Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) ruffled some feathers in Washington on Wednesday when she announced that during a recent “fact-finding mission” to Syria, she met with President Bashar al-Assad. In an appearance on CNN’s “The Lead” and in an essay on Medium, Gabbard defended her trip against criticism for engaging with Assad, a tyrannical leader whose six-year civil war has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions.

“In order for any peace agreement, in order for any possible viable peace agreement to occur, there has to be a conversation with him,” Gabbard, 35, told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Wednesday. “The Syrian people will determine his outcome and what happens with their government and their future.”

The House Ethics Committee approved Gabbard’s trip, she said, which included stops in Aleppo and Damascus in Syria, as well as Beirut, Lebanon. She also said her trip was not funded by taxpayer money, but by the Arab American Community Center for Economic and Social Services, or AACCESS. During the weeklong trip, Gabbard met with many of the actors involved in the conflict: refugees, opposition leaders, business owners, students and, of course, Assad.

“I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there’s a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering,” Gabbard wrote in her account of her trip. She added that her visit showed her that U.S. policy in Syria “does not serve America’s interest, and it certainly isn’t in the interest of the Syrian people.”

In her first-person account, Gabbard concluded that there is no difference between the brutal jihadist groups like Islamic State or al-Qaeda and “moderate” rebel groups that the U.S. has helped in the fight. “This is a war between terrorists under the command of groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Syrian government,” Gabbard said, adding that the people she met with wish the U.S. and other countries would “stop supporting those who are destroying Syria and her people.”

Gabbard’s meeting with Assad was condemned by a number of people, including former independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin:

Part of Moscow’s effort to undermine democracy in Europe and the US is to support the extreme left and right. @tulsigabbard @realDonaldTrump

— Evan McMullin (@Evan_McMullin) January 26, 2017

Josh Rogin, a political analyst with The Washington Post, saw Gabbard’s trip as a propaganda effort by the Assad regime:

.@TulsiGabbard says the Syrians she spoke to all support Assad. Maybe because her trip was arranged by the regime? #facepalm

— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) January 25, 2017

Whatever the response to her trip, Gabbard said she comes back to D.C. “with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government.” Calling on Congress and the Trump Administration to end U.S. support for some Syrian rebel groups, Gabbard added: “We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Did Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad? appeared first on Law Street.

Aleppo, the once-vibrant World Heritage city in northwest Syria is in ruins, its residents trapped, its buildings folded over, its streets smoldering, littered with decaying bodies. A ceasefire was brokered by Russia and Turkey on Tuesday, aimed at allowing civilians and rebel fighters to be evacuated to the rebel-held city of Idlib, or to government-held territory in Aleppo. But by Wednesday afternoon, that small glimmer of hope was snuffed out as Turkish officials and activists on the ground reported more airstrikes and shelling.

Civilians who had gathered their belongings on Tuesday, hoping to pack into buses and flee the crumbling city, were stuck, with as many as 50,000 trapped in a small eastern pocket of Aleppo still held by rebel forces. It is unclear who exactly initiated or participated in Wednesday’s attacks. Turkey’s Foreign Minister said the Syrian regime and “some forces” were responsible, possibly alluding to Russia and Iran, two of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s closest allies.

It is unclear how many residents were able to flee Aleppo before it was razed and absorbed by the government. Russia says at least 100,000 people left; the UN put the figure at 37,000. Bana, the seven-year-old girl who began tweeting from Aleppo in September, appears to be still trapped in the city with her mother. On Tuesday, Bana tweeted: “This is my last moment to either live or die.” On Wednesday, Fatemah, Bana’s mother, pleaded with the international community to intervene:

Dear world, there’s intense bombing right now. Why are you silent? Why? Why? Why? Fear is killing me & my kids. – Fatemah #Aleppo

— Bana Alabed (@AlabedBana) December 14, 2016

Syrian forces entered the eastern, rebel-held flank of Aleppo on November 27, and quickly began gobbling up neighborhoods, and indiscriminately bombing apartments, buildings, and markets. The United Nations reports that hundreds of civilians have been killed since the government launched its offensive. When government forces announced their uncontested control of the entire city on Tuesday, a ceasefire was reached, and an evacuation plan, for rebels and civilians alike, was laid out.

Rebel fighters were to be bussed to rebel-held areas, either in Idlib to the west, or in rural, isolated areas throughout the country. Civilians had an option: to join the rebels or to be ushered into government hands. The evacuation process was set to begin before dawn on Wednesday morning, but buses were stalled and airstrikes and shelling eventually continued. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a monitoring group with activists on the ground, said 6,000 civilians had been conscripted by the Syrian government, forced to join the army.

“I hope you can remember us.”

This teacher in Aleppo shares a harrowing “last call” video as government forces take control of the city. pic.twitter.com/2CMzZplvav

— AJ+ (@ajplus) December 13, 2016

Others were simply executed. The UN reported that on Tuesday, Syrian troops and Iraqi militant groups killed 82 civilians, including at least 11 women and 13 children. Speaking to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the international body’s “immediate task is to do all we can to stop the carnage.” He added: “Aleppo should represent the end of the quest for military victory, not the start of a broader military campaign in a country already ravaged beyond all recognition by five years of war.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ceasefire in Aleppo Breaks Down: What’s Happening on the Ground? appeared first on Law Street.

On the night of Friday, July 15, while President Recep Erdogan was on vacation, members of the Turkish military attempted a coup. The effort involved members of several branches of the Turkish military and was only thwarted after the President took to social media to call on the people to rise up and protect the existing government. Although Erdogan was able to fend off a challenge to his rule, the history behind the coup attempt and Turkey’s significance both in the fight against ISIS and in Europe’s refugee crisis cannot be understated.

Read on to find out more about the coup itself and what it would mean if such an attempt was successful both in Turkey and throughout the region.

The Coup in Turkey

The coup started late on a Friday night when tanks dispersed into the Turkish capital of Ankara, passage to Europe along the Bosporus Bridge was blocked, and soldiers took to Taksim Square in Istanbul claiming the elected government was illegitimate and that the military has taken over the country.

However, before the military could completely seize power, President Erdogan did an interview with CNN Turk. Using Facetime, President Erdogan urged citizens to stand up to the coup and protest. This proved to be a catalyst for action, as many Turkish people took to the streets and faced down the military. By the time Erdogan landed in the early morning hours of Saturday, the coup was over and his administration was back in power. At the end of the incident, nearly 300 people were killed and an additional 1,400 were injured.

The video below details the failed coup:

Some History

The recent attempted coup was far from the first effort by the military to exert control over the country. Since 1960, three military coups have taken place and a fourth movement led by the military effectively forced out a sitting government in 1997. Although military coups take on the image of power-mad army officers bursting into cabinet offices, Turkey’s case is slightly different.

That is because the Turkish military has long served, at least in its own eyes, as the protector of the modern state of Turkey, which was founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1909. As this earlier Law Street article on the history of the Turkey illustrates, the military has played a crucial role in the development of the modern Turkish state. Chief among the army’s self-imposed responsibilities is keeping the country secular and free of the religious sentiment that has gripped many Middle Eastern countries to its south.

The following video looks at the history of coups in Turkey:

In the most recent coup attempt, the army officers in charge seemed to be rebelling against President Erdogan himself. Erdogan has won a series of elections each time consolidating more power for himself while neutralizing and even arresting his opponents.

While President Erdogan himself has blamed Fethullah Gulen, his former ally who now lives in Pennsylvania, Erdogan’s opponents cite his disregard for laws and the constitution. Erdogan is now in the process of seeking Gulen’s extradition from the United States, but the U.S. government has remained relatively resistant to his request.

The Aftermath

In the aftermath of the failed coup, many outside observers worried and some have even warned President Erdogan about using it as a justification to eliminate his rivals and further consolidate his power. These fears quickly seemed to be coming to fruition with Erdogan’s crackdown to oust from the government and military people he suspects were involved in the coup attempt. It started with the military, as thousands of personnel, including over a hundred generals and admirals, were detained. After that, it spread to educators, government officials, and members of the judiciary who allegedly had ties to the coup plotters as well.

The following video looks at the aftermath of the failed coup:

President Erdogan also targeted members of the media who have been critical of him in the past. Many of these arrests have come with little or no evidence of wrongdoing. Amnesty International recently reported concerns that detainees were being beaten, tortured, and even raped while in custody.

This is hardly the image of democracy triumphing over a military dictatorship that Erdogan trumpeted after the coup failed. Following the coup, Erdogan extended a state of emergency across the country that dramatically expanded the authority of the president with little oversight from the Turkish Parliament.

A Crucial Time for the West

The reason why the outcome of Turkey’s attempted coup is so important is because Turkey is a central actor in two of the biggest events currently affecting the western world. First, there is Turkey’s role in fighting ISIS and within the larger Syrian conflict.

Turkey is currently in a particularly complicated position when it comes to Syria. While it plays a large role in facilitating U.S. airstrikes against ISIS, Turkey is fighting Kurds within its own borders. The Kurds have been central to efforts to regain territory from ISIS and Turkey’s domestic issues with the ethnic group has complicated its role in the larger conflict. Turkey has also been supporting several rebel groups that are fighting the Assad regime in Syria. So far, some have criticized Turkey’s level of engagement in the fight against ISIS, as many hoped it would take on a larger role after ISIS carried out a string of bombings in multiple Turkish cities, including of the Istanbul airport.

However, that outlook may change following the coup. Lately, Turkey has been refocusing inward, purging its own military ranks of many officers suspected in the coup. This has the negative impact of reducing Turkey’s ability to fight. So far, Turkey has been an important U.S. ally in the fight against ISIS by serving as an airbase for the United States. However, Erdogan and many Turkish officials have started to argue that the United States played a role in the recent coup attempt. If relations between the two countries begin to sour–particularly if a battle to extradite Fethullah Gulen erupts–then the U.S. efforts to fight ISIS could face significant setbacks. Lastly, Turkey is home to some of NATO’s nuclear missiles, making political instability there even more concerning.

In addition to Turkey’s role in the fight against ISIS, it plays a crucial role in the international effort to deal with the refugee crisis. Turkey is home to the largest refugee camp of Syrians in the world, with 2.5 million living there. In a deal with Europe earlier this year, Turkey promised to do its best to keep refugees in exchange for more than $3 billion in aid as well as a promise to reconsider Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership. The deal, however, was also contingent upon Turkey improving its human rights practices, which the recent crackdown will likely call into question.

Conclusion

In the aftermath of the failed coup in Turkey, chaos reigned. First, it was very unclear who actually led the coup. While it appears to have been a coordinated effort by many in the military, no central figure ever came forward to claim responsibility, which may be another reason why it failed. Some speculate that the United States may have been behind the coup, training dissidents and allowing Gulen a safe haven to denounce Erdogan’s government. Other reports suggested Erdogan himself may have been behind the poorly planned insurrection, as it gave him cover to finally purge many of his foes from the government and military.

It remains unlikely that we will know the full story behind the coup anytime soon. What is indisputable, though, is Turkey’s significance to the scope of European Union, NATO, and U.S. operations. While the United States may not agree with Erdogan’s subsequent power grab or the methods of his crackdown, he has been a strong ally for the most part. For now, it appears as though the west and Turkey will need to work together, but if instability continues or worsens that cooperation could face serious challenges.

Resources

CNN: Turkey Coup Attempt: How a Night of Death and Mayhem Unfolded

Al-Jazeera: Timeline: A History of Turkish Coups

Law Street Media: Turkey: A Country Perpetually at a Crossroads

Politico: What Caused the Turkish Coup Attempt?

RT: Turkish Prosecutor Claims CIA, FBI Trained Coup Plotters

Al-Monitor: Was Turkey’s Coup Attempt Just an Elaborate Hoax by Erdogan?

Time: Turkey’s President Is Using the Coup Attempt to Crack Down on the Media

Reuters: Turkey Dismisses Military, Shuts Media Outlets as Crackdown Deepens

BBC: Turkey Coup Attempt: Crackdown toll passes 50,000

PRI: Turkey’s Coup Failed, but it Can Still Hurt the Fight Against ISIS

Vox: Turkey’s Failed Coup Could Have Disastrous Consequences for Europe’s Migrant Crisis

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Coup That Wasn’t: Inside Turkey’s Failed Military Takeover appeared first on Law Street.

Most people know that the Kurds have been one of the most effective groups when it comes to fighting ISIS. But beyond that, little is known to some in the United States about who the Kurds are and what the history of the ethnic group is. With the United States and the many countries involved in the fight against ISIS relying on the group, it is important to take a closer look at who they are and what the majority want.

Who exactly are the Kurds and how did they become the largest ethnic group without a homeland? Read on to find out who the Kurds are, what their role in the Middle East is, and most importantly, what they are looking for.

History of the Kurds

The history of the Kurds is, in many ways, as convoluted as their present–with no exact date or time for when they first appeared on the world stage as an ethnic group. Some speculate they were part of an ancient group that ruled large chunks of the Middle East more than 2,500 years ago. The first widely acknowledged mention of the Kurds as a people came in the seventh century when they converted to Islam. The Kurds often “fought for other groups that succeeded as regional powers, receiving a reputation for being fierce fighters.”

Along with their fighting prowess, the Kurds were also known for their nomadic lifestyle. According to the Kurdistan Tribune, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds–like many other groups in the region–were guaranteed a homeland by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920. But like many other groups, they were lied to. After Kemal Ataturk rose to power and Turkey’s borders were formalized in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, the Kurds were not given a country of their own. They were then left in the historically unenviable position of being an unpopular minority in an unwelcoming region. This led to a revolt by Kurdish groups and a subsequent violent crackdown by Turkish forces in the 1920s and 30s.

The Kurds and Turks have had an especially hostile relationship following these failed revolts. For years, the Turks tried to suppress the Kurds’ cultural identity by forbidding them to wear traditional clothes or teach their own language in schools. Not surprisingly then, a Kurdish leader named Abdullah Ocalan rose up and created an organization, the Kurdish Workers’ Party or PKK, to fight the Turks and gain a Kurdish homeland in 1978. Despite years of fighting and guerrilla warfare against Turkey, Ocalan ultimately failed and was eventually captured by Turkish forces in 1999. Turkey considers the PKK a terrorist organization and its campaign to fight the group in the southeast region of the country has escalated recently.

Aside from Turkey, the Kurds also had issues in other surrounding countries where they have sizable minorities. After many years of allowing Ocalan to manage the PKK from within its borders, the Syrian government forced him from the country in 1998 after being pressured by Turkey. In Iran, the Kurds made two attempts, both with little success, to carve out an autonomous region.

Iraq rivaled Turkey in its harsh treatment of the Kurds. Throughout the 20th century, the Kurds in Northern Iraq launched several revolts, all of which ended in defeat. However, the worst situation for the Kurds came after Saddam Hussein took power. Angry over their support for Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, Hussein targeted the Kurds with chemical weapons. These attacks stopped after Iraq was defeated in the first Gulf War, however, he crushed another Kurdish revolt soon after.

The video below gives a look at Kurdish history:

Role in the Middle East

Today the Kurdish people live in an area at the intersecting borders of five countries; Armenia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Despite not having a homeland, the Kurds are still an important group made up of as many as 30 million people–the fourth largest ethnic group in the Middle East. So what role does such a large group, spread over a number of countries, play in the region?

Turkey

Currently, Kurds make up 15 to 20 percent of the population of Turkey. Turkey and the Kurds have a long and bloody history of animosity. Much of this recent struggle has centered on fighting between the PKK and Turkey. Since the PKK took up arms in 1984, approximately 40,000 people have been killed. However, when the PKK toned down its demands and exchanged autonomy for independence in 2012, a ceasefire was finally reached. Nevertheless, all that work was undone in 2015 following a suicide bombing against the Kurds in Suruc. In response, Kurdish forces lashed out against Turkish authorities reigniting the old feud.

Still, the PKK is not representative of all Kurds and, in fact, many are actually entrenched in the Turkish economy. This group, in fact, is a strong pillar of support for the ruling Turkish Justice and Development Part (AKP).  There is also a third group that splits the middle between the supporters of the Turkish AKP and the militant PKK, the People’s Democratic Party or HDP.

Iraq

The Kurds make up as large of a portion of the Iraqi population as they do in Turkey–between 15 and 20 percent. As in Turkey, the Kurds in Iraq have faced years of crackdowns and repression following unsuccessful rebellion attempts. However, they achieved some limited autonomy following the First Gulf War and even greater autonomy after the second in 2003. Since the formation of the new Iraqi government, the Kurds have been constant participants in Iraqi politics. Amid the rise of ISIS and the resulting conflict, Kurdish leaders have gone beyond autonomy and called for a referendum on independence.The Kurds and the Iraqi government eventually reconciled several of their differences and started working together closely in the fight against ISIS.

Kurds in Iraq have made the most significant progress toward autonomy relative to Kurds in other countries. The 2005 Iraqi Constitution actually guarantees the Kurds an autonomous area, in which they have established their own government that operates within Iraq’s federal rule. The Kurds have taken advantage of this arrangement with its involvement in the Iraqi oil industry. The Kurds operate a pipeline between Iraq and Turkey, for which they have a revenue sharing agreement with Iraq. A recent dispute over the revenue sharing agreement disrupted oil transfers pending a new agreement.

Syria

The Kurds make up a sizable portion of the population in Syria as well, accounting for between 7 and 10 percent before the Syrian Civil War erupted. This population was concentrated in urban centers and in the north of the country. Like in Turkey and Iraq, Kurds in Syria were also marginalized through repression from the government, which also denies citizenship to over 300,000 Kurds living there. Once the war in Syria began, however, Kurds began asserting their rights and now plan to carve out autonomous regions for themselves. They have also sought to be actively involved in the peace talks determining Syria’s fate.

The Kurds’ battle against ISIS has been particularly challenging in Syria. Several Kurdish positions were overrun by ISIS, partly because Turkey refused to let Turkish Kurds cross the border to intercede. But in October, Turkey eventually allowed some fighters to help Syrian Kurds push back ISIS with the support of U.S. airstrikes. However, the Kurds continue to encounter challenges in terms of their relations with Turkey, notably after their recent attempt to establish an autonomous zone in Syria. While they were quick to clarify they are not seeking independence to appease Turkey, this may have fallen on deaf ears. The Turks have worked to exclude the Kurds from Syria’s peace talks, meaning the appeasement may not be enough.

Elsewhere

Kurds make up about 10 percent of Iran’s population, however in total numbers, they rank only second to those living in Turkey. Nevertheless, unlike in other countries Iranian Kurds enjoy no autonomous regions and like in other neighboring countries they are violently repressed. There is also a much smaller Kurdish community living in Armenia; unlike in other places this group does not govern nor aspire to an autonomous region. The accompanying video looks at the Kurds role in the Middle East:

What the Kurds Want

As the world’s largest “stateless nation,” a priority for the majority of Kurds has long been a country of their own. This has been evident since the start of the Kurdish nationalist movement beginning after WWI, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. It is also evident today in Kurdish efforts to achieve autonomous areas where it has large populations, which it has in three countries: Iraq, Syria and Turkey. The real question, then, is not what the Kurds want, but how they hope to achieve it.

But it’s important to note that the Kurds are by no means a monolithic group. While they share the same ethnicity, they are a very diverse group. In Turkey, where the largest Kurd population resides, there are three major Kurdish political groups ranging politically from loyal to the state to hostile to it. There are also major divisions in Iraq with one party controlling two of the Kurdish provinces and a different party controlling the other. The leaders of the dominant party have close relationships with Turkey and have even worked with the Turks in fighting the Turkish PKK. The Kurds in Iraq also fought a civil war during the 1990s which lasted three years.

The Kurds are also divided at even smaller levels with sizable differences between those in cities and those still adhering to their nomadic roots. Even in a country as small as Armenia, there are divisions between traditional Kurdish Sunni Muslims and Kurdish Christians. While many Kurds seek a homeland, for now, the best they may be able to get are autonomous regions like the ones in Syria and Iraq. The following video looks at some of the different Kurdish parties at play across the Middle East:

Conclusion

It is easy to characterize the Kurds as just one more ethnic group with deep historical roots wandering the Middle East searching for a homeland, but that characterization is overly simplistic. The Kurds are not a monolithic group, but a diverse set of actors spread mostly across five countries that are bound by a common heritage. Yes, many do want a homeland, but due to the diversity within the group, how they achieve it, or even if they can, varies widely.

In the seemingly never-ending conflicts in the Middle East, the Kurds are a recurring actor. Much of what is known or understood about them comes from other generalizations–they are Sunni Muslims, they are searching for a country, etc. This is all true but the reality is more complicated. The Kurds’ situation is emblematic of many other realities in the Middle East, an intricate web of interconnected groups with, at times, converging and differing interests. While the Syrian conflict has actually given them the opportunity to further assert their claims, nothing in the fluid region is certain. Thus, only time will tell if those dreams can amount to more than that.

Resources

Washington Post: Who Are the Kurds?

New Historian: History of the Kurds

BBC News: Who are the Kurds?

The Atlantic: What Exactly Are ‘the Kurds’?

Reuters: Iraq seeks financial agreement with Kurds before pumping crude to Turkey

RT: Turkish fighter jets pound PKK targets in Northern Iraq

BBC News: Iraqi Kurdistan Profile

The New York Times: The Kurds Push for Self-Rule in Syria

TA Central: Kurds

Council on Foreign Relations: The Time of the Kurds

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to reflect sources of information.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who are the Kurds? appeared first on Law Street.

After years of fighting destroyed cities, led to massive waves of refugees, and killed hundreds of thousands of people in Syria, world leaders are finally coming to the table in order to reach a peace agreement. On February 1, leaders from around the region and the world met in Geneva, Switzerland in order to lay the groundwork for a deal that might end the conflict.

While even getting this far is an accomplishment, actually achieving a sustained peace is further complicated by the various regional and world powers involved, each of whom has their own agendas to satisfy. Couple that with the role of non-state actors such as ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front and the reason why peace has been so elusive becomes clearer. Read on to find out about the origins of the Syrian conflict, what each side wants and how those involved expect to create a lasting peace.

A Brief Overview

The war in Syria marks the last gasp of the Arab Spring. Beginning in March 2011, thousands of protesters took to the streets after government forces arrested, tortured, and killed opponents of the Syrian regime. But doing so escalated the conflict leading to the consolidation of several rebel factions that rose up in violent resistance. Since the conflict devolved into full-fledged civil war, there have been atrocities and war crimes committed by both the rebels and the Syrian government led by Bashar al-Assad. The most infamous were the chemical weapons attacks in 2013, which nearly led to a direct U.S. intervention. The situation was eventually resolved when the United States, Russia, and Syria reached an agreement to dispose of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile.

Unsurprisingly, the conflict has resulted in violence and destruction on a mass scale. As of the start of 2016, an estimated 250,000 people had been killed and 11 million others have been displaced either internally or abroad. The resulting refugee crisis has reached historic proportions, testing the limits of neighboring countries and the European Union.

Who is Involved?

Due to the long-running nature of the conflict as well as the number of people killed or displaced, many of the world’s major powers have also gotten involved. The contingent opposing Assad includes Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States. The countries bolstering Assad are Iran and Russia. Along with these nations are non-state actors such as ISIS and the Al Nusra Front. With all of these groups involved, to understand how the peace process hopes to work, it is first necessary to understand what they each want.

The United States and its Allies

The clearest distinction in what the two sides are hoping to achieve comes in the targets of their respective airstrikes. The U.S.-led collation has focused on targeting ISIS positions while trying not to assist Assad in any way. The coalition’s main goal is to bring the conflict to an end peacefully, ensure that Assad leaves office, and also stop the flow of refugees.

So far, the west has focused almost exclusively on defeating ISIS and not fighting the Assad regime directly. The Obama administration initially authorized a program to train rebels, but it was viewed as a disaster and the program was shut down last October. Aside from logistical problems, one area of contention was Washington’s insistence that rebels focus on fighting ISIS over Assad, which they did not agree with. In its place, the United States began to directly offer arms to the Syrian rebels.

An ideal peace agreement for the United States would involve Assad leaving power and the creation of some form of a cooperative, moderate government to take his place. Doing so would need to also enable displaced Syrians to return home and allow the United States to focus on defeating ISIS exclusively.

Russia

Much of Russia’s interests in Syria run counter to what the United States wants to see happen. This starts with Russia’s airstrikes, which have reportedly been targeting the opposition groups fighting Assad and not terrorist organizations such as ISIS. Like Iran, Russia hopes to keep its client Assad in power in Syria, however, its larger aims in Syria and the greater Middle East are far-reaching and complex. For more information about Russia’s role in the Middle East and its interests there check out this explainer.

So far, Russia has been willing to openly assert its positions even at the expense of a potential peace deal. Most recently, as countries involved in the region agreed to a version of a ceasefire, Russia embarked on an airstrike campaign to support a Syrian government attack on Aleppo, frustrating potential peace partners. For Russia, the best case scenario would be Assad maintaining his power so that Russia maintain its foothold in the area and the stability of one of its longstanding allies.

Saudi Arabia and Iran

Two other major players are Saudi Arabia and Iran. While the Saudis are tentatively an ally of the United States, the country has several important interests in the conflict. Iran is similarly situated but on the other side of the conflict, finding itself partially aligned with Russia. Both countries’ concerns with the Syrian conflict center over their expanding proxy war, which pits them against one another on religious and geopolitical grounds. The conflict was already sectarian in nature, pitting President Assad–a member of the minority ruling Shia Alawite sect–against the majority Sunnis. Iran, another Shia country, provides billions of dollars in military and economic aid to Assad. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has been funneling a lot of support for the Syrian rebels. The escalating feud between Iran and Saudi Arabia has already strained the existing peace efforts–the execution of a cleric in Saudi Arabia causing Iran to retaliate and tensions to rise.

For Iran, it would be a major victory if Assad is able to stay in power. Not only would it mean keeping him as a client, it would also help them maintain influence in Lebanon as well. Additionally, it would serve as a victory over both Saudi Arabia and the United States. For Saudi Arabia, victory would mean Assad losing power and a new government made up of the Sunni majority population. This would give the Saudis a badly needed win in a proxy war that has so far seen Iran gain influence throughout the gulf.

Non-State Actors

Adding fuel to the sectarian nature of this war is the presence of non-state groups such as ISIS and the Al-Qaida sponsored Nusra Front. These groups have battled each other, the other countries acting in Syria, and Assad’s forces. ISIS has proven to be the most successful and prominent group, taking and holding large chunks of territory in both Iraq and Syria. In fact, ISIS is the reason why the foreign powers are in Syria in the first place, although Russia, Iran, and likely some of the Gulf States are clearly there for other concerns as well.

The presence of ISIS and Al Nusra has severely complicated the situation in Syria. The mere presence of these groups makes any effort to arm Syrian rebels much more complicated, as countries fear that their weapons will fall into the wrong hands. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to distinguish who is a member of ISIS and who is just someone fighting against the regime. Aside from ISIS and Al Nusra, Iran-backed Hezbollah and the Syrian Kurdish PYD have also been involved in the fighting.

Syria

Then there’s Syria itself. The ongoing conflict has destroyed much of the country’s infrastructure and displaced massive portions of the Syrian population. Estimates indicate that the cost to fix the damage done to the country from a monetary standpoint could be as much as $200 billion. Considering how hard it has been to merely find the funds to help Syrian refugees, it appears unlikely that much money could or would be raised to rebuild an unstable country.

The best case scenario for Syria is hard to pinpoint. Assad’s departure would certainly be in the interest of the majority Sunni population, but doing so could also create a massive power vacuum furthering the rise of extremism. In this case then, perhaps forming some type of coalition which incorporates both the opposition and elements of the Assad regime in to order maintain some sort of peace may be the most that can be hoped for.

With all these parties involved and the constant infighting, little has been accomplished. The reality is, there is more than one war going on in Syria at the moment. To achieve peace in Syria, all these separate conflicts would need to be resolved at once, with the possible exception of the fight against ISIS.

The following video gives a sample of what may be next for Syria:

Peace for our Time?

In mid-December, the U.N. Security Council agreed to create a path that would eventually lead to peace in Syria. After years of violent conflict, peace talks finally began on February 1 in Geneva, Switzerland. The talks started with a U.N. special envoy Staffan de Mistura meeting separately with the government and opposition representatives. The talks are tentatively planned to last for six months. However, there is not even a preliminary understating of how, let alone if, Assad will give up power.

In fact, the only reason these talks are even taking place now is conditions are so bad in some places as to potentially demand war crime charges. The opposition only considered participating because they were promised that major headway would be made toward addressing these most serious issues. And almost immediately after the process was initiated, it was suspended due to attacks by the Syrian government with Russia’s backing. How much ultimately comes from these talks and whether they even occur as planned remains a mystery. The following video gives a quick look at some of the problems plaguing the peace talks:

Conclusion

After years of fighting, millions displaced, and hundreds of thousands dead, peace talks in Syria must be a good idea, right? Unfortunately, all available evidence suggests that there is very little chance of a sustainable peace agreement on the horizon. While talks may help strengthen diplomatic ties as the conflict rages on, there appears to be very little in the way of progress to stop the violence.

The problem with this peace process is there are too many different parties at play, with very different sets of interests and strategic goals. One side wants Assad to stay, the other will not negotiate unless he is forced to leave. But that is just one of the many questions at hand, as many parties have a wide range of strategic interests in the war. This problem is compounded further, by the fact that the opposition to Assad is a hodge-podge of groups and no one can agree on who to trust. In fact, the strongest opposition group in Syria is probably ISIS or the Al Nusra Front, but neither of them was invited to the peace conference for obvious reasons.

While some sort of peace in Syria may be possible down the road, the possibility that it is favorable for all those involved, especially the Syrian people, is far less likely.

Resources

International Business Times: Syria: Shaky Peace Process to Start in Geneva Amid Deadly Bombings and Sieges

BBC News: Syria: The Story of the conflict

BBC News: Syria Crisis: Where Key Countries Stand

Law Street Media: Why is Russia Getting Involved in the Middle East?

The Guardian: Future of Assad in Doubt as UN Unanimously Supports Syrian Peace Process

Euro News: Aleppo Assault Threatens Fragile Syrian Peace Process

Al Jazeera: Prominent Syrian Rebel Commander Killed in Airstrike

Al Jazeera: Saudi-Iran Crisis Throws a Wrench in Syria Peace Talks

History News Network: 6 Predictions About What will Happen in Syria

CNN: You Thought Syria Couldn’t Get Much Worse. Think Again

The New York Times: Syria Talks Are Suspended

BBC: Arming Syrian rebels: Where the US Went Wrong

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Does Peace in Syria Remain Elusive? appeared first on Law Street.

Over half of the nation’s governors have said that they will not accept Syrian refugees if they are brought into the United States. The 27 different governors have mostly cited security concerns as the primary reason for being opposed to refugees being brought into their states. A state by state map of where governors stand on accepting Syrian refugees is below:

These proclamations about resettling Syrian refugees in the U.S. come as a reaction to a few different issues. The horrific terrorist attacks in Paris were allegedly propagated by at least one man who came into Europe by pretending to be a Syrian refugee. He entered Greece using a fake passport that identified him as Syrian. Additionally, President Obama recently stated that his plan still calls for the United States to absorb 10,000 Syrian refugees. It’s a combination of these two factors that seem to be motivating the backlash from governors.

How governors have been making their refusal known varies. Some, like Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia have issued executive orders to that effect. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, on the other hand, sent a letter to President Obama outlining his intention to turn away Syrian refugees. Regardless of what state governors say, however, it’s not technically within their purview whether or not the U.S. should accept refugees–it’s a federal responsibility. However, states can keep their resources from being used by the federal government, which seems like it would be the most likely way that refugees are hampered from being resettled into various states.

The controversy over whether or not to accept Syrian refugees hasn’t just been limited to state governors. It’s been commented upon by the many, many presidential contenders as well, and unsurprisingly is split across party lines. Democrats, for the most part, have supported allowing refugees in. For example Senator Bernie Sanders urged that the U.S. not turn its back on refugees fleeing oppression and civil war in Syria. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted her support for taking in refugees as well during last Saturday’s Democratic debate, the night after the attacks in Paris.

In contrast, many of the Republican contenders have spoken out against taking in any of the refugees. Dr. Ben Carson has not only said that the U.S. shouldn’t take in Syrian refugees, but also urged Congress to “extinguish” resettlement programs altogether. Another Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has questioned whether the refugees will be a “Trojan horse” in America, and has suggested buying land in Syria for them to go to. How they would be protected in that “swatch of land” is unclear. Senator Ted Cruz has said that we should accept only Christian refugees. Governor Jeb Bush broke from the rest of his Republican counterparts, saying that we should let in refugees but screen them intensely.

This problem isn’t going away anytime soon–the situation is worsening in Syria. Whether or not the U.S. decides to accept Syrian refugees looks to be a point of significant argument moving forward in the national conversation, as well as in the primary elections.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post More than Half of U.S. Governors Want to Turn Away Syrian Refugees appeared first on Law Street.

October 19 marked the first time in history that the Svalbard Global Seed Vault was opened up for a withdrawal. Often referred to as the “doomsday vault,” the seed vault was built to serve as a backstop for plant extinction, storing seeds for individual countries to ensure that plant diversity is not lost in a catastrophe. While weather disasters and global warming pose significant threats to the future of agriculture, the recent withdrawal was the result of the war in Syria. Researchers sought additional seeds as the multi-year war significantly reduced their supply of drought-resistant wheat.

The idea of a last-resort vault full of the world’s seeds may surprise many, but the planning and implementation of the world’s seed bank have been a long and thought-out process. Read on to learn about the process that created the vault and ultimately how it will be used in the future.

History

Seed Storage

The practice of protecting and storing seeds dates back as far as the start of agriculture itself. The exercise started with farmers in the fertile crescent keeping a surplus of seeds, from harvest to harvest, in a variety of secured locations to ensure the survival of their crops.

The process of securing seeds continued in the modern era and the technology has advanced. Today, many seeds are kept in gene banks. According to the Crop Trust, there are currently over 1,700 such gene banks worldwide, which house a variety of different seed species for protection and research.

The groundwork for the international seed vault was laid with the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture in 2001. The treaty was a product of the Food and Agriculture Organization at the United Nations and sought to promote international cooperation to preserve plant diversity. Because issues like climate change and water availability highlighted the threats to seed banks on a local level, researchers sought to create the universal vault that could protect diversity in light of the emerging threats.

The Vault

The seed vault was established in 2008, as a way to prevent the extinction of plant species used for crops. It earned its nickname, the “doomsday vault” because it is designed to survive nearly any catastrophe imaginable. From earthquakes to nuclear war, the vault was built in the permafrost on an island north of Norway. While its nickname sounds like something out of a movie, the location of the vault appears to justify it.

The vault itself sits in Svalbard, Norway on the side of a frozen mountain. In fact, the facility is so remote that it is closer to the north pole than it is to Norway. In addition to being remote, the facility it is also heavily secured with four locked areas between the vault and the outside world.

The site itself was also strategically designed. The vault is located in an area with low humidity and notable geological stability, which protects it from earthquakes. Additionally, it is high enough up in the mountain that there is little risk of flooding, even in the event of rising seas due to global warming. The seeds are contained in foil packages inside of boxes on shelves within the vault. The following video provides a look into the vault:

Usage

Since its opening in 2008, the vault’s storage has accumulated approximately 865,000 seeds from seed banks all over the world. The facility has the capacity to hold up to 2.5 billion total seeds, which is equivalent to 500 seeds for each of the roughly 4.5 million crops grown on the planet. The seeds themselves are kept at 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit, but in the event of a power outage its location in permafrost will preserve the seeds naturally for long periods.

While the recent withdrawal may seem like cause for concern, it is actually an example of why the vault was originally built. Researchers at the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) withdrew some of their seed deposits from the vault in order to move their research to new facilities in Lebanon. The withdrawal will help researchers replenish their supply and continue to improve drought resistant wheat, an essential crop for the region. Seed banks like this are able to improve and adapt crops to emerging agricultural challenges and the vault provides a backup copy in case a seed bank’s supply is threatened.

The accompanying video details the Syrian withdrawal:

Who Runs the Vault?

The facility is joint-operated by the Norwegian government and the Global Crop Diversity Trust. Any individual, group or country, who deposits seeds must do so under nationally and internationally agreed-upon laws. The vaults depositors, typically individual countries or seed banks, maintain full access and control of their seeds while in the vault. The Nordic Gene Bank maintains public records for all of the seeds deposited in the vault to help promote information sharing between depositors.

Future of Vault

While the vault serves an important purpose–holding a backup supply for crucial crops around the world–it has other benefits. Namely, in the current era of mono-cropping, many gene varieties have been lost as a few robust strands of crops such as corn or rice are grown in greater and greater amounts. While these versions may offer higher yields or are generally more robust due to little genetic variation, a single blight could wipe them all out at once. The vault also serves the role of preserving less commercially viable types of seeds which keep the gene pool more diverse and, therefore, resilient. Preserving this biodiversity may also be crucial to meeting growing food needs, as researchers will be able to develop more productive strains of plants to increase their yield.

While research and genetic diversity are valuable pursuits, the vault was ultimately designed to protect the world’s crop supply in the event of a disaster. Arguably the greatest long-term threat is global climate change, which may change life on earth as we know it and significantly alter global agriculture. The video below details the uses of the vault:

Conclusion

Due to the Svalbard Vault’s nickname, the doomsday vault, it is generally considered a source of last resort. While the first withdrawal by ICARDA in the Middle East does not indicate the end of the world, a vault is able to support regional seed banks in their efforts to develop and improve crops. In fact, the recent withdrawal proves the facility is performing the way it should. Not only is the vault designed to safeguard seed diversity, it was also designed to serve as a depository for scientists who may call upon its stock in order to improve their current varieties.

The notion of climate change has been overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. While the international community has not yet been able to address the impending challenges, scientists may be racing to build up the vault’s supply as challenges mount. Not only are current strands of crops under threat from disaster, they also face risk from farmers’ own growing habits. While a small number of crops have become essential to global agriculture, climate change may increase the need for diversity to meet ecological change.

Rarely do North Korea and the United States agree on any initiatives and even more rarely do these two governments receive support from large non-profits, such as the Gates’ foundation. The Svalbard Seed Vault is a notable exception. While people may still argue over the best way to preserve biodiversity this endeavor marks an important point of progress in securing that goal.

Resources

Primary

Crop Trust: Svalbard Global Seed Vault

Additional

CNN: Artic ‘Doomsday Vault’ Opens to Retrieve Vital Seeds for Syria

The Newyorker: Sowing for Apocalypse

NBC News: ‘Doomsday’ Seed Vault: The Science Behind World’s Arctic Storage Cube

Live Science: Science Behind World’s Artic storage Cube

Wired: That Arctic Seed Vault isn’t Just There for Doomsday

Washington Post: The ‘Doomsday’ Seed Vault That Preserves the Food of the Past and Ensures its Future

Union of Concerned Scientists: Global Warming Impacts

The Guardian: The Doomsday Vault: The Seeds That Could Save a Post-Apocalyptic World

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Seeds of Hope: Inside the Doomsday Seed Vault appeared first on Law Street.

In September, Russian forces began a controversial air campaign in Syria in an attempt to increase the nation’s involvement in the Middle East. While some leaders have welcomed Russia’s increased involvement, many in the west have been skeptical of President Vladimir Putin’s motives. As Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s position weakens amid an ongoing civil war, Russia has stepped in and with Iran’s help is ensuring he stays in power.

The situation in Syria is becoming increasingly complex as the Islamic State seeks to expand its control in the midst of a civil war between Syrian rebels and the Assad regime. But Russia’s intervention in Syria is only part of an emerging trend for the country, as it seeks to exert its influence outside of its borders. Recent developments have caused many to ask why Russia is intervening and what it hopes to gain. Read on to see what Russia has been doing to grow its influence and expand its role in the Middle East.

History in the Middle East

Russia’s intervention in Syria is not the first time that the country has been involved in the Middle East. In fact, the country has a long history in the region. The Soviet Union was a major supplier of the Arab forces who fought against Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, also known as the Yom Kuppur War. The USSR later invaded Afghanistan in 1979, occupying the country for nearly 10 years. In 1990, it lost a key ally in the region when what was then South Yemen merged with the North. Growing U.S. influence in the region further hurt the Soviet Union’s control of the region, particularly after the success of the Operation Desert Storm, a significant victory for the United States over Saddam. Shortly afterward, the Soviet Union collapsed and its influence in the Middle East largely receded.

The following video depicts Russia’s difficulties in Afghanistan:

Russia’s Return

Russia worked its way back into the region as an alternative arms supplier to the United States. Many Middle East countries saw Russia’s more lenient human rights perspective as an appealing reason to do business with the country. This shift allowed Russia to attract many Middle Eastern countries away from their traditional supplier, the United States, which was quick to abandon authoritarian leaders during the Arab Spring.

While the Arab Spring helped Russia increase its arms exports, the region was already an important market for Russia. Between 2006 and 2009 Russia’s largest arms buyers were in the Middle East. While the Arab Spring increased demand for weapons in the Middle East, Russia did not immediately expand its sales to new countries. However, its traditional customers did significantly increase their demand–most notably Syria, which increased its purchases by 600 percent.

The breakthrough for Russia came later in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, as countries who were normally loyal customers of the United States began looking to Russia. This movement started with Egypt, whose relationship with the United States soured during the Arab Spring and the subsequent overthrow of the democratically elected government of Mohammad Morsi. Seeing an opportunity, Russia secured a deal with Egypt. A potential deal between Russia and Saudi Arabia, arguably the United States’ closest ally in the region outside of Israel, highlights Russia’s ambitions for its weapons industry. However, the Russians also supply Iran, Saudi Arabia’s most significant regional enemy.

The video below details Russia’s displacement of the US in formerly pro-Washington areas:

Current Operations

In addition to expanding its weapons exports in the Middle East, Russia recently started conducting military strikes in Syria, making the ongoing civil war even more complicated. At the end of September, Russia began a controversial airstrike campaign, which largely helped the Assad regime by targeting Syrian rebels. These actions have had an impact on the relationship between Russia and several key nations within the region as well as observers in the west.

The accompanying video provides an in-depth look at Russia’s actions in the Middle East:

Turkey

Russia’s relationship with Turkey is potentially its most complicated. Turkey relies on Russia, as well as Iran, for energy and trade, which amounted to $31 billion in 2014. The leaders of the two nations are often compared to each other, with President Erdogan reminding many of Putin based on his leadership style and his motivations to remain in office.

However, the relationship has been strained recently with Russia’s bombings of anti-Assad rebels and its repeated violations of Turkish airspace. There is also a historical legacy hanging over the two countries dating back to the time of the Ottoman Empire, which repeatedly fought the Russian Empire.

Syria

Even before Russia’s recent intervention in Syria, the two were close allies. This relationship has existed for years based, initially, on military contracts that Russian arms dealers had with Syrian buyers. Their relationship was strengthened back in 2010 after Russia’s U.N. Security Council veto–Russia, along with North Korea and China, blocked a resolution to force President Assad to step down. Since then, Russia has been Syria’s strongest backer outside of the Middle East. Russia also successfully negotiated the transfer and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons in 2014, diffusing a particularly controversial issue with the United States.

All of this serves as the backdrop for Russia’s recent incursion into Syria and its civil war. It started with Russia sending advisors and fighter planes but has continued to include ground troops, artillery, and stationing ships off Syria’s coast. Russia’s intervention in Syria has been particularly controversial because of the targets that the country has chosen to attack. While Russia initiated its air campaign with the intention to focus on ISIS and fight terrorism, many of the strikes have benefited the Assad regime.

Iran

Russia’s relationship with Iran is also particularly complex. Recently, Russia played an important role in securing the deal to stop Iran’s nuclear weapon program. But after the deal, Russia quickly unfroze an $800 million deal–previously suspended during negotiations–to give Iran a missile defense system. Additionally, it approved an oil-for-goods deal, which allows Russia to buy up large amounts of Iranian oil in exchange for food and other goods. But oil is also an area that could create conflict between the two countries. Iran’s now-unsanctioned supply of oil, when dumped on the market, could lower the international price of crude oil even further. Lately, the falling price of oil has hurt Russia’s economy, particularly in light of sanctions after its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

Since the Iranian Revolution, the two nations have been joined by their desire to keep the West at a distance. Even as sanctions are lifted on Iran, this relationship is likely to endure, allowing Iran to continue its anti-western rhetoric. Both nations are also united in strong support for the Assad regime in Syria. However, this shared sentiment flies in the face of more distant history–one that involved Russia either trying to acquire Iranian territory or intervening in the country’s affairs, as it did in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. More recently, Russia continues to arm Iran’s regional enemies and has gone along with American sanctions on the nation.

Iraq

Along with its collaboration with Iran and the Assad Regime in Syria, Russia also recently agreed to share information with Iraq in its fight against ISIS. Doing so has put the United States in a challenging situation, as it has been sceptical of Russia’s increased presence in the region, but has also advocated for international action against the Islamic State.

Russia also has a history of supporting Iraq, most notably in the form of funding during the Iran-Iraq war. Following the American invasion in 2003, it has also worked to normalize relations with the new government, especially in order to re-secure lucrative energy contracts.

Conclusion

So why is Russia wading back into the Middle East, especially given its history in the region? For most, an interest in the Middle East generally relates to the wealth of oil found there, but for Russia it is more complicated than oil alone. While Russia has worked to get energy contracts there, it is also one of the leading producers of crude oil and is widely regarded as having the largest proven reserves of natural gas. Traditionally, the Middle East had been a major market for Russian weapons, but as the politics of the region changed the United States took hold of the market. But in the wake of the Arab Spring, Russia has been working to expand its weapons exports, while also strengthening ties to its regional allies, like Syria and Iran. The revenue from arms sales is even more important considering the growth of sanctions from the west and the falling price of oil, a crucial source of revenue for Russia.

While a more involved position in the region may help Russia economically, either through energy or weapons, that does still not seem to be the major impetus for its invasion in Syria. Ultimately, Russia’s growing role in the Middle East may simply be a product of its efforts to grow its influence around the world. Russia seems to be positioning itself to be an effective alternative to the United States and its recent actions best reflect that goal. This move, while viewed critically in the West, has also been welcomed by leaders in the Middle East as a counterweight to American influence. Russia’s recent involvement in Syria, combined with its important role in the Iran nuclear deal, lends it even more regional significance.

Resources

The National Post: Why is Russia further expected to increase its presence in Syria?

Washington Post: Russia’s move into Syria upends U.S. plans

BBC: Russia in the Middle East Return of the Bear

Al-Monitor: New Russian arms deals could shakeup Mideast market

New York Times: Russia’s military actions in Syria cause rift with Turkey

New York Times: For Syria, Reliant on Russia for Weapons and Food, Old Bonds Run Deep

Wall Street Journal: Removal of Chemical Weapons from Syria is completed

CNN: NATO Secretary General questions Russia’s aim in Syria

The Washington Post: Russia-Iran relationship is a marriage of opportunity

The United States Institute of Peace: Iran and Russia

Financial Times: Iraq and Russia to collaborate in fight against ISIS

World Politics Review: Russia-Iraq Relations

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Russia Getting Involved in the Middle East? appeared first on Law Street.

The European migrant crisis isn’t going away anytime soon. Although it has only recently become a hot topic, the number of migrants passing into Europe has been on the rise for the past five years. After a storm of tragedies this summer, the EU’s immigration problem has become an important issue for Europe and even the United States. Unfortunately, it has been a season of all questions and few answers. But recently, European leaders have shown some willingness to address the issue.

Recent Tragedies

On August 28, the bodies of 71 smuggled migrants were found in the back of an abandoned truck near Vienna, Austria. The victims included 59 men, eight women, and four children. This incident led to a strong backlash against human traffickers. Austria’s interior minister, Johanna Mikl-Leitner, released a statement saying, “This tragedy is a concern for us all. Smugglers are criminals. They have no interest in the welfare of refugees. Only profit.” Around the same time, a fishing boat and smaller boat sank off the coast of Libya, claiming the lives of approximately 150 migrants.

On September 2, the lifeless body of 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi was found by a Turkish policeman on the shore of Bodrum, Turkey. The Dogan News Agency captured the scene. An image of the Kurdish toddler face down in the sand instantly went viral– resonating with people around the world. Aylan Kurdi’s body was found after boats sank off the coast of the Greek Island of Kos. His five-year-old brother and mother were also among the dead. Teema Kurdi, his aunt, applied to sponsor the family’s entry to Canada, but was denied due to missing documents.

On the same day, September 2, migrants trying to cross from Greece to Macedonia clashed with police at the border. The police, permitting groups of 50 people at a time, inadvertently separated loved ones. In a panic, migrants rushed the border resulting in a scene of chaos. The confrontation is only the latest of several clashes at the Greece-Macedonia border.

Where are the Refugees and Migrants Coming From?

So far, 2,800 people have died in the Mediterranean this year while attempting to make it to Europe. Why are so many people putting their lives at such risk?

The Middle East

Syria has, by far, the largest dispersed population trying to find shelter in EU countries. As many as 4.1 million Syrians have fled the country since the start of its civil war in 2011 and another 7.6 million are displaced, but remain within the country’s borders. Syrians account for a little over half of the 381,000 migrants and refugees that made it to Europe this year. The EU had an estimated 210,000 asylum applications from Syrian nationals between July 2014 and July 2015.

Large areas of Syria are under the control of the Islamic State, which has further displaced a large portion of Syrians. The overwhelming amount of violence and instability in the country has caused hundreds of thousands of Syrians to leave their homes. ISIS controls several large cities in both Syria and Iraq, including Raqqa, Fallujah, Ramadi, and Mosul.

The two other countries from the Middle East that contribute to the migrant crisis are Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which are undergoing violent conflict. According to the latest figures, 32,581 Afghans traveled to the European Union through the East Mediterranean and 29,245 Afghans traveled through the West Balkans in 2015. Even though Iraqis only account for four percent of the influx of immigrants into the EU, the number is on the rise.

Africa

A large portion of the migrants leaving Africa come from Eritrea, where the oppressive rule by President Isaias Afwerki has caused hundreds of thousands of Eritreans to leave their homes. A recent report from the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea found that an estimated 5,000 Eritreans leave the country each month.

Most other African immigrants come from Somalia as well as several countries on the west coast–including Nigeria, Gambia, and Senegal. In 2014, 80 percent of African immigrants choose Libya as a gateway to the EU. The road is extremely dangerous–filled with kidnappers, corrupt smugglers, and inadequate transportation. Some boats aren’t even designed to make it all the way to their destinations but embark hoping that a merchant ship, fishing boat, or Coast Guard from an EU country will find them.

Refugee vs. Migrant

Migrants must first make the perilous journey to the EU, but then what happens when they arrive at its door? Upon arrival, migrants cannot simply walk in; they must go through a legal process before entering.

According the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, a refugee is a person, “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” For example, Syrians and Eritreans can most easily make the case for refugee status due to, respectively, the Syrian civil war and the Afwerki regime.

Refugee status is vital. Under this protection, a person can apply for political asylum or protected status according to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Even more importantly, once someone reaches Europe and is granted refugee status, he or she cannot be forced back to his or her original country. This is a pivotal point in international law.

The term migrant is more inclusive and is applied to anyone traveling to another country for any other reason than escaping political persecution and war. Migrants often seek better opportunities by leaving impoverished countries, but they aren’t offered the same protection as refugees. Governments are legally allowed to deport migrants without legal papers.

The influx of people arriving in Europe today are mostly refugees, but not all. Both refugees and migrants take the same dangerous routes, often at the hands of human traffickers.

Where are the Migrants and Refugees Going?

381,000 refugees and migrants have reached Europe so far this year, but the distribution among EU countries is unequal. Many pass through Greece and Italy temporarily on their way to a further destination. 244,000 migrants and refugees have landed in Greece this year, almost two-thirds of the total that have reached Europe.

Among all EU countries, Germany has seen the highest number of asylum applications. This year, between January and June, Germany had 154,000 migrants seeking asylum, more than twice the number during the same period last year. The other countries receiving a relatively high number of asylum applications are France, Sweden, Turkey, Italy, and Hungary.

The situation has caused significant problems for many EU countries. According to the New York Times, there have been over 200 direct attacks on migrants in Germany this year. Violence from locals in Italy forced police to evacuate refugees and migrants at its reception centers. Hungary built an 110-mile razor-wire fence along its border with Serbia to keep refugees and migrants out. Hungary also shut down a major train station in Budapest, stopping asylum seekers trying to travel to Germany and Austria.

Greece, which is going through its own financial crisis, is struggling to provide assistance in its overwhelmed reception centers. Macedonia was forced to declare a state of emergency on August 20 in order to try and stabilize its border regions.

Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey feel the strain on their resources more than most as neighboring countries of Syria. Jordan currently hosts more than 630,000 Syrian refugees, in addition to others from Palestine and Iraq. The unemployment in Jordan has increased sharply and locals fear future consequences of more refugees. Lebanon is in the middle of its own political crisis and now has one refugee for every four people. Although Turkey has the strongest economy in the region, the massive influx of refugees is beginning to deplete available resources. Together, the three countries host more than four million Syrians.

According to the European Union’s Dublin regulation, the first country that a migrant steps foot on must take responsibility for him or her. Naturally, southern countries, like Italy, claim they suffer the worst of the burden; however, Germany, France, and Britain claim most of the migrants continue to their lands.

Many migrants avoid staying in the first country of entry, seeking a secondary country deeper in Europe in violation of the Dublin regulation. This creates a challenge for the European Union because once a person is inside the EU, they can freely travel between member-states in the Schengen zone. This area consists of 26 EU countries that have eliminated border controls.

What’s the Solution?

Previous attempts at solving the crisis have been relatively fruitless. In June, EU leaders shot down the first quota system initiative in favor of having countries voluntarily accept refugees and migrants. The initial summit, held in Brussels, dedicated more time to trying to stop illegal migration, rather than determining the best way to handle the influx of asylum seekers. By July, the EU announced it had fallen short of its voluntary distribution goals by 8,000 people, and the numbers have only increased. Additionally, some blame popular nationalist and anti-immigration platforms, which are increasingly gaining traction in the EU, for various countries’ unwillingness to provide aid.

However, European Union leaders are currently working on a new plan to more equitably distribute migrants throughout the region. Each EU country will be designated a certain number of refugees to host based on a 160,000 total. Greece, Hungary, and Italy will be exempt from the system since each country already hosts so many refugees. Britain, Ireland, and Demark are also exempt from European asylum policies based on the 2009 Lisbon Treaty. Several countries, most notably Germany, have independently announced that they will increase the number of migrants that they will accept. While these announcements are a step in the right direction, most leaders acknowledge that an EU-wide system is necessary to appropriately deal with the issue.

U.S. Involvement

Up until September, the U.S. has been silent on the resettlement issue. Although the U.S. has been a leader in providing financial aid to Syria, it has only taken in 1,500 Syrians since the start of the war. President Obama recently made headlines by pledging to house 10,000 Syrians in the upcoming fiscal year, beginning in October.

Conclusion

Clearly, the EU needs a united, comprehensive plan; the situation cannot remain as it is. Countries like Turkey and Italy will soon burn out their resources completely. Helping refugees isn’t any one country’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the world. The ongoing summit will be crucial in deciding the fate of so many. And it is high time the United States got involved. America is a global leader in humanitarian assistance and needs to contribute its fair share. The welcoming of 10,000 refugees is an important step.

Resources

Primary

United Nations: Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

UN Refugee Agency: Syria Regional Refugee Response

UN Refugee Agency: Refugees/Migrants Emergency Response – Mediterranean

Additional

NPR: The Migrant Crisis, By The Numbers 

The Economist: Everything You Want to Know about Migration Across the Mediterranean

BBC: The Lisbon Treaty

BBC: Syria Iraq

BBC: Why is EU Struggling With Migrants and Asylum?

Brookings: Why 100,000s of Syrian Refugees are Fleeing to Europe 

CFR: Europe’s Migration Crisis

CNN: Eating Toothpaste, Avoiding Gangs: Why Migrants Head to Mediterranean

The Guardian: European Leaders Scrap Plans for Migrant Quota System

The Guardian: Hungarian Police Arrest Driver of Lorry that had 71 Dead Migrants Inside

The New York Times: About 150 Migrants Feared Dead After Boats Sink Off Libya

The New York Times: Eritrea

The New York Times: Migrant or Refugee? There Is a Difference, With Legal Implications

The New York Times: Obama Increases Number of Syrian Refugees for U.S. Resettlement to 10,000

The New York Times: Which Countries Are Under the Most
Strain in the European Migration Crisis?

Time: Migrants Rush Macedonian Border as Chaos Separates Families

UNHCR: The 1951 Refugee Convention

The Washington Post: Iraqis join an intensifying flow of refugees to Europe from Turkey

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to correct the location of cities controlled by the Islamic State as well as the location of African countries where migrants have fled.

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Migrant Crisis Continues: What’s Going on in Europe? appeared first on Law Street.

Update 1:45pm: This shouldn’t affect the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, although he has required to stay within New York City since last month after Syrian-Americans complained that he had been traveling around the US trying to rally support for Assad’s government.

Update 12:50pm: Here’s another tweet speculating as to the timing of the Syrian Embassy shutdown.

Is this how the US will ramp up pressure on Moscow? By taking a harder line with his friend Assad? http://t.co/KeuG4cl4iu #Crimea #Syria

— Katie Johnston (@katieaj2310) March 18, 2014

I tend to agree that there may be some merit in these theories. The US is currently locked in a game of cat and mouse with Russia over the Crimea issue. President Obama has been pressured by both sides of the aisle to take action. This move to shut down the Syrian Embassy and declare all of Assad’s people in the US persona non grata may send a message to Russia about the kind of leader Obama really is.

Original Story:

As of today, the Syrian Embassy in the United States has been shut down. According to an unnamed source in the State Department, the US government has shut down the Syrian Embassy in DC, as well as all the consulates throughout the United States. Any members of the Assad regime still in the United States have been asked to leave immediately. The Syrian Embassy’s website confirms that it will no longer be in operation, beginning today.

This is a big deal. Given that the US embassy in Syria has been shuttered since February, indications that relations are incredibly strained are nothing new, but this is a huge move on the United States’ part.

There is also an unconfirmed State Department release floating around Facebook and Twitter that reads as follows:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
For Immediate Release March 18, 2014
2014
STATEMENT BY SPECIAL ENVOY FOR SYRIA, DANIEL RUBINSTEIN

This week marks the three-year anniversary of the Syrian revolution. For three years, Bashar al-Asad has refused to heed the call of the Syrian people to step aside. He has directed a war against his own people and created a humanitarian catastrophe in order to hold on to power and protect his narrow interests.

Following the announcement that the Syrian Embassy has suspended its provision of consular services, and in consideration of the atrocities the Asad regime has committed against the Syrian people, we have determined it is unacceptable for individuals appointed by that regime to conduct diplomatic or consular operations in the United States.

Consequently, the United States notified the Syrian government today that it must immediately suspend operations of its Embassy in Washington, DC and its honorary consulates in Troy, Michigan, and Houston, Texas. Syrian diplomats at the Embassy and Syrian honorary consulates are no longer permitted to perform diplomatic or consular functions and those who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents must depart the United States.

Despite the differences between our governments, the United States continues to maintain diplomatic relations with the state of Syria as an expression of our longstanding ties with the Syrian people, an interest that will endure long after Bashar al-Asad leaves power.

The United States will continue to assist those seeking change in Syria, to help end the slaughter, and to resolve the crisis through negotiations – for the benefit of the Syrian people

This is a breaking story, so we’ll have some updates for you throughout the day, but for now, here are some things to keep in mind as the story unfolds: This is a big move on the part of the United States; it was done quickly and quietly and we still don’t know how Syria will react. Also, there is speculation that this may be a message  to Russia regarding the conflict in the Ukraine. But I think we can all agree this is a huge moment — stay here for updates as this story unfolds. 

Took 3 yrs for @StateDept to shut down Syrian embassy. Timing likely also a signal to Russia. Will Syria opposition be given recognition?

— Kim Ghattas (@BBCKimGhattas) March 18, 2014

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [WikiMedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Syrian Embassy in US Shut Down appeared first on Law Street.