Month: April 2019
Counterproductive
The loss of a large part of Notre Dame de Paris is profoundly sad. There is little I can say to amplify what so many others have already written. But sadder still is a President of the United States who can’t keep his mouth shut and always seems to choose the most destructive course of action. In this case, he suggested:
So horrible to watch the massive fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!
What neither he nor I knew was that dumping water on an ancient stone building can weaken its mortar and cause even more damage than the fire, perhaps even collapse of the whole structure.
This is Trump’s modus operandi. He is unable to acknowledge that he may not know better than others, which requires that he surround himself with yes-people. They encourage his self-aggrandizement, preventing any reevaluation or self-correction. So Trump cancels US assistance to Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, hoping that will somehow block their citizens from leaving. No one can say him nay. But that move is pretty much guaranteed to make conditions in those three countries worse and cause more asylum-seekers to arrive in the US, not fewer.
Ditto policy on Iran. Trump’s tight squeeze there without support from Europe, China, or Russia is strengthening Iran’s hardliners and making even extension of the Iran nuclear deal, which begins to “sunset” in just a few years, more difficult. National Security Adviser Bolton has even begun to lay the foundation for a military attack on Iran, by claiming it could be done under the existing Congressional Authorization to Use Military Force. One more Middle East war: precisely what the world needs right now. Iraq and Afghanistan haven’t yet cost enough.
Double ditto on North Korea, where the President has lurched from threatening (nuclear) war to befriending one of the world’s worst tyrants and meeting with his good friend (shall I say lover?) twice to no good effect. Now the Administration is contemplating a third meeting. What’s that saying, attributed to Einstein, about doing the same thing and expecting a different result?
Triple ditto on the Israel/Palestine conflict, where Trump is trying to squeeze the Palestinians by denying them humanitarian and law enforcement assistance. There aren’t enough desperate young Palestinians ready to take up the cudgels?
In none of these situations is it difficult to imagine the Trump Administration’s decisions making things go from bad to worse. And there are others:
- the decision in Syria to withdraw, then not to withdraw, but still to withdraw;
- the President’s comment that US troops should stay in Iraq to keep an eye on Iran, which makes it more difficult for Iraqi politicians to give the necessary approval;
- telling the world the US isn’t interested in Libya, which opened the door to a military push on Tripoli likely to re-ignite the civil war there, or possibly lead to re-imposition of a military dictatorship;
- threatening military action in Venezuela, where everyone understands there is no serious military option, thus reducing the US to a paper tiger;
- continuing to cozy up to President Putin despite Russian behavior in Ukraine and the Sea of Azov, not to mention interference in US politics on a daily basis;
- the threat to close the Mexican border, which would devastate the US and Mexican economies.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the President is incorrigible, mainly because he doesn’t abide correction. His response to criticism is to double down on failed policy and hope that will work, or turn 180 degrees and hope that will. It doesn’t. The more this shambolic Administration continues, the more the rest of the world, friends and enemies, will adjust by hedging that reduces American influence. Trump is destined to be remembered as not just ineffective but also counterproductive.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Netanyahu redux
The Wilson Center held a panel discussion April 11 analyzing the Israeli elections, with David Horovitz, Founding Editor of The Times of Israel, Natan Sachs, Director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, Dana Weiss Chief Political Analyst, and David Halbfinger, Jerusalem Bureau Chief at The New York Times.
Horovitz opines that it might seem the elections were to a large extent a referendum on Netanyahu and that the public wants more of him. But it is more complex than that. The election was a referendum on Netanyahu’s leadership. Voters were looking at Netanyahu as the world leader who kept Israel safe in a toxic and unpredictable region for the past decade. Israelis are not convinced they need to change their leadership in the current hostile environment. Netanyahu is viewed as successful in confronting Iran as it seeks nuclear weapons. He also succeeded in painting the Blue and White alliance, including three chiefs of staff (among them his own former defense minister) as weak leftists who won’t be able to keep the country safe.
Horovitz suggests the interesting thing to focus on after the elections is what Netanyahu will do vis-vis the Palestinians and the corruption allegations against him. He has said will annex all the settlements in the West Bank, where he will apply Israeli laws. Even more important is how Netanyahu will fight off his indictment, using the Knesset to change the process and evade prosecution.
Sachs points out that since 1977, the first time the Likud party came to power in Israel, there have been fourteen elections, ten of which Likud has won. There is a structural advantage to the right wing. The majority of Israelis are right wing, with a small number (around 16%) calling themselves left wing. The left lost credibility among the Israeli voters after 2000 when Israel withdrew from Gaza and the second Intifada broke out. Israelis are pessimistic and skeptical of the possibility of reaching peace any time soon with the Palestinians.
Weiss stated Netanyahu did whatever it takes to win the election. He orchestrated the campaign by himself and a few young media experts. Elections were supposed to take place last November, but Netanyahu held them in April so that he would be strengthened in efforts to evade being indicted and to get immunity. Today, left and right are not about the conflict, it is about the nature of Israel. It is unclear if it will stay democratic and bound to the rule of law. The Blue and White wants to feel more Israeli than Jewish, seeking to keep Israel a democracy and the rule of law consistent. Netanyahu wants the opposite.
Halbfinger suggested that Netanyahu sold the electorate stability as well as economic and military leadership. He demonized his opponents. The fight over the Supreme Court and the judiciary is not personal to Netanyahu. There is a belief on the right that the Supreme Court in Israel, which is very liberal, has been overreaching. The right believes it needs to be brought back under control. For Halbfinger this is brewing into a constitutional crisis in a country that has no constitution.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks 15-19
1.Crisis in Yemen: A Strategic Threat to U.S. Interests and Allies?| Thursday, April 18, 2019 | 11:45 am – 1:30 pm | Hudson Institute | 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004| Register Here|
Hudson Institute will host a panel to explore the strategic implications of the conflict in Yemen. In 2014, the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels overthrew the government of Yemen and seized the capital. With U.S. logistical support, Saudi Arabia mustered a coalition to restore the government. In response, the Houthis waged war on Riyadh, firing ballistic missiles at civilian areas, including airports. Though the Houthis have been successful in portraying themselves as defenders of Yemen and Saudi Arabia as the aggressors, they have violated countless internationally brokered ceasefires and the conflict continues today.
In the U.S., Congress has voted to withdraw support from the Saudi-led campaign and the White House has turned up the pressure on Tehran, recently imposing sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—the Houthis’ patron. Can the Trump administration afford to let the Islamic Republic implant a Hezbollah-clone on the border of a key U.S. ally, thereby creating a failed state, and threatening international trade through Bab al-Mandeb?
Speakers
Fatima Abo Alasrar, Senior Analyst, Arabia Foundation
Michael Doran, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Bernard Haykel, Professor, Near Eastern Studies Director, Institute for Transregional Study of the Contemporary Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, Princeton University
Lee Smith Speaker, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
2. Results of the Indonesian Elections: New Directions or More of the Same?| Thursday, April 18, 2019 | 10:00 am – 11:30 pm | The Center for Strategic and International Studies | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036| Register Here|
The CSIS Southeast Asia Program is pleased to present “Results of the Indonesian Elections: New Directions or More of the Same?” a panel discussion featuring Dr. Ann Marie Murphy (Professor, Seton Hall University) and Adam Schwarz (Founder and CEO, Asia Group Advisors). An estimated 193 million eligible voters in Indonesia will head to the polls on April 17 to cast their vote for president, vice president, and members of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR).The “Results of the Indonesian Elections: New Directions or More of the Same?” event will assess the outcomes of these elections, and what they mean for Indonesian domestic politics, economic policy, foreign policy, and U.S.-Indonesia relations.
Speakers
Dr. Ann Marie Murphy, Professor, Seton Hall University
Adam Schwarz, Founder and CEO, Asia Group Advisors
3. Netanyahu’s Reelection: Implications for Israeli Politics and Palestinian Statehood?| Friday, April 19, 2019 | 12:00 am – 1:30 pm | The Center for Strategic and International Studies | 1319 18th St. NW, Washington D.C. 20036| Register Here|
The reelection of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a fifth term was widely perceived as a blow to the prospects for peace and protection of Palestinian rights.
Netanyahu’s pledge to annex parts of occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank, as well as the ongoing marginalization of Palestinians inside Israel, make Palestinian statehood and the possibility of a peace plan seem ever more distant.
To assess the consequences of this vote, The Middle East Institute (MEI) and The Institute for Palestine Studies (IPS) invite you to a timely conversation with Raef Zreik, a prominent Palestinian lawyer and academic. Zreik will discuss what the elections say about the Israeli body politic, and the implications for Israel’s domestic and foreign policy. Amb. Gerald Feierstein, MEI’s senior vice president, will moderate the conversation.
Speakers
Raef Zreik, Associate professor, Carmel Academic College; Academic co-director, Minerva Centre for the Humanities, Tel Aviv University
Ambassador Gerald Feierstein, moderator, Senior vice president, MEI
4. Inside the Mind of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba| Monday, April 15, 2019 | 12:00 am – 1:30 pm | The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103| Register Here|
This past November marked the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attack in Mumbai that killed more than 160 people, perpetrated by a Pakistan-based jihadist terrorist group called Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. Today the group still operates inside, and outside, of Pakistan’s borders despite mounting international pressure on Pakistan to disrupt its operations. As the group continues to attack India from bases in Pakistan, it further escalates tensions between the two nuclear-armed countries.
C. Christine Fair’s new book, In Their Own Words: Understanding Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, reveals little-known details of how this group functions by translating and commenting upon its sophisticated propagandist literature. The book examines how this canon of texts is the group’s most popular and potent weapon, in particular demonstrating how Lashkar-e-Tayyaba thinks about recruiting families rather than simply fighters. C. Christine Fair, Joshua T. White, and Polly Nayak will discuss the book’s findings and implications for the broader challenges around Pakistan’s nuclear coercion. Carnegie’s Ashley J. Tellis will moderate.
C. Christine Fair, associate professor in the Security Studies Program within Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.
Polly Nayak, fellow with the South Asia program at the Stimson Center
Joshua T. White, associate professor of the practice of South Asia Studies and Fellow at the Edwin O. Reischauer Center for East Asia Studies at Johns Hopkins SAIS
Polly Nayak, fellow with the South Asia Program at the Stimson Center.
5. Ukraine’s Future Leaders on the Frontlines of Change| Thursday, April 18, 2019 | 12:00 am – 1:30 pm | The Atlantic Council| 1030 15th St NW, Washington, DC 20005| Register Here|
The Atlantic Council and Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), are pleased to invite you to a special event on April 18, 2019 at the Atlantic Council Headquarters (1030 15th Street NW, 12th Floor, West Tower Elevators) to celebrate Ukraine’s future.
In the five years since the end of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine continues to ask the important question: How will the country ensure democratic values in its future development? Much of Ukraine’s hope lies in its young leaders who will drive the country forward in the coming years. CDDRL has been fortunate to provide a year-long residency to some of these future leaders as part of the Center’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program.
Agenda
Welcome and Introduction:
Ambassador John Herbst, Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Keynote Address:
Dr. Francis Fukuyama, Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University
Panel Discussion:
Ms. Nataliya Mykolska, Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program 2018-19, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies;Former Trade Representative of Ukraine, Deputy Minister, Stanford University; Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine
Mr. Ivan Prymachenko, Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program 2018-19, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies; Co-founder, Stanford University; Prometheus
Ms. Oleksandra Ustinova, Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program 2018-19, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies; Head of Communications and Anti-Corruption in HealthCare Projects, Stanford University; Anti-Corruption Action Center (ANTAC)
Moderated By: Ms. Melinda Haring, Editor, UkraineAlert, Atlantic Council
6. Algeria what happened? What’s next?| Monday, April 15, 2019 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | Project on Middle East Democracy | 1730 Rhode Island Ave NW #617, Washington, DC 20036| Register Here|
Since February, millions of Algerians have taken to the streets week after week for historic, peaceful mass protests against a fifth term for President Abdelaziz Bouteflika and for democratic change. The popular pressure led to the postponement of the April 24 presidential elections and, on April 2, to Bouteflika’s resignation after 20 years in power. Abdelkader Bensalah, long a key ally of Bouteflika and since 2002 the Speaker of Algeria’s upper house of parliament, has been appointed interim president. This appointment is in line with Algeria’s constitution, but is contrary to protesters’ demand for a genuinely independent figure to oversee this transitional period. The next steps remain unclear and many Algerians worry that the regime will resist a democratic transition. Please join POMED to hear from a panel of Algeria experts who will analyze what led to the protests, what has happened so far, and what might happen next.
Rochdi Alloui, Independent Analyst on North Africa, Georgia State University
Alexis Arieff, Africa Policy Analyst, Congressional Research Service
Amel Boubekeur, (speaking by video from Algiers)
Research Fellow, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales
William Lawrence, Visiting Professor of Political Science and International Affairs,
George Washington University
Moderator: Stephen McInerney, Executive Director, POMED
7. Africa in Transition: Investing in Youth for Economic Prosperity| Tuesday, April 16, 2019 | 9:30 am – 11:30 am | The Wilson Center| 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004-3027| Register Here|
Africa is at a crossroads—and which road its leaders take will shape the lives of billions of people, not only in Africa but also beyond its borders. Often overlooked, population trends play a significant role in Sub-Saharan Africa’s chances for prosperity. Between 15 and 20 million young people are expected to join the African workforce every year for the next three decades. Investing in the health and education of these young people, and providing opportunities for employment, will be essential to ensuring a positive future marked by economic prosperity and stability in the region.
Please join the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program and Maternal Health Initiative, in partnership with Population Institute, for a discussion about impactful investments that country leaders can make to empower their countries’ youth.
Speakers
Moderator, Lauren Herzer Risi, Project Director, Environmental Change and Security Program
Parfait Eloundou-Enyegue, Professor, Department Chair, Department of Development Sociology, Cornell University; Associate Director, Cornell Population Center, Unami Jeremiah, Founder, Mosadi Global Trust
Dr. Gladys Kalema-Zikusoka, Founder and CEO, Conservation Through Public Health
Musimbi Kanyoro, President and Chief Executive Officer, Global Fund for Women
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Your Saturday video
I appeared with Middle East Institute President Paul Salem and Dialogue Director Randa Slim to discuss my From War to Peace in the Middle East, Balkans and Ukraine this week. I presented the lessons learned from peacebuilding in the Balkans that I believe should be applied in the Middle East. Here is the video:
Here are the powerpoint slides I used as my notes:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Watch the pot
The pot is boiling once again in North Africa. Sudanese President Bashir, in power since 1993, is under arrest and his country under de facto martial law. Algerian President Bouteflika has resigned after almost 20 years in power. Libyan General Haftar is trying to take Tripoli by force. The smart money is betting he will bog down in a stalemate with opposing militias from Western Libya.
Not everyone is in turmoil. Morocco and Tunisia, which both embarked on political reforms in the wake of the Arab Spring, are at least for now continuing in that direction. Egypt’s President and former Field Marshall Sisi has restored its military dictatorship, cracked down hard on both Islamist and secular opposition, and embarked on some economic reforms.
Less visible in all these countries is the role of the Gulf potentates. The United Arab Emirates has backed both Sisi and Haftar, hoping to they will eradicate Islamists from their polities. Qatar has backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. The Saudi-led coalition fighting against the Houthis in Yemen has used mercenary Sudanese troops, thus indirectly supporting Bashir. Iran has backed the Houthis but has not engaged heavily in North Africa, since there are few Shia there. Tehran’s interests are much stronger in Syria and Iraq.
American engagement in North Africa has been sporadic and targeted mainly against violent Islamist extremism, especially in Libya and more indirectly in Egypt. President Trump has said Libya is Europe’s problem, which makes a lot of sense since Spain, France, and Italy all have strong stakes in North Africa due to migration as well as oil and gas supplies. The problem is that the Europeans have found it hard to combine their efforts. Instead they compete for influence and undermine each other. It is unlikely that they will find a way to use their considerable clout to good effect.
The result will likely be that the North Africans will be left to find their own way. That might not be the worst of all possible worlds, even if it is fraught with risks. Libya’s downward spiral after its 2011 revolution does not suggest much indigenous capacity to manage without international help. But Libyans have always resisted it and are now vitiating the latest UN efforts to unify its state structures and begin the process of recovery from civil war.
Sudan and Algeria have better prospects. Their revolutions have so far been mostly nonviolent (apart from the force the police and military have indulged in). Nonviolent revolutions have a much higher probability of generating peaceful and democratic outcomes. But in both places the strong role of the military runs the risk of a detour to autocratic rule, as in Egypt. That is a contingency the demonstrators will have to guard against, so as not to fall into the Sisi trap.
The trick is to bring the pot to boil, but not let it boil over. If it does, extremists will exploit the situation. North Africa is not immune to Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and more localized jihadist organizations. Derna in Libya, where the US marines fought “on the shores of Tripoli,” has seen several revivals of extremists since Qaddafi fell, though Haftar for now seems to have things there under control. Tunisia has likewise generated lots of foreign fighters for the extremists, despite its so far successful political transition.
Let’s keep an eye on this pot.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
At a crossroads
The Arab Center for Washington DC hosted a panel discussion April 4 about “Algeria’s Protests and the Prospects for Change.” The panel included Marina Ottaway, Middle East Fellow at The Wilson Center, Geoff D. Porter, president of North Africa Risk Consulting Inc., Hugh Roberts, Edward Keller Professor of North African and Middle Eastern History at Tufts University, and Sara Yerkes, Middle East fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Roberts spoke about the unanimity and uniformity of the Algerian protests demanding the ailing president, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, step down. Six Fridays of protest passed so far in a friendly manner: people chanting the slogan “the system must depart.” Although the president has resigned, it is much harder to get the entire system to leave, as it would be impossible to import a new one. Elements of the system should be preserved, Roberts said, but unfortunately the protesters have not yet come to this conclusion.
According to Roberts, the protests were successful in large part due to support from groups like National Organization of Mujahideen (veterans), lawyers, judges, school teachers, and some radical political parties. Most importantly, Gaid Salah, vice minister of defense, who was appointed by the resigned president and supported him in the past, has also aligned himself with the uprising. The military will try to convince ex-President Liamine Zerwoual, known for his integrity and transparency, to run the transitional period. Failing to do so, it could be hard to legitimize the presidency with the people.
Ottaway note that Algeria was widely viewed as immune to the 2011 Arab Spring. Eight years later that was no longer the case, as Algerians took to the street and high-level officials around the president sacrificed him. It is however still unclear whether the opposition can force a new system. The outcome of the uprising in Algeria will be determined not by how soon elections are held, but by how successful the regime’s opponents are in moving from protest in the street to becoming participants in the transition. Protesters need to remain in the streets to put pressure on the regime, while also organizing to become effective political players. Tunisia offers an example of a slow transition with broad-based participation that led to real change. By contrast, Egypt embarked on a much faster process with narrow participation, resulting in an entrenched militay.
Yerkes gave an overview of the effect of the Algerian protests on neighboring countries, mainly Morocco and Tunisia. Morocco said it “will not interfere or comment” on the Algerian protests. Morocco hopes the new Algerian government will reach an agreement regarding the Western Sahara conflict. Morocco is also worried it could be next, as most North African presidents have either been ousted or run away. While Moroccans favor the Algerian protests, the government would rather see the situation return to normality. In Tunisia, there is a big worry the insecurity will affect the Western border between the two countries, which was once a harbor for terrorists. Tunisia won’t be able to handle chaos in Libya and in Algeria. Tunisia’s president has not said a word about the Algerian protest movement, but he would like to see his country’s “successful spring” being replicated elsewhere.
Porter argues the political structure of Algeria has not changed since independence. There are four elements that make it unique:
- War veterans are held in high esteem but have lost their connection with young people.
- The military does not know where its role starts and ends, and whether it is a political actor or only a guarantor of stability.
- People have a kind of blind trust in the military reflected in the slogan “Army and the people are brothers.”
- Rule of law is uncertain.
Bottom line: the government is emphasizing the importance of consensus at this critical juncture, but the reason for the current situation is lack of consensus, in particular on a new president. Where this crossroads will lead is still unclear.
RSS - Posts
