Hesham Sallam is a Senior Research Scholar at CDDRL, where he serves as Associate Director for Research. He is also Associate Director of the Program on Arab Reform and Development. Sallam is co-editor of Jadaliyya ezine and a former program specialist at the U.S. Institute of Peace. His research focuses on political and social development in the Arab World. Sallam’s research has previously received the support of the Social Science Research Council and the U.S. Institute of Peace. He is author of Classless Politics: Islamist Movements, the Left, and Authoritarian Legacies in Egypt (Columbia University Press, 2022), co-editor of Struggles for Political Change in the Arab World (University of Michigan Press, 2022), and editor of Egypt's Parliamentary Elections 2011-2012: A Critical Guide to a Changing Political Arena (Tadween Publishing, 2013). Sallam received a Ph.D. in Government (2015) and an M.A. in Arab Studies (2006) from Georgetown University, and a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Pittsburgh (2003).
Associate Director for Research, Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law
Associate Director, Program on Arab Reform and Development
The Obama administration says there is no doubt that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for a recent chemical weapons attack near Damascus, which Syrian opposition forces and human rights groups allege killed hundreds of civilians.
Secretary of State John Kerry called the attack a “moral obscenity” and the White House has vowed to respond – though the question of how is still under debate.
The Syrian government denies using nerve agents on its own people and has allowed U.N. weapons inspectors into the country to investigate.
As the U.S. weighs its options and rallies its allies for a possible military strike, Stanford scholars examine the intelligence and discuss the implications of military action against Syria. Those scholars are:
Martha Crenshaw, one of the nation’s leading experts on terrorist organizations and a senior fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Thomas Fingar, former chairman of the National Intelligence Council and currently the Oksenberg-Rohlen distinguished fellow at FSI
Thomas Henriksen, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution specializing in U.S. foreign policy and author of the book, “America and the Rogue States”
Anja Manuel a CISAC affiliate, co-founder and principal at RiceHadleyGates LLC, a strategic consulting firm, and lecturer in Stanford's International Policy Studies
Allen S. Weiner, a CISAC affiliated faculty member and co-director of the Stanford Program in International Law at the Stanford Law School
Amy Zegart, an intelligence specialist who is the CISAC co-director and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution
Does a military strike on Damascus risk further inflaming terrorists operating in Syria who hate the United States?
Crenshaw: I doubt that an American military response to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons will make al-Qaida and affiliates hate us any more than they already do. The effect on wider public opinion in the Arab and Muslim worlds is what we should be thinking about. As the U.N. noted in a recent report, al-Qaida has a strong presence in Syria and is attracting outside recruits. The Al Nusrah Front in Syria is affiliated with the Iraqi al-Qaida branch. And Hezbollah's involvement has only intensified sectarian violence.
The three-year civil war has claimed some 100,000 lives and forced an estimated 1.9 million Syrians to flee their country, according to the U.N. Why is it taking President Obama so long to take a more assertive policy in Syria?
Manuel: There are no great policy options in Syria. The administration said several times that “stability” in Syria — even if that means a continuing, limited civil war — is more important than a decisive victory over President Bashar al-Assad. The administration also believes that U.S. military intervention short of using ground troops is unlikely to lead to the creation of a new post-Assad regime that will be friendly to the United States. Finally, the Obama administration is understandably hesitant to side with the rebel groups, which — in part due to U.S. unwillingness to actively assist moderate Syrian elements for the past two years — have become increasingly radicalized. Al Qaida-allied extremists now make up a growing segment of the rebel movement and some groups are reportedly creating “safe havens” within Syria and Iraq.
Listen to Manuel on public radio KQED Forum about whether U.S. should intervene.
CISAC's Anja Manuel talks to Al Jazeera America about Syria:
Have past U.S. intelligence failures made Obama skittish about taking a tougher stance against Syria?
Zegart: Iraq's shadow looms large over Syria. The intelligence community got the crucial WMD estimate wrong before the Iraq war and they absolutely don't want to get it wrong now. People often don't realize just how rare it is to find a smoking gun in intelligence. Information is almost always incomplete, contradictory and murky. Intentions – among governments, rebel groups, individuals – are often not known to the participants themselves and everyone is trying to deceive someone.
What is the intelligence gathering that goes into making the determination that nerve agents were used?
Fingar: The first challenge for the U.S. government is to determine whether and what kind of chemical agents were used. Chain-of-custody issues must be addressed to ensure that samples obtained are what they are claimed to be, and once samples have been obtained, what they are can be established with reasonably high confidence using standard laboratory and pathology techniques.
If it is determined that specific chemical agents were used in a specific place and time, then the next step is to determine who used the agents. Analysts would then search previously collected information to discover what is known about the agents in question, which groups were operating in the area, and whether we might have information germane to the specific incident. Policymakers must be informed about any analytical disagreements if they’re to make informed decisions about what to do in response to the incident.
Pressure on decision-makers to “do something” about Syria may influence their decisions, but it should not influence the judgments of intelligence analysts. If they are suspected of cherry-picking the facts and skewing judgments to fit pre-determined outcomes – they are worse than useless.
How do we know the Syrian opposition did not use nerve gas in an effort to provoke military intervention and aid their efforts to topple Assad?
Henriksen: Tracing the precise origin of gas weapons is not an exact forensic science. It is conceivable that a rebel group staged a "black flag" operation of releasing a deadly gas to provoke a U.S. attack on the Assad regime. But in this case, both Israeli and Jordanian intelligence reports appear to confirm U.S. identification of Assad as the perpetrator of the chemical attacks.
If it's confirmed that Syria did use chemical weapons against it own people, is this a violation of the Geneva or Chemical Weapons Conventions?
Weiner: A chemical weapons attack of the kind that's been described in the media certainly violates the laws of war. Syria, as it happens, is one of only a few countries in the world that is not a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Nevertheless, the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons in warfare is a longstanding rule. It is reflected in both the 1907 Hague Convention regulating the conduct of war and the 1925 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. (Syria is a party to the 1925 Convention.) The use of a weapon like this also violates the prohibition in the 1977 Geneva Protocols and customary international law on indiscriminate attacks that are incapable of distinguishing between permissible military targets, on the one hand, and the prohibited targeting of civilians and civilian objects, on the other.
If Damascus has violated the conventions, are there non-military actions that can be taken?
Weiner: The illegal use of chemical weapons is a violation of a jus cogens norm, i.e., a duty owed to all states, which means states would have the right to respond to the breach. Such an attack would presumably be a basis for the unilateral imposition of sanctions or severance of relations with Syria. There's an open question under international law whether states not directly injured by Syria's actions could take "countermeasures" that would otherwise be illegal as a way of responding to Syria's illegal action. Under a traditional reading of international law, a violation like this does not give rise to the right by other states to use force against Syria absent an authorization under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter by the Security Council.
Are there legal means for Washington to bypass the Security Council, knowing that Russia and China would veto any call to action against Syria?
Weiner: Under the U.N. Charter, a state may use force against another state without Security Council authorization only if it is the victim of an armed attack. Most commentators believe this has been expanded to include the right to use force against an imminent threat of attack. But under the prevailing reading of the U.N. Charter, a mere "threat" to U.S. national security would not provide a justification for the use of force.
But the Obama administration is arguing that Assad's actions pose a direct threat to U.S. national security?
Weiner: Some international lawyers – but not very many – argue that there is a right of humanitarian intervention under international law that would permit states to use force even without Security Council approval to stop widespread atrocities against its own population. But this remains a contested position, and most states, including the United States, have not to date embraced a legal right of humanitarian intervention.
What are some recent precedents in which the U.S. intervened militarily?
Weiner: The situation in Syria is not unlike the one faced in Kosovo in 1999, when a U.S.-led coalition did use force to stop atrocities that the Milosevic regime was committing against Kosovar Albanians. As part of its justification for the use of force, the United States cited the ongoing humanitarian crisis and the growing security threat to the region. What's interesting is that the U.S. was careful to characterize its use of force in Kosovo as "legitimate," rather than "legal." I am among those observers who think that choice of words was intentional, and that the U.S. during the Kosovo campaign advanced a moral and political justification for a use of force that it recognized was technically unlawful.
How does one know when diplomacy has reached a dead-end and military intervention remains the only course of action?
Henriksen: It has become nearly reflexive in U.S. diplomacy that force is the last resort after painstaking applications of diplomacy. The Obama administration followed that arc dutifully with appeals and hoped that U.N. envoys could persuade Assad to step aside. In retrospect, it seems that U.S. intervention soon after the outbreak of widespread violence in the spring of 2011 would have been a better course of action. Now, Russia, China and Iran have entrenched their support of Damascus. And, importantly, Hezbollah has joined the fight.
Now, with Washington's "red line" crossed by Syria's use of chemical arms, America almost has to strike or lose all credibility in the Middle East and beyond.
Should we be concerned about getting pulled into another long and costly war? Or is there a way to get in, make our point, and get out?
Henriksen: The worry about stepping on a slippery slope into another war in the Middle East is of genuine concern. Obama's intervention into Libya in early 2011 does provide a model for the use of limited American power. President Bill Clinton's handling of the 77-day air campaign during the Kosovo crisis in early 1999 provides an example of limited interventions. Both these interventions can be analyzed for their pluses and minuses to aid the White House in striking a balance. But no two conflicts are ever exactly the same.
What is the endgame here?
Henriksen: American interest in the Syrian imbroglio are to check Iran, the most threatening power in the Middle East, and to curtail the conditions lending themselves to spawning further jihadists who will prey on Americans and their allies. At this juncture, it appears that the fragmentation of Syria will become permanent. It's fracturing like that of Yugoslavia in the 1990s and will result in several small states. One or more of these mini-states might possibly align with the United States; others could become Sunni countries with Salafist governments, and the rump state of Assad will stay tight with Iran. The fighting could subside, leaving a cold peace or the tiny countries could continue to destabilize the region. Any efforts that undercut al-Qaida franchises or aspirants are in American interests.
Hero Image
Children, affected by what activists say was a gas attack, breathe through oxygen masks in the Damascus suburb of Saqba, Aug., 21, 2013.
450 Serra Mall Bldg. 460, Room 219
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-2022
0
PhD candidate in the Program in Modern Thought and Literature, Stanford
Former Anna Lindh Fellow, The Europe Center
Brian_Professional_Pic.jpg
Brian Johnsrud is finishing his PhD in Stanford’s interdisciplinary Program in Modern Thought and Literature, under the supervision of Amir Eshel (Comparative Literature), Fred Turner (Communication), Sam Wineburg (Education and History), Lina Khatib (Middle Eastern Studies), and Sandra S-J Lee (Medical Anthropology).
Brian’s research considers how the Crusades and other violent histories have served as popular metaphors for relations between the U.S. and Middle East since the First Gulf War. In particular, he explores how those analogies are employed and mediated to affect realms like U.S. national intelligence reports, conspiracy theory novels like Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code, genetic ancestry studies conducted by IBM and National Geographic's Genographic Project in Lebanon, and Iraqi primary school textbook revision by the U.S. after 2003.
Brian's research interests in digital humanities have led to a platform he is currently developing through a collaboration between Stanford University and MIT: LacunaStories.com. The mixed-media, online platform creates an collaborative research ecosystem for academics, students, and the general public to engage with and respond to texts, media, and other resources related to 9/11.
Group Coordinator, The Contemporary Research Group
The Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) is pleased to introduce our 2013-14 pre and postdoctoral scholars. Selected from upwards of 100 applicants, these scholars will spend the year in residence at CDDRL to pursue their research, work closely with faculty and connect to an innovative learning community. Hailing from Yale University, New York University, Georgetown University and Stanford these scholars bring diverse backgrounds and expertise to enrich the ranks at CDDRL. Please read the Q&A's below to learn more about our new scholars, their research and what brought them to CDDRL.
Discipline and expected date of graduation: PhD, May 2013
Research Interests: Human rights, Gender and Ethnic Discrimination, State Failure, International Organizations, and using Quantitative and Experimental Methods.
Dissertation Topic/Title: Essays on Human Rights
What attracted you to the CDDRL Pre/post-doctoral program? I am excited to become a post-doctoral fellow at the Center because my work closely fits the scholarly agenda of CDDRL. While human rights form the core of my dissertation, I touch on several other topics central to CDDRL—I evaluate the efficacy of a strong mechanism for promotion of democracy, I explore how much worse human rights abuses are in failed states, and I examine the conditions under which ground level NGO action can decrease discrimination against a vulnerable population. The faculty affiliated with the Center have a great deal of expertise in areas relevant to my research efforts - ranging from human rights and consolidation of democracy to field experiments - and I very much look forward to their guidance and advice.
What do you hope to accomplish during your year-long residency at the Center? My central aim is to complete the next phase of my research project on discrimination against the Roma in Central and Eastern Europe, while writing a book manuscript that stems from the same project. I hope to build relationships and potentially develop collaborations with members of the academic community at CDDRL and Stanford more generally.
Please state a fun fact about yourself! I used to compete in ballroom dancing.
Discipline and expected date of graduation: Political Science, Spring 2014
Research Interests: International Relations, Middle East, Colonialism, Gender Politics, Islamic Law, Demography
Dissertation Topic/Title: "The Long-Term Impact of Colonization on Gender"
What attracted you to the CDDRL Pre/post-doctoral program? Improving gender equality is correlated with improved economic growth, democratization and rule of law. In addition to these research themes, CDDRL's focus on both scholarship and policy-relevance is important to me. I hope that understanding the processes leading to changes in gender equality over time will help us pursue better policies for advancing gender equality.
What do you hope to accomplish during your year-long residency at the Center? I hope to turn my thesis into multiple articles. I also intend to write a short monograph analyzing the relationship between opinions on gender, religion and political party affiliation in the Middle East through use of satellite data to proxy for religious piety.
Please state a fun fact about yourself! I live in the same housing complex that I lived in as a child.
Discipline and expected date of graduation: PhD, Political Science, September 2013
Research Interests: Historical Political Economy, Development, Colonialism, South Asia, Identity Politics, Terrorism
Dissertation Topic/Title: "Diversity and Power: Caste in Colonial India"
What attracted you to the CDDRL Pre/post-doctoral program? Much of my work is on the historical origins of underdevelopment, and I'm interested in exploring contemporary policies that can alleviate these inequalities.
What do you hope to accomplish during your year-long residency at the Center? I hope to develop my dissertation into a book, particularly by adding material on the post-colonial period.
Please state a fun fact about yourself! I make a very good chana masala.
Discipline and expected date of graduation: Political Science; 2013-2014
Research Interests: Democratization, Identity Politics and Distribution, Authoritarian Elections, Political Islam; Political Economy of Authoritarianism
Dissertation Topic/Title: “Indispensible Arbiters: Islamist Movements, Economic Liberalization, and Authoritarian Rule in the Arab World”
What attracted you to the CDDRL Pre/post-doctoral program? What I find most appealing about CDDRL is its demonstrated commitment to advancing innovative, rigorous research on questions pertaining to the challenges of democratization and other related topics that speak directly to my current work. It hosts a distinguished set of scholars whose work has been highly influential in informing and guiding my own research. As home to the Arab Reform and Democracy Program, CDDRL also offers a great opportunity for engaging with scholars and practitioners who share my strong interest in developing research agendas that could enhance understanding of the Arab uprisings, their origins and the dynamic political and social struggles they encompass.
What do you hope to accomplish during your year-long residency at the Center? During my residency at the Center, I look forward to finishing my dissertation writing, along with a number of related research projects pertaining to the relationship between contentious politics and formal electoral competition in the aftermath of the Arab uprisings.
Please state a fun fact about yourself! I’m a dedicated bikram yogi and a strong believer that every great idea begins with a deep backward bend.
Discipline and expected date of graduation: Anthropology, June 2015
Research Interests: Critical ethnographic approaches to development and the state, the role of traditional authorities in post-colonial democracies, global health, citizenship, human rights, and discourses of participation and community in Southern Africa, particularly Malawi.
Dissertation Title: "Health Promotion, Citizenship, and Rural Governance in Malawi"
What attracted you to the CDDRL Pre/post-doctoral program? I am drawn to CDDRL's focus on the complex intersections between development and governance, and to the Center's embrace of both theoretical and policy dimensions of scholarship on these themes. My dissertation research in Malawi examines how modular global health interventions engage local power structures, patronage systems and political cultures. In particular, I focus on traditional authorities' involvement in rural health promotion and examine the continuing salience of chiefly governance for local and national discourse on community participation, human rights and citizenship. I draw on ethnographic fieldwork and archival research to trace the salience of health promotion strategies for the formation and consolidation of ideas, values and processes of governance and democracy in Malawi. I look forward to stimulating conversations with faculty and visiting scholars through the Center's Programs on Poverty and Governance and Human Rights and the CDDRL-affiliated Center for Innovation in Global Health.
What do you hope to accomplish during your year-long residency at the Center? I will be returning from 18 months of fieldwork in Malawi this fall and am excited to join CDDRL's diverse community of scholars. I aim to complete a draft of my dissertation during my fellowship year. As a social and cultural anthropologist, I especially look forward to sharing my findings and seeking feedback from faculty mentors and fellows in other disciplines with shared interests in the quality of and contestations around democratic processes in post-colonial African states.
Bringing together postwar German, Israeli, and Anglo-American literature, Professor Amir Eshel (German Studies and Comparative Literature) traces a shared trajectory of futurity in world literature.
For a full synopsis, please visit the publication website by clicking on the book title below.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY invites applications for a tenure-line, open-rank position in MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES to begin in the academic year 2014-15. The scholar-teacher appointed will be based in a social science department but is also expected to make contributions to the interdisciplinary study of the Middle East and North Africa across the University. The appointment can be in one of the following departments in the School of Humanities and Sciences: Anthropology, Communication, Economics, Political Science, and Sociology. Teaching responsibilities will be determined by the home department.
Applicants should provide a cover letter including a brief statement of research interests, a curriculum vitae including list of publications, and sample(s) of recent scholarship. Assistant level and untenured applicants should arrange to have three letters of reference submitted to Interfolio. Currently tenured applicants should submit the names of three references.
For full consideration, materials must be received by October 1, 2013.
Stanford University is an equal opportunity employer and is committed to increasing the diversity of its faculty. It welcomes nominations of, and applications from, women and members of minority groups, as well as others who would bring additional dimensions to the university's research and teaching missions.
Sir Lawrence Freedman, Professor of War Studies at King's College London, will present on his new book, Strategy: A History (Oxford University Press, 2013).
ABOUT THE SPEAKER: Sir Lawrence Freedman is Professor of War Studies at King's College London. Professor Freedman has held his appointment since 1982, and he has served as Vice-Principal at King's College since 2003. Prior to his time at King's College, Professor Freedman held research appointments at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Nuffield College Oxford, and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 1995, awarded the Commander of the British Empire in 1996, and the Knight Commander of St. Michael and St. George in 2003. Most recently, Professor Freedman was elected in 2009 as a member of the official inquiry into Britain and the 2003 Iraq War.
ABOUT THE TOPIC: Further details about this event will be posted shortly.
CISAC Conference Room
Sir Lawrence Freedman
Professor of War Studies
Speaker
King's College London
CISAC
Stanford University
Encina Hall, E214
Stanford, CA 94305-6165
(650) 723-1737
(650) 723-0089
0
David.Holloway@stanford.edu
Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Freeman Spogli Institute of International Studies
Raymond A. Spruance Professor of International History
0820stanford-davidholloway-238-edit.jpg
PhD
David Holloway is the Raymond A. Spruance Professor of International History, a professor of political science, and an FSI senior fellow. He was co-director of CISAC from 1991 to 1997, and director of FSI from 1998 to 2003. His research focuses on the international history of nuclear weapons, on science and technology in the Soviet Union, and on the relationship between international history and international relations theory. His book Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1939-1956 (Yale University Press, 1994) was chosen by the New York Times Book Review as one of the 11 best books of 1994, and it won the Vucinich and Shulman prizes of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies. It has been translated into seven languages, most recently into Chinese. The Chinese translation is due to be published later in 2018. Holloway also wrote The Soviet Union and the Arms Race (1983) and co-authored The Reagan Strategic Defense Initiative: Technical, Political and Arms Control Assessment (1984). He has contributed to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Foreign Affairs, and other scholarly journals.
Since joining the Stanford faculty in 1986 -- first as a professor of political science and later (in 1996) as a professor of history as well -- Holloway has served as chair and co-chair of the International Relations Program (1989-1991), and as associate dean in the School of Humanities and Sciences (1997-1998). Before coming to Stanford, he taught at the University of Lancaster (1967-1970) and the University of Edinburgh (1970-1986). Born in Dublin, Ireland, he received his undergraduate degree in modern languages and literature, and his PhD in social and political sciences, both from Cambridge University.
Faculty member at the Center for International Security and Cooperation
Affiliated faculty at the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law
When do people perceive themselves to be losing out from international economic integration? Do these perceptions translate into vote change? Existing literature studies gain and loss from economic integration as a function of its objective material effect and political preferences that follow are assumed to reflect concerns about a broader set of social outcomes that they associate with economic openess, particularly reentment about relative deprivation.
