Month: October 2016
The best part of this election
The best part of this election may be Saturday Night Live (not that that is saying much):
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, October 17-21
- Elusive Peace in Colombia: A Conversation with Ambassador Juan Carlos Pinzon | Monday, October 17 | 2:00pm – 3:00pm | American Enterprise Institute | Click HERE to Register |
On October 2, Colombians rejected in a referendum a peace accord between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) through a national plebiscite. Proponents of the agreement said it was the only way to end the 50-year terror campaign plaguing Colombia and usher in a new era of peace and prosperity. Critics argued that it provided amnesty to human rights violators and that facilitating FARC’s political participation will invite narco influence and corruption into Colombia’s government and society.
Join AEI for a conversation with Colombian Ambassador Juan Carlos Pinzón about what the rejection of the peace agreement means for Colombia and the US, the hopes and concerns of the Colombian people, and the post-accord challenges the country will face. - National Security Law and the Legal Challenges of Terrorism | Monday, October 17 | 3:00pm – 4:00pm | Institute of World Politics | Click HERE to Register |
Andrew McCarthy will give an overview of terrorism law and an explanation for why neither the criminal justice system nor the military system is a good fit against international terrorism. Andrew C. McCarthy III is a former assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and of planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks. He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003. He is a contributing editor of National Review and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.
- Saudi Vision 2030: Opportunities and Challenges | Tuesday, October 18 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Middle East Institute | Click HERE to Register |
Saudi Arabia’s ‘Vision 2030’ is the Kingdom’s most comprehensive economic reform package in its history. Put forward by Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman, Vision 2030 aims to privatize entire sectors, raise non-oil revenues, cut subsidies, and streamline government services, among other reforms.
But the challenges are significant, including moving Saudi nationals out of the government sector and into private employment, employing higher numbers of women, and raising taxes. In the process, the plan upends the Kingdom’s long-held social contract, which guaranteed its citizens most of their needs in return for their support.
The Middle East Institute (MEI) and the Conflict Management Program at the Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS) are pleased to host a discussion examining the economic and political implications of Vision 2030 with Hala Aldosari (Arab Gulf States Institute, ASGIW), Anthony Cordesman (CSIS), Fahad Nazer (AGSIW), and Jean-Francois Seznec(MEI and SAIS). Paul Salem(MEI) will moderate the discussion. - Turkey and the Syrian War, an EES Distinguished Lecture with Dr. Sonar Cagaptay | Tuesday, October 18 | 6:00pm – 7:30pm | Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | Click HERE to Register |
The European and Eurasian Studies (EES) Program cordially invites you to join a presentation and discussion with Soner Cagaptay of The Washington Institute for Near East Studies on “Turkey and the Syrian War” on Tuesday, October 18, 2016, 6:00-7:30pm. The session will be moderated by European and Eurasian Studies Program Director and Professor Erik Jones.
- A New Strategy for Iran-US Relations | Wednesday, October 19 | 9:00am | The Atlantic Council | Click HERE to Register| Nearly four decades since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the United States has found itself at cross-purposes with Iran throughout the Middle East. Though the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to limit Iran’s nuclear program has reopened channels of communication between the United States and Iran, new opportunities for engagement must be measured against the ongoing threat Iran poses to US partners and allies in the region. Ellen Laipson, Atlantic Council distinguished fellow and president emeritus of the Stimson Center, presents her ten-year vision for tackling these complex challenges in A New Strategy for US-Iran Relations. On October 19, Michael Connell, director of the Iranian Studies Program at the Center for Naval Analyses, Atlantic Council board director Amir Handjani, and national security correspondent for the New York Times David Sanger will join Laipson for a discussion of this first regionally focused installment in the Atlantic Council Strategy Papers.
- Islamophobia: Overcoming Myths and Engaging in Better Conversation | Thursday, October 20 | 11:00am – 12:30pm | The Atlantic Council | Click HERE to Register |
Islamophobia is on the rise in non-Muslim-majority countries. It is worse today than it was in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, with no signs of improvement. Following the recent spate of global terrorist attacks, Muslims are increasingly portrayed negatively by the media. Furthermore, some US politicians and their European counterparts have proposed an array of policies – from policing Muslim communities to controlling the flow of refugees and migrants from the Middle East.
The role of national policy on civil rights protections is vital and now more important than ever before.
Join us on October 20 for a public discussion at the Atlantic Council, convened in anticipation of the Smithsonian’s opening of its international exhibition, ‘The Art of the Quran.’
Our distinguished group of panelists will address issues, including the media’s influence on shaping public perceptions of Islam and Muslims; the role policymakers can and should play in bridging the gap between Muslim and non-Muslim communities; and the role art and cultural institutions can play in shifting the narrative to a more inclusive and productive discussion. This panel will feature Karen Armstrong, author and Commentator on Comparative Religion, Vali Nasr, Dean, School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, Zainab Salbi, Founder, Women for Women International and Best-Selling Author, and TV Host. Moderated by Frederick Kempe President and CEO of the Atlantic Council.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Jordan in the middle
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is often ignored when discussing the conflicts throughout the Middle East. However, given its central position (and its shared borders with Iraq, Syria and the Palestinian West Bank) it inevitably plays a pivotal geo-strategic role. Its close relationship with the United States only heightens its regional significance.
To address Jordan’s role in the region and beyond, a knowledgeable Jordanian spoke last week at a roundtable discussion in Washington DC, specifically about his country’s stake in the regional conflicts—namely, the civil war in Syria and the rise of ISIS.
Chaos and displacement of populations throughout the Middle East affects Jordan directly, since many refugees often seek resettlement in Jordan. The Jordanian government faces tremendous pressure to take in more and more refugees from neighboring countries. However, the Jordanian government and public are concerned with the security risk that these refugees pose, especially those migrating from areas formerly held by ISIS. Refugees admitted into Jordan go through a rigorous vetting process and are closely monitored. Amman is wary of the spread of radicalism domestically, and is concerned that refugees will encourage native Jordanians to join Islamist groups.
The refugee population has become a serious economic burden. Prior to the Arab Spring, Jordan had its economy in order—it had surfaced from the crippling debt of the 1990s and had a steadily growing GDP. The influx of refugees has forced the government to scramble to create institutions to care for these people (such as schools, hospitals, etc.). In addition to this pressure from refugees, Jordan’s tourism, transportation, and private sector haven’t been able to weather these economic blows and have been suffering recently. While they were guaranteed financial assistance from the UK and the US at the London Conference earlier this year, this assistance has not yet arrived. The official did, however, note that the US has been providing Jordan with $1.3 billion annually, which has been incredibly helpful in keeping the Jordanian economy in balance.
On Jordan’s ability to mediate between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the response was that Jordan would probably not be able to fill this role. Jordan does have a friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia—the Saudis and the Emiratis give Jordan $5 billion a year for project support, and there is talk of letting Jordan into the GCC. However, Jordan’s relationship with Iran is not strong and therefore Amman cannot serve as mediator.
Jordan has been pivotal in establishing a Free Syrian Army (FSA) “safe haven” in Southern Syria. Amman sees the southern faction of the FSA as relatively benign and capable of securing the south as a buffer zone against regime or extremist aggression.
On the US presidential election, the perception in Jordan is that Hillary Clinton has a clear and practical plan for the Middle East whereas Donald Trump is just bluffing.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria’s future
It would be foolish to have much hope well into the sixth year of the Syria’s wars that Saturday’s meeting of the US, Russian, Iranian, Saudi, Turkish and Qatari foreign ministers will lead to a way out of the current impasse. But it is reasonable to ask what would make the meeting more than just one more boon to Lausanne’s luxury hotels.
The current situation is not propitious. Syria’s government is feeling confident as it rides a ferocious wave of mostly Russian and Iranian attacks on the opposition-held neighborhoods of eastern Aleppo, which it is “cleaning.” It figures the fall of Aleppo will be a tipping point leading to government victory in much of more populated Syria. The government has already negotiated an end to sieges of several areas near Damascus, transporting their populations in an effort to adjust their demography. President Assad has no intention of welcoming back the more than 7 million Syrians who have fled the country. He wants, and thinks he can get, a Syria over which he can restore his autocratic rule by violent means.
At this point, the only thing that would increase the likelihood of a negotiated diplomatic solution is a change in the military balance that threatens Assad. There are ways that might be accomplished without directly engaging Russian forces, which the Americans don’t want to do: stand-off attacks on the Syrian air force or on Hizbollah ground forces or giving more and better weapons to non-extremist opposition forces, to cite two examples. The Americans are hesitant to move in that direction for fear of hitting commingled Russians or enabling an extremist takeover. They have spent the last week or two pondering options.
Washington isn’t likely to do anything before Saturday, but if Secretary of State Kerry can go to the Lausanne meeting with an option to re-balance the military equation in his pocket he might be able to make some diplomatic progress. He needs a credible threat, one Moscow and Tehran feel they need to forestall, to get a serious cessation of hostilities. The beginning of serious talks on transition is likely a bridge too far. Iran and Russia have doubled and quadrupled down on their bets favoring Assad. They are unlikely to risk losing him, since any successor regime that is even remotely democratic would throw them out.
What happens if/when Aleppo falls? Assad will force the opposition adherents out, either leaving eastern Aleppo destroyed and deserted or repopulating it with loyalists. Will the government and its allies then turn its attention to Idlib, where there really are extremists (and infighting among them)? Or will they try to drive farther north to the Turkish border, risking clashes with Turkish and Turkish-backed groups advancing there?
Or will they be content to rest on their laurels? That seems unlikely. Many of us, including me, have underestimated Assad’s sticking power and his determination to retake territory. Now that he is on a roll, he won’t want to stop. Nor will the extremist and non-extremist forces leave him alone. I’m afraid more war rather than less is still in Syria’s future.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This is not the October surprise
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump apologized yesterday for NATO’s 1999 bombing of Serbia:
The bombing of Serbs, who were our allies in both world wars, was a big mistake…Serbians are very good people. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration caused them a lot of harm, but also throughout the Balkans, which they made a mess out of.
For someone who has found it difficult to apologize for anything, even his avowed practice of sexually assaulting women, this is pretty rich. Why would he do it?
First and foremost is that the bombing was carried out pursuant to orders from Bill Clinton. Trump is trying hard to run against the former president, one more clear sign of his disdain for women. There are days Trump concentrates his fire far more on Bill than on Hillary, or on Hillary only to claim that she was an enabler of Bill’s affairs. Women who feel themselves victims of their husbands’ misbehavior aren’t likely to appreciate that, but Trump could care less.
Just as important is the Serb presence in mid-western states, especially Ohio. Trump has been slipping in the polls there and no doubt figures Serb voters, who have already lined up in his favor, will appreciate his latest foray into the Balkans. Trump seems to have an insatiable appetite for appealing to people already slated to vote for him, rather than reaching out to independent or undecided voters, never mind women and minorities. All the above are abandoning him in droves. The Albanians and Bosniaks likely to be offended by the apology are concentrated in states already regarded as “safe”: Albanians in solidly Democratic New York and Bosniaks in mostly Republican Missouri.
Some have suggested that the apology is one more bit of evidence of Russian influence. It might be so. But I think the first two explanations are more than sufficient.
No doubt this apology will be heavily covered in the Balkans and please some people no end, while infuriating others. But both factions should understand that it will attract precious little attention in the United States, where the Balkan interventions of the 1990s are largely forgotten, and no serious effect on the outcome of the election, which if held tomorrow has a 90% chance of deciding in favor of Hillary Clinton. If there is to be an October surprise that affects the outcome, other than the several we have already survived, it isn’t going to be this.
PS: The Trump campaign has denied the interview (in which the apology was supposed issued) was ever made.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Russian views on Syria
On Tuesday the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies hosted a discussion with Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak, Russian Federation Ambassador to the US.
Ambassador Kislyak acknowledged that things are not developing in the best fashion for Russian or US interests. The US has been taking unfriendly steps towards Russia, including the imposition of sanctions and calls to isolate and pressure Russia. He warned that these approaches do not work with Moscow. Russia, he said, has tried hard to work with the US and sees many opportunities for cooperation. These are being missed, but it is not Russia that started or is fuelling the current situation.
Regarding Syria, Kislyak believes that the US and Russia have a common enemy in terrorism. Russia is even more vulnerable to the risks of revived terrorist groups due to its regional proximity and an estimated 4000 Russian speakers fighting in Syria. Syria must continue to preserve the state as the alternative is total failure, which would be a greater problem for everyone. Russia came to Syria on the invitation of its government to assist in the fight against terrorism, no more and no less. Russia’s presence is consistent with international law, as opposed to the presence of other states that have not received the permission or invitation of the sovereign Syrian state.
Commenting on the current situation in Aleppo, Kislyak said that East Aleppo is controlled by Al Qaeda and other “so called” opposition forces who are holding the population hostage. He offered examples of Al Qaeda executions of civilians attempting to leave. He denied that hospitals have been bombed in Aleppo and stated that the Russians never attack civilians. If hospitals had been bombed it was because they had not been identified as such. The Russians are only targeting Al Qaeda. When they request that the US provide information of who is Al Qaeda and who is opposition they never receive a helpful response to deal with the issue in a precise manner. According to Kislyak, the US has been promising since February that the opposition would be separated from Al Qaeda but this has not happened.
Russia is still open to cooperation with the US on Syria. Priorities going forward are to stop the fighting, delineate between opposition forces and Al Qaeda, and start building the environment to start negotiations.
There are clearly areas of common interest for cooperation between the US and Russia on Syria. Both agree that Jabhat al-Nusra is an Al Qaeda force which must be dealt with. A totally failed state will be fertile ground for such groups. There is a disagreement however on the nature of the groups fighting Assad, with Kislyak denouncing ‘opposition forces’ as an American term. If Russia was invited by Assad to combat terrorists, and follows Assad’s definition of all opposition groups as terrorists, there is a fundamental gap in understanding that must be filled before progress in negotiations can be successful. There remains however the issue of separating moderate opposition forces from the complex network of militant groups operating in Syria, which the Russians see as one Washington must take on.
RSS - Posts
