week, having achieved their objectives. This development is important, and positive, for several key reasons:

First and foremost, it should reduce tensions between the US and Russia over time. One of the US government's key talking points on Russia has been the idea that they were somehow hellbent on rekindling a world empire after their actions in Crimea and Syria. This never made much sense, but that didn't stop it from gaining wide currency in the US media. At its most hysterical pitch, the reliable Senator McCain could be found blaming Obama's weakness for allowing Russia to reinsert itself in the Middle East. Given how well it's worked out for the US, it's not altogether clear why this was supposed to be a bad thing, even if it were true--the most likely answer being that John McCain is fascinated by the game of Risk and desperately wanted to live it out in real life. In any case, however, it turns out that wasn't true. Or if it was, Russia's new Middle Eastern empire was the shortest in history.

Second, a reduced Russian presence should translate into fewer airstrikes occurring in Syria, and along with that, fewer civilian casualties.

And finally, the removal of Russia's significant military aid to Syria may make Assad more eager to negotiate a peaceful settlement quickly. The Syrian military made significant gains with Russia's help. It is not immediately clear whether those gains would be reversed when the support is removed, but it is a real possibility. Thus, Assad has a clear incentive to negotiate a settlement while he is in relatively good shape and avoid the potential erosion of his position in the future.

Finally, for more commentary and analysis on the Russian withdrawal, we recommend a new piece by Ray McGovern at Antiwar.com. If podcasts are more your thing, you can also check out Ray's interview on the Scott Horton Show, which addresses this same topic. (Note: it's part of the 3/16 show if you go that route.)

Want to Spread Democratic Values? Try Peace and Trade

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani
Source: Wikipedia

In the aftermath of the Cold War, many US policymakers have publicly embraced the idea of spreading democracy and freedom as a central goal of US foreign policy. It's not clear whether most politicians actually believe in this or have just cynically adopted it for political purposes. But it has been a major component of the marketing of every modern war. So the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was sold as Operation Enduring Freedom and focused not only on getting revenge for 9/11, but also on the lack of women's rights under the ruling Taliban regime. Similarly, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not exclusively based on the alleged threat of weapons of mass destruction and imagined links to Al Qaeda. Rather, the Bush Administration and its allies also claimed that we would "be greeted as liberators" in Iraq.

Under the Obama Administration, the goal of spreading democracy has taken a partial backseat to the more expansive mandate of humanitarian intervention, but democracy spreading is still there. Thus, when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton makes the unwise choice to defend the disastrous Libyan war, she often celebrates the fact that they held democratic elections afterwards, as if that were an end in itself.

Of course, it is worth debating whether the US really should have spreading democracy as a core mission at all.* But if we accept that premise for the sake of argument, we arrive at an equally important question. If the US does want to spread democracy and expand freedoms around the world, what is the most effective method to do so?

Recent history is quite clear that the answer is not military intervention. The countries that have been most heavily targeted in the so-called War on Terror can be described as many things; functioning liberal democracy is not one of them.

But on the contrary, there are new signs that the alternative approach of peace and trade may be quite effective. The Iran nuclear deal will likely go down as Obama's only significant positive achievement in the realm of foreign policy. Iran's enrichment capabilities were diminished, around-the-clock inspections were put in place, and most important of all, broad sanctions against Iran were lifted in exchange. For the first time in many years, Iran is able to participate in the global markets largely unimpeded. Many of the Iranian people appear to be feeling more optimistic about their future economic prospects.

The moderate President Rouhani successfully campaigned for election back in 2013 on the promise of ending the standoff with the West and bringing an end to the economic sanctions. He made good on that promise. And in the most recent national elections, the Iranian voters showed their broad approval of these efforts. Moderate and Reformist candidates won a lopsided victory in the elections, unseating many of the hard-liners that had attempted to block progress towards a nuclear agreement with the West.

These latest results appear to pave the way for a more rapid normalization of relations with the West and potentially more domestic reforms in the country as well. And all of this now seems possible even though the Iranian political system that governed these elections is far from free or open. As commentator Muhammad Sahimi recently explained, political candidates are subject to a formal approval process by existing political bodies before they are allowed to run, and many candidates are denied. In spite of these limitations, the forces for moderation appear to have made significant gains.

It's difficult to predict exactly how this will play out over the remainder of Rouhani's term. But the initial results offer strong anecdotal evidence in favor of diplomacy and trade as the most effective tools in the foreign policy arsenal. The reason why should be intuitive. It appears that countries, like people, are persuaded more readily by positive rewards than negative coercion. And it's always a great thing when common sense gets another data point in its favor.

*I, for one, would prefer a mission more akin to the Hippocratic Oath: First do no harm.

Sanctions Against Iran Lifted, Followed by New Sanctions

This weekend, Iran's compliance with the terms of last summer's nuclear deal was officially verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Shortly thereafter, the P5+1 nations (UN Security Council + Germany) proceeded to lift the majority of their sanctions against Iran, pursuant to the terms of the agreement. Additionally, coinciding with this agreement, the US and Iran successfully negotiated a prisoner swap whereby Iran released 5 US prisoners and got 7 Iranian prisoners released in return.

These were remarkably positive developments for all parties involved. Any reasonable fears remaining about Iran developing a nuclear weapon were mollified, and the Iranian people regained access to the world markets, which will surely be a boon to their economy. More importantly, it showed that diplomacy can produce success, and it was a win for the voices of restraint and moderation in both Iran and the United States. Trade was opened, and the war drums were muffled. Given Obama's record on virtually every other foreign policy issue of his presidency,* it almost seemed too good to be true. A day later, we learned that it was.

Dovetailing closely with Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton's own calls for new sanctions against Iran, President Obama announced yesterday that the US would impose new sanctions against certain individuals and entities involved in Iran's ballistic missile program. This issue relates to the uproar that occurred last fall when Iran tested new ballistic missiles.

As a practical matter, these sanctions aren't nearly as bad for the Iranian people as the initial ones were. They are targeted in nature, and only 11 entities made the list. Presumably, this will have a negligible impact on the Iranian economy and will happily do very little to offset the gains from the lifted sanctions.

That said, these sanctions are important as a possible sign of things to come. On the heels of diffusing several long-standing diplomatic issues and avoiding a potential crisis last week, the US had a choice to make. We could either fully bring Iran in from the cold and treat it like any other nation, that is neither perfectly virtuous nor perfectly evil. Or we could continue to be hostile towards Iran to score domestic political points and appease our allies, principally Israel and Saudi Arabia. The new sanctions suggest that we are choosing the path of hostility.

We know this because the premise for these new sanctions is highly dubious. It is debated by some whether the recent ballistic missile tests violated the letter or spirit of UN resolutions against missile development. But this is the wrong debate. It is more important to ask why those UN resolutions against Iran existed in the first place. It turns out the restrictions against ballistic missile development were implemented in connection with the nuclear program. That is, the restrictions  were originally put in place to prevent Iran from developing a delivery vehicle for the nuclear weapons they were allegedly developing. So now that the nuclear issue is resolved, implementing new sanctions on the ostensibly related ballistic missile program doesn't make a lot of sense. Even if it is legal based on the letter of the restrictions, it's easy to see this as a show of bad faith by the US, especially coming a day after the triumph of lifting other sanctions.

Now, some have pointed out that it is wrong for people who support peace to oppose sanctions on weapons development. While this suggestion is understandable, it is flawed for two reasons.

First, this ban is not uniform. It's not a treaty restricting development of weapons across all nations or even a detente kind of agreement between rivals to lower tensions, which would certainly warrant support. Rather, it singles out one nation in particular for special, negative treatment. As we've said, practically, this is likely of little importance. But symbolically, it means Iran is still deemed a pariah state by some, which increases, rather than decreases tensions.

Second, it's tough to see how Iran has committed the kind of exceptional atrocities that might warrant entirely unique treatment. It is often pointed out by critics that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and has committed human rights abuses at home. Under any plausible definition of terrorism, this is certainly true. If nothing else, Iran's support for notoriously brutal Shiite militias in Iraq and their ongoing competition with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for the most executions, would check both boxes. But, they are far from alone in this regard. Saudi Arabia, with its oppression at home, brutal campaign in Yemen, and support for jihadists in Syria, would qualify. Similarly, NATO ally Turkey's newly ramped up repression of press freedom at home and their collusion with Al Qaeda in Syria would also qualify. If we're going to sanction Iran on these grounds, consistency would seem to demand we cast a broader net. But obviously, it goes without saying that this is not the path the US will choose. Turkey is still an ally, and Saudi Arabia somehow has a seat on the UN Human Rights Council.

Opposition to sanctions, old or new, does not rest on a belief that Iran's government is a paragon of virtue. Nor does it require apologizing or exonerating them for their misdeeds. It only requires one to believe that the rule of law is just as important internationally as it is domestically; that Iran deserves the same consideration as other countries; and that sanctions and criticism should be issued based on a country's actions, not just their alliances. These latest sanctions do not follow that script. And right at the time when peace looked certain to emerge, they moved us one step back toward hostility. The new sanctions aren't about arms control, and they're moving us closer to war, not peace.

*I'm excluding Cuba here. We haven't fully normalized relations with them yet, but we're much closer than when Obama took office, and he deserves credit for that.