Professor Kuran is a professor of Economics, Political Sciences and Islamic Studies at Duke University in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
He has also written many books about the Middle East. We interviewed him about what
the US should do about the crisis in Syria.
He has also written many books about the Middle East. We interviewed him about what
the US should do about the crisis in Syria.
Q: Would it make sense if the US would try to train the “good rebels” that are pro-Western (the Free Syrian army and Syrian National Coalition) –
Prof. Kuran believes that the US should provide aid and train forces who are not necessarily pro-Western but who are are pro-democratic, and who favor developing a political system that will support basic human rights for all groups in Syria. Right now, you have multiple fractured religious and ethnic groups and they do not trust each other. Fundamental problem: None wants to live under the other. They all believe that if power is held by one of the other groups, they fear that their group will be repressed. What we are seeing in Syria now, is that the Alawites (one of the religious minorities) controls power and has held a dictatorship for many decades. The Alawites fear that if they expand basic freedoms for others, then they themselves will lose freedoms and be persecuted by other Sunni groups.
In order to break the vicious circle of mistrust, we need to identify the people in Syria who are committed to Basic Human Rights (vs. promoting their own ethnic group). There are not many groups like this, but there are some. In 2011 like-minded people in Syria started a movement to promote basic human rights (National Syrian Coalition or something along those lines); set up headquarters in Turkey, and held many meetings that were attended by Western delegations, included Americans, some support for them in Washington, DC – but not much support. Out of fear, the people who were supporting that group early on have now mostly moved back to supporting their own religious and ethnic groups. But there still is a core of people – they are fractured themselves, as many of their sympathizers have been overrun, and they face many difficulties – but there are some people who are trying to keep a pro-democratic and pro-human-rights-for all / pro-Western and Western-friendly movement… some in US, some in Turkey, some in London, some in Syria. Prof. Kuran believes that U.S. resources would be better spent stepping up aid to these democratic forces in Syria.
Q: We have read that Syria is behind in its deadline to deliver its chemical weapons? Do you think US should use military force (as we have not ruled out this option) if the Syrians continue to fail to meet their chemical weapons deadline, and how long past the deadline should we wait to use military force?
I think we missed the boat for using force in Syria, when President Obama drew a red-line which would be crossed if Syria used chemical weapons. Syria did use chemical weapons, and killed many of its own people. If we had bombed them then, would have gained support from some countries.
At this point, since some of the chemicals have been delivered, most people in the world (including Americans) would not favor the use of military option, and would feel that this would be coming out of the blue, so would not support it. Without a clear plan of what we would do if the regime collapsed, what would happen after we bombed, I don’t think it is a good idea. As mentioned before, I think a better plan would be for the US to step up resources for aid to democratic forces, and offer more humanitarian aid to nearby countries where refugees have fled.
Q: Do you think that it would be possible for the US to convince China and Russia to withhold support for the Assad regime?
In the short run, I don’t think that that is possible. Currently both China (secondary) and Russia (directly) are allies of Syria, especially Russia. Neither one would want to give the US an easy victory, and both China and Russia believe that if Assad is toppled, the next regime would not be friendly to Russia and China. (The next regime may not be friendly to the US either, but it certainly would not be friendly to Russia and China. ) Russia or China would only offer to support this move (withhold support for
Assad), if we offered something substantial that Russia or China would want, in return (a quid pro quo). (Ben suggested, for example, if we backed out of Ukraine). Prof. Kuran said exactly – the Russians might settle for a deal where the US effectively allows the Eastern part of Ukraine to be part of Russia, or under its sphere of influence… Russia would need a major concession by the US to let go of Syria. Q: Do you think it would be worth it? No, I don’t think it would be worth it, don’t think we should be solving a problem in one country by trading away freedom of one country to gain freedom in another. We would be effectively giving away people’s human rights.
Q: Do you think that the US could convince the UN to press for more sanctions on Syria? The US could convince most countries of the UN, but the final say of the UN is the Security Council, which has veto power over all resolutions. Two of those countries are China and Russia, and they would probably veto UN sanctions.
We (US) can unilaterally impose sanctions. We have done so. Any country can do this. Any country can convince another group of countries not to trade with others. But going through the UN allows the establishment of an international monitoring system. If 160 countries decide not to trade with Syria, but still there may be 20 countries that will trade with Syria. It is difficult to monitor that goods from the 160 countries are not being funneled to Syria by the 20 countries who remain Syria’s trading partners. Yes, the US could persuade countries to sanction Syria and withhold trade, it Certainly doesn’t hurt, but it is not as effective as when the UN imposes sanctions.
Q: Overall comment on Human rights violations: While many countries violate human rights, it is all a matter of degree. Syria is extreme. Its grade is in the single digits, if the top / best record on human rights is out of 100. All countries violate some human rights (even the US violates some of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – overcrowded prison, indefinite imprisonment and possible torture at Guantanamo Bay.)
Q: Professor Kuran, What should the US do?
I would not separate the problem of Syria from the problem of the Middle East, and its weak democracies. Right now, there is not a single strong democracy in the Middle East, with the possible exception of Tunisia, but the regime is quite fragile… but of all 22 Arab countries, it is the only one where major democratic progress has been made in the last few years. I would support recommend that the US support dramatically countries like Tunisia, where its citizens with different ethnic and religious beliefs have agreed to live and let live. We shouldn’t be looking only at Syria, and taking actions against Syria (we shouldn’t be taking actions ONLY against countries where terrible things going on.) Then the US appears to the rest of the world as a policeman, punishing bad guys. The US would have a lot more credibility if we actively support countries making positive change. So far, the US has provided moral support to Tunisia, and fortunately Tunisia is able to be somewhat economically and politically stable. When it looked for a while that Tunisia was going to become more autocratic, we didn’t support democratic forces (and we should have)… instead we worked with Tunisia’s former dictator (who was someone who was robbing his country). We didn’t distance ourselves from him. Not a good policy.
No matter what we do vis a vis Syria, no matter what we do, it won’t be effective without consistent region-wide policy that involves supporting region-wide human rights. Advancing human rights in a sustainable way has to be done locally, by people who live
in a country, by its forces on the ground. We need to do more to help those who are seeking to help themselves. We should be doing this region wide. When Obama was elected President, one of the positive steps that he took was to state that US policy would be to support groups and countries that were advancing human rights, but we haven’t since then really acted in a way that is consistent with those words. Promise of Obama has not been fulfilled.
I think we should be supporting NGOs (non-governmental organizations) in several countries in the Middle East, such as Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Yemen, Libya, and other countries with groups inside who are genuinely committed to building bridges across ethnic and religious groups. Problem is tribalism. The US national policy should not just pay lip service, but should truly support the pro-democratic. We should use our expertise and aid to support grass-roots efforts to reduce tribalism and sectarianism, and foster cooperation across groups. Such groups do exist – they see the problem, and could benefit from US aid in terms of organizational expertise, training in organizing human rights organizations. Mostly, these are private organizations. The State Department makes policy officially (I am referring to efforts of the State Department and private organizations in the United States and international organizations). It is often most effective when US or international private organizations deal with private organizations in the Middle Eastern countries (not their governments). We should be devoting both US government resources to grass roots organizations, and US government high officials (Sec State and US President) should be encouraging private US and private international organizations to work with pro-democracy groups in the Middle East.
Prof. Kuran believes that the US should provide aid and train forces who are not necessarily pro-Western but who are are pro-democratic, and who favor developing a political system that will support basic human rights for all groups in Syria. Right now, you have multiple fractured religious and ethnic groups and they do not trust each other. Fundamental problem: None wants to live under the other. They all believe that if power is held by one of the other groups, they fear that their group will be repressed. What we are seeing in Syria now, is that the Alawites (one of the religious minorities) controls power and has held a dictatorship for many decades. The Alawites fear that if they expand basic freedoms for others, then they themselves will lose freedoms and be persecuted by other Sunni groups.
In order to break the vicious circle of mistrust, we need to identify the people in Syria who are committed to Basic Human Rights (vs. promoting their own ethnic group). There are not many groups like this, but there are some. In 2011 like-minded people in Syria started a movement to promote basic human rights (National Syrian Coalition or something along those lines); set up headquarters in Turkey, and held many meetings that were attended by Western delegations, included Americans, some support for them in Washington, DC – but not much support. Out of fear, the people who were supporting that group early on have now mostly moved back to supporting their own religious and ethnic groups. But there still is a core of people – they are fractured themselves, as many of their sympathizers have been overrun, and they face many difficulties – but there are some people who are trying to keep a pro-democratic and pro-human-rights-for all / pro-Western and Western-friendly movement… some in US, some in Turkey, some in London, some in Syria. Prof. Kuran believes that U.S. resources would be better spent stepping up aid to these democratic forces in Syria.
Q: We have read that Syria is behind in its deadline to deliver its chemical weapons? Do you think US should use military force (as we have not ruled out this option) if the Syrians continue to fail to meet their chemical weapons deadline, and how long past the deadline should we wait to use military force?
I think we missed the boat for using force in Syria, when President Obama drew a red-line which would be crossed if Syria used chemical weapons. Syria did use chemical weapons, and killed many of its own people. If we had bombed them then, would have gained support from some countries.
At this point, since some of the chemicals have been delivered, most people in the world (including Americans) would not favor the use of military option, and would feel that this would be coming out of the blue, so would not support it. Without a clear plan of what we would do if the regime collapsed, what would happen after we bombed, I don’t think it is a good idea. As mentioned before, I think a better plan would be for the US to step up resources for aid to democratic forces, and offer more humanitarian aid to nearby countries where refugees have fled.
Q: Do you think that it would be possible for the US to convince China and Russia to withhold support for the Assad regime?
In the short run, I don’t think that that is possible. Currently both China (secondary) and Russia (directly) are allies of Syria, especially Russia. Neither one would want to give the US an easy victory, and both China and Russia believe that if Assad is toppled, the next regime would not be friendly to Russia and China. (The next regime may not be friendly to the US either, but it certainly would not be friendly to Russia and China. ) Russia or China would only offer to support this move (withhold support for
Assad), if we offered something substantial that Russia or China would want, in return (a quid pro quo). (Ben suggested, for example, if we backed out of Ukraine). Prof. Kuran said exactly – the Russians might settle for a deal where the US effectively allows the Eastern part of Ukraine to be part of Russia, or under its sphere of influence… Russia would need a major concession by the US to let go of Syria. Q: Do you think it would be worth it? No, I don’t think it would be worth it, don’t think we should be solving a problem in one country by trading away freedom of one country to gain freedom in another. We would be effectively giving away people’s human rights.
Q: Do you think that the US could convince the UN to press for more sanctions on Syria? The US could convince most countries of the UN, but the final say of the UN is the Security Council, which has veto power over all resolutions. Two of those countries are China and Russia, and they would probably veto UN sanctions.
We (US) can unilaterally impose sanctions. We have done so. Any country can do this. Any country can convince another group of countries not to trade with others. But going through the UN allows the establishment of an international monitoring system. If 160 countries decide not to trade with Syria, but still there may be 20 countries that will trade with Syria. It is difficult to monitor that goods from the 160 countries are not being funneled to Syria by the 20 countries who remain Syria’s trading partners. Yes, the US could persuade countries to sanction Syria and withhold trade, it Certainly doesn’t hurt, but it is not as effective as when the UN imposes sanctions.
Q: Overall comment on Human rights violations: While many countries violate human rights, it is all a matter of degree. Syria is extreme. Its grade is in the single digits, if the top / best record on human rights is out of 100. All countries violate some human rights (even the US violates some of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – overcrowded prison, indefinite imprisonment and possible torture at Guantanamo Bay.)
Q: Professor Kuran, What should the US do?
I would not separate the problem of Syria from the problem of the Middle East, and its weak democracies. Right now, there is not a single strong democracy in the Middle East, with the possible exception of Tunisia, but the regime is quite fragile… but of all 22 Arab countries, it is the only one where major democratic progress has been made in the last few years. I would support recommend that the US support dramatically countries like Tunisia, where its citizens with different ethnic and religious beliefs have agreed to live and let live. We shouldn’t be looking only at Syria, and taking actions against Syria (we shouldn’t be taking actions ONLY against countries where terrible things going on.) Then the US appears to the rest of the world as a policeman, punishing bad guys. The US would have a lot more credibility if we actively support countries making positive change. So far, the US has provided moral support to Tunisia, and fortunately Tunisia is able to be somewhat economically and politically stable. When it looked for a while that Tunisia was going to become more autocratic, we didn’t support democratic forces (and we should have)… instead we worked with Tunisia’s former dictator (who was someone who was robbing his country). We didn’t distance ourselves from him. Not a good policy.
No matter what we do vis a vis Syria, no matter what we do, it won’t be effective without consistent region-wide policy that involves supporting region-wide human rights. Advancing human rights in a sustainable way has to be done locally, by people who live
in a country, by its forces on the ground. We need to do more to help those who are seeking to help themselves. We should be doing this region wide. When Obama was elected President, one of the positive steps that he took was to state that US policy would be to support groups and countries that were advancing human rights, but we haven’t since then really acted in a way that is consistent with those words. Promise of Obama has not been fulfilled.
I think we should be supporting NGOs (non-governmental organizations) in several countries in the Middle East, such as Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Yemen, Libya, and other countries with groups inside who are genuinely committed to building bridges across ethnic and religious groups. Problem is tribalism. The US national policy should not just pay lip service, but should truly support the pro-democratic. We should use our expertise and aid to support grass-roots efforts to reduce tribalism and sectarianism, and foster cooperation across groups. Such groups do exist – they see the problem, and could benefit from US aid in terms of organizational expertise, training in organizing human rights organizations. Mostly, these are private organizations. The State Department makes policy officially (I am referring to efforts of the State Department and private organizations in the United States and international organizations). It is often most effective when US or international private organizations deal with private organizations in the Middle Eastern countries (not their governments). We should be devoting both US government resources to grass roots organizations, and US government high officials (Sec State and US President) should be encouraging private US and private international organizations to work with pro-democracy groups in the Middle East.