Month: September 2019
Peace Picks September 16-22
1.Israeli Elections and Minority Communities|September 17, 2019|10:00 AM-11:30AM|Middle East Institute|1763 N Street NW, Washington District of Columbia 20036|Register Here
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to present a panel hosted in partnership with the Foundation for Middle East Peace and the New Israel Fund to discuss how minority rights have factored into Israeli parliamentary elections in 2019, both the first election in April and the snap elections taking place on September 17th. Like the first election, this second round of votes again systematically ignored issues facing Israel’s minority communities, including Palestinian citizens of Israel and Bedouin communities living in the Negev. This panel will discuss those issues and examine how Israel’s major political parties and its leaders have treated minority communities on the campaign trail.
This event is part of the George and Rhonda Salem Family Foundation Lecture Series.
Co-sponsor:
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to sponsor this event in conjunction with the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP).
Featuring:
Ayesha Ziadna is the Director of Sabeel Leadership Institute of the Arab-Jewish Center for Empowerment, Equality, and Cooperation Negev Institute for Strategies of Peace and Economic Development (AJEEC NISPED)
Tal Avrech joined the Negev Coexistence Forum for Civil Equality (NCF) in 2018 and is currently responsible for international relations and NCF’s head researcher
Harry Reis is the Director for Policy and Strategy at the New Israel Fund
Lara Friedman (moderator) is the President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP)
2.Future Projections for the Middle East: Game Changers for 2030 and Beyond|September 19, 2019|9:00 AM-2:15 PM|Middle East Institute|1763 N Street NW, Washington District of Columbia 20036|Register Here
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a conference on future projections for the Middle East, assessing projected trends, drives, policy responses, and future challenges for the MENA region in 2030 and beyond.
Agenda
9:00–9:15 AM | Welcoming Remarks and Overview of the Day
Paul Salem President, MEI
Amb. Gerald Feierstein Senior vice president, MEI
9:15-9:45AM | Keynote Address: Trends in Tech, Cyber, Security and their Repercussions in the Middle East
Richard A. Clarke Chairman, MEI Board of Governors
9:45AM-10:55AM | Panel I: The MENA Region in 2030: Trends and Trajectories
This interactive panel will examine the forces over the next 10-15 years that will cause/drive the greatest change in the region. How do we foresee some of these forces influencing each other, accelerating, slowing, and shaping change? What projections can we make of things likely to be significantly different in the region in 2030?
Elhum Haghighat Professor and chair, Department of Political Science, City University of New York
Amal Kandeel Director, Climate Change and Environment Program, MEI
Josh Kerbel Research faculty, National Intelligence University
Paul Salem President, MEI
Steven Kenney (moderator) Founder and principal, Foresight Vector LLC
10:55AM-11:15AM | Coffee Break
11:15AM-11:45AM | Remarks:
His Excellency Dr. Thani Ahmed Al Zeyoudi Minister of Climate Change and Environment, United Arab Emirates
11:45AM-12:55PM | Panel II: Policy Responses to Future Challenges
This discussion will focus on policy areas that will reflect the greatest change in 2030 relative to today. What social-cultural, technological, or other forces will force enable major changes in policies affecting/governing the region? How will policymaking/policymakers address the interrelationships between issue areas?
Ferid Belhaj Vice president, Middle East and North Africa, World Bank
Laila Iskandar Former Minister of Environment, Egypt
Ruba Husari Scholar, MEI
Michael Nagata Former director of Strategic Operational Planning, National Counterterrorism Center
Ambassador (ret.) Gerald Feierstein Senior Vice President, MEI
Patrick Tucker (moderator) Technology editor, Defense One
12:55-1:30 | Lunch Buffet
3.Washington Humanitarian Forum|September 19, 2019|8:30 AM-3:30 PM|Center for Strategic and International Studies| 1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
The CSIS Humanitarian Agenda is hosting the first annual Washington Humanitarian Forum on September 19th, 2019. This full-day conference will focus on humanitarian challenges that sit at the intersection of United States national security and foreign policy priorities. This year’s theme is Unlocking Humanitarian Access – Opportunities for U.S. Leadership.
The Washington Humanitarian Forum will include the launch of a report produced by the CSIS Task Force on Humanitarian Access. The Task Force, co-chaired by Senator Todd Young (R-IN) and Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), looked at ways in which denial, delay, and diversion prevents humanitarian assistance from reaching the most vulnerable populations, and vice versa, in conflict-affected areas. The Task Force report analyzes challenges in priority countries for the United States and includes recommendations for how United States leadership can mitigate the most pressing access challenges.
AGENDA
8:00 a.m. – 8:30 a.m. | Check-in and Coffee Networking
8:30 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. | Opening Plenary
- Video Address: Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Senator Todd Young (R-IN)
- Introductions: J. Stephen Morrison, Senior Vice President and Director, Global Health Policy Center, CSIS
- Opening Keynote: Mark Lowcock, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
- Moderator: Kimberly Flowers, Director, Humanitarian Agenda & Global Food Security Projects, CSIS
9:15 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. | Task Force Report Launch
- Ambassador Ertharin Cousin, former Executive Director, UN World Food Programme
- Patricia McIlreavy, Vice President for Policy and Practice, InterAction
- Dr. Paul B. Spiegel, Director, Center for Humanitarian Health, Johns Hopkins University
- Anne Witkowsky, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability and Humanitarian Affairs, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, U.S. Department of Defense
- Moderator: Kimberly Flowers, Director, Humanitarian Agenda and Global Food Security Project, CSIS
10:15 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. | Networking Coffee Break
10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. | Morning Breakout Panels
The Humanitarian Implications of Cyber Conflict
- Colonel Gary Corn, Director and Adjunct Professor, Washington College of Law, American University
- Shanthi Kalathil, Senior Director, International Forum for Democratic Studies, National Endowment for Democracy
- Moderator: James Andrew Lewis, Senior Vice President and Director, Technology Policy Program, CSIS
- Dr. Aisha Jumaan, Founder and President, Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation
- Peter Salisbury, Consulting Senior Analyst on Yemen, International Crisis Group
- Sheba Crocker, Vice President for Humanitarian Policy and Practice, CARE
- Moderator: Jon Alterman, Senior Vice President, Zbiegniew Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy, and Director, Middle East Program, CSIS
Access in the Hot Zone: Navigating the DRC Ebola Outbreak
- Admiral Tim Ziemer, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Democracy Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, USAID
- Ella Watson-Stryker, Humanitarian Representative, Médecins Sans Frontières
- Jeremy Konyndyk, Senior Policy Fellow, Center for Global Development
- Moderator: J. Stephen Morrison, Senior Vice President and Director, Global Health Policy Center, CSIS
12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. | Lunch
1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. | Afternoon Breakout Panels
The Growing Humanitarian Access Challenge in Eastern Ukraine
- Alexander Hug, Former Deputy Chief Monitor, Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)
- Melinda Haring, Editor, UkraineAlert, Atlantic Council
- Margot Ellis, Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, Europe and Eurasia, USAID
- Moderator: Heather Conley, Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic; and Director, Europe Program, CSIS
Rethinking Nigeria’s Response to the Boko Haram Crisis
- Brandon Kendhammer, Associate Professor of Political Science, Ohio University
- Fati Abubakar, Documentary photographer and Public Health Worker
- Ambassador Alex Laskaris, former Deputy to the Commander for Civil-Military Engagement, U.S. Africa Command
- Dafna Hochman Rand, Vice President for Policy and Research, Mercy Corps
- Moderator: Judd Devermont, Director, Africa Program, CSIS
A New Age of Humanitarian Reporting?
- Heba Aly, Director, The New Humanitarian
- Arwa Damon, Senior International Correspondent, CNN
- Sherine Tadros, Head of New York Office & UN Representative, Amnesty International
- Moderator: Jacob Kurtzer, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Humanitarian Agenda, CSIS
2:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. | Networking Coffee Break
2:45 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. | Closing Remarks
- Closing Keynote: Jan Egeland, Secretary General, Norwegian Refugee Council
- Moderator: Kimberly Flowers, Director, Humanitarian Agenda & Global Food Security Project, CSIS
4. Competitive Security Dynamics in Southern Asia: Conflicts, Challenges, and Choices|September 19, 2019|9:00AM-11:30AM| The Stimson Center|1211 Connecticut Ave, NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
The past six months have seen major disruptions in stability across southern Asia. As tensions in Kashmir continue to simmer, a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan is up for debate, and nationalist discourses gain traction in the region, all eyes are on the strategic dynamics in Southern Asia. This year–the 20th anniversary of the Kargil crisis between India and Pakistan–provides a natural point for reflection, particularly in light of the ripple effects of the February 2019 Balakot airstrikes. What lessons can we learn from the history of southern Asian crises and how are emerging regional dynamics likely to shape future scenarios going forward?
Featuring:
Lt. General (ret.) Waheed Arshad, Former Chief of General Staff, Pakistan Army
Suhasini Haidar, Diplomatic Editor, The Hindu Newspaper
Nasim Zehra, author of From Kargil to the Coup: Events that Shook Pakistan
Vice Admiral (ret.) Vijay Shankar, Distinguished Fellow, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies
Rabia Akhtar, Assistant Professor and Director of the Centre for Security, Strategy and Policy Research, University of Lahore
5. What’s Next for Libya|September 19, 2019 9:00AM-10:30AM|Brookings Institution|Falk Auditorium, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington DC, 20036|Register Here
The past year has seen no end to the turbulence plaguing Libya since the ouster of Moammar al-Gadhafi in 2011, with armed factions vying for control of the country’s strategic assets and United Nations-facilitated negotiations leading nowhere. While the self-styled Libyan National Army of General Khalifa Haftar continues, unsuccessfully, to try to take over the country militarily, the internationally-recognized government of Prime Minister Fayez Serraj in Tripoli, propped up by militias opposed to Haftar, retains control over major institutions and sources of national wealth. Weapons of increasing sophistication and lethality are flowing to the opposing sides, in violation of U.N. sanctions and pitting foreign powers against each other, with the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (with French support) backing Haftar, and Turkey and Qatar backing Serraj.
Meanwhile, facing a stagnant economy and constant threats to infrastructure, the Libyan people are caught in the crossfire of this protracted jockeying. Unchecked migration and the threat of extremist groups taking hold in the country’s contested spaces likewise make Libya’s internal situation a security concern for Europe and the United States. Solving the civil war in Libya would restore needed stability to a strategically vital part of northern Africa while laying the groundwork for the prosperity of the Libyan people.
On September 19, the Brookings Institution will hold an event on the state of affairs in Libya. Questions from the audience will follow the panelists’ conversation.
Featuring
- Michael E. O’Hanlon, Brookings Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy
- Jeffrey Feltman, Brookings John C. Whitehead Visiting Fellow in International Diplomacy
- Frederic Wehrey, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Fellow, Middle East Program
- Giovanna de Maio, Center on the United States and Europe Visiting Fellow, Foreign Policy
- Karim Mezran, The Atlantic Council Senior Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East
6. Red Sea Rivalries: Middle East Competition in the Horn of Africa|September 20, 2019|10:30AM-12:00PM|United States Institute of Peace|2301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20037|Register Here
A new geopolitical paradigm is emerging in the Horn of Africa: Middle Eastern states are playing an increasingly assertive role throughout the region. As Sudan and Ethiopia undergo their most significant political transitions since the Cold War—affecting the future of nearly 150 million people—the jostling for dominance among the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, on the one hand, and Turkey and Qatar, on the other, is fueling instability and insecurity in an already fractious region.
As part of the U.S. Institute of Peace’s ongoing “Red Sea Rising” multi-track initiative, please join us for the release of the International Crisis Group’s forthcoming report unpacking the regional goals, motivations, and often conflicting aims of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.
The report, based on conversations with senior officials on both sides of the Red Sea, examines how outside forces are jockeying to build political influence and carve out pivotal positions in the Horn of Africa’s emerging economy. At this historic juncture for the region, Crisis Group researchers will present the report’s main findings, followed by a panel discussion with experts from the Horn of Africa and the Middle East. Join the conversation with #RedSeaRisingUSIP.
Speakers
Amb. Johnnie Carson, opening remarks, Senior Advisor, U.S. Institute of Peace
Robert Malley, opening remarks, President and CEO, International Crisis Group
Elizabeth Dickinson, presenter, Senior Analyst for the Arabian Peninsula, International Crisis Group
Dino Mahtani, presenter, Deputy Director, Africa Program, International Crisis Group
Payton Knopf, moderator, Advisor, U.S. Institute of Peace
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Confrontation intensifies
On September 12, The Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington (AGSIW) hosted a panel discussion entitled, “As Maximum Pressure and Maximum Resistance Max Out, Where’s the Confrontation with Iran Headed?”. The panel consisted of Ali Alfoneh, Senior Fellow at AGSIW, Dina Esfandiary, International Security Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, and Kirsten Fontenrose, Director for Regional Security, Middle East at the Atlantic Council. The discussion was moderated by Hussein Ibish, Senior Resident Scholar at AGSIW.
Since President Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, Washington has pursued a strategy of “maximum pressure,” largely through intensifying economic sanctions. Iran has responded with “maximum resistance,” mostly with low-intensity, and sometimes deniable, military provocations. Signs are growing that both strategies have maxed out and further escalation could lead to consequences unwanted by either side. Where do both parties go from here and can these strategies work?
Fontenrose argued that theoretically, the US policy of maximum pressure can work. The rationale beyond this is that every country has a finite amount of resources to dedicate to defense and domestic needs. The use of sanctions squeezes Iran and forces them to make difficult decisions. The US has a limited number of coercive tools. By maxing out sanctions, the Washington avoids using kinetic activities that could escalate potential conflict. Alfoneh and Esfandiary agreed that the US has not set clear goals for their use of sanctions. If the US established clear goals, Iran might respond in kind.
President Trump will benefit electorally if he is able to have a summit with Supreme Leader Khamenei. Alfoneh predicted that Trump will use increased tensions with Tehran to negotiate a deal that mirrors the JCPOA. By doing so, Trump would signal to his supporters that he can resolve global conflict. Esfandiary responded that Iran has no reason to trust the US. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Iran was abiding by the JCPOA, but the Trump Administration tore it up. Fontenrose agreed that trust building will be required before acceptable concessions can be made by either side.
Iran has few choices aside from continuing its low-level provocations. Alfoneh brought up an article published in an Iranian economic newspaper a month after the US left the JCPOA. The Supreme National Security Council outlined its strategy to counteract US sanctions. First, the impact of the sanctions will not be palpable because of trade deals with European countries and China. Second, Iran will limit the level of their obligations in the JCPOA. Third, if nothing works and Iran’s economy continues to fail, Tehran will provoke a crisis in the Persian Gulf. Iran clearly and publicly announced its plans and has followed through with the strategy.
The panel discussed the significance of John Bolton’s dismissal as the national security adviser. Fontenrose said that the Republicans will not allow Trump to choose someone who will threaten the election. Bolton’s hawkish tendencies could scare off voters. Brian Hook, the State Department’s point man on Iran, is on the short list of potential replacements. Hook is a known as a hawk in the international community and his appointment would signal to Iran that the US will continue to squeeze its economy.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 13
NYT has a list of forreign policy problems for which the president wants to do deals and is surprisingly optimistic about the chances.
One reason an Iran deal might be possible is if this Daily Beast report is true. Is Trump really considering a $15 billion line of credit for Iran?
Meanwhile, Congress got its way as Ukraine aid was released.
But Senate appropriators want to cut and change US military aid.
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:
Restraint and its challenges
Last night’s debate among Democratic presidential candidates spent relatively little time on foreign policy, maybe 10-12 minutes out of the two hours. But on some issues there appeared to a wide consensus:
- Bring the troops home, in particular from Afghanistan, sooner rather than later.
- Avoid using military instruments whenever possible and obtain Congressional authorization when it is necessary.
- Give more emphasis to civilian instruments of foreign policy, especially diplomacy and development.
- Enhance cooperation with other countries to deal with places like Venezuela and global issues like climate change and terrorism.
- Refocus attention on domestic welfare, including support for veterans.
This amounts to a policy of military restraint and diplomatic lead. The military restraint might appear close to what Donald Trump promised in his campaign, but it was always clear he would favor big increases in the Defense Department’s budget, little emphasis on diplomacy, and even less on development.
That is where the Democrats differ from Trump. The question is not whether they are sincere but rather whether it is practical. The US has led with its military in foreign policy for so long it is difficult for American diplomats to imagine anything else. And we are so thoroughly exposed militarily in so many places that it is difficult even to know where to start.
American withdrawal can create real problems, especially in the Middle East. Iraq is a classic case in point, but not the only one. Military withdrawal requires major diplomatic efforts to ensure that US interests are served and adversaries blocked from taking advantage. After 2.5 years of President Trump, the State Department is in terrible shape: many experienced officers have left, and those who remain are demoralized. While Secretary Pompeo has influence with the President, the organization is weaker than ever, which is saying something.
So restraint is the name of the game, but the ways and means of achieving it are not so clear.
Here is the bulk of the debate transcript on foreign policy.
PS: I realized after hitting the “publish” button that I ignored what the candidates said about China. None of it was enlightening. They mostly support the Administration–without every saying as much–on getting the Chinese to yield on trade. Some even said they would keep the Trump tariffs in place initially to help make that happen. Mostly they oppose Trump’s tariffs on our allies, which is good to hear, but still they aren’t far off his thinking on squeezing the Chinese.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 12
– I agree with Thomas Wright of Brookings that Bolton’s ouster presages a pivot to diplomacy for the elections. I wonder how Democratic presidential candidates will respond.
-SecDef Esper has approved active duty border deployments through 2020.
-Israelis accused of planting spy devices near White House
– Congress mobilizes to fight Trump’s denial of military aid to Ukraine.
– Broken norms. A lot of legislative business depends on civility and cooperation and following normal practices. This North Carolina action is just too outrageous to overlook.
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:
Bolton and Trump unleashed
John Bolton and Donald Trump were always an odd couple: the one a consistent hawkish interventionist and bureaucratic operator in mustachioed professorial guise, the other an erratic big-talking little-stick narcissistic braggart. They found common cause on withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) maximum pressure against Iran, thus trading the 10-year delay in Tehran’s ability to build a nuclear weapons for less than one year, but as soon as the President started looking for negotiated settlements with Tehran, Pyongyang, and the Taliban, Bolton resorted to undermining Trump’s efforts. Ironically, Bolton was fired only a few days after he won his battle against the Afghanistan agreement.
Zal Khalilzad was trying to do the right thing: exchange the withdrawal of US troops Trump wants before the November 2020 election in exchange for Taliban promises
a) to negotiate a political settlement with the Kabul government and
b) not to harbor international terrorists.
The reported deal involved withdrawal only to the number of Americans in Afghanistan at the end of the Obama Administration, and the Taliban promises would have been hard to enforce. But it was a start.
Bolton didn’t want the withdrawal at all. But that’s not what blew up the agreement. It was Trump: he apparently decided he wanted a meeting with the Taliban at Camp David, with the president himself trying for a better deal in the role of closer. This was a terrible idea, in particular a few days before 9/11. The Taliban however never agreed to come to the US, so Trump cancelled the non-existent meeting, supposedly because of the death of an American soldier. That isn’t credible, since more than a dozen Americans died during Zal’s negotiations without any dramatic American reaction. Negotiating in the absence of a ceasefire is always a dubious proposition.
Poor Zal is left holding the bag. We’ll know when he abandons hope: he’ll resign. In the meanwhile, Afghan President Ghani, who is competing in a presidential election September 27, is breathing a sigh of relief–he wants the US troops to stay–and Bolton has the satisfaction of watching the US re-escalate the air war, even as he looks for a tell-all book deal and a cushy spot in the private sector. Unleashed, he will also no doubt become a cheer leader for military action against Iran and support for Israel’s annexations.
The President is also unleashed. He is desperate for some sort of international triumph before the election only 14 months hence. The Chinese are holding their own in the tariff war, the Middle East “deal of the century” has evaporated, the North Koreans are thumbing their noses, and Iran is demanding sanctions relief in exchange for deigning to talk with Washington. Trump is left with little alternative in Afghanistan but escalation and unilateral withdrawal, unless Zal succeeds in putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Everyone wants to know how US foreign policy will change as a result of Bolton’s firing. I focus mainly on the Balkans and the Middle East. On the latter, it is clear enough that Trump will back the Jewish state to the hilt, no matter who the next national security adviser is. He will also likely try to complete the US withdrawal from Syria, over Pentagon objections. He’ll continue to support the war in Yemen, unless the UAE and Saudi Arabia fall out so catastrophically that there is nothing left to support.
The Balkans is a bit harder to predict, as the Administration has been less than clear about its approach. Bolton was open to a land swap between Serbia and Kosovo that would have destabilized the entire region, likely killing two Clinton birds with one stone: rump Kosovo might have become the eastern province of Albania and Bosnia might have descended into chaos as Republika Srpska tried to secede. But there is no guarantee Bolton’s successor won’t take a similar approach. Ethnonationalists of a feather flock together. An American serving a white nationalist president is always going to give Balkan nationalists a hearing.
Here is the podcast I did with Mark Goldberg shortly after writing this piece.
RSS - Posts
