November, 2018 - peacefare.net

Month: November 2018

Trump is a sore loser

Posted in Daniel Serwer - November 14, 2018 - 0 Comment

President Trump has taken a beating over the past week. The Democrats have won control of the House of Representatives by a wider margin than originally thought. They are now approaching a 40-vote majority. The suburbs, Hispanics, Asians, and white college-educated women abandoned the Republicans in droves. The uptick of one or two Republican seats in the Senate enables Trump to continue getting judges and other high officials approved, but the House will be conducting oversight as never before and initiating budget bills the Administration won’t like.

The Democrats will also pass legislation they know won’t get past the Senate but will lay out their own agenda for 2020. First up will apparently be a bill protecting the right to vote, something the Republicans have been trying hard to suppress, as well as the voting system (from foreign interference). Access to health care and education as well as environmental protection are likely in the queue.

Then last weekend Trump went to Paris for the World War I centennial, where he declined a visit to a cemetery because of rain, refused to join the other allied heads of state in a walk up the Champs Elysees, and got scolded by his erstwhile friend President Macron for his attachment to nativist nationalism. He looked out of sorts and out of place in the events he did attend, except when smiling broadly at President Putin.

Back in the US, Trump failed to make the traditional 3.3 mile trip to Arlington Cemetery on Veterans’ Day. Instead he sulked in the White House and has stayed there since, tweeting criticism of forest management in California while its first responders were risking their lives fighting a giant forest fire and dozens of Californians were dying. To boot: the Federal government controls 98% of the forests in California, so if forest management is really the cause… But it isn’t: Trump said that just to please logging interests. The main cause is climate change, which has made California much drier and windier.

Trump has good reason to be worried. Rumor has it that Special Counsel Mueller is getting ready to charge Don Jr., his eldest son and confidante, with conspiracy against the United States by plotting to gain Russian assistance during the election campaign. That will put Trump in the unenviable position of either throwing his son under the bus or admitting what we all suspect: his son did it with his father’s knowledge and encouragement. Even if that indictment doesn’t happen, the Mueller investigation and oversight hearings in the House threaten to expose financial and other malfeasance in the Trump real estate empire. There is little doubt that Trump was laundering Russian oligarchs’ ill-gotten gains.

So Trump fired his racist Attorney General Sessions, who had recused himself from the Russia investigation and failed to prevent Mueller from exploring the financial angle, and replaced him with an “acting” AG who has publicly advocated hogtying the Special Counsel. This Matthew Whitaker was quickly shown to be so blatantly unqualified, and associated with dubious business dealings, that Trump claimed not to know him well.

Anything Whitaker does with respect to the Mueller investigation will no doubt lead to a subpoena to testify in Congress. Mueller, expecting the worst, I trust has prepared a dead man switch in the form of evidence and investigations by US attorneys (Federal prosecutors in the states) as well as state attorneys general. It is hard to turn off the multi-layered US justice system completely. That thought will redouble the President’s concerns.

To compound Trump’s problems, his wife instructed him in public this week to expel the deputy national security adviser from the White House staff. Mira Ricardel had offended the First Lady or her staff in some fashion on her recent trip to Africa. Trump obeyed. You can imagine how that made him feel.

Some will worry that Trump’s ugly mood may make him take military action. He is certainly not above trying to use the military to bolster his own cause, as he did in pointlessly deploying US troops to the Mexican border to counter a dwindling “caravan” of asylum-seekers more than a thousand miles away.

But real military action seems to be something he shies from. The one-off 2017 cruise missile retaliation in response to a Syrian chemical weapons attack seems to be his kind of thing. He has not initiated any sustained military action since coming to office. In the absence of compelling national security issues this Administration would find it hard to convince Congress or the American people it was a good thing to do.

What we’ve got is a president whose surprising good fortune in getting elected along with a Republican Congress has peaked. He is now facing stark political and judicial realities. Some presidents would respond with reassessment and renewed energy. Not this one. Donald Trump, for whom winning is everything, is a sore loser.

Tags : Democracy and Rule of Law, European Union, Russia, United States

Insufficient

Posted in Rory Coleman - November 14, 2018 - 0 Comment

November 12, the Atlantic Council convened a panel to discuss the challenges of hybrid warfare. Russia and other authoritarian powers are wielding cyberattacks and active measures, campaigns of disinformation and propaganda, against the US and its allies. Ambassador Victoria Nuland, former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, Thomas Rid, Professor of Strategic Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced Studies, and General Riho Terras, Commander of the Estonian Defense Forces, gathered to discuss these threats in a conversation moderated by Jonatan Vseviov, Estonia’s Ambassador to the United States.

Cyberattacks and active measures are two different forms of covert action, but both are increasingly common in the digital age. The US and its allies have been slow to understand and adapt. Both often seek to exploit weaknesses arising from division and decentralization. They undermine the sovereignty of states, but there is no clear international framework to neutralize the threat or reprimand the perpetrators.

Even though active measures have a long history predating the internet, technology has drastically changed how they are carried out. As described by Rid, active measures are now more active and less measured than ever before. More active because the speed of communication and analysis allows disinformation campaigns to be fine-tuned while in motion. Less measured, as cyber infiltration techniques have increased ease of exfiltrating massive amounts of information.

According to Rid it is also easier than ever to lead journalists and activists to inadvertently aid hostile foreign initiatives. The 2016 Democratic National Committee hack in the US illustrates these changes: the stolen information was uploaded to Wikileaks in one massive dump, leaving American journalists to sort through and expose the most explosive stories. The strategic challenge for liberal states is to change the cost-benefit analysis for authoritarian states considering these measures. Potential victims must harden themselves and demonstrate a willingness to impose costs on perpetrators.

Nuland outlined reforms which the US ought to implement in anticipation of future influence campaigns. The US needs a framework to bring together its various intelligence agencies, technology experts and business leaders, similar to the coordinated restructuring on counter-terrorism implemented after 9/11. She highlighted tech companies as especially vulnerable due to the incentives against cooperation or sharing of information and design. The US government has an opportunity to build a framework to guarantee intellectual property and encourage tech companies to come together and discuss shared vulnerabilities in design, code, and supply chain that expose them to foreign exploitation.

Internationally there is need for similar coordination, allowing both flexibility and cooperation between countries. Terras noted there is no single public response which would work just as well in Estonia as it does in the US, so NATO members should retain flexibility on how best to counter disinformation and propaganda. At the same time, there is a need for greater cooperation between allied intelligence services in identifying culprits and international solidarity in ascribing blame.

The trickiest issue may be domestic political messaging. The panel discussed the importance of informing the public on hybrid warfare without overstating its effects. Publicly acknowledging and attributing foiled attacks is a key tool for discouraging future attempts. Acknowledging the problem is also a necessary step in educating the public on critical reading and cyber security skills.

At the same time, Rid warned of the risk of over-estimating the effects of foreign interference on domestic politics. In reality the effects of these methods are short-term, serving mostly to exploit existing domestic divides. Nations must maintain a faith in the efficacy of their own institutions and public discourse. The tendency to blame all domestic issues on foreign adversaries is itself characteristic of authoritarian countries.

The issue of appropriate response is more open to debate. States could counter with cyberattacks of their own. Aside from the risks of escalation, the panel discussed the risks inherent to cyber weapons: they are difficult to aim, easily attributed, and easily turned against their makers by adversaries. Other measures like sanctions and attribution of attacks to individual hackers can also deter and demoralize hybrid warfare attempts. No clear decision was reached on the most effective form of deterrence, but the panel agreed that the efforts made by the US and its allies to date have been insufficient.

Tags : Cybersecurity, NATO, Russia, United States

Demography is destiny

Posted in Tal Marom - November 12, 2018 - 0 Comment

The Brookings Institute November 8 hosted a discussion of the 2018 midterm election results. The panel consisted of Elaine Kamarck, founding director of the Center for Effective Public Management, William A. Galston, Ezra K. Zilkha Chair of Governance Studies, Molly E. Reynolds, Fellow of Governance Studies, and Vanessa Williamson, Fellow of Governance Studies. Panelists discussed voter demographics driving the election, with particular attention to motives, identity, and demographic divides.

Voter turnout in 2018 was unusual for a midterm election: 113 million Americans showed up, turnout of approximately 49%. This was the largest percentage for a midterm election since 1966; the all-time record set in 1914 was 51%. Midterms generally feature low voter turnout. It was 36% in 2014. Public interest and mobilization have clearly increased.

Galston cautioned that increased turnout was not the result of a predicted Blue Wave. The case of Florida demonstrates this. In 2014, 5.9 million Floridians turned out for the gubernatorial election, leading to Republican Governor Scott’s victory by less than 1%. This year, 8.1 million turned out, with Republican Ron DeSantis apparently winning the governorship by less than 1%. We are witnessing dramatic mobilization on both sides of the aisle. Reynolds pointed out that typically lagging Democratic turnout is explained by demographics (e.g., young vs. old voters).

Was this a referendum on Donald Trump? Were people voting for or against the President’s administration or policy issues? Williamson highlighted that partisan identification is a stronger predictor of voter choice now than in the past. This year’s race was about mobilization more than persuasion. This is why the country is witnessing a strong fight over the rules of the game. Battles over the democratic process were seen in Georgia, Texas, and particularly Florida, which in a referendum restored felons’ voting rights. Who is eligible and allowed to vote is critical. Passage of Florida’s Amendment 4 will significantly impact future elections, as one in five African American Floridians was previously disenfranchised.

Midterm elections often serve as a rebuke to the party in the White House, a well-studied phenomenon that many scholars view as favoring increased bipartisanship in the federal government. Kamarck saw this election as an vote for division, rather than bipartisanship. She cited differences in the Presidential and Congressional press conferences following the election. While lip service was paid in both to bipartisanship, main points of common ground were limited to “meat and potato” issues such as infrastructure and drug pricing regulation. Even so, the President threatened the prospects of bipartisan infrastructure legislation if the Democrats continue the Mueller investigation and pursue other oversight.

Galston agreed, noting that the Republicans gained seats in the Senate. That gives Majority Leader McConnell a cushion to act on his agenda of approving Republican appointments to executive and judicial positions rather than passing legislation. House Minority Leader Pelosi does not favor impeachment, but Reynolds saw House oversight as a dominating theme moving forward. She argued that Democrats will focus on the President’s tax returns, foreign governments paying to stay at Trump hotels, conflicts of interest among Cabinet Secretaries, and the recent family separation crisis at the border .

Healthcare was the most prominent policy issue in the election, featured in nearly 50% of all campaign ads and 60% of pro-Democratic ads. Democrats emphasized the failed Republican repeal of Obamacare. Pelosi believes coverage for pre-existing conditions handed Democrats victory in the House. Republican governors campaigned on preserving protections for patients with pre-existing conditions, even in states where the Attorneys General joined the lawsuit to overturn the ACA. Galston pointed to exit polls, in which 41% of voters chose healthcare as the single most important issue, trailed by immigration at approximately 30%.

Healthcare was the most prominent campaign issue, featured in nearly 50% of all campaign ads and 60% of pro-Democrat ads.

Reynolds added that different policy issues have differing significance among various demographics. Immigration remains one of the most important issues to white voters. Galston focused on young voters, whose turnout increased by 75% compared to four years ago. Gun control was a critical issue within this demographic. This is due to the role of formative generational experiences as a young adult on lifelong political views. For millennials, mass shootings, many of which have taken place on school campuses, are a defining generational experience. Since young voters are the least likely to turn out, Galston predicts that this issue will only truly head the agenda as millennials enter adulthood.

Millennials were not the only emergent demographic in the election. Kamarck noted that this election featured resurgence in women’s political participation. An overwhelming number of women candidates ran for office and won. The substantial partisan gap among white women is one important explanation for Democratic gains in suburban districts across the nation. The #MeToo Movement provided the context for these gains. Kamarck cautioned that these women are more Independents than Democrats. Reynolds attributed Democratic victories in the suburbs to the role of white, college-educated women, who are firmly entrenched in the Democratic camp. Galston recalled that the partisan gap between white, college-educated men and women is 24 points. Panelists also noted the urban vs. rural gap as one to watch, likely to be important in future elections.

The gender gap between white, college-educated men and women is a significant 24 points.

The panel ended with discussion on the future of the Democratic Party. There was no real Blue Wave, as progressives Andrew Gillum in Florida and Beto O’Rourke in Texas lost. Some “meat and potato” Democrats made gains in the Midwest, winning governorships in Wisconsin and Michigan. Galston added that Republicans did not make major gains in districts that voted for Clinton in 2016. If Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were to return to the the Democratic fold, they could regain the White House in 2020. As Galston put it, the Midwest is the cake, Florida is the frosting, and Georgia and Texas are dreams. In 2016, Clinton spent time in Arizona and Georgia. Galston speculated that the election could have turned out differently if that time and money had been spent in the upper Midwest. Democrats will only win in 2020 if they nominate a candidate fit to carry those states.

Tags : Democracy and Rule of Law, United States

Peace Picks November 12 – 18

Posted in Rory Coleman - November 12, 2018 - 0 Comment

Defending Sovereignty and Information Space | Tuesday, November 13 | 11:30 am – 1 pm | Atlantic Council |
1030 15th Street, NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20005 | Register Here

How should one respond to the many interlocking elements that make up this tool of statecraft in order to reinforce the resiliency of our societies and technology and how to use all levers of national power to contain the negative effects of Russian activities?

Russia has been exploiting agents of influence and information space to sway public opinion and mislead government actors. In the wake of the 2016 US Presidential election, the United States was forced to come to terms with Russian interference in American democratic institutions and the sudden throwback to many Russian Cold War-era hybrid tactics. Nevertheless, the Republic of Estonia, along with other European allies, have been well aware of these tactics and have been working to counter the resurgence of Russian activities.

As hybrid warfare has benefited immensely from the digital age, the United States and its European allies and partners urgently need to comprehend the tasks, purposes, and organization of these tactics in order to reinforce societal and technological resilience to face unprecedented levels of state-sponsored influence and interference campaigns.

A conversation with:
Ambassador Victoria Nuland
Former Assistant Secretary of State for
European and Eurasian Affairs,
US Department of State;
Chief Executive Officer
Center for a New American Security

Dr. Thomas Rid
Professor of Strategic Studies,
School of Advanced International Studies
Johns Hopkins University

General Riho Terras
Commander
Estonian Defense Forces

Moderated by:
H.E. Jonatan Vseviov
Ambassador
Embassy of Estonia to the United States

Hudson Institute will host an event to discuss how the U.S. can maintain a competitive edge in the development of 5G technology and the future of global telecommunications. Panelists include former Federal Communications Commissioner and Hudson Senior Fellow Harold Furchtgott-Roth; CEO of global telecommunications company Rivada Networks Declan Ganley; and former Deputy Chief of Staff to President George W. Bush Karl Rove.

Chinese technology has played a growing role in the global 5G network, with over 58 countries agreeing to use Chinese hardware in their future networks. As it emerges over the next decade, 5G promises to vastly increase the speed and responsiveness of wireless networks. While the rollout of 5G will demand billions of dollars, the companies and countries investing now will have a strong say in not only how 5G transmits information, but how others are able to access the system. The discussion will be moderated by Hudson Senior Fellow Arthur Herman.

Speakers

Harold Furchtgott-Roth Speaker

Former Federal Communications Commissioner and Senior Fellow and Director, Center for the Economics of the Internet, Hudson Institute

Declan Ganley Speaker

CEO, Rivada Networks

Karl Rove Speaker

Former Deputy Chief of Staff to President George W. Bush.

Arthur Herman (Moderator) Speaker

Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute

The CSIS Europe Program is delighted to host a conversation with U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation. With the conclusion of the U.S. midterm elections, we will discuss what the future holds for U.S. policy toward NATO and European security, Russia, the Western Balkans, as well as the U.S.-EU trade relationship from a Congressional perspective. Following Senator Murphy’s remarks, CSIS experts will assess the impact that the new Congress will have on foreign and national security policy, and discuss the issues they will be keeping their eyes on in the 116th Congress.

Featuring:

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D – CT),

Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation

CSIS Experts

Heather A. Conley,

Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic; and Director, Europe Program

William Alan Reinsch,

Senior Adviser and Scholl Chair in International Business

Louis Lauter,

Vice President for Congressional and Government Affairs

The Indo-Pacific region, a key focus of the Trump administration’s foreign policy agenda, is undergoing significant political and strategic realignments with the return to great power competition. India’s role in the region is central to these developments, both in its emerging partnerships with nations like Japan and the United States and in its deepening rivalry with neighboring China. How are these dynamics likely to play out, and what are their broader strategic implications? Please join the Stimson Center for a panel discussion addressing views from across Asia on the political and security impacts of intra-regional cooperation and competition. Our panelists, Manoj Joshi, Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation, Brett Lambert, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, U.S. Department of Defense, Yun Sun, Co-Director of the Stimson Center’s East Asia Program, and Yuki Tatsumi, Co-Director of the Stimson Center’s East Asia Program, will offer comments. Sameer Lalwani, Director of the Stimson Center’s South Asia Program, will convene our meeting, and Elizabeth Threlkeld, South Asia Program Deputy Director, will moderate the discussion.

The Asia Strategy Initiative (ASI) is a joint effort by Stimson’s East, Southeast, and South Asia Program to feature regional perspectives on the shifting strategic dynamics in the Indo-Pacific region. By introducing expert analysis, ASI seeks to facilitate dialogues and develop pragmatic solutions for strategic, political, and economic challenges that the region faces.

What is the state of governance in the various zones in Syria? Is a pre-2011 hyper centralized governance structure conducive to the peace process? How can a Syria-tailored decentralization model help the peace process? In its latest book publication, Centralization and Decentralization in Syria: The Concept and Practice, Omran Center for Strategic Studies examines Syria’s current forms of governance and how experiences on the ground, in the various zones of influence, converge or diverge from the concepts of centralization and decentralization.

To discuss the book and its findings, New America and Omran present Dr. Ammar Kahf, Executive Director and co-founder of the Omran Center who earned his Ph.D. in Political Science and Islamic Studies at the University of California Los Angeles and previously served as the Chief of Staff to the Secretary General of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces from 2012 to 2013, and Mr. Yaser Tabbara, Esq., co-founder and board member of the Omran Center, and a former Senior Advisor to the Syrian Interim Government Prime Minister in 2013. Further remarks will be provided by Mona Yacoubian, Senior Adviser for Syria, Middle East, and North Africa at the United States Institute of Peace and former Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Middle East Bureau at USAID from 2014-2017 where she had responsibility for Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.

Participants:

Ammar Kahf, @ammarkahf
Executive Director, Omran Center for Strategic Studies

Yaser Tabbara, @abulyas
Co-Founder and Board Member, Omran Center for Strategic Studies

Mona Yacoubian, @myacoubian
Senior Adviser, United States Institute of Peace

Moderator:

Peter Bergen, @peterbergencnn
Vice President, New America

Please join us for a discussion of the external and internal drivers of change in post-Cold War Russian nuclear strategy. Dr. Kristin Ven Bruusgaard will argue that current Russian strategy is reducing the emphasis on nuclear weapons and oriented primarily toward deterring rather than fighting nuclear war. Improved conventional military capabilities are reducing Russia’s need to use nuclear weapons to compensate for conventional inferiority, and the most influential actors formulating nuclear strategy in Russia now argue for enhancing conventional and non-conventional tools to influence the course of conflict.

This event is made possible through generous support from Carnegie Corporation of New York.

FEATURING:

Kristen Ven Bruusgaard,

MacArthur Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford

Olga Olika (discussant),

Senior Advisor and Director, Russia and Eurasia Program, CSIS

Michael Kofman (moderator),

Senior Research Scientist, Russia Studies Program, CNA

Tags : China, Democracy and Rule of Law, India, Russia, Syria

Divided

Posted in Daniel Serwer - November 7, 2018 - 0 Comment

The midterms confirmed what we all knew: the United States remains sharply divided. Democrats won the House, though without the landslide Blue Wave they had hoped for. Republicans held the Senate, with a few gains for which President Trump will take credit (and may even declare a Red Wave). Democrats would have won many more seats in the House were representation proportional to their votes. But gerrymandered districts give the Republicans a boost in seats that is greater than their votes.

Winning the House is a big deal. Democrats will now have the power in the House to convene hearings and subpeona witnesses in order to investigate Administration malfeasance, which has been endemic. But Republicans will continue to approve Trump-appointed judges and other officials in the Senate. Legislation will be difficult for both parties. The next two years may amount to little more than a prolonged and painful campaign for the presidential election in 2020.

The House Democrats are expected to lean against continuing support for the Saudi/Emirati war in Yemen, against Vladimir Putin’s various efforts to project power, and against war with Iran and other American adventures abroad. Those positions may get some headlines, but the Administration can still do pretty much as it wants, unless Republicans join with Democrats in passing legislation to back up their preferences. The President retains control over foreign policy.

House investigations of the Administration may produce the most important results from these midterms. If, as many of us suspect, Trump real estate ventures have relied heavily on Russian money-laundering, that will come out. So too will any “dirt” the Russians may have on Trump. The Special Counsel investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, which would have been in peril had the Republicans retained control of the House, is likely now the least of Trump’s worries.

The Democrats are still fighting an uphill battle. There are some important races undecided, including Stacey Abrams’ bid in Georgia to become the first black woman to be elected governor. But both Beto O’Rourke, the Democrats high hope for Senate in Texas, and Andrew Gillum, their strong candidate for governor in Florida, lost. They can be comforted by a string of victories in the Midwest and Pennsylvania, where court-ordered redistricting undid Republican gerrymanders.

The election confirmed that Trump now owns the Republicans. Those who wholeheartedly backed Trump on the whole won. Those who tried to distance themselves from the President generally lost. With the retirement of several Republicans who were occasionally critical of the White House, Trump is set to command his party with little to no opposition. He will be emboldened, not chastened.

So divided we are, a bit more than the day before yesterday. I doubt we will fall, but we won’t exactly stand either. America divided is America unmoored. The consequences aren’t likely to be good.

Tags : Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, United States, Yemen

Peace Picks: November 5 – 11

Posted in Tal Marom - November 6, 2018 - 0 Comment

Join the Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group and the International Security Program for a discussion on national security, artificial intelligence, and the nexus between AI’s national security applications and its broader commercial applications. At this launch event, we will present the research and findings of our newest report, Artificial Intelligence and National Security: The Importance of the AI Ecosystem. A public panel discussion will follow, where dialogue will focus on opportunities and challenges in AI investment, adoption, and operational management in the context of national and international security.

Speakers
Dr. David Sparrow
Researcher, Institute for Defense Analysis

Ms. Erin Hawley
Vice President of Public Sector, DataRobot

Dr. Drew Vandeth
IBM Distinguished Researcher & Senior Intelligence Adviser – Systems Acceleration and Memory at IBM Research

Mr. Ryan Lewis
Vice President, CosmiQ Works, In-Q-Tel

Andrew Philip Hunter
Director, Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group and Senior Fellow, International Security Program

What is the state of the war and governance in Afghanistan? With Afghanistan’s parliamentary elections having been completed, recent insider attacks, and a looming presidential election next year, critical events continue to occur in Afghanistan, yet the country where the United States remains fighting its longest war has largely disappeared from American news coverage.

To discuss current events in Afghanistan and the lead up to the country’s 2019 presidential election, New America welcomes Ioannis Koskinas, a senior fellow with New America’s International Security program currently based in Afghanistan and CEO of the Hoplite Group, a company focused on sustainable and innovative solutions to complex problems, in the most challenging environments and harshest conditions. Koskinas retired from the U.S. Air Force in 2011 after a twenty-year career in Special Operations.

Speakers
Ioannis Koskinas
Senior Fellow, New America International Security Program

Tresha Mabile
Journalist and Emmy-Award Nominated Documentary Director, Producer, and Writer

There are few relationships as long-standing, rich, and complex as the relationship between Mexico and the United States. Mexicans have always made substantial contributions to the labor force, economy, and culture of the United States, and today Mexicans continue to be the largest immigrant population in the United States. Not only is this population substantial in size, the flow of Mexican migrants coming to the United States is becoming more diverse. From farm workers to engineers, restaurant owners to computer coders, Mexican immigrants reflect more and more the diversity and richness of the Mexican labor force. Yet, the number of Mexicans migrants coming to the United States has declined significantly in recent years.

This event aims to shed light on the diversity of Mexicans migrants, as well as discuss opportunities and challenges for them to engage in U.S and Mexican policy. This event will focus on the changing face of Mexican migrants, a narrative of Mexican immigrants and their contributions to the United States, and a discussion on the political and economic power of Mexicans migrants in the UnitedStates and those return to Mexico.

Speakers
Fey Berman
Author, Mexamerica

Ramiro Cavazos
President & CEO, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

Alexandra Délano Alonso
Associate Professor & Chair of Global Studies, The New School

Julia Gelatt
Senior Policy Analyst, Migration Policy Institute

Mario Hernández
Director of Public Affairs, Western Union

Mark Hugo Lopez
Director of Global Migration and Demography Research, Pew Research Center

Maggie Loredo
Co-Founder & Co-Director, Otros Dreams en Acción

Ariel Ruiz Soto
Associate Policy Analyst, Migration Policy Institute

Rachel Schmidtke
Program Associate for Migration, Mexico Institute, Wilson Center

Hon. Ambassador Gerónimo Gutiérrez
Mexican Ambassador to the United States

Hudson Institute will host Emily Haber, Ambassador of Germany to the United States, for a discussion about the current state of U.S.-German relations. The conversation will be moderated by Walter Russell Mead, the Ravenel B. Curry Distinguished Fellow in Strategy and Statesmanship at Hudson Institute.

The evolving U.S.-German relationship is facing new challenges. While Germany is a critical transatlantic ally, recently the two nations’ leaders have differed publicly on issues ranging from defense spending to trade and Russia. However, as vital trade partners and geopolitical allies, common ground and shared aims continue to unite the two nations

Speakers
Emily Haber
Ambassador of Germany to the United States

Walter Russell Mead
Ravenel B. Curry Distinguished Fellow in Strategy and Statesmanship, Hudson Institute

Kenneth R. Weinstein
President and CEO, Hudson Institute

In 2000, just 20 million Indians had access to the internet. By 2020, the country’s online community is projected to exceed 700 million and more than a billion Indians are expected to be online by 2025. In a new book, India Connected: How the Smartphone is Transforming the World’s Largest Democracy, Ravi Agrawal shows how widespread internet use is poised to transform everyday life in India: the status of women, education, jobs, dating, marriage, family life, commerce, and governance. Building on in-depth reportage, Agrawal will unpack the story of how smartphones and digital technologies are disrupting Indian society in creative and unsettling ways. The Asia Society Policy Institute’s Lindsey Ford will offer introductory remarks and Carnegie’s Milan Vaishnav will moderate. A reception and book signing will follow.

Speakers
Ravi Agrawal
Managing Editor, Foreign Policy Magazine

Lindsey Ford
Director of Political-Security Affairs, Richard Holbrooke Fellow, and D.C. Deputy Director, Asia Society Policy Institute

Milan Vaishnav
Director of the South Asia Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

This year’s midterm elections could result in a major political shake-up of federal, state, and local leadership. Many candidates face tight, well-funded races and a political climate energized by reactions to President Trump. Once the polls close on Nov. 6, the time for analysis begins: Was the supposed “blue wave” successful? If yes, what are the implications? And if not, why? What can the results tell us about the governing challenges that will face America over the next two years?

On Thursday, Nov. 8, Governance Studies at Brookings will convene a panel of experts to address these questions and more. Panelists will review the results of the race, the factors that produced that outcome, and what this means for the state of American politics moving forward.

Speakers
Indira Lakshmanan
Executive Director, Pulitzer Center

William A. Galston
Ezra K. Zilkha Chair and Senior Fellow, Governance Studies

Elaine Kamarck
Founding Director, Center for Effective Public Management
Senior Fellow, Governance Studies

Molly E. Reynolds
Fellow, Governance Studies

Vanessa Williams
Fellow, Governance Studies

The future of Taiwan, a flourishing liberal democracy and vibrant economy, is anything but secure. China, regarding it as a renegade province, has not renounced the use of military force to resolve the standoff. Taiwan must deter China’s aggression, taking steps to convince Chinese leaders that the costs of waging war on Taiwan will outweigh any possible benefits. In a new monograph, “A Question of Time: Enhancing Taiwan’s Conventional Deterrence Posture,” a team of researchers at George Mason University and the University of Waterloo examine a holistic strategy that Taiwan can use to enhance its conventional deterrence posture. Their conclusions are simple but radical: Taiwan must intensely prepare an asymmetric deterrence and challenge orthodoxies in its strategic thinking.

Speakers
Michael A. Hunzeker
Assistant Professor, Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University.

Alexander Lanozska
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Balsillie School of International Affairs, University of Waterloo

Scott Katsnser
Professor, Department of Government and Politics, University of Maryland, College Park

peacefare.net

Month: November 2018

Trump is a sore loser

Like this:

Insufficient

Like this:

Demography is destiny

Like this: