Month: March 2013
Syria seen from Venus and Mars
I enjoyed yesterday two events on Syria, back to back and less than a block from each other. An all-women panel at the Stimson Center co-sponsored by the Middle East Institute was upbeat and optimistic. An all-men panel at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) was anything but. Commentators on both panels were keen observers, including several with recent experience in and near Syria.
With Mona Yacoubian moderating, the Stimson/MEI panel focused on “Syria Beyond Assad: Building a New Syria from the Grassroots.” Rafif Jouejati, spokesperson for the Local Coordinating Committees and leader of FREE Syria (a nongovernmental organization) underlined that the mood among Syrians, who are seeking freedom, dignity and democracy, is far more optimistic than the Western press would lead you to believe. The revolution is determined to build civil society and protect minority rights. There are still upwards of 300 peaceful demonstrations every Friday. Fear of an Islamist takeover is exaggerated. A hijab may be necessary to meet some people, but they quickly forget if it slips off your head. Civil society training for Syrians in Turkey is accomplishing a lot, as they go back into Syria and train others.
Honey al Sayed, a former Syrian anchor now associated with ROYA Association for a Better Syria and the internet radio station SouriaLi emphasized the importance of rebuilding from the grassroots, as Syrian society has collapsed. The challenges are enormous, but Syrians believe in “unity in diversity” and will meet them. Elizabeth O’Bagy of the Institute for the Study of War focused on the relationship between the civilian local councils and armed groups, which she said are not anxious to provide basic services or govern because they are still fighting the regime. Warlordism is not the problem portrayed in the Western press–there is lots of room to empower civilians. There has been some abuse of regime prisoners, looting and exploitation of aid shipments, but no major massacres. Islamist fighters have no difficulty dealing with a Western woman asking questions. Al Qaeda-linked Jabhat al Nusra keeps its distance, but most other armed groups do cooperate with each other.
Only Leila Hilal of the New America Foundation clouded the Venusian horizon. The situation is complex and fluid. There are a lot of questions about local legitimacy and authority. Who is really in charge? Elders? Religious leaders? Fighters? Technocrats? What will their relationship be to the Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (SOC in Washington parlance)? Will the local councils provide aid? Will they also govern? Are they political bodies or technical ones? What will the role of minorities and women be? How will Western preferences for inclusivity be met? Should we even express them?
The clouds thickened at WINEP, where staff reported on recent travel in the region. With Patrick Clawson moderating, Andrew Tabler described Syria as melting down and spilling over. Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan are facing serious refugee challenges. Jordan has seen 100,000 enter in the last 60 days, many of them running a regime gauntlet to get out of Syria. Fighting has spilled into Lebanon. Hizbollah and Sunni fighters are spilling back from Lebanon into Syria. In addition to refugees, Turkey is seeing a big buildup of displaced people inside Syria along the border. There is a concentration of Islamist extremists (including Jabhat al Nusra) along the border with Israel, which is concerned about the transfer of “strategic” weapons (chemicals, anti-aircraft and missiles) to Hizbollah and to Sunni extremists.
The food and medical supplies that the US has announced it will provide to the Coalition will not help to bring down Bashar al Asad. Sentiment within the revolution has turned dramatically against the US and the West and towards the Salafists and jihadists. With no political settlement in sight, the US is unable to influence the armed groups who will decide the outcome. It would be far better to provide aid to the armed groups: those taking the shots will soon be calling them. The SOC, and likely the provisional government to be named this weekend, has little traction inside Syria and risks becoming a Potemkin village.
Jeff White continued in this vein. Localized fighting is the basis of political legitimacy and power inside Syria. The revolutionaries are fragmented. Civilians are marginalized. The military councils are really in charge. The Islamists are in the vanguard. They have cohesion, discipline, leadership and morale. Jabhat al Nusra is also particularly good at civic action, including securing and distribution of food as well as street cleaning. Their command and control is tight.
The Free Syria Army has more problems with civilian/military relations, jihadists vs. nationalists and regime penetration. A revolution that began in the name of freedom and democracy has turned definitively in the direction of an Islamic state. Antipathy to the West, in particular the US, and the international community in general is strong. Conspiracy theories are common, most notably the notion that the US, Iran and Israel are collaborating against the revolution.
Though better equipped now with antitank weapons, the revolutionaries still suffer shortages and maldistribution of weapons. Logistics are ad hoc. There is a security vacuum in the south–a kind of no man’s land. No two revolutionary units are alike and numbers are hard to come by. The rebels are nevertheless gaining territory.
Though losing control, the regime remains cohesive, with good supplies from Russia and Iran. Hizbollah’s fighting role is increasing, as is the role of irregular regime forces (Shabiha). The army is being hollowed out, losing 40 or more dead per day and several times that in wounded. The Syrian air force is a wasting asset.
Simon Henderson talked about Gulf attitudes, where there is strong support for the Syrian opposition because of the prospect of a strategic setback for Iran. But competition among the Gulf states is proving stronger than their distaste for Iran. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both supporting the revolution, but they are also competing for influence. The competition is trumping concern about the outcome, leaving the GCC divided in the absence of strong US leadership. Qatar is far less willing than Saudi Arabia to be seen bucking Iran, as it shares hydrocarbon resources in the Gulf with Tehran.
Are these views from Venus and Mars reconcilable? My heart is on Venus. I hope the women are right. My head is on Mars. What the men are seeing is all too real.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Drop it now
The failure of the latest round of Belgrade/Pristina talks to reach agreement on an association of Serb municipalities in Kosovo is neither surprising nor particularly discouraging. Mundane as it sounds, this is a delicate issue.
An association is clearly permitted under the Ahtisaari plan, which Belgrade has not accepted but Pristina has pledged to implement. Were it to become more than an a consultative body and acquire executive functions, such an association could come close to creating a Republika Srpska-like governing entity within Kosovo, one that would make it virtually impossible for Pristina to exercise full control over those functions it requires to qualify for EU membership. Pristina needs to make sure that it does not fall into this trap.
Tanjug (via B92 English) quotes Alexandar Vulin, Belgrade’s office chief for Kosovo, as saying Serbia:
simply supports the constitution of an association (of Serb municipalities) that would have the authorities, control and influence over the judiciary, police, education and all aspects important for the life of citizens.
This is a precise description of what no one in the international community should expect the Pristina authorities to accept. It would legitimize, not dissolve, the “parallel” (illegal) Serbian institutions in Kosovo.
To me, there is a simple, first test of what should be permissible for Belgrade within Kosovo: is it also permissible within Serbia? Whatever the Serbs of Kosovo gain in this negotiation should also be available to the Albanian-majority community of Presevo in southern Serbia. That community has nothing like the privileges in the Ahtisaari plan, never mind what Vulin is claiming. Belgrade needs to come to the negotiating table with wants that correspond to what they are willing to offer in analogous circumstances.
Of course the circumstances are not entirely analogous, because Belgrade does not accept Pristina’s authority as sovereign. This is a real problem and should not be ignored, as both the Brussels and Washington prefer. Belgrade’s bold assertion of continuing sovereignty over all of Kosovo conflicts with what Ahtisaari offered. It is wrong for Serbia to ask for the privileges contained in his plan (and then a good deal more) without paying the price of admission.
This phase of the Pristina/Belgrade talks is putting the Pristina authorities in an awkward situation. It is quite clear that no one in the Kosovo government, including its Serb participants, wants to go further than the Ahtisaari plan in accommodating Serbia. Anyone who does is likely to pay a price at the next election. Moreover, there is a real risk that Serbia will use an association of Serb municipalities to pry the southern Serbian enclaves away from their grudging acceptance of Pristina’s limited authority. That’s what Vulin is openly proposing.
No one has asked my advice on these issues, so I am free to state publicly what it would be: going any further than Ahtisaari would be a mistake. Even implementation of Ahtisaari should be conditional on Serbia’s dropping its claim of sovereignty and accepting the plan as a whole, rather than picking off the parts it likes and leaving the parts it doesn’t.
Belgrade can drop its claim of sovereignty elegantly (and silently) by allowing Kosovo to enter the United Nations. This would be a gesture to which Pristina could be expected to respond generously. Belgrade’s sovereignty claim is going to have to be dropped eventually in any event. The EU will never take in another member whose borders are uncertain, as it did to no good effect with Cyprus. Serbia would do best to drop it now. Once that is done, Vulin’s pretension will be voided and the question of the association of Serb municipalities will be far more manageable.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Islamists are coming
As a result of sweeping victories in elections, Islamists are emerging as strong political forces in post-revolutionary Arab states. Many argue that the Arab Spring has transformed into an Islamist winter and that Islamists will continue to dominate the political systems of post-revolutionary Arab countries for the foreseeable future. Others argue that the fate of these countries has not yet been entirely determined.
The Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center last week hosted a discussion of these and related issues under the title of “The Resistible Rise of Islamists.” Two distinguished experts on the region, Marina Ottaway and Leslie Campbell, offered perspectives on the causes of the rise of`Islamists and the possibility of non-Islamist governments in the Arab world.
Marina Ottaway, who is currently a Senior Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center and previously at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, focused her discussion on the rise of Islamists in three countries: Morocco, Egypt, and Tunisia. Egypt’s Freedom and Justice and the Salafist Nour Party got 67 percent of the seats in parliament, Tunisia’s (Muslim Brotherhood) Ennahda got 37 percent, and Morocco’s Party for Justice and Development got 22 percent of the vote.
The victories of Islamists at the ballot box were due in part to the weakness and fragmentation of the secular opposition. In Morocco, the danger of domination by Islamists is non-existent, because several other players present a counter-vailing balance. Morocco has a long history of well-established secular political parties that enjoy historical legitimacy due to their participation in the struggle for independence from the French. The palace is another major check on the power of Islamists.
In Tunisia and Egypt, Islamists are well-established and have strong support bases. The secular opposition is not only fragmented, but some of its parties and leadership were coopted by the authocratic regimes.
In Tunisia, the General Labour Union enjoys huge support but does not run in the elections. The center parties are fairly weak but have potential to grow in power. The Salafists are active in street demonstrations and will likely participate in future elections.
The Egyptian case is the most complicated of all. The Egyptian secular parties are weaker and more fragmented in comparison to their Tunisian and Moroccan counterparts. Only the National Salvation Front has real prospects. But once it decides to run in elections, its coalition will break down due to quarrels over leadership and lack of a unified message, other than saying ‘no’ to everything the Islamists want.
The rise of Islamists is resistible, not inevitable. Their success is due to the inaction and lack of organization among the secular parties. The opportunity for democratic governance in the Arab world is not lost. The Islamists are not necessarily more authoritarian or democratic than the secularists.
Democracy depends on “establishing a better balance between the Islamist and secular forces…and on establishing a pluralistic and more balanced political spectrum.” The real danger to democracy in the Arab revolution countries comes from the weakness of the secular forces and their inability to overcome their fragmentation. Balance can only be achieved by electoral outcomes.
Leslie Campbell, the director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the National Democratic Institute, said there are two reasons for optimism. First, the inexperience of the Islamists with governing will make their continuation in power unlikely due to the disillusionment of some of their own constituencies. Second, there are “signs that secular parties can have ample strength once they organize properly…as with Yemen’s socialist parties.”
Most of Campbell’s discussion focused on possible means through which the secular forces could be empowered. He said that “globalization in politics is of extreme importance.” The secular parties and forces in the Arab world could benefit greatly from establishing links with and learning from the experiences of parties in other parts of the world.
Ottaway and Campbell agreed that the weakness of the secular parties is an important factor that cannot be overlooked when trying to understand the sweeping victories of the Islamists, especially in Egypt. The threat to democracy does not come from the Islamist nature of the parties that are governing now. They may, Campbell noted, be the most liberal of the emerging parties in the Arab transitions to democracy.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Questions from the heartland
I gave a talk yesterday at the University of Scranton, a city that prides itself on once having been the anthracite coal capital of the world. I’m not sure this is the heartland, but it is as close as I’ve been to that ill-defined geographical feature lately. I asked for questions early in my presentation, which was on current war and peace issues. Here’s what was on the audience’s minds:
- Does the US have to be the world’s policeman?
- Is the US too closely aligned with Israel?
- What is the legacy of the Iraq war?
- Why do we prop up dictators?
- How and when do wars end?
- Do we need a court to decide on whether to strike with drones?
- Is fundamentalism a big threat?
- In light of our financial problems and sequestration, do we need to bring back the draft?
- Is it counterproductive to isolate North Korea and Iran, whose people seem much less hostile to the US than their regimes?
As on many other occasions when I’ve sp0ken with a lay audience, these questions are really good ones. They reflect unease with America’s role in the world and a feeling that surely we can do better.
I’m not quite ready to publish the powerpoint tour d’horizon I gave, which covered mainly the Middle East and Asia. But here is a brief summary of the answers I offered to these questions, improved a bit on reflection:
- Does the US have to be the world’s policeman?
We really shouldn’t be the world’s policeman, but we do need to be prepared to be the world’s fireman. There are fires that need to be put out before they spread and cause a lot of damage. And firemen properly spend a lot of time and effort on prevention. I also noted that there are different methods of policing: when we do intervene, we need to consider whether we should use force or act more like community police, who rely less on force and more on their rapport with the community.
- Is the US too closely aligned with Israel?
The Israel question was posed with some hesitation, even embarrassment. My simplistic answer is that we are too aligned with particular political parties within Israel that do not want to see the emergence of a Palestinian state. But most Israelis do want to see the Palestinian state, as that is vital to maintaining Israel as both Jewish and democratic.
- What is the legacy of the Iraq war?
The Iraq war has ended messily, with Prime Minister Maliki far from the democratic ideal. But there are lots of Kurds, Sunni and even Shia in Iraq who can keep his worst instincts in check. We’ll have to see how things work out this year in the provincial elections and next year in national elections.
- Why do we prop up dictators?
We shouldn’t prop up dictators, but we have to deal with them until a country’s citizens decide they’ve had enough. We should then support non-violent efforts (because they work far more often than violent ones) and help with the transition to democracy, as we have tried to do in Tunisia and Egypt.
- How and when do wars end?
The question about how and when wars end is a very good one. We were particularly inept in ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars without signed peace agreements. This left the door open to insurgencies that would have been far more difficult to mount had we insisted on formal surrenders. We need a debate on ending the war on terror, which has real consequences for American liberties.
- Do we need a court to decide on whether to strike with drones?
I really don’t know whether drone court is a good idea. But there too I think we need a debate. We’ve gone from prohibiting assassinations to conducting them often, in the name of striking the command and control of our terrorist enemies. There is collateral damage to non-combatants. It’s a big policy shift that requires more attention than it has gotten.
- Is fundamentalism a big threat?
I don’t really care about what people believe in the privacy of their own homes, churches, synagogues and mosques. They are entitled. But fundamentalism is a threat if it seeks to undermine the institutions that maintain peace and stability, just as Fascism and Communism tried to do. If your ideology says none of the states of the Middle East should exist–only a single caliphate ruled by clerics–and you are prepared to use violent means to achieve that end, you are correctly seen as a threat.
- In light of our financial problems and sequestration, do we need to bring back the draft?
The draft is a non-issue, because the military does not want two-year draftees. Military technology is just too complicated today to make them valuable. Sequestration nevertheless has serious implications for both our military and civilian instruments for projecting power. We are going to have to think hard about priorities.
- Is it counterproductive to isolate North Korea and Iran, whose people seem much less hostile to the US than their regimes?
It would be a mistake for us not to react to countries like North Korea and Iran that are acquiring nuclear weapons. But we do need to recognize that the isolation we impose with sanctions has consequences also for their citizens. Outreach and improved understanding with them is both necessary and possible, but outside government channels. We need to exploit communications technology more effectively for citizen-to-citizen communication.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Why US foreign policy keeps failing
SAIS master’s student Solvej Krause reports:
Harvard Professor Stephen Walt, influential international relations scholar and co-author of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” delivered a damning assessment last week at SAIS of the failure of US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Highlighting the ever-present tension between ambitions and capabilities in US foreign policy, Walt offered a realist view of what he perceives as an activist, overreaching foreign policy agenda promoted by both neoconservatives and liberal interventionists in consecutive administrations.
“We forgot that there might be limits to what we could do,” he said, referring to the extraordinarily powerful geostrategic position of the US in the international system since 1990. Walt advocates greater restraint in American involvement abroad and a drastic reduction in the US military footprint, especially in the Middle East. His call for more restraint has important implications for post-conflict scenarios. Given the troubled experiences with state and nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the current administration’s appetite for complex and costly post-conflict involvement has diminished.
Between 1945 and 1950, a small group of foreign policy makers achieved extraordinary results, including the Marshall Plan and formulation of the policy of containment. They created key arrangements that influenced foreign policy for the coming decades.
Post-Cold War foreign policy legacy is by comparison “terrible,” despite the lack of a geopolitical rival. The US should be doing much better than it actually has, given the enormous growth of the foreign policy apparatus (more staffers, more academic research, greater diversity among officials) since 1990. But the US has failed to secure peace in the Middle East (Israel-Palestine), failed to prevent Rwanda, and has not managed to build a lasting relationship with Russia. 9/11 was mostly “a reaction to perceived sins of US foreign policy in the Middle East.” The Balkan wars were ended successfully but in a lengthy and costly process. The situation there is still precarious.
Walt identifies two sources of US foreign policy failure: problems arising from the structural (geostrategic) position of the US in the international system and problems arising from inside the American foreign policy establishment. The internal problems should be fixable, says Walt, but it won’t be easy.
Outside the system – Structural problems
The US foreign policy agenda is “perennially overcrowded.” The primacy of the United States in the international system makes it difficult to set priorities and pick battles wisely. Since the US alone has the power to intervene and prevent atrocities, it becomes very hard not to act. Since the scope of US foreign policy is global, the military has divided the entire world into regional military commands (Africom, Centcom). “We forgot that there might be limits to what we can do,” says Walt. British historian Paul Kennedy said that one reason why the British Empire lasted so long was that they were smart at picking their battles.
There are no more “easy” foreign policy problems left. The issues left today that have not been solved over the past century are the “really hard residuals.” Today’s agenda is filled with problems we don’t know how to solve without great costs, e.g. Israel-Palestine, Iran, North Korea. They are almost intractable. Some require social engineering in ethnically heterogeneous societies, which is hard for anyone to do.
US primacy encourages obstructive behavior by allies and non-allies: Non-allies Russia and China oppose intervention in Syria because they went along with the US in the Libyan case, allowing the US to pursue a mission aimed at regime change, not only humanitarian protection. The dominance of the US encourages “reckless driving” by smaller, weaker states, such as Georgia, Israel and Taiwan. This leaves the US vulnerable to blackmail. For example, President Karzai in Afghanistan can do pretty much everything he wants because he knows that he is the only game in town.
Inside the system – Internal problems
Within the US government, groups that favor activist foreign policy dominate groups that favor more restraint. There is little difference between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists in this regard. Both are activist. Realists are an endangered species in the foreign policy apparatus.
The same is true for think tanks: the Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings, Carnegie – all favor favor American leadership in the world and lean towards interventionist, activist policies. On the other end of the spectrum you have the Cato Institute, which favors greater restraint, but these institutions have less money, fewer people and less influence than the activist institutions.
There is a dangerous tendency in the foreign policy establishment to inflate threats in order to convince the public that involvement is necessary. Walt cited NSC-68, which ushered in the McCarthy era by exaggerating the threat of Communist infiltration in the US government and society. He finds parallels to today’s inflation of the Iranian threat and the threat of Al Qaeda. “Remember: Iran’s defense budget is $$10 billion per year.” What is called “Al Qaeda” are a bunch of loosely affiliated criminal groups that adopt the AQ brand like Baskin Robbins. The entire “war on terror” was misconceived. AQ should have been framed as international criminals, not combatants in a global war. The inflation of threats makes us “collectively stupid,” says Walt.
There is a lack of real debate about American foreign policy. The range of disagreements in the foreign policy establishment is not very broad. Most think tanks lean towards activism. Politicians show enormous deference towards military leaders. To be credible in the foreign policy establishment you have to sound hawkish.
There are three taboo issues where absolutely no open debate in Washington is possible:
US policy towards Iran: For decades the US has employed threats of military action combined harsh sanctions. “We’re effectively blackmailing Iran.” This approach is not working. “Threatening others with regime change is not very effective. But anyone who proposes a different approach is treated as a policy pariah.”
The US relationship with Israel: Any criticism of it will end your career. There were 178 mentions of Israel during Chuck Hagel’s hearings.
The US drone program: The problem is excessive secrecy. How can we judge the efficacy of the drone war if we don’t know what is going on? What if you have created more terrorists than you have killed?
Walt also worries about the precedent that the US is setting in using cyber warfare so generously.
The problem with these taboos is that they force policy leaders to say things they don’t really believe in. But being deadly wrong or incompetent does not harm your career. Being right can end your career. Given how Iraq turned out, you’d think that the makers of the Iraq policy would be discredited now. But they are still highly influential, e.g. Bill Kristol, Elliott Abraham, Paul Wolfowitz, Tommy Franks. If you get it right, your career suffers. The most common reason why American military leaders are fired is sexual misconduct, not misconduct on battlefield. There is too much blind deference to military leaders. There is a corrupt, co-opted relationship between politicians and those who are supposed to hold them to account.
Academics, afflicted with a “cult of irrelevance,” are not doing their job. They should be using the protection of tenure to challenge foreign policy dogma. But instead they are getting caught up in “simplistic hypothesis testing.” The gap between the world of academia and world of policy is too wide.
We have the “worst possible system for staffing the executive branch you can imagine.” Civil service employees are few, so there is a large turnover every four years. The appointments process has gone off the rails, leaving important positions unfilled for a long time.
The presidential term lasts four years while the election season lasts for over one year. This means that the President is preoccupied with campaigning for at least 25% of his term, which is extremely bad for good policy-making.
The problem with advances in military technology that make a “light footprint” approach (drones, special forces) possible is that they make interventions cheaper and easier – both in terms of costs and lives lost. All of a sudden, there are many reasons to intervene. But the US cannot be everywhere. The American military was not designed to do nation-building, and there are many reasons why it is not well-suited for it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks: March 4 to March 8
Quite a busy week:
1. Understanding the Behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Monday March 4, 9:00 AM- 11: 00 AM, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Mohsen Milani, Bijan Khajehpour, Geneive Abdo, Ellen Laipson, Sebastian Gräfe
You are invited to a discussion of a new paper by two Iranian scholars that examines the behavior of Iran’s government in a broad range of areas, including nuclear negotiations. The paper is based on discussions during the meeting of the Iran Advisory Group that the Stimson Center and the Heinrich Böll Foundation hosted last November in Berlin, Germany.
Panelists will review critical negotiations that begin Feb. 26 in Kazakhstan between the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and Iran designed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The panelists will shed light on the constellation of political power in Iran, discuss the behavioral patterns of the Iranian government, and suggest steps that can be taken to affect Iran’s behavior.
Website: http://www.boell.org/calendar/VA-viewe…
2. Unwilling to Wait: Why Activists are Taking the Initiative on the Peace Process, Monday 4, 12:00 PM-1:00 PM, Woodrow Wilson Center
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004
Speakers: Wasim Almasri, Tom Bar-Gal
This event is co-sponsored with OneVoice.
Two youth activists from OneVoice Palestine and OneVoice Israel will speak about their motivations to take personal responsibility to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through grassroots activism. In speaking about the ongoing challenges to resolving the conflict, they will discuss civil society efforts to overcome these obstacles. Given the many transitions taking place in the region, and OneVoices experience in the past ten years, Almasri and Bar-Gal will speak about their vision of where future opportunities for Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution lie and about the important role of the American foreign policy community in moving the peace process forward.
Website: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/unwi…
3. Can We Call Iraq a Success?, New America Foundation, 1899 L St., NW, Washington, DC 20036, Monday, March 4, 1:00 PM- 2:30 PM
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St, NW, Suite 400, Washington DC 20036
Speakers: Lt. Col. Joel Rayburn, U.S. Army Military Fellow, New America Foundation; Peter Bergen Director, National Security Studies Program, New America Foundation; Douglas A. Ollivant, Senior National Security Fellow, New America Foundation
As we approach the 10-year anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003, news of that country has largely faded from American headlines. But a myriad of questions remain to be answered about the eight-year American involvement in the Iraq War. Specifically, what were the major decision points for the United States, and what directions did the conflict take after those decisions were made? What was gained from the deaths of many of tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans, and hundreds of billions of dollars the war also consumed? And where is Iraq now in terms of security, economic strength, political stability, and alignment with U.S. regional interests?
Please join the New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program for a debate over these questions and more between Douglas A. Ollivant, who was Director for Iraq at the National Security Council during both the Bush and Obama administrations, and Lt. Col. Joel Rayburn, who served on the staff of General David Petraeus in Baghdad in 2007 and 2008, where he focused on political-military issues.
Website: http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/…
4. Constitutionalism and Human Rights in Tunisia: The Islamist-Led Democratic Transition Post-Arab Spring, Johns Hopkins SAIS, Tuesday March 5, 9:00 AM- 4:00 PM
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS- NItze Building, 1740 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington DC, 20036, Kenney Auditorium
Speakers: Nejib Ayachi, Mohamed Mattar, Issam Saliba, William Zartman, Alexis Arieff, Alaya Allani and more
Experts and policymakers will discuss post-revolution political and constitutional transitions, the future of minority rights and freedom of expression in Tunisia, and the relationship between Islamists in power and democratic transition in the context of the Arab Spring. For a complete conference agenda, visitbit.ly/YzShnG.
Website: http://sais-jhu.edu/events/2013-03-05-…
5. Understanding Conflict and Ethnic Violence in Kyrgyzstan, Elliot School of International Affairs, Tuesday March 5, 12:00 PM- 2:00 PM
Venue: Voesar Conference Room, Elliot School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052
Speaker: Neil Melvin
Neil Melvin, Director, Program Armed Conflict and Conflict Management, SIPRI
Over the last two decades, Kyrgyzstan has experienced two major outbreaks of violence involving the main ethnic communities in the country: the Kyrgyz and the Uzbeks. These violent incidents have generally been viewed as ethnic conflicts and much of the response to the violence from the government, local communities, and the international community has been framed within this understanding. At the same time, Kyrgyzstan has also experienced other, less significant violent events and political crises that have often been linked temporally to the ethnic conflicts. This suggests that a full understanding of the nature of armed conflict in Kyrgyzstan and the involvement of ethnic communities in violence at a minimum requires a broader examination of the context of the violence.
RSVP: tinyurl.com/March5-Melvin
Sponsored by the Central Asia Program
Website: http://www.elliottschool.org/events/ca…
6. Palestinian Refugees in a Changing Middle East, Foundation for Middle East Peace, Tuesday March 5, 12:00 PM- 1:00 PM
Venue: Middle East Institute, 1761 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speaker: Filippo Grandi
While profound changes sweep across many parts of the Middle East today, the plight and status of the Palestine refugees—a present day reminder of one of the very first Middle East crises in 1948—remain left behind, unresolved and in the shadows of these uncertain times. The dynamism of change for others in the region contrasts with the growing sense of stagnation, marginalization and new dangers faced by Palestine refugees. Since its creation in 1949, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has been at the forefront providing essential humanitarian and human development services to the now approximately 5 million registered Palestine refugees in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. The challenges to the Agency and its beneficiaries are many—from continuing to operate in some of the most dangerous parts of Syria, to addressing the aftermath of the recent war in Gaza, to providing care and protection to now 2nd and 3rd time Palestine refugees from Syria seeking safety and shelter in Lebanon and Jordan. UNRWA Commissioner-General Grandi will offer an update on the rising tensions in the region, the international community’s response and new dangers that lie ahead from the perspective of the Palestine refugee.
Filippo Grandi was appointed Commissioner-General of UNRWA on January 20, 2010 having previously served as Deputy Commissioner-General since October 2005. Prior to joining UNRWA, he distinguished himself in a variety of headquarters and field functions around the globe for the United Nations encompassing refugee assistance, protection, emergency management, donor relations, and humanitarian and political affairs.
Website: http://www.eventbrite.com/event/564758…
7. The Rise & Fall of Iran in Arab and Muslim Eyes- A New Poll, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Tuesday March 5, 12:30 PM- 2:00 PM
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington DC, 20004
Speakers: Jane Harman
Zogby Research Services will release their latest poll of views on Iran and its policies from 20 Arab and Muslim nations including the Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula States, the Maghreb, Egypt and Sudan and non-Arab Muslim neighbors of Turkey, Pakistan and Azerbaijan.
Website: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-…
8. Obama and the Middle East Peace Process: Déjà Vû?, New America Foundation, Washington DC 20036 Wednesday March 6, 9:15 AM-10:45 AM.
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Daniel Levy, Husam Zomlot, Hisham Melham, Matt Duss
On the heels of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reelection and in anticipation of President Obama’s forthcoming trip to Israel, the West Bank, and Jordanthe New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force will host a discussion on expectations for the visit and for the president’s second term.
We’ll examine the likely motivations for and possible outcomes of the President’s upcoming trip. Is the visit an attempt to reinvigorate his administration’s relationship with Netanyahu, restart peace talks, or an equal effort to achieve both objectives? Is the newly reelected Obama serious about an Israeli-Palestinian settlement? Does the new Israeli government (and a weakened Netanyahu) present a fresh opportunity for dialogue on a settlement? Or, will other regional conflicts take precedence on the agenda.
Join us for an in-depth analysis of these issues and more on March 6.
On Twitter? Follow @MideastChannel to join the conversation online.?
Website: http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/…
9. The Rise of Islamism: Its Impact on Religious Minorities, Hudson Institute, Washington DC 20005, Wednesday March 6, 12:00 PM-1:30 PM.
Venue: Hudson Institute, 1015 15th Street, NW, 6th Floor
Speakers: Nina Shea, Farahnaz Ispahani, Jamsheed K. Choksy, Anthony Vance, Stephen Schwartz
Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom invites you to attend
The Rise of Islamism: Its Impact on Religious Minorities
Wednesday, March 612:00 1:30 PM
Lunch will be served.
This event will be streamed live here: www.hudson.org/WatchLive.
Submit questions via Twitter: @HudsonInstitute
With the rise of Islamism in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa, religious minorities have come increasingly under siege. Already this year, nearly two hundred Hazara Shiite Muslims in Baluchistan, Pakistan have been killed in bombings launched by the Sunni extremist group Lashkar-e-Jangvi. In Egypt, the nation’s new constitution denies Baha’is the right to houses of worship, while Iran’s denies Baha’is any rights at all. In Mali, Islamists have destroyed historic Sufi shrines, and in Iraq, a campaign of terrorist violence has driven almost the entire Mandean community from its ancient homeland. Across a broad geographic area and in once culturally diverse societies, Christians, Jews, Baha’is, Ahmadi Muslims, Zoroastrians, Sufis, Shiites, Mandeans, Yizidis, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious minorities face a range of threats from ascendant Islamists.
Please join moderator Nina Shea, Hudson Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Religious Freedom, and our expert panel to discuss Islamism’s impact on religious minorities and recommendations to strengthen the cause of religious freedom and cultural pluralism.
Panelists will include former Pakistani Parliamentarian (2008-12) Farahnaz Ispahani; Professor of Iranian, Central Eurasian, and Islamic Studies at Indiana University Jamsheed K. Choksy; Director of the Office of Public Affairs for the Baha’is of the United States Anthony Vance; and Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism and author Stephen Schwartz.
Website: http://hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction…
10. What should Obama do on North Korea?, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Thursday March 7, 9:00 AM
Venue: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, NW, Washington
Speakers: Victor D. Cha, Walter L. Sharp
A Korea Chair Platform event with
Dr. Victor D. Cha
Senior Advisor and Korea Chair, CSIS
General (Ret) Walter L. Sharp
Former Commander of U.S. Combined Forces Command & USFK and
Amb. Joseph R. DeTrani Special Envoy for Six Party Talks with North Korea
Please join us for a Korea Chair Platform event with Victor Cha, Walter L. Sharp, and Joseph R. DeTrani. In the wake of the December 2012 missile launch and the February 2013 nuclear test, our distinguished panelists will share their views on the road ahead and what President Obama should do on North Korea. We hope you can join us!
To RSVP for this event, please email KoreaChair@csis.org.
The Korea Chair Platform is made possible by the generous support of Samsung Electronics America.
Website: http://csis.org/event/what-should-obam…
11. Reporting on Conflict in Burma: Challenges and Opportunities, US Institute of Peace, Thursday March 7, 10:00 AM- 11:30 AM
Venue: US Institute of Peace 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
Speakers: Stephen Gray, Thiha Saw, Kyaw Zen Thar, Theo Dolan, John Knaus
This event will be webcast live beginning at 10:00am ET on March 7, 2013 at www.usip.org/webcast. Join the conversation on Twitter with #BurmaMedia.
The opening of media freedoms in Burma by the government of Thein Sein has been gradual, but encouraging. The phasing out of formal censorship and the reinstitution of private daily newspapers are positive steps toward informing a public which is increasingly seeking out news and information. However, reliable coverage of ongoing conflicts in Burma, such as in Kachin and Arakan states, has been difficult to obtain. With information on these conflicts still largely controlled by the government, local journalists struggle to present a holistic picture of the violence.
This event will explore the steps that can be taken by the Burmese media, government and other key stakeholders to advance existing media freedoms in order to report more effectively on conflict. Experts will present an overview of the present conflicts in ethnic states and prospects for peace an analysis of media sector reforms, including current challenges and opportunities; and perspectives on conflict reporting from a journalist from Arakan state.
Website: http://www.usip.org/events/reporting-c…
12. Yemen’s Political Transition and Public Attitudes Toward the National Dialogue, National Democratic Institute, Thursday March 7 12:00 PM- 1:30 PM
Venue: National Democratic Institute455 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC
Speakers: Barbara Bodine, Les Campbell, John Moreira, Brian Katulis
The agreement brokered by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) for political transition in Yemen calls for a National Dialogue Conference to help the country’s leaders develop consensus for draft constitutional reforms and prepare for elections in 2014.During the past year, the transition has faced considerable challenges from wrangling among competing political factions to violent activity by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, tribal disputes, and a southern secessionist movement. Later this month, the country’s leaders will finally join together for the start of the National Dialogue Conference in an effort to end gridlock on the country’s stalled political reform process and address worsening economic conditions.
As the country heads into this important dialogue, how does the Yemeni public view the future of the nation and the priorities they want their leaders to address? What are the key points of consensus and disagreement we can expect during the dialogue? How can the United States government support Yemen’s political transition as it seeks to advance other national security interests?
Please join the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the Center for American Progress for a joint panel discussion featuring Barbara Bodine, Lecturer and Director of Scholars in the Nation’s Service at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School for Public and International Affairs and former U.S. Ambassador to Yemen; Les Campbell, NDI Senior Associate and Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa who has recently returned from pre-Dialogue discussions in Yemen; and John Moreira, lead consultant for Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research who oversaw recent polling in Yemen.
In conjunction with this event, the National Democratic Institute will release the results of a new public opinion poll conducted in Yemen.
Website: http://www.ndi.org/node/20111
13. Peacekeeping and Protection of Civilians in South Sudan: Rhetoric and Reality, US Institute of Peace, Friday, March 8, 10:00 AM- 11:30 AM
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
Speakers: Hilde Johnson, Jon Temin
This event will be webcast live beginning at 10:00am ET at www.usip.org/webcast.
The United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS) maintains civilian protection as one of its core responsibilities. However, ethnic tensions and a weak national security architecture across South Sudan, coupled with UNMISS’s own limited resources, have made this objective of protecting civilians from physical violence difficult to achieve. There have been sporadic, violent tribal clashes in several South Sudanese states, most notably inter-communal violence in Jonglei state that has claimed hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.
USIP is pleased to host Ms. Hilde Johnson, special representative of the U.N. secretary-general and head of UNMISS, to discuss some of the challenges that UNMISS has faced and lessons learned in striving to protect civilians.
Website: http://www.usip.org/events/peacekeepin…
14.The Arab Awakening: Lessons Learned and Challenges Ahead, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Friday March 8, 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington DC, 20004
Speakers: Rami Khouri, Robin Wright
Rami Khouri, Former Public Policy Scholar, Woodrow Wilson Center; Director, Islam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs, American University of Beirut, Lebanon; Editor-at-large, The Daily Star
Robin Wright, Journalist and Author/Editor of eight books, most recently editor of ‘The Islamists Are Coming: Who They Really Are’
Website: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-…
RSS - Posts
