Month: September 2019
Peace Picks September 30-October 4
Reducing Threats and Building Stability|September 30, 2019|5:00PM-7:30PM|Middle East Institute|1763 N St. NW, Washington, District of Columbia 20036|Register Here
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host an event in partnership with CARE addressing possibilities for reducing threats and building stability. To address these topics, Ambassador William Burns, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, will be interviewed by reporter Michelle Kosinski. The two will discuss Burns’ book The Back Channel: A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for Its Renewal. Following Ambassador Burns’ presentation, former Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and former Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy will continue the conversation on threat reduction and stabilization, moderated by MEI President Paul Salem.
Ambassador William Burns is president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Michelle Kosinski is CNN’s senior diplomatic correspondent responsible for covering the State Department
Michèle Flournoy is CEO of WestExec Advisors and is the former CEO of CNAS, an organization she co-founded
Ernest Moniz is new chief executive officer and co-chair by the Board of Directors of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)
Ernest Moniz is chief executive officer and co-chair by the Board of Directors of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)
Paul Salem (moderator) is president of The Middle East Institute. He focuses on issues of political change, transition, and conflict as well as the regional and international relations of the Middle East
The Struggle for Inclusive Citizenship in Arab Countries|October 1, 2019|2:00PM|Atlantic Council|1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor, Washington DC 20005|Register Here
The Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East and the United Nations Development Programme invite you to a presentation previewing the forthcoming 2019 Arab Human Development Report, followed by a panel discussion. The report will focus on the struggle for citizenship in all its dimensions in Arab countries. Dr. Adel Abdellatif, Senior Strategic Advisor at the Regional Bureau for Arab States, and Paola Pagliani, Policy Specialist from the United Nations Development Programme will present the conceptual framework for the forthcoming report (briefly outlined in this research paper) and preview some of the preliminary results of surveys conducted in twelve Arab countries.
Since the 2011 uprisings, Arab countries have struggled to define a new social contract that would insulate their citizens from forces of exclusion—forces that range from poverty, inequality and unemployment to water scarcity, corruption and gender discrimination. In some cases, reforms and policies aiming at modernization have, as an unintended consequence, generated greater inequality rather than greater inclusion. In other cases, exclusion has fueled societal tensions, instability and ultimately violence, putting people at greater risk of marginalization. If ongoing conflicts are not resolved and demographic projections do not deviate from current trends, 40 percent of people in Arab countries will live in crisis and conflict conditions by 2030.
Presenters
Dr. Adel Abdellatif
Senior Strategic Advisor, Regional Bureau for Arab States
United Nations Development Programme
Ms. Paola Pagliani
Policy Specialist
United Nations Development Programme
Discussants
Dr. Amaney A. Jamal
Edwards S. Sanford Professor of Politics
Princeton University
Dr. James Zogby
Managing Director
Zogby Research Services
Moderator
Ambassador Richard LeBaron
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East
Atlantic Council
The Kashmir Crisis: A Discussion with President Masood Khan|October 1, 2019|12:30PM-2:00PM|Middle East Institute|1763 N St. NW, Washington, District of Columbia 20036|Register Here
On August 5, 2019, India stripped the special status of Kashmir and absorbed the state into the Indian Union. Prime Minister Modi’s decision and the imposition of a communications blackout and strict curfew was denounced in Pakistan and questioned elsewhere. For decades, Pakistan has been trying to draw international attention to legal and human rights issues in Kashmir. The actions of the prime minister have now forced Kashmir on to the world stage and India into a defensive role. Thus far, however, the reactions of major regional and global powers have been muted. Pakistan remains determined to sustain Kashmir’s high profile by pointing out new humanitarian concerns and the growing danger of armed, possibly nuclear conflict.
Masood Khan is a Pakistani diplomat who serves as the 27th President of Pakistan administered Kashmir
Raza Rumi is the president of INDUS-Moblizing People’s Power, a Washington D.C. based Non Profit research organization
Marvin Weinbaum (moderator) is the director for Afghanistan and Pakistan studies at MEI
Venezuela: From UNGA Commitments to a Global Action Plan|October 2, 2019|1:00PM|Atlantic Council|1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor, Washington DC 20005|Register Here
Venezuela is front-and-center at the United Nations annual meetings in New York. On Monday, in a significant step, governments party to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR) overwhelmingly voted to invoke it. But what happens if inaction settles in post-UNGA? What is clear is that a deepening of the crisis would trigger new, even more concerning reverberations across Latin America, the Caribbean, the United States, Europe, and beyond.
To seize the moment for renewed attention to the rapidly-deteriorating situation in Venezuela, the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, in partnership with Foreign Policy Magazine and Florida International University’s Jack D. Gordon Institute for Public Policy, invite you to a post-UNGA discussion on how the international community is likely to coordinate a global action plan to avert further threats to regional and global stability.
Speakers
Luis Guillermo Solís
Former President
Republic of Costa Rica
Amb. Marcel de Vink
Director of Western Hemisphere Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Kingdom of the Netherlands
**Additional speakers to be announced.
Oil, Money, and U.S.-Saudi Relations Since 1954|October 2, 2019|2:00PM-3:30PM|Middle East Institute|1763 N St. NW, Washington, District of Columbia 20036|Register Here
The Middle East Institute is pleased to host a book talk with Thomas Lippman to launch his new book, Crude Oil, Crude Money: AristotleOnassis, Saudi Arabia, and the CIA. In conversation with MEI Senior Vice President Gerald Feierstein, Lippman will delve into 70 years of economic and strategic partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia, examining the ways in which this long standing relationship has withstood deep disagreements and disputes. The talk will focus on the circumstances surrounding King Saud’s agreement with Aristotle Onassis in 1954 for a shipping contract which would affect American business in the kingdom, as well as the Eisenhower administration’s reaction.
Thomas W. Lippman is an award-winning author and journalist who has written about Middle Eastern affairs and American foreign policy for more than three decades, specializing in Saudi Arabian affairs, U.S.- Saudi relations, and relations between the West and Islam
Ambassador (ret.) Gerald Feierstein is senior vice president at MEI. He retired from the U.S. Foreign Service in May 2016 after a 41-year career with the personal rank of Career Minister
Venezuela’s Water Crisis and the Path Forward|October 3, 2019|8:30AM-2:00PM|Center for Strategic and International Studies|1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
Please join CSIS Americas and Future of Venezuela Initiative in collaboration with Plan País for a conference on the water crisis in Venezuela affecting citizen access to drinking water, farmer’s access to irrigated land, and the water management system of the country. Venezuela’s water system is currently facing a number of critical issues and a clear path forward is needed to address the country’s water crisis in the short term and to identify a roadmap for longer term structural reforms addressing all aspects of the national water management system.
The purpose of this conference is to analyze the current threats endangering the nation’s watersheds, the capacity of the water management system to protect the nation’s water resources, and the conditions of multiple entities responsible for assuring access to safe and clean water throughout the country.
Keynote remarks will be provided by Bonnie Glick, Deputy Administrator for USAID. The first panel will cover the diagnostics of the water crisis in Venezuela. The second panel will cover solutions and action plans to help the country rebuild its water management system. Panelists will include Venezuela-based Plan País experts, as well as experts on water management systems from U.S.-based institutions.
This event will take place in both English and Spanish. Simultaneous translation will be available.
Conference Agenda:
8:30 AM – Coffee and Guest Arrivals
9:00 AM – Event Begins
9:10 AM – Keynote Remarks
9:20 AM – Introductory Remarks
9:40 AM – Panel #1: Diagnostic of Water Crisis
10:30 AM – Coffee Break
10:45 AM – Panel #2: Solutions and Action Plans
12:15 PM – Networking Lunch
2:00 PM – Conclusion
Speakers
Juan Andrés Mejía: President, Plan País Committee; Deputy, National Assembly of Venezuela
Bonnie Glick: Deputy Administrator of the US Agency for International Development
José María de Viana: Technical Coordinator for Public Services, Plan País
María Julia Bocco: Water and Sanitation Lead Economist, Inter-American Development Bank
Germán Uzcategui: Mechanical Engineer at the Universidad de los Andes; Adviser to the Executive Director for Eastern Production, PDVSA
Moises Rendon: Director, The Future of Venezuela Initiative and Fellow, Americas Program
Mark L. Schneider: Senior Adviser (Non-resident), Americas Program and Human Rights Initiative
Michael A. Matera: Director and Senior Fellow, Americas Program
Katherine Bliss: Senior Fellow, Global Health Policy Center
Security, Stability, and the Future of Kashmir|October 4, 2019|9:45AM-11:30AM|Hudson Institute|1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 400Washington, DC 20004|Register Here
Hudson Institute will host a discussion on recent developments in Kashmir. Panelists will include the Heritage Foundation’s Jeff Smith, Indian politician and writer Salman Anees Soz, and the Atlantic Council’s Shuja Nawaz. The discussion will be moderated by Aparna Pande, Hudson research fellow and director of the Initiative on the Future of India and South Asia.
On August 5, India revoked the special status of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, dividing the one-time state into two union territories – Jammu and Kashmir as one territory and Ladakh as another. This ushered in security, administrative, and political issues both inside and outside India. Panelists will address these issues, including the domestic security implications of this decision by the Indian government, responses from the international community, and the implications for U.S. foreign policy in the region.
Speakers
Salman Anees Soz: Indian Politician and Author, The Great Disappointment: How Narendra Modi Squandered a Unique Opportunity to Transform the Indian Economy
Shuja Nawaz: Distinguished Fellow, South Asia Center; Former Director, South Asia Center, Atlantic Council
Aparna Pande: Research Fellow and Director, Initiative on the Future of India and South Asia, Hudson Institute
Jeff Smith: Research Fellow, Asian Studies Center, Heritage Foundation
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Accountability should not wait
On September 27, the Middle East Institute and the Pro-Justice jointly hosted a panel to launch the new book, Blacklist: Violations Committed by the Most Prominent Syrian Regime Figures and How to Bring Them to Justice. Blacklist identifies and provides detailed information on nearly 100 individuals accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria over the past eight years. The book sheds light on the crimes themselves and outlines potential political and judicial avenues available to bring the perpetrators to justice.
The panel consisted of Anne Barnard, a New York Times journalist who has extensively covered the conflict in Syria, Wael Sawah, the president and director of Pro-Justice and former executive director of the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression, and Charles Lister, a senior fellow and director of the Countering Terrorism and Extremism program at MEI. The event was moderated by Joyce Karam, who is the Washington correspondent for The National and adjunct professor at George Washington University.
The Syrian conflict is approaching its ninth year and increasingly becoming forgotten by the international community. Lister gave a broad overview of wartime consequences to remind the panel and audience of the ongoing atrocity. Syria is a disastrous humanitarian crisis with roughly 500,000 deaths since 2011. The conflict has an extensive history of war crimes, most of which are perpetuated by the central government of Syria. The Assad regime is responsible for 89% of civilian deaths, 99% of torture deaths, 89% of arbitrary arrests, and 85% of forced displacements. Barnard noted that even before the conflict, there were high rates of detention in the elaborate prison system established throughout the Assad dynasty, but as the conflict escalated from 2011 onward, the situation worsened. The UN has labeled the prisons in Syria as exterminate conditions with a system of sadistic torture and high levels of disease.
Sawah continued by saying that these facts and figures are important to note because without accountability and justice, there will never be a lasting peace in Syria. He stated that Blacklist is an important publication to act as an open guide to identify the perpetuators and assist legal professionals in creating a foundational narrative to work towards holding those responsible of crimes against humanity. Barnard agreed and said that the industrial prison system has fostered the ability of the regime to commit these crimes. 100,000 Syrians have not been located after their time detained. It is important to work towards identifying the fates of these people to take initial steps towards reaching justice through administering accountability.
Lister discussed how legal accountability does not seem likely for Assad and high-ranking members of the regime because the general perception is that the Syrian conflict has been won by the regime. He notes that it is far from over, but in the short-term sanctions on these individuals can restrict their international travel and ability to act as legitimate statesmen. Doing so will isolate the regime and not allow it to operate with impunity.
Sawah talked about the pivotal role Hezbollah, Russia, and Iran have played in enabling the Assad regime to survive throughout the civil war. The regime would have collapsed by 2013 without their support. They must be held accountable for their support of Assad and their own war crimes. Lister echoed this by mentioning the Russian precision strikes on civilian hospitals in opposition-held regions. He suggested that the US needs to begin an investigation of Russian war crimes to develop a portfolio of reports to name and shame their heinous actions against Syrian civilians.
The panel agreed that continued investigations such as Blacklist are needed to reach a stable peace in the future. Without making accountability for injustices, opposition groups will flourish, and civilians will continue to disdain the regime.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
How Libya might recover
Libya’s internationally recognized Prime Minister and Chair of the Presidential Council, Fayez al Sarraj, spoke today at SAIS, where I introduced him and my Foreign Policy Institute colleague Hafed al Ghwell moderated the Q and A. Sarraj leads the Government of National Accord (GNA) headquartered in Tripoli. This is my effort to summarize not what he said but my conclusions from it. I’ll post the video as soon as we have it.
Libya’s situation is dire. Former Qaddafi General Khalifa Haftar, having taken control of Benghazi and much of the east and south, launched an attack on Tripoli almost six months ago. His forces have bogged down fighting against an array of four or five militias defending the capital. In the meanwhile, Sarraj is trying to restore some sort of unified, democratic governance. He puts his hopes in political dialogue conducted in a National Conference. But political dialogue in Libya has failed more than once to resolve its conflicts, which are made worse by the substantial oil and gas resources at stake there. Oil production is up to 1.2 million barrels per day (from 150,000 when Sarraj took over three years ago).
Sarraj still insists on dialogue, approval of the draft constitution (or some variant of it), elections to decide who will govern, and a National Reconciliation Commission to manage transitional justice and accountability. Backed by Russian mercenaries, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, Haftar wants to take the country by force. He has repeatedly betrayed political agreements in favor of military efforts. Abu Dhabi and Cairo support Haftar with weapons and money (supposedly because they don’t like the Islamists who support Sarraj). Sarraj explicitly advocates a “secular” government and says his government continues contacts with the Emirates and Egypt.
Sarraj also says his government has a good relationship with the US, especially on fighting terrorism. The Americans conduct drone strikes in Libya and militias that support Sarraj fought the Islamic State in Sirte. But President Trump some months ago did take a phone call from Haftar and appeared to be leaning in his direction, until it became clear that the general was not going to succeed quickly. Sarraj hopes that good relations with the Americans at lower levels will prevail and suggests that the US could be more helpful in clearing away obstacles to the GNA’s success.
It was not clear how that success might be brought about, but there were hints. While now unwilling to continue to negotiate with Haftar, Sarraj sees some hope in talking with the Tobruk-based House of Representatives (HOR), which once upon a time authorized Haftar’s forces. Some of its members already meet in Tripoli and more might be convinced to do so. Separating the HOR from Haftar would undermine his political legitimacy, if not his military capability.
But the key to success is likely also to require realigning the international forces at work in Libya. Haftar’s supporters need to realize that he will not succeed militarily. If they then decide to back the UN-recognized GNA, the odds for its success would increase sharply.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 27
This looks to me like an excellent case study of the interagency process, where the “deep state” of career professionals shares concerns about unsettling behaviors and someone develops a formal “medical log” like the one for Captain Queeg in the Caine Mutiny.
The whistleblower, identified as a CIA person assigned to the White House by NYT, was probably part of an interagency working group on Ukraine. They probably met regularly in NSC offices and discussed various matters. “What is Giuliani doing in this?” “What do we tell Kyiv about their request for a meeting?” “How do we follow up on the president’s phone call?” “I was really troubled by that.” “Did you see what they did with the MemCon?” “Where do we stand on the aid?” “Why did they recall the ambassador?”
NYT’s Peter Baker got more details and confirmation of the whistleblower’s narrative.
Giuliani made his case to the WSJ.
NYT has more on the US ambassador.
Amy Zegart defends the process.
Although
the congressional focus has been on Trump’s seeking political
ammunition against Biden, some lawyers note that his “favor” request
came just after Zelensky mentioned buying Javelin antitank missiles,
perhaps raising other legal questions.
BTW, Chairman Schiff has indicated his members may need to return to DC before the end of the recess.
Despite the looming impeachment fight, the committee trying to find ways to “modernize” the Congress and make it more collegial offered some suggestions yesterday.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Wishful thinking
There is so much wrong with President Trump’s behavior relative to his phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky that it begs for enumeration:
- He solicited foreign help for his election campaign.
- He used his public position to enhance his private interests.
- He suggested a connection between Ukraine’s cooperation in replying to his request for a favor and his willingness to allow Congressionally-mandated aid to go to Ukraine.
- He or his immediate subordinates attempted to cover all this up by hiding the record of the phone conversation in a highly classified computer system explicitly not intended for this type of material.
- He subsequently has threatened the life and freedom of the whistleblower who drew attention to the malfeasance.
There is little question but that this behavior merits impeachment, along with lots of other things he has done. These include the obstruction of justice that Special Counsel Mueller documented in detail and his public appeal for Russian help in the 2016 election, not to mention his preference for believing President Putin over US intelligence agencies. We haven’t even begun to see a serious investigation of Trump’s finances, which will almost surely provide more impeachment fodder.
Impeachment in the House is a foregone conclusion now. The only real questions are when will it happen and how will the Senate react thereafter?
Speaker Pelosi has a choice between early impeachment, say late this year or early next, and late impeachment, late enough so that the Senate would not be able to conduct the trial before the November 3 election. It is not clear to me what she will choose, and perhaps she hasn’t decided yet. Processes of this sort have their own rhythm, which is likely slower than some would like. But if it appears that Republicans would back impeachment and conviction, Pelosi might try to move fast to take advantage of the momentum.
How will the Republicans react? So far the members of both House and Senate are circling the wagons, trying to protect Trump. Polling confirms that choice. But that could change. The rash of Republican retirements from the House is clearly due in part to discomfort with Trump and his likely impact on members’ prospects in the 2020 election. There have been a few similar announced retirements from the Senate, but there the defensive phalanx seems much better organized and grounded. Mitt Romney is everyone’s best hope for breaking ranks, but he has so far been cautious to a fault.
Trump remains defiant and unapologetic. His phone call was “perfect” and his opponents’ claims are fake news. He is good at counter-punching, but my sense is that most Americans are getting tired of the reality show. That, of course, is wishful thinking on my part.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Outage yesterday
Apologies for our “suspension” yesterday. Peacefare needed to do some security-related maintenance. All done in record time. Now up as usual.
RSS - Posts
