ConservativeHome's Big Ideas blog

Nine non-military ways to show the Assad regime what the US government thinks of their phony excuses

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

Despite the fact that nearly 1500 civilians have been killed in Syria and another 10,500 have fled, the Obama administration has remained conspicuously silent about the ongoing atrocities committed by the Assad government.

But while the White House continues to avoid the issue, at times even playing to the regime's propaganda, a growing number of foreign policy experts are urging immediate action.

One of those people is Richard Grenell, the longest serving US spokesman to the UN, who in in an op-ed last week in The Huffington Post outlined nine non-military actions that the US can immediately undertake to both isolate Assad and show support to those behind the opposition movement.

As the security crackdown in Syria continues, here's a look at Grenell's suggestions:

1. Order US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford home immediately, and shut down the Embassy.
2. Publicly call upon Assad to resign and ask other countries to do the same
3. Call upon the Europeans and others to pull their Ambassadors from Damascus too.
4. Restrict the movement of the Syrian Ambassador to Washington and the Syrian Ambassador to the UN to a small radius around their offices.
5. Ask European capitals to restrict the movement of Syrian Ambassadors in their countries too.
6. Force the UN resolution on Syria to a vote and dare the Russians to veto it.
7. Move USAid employees into southern Turkey to care for the Syrian refugees arriving daily.
8. Schedule an Al Jazeera TV interview with President Obama to explain our actions and why Assad must go. 
9. Demand the IAEA inspect Al Kibar and offer an immediate UN resolution authorizing it.

Grenell's original op-ed is available to read here.

"Reform first, pay later": House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen outlines four key lessons from past attempts at United Nations reform as she prepares to introduce a revised version of legislation focused on reshaping the organization

Natalie Gonnella

Since taking the reins of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in January, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has been very vocal about the current failures of the United Nations and the need for serious and sweeping reforms to both the organization as a whole, as well as US involvement.

During a hearing earlier in March, the Congressman Ros-Lehtinen commented that as a country:

We must demand that funding for the UN budget and UN entities move from an assessed to a voluntary basis...That way, Americans, not UN bureaucrats or other member countries, will determine how much taxpayer dollars are spent on the U.N., and where they go...We should pay for U.N. programs and activities that advance our interests and our values...If other countries want different things to be funded, they can pay for it.

As the US participates in UN backed strikes against President Gadhafi's regime, the Chairwoman this week reiterated her frustration with the widespread failures of the UN, articulating once again the need for bold, widespread changes:

One striking example [of failure] is the UN Human Rights Council, which is set to soon pass several more anti-Israel resolutions, on top of 33 such measures passed by the Council in the past five years. Israel is the only country on the Council’s permanent agenda, while abuses by rogue regimes like Cuba, China, and Syria are ignored. Libya’s Qaddafi regime was actually a member of the Council until recently, and other serial human rights abusers still sit on the body. From shams like the Human Rights Council, to corruption scandals, to mismanagement, and more, it is clear that the UN is broken.

In addition to discussing her views on current failings of the organization, in her statement the Congresswoman further outlined four important lessons from past attempts at reform she sees as key components in shaping future strategy. Here's a look at what she had to say:

Lesson One: Money talks . The biggest problem with the UN is that those who call the shots don’t have to pay the bills. Most UN member nations pay next to nothing in assessed contributions, work together to drive the UN’s agenda, and pass the costs on to big contributors like the United States. The U.S. government goes along and pays all assessed contributions — 22 percent of the UN regular budget — plus billions more every year. The UN bureaucracy and other member countries know that we will pay in full no matter what, so they have zero incentive to reform. Almost every successful U.S. effort to reform the UN has been based on withholding our contributions unless and until reforms are implemented. In the 1980s, Congress withheld funding until the UN changed how budgets are voted on. That effort showed some success, until we stopped conditioning funding on reform. Then, the UN returned to business as usual...In the 1990s, when UN regular and peacekeeping budgets were skyrocketing, Congress enacted the Helms-Biden agreement. We withheld our dues and conditioned repayment on key reforms. When the UN saw we meant business, members agreed to change, which saved U.S. taxpayers money. Smart withholding worked. Funding for the UN budget and UN entities must also move from an assessed to a voluntary basis. That way, Americans, not UN bureaucrats or other countries, will determine how much taxpayer dollars are spent on the UN, and where they go. We should only pay for UN programs and activities that advance our interests and our values. If other countries want different things to be funded, they can pay for it themselves. 

Lesson Two: U.S. leadership matters. Leadership is what our allies expect from us, and what our enemies fear. We should not be afraid to stand up for our values and interests, even if that means standing alone — though we should reach out for other responsible nations to join us. Indecisiveness undermines our credibility with allies, and weakens our ability to advance our goals at the UN. 

Lesson Three: Don’t settle for cosmetic changes. In 2006, the U.N. finally abolished the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights, which was once chaired by Qaddafi’s Libya. Instead of replacing the Commission with a credible and effective body, the UN created a Human Rights Council that is as bad as its predecessor. The Council’s rare resolutions criticizing real human rights abuses are usually too little and too late. Why did it take the massacre of hundreds of people in the streets for the UN to throw Libya off the Council? Why was Qaddafi’s regime permitted to join the Council to begin with in 2010? Why are other human rights abusers — including China, Cuba, Russia, and Saudi Arabia — still on the Council? The Obama administration has tried to reform the Council from within, but has failed. We should finally leave the Council and explore credible, alternative forums to advance human rights. 

Lesson Four: Don’t compare apples and oranges. Some of the UN’s defenders like to point to good UN activities to justify the bad ones. However, we’re not here to play “Let’s Make a Deal.” Each UN program must be justified on its own merits, and funded voluntarily. UNICEF aid to starving children cannot excuse UNRWA having members of Hamas on its payroll. 
To incorporate these lessons learned, I will soon introduce a revised version of UN reform legislation which I first introduced in 2007. Its fundamental principle will be “reform first, pay later.

The Congresswoman's full statement can be viewed here. 

Five must-read foreign policy articles: Peter Feaver on how China is free-rising on American security policy, Obama's middle east tactics are foundering, and more

Peter Feaver is a Professor of political science and public policy at Duke University. He co-moderates the shadow government blog at foreignpolicy.com.

I agree with the view offered by my wingman, Will Inboden, after an election where foreign policy barely registered on the public zeitgeist, we are about to enter a season when our political leaders will have to make very consequential foreign policy decisions.  Moreover, foreign policy always figures more prominently in a presidential election than in a midterm, and so those who are vying for the honor of challenging President Obama in 2012 will have to offer a more systematic and coherent vision for how to respond to the challenges and opportunities America faces in the world than was on offer this year.

I, too, hope that they will mosey over to Shadow Government and join the conversation. Our contributors share some important common values, but disagree on tactics and, occasionally, on strategy and objectives.  However, even when I disagree with an argument advanced by my colleagues, I usually learn something.  Here are five of my favorites:

• Sometimes bickering allies can pose as thorny a challenge as obstreperous adversaries. Michael Singh explains how this is so in a very compelling analysis of the dispute between Israel and Turkey.  Dov Zakheim was more optimistic in June but I fear Turkey may be drifting away and if the trend continues, the long-term consequences for U.S. strategy in the broader Middle East are profound.

• America’s strategic interest in the advancement of freedom outlasts President Bush and it is high time that we forged a sustainable post-Bush “freedom agenda.”  So says Will Inboden, and he is absolutely correct. He goes one step further: he identifies bona fide opportunities for progress.  

• China has been free-riding on U.S. security policy in northeast Asia and we cannot let this continue indefinitely.  This advice was timely when Will Tobey offered it several months ago, but it looks especially prophetic given Chinese regional adventurism in the intervening period. Policymakers have understandably focused on Chinese international economic policy, which has produced the most friction in the relationship this year.  But with the North Korean power transfer still very much up for grabs, it is worth remembering that we have a longstanding and profound national security concern at stake, too.

• President Obama’s vision for Middle East peace keeps foundering on bad tactics.  So argues Dov Zakheim.  To borrow a campaign metaphor, the car is stuck in the ditch and the Obama Administration keeps gunning the wheels and digging itself a deeper rut.  It is in the U.S. interest to offer a compelling, bipartisan vision of long-term peace in the region.  Political leaders should commit energy and resources in pursuit of that vision.  But pursuing it will require deft diplomacy and perhaps another reset button. 

• We are still waiting for an international response commensurate with the international economic crisis. That is my conclusion, after rereading an exceptionally thoughtful series of posts by Phil Zelikow, a once and perhaps future Shadow Gov contributor.  In six pithy posts, here, here, here, here, here, and here, he sketches an action plan that is remarkably timely, even thought it was written 18 months ago.

Of course, success in foreign policy depends on American power which in turn depends on the strength of the American domestic economy.  In any Administration, it is commonplace for the foreign policy team to worry about mistakes the domestic policy team is making and vice-versa. So doubtless, there will be much for the Shadow Government folks to learn from ConservativeHome.