On August 23, Hudson Institute’s South and Central Asia Program will host a panel to discuss the current political climate in Afghanistan. Panelists will include: Omar Samad, former Ambassador of Afghanistan to France and Canada; David Sedney, acting president of American University of Afghanistan and senior associate at the Center for Strategic and international Studies; and Husain Haqqani, former Ambassador of Pakistan to the United States and director of the South and Central Asia Program at Hudson Institute.
Day: August 21, 2018
Peace Picks – August 20 – 26
1. U.S.-Turkey Relations in Crisis: Where Are We Headed? | Wednesday, August 22, 2018 | 10:00 am – 11:00 am | The Wilson Center | Register Here
Please note: Ground Truth Briefings are conducted exclusively by phone. There will be no physical meeting at the Wilson Center.
The U.S.-Turkish relationship is in crisis. The disagreement over the detention of American pastor Andrew Brunson has exposed deeper fault lines in U.S.-Turkish ties that have been building for a decade or more, undermining any sense of confidence and trust. Are the ties that bind Washington and Ankara stronger than those political, economic and regional forces threatening to pull them apart? And is there hope of a pathway back to a more functional relationship?
Join us as four veteran observers and analysts of Turkish politics and U.S.-Turkish relations address these and other issues.
U.S. toll-free number: 888-942-8140
International call-in number: 1-517-308-9203
Participant passcode: 13304
Speakers:
Introduction: Jane Harman – Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center
Moderator: Aaron David Miller – Vice President for New Initiatives and Middle East Program Director, Wilson Center
Asli Aydintasbas – Senior Policy Fellow, European Council on Foreign Relations; columnist for the Turkish daily, Cumhuriyet
Henri Barkey – Bernard L. and Bertha F. Cohen Professor in International Relations, Lehigh University; Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies, Council on Foreign Relations; former Director, Wilson Center Middle East Program
Soner Cagaptay – Senior fellow at The Washington Institute and author “The New Sultan: Erdogan and the Crisis of Modern Turkey”
Lisel Hintz – Assistant Professor of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies
2. The Challenge of Cyber Strategy | Wednesday, August 22, 2018 | 4:00 pm – 5:30 pm | Atlantic Council | Register Here
In the age of cyber conflict, coercion combines with disruption, cyber espionage and influence campaigns to shape the behavior of antagonists. As the character of power evolves, cyber operations are increasingly becoming a modern form of political warfare, with major implications for coercive policy options and cyber strategies.
Join us as we partner with the Marine Corps University Foundation to convene cyber practitioners and academics for a forward-thinking dialogue on shaping policy to account for this changing security environment and maintain US advantage in long-term cyber competition.
Speakers:
Moderator: JD Work – Donald Bren Chair of Cyber Conflict and Security, Marine Corps University
Dr. Benjamin Jensen – Senior Fellow, Foresight Strategy and Risks Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council; Associate Professor, Marine Corps University; Scholar in Residence, American University
Lt. Gen. Loretta Reynolds – Deputy Commandant for Information, Marine Corps Forces Cyber Command
Dr. Brandon Valeriano – Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council; Donald Bren Chair of Armed Politics, Marine Corps University
Dr. Chris Whyte – Assistant Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University
3. Afghanistan: 17 Years On | Thursday, August 23, 2018 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | Hudson Institute | Register Here
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tags : Afghanistan, Cybersecurity, Turkey, United States
Academe says “no” to partition
My SAIS colleague Professor Sinisa Vukovic has taken a look at the academic literature on partition as a solution to ethnic conflict, prompted by recent discussions of it in the Balkans. He writes:
I found that contemporary studies unanimously conclude that this solution is suboptimal at best, and extremely unstable compared to all other solutions. Empirical evidence shows that partition:
– Can increase the risk of violence by empowering ethnic elites if there are lingering territorial disputes, by weakening the status of residual minorities and forcing them to rebel, by activating new ethnic or ideological cleavages, by weakening the economic position of the rump or secessionist state, or by forcing contests over the control of the regime in the secessionist state. (Sambanis and Schulhofer-Wohl 2009-1)
– De facto separation (which you may associate with Dodik’s Republika Srpska de facto status in Bosnia, or the aspiration of Serbian majority municipalities in Northern Kosovo to become a ‘Republika Srpska of their own in Kosovo’) is even more problematic: only 14% of the parties to de jure partition experienced a resumption of violence within 2 years, but this frequency rose to 50% for the parties to a de facto separation, 63% for the parties bound in a unitary state, and 67% for the parties to an autonomy arrangement. And sovereign states created by partition are no more likely to go to war against one another than states created by other means. Belgrade’s insistence on an Association of Serb Municipalities with executive powers is thus a call for further destabilization in the future. (Champan and Roeader 2007)
– Partition does not help reduce the risk of war recurrence. Partitions are in fact positively (though not significantly) associated with recurrence of ethnic war.
Sambanis also has an interesting empirical finding: negotiated settlements, a strong government army, and a lengthy previous war all reduce the probability of war recurrence. Thus, if the international community’s interest lies in preventing new civil wars, it could manipulate some of these significant variables toward desirable goals. It could, for example, take steps to enhance the government’s military and support decisive war outcomes. Or it could support the negotiation of peace treaties, which reduce the threat of new violence. Again, what the international community should not do to prevent future wars is promote partition. (Sambanis 2000)
If I read this correctly, it means that if you want to avoid war in the Balkans, the right approach is to strengthen the existing countries’ armies, avoid autonomy arrangements, and end lingering territorial disputes by means other than redrawing borders along ethnic lines.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tags : Balkans
RSS - Posts
