[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.

                          ____________________