Month: December 2016
Peace picks, December 5-9
- The Arab Woman: Enhancing Leadership and Resilience | Monday, December 5 | 10:00am – 3:30pm | United States Institute of Peace | Click HERE to Register
Social and economic empowerment of women has been shown to strengthen stability and resilience. From the national level to the grassroots, Arab women continue to face and overcome challenges to lead their countries and communities, while empowering one another.
Panelists, including leaders of government and civil society, will explore opportunities for the League of Arab States to invest in supporting women’s empowerment for the region’s peace and prosperity. The discussion will feature success stories of Arab women leaders breaking barriers, assess Arab and global initiatives focusing on women, and make recommendations for greater inclusivity.
Featuring Ambassador Inas Mekkawy,Head of Women, Family and Childhood Development, League of Arab States, Randa Hudome, Founder, Fahmy Hudome International, Manal Omar, Associate Vice President, Center for Middle East and Africa, U.S. Institute of Peace, Hibaaq Osman, Founder & CEO, El Karama, Donald Steinberg, CEO, World Learning, Representative Ilhan Omar, Minnesota House Representative for District 60B, Linda Bishai, Director of North Africa Programs, U.S. Institute of Peace, Kathleen Kuehnast, Senior Gender Advisor, U.S. Institute of Peace, Marwa AlKhairo, Manager of Partnership Development, International Youth Foundation, Hajar Sharief, Co-Founder, Libya Ma’an Nabneeha, Sali Osman, Cybersecurity Risk Advisory, Ernest and Young, “One to Watch” Award from Executive Women’s Forum - The Future of US-Turkish Relations: Cooperation or Frustration | Monday, December 5 | 10:00am – 11:15am | Bipartisan Policy Center | Click HERE to Register
Change may be in the future for U.S.-Turkey relations. Members of the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump have expressed both admiration for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and deep suspicion toward his brand of Islamist politics. Whether the new administration goes all in on Turkey or abandons it, this decision will have profound implications for the fight against ISIS, the outcome of the Syrian civil war, and Turkey’s domestic stability.
At this crucial juncture, join the Bipartisan Policy Center for the release of a new report detailing recommendations for the next administration and a discussion of the future of U.S.-Turkey relationship.
Featuring Charles Wald (Ret.), Former Deputy Commander, U.S. European Command, Co-Chair, BPC’s National Security Program, Eric Edelman, Former U.S. Ambassador to Finland and Turkey, Co-Chair, BPC’s Turkey Initiative, Amberin Zaman, Public Policy Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International, Center for Scholars, Columnist, Al-Monitor - Global Economic Challenges for Donald Trump | Monday, December 5 | 10:00am – 12:00pm | American Enterprise Institute | Click HERE to Register
On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump will assume office at a time of considerable strain in the global economy and after an election campaign that has raised serious questions about the relative benefits of globalization.
This seminar will take stock of how the US economy might be affected by the ongoing European sovereign debt crisis, the transformation of China’s economic growth model, and Japan’s renewed efforts to stave off deflation. It will also consider what international economic policies the Trump administration should pursue and the risks that unorthodox monetary policies by the world’s major central banks might pose for the global currency market.
Featuring Alex J. Pollock, R Street Institute, Fred Bergsten, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Jeffrey Frankel, Harvard University, Greg Ip, The Wall Street Journal, Anne Krueger, SAIS, Desmond Lachman, AEI - Strengthening US-Arab Cyber Security Policy Cooperation | Monday, December 5 | 1:30pm – 4:30pm | Middle East Institute | Click HERE to Register
Cyber threats are on the rise in the Middle East, ranging from electronic vandalism or financial crimes to sabotage and virtual acts of war. Governments and businesses in the Middle East have suffered damaging attacks. State actors and hacker collectives in the region are also believed to be targeting the U.S. military, civilian government agencies, and private sector systems.
What systemic problems will the United States and Arab states confront in the next few years? Are there gaps in national policy or in the collaboration between governments and the private sector that render the United States vulnerable? What is the state of the U.S.-Arab dialogue within these global issues, and how can Washington and its Arab partners coordinate better?
The Middle East Institute is pleased to host industry and policy experts for a program examining Middle Eastern cyber threat trends and developments affecting national security, essential services, and the economy. Register now to hear the analysis and recommendations of these leaders in the field.
Featuring Wendy Chamberlin, President, Middle East Institute, Sean Kanuck
Attorney and Strategic Consultant; former National Intelligence Officer for Cyber Issues, Omar al-Ibrahim, Security Researcher and Consultant, Omprotect LLC; Assistant Professor, Kuwait University, Robert Knake, Whitney Shepardson Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, Paul Kurtz, Founder and CEO, TruSTAR Technology, Patrick Tucker, (Moderator), Technology Editor, DefenseOne, James A. Lewis, Senior Vice President and Director, Strategic Technologies Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies - Kurds—A Beacon of Hope or a Harbinger of More Chaos | Monday, December 5 | 2:00pm – 3:00pm | Brookings Institution | Click HERE to Register
For the United States, Syrian Kurds are reliable boots on the ground in the fight against the Islamic State. Their agenda for autonomy and self-rule in northern Syria, however, is a source of vexation for Turkey. Ankara is worried about the emergence of a Kurdish state along its borders, which could bolster the demands of Kurds within Turkey for greater political recognition. Limitations on Kurds’ right to social and cultural self-expression is now viewed as a major flaw in Turkey’s democratic edifice. Its actions in Syria against the Kurdish forces also undermine the international coalition against ISIS. In return, these factors hamper Turkey’s relations with the U.S.
How can the actors in this regional theater break through the deadlock? In the latest Turkey Project Policy Paper, “Two routes to an impasse: Understanding Turkey’s Kurdish policy,” Ayşegül Aydın of University of Colorado and historical sociologist Cem Emrence of Leiden University explore how “politics of moderation” could offer the most effective solution to the crisis in the region, and discuss how the different actors involved—Turkey, the Kurds, and the United States—should take a more proactive approach, including a willingness to make compromises, in the interest of forging a lasting peace.
On December 5, 2016, the Turkey Project at Brookings will host a panel discussion on new approaches to the “Kurdish issue” in Turkey and its neighborhood. At the event, Ayşegül Aydın will present conclusions from her co-authored paper. Following her remarks, Nicholas Danforth of the Bipartisan Policy Center and Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy will offer their perspectives. The discussion will be moderated by the Brookings TÜSİAD Senior Fellow Kemal Kirişci. - Inside the Islamist Terrorist’s Mind: A Conversation with Former CIA Interrogator James Mitchell | Tuesday, December 6 | American Enterprise Institute | Click HERE to Register
As a key architect of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program, James Mitchell spent thousands of hours questioning terrorists, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM). He came to understand the terrorist mind better than anyone in America.
Now, for the first time, Dr. Mitchell will share what KSM told him — including his opinions of US counterterrorism policy, the Bush administration’s response to 9/11, his plans for future attacks, and why he is certain they will ultimately prevail in their war against America.
Join Dr. Mitchell and AEI’s Marc Thiessen for a discussion of Dr. Mitchell’s new book, “Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds of the Islamic Terrorists Trying to Destroy America” (Crown Forum, 2016), as he offers a first-person account of the enhanced interrogation program and his personal interactions with the men behind the deadliest terrorist attack in history. - Afghanistan in 2016: A Survey of the Afghan People | Wednesday, December 7 | 9:30am – 11:30am | United States Institute of Peace | Click HERE to Register
The Asia Foundation, in partnership with the U.S. Institute of Peace, will present the findings of the 2016 Survey of the Afghan People at USIP on December 7. Crucial questions of security, economic stability, and reconciliation face the administration of President Ashraf Ghani and CEO Abdullah Abdullah. As they begin their third year in office, an atmosphere of increasing civilian casualties and unrest in the provincial capitals threatens the fragile but significant progress the country has made toward peace and prosperity over the past decade.
The findings of The Asia Foundation’s 12th annual Survey of the Afghan People are being released at an important moment for Afghanistan. The 2016 survey, based on face-to-face interviews with a nationally representative sample of more than 12,600 Afghan citizens, reveals their views on a range of issues including security, the economy, essential services, governance and political participation, corruption, justice, and gender equality. This year’s survey extends to new areas, including youth issues, migration, citizens’ awareness of legal resources, reconciliation with the Taliban, the Islamic State (ISIL/ISIS), landmines, and access to social media on mobile phones.
Conducted across the country’s 34 provinces, The Asia Foundation’s series of annual surveys since 2004 in Afghanistan provides an unmatched barometer of Afghan public opinion over time. Taken together, the surveys are a resource for policymakers in government, the international community and the broader Afghan public as they seek to navigate a difficult landscape toward a more peaceful and prosperous future for Afghanistan and the region.
Featuring Nancy Lindborg, President, U.S. Institute of Peace, David D. Arnold, President, The Asia Foundation, Zach Warren, Survey and Research Director in Afghanistan, The Asia Foundation, Idrees Ilham, Director of Governance Programs in Afghanistan, The Asia Foundation, Jena Karim, Former Deputy Country Representative for Programs in Afghanistan, The Asia Foundation, Scott Worden, Director, Afghanistan and Central Asia Programs, U.S. Institute of Peace - Potential for Middle East Cooperation in Various Fields | Wednesday, December 7 | 11:30am – 2:30pm | Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies | Click HERE to Register The Middle East Institute (MEI) and the Conflict Management Program of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) are pleased to host five of the contributing authors, Anthony Cordesman (CSIS), Shahrokh Fardoust (College of William and Mary), Querine Hanlon (Strategic Capacity Group), Ross Harrison (MEI), and Jean-Francois Seznec (MEI & SAIS), for a discussion of opportunities in regional cooperation and the costs of the prevailing competition and rivalries between states. Paul Salem (MEI) will moderate the discussion.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump in a china shop
President-elect Trump has talked by phone with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, breaking a tradition of non-communication at the highest level since the US downgraded relations with Taiwan and recognized the People’s Republic of China in 1979. Beijing has protested to Washington but is blaming Taipei in public.
The specifics of how the phone call was arranged remain murky. Did Trump initiate it, or President Tsai? Who else was involved? Did a Washington lobbyist or politician benefit from it? These things don’t just happen, but how and why in this case is still unclear.
So what?
Trump is claiming it’s no big deal: why shouldn’t he talk with the leader of a state that the US has close security and economic ties with? He is still a private citizen, even if president-elect. He has opted not to use the State Department in arranging for his congratulatory phone calls from overseas, presumably so that he is free to do as he likes. He likes to be unpredictable and not to give anything away for free: the phone call is in Trump’s view a signal to Beijing that it will need to give as well as get.
Part of the background to the phone call is apparently a visit to Trump from former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, who advocates closer ties with Taiwan. He is also rumored to be a candidate for Secretary of State in the Trump Administration. Bolton shares Trump’s “take no prisoners” negotiating style: put your opponent off balance and keep him there.
While the Logan Act of 1799 prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in disputes with the US, only one person has ever been indicted under its provisions. Private citizens doing business with foreign governments without the approval of the US government is far more the rule than the exception. I could be accused of doing it myself quite often, even if I state explicitly in virtually all my dealings that I don’t speak for the US.
The real issue here is the One China policy, not the phone call. Taiwan in the 37 years since US recognition of Beijing (and de-recognition of Taipei) has become increasingly democratic, secure, and prosperous. President Tsai is no fan of One China, claiming instead that Taiwan is already a state but hesitating to claim independence and sovereignty. Should the US continue with the Nixon-era policy of supporting Beijing’s claim to Taiwan, or should it move in the direction of recognizing what many would regard as reality: that a democratic Taiwan will never freely accept reintegration with the mainland?
I don’t know the answer to that question, even if Hong Kong’s travails under Chinese sovereignty raise doubts. But I’m sure a congratulatory phone call is no way to reformulate a policy with gigantic implications for relations between Beijing and Washington, whose economies will remain locked in an inevitable embrace for decades to come and whose militaries will be competing as well as cooperating worldwide. This may be only the first of many Trump diplomatic maneuvers I doubt, but it is a particularly important one if you look past the phone call.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Jobs count
Today two big items on the job front:
- President-elect Donald Trump has saved 1000 jobs at Carrier in Ohio, at a cost to the state of $7000 per job;
- The Obama recovery that started in July 2009 generated 178,000 new jobs last month, at no cost to the Federal or state governments, lowering the unemployment rate to 4.6%.
We are now in the eighth year of Obama’s much-criticized “slow” recovery.
Which news gets the electrons? It’s mainly the first of course: Trump is a master at attracting attention to everything he does. What he has done in this case is unusual: a direct intervention in a single company’s decisions by the president-elect, with the threat of “consequences” if it does not comply.
What’s wrong with that?
Let me count the ways:
- This kind of non-market intervention is precisely what most economists (and until recently virtually all Republicans) think is a bad idea, as it causes distortion in the distribution of resources (in this case both capital and labor) that cannot be justified on economic grounds.
- A precedent of this sort gives all companies who can pretend to be considering transfer of jobs out of the US an incentive to seek a bribe from the state or Federal governments not to go ahead. Ohio in particular can expect to be flooded with such requests.
- Carrier’s labor costs in the US will be higher than in Mexico, otherwise it would not have considered this move. It will need to pass those costs on to consumers, making its products less competitive than they might otherwise have been not only in the US but also abroad, reducing American exports.
- A company considering a US investment will now have to take into account the unspecified threat of consequences should it decide to move the jobs it creates here to another country, thus discouraging foreign investment.
- Mexicans who might have earned decent wages at a Carrier plant will be poorer, thus limiting their purchasing power and ability to buy US goods.
These downsides are all well-understood and major reasons why American presidents have stopped “jawboning” on price increases, investment decisions and other economic issues. As Ronald Reagan taught us, the proper role of government is to set the parameters for open competition and leave the specifics to private individuals or companies.
So what should a president do about jobs being shipped overseas? The key is to create an improved business environment at home, in particular by streamlining regulations and lowering corporate tax rates. This would make the US more competitive rather than more willing to dole out $7000 checks. There is actually a good deal of agreement between Democrats and Republicans on improving the business environment, even if there are serious disagreements on which regulations should be streamlined.
This carrier deal is an insignificant achievement in the grander scheme of things, though one that points in bad directions. For those who don’t like globalization, wait until you see the consequences of economic nationalism.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
My Goldilocks solution for the Middle East
In the final report of their Middle East Strategy Task Force issued yesterday, Steve Hadley and Madeleine Albright say
…the days of external powers trying to orchestrate and even dictate political reality in the region are finished. So is a regional political order of governments demanding obedience in return for public sector employment and related state subsidies.
They paint instead a future of external powers collaborating to help end civil wars, listening to local voices, and interacting with more responsive and inclusive governments. Their sovereignty restored, if need be by military action, these governments would join in partnerships with each other and compacts with external powers to encourage local initiatives, harness human resources, and incentivize regional cooperation. What’s not to like?
It’s that premise, which looks to me wrong. The US decisions not to or orchestrate or dictate a political outcome in Syria and Libya do not mean that the days of international intervention are over. Russia and Iran are for now doing quite well at it, even if in the end I think they will regret it. Egypt has in fact restored its autocracy and Bashar al Assad clearly intends to do so in Syria. Does anyone imagine that the post-war regime in Yemen will be a more inclusive and responsive one? It isn’t likely in Libya either.
I agree with Madeleine and Steve that failing to implement something like the reforms they point to will likely mean continuation of instability, incubation of extremists, and jihadist resurgence, even if the war against Islamic State is successful in removing it from its control of territory in Iraq and Syria. The instability in the Middle East is clearly the result of governance failures associated with the Arab republics, which had neither the direct control over oil resources required to buy off their citizens nor the wisdom to empower them and enable more decentralized and effective governance.
The question, which Ken Pollack rightly asks, is whether the US has the will and the resources required even to begin to end the civil wars and encourage the required reforms. I think the answer is all too obviously “no.” Ken suggests this means the US would be wiser to flee than to fight with inadequate means.
But the way in which we flee matters. It is the US military presence in the Middle East, which represents upwards of 90% of the costs, that needs to draw down, if only because it is a terrorist target and helps them to recruit. It totals on the order of $80 billion per year, a truly astronomical sum. While I haven’t done a detailed analysis, it is hard to imagine that we couldn’t draw down half the US military in the Middle East once the Islamic State has been chased from the territory it controls without much affecting the things Ken thinks we should still care about: Israel, terrorism, and oil.
Oil is the one so many people find inescapable, including Ken. It is traded in a global market, so a disruption anywhere means a price hike everywhere, damaging the global economy. But there are far better ways to avoid an oil price hike than sending a US warship into the strait of Hormuz, which only makes the price hike worse. For example:
- getting India and China to carry 90 days of imports as strategic stocks (as the International Energy Agency members do),
- encouraging them to join in multilateral naval efforts to protect oil trade,
- getting oil producers to build pipelines that circumvent Hormuz (and the Bab al Mandab), and
- encouraging Iran and Saudi Arabia to build a multilateral security system for the Gulf that enables all the riparian states a minimum of protection from their neighbors while encouraging protection as well for their own populations.
I would add that we need to continue to worry about nuclear proliferation, because the Iran deal only provides a 15-year hiatus, and to provide assistance to those in the Middle East who are ready and willing to try to reform their societies in directions that respect human rights.
All of this requires far more diplomatic commitment than we have been prepared to ante up lately, but it is not expensive (for the US) or unimaginable for others. A vigorous diplomatic effort far short of what Madeleine and Steve advocate but far more than Ken’s “flight” is the right formula in my view.
RSS - Posts
