Month: July 2018

Peace Picks – July 30 – August 5

Posted in Marc-Andrea Fiorina, Uncategorized - July 29, 2018 - 0 Comment

1. Where Do We Go From Here? One Year after the Rohingya Crisis | Monday, July 30, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm | Heritage Foundation | Register Here

On August 25, 2017 violence broke out in Rakhine State that led to the mass exodus of more than 700,000 Muslim Rohingya from Burma. Thousands of fleeing Rohingya men and boys were brutally murdered, women and girls were raped and sexually abused, and babies were killed before their family’s eyes at the hands of the notorious Burmese military. The United Nations calls the situation ethnic cleansing. And according to The Economist the refugee flow from Burma was faster than the exodus from Rwanda in the midst of the Rwandan genocide in 1994. The United States has responded by providing substantial humanitarian assistance to alleviate suffering. As the protracted crisis continues, it will be critical for the U.S. to implement a comprehensive long-term strategy to address the Rohingya crisis. That may require a larger-scale shift in broader U.S. strategy toward Burma. Please join us for a conversation nearly a year after the crisis began to discuss solutions to the long-term challenges facing Rohingya.

Speakers:

Keynote: Kelley E. Currie – Representative of the United States on the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, and Alternate Representative of the United States to the General Assembly of the United Nations

Moderator: Walter Lohman – Director, Asian Studies Center, Heritage Foundation

Francisco Bencosme – Asia Pacific Advocacy Manager, Amnesty International

U Kyaw Min – Former Member of Parliament, Burma

Olivia Enos – Policy Analyst, Asian Studies Center, Heritage Foundation

2. The Nuclear Future: Can There Be Order Without Trust? | Monday, July 30, 2018 | 12:30pm – 2:00 pm | Stimson Center | Register Here

Developments in relations between major powers and nuclear-armed states in tense regions render the future of arms control, nuclear confidence-building, and U.S. leadership in the global nonproliferation regime uncertain. Please join the Stimson Center for a luncheon discussion addressing trust deficits in the global nuclear order. Our featured speaker, Heather Williams, lecturer in Defence Studies, Kings College London, will offer recommendations for how the United States can rebuild trust within the global nuclear order, to include increased transparency and unilateral measures in the absence of new treaties. Justin Anderson, senior research fellow, National Defense University’s Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Rebecca Gibbons, post-doctoral fellow, Project on Managing the Atom, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Sara Kutchesfahani, senior policy analyst, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, will offer comments. Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Stimson Center, will convene our luncheon meeting, and Hannah Haegeland, a South Asia analyst at Stimson, will moderate the discussion.

3. Governing the Ungovernable: Institutional Reforms for Democratic Governance in Pakistan | Monday, July 30, 2018 | 3:00 pm – 4:30 pm | Wilson Center | Register Here

Why has Pakistan experienced an extended economic slowdown since 1990? Why has it suffered through volatile and inequitable growth over the last 25 years? In his new book, Governing the Ungovernable, Ishrat Husain, a distinguished Pakistani economist, Wilson Center global fellow, and former Wilson Center public policy fellow, argues that the answer lies in the decay of institutions of governance. At this event, Dr. Husain will discuss his new book, which proposes a selective and incremental approach for reforming key public institutions in Pakistan in order to make them perform better. This event will be moderated by Michael Kugelman, Deputy Director and Senior Associate for South Asia at the Wilson Center.

4. Yemen’s Silent Crisis: Elevating Local Perspectives | Tuesday, July 31, 2018 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | International Center for Religion and Diplomacy | 740 15th St NW #900, Washington, DC, 20005 | Register Here

As Yemen continues to unravel, discussions of the crisis in media and policy circles too often focus solely on the geopolitics, and overlook the realities on the local level. Even in the absence of resources and functioning national institutions, Yemeni community leaders are finding ways to confront dire humanitarian and security challenges. With no political resolution to the conflict in sight, it is more important than ever to examine this crisis through the eyes of those who are impacted most directly.

The International Center for Religion & Diplomacy (ICRD) will host a discussion with Yemen experts and civil society leaders from across a range of disciplines and sectors, in order to take a holistic view of what has been happening at the local level. As Yemen faces a crisis on multiple fronts – famine, civil war, terrorism, political and economic instability – it is important to bring together voices from distinct fields of work.

In this event, panelists will elevate stories of resilience and adversity from Yemeni communities, touching on issues of conflict transformation, humanitarian relief, and the role of civil society in filling the gaps left by absent governing institutions.

Speakers:

Moderator: James Patton – ICRD President & CEO

Fatima Abo Alasrar – Senior Analyst at the Arabia Foundation

Anwar Khan – President of Islamic Relief

Salwa Alssarhi – Independent Consultant – Yemen

5. The Code of Putinism | Wednesday, August 1, 2018 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register Here

What is Vladimir Putin up to? In the new book The Code of Putinism, Brian Taylor argues that we can only understand Putin’s Russia if we understand the set of ideas, emotions, and habits that influence how Team Putin views the world.  Key features of Russian politics today–such as increasing authoritarianism, Putin’s reliance on a small group of loyal friends and associates, state domination of the economy, and an assertive foreign policy–are traced to the worldview and mindset of Putin and his close associates. The Code of Putinism also shows how Putin’s choices, guided by this mindset, have led to a Russia that is misruled at home and punching above its weight abroad.

Speakers:

Moderator: Jeffrey Mankoff – Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program, CSIS

Brian Taylor – Professor and Chair, Department of Political Science, Maxwell School, Syracuse University

Stephen Hanson – Vice Provost for International Affairs, College of William and Mary

Olga Oliker – Senior Advisor and Director, Russia and Eurasia, CSIS

Tags : , , , , ,

Trump’s damage

Posted in Daniel Serwer - July 28, 2018 - 0 Comment

Here’s your five-minute Saturday reminder of the harm Trump is doing to US interests:

This is the cost of President Trump’s ‘America first’ policy from CNBC.

Tags : ,

More flim flam

Posted in Daniel Serwer - July 26, 2018 - 0 Comment

President Trump is vaunting his agreement yesterday with the EU. It is, thankfully, a step back from the brink, but mainly due to American concessions. Trump got nothing from the Europeans, only a statement of best intentions that reiterates things that were already happening or supposed to be happening. And they got something from him, especially on reviving the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations and on the World Trade Organization (WTO):

This is why we agreed today, first of all, to work together toward zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, and zero subsidies on non-auto industrial goods. We will also work to reduce barriers and increase trade in services, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical products, as well as soybeans….

Secondly, we agreed today to strengthen our strategic cooperation with respect to energy. The European Union wants to import more liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States to diversify its energy supply.

Thirdly, we agreed today to launch a close dialogue on standards in order to ease trade, reduce bureaucratic obstacles, and slash costs.

Fourthly, we agreed today to join forces to protect American and European companies better from unfair global trade practices. We will therefore work closely together with like-minded partners to reform the WTO and to address unfair trading practices, including intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, industrial subsidies, distortions created by state owned enterprises, and overcapacity.

The first and third points come directly from the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) launched by President Obama. Trump had stalled it and has now agreed to let it proceed. Note that the reference to soybeans is nothing but one in a list of intentions to increase trade. It will happen, mainly because the Chinese are getting them elsewhere. The second point is carefully phrased: the EU wants to import LNG from the US, which was already true before the meeting, but there is no commitment to do it. The fourth point is a concession by Trump to reform the WTO, rather than wreck it (which is what his Administration has been trying to do).

As always, the key to fully understanding statements of this sort is what they omit. No mention here of the steel and aluminum tariffs or the EU retaliation for them. They agreed to disagree on those issues.

I have to hand it to Trump: he is a master used car salesman. The ability to move the stock market with this warmed-over thin gruel has to be admired. Unfortunately that is a one-day flash in the pan. The flim flam man is still far from delivering anything of real value on trade, even as he raises prices to American consumers and embarks on $12 billion in new agricultural subsidies. Yes, it is good that T-TIP has risen from the grave, but it was Trump who unwisely put it there. Credit is due only for correcting his own grave error.

 

Tags : , ,

Dialogue, restricted speech, or infiltration?

Posted in Nicolas Reeves - July 25, 2018 - 0 Comment

A former terrorist and the NYPD officer responsible for his arrest spoke at CSIS Monday about strategies for countering violent extremism in today’s world. The Unmaking of Jihadism: The Current Effort to Combat Violent Extremism featured:

  1. Jesse Morton: Leader of Parallel Networks, former leader and co-founder of Revolution Muslim
  2. Mitch Silber: Former Director of Intelligence Analysis for the New York City Police Department
  3. Seth G. Jones: Harold Brown Chair and Director of the Transnational Threats Project at CSIS (Moderator).

Morton and Silber worked on opposite sides of the extremism/CVE divide. Morton said that his traumatic upbringing spawned resentment towards his family and the working class town he grew up in, and that radical Salafi Islam became the outlet through which he expressed this acrimony. The Salafi movement also gave him a community. Morton co-founded Revolution Muslim with his friend Youssef Al-Khattab, a fellow convert to Islam. Abdullah Al-Faisal, a Jamaican cleric who encouraged the killing of Americans, Jews, Hindus, and Christians in his teaching, became Revolution Muslim’s spiritual leader.

Revolution Muslim pioneered the use of Web 2.0 platforms to radicalize individuals without forcing them to travel to terrorist hotbeds around the world. This tactic, which has become a popular recruiting tool for ISIS, involves using social media video lectures to teach large audiences to teach about the militant brand of Salafism. Interested individuals are then contacted by group leaders through end-to-end encrypted messaging services such as Telegram. Morton stressed that Revolution Muslim’s success in evading US law enforcement came through its recognition that the Salafi ideology itself was powerful enough to radicalize individuals without Revolution Muslim having to specifically endorse violent extremism. The group thus remained within its First Amendment rights even though 15-20 terrorist plotters around the world traced their roots back to Revolution Muslim.

Silber furthered Morton’s point, emphasizing that the reason why Revolution Muslim survived in the US for four years was Morton’s exquisite knowledge of First Amendment case law. Morton “frequently danced on the First Amendment line” in his public statements, preventing the authorities from arresting him. Further, Revolution Muslim moved away from the top-down hierarchical approach espoused by Al-Qaeda, allowing individuals around the world to plan and execute their own plots. According to Silber, these factors revolutionized recruiting for terrorist groups around the world. Even Al-Qaeda began publishing an English-language magazine in 2010 that included articles such as “How to make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom.” The Islamic State takes this approach even further. In addition to publishing an English version of Dabiq, ISIS fully embraced Revolution Muslim’s decentralized, web-based strategy, allowing its ideology to continue spreading on the internet even as its territorial caliphate in Iraq and Syria has weakened.

It should come as no surprise that ISIS is in the midst of a resurgence in Iraq, despite Prime Minister Al-Abadi’s declaration of victory over the caliphate last December. Morton stressed that the ideologies associated with extremism always outlive the groups that embody them in a particular time period. ISIS technological prowess also allows it to shift from leaderless resistance back to a command/cadre model at any time, enabling the organization to regroup quickly despite frequent military defeats in recent years. According to Silber, ISIS’ fluidity poses a threat particularly for Europe. For instance, 370 Austrians have traveled to Syria and Iraq since ISIS’ establishment, some of whom have returned to Europe. Further, the threat of other terror organizations cannot be discounted, particularly as Al-Qaeda has reemerged as a “moderate” alternative for terrorists turned off by ISIS’ extreme brutality.

For future US counter-terrorism strategy to be effective, Morton believes that more attention must be paid to the internet’s power to sustain extremist ideologies. He does not believe, however, that restricting free speech on social media platforms is the solution. Social media represents a great outlet for people to voice their opinions, and more should be done to encourage dialogue between people with different views to foster the mutual understanding required to bring people from the poles to the center. To this end, Morton stressed that Islamist extremists and the far right need each other, since both ideologies rely on demonization of the other to survive.

Silber disagreed, arguing that updating social media terms of use agreements to restrict certain types of speech would significantly support CVE efforts. Further, Silber highlighted the valuable role human intelligence played in infiltrating Revolution Muslim and documenting its activities. For Silber, training local officers who possess the technical and linguistic ability to penetrate extremists’ digital networks is the model for the future.

Tags : , , , ,

Appeal by Bishop Teodosije

Posted in Daniel Serwer - July 25, 2018 - 0 Comment

The Bishop has interesting things to say today, especially against partition of Kosovo, an idea Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabić is presumably trying to sell on her trip to Washington this week. He also expresses the Church’s concerns about the behavior of the Kosovo authorities, who need to realize that the presence of Serbs south of the Ibar river is among the best arguments against partition. The bolding is in the original text I received this morning: 

As a Bishop of Raška and Prizren and an Archpastor of the Orthodox Christians in the regions of Kosovo, Metohija and Raška, with tremendous pastoral and moral responsibility I feel the need to express my grave concern regarding a series of political statements on Kosovo-Metohija in the recent time which fill our hearts with increasing uncertainty and disquiet. For almost twenty years our Diocese supported by our Patriarch and our fellow Bishops, and with financial assistance of the Government of Republic of Serbia and other local and international donors, makes tremendous efforts to provide normal life for our Church, the reconstruction of our destroyed holy sites, the return of our displaced people, as well as the peaceful life of those who still continue to live in this region. Inspired with this concern and the ongoing dialog between Belgrade and Priština in Brussels the Holy Assembly of Bishops of the SOC expressed a clear, unified and unequivocal position in its statement on 10 May 2018.
It is a matter of public knowledge that our Diocese with the support of the entire Serbian Orthodox Church even before the armed conflict in Kosovo and Metohija made significant efforts to help avoiding the resolution of existing problems by force. We took part in a number of discussions with international diplomats and representatives of Kosovo Albanians, both before and after the armed conflict in 1998-1999, with a clear goal to carry out the Gospel message of our Church that we must be witnesses of peace in the world. At Dečani Monastery during the war, we received and sheltered refugees, Serbs, Albanians, Roma and others, raising our voice amid the violence against innocent civilians, regardless of their ethnic or religious background. After the armed conflict, our Diocese was an active participant in the inter-ethnic dialog and cooperated with international representatives, making tremendous efforts to protect our people and our holy sites. Regrettably, despite all our endeavors around 200.000 of our people were forced to leave their homes in the time of “the internationally granted peace”, many villages, our cemeteries were devastated and 150 churches destroyed. Nevertheless, we did not give up the dialog. Under the sponsorship of the Council of Europe, since 2005 we reconstructed a number of our churches and monasteries as well as the Seminary of Sts. Cyril and Methodius in Prizren. Upon invitation of the Government of Serbia in 2008, we took part in the negotiations in Vienna, where we agreed important principles for the protection and future of our people and the holy sites in Kosovo and Metohija.
With such a commitment for dialog and peaceful resolution of all conflicts, we supported the beginning of the technical dialog between Belgrade and Priština in Brussels and hoped that practical agreements would be reached with the goal of providing an easier life for all peoples in the region, protection of our holy sites, property, identity, human rights and freedoms, especially of the vulnerable Serbian people. That is why we are now gravely concerned because of frequent politically and morally irresponsible statements of certain politicians on both sides who talk about a “final solution” in the context of the “territorial partition” and the “border separation between the Serbs and the Albanians”.  Such statements among our people but also wider in the region and the world create concern and uneasiness.  Does it mean that we will come to the situation that the majority of Kosovo-Metohija Serbs who live south of the river Ibar will have to leave their homes and our most important holy sites – Peć Patriarchate, Dečani, Gračanica, Prizren?  Does it mean that the freedom and rights of those could not choose in which people they would be born can be regulated only by territorial partition and creating ethnically compact territories? Obviously that this principle, which, by the way, was the cause of suffering of so many innocent people during the disruption of former Yugoslavia in the 90ies, presents a continual threat to peace and stability, and not only in the Western Balkans. It would create an additional precedent for new separatisms in Europe and all over the world and would encourage a series of bloodsheds, suffering and migrations of civilian population only because, after the deal reached by the politicians, they found themselves on the “wrong side” of the divide.
Therefore as a Bishop, but first of all as a Christian who has lived the most of his life with his clergy, monks and nuns in Kosovo and Metohija, I appeal on politicians both in Belgrade and in Priština, the international mediators in the dialog and other officials that the resolution of all issues in Kosovo and Metohija must and can be sought only with the goal of preserving peace and security for all citizens, especially non-majority ethnic and religious communities, preservation of their religious and cultural heritage, historical identity, human and religious freedoms. Insisting on partition as the “best model” neglects a number of crucially important issues such as: the freedom of return of the displaced people, resolving the issue of the missing persons, protection of property rights, providing adequate health protection and education, religious and human rights which must be guaranteed both on the level of laws but also on the level of the settlement which is achieved.
Such a position of our Church does not mean a call for “a frozen conflict” because our Church has always been against any conflict. This is an appeal primarily on responsible and transparent continuation of the dialog which must be returned within the framework which would be in function of stability of the region and the European continent and fully compatible with all relevant international treaties and standards, among which a particular importance belongs to the UNSCR 1244. Otherwise, as any other land swap or partition in history this one would bring about a massive displacement of the civilian population, destruction of the centuries old spiritual and cultural heritage of our people and would cause irreparable damage to all. We ask a question – Do we need this now in 21st century and who are those who will have historical and moral “courage” to precipitate an exodus and tragedy of dozens of thousands of innocent people  who managed to survive at their homes for 20 years after the armed conflict.

Read more

Tags :

What Pristina wants

Posted in Daniel Serwer - July 23, 2018 - 0 Comment

Gezim Visoka has tweeted in Albanian this Pristina-originated Framework for the Kosovo-Serbia Dialogue, published in Gazeta Express:

I. Principles

  1. Kosovo is an independent and sovereign state, and as such, participates in the dialogue for the normalization of relations with Serbia.
  2. Kosovo considers that the dialogue for normalization of relations with Serbia is led by European values and aims at creating good neighborly relationships between the two participating countries, as well as, strengthening regional peace and stability.
  3. Kosovo participates in the dialogue for the normalization of relations with Serbia, in accordance to the Ahtisari Package, guaranteed and supported internationally, which has served as the basis of Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence on February 17, 2008.
  4. Kosovo participates in the dialogue for the normalization of relations with Serbia, in accordance to the verdict of the International Court of Justice on 22 July 2010, which affirms Kosovo’s statehood as a sui generis case.
  5. Kosovo considers the dialogue for the normalization of relations with Serbia as a process that contributes to the overall stability and peace of the Western Balkans.
  6. Kosovo respects and is committed to implementing existing agreements from the dialogue for the normalization of relations with Serbia.
  7. Kosovo recognizes and respects, without any doubt, individual and community rights, codified the constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, in line with international rights and the European Union.
  8. Kosovo guarantees that any agreement which addresses the rights and interests of the Serbian community in Kosovo, will conform to the most advanced international and european standards.
  9. Kosovo aims to be part of euro-atlantic integrations.

II. Timeline

  1. Kosovo demands a clear timeline of the dialogue and an implementation schedule of agreements reached during the dialogue.
  2. The aforementioned schedule shall be respected by the negotiating actors and guaranteed by the mediators.
  3. The implementation of the dialogue outcomes is mandatory for the actors involved and guaranteed by international mediators, with clear conditions and responsibilities, including sanctions for failure to implement agreements.

III. Aims and Objectives of Kosovo in the Dialogue

  1. Kosovo seeks to finalize the process of normalizing relations with Serbia, in a long term plan that advances regional peace, good neighborly relations, and mutual respect.
  2. Kosovo aims, that through this dialogue, integration to Euro-atlantic structures will be easier.
  3. Kosovo respects Serbia’s aspirations to join the European Union.
  4. Kosovo seeks full membership to the United Nations.
  5. Kosovo desires mutual respect among the two countries, respecting each other’s integrity and sovereignty.
  6. Kosovo and Serbia shall join the European Union, without challenging each other, without any outstanding issues, and recognizing each other as two neighboring countries that respect European values, principles, and responsibilities.
  7. In function to the long term normalization of relations between the two countries, Kosovo and Serbia, should work towards reconciliation, deal with the violent past and crimes that were committed during the war in Kosovo.

IV. Red Lines

  1. Kosovo will not negotiate its statehood, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
  2. Kosovo will not accept dialogue outcomes that violate individual rights and freedom, or those that belong to a group, community, or ethnicity.
  3. Kosovo does not accept a third layer of governance that challenges the functioning of its institutions.
  4. Kosovo will not accept outcomes that will create a negative precedent for peace and stability in the region.
Tags :
Tweet