dougnoll’s posthaven

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

In a past blog, I predicted the failure of Kofi Anan's mediation efforts. This was no magical feat on my part. Anyone with an once of experience in mediation could see that Mr. Anan was the wrong person at the wrong time with the wrong skills for the job. While he is a famous international diplomat, he is not and never has been a trained, professional mediator. That became apparent as he violated mediation principle after principle during his tenure. His resignation, accompanied by a public statement excoriating the international community, was more of a reflection of how he misread and misunderstood the conflict than about the political will of the UN Security Council.

What now? Clearly, a negotiated peace between the Assad regime and the opposition forces is unlikely. Iran and Russia have publicly supported the Assad regime and cannot gracefully retreat without significant loss of international prestige. For the Iranians, in particular, that is unacceptable. Thus, the conflict will have to play out to the end with Bashar al Assad being deposed or running for asylum. His mindset is unfortunately locked into a belief structure that will not allow him to see reality. Hence, he is as likely to be killed in office as to retire from it.

If anyone is thinking in the international community, they should be planning on how to prevent all out chaos and anarchy in Syria post-Assad. With the removal of the Alawites from power, there will a vacuum crying to be filled. A host of interests are eager to rush in, including Shiite fundamentalists, Sunni fundamentalists, al Queda-affiliated forces, and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Syrian people are not experienced in the tug and pull of democracy, do not have a strong civil society, and do not have foundational institutions to allow for a free society. These all have to be built from scratch. At the same time, the bureaucracy has to remain functional to provide basic services. Hopefully, the world learned that lesson from Iraq and Libya.

If mediators can assist at all, they will work on the inevitable conflicts arising in the opposition forces and help the various factions form political coalitions that approach independent self-determination.  This is messy, difficult work. Once the common enemy, Bashar al Assad, is gone, the glue holding together the opposition will melt away. Finding common purpose in a peaceful, nonviolent transition to an appropriate form of government will be very challenging. It will take courageous, visionary Syrian leadership to guide the people.

In addition, the internal factions will face the prospect of dealing with outside spoilers. Those spoilers could include Russia and Iran, looking to maintain and perhaps strengthen their influence in the new Syria. The US and European powers could also be spoilers if they see disadvantage to a truly independent, self-determinative Syria. The Kurds are also a wild card, and may negate Turkey's potentially positive influence on the Syrian outcome. The only way the outside power players can be thwarted is if the Syrian factions unite against outside interference. This poses a classic Prisoner's Dilemma situation for the Syrian factions as the decision to defect from cooperation with other factions may appear more attractive than agreeing to cooperate and facing the possibility of exploitation. Again, mediators might be able to facilitate the decision making process towards cooperation and away from self-interested choices that will ultimately defeat a peaceful Syria.

The experiences in the Middle East over the past 10 years should inform us all that classic international power politics is more likely to generate war than peace. The international powers certainly are not oriented to stability. Instead, they continue to joust for influence by thwarting each other's ambitions and interests. Thus, if the Syrian people want peace and self-determination they will need the discipline to turn away from the power inducements of the west or of Russia and Iran. They will have to turn inward and solve their own problems in their own way. They can do this with the help of skilled mediators. Time will tell if that is the path they choose.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

As a professional mediator, I am always encouraged by the use of mediation to resolve international conflicts. However, in the case of Syria, I have little confidence that mediation will bring peace to the conflict. Very few of the essential elements for successful mediation are present in this conflict.

The first consideration in convening any mediation is deciding who the parties at the table will be. In this case, the current Syrian government will certainly be a party. However, there does not appear to be a credible spokesperson for the rebels. One of the reasons that international support has not coalesced in support of the rebels like it did in Libya is because the rebels have not proven themselves capable of creating a coherent political force. Since mediation is about decision-making, we have to ask the question: "Who has the power to make binding decisions for the parties?" Obviously, the Syrian government can make decisions. Who, in the rebel group, can make binding decisions for the people that oppose the al Assad regime?

The Syrian National Council claims authority for the resistance against the al Assad regime. Burhan Galioun, a professor of political sociology at the Universite de Paris III Sorbonne University, was appointed as head of the SNC on August 29, 2011. However, Professor Galioun has made statements that are not universally shared by the various rebel factions. It is unlikely that either he or the Syrian National Council speaks for all factions.

One of the issues that plagues peaceful resolution of internal conflicts and civil wars is decision-making authority. It's one thing to mediate a dispute in a contested presidential election, when the disputants are easily recognized as political opponents. It's another thing altogether to mediate the dispute the between a fractious rebel group and an antagonistic government. The al Assad regime can rightfully ask by what authority to the representatives of the rebels come to the table? Any mediator taking on the Syrian problem will spend a considerable amount of time answering that question, and the entire enterprise will collapse if it is not answered thoroughly.

A related issue has to do with legitimizing the antagonists. In the 1970s, the protracted negotiations over the shapes of the tables and who would sit where in the US North Vietnam talks was about legitimizing primary parties at the table. In Syria’s case, the al Assad regime could protest participation of rebel representatives because allowing participation would confer unwanted legitimacy. At the outset, the mediator will have to be prepared to deal with challenges to legitimate participation by primary parties.

The people of Syria have the most at stake in any mediated talks. The mediator will have to consider how to make sure that the legitimate concerns of the people, which will include social and distributive injustices, political inclusion, economic reform, safety from violence and social stability. In this regard, the mediator may consider finding civil society representatives, including women, to participate as direct and primary participants. The mediator will have to secure the consent of the rebel representatives and the government representatives to share decision-making power with civil society representatives who otherwise would not have a voice in the process.

In addition to primary parties, mediation involves secondary parties. In the case of Syria, the secondary parties are numerous. They include Hamas, Iran, Russia and China, the US, Israel, and the EU, the Arab League, the UN, the Muslim Brotherhood, Sunni Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, and other conservative Islamic groups. All of these parties have vested and conflicting interests in the outcome of the Syrian conflict. All of these parties wish to influence the outcome to benefit their particular interests. They will be seeking direct participation at the table. If they are denied participation of the table, they will seek to influence the process in other ways, including as spoilers. The mediator will have to design a process that provides for secondary party participation and inclusion, but does not permit undue interference in the direct talks between the primary parties.

Assuming that agreements can be reached upon who will participate in the process, the mediator will be confronted with what is to be mediated. The superficial answer will be to mediate a political solution to the violence. However, that is grossly insufficient to bring about a lasting peace. As we have seen in Kenya, the superficial political solution has led to continued gross economic and social injustice, continued tribal conflict, and the essential shutdown of an effective government. The Sentinel Project observes that Kenya is ripe for genocide. (http://thesentinelproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Risk-Assessment-Kenya-2011.pdf). I believe this is a direct result of the failure of the mediator to force Odinga and Kibaki to address serious structural injustices instead choosing to seek superficial political solutions through an ineffective and unworkable power-sharing arrangement.

The same problem exists in Syria, except that it is worse. Rather than mediating a contested presidential election, the mediator will have to end a civil war and deal with generations of abuse, injustice, and human rights violations. Burhan Ghalioun, the appointed head of the Syrian National Council, is skeptical of dialogue with the al Assad regime. “The regime is not interested in or willing to meet the requirements of a meaningful dialogue,” Ghalioun wrote. The opposition cannot join dialogue with “officials who contributed to or ordered the killing of defenseless children, women, and young people.” He has said that dialogue would be fruitless unless the clear objective was “to dismantle the regime of repression, oppression, and tyranny and replace it with a democratic order in which the people alone have the final say and the government is fully empowered and answerable to elected representatives of the people.”

Ghalioun believes that “dialogue should not mean a deal with the regime. It must not be about broadening the circle of participation” to members of the authorities; rather “it must be about a timetable for a transition to democracy by peaceful means, in the hope of avoiding more human casualties and material losses, and creating the necessary conditions for new institutions to be built and function properly.” To Ghalioun, the government leaders “lost their legitimacy” when they unleashed bloody violence against peaceful protesters.

From these statements, it is clear that if the mediator seeks a superficial political solution through power-sharing, without forcing the parties to confront the centuries old conflicts between the Alawites, the Sunnis, and the Syrian minorities, the mediation will make the situation worse, not better.

Thus, the mediator will be well advised to discuss what is to be mediated and to explore the potential range of outcomes that will be satisfactory to all of the participants. This exploration by itself will be time-consuming and exhausting as it will consist of a negotiation over what is to be negotiated. However, that is the work of the mediator and is to be anticipated and planned for.

Finally, does the mediator have the staying power that the Syrian mediation will require? In the Kenyan election crisis, the mediator abandoned the mediation process after six weeks and turned it over to another mediator who abandoned the process six weeks after that. There was no long-term plan for engagement and no plan for helping the parties resolve ongoing differences and conflicts. Will the mediator in the Syrian conflict be committed to the years it may take to bring peace to Syria? This is not a six week or six-month engagement. The intractability of the dispute and the ongoing violence suggests that a mediated negotiation might last for years. Even then, success will be problematic.

International conflict mediation has not been typified by exemplary mediation practice. Instead, most international conflict mediations have been ad hoc affairs conducted by diplomats and political envoys with little or no experience in decision making theory, conflict theory, neuro social psychology, behavioral economics, and a host of other disciplines that modern mediators study and practice. The Syrian conflict will call upon the deepest skills and reserves of the very best mediator. Even then, a peaceful resolution is improbable. I hope that the mediator considers some of these issues before he starts his work.

 

 

Douglas E. Noll is author of the award-winning book Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books 2011). He may reached through the book website, www.elusivepeace.com.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

As a professional peacemaker, I tend to look at conflicts from the perspective of the people instead of politics. In the process of mediating thousands of conflicts, large and small, I find that conflict dynamics tend to fall into predictable patterns. This is especially true in family business conflicts. The same themes arise over and over again such that the conflict dynamics are predictable and systematic.

 While reading about the Syrian uprising some months ago, I read a brief mention of President Bashar al-Assad's younger brother, Maher. Maher, as it turns out, controls the military and is apparently the one responsible for the violent oppression of the protesters. I had wondered about that because Bashar was trained as medical doctor--an opthamologist---with no interest in politics or power until he was recalled to Syria by his father, the late Hafez al-Assad. So why would a western-trained physician married to a British-born Syrian woman who was a Citibank investment banker, lead his country into civil war? It began to sound like a classic family business conflict. When I started digging, I found all of the elements that I routinely see in deep conflicts. Of course, this is all highly speculative as I have never met the Assads or anyone that knows them. However, the superficial parallels to the trajectory of a family business suggest that the Syrian civil war is the result of an on-going, essentially unresolved, family business conflict.

 Here's the analysis I have constructed from the public records.

 The Family Business Founder

 Hafez al Assad assumed power in Syria, founding the family business. He essentially forced a buyout in a bloodless military coup in November 1970 as he capitalized on  internal conflict between the Baath Party’s more moderate military wing and more extremist civilian wing. Like any family business founder, he established an authoritarian regime with power concentrated in his own hands. His thirty-year presidency was characterized by a cult of personality, developed in order to maintain control over a potentially restive population and to provide cohesion and stability to the government. This management approach to government, while creating stability and wealth for the family, came at a cost. Dissent was harshly eliminated, the most extreme example being the brutal suppression in February 1982 of the Muslim Brotherhood. Moreover, the country’s economy suffered, and progress was hindered by an overstaffed and inefficient public sector run overwhelmingly according to Baath Party dictates.

 From the founder's perspective, however, all was well. Hafez had three sons, Basil, Bashar, and Maher, and a daughter Bushra. As is typical in many family businesses, the oldest son Basil, was crowned as the successor and heir-apparent.

 From a young age, Basil was groomed to be the next president of Syria. He was chief of presidential security while running a highly publicized anti-corruption campaign within the regime, and frequently appeared in full military uniform at official receptions, signaling the regime's commitment to the armed forces. He also had a reputation for driving fast cars and living a faster life.

 The Succession Plan Goes Awry

 In January 1994, driving his Mercedes at high speed through fog to Damascus International Airport  Basil crashed into a motorway roundabout and died instantly. The succession plan was just thrown out the window, and with it the seeds of future conflict were sown into the soil of Syria. Basil was sometimes referred to as "Basil the Martyr", and numerous squares and streets have been named after him. His statue is found in several Syrian cities, and even after his death he is often pictured at billboards with his father and brother. Thus, in his death, he continues to symbolize the aspirations of his late father.

 The Physician Turned Dictator

 Unlike his brothers, Basil and Maher, and his sister, Bushra, Bashar al-Assad was quiet and reserved. Bashar had no interest in politics or the military and, until Basil's death, never talked about politics with his father.

 Bashar excelled during his primary and secondary education in the Arab-French al-Hurriya School in Damascus. In 1982, he graduated from high school and studied medicine at Damascus University. In 1988, he graduated from medical school and began working as an army doctor in Syria's biggest military hospital. Four years later, he went to the United Kingdom for postgraduate training in ophthalmology. Bashar became fluent in French and English, and while in London, met and married a Syrian-born British investment banker. At the time, Bashar had few political aspirations and looked destined to have a normal professional career as a second son of a political leader. Thus, to his surprise, he was recalled in 1994 to join the Syrian army, after Basil's unexpected death. Without his consent, he had been appointed by his father as the family successor.

 Over the next six and half years, until his death in 2000, Hafez groomed Bashar for power. To establish his military credentials, Bashar entered the military academy at Homs. He was fast-tracked to colonel in five years. To consolidate the military power base for Bashar, old divisional commanders were retired and replaced with young Alawite officers loyal to the family. In public affairs, Bashar was granted wide powers. He became a political adviser to his father, was head of the bureau to receive complaints and appeals of citizens, and led a campaign against corruption.

 Hafez al Assad died in 2000. The Syrian parliament immediately passed a law reducing the qualifying age for president from 40 to 34 and unanimously affirmed Bashar as president. In a general referendum, Bashar received 97 percent approval from the Syrian public.

 The Younger Brother-Power Behind the Throne?

 Maher al-Assad, Bashar's youngest brother, was born on December 8, 1967. Like his brothers and sisters, he was raised out of the public spotlight. Maher went to the Academy of Freedom School for his secondary education and studied business at Damascus University. After graduation, he pursued a career in the military. When Basil died, Maher was considered as a possible successor to Hafez. Maher's reputation as hot-tempered perhaps influenced Hafez's decision to appoint Bashar as heir to the family business.

 

 After Basil's death, Maher assumed command of a brigade in the Republican Guard and distinguished himself as a good commander. His time as brigade commander allowed him to gain valuable military experience and build personal ties with his officers. After the death of his father in 2000, he was promoted from major to lieutenant colonel. and became commander of the Republican Guard. The Republican Guard is a 10,000 strong unit whose loyalty is said to be guaranteed by the revenue it receives from the Deir ez-Zor oil fields. Maher also became commander of the army's elite Fourth Armored Division.

 In June 2000, Maher was elected to the ruling Baath Party's central committee.

 Maher  has been alleged to be deeply involved in many corrupt schemes. According to Fortune Magazine, Maher benefited from the billion dollar money laundering operation at the Lebanese al-Madina bank. Al-Madina was used to launder kickback money of Iraqi officials and their partners in  illegal profiteering from the UN's oil-for-food program. Sources put the amount laundered through al-Madina at more than $1 billion, with a 25 percent commission going to Syrian officials, including Maher.

 Maher has often appeared in public with Bashar and is said to be one of his closest advisers.

 Maher, along with his brother-in-law General Assef Shawqat, who is married to sister Bushra, and Bashar are said to form the inner circle of power in the Assad regime. Shawqat was the former head of intelligence.

 Since the beginning of the Syrian uprising in mid-March, Maher's troops have played a key role in violently suppressing protests in the southern city of Daraa, the coastal city of Banias, the central province of Homs and the northern province of Idlib.

 The United States imposed sanctions on Maher for human rights violations in Syria. The EU sanctioned Maher for being the principal overseer of violence against demonstrators during the 2011 Syrian uprising.

Conflict Over Direction of the Family Business

 As I noted above, father's governance of the family business was characterized by stability and centralized rule based on his personal authority. Bashar, faced with the difficulties of his time, chose to lead ‘his’ Syria in a different direction. These ‘plans’ for a regime change received wide attention under the metaphor ‘Damascus Spring’ and included broad economic and political reforms. It was a period of high optimism among the Syrians: the period saw the emergence of some seventy ‘dialogue clubs’ for discussions between Syria’s civil society and its political elites - opposition parties played an active role in this period - and two private magazines, Ad-Dumari and Al-Iqtisadiyya, began operations. Bashar had great liberalizing plans as indicated by his inaugural speech to the nation on July 17, 2000.

 His plans were short-lived, however. Maher, apparently incensed at the loss of power, position, and privilege a liberalized Syria would mean, eventually convinced Bashar to back away. Bashar quickly learned that he was surrounded by men who ascended to power under the old patronage system. They were inclined not to give up their power to the masses.

 Resolution

 The US-led invasion of Iraq ended the Damascus Spring as the Syrian elites feared liberalization would destroy their power, position, and privilege.  Bashar probably was moved away from his personal inclinations by a complex calculus that included his sense of obligation and loyalty to his father and family, his belief that Maher as his replacement would be a real tyrant, his thought that he could play a moderating force on the extreme elements of the Syrian leadership, concern for his personal safety and security and that of his family, and protection of his personal position, privilege, and power. As a result, he acceded to his brother's advice and allowed the government to clamp down again on dissent, liberalization, and creation of a civil society based on the rule of law.

 The decision led to another 10 years of relative stability in Syria. However, the oppression of the Sunni majority, the continued corruption, and the absence of economic opportunity for young Syrians created the same dynamic as was seen in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. In this case, however, the family's business partners, Russia, China, and Iran, have provided shelter from the rest of the international community. Civil war has been the result.

 At the present, I would guess that personalities dominate the inner circle. Bashar is by far the best educated, but is quiet and reserved. Maher is not stupid, but apparently has a violent temper that is just barely controlled. We don't know much about brother-in-law Shawqat, but it does not take much to imagine that the former head of the state intelligence apparatus is strong-willed. It looks like two against one in the family board room fights.

 Bashar's Dilemma

 I would not be surprised if Bashar al-Assad to this day is deeply conflicted over his choices. He might be a true tyrant, but his background, education, professional training and chosen life trajectory before recall to Syria suggests otherwise. I think Bashar al-Assad is a liberal man caught in a Byzantine world of Syrian politics and power. He cannot escape safely because he knows too much and has compromised too much. I doubt, however, unless he is deeply self-deceptive, that he sleeps well at night. He might be fooling himself, but I think he is too intelligent to be completely self-deceptive.

 Advice from the Family Business Consultant

 The business is bankrupt. It was probably insolvent at the time Bashar took it over from his father. His reorganization plan had no chance of success because the entrenched interests could not tolerate the change. Yet, his plan was probably the only path to avoid eventual violence and civil war. Bashar has no easy way out. If he could find a way to move his family to safety, he might consider resigning. His brother Maher or brother-in-law Assef Shawqat would probably assume power, and the civil war would intensify as the insurgents saw his resignation as validation of their power. From Bashar's perspective, resignation would make matters worse, not better, for the Syrian people. He has already been labeled a war criminal for allowing his brother to brutalize civilian populations. He probably faces indictment from the ICC for war crimes and human rights abuses. Resignation would also be a betrayal of family, which is unthinkable in his culture.

 Remaining in power is not viable either. Even the normally quiescent and malleable Arab League has condemned his government and is preparing to impose stiff sanctions. Turkey has threatened to cut off Syria's electricity. Both the US and the EU are escalating economic and political sanctions. Only the objections of Russia and China prevent the Security Council from condemning the Assad regime and bringing the full force of the international community against it.

 If this were a true family business, my advice would be to sell or liquidate. The conflict will only destroy the remaining family wealth. Even if the current civil war can somehow be stopped, there is no long term upside for the Assad family. The oppression will not stop the protests and cannot contain the Sunni majority forever. The dramatically changed political environment in the Middle East no longer tolerates autocratic rule when that rule is harsh and despotic. Thus, the new business environment dictates a radical change in strategy.

  And, at the end of it all, there is the moral dilemma. How does a liberally trained opthamalogist married to an investment banker live with himself over the deaths of 4,000 civilians, clear and present inequity and injustice, and continued government sanctioned-violence perpetrated in his name?

 My advice, as a professional peacemaker, is to resign and face the consequences of past decisions. The shame of family betrayal will be great, but staying in the business will only lead to greater personal, family, and national betrayal. The Assad family business conflict doesn't seem a lot different than a lot of other family business conflicts and the outcomes are just as sad and predictable.

 

Douglas E. Noll is a lawyer turned peacemaker, professional mediator, and author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books, 2011).www.elusivepeace.com

Americans could lose a lot if the US exercises its planned veto in the Security Council vote on the Palestinian application for admission to the United Nations. The question that is not being discussed is whether the loss is worth it.

The first thing to know is that the issue is not about Palestinian statehood. The media essentially has it wrong when it describes the UN vote as one creating a Palestinian state. The UN does not have the power to create a state. The issue is whether the Palestinian Authority will be admitted as a member to the UN. There are non-states who are members of the UN, such as the Vatican, and there are states that are not members of the UN, such as Taiwan and Kosovo. Being a member of the UN is not the same as being a state. Thus, the US is really opposing a membershp application, not a referendum on statehood.

Second, to gain admittance to the UN, the Palestinian Authority would have to accept the tenets of the UN Charter. Among other things, this would require a recognition of Israel's right to exist and a rejection of violence. Since Hamas rejects Israel's right to exist, the Palestinian Authority will be placed in a difficult dilemma. It can join the UN and accept Israel's right to exist, or it can reject membership and continue to oppose Israel's right to exist. The unintended consequences of the Palestinian Authority admission to the UN might actually work to the benefit of the US and Israel.The media doesn't talk much about this important issue either.

Third, a US veto against a symbolic membership application that does not have the force of law and may actually advance US and Israeli interests will be very, very costly. A veto will dispel any notion of the US's impartiality as a mediator in the Middle East peace process. A veto will be seen as an implicit endorsement of continued settlement construction in the West Bank. A veto will be seen as implicit endorsement of the non-peace regime of Benjamin Netanyahu. A veto will be viewed as inconsistent with the professed American values of freedom, self-dtermination, and democracy. Thus, a veto may cause important moderate elements the Arab world to turn away from the US as a model of peace, democracy, and protector of human rights. A veto will be used by radical political Islamists to incite further violence against the US, particularly the US military. A veto will harm US efforts to find peaceful solutions in Iraq and Afghanistan. A veto, in short, will make foreign policy initiatives in the Islamic world much more difficult. The cost to ordinary Americans will be reflected in continued unpopular military expenditures and a possible decline in national security, at least overseas.

The pro-Israel lobby and American Jews supporting Israel would say that all of this does not matter. What is important is the survival of Israel. However, they do not explain how the Palestinian membership in the UN threatens Israel's survival. This is a classic example of reactive devaluation: If it's good for the Palestinians, it must be bad for Israel. Israel's supporters are automatically and emotionally rejecting anything that could concievably benefit the Palestinians. Since they see the conflict in purely distributive terms--one side's gain must mean the other side's loss--any Palestinian gain must cause harm to Israel. However, a reasoned examination of the effects and implications of admission to the UN fails to uncover a cost to Israel. How, exactly, is Israel injured by the Palestinian admission to the UN? The media isn't asking this question either.

Finally, President Obama has precious little negotiation leverage over Netanyahu. To remedy the lack of leverage, he should withdraw the US threat of a veto. The more strategic approach might be to say, "The US has not decided on its position on the application of the Palestinian Authority for UN membership. Whether the US votes in favor, opposes, or abstains will depend largely on the willingness demonsrated by the Israelis and the Palestinians to progress towards a durable peace. The US is committed to peace in the region and will support those who aspire for it through their concrete actions. It will not support those who merely talk peace, but are unwilling to compromise." From this position, the US may leverage the parties to the peace table. Netanyahu has to know that the US may not oppose the Palestinian bid for membership in the UN. If he backs off of his hawkish, aggressive positions and compromises with the Palestinian Authority, great. If he remains opposed to compromise, including cessation of settlement construction, he bears the consequences in the Security Council vote. The same is true for the Palestinians.

That kind of sophisticated negotiation strategy seems unlikely because the domestic political costs at the beginning of a presidential electiion cycle will be too high. However, the cost of not alienating the pro-Israel special interests will extract a higher cost for world peace. Ultimately, American taxpayers will have to foot the bill for that price.

Douglas Noll, Lawyer Turned Peacemaker, is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books 2011).