[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 158 (Tuesday, October 27, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H7195-H7196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REFUGEE CRISIS IN EUROPE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, last week I came to the floor and
recommended that the Obama administration appoint a special envoy with
a very broad portfolio: dispatched to work on a diplomatic solution to
the tragedy that is destroying Syria and unfolding in the Middle East,
now having broad impact in greater Europe.
I want to point out to those who are listening that the displacement
crisis in the Middle East, centered in Syria, has consumed seven
nations and propelled the largest refugee crisis Europe has faced since
World War II. Already in Syria, over a quarter of a million people have
been killed--civilians--and that is probably a low number.
With over 12 million people displaced, Europe is being besieged by
hundreds of thousands, legions, of the dispossessed. Meanwhile, it
almost seems surreal that no effective diplomatic negotiation is
underway that holds the prospect of leading to peace.
I again ask the Obama administration to dispatch a special envoy with
a broad portfolio to work full time on a diplomatic solution to the
tragedy that is destroying Syria.
Then yesterday in The New York Times appeared an editorial by the
legendary 39th President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, entitled
``A Plan to End the Syrian Crisis.'' I served President Carter during
his years in the Presidency.
I well remember the incredible moment in 1979 when President Carter
stood with Anwar Sadat, the President of Egypt, and the Prime Minister
of Israel, Menachem Begin, and they signed that treaty in March of
1979. Who would have ever thought that that moment in history would
have been possible? Yet, until today, that treaty holds between Egypt
and Israel, and it has made a gigantic difference in the saving of
lives in that extremely troubled region.
In his editorial to The New York Times, President Carter references
that the Carter Center--which he founded and to which he has dedicated
his life with his wife Rosalyn ever since his service as President--has
been deeply involved in Syria since the early 1980s. Who would know
more than he?
He recommends the only real chance of ending the conflict is to
engage the United States, Russia, Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia in
preparing a comprehensive peace protocol with Syria. He knows what that
requires. He recommends a cease-fire, formation of a unity government,
constitutional reforms, and elections.
Mr. Speaker, I include for today's Record the editorial entitled ``A
Plan to End the Syrian Crisis.''
I say to my colleagues and to those who are listening: As we watch
this tragedy unfold, our Nation is the most powerful nation in the
world. Surely, we should have the wisdom and the will to take this
latest tragedy, which we had no small part in precipitating, and find a
way to bring the parties to the table.
What is happening in Syria due to the lack of a diplomatic solution
is now impacting Europe in ways that we have not seen since World War
II. It is very destabilizing.
With what is happening inside Ukraine today due to Russia's invasion,
with over 1.7 million displaced persons internally, if Russia would
happen to turn the tourniquet tighter in eastern Ukraine and cause
additional displacement across Europe, imagine what the winter months
would bring.
I can't urge in strong enough terms that the Obama administration pay
heed to President Carter's very lucid editorial in yesterday's New York
Times. I commend all Members and citizens to read it.
[From the New York Times, Oct. 26, 2015]
A Plan To End the Syrian Crisis
(By Jimmy Carter)
I have known Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria, since
he was a college student in London, and have spent many hours
negotiating with him since he has been in office. This has
often been at the request of the United States government
during those many times when our ambassadors have been
withdrawn from Damascus because of diplomatic disputes.
Bashar and his father, Hafez, had a policy of not speaking
to anyone at the American Embassy during those periods of
estrangement, but they would talk to me. I noticed that
Bashar never referred to a subordinate for advice or
information. His most persistent characteristic was
stubbornness; it was almost psychologically impossible for
him to change his mind--and certainly not when under
pressure.
Before the revolution began in March 2011, Syria set a good
example of harmonious relations among its many different
ethnic and religious groups, including Arabs, Kurds, Greeks,
Armenians and Assyrians who were Christians, Jews, Sunnis,
Alawites and Shiites. The Assad family had ruled the country
since 1970, and was very proud of this relative harmony among
these diverse groups.
When protesters in Syria demanded long overdue reforms in
the political system, President Assad saw this as an illegal
revolutionary effort to overthrow his ``legitimate'' regime
and erroneously decided to stamp it out by using unnecessary
force. Because of many complex reasons, he was supported by
his military forces, most Christians, Jews, Shiite Muslims,
Alawites and others who feared a takeover by radical Sunni
Muslims. The prospect for his overthrow was remote.
The Carter Center had been deeply involved in Syria since
the early 1980s, and we shared our insights with top
officials in Washington, seeking to preserve an opportunity
for a political solution to the rapidly growing conflict.
Despite our persistent but confidential protests, the early
American position was that the first step in resolving the
dispute had to be the removal of Mr. Assad from office. Those
who knew him saw this as a fruitless demand, but it has been
maintained for more than four years. In effect, our
prerequisite for peace efforts has been an impossibility.
Kofi Annan, the former United Nations secretary general,
and Lakhdar Brahimi, a former Algerian foreign minister,
tried to end the conflict as special representatives of the
United Nations, but abandoned the effort as fruitless because
of incompatibilities among America, Russia and other nations
regarding the status of Mr. Assad during a peace process.
In May 2015, a group of global leaders known as the Elders
visited Moscow, where we had detailed discussions with the
American ambassador, former President Mikhail S. Gorbachev,
former Prime Minister Yevgeny M. Primakov, Foreign Minister
Sergey V. Lavrov and representatives of international think
tanks, including the Moscow branch of the Carnegie Center.
They pointed out the longstanding partnership between
Russia and the Assad regime and the great threat of the
Islamic State to Russia, where an estimated 14 percent of its
population are Sunni Muslims. Later, I questioned President
Putin about his support for Mr. Assad, and about his two
sessions that year with representatives of factions from
Syria. He replied that little progress had been made, and he
thought that the only real chance of ending the conflict was
for the United States and Russia to be joined by Iran, Turkey
and Saudi Arabia in preparing a comprehensive peace proposal.
He believed that all factions in Syria, except the Islamic
State, would accept almost any plan endorsed strongly by
these five, with Iran and Russia supporting Mr. Assad and the
other three backing the opposition. With his approval, I
relayed this suggestion to Washington.
For the past three years, the Carter Center has been
working with Syrians across political divides, armed
opposition group leaders and diplomats from the United
Nations and Europe to find a political path for ending the
conflict. This effort has been based on data-driven research
about the Syrian catastrophe that the center has conducted,
which reveals the location of different factions and clearly
shows that neither side in Syria can prevail militarily.
The recent decision by Russia to support the Assad regime
with airstrikes and other military forces has intensified the
fighting, raised the level of armaments and may increase the
flow of refugees to neighboring countries and Europe. At the
same time, it has helped to clarify the choice between a
political process in which the Assad regime
[[Page H7196]]
assumes a role and more war in which the Islamic State
becomes an even greater threat to world peace. With these
clear alternatives, the five nations mentioned above could
formulate a unanimous proposal. Unfortunately, differences
among them persist.
Iran outlined a general four-point sequence several months
ago, consisting of a cease-fire, formation of a unity
government, constitutional reforms and elections. Working
through the United Nations Security Council and utilizing a
five-nation proposal, some mechanism could be found to
implement these goals.
The involvement of Russia and Iran is essential. Mr.
Assad's only concession in four years of war was giving up
chemical weapons, and he did so only under pressure from
Russia and Iran. Similarly, he will not end the war by
accepting concessions imposed by the West, but is likely to
do so if urged by his allies.
Mr. Assad's governing authority could then be ended in an
orderly process, an acceptable government established in
Syria, and a concerted effort could then be made to stamp out
the threat of the Islamic State.
The needed concessions are not from the combatants in
Syria, but from the proud nations that claim to want peace
but refuse to cooperate with one another.
____________________