Month: June 2012
This week’s peace picks
Not a slow week, but one with a bit longer term focus than some:
1. Persian subversion: Can America withstand an Iranian oil shock? AEI 10-11:30 June 12.
1150 Seventeenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
(Two blocks from Farragut North Metro)
In recent months, Iranian saber rattling has shaken energy markets. Although sanctions targeting Iran may raise the price at the pump, inaction is also costly: allowing Tehran to pass its nuclear threshold will endanger security in the Persian Gulf and may lead to even greater oil price hikes.
Against the backdrop of the Iranian nuclear crisis, American policymakers are increasingly considering ramping up domestic oil production and alternative energy. How much can shale oil, new pipelines and offshore oil production shield the U.S. economy from instability in the Persian Gulf and Iran’s leverage over world oil prices? How do the recent bankruptcies of U.S. solar energy firms affect American alternate energy strategy? Join a panel of foreign policy, national security, energy and transportation experts for an open discussion.
If you cannot attend, we welcome you to watch the event live on this page.
9:45 AM
Registration
10:00 AM
Panelists:
Elliott Abrams, Council on Foreign Relations
Gen. (ret.) James T. Conway, 34th Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps
Sam Gilliland, Sabre Holdings
Daniel Yergin, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates
Moderator:
Michael Rubin, AEI
11:30 AM
Adjournment
2. Japan-Korea-China Economic Relations, 9-10:30 June 12
Washington 20006
As Korea strives to be a global leader, the country has concluded several bilateral and multilateral Free Trade Agreements since 2003 and is currently negotiating additional agreements while laying the groundwork for a Korea-Japan-China FTA and considering the resumption of negotiations with Japan. Japan’s trade strategy also continues to evolve as it develops a new growth strategy after the natural disasters of 2011. Both Korea and Japan are carefully watching the developments around TPP. In the meantime, China has become the largest trading partner of Korea and Japan and the three countries recently signed a trilateral investment agreement as a potential first step toward a trilateral trade accord.
The seminar will assess the current status of the Korean and Japanese trade policies in light of the implementation of the KORUS FTA and the continued discussion of the TPP, Korea-China FTA and Korea-Japan-China FTA.
3. 2012 GPI Launch: How Can Global Peace Metrics Inform Foreign Policy? CSIS, 9-10:30 June 12
Please join us for the results of the sixth annual Global Peace Index and inaugural Positive Peace Index:Tuesday, June 12, 2012
9:00 AM – 10:30 AM
B1 Conference Center, CSIS
1800 K St. NW, Washington, DC 20006
A Panel Discussion With
Amb. William Garvelink, Senior Adviser, U.S. Leadership in Development, Center for Strategic and International Studies (Moderator)
Anne-Marie Slaughter, Bert G. Kerstetter ’66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University (Opening Remarks)
Lawrence Wilkerson, Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy, William and Mary College
Josh Rogin, Staff Writer, Foreign Policy
Emily Cadei, Foreign Policy Reporter, Congressional Quarterly
Michael Shank, U.S. Vice President, Institute for Economics and Peace (GPI Results Presentation)
In a world often described by crisis and conflict, which countries are the most peaceful? How do we measure peace and its economic value? How can peace metrics inform U.S. foreign policy?
The Global Peace Index (GPI) is the first-ever analysis to methodically rank countries on their peacefulness and identify potential determinants of peace. Comprised of a range of indicators measuring the absence of violence in society, the GPI takes into consideration both internal and external factors, and measures 99% of the world’s population.
For the first time, this year’s report includes a Positive Peace Index (PPI), highlighting the key institutional factors associated with creating peaceful and resilient societies. The PPI ranks countries by their institutional capacity to move away from violence and towards peace.
The GPI is produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), guided by an international panel of independent experts and supported by the Economist Intelligence Unit, which collates the data and calculates the rankings in conjunction with the IEP.
Please RSVP to achang@csis.org
4. Culturally-Based Approaches to Peacebuilding in Pakistan, SAIS (Kenney) 9:30-11:30 June 12
With Libya’s first nationwide democratic election quickly approaching, serious progress on political and institutional development is essential as the country proceeds with its transition. While re-establishing security remains vital in the short term, many long-term development challenges also require immediate attention, including building effective, accountable institutions at the national and local levels; developing an independent and diverse civil society; establishing and protecting a free, professional press; and reforming the military, police, and other security forces. Meanwhile, Libyans must engage in a national dialogue on how to ensure adequate representation in government for women, youth, and and various tribal and ethnic groups. By smartly leveraging domestic resources and international assistance, the Libyan people could be well-positioned to build a prosperous and free country.
What will the assembly elections – originally slated for June 19th but now expected to be delayed until July – look like? What are the major political forces emerging in the country and how are they preparing for the elections? How will the election of a national assembly affect the role of the National Transitional Council (NTC)? What are the top priorities for the Libyan government, particularly regarding institutional reform? How can Libyans develop a robust civil society and ensure freedom of opinion, press, and assembly? Which best practices from other state-building efforts would be most appropriate for the Libyan case? In particular, how might various models of federalism and decentralization be useful? And what is the most constructive role for international actors to play in supporting capacity-building, among other needs?
Director of Iraq, Iran, and North Africa Programs, Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations, U.S. Institute of Peace
Executive Director, POMED
President, American-Libyan Council
Associate Director, Sustainable Security and Peacebuilding Initiative, Center for American Progress
Click here to RSVP for the event.
We’ll also be live-tweeting from the event, so follow the conversation at #POMEDLib. If you’d like us to ask one of your questions, we’ll try to include a few from our virtual audience.
Please contact Anna Newby at anna.newby@pomed.org with any questions, or call (202) 828-9660, ext 23.
6. The State of Health in Afghanistan: Implications for Economic Stability, Security and Women, USIP, 3:30-4:30 June 12
Despite the number of negative trends in Afghanistan, tremendous achievements have been gained in the health sector. Most notable is the programming on maternal health, which has contributed to a significant decline in infant and child mortality rates. The percentage of female healthcare worker has risen dramatically in USAID-funded healthcare facilities.
How has the health sector improved the overall health of a country? What can we learn from the Ministry of Health that might be applied to other sectors? How has the sector supported economic stability and security? What are the country’s health goals as Afghanistan prepares for its security and political transitions in 2014?
Please join USIP’s Center for Gender and Peacebuilding, in collaboration with the Afghan Embassy, the Department of State and USAID, for a panel discussion on the health sector’s contribution to economic stability and security in Afghanistan leading to 2014. The minister of Public Health of Afghanistan, Honorable Dr. Soraya Dalil, will discuss the “state of health” in Afghanistan. She will be joined by U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer and Michele Schimpp, deputy director for USAID’s Afghanistan and Pakistan Task Force.
Panelists
- The Honorable Dr. Soraya Dalil
Minister of Public Health - Ambassador Melanne Verveer
Ambassador at Large for Global Women’s Issues, U.S. Department of State - Michele Schimpp
Deputy Director for Afghanistan and Pakistan Task Force, USAID - William Byrd, Discussant
Senior Expert in Residence, U.S. Institute of Peace - Kathleen Kuehnast, Moderator
Director, Center for Gender and Peacebuilding, U.S. Institute of Peace
7. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR): Complementarity or Cooperation between State, USAID and the NGO Community, USIP, 9-4:30 June 15
After Secretary of State Hillary Clinton introduced the QDDR as a major step in elevating development alongside diplomacy as a key pillar of American foreign policy, many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) welcomed the QDDR as the beginning of a better coordinated and more effective approach to global development. USIP and Webster University will host a day of discussion about how the QDDR complements NGO efforts in development, humanitarian relief and conflict management as well as the current challenges and opportunities that result from the QDDR.
This discussion will be built around presentations from senior United States government officials from the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development and from leaders in the NGO community. These will be followed by panel discussions that combine the perspectives of policymakers and NGOs on the topics of economic development, public health, education, human security, and human rights.
USIP was among the organizations that contributed ideas to the development of the QDDR, particularly in the areas of stabilization and conflict prevention. Discussion of the QDDR and its goals will enhance the effectiveness of both NGOs and the U.S. Government in global development and conflict prevention efforts, particularly in building local capacity and promoting innovation.
-
What in the QDDR is relevant to the work of NGOs and private voluntary organizations (PVOs)?
-
How will the objectives of the QDDR affect NGOs and PVOs?
-
Where is there complementarity in the following areas?
- Conflict Prevention
- Capacity building
- Development of effective civil society
- Humanitarian aid
- Contributions of new technology
Download Conference Agenda
Speakers
-
Nancy Lindborg
Assistant Administrator, USAID -
Melanie Greenberg
President and CEO, Alliance for Peacebuilding -
Lindsay Coates
Executive Vice President, Interaction -
Ambassador Robert Loftis
Former Acting Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, the Department of State -
David Wilson
Dean of Humanities, Webster University -
Jeff Helsing
Dean of Curriculum, U.S. Institute of Peace
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Africa rising
Gregor Nazarian writes:
We are used to bad news from Africa. The antidote was Wednesday’s discussion at Johns Hopkins/SAIS of “The Hopeful Continent: Can Sustained GDP Growth in Africa Lead to a New Future?”
Bernadette Paolo set the optimistic tone: despite the obvious challenges facing African societies, the continent’s economy is growing. The central questions are whether economic growth translates into poverty reduction and whether growth is sustainable. Positive signs have emerged, but continued gains depend on many factors: improved governance, strengthened civil society, restoration of peace and stability, rooting out corruption, diversification of economies, and regional integration.
The optimism continued with Tony Carroll stressing the growth of the middle class and the rise of consumerism. Susan Lund noted that economic expansion based on political and economic stability has benefited large numbers of Africans. Previously vulnerable workers (mainly subsistence farmers) are moving into stable jobs, but still only around one-third of the workforce is employed in productive occupations. Accelerating this process will require macroeconomic stability above all, as well as access to affordable financing and infrastructure improvement. The challenges are clear, but a transformation along the lines of East Asian economies in the 1970s is possible.
Ezra Saruma focused on how African states could maintain progress in this direction, arguing that political stability is the necessary prerequisite for sustainable growth. Uganda’s experience during and after the Idi Amin era demonstrates the need for a framework of reasonable justice, fairness and inclusiveness. Recent growth in countries like Sudan and Nigeria based largely on oil and mineral finds will not be sustainable without equitable political arrangements and cohesion. Short-term gains from resource wealth should be spent developing state institutions as well as investing in sustainable infrastructure.
The effects of the resource boom should not be overestimated, according to Volker Treichel. Much of the economic growth in Africa in the last decade has been in other areas, reflecting fundamental change. Generating formal sector jobs is one of the keys to emulating the East Asian model. This structural transformation toward labor-intensive industries is beginning to happen. With China losing its competitive edge in low-cost labor, African economies have an opportunity to step in. Governments can and should facilitate this evolution by working closely with the private sector, creating special economic zones and dedicated power plants, ports, airports and roads.
The question-and-answer session revolved around several recurring themes. Expanding access to financial services is vital but should also come along with methods of generating wealth and better execution of funded projects. China’s involvement in Africa represents both promise and peril; the most constructive direction is a move toward Chinese manufacturers setting up in Africa and using domestic labor rather than imported Chinese labor. Investments in infrastructure and increasing productivity in agriculture are the best avenues for sustainable growth.
Vivian Lowery Derryck‘s closing remarks centered on the theme of promise and threat. The resource boom and political stability in a number of states should allow continued growth of the middle class and civil society. Lingering economic and political instability elsewhere threatens all of Africa, as do global recession and worrisome unemployment numbers. Still, the outlook is positive, provided there is investment in education and responsible economic stewardship.
Event details:
Moderator: Anthony (Tony) Carroll, Vice President of Manchester Trade Limited Investment and Adjunct Professor at SAIS
Opening Remarks: Bernadette Paolo, President and CEO of The Africa Society
Panel:
Susan Lund, Director of Research and a DC Partner at the McKinsey Global Institute
Dr. Ezra Saruma, Senior Advisor to the President of Uganda on Finance and Economic Planning and Brookings Institution Fellow
Volker Treichel, Lead Economist, Operations and Strategy for the World Bank
Closing Remarks: Vivian Lowery Derryck, President and CEO of The Bridges Institute
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Implementation is the answer
Kofi Annan complains:
Some say that the plan may be dead. Is the problem the plan or is the problem implementation? If it’s implementation, how do we get action on that? And if it is the plan, what other options do we have?
He is right. Those are the essential questions.
The other options are few and risky. Michael Singh warmed them over yesterday. Rob Satloff warmed them over today.
Rob’s version has the virtue of illustrating in graphic terms what is at stake for the United States if the Syrian civil war gets worse. The chem/bio weapons that preoccupy American security agencies would not be my primary concern: those are more perilous to the people who possess them than to anyone else. But Syria can export instability to Turkey (via Kurds), Lebanon (Alawites and Hizbollah against Sunnis), Jordan, Lebanon and Israel (by expelling Palestinians). This would ignite ethnic and sectarian war throughout the Eastern Med and attract jihadist responses.
When he gets to answering Annan’s second question, Rob comes up short with a call for renewed American resolve:
Such resolve could include a mix of cyberwarfare, to interfere with Syrian government communications efforts; unmanned drones, to target key installations and weapons depots; air power, to establish and defend safe zones; and a manned element based in neighboring states, to execute a train and equip mission to support rebel forces. At the same time, it is essential that the United States, teamed with Arab, Turkish and other allies, inject urgency and energy into the task of upgrading the cohesion and message of the Syrian political opposition, so that there is a clear answer to the important question of what comes in the wake of Assad’s demise.
Some of this is already in the works, overtly or covertly. The drone and air power part would require a major military operation. None of it is likely to accelerate Bashar al Assad’s departure.
So what can be done to get implementation? Two things:
1. a credible military threat;
2. demonstrated commitment to peaceful means, working closely with Moscow and even Tehran while sustaining the civil opposition.
A credible military threat–with credibility demonstrated for example by a cruise missile attack on the presidential palace–would require the United States to buck the Russians and Chinese, who show no sign of weakening their opposition to intervention. This President Obama will not do, because it would wreck prospects for a negotiated outcome to the Iran nuclear problem. Moscow and Beijing would withdraw from the P5+1 negotiations. If you think stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons by diplomatic means is your top national security priority, you are not going to put it at risk in Syria.
The second option, demonstrated commitment to peaceful means, is the more important one. Kofi Annan is proposing that a “contact group” that includes Iran and Russia be formed to help with implementation of his six-point plan. That strikes me as a good idea. Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton, who are quoted in the press as having rejected it, should reconsider. The devil is of course in the details, but contact groups of this sort have often proven vital to peace implementation. The Administration will want to ensure a decent balance in the group, but bringing Iran and Russia into the tent is better than having them do you know what from the outside.
Just as important is signaling long-term support for the opposition. Here I mean the civil resistance to Bashar al Assad, which organizes dozens of demonstrations every day in Syria and has far greater potential to bring him down than the military effort, which scares people off the streets and helps to consolidate Bashar’s control over the armed forces. These are the courageous people we need to be helping (they are in Kafarsouseh, Damascus, yesterday):
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Rumors of America’s demise are exaggerated
If you don’t want to be live-tweeted, don’t speak to a group in their 20s! My 5-7 minutes or so presentation at the G8 & G20 Youth Summits at George Washington University this morning generated close to two dozen tweets.
What I said, or should have said according to my notes, was pretty much this:
1. Contrary to what one often reads, my generation is not leaving the world worse off. It is leaving as a legacy a freer, wealthier and more peaceful world than the one it inherited.
2. But just because of that it is also a more uncertain world, where leadership is more difficult than when the United States and the Soviet Union faced off in nuclear confrontation. The demands made of leadership also shift in a more democratic and peaceful world, with greater emphasis on economic challenges and we hope less on security dilemmas.
3. Even if America’s relative weight in the world is declining by some measures, the much-rumored demise of America is greatly exaggerated.
4. The United States retains its inherent advantages: two large, protective oceans, two cooperative neighbors north and south, immense natural resource wealth, global military superiority, a dynamic economy and political system.
5. It also has other advantages that make it specifically well-adapted to the current world order: an ability to pivot (as it is currently trying to do, from the Atlantic to the Pacific) and a high degree of interconnectedness with the rest of the world. Anne-Marie Slaughter in particular has been vocal in point out how important interconnectedness can be.
6. Interconnectedness is an interesting source of power, because it works at both ends: I may be able to leverage my connection to you, but you may also be able to leverage your connection to me.
7. We need to learn to use this interconnectedness to strengthen each other, not to undermine each other, and to improve the world order.
In the Q and A, Barbara Slavin and I differed on Iran and Syria. I think President Obama is not taking military action on Syria because it would lose him Russian and Chinese participation in the P5+1 talks with Iran. Barbara thinks the U.S. is hesitating because of uncertainty about the consequences in a Syria with a divided opposition. We may also differ on Iran’s nuclear intentions, but writing about that I may get it wrong, so I’ll desist.
There were a lot of good questions, but the one that sticks in my mind is about how we will manage the rise of China. A great deal depends on which China rises. If it is an increasingly autocratic and militarized China, the task will be far more difficult. If, as suggested in recent remarks by Wen Jiabao (I was mistaken this morning when I cited Hu Jintao), China finds it needs democratic political reform to manage its own internal problems, things will be a lot easier.
Next generation: you were well-represented today!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ahmed Shafiq for president
I know I’ll get lots of flak for this post, which Al-Monitor.com published yesterday under the headline “Vote Shafiq: Warts and All, Mubarak Ally is Better Choice.” Tens of thousands of Egyptians rallied Tuesday to protest Shafiq’s candidacy. I’d be more likely to attend that than a pro-Shafiq rally. There is still a court challenge to his candidacy to be decided. If he is barred and the third place candidate (Hamdeen Sabahi) put in his place, the arguments made here would need to be adjusted, but I would still see virtue in blocking a Muslim Brotherhood monopoly on power. Please read on before getting upset:
No one interested in seeing Egypt as a thriving democracy would want to vote for either of the two candidates remaining in the June 16-17 runoff. Freedom and Justice (Muslim Brotherhood) party candidate Mohamed Morsi is an uninspiring second choice, nominated when the original candidate was barred. Former Air Force General Ahmed Shafiq was President Hosni Mubarak’s last prime minister. He accomplished nothing of note in that position and is certainly a remnant of the Mubarak regime overthrown by the January 2010 revolution.
The choice is unappetizing to one-third of the electorate, but the circumstances make Shafiq preferable. The Muslim Brotherhood already controls 48% of the seats in the first post-revolution Egyptian parliament. If Morsi wins the presidency, the Muslim Brotherhood will own Egypt. Its principal rivals in parliament are Salafists, who will try to steer Egypt in their more strictly Islamic direction. Only a president from the more “secular” side of politics — one with at least some appeal to non-Muslims and less religious Muslims — can restore some sense of balance, even if he is an anti-revolutionary figure.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Slaughterhouse Syria
Gregor Nazarian, who has joined me for the summer as a Middle East Institute intern, writes:
Syria said yesterday that it would allow UN aid workers into the country, as required by the UN/Arab League Annan plan. This is good news, if it happens. But the presence of aid workers will not do much to discourage the Assad regime from continuing to commit atrocities.
The regime’s approach was clear in Assad’s speech on Sunday. He again blamed the violence on “terrorists.” He claimed the new constitution, recently chosen parliament and political dialogue would resolve legitimate issues but struck a defiant tone on armed conflict, declaring that the government would continue to kill its enemies.
There was nothing in the speech indicating any serious intention on Assad’s part to implement the six-point Annan plan. He mentioned it only once, claiming that the Houla massacre was committed by terrorists hoping to sabotage the plan on the eve of Annan’s visit to Damascus and thereby bring about NATO intervention. Syria’s expulsion of Western diplomats (in retaliation for the expulsion of Syrian diplomats) signals that Assad is not planning any near-term compromises.
The humanitarian access to four provinces Assad has announced falls short of the full access the Annan plan authorized. Like the release of 500 detainees last week (release of prisoners is another of Annan’s six points), it is designed only to provide a veneer of cooperation while military operations continue.
Annan’s plan also calls for freedom of access for journalists, freedom to protest peacefully, an inclusive political process, and an end to violence. Assad will likely address each with half-measures, sleight of hand and well-timed gestures. But he will give no ground on the military front. While conceding that some opponents have expressed legitimate concerns, Assad claims to have addressed them with recent window-dressing reforms. He will deal with international pressure in much the same way: by claiming to have addressed the issues, without however making any serious moves.
Assad treats the violence as a separate question. The military conflict is between security forces and terrorists armed and supported by Syria’s enemies abroad:
Terrorists are concerned neither with reform nor with dialogue. . . Not distinguishing between terrorism and the political process is a great error made by some people.
Assad cannot prevent images and videos of atrocities from reaching the outside world. Denying the violence is impossible, so he laments it, blames the terrorists for atrocities and claims to be fighting them. He repeated numerous times in his speech that reasonable political demands had been met, but that terrorism continues unabated and would be fought to the bitter end.
The most striking image in Assad’s speech was that of the Syrian state as surgeon:
Do we condemn the surgeon because his hands are bloodstained or do we praise him for saving a human being’s life?
Of course there was blood on his hands, Assad said, but the killing was for the good of the country. Like a surgeon covered in the blood of his patient, Assad will make the people bleed as he cuts away the tumor of international terrorists from the body politic. Supporters and critics alike, he suggested, should thank him for it.
The rhetorical separation of the political process from the military conflict suggests that Assad will use small political concessions as cover for a continuing military crackdown. Even as we see some progress on the Annan plan, we may not see an end to the real problem: the continuing slaughter of Syrians.
PS: Don’t watch this if you’ve just eaten or don’t want to see the truly atrocious consequences of a war against ordinary people, including many children:
The caption on Youtube reads: “This footage, uploaded by Syrian democracy activists on May 25, 2012, depicts the aftermath of a massacre of around 32 children under the age of 10. They were allegedly murdered by forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad in the town of Al-Houla in Homs. Dozens were killed by tank and artillery shelling, while according to survivor testimony dozens more were shot or stabbed by Syrian security forces. The relative proportions of each category remain disputed.”
RSS - Posts
