Month: November 2020
Premature withdrawal is not good foreign policy
President Trump is spending these first days of his “lame duck” presidency sulking out of public sight and playing golf. He fired the Defense Secretary on Twitter and has installed yes-men throughout the upper echelon of the Defense Department. His minions there are plotting a rash of US troops withdrawals from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia, and perhaps from South Korea and more from Germany.
I’d be more than happy to see US troops come home, not least because I’ve got a beloved daughter-in-law slated for deployment, I know not where. She is a lieutenant colonel physician in the US Army and has already done three tours in Afghanistan in recent years as well as one in South Korea. It would be more than nice if she could stay home rather than leave a toddler behind in the care of her admittedly very capable husband.
But we know from bitter experience the trouble premature withdrawal of US troops can cause. We don’t have to harken back to Vietnam, graphic though the evacuation was. The Soviet-sponsored regime in Afghanistan lasted a few years after Moscow’s withdrawal, but the civil war and Taliban rule that followed weren’t good news for either the US or the Soviet Union, never mind the death and destruction they wrought in Afghanistan. President Obama’s premature withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 opened the door to sectarianism and the rise of the Islamic State.
There is little reason to believe the government in Kabul will survive if the preconditions for US withdrawal specified in Washington’s agreement with the Taliban are not met. The government in Mogadishu is even weaker than the one in Kabul. Baghdad’s government would be more likely to survive, but in a pro-Iranian form that won’t be to Washington’s liking.
The sad fact is that withdrawal requires at least as much diplomacy as military intervention. Zal Khalilzad has been doing the right thing by negotiating the US exit from Afghanistan with the Taliban and insisting also that the Taliban reach an agreement with Kabul. But that negotiation can’t be successful if President Trump pulls the carpet out from under it. There is no reason to believe that any withdrawal decided because it is time for the President to leave office will be done at the right time. Withdrawal, like intervention, should be decided based on conditions in the country concerned, not only in the US.
President-elect Biden should of course be informed if not consulted on any decisions for withdrawal, or military action, during this lame duck period. That won’t happen so long as Trump is disputing the election result. Even thereafter he may avoid Biden, but at least the Pentagon and State Department people should be allowed to talk with Biden’s transition teams. Some of Trump’s mistakes will be correctable. He is unlikely to get the troops out of Germany in an irreversible fashion. But once the troops are out of Iraq, it will be hard to get them back in.
You don’t have to think the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, or Somalia, were good ideas to appreciate that ending them abruptly on a timetable determined by American politics is a bad idea. Each will require careful diplomatic preparation to ensure that US interests are preserved as much as can be reasonably expected. Premature withdrawal just isn’t good any better for foreign policy than it is for birth control.
PS: For more on the mendacity of the troop withdrawal announcement, list to this from NPR:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, November 17
NYT says Trump sought military options against Iran in a meeting last Thursday. His advisors counseled against the idea, but we’ll see. [Last summer I argued , citing US history, that Trump would not “wag the dog” by launching a major military operation before the election. Now, who knows? Even conservatives are warning about the inexperience of new appointees.]
Everybody says Trump will speed up US troop reductions from Afghanistan, Iraq & Somalia, so the administration must be giving briefings. NYT has the most comprehensive story.
WaPo also has details.
There are also dueling China stories. WaPo says Biden will likely follow many of Trump’s policies. Axios has administration officials bragging at how much they’ve done, calling it irreversible.
A former official warns of cuts in defense attache postings.
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. 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:
It’s getting serious, even if it isn’t
President Trump’s refusal to begin the transition to President-elect Biden was at first an annoyance with relatively little practical impact. Now, however, it is blocking serious planning for distribution of Covid-19 vaccines, making intelligence briefings for Biden and his team impossible, and casting doubt on US troop commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Trump is, as usual, prioritizing his personal interests in maintaining control of the Republican Party and raising money under the guise of contesting a stolen election. He knows he has lost but won’t give up until someone either chucks him out or he gets something in return. It is up to Republicans in Congress to chuck him out, at least until December 14 when the Electoral College meets and confirms Biden’s election. I can’t think of anything anyone respectable would want to give him in exchange for allowing the transition planning to start, but no doubt he would like some guarantees from Biden not to pursue judicial investigations.
The claims about a stolen election are demonstrating once again how far from reality so many of Trump’s supporters have wandered. There weren’t many at his “million” MAGA march last weekend in DC, perhaps 5,000 but certainly not 10,000. Describing downtown DC as flooded with demonstrators, as NPR did, was ludicrous. Downtown DC requires at least ten times that number to be even remotely described as flooded. Last weekend wasn’t much more than a sprinkle.
But out in the country there are still lots of people–70% of Republicans–who believe there were serious election irregularities, despite the fact that no one has found any. Aware of the likelihood such charges would arouse, state election officials appear to have run the cleanest, most correct elections ever, despite the onslaught of early voting and mailed-in ballots. I hope that the recounts and certifications to come will convince some people, but there is little sign of openness among the Republican base to the notion that Trump lost. Period.
He lost big in the popular vote–by more than 5 million–but that doesn’t really count. The Electoral College looks to be divided precisely as it was in 2016 (306/232), a margin Trump has always described as a landslide. I would say decisive, not a landslide. People are still trying to figure out just what happened, but it appears Trump lost support in the suburbs. I guess they weren’t so interested in his saving them from lower-income people, partly because lots of lower-income people already live there.
Biden now faces the prospect of trying to govern without a full transition period, with a narrowed majority in the House, and with a Republican majority in the Senate, unless the Democrats manage to pull of the unlikely feat of winning the two run-off contests in Georgia January 5. But he faces that prospect with an unusually wide and deep talent pool, many with fairly recent experience in governing and four years in the wilderness to think about how to do it better. So the President-elect may be handicapped, but when you are choosing your Secretary of State from among Susan Rice, Bill Burns, Tony Blinken, Chris Murphy, and some other political stars you are still well off.
Trump may of course still have some tricks up his sleeve, though so far his lawyers have lost two dozen election-related cases in court and won just one that will not affect the election outcome. The only virtue of the agony he is putting the nation through is the possibility it will convert a few of his cultists to reality-based politics. But there is no sign of that yet. The lack of transition is getting serious, even if the people who are causing it are not.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, November 16
It’s been granddaughter day today. Got to the news late.
WaPo says down ballot GOP wins came in places with high infection rates where there was opposition to mask mandates.
WaPo also details Iran’s success in evading Trump sanctions.
Dan Drezner sums up the views on the DOD purge and what it means for Afghanistan.
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. 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:
Peace Picks | November 16 – November 20, 2020
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
1. Corruption in Kyrgyzstan: The Path Forward | November 16, 2020 | 9:00-10:00 AM ET | Carnegie Endowment for Peace | Register Here
It has been over a month since political upheaval in Kyrgyzstan resulted in the collapse of the government of now-former President Sooronbay Jeenbekov and the rise of Sadyr Japarov, a former convict, to the position of acting president. With new presidential elections now planned for January, the country’s political landscape is changing fast, with Japarov implausibly promising an anti-corruption campaign—a key concern of those who protested on the streets in October.
This dramatic shift is driven by growing anger over corruption and poor governance—laid particularly bare by the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, despite the public’s demands for stronger government accountability, corrupt organized crime is still flourishing and poised to have increased influence in a plausible Japarov presidency.
Please join us for a discussion on Kyrgyzstan’s legacies of corruption, prospects for better governance, and popular responses to the recent social and political upheaval the country has witnessed, all based on a new, groundbreaking report released by RFE/RL, Kloop, and OCCRP.
Speakers:
Shirin Aitmatova: former member of Kyrgyz Parliament and a leader of Umut 2020 – a people’s movement that focuses on anti-corruption investigations.
Asel Doolotkeldieva: associate research fellow at the OSCE Academy in Bishkek. Her research examines social mobilization, religiosity and gender, democratization and institution-building, rent-seeking from natural resources, and migration in Kyrgyzstan. She holds a PhD from the University of Exeter.
Bruce Pannier: senior Central Asian affairs correspondent, who writes the Qishloq Ovozi blog and appears regularly on the Majlis podcast for RFE/RL.
Carl Schreck: RFE/RL’s enterprise editor. He has covered politics, crime, business, and sports in Russia and the former Soviet Union for nearly 20 years, including nearly a decade while based in Moscow.
Paul Stronski: senior fellow in Carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia Program, where his research focuses on the relationship between Russia and neighboring countries in Central Asia and the South Caucasus.
2. Trans-Atlantic Cooperation and the International Order After the US Election | November 16, 2020 | 9:45 – 11:45 AM ET | Brookings Institute | Register Here
Over the past four years, the United States has often abdicated its traditional leadership role, leaving allies across the Atlantic to fend for themselves. Now, as Americans and Europeans alike process the results of the U.S. election, significant practical and political questions about the future of the trans-Atlantic relationship and the global order abound. With Joe Biden in the White House, will European leaders be willing to once again rely on the U.S. as an ally? While a Biden administration will certainly be more friendly to trans-Atlantic relations and multilateralism, will this shift be lasting or merely a lapse amid an increasingly isolationist era of American foreign policy? With Republicans likely to retain control of the Senate, what impact would a divided government have on the new administration’s foreign policy?
On Monday, November 16, Foreign Policy at Brookings will host a conference to consider these questions and other implications of the next U.S. administration for the future of the international order and trans-Atlantic cooperation. Questions from the audience will follow the discussion.
Schedule and Speakers:
Welcoming Remarks: 9:45 AM – 10:00 AM
Suzanne Maloney: Vice President and Director – Foreign Policy
Henry Alt-Haaker: Senior Vice President, Strategic Partnerships and Robert Bosch Academy – Robert Bosch Stiftung
Panel Discussion: 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM
James Goldgeier: Robert Bosch Senior Visiting Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe
Fiona Hill: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe
Stormy-Annika Mildner: Head of Department, External Economic Policy – Federation of German Industries
Rachel Rizzo: Director of Programs – Truman National Security Project; Adjunct Fellow, Transatlantic Program – Center for a New American Security
Marietje Schaake: International Policy Director – Cyber Policy Center at Stanford University
Constanze Stelzenmüller, moderator: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe
Keynote: 11:00 AM – 11:45 AM
Nathalie Tocci: Director – Istituto Affari Internazionali; Honorary Professor – University of Tübingen
Thomas Wright, moderator: Director – Center on the United States and Europe; Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Project on International Order and Strategy
3. Assessing Perceptions of Affected Communities in Northern Iraq on Peace, Justice and Governance | November 16, 2020 | 11:30 AM ET | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Please join the Atlantic Council’s Iraq Initiative and the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative on Monday, November 16 from 11:30 am – 12:30 pm ET presenting a timely survey which offers a snapshot of the perceptions and attitudes in northern Iraq about peace and justice within communities affected by the conflict with the Islamic State (IS). The discussion will feature Abulrazzaq Al-Saiedi, research manager, Iraq country expert and policy advisor at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Abbas Kadhim, director of the Iraq Initiative at the Atlantic Council, Phuong Pham, director of evaluation and implementation science at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Patrick Vinck, research director at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, and moderated by Kirsten Fontenrose, director of the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council.
The report (available in Arabic) by the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative’s Peace and Human Rights Data Program, details how northern Iraqi communities targeted by the Islamic State (IS) are denied justice. Based on 5,213 interviews conducted in 2019 among a representative sample of internally displaced persons in northern Iraq and residents of the city of Mosul and surrounding areas, the research documents a severe lack of trust in official institutions, particularly in the Government of Iraq itself, stemming in large part from the belief that these institutions do not act in the best interest of the population.
Speakers:
Abulrazzaq Al-Saiedi: Research Manager, Iraq Country Expert, and Policy Advisor, Harvard Humanitarian Initiative
Abbas Kadhim: Director, Iraq Initiative, Atlantic Council
Phuong Pham: Director of Evaluation and Implementation Science, Harvard Humanitarian Initiative
Patrick Vinck: Research Director, Harvard Humanitarian Initiative
Kirsten Fontenrose, moderator: Director, Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, Atlantic Council
4. Moldova’s Presidential Elections | November 16, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:15 PM ET | Wilson Center | Register Here
On November 15, incumbent Moldovan President Igor Dodon will face pro-European opposition candidate Maia Sandu in a national run-off election. Sandu has promised to fight corruption, poverty, and reform the criminal justice system. Dodon is considered the most pro-Russian candidate, advocating to make Russian compulsory in schools and to strengthen Moldova’s strategic partnership with Russia. Amb. William Hill, former Moldovan Minister of Foreign Affairs Nicu Popescu, and DGAP Research Fellow Cristina Gherasimov will consider the results of the runoff election, its implications, and how the next president in Chisinau will manage Moldova-Russian relations.
Speakers:
William H. Hill: Global Fellow; Former Professor of National Security Strategy, National War College, Washington D.C.
Nicu Popescu: Director, Wider Europe Programme, European Council on Foreign Relations
Cristina Gherasimov: Research Fellow, Robert Bosch Center for Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia, DGAP
Matthew Rojansky, moderator: Director, Kennan Institute
5. US and Iranian Strategies for a Biden Administration | November 17, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM ET | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The looming arrival of the Joe Biden administration in January 2021 provides the leadership in Tehran with an opportunity to seek a qualitatively different relationship with the United States. President-elect Biden has already expressed a desire to salvage the 2015 nuclear deal, which the Trump administration abandoned in 2018. While Tehran awaits to see what, if any, conditions the Biden team has for the resumption of the diplomatic track and removal of US-led sanctions, a policy fight is already under way inside the Iranian state about the future of US-Iran relations.
The American question in Tehran is not just a foreign policy file but ultimately linked to the question of whether the Islamic Republic opts to continue a revolutionary and militant foreign policy or settles for a path of de-escalation with Washington and other rivals. How much of this policy competition in Tehran will shape Washington’s next steps vis-à-vis Iran?
To discuss these matters and other key challenges in the path of US-Iran relations in the coming Biden administration, we are delighted to host a panel of experts.
Speakers:
Jon Alterman: Senior vice president, Zbigniew Brzezinski chair in Global Security and Geostrategy, and director, Middle East Program, CSIS
Hannah Kaviani:Staffer, RFE/RL’s Persian language service, Radio Farda
Behnam Ben Taleblu: Senior fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Alex Vatanka (moderator): Senior fellow and director, Iran program, MEI
6. The Future of Palestinian Politics under a Biden Administration | November 17, 2020; November 19, 2020 | 11:30 AM – 12:45 PM ET | Middle East Institute | Register Here
Former Vice President Joe Biden’s election victory over President Donald Trump is likely to produce a major reset in American-Palestinian relations as well as in Washington’s role in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. No U.S. president had done more to isolate Palestinians and delegitimize Palestinian national aspirations than Trump. Meanwhile, Biden has pledged to reverse the most destructive aspects of Trump’s policies and restore U.S.-Palestinian relations in the hope of salvaging what remains of a two-state solution.
Yet even as the Palestinians breathe a collective sigh of relief at Trump’s departure, the Palestinians’ internal house remains in a state of disarray and decline. The Palestinian national movement, now at one of the lowest points in its history, continues to be racked by political division, institutional stagnation, and a lack of strategic clarity.
To shed light on these and other issues, the Middle East Institute (MEI) invites you to join a two-part webinar series on the Future of Palestinian Politics Under a Biden Administration, moderated by MEI’s Khaled Elgindy
Speakers:
Part 1 – Reviving Palestinian Political Life
Tareq Baconi: Senior analyst, International Crisis Group
Sam Bahour: Ramallah-based business consultant
Mustafa Barghouti:General secretary, Palestinian National Initiative
Noura Erakat: Human rights attorney; assistant professor, Rutgers University
Khaled Elgindy, moderator: Senior fellow and director, Program on Palestine and Palestinian-Israeli Affairs, MEI
Part 2 – Toward a Palestinian National Strategy
Dana ElKurd: Researcher, Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies
Mariam Barghouti: Political commentator and writer
Yousef Munayyer: Non-resident fellow, MEI
Nasser AlKidwa: Former Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations and Palestinian Foreign Minister
Khaled Elgindy, moderator: Senior fellow and director, Program on Palestine and Palestinian-Israeli Affairs, MEI
7. Building a Climate Resilient and Just Future for All: Delivering Action and Ambition | November 17, 2020 | 1:00 PM ET | Atlantic Council | Register Here
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought resilience to the fore. It has laid bare the vulnerability of our societies and economies and exposed the lack of risk planning in countries. During this event, speakers will focus on the need to carry out ambitious actions on building resilience and identify what can be done to set up a decade of action.
This high level event will bring together the outcomes of the Regional Resilience Dialogues and Race to Zero resilience-focused dialogues and highlight how to advance the action of non-state actors and initiatives to deliver outcomes at COP26 and beyond. The High Level Champions, Gonzalo Muñoz and Nigel Topping, will also use this event to share their developing plans for a Race for Resilience campaign as a sister to the Race to Zero campaign to deliver a decade of action.
This dialogue will build upon previous Marrakech Partnership for Global Climate Action roundtables held at COP23, COP24 and COP25 events, the Global Commission on Adaptation, and from the UN Climate Action Summit and the Call to Action on Adaptation and Resilience.
Speakers:
Opening Remarks
Nigel Topping: High Level Climate Action Champion, UK, COP26
Gonzalo Muñoz: High Level Climate Action Champion, Chile, COP26
Panel Discussions
Panel 1: The Challenge: Why action on Resilience is a must?
Johan Rockstrom: Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Professor in Earth System Science, University of Potsdam; Chair of the Global Resilience Partnership Advisory Council
Saleemul Huq: Director, International Centre for Climate Change & Development (ICCCAD); Chair of Resilience track for UN Food Systems Summit 2021
Emma Howard-Boyd: UK Commissioner, Global Commission on Adaptation and Chair of the Environment Agency
Wanjira Mathai, moderator: Vice President and Regional Director for Africa, World Resources Institute
Panel 2: Opportunities for Ambitious Action
Kathy Baughman McLeod: Senior Vice President and Director, Adrienne Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center; Atlantic Council, representing the Extreme Heat Resilience Alliance (EHRA)
Zakia Naznin: Programme Manager, Concern Worldwide, representing the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance
Karen Sack: CEO, Ocean Unite, representing Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance
Wanjira Mathai, moderator: Vice President and Regional Director for Africa, World Resources Institute
Panel 3: Delivering Ambition and a Decade of Action
Julio Cordano: Head, Department of Climate Change, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Chile and COP 25 Chilean Presidency Representative
Patrick Verkooijen: Chief Executive Officer, Global Center on Adaptation
Anne-Marie Trevelyan: UK International Champion on Adaptation and Resilience, COP26
Wanjira Mathai, moderator: Vice President and Regional Director for Africa, World Resources Institute
Closing Remarks
Nigel Topping: High Level Climate Action Champion, UK, COP26
Gonzalo Muñoz: High Level Climate Action Champion, Chile, COP26
8. Lebanon: Out with the Old, In with the What? | November 17, 2020 | 16:00 – 17:00 EET | Carnegie Endowment for Peace | Register Here
While Lebanon’s ruling elite continues to delay the formation of a new cabinet under Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri, French President Emmanuel Macron is growing impatient as he watches his initiative and timeline for reforms crumble. The Trump Administration, meanwhile, is still ramping up sanctions on Hezbollah’s allies in government. Where does the government formation stand today? What remains of the French initiative? How might U.S. foreign policy towards Lebanon shift under President-Elect Joe Biden?
Speakers:
Ishac Diwan: Chaire d’Excellence Monde Arabe at Paris Sciences et Lettres and is a professor at the École Normale Supérieure, Paris
Dorothée Schmid: senior research fellow and heads the Turkey and Middle East Program at the French Institute of International Relations.
Randa Slim: senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and a non-resident fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced and International Studies (SAIS) Foreign Policy Institute.
Maha Yahya: Director of the Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center, where her research focuses on citizenship, pluralism, and social justice in the aftermath of the Arab uprisings.
9. What Does the World Expect of President-elect Joe Biden? | November 17, 2020 | 2:30 – 4:00 PM ET | Wilson Center | Register Here
The next U.S. Administration faces a complicated, volatile world. Please join Wilson Center experts on Russia, China, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and Latin America as they interview colleagues and experts on the ground in their regions to discuss what a Biden Administration means in terms of our relationships around the globe.
Our experts will host a spirited conversation on the foreign policy expectations and challenges confronting the next President of the United States.
Speakers:
Jane Harman: Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center
Cynthia J. Arnson: Director, Latin American Program
Robert Daly: Director, Kissinger Institute on China and the United States
Daniel S. Hamilton: Director, Global Europe Program; Austrian Marshall Plan Foundation Distinguished Fellow
Merissa Khurma: Program Manager, Middle East Program
Monde Muyangwa: Africa Program Director
Matthew Rojansky: Director, Kennan Institute
Duncan Wood: Director, Mexico Institute
John Milewski, moderator: Director of Digital Programming; Moderator, Wilson Center NOW
10. Exceptions to the Rules: Civilian Harm and Accountability in the Shadow Wars | November 19, 2020 | 9:30 – 11:00 AM ET | Stimson Center | Register Here
Nearly two decades after 9/11, the CIA and Special Operations Forces have become increasingly involved in U.S. counterterrorism operations around the world –often operating in the shadows and under a growing set of broad exceptions to the rules that govern the lawful use of lethal force, civilian harm mitigation, transparency, and accountability. Join the Stimson Center and the Center for Civilians in Conflict for a discussion of these programs and the launch of a new report examining the tradeoffs involved with normalizing these exceptions, and offering concrete recommendations for increasing public awareness and strengthening oversight and accountability.
Speakers:
Daniel Mahanty: Director, US Program, Center for Civilians in Conflict
Rita Siemion: Director, National Security Advocacy, Human Rights First
Rachel Stohl, Vice President, Stimson Center
Stephen Tankel: Associate Professor, American University; Adjunct Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security
11. Elections in the Black Sea Region | November 19, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM ET | Middle East Institute | Register Here
Elections are taking place across the Black Sea, including in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. The three countries have Association Agreements with the EU and have benefitted from significant Western support over the last years. All three countries also share the problems of separatist and frozen conflicts on their territories that affect their security and stability. Elections outcomes in all three countries will have important implications for the foreign policy orientation of the countries and their role in the Black Sea region. Elections in the region coincide with the COVID-19 pandemic and an economic crisis with potentially devastating effects for the region. The Middle East Institute (MEI) Frontier Europe Initiative is pleased to host a discussion with the Ambassadors of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine to the United States on the election process, outcomes, and implications for the Black Sea region.
How did the election process and the results fair out for Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine? What are the main challenges around the elections in the context of the pandemic and economic crisis? How will the election results impact their foreign policies in the years to come?
Speakers:
David Bakradze: Georgian Ambassador to the United States
Eugen Caras: Moldovan Ambassador to the United States
Yelchenko Volodymyr: Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States
Iulia Joja, moderator: Senior Fellow, Frontier Europe Initiative
12. RESOLVE Network 2020 Global Forum: Violent Extremism in 2020 and Beyond | November 19, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:15 AM ET | USIP | Register Here
The year 2020 has ushered in rapid and significant shifts in existing threats to global security. From the COVID-19 pandemic to climate change and longstanding violent conflict, the pressures facing our current global system are increasingly complex and all-encompassing. Among these, violent extremism remains a significant challenge—shifting as actors adapt and take advantage of ongoing and emerging global shocks and sources of instability.
How has the violent extremism landscape changed in the five years since the “fall” of ISIS? How has rising global instability, populism, and disinformation altered violent extremist operations and ideologies, and vice versa? What challenges do we face in addressing violent extremism in the new threat landscape? Can we apply any lessons from past experiences to address emerging threats and dynamics in 2020 and beyond?
Please join the RESOLVE Network and USIP for a discussion about these challenges and more during part one of RESOLVE’s fifth annual Global Forum series. Convened virtually, the forum will bring together leading experts and researchers for thought-provoking conversations on evolving trends and dynamics in the violent extremist landscape.
Speakers:
Dr. Alastair Reed, opening remarks: Senior Expert and Executive Director of the RESOLVE Network
Dr. Mary Beth Altier: Clinical Associate Professor, Center for Global Affairs, New York University
Dr. Amarnath Amarasingam: Assistant Professor, School of Religion, Queen’s University, member of the RESOLVE Research Advisory Council
Dr. Colin P. Clarke: Senior Research Fellow, The Soufan Center, member of the RESOLVE Research Advisory Council
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
May his memory be a blessing
My brother-in-law, Drew Days, died in the early hours of this morning. He was a man of many distinctions: Yale Law School graduate and professor, NAACP Legal Defense Fund lawyer, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Carter Administration, Solicitor General of the United States in the Clinton Administration, board member of his alma mater Hamilton College, “of counsel” at Morrison and Foerster, board member of the MacArthur Foundation, and–one of his favorite functions–a Proprietor of Common and Undivided Lands at New Haven (i.e. the New Haven Green).
Our professional paths only occasionally crossed. I knew him in other ways. He was four years ahead of me and in my older brother’s class at New Rochelle High School when I first fell for his younger sister, Jackie Days. He knew how to have a good time as a not too serious student at Hamilton. Until this year, he stayed in touch with and met every summer with his Hamilton roommates. He worked harder at Yale Law, but also sang tenor and did his share of carousing with the Yale Russian Chorus, where he met Ann Ramsay Langdon. Her joining the Peace Corps precipitated marriage, at the Yale chapel of course, in 1967, when I was graduating from Haverford.
Off they went, first to Puerto Rico for training and Spanish language class, then to Honduras, where Drew tried to put together a tomato canning coop, if I remember correctly. Two years later they were back in NYC, where Drew signed on with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to focus on school desegregation throughout the South. He was surprised and tickled when Attorney General Griffin Bell asked him to run the Civil Rights Division. Ann and his by now two daughters, Alison and Elizabeth, moved to DC not long before Jackie and I took off for my first Foreign Service posting in Rome.
Drew was unsparing in his enforcement of civil rights laws. His parents had moved to New Rochelle from Tampa to give their children better opportunities in an integrated environment. Drew rarely complained about any racial slights directed at himself, but he was determined to prevent discrimination from blocking the education, voting rights, employment, and opportunities of others. “Color blind” was not his goal. He was convinced the United States suffered from systemic racism well before it got that moniker and therefore believed affirmative action of many different sorts was required to overcome it.
A popular professor at Yale, Drew established the Orville H. Schell Jr. Center for Human Rights at its law school, but he declined to move into the dorms to be “master” of one of the colleges. He laughed at the title. But then again, Drew laughed a lot. He had a wry, sometimes biting, sense of humor, though many didn’t know it as he was impeccably polite and respectful even to those he found overbearing or foolish. There were of course some of those at Yale, but Drew loved the place and its people. One of the only times I saw him a bit shaken was when he feared he might not get tenure, hard as that is to believe in retrospect.
Drew enjoyed his challenging time as Solicitor General, a job made for his talents. But he felt he lost too many cases, including one in which the Senate voted later 99-1 against the position he had taken in a pornography case. He was still convinced, however, that his position was right. That and other adversities never prevented us from enjoying his and Ann’s company, along with our two sons and their two daughters, both in Washington and summers in Little Compton, Rhode Island, where his mother-in-law owned a house. Drew was a strong swimmer and would dare go much farther than I did in rough water. His self-confidence was almost always justified.
Drew also enjoyed his post-government life. He never tired of teaching at Yale, though he was chagrined when I taunted him a bit about all the conservative lawyers and judges the school managed to produce. His “of counsel” lawyering often brought him to DC, where his sister and I were always ready for a dinner out with him. We all hoped he would be appointed to the Supreme Court, but that possibility faded with age, as the Republicans taught everyone that appointing younger jurists was smarter: they carried less baggage into confirmation hearings and were likely to last longer on the Court.
It was a few years ago that Drew, who had suffered from small strokes, told us over dinner at Woodward Table that he had been diagnosed with dementia. I’m not a big hugger, but I gave him a big hug and assured him we’d all be supporting him as he faced this last challenge. We’ve managed a few visits in DC or New Haven every year during his decline, which has been painful to watch and no doubt more painful to experience. He died peacefully during the night, with his devoted wife Ann and younger daughter Liz close by.
May his memory be a blessing,
PS: Here is Drew as Solicitor General of the United States, 1995:
RSS - Posts
