Day: May 8, 2016
Peace picks May 9-13
- Farewell Kabul: From Afghanistan to a More Dangerous World | Monday, May 9th | 10:30-12:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Nearly 30 years ago, Christina Lamb left Britain to become a journalist in Pakistan. From there, she entered Afghanistan as mujahideen fighters were battling the Russians. In 2001, U.S.-led forces entered Afghanistan. Farewell Kabul tells how the West, in Lamb’s view, turned success into defeat—and how a mission that had once been seen as the right thing to do became a conflict that everyone wanted to exit. The book also grapples with a puzzling question: How did NATO, with 48 countries and 140,000 troops on the ground, fail to defeat a group of religious students and farmers? Since 2001, according to Lamb, the West has fought a war with its hands tied, committed too little too late, failed to understand local dynamics, and turned a blind eye as the Taliban enemy has been helped by Pakistan. In Afghanistan, Lamb has traveled from the caves of Tora Bora in the south to mountainous Kunar province in the east, and from Herat in the west to the impoverished province of Samangan in the north. Farewell Kabul illustrates the human cost of political failure but also argues that the short-sighted encouragement of jihadis to fight the Russians, followed by prosecution of ill-thought-out wars, has resulted in the spread of terrorism throughout the Islamic world.
- 2nd Annual Conference: The Future of the U.S.-Turkey Partnership | Tuesday, May 10th | 9:30-4:30 | SETA | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Panels and panelists may be found here.
- Turkey’s Syria Predicament | Wednesday, May 11th | 9:00-10:30 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Were it not for Turkey, there would not be a serious armed insurgency in Syria. Turkey is also the opposition backer with the highest stakes in what exactly a post-Assad Syria will look like. Yet despite its demographic, economic, and military might, Turkey finds itself beset by enemies and deprived of reliable allies. The Syrian civil war now has Turkey battling the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), the Syrian regime, and the Islamic State (ISIS), directly or through Syrian proxies. The results are decidedly mixed. In a new Atlantic Council report, “Turkey’s Syria Predicament,” authors Faysal Itani and Aaron Stein argue Turkey’s strategy and policies have profoundly shaped the course of the war in Syria, but not always as Turkey intended. Please join us on May 11 for a discussion with the authors on Turkey’s Syria policy, its implications for Turkish domestic politics, including concurrent peace talks with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), its impact on the Syrian insurgency and course of the war, and the implications for US policy. Frederic C. Hof, Senior Fellow of the Rafik Hariri Center, Atlantic Council, will make introductory remarks. Panelists include Faysal Itani, Senior Fellow of the Rafik Hariri Center, Atlantic Council, and Aaron Stein, Senior Fellow of the Rafik Hariri Center, Atlantic Council. Joyce Karam, Washington Bureau Chief and Columnist, Al Hayat, Al Arabiya, will moderate.
- Parliamentary Politics and Change in Burma | Wednesday, May 11th | 10:00-12:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Back in January 2011, the convening of a new parliament evoked little enthusiasm in the junta-run nation of Burma. Five years later, however, the legislature has arguably become one of the centers of Burma’s post-junta public life. Additionally, the resounding victory of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) in the 2015 elections has rekindled hopes for major democratic transformations. However, Burma’s constitution remains heavily weighted toward the executive branch and provides the Burmese armed forces with key prerogatives. Where does this all leave Burma’s new parliament and, more broadly, what does it mean for the re-emerging legislative branch in a country long characterized by personalized politics, military interventions, and other top-down processes? On May 11, three scholars of contemporary Burma will discuss how the new NLD-led legislature may shape the country’s new politics. Drawing on three years of regular field research in and around Naypyitaw and his forthcoming book, Renaud Egreteau, Wilson Center Fellow, will review the record of Burma’s outgoing legislature and assess its performance, while also identifying weaknesses and constraints that will affect the NLD-led legislature. David Steinberg, Georgetown University Professor, and Christina Fink, George Washington University Professor, will shed light on the complexities of the re-emergence of parliamentary and post-junta politics.
- Iran Human Rights: The Regional Context and Constructive Criticism | Wednesday, May 11th | 2:30-4:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Atlantic Council’s Future of Iran Initiative invites you to a panel discussion on the Iranian government’s human rights record, how it compares with Saudi Arabia, and the constructive steps the United States and the international community can take to persuade these governments to abide by international norms. The panelists will discuss the benefits a less repressive Iran could experience, such as economic gains and fuller re-integration into the international community. This event will also mark the release of a new issue brief entitled, “Will Iran’s Human Rights Record Improve?” by Initiative Acting Director Barbara Slavin, who will moderate the event. Panelists include Ahmed Shaheed, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, UN Human Rights Council, Hadi Ghaemi, Founder and Executive Director, International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, Haleh Esfandiari, Public Policy Fellow, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director, Middle East and North Africa Division, Human Rights Watch.
- Congo Blues: Scoring Kabila’s Governance | Thursday, May 12th | 9:30-11:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please join the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center on May 12th at 9:30 AM for the launch of Congo Blues: Scoring Kabila’s Governance. The study, authored by Pomona College professor Dr. Pierre Englebert, assesses the state of democracy, governance, and the rule of law under Congolese President Joseph Kabila. Despite being in power for fifteen years and the relative buoyant recent macroeconomic growth, Kabila has done little to improve the lives of most citizens of the Democratic Republic of Congo. At best, his tenure has been characterized by willful neglect, and, at worst, by adverse and bloody manipulation of the country’s political system. By tracing in detail the different modes of governance used by regime, Englebert makes the case that Kabila’s reliance on confusion, dithering, meaningless dialogue, absenteeism, theft, patronage, violence, and repression has effectively set the country back to the days when the country was ruled by the klepocratic dictatorship of Mobutu Sese Seko. What’s worse, Kabila doesn’t appear to be finished. Though constitutionally ineligible for a third term, he is now attempting to employ administrative technicalities to delay the election of his successor, scheduled for November 2016. These maneuverings are dangerous, and lay the groundwork for renewed civil unrest led by frustrated political opponents-with potentially catastrophic consequences for both the Congo and the broader Central African region. Richard Gittleman, President and Executive Director of United for Africa’s Democratic Future, will also offer remarks. Dr. J. Peter Pham, Director of the Africa Center, Atlantic Council, will moderate.
- A Rage for Order: The Middle East in Turmoil, From Tahrir Square to ISIS | Thursday, May 12th | 12:00-1:00 | The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host Robert Worth for a discussion of his new book: A Rage for Order: The Middle East in Turmoil, from Tahrir Square to ISIS (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016). In 2011 a series of protests shook the Middle East to its core. Young Arabs, alienated by oppression and economic hardship, took to the streets to demand opportunity and an end to tyranny. Five years later, their utopian vision of revolution has been displaced violently by civil war, instability, and the return of autocracy. With long experience in the region, a keen eye, and the vivid style of a literary journalist, Worth tells the story of the Arab Spring through the eyes and hopes of its protagonists. With diverse portraits and personal accounts from across the region, Worth explains how the Arab Spring gave way to a new age of discord. Kate Seelye, MEI Senior Vice President, will moderate.
- Transforming U.S. Policy for a New Middle East | Thursday, May 12th | 3:30-5:00 | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please join Carnegie for a discussion of Charles W. Freeman, Jr.’s new book America’s Continuing Misadventures in the Middle East and the policy implications for the United States’ many recent military and diplomatic trials in the Middle East. The discussion will center on the complex consequences of U.S. policy in light of the Arab Spring, the increasing roles played in the region by China and other emerging powers, and the simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Speakers include Charles W. Freeman, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Projects International, Inc. and trustee of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and William Quandt Edward R. Stettinius Chair in the Department of Politics at the University of Virginia. The moderator will be Michele Dunne, Director and Senior Associate in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
In defense of colleagues
The brouhaha about this lengthy New York Times Magazine piece on presidential aide Ben Rhodes, in which one of his minions treats journalist Laura Rozen as a reliable mouthpiece for the Administration, is sort of personal for me. I was the executive director of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), much of whose report Ben wrote. Laura worked for me briefly at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), when I was principally concerned with the Balkans (not the Middle East). So a few words about these two colleagues are in order.
Ben is a terrific draftsman largely responsible for the sharp analytical portion of the ISG report, which told Americans in no uncertain terms the truth: things were not going well in Iraq, which is what the 40 or so experts I had organized into four working groups had concluded. The policy recommendations were much more muddled and unsuccessful, at least in the immediate aftermath. But I have little reason to believe Ben either conceived or even drafted many of those portions of the report, which were the result of compromises among the disparate members of the group, including two future secretaries of defense (Gates and Panetta).
Throughout its deliberations, Ben’s great virtue was the one he has exercised so successfully with President Obama: he reflected honestly and even brutally the preferences of his principal, then Lee Hamilton. There is no principal/agent ambiguity with Ben. He understands his master and delivers unerringly, with clear explanations. From my point of view, this was a great virtue. I am not surprised that President Obama treasures it.
I remember taking Ben to lunch, along with another colleague at USIP, just before he left for Chicago to work for the recently elected black Senator who seemed to have little to no chance of winning the Democratic nomination, never mind the presidency. Hamilton had recommended him to Obama as a speech writer. Ben was looking forward to the adventure, no matter how short it might turn out to be. I remember admiring the risk taker. Basically I still do.
Laura’s time with me at USIP is less memorable because we were working on more mundane matters outside the public limelight. She had been a really good journalist in the Balkans and had a lot to contribute to our peacebuilding efforts. She was a fox, not a hedgehog: she knew many things, not one great thing. She found people and channels in which to get things done that I would never have managed to discover. She had lots of contacts and always reflected accurately their perspectives. I’d have thought that a great virtue in a journalist, not the vice David Samuels makes it out to be in the New York Times article.
Samuels’ main gripe seems to be with the Iran nuclear deal, whose basic concept he is anxious to note predates the election of relatively reformist President Rouhani. In Samuels’ version of the story, the White House sold the deal to a bunch of dumb young tweeting cyberscribblers who lacked the sophistication to see through Ben Rhodes’ spin. This narrative is even more disdainful of contemporary journalism that what Samuels alleges about the Administration.
It is also ridiculous: a lot of serious experts have had a good, hard look at the agreement and come away thinking it made the best of a bad, and worsening, situation. I count myself, as I have a bachelor’s and master’s in physical chemistry and seven years abroad working on nuclear nonproliferation issues as a science counselor in American embassies (not to mention a doctorate in history of science also working in part on radiation issues). Many finer experts have come to the same conclusion. I hasten to add that no one at the White House or State Department has ever contacted me about the agreement with Iran, which I suppose reflects how little influence they think I might have.
Laura was one of the journalists who followed the nuclear deal in depth and with care. I don’t know anyone who got more of the inside story, which is difficult when negotiations are ongoing. What better target if you are trying to besmirch the thing than throwing mud at someone who really helped the American public to understand what was going on? I gather from her subsequent remarks that Samuels never gave Laura a fair opportunity to reply to his allegations. That is notably bad journalism.
RSS - Posts
