Day: February 19, 2012
This week’s peace picks
I somehow managed to commit myself to three events this week, one off-the-record and two public: on Syria with Mona Yacoubian at the Center for National Policy (1 MA Ave), February 23, 12-1:15 and on Algeria (the same day!) 3-4:30 pm in BOB (1717 MA) 500 at SAIS. The week is a short one and therefore crowded with other interesting events:
1. Campaign 2012 Series – Election Cycle Foreign Policy with Heather Hurlburt, February 21, 6-7:30 PM
Campaign 2012 Series:
Election Cycle Foreign Policy with Heather Hurlburt
While the upcoming presidential election this year may be dominated by domestic issues, foreign policy remains a critical factor in any election season. Every aspiring foreign policy leader needs to have the skills and savvy to navigate electoral politics. As we gear up for Election 2012, YPFP is reviving the popular Campaign Series from 2008 to give members the opportunity for spirited bi-partisan debate on both the role of foreign policy on the upcoming election, and the impact of the presidential contest on foreign policy.
In this election, Iran, Syria, and the new “Pacific Pivot” strategy have emerged front and center, while the endgame of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have begun to recede. Yet, nothing carries more influence than the economy, with most foreign policy questions being viewed through the lens of job creation or possible budget cuts for defense, diplomacy, and development.
Please join YPFP and our co-sponsor, America’s Impact, for the first installment of YPFP’s Campaign 2012 Series: a discussion about foreign policy in an election cycle with Heather Hurlburt, Executive Director of the National Security Network. Ms. Hurlburt, a veteran politico and frequent news commentator, will lead a discussion of these questions:
• How is the foreign policy landscape changing from 2008 to 2012?
• What do aspiring foreign policy leaders need to know about
presidential election cycles?
• What can we expect in this election and in the future?
• What role does U.S. politics play in the formation of U.S. foreign policy?
• How are other countries viewing the 2012 presidential election?
This will be the first event in a bi-partisan series that focuses on the foreign policy questions and challenges during the 2012 campaign cycle. Please join us for our next event in partnership with the Foreign Policy Initiative. Stay tuned for more details!
Before joining NSN, Hurlburt ran her own communications and strategy practice, working on global and political issues with political, entertainment, and educational leaders. From 1995-2001, Hurlburt served in the Clinton Administration as Special Assistant and Speechwriter to the President, speechwriter for Secretaries of State Albright and Christopher, and member of the State Department’s Policy Planning staff. She has also worked for the International Crisis Group, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the Congressional Helsinki Commission. At the Helsinki Commission, she was a negotiating member of the US Delegation to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and participated extensively in election monitoring, democracy-building and post-conflict missions in Central and Eastern Europe. She appears frequently as a commentator in new and traditional media and is a regular guest on Robert Wright’s Blogging Heads TV. Her work has been published by the New York Times, Washington Post, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, Guardian, POLITICO, New Republic and other outlets. Hurlburt holds a BA from Brown University, magna cum laude, and an MA from the George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs.
About America’s Impact
America’s Impact is a nonprofit community of professionals dedicated to making U.S. foreign policy a domestic priority. By supporting Congressional candidates who embrace pragmatic U.S. engagement with the world, we hope to build a more prosperous and secure America. For
more information, visit www.americasimpact.org.
2. The Iranian Nuclear Dilemma: Risk of an Iraq Sequel? Rayburn B339, February 21, 10:45 am-noon
A panel discussion featuring:
Hans Blix
Former Director General of the IAEA
Colin Kahl
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East
Robert Kelley
Former Chief Inspector for the IAEA in Iraq
Moderator: Trita Parsi
President, National Iranian American Council
Tuesday, February 21st, 2012
Rayburn House Office Building B-339
10:45 AM-12:00 PM
Light lunch will be provided
Seating is limited, RSVP required: rsvp@niacouncil.org or (202) 386-6325
Less than a decade after allegations of Iraqi weapons programs pitted the Bush Administration, the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the international community in a high stakes drama that ended in a devastating conflict and occupation, war again appears on the horizon—this time with Iran. But while fears of an Iranian aspiration for nuclear weapons have heightened the threat of another disastrous war, the Iranian nuclear dilemma is far from unresolvable.
Dr. Hans Blix served as Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997. He was appointed to lead the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission from 2000 to 2003 and was at the center of IAEA inspection efforts in Iraq prior to the Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Dr. Colin Kahl served as U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East from 2009 to 2011, developing and implementing the U.S. Defense Department’s strategy regarding Iran. He recently published “Not Time to Attack Iran” in Foreign Affairs.
Robert Kelley served as a member of the IAEA Iraq Action Team in 2003 and was Chief Inspector for the IAEA in Iraq, South Africa, and Libya. He questioned the evidence presented in the November 2011 IAEA report on Iran, in a Bloomberg piece, “Nuclear Arms Charge Against Iran Is No Slam Dunk”.
Sponsored by the Ploughshares Fund
The views of the speakers are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Iranian American Council.
3. Inside Egypt — The Path Forward, Gallup 901 F Street NW, February 22, 9-10 am
Over the past year, Egyptians have experienced a historic revolution, a surge in optimism, and a series of political and economic successes and challenges. Gallup scientifically measured Egyptians’ attitudes and hopes about the country’s politics and economics multiple times throughout this crucial year in the country’s history.
Gallup will share the key findings from these surveys at an in-depth briefing on February 22, 2012, in Washington, D.C. Gallup Senior Analyst Mohamed Younis will present the latest research on Egyptians’ views on the following topics:
- the coming presidential election
- Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel
- the Arab Spring and events in Syria and Libya
- the Egyptian military’s involvement in national politics
- Egyptians’ preferred path to civilian rule
Inside Egypt: The Path Forward will take place Wednesday, February 22, 2012 from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. at The Gallup Building at 901 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C. Please note that the entrance to The Gallup Building is on 9th Street. Gallup will provide light refreshments. While there is no cost to attend, registration is required. For more information, please contact Krista Volzke at 402.938.6001.
Event Registration
| Date | Location | Price | Register By | Status |
| February 22, 2012 | Washington, D.C. | Free | February 17, 2012 | Open |
3. The Changing Relationship between Civil Society and the Military, February 22, 12-1:30 pm
Where: Creative Associates, 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. (nearest metro: Friendship Heights)
Civil society organizations are taking on more active and crucial roles in both conflict and post-conflict environments to allow for local stakeholders to quickly build capacity for social services in the absence of civilian government authority, create the infrastructure needed to expedite economic activity, and serve as an important voice of local populace to military authorities.
How should our changing understanding of civil society influence how the U.S. military should interact with local CSOs? Can the military and civil society work together without blurring the lines between military and civilian operations? Some have argued that well-intended efforts by the military-civil society partnerships to rebuild schools and playgrounds or provide medical assistance risks militarizing civilian activities in the eyes of hostile forces.
How does the military currently determine which organizations are reliable social partners? How should these partnerships be funded? And how much assistance, guidance, or support should military authorities provide without undermining CSOs’ independence and credibility?
On February 22, SID-Washington’s Civil Society and Crisis, Conflict and Transition workgroups will cosponsor a brown bag lunch featuring Dr. Evelyn Farkas, Senior Advisor for Public-Private Partnerships to SACEUR, J.Randall Tift, Senior Advisor for World Vision, and Paul Miller, Foreign Aid Advisor, Catholic Relief Services, who will lead an open discussion of relationship building between military and civil society leaders in conflict environments. This is not intended to be a presentation of military policy but a collaborative exchange on how to improve conflict environment management methods by both sides.
Speakers:
J. Randall Tift, Senior Advisor, World Vision
Evelyn N. Farkas, Ph.D., Senior Advisor for Public-Private Relationships to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR)
Paul Miller, Foreign Aid Advisor, Catholic Relief Services
Beverages and light snacks will be provided.
Take-out lunch options near Creative Associates:
Friendship Heights Metro, south exit: Booeymonger, Cosi’s.
Friendship Heights Metro, north exit (one block from Creative Associates): McDonalds and Subway in Mazza Galarie, Cheesecake Factory on Wisconsin Ave.
Location: Creative Associates, 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C.
For more information:
Moderated byBob Schieffer
Chief Washington Correspondent, CBS News;
Anchor, CBS News’ “Face the Nation”
Panelists:General James E. Cartwright, USMC (Ret.)
Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;
Harold Brown Chair in Defense Policy Studies, CSISAdmiral William J. Fallon, USN (Ret.)
Former Commander, U.S. Central Command
David Sanger
Chief Washington Correspondent, New York Times;
Author, The InheritanceThursday, February 23rd, 2012,
5:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.CSIS
1800 K St. NW,
Washington, DC 20006
Seating is limited. RSVP is required. Please RSVP (acceptances only) with your name and affiliation to schiefferseries@csis.org.
The TCU Schieffer School of Journalism and CSIS cosponsor a monthly series of dialogues hosted by award-winning journalist Bob Schieffer to discuss the most pressing foreign and domestic issues of the day.
5. The Arab Spring and International Law, February 23, GWU Law School, 12 noon
Event Information
Thursday, February 23, 2012, 12:00 PM
Jacob Burns Moot Courtroom, George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C.
Event Link
The ABA Section of International Law, in co-sponsorship with the American Society of International Law and the George Washington University School of Law, presents the 2nd Annual “Live from the L”: The Office of the Legal Adviser,U.S. Department of State. This year”s discussion will focus on “The Arab Spring and International Law” and will be webcast. Speakers Include: Harold Hongju Koh Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State Linda Jacobson Assistant Legal Adviser for African and Near Eastern Affairs Please Save the Date for this incredible event, Registration will follow in the near future.
Contact Information
Curry Wilson, Meeting Planner/Committee Programs
curry.wilson@americanbar.org
(202) 662-1672
6. The Battle for Power in Iran: Revolutionary Guard Corps vs. Clerics, Carnegie Endowment, February 24, 12:15-2 pm
| ContactJessica Bouletjboulet@ceip.org 202 939 2212 |
EVENT DETAILS
|
DATE |
Friday, February 24, 2012 |
|
TIME |
12:15 to 2:00 p.m. |
|
LOCATION |
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace |
|
SPEAKERS |
Mehrzad Boroujerdi, Mehdi Khalaji, Ali Alfoneh, and Karim Sadjadpour |
Is the Islamic Republic of Iran a theocratic regime led by clerics, or a military dictatorship ruled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? Ahead of the country’s March 2012 parliamentary elections, noted experts Mehrzad Boroujerdi of Syracuse University, Mehdi Khalaji of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Ali Alfoneh of the American Enterprise Institute will examine the evolving architecture of power in Tehran. Carnegie’s Karim Sadjadpour will moderate the discussion.
|
Speakers
Mehrzad Boroujerdi is associate professor of political science at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, where he also serves as the founding director of the Middle Eastern Studies Program. He is also the editor of the forthcoming Mirror for the Muslim Prince: Islam and Theory of Statecraft (Syracuse University Press) and is a nonresident scholar at the Middle East Institute.
Mehdi Khalaji is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, focusing on the politics of Iran and Shiite groups in the Middle East. Previously, Khalaji served on the editorial boards of two prominent Iranian periodicals, and he also worked for BBC Persian as a political analyst on Iranian affairs, later becoming a broadcaster for Radio Farda, the Persian-language service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Ali Alfoneh is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where his research focuses on civil-military relations in Iran with a special focus on the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in the Islamic Republic. He was previously a research fellow at the Institute for Strategy at the Royal Danish Defence College.
Moderator
Karim Sadjadpour is an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He was previously an analyst with the International Crisis Group based in Tehran and Washington. He is the author of Reading Khamenei: The World View of Iran’s Most Powerful Leader.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Wising up
Two weeks ago, I was getting ready to write a post suggesting that Bashar al Assad would likely win his current contest with Syrian protesters. It looked as if they had made a definitive choice in favor of a violent uprising, one that the Syrian security forces are capable of defeating. The net result would have been a low-level insurgency, aka civil war, one that would lead to increasing sectarian separation and destabilization of neighboring countries, including Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq. That outcome–the worst of all possible worlds for the United States–is still possible.
But Friday’s 41 peaceful demonstrations in Damascus, a few of them large, suggest that the opposition has wised up. Rather than a force-on-force confrontation they are bound to lose, the protesters spread out their efforts and kept them non-violent. Such coordinated risings in the capital are far more important for gaining adherents and defying the regime than killing a few soldiers or even Shabiha (non-uniformed regime goons) would be. It has forced the regime today to rush its security forces into the capital to squelch the defiance and re-establish fear. With any luck, they’ll find nothing to repress, as the protesters will hopefully be ready to ignite efforts elsewhere.
This is smart revolution. Drawing lines around specific territory and trying to defend it would be dumb revolution, because it identifies precisely the territory that the regime has to attack to kill its enemies. It has shown no hesitancy to do that. Safe areas and humanitarian corridors are unsafe unless defended with adequate force, which no one has yet shown any sign of readiness to field.
Meanwhile on the diplomatic front, the Chinese are showing some signs of veto remorse, averring openly that they support the Arab League plan calling for Bashar al Assad to step aside and allow his vice president to take charge of a transition to democracy. I’d be the first to admit that a similar scheme is not looking so great in Yemen, where yesterday’s one-candidate election will presumably lead to Vice President Hadi’s takeover of power and initiation of some kind of transition. The problem in Yemen is that those sharing power do not include the protesters who initiated the revolution and who reject amnesty for former President Ali Abdullah Saleh.
The situation in Syria is different. There really is no question of amnesty for Bashar. The best he can hope for is exile in Iran, which backs him to the hilt. But he could just as well end up dead like Muammar Qaddafi or on trial like Hosni Mubarak, prospects that are presumably inspiring his murderous attempts to repress the demonstrations.
“Friends of Syria,” the international coalition in favor of the revolution, plans to meet Friday in Tunisia. This is a good occasion to reiterate support for the Arab League plan, tighten sanctions, press for greater unity among the Syrian opposition and reiterate support for nonviolent protest. It may also be a good opportunity to strategize about bringing China and even Russia into the fold. The Chinese seem halfway there. The Russians will need some guarantees on access to port facilities in Syria before signing on.
Meanwhile, watch those Iranian warships that traversed the Suez Canal yesterday. They have now docked at Tartus. If they deliver weapons or personnel to Syria, it would be a good moment for someone to intervene. That’s not trivial, since there is no arms embargo, but that’s why we’ve got all those clever lawyers in the State Department. I hope they are busy scribbling the decision memos.
PS: The Iranians claimed the ships docked, but the Pentagon says they never did. Maybe someone in Tehran understood the risk.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Own goal
I wrote a few weeks ago from Belgrade that “nationalism has the edge.” Milan Marinković, who lives in Niš, Serbia, writes that in Bosnia the situation is even more concerning, given its multi-ethnic/confessional fabric. Separation of religion and state there is an imperative:
Is secularism achievable in the Western Balkans? In former Yugoslavia it was. On paper, it still is. The constitutions of the states that emerged from Yugoslavia prescribe that religion should be kept separate from state affairs. But in real life the separation is difficult to put into effect.
A strong tendency of religious institutions in the Balkans to meddle in politics is understandable. For most of the region’s history, religion played a crucial role both in building and hardening ethnic (aka “national”) identities.
Since the fall of the Berlin wall, religion has significantly contributed to the upsurge of aggressive ethnic nationalism throughout the region. From the nationalist standpoint that prevails among South Slavs, in order to be recognized as a “true” member of a nation (aka ethnic group), one must belong to the relevant religious denomination. Accordingly, a Serb can be Serb only if he or she is Orthodox Christian; a Croat can be Croat only if she or he is Catholic; a Bosniak can be Bosniak only if he or she is Muslim.
This conception of national identity as rooted in religion served the purposes of political and religious elites during the wars of 1990s. There has been little change since then. Today it guarantees Serb parties votes from Serbs, Muslim parties votes from Muslims and Croat parties votes from Croats. There might be limited political competition within ethnic groups, but “nationalist” parties would prefer no competition between them.
The rigid ethno-religious concept is now a major obstacle to reconciliation among the formerly belligerent groups. The only apparent solution in a state like Bosnia, where there are three “constituent” peoples (Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs), is separation of religion and state: secularization, in a word.
In Bosnian elementary schools, as well as in Serbian and Croatian ones, religious education is a voluntary subject, but the grades children receive are calculated into their overall score at the end of a school year together with the grades in compulsory subjects. The former education minister of Sarajevo canton, Emir Suljagić, found this practice to be unjust to the children who did not attend religious education.
Not surprisingly, Suljagić is a member of Bosnia’s Social Democratic Party, which prides itself on multiethnic appeal, even if the bulk of its votes come from people who regard themselves as Bosniaks. More surprisingly, he lost thirteen family members murdered at Srebrenica in 1995, when Serb forces overwhelmed the Eastern Bosnia town and killed thousands of Bosniak men and boys.
Suljagić ’s intention was not to eliminate religious education from the schools, though he certainly could have attempted that. He only tried to establish a rule that would have put an end to unequal treatment of non-religious students, who do not attend religious instruction. But the wrath of Bosnia’s Islamic community leadership and radical Islamists forced Suljagić to resign and leave the country following a series of death threats to him and his family.
What happened to Emir Suljagić demonstrates how strong resistance to secularization is in Bosnia. Worse than that, it shows the inability – some even believe unwillingness – of Bosnian police to protect the safety of a state official – let alone an ordinary person.
In an attempt to justify his secessionist ambitions, the president of the Serb-dominated half of Bosnia, Milorad Dodik, often accuses Bosniaks of trying to make Bosnia an Islamic state. Top clerics of the Islamic community of Bosnia, led by Reis Effendi Mustafa Cerić, like to portray themselves as the “ultimate guardians” of the Bosnian state. Unfortunately, this tends to prove Dodik’s point, as does hounding Suljagić from office.
RSS - Posts
