Month: November 2016
Russia’s shenanigans in the Balkans
My colleague Siniša Vuković and I published a piece on foreignpolicy.com today concerning the failed, Russian-backed coup plot in Montenegro last month. It concludes with this:
The Balkans will be way down the list of priorities for the next American president. The Islamic State and al Qaeda; China’s claims in the South China Sea; the wars in Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Afghanistan; North Korea’s nuclear program; and dozens of other problems are far more threatening to U.S. national security. But what America does not need is any further distraction in the Balkans, where two decades of investment have come close to stabilizing a chronically war-prone area that played unhappy roles in World War I, World War II, and the aftermath of the Cold War. It would be better and far less costly to counter Russian efforts there with a renewed preventive effort to enable all the Balkan countries, if they want, to enter NATO and the EU, where they will find themselves far less vulnerable to the Kremlin’s meddling hand.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Go vote!
It is finally election day in the US. Registrations to vote have soared to over 200 million, but turnout in the past has been under 60% of eligible voters. There is no compulsory or automatic registration in the US, as there is in other countries. Nor is anyone required to vote. Moreover, Americans move often, which means that many will be registered twice, since little effort is made to shift registrations, in particular from one state to another. So the number of registrations may be significantly larger than the number of actual people.
The entire national election process is run not by the Federal government but by the states: they prepare the ballots, set up the polling places, and tabulate the results, which are accumulated in a state-by-state process. Disputes about the process or the results are generally handled first in state courts, not in Federal courts. Fraud is not unheard of, but because the voting, counting and tabulating is transparent and both main political parties participate, it is rare, and impossible on an industrial scale. The system is not “rigged.”
The president is actually elected in the “electoral college,” which meets on December 19 in the various state capitals (not all together). Each state has a number of votes in the “electoral college” equal to its number of senators and representatives in the Congress, with the exception of the District of Columbia (Washington DC). It has three electoral votes even though it has no senators and a single representative (who cannot vote on the floor of the House). The Electoral College essentially favors less populous states, which are often more rural states, but it also means the election will be decided in the relatively few “swing” states (no more than 15) where the outcome is in doubt before election day.
The voting rules, including the time when polls close, are determined by each state. As it happens, most of the states in which polls will close early are expected to vote for Donald Trump, so early returns will likely show him in the lead. Don’t you be misled. From about 9 pm Eastern Standard Time onwards, returns will start to come in from the northeastern states, which generally favor Hillary Clinton.
What are the odds? They favor Clinton at least 2/1. The stock market rose sharply yesterday as her odds appeared to stabilize when the FBI director reaffirmed that he has to reason to indict her for mishandling classified materials. Her likely margin in the popular vote may be not much bigger then 3%, but there is a pretty good chance that Trump won’t break 200 electoral votes, because Clinton is favored to win in so many swing states. That in my view would constitute a “landslide,” given how closely divided the electorate has been in recent times.
Who will vote for whom? Clinton is favored among college graduates, women, minorities, and younger people. Trump is favored among non-college educated whites, men, and older people. Many cities will favor Clinton, rural areas will favor Trump, and the suburbs will be split.
What difference will it make? The choice is stark. This:
Or this:
It will make an enormous difference on foreign policy. Trump is erratic, inconsistent, and hyperbolic. He wants to put America first, which he has defined not only as ignoring others and doubting America’s alliances but also destroying the international trading system and illogically pursuing a bromance with Vladimir Putin. Clinton is committed, studious, and internationalist, all perhaps to a fault. She wants to maintain the stability of the international system and restore American authority surrendered by President Obama in his effort to retrench.
I obviously chose some time ago and voted early (by mail) in the District of Columbia, which I imagine will break 90% for Clinton. I’ll spend part of the day briefing at the State Department’s Foreign Press Center. Then I’ll retreat to friends’ houses and stay up far too late. I went to bed in 2000 thinking Gore had won, only to awake to find he had indeed won the popular vote by hundreds of thousands of votes but would eventually lose Florida by a few hundred, causing him to lose in the Electoral College.
This has been an ugly campaign, marked by the kind of identity politics that I witness in many countries suffering internal strife. We need to bind up the nation’s wounds. That should be possible with Hillary Clinton. But first she has to win. Go vote!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Islamic law and human rights
The relationship between Islamic law and human rights is hotly debated as we watch the various political projects launched by Islamist groups in the Middle East, from political parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood to terrorist groups such as ISIS. In response to these trends the Atlantic Council has launched an Islamic Law and Human Rights initiative to explore human rights violations by Arab states and non-state actors committed in the name of Islam. They hosted Monday a panel with Moataz El Fegiery, a human rights advocate from Front Line Defenders, and Hauwa Ibrahim of Harvard Divinity School.
In El Fegiery’s view Islamic law and human rights can be compatible but in practical application it comes down to the behavior and interests of the political actors capable of implementing Islamic law. There are two major trends among Islamic scholars trying to resolve the tension between Islamic law and human rights. One attempts to reconcile the two from within existing traditions of sharia, but this approach has limitations, especially in issues not previously prioritized in sharia such as gender equality and relations with non-Muslims. The second trend, which El Fegiery believes has greater potential, is a transformative approach introducing new interpretative methods or entirely new contextual readings of Islamic sources. The primary challenge this view faces is the inability to discuss such issues in the public sphere given censorship, blasphemy laws, and the power of the religious elite to shape public discourse.
Ibrahim shared observations of her interactions with Islamic law as a lawyer in Nigeria, where her clients included women sentenced to death by stoning. She believes Islamic law and human rights are compatible, but was frequently reprimanded by the religious establishment for her views of contextual religious interpretation. She noted vast differences in the application of Islamic law across countries and urged that we consider the cultural attitudes that inform these differences. It is wise to acknowledge the diversity of the Islamic world and the number of non-Arab Muslims that make up the global community. In response to a question regarding freedom of the press, specifically publishing images of the prophet, she noted that there is no clear answer. Given that these articles often have violent consequences the question of where one person’s freedom of speech begins and another’s ends must be a judgment call.
Both panelists agreed that in recent decades we have seen a decline in the robustness of debate among Islamic scholars due to censorship from both state and non-state actors. El Fegiery believes that we must create the conditions for an inclusive dialogue, including allowing for freedom of expression in the Islamic world. He also worries about religious education, where students are more likely to be indoctrinated in sharia law than be taught critical thinking skills. He believes with the appropriate social and political conditions we will gradually see a reformation occurring in Islamic thought allowing for the peaceful cohabitation of divergent views.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, November 7 – 11
- Elections in Hard Times: Building Stronger Democracies in the 21st Century | Monday, November 7 | 10:00am – 11:00am | Woodrow Wilson Center | Click HERE to Register Why are ‘free and fair’ elections so often followed by democratic backsliding?Elections in Hard Times answers this critical question, showing why even clean elections fail to advance democracy when held amidst challenging structural conditions. It develops a new theory of why elections fail in countries with little democratic history or fiscal resources, and a history of violent conflict. Discussing a new report by Thomas Edward Flores, Associate Professor of Conflict Resolution and Political Science, George Mason University and Co-Author, Elections in Hard Times and Irfan Nooruddin, Director, Georgetown University’s India Initiative, former Wilson Center Fellow and Co-Author, Elections in Hard Times. Moderated by William J. Pomeranz, Deputy Director, Kennan Institute, Wilson Center
- Enhancing the US-Georgia Security Partnership: The Way Forward | Monday, November 7 | 10:30am – 11:30am | Heritage Foundation | Click HERE to register Located in the South Caucasus, Georgia sits at a crucial geographical and cultural crossroads and has proven to be strategically important for military and economic reasons for centuries. Today, Georgia’s strategic location is also important to the United States. In 2008 Georgia was promised eventual membership at the NATO summit in Bucharest. Since then few countries in the Euro-Atlantic region express as much enthusiasm for NATO as Georgia – even though it is not yet inside NATO. After the Russian invasion in 2008 and the subsequent Russian occupation of 20 percent of Georgia’s territory, Georgia has transformed its military and has contributed thousands of troops to overseas military operations – all in the hopes of speeding up its application to join NATO. What is Georgia’s prospect of joining the Alliance? How will the new Georgian government and the next U.S. president handle the issue of NATO membership? Join us as we address these issues and more. Featuring Brigadier General (Ret.) Peter Zwack, Senior Russia-Eurasia Fellow, Institute of National Security Studies, National Defense University, Richard Weitz, Ph.D., Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Political-Military Analysis, Hudson Institute, Stephen Blank, PhD., Senior Fellow for Russia, American Foreign Policy Council, Luke Coffey, Director, Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation
- Is Islamic Law Compatible with Human Rights? | Monday, November 7 | 12:30pm | Atlantic Council | Click HERE to Register The international media frequently features stories of Arab states and non-state actors committing human rights violations allegedly in the name of Islam. The application and understanding of Islamic jurisprudence is varied and controversial, whether such readings of the faith result in institutionalized state laws or actions committed by non-state actors, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) or al-Qaeda.The Atlantic Council’s Islamic Law and Human Rights initiative, a project of the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, explores human rights violations by Arab states and non-state actors committed in the name of Islam. This event will present the initiative and feature a discussion on where gender relations and freedom of speech stand in the context of sharia in the region. Featuring Hauwa Ibrahim, Sharia and Human Rights Scholar, Harvard Divinity School and Dr. Moataz El Fegiery,Protection Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa, Front Line Defenders and moderated by Ms. Geneive Abdo, Author of The New Sectarianism: The Arab Uprisings and the Shi’a-Sunni Divide, Atlantic Council
- Stopping North Korea Inc. | Monday, November 7 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | Brookings Institute | Click HERE to Register North Korea’s continuous provocations have raised important questions about the efficacy of international sanctions: Do sanctions intended to reduce or halt weapons of mass destruction procurement work, and if not, why? What, if any, unintended consequences—positive or negative—do sanctions against North Korea (DPRK) generate? What can be done to improve the effectiveness of these and other sanctions? In their recent report, Jim Walsh and John Park address these specific questions with a primary objective to document North Korea’s practices, partners, and pathways in order to better understand how the DPRK has innovated in the face of international sanctions. On November 7, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies at Brookings will host John Park and Jim Walsh as they present key findings from their three-year MacArthur Foundation-funded study of what they call “North Korea, Inc.,” the system of regime-operated state trading companies that the DPRK employs to procure both licit and illicit goods. Jonathan Pollack, interim SK-Korea Foundation Chair in Korea Studies, will provide remarks after their presentation, followed by a Q&A moderated by Richard Bush, director of the Center for East Asia Policy Studies.
- Balancing a New Relationship with Iran: Security and Insecurity in the Wake of a Nuclear Deal | Thursday, November 10 | 10:30am – 12:00pm | Stimson Center | Click HERE to Register
Following the 2015 nuclear deal involving Iran, there was widespread optimism that Iran would develop into a peaceful and constructive member of the international system. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is a significant development, as it brings the nuclear issue under international scrutiny and control. At the same time, actions from Iran, both historically and more recently, continue to contribute to instability in the Middle East.While Iran has maintained its commitments under the nuclear deal, leaders in Iran continue to espouse a foreign policy that confronts U.S. friends and allies and supports both governments and militant organizations that challenge U.S. interests and disrupt peace and security in the region. At the same time, the U.S. and Iran have found a common enemy in Iraq, with Secretary of State John Kerry recently conceding that Iran has been “in certain ways helpful” in the fight against ISIL-Daesh, and Iran has begun to forge new relationships in the international economy.Undoubtedly engagement with Iran is necessary for bringing peace and security to the Middle East region. This engagement needs to involve key states in the region and incorporate their views and perspectives regarding Iran’s potential for both contributing to security and fomenting insecurity in the region.
Featuring Ambassador Lincoln Bloomfield, Jr., Chairman, Stimson Center, Richard Burchill (Moderator), Director of Research & Engagement, TRENDS, Laicie Heeley, Fellow, Budgeting for Foreign Affairs and Defense, Stimson Center, David Albright, President and Founder, Institute for Science and International Security, Mark Fitzpatrick, Executive Director, IISS-Americas with opening remarks by Ahmed Al Hamli, President and Founder, TRENDS, Brian Finlay, President and CEO, Stimson Center
- AEI Election Watch: What Happened and What’s Next | Thursday, November 10 | 12:30pm – 2:00pm | American Enterprise Institute | Click HERE to Register On November 10, AEI’s Election Watch team will look at what the voters said on Election Day, how and why they voted the way they did, and what is ahead for the new administration and Congress. In addition, these seasoned analysts will discuss what the election means for the parties, their supporters, and the permanent campaign. They will examine how conservatives and liberals interpret the results and reflect on what Campaign 2016 tells us about the future of presidential politics.Less than 48 hours after the results are in, join Washington’s most experienced team of election experts as they discuss what happened and what’s next. Featuring Michael Barone, AEI, John Fortier, Bipartisan Policy Center, Henry Olsen, Ethics & Public Policy Center, Norman J. Ornstein, AEI and moderated by Karlyn Bowman, AEI
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This rigged election counts
Donald Trump is right. This election is rigged, but in his favor. Here is some evidence:
- Grossly excessive media coverage in Trump’s favor, including failure to press him for his tax returns and documentation related to his wife’s immigration.
- Concerted efforts in swing states like North Carolina and Pennsylvania to suppress minority voting.
- Russian hacking and Wikileaks publication of Clinton-connected emails.
- FBI statements about Clinton-connected investigations with not a whisper of investigations of Trump, whose malfeasance is publicly documented.
I suppose it is possible the FBI and IRS have no ongoing investigations of Trump, but that would prove rather than disprove the point.
Clinton has other disadvantages: she is a woman in a political world that men still dominate, she has a long public record that necessarily displays mistakes, and she is brainier than she is warm and fuzzy, which is a combination that makes people more envious than admiring. The campaign has done nothing to make her more popular with some of the American people, especially those who are less educated and more rural.
She is still likely to win. Best guess is that she will have only a few percentage points advantage in the popular vote, but the electoral college will give her a far wider margin. She has run a mostly successful campaign in swing states, while holding on to all those she could count on from the start.
Will Trump concede? Who knows. It doesn’t really matter. Concession is more a traditional ceremony than a politically or legally important act. If the election is close enough for him to pursue one or two states in court, that will be a problem. But his appearance on TV to accept a clear defeat is irrelevant.
Clinton will nevertheless start her mandate with two strikes against her: she’ll face continued FBI investigation and she’ll likely not enjoy Democratic control of Congress. Even if the Republicans lose their majority in the Senate, the Democrats are not likely to have the 60 votes there required to get things done. The House will likely have a reduced, but still effective, Republican majority.
What a Republican majority means will be an open question. Trump has moved the Republican party far from traditional conservatism: he wants colossal infrastructure spending, limits on immigration, and less free trade, in addition to the more conventional increase in defense expenditures, tax reductions, and the repeal of Obamacare. Will part of the Republican party stick with his platform, or will it revert in defeat to a more conventional conservative posture? Will at least part of the Republican caucus be prepared to cooperate on immigration reform and Obamacare improvements, thus reaching out to minority voters, or will they continue across-the-board obstruction?
Much of the world is looking to Tuesday’s election as if it were their own. What America does matters worldwide. But it will be weeks or even months before we know whether we are about to break out of our current cycle of difficulty in governing, or spiral deeper into the abyss. Liberal democracy needs to demonstrate its effectiveness if it wants to survive and shine a light the rest of the world will want to follow. As appalling as it is to me that more than 40% of my fellow Americans will vote for an unqualified, dyspeptic, racist, misogynist xenophobe, his defeat will be a re-assertion of commitment to liberal democracy and a freer world.
If Trump wins, all bets are off. More than anything else, the uncertainty will create havoc on world markets and in international relations. His success in rigging the elections will tarnish liberal democracy for a generation and encourage the worst instincts of ethnic nationalists all over the world. This rigged election counts.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Mosul yes, Raqqa not yet
As the Iraqi offensive on Mosul progresses and Kurdish forces encroach on ISIS territory in Syria there is an eagerness to finalize the destruction of the ISIS caliphate. An Atlantic Council panel yesterday examined the complex realities on the ground in an attempt to clarify the “day after” issues.
Hassan Hassan of the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy considers the Mosul offensive to be an important moment for the Iraqi army and its coalition of forces: it offers a historic opportunity to resolve deep Iraqi wounds. But Mosul poses greater challenges than cities already liberated from ISIS due to the complex political environment and number of stakeholders in the coalition. We are likely to see ISIS attempt to prolong the Mosul fight rather than fleeing immediately for Raqqa, hoping that rising tensions among coalition members will lead to dysfunction.
These concerns were echoed by Jessica Lewis McFate of the Institute for the Study of war, who agrees that the longer the battle rages the more fragile the coalition will become. We can also expect ISIS to accelerate attacks in other areas of Iraq where they have already established a presence, such as Kirkuk and Baghdad, in order to undermine the Iraqi army’s progress and distract from the Mosul battle. Unaddressed Sunni grievances will make it difficult for the Iraqi government to reassert authority in troubled regions. As ISIS is chased out, we are likely to see Al Qaeda pick up the cause of Sunni disenfranchisement. Its affiliates are reportedly already active in Anbar province. The Iraqi government must therefore address the grievances, a move the US should support.
Turning towards ISIS in Syria, Howard Shatz from RAND Corporation noted that the Iraqi coalition in Mosul is stable for now, but a coalition in Syria with Kurdish forces in the lead is a dicey proposition, making the impatient calls for a simultaneous attack on Raqqa risky. Hassan agrees that Washington generally underestimates the fear and suspicion of Syria’s Kurds among the Arabs, who perceive Kurdish ambitions of establishing dominance and depopulating areas to allow the settlement of Kurdish families. This is not an accurate reflection of Kurdish aims, since no one believes they intend to stay in Raqqa, but the fear will be exploited by Jabhat al Nusra and other Islamist groups. McFate agrees that the Arab-Kurd dynamic must be considered in the fight against ISIS, and noted that following Kurdish liberation of Shaddadi in 2015 much of the population fled to territory still held by ISIS.
This leads to what McFate identifies as a fundamental gap in American policy. Due to the current composition of Syrian opposition forces, the defeat of ISIS empowers Al Qaeda affiliates such as Jabhat al Nusra. If alongside the Turkish-backed coalition, which includes Al Qaeda affiliated groups, Kurdish forces liberate Raqqa and then retreat to Kurdish areas, this will leave Al Qaeda in a dominant position to reassert influence over Raqqa. Indeed it was Jabhat al Nusra and affiliated groups who held the Raqqa area prior to the ISIS blitz. Hassan agrees, arguing that unless an appropriate coalition has been built the expulsion of ISIS forces will only open new conflict. The US has been hesitant in supporting appropriate forces, but this must be the priority if we do not want to open another conflict within the Syrian civil war.
All panel members agreed that defeating ISIS in Iraq is more a political and governance issue than a military issue. They were reasonably optimistic about the opportunity for Iraq to rebuild, but the international community must remain engaged in Baghdad to encourage governance improvements. However they would urge patience in confronting ISIS in Syria if we do not want to see renewed violence and even greater Al Qaeda empowerment.
RSS - Posts
