World Refugee Day Challenges Our Humanitarian Sensibilities

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

While I have often expressed my thoughts about the Syrian, Palestinian, and Iraqi refugees in Lebanon, even including the burdens carried by Jordan and Palestine, it is only a starting point for recognizing the awful global conditions of refugees, internally displaced peoples, undocumented migrants, and stateless people that live in all corners of the globe.

You have heard the numbers and they are all horrific, no matter how your rationalize them. For example, The Guardian published a list of the 34,351 people known to have died trying to reach Europe since the early 1990s. Ironically, according to vox.com, The UN defines a refugee as “someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence.” As of May, an estimated 25.4 million refugees around the globe have fled their homes to escape violence and persecution.

Yet the day is not for mourning, as vox.com notes, “It’s a day that the United Nations created to celebrate the resilience and courage of refugees and their contributions to society.” That is small comfort to the tens of millions of refugees, many fleeing persecution because of ethnic, religion, tribal, or other confrontations over identity.

More facts from the same story. By the end of last year, according to a recent UNHCR report, there were 68.5 million forcibly displaced people in the world, including 25.4 million refugees. The number also includes about 40 million internally displaced people — people who were forced to leave their homes but are still in their home countries — and 3.1 million asylum seekers, or people who have applied for refugee status but are waiting for approval.

2017 was the sixth consecutive year that the number of forcibly displaced people in the world surpassed peak World War II levels, and this year’s reports indicate that that number is probably going to keep going up. The majority of refugees right now are from Syria, where 6.3 million people have fled their country to escape the ongoing conflict there. European countries have also taken in asylum seekers from several other countries, like Iraq and Afghanistan.

So how is it possible to celebrate resilience and courage when refugees face separation from their families, may be interred in inhospitable facilities, and deprived of basic services and support? It is more an observance of the survival instincts of the human condition, both for the refugees and for their host communities when they open their homes and share their resources with strangers.

So while the Lebanese, Turks, Jordanians, Malays, Colombians, Ugandans, Pakistanis, and others are bearing the burdens of those less fortunate, the US and Europe, most recently Italy, are responding by shutting down their borders. Here’s a snapshot worth pondering: Last September, the US dropped the refugee cap, which is the maximum number of refugees from anywhere to the US to just 45,000 people, the lowest number in years. And even though Syrians are the largest group of people fleeing conflict right now, from January to April of this year the US reportedly only accepted 11 Syrian refugees.

World Refugee Day should be an observance of communities like Rochester, Minnesota, Portland, Maine, and Oakland, California, which have opened their hearts and cities to refugees and are benefiting from having inclusive and empowering populations driving sustainable economic growth. So, let’s salute those host communities, international and local agencies, and refugees in Lebanon and elsewhere who are facing the challenges of re-making their lives under very difficult conditions. And let’s continue to encourage the US and the international donor community to expand their humanitarian assistance to those in need.

 

World Refugee Day Challenges Our Humanitarian Sensibilities

/0 Comments/in , , /by

While I have often expressed my thoughts about the Syrian, Palestinian, and Iraqi refugees in Lebanon, even including the burdens carried by Jordan and Palestine, it is only a starting point for recognizing the awful global conditions of refugees, internally displaced peoples, undocumented migrants, and stateless people that live in all corners of the globe.

You have heard the numbers and they are all horrific, no matter how your rationalize them. For example, The Guardian published a list of the 34,351 people known to have died trying to reach Europe since the early 1990s. Ironically, according to vox.com, The UN defines a refugee as “someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence.” As of May, an estimated 25.4 million refugees around the globe have fled their homes to escape violence and persecution.

Yet the day is not for mourning, as vox.com notes, “It’s a day that the United Nations created to celebrate the resilience and courage of refugees and their contributions to society.” That is small comfort to the tens of millions of refugees, many fleeing persecution because of ethnic, religion, tribal, or other confrontations over identity.

More facts from the same story. By the end of last year, according to a recent UNHCR report, there were 68.5 million forcibly displaced people in the world, including 25.4 million refugees. The number also includes about 40 million internally displaced people — people who were forced to leave their homes but are still in their home countries — and 3.1 million asylum seekers, or people who have applied for refugee status but are waiting for approval.

2017 was the sixth consecutive year that the number of forcibly displaced people in the world surpassed peak World War II levels, and this year’s reports indicate that that number is probably going to keep going up. The majority of refugees right now are from Syria, where 6.3 million people have fled their country to escape the ongoing conflict there. European countries have also taken in asylum seekers from several other countries, like Iraq and Afghanistan.

So how is it possible to celebrate resilience and courage when refugees face separation from their families, may be interred in inhospitable facilities, and deprived of basic services and support? It is more an observance of the survival instincts of the human condition, both for the refugees and for their host communities when they open their homes and share their resources with strangers.

So while the Lebanese, Turks, Jordanians, Malays, Colombians, Ugandans, Pakistanis, and others are bearing the burdens of those less fortunate, the US and Europe, most recently Italy, are responding by shutting down their borders. Here’s a snapshot worth pondering: Last September, the US dropped the refugee cap, which is the maximum number of refugees from anywhere to the US to just 45,000 people, the lowest number in years. And even though Syrians are the largest group of people fleeing conflict right now, from January to April of this year the US reportedly only accepted 11 Syrian refugees.

World Refugee Day should be an observance of communities like Rochester, Minnesota, Portland, Maine, and Oakland, California, which have opened their hearts and cities to refugees and are benefiting from having inclusive and empowering populations driving sustainable economic growth. So, let’s salute those host communities, international and local agencies, and refugees in Lebanon and elsewhere who are facing the challenges of re-making their lives under very difficult conditions. And let’s continue to encourage the US and the international donor community to expand their humanitarian assistance to those in need.

The Debate Is Not Over – Dissociation Vs Hezbollah’s Regional Ambitions

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

Although the government of Lebanon agreed this week to a renewed commitment to dissociation, Hezbollah’s representatives said that it was nothing different in content from the previous Cabinet agreement and reserved the right to issue its own position. Importantly, the restatement enabled Prime Minister Saad Hariri to withdraw his resignation and take up his position in the government, which has a full agenda in advance of the May 2018 Parliamentary elections.

As a recent article by an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy put it, “Now that Hariri has returned to Lebanon and suspended his resignation, the question is no longer about him. Rather, it is how Iran will move beyond this hurdle to consolidate its achievements in Lebanon and the region.”

This is the obvious conundrum. Will Hezbollah continue to act as Iran’s proxy across the region and continue ramping up its military presence in Lebanon threatening Israel, or will it resume its Lebanese character and limit its ambitions to its home country?  As the article points out, “When Hizballah decided to join Iran’s regional foreign legion, it was only a matter of time before Lebanon would be dragged with Hizballah to the regional confrontation. Now, any dialogue among the Lebanese people or possible resolution to nation’s crisis is going to be tied to regional negotiations over the conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.”

To successfully navigate between its commitments, to Iran and Lebanon, Hezbollah will have to choose between continuing its involvement in Yemen and Iraq while advancing towards a more nuanced and evolving posture in Syria. In fact, Hezbollah could be helpful in working with the Lebanese government to reduce threats along the border as hostilities wind down, and provide pathways for solving the refugee presence in Lebanon and well as its participation in Syria’s reconstruction.

Analysts are offering two contradictory scenarios: the entire episode has strengthened Hariri’s hand and weakened Saudi Arabia, or weakened Hariri and strengthened Hezbollah. What is even murkier is how public opinion will morph from now until the 2018 Parliamentary elections.

And what are the Lebanese saying about this?

Implications of the Hariri crisis on the election results are very hard to predict. According to NDI, despite some naysayers, the new election law does not of itself favor Hezbollah. It puts more districts up for grabs, and Hezbollah may benefit because of its better organization. If enough young voters are mobilized in these competitive districts around capable candidates, the results may not reflect the usual sectarian patterns.

According to a Washington Institute article on political affiliations among Lebanese, it points out that “a reasonable estimate is this:  around 40 percent are Shia Muslim; 30 percent Sunni Muslim; 25 percent Christians (Maronite, Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholic, Armenian, Protestant, and other); and the remaining 5 percent mostly Druze, plus a few other small minorities.”

“Asked about their attitude toward Hezbollah, the extent of Lebanese sectarian polarization is sharply evident. Among Sunnis, 85 percent express a negative view and just 14 percent a positive one.  But among Shia, the proportions are almost exactly the reverse:  88 percent voice a positive opinion of Hezbollah (including a striking 83 percent “very positive”); while a mere 11 percent say they have a negative opinion.”

What is critical about these numbers is that they are no longer the only indicator of voting outcomes in the Parliamentary elections. Political affiliations in the abstract do not always coincide with voter behavior. “For example, in the 2016 local elections, 45 percent voted against Hezbollah and affiliated Amal candidates, even in their supposed stronghold of Baalbek.”

The Christian voters are likewise is flux. “Lebanon’s substantial Christian minority remains split almost down the middle on Hezbollah: 45 percent in favor, 55 percent opposed.  Yet almost half of Lebanese Christians still apparently adhere to the view of the country’s Maronite president, Michel Aoun, that Hezbollah represents a positive player in the Lebanese arena. How his position evolves, if at all, in the coming months will be telling.

Despite disagreements about Iran and Syria evident among the respondents, there was a high degree of agreement regarding support for coexistence between Sunnis and Shias and the overriding importance of domestic reforms compared to foreign policy.

Moving on

The international pushback that reversed Hariri’s sojourn in Riyadh demonstrated that Lebanon has an intrinsic value to Western countries that value its role as a buffer state that strives to preserve it tolerant, multi-confessional character in a very tough neighborhood, made more dangerous by Iran’s aggressive policies in the region. The zero sum game between Saudi Arabia and Iran can have no winners without dangerous and unprecedented instability throughout the region.

Even President Trump’s official recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel will only for a moment be a common cause among Sunnis and Shias. It only opens the door for Hezbollah to reassert its presence in the south and make menacing noises that may, though misjudgment and miscalculation by either party, lead to a catastrophe for Lebanon.

So the tension around the resignation and restoration, coupled with the US announcement on Jerusalem may only result in more instability in the near term, hopefully dissipating before the election season begins.

As the European Council on Foreign Relations noted in an article, “The collective memory of Lebanon’s own civil war and the buy-in of key political leaders to the current order still hold firm. But renewed political paralysis and associated economic shock – which could be made considerably worse if Riyadh tightens the financial noose – will feed intensified instability and the further hollowing out of the state.”

It further states that “These are precisely the conditions which will help Hezbollah reinforce its parallel, non-state ascendancy,” which may be worsened if the war of words about Jerusalem turns violent.

Lebanon’s hope in the run-up to the election is that “A broad-based government and legitimate parliament, even if it includes Hezbollah, still likely represent a better means of establishing some political counter-weight to the group’s dominance. It is also key to providing the governance services needed to maintain the semblance of a functioning state able to act as a legitimate alternative to Hezbollah.”

The Hariri episode is but the latest in the continuing and challenging efforts to rebuild Lebanon’s role in the region as a hub for intellectual, cultural, and economic progress.

 

Is there Synergy between Trump’s Foreign and Domestic Policy Tracks?

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

Administrations generally base foreign policy on a set of principles reflecting worldviews that include domestic considerations, historical precedents, and a desire to have a legacy that will endure beyond the end of their tenure. With the end of foreign policy bipartisanship in the 80s, collateral damage from pendulum swings after Vietnam, the rise of insurgencies sparked by non-state actors, and a growing disaffection between Congress and whatever administration was in power, defining core US interests became murky and inconsistent from one term to the next.

No region has been immune to these inconsistencies, with the possible exception of NATO-linked Europe. And the Trump Administration has made it clear that even a ‘principled’ foreign policy will not interfere with its definition of national interest.

Which brings me to the point of this blog. It complements an earlier one that listed challenges confronting the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) regarding obstacles to growing the kind of political and economic institutions central to long-term stability and security. Whatever the homegrown definition of democracy guiding each country, at some point an accountable relationship between citizens and government (the social contract) evolves as a touchstone for measuring its development.

Given the challenges outlined previously, it is not clear if a US foreign policy, or rather policies, consistent with the ‘American First’ national interests defined by the Trump Administration, can be defined with any certainty. Early indications are that what we have so far are muddled, regardless of the country or region. This may reflect the “art of the deal” approach to keeping an opponent off guard, a determination that offers should not be set in concrete until the other side’s hand is exposed, or any other feints in a negotiator or card player’s handbook.

In any case, the choral approach of everyone on the same page is still emerging in the Administration so in that absence, I’ll suggest some ideas for how debates about our domestic policy could enrich options perceived by those across the table from us.

Tying together domestic and foreign policy lessons learned

Let’s begin by recognizing that I believe that an integrated strategy on our part is essential – combining ‘all of government’ attention to shaping approaches that clearly calculate the odds of success and results of failure in achieving our objectives. Domestically, this should be applied to issues ranging from upgrading our infrastructure to facing domestic terrorism. Internationally, upcoming steps on resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict will be instructive in this regard: do we adopt a piecemeal approach or a comprehensive settlement? I argue that what we can learn domestically can be applied to relations with our counterparts and help generate strategies that integrate as far as possible all sectors of governance in a national consensus on next steps…the new social contract.

Why should the promotion of economic growth and equitable distribution of wealth and opportunities, certainly on President Trump’s national agenda, be avoided in conversations with other countries? If American voters see these as vital to our country’s future, why would we think these goals are foreign to foreigners? For example, enabling economic growth through increased competitiveness of our products and services can serve as an example of a benefit of better governance by other countries. Technical assistance focused on advancing models of teamwork, efficiency, and accountability in government programs using US funds can be a step in that direction. Of course, how this messaging is accomplished will, by necessity, be informed by lessons learned from generations of US assistance programs.

Job creation is another overlapping goal of the US and its partners. If the readouts of Trump’s talks with industry leaders are accurate, the President is learning that young and jobless Americans need to be educated in marketable skills that enable them to be active in our transitioning economy. The only difference with our overseas partners is the perceptions of their youth that some jobs are unsuitable for them…even though their parents may complain about the high price they pay for maintenance and technical support services at home and at work. No, I take that back…many American youth are also allergic to jobs that require manual labor, operating machinery and computers, and vocational skills that are the backbone of imported and immigrant labor.

As we look forward to a robust commitment to building infrastructure across this country, we can share those experiences with others. For example, when the US provides economic assistance to build the partner country’s economic capacity, we should insist on a few conditions. The first would be to limit the effect of “wasta” or influence through engendering merit-based recruitment and advancement. Another useful condition would be to align donor programs to minimize redundancy, promote efficiencies of scale, and thereby have additional capacity to address issues. A third factor in which we have experience is the promotion of small and medium-sized job creating enterprises through enabling services from financing to legal and marketing resources. While some of these factors are already in play, frankly, we don’t have a great results to date.

Another area in which the Trump administration may create replicable patterns is the recruitment and use of foreign labor. Just as the US has become addicted to legal and illegal immigrants to handle the jobs that Americans resist, the same is true throughout the MENA region. Tens of thousands of South Asians are working in countries where few labored previously. Countries are caught in a bind between jobs that citizens will do versus what foreigners will do at much less cost and often more diligently. It is a dilemma that may not have any solutions, in the US or abroad.

Finally, one quality of American business that should become a key component of the Trump foreign assistance program is to redefine what we lump under ‘transparency.’ American companies with US contracts here and abroad should be models of integrity in business dealings and support that value with their counterparts overseas. When we look at the sums mentioned for the proposed US infrastructure program, many still remember the obscene abuses of contractors rebuilding Iraq, supplying forces in Afghanistan, and myriad other examples that trouble our procurement processes.

If we are unwilling to behave within the bounds of propriety (however defined), then why do we expect it of our partners? The President would be wise to establish a proactive IG corps to monitor and assess infrastructure initiatives, which will incorporate broad private sector participation, as a good faith commitment to US taxpayers. If we insist on a similar transparent approach with our partners, including public bid processes, regular auditing and reporting, and incentives tied to better outcomes, then we will have made ‘America First’ a model for international cooperation that has extensive benefits for both parties and brings more stability and prospects for economic growth.

While these ideas may seem a bit faded, in this time of transition, fresh thinking about formulating and implementing domestic policy can help influence how we re-imagine foreign policy. Sharing lessons that we learn as we retool the American dream, can be both a humbling experience and potentially make a significant contribution to how the US moves ahead in these challenging times.