Day: December 6, 2019
Turkey sandwich: between NATO and Russia
On Wednesday December 4, the Middle East Institute and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation held their 10th Annual Conference on Turkey. The conference brought together policymakers and experts to discuss the challenges Turkey faces domestically and its relations with the Middle East and the West. The conference consisted of three panel discussions. The third panel was entitled Turkey between NATO and Russia. The panelists consisted of Ivan Safranchuk, Associate Research Scholar & Lecturer, MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies, Yale University, Aydin Selcen, Columnist, GazeteDuvar & DuvarEnglish, General (ret.) Joseph Votel, Distinguished Senior Fellow on National Security, MEI, and Jim Zanotti, Specialist, Middle Eastern Affairs, Congressional Research Service. The panel was moderated by Barbara Slavin, Director of Future of Iran Initiative, Atlantic Council. Here are the key takeaways from the panel.
- Turkey’s Future in NATO
Recent actions by Turkey in Syria against the Kurds and the purchase of S400 anti-aircraft batteries from Russia exemplify how far formally shared values and interests between Turkey and NATO have diverged. Votel said he is unsure if the West can look at Turkey as a reliable NATO ally anymore. They are working against the coalition’s efforts in Syria and their overall military and political support in NATO has waned in recent years.
As for the purchase of S400s, Votel argued the Turks are looking to free of themselves of dependence on the West for weaponry. Russia wants to sell the air defense system to Turkey in order to drive a wedge between NATO allies. If they are successful, Russia could slowly undermine the Alliance and decrease its capabilities and global reach. Turkey is slowly shifting from a friend to a “frenemy.”
The US has historically led the Alliance too address problems, but Washington is no longer playing that role. NATO needs to discuss the options for future Turkish involvement in the organization. However, Selcen stated that NATO does not have set mechanisms to kick a member out. Additionally, he argued that Turkey’s geographic strategic importance raises its value to remain a part of the organization. NATO will have to pursue other measures.
- Turkish – Russian Relations
The developing relationship between Turkey and Russia is not a recent phenomenon. It started in the 1990s. Anger towards the US is a partial explanation for increased relations between the two countries, but it does not fully explain it.
Safranchuk argued that before the explosion of globalization, Russia and Turkey had to sacrifice part of traditions and culture in order to develop their economies via modernization, which depended on their relationships with Europe. In order to become more powerful, Moscow and Ankara had to become more Western. Otherwise they faced stagnant growth but could maintain their cultural traditions. Now Russia and Turkey can be powerful without Europe and they, along with China, would like to help each other to be successful.
Selcen agreed and stated that Erdogan is emulating Putin’s style of governing by shifting to more authoritarian rule. Despite historical and current grievances, Turkey and Russia continue to grow closer. On the purchase of the S400s, Selcen explained that the Turkish air defense was based on the strength of its air force to deter attacks, but now it has grown weaker and they must pursue a proper air defense system. However, the S400 batteries can only offer certain protective bubbles around Ankara or the presidential palace.
- Turkey’s Objectives in Syria
Turkey is in its consolidation phase in Syria. Votel notes it may not have gotten everything it wanted, but Ankara continues to fortify the territory in Syria it gained during the past several years. There continues to be violence between the Turkish military and Turkish-backed armed groups, and the one hand, and the Kurds on the other, but the expansion of Turkish control in northeast Syria has stopped for now.
Selcen said that Turkey has had a feeling of encirclement since the end of World War I. Ankara is pursuing an assertive foreign policy in Syria to establish its position there, but Selcen thinks there are better and cheaper ways to pursue foreign policy goals and secure border security. There is increasing friction between Russia and Turkey in Syria because of their divergent goals, but Safranchuk stated that Russia is not opposed to Erdogan securing Kurdish areas. Moscow sees the necessity to secure national borders and national security.
- Washington and Ankara
Congress and the White House have differing opinions on Turkey, particularly following the October offensive against Syrian Kurds. Zanotti said that it is too early to tell if Congress has definitively turned away from Turkey. There is still fence sitting by a number of Republican Senators on legislation to impose CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) sanctions in response to the S400 arms deal with Russia. It took Congress 8 months to pass CAATSA against China after they purchased Russian military platforms and it has only been 4 months since Turkey began receiving the defense batteries. The arms deal is set to finalize in March 2020, so the Republican majority Senate may be allowing things to play out as other strategies are attempted to dissuade Ankara from mobilizing the Russian defense system.
Anti-American sentiments have increased throughout Turkey and cut across the entire political spectrum. US-Turkey relations are arguably at their nadir and a desire to push away from the West is evident throughout the population. Selcen stated that traditional diplomacy does not exist between Washington and Ankara anymore. Relations rely on President Trump’s and President Erdogan’s interactions. A phase of “diplomacy without diplomats” has begun. According to Selcen, the Turkish Foreign Ministry has been sidelined in important decision making. He thinks this approach is working for now but is unsure if it will continue to do so in the future.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | December 9 – December 13
The Problem of Nationalism | December 9, 2019 | 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM | The Heritage Foundation, Lehrman Auditorium, 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington DC | Register Here
When politicians, academics, and commentators today talk about “nationalism” in the American context, what do they mean? Nationalism has a long history that must be fully understood before it is adopted as a banner around which to rally the American cause. The idea of nationalism, especially in the 20th century, has been associated with causes diametrically opposed to the civic, cultural and creedal patriotism of Americanism. That American creed stressed the bottoms-up sovereignty of the people, not of a top-heavy nation-state. Although surely advocates of a new nationalism for America do not wish to embrace the worst aspects of the historical nationalism, why would they wish to embark on a path that forces Americans to explain the differences? Why would they wish to diminish the universal claims of natural liberty that made America exceptional and different from all other countries?
Please join our panel of experts for a discussion on this important trend in public discourse, how to think about the use of the term “nationalism”, and why it matters.
Vice President, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute
Senior Fellow, Center for Foreign Policy
Vice President, the Institute for Economic Freedom
Executive Vice President
7th Annual Release of the Global Terrorism Index | December 10, 2019 | 9:30 AM – 12:00 PM | US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC| Register Here
The past year saw a decrease in the overall deaths from terrorism despite new countries experiencing attacks. It saw ISIS lose its territory while far-right terrorism rose substantially—particularly in Europe. Detailed analysis on how terrorism is changing continues to be invaluable for policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and citizens. The seventh annual edition of the Global Terrorism Index (GTI) provides these vital insights, which allow the counterterrorism community to adapt its strategies to reflect current realities in preventing terrorism and promoting peace.
Produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, the GTI provides a comprehensive summary of key global trends on terrorism from 1970 to the end of 2018, with a focus from 2014 onwards, which captures the formation and decline of ISIS. This critical information assists those looking to understand the complex dynamics of terrorism—especially how it changes over time—and helps governments to design policies and programs that best mitigate violent extremism, as well as dispel myths about terrorism and highlight real global threats.
Join USIP and Institute for Economics and Peace for a discussion on the seventh annual GTI, including a discussion on how data can help shape counterterrorism policy. Speakers will address key findings from the report, explore specific trends in terrorism research, and discuss the impact of this data on the decision-making process for policy, practice, and research. Take part in the conversation on Twitter with #GlobalTerrorismIndex.
Participants
Aleksandra Dier
Gender Coordinator, United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED)
Ryan Greer
Director, Program Assessment and Strategy at the Anti-Defamation League
Erin Miller
Principal Investigator, Global Terrorism Database, National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism
Serge Stroobants
Director of Operations, Europe & MENA, Institute for Economics and Peace
Leanne Erdberg, moderator
Director of Countering Violent Extremism, USIP
A Candle in the Dark: US National Security Strategy for Artificial Intelligence | December 10, 2019 | 3:30 PM | 1030 15th St. NW, 12th Floor, West Tower Elevators, Washington DC | Register Here
There is an intense and high-stakes competition being waged by the United States and its near-peer adversaries across the spectrum of emerging technologies, including AI. As the significance of AI to every facet of US national security increases and the competition with China and Russia intensifies, the need for a whole-of-government approach to leveraging AI and its enabling capabilities is crucial. What are policy options the US can pursue and what are the implications for security strategy? How can the US continue its leadership of the rules-based international system, at a critical time for science and technological development? Can the US compete with China and other adversaries, while also governing the budding AI space?
Join us on December 10, from 3:30 – 5 p.m., at the Atlantic
Council Headquarters, as the Scowcroft Center seeks to answer these pressing
questions and provide an integrated strategy to respond to key global
technological developments. The event will serve as a launch for a new Atlantic
Council Strategy Paper, A Candle in the Dark: US National Security Strategy for
Artificial Intelligence, co-authored by Tate Nurkin and Stephen Rodriguez,
Atlantic Council Fellows.
PONI 2019 Winter Conference | December 11, 2019 | 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM | CSIS Headquarters, 2nd Floor, 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC | Register Here
The PONI Conference Series is unique in its emphasis on featuring rising experts and young professionals in the nuclear field. The Conference Series draws emerging thought leaders from across the nuclear enterprise and policy community and provides them with a visible platform for sharing their new thinking on a range of nuclear issues. The conference will open with a keynote by Rose Gottemoeller, Former Deputy Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Ms. Gottemoeller served as Deputy Secretary General of NATO from October 2016 to October 2019; where she was the first woman in NATO’s seventy-year history to hold the post. Prior to her position at NATO, she served as the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security at the U.S. Department of State.
The Hon. Ellen Lord, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, will join us for our lunch keynote.
Under Secretary Ellen Lord
Under Secretary Lord is responsible for all matters pertaining to acquisition; developmental testing; contract administration; logistics and material readiness; installations and environment; operational energy; chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons; the acquisition workforce; and the defense industrial base.
We look forward to having both keynotes share their experiences and insight on issues pertaining to the nuclear enterprise.
All comments made at the conference are off-the-record and not for attribution.
Conference Agenda*
*Please note this is not a final and some items are subject to change
8:30 am Conference Check- In
9:00 am Conference Welcome
Rebecca Hersman, Director, Project on Nuclear Issues and Senior Adviser, International Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
9:10 am Opening Keynote
Rose Gottemoeller, Former Deputy Secretary General of NATO
10:00 am Panel 1: Brave New World – Emerging Technologies and Strategic Goals
Moderator: TBD
Artificial Intelligence and Strategic Stability: Implications for Nuclear Security, Deterrence, and Escalation in Future Warfare
Dr. James Johnson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Artificial Intelligence and Nuclear Crisis Stability
Marshall Foster, Cadet, United States Air Force Academy
Applying Lessons Learned from Nuclear Material Management to Dual-Use Emerging Technologies
Matthew Keskula, Master’s Candidate, The University of Maryland, College Park
Lindsay Rand, PhD Student, University of Maryland School of Public Policy
Hypersonic Weapons: Tactical Uses and Strategic Goals
Alan Cummings, Master’s Candidate, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
11:40 am Lunch
12:00 pm Keynote
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Honorable Ellen Lord, Department of Defense
1:20 pm Panel 2: Seeing is Believing – The Role of Perception on Security Concerns
Moderator: Paige Gasser, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
A Case for Understanding Public Nuclear Knowledge
Jamie Kwong, PhD Candidate, King’s College London
Threats to Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons: Myth or Reality
Dr. Tahir Azad, Postdoctoral Fellow, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester
OSINT Ethics: Application in the Nuclear Landscape
Catherine Haslam, PhD Candidate and Researcher, Centre for Science and Security Studies, King’s College London
An Analysis of Algerian Missile Arsenals: What OSINT Can Tell Us About Missile Proliferation in the Middle East
Agnieszka Krotzer, Research Intern, The James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
3:00 pm Break
3:15 pm Panel 3: Deterrence Theory – Ensuring a Credible Deterrent
Moderator: Rachel Webb, Management Analyst, Headquarters Air Force, Directorate for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration
India and Pakistan’s Offensive Nuclear Relationship
Seap Bhardwaj, Undergraduate Student, The University of Wisconsin-Madison; Intern, The Office of Congressman Bryan Steil (WI-01)
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons; Challenges to Arms Control and Deterrence Paradigms
MAJ Lorin D. Veigas, Nuclear Operations and Counterproliferation Officer, Air Force Institute of Technology
The Opportunity for Conventional Deterrence Against Limited Nuclear Aggression in the 21st Century
Dominic Law, MSci International Relations Graduate, The University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
Securing Economic Ties: Assessing the Extended Nuclear Deterrent
Sooyeon Kang, Pre-doctoral Fellow, Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvard Kennedy School; PhD Candidate, Josef Korbel School of International Studies at University of Denver
5:00 pm Closing Remarks
5:15 pm Reception
6:30pm Conference End
In Defense of Globalism | December 11, 2019 | 1:00 PM – 2:30 PM | AEI, Auditorium, 1789 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC | Register Here
The international system that has underpinned an unprecedented era of global prosperity is aging. And it is aging at a dangerous moment, when forces on the left and right are increasingly questioning the principles and benefits of globalism. But are nationalism, geopolitical “realism,” and an uncritical veneration of the nation-state worthy substitutes for the existing world order? Will these ideas equip the United States and its allies for the battles ahead? Perhaps a better choice for conservatives is to defend and improve globalism and its institutions, rather than cheering for their demise.
Please join AEI for the release of Dalibor Rohac’s latest book, “In Defense of Globalism” (Rowman & Littlefield, 2019), and a panel discussion of the risks posed by the erosion of the postwar global order.
Join the conversation on social media with @AEI on Twitter and Facebook.
If you are unable to attend, we welcome you to watch the event live on this page. After the event concludes, a full video will be posted within 24 hours.
Agenda
12:45 PM
Registration
1:00 PM
Presentation:
Dalibor Rohac, AEI
1:20 PM
Panel discussion
Panelists:
Anne Applebaum, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Ash Jain, Atlantic Council
Gabriel Schoenfeld, Niskanen Center
Moderator:
Dalibor Rohac, AEI
2:00 PM
Q&A
2:30 PM
Adjournment
The Chinese Threat to America’s Industrial and High-Tech Future: The Case for a US Industrial Policy | December 12, 2019 | 11:30 AM – 1:30 PM | Hudson Institute, 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC | Register Here
The United States’ growing competition with China has placed unprecedented demands on the U.S. industrial base and high-technology sectors. As the Communist Party of China seizes greater political and economic power domestically, it is positioning China to outpace the United States in key industrial and technological sectors where the U.S has historically been dominant.
Meanwhile, the U.S. faces a range of new security challenges—from defending key national assets from cyberattacks, to sustaining high-tech superiority or protecting our defense industrial supply chain in the event of armed conflict.
What can U.S. policymakers do to ensure America’s technology sector remains competitive? What role will U.S. relations with China play in determining the outcome?
Join Hudson Institute for a discussion on the future of America’s industrial and technological capabilities.
Speakers
Christopher DeMuth
Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute
Arthur Herman
Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Julius Krein
Founder, American Affairs
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army December 5 and 6
December 6
– DIA has done a big unclassified report on Iran’s military power.
– A law firm has done a good summary of recent sanctions policy.
– FP says State is excluding officials from information on senior officials’ phone calls.
-David Ignatius says State blocked a contract to train Saudi intelligence.
December 5
Something’s going on. I don’t know whether there has been a genuine increase in the threat from Iran or whether the administration is creating a pretext for military action in the region. Here are the dots that seem to connect: US officials are now revealing that Iran has secretly moved short range ballistic missiles into Iraq. Despite public denials, Pentagon reporters hear that the military wants to send an additional 14,000 US troops to the Middle East [but no details on location or types]. SecState Pompeo had an urgently scheduled meeting with IsraeliPM Netanyahu, where the key topic was said to be Iran. Under Secretary Rood made an even more explicit warning of Iranian military action.
Meanwhile, a former senior intelligence official says Trump often disputes what IC briefers tell him.
Kim Jong-un also seems to be ratcheting up his threats to change policy at the New Year.
Reuters says Jared Kushner is now playing a big role in China trade talks.
NYT study says US cluster munitions have caused many US friendly fire deaths.
A Syracuse professor burns a straw man in a WSJ op-ed. He decries any value in the “interagency process” because the president is in charge of foreign policy. Of course the president is the ultimate authority. But wise and successful presidents over the years have used the process to vet and revise their policies, and to implement them. Many of Trump’s setbacks have come precisely because he acted impulsively or ignorance of contextual details. [See, I don’t only send things I agree with.]
As an example of this process internationally, look at the detailed official statement from the NATO summit.
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).
RSS - Posts
