Month: May 2012

War on war

The newly established North America office of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute directed by Chantal de Jonge Oudraat yesterday hosted discussion of the statistical decline of armed conflict and whether it will continue.  Moderated by Sissela Bok, presenters were Peter Wallensteen of Uppsala University and Joshua Goldstein of American University, author of the recently published Winning the War on War.  The presenters and audience took as undisputed the uneven statistical decline of war since 1945, with a further dip after 1989.

Wallensteen attributed this mainly to better management of conflict, especially through the UN Security Council after 1989, and increased attention to rights, minorities and human dignity.  There is no increase in ethnic or one-sided conflicts that would muddy the statistical picture.  With war declining, other security concerns have emerged:  terrorism, state fragility and state failure.  Wallensteen thought the future looks promising if major powers continue to cooperate, security concerns remain limited, welfare economics has priority and human dignity is central to international concerns.  It is possible to envision zero conflicts in the future.

While not so sure about the zero conflict vision, Goldstein mostly agreed.  He debunked three causes for the decline in war:

  • nuclear weapons, because their number is decreasing sharply, without triggering an increase in war,
  • U.S. hegemony, because it too is declining without triggering an increase, and
  • democracy, because China has been peaceful but not democratic.

He supported three other causes:

  • normative disapproval of war and growth of the idea that peace is good, a view also advocated by Steven Pinker;
  • increases in prosperity, trade and global interdependence, which is what keeps the Chinese leadership out of war, since it derives its legitimacy from prosperity;
  • UN and other conflict management capacity, including increased use of peacekeeping.

Americans, Goldstein noted, on average pay $700 per month for U.S. defense and veterans benefits but only $2 per month for the UN.  Eighty per cent of Americans support the UN.  Doubling its budget would clearly bring real benefits. When will politicians realize this?

The presenters were too polite to mention it, but there is a great irony for Americans in the decline of war:  our armed forces have been active in conflict zones every year since 1989.  While much of the rest of the world has enjoyed relative peace, we have been expending trillions of dollars on less than fully successful military enterprises in Iraq and Afghanistan.  This, too, is something for our politicians to ponder.

 

Tags : ,

Trouble in Balochistan

Eric Shu reports on the National Endowment on Democracy event May 2 on “Threats to Democracy in Balochistan”:

Malik Siraj Akbar, a Pakistani journalist and current Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy, presented an overview of the human rights threats in his native Balochistan, the largest province in Pakistan. It was not until February 2012 that Balochistan gained attention in the United States, largely due to a Congressional briefing and a House resolution in favor of self-determination drafted by California Congressman Dana Rohrbacher. Immediate backlash from the Pakistani government ensued, but the fallout has been limited.

Akbar’s presentation focused on the background of the region, the threats to the area’s defenders of democracy, and ended with a set of recommendations for both domestic and international players.

Akbar described Balochistan as a “richly-poor” Texas-sized province in southwest Pakistan with immense but little recognized geo-political importance. Annexed in 1948, Balochistan contains one of the region’s largest reservoirs of natural gas and an abundance of gold and copper. However, it is also a region with the lowest literacy rates in Pakistan and a severe lack of human rights protections.

There are three primary threats to democracy in Balochistan: political assassinations, enforced disappearances, and limited press coverage.

Political leaders and individuals who have advocated for an independent Balochistan are the assassination victims.  The Pakistani military has denied responsibility.  Non-existent communication between the federal and provincial governments has exacerbated tensions in the region and led to increasing calls for independence through violent means.

The victims “enforced disappearances” are predominantly ethnic Baloch as young as 12 and as old as 80. Estimates gathered from local sources suggest they number in the hundreds.  They are picked up off the street or plucked from their homes and subjected to torture, solitary confinement, and warned of retaliation if they speak out. The military has denied responsibility.

These problems are compounded by the fact that local media and press networks are severely underdeveloped in Balochistan. Coverage of the  area is limited not only internationally, but also domestically.  Pakistani press do not cover Balochistan well.  Foreign journalists are routinely denied access, making it difficult for human rights violations to be documented and publicized abroad.

Akbar concluded his presentation with recommendations for stakeholders.

To the Pakistani government, Akbar advocated ensuring freedom of the press by providing access to international journalists.  He also pushed for fair Baloch representation in the region’s security structures (army, police, frontier corps) and called for the military and intelligence services to be brought under civilian control.

Akbar’s suggestions to the United States focused on implementation of the Leahy Amendment prohibitng U.S. foreign assistance to foreign military units that commit human rights violations.  Although Human Rights Watch reported violations in 2010 and 2011, there has not been an investigation into these cases and U.S. aid to Pakistan has continued.

The Congressional hearing in February 2012 on Balochistan drew short-lived attention to the region and its challenges. Continued attention on the issue of human rights in Pakistan from brave individuals such as Akbar will help keep the discussion in focus and hopefully bring badly needed change to the region.

 

Tags : ,

This week’s peace picks

1. His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations:  Building and Sustaining Peace: The UN Role in Post-Conflict Situations, CSIS, 11-noon May 7

His Excellency Ban Ki-moon Secretary-General of the United Nations

The Center for Strategic and International Studies Program on Crisis, Conflict, and Cooperation (C3) invites you to a Statesmen’s Forum with

His Excellency Ban Ki-moon
Secretary-General of the United Nations

On

Building and Sustaining Peace: The UN Role in Post-Conflict Situations

Welcoming Remarks and Moderated by

Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski
Counselor and Trustee
CSIS

Monday, May 7, 11:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m.
B1 Conference Room
1800 K Street, NW, Washington DC 20006

This event will be webcast live and viewable on this webpage.

For questions or concerns, please contact statesmensforum@csis.org.

Ban Ki-moon is the eighth Secretary-General of the United Nations. His priorities have been to mobilize world leaders around a set of new global challenges, from climate change and economic upheaval to pandemics and increasing pressures involving food, energy, and water. He has sought to be a bridge builder, to give voice to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, and to strengthen the organization itself. Mr. Ban took office on January 1, 2007. On June 21, 2011, he was unanimously reelected by the General Assembly and will continue to serve until December 31, 2016.

2.  Decline of Armed Conflict: Will It Continue? Stimonson, 12:30-2 pm May 7

SIPRI North America hosts a conversation about the causes and future implications of the recent decline in armed conflict

 SIPRI North America, 1111 19th St. NW, 12th floor, Washington DC 20036

RSVP: Please click here.

There is a prevalent public perception that the world has become a more violent place. However, many leading experts agree that there has been a decline of violence and war since 1989. To expand upon these findings and explore their future implications, SIPRI North America will convene a roundtable discussion with two leading experts in the peace and conflict field.

The following key questions will be discussed by a panel of experts:

  •  What are the reasons behind the decline of armed conflict? And will the decline of armed conflict continue?
  • What do we know about the nature and patterns of armed conflict?
  • Should the definitions of armed conflict be adjusted?
  • How does the Arab Spring fit into the paradigm of declining conflict?
  • What role did and should the international community play in mitigating armed conflict?

Welcome: Dr. Chantal de Jonge Oudraat, Executive Director, SIPRI North America

Speakers:

  • Dr. Sissela Bok, Board Member, SIPRI North America and Senior Visiting Fellow, Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies (Moderator)
  • Dr. Joshua S. Goldstein, Professor at the School of International Service, American University
  • Dr. Peter Wallensteen, Dag Hammarskjöld Professor of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala Universit

*Light lunch and refreshments will be provided

If you have any questions, please contact Masha Keller at sipri-na@sipri.org

3. Thinking the Unthinkable: Potential Implications of Oil Disruption in Saudi Arabia,  Heritage Foundation, noon-1:30 pm May 8

If an “Arab Spring” uprising completely disrupted Saudi oil production, the U.S. and the global economy would face a massive economic and strategic crisis. Russia and Iran as oil-producing states would likely exploit the crisis to increase their power around the world while undermining U.S. influence, especially in the Middle East. A crisis in Saudi Arabia would have drastic implications for the United States, its economy, and the whole world.

The U.S. must plan ahead and develop pro-active, multi-layered preventive and responsive strategies to deal with political threats to the security of oil supply. These would combine intelligence, military, and diplomatic tools as well as outline domestic steps the United States should take in such a crisis. Please join our distinguished panel of experts as they discuss strategic threats to oil supply; policy options available to the United States and to the oil consuming and producing states; and examine lessons learned from other Heritage Foundation energy crisis simulation exercises.

More About the Speakers

Ariel Cohen , Ph.D.
Senior Research Fellow, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, The Heritage Foundation

Bruce Everett, Ph.D.
Adjunct Associate Professor of International Business, The Fletcher School, Tufts University

Simon Henderson
Baker Fellow and Director, Gulf and Energy Policy Program, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Hosted By

David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D. David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D.Research Fellow in Energy Economics and Climate Change Read More

4.  The Consequences of Syria for Minorities in the Levant, Middle East Institute, noon-1 pm May 9

 

Location:

1761 N Street, NW

The Middle East Institute is proud to host journalist and author Jonathan C. Randal for a discussion about the impact of the conflict in Syria on neighboring Lebanon and its complicated religious and ethnic make-up.  A tired joke among Lebanese asks why their much-battered country has been spared most of the turmoil that has attended the Arab Spring and its often violent  ramifications elsewhere in the Middle East. The jest’s cynical answer: because Lebanon is automatically seeded for the finals.  Such gallows humor reflects fears Lebanon will end up footing the bill whether the Alawite regime prevails in Damascus or succumbs to the largely Sunni Syrian opposition. Once again, the region’s minorities feel threatened by outsiders’ geostrategic considerations pitting Iran and its Syrian and Hezbollah allies against the United States. Europe, and the Gulf monarchies. Will the Syria conflict, like so many earlier Middle East conflicts, end up undermining, the role and status of the Levant’s Christian and other minority communities? Randal will draw from his many decades covering Lebanon for the Washington Post and from his book about Lebanon’s civil war, Going All the Way: Christian Warlords, Israeli Adventurers and the War in Lebanon (1983, Viking Press) which has been reissued by Just World Books with an all-new preface as The Tragedy of Lebanon: Christian Warlords, Israeli Adventurers and American Bunglers.

 Bio: Jonathan C. Randal  began his long and distinguished career in journalism in Paris in 1957 as a stringer for United Press and Agence France-Presse.  He spent the next 40 plus years working as foreign correspondent for the Paris Herald, TIME,  The New York Times and for the Washington Post (from 1969 through 1998), where as senior foreign correspondent he reported from numerous war zones and covered conflict in sub-Saharan Africa,  Indochina, Eastern Europe  and the Middle East, including in Iran and Lebanon. He is the author of Going All the Way: Christian Warlords, Israeli Adventurers and the War in Lebanon (1983); After Such Knowledge, What Forgiveness? My Encounters With Kurdistan (1997); and Osama, The Making of a Terrorist (2004).
Register
5. Iraq: Caught Between Dictatorship and Civil War, IISS, 2-3 pm May 9
© AFP/Getty Images

Speaker: Toby Dodge, Consulting Senior Fellow for the Middle East, IISS

Venue: IISS-US, 2121 K Street NW, Suite 801, Washington, DC        20037

Dr Dodge will discuss the future of Iraqi politics.

Dr Toby Dodge is Consulting Senior Fellow for the Middle East at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He is also a Reader in International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Dr Dodge has carried out extensive research in Iraq both before and after regime change, and has advised senior government officials on Iraq. He holds a PhD from the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

This meeting will be moderated by Andrew Parasiliti, Executive Director, IISS-US and Corresponding Director, IISS-Middle East.

IISS-US events are for IISS members and direct invitees only. For more information, please contact events-washington@iiss.org or (202) 659-1490.

6. Will Democratic Governance Take Hold in the Middle East? IRI, 3-5 pm May 10

As democratic transitions continue in the Arab world, it is important to draw on the lessons in democratic governance from other countries in the region.  In Iraq, an increasingly accountable government has emerged in recent years, while Jordan’s mayors and municipalities have become more accountable to citizens but lack the financial and administrative independence from the government to advance true accountability and transparency.  The International Republican Institute (IRI) will host a discussion on the successes and challenges facing these countries and others, as well as implications of these efforts for the future of the Arab Spring.
For perspectives on the challenges and opportunities affecting the implementation of democratic governance in the Middle East, you are invited to attend IRI’s Democratic Governance Speakers Series, featuring a conversation with:
Marwan Muasher, Vice President for Studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and former senior official in the Jordanian government, who will address the state of democratic governance in the region;
Michele Dunne, Director of the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, who will discuss the current political situation and the lessons to be learned from the democratic transitions taking place; and
Khaled Huneifat, former mayor of Tafileh, Jordan, who will speak to the Jordanian experience in democratic governance.
Olin L. Wethington, Founder and Chairman of Wethington LLC and member of the Board of Directors of IRI will moderate the discussion.
7.  Peacebuilding 2.0: Managing Complexity and Working Across Silos, USIP, 9-12:15 May 11Peace as a concept is nearly universal in its appeal. Yet, despite the resources dedicated to its pursuit, stable peace remains elusive. There are complex and uncontrollable reasons for violent conflict, but the very system in which we operate contributes to the failure of reaching sustainable peace. Complex conflicts require solutions that are holistic, non-linear, and cumulative, rather than individual and disconnected. Peace is not possible if we continue to operate in a series of uncoordinated interventions.Instead, a systematic approach to peace requires the intentional linking of peacebuilding programs with efforts in democracy-building, human rights, health, education, development, and private sector initiatives. A wide range of actors, from development specialists to educators to national security experts, is increasingly aware of the need to build more holistic, non-linear, and synergistic, whole-of-community approaches, and is seeking to connect the silos.Please join us for a morning of discussions ranging from managing conflict in complex environments to lessons learned from USIP-funded projects. These special sessions, hosted at the United States Institute of Peace, are part of the 2012 Alliance for Peacebuilding’s Annual Conference and are free and open to the public. The Annual Conference will focus on new models for peacebuilding that works across disciplines in chaotic, fragile environments.

Agenda

9:00 am | Identifying the Hallmarks of 21st Century Conflict and How to Manage Conflict in Complex, Chaotic, and Fragile Environments

  • Ambassador Rick Barton, Keynote Address
    Assistant Secretary of State for Conflict and Stabilization Operations
  • Robert Ricigliano, Introduction
    Board Chair, Alliance for Peacebuilding
  • Richard Solomon
    President, U.S. Institute of Peace
  • Melanie Greenberg
    President and CEO, Alliance for Peacebuilding
  • Pamela Aall
    Provost, Academy for International Conflict Management and Peacebuilding, U.S. Institute of Peace

10:00 am | Results of the USIP-funded Peacebuilding Mapping Project

  • Elena McCollim
    Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies, University of San Diego
  • Necla Tschirgi
    Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies, University of San Diego
  • Jeffrey Helsing, Discussant
    Dean of Curriculum, Academy for International Conflict Management and Peacebuilding, U.S. Institute of Peace

11:20 am | How Other Fields Manage Complexity — And What Peacebuilding Can Learn From Them

  • Bernard Amadei
    Founder, Engineers without Borders
  • Simon Twigger
    Department of Physiology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
  • Daniel Chiu
    Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Office of the Secretary of Defense
  • Timothy Ehlinger
    Department of Biology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
  • Sheldon Himelfarb, Moderator
    Director, Center of Innovation: Science, Technology and Peacebuilding,
    U.S. Institute of Peace
Tags : , , , ,

A bad election trifecta

There were three elections today conducted in the shadow of Europe’s austerity measures and impending recession:  France, Greece and Serbia.  All three saw good showings by anti-austerity, less pro-European forces.  The outcomes of the first two will reduce further the role Europe plays in world affairs, at least for the next few years.  The third suggested that Serbia will continue in its current policies, which are nominally pro-European but still export insecurity, in particular to Bosnia and Kosovo.

In France and Greece, opponents of German-style austerity had a good day.  Francois Hollande’s victory over Nicolas Sarkozy guarantees a tug of war between Paris and Berlin.  The parliamentary election outcome in Greece is not so clear yet–it will be several days before it is decided who will head the governing coalition and which parties will participate.  But the good showing of smaller, anti-austerity parties of the left and right in the Greek parliamentary elections guarantees continuing uncertainty about whether Greece will implement the tough austerity required to obtain International Monetary Fund money.  The bankers are worried.

The anti-austerity advocates in both Greece and France may well be correct that growth is Europe’s real need, rather than fiscal retrenchment.  But Germany remains adamant about austerity, so the election results ensure continuing quarrels and painful adjustments inside the euro zone, which is already headed into recession.

So long as Europe remains focused on its own internal problems, it can play only a limited role in the rest of the world.  The Americans will be fortunate if the Europeans manage to maintain any significant number of troops in Afghanistan into 2014.  The prospects for enlargement beyond Croatia, which is supposed to gain membership in the European Union next year, are dim.  Europe’s role in the Arab awakenings is already minimal.  In Asia and the Middle East, it has condemned itself to a predominantly commercial role, though it leads the nuclear talks with Iran.

In Serbia, ethnically nationalist parties performed well.  The presidential outcome will be decided in a run off two weeks hence.  Moderate nationalist President Tadic did not do particularly well but seems have edged out his rival Tomislav Nikolic, who in the past has bested Tadic in the first round.  Whoever wins, Belgrade seems determined to continue its quixotic effort to prepare for membership in the European Union even while laying claim to Kosovo, whose independence is recognized by 22 EU members, and supporting Serb separatism in Bosnia.  The leader of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, campaigned openly for Tadic.  These policies are incompatible, but only a few marginal figures in Serbian politics are willing to say what is obvious:  Kosovo is lost and a united (but decentralized) Bosnia is in Serbia’s interest.  Partition would mean the creation of a rump, radicalized Islamic state on Serbia’s border.

So what we can look forward to is a weaker Europe less willing to enlarge or play an expanded role in world affairs generally.   The Balkans will be left increasingly to their own devices, which have repeatedly proved not only inadequate but also dangerous.  Washington, preoccupied with other matters, will occasionally weigh in to restrain its friends–especially the Kosovars and the Bosniaks–from making big mistakes, but otherwise it will try to leave matters to a Europe that doesn’t really care if the Balkan road to the EU is a slow one.

Maybe we’ll muddle through.  Maybe not.  But the election trifecta means that the European Union and its attractiveness to non-members is weak and growing weaker.  That’s not good.

 

Tags : , ,

Glass empty

Yesterday’s Middle East Institute discussion of Hamas’s shifting political calculations, moderated by Phil Wilcox of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, was one of the more depressing events I’ve attended lately.  And I attend a lot of them. 

Bottom line:  the shifts, though potentially real, will make no difference to the peace process with Israel.  Or even to reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah.

Rob Malley of the International Crisis Group suggested the Arab awakening has certainly sharpened questions for Hamas about its relationship with Syria and Iran and about whether it should moderate its views, as other Muslim Brotherhood organizations have done.  Hamas refused to support Bashar al Assad, but somehow that is now a byegone.  Iran has renewed its financing, though at what level is unclear.

Gaith al Omari of the American Task Force on Palestine said Hamas needs Iranian financing less than in the past because it has Gaza’s revenue, which makes the Gaza leadership more independent.  There is really no progress on reconciliation with Fatah, which would require more than naming a new unity government.  It would require agreement on holding elections and unifying the security forces.  So far, all we’ve seen is reconciliation theater, nothing more.

Mark Perry of the Jersalem Media and Communications Center anticipates generational change will be important inside Hamas.  The outside (of Gaza) leadership may be ready for acceptance of the 1967 borders for a Palestinian state and for reconciliation, but the inside Gaza leadership is not.  The division is not really ideological, Malley said, but based on where you happen to sit.  There is a real debate happening, but the outcome is unclear.

The U.S. is a problem.  The “quartet” (U.S., EU, UN and Russia) conditions (recognition of Israel’s right to exist, renunciation of violence and acceptance of past agreements) are unconditional.  But Hamas sees no likelihood that Washington can really bring Israel to the negotiating table with anything interesting to offer on settlements, Jerusalem or other important issues.  Hamas’ great fear is that it will get trapped like Fatah, having compromised without getting anything substantial in return.  They want to know if they accept the conditions what would happen next.  The U.S. has no serious response.

There is nevertheless no alternative to a U.S.-led mediation process.  The Europeans and the UN have nothing substantial to offer.

This left me wondering whether George W. Bush was right when he shunned the Middle East peace process.  The prospects for anything interesting happening sounded minimal to me.  Then again, when the experts all agree the glass is empty, that’s when something interesting happens.

Tags : , , , , ,

True courage

Just a Friday reminder from central Damascus that true courage is not lacking in Syria:

Tags :
Tweet