Month: April 2013
Peace picks April 2 – 5
We are late with the peace picks, but here they are for the remainder of the week:
1. Nagorno-Karabakh: Understanding Conflict, Tuesday April 2, 4:30 PM- 6:00 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Rome Building, Johns Hopkins SAIS, 1619 Massachusetts Ave NW DC
Students from the January 2013 SAIS trip to the Caucasus region will discuss their findings and present reports based on their interviews with leaders and members of international organizations in the region about the roots of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Website: http://sais-jhu.edu/events/2013-04-02…
2. ‘New Challenges in Europe and the Middle East: A Conversation With Julianne Smith’, Tuesday April 2, 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Rome Building Johns Hopkins SAIS, 1619 Massachusetts Ave NW DC
Speakers: Julianne Smith
Julianne Smith, U.S. deputy national security adviser in the Office of the Vice President, will discuss this topic.Note: The speakers comments will be off the record. A reception will follow the event immediately after in Room 812, Rome Building.
Website: http://sais-jhu.edu/events/2013-04-02…
3. Colombia: Land and the Agenda for Peace, Wednesday April 3, 1:00 PM -5:30 PM, US Institute of Peace
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Ave NW, Washington
Speakers: Absalón Machado, Carlos Salgado, Ricardo Sabogal, Ángela Suárez Álvarez, Zoraida Castillo, Yamilé Salinas and more
Five months ago, formal peace talks were launched between the government of Colombia and the FARC-EP guerrillas. The early rounds of talks have focused on the issue of agrarian development-the first of six agreed agenda items. Highly skewed land tenure patterns, a root cause of Colombia’s longstanding internal armed conflict, have worsened over time as guerrilla insurgents, paramilitary groups, drug traffickers, agro-industrialists and the State battle for control of land, resources, and geo-strategic corridors. This violence has displaced five million Colombians, forced the evacuation of an estimated 20 million hectares of land, and produced a ‘reverse agrarian reform’ that consolidates one of the most inequitable land tenure systems in the world. What proposals are being developed to address these land inequities, to restitute the victims of Colombia’s internal armed conflict, and to build sustainable peace?
Please join us on April 3, 2013 to discuss the relationship of land and the peace agenda. The event will provide a platform for discussion among a variety of stakeholders from the U.S. and Colombian governments, victims and affected parties, academics, international organizations, and NGOs. This event is co-sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace and the U.S. Office on Colombia, with the support of U.S. Agency for International Development, U.N. Development Program, Latin America Working Group Education Fund, Mercy Corps, Inter-American Foundation, and Lutheran World Relief.
Website: http://www.usip.org/events/colombia-l…
4. Muslim Nationalists and the New Turks — A Conversation with Jenny White, Wednesday April 3 6:30 PM – 8:30 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20052 Lindner Family Commons
Speakers: Jenny White
Jenny White, Associate Professor and Director, Undergraduate Studies, Anthropology Department, Boston University
Jenny White is an associate professor and director of undergraduate studies in the anthropology department at Boston University. She is the former president of the Turkish Studies Association and of the American Anthropological Association Middle East Section, and sits on the board of the Institute of Turkish Studies. She is the author of Islamist Mobilization in Turkey: A Study in Vernacular Politics (2002, winner of the 2003 Douglass Prize for best book in Europeanist anthropology) and Money Makes Us Relatives: Women’s Labor in Urban Turkey (second edition, London: Routledge, 2004). She also has written three historical novels set in 19th century Istanbul, The Sultan’s Seal (2006), The Abyssinian Proof (2008), and The Winter Thief (2010).
She will be discussing her most recent book: Muslim Nationalists and the New Turks.
*A book signing and wine reception will follow. Limited copies of the book will be available for GW students.*
RSVP: tinyurl.com/afppzwu
Sponsored by the Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS
Website: http://www.elliottschool.org/events/c…
5. China’s Maritime Disputes in the East and South China Seas,Thursday April 4 9:00 AM- 3:00 PM
Venue: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Constitution Avenue and 1st Street, NE, Washington, DCG-50
The hearing will explore the security, political, and economic drivers of China’s maritime disputes in the East and South China Seas. In addition, this hearing will examine the implications of these disputes for the United States as well as prospects for resolution.
Website: http://www.uscc.gov
6. Women in a Changing Middle East: An Address by Under Secretary of State Tara Sonenshine, Thursday, April 4 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM, Brookings Institution
Venue: Falk Auditorium Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW D.C.
Speakers: Tamara Cofman Wittes, The Honorable Tara Sonenshine
As Arab citizens struggle to rewrite the rules defining their societies, the role and status of Arab women is a sharp focus of debate. Arab women have been at the forefront of change, but have also faced unprecedented challenges. How central is women’s empowerment to the success of Arab societies, and how important are women’s rights in the struggle for democracy? What is the U.S. doing to help Arab women (and men) to advance women and girls in their societies?
On April 4, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will host Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Tara Sonenshine for an address on women in the Middle East. Senior Fellow Tamara Cofman Wittes, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, will provide introductory remarks and moderate a discussion with Under Secretary Sonenshine after her remarks.
Website: http://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~r/Broo…
7. U.S. Foreign Policy: The Next Four Years, Thursday April 4 6:00 PM-7:15 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Lindner Family Commons,
Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street, NW, D.C.
Speakers: Maurice Mickey East, Harry Harding, Michael E. Brown, Hope M. Harrison
Maurice Mickey East, Dean, School of Public and International Affairs, GW (1985-1987); Dean, School of International Affairs, GW (1987-1988); Dean, Elliott School of International Affairs, GW (1988-1994)
Harry Harding, Dean, Elliott School of International Affairs, GW
(1995-2005)
Michael E. Brown, Dean, Elliott School of International Affairs, GW (2005-Present)
Moderated by:
Hope M. Harrison, Associate Professor of History and International Affairs
RSVP: go.gwu.edu/ThreeDeans
Sponsored by the Elliott School of International Affairs
Website: http://www.elliottschool.org/events/c…
8. Afghan Elections: One Year to Go, Friday April 5 10:00 AM-12:00 PM, US Institute of Peace
Venue: USIP, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW D.C.
Speakers: Nader Nadery, Scott Smith, Hossai Wardak, Scott Worden
Webcast: This event will be webcast live beginning at 10:00am ET on April 5, 2013 at www.usip.org/webcast.
April 5 marks the start of the one-year countdown to Afghanistan’s presidential election. Because of constitutional term limits, this will be the first time in post-9/11 Afghanistan that Hamid Karzai is not on a presidential ballot. The fact that this unprecedented handover of presidential power occurs in the same year that international forces hand over security responsibility to Afghan national forces further increases the importance of the presidential election.
Afghans frequently highlight the inter-related nature of the upcoming security and political transitions in Afghanistan, and the importance of elections that produce a legitimate outcome for future peace and stability of Afghanistan. Furthermore, previous flawed elections have made many Afghans doubt the integrity of the democratic process.
If the April 5 election is not a marked improvement on past elections, the democratic progress that Afghanistan has made so far will be put in jeopardy. Please join a panel of experts at USIP to discuss the critically important technical and political issues that need to be addressed during the next 365 days in order for the elections to produce a credible and legitimate outcome.
Website: http://www.usip.org/events/afghan-ele…
9. Women’s Roles in Terrorist Movements, Friday April 5 6:00 PM-8:00 PM, Institute of World Politics
Venue: Institute of World Politics, 1521 16th Street NW DC
Speakers: Paula Holmes-Eber, Christopher C. Harmon
This event is hosted by IWP’s Student Government Association.
In the Latin, Asian, Middle Eastern, and European regions, revolutionary political movements have been accepting and deploying women in various and important roles: cadre; mid-level organizers; intelligence agents; couriers; combatants of many sorts; and suicide bombers. In unusual cases, women have also held senior leadership posts in undergrounds; a few have run their own terror organizations. What are the reasons for, and effects of, incorporating females into sub-state fighting organizations? What are the ‘lessons learned’ for intelligence analysts, military personnel, and students of the social sciences focused on culture and war?
IWP is holding a lecture-and-discussion opening to such issues on Friday, April 5, at 6:00 PM. The speakers are Dr. Paula Holmes-Eber (anthropologist) and Dr. Christopher C. Harmon (who teaches a terrorism course for IWP). Both represent Marine Corps University in Quantico, VA.
Paula Holmes-Eber, Ph.D. is Professor of Operational Culture at Marine Corps University. She is responsible for creating and teaching curricula on cultural aspects of conflict for all four schools at the university: Expeditionary Warfare School, Command and Staff College, School of Advanced Warfighting and Marine Corps War College. She also supports and advises staff at the Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning, Quantico, VA on academic matters concerning warfighting and culture, Islam, Arab society and North Africa.
Dr. Holmes-Eber completed her Master’s and Doctoral degrees in Anthropology from Northwestern University. She holds a B.A. magna cum laude from Dartmouth College, a Certificate in African Studies from Northwestern University and a Certificate in Tunisian Arabic from the Ecole Bourguiba des Langues Vivantes in Tunis, Tunisia. Her research and expertise focus on kinship and social networks in Arab and Muslim culture in North Africa.
Prior to her current position at Marine Corps University, Dr. Holmes-Eber was an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and a Visiting Scholar in the Middle East Center at the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington. She is fluent in French, Arabic, German and Italian and has lived and traveled in over forty countries around the world including Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Israel, Mongolia, China, Taiwan, Japan, Russia and Tonga.
Christopher C. Harmon, Ph.D. has had 21 years of teaching security studies, strategy, military theory & history, and courses on terrorism at six graduate schools, including a division of National Defense University, and the Naval War College.
Currently, he teaches Terrorism and Counterterrorism at IWP and is MajGen Matthew C. Horner Chair of Military Theory at Marine Corps University.
Dr. Harmon has served as Curricula Director for the Program on Terrorism and Security Studies at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Garmisch Germany. He has also served as the Kim T. Adamson Chair of Insurgency & Terrorism, Marine Corps University at Quantico, VA, and as Professor of International Relations at the University’s Command and Staff College. He has done academic research fellowships with the Earhart Foundation; Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace; Claremont Institute.
Dr. Harmon holds a B.A. in History and French Language from Seattle University, where he graduated summa cum laude, and an M.A. in Government and a Ph.D. in International Relations and Government from Claremont Graduate School.
Dr. Harmon is the author of Terrorism Today, co-author of Toward a Grand Strategy Against Terrorism, and co-editor of Statecraft and Power. His article ‘Spain’s ETA Terrorist Group is Dying’ was published in the geopolitics journal ORBIS in Fall 2012.
Website: http://www.iwp.edu/events/detail/wome…
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Beijing needs to reign in Pyongyang
North Korea’s announcement that it plans to reopen its plutonium production reactor at Yongbyon clarifies at least one reason for its belligerent statements in recent weeks. It will take some years to restart the reactor, which was partly dismantled in a 2007 deal that Pyongyang has in effect renounced. Kim Jong-un is however making it clear that North Korea intends to remain a nuclear weapons power. He (rightly) perceives that the United States would like to see his regime collapse and his people liberated. Nuclear weapons are his security guarantee.
It is doubtful he can be bought off this idea. Pyongyang has appointed a (relatively) “reformist” prime minister, one likely at least to continue the liberalization of the agricultural sector that has reduced economic pressure on the regime in recent years. The people of North Korea are used to extraordinarily harsh conditions. It does not take much to make them feel better off.
The White House is making it clear it sees no signs of preparation for war on the part of Pyongyang. The American deployments of aircraft during the ongoing military exercises with South Korea are intended to back Seoul but also restrain it from precipitating a conflict.
So should we forget about Pyongyang and turn our attention back to Iran? No. Iran is apparently going to be well behaved on nuclear issues at least until its election in June. South Korea will be under enormous pressure to respond if the North were to attack. Even if both sides remain restrained, the Americans have a serious problem with North Korea, which has threatened to attack the United States with nuclear weapons. It would be a mistake to forget about the threat just because the capability does not exist today.
How long will it take to acquire the capability? It is hard of course to tell, but easy to picture that in ten years Pyongyang could have both the missiles and the nuclear weapons to strike Japan if not the United States. I’d be surprised if there weren’t someone in the Pentagon suggesting that it would be better to deal with that threat now rather than wait. If North Korea attacks the South, Americans and Koreans may be surprised at the extent and force of the response.
War on the Korean peninsula is a frightening proposition, even if a strike on North Korea’s missile and nuclear facilities were 100% successful. Pyongyang would presumably respond with a massive artillery barrage against Seoul, which is well within range. Who knows what the Chinese would do. Last time there was war in Korea they threw their full weight behind the North. South Korea is a major economic power these days that could suffer massive damage. Spread of conflict to Japan and Taiwan is not inconceivable.
Even if the prospects are not good, we are thrown back to the need for diplomacy to restrain North Korea. That’s where Beijing comes in. The Chinese don’t like the idea of a nuclear North Korea. They are terrified of anything that would open the door to a massive flow of refugees from the hermit kingdom. As next door neighbors and allies, it is up to Beijing to reign in Kim Jong-un. If they fail to do so, the consequences could be catastrophic.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What happens if talks fail?
While I think it likely that Lady Ashton will somehow fish something she can call success out of the swirling soup of issues involved in tomorrow’s talks between Pristina and Belgrade about Serb-controlled northern Kosovo, the precise outcome will be determined in part by what the parties think their best options are in the case of failure. These options are known in the negotiations business as “BATNA”: best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Let’s have a look at them. This exercise is necessarily speculative, since we don’t really know what might be in a deal and even less about what might happen if there is no deal.
If the negotiations fail, Belgrade’s progress towards the EU “will grind to halt if dialogue fails,” according to Serbia’s deputy prime minister Rasim Ljajic. This is a bit of an exaggeration, since Serbia can continue preparing for EU membership no matter what happens with Kosovo. Accession is likely the better part of a decade off (2020 earliest, I’d guess), even in the best of all possible worlds. But Serbia won’t get a date to begin accession negotiations unless the dialogue with Pristina produces results.
“The date” is not only politically but economically important. Serbia can hope for a substantial infusion of EU funds with the fixing of the date. Belgrade needs that infusion and has few alternative sources of financing. Russia is one, but it is not clear to me that Moscow regards stepping in to save Serbia financially as any more attractive than saving Cyprus. In the end, the Russians took a haircut there, but they were none too pleased to do so. Anteing up for Serbia right now might be asking a bit much. Slavic solidarity has its limits.
If the talks fail, Pristina could lose an opportunity to negotiate a Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA) with the EU. This would be unfortunate, as everyone else in the Balkans has an SAA, which provides substantial access to the EU market. Pristina could also expect the EU to continue dealing with its application for a visa waiver program in slow motion. Neither of these losses comes close to Belgrade’s loss of a date (and the related financing) for opening accession talks, and both have the disadvantage of further isolating Kosovo. Lagging progress in getting closer to the EU is a factor in Kosovo politics, where the “Self-Determination” movement would prefer to give up on the EU and seek union with Albania. That anti-constitutional, irredentist proposition is one the EU and US oppose. Stiffing Pristina on the SAA and visa waiver would be counter-productive, to say the least.
What will happen in northern Kosovo if the talks fail? I really don’t know, but let me speculate. Those Serbs who man the barricades will feel they have won and hope to reassert their resistance to Pristina’s authority. At least one Serbian official is threatening that northern Kosovo might declare independence and seek an opinion of the International Court of Justice. There is deep irony in that of course, as the court advised that Kosovo’s declaration of independence breached no international law, but there is really no fear that such a move would gain recognition. Even Serbia would not want to risk its relationship with the EU and US.
The Kosovo authorities would feel they have lost, though they may also feel vindicated if they reject a deal they judged unworthy. Hotter heads among the Albanians may want to retake the north by force, or harm Serbs in the south, both lousy options guaranteed to harm Kosovo’s interests and rouse the Americans and Europeans to high dudgeon. Cooler heads in Pristina will want to continue to try to win over the “hearts and minds” of northern Serbs but may also feel compelled to take some sort of unilateral action to show toughness.
Patience would be a great virtue in the event of failure. Belgrade is spending far too much to sustain the Serbs in northern Kosovo and will likely need to reduce those expenditures in the next few years no matter what. If Pristina is able to moderate any reactions south of the Ibar, it is likely to find it relatively easy to revive both the visa waiver and the SAA negotiation, as neither one involves EU accession. Reviving the idea of a date for accession talks for Serbia would be more difficult, as internal EU resistance to enlargement is growing and German elections loom in September.
The big unknown about the talks is what they might do for Kosovo’s efforts to gain greater international recognition and acceptance. I find it hard to credit the idea that Belgrade can have “normal” relations with Pristina, the nominal objective of the dialogue, without dropping its campaign against Kosovo’s entry into international organizations, including the United Nations. Nor is it “normal” for a neighbor to oppose recognition by third parties, something Belgrade has done worldwide with significant success. Ending Belgrade’s anti-recognition and anti-acceptance campaign should be valued in Pristina, even if some may claim Kosovo should not have to pay a price for it.
It is my hope that Lady Ashton will bring an end to that campaign even if the talks on northern Kosovo were to fail. This is the very least the EU should ask of Belgrade at this stage. Allowing Kosovo full access to international organizations would give Pristina good reason for strategic patience and confirm what Belgrade has already accepted by meeting with the Kosovo authorities at the highest levels: whatever you think Kosovo’s status is or should be, its President and Prime Minister are its democratically validated and legitimate representatives.
RSS - Posts
