Month: October 2012
Second meeting, second chance
The Second Meeting, a documentary film by Zeljko Mirkovic, examines a period Serbs want to forget but need to remember, Serbian Ambassador Vladimir Petrovic said at last night’s premier in Washington, DC. The war between Serbia and NATO captured in this film illustrates how successful America and Serbia have been in repairing relations. Philip Reeker, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs who supervises the Balkan region, pointed out that this year is the 133rd anniversary of US-Serbia diplomatic relations.
The film however focuses on the developing relationship between two families. Serb Zoltan Dani, now a baker, served in his country’s military for over thirty years. Dani’s Yugoslav anti-aircraft missile unit shot down an American F-117A “stealth” fighter participating in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia on March 27, 1999. The American pilot was Dale Zelko. Zelko survived and managed to evade capture. An American search and rescue unit found and evacuated him by helicopter. Dani’s unit, often targeted, was never hit.
The incident pushed both men into the limelight. Zelko declined press appearances, despite suggestions from General Wesley Clark and President Bill Clinton. Dani was lauded for his ability to find and successfully target stealth planes but refused generous offers from other militaries over the next few years. In the end, both men chose to leave military service and pursue lives based on their core values: family and faith. The title of the film references not only a second meeting, but a second chance.
Mirkovic’s film uses a mix of video diary clips made by Zelko and Dani, old news footage, and material from Mirkovic’s film crew. It strives to expose the humanity beneath international conflict. In the question and answer period after the film, Mirkovic underlined that there are not two sides to this story. Both men acted on orders and dealt with the consequences. Both joined the military because of their pride in their countries and in the end, both left the military because of a desire to spend more time with family.
The message here is the simple and undeniable truth of our shared humanity.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A few questions for tonight
It’s a high campaign week. I don’t expect tonight’s town hall debate to focus much foreign policy. Apart from budget, about which I’ll write during the next week, the main difference on international affairs is one of tone, not substance: Romney accuses Obama of projecting weakness, not strength. On Iraq and Afghanistan in particular Romney has criticized the Administration’s past performance but offered little or no idea how he would handle things differently in the future. Obama has so far mostly vaunted the withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the killing of Osama bin Laden, and mocked Romney’s lack of distinctive policy proposals.
But there are several areas of real difference: China, Israel/Palestine and Iran are the important ones. A few sharp questions are in order.
China: Romney says he would label China a currency manipulator on his first day in office. Someone tonight should ask what difference that would make.
It could form the basis of a complaint to the World Trade Organization (WTO), but there is no guarantee that the complaint would be found justified or that the WTO could provide a remedy. In fact, the Chinese currency (renminbi, whose primary unit is the yuan) has already been revalued by more or less the percentage it was once regarded as undervalued. This was currency manipulation the U.S., including Mr. Romney, should welcome. Chinese retaliation for an American president who declared Beijing a currency manipulator could include not buying U.S. government bonds and maybe even manipulating the renminbi back down, which would help revive the slowing Chinese economy. In short, the U.S. has as much to lose from this macho first-day-in-office declaration as the very uncertain gains.
The Obama administration deserves at least some of the credit for the revaluation of the renminbi. It has also filed trade complaints focused on auto parts with the WTO, but so far as I can tell none of those have been decided yet. It takes years. Using the WTO to bring specific cases has clear advantages over the blanket “currency manipulator” approach: the Chinese have agreed to WTO rules and retaliation is far less likely if a specific case is won there.
Israel/Palestine: Romney now says he favors the two-state solution that has been the U.S. goal for a long time, putting him in tune with the rest of the world. But that’s not what he said on the 47% video, when he proposed just kicking the can down the road and hoping for something good to happen. He gets substantial funding from Sheldon Adelson and others who actively oppose the two-state solution and want Israel to hold on to “Judea and Samaria,” aka the West Bank. You can choose to believe that Romney would buck his moneyed supporters, but I doubt it.
The Obama Administration has failed to deliver a two-state solution, like the administrations that preceded it. You can blame it all on Prime Minister Netanyahu and his right-wing government if you like, but the fact remains: little or nothing has been accomplished between Israel and Palestine, which however has begun to build a more credible state apparatus than existed in the past. Little credit to be gained on this issue, except that the relative peace has held, including with Hamas-controlled Gaza.
The question to be asked is this: what specifically would you do to bring about a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine?
Iran: The difference here is certainly in part one of tone. Those who have spoken with Romney advisor John Bolton come away with the impression that he would relish war with Iran, which other advisors have advocated. Obama administration insiders want a deal and see a credible threat of force as a tool in getting one.
But there is also the “red line” issue. The President has refused to specify his red line, essentially reserving to himself the decision on when Iran has gone so far that he needs to use force. Romney wants to prevent Iran from getting the “capacity” to produce nuclear weapons. This is in some ways just as vague a concept, but it implies willingness to draw the line, for example, at accumulation of only as much 20% enriched uranium as would be required to make less than one nuclear weapon. Romney also wants to reach an explicit agreement on the red line with Israel, so that there is “no daylight” between us on this issues.
Personally, I prefer an American president who decides whether to go to war based on American interests and does not outsource the decision to a foreign leader. But however you feel about it, someone should ask tonight how each candidate would decide whether or not to go to war with Iran.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A bird’s eye view of north Kosovo
A well-informed, well-situated birdie offers the following picture of what is going on in northern Kosovo and its broader implications. None of it is surprising, and none of it is confirmed by hard evidence, but worth pondering nevertheless. Solutions are going to have to take current circumstances into account:
The main reason why most ordinary Serbs in northern Kosovo are refusing to integrate into Pristina’s political system and institutions is not that they fear local kingpins but because they also benefit from smuggling even if they are not criminals themselves. Almost everyone there has at least one relative – in either their immediate or broader families – who is involved in smuggling business, and almost all Serb families are interconnected in one way or another. Profits from smuggling are so huge that gang bosses are able to bribe a large number of people into turning a blind eye to organized crime. In other words, even if you are not directly engaged in illegal business, you can benefit indirectly from it. The result is that most people have virtually no job but are nevertheless able to provide for themselves thanks to these high profits from smuggling. Therefore, they see no interest in changing a situation favorable to themselves, in spite of all the anarchy that exists in the area.
The Serbian gendarmerie troops deployed across areas bordering Kosovo are ordered to prevent only the illegal transfers of commodities from Kosovo into Serbia but not from Serbia into Kosovo.
Belgrade finds it difficult to dismantle the parallel institutions in northern Kosovo because a number of high-level Serbian politicians from nearly all relevant political parties and consecutive governments (including the incumbent one) were in earlier periods involved in smuggling and other criminal activities related to Kosovo by providing political protection to prominent criminals and getting in return a share of the profits. This enables criminals and their accomplices from unreformed parts of security-intelligence apparatus to blackmail these politicians with compromising material. So, even if they were willing to comply with demands from Brussels – and especially Berlin – to dismantle the parallel Serb structures, their hands are virtually tied.
Of particular interest is that this account puts the emphasis on things Brussels should worry about: the selective porousness of the boundary between Pristina’s control and Belgrade’s, the pervasive influence of organized crime and the compromised situation of Belgrade’s national leadership.
Some of my readers will object that this concerns only the Serbian side of the equation. They are correct. I don’t have the same kind of inside view of the Albanian side, though I will be glad to publish it if someone reliable provides it. I have no doubt but that there are beneficiaries south of the Ibar river that separates the areas of Belgrade and Pristina control.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The wrong way
As my appearance on Up with Chris Hayes yesterday has generated some nasty comments, I thought I might review the most neuralgic point: the function of Marine security guards at U.S. embassies and consulates. Here is the Marine Embassy Security Group’s own statement of its mission:
The primary mission of the Marine Security Guard (MSG) is to provide internal security at designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities in order to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States.
Yes, in a crisis the Marine guards will act to protect a U.S. diplomatic facility from attack. But they are not equipped, trained or staffed to respond to an assault of the type that apparently occurred on September 11 in Benghazi. That’s why the Embassy was asking for more specialized teams (for Tripoli, not Benghazi).
The primary responsibility for protection of diplomatic facilities lies with the “host” government, in this case Libya. That’s the problem: the new Libyan regime is still lacks the means.
We’ll have to wait for the Accountability Review Board Tom Pickering is chairing to know where responsibility for the incident lies. That’s why I was careful on TV and peacefare not to imply that the murder of our personnel was due to this, that or the other failure. It is simply too early to make that judgment. I have, however, cited ample reason for the U.S. government to know that there was a serious threat in Benghazi, so those who accuse me of letting the Obama administration off the hook should understand that their vituperation and scatological suggestions are not just unwelcome, but reciprocated.
The notion that the only way to respond to a serious threat in Benghazi was deployment of Marines is simply wrong. It doesn’t matter at all that the Embassy in Paris, where the threats are different, has Marine guards. Here are the obstacles to using Marines in Benghazi:
- You need the permission of the host government, which is unlikely to have been forthcoming (they’ve been resisting even private contractors).
- The number of Marines trained for diplomatic security is limited, so sending them to Benghazi requires that you judge the threat there to be greater than the threat in Kabul, Baghdad, Cairo and a few dozen other places.
- You have to believe they are the best force to meet the threat, which given their mission statement (and associated preparation for it) is ridiculous.
Anonymity and unpredictability are the best defenses for most of our diplomats. An ambassador has difficulty achieving either. Libyan guards properly trained and equipped are a far better option for close personal protection and external defense of a diplomatic compound, because Americans have a hard time “reading” the street and understanding what is going on there. But Libyan guards of that type did not yet exist in Tripoli and Benghazi. It is ironic, and sad, that Ambassador Stevens apparently died in a building that was considered a safe haven. That should cast serious doubt on the all too heavy reliance on fortresses to protect our diplomats.
But given the reaction in Congress and the CYA approach of most bureaucracies, I’d be willing to bet that this incident leads us to further harden our fortresses, reduce our movements and eliminate anonymity by requiring even lower-ranking diplomats to use personal security details. That is the wrong way to go.
For those who wish me ill because I say these things: I have lived and worked as a U.S. official both with and without extensive personal protection (Italian in my case, as I spent about eight months in Rome as Charge’ d’affaires ad interim after the election of Bill Clinton) and Embassy Marine guards. I have also traveled and worked in conflict zones like Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, both with and without personal protection details. Each to his own, but I personally prefer the low-profile, unpredictable movements, anonymous approach to security, when it is possible. Those who tweeted that they wish me in Benghazi without personal protection and U.S. embassy guards are calling for throwing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch: that’s exactly how I’ve enjoyed Benghazi on two visits since the revolution and would gladly go back any day, so long as I thought I could maintain a low profile, anonymous approach to my own security.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
It’s a busy week with a focus on peacebuilding and subjects that parallel key issues in the presidential debates, like foreign policy in the next administration and violence at embassies.
1. Talking to the Taliban, Monday October 15, 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 400
Speakers: Anatol Lieven, Peter Bergen
Please join the New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program for a conversation with award-winning author Anatol Lieven. He will discuss his talks in July with figures close to the Taliban and the views they expressed on the contours of a possible peace settlement.
Officials recently dismissed the possibility of securing a political deal to end the conflict in Afghanistan, a longtime keystone of the American military strategy in Afghanistan, saying their goal now is to leave Afghanistan with the best tools possible for maintaining security and political stability. After 11 years of war, has the conflict budged at all in either the coalition’s or the insurgents’ direction? Lieven and Bergen will discuss this question, as well as the likelihood of different future scenarios for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Register for this event here.
2. The European Union and International Organizations in a Time of Crisis, Monday October 15, 5:30 PM – 7:00 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Lindner Family Commons
Speaker: Francois Rivasseau, Romuald Sciora, Harvey Feigenbaum
Mr. Rivasseau will discuss the relationship between the EU and other international organizations, such as the UN, NATO, the World Bank, and the IMF, during this time of crisis. He will also assess the place of the EU in the new global order.
Register for this event here.
3. Religion, Culture, and Interpretations of Democracy: Implications for Peacebuilding, Tuesday October 16, 9:30 AM – 11:30 AM, United States Institute of Peace
Venue: United States Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037
Speakers: Marc Gopin, Mohammad Abu-Nimer, James Patton, Juliette Schmidt
The final meeting of the three-part series on democracy and conflict will reflect on the influence of religion and culture on interpretations of democracy around the world and the implications for peacebuilding and conflict prevention. Political parties, civil society actors, church leaders, as well as western governments and donors are all participating in the process of building and maintaining democracies in post-conflict settings. This distinguished panel will discuss specific factors that play a role in the perception and development of democratic institutions in different parts of the world, and their relationship with sustainable peace.
Register for this event here.
4. Realism, Idealism & the Politics of Obama’s Foreign Policy, Tuesday October 16, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM, Georgetown University
Venue: Georgetown University, Mortara Building, 3600 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20057
Speakers: James Mann, Tom Hamburger
Author and former Los Angeles Times correspondent Jim Mann will discuss his latest book, The Obamians, with Tom Hamburger, a member of the National Staff of the Washington Post. They’ll talk about politics and foreign policy, and the current presidential campaign. James Mann is a Washington-based author who has written a series of award-winning books about American foreign policy and about China. Mr. Mann is a former newspaper reporter, foreign correspondent and columnist who wrote for more than twenty years for the Los Angeles Times. He is now an author-in-residence at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. Tom Hamburger joined The Washington Post’s national desk in 2012 after working for more than eight years in the Los Angeles Times’ Washington bureau as a reporter specializing in the intersection of money and politics in the nation’s capital. He has covered the White House, Congress and the courts and has written extensively about lobbying, campaign finance and corruption at all levels of government. A finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 1996, he worked previously for The Wall Street Journal, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the Arkansas Gazette.
Register for this event here.
5. Is Al-Qaeda Defeated? An Experts’ Debate, Tuesday October 16, 12:15 PM – 1:45 PM, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 400
Speaker: Peter Bergen, Thomas Lynch III, Thomas Joscelyn, Bill Roggio, Reuel Gerecht
In Collaboration with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
While some counterterrorism analysts and officials say that U.S. military efforts over the past 11 years have resulted in the defeat of al-Qaeda, others argue that the terrorist organization is more durable than that. The successes won by the CIA drone program in Pakistan’s tribal regions and the symbolic killing of Osama bin Laden might be tempered by the growing strength of al-Qaeda’s affiliates in countries such as Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. On the other hand, many point out that al-Qaeda has failed to carry out a large-scale terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11.
With the Taliban toppled in Afghanistan, hundreds of militants killed in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, and the death of bin Laden last year, has the United States come to the end of the “War on Terror”? The New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies invite you to a lively debate on whether or not we have seen the defeat of al-Qaeda. Peter Bergen, the director of New America’s National Security Studies Program, and Col. Thomas Lynch III, a Distinguished Fellow at National Defense University, will argue for the motion that al-Qaeda is defeated. Foundation for Defense of Democracies Senior Fellows Thomas Joscelyn and Bill Roggio will argue against the motion.
Register for this event here.
6. Transforming Terrorism and Radicalism with Muslim Nonviolent Alternatives, Tuesday October 16, 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM, USIP
Venue: USIP, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
Speakers: Qamar-ul Huda, Chaiwat Satha-Anand, Ayse Kadayifci-Orellana
The violent and nonviolent protests around the Muslim world regarding the anti-Islamic film, “Innocence of Muslims,” have reinvigorated the debate over the prevalence of nonviolent practices in Islamic communities. With religious extremists and zealous secularists posing serious threats to societies, it is critically important to examine the ethos of pluralism, peacebuilding activities, and the culture of sustainable peace in conflict zones in Muslim-majority countries.
Please join us for a conversation with Dr. Chaiwat Satha-Anand, a prominent nonviolent activist and scholar from Thammasat University in Bangkok, Thailand, on the subject of transforming radical extremism with principles of nonviolence action. Has the rise of extremist voices weakened principles of nonviolence and moderation in Muslim communities? Are moderate Muslims capable of defeating extremism with nonviolent practices of tolerance, social justice, and education? Dr. Satha-Anand will explore these and other questions.
USIP’s efforts in the Middle East and larger Muslim world have aided in developing the capacity of civil society actors in peacebuilding and conflict management. Whether it be a peace education curriculum for madrasas in Pakistan, or an inter-faith mediation center in Nigeria, or a gender peacebuilding training toolkit in Iraq, USIP’s on-the-ground field work and research aims to resolve conflicts through nonviolent means.
Register for this event here.
7. Waging War on Corruption – Inside the Movement Fighting the Abuse of Power, Tuesday October 16, 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM, George Mason University
Venue: George Mason University, Founders Hall, 3351 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201, Room 125
“The Arab Spring was the trigger that prompted me to finally start writing a book that Ihad long been thinking about – a book that aims to change the conversation about one of the gravest problems facing most countries: corruption in government. I have been involved in civil society organizations dedicated to fighting corruption for more than 20 years and seen remarkable progress in this period. The achievements have been formidable. It is time to convert discussion about the prospects of curbing graft and bribery from one of skepticism, indeed cynicism often, to one of cautious optimism and hope. The upbeat conclusion of this book rests, above all, on the remarkable – often exceptionally courageous – work of many heroes in many countries, from the civil society activists on the front lines, to the public prosecutors, investigative journalists, outstanding political leaders and former leaders of the United Nations and World Bank, “think tank” academics, and philanthropists. I believe individuals do change history. The heroes in this book are changing history. But, all of the work of these remarkable people would be in vain without massive public engagement. In the Arab Spring we saw tens of thousands of people overcome fear of vicious security forces to go into the streets and the town squares in the name of their personal dignity and self-respect and to protest illegitimate governments. The valor seen in Tunisia and Egypt, replicated in many countries now, represents a tipping point in the fight against the abuse of office by politicians and government officials for their personal enrichment. And, the anti-corruption movement, which overlaps so closely with efforts to promote human rights, protect journalists and build democracy, has been enormously powered in most recent times by the Internet in a hyper-connected age of transparency where the villains haveever fewer places to hide. I believe that if more people are made aware of the progress being seen in many countries today in the war on corruption then that in itself will further power vital efforts for reform and improve the human condition. This book does not minimize the challenges. The anti-corruption movement has reached base camp, but still has an Everest of corruption to climb. But for the skeptics, let me say bluntly there is a powerful momentum now in campaigns for transparency, accountability and justice and, as I note in the final line of the book, it is important for people now to stand on the right sideof history.” ~Frank Vogl, September 2012.
8. The Middle East: Policy Choices for the New Administration, Wednesday October 17, 9:30 AM – 12:00 PM, Rayburn House Office Building
Venue: Rayburn House Office Building, 45 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20515
Speakers: Paul Pillar, Scott McConnell, Jocelyne Cesari, Nathaniel Kern, Thomas R. Mattair
The Middle East Policy Council invites you and your colleagues to our 70th Capitol Hill Conference. Live streaming of this event will begin at approximately 9:30am EST on Wednesday, October 17th and conclude around noon. A questions and answers session will be held at the end of the proceedings. Refreshments will be served.
RSVP for this event to info@mepc.org.
9. Understanding Iranian Public Opinion, Wednesday October 17, 9:00 AM – 11:00 AM, Stimson
Venue: Stimson, 1111 19th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Twelfth Floor
Speakers: Ebrahim Mohseni, Steven Kull, Geneive Abdo, Sebastian Grafe
In the midst of bombastic rhetoric exchanged among Iran, Israel, and Western states over the nuclear issue, Iranian public opinion is often lost in the discussion. Where do the Iranian people stand? Iranian public opinion is seldom heard on topics such as the nuclear program, international sanctions, and a potential military strike.
Please join Heinrich Böll Stiftung North America and Stimson for a discussion of Iranian public opinion. Drawing on polls from numerous sources, including recent surveys conducted inside Iran, as well as polls conducted by calling into Iran, the speakers will analyze Iranian attitudes on the country’s nuclear program, nuclear weapons, international sanctions, and a potential military strike. The discussion will also focus on how sanctions and military threats have shaped Iranian opinion toward their own government and the West.
Register for this event here.
10. Bringing Peace Through Facilitated Dialogue: A Book Launch, Wednesday October 17, 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM, USIP
Venue: USIP, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
Speaker: Daniel Serwer, Rusty Barber, Colette Rausch, David Smock
Today’s international conflicts typically involve multiple actors, interests, and drivers that have sparked long, violent histories. Ending these conflicts relies more and more on facilitated dialogue, a process in which a neutral third party helps a broad spectrum of conflicting parties overcome the many barriers to effective communication.
Facilitating Dialogue: USIP’s Work in Conflict Zones, edited by David Smock and Daniel Serwer, presents seven case studies of the U.S. Institute of Peace’s facilitated dialogue efforts in Iraq, Kosovo, Israel/Palestine, Colombia, Nigeria, and Nepal. Covering a variety of conflict situations and peacemaking efforts, the cases tell stories of peacebuilding successes, efforts in progress, limitations on what can be achieved, and lessons learned.
This workshop will present samples of the chapters in the book and a summary of lessons learned. Facilitating Dialogue: USIP’s Work in Conflict Zones will be available for purchase at this event.
Register for this event here.
11. Pedagogies for Peace in Post-Conflict and Fragile States, Thursday October 18, 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM, USIP
Venue: USIP, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
Speaker: Margaret Sinclair, Jeff Helsing, Xanthe Ackerman, Qamar-ul Huda, Lili Cole
What kind of curricula promote the best education for long-term peace in post-conflict, fragile and low resource contexts? Many kinds of primary and secondary school curricula aim to promote social cohesion, greater tolerance and recovery from violence. But until recently we have had little research on the different benefits of various curricula in different types of conflict, or on how they can be used together most effectively, and on whether these curricular approaches need to be sequenced temporally after conflict, and if so, how.
In May 2012, Education Above All, a Doha-based education group, commissioned papers from practitioners and thematic experts that map and analyze the most widely used of these different curricula, collectively designated as “education for global citizenship,” and the policies that have accompanied their implementation. A major finding of this research project was that “transformative education for local, national and global citizenship and peace CAN be implemented even under difficult conditions if there is a policy commitment to do so.” To explore this important issue, the project director, technical adviser and expert on conflict and education, Margaret Sinclair, will discuss these research findings with experts from the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Brookings Institution.
Through its Academy for Conflict Management and Peacebuilding, research by Senior Fellows, and projects supported by grants, USIP has considerable experience in the creation of citizenship, human rights, history and peace curricula, including peace curricula specifically designed for use in Muslim religious schools, or madrasas, most recently in Sudan, Iraq and Pakistan. Two USIP staff members, Lili Cole and Qamar-ul Huda, contributed essays to Education for Global Citizenship.
Young people between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four represent nearly one-fifth of the population of the Middle East and North Africa. This group has played a central role in shaking up the old order, and while so far they have not been able to shape the policies of the new regimes, it remains key to the outcome of transitions in the region. A Generation on the Move, a study cosponsored by The Issam Fares institute at the American University in Beirut and UNICEF, offers important insights on the aspirations and problems of Arab youth. The study includes polling data that reveals further information about this demographic.
Register for this event here.
13. US-Pakistan Relationship Post-2014, Thursday October 18, 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM, Center for National Policy
Venue: Center for National Policy, One Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001, Suite 333
Speakers: Stephen Tankel and Timothy Hoyt
U.S.-Pakistani relations have been defined by a curious mixture of antagonism and cooperation. Even before the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan was involved in the illegal proliferation of nuclear technology and support for militant Islamist organizations. Since 9/11, the bilateral relationship has rested on occasional cooperation against al-Qaeda, while being severely strained by state support for the Taliban, Haqqani Network and other militants at war against the Afghan state and the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
With the ISAF mission drawing down to a close by the end of 2014, what is the future of this troubled relationship between “frenemies?” Will relations improve as the strain of the Afghan campaign diminishes? Or will the U.S. more openly express its bitterness once its military is no longer reliant on supply routes that pass through Pakistan? Will Pakistani support for terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba persist? There are factors that may only further radicalize the Pakistani security services following an ISAF drawdown such as the potential for renewed civil war and Indian “meddling” in Afghanistan. How will these affect relations with the United States?
Register for this event here.
14. Reality Diplomacy: How Ambassadors Deal with Crime and Corruption Abroad, Thursday October 18, 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM, George Mason University
Venue: George Mason University, Founders Hall, 3351 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201, Room 113
Speakers: Richard Kauzlarich and Kenneth Yalowitz
For American business operating abroad, crime and corruption are realities of doing business internationally that must be avoided. The risk is that companies end up on the wrong side of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Further in many cases they need the help of US Embassies to avoid having to deal with corrupt host government officials. For non-official Americans living abroad, the facilitative payment to the traffic cop who arbitrarily stops their car to check papers, or to the border guard to speed up clearance of their household effects through customs is simply a small price to pay in societies that seem to operate on different standards of public service than Americans are used to. For students and academics, crime and corruption are political and sociological phenomena to be sliced and diced in the classroom and in scholarly articles as impediments to good governance to be eliminated through establishing independent judiciaries and democratically-elected legislatures passing the right sort of laws. Ambassadors Kenneth Yalowitz and Richard Kauzlarich, retired Senior Foreign Service Officers, have dealt with crime and corruption in countries where US foreign policy and national security objectives are at risk through the interaction criminal and corrupt official behavior. What can Ambassadors do when confronted with this nexus of crime and corruption while trying to accomplish a broad set of US political, economic and security priorities? Ambassadors Kauzlarich and Yalowitz will discuss their professional experiences in this regard and provide lessons-learned that will underscore the importance of better understanding how the intersection of terrorism, transnational crime and corruption represents a major non-traditional security challenge for the United States in the 21st Century.
15. Next Steps in Reducing Nuclear Arms, Friday October 19, 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Falk Auditorium
Speakers: Martin S. Indyk, Michael O’Hanlon, Steven Pifer, Strobe Talbott
As the 50th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis approaches, nuclear arms control has received scant attention in the current U.S. presidential campaign. Yet the future of arms control has major implications for U.S. national security, and no matter who is elected on November 6, the next president will have an opportunity to use arms control to enhance domestic and global security. In their new Brookings Focus Book, The Opportunity: Next Steps in Reducing Nuclear Arms (Brookings Press, 2012), Brookings Senior Fellows Steven Pifer and Michael O’Hanlon make a strong case for further steps in nuclear arms control, explain in clear and straightforward prose the background to complex arms control issues, and offer practical and realistic proposals for action by the administration in 2013 and beyond.
On October 19, the Arms Control Initiative and 21st Century Defense Initiative at Brookings will host a discussion to explore the possibilities for next steps on arms control and place them in a broader foreign policy context. They will relate the issues to the Pentagon’s budget situation and the longer-term vision of trying to move to a world without nuclear weapons. Pifer and O’Hanlon will be joined by Brookings President Strobe Talbott. Vice President Martin Indyk, director of Foreign Policy at Brookings, will moderate the discussion.
After the program, panelists will take audience questions. Copies of The Opportunity: Next Steps in Reducing Nuclear Arms will be available for sale at the event.
Register for this event here.
16. European and US Perspectives on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Friday October 19, 12:00 PM, American Institute for Contemporary German Studies
Venue: American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, 1755 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 700, R.G. Livingston Conference Room of AICGS
Speakers: Dominik Tolksdorf
Please join AICGS on Friday, October 19, 2012, for a seminar with Mr. Dominik Tolksdorf, DAAD/AICGS Fellow, on “European and U.S. Perspectives on Bosnia and Herzegovina.” The discussion will take place at 12pm in the R.G. Livingston Conference Room of AICGS, 1755 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 700. A light luncheon will be served.
Transatlantic cooperation in Bosnia can generally be considered as strong. However, diverging views have become apparent in the past years. The future role of the international community in the country and of the Office of the High Representative is especially debated. However, the U.S. and the EU do share a common interest in supporting constitutional reform in Bosnia. The seminar will focus on the roles of the European Union and the U.S. in Bosnia in the past years and transatlantic efforts to reform the Dayton system.
Dr. Dominik Tolksdorf holds a PhD from the University of Munich. In his dissertation he examined the European Union’s support to reform processes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since 2006, he has worked as research fellow at the Center for Applied Policy Research (CAP) at the University of Munich, as senior associate researcher at the Institute for European Studies, and as adjunct assistant professor at Vesalius College at the Vrije Universiteit Brussels. In his research, he focuses on the EU’s external relations, including the pre-accession process with the western Balkan states and Turkey, EU neighborhood policies, and the structure of the External Action Service.
Please register by Wednesday, October 15.
Please register for this event here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The EU needs a unified polity
The European Union unquestionably deserves the Nobel Prize for its past accomplishments. To cite just a few: peace between France and Germany, post-World War II European economic development and prosperity (no it wasn’t all due to the Marshall Plan), absorbing a reunified Germany and what used to be called eastern Europe into the European architecture, most of the staffing of peacekeeping operations in the Balkans (and many other parts of the world) in the 1990s and 2000s (and most of the aid money)…
The question is whether the much-expanded EU of 27 countries can do for the next generation what it has done for the last two. While I count myself a euro-enthusiast, I doubt it. Without a decisive move towards greater political unity, the EU is hamstrung. And the politics in many European countries–from Germany to Greece–militates against greater unity.
The EU’s current problems arise essentially from its inability to make quick and wise decisions. There is a dramatic contrast between European slowness in responding to the euro’s problems and the American reaction to its 2008 financial crisis. Consensus at 27 is difficult to achieve, even in the best of circumstances. When the decisions involve redistributing big economic and financial burdens, politics in the member states will rarely align.
Europe has created a unified economic space, but it lacks a unified political space. As we happen to be enjoying an American presidential campaign, it should be clear what this means. Even with the archaic electoral college process, which bends the campaign into a focus on the relatively few “battle ground” states, it is clear that Romney and Obama are conducting campaigns that try to appeal throughout the country. Europe is essentially stuck with a political system resembling the one we had under the Articles of Confederation, but its economic system is continent-wide. There are no European officials elected in constituencies that extend beyond the national borders of the member states.
This matters to Americans, because Europe is one of our biggest markets (as we are to Europe), a giant source of investment (also as we are to them), an educational and cultural partner of the first order, and still our most important military alliance, even if EU military capabilities have naturally atrophied with the continental peace its members now enjoy. Slow American economic growth today is due in part to Europe’s current financial crisis and its economic consequences. The NATO mission in Afghanistan relies in part on European contributions, as did the NATO-led effort against Muammar Qaddafi.
I am about to go off to moderate a talk by the Macedonian defense minister, Fatmir Besimi. His troops guard NATO headquarters in Kabul, even though Greece has blocked his country’s membership in the Alliance. That, too, is an example of Europe’s continuing political division and how it hampers a stronger, more effective European Union.
I can offer no solution. The Europeans will have to find it for themselves, as they have often in the past. It is not going to be easy. America did it by writing a new constitution behind closed doors in Philadelphia. That won’t work in the Twitter age. I hope this Nobel Prize, ironically awarded by a committee in Norway (which has declined EU membership), will inspire Europeans to unify their political space.
RSS - Posts
