Month: June 2021

Ghani looks for partners and opportunities in the future

The withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan is soon to be a reality. The last troops will leave before September 11. There is still no political resolution of the country’s decades-old civil war. Fighting is escalting as foreign support declines. Experts have speculated that the Kabul regime led by president Ashraf Ghani may fall to the Taliban as soon as six months after the withdrawal is complete. In this context, the Arab Center Washington DC organized a conference on Looking towards Peace in Afghanistan after the US-NATO Withdrawal. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani gave a keynote speech June 22, before meeting with President Biden on three days later on the new context Afghanistan finds itself in and the opportunities that it affords.

The speakers were:

H.E. Dr. Mohammad Ashraf Ghani (keynote)
President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

Sultan Barakat (introduction)
Founding director,
Center for Conflict and Humanitarian Studies, Doha institute for Graduate Studies

A withdrawal foretold

The President focused first on the reality of the current situation. The US withdrawal is a game changer. “By ending the guessing game” surrounding the presence of US forces,” Biden forced all stakeholders to reassess their assumptions in the new context. This decision was no surprise to the Afghan government: “this is a transition for which, mentally, we have been ready.” President Ghani respects Biden’s decision and thanked the troops that helped Afghanistan so generously. Now, Afghanistan needs to be ready to establish new relations with the US and NATO. Far from abandoning Afghanistan, these allies will now become partners in assuring the prosperity and development of the country.

Focusing on opportunities, not risks

Ghani cited Nobel-prize winner Daniel Kahneman, who demonstrated that when strategic situations change people tend to focus on threats, rather than opportunities. For now, however, it is important to focus on opportunities. Afghans have been living with uncertainty for 43 years. They have grown accustomed to see potential despite this. The president explicitly reminded the academics present at the conference that they are speaking of a nation of 30 million. “The specter of Najibullah’s fall haunts us,” he admitted. The more people compare the current situation to that, as well as to the fall of Vietnam, the more they add to the anxiety and fears of the Afghan people. President Ghani does not believe that either of those situations is a good comparison.

“We do not ask the world for a sense of indebtedness, because that is not the reality. But we ask for understanding and we ask for partnership in a meaningful way.” There are two key processes to successfully shape the opportunities now presented:

  • All stakeholders must acknowledge the strategic shift. All must frame and reframe their partnerships and resist the urge to pretend that the context hasn’t changed. The Kabul government immediately accepted and acknowledged that the withdrawal changes everything. Ghani called on foreign nations to stop hedging and waiting for events to unfold. Avoid atavistic behavior. Accept the changing context and look towards the new future of Afghanistan without applying historical ideas. “Join us to create a peaceful Afghanistan based on the noble quest for peace, cooperation, and prosperity.”
  • Afghanistan needs to focus on new and changing partnerships. Ghani is pleased that, together with all of its core interlocutors (US, NATO) his government has immediately been able to change focus to the new chapter, which will bring peace, prosperity, and connectivity to Afghanistan. The region is crucial in this regard.

To secure the peace of Afghanistan by avoiding foreign competition over influence, “we are seriously considering the permanent neutrality of Afghanistan” so that all can be sure that Afghanistan will not be the theater of competition. “We are not looking for patrons, we are looking for partners.”

Challenging the Taliban to govern

The President turned last to the Taliban and the future of Afghan governance. “My colleagues and I have been very clear we are not interested in power, we are interested in principle and commitment. We are willing to bring elections forward to ensure orderly succession.” The Taliban movement is making a strategic mistake by continuing violence when political pathways are on the table in Doha. Why continue with violence when the context has changed and none of the assumptions of the past continue to be relevant? “A tragedy is in the making. This tragedy is a long and distractive civil war. The Taliban and the Taliban alone will be responsible for the scope of this tragedy.

Ghani put two core questions to the Taliban:

  • Will the Taliban acknowledge the centrality of an Afghan nation of common interest, or will they put their relations with their network and sponsors first, as they did in 2001? They must choose where their loyalties truly lie, and make this clear to the people of Afghanistan.
  • What is the Taliban’s practical vision for Afghanistan? They can’t avoid explaining their proposed solutions for governance issues such as COVID, the return of refugees, women’s rights, education, water management, etcetera.

By focusing on governance and development despite continuous fighting, “we have changed the discourse in the world and the region to stop looking at us as just poor Afghanistan, but rather as potentially rich Afghanistan and a partner.”

Ghani concluded by emphasizing his personal commitment to Afghanistan’s prosperity: “Never will I leave this country, never will I abandon my people, and never will I stop urging peace and prosperity for all of us.” “If war is imposed on us, we will surprise the world as has been our habit and our destiny in the past.”

Watch the recording of the speech below:

Tags : ,

Stevenson’s army, June 26 late edition

Charlie Stevenson writes:

[I try to keep my political opinions in my pocket, but this was too much.]

One of the indicators of how tribal America’s political parties have become is that large numbers of people say they would object if their child wanted to marry someone from the different party. In the 1960s, the figure was about 5%. Now it’s around 30%.

What’s even more troubling is that similar numbers now believe that the other party is a danger to the country. A CBS News poll last January, after the insurrection at the Capitol, found that  more than half of Republicans and more than 40 percent of Democrats tend to think of the other party as “enemies,” rather than “political opponents.”

As a Republican who converted to Democrat, I guess I have been more rational and calculating than ideological and emotional about party allegiance, but I understand how strong partisan feelings have become. And partisanship now embraces more than politics: co-partisans like the same beverages, cars, entertainment, and so forth.

But there should be limits. And some Republican members of Congress are going far beyond legitimate partisanship.

It’s one thing for an opposition party to fight the other side on everything, whether petty or significant. It’s undemocratic, however, for the opposition to reject and undermine legitimate processes and outcomes. When Congress counted the electoral votes for president, 147 Republicans voted against one of more slates, thus overruling a certified election. That’s not consistent with supporting and defending the Constitution.

I agree with the Tom Mann/Norm Ornstein analysis that the GOP moved earlier and much further to the right than Democrats have moved to the left. I also believe that Donald Trump won a hostile takeover of the Republican Party, and that the bulk of its leadership has turned it into a cult, wedded to his whims and outrages.

Some of its members are not only spreading falsehoods, but they are fomenting civil disorder. I was especially outraged by Pennsylvania congressman Scott Perry, a retired brigadier general in the Army national guard [!],calling all Democrats dangerous Nazi-like fascists.

“They are not the loyal opposition. They are the opposition to everything you love and believe in,” Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Scott Perry said of Democrats as he concluded a speech to the conservative Pennsylvania Leadership Conference on June 11. “Go fight them.”

“Ladies and gentlemen, there’s a plan,” he said ominously after accusing Democrats of trying to intentionally destroy America’s economy by causing runaway inflation and oil scarcity. “They’ll tell you they’re patriots. But the patriots like the patriots in this room must acknowledge that things are different now. They want to destroy the country that you grew up in. They want to destroy the country that the founders made. That is their plan. That is their goal. That’s why they’re doing these things.”

When elected members of Congress resort to this kind of language, it does change minds. I now fear that the GOP is a real danger to the country.

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).

Stevenson’s army, June 26

Not good news. Tucker Carlson.Trump.Stephen Miller.
US will keep 650 [or more] troops in Afghanistan after “withdrawal.”
EU rejects Macron-Merkel call for summit with Putin
Biden-Ghani meeting

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).

Tags : , , ,

Radicalization thrives as French Muslims lack a coherent identity

The position of French Muslims has become increasingly controversial. The experience of several terrorist attacks and the proliferation of Salafism met a government response.  A new “Islamist separatism” bill, which would further expand separation of church and state, is currently being passed through the French parliament. It would prohibit any civil servant or contractor for the public sector from wearing religious symbols. Although the bill does not explicitly mention Islam as such, many fear that it could unfairly target and further alienate Muslims in France.

The Wilson Center June 16 held a seminar on the position of French Muslims in the French state. The panel agreed that the current bill is an attempt by President Macron to appeal to right-wing voters. He faces reelection in 2022. Extreme right-wing candidate Marine Le Pen is polling well. France’s “Muslim Question” emerged from the political tradition of laïcité, which enforces strict separation of church and state, and decades of marginalization and exclusion of French Muslims. If French society doesn’t find better ways to engage this community, radicalization will continue. Nonetheless, the panel conceded that internal discussions in the Muslim community to find alternative Islamic narratives are also needed.

The speakers were:

Amel Boubekeur
Sociologist
EHESS (École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales)

Steven Philip Kramer
Global Fellow
Wilson Center
Professor of National Security Studies
Eisenhower School, National Defense University

Hakim El Karoui
Senior Fellow
Institut Montaigne
Senior Partner & Paris Office Head
Brunswick

William Drozdiak (moderator)
Global Fellow
Wilson Center
Author of “The Last President of Europe: Emmanuel Macron’s Race to Revive France and Save the World”

A history of laïcité

Drozdiak introduced the tradition of ‘laïcité’ (secularism) in French politics. He mentioned that it is central to French political life, as it is enshrined in the first article of the constitution since 1905. It is more far-reaching than the separation of church and state in most democracies, and essentially relegates religious affiliation to the private sphere. Today it is a controversial topic. To some it is the glue that allows the French to live together despite their religious differences, but to others it has become an anti-religious tool used to discriminate against Muslims in France. El Karoui further nuanced this controversy. To him there are three visions of laïcité:

  • Laïcité as an essentially legal term: the separation of church and state, a core democratic right.
  • Laïcité as a historical battle between the Catholic church and the state that some think is being waged today between Islam and the state.
  • Laïcité as a tenet of the Enlightenment. Here the discussion is cast in terms of reason as opposed to religion. The protection of the rational political process requires the exclusion of religious considerations.

Failed integration of Muslims in France

Muslims today often feel disconnected from the French state and society. Kramer outlined five historical reasons for this based on his forthcoming book:

  • The shadow of colonialism and harsh decolonization processes scarred and uprooted huge populations of Muslims in the 20th century. Around a million Muslims left for France from Algeria alone. The atrocities of colonialism left deep impressions on these migrants.
  • The historical timing of Muslim migration to France also affected their integration. The major wave of immigration came during the industrializing boom after World War II. Muslim men migrated to France to work and eventually brought their families. After this initial boom, however, the economy slowed down and began to deindustrialize, leaving many Muslims unemployed and marginalized.
  • French urban policy also pushed Muslims to the fringes. During the boom period, massive social housing projects were set-up on the peripheries of cities. Many French natives left these areas when mortgages became more easily attainable in the 1970s, leaving behind Muslim ghettos in the ‘banlieues’.
  • Kramer sees laïcité as part of the issue as well. He believes that opposition to public religiosity has turned anti-religious ideas against Muslims in particular. This is worsened by the Rassemblement National party, which was founded by returning white settlers from North Africa and has always held anti-Islamic sentiments.
  • Most recently, the impact of Islamic terrorism on the Western world and in France has led to a mutual cycle of distrust and alienation between French society and its Muslim members. This has also pushed politicians such as Macron into security-based thinking surrounding Islam to counter the political rise of his main rival, Marine Le Pen.

The position of Muslims today and the new law

Boubekeur and El Karoui then spoke on the current issues the Muslim community in France faces. Boubekeur believes that the way the French state engages with Muslim communities has been entirely unsuccessful. It focuses on using appointed representatives of the Muslim community to speak for Muslims. However, this treats French Muslims as believers, rather than citizens. Furthermore, these representatives (often foreign Imams) lack local legitimacy. Their inability to address Islamophobia in France has left young Muslims disillusioned with their leadership.

Further adding to Muslims’ alienation is the fact that the state’s relationship to them has always been led by political agenda:

  • In the 1970s, this meant Islam was seen as an immigration issue (not French, but migrants);
  • In the 1980s and 90s it was seen as a banlieue issue;
  • In the 2000s it has become securitized and linked to threats of radicalization and terrorism.

El Karoui identified three main issues among the current Islamic community in France:

  • There is now a real Muslim middle class (10% hold a Master’s degree or higher, 1/3 a Bachelor’s) but there remains an undereducation problem among Muslims.
  • A portion of young Muslims are looking for an identity. They don’t feel fully French, but also don’t feel Algerian, Tunisian, etc. They have increasingly started to identify primarily as Muslims, and some have made a very conservative interpretation of Islam their identity.
  • Other Muslims feel that there are no adequate representatives for them in society. They are not tied to foreign states, nor do they identify as Muslims (i.e. they don’t want the Islamic community leaders to represent them). If this group cannot be represented and engaged, Islamism will continue to be an issue and the far right will continue to abuse it.

New ways to engage Muslims and new narratives to counter radicalization

The panel offered some solutions. Boubekeur focused on the ways in which the French state interacts with Muslims. El Karoui emphasized the need for new, authentic, Islamic counternarratives.

Boubekeur said the state has two options:

  • Let Muslims engage in discussions with the French state as citizens (whomight have certain special needs, e.g. their desire to wear the veil in public spaces) or;
  • Stick to a neutral, secular state, and let French Muslims express themselves without the weight of being associated with terrorists. Also allow them to organize themselves better, which is now frustrated in the name of countering Islamist networks.

According to El Karoui, the current proliferation of Salafist and Islamist ideologies can only be solved if Muslims find their own solutions in the struggle between Salafism, Islamism, and faith. The solution is in their hands. Muslims need to create symbols against Salafism and alternative narratives of Islam that appeal to young people.

Watch the recording of the event here:

Tags : , ,

Stevenson’s army, June 24

WSJ says new intelligence assessment says Afghan government could collapse as soon as 6 months after US withdrawal.
In testimony Wednesday, Gen. Milley was less pessimistic. Austin and Milley told a Senate hearing last week they believe there is a “medium” risk of terrorist groups regaining strength in Afghanistan, saying it could happen in two years. Presumably President Biden considers these risks acceptable. This reminds me of the Nixon & Kissinger view that they needed a “decent interval” between the end of US combat in Vietnam and the collapse of Saigon. Here’s some of the evidence: Wikipedia;  the Nixon tapes; and Kissinger’s handwritten notes. Here’s another summary.
In other news, the debt ceiling looms with no clear plan.
Earmarks are popular.
And SAIS prof Vali Nasr says an Iran deal is possible.

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).

Tags : , , , , ,

Stevenson’s army, June 23

– In keeping with their commitment to give Congress their personal & professional views when asked, the JCS have expressed concerns about military justice reform, though CJCS Milley says he has an “open mind” on changing the process for sexual harassment complaints.  Meanwhile, SecDef Austin endorsed the change.
-On Lawfare, writers say China is more likely to subvert Taiwan than to invade.
-US has seized and shut down some Iranian-linked websites.
CFIUS is blocking Chinese purchase of a South Korean chip company.
– NYT says some Saudis involved in Khashoggi killing got prior military training in US.

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).

Tags : , , , , , ,
Tweet