By Mehroz Baig

“Syria is a dangerous neglect by the United States,” cautioned Vali Nasr during his talk at the Club on May 1. “It’s a country that will impact the entire region.” Nasr said that the United States has other options in Syria besides a military presence. For example, the United States can also arm the opposition and take the lead in addressing the growing humanitarian crisis in and around Syria.

Syria’s ongoing conflict began more than two years ago in March 2011, and according to the UN, it has now claimed more than 70,000 lives, internally displaced 4.25 million people, and sent 1.3 million people into neighboring countries as refugees. The UNHCR — the UN’s refugee agency — notes that the Middle East and North Africa already face a slew of destabilizing circumstances, including civil conflicts and natural disasters. The escalating violence in Syria has added to the strain in the region.

In a statement to the UN Security Council in April, Valerie Amos, under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs at the UN, expressed concern for Syria’s neighbors, particularly Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. Earlier in March, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, noted that Lebanon saw a 10 percent increase in its population due to refugee influx from Syria, which is putting a strain on Lebanon’s resources. He also said that the crisis in Syria is a “threat to international peace and security.” 

“I think it would be terrific if the U.S. made an explicit push for China, Russia, Iran and the U.S. to jointly focus on the suffering of the Syrian people,” said Fred Lawson, a professor of government at Mills College and author of Global Security Watch – Syria. However, he cautioned that Syria is currently in a civil war and added, “What we learned in Somalia was that it’s impossible to carry out a humanitarian mission while there is a civil war going on.”

The UN and a host of NGOs have been consistently appealing for more funding to direct toward Syria. In a report published in April, Oxfam called out the international community, saying, “Today, the aid effort is shamefully inadequate.” The UN’s appeal of $1.5 billion has only been met halfway and UNHCR has had to revise its 2012 budget to accommodate the growing need in Syria. In 2012, it spent 18.75 percent of its entire MENA (Middle East North Africa) budget on Syria. The agency anticipates revising its 2013 budget, too.

This is precisely where Nasr thinks the U.S. can contribute. “Everyone’s operating on the assumption that we don’t care,” Nasr said. But he argues that the U.S. can lead a global initiative to address the humanitarian crisis in Syria. And as many agencies including the UN argue, that leadership is not only about donations and funding. Much of the humanitarian work is hampered by lack of authorization to enter Syria’s government-controlled territories, the inability to provide cross-border assistance, and a precarious security situation faced by humanitarian aid workers. On this front, diplomatic negotiations with the Assad government and rebel factions are needed.

Lawson agrees, adding, “It’s starting to look like humanitarian aid is not enough.” He suggested that any diplomatic efforts should be focused on giving Assad’s regime and its supporters an absolute guarantee of their safety; otherwise there is nothing to negotiate.

The United States’ reluctance on Syria might also stem from multiple calculations, which include following Turkey’s lead and considering the fragmentation within the opposition, added Lawson. Overturning the Assad regime would leave a leadership vacuum within Syria, which might be filled by anti-American parties. Additionally, the lack of organization within the opposition suggests that any one of those factions taking charge in Syria may not ultimately lead to a stabilized Syria.

“No one wants that,” Lawson said, citing interests from the U.S., Israel, Jordan, Turkey and Iran. “Washington is paralyzed.” The United States must take into its calculus additional factors, such as recent allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria, Israeli airstrikes near Damascus and an Internet blackout in Syria.

The political calculation aside, humanitarian aid is still necessary, and Lawson suggests that the United States form an opinion about how to proceed: “I think the United States should first decide whether it will work through the UN or directly.” Direct aid requires forming an infrastructure of delivery, which takes time, Lawson added. However, Lawson cautioned that the “U.S. should not send food directly with U.S. personnel or aircraft,” but rather channel it through other aid entities such as the Arab Red Crescent. Doing so keeps aid workers politically neutral and out of harm’s way, especially from anti-American factions.

In testimony to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Human Rights Watch’s Tom Malinowski addressed the double-edged sword of labeled aid. While explicit labels allow people on the ground to see where support is coming from — and support carries more weight if coming from the United States — labeling can lead to politicization. Malinowski stressed that aid must be disbursed impartially and for that, “it is better to rely on organizations that have the experience and logistical capacity on both sides of the border and that will ensure that aid is not politicized.” However, hesitancy to send aid through third-party organizations exists because the United States doesn’t come out as a prominent actor in relief efforts.

Ultimately, it may be a combination of factors — increased non-politicized aid, diplomatic unity on the Security Council, increased efforts at negotiations, strengthening and increasing cohesion among the opposition, and a political will to undertake leadership on these fronts — that might result in movement on Syria. Yet with few answers to resolving the long-term factors that will bring stability to Syria, and continued need for more humanitarian aid, it is difficult to determine how Washington will hedge its bets. Nonetheless, the announcement on Tuesday by Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to host an international conference on Syria and push the Assad government and the Syrian opposition to attend is a step in intensifying the diplomatic efforts to bring some resolution to this conflict.
 

Mehroz Baig is a Butler Koshland Fellow at The Commonwealth Club, apprenticing with the Club's CEO in non-profit leadership, and working with the Club's editorial and development teams. Mehroz comes to the Club from CNN's "Fareed Zakaria Global Public Square." She has a special interest in human rights, international affairs, and the experiences of Pakistani-Americans — much of her written work concerns these topics. Previously, Mehroz worked at the County of Sonoma's Economic Development Board and Human Services Department, conducting research and managing programs. Mehroz has a dual master's degree from Columbia University in journalism and international affairs.

Many momentous things have happened at The Commonwealth Club. FDR gave his New Deal speech here. Teddy Roosevelt first laid out his rationale for public lands here. Dan Quayle gave his controversial "Murphy Brown Speech" on our stage. And thousands of other scientists, authors, presidents, activists, business leaders, chefs, historians, clergy, journalists, inventors, futurists, comedians, and more have entertained, informed, and even provoked our audiences in our 110 years.

But in that first century or so of existence, the one thing that didn't happen has just been rectified: We've purchased our own, permanent home, and we think you're all going to love it when we've finished remodeling and moving in. 

For an excellent overview of the project, read John Wildermuth's article in today's San Francisco Chronicle.  

Read the entire article here.

NEWS ANALYSIS
By Alex Wolinsky

In the wee hours of the morning on Aug. 5, after a voyage of more than eight months and “seven minutes of terror,” NASA’s rover Curiosity touched down on the surface of Mars. The mission will be the first to the planet since 1976 whose primary purpose is to search for life or, more likely, the bases for its existence.

Why the excitement surrounding this particular mission? After all, if the United States launched its first successful Mars mission in 1964 and has since discovered no conclusive evidence of life, why might Curiosity return more favorable results?

First, NASA has in the past decade found a series of indications that the planet might in fact be capable of supporting life forms: The Gale Crater, a vast indentation in Mars’ surface and Curiosity’s landing site, contains minerals only present in conjunction with water; methane gas, which is almost always a byproduct of life, has been found erupting from various points on the planet; organic matter was discovered on a Martian meteorite that recently fell to Earth. With these findings, in addition to other discoveries, scientists remain optimistic despite the failures of the past.

Additionally, Curiosity’s ability to gather relevant data immensely surpasses that of any mission of the past. The rover, which weighs about one ton, is comparable in size to a large automobile, and its scientific instruments are much larger — and more advanced — than those included in any previous vehicle, which will allow Curiosity to collect more material as well as analyze it more thoroughly. Furthermore, Curiosity made a flawless soft landing, meaning all of its equipment is perfectly intact, so — at least at the moment — its potential for novel discovery is highly promising.

Curiosity’s mission will primarily consist of taking geological samples of the Gale Crater and analyzing them for the one-time presence of water or other compounds conducive to the existence of life. Like previous missions, the rover will also capture photographs of the planet and perhaps even take video footage.

The exploration of the Gale Crater and the three-mile-high mountain it surrounds is currently scheduled to last two years, but if the previous two Mars rovers — each of which was to gather data for 13 weeks but continued (or continues, in the case of Opportunity) to do so for several years — are any indication, the mission could continue long after its projected termination date. Admittedly, the mysteries of Mars remain myriad, but Curiosity presents the greatest opportunity thus far to initiate a paradigm shift in our understanding of the enigmatic planet.

• On Sunday, August 26: William J. Clancey, chief scientist of the Human-Centered Computing Intelligent Systems Division for NASA Ames Research Center, will discuss "Working on Mars: Voyages of Scientific Discovery," in a Commonwealth Club program at the Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose. Details
• PHOTO ABOVE: NASA

News Analysis
By Alex Wolinsky

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Great Recession came to an end in June 2009. National output figures support this assertion, as GDP has surpassed its 2008 prerecession peak and continues to rise.

Despite this, much of the economy appears to remain depressed, and we currently approach the end of a fourth year of abysmal employment numbers. Unemployment currently stands at 8.2 percent of the labor force, well above the approximately 5 percent jobless rate prior to the recession, and its decline is excruciatingly sluggish. As a result, jobs and the labor market remain decisively at the forefront of political discussion.

A traditional recovery — one achieved through expansion of America’s conventionally strong industries, namely manufacturing and construction — might not, however, be effective or even desirable. This is because the economy has in the last decade undergone a revolution, of sorts, in which the driving force is no longer the production of physical goods but the conception and implementation of ideas. Indeed, as noted by UC Berkeley Economics Professor Enrico Moretti in his recent book The New Geography of Jobs, the most depressed areas of the country are those that have historically relied on manufacturing as an economic engine, and their situation has only worsened since 2008’s meltdown.

One might wonder why a recovery with its roots in traditional sectors is not an ideal target — after all, shouldn’t an economic rebound driven by any industry be appealing? There are reasons to believe that such a recovery might be short-lived and could even compromise the long-run economic well-being of the country. The United States is no longer the world’s dominant manufacturer, and it’s unlikely that it will ever regain that role. The reason for this is that other nations — especially China — possess larger pools of unskilled labor and thus far cheaper production overall. American workers produce far more goods per hour of labor, but attempting to compete with China’s sheer manpower is essentially hopeless and even counterproductive, because doing so would consume labor resources better allocated elsewhere.

So if not through an expansion of manufacturing and a proliferation of blue-collar jobs, how can America's leaders take action to combat unemployment?

One answer being proffered is as simple as it is clichéd: support greater access to higher education, and encourage youth to pursue advanced degrees. According to the 2009 American Community Survey, only 27.9 percent of Americans aged 25 or older have a bachelor’s degree, and a mere 10.3 percent possess advanced degrees. Given the level of expertise required for jobs in ideas-based fields, these numbers, especially the latter, are wholly inadequate.

At its peak, manufacturing directly employed nearly one-fifth of the labor force. The nation’s emerging economic engine cannot hope to approach this figure unless a larger proportion of the population acquires the necessary skills. An expansion of education might thus be in order to secure the nation’s economic future.

• For a list of programs examining the employment problems of today and tomorrow from a variety of angles, see The Commonwealth Club's August series The Future of Work