For full meeting notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.

Chairman Menendez opened the discussion on S.960, the Syrian Transition Support Act, by stating that the bill was not a choice between arming and not arming Syrian rebels, but a choice to allow U.S. intervention in a responsible fashion or “leaving it to others who will simply arm the extremists.” He said the bill “includes thorough vetting mechanisms to ensure that we are exceedingly careful about who we arm and train.” He pointed out that the legislation focuses a great deal on training, which would help build relationships and influence the groups the U.S. supports. Senator Corker, who co-sponsored S.960 with Menendez, said the bill would lay out a strategy to cause the balance to change. He argued that the bill “looks at the day after” the fall of Assad and would support moderate groups that would help lead the transition.

Senator Casey argued the “branding element” of S.960 was important because opposition groups should know the aid is coming from the American people. He stated his disappointment that no new assistance was proposed in the bill but said he would support regardless because it is “in our direct national security interests to address this.” Casey then said he would introduce amendments to address medical neutrality, the post-Assad democratic process, transitional justice, and accountability to uphold human rights. Senator Rubio also said the legislation was in the direct national security interest of the United States. He mentioned that America’s ally Jordan fears the “rise of an unfriendly government” in Syria, and argued that the fall of Assad would be one of the “most significant sanctions” on the Iranian regime. Senator Coons said he agreed with Casey and Rubio. Senator McCain argued that the U.S. should be doing more than what S.960 calls for, but said he would support because it will send a message to Assad, the opposition, and the Syrian people. Senator Kaine said he was pleased to support S.960.

Senator Risch said he would support the bill but that it wasn’t easy because he doesn’t have the “same level of confidence” his colleagues have in the Syrian opposition. He pointed out that Syrian society is very complex. Senator Udall said, “We have to ask: ‘who are we arming?’ I don’t think we know.” He asked for more hearings so the committee could hear from the experts. He also pointed out that the Obama Administration was hesitant to arm the rebels. Senator Menendez responded to Udall’s concerns stating, “We have had several hearings,” and argued that the committee knows certain elements of the opposition that it can support. He also called attention to the “strict vetting rules” laid out in S.960. Senator Murphy associated himself with the concerns of Udall. He said the American Congress and Senate Foreign Relations Committee needs to learn from history. “We are not very good at pulling political strings in a region we don’t understand,” he argued. Senator Boxer argued the legislation is clearly not an authorization of force. She said the bill was a way to “shape” the situation in Syria “just a little bit,” and added, “I feel good about it.” She also added that the bill would send a message to Russia that they cannot support a dictator.

The committee then held a vote on Senator Casey’s amendment ensuring protection of civilians, medical neutrality, and a democratic process that uphold human rights after Assad. The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote. Additionally, a Manger’s package of amendments was agreed to by a voice vote.

Senator Paul then stated his concerns with S.960. He said the Syrian conflict was a “murky war” and that it was not a good idea to get involved. He offered an amendment that would not authorize the use of force in Syria. He stated that while his colleagues had good intentions, “in your rush… you may be arming Islamic rebels” who could shoot Christians. Senator Corker responded to Paul’s concerns saying S.960 clearly does not authorize the use of military force but that Paul’s amendment to forbid it could lead to the creation of a terrorist safe-haven in the future. He challenged Paul’s remarks about rebels killing Christians saying the purpose of S.960 was to support moderates in order to avoid that exactly. Senator Rubio also responded to Paul, reiterating the point that S.960 clearly does not authorize the use of force. He added that the conflict was “not the War of 1812″ with two clearly defined sides. He said that currently the best equipped rebel fighters are the radical groups and this creates a “perverse incentive” for moderate rebels to align with the radicals. He noted that Assad was already killing Christians and that S.960 would try to stop that and does not support violence against civilians. Senator Paul’s amendment failed by a roll call vote of 2-15 with Senators Paul and Udall voting in favor.

Senator Udall then introduced an amendment limiting the arms provided to the opposition. It would allow small arms but category II and IV weapons would require a waiver. He said the opposition “must show they can manage and maintain” a chain of custody before heavier weapons are provided. Senator McCain voiced his disagreement with Udall saying, Udall “wants to use shotguns against scud missiles.” McCain said the amendment would limit the opposition to an unfair fight. He added that it would be better to not have S.960 at all if the opposition was restricted under the provisions Udall proposed. Senator Corker urged a “no” vote on Udall’s amendment. Senator Rubio pointed out that pro-Assad forces are well armed and radical Jihad forces are well armed, leaving the moderate opposition with little support. He argued that foreign policy “is about our national influence,” and said that if the U.S. was not involved at all then “we are guaranteed to have no influence in a post-Assad Syria.” Senator Udall argued that McCain’s remarks mischaracterized his amendment. Senator Menendez said the Udall amendment would “neuter” the purpose of S.960 and urged a “no” vote. Senator Udall’s amendment failed by a roll call vote of 4-14 with Senators Udall, Durbin, Murphy and Paul voting in favor.

Senator Paul then offered an amendment to strike Title V from S.960, the title that authorizes the President to provide lethal weapons. He acknowledged that it went “one step further” than the Udall amendment that had just failed but said it was important to get a vote on record. “You will be funding allies of al-Qaeda,” he warned. Senator Menendez rejected the idea of arming al-Qaeda rebels and pointed out that al-Qaeda is already well armed. Senator Rubio “categorically” rejected Paul’s claim. He said no one would vote to arm al-Qaeda, and said that moderate parties are the only ones under-armed at present. He pointed out that the vetting process is very strict in S.960. Senator Corker stated that the “thrust” of S.960 was to shift the strength away from Assad and al-Qaeda. Senator Paul’s amendment failed by a roll call vote of 2-15 with Senators Paul and Murphy voting in favor.

Senator Menendez then called for a committee vote on the bill. S.960, the Syrian Transition Support Act of 2013 was ordered reported by a roll call vote of 15-3. Senators Udall, Paul, and Murphy voted against. Senator Menendez then called for a committee vote on S.Res.143. The World Press Freedom Day Resolution was agreed to by voice vote.

Photo Credit: Corbis

Iran’s Guardian Council announced the list of approved candidates for Iran’s June presidential election. The council approved eight candidates, six of which are “ultraconservatives” loyal to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The approved candidates include Saeed Jalili, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator; Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, the current mayor of Tehran; and Ali Akbar Velayati, former foreign minister. The council barred Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president and major player in the Iranian revolution, and Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad‘s adviser and chosen successor, from competing. The two hopefuls are political rivals of the hard-line conservative establishment. The Council is not required to disclose its reasons for disqualifying a prospective candidate. Following the announcement Wednesday, Ahmadinejad said he would ask the council to reverse its ban on Mashaei.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Rafsanjani was a potentially appealing candidate for reformist voters who planned to refrain from participating if presented with a slate of hard-line candidates. His exclusion from the election may affect voter turnout and attitudes toward the election. Writing for Foreign Policy, Yasmin Alem speculates that the political repercussions of the decision could include attempts by Ahmadinejad to punish Khamenei and his supporters for excluding Mashaei. The president is responsible for conducting elections, giving Ahmadinejad the ability to make the process difficult for Khamenei supporters. He could also release documents implicating public officials linked to Khamenei in corruption scandals. According to The Guardian, Jalili is thought to be Khamenei’s preferred candidate.

Photo Credit: State Department

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited Oman on Tuesday to help finalize a $2.1 billion defense pact. In a joint statement, the U.S. and the Government of Oman announced ”a deal for the acquisition of a U.S. manufactured ground based air defense system.” A State Department official said the deal advances U.S. commercial interests and will further integrate the Gulf Cooperation Council’s defense systems. In remarks with the Omani Minister responsible for defense affairs,Kerry said, “President Obama and the United States are very grateful for the role that Oman plays in the region as an important force for peace and stability.” Kerry was also expected to discuss the conflict in Syria and Iran’s imprisonment of two American-Iranians with Oman’s leaders, including Sultan Qaboos.

On Wednesday, Bahrain’s leading opposition party, Al-Wefaq, announced that it would stop participating in the country’s national dialogue for two weeks. The party cited what it called “the deliberate delay and absence of positive response” on the dialogue by the official party, “escalated repression…which has reached its peak by attacking Ayatollah Sheikh Issa Qassim’s house,” and the sentencing of prisoners of conscience. Earlier in the week, Bahrain’s attorney general denied a report that claimed the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry recommendations on freedom of expression had not been implemented.

On Monday, Qatar’s Emir, Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa al-Thani, said that “it is most useful and safest to achieve change gradually through reform and dialogue,” in comments at the Doha Forum. He added that “whoever rejects reforms and changes and cannot absorb new facts and modern requirements will be changed by the needs of history and the passage of time.” Al-Thani noted that he stressed gradual change “to prove that what we had done was required in the current stage of history.”

Photo Credit: Thierry Ehrmann, Flickr

Algeria and its president Abdelaziz Bouteflika have weathered the storm of Arab Spring revolutions that toppled governments in many surrounding countries. The Atlantic Council’s Karim Mezran writes, however, that the country “may be teetering on the brink of a crisis, with the three pillars of the regime’s stability—its powerful military, abundant revenues from hydrocarbons, and the façade of a democratic political system—beginning to crumble.” Mezran points first to the “low intensity guerrilla war” that is “challenging the state’s military strength and its ability to secure its borders.” He also notes that “despite Algeria’s enormous wealth in oil and gas, the population suffers from poverty, unemployment, and citizen discontent.” Additionally, recent reports that Bouteflika may be seriously ill, coupled with a the lack of a clear successor, points to “a political crisis at the top of the state apparatus.” With presidential elections approaching in 2014 Mezran argues “the Algerian political system is headed to an interesting confrontation.” The Council on Foreign Relations’ Elliot Abrams agrees, arguing, “Algeria is worth more attention than it is getting. Its immunity to change may be wearing thin.”

Mezran’s assessment is in line with a recent Carnegie Endowment report “The Price of Stability in Algeria,” which states, “If left unaddressed, the social, economic, and political grievances festering beneath the surface in Algeria could rapidly escalate into popular revolts that threaten the regime’s stability.” The report’s author, Lahcen Achy, says, “Algerians often experience political exclusion, and the country lacks an open political system or effective civil society organizations that would channel people’s grievances.” Achy argues, ”To stave off collapse or violent regime change, Algeria needs deep political and economic reforms conducive to sustainable and equitable economic expansion, increased public participation in politics, and effective accountability of political leaders.”

For the full event notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.

In his opening statement, Chairman Royce said the hearing would look at the economic factors behind the unrest in the Middle East. He stated that a lack of property rights and rule of law, and endemic corruption, had contributed to the economic hardship of tens of millions. Royce said that the uprisings called into question American policies toward Arab governments and presented “an historic opportunity to advance reforms that would economically empower impoverished individuals.” He argued that economic repression led to the protests, which called for economic liberty. Royce said that if we don’t consider the economic forces behind the Arab Spring, “then no amount of U.S. aid will bring prosperity to the region…we need a major shift in how we view these countries.” Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) entered Ranking Member Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)’s statement into the record. Deutch recounted the barriers to registering businesses and economic struggles in MENA countries. He said the U.S. needs to make “a true commitment to promoting democracy and human rights, substantial economic investment, and a serious attempt to address corruption.” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) said that there was “no one cause” of the Arab Spring and that tensions had been simmering for years. She cited poverty, unemployment, and most importantly, the lack of any real foundation of democracy as major problems. Ros-Lehtinen argued that the MENA countries cannot grow their economies and build wealth without drastically reforming their governments and laws. She concluded that “we’re stuck in a vicious cycle unless democracy comes to the Middle East.”

Hernando de Soto argued that entrepreneurs need things like titles, limited liability, and property to raise capital and get credit. He revealed that 85% of Arab enterprises did not have these things, with many of them only working in the informal economy, making unemployment numbers a sham. He noted that Bouazizi and other self-immolators were actually protesting the expropriation that is possible without rule of law. De Soto concluded that the U.S. can play a massive role in this area because it was born around the idea of freedom and property. Madeleine Albright stated that “People want to vote but they also want to eat and economic frustration has contributed much to the unrest we see in the Arab world.” She noted that there is an “an intimate connection between legal rights and economic development.” Albright argued that the U.S. can and should help the transitioning countries, including by “bringing people in the Arab region together with the authors of change” around the world. She emphasized that the U.S. “has neither the desire nor the power to dictate what happens in the new Arab democracies – but we can still exert a positive influence by fulfilling requests for technical aid and by remaining steadfast in support of democratic principles.” She concluded that “we will all do better if Arab societies are able to create a new model for governance in their region.”

Royce asked de Soto about his work in Egypt during Mubarak’s rule. De Soto stated that the issue in Egypt was not property rights, but the right to property rights. He added that if you are poor in MENA and truly not employed for more than three months, you would likely die, so most of the people listed as unemployed are actually working, just outside of the formal economy. He said that 380 million Arabs had invented ways of creating wealth. He argued that entrepreneurs are only as good as their legal environment, which is very bad in MENA where civilization was based on bad economic ideas.

Deutch asked Albright about the factors that contribute to successful transitions and what role the U.S. can play. She said that people need access to justice, and emphasized the legal empowerment of the poor. Albright said that elections are necessary but not sufficient, as democracies need rule of law, a legislative branch, and an opposition party. She noted that it is hard to have property rights if there is not a rule of law to enforce them. Albright argued that the U.S. needs to help with governance, and not just its own model. She said economic development has to be encapsulated within political development. She noted that the National Democratic Institute had brought people from Chile and Central Europe to North Africa to consult and help with leaders there, and that “imposing democracy is an oxymoron.”

Ros-Lehtinen, noting that Egypt President Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood had almost a year in power but failed to implement economic reforms, asked Albright if the U.S. should be conditioning its military and economic aid to Egypt. Albright said she would not withdraw funds from Egypt but would like to see more money go to various democratic forces, though the government is making it difficult for some groups to operate. Ros-Lehtinen asked if Albright would advocate for requiring certain benchmarks, and Albright argued that the U.S. should say what it wants, but that she would not have it be a way that the U.S. would cut off aid. Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ) asked how the U.S. can pressure Egypt on issues like violence against Copts without leveraging the aid and threatening to cut it off. Albright said that by totally cutting off aid, you lose whatever leverage you have had. She said that instead, the U.S. must clearly say what it wants.

Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AK) asked if the U.S., World Bank, and IMF were focusing enough on constitutional issues. De Soto said that elections were important but probably not the most important, especially if they are not held by district. He emphasized the importance of getting voter lists right and getting meaningful feedback, for which there is no international formula. Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA) asked what the U.S. can do to help the Egyptian opposition. De Soto said the U.S. must understand that it is coming from the perspective of having property rights as a result of the development of common law. He added that property will change the relationship between people and government.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) asked whether the MENA Incentive Fund requested in the president’s budget should focus on developing property rights rather than mainly governance. De Soto said yes, because property rights will make democracy viable, and that property the essence of a political issue. He added that the budgets for putting property rights into place at not that big, and emphasized that purely political reforms do not attend to the reason that people protested. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) noted that radical Islamists are not opposed to property rights and entrepreneurship, but de Soto said they will still be under fire if they don’t provide the conditions to allow those things to develop.

Photo Credit: Mohammad Hannon, File/Associated Press

At a meeting of the International Press Institute, Jordan’s Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour discussed Jordanians’ increased demand for freedoms of expression and press. Ensour stated that “the Arab Spring has opened new horizons and created more demands” for broadening these freedoms. He added, “Obviously, we’re not yet where we want to be, but we are determined to continue.” Ensour promised further liberalization and cited statistics of Jordanians’ internet use as evidence of increasing freedom. According to the prime minister, Jordan ranks third in active social network use in the Arab World and two-thirds of the population has access to the internet.

Participants in the meeting complained that Jordan’s reforms have been insufficient in addressing these demands. Nidal Mansour, head of the Amman-based Center for Defending Freedom of Journalists, said, “The Press and Publication Law has been and continues to be a sword on the necks of all journalists in Jordan.” The law requires websites dealing with “press materials” to register with the Department of Press and Publication, pay a fee, and appoint an editor who is accountable for all content, including reader comments. It also allows the department to block websites deemed to be in violation of the law. Although some limits on expression have loosened since the uprisings began, restrictions remain, including a ban on publicly criticizing the king, surveillance of journalists by intelligence agencies, and arrest of journalists and bloggers.

Last week, Congressman Gregory Meeks introduced a resolution recognizing the partnership and friendship between Jordan and the United States. The resolution praises Jordan’s cooperation in counterterrorism efforts and assistance with Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations and its  maintenance of open borders with Syria. The resolution also notes  that “Jordan is a leader for progress and tolerance in the Arab world and recently held parliamentary elections, as part of a political reform movement.” A bipartisan group comprised of Reps. Boustany, Deutch, Engel, Faleomavaega, Cleaver, Fortenberry, Grimm, Hastings, Lowey, Moran, Schiff, and Weber co-sponsored the resolution.

Photo Credit: Nawfel/AP

Following clashes last week in Tunisia between security forces and supporters of the radical Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia, violence flared again over the weekend in Kairouan and Tunis leaving several injured and one dead. Police arrested 200 members of the al-Qaeda affiliated group Sunday, including its spokesman, after the government earlier banned its annual congress scheduled to be held in Kairouan that day. Prime Minister Ali Larayedh accused the group of being involved in terrorism, warning, “We will deal with extremism firmly, we will be rigid.” Police also prevented the group from holding a smaller meeting in the Ettadamen district in Tunis later in the day, prompting clashes with Salafis who chanted “the rule of the tyrant should fall.” The Interior Ministry announced that Ansar al-Sharia is an illegal organization “that does not abide by the law.”

The Tunisian government, led by the moderate Islamist Ennahda party, has taken a firmer stance against the Salafis’ puritanical strain of Islam in recent weeks, a marked change in course from its previously non-confrontational approach that allowed Salafist groups to operate freely in Tunisia. But after largely neglecting repeated attacks and harassment of journalists and artists by hard-line Salafis, the government now fears the influence of some Salafist groups is undermining the authority of the state and poses a threat to public safety. Clashes along the Algerian border between Tunisian troops and members of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which is supported by Ansar al-Sharia, and the Islamist insurgency in nearby Mali have exacerbated the threat.

Also in Tunisia, the country’s main political parties reached consensus on a series of contentious issues at a national dialogue conference meeting over the weekend. Among the points agreed upon are the date for new elections, a new electoral law and a system to balance the powers of the president and prime minster, respectively.

Photo Credit: AP

Egypt’s National Salvation Front (NSF) criticized a draft NGO law over the weekend, saying the Muslim Brotherhood-backed bill is more restrictive than laws under former President Hosni Mubarak. The opposition bloc said the law “seeks to reproduce a police state by putting into law the role of security bodies in overseeing the work of civil society groups.” The bill stipulates that NGOs be vetted by a committee comprised in part of members of the security services and get official permission to receive foreign funding. According to the NSF’s statement, “This can allow these entities to refuse funding for rights groups that monitor elections or work to fight torture.” The NSF announced it would support an alternate bill drafted by a group of 50 civil society organizations.

The NSF has also formed an alliance with the Islamist, Salafist-dominated Al Nour party in an effort to limit the increasing power of the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Tamara Wittes, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, the Salafists stand to gain most in the partnership; they may appeal to voters since they are untested in Egyptian politics. Al Nour may pull votes from the Brotherhood’s “less-loyal constituents,” particularly in conservative rural areas. Analysts say that if the parties are successful in the elections, they could form a coalition government or achieve a majority in parliament, giving them the power to choose the prime minister.

Also in Egypt, two journalists at a newspaper critical of President Mohammed Morsi are facing criminal charges of defamation. Public Prosecutor Talaat Ibrahim, a Morsi appointee, ordered an expedited trial for Magdy El Gilad, editor in chief of El-Watan newspaper, and Alaa El-Ghatrify, the paper’s managing editor, on Sunday. These charges are based on claims that the paper defamed the head of a “local public opinion research center.”

Photo Credit: AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

From May 21 to May 27, Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to the Middle East. His visit will begin in Oman, and then he will move to Jordan, Israel, the West Bank. In Jordan, Kerry will meet with international partners to discuss solutions for the conflict in Syria. While in Jerusalem and Ramallah, Kerry will meet with Israeli and Palestinian leadership, respectively, to discuss how the United States can support the two countries in returning to peace negotiations. After a two-day visit to Ethiopia, Kerry will return to Jordan to participate in the World Economic Forum on the 26th.

Secretary Kerry’s first stop in Jordan will include a meeting with the Friends of Syria. The foreign ministers of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Britain, France, Germany, Turkey, and Italy will attend. The discussions of Syria planned for the trip are part of the United States’ ongoing efforts to find a solution to the conflict in the country. Kerry recently visited Russia to discuss the conflict and announced an international conference co-sponsored by Russia after talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. President Barack Obama also discussed the conflict this week with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan during the minister’s visit to Washington.

For the full event notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.

Daniel Calingaert introduced the panelists and noted several recent news pieces on the Syrian conflict.

Kinda Kanbar focused on rape and sexual violence in Syria, citing the research of human rights lawyer Laila Alodaat. She began by stating that Syrian women are in crisis. Kanbar provided statistics from Alodaat’s work on sexual violence in Syria, saying that 81 cases were recorded in March 2011. She pointed to a political ideology that tolerates sexual abuse and discrimination as a central problem, saying that this ideology is enshrined in legislation and litigation. She noted specific laws that exempt men from prosecution for killing or raping women under certain circumstances. She stated that legal reforms directed at changing these laws will only be effective if they are accompanied by a social, cultural, and political movement that eliminates the ideology that supports discrimination throughout Syrian society. Kanbar called for a more proactive role for judges in order to change these laws, efforts to integrate women into Syrian society and politics, and an efficient policy for disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of combatants.

Mohammed Aly Sergie described a surgical student enrolled in the University of Aleppo when the revolution began who has become deeply involved in activities related to the revolution. While many doctors left Aleppo as the area became more dangerous, this student remained in Aleppo to treat wounded rebels and regime soldiers. Through this role, he has built a reputation as an honest broker between the two sides. He was also elected to a position on Aleppo’s local administrative council. Sergie stated that the group of young doctors working in Aleppo has encountered the same problem faced by all organizations in Syria: a lack of funds. He noted the difficulty of establishing a transitional government and building legitimacy without funding. He argued that if organizations cannot deliver assistance to these doctors on the ground, they are “just an act of democracy” and do not change the situation.

Omar Hossino focused on relations between Syrian minorities. He noted the emergence of mediation groups addressing conflicts between minorities as reason for hope. These groups have emerged in areas of conflict between rebel groups and majority and minority groups. He cited two examples in which mediation between rebel ethnic groups and the Free Syrian Army has ended or prevented conflict between these rebel factions. He stated that these councils have forged mediated agreements in instances of ethnic fighting that did not include government forces. Hossino stated that efforts to solve local problems through a “local grassroots Syrian affair” have made him very hopeful for the future in Syria.

Oubab Khalil discussed stereotypes of the conflict in Western media, noting a tendency in the United States and the United Kingdom to characterize the situation in Syria as a conflict between Sunnis and Alawites and calling this characterization “disturbing” and “not true.” He stated that sectarian tensions exist but said, “We have not seen any systematic retaliations.” Khalil also emphasized the need for an interim government. He stated that “every struggle must end with a political solution, an enforceable one,” adding that once an enforceable political agreement is in place, they can move to a transitional government. On the subject of intervention, he praised the United States as the highest donor of humanitarian aid but stated that the U.S. and U.K. are not doing Syrians a significant favor by protecting civilians because this protection is an international responsibility. He also asserted the opposition’s belief in the Geneva Communique as a foundation for a solution to the conflict.

Opening the Q&A, Daniel Calingaert asked whether Hossino’s examples of mediation councils are isolated incidents and whether the work of these groups could be translated to a broader level. Hossino responded that they were not isolated examples but said the groups could not have a significant impact on national issues, arguing that it would be difficult to establish the legitimacy needed to act so broadly and would be difficult to translate their ability to address micro-level issues to a capacity for handling broad questions of war and peace. Calingaert also prompted Kanbar to discuss further the problem of reporting sexual abuse and the role of women in Syrian society. Kanbar agreed that there are difficulties in documenting rape, noting a particular reluctance of victims to come forward in certain areas of the country. She also called for greater representation for women, directing a call for a 30% quota for female representation in the opposition to Khalil. Khalil agreed that greater representation was necessary and responded by stating that a 60% quota that roughly matched women’s proportion of the population might be more appropriate. Kanbar agreed that this quota would be more desirable but expressed her belief that the National Coalition would not allow such a high quota.

On the issue of rape, Khalil emphasized empowering civil society to receive and assist victims of sexual abuse. On a related question on the role of women, Sergie described workshops hosted in southern Turkey by American organizations for young Syrian activists and recounted an encounter with two young men who were avidly “evangelizing” for women’s rights after attending a workshop. He claimed the U.S. is unable to create democracy but that “promoting values is probably the best avenue to go.”

Responding to a question on whether proto-ministry groups would remain active during and after the transition, Sergie stated, “These are the guys who are going to stay.” Hossino echoed this sentiment. Answering a question regarding the revolution’s chances for success without armed outside assistance, Khalil said, “If we had a level playing field, we could do it on our own.” He noted, however, that the opposition is fighting more than just Assad’s forces, pointing to Russian arms sales to the regime and the participation of Iranian and Iraqi forces in the fighting. He stated that the opposition may be able to dissolve the regime but they will not be able to return to the pre-war status quo without assistance and will eventually live in a failed state. Sergie agreed, adding that the weapons the rebels have received from other countries are “rudimentary” and are not a match for the capabilities of the regime. On the subject of foreign aid, Sergie stated that rebel groups are receiving money but the funds are insufficient. Khalil noted that there can be a substantial gap between when aid is pledged and when it is distributed.

When asked what concrete steps should be taken by the international community, Khalil called for stronger leadership, enforcement of a full or limited no-fly zone, lethal support, and increased humanitarian aid. He stated that balance of power on the ground must be achieved in order to achieve a political transition, saying it would change Assad’s calculus by showing the need for a power transition. Kanbar stated that they need to see a sign of goodwill from the regime that indicates it is ready for negotiations.