Month: August 2020
Don’t forget the murdered Americans
Until Justice is Served: A Promise for the Bytyqi Brothers from Praveen Madhiraju on Vimeo.
September 3 and 4 Serbian President Vucic and Kosovan Prime Minister Hoti will be in Washington for meetings at the White House. I agree with the Bytyqi family: the case of their three murdered brothers should be front and center.
Lest anyone doubt it, I also believe that the cases of Serbs murdered in Kosovo should also be fully accounted for and justice served. There is a difference, however, since there are Specialist Chambers in The Hague pursuing at least some of those crimes, especially those committed in the post-war period. There are no Specialist Chambers for the trial of Serbs, even though so far the judicial system in Serbia has proven unwilling or incapable of pursuing much more than low-level perpetrators in Kosovo. The Bytyqi brothers were murdered in Serbia after the war, by forces under known commanders who remain powerful in Belgrade. It is past time that whoever ordered the murders and those who pulled the triggers face justice.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Putin has good reason to smile today
Montenegro’s parliamentary election Sunday put the collection of opposition parties on top by a single vote, defeating the current governing coalition led by President Djukanovic’s Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS). DPS has been in power for 30 years. The opposition is far more pro-Russian, pro-Serb, and anti-NATO than the center-left DPS, which presided over Montenegro’s independence in 2006 and its entrance into the Alliance in 2017.
Election day by all accounts so far went well, with relatively few irregularities and none that appear to have affected the outcome. Three-quarters of registered voters went to the polls.
The campaign however was marked by interference from Serbia, which supported the opposition, and the Serbian church, which sponsored big demonstrations in recent months against a law it regarded as prejudicial to its interests. Moscow was also active with money and media outlets. There was little pushback from Brussels or Washington, belying the allegation of some European analysts that the West backs stability (“stabilocracy”) even at the cost of democracy. In fact, this has proven not to be the case in recent years in Macedonia with the fall of Prime Minister Gruevski and in Kosovo with the pending indictment of President Thaci. Djukanovic might have wished more backing than he got.
He will now have to preside over a government formation process with still highly uncertain results. The opposition parties have not cohered around a single platform. Who will lead the new government and who will occupy which posts is not clear. There is certainly a possibility that some of the former governing parties that participated in the DPS-led coalition, might want to join the new government, though its pro-Serb and pro-Moscow leanings will make that difficult for Bosniak and Albanian parties that have traditionally allied with DPS. One of the opposition parties has declared forcefully that it will not join a government that includes DPS. It may take a while before the fog clears and a new government can be sworn in.
At stake is Montenegro’s pro-Western orientation and even its sovereignty and independence. The Church-led protests were explicitly aimed at preventing the formation of a Montenegrin Orthodox Church and preserving the property claims of the Serbian Church. Much of the opposition now coming to power opposed Montenegrin independence and NATO membership. Some have denied the genocide at Srbrenica during the Bosnian war and oppose Montenegrin recognition of the independence and sovereignty of Kosovo. Montenegro has opened all the chapters of the EU’s acquis communautaire and is leading the regatta for accession. It is not clear that those coming to power will want, or be capable of, continuing in that direction.
So what we’ve got here is a democratic election that puts the future of democratic Montenegro very much in doubt. Without its commitments to NATO, the EU, and good regional relations, Montenegro could find itself Moscow’s leading achievement in hybrid warfare in the Balkans, where it has repeatedly tried to block countries from turning West. Putin has good reason to smile today.
Here is the video of the interview I did with Voice of America this morning:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
20 Years of Backward Progress
In July of 2000, Israelis and Palestinans met at Camp David. Their goal was to negotiate a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Predictably, the negotiations failed to produce a settlement. Twenty years later, on June 21, 2020, the Carnegie Endowment convened a panel to evaluate the Camp David Summit’s legacy and determine what the future holds for U.S.-mediated negotiations. Speakers and their affiliations are listed below.
Aaron David Miller: Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Shlomo Ben Ami: Former Foreign Minister of Israel
Nabil Shaath: Former Foreign Minister of Palestine
Tamara Cofman Wittes: Senior Fellow, Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution
Where Did It All Go Wrong?
The panelists began by debating the summit’s legacy. Miller was quick to deem the negotiation a failure, as it obviously did not end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In his view, Ehud Barak’s expectations were too high and Yasser Arafat was never genuinely interested in the negotiations.
Ben Ami cast doubt on Miller’s prescriptions. The former Foreign Minister argued that, even in the absence of a negotiated settlement, the Camp David Summit was a crucial step in the peace process. It emphasized the importance of multilateralism and equity in the negotiating process, and it notably provided a framework for the Clinton Peace Parameters. The Clinton Peace Parameters, in turn, served as the basis for Ehud Olmert’s famous 2008 peace offer.
A Bleak Present (& Equally Bleak Future)
Twenty years later, however, Ben Ami lamented that “the two state solution has never been so far.” By his own admission, the peace camp in Israel is dwindling, and the electorate has shifted farther right. Against this backdrop, and under the direction of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli government expanded its West Bank settlements, doggedly avoided negotiations, and largely ignored the Palestinian question. The sincerity of Israel’s commitment to a two state solution is doubtful at best. Shaath, for one, believes that it is impossible to earnestly support a two-state solution while expanding settlements and threatening annexation. In brief, neither side feels confident that the other is a true partner for peace.
According to Cofman Wittes, the collapse of the Oslo Process is at least partially responsible for this phenomenon. Oslo’s gradualism, intended to bolster prospects for coexistence, actually undermined them. Over time, Palestinians grew suspicious and began to wonder whether gradualism was simply an excuse for Israeli inaction.
In the post-Oslo and Camp David world, Cofman Wittes believes that the United States must drastically alter its approach to mediation. Rather than force policies and summits upon the Israelis and Palestinians, whom she believes are not prepared to negotiate, the US must re-enter the pre-negotiation phase. Only after the United States understands each side’s position, its goals and red lines, can it even attempt to resolve the conflict. It is also worth noting that Cofman Wittes and Shaath each recommended that future negotiations involve multiple regional and international stakeholders.
Cofman Wittes’ suggestions unlikely to change the current administration’s course, which seems intent on destroying the United States’ credibility as a mediator. To quote veteran American diplomat Aaron David Miller, “no one has ever lost money betting against success in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.”
To watch the event in full, click here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | August 31 – September 4, 2020
Notice: Due to recent public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
The Implications of the Israel-UAE Deal | September 1, 2020 – September 2, 2020 | 11:00 AM – 12:15 PM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
On August 13th, President Trump announced that Israel and the United Arab Emirates had agreed to “finalize a historical [sic] peace agreement” that would involve full normalization of relations between the two nations. Trump stated: “Not since the Israel-Jordan peace treaty was signed more than 25 years ago has so much progress been made towards peace in the Middle East.”
In this context, the Middle East Institute (MEI) and the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) invite you to join a two-part webinar series: The Implications of the Israel-UAE Deal. These two webinars, co-moderated by MEI’s Khaled Elgindy and FMEP’s Lara Friedman, will explore what the Israel-UAE does (and doesn’t) mean, the political context that led to its achievement, and its implications for the future.
Speakers:
Part 1: Israeli & Palestinian Perspectives
Khaled Elgindy (Moderator): Director, Program on Palestine & Palestinian-Israeli Affairs, Middle East Institute
Lara Friedman (Moderator): President, Foundation for Middle East Peace
Sam Bahour: Ramallah-Based Business Consultant, Applied Information Management
Marwa Fatafta: Policy Analyst, Al Shabaka
Elizabeth Tsurkov: Research Fellow, Forum for Regional Thinking
Part 2: U.S. Expert Perspectives
Khaled Elgindy (Moderator): Director, Program on Palestine & Palestinian-Israeli Affairs, Middle East Institute
Lara Friedman (Moderator): President, Foundation for Middle East Peace
Steven Cook: Eni Enrico Mattei Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
Annelle Sheline: Research Fellow, Quincy Institute
James Zogby: Director, Zogby Research Services
Japan After Abe: Legacy & Next Moves | September 1, 2020 | 4:00 – 5:00 PM EDT | Center for Strategic & International Studies | Register Here
On August 28, 2020, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced he would resign due to a recurring illness. Please join us for an online panel discussion where CSIS experts will assess his legacy across a range of policy areas including security, diplomacy, and economics, as well as Japan’s political and strategic trajectory.
Speakers:
John J. Hamre (Introduction): President & CEO, Langone Chair in American Leadership, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Michael J. Green (Moderator): Senior Vice President for Asia & Japan Chair, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Victor Cha: Senior Adviser & Korea Chair, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Matthew P. Goodman: Senior Vice President for Economics & Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Yuko Nakano: Associate Director, US-Japan Strategic Leadership Program, Japan Chair, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Nicholas Szechenyi: Senior Fellow & Deputy Director, Japan Chair, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Iran, Israel, and the Changing Geopolitics of the Middle East | September 3, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The defenders of President Donald Trump’s Iran policy maintain that the “maximum pressure” campaign is working. They argue that not only is an Iran under pressure less able to undermine the interests of the US and its allies in the Middle East, but that this strategy is resulting in new geopolitical realities. They point to the recent Israel-UAE agreement as evidence. Critics of the “maximum pressure” campaign disagree and claim there is little evidence that Washington has been able to reshape Iran’s regional ambitions. This panel will look at these topics and examine where Iran and Israel stand vis-à-vis each other and specifically consider ways the US and allies can seek to address Tehran’s rejection of Israel as a fellow UN member state.
Speakers:
Alex Vantanka (Moderator): Director, Iran Program, Middle East Institute
Mark Dubowitz: Chief Executive, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Meir Javedanfar: Senior Research Fellow, Meir Ezri Center for Iran & Persian Gulf Studies
Ksenia Svetlova: Senior Research Analyst, Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policy
The Scramble for a Vaccine: Putin’s Sputnik V –– “Trust Me!” | September 2, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:00 PM EDT | Center for Strategic & International Studies | Register Here
Please join the CSIS Commission on Strengthening America’s Health Security on Wednesday, September 2, 2020 from 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. EDT for a discussion with Heather A. Conley, Senior Vice President and Director of the CSIS Europe Program; Judyth Twigg, Senior Associate with the CSIS Global Health Policy Center and Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University; and Vasily Vlassov, Professor and Senior Research Fellow at the National Research University Higher School of Economics. J. Stephen Morrison, Senior Vice President and Director of the CSIS Global Health Policy Center, will introduce and moderate the event discussion on Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine and its geo-strategic implications.
On August 11, Russia announced that it had approved the first Covid-19 vaccine for human use: Sputnik V. This announcement immediately stirred question and controversy within Russia and around the world, because the vaccine is unproven – it has not undergone large scale phase III clinical trials for safety and efficacy. Launching a vaccination campaign in Russia – and potentially elsewhere – without adequate safety and efficacy data could have global ramifications.
This event will feature a diverse panel of experts that will examine the implications of this announcement and what may lie ahead in the future. How might this play out within Russia – what resistance is Putin facing domestically, and what assets have been mobilized to support the campaign? Is there a success scenario for Putin? What might this mean for Russia’s distribution partnerships with other countries? What has the reception been in Europe, the United States, China, and at the World Health Organization? Does this development signal the degradation of international norms around vaccine development?
This discussion is part of a series of events hosted by the CSIS Commission on Strengthening America’s Health Security examining the global scramble for a Covid-19 vaccine. The first event, The Scramble for Vaccines and the COVAX Facility, focused on COVAX, a nascent international initiative to develop and equitably distribute Covid-19 vaccines to benefit all countries, rich and poor.
Speakers:
Vasily Vlassov: Professor & Senior Research Fellow, National Research University Higher School of Economics
J. Stephen Morrison: Senior Vice President & Director, Global Health Policy Center, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Heather A. Conley: Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic & Director, Europe Program, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Judyth Twigg: Non-Resident Senior Associate, Russia and Eurasia Program & Global Health Policy Center, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Sanctions-Busting in the DRC | September 3, 2020 | 2:00 PM EDT | Atlantic Council | Register Here
The Sentry released a new report, “Overt Affairs,” documenting how two North Korean businessmen openly busted international sanctions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). International sanctions programs on North Korea focus heavily on disrupting access to the international financial system due to the danger that revenue generated overseas could ultimately be used to fund the country’s nuclear weapons program. Private and public sector institutions in the DRC should have stopped this activity in its tracks, and the fact that they did not is more than a simple lapse. These frailties not only put the DRC’s banking sector and broader economy in significant danger, but they can also have global implications by undermining the effectiveness of international sanctions programs and the integrity of the international financial system.
Please join the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center in partnership with The Sentry on Thursday, September 3, at 2:00 p.m. (EDT) for a virtual conversation on North Korean sanctions-busting in the DRC. The conversation will feature a panel with counter-proliferation finance analyst Ms. Darya Dolzikova and DRC expert Dr. Pierre Englebert, with moderation by Africa Center Director of Programs and Studies Ms. Bronwyn Bruton and an introduction to the report by The Sentry’s Senior Investigator Mr. John Dell’Osso. Additional speakers will be added to this page once confirmed.
Speakers:
John Dell’Osso (Introduction): Senior Investigator, The Sentry
Bronwyn Bruton (Moderator): Director of Programs & Studies, Africa Center, Atlantic Council
Darya Dolzikova: Research Analyst, Proliferation & Nuclear Policy Programme, Royal United Services Institute
Dr. Pierre Englebert: H. Russell Smith Professor of International Relations, Pomona College; Senior Fellow, Africa Center, Atlantic Council
The Violence Inside Us | September 3, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:00 PM EDT | Brookings Institution | Register Here
In many ways, the United States sets the pace for other nations to follow. Yet on the most important human concern—the need to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe from physical harm—America isn’t a leader. In his new book, “The Violence Inside Us: A Brief History of an Ongoing American Tragedy,” Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) explores the origins of our violent impulses, the roots of our obsession with firearms, and the mythologies that prevent us from confronting our national crisis. Senator Murphy comes to the conclusion that while America’s relationship to violence is indeed unique, America is not inescapably violent. Even as he details the reasons we’ve tolerated so much bloodshed for so long, he explains that we have the power to change.
On September 3, Governance Studies at Brookings will host a webinar with David M. Rubenstein Fellow Rashawn Ray and Senator Murphy on his new book. The pair will discuss the history of violence in America and its long-term impacts, as well as the concrete steps that must be taken to change the nation’s narrative.
Speakers:
Rashawn Ray: David M. Rubenstein Fellow Rashawn Ray, Governance Studies, Brookings Institution
Hon. Chris Murphy: Senator (D-Conn.), United States Senate
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, August 31
– I missed the strength of Trump’s support in 2016 because I didn’t follow social media. I still don’t, but I look fro journalists who do. So I flagged this NYT report about conservative dominance of Facebook. And I know from Pew studies that 43% of Americans get their news from Facebook. And Congress is using social media much more than in the past.
– I’ve regularly sent around the Military Times polls of service people on political questions. Their methodology makes the results suggestive rather than certain, but it is surprising to see the drop in support for Trump compared with 4 years ago.
– NYT today notes Taiwan’s military exercises and fears of a Chinese attack. I also commend USNIP’s speculative story about a possible US-Chinese war over Taiwan.
– Also see Politico’s column on how the Chinese view the US elections.
– I’ve never worked in the Pentagon building. [My two summers with the Navy Dept were in the old Main Navy on Constitution Ave.] So I was surprised to read about how technologically “retrograde” the building is.
– CNAS has good material on US sanctions policies globally.
– Breaking Defense reports on the new Unified Command Plan.
More later. I’m just beginning to catch up on the papers from last week.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The hurdle in Lebanon is political
Randa Slim and I published a piece on Beirut reconstruction today in Foreign Affairs today. As we focus in the piece on investigation of the explosion and reconstruction, it did not treat the heinous behavior of the Lebanese security forces towards demonstrators, hence my temptation to include the video above from Human Rights Watch.
Lebanon is a failing state. It was failing even before the August 4 explosion that devastated a large part of the city center near the port. Such states offer profit opportunities to whoever holds power, while impoverishing everyone else. It is no easy task to help such a country without helping its power elite.
Randa and I offer in the Foreign Affairs piece a combination of two ideas for rebuilding the destroyed area: a contractual relationship for reconstruction and an internationally controlled but Lebanese-staffed “authority” to set priorities and do most of the actual contracting. The “contract” idea has often been used in recent years, at various levels of operation: the Millennium Challenge Corporation we site does it at the project level. The Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund does it at a higher policy level. The European Union does it with candidate members. It amounts to conditionality: you get the money only if you do such and such.
The wise choice of “such and such,” and the willingness to follow through on the conditionality, are key elements of this approach. If our approach were to be adopted, the focus should be mainly on economic policy reform as well as transparency and accountability for government expenditure. But that creates an obvious problem: the international community would be asking for reforms from a central government that would not suffer any direct loss if aid were to be cut off. I think the importance of Beirut reconstruction to the government would be sufficient to mitigate this mismatch, but I’m in favor of examining downsides of any policies I suggest.
The idea of an International Beirut Reconstruction Authority is the more innovative of our propositions. Something like it existed in Sarajevo during the 1992/95 Bosnian war, but its capability was limited due to the siege and continued fighting. Randa and I cite the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, but the entity we have in mind is more hands-on than that. It would actually contract for and execute the reconstruction, as independently of the Lebanese government as feasible. Critics will say that proposition would weaken the Lebanese government. I would suggest the government has even more important things to do by way of economic and political reform.
We went light on the political reform piece, which is fraught. Lebanon is in form a democracy. If only technically competent people formed the government, they would likely have little connection to the political forces in the parliament, whose cooperation is necessary for many reforms. Meaningful political reform would give less weight to Lebanon’s sectarian political organizations, including Hezbollah, and more to its vibrant and competent civil society, including the demonstrators abused in the above video. Shifting power in that way is an enormous challenge, even in a small country. And it will have to be Lebanese who design a political system that delivers more to citizens and less to sectarian leaders.
RSS - Posts
