Category: Amanda Taheri
Reconstruction in the Middle East
On January 16 the Middle East Institute hosted a panel discussion titled, Reconstruction in the Civil War Zones of the Middle East. The panel showcased the upcoming release of the World Bank’s Building for Peace in MENA: Reconstruction for Security, Sustainable Growth and Equity this coming February, the Middle East Institute’s Escaping the Conflict Trap, and Fractured Stability: War Economies and Reconstruction in the MENA.
Speakers on the panel included, Steven Heydemann, nonresident Senior Fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution, Luigi Narbone, Director of the Middle East Directions Programme at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute, Francesca Recanatini Senior Public Sector Specialist in Governance at the World Bank, and Ross Harrison, senior fellow at The Middle East Institute and faculty of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. The panel was moderated by Paul Salem, President of the Middle East Institute.
Inaccurate assumptions
Heydemann criticized three assumptions that the international community typically uses to guide reconstruction efforts that are contextually mistaken:
- War completely destroys the pre-war economy.
- Since pre-war institutions are destroyed, the task of post-conflict is to rebuild states and use this reconstruction effort to avoid future conflict.
- The destruction of the prewar institutions generates constituencies that wholeheartedly support reconstruction.
Heydemann critically analyzed these assumptions in the context of the MENA region, proclaiming that oftentimes in MENA there is continuity in the economic norms and practices during wartime. War even amplifies and further consolidates these norms. Secondly, conflict empowers actors to reimpose institutions they can exploit, reigniting previous conflicts. In the process of power sharing negotiations, weak participants are more concerned with positions than than reconstruction efforts.
Harrison emphasized the need for the right diagnosis of the regional conflicts in order to design proper solutions. He challenged the notion that regional actors are only proxy actors, proclaiming that this model is not complex enough to reflect the actual situation. We need realignment at the international and regional levels to create a cooperative environment for reconstruction to take place in.
Competing powers
Narbone spoke about the typical Western liberal blueprint utilized in post-conflict settings, which is not the only power in the region. The MENA conflicts incorporate a plethora of leaders in the region who do not believe in this model, specifically Russia and Iran. Consensus is lacking on the drivers of conflict, with each participant blaming the others. “Reconstruction fatigue” may be appealing but it will have detrimental effects.
Local participation
Recanatini centered her rhetoric around the World Bank’s upcoming report and the importance of citizen participation. After surveying 15,000 Yemeni, Iraqi, and Libyan citizens, asking “What do you believe has been lacking in previous peacebuilding work in your country?” over 19% of Yemenis interviewed, 18% of Libyans interviewed, and 17% of Iraqis agreed that the international community is lacking a vision guiding peacebuilding. Recanatini emphasized the need for international organizations to speak with different actors to ensure that all parts of society are being incorporated and heard. She also urged thinking outside of mandates and crossing into sectors and areas traditionally unexplored by international organizations.
What now?
The panelists all agreed that while civil war conflict zones in MENA would need billions of dollars for reconstruction, smaller grants of money can be used to set examples. Without this kind of support the resulting society will be full of disparities, hierarchies of privilege, vast discrimination and marginalization, etc. All the panelists posited that there is not just one solution to reconstruction in the context of the Middle East. We must be critical of any assumptions underlying efforts in the region.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks|January 13-19
Is an International Financial Commission Libya’s Last Hope? | January 13, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | The Middle East Institute 1763 N Street NW Washington DC | Register Here
As the battle for Tripoli rages into its ninth month and Libya’s struggle for post-Qadhafi succession enters its ninth year, international peace-making efforts remain stymied. The root causes of the country’s malaise, its flawed economic institutions and the lack of a social contract, remain unaddressed. Thus, Libya’s economic structures will continue to impede peace building or attempts to end foreign interference unless Libya’s semi-sovereign economic institutions are forced to become more transparent. This can be achieved via a Libyan-led International Financial Commission empowered with the tools to compel transparency and reform Libya’s institutions and dysfunctional incentive structure.
The Middle East Institute is pleased to host a public panel featuring the UN’s Deputy Special Representative for Political Affairs in Libya Stephanie Williams, former Commercial Officer at the US Embassy in Tripoli Nate Mason, and former US Special Envoy to Libya Jonathan Winer. They will be participating in a discussion launching MEI Non-Resident Fellow Jason Pack’s paper, “An International Financial Commission is Libya’s Last Hope.” The event will present research on the roots of Libya’s unique forms of dysfunction and examine how the Berlin Conference process and pending Congressional legislation (the 2019 Libya Stabilization Act) can be used as correctives and incentives to move towards an economic-based approach to peacemaking in Libya.
Speakers:
Nate Mason is currently a consultant based in Washington DC, Chief of Operations and Executive Director of Strategic Advisory Solutions International, and Partner on EyeOnISISinLibya.com.
Jason Pack is a consultant, author, and commentator with over two decades of experience living in, and working on, the Middle East.
Stephanie Williams currently serves as Deputy Special Representative for Political Affairs in Libya, United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL).
Jonathan Winer (moderator) has been the United States Special Envoy for Libya, the deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement, and counsel to United States Senator John Kerry.
What Do Tunisians Expect from Their New Government? | January 14, 2020 | 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 1779 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington DC | Register Here
As Tunisia marks the ninth anniversary of its revolution, the country faces a new set of challenges. A new president and parliament, elected with the promise to fight corruption and improve the lives of the Tunisian people, must find a way to address the longstanding social and economic grievances that its predecessors have failed to remedy.
The Carnegie Middle East Program is pleased to host a discussion with three young Tunisian activists who will explain what Tunisians are expecting from their new leaders and what will happen if those expectations are not met. Fellow Sarah Yerkes will moderate the discussion. A light lunch will be served.
Speakers:
Sarah Yerkes is a fellow in the Carnegie Middle East Program.
Amir Ben Ameur is a social activist who advocates for youth development and democracy
Aymen Abderrahmen is a program coordinator in the Leadership Division in IREX.
Oumayma Ben Abdallah is a human rights researcher and Tunisia analyst.
The Future Army in Great-Power Competition | January 14, 2020 | 9:00 AM – 10:15 AM | Atlantic Council 1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor Washington DC | Register Here
Please join the Atlantic Council for a public conversation on “The Future Army in Great-Power Competition” with General James C. McConville, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, as part of the Atlantic Council’s Commanders Series. The event will take place on Tuesday, January 14, 2020 from 9:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. at the Atlantic Council’s Headquarters (1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor, West Tower Elevators, Washington, DC 20005).
Since releasing the 2017 National Security Strategy and the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the United States has shifted its geopolitical focus toward renewed great-power competition with Russia and China. However, this reassessment of national security threats, while significant, is only the first step. The maintenance of robust deterrence and defense in the coming decades will demand strategic planning, critical investments, and intelligent innovations now. Moreover, the United States must continue to confront the long-term threat posed by near-peer adversaries while navigating a variety of difficult crises and scenarios, such as current tensions with Iran. Accordingly, the US Army and the other armed services have been modernizing their capabilities and adapting their operational concepts in order to define their roles in future warfare.
As the Army’s 40th chief of staff, General McConville will join us to discuss how the Army is preparing itself for the future of geostrategic competition and military conflict. This conversation will focus on the Army’s perception of the Russian and Chinese threats, its development of Multi-Domain Operations doctrine, and its modernization efforts to incorporate new technologies.
The Commanders Series is the Atlantic Council’s flagship speakers’ forum for senior military and defense leaders. The series provides a platform to discuss current strategic issues with an impressive audience drawn from across Washington’s policy community, including think tanks, media, industry, embassies, and the US government. In 2019, the Atlantic Council hosted then-Secretary of the Army Mark T. Esper, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph F. Dunford, and then-Chief of Naval Operations John M. Richardson.
Reflections on 25 Years of US Policy in the Middle East | January 15, 2020 | 11:30 AM – 1:00 PM | Atlantic Council 1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor Washington DC | Register Here
Join us on Wednesday, January 15, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. for a conversation with Nabeel Khoury, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and twenty-five-year member of the US Foreign Service, and Thomas L. Friedman, foreign affairs columnist for The New York Times.
The past three decades have seen massive US military and diplomatic engagements in the Middle East and events that will continue to shape the world for years to come. Why has the security environment changed so drastically for the United States in the region, and what lessons should be drawn? What does US diplomacy look like on the ground in the region right now, and are we in a position to meet our foreign policy and national security goals?
Nabeel will draw on reflections from his recently published book, Bunker Diplomacy: An Arab-American in the U.S. Foreign Service: Personal Reflections on 25 Years of US Policy in the Middle East.
The Prospects for U.S.-Russia Arms Control | January 15, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM | Center for Strategic International Studies 2nd Floor Conference Room 1616 Rhode Island Ave NW Washington DC | Register Here
With the demise of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and an unclear future for New START, U.S.-Russian arms control is in dire condition. Some experts in both capitals question the feasibility or necessity of further bilateral arms control. However, any U.S. and Russian administration will face the task of managing its own arsenal and relations with a nuclear armed competitor, which requires some level of arms control—formal or informal. How do Moscow and Washington approach this task? What are most immediate concerns and what could be on the table in the future negotiations? How possible is trilateral arms control with China? What are the arms control mechanisms short of formal treaties? Andrey Baklitskiy, visiting fellow with the Russia and Eurasia Program, will present his analysis of the different options for U.S.-Russian arms control.
The event will be webcast live from this page.
Speakers:
Andrey Baklitskiy, Visiting Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
Jeffrey Mankoff, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
Impacts and Implications of the 2020 Taiwanese Elections | January 16, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM | Brookings Institute Falk Auditorium 1775 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Washington DC | Register Here
Taiwan held elections for the president and all the members of the Legislative Yuan on January 11. Although President Tsai Ing-wen had maintained a strong lead in the polls, there were questions about the reliability of some polls. Moreover, the outcome of the legislative elections was very uncertain. China, which has long made clear its dislike of the Tsai administration, had predictably intensified its pressure campaign against Tsai and Taiwan, hoping to impact these elections. In the end, Tsai Ing-wen was reelected, and the Democratic Progressive Party maintained its majority in the Legislative Yuan.
On January 16, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution will host a panel of policy experts for a discussion on the results of the elections and their implications for domestic governance in Taiwan, relations between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, U.S.-Taiwan relations, and other policy implications.
Speakers
Jacques deLisle is the Director of the Asia Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute
Alexander C. Huang is the Director of the Institute of Strategic Studies and the Institute of American Studies
Thomas Wright is the Director of the Center on the United States and Europe and Senior Fellow in Project on International Order and Strategy at the Brookings Institute.
Yun Sun is a nonresident Fellow with the Africa Growth Initiative. She also serves as co-director of the East Asia Program, and Director of the China Program at the Stimson Center.
Richard C. Bush (moderator) is the Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute and holds the Chen-Fu and Cecilia Yen Koo Chair in Taiwan Studies in the Center for East Asia Policy Studies (CEAP).
Reconstruction in the Civil War Zones of the Middle East | January 16, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | The Middle East Institute 1763 N Street NW Washington DC | Register Here
The civil wars in the Middle East have taken a massive humanitarian toll on Syrian, Iraqi, Yemeni and Libyan societies, and have disrupted the regional political and economic order of this already tumultuous region.
The Middle East Institute is pleased to invite you to a panel discussion addressing ways for mitigating the effects of these violent and destructive conflicts. The panel will showcase the findings of the recently released book Fractured Stability: War Economies and Reconstruction in the MENA, edited by former diplomat Luigi Narbone, and contributed to by Professor Steven Heydemann. The panel discussion will answer questions such as, what does it mean to exit a civil war conflict economy? What is required to restore economic and political normalcy in countries in civil war? The panel will also address how the rebuilding of hard infrastructure is necessary, but that equally important for reaching and sustaining stability is the forging of new social contracts and establishment of new political and economic norms. Another area that will be explored is how changes at the regional and international levels have influenced possibilities for post-conflict economic reconstruction, and what regional and international preconditions are necessary for a successful reconstruction and transition to peace.
The Middle East Institute has established itself as a thought leader in providing a better understanding of the causes of these conflicts. It has just launched a book “Escaping the Conflict Trap: Toward Ending Civil Wars in the Middle East“, and participated in the World Bank’s Building For Peace project. Stay tuned for announcements of future MEI sponsored events that offer important findings about both the underlying causes and possible remedies for these civil conflicts.
Speakers:
Ross Harrison is a senior fellow at The Middle East Institute and is on the faculty of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.
Steven Heydemann is a nonresident Senior Fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution.
Luigi Narbone is Director of the Middle East Directions Programme at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute.
Francesca Recanatini is a Senior Public Sector Specialist in Governance at the World Bank
Paul Salem (moderator) is President of the Middle East Institute
Deconstructing the Soleimani Killing: Implications for the Region and Beyond | January 16, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | Arab Center Washington DC, National Press Club First Amendment Lounge 529 14th St., NW Washington DC | Register Here
Speakers
Daniel Brumberg is an Associate Professor of Government at Georgetown University and a nonresident Senior Fellow at the Arab Center Washington DC
Abbas Kadhim is the Director of Iraq Initiative and Resident Senior Fellow of Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council
Negar Mortazavi is an Iranian-American journalist and media analyst for BBC, Al Jazeera, and CGTN
Reframing the U.S.- Pakistan Strategic Relationship: A Conversation with Foreign Minister Qureshi | January 16, 2020 | 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM | Center for Strategic International Studies 1616 Rhode Island Ave NW Washington DC | Register Here
For the last 20 years, the relationship between Pakistan and the United States has been refracted through the prism of Afghanistan.
Pakistan and the U.S. have a shared interest in working toward peace in Afghanistan. Pakistan and the U.S. have an opportunity to reframe the bilateral relationship. Prime Minister Imran Khan’s meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House last July is seen as a turning point for the two countries after a difficult period.
There is a good case for a broader Pakistan-U.S. partnership: Pakistan is the fifth most populous country in the world, located in a central geographic part of the world, has the largest percentage of young people globally, and is the native land of over one million affluent and politically engaged Pakistani Americans. There is tremendous investment opportunity for U.S. companies in Pakistan’s enormous energy, agriculture, and tourism sectors.
Please join us for a conversation with Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi of Pakistan as he lays out his vision for the Pakistan-U.S. relationship.
The event will be webcast live from this page.
Speakers
John J. Hamre is President and CEO of CSIS
Daniel F. Runde is the Senior Vice President and Director of the Project on Prosperity and Development.
Seth G. Jones is the Director of the Transnational Threats Project and Senior Adviser to the International Security Program.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
US-Iran tensions in Iraq
The US assassination of Qasem Soleimani coupled with the Iranian missile retaliation against US bases in Iraq served as the underlying framework for the Atlantic Council’s event: US-Iran Tensions Rising with Iraq in the Middle: Analysis of Future Scenarios and Policy Implications. The event took place on Thursday January 9 and was divided into two segments: a panel discussion and two keynote speeches. The panel featured three regional experts: Atlantic Council Iraq Initiative Director Abbas Kadhim, Future of Iran Initiative Director Barbara Slavin, and Nonresident Senior Fellow Thomas S. Warrick. The panel was moderated by William F. Wechsler, the Director of Atlantic Council Middle East Programs.
Below are the highlights from the panel portion of the event:
Iraq: from bad to worse
While moderator Wechsler proclaimed that the US and Iran had walked back from the precipice of war, the panelists emphasized the precarious and dire situation the US, Iran, and Iraq are all currently in. Kadhim bluntly proclaimed that these attacks “could not have come at a worse time for Iraq.” Reports indicate that over 300 Iraqis have been killed and hundreds wounded from state violence responding to last fall’s protests. This caused disenchantment with the government, resulting in its resignation. Kadhim emphasized that this was the first time post-2003 that an Iraqi Prime Minister has resigned, plunging the nation into uncharted territory.
Kadhim provided two profound insights on the recent missile strike in Iraq and the Iraqi vote to expel US troops. To the first point he professed, “there is no such thing as US bases in Iraq — they are all Iraqi bases now,” underlining how detrimental the relationship between the US and Iran is for Iraq, particularly in terms of military development, economic rebuilding, and the creation of a new government. Secondly, Kadhim underlined Iraq’s energy dependence on Iran. He added that he believes the Iraqi government is reluctantly trying to get American troops out of Iraq because these troops are at risk. Kadhim emphasized many times that this is not in fact a hostile move on Iraq’s part, but more a security concern.
The panelists all noted that the attack occurred at a moment when Shia radicals can easily be mobilized, which could subsequently lead to the marginalization of Sunnis. This would provide ISIS with an ideal political climate to grow and multiply in.
Iran: hardliners strengthened
Wechler noted the incredibly quick ‘successes’ that Iran achieved in the region. Hours prior to the assassination of Soleimani, Iran was struggling to have a foothold in Iraq, even within Shia communities, but immediately after, Iran entirely reversed this situation. Iran has effectively accomplished its larger goal of expelling the US from Iraq while also uniting Iranians, with Soleimani revered as a martyr.
Slavin highlighted the nationalistic mourning process that is still continuing in Iran today, a week after Soleimani’s death. She cautioned that this sudden Iranian unification and the intense vilification of the US will carry a lot of weight in the upcoming February parliamentary elections. Iranian hardliners who oppose the US will be stronger candidates than ever. Warrick warned that Iran will ramp up covert intelligence within Iraq and will play a considerable role in intimidating and forcing the selection of new Iraqi leaders. There is little the United States can now do, but the possibility of a true Iraqi democracy is now in jeopardy.
Warrick succinctly presented the four possible attack vectors that Iran could utilize. The first vector is the symmetrical one. Iran is much more predictable than the media portrays it to be and theories of Iran performing recklessly are unfounded. Warrick noted that Iran has not chosen state-sponsored terrorism as a primary way to change US policy since 2011, when the IRGC initiated an attack in Saudi Arabia. The second vector is cyber threats. Iran has become versatile and quick in utilizing cyber warfare. Thirdly, Iran will mount disinformation operations . Lastly, Warrick fears Iran’s ability to influence operations, as referenced in this 2018 Wired Article. Slavin noted that regardless of which approach Iran takes, it should be assumed there will be continued Iranian covert actions in the region.
Geopolitics:
The tense US-Iran relationship has profound global implications. Slavin suggested that Turkey, Russia, and China will all gain more unrestricted power in the region. This will not only alter the landscape in Iraq but also in Syria and possibly the Gulf. Slavin noted the possibility of China sending its navy to patrol the Persian Gulf, challenging the role of the US in the region.
Slavin maintained that the US and Iran will have to engage in multilateral diplomacy, as she believes there is no chance of Iran sitting at a bilateral table with President Trump. Slavin also noted that there is no way for peace discussions to occur without sanctions relief, which are already being employed as a weapon of war. Kadhim strongly disagreed. Regardless of the terminology used to classify the relationship between the US and Iran, Slavin noted that last week changed the rules of engagement on Iraqi soil.
Following the panel discussion were two keynote speeches from Senator Murphy and Congressman Moulton. Read the Atlantic Council’s recap of their conversation here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Better Middle East policy
On Wednesday January 8, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) hosted an event titled The Land of Endless Wars: What Really Causes Instability in the Middle East? to showcase the recently published book co-edited by AEI Resident Scholar, Michael Rubin. The book, Seven Pillars: What Really Causes Instability in the Middle East? served as a launching point for the panel, which was comprised of three of the book’s authors and two editors: Michael Rubin, a Resident Scholar at AEI, Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-editor of the book, and A.Kadir Yildirim Fellow for the Middle East at the Baker Institute and chapter author.
The key takeaways from the discussion are consolidated here:
Reform Islam
Katulis, while noting the multiplicity of factors involved in ISIS’s rise to power, specifically credited its ability to exploit and act upon the failed responsiveness of local governance. Many of the seeds of instability were the result of local government’s failure to respond effectively to and engage with its people. All three panelists agreed that ISIS exploited religion to leverage and gain power, rather than focusing on the particularities of faith. Yildirim noted that the rise of religious-backed regimes was a result of the failure of secular ideologies, particularly their failure to deliver on promises. This failure, Yildirim claims, led to the rise of Islamist, Salafists, and other radical religious groups.
Yildirim underlined that Islam is not by nature different than other religions in terms of its ability to act as a stabilizing or disruptive force. The panelists largely agreed in their overall response to the moderator’s question regarding whether or not Islam needs reforming. While their individual interpretations and explanations varied, each agreed that reform is needed.
Katulis alluded to a more hands-off approach, stating that the United States should not play a substantive role in initiating reform. On the other hand, Rubin insinuated that the United States should help shine the international spotlight on different Muslim schools of thought. He used the example of Saudi Arabia as an Islamic thought producer that consistently receives more international attention than Moroccan schools of thought. Yildirim posited that there is a still a clash between modernity and Islam; many of the deep-seated issues with Islam are a result of this relationship. No panelist provided a clear, descriptive answer as to how best to ignite reform or what reform really consists of.
Revitalize diplomacy
The discussion around the role of diplomacy commenced with Rubin’s remark about the continual ripple effect of Benghazi and its aftermath. Rubin highlighted that one of the fallouts from Benghazi was that diplomats are more isolated. Katulis concurred and further emphasized that diplomats should be engaging with the public sphere as a method of completing one of their essential duties: identifying local social trends and sentiments. Instead of American diplomats engaging on the local level and establishing human connections and trust, it appears that the US government is focusing on military moves. This generates mutually reinforcing cycles of violence and mistrust.
Raising Voices, Not Forces
The panel touched upon the historic role of the United States military in the region, which led to the discussion of more recent interventions and if they are worthwhile. The moderator cited the expense of trillions of US dollars spent only to have more coups and unrest in the region. Katulis warned against the promotion of war, as wars increase the hardline interpretation of religion, allowing the cycles to feed off each other.
In connection with the aforementioned discussion of reforming islam, Rubin and Katulius emphasized that the US should help provide local safe spaces for reform and debate to take place in. In addition, the US should internationally condemn the imprisonment and execution of reformists who are vilified in these ‘safe spaces’ by oppressive regimes. The US should be mobilizing governments through outrage, rather than through military power.
Yildirim agreed, but added the caveat that these ‘safe spaces’ and the way in which they are created are important because of the constant anti-Western interventionist trope. In response to Yildirim’s caution against undermining the local government, Rubin countered that at some point you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t, thereby suggesting military use might be necessary at times despite it not being an ideal solution.
RSS - Posts
