Category: Bouela Lehbib
At a crossroads
The Arab Center for Washington DC hosted a panel discussion April 4 about “Algeria’s Protests and the Prospects for Change.” The panel included Marina Ottaway, Middle East Fellow at The Wilson Center, Geoff D. Porter, president of North Africa Risk Consulting Inc., Hugh Roberts, Edward Keller Professor of North African and Middle Eastern History at Tufts University, and Sara Yerkes, Middle East fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Roberts spoke about the unanimity and uniformity of the Algerian protests demanding the ailing president, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, step down. Six Fridays of protest passed so far in a friendly manner: people chanting the slogan “the system must depart.” Although the president has resigned, it is much harder to get the entire system to leave, as it would be impossible to import a new one. Elements of the system should be preserved, Roberts said, but unfortunately the protesters have not yet come to this conclusion.
According to Roberts, the protests were successful in large part due to support from groups like National Organization of Mujahideen (veterans), lawyers, judges, school teachers, and some radical political parties. Most importantly, Gaid Salah, vice minister of defense, who was appointed by the resigned president and supported him in the past, has also aligned himself with the uprising. The military will try to convince ex-President Liamine Zerwoual, known for his integrity and transparency, to run the transitional period. Failing to do so, it could be hard to legitimize the presidency with the people.
Ottaway note that Algeria was widely viewed as immune to the 2011 Arab Spring. Eight years later that was no longer the case, as Algerians took to the street and high-level officials around the president sacrificed him. It is however still unclear whether the opposition can force a new system. The outcome of the uprising in Algeria will be determined not by how soon elections are held, but by how successful the regime’s opponents are in moving from protest in the street to becoming participants in the transition. Protesters need to remain in the streets to put pressure on the regime, while also organizing to become effective political players. Tunisia offers an example of a slow transition with broad-based participation that led to real change. By contrast, Egypt embarked on a much faster process with narrow participation, resulting in an entrenched militay.
Yerkes gave an overview of the effect of the Algerian protests on neighboring countries, mainly Morocco and Tunisia. Morocco said it “will not interfere or comment” on the Algerian protests. Morocco hopes the new Algerian government will reach an agreement regarding the Western Sahara conflict. Morocco is also worried it could be next, as most North African presidents have either been ousted or run away. While Moroccans favor the Algerian protests, the government would rather see the situation return to normality. In Tunisia, there is a big worry the insecurity will affect the Western border between the two countries, which was once a harbor for terrorists. Tunisia won’t be able to handle chaos in Libya and in Algeria. Tunisia’s president has not said a word about the Algerian protest movement, but he would like to see his country’s “successful spring” being replicated elsewhere.
Porter argues the political structure of Algeria has not changed since independence. There are four elements that make it unique:
- War veterans are held in high esteem but have lost their connection with young people.
- The military does not know where its role starts and ends, and whether it is a political actor or only a guarantor of stability.
- People have a kind of blind trust in the military reflected in the slogan “Army and the people are brothers.”
- Rule of law is uncertain.
Bottom line: the government is emphasizing the importance of consensus at this critical juncture, but the reason for the current situation is lack of consensus, in particular on a new president. Where this crossroads will lead is still unclear.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No way out
A few weeks ago, the second round of UN-led peace talks between Morocco and the Polisario independence movement ended in Geneva without substantial progress that would bridge the parties’ contradicting positions. Morocco insists on a form of autonomy for the Western Sahara territory under its sovereignty, while the Polisario Front clings to a referendum on self-determination.
A former Spanish colony, Morocco annexed the mineral-rich Western Sahara in 1975. Sixteen years of bloody war between Morocco and Polisario Liberation Front ended with a UN-brokered ceasefire in 1991, enabling a self-determination referendum for the Saharawi people to choose between independence or integration into Morocco. The UN mission for the referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) deployed to supervise the democratic transition. Yet the referendum has not taken place due in large part to the parties’ disagreement over who gets to vote, as well as the “winner takes all” solution.
In March 1997, the then UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, appointed James Baker, former US Secretary of State, as a personal envoy to Western Sahara. Baker put forth two additional proposals: The Baker plan I in 2001(also known as the Framework Agreement) and Baker Plan II in 2003. Although his last plan won Security Council endorsement, neither got both parties’ approval. In 2004, Baker resigned, lacking the full support from the Security Council to enforce a solution. UN mediators who came afterward were doomed to failure, putting the issue in the textbook of frozen conflicts.
In 2007, Morocco offered an autonomy plan that would give the Saharawi people the power to run their executive, legislative and judicial affairs under Moroccan sovereignty. Polisario Front put forth a parallel proposal: a referendum on self-determination giving wide guarantees to Moroccan settlers if it lead to independence. The seemingly irreconcilable proposals stalled negotiations in 2012, undermining the efforts of the then UN mediator, former US ambassador, Christopher Ross. The deadlock continued for over six years. This stagnant situation has prompted recurrent tensions between the parties on the UN-monitored buffer zone between Moroccan- and Polisario-controlled territory. The possibility of war looms.
Last December, in a speech at the Heritage Foundation displaying the Trump administration’s new Africa strategy, National Security Advisor John Bolton made clear the US would like to see a self-determination referendum take place. This new US approach to the conflict was also reflected at the level of the Security Council when the US shortened MINURSO’s periodic one-year mandate to six months, tying its renewal to progress on the ground. The US representative at the UN stated “there is no business as usual” regarding this issue, signaling the US willingness to push towards a final solution to the conflict.
The current active US involvement in the long-standing dispute has generated momentum. After six years of deadlock, the UN Special Envoy to Western Sahara, former German President Horst Kohler, has been able to bring the parties to the table. Yet the parties’ views are fundamentally diverging; Morocco seeks no solution beyond sovereignty over the territory, while the Polisario Front is committed to the principle of self-determination.
Based on the current UN paradigm, a “realistic, practicable and enduring solution based on a compromise which would provide the Saharawi people for self-determination” seems impossible to achieve. Morocco sees autonomy as a practicable and realistic form of self-determination, while Polisario Front considers giving the people the right to decide their future as the most viable and realistic solution. Since 2001, no single plan has so far won the parties agreement.
Shortening MINURSO’s mandate to six months has broken the deadlock, but it is still not enough to yield positive results. Without an existential threat–such as expelling MINURSO, which would trigger a war the parties cannot handle–there is no “zone of possible agreement.”
There are two other possible options:
- Compelling the parties to accept a tailored compromise in which they either both win or both lose.
- A drastic change in the region, bringing new governments seeking regional integration and willing to end this conflict.
Something like the latter is already underway in Algeria. But unless something more serious starts to happen in Morocco, the low -intensity conflict in Western Sahara is likely to remain a frozen conflict.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks April 8-12
1. From war to peace: the Balkans, Middle East and Ukraine| Wednesday, April 10, 2019 | 12:30am- 2:30| The Middle East Institute | 1319 18th St. NW, Washington D.C. 20036| Register Here |
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a book talk with MEI Scholar Daniel Serwer, the director of John Hopkins SAIS’s conflict management and American foreign policy programs and the author ofFrom War to Peace: the Balkans, the Middle East and Ukraine.
In his book, Serwer explores how lessons learned from peacebuilding initiatives in the Balkans in the 1990s can be applied to conflicts in the Middle East. Serwer draws comparisons between the sectarian, ethnic, and religious divides of the Balkans in the 1990s and similar tensions in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. He also explores the impact of policies such as conflict prevention, engagement of neighbors, the establishment of safe zones, partition, decentralization, and power sharing arrangements, and how they can be effectively utilized, or not, in the Middle East.
Speakers
Daniel Serwer, , author
Scholar, MEI; director, Conflict Management and American Foreign Policy program, John Hopkins SAIS
Randa Slim, discussant
Senior fellow and director of Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues program, MEI
Paul Salem, moderator, President, MEI
2. Youth: the missing peace | Tursday, April 11, 2019 | 10:00am – 12:00pm | United States Institute for Peacr | 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037| Register Here|
Join USIP and the Global Coalition on Youth, Peace and Security for an interactive, intergenerational conversation with the study’s lead author, Graeme Simpson, as well as youth and peacebuilding experts and young peacebuilders from around the world.
The event will look at the two-year evidence gathering process—which engaged more than 4,000 young people around the world and has been heralded as “possibly the most participatory process ever undertaken by the U.N.”—to draw out key lessons and recommendations regarding what works in the field of youth, peace and security, and what prevents youth’s meaningful inclusion in peace and security efforts. The conversation will also look forward, with an eye toward sustaining UNSCR 2250’s momentum and cementing our commitment to the role of youth people in preventing conflict and contributing to sustainable peace.
Speakers
Nancy Lindborg, welcoming remarks,
President, U.S. Institute of Peace
Aubrey Cox, Program Officer, Youth, U.S. Institute of Peace
Giannina Raffo, Youth Peace Leader, Venezuela
Graeme Simpson, Lead Author of the Progress Study and Director, Interpeace USA
Noella Richard, moderator, Youth Team Leader, United Nations Development Program
Saji Prelis, closing remarks
Director of Children & Youth Programs, Search for Common Ground
3. Will Sisi be Egypt president for life | Monday, April 8, 2019 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace| 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103| Register Here|
The Egyptian parliament is in the process of finalizing amendments to the 2014 constitution that would allow President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to stay in office for twenty years, increase military control of politics, and end judicial independence. U.S. President Donald Trump has invited Sisi to Washington for a visit prior to a public referendum on the proposed amendments.
Please join the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Project on Middle East Democracy for a discussion of the ramifications of the amendments and Sisi’s visit for the future of Egypt, the U.S.-Egypt relationship, and for regional peace.
Speakers:
MOATAZ EL FEGIERY, general coordinator for the Egyptian Human Rights Forum.
MAI EL-SADANY, legal and judicial director for the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy.
MICHELE DUNNE, Director and senior fellow of the Carnegie Middle East Program.
SUSAN B. GLASSER, staff writer at the New Yorker.
4. The Taiwan Relations Act at Forty and U.S.-Taiwan Relations| Tuesday, April 9, 2019 | 8:30 am – 5:00pm | Center for Strategic and International Study | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036| Register Here|
The Taiwan Relations Act, enacted by the United States Congress in April 1979, authorized continued “commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan” in the wake of the U.S. decision to establish diplomatic ties with the People’s Republic of China. By authorizing the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and other provisions, the TRA created a framework for relations between the U.S. and Taiwan which has enabled their partnership and friendship to thrive in the absence of diplomatic relations.
In observance of the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, this daylong public conference will feature analysis of the creation and implementation of the TRA, and how it continues to guide U.S.-Taiwan relations and interaction among Taiwan, China, and the United States.
This conference is co-hosted by CSIS, the Brookings Institution, and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
8:35am Opening Remarks
John Hamre (President and CEO, CSIS)
8:45am Welcome Speech
Stanley Kao (Representative, Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States) (Introduced by Bonnie Glaser)
8:55am Speaker Introduction
Richard Armitage (President, Armitage International and CSIS Trustee)
9:00am VTC Speech and Q&A
Her Excellency President Tsai Ing-wen of the Republic of China (Taiwan)
Q&A Moderator: Michael Green (Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan Chair, CSIS / Director of Asian Studies, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service)
9:45am Coffee Break
10:00am Panel One: Looking Back on U.S.-Taiwan Relations Since 1979
Moderator: Richard Bush (Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution)
Panelist 1: The TRA and the U.S. One-China Policy
Stephen Young (Former Director, American Institute in Taiwan)
Panelist 2: Cross-Strait Relations and U.S.-Taiwan Relations
Steven Goldstein (Associate, Harvard Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies)
Panelist 3: The Evolution of the U.S.-Taiwan Security Partnership
Shirley Kan (Former Specialist in Asian Security Affairs, Congressional Research Service)
11:15am Coffee Break
11:30am Speech and Q&A
Legislator Bi-khim Hsiao (Legislative Yuan)
(Introduced by Bonnie Glaser)
12:15pm Keynote Remarks
Representative Gerald Connolly (D-Virginia)
(Introduced by Richard Bush)
1:00pm Lunch
1:30pm Panel Two: Taiwan’s Strategic Environment Today
Moderator: Bonnie Glaser (Senior Adviser for Asia and Director of the China Power Project, CSIS)
Panelist 1: Taiwan’s Changing Security Environment
Michael Chase (Senior Political Scientist, RAND Corporation)
Panelist 2: How Taiwan Should Ensure Economic Competitiveness
Eric Altbach (Senior Vice President, Albright Stonebridge Group)
Panelist 3: Taiwan’s Options Regarding China
Susan Thornton (Former Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs)
Panelist 4: U.S.-Taiwan Economic Ties
Da-nien Daniel Liu (Director of the Regional Development Study Center, Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research)
2:45pm Panel Three: The Next Forty Years
Moderator: Abraham Denmark (Director of the Asia Program, Wilson Center)
Panelist 1: The TRA’s Continuing Relevance to U.S. Policy
Robert Sutter (Professor of Practice of International Affairs, George Washington University)
Panelist 2: China’s Strategies Toward Taiwan and Taiwan/U.S. Responses
Ryan Hass (David M. Rubenstein Fellow – Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution)
Panelist 3: Taiwan’s Future Sources of Strength and Weakness
Jacques deLisle (Professor of Law & Political Science, University of Pennsylvania)
4:00pm Coffee Break
4:15pm Speech and Q&A
W. Patrick Murphy (Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of State Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs)
(Introduced by Abraham Denmark)
5:00pm Conference End
5. China’s Influence Activities: Implications for the US-Taiwan Relationship| Monday, April 8, 2019 | 4:00pm-5:15| The Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St NW, Washington, DC 20005| Register Here |
Last week, a bipartisan group of senators introduced the Taiwan Assurance Act, which reaffirms the US commitment to Taiwan forty years after the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act. As China exerts increasing pressure against Taiwan’s position in the region, Taiwan’s leaders have sought greater support from the United States. Given US interests in the Indo-Pacific, what diplomatic, economic, and security steps should the United States take to signal support for Taiwan as a democratic partner in the region? What opportunities and challenges do the United States and Taiwan face moving forward? Where do US-Taiwan relations fit into the broader strategic picture?
KEYNOTE REMARKS BY
H.E. Bi-khim Hsiao, Legislator, Legislative Yuan, Taiwan
FEATURING
Mr. Ian Easton, Research Fellow Project 2049 Institute
Mr. Michael Mazza, Visiting Fellow, Foreign & Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Mr. Barry Pavel, Senior Vice President, Arnold Kanter Chair, and Director, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
6. SSANSE Project: Symposium on Russia and China’s Political Interference Activities in NATO Small States| Monday, April 8, 2019 | 8:45 am – 12:15pm | The Wilson Center | 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004-3027| Register Here |
For both Russia and China, foreign political interference activities are a useful and cost-effective method of foreign policy. In Russia it is theorized as “smart power”, while China still uses the Soviet-era term “united front work”. The activities of Russia and China go well beyond accepted norms of public diplomacy and are having a corrupting and corrosive effect on many societies. This half-day symposium focuses on Russia and China’s Political Interference Activities in NATO Small States. The world is seeing a return of both “might is right” politics and spheres of influence. As history has shown, the weakness of small states in a time of rising security threats can undermine the security of larger powers. The Symposium examines case studies of some representative small NATO states experiencing Russia and China’s political interference activities, the patterns of interference to look for, and discusses what is to be done.
Speakers:
Neringa Bladaitė, University of Vilnius
Anne-Marie Brady, Wilson Center/University of Canterbury
Donald J. Jensen, Center for European Policy Analysis
Ryan Knight, Georgetown University
Martin Hála, Charles University
Margarita Šešelgytė, University of Vilnius
Khamza Sharifzoda, Georgetown University
Mark Stokes, 2049 Project
Alan Tidwell, Georgetown University
Baldur Thorhallson, University of Iceland
Moderator: Abe Denmark, Asia Program, Wilson Center
AGENDA:
8:45am – Panel One
Donald J. Jensen: Assessing Contemporary Russian Interference Activities
Anne-Marie Brady: Magic Weapons? An Overview of CCP Interference Activities
Mark Stokes: Huawei and One Thousand Talents: China’s military links and technology transfer activities
Ryan Knight: Russia’s use of the Orthodox Church in Small NATO states
Alan Tidwell: Active Measures: Lessons Learned from the Past
10:10am – Morning tea
10:30am – Panel Two
Martin Hála: The CCP’s Magic Weapons at work in the Czech Republic
Khamza Sharifzoda: Armenia’s Struggle: Escaping the Kremlin
Baldur Thorhallson: Iceland’s engagements with Russia and China
Neringa Bladaite: Russia’s Political Interference Activities in Latvia
Margarita Šešelgytė: Russia and China’s Political Interference Activities and Lithuania
The Small States and the New Security Environment (SSANSE) Project is funded by NATO-SPS
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The US and Iran at loggerheads
Brookings held a panel discussion March 28 about constraining Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, with Richard Nephew, Senior fellow at the Center of Twenty-first century, Vann H. Van Diepen, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, and Suzanne Maloney, Deputy director at the Center for Middle East Policy.
Nephew argues the US current strategy towards Iran won’t work and recommends a renewed diplomatic approach. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was a good agreement and should serve as the basis for future negotiations. Especially important are provisions that deal with transparency, the plutonium path, and controls on uranium enrichment. Renewed talks and economic pressure will enable the US to achieve a more durable agreement with Iran.
Iran however is no longer so keen on the JCPOA, because it has not gotten the sanctions relief it anticipated. This was a problem even before Donald Trump became president. With the passage of time, new issues are emerging, especially the question of when the agreement will end (“sunset”). The existing sunset provisions of the JCPOA might have made sense in the context of more diplomacy and engagement between the US and Iran. But the current confrontation limits the opportunities for diplomacy.
Van gave an overview of the Iranian missile program. Iran can already cause serious disruption of regional targets. The situation will get worse Iranian missile accuracy improves.
Iran is determined to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles able to reach the US. It is developing the necessary ICBM technology, including making intermediate-range ICBMs mobile. It is also developing a large liquid-propellant rocket engine in cooperation with North Korea in addition to a solid rocket motor produced in Iran. Iranian missile forces already pose a threat to the US and its allies in the region. Van believes the US should focus on deterring attacks and intimidation and delaying Iran capability that can reach beyond the immediate region, especially the US.
Maloney stated the sanctions have had a tremendous impact on Iran’s trade and investment. The value of the currency has plummeted and oil exports are half what they were prior to the sanctions. Growth is slowing, with a shortage in key commodities.
This situation has had a political impact, leading to some reshuffling at the top of the government, resignations and impeachment, as well as eroding to some extent the legitimacy of the government. The Islamic Republic depends not only on religion and ideology but also on its capacity to deliver promises of a better life and social justice.
But sanctions alone are not a strategy; they are a means to an end. The Trump administration has left ambiguity about what the end might be: regime change, a bigger and better nuclear deal, or simply leaving Iran stewing in deteriorating economic and international relations.
Maloney thinks Iran can manage this impasse, as it did in the past under even greater economic strain. Tehran has survived a long period of isolation. But it cannot escape economic constraints without a conversation with the US. Iran could restart its nuclear program and provoke more crisis in the region, but that will not solve the economic crisis, which is the high priority for Iranian leaders.
The US also faces a stalemate. There is no evidence the Trump administration is looking at the various contingencies, thinking about how it is going to respond, and finding a way to direct the Iranians toward the most constructive option, which is negotiation. The Americans need a clearer strategy that can garner bipartisan support.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks 1-5
1. What´s Next for the Rohingya?| Tuesday, April 2, 2019 | 3:00 am – 4:30pm | The Wilson Center | 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004-3027| Register Here |
In August 2017, security forces in Burma’s Rakhine state staged a harsh and extended crackdown on the Rohingya—a deeply marginalized and persecuted Muslim minority community. Thousands are estimated to have died, while more than half a million fled to neighboring Bangladesh. United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres described the tragedy as ethnic cleansing. At this event, Dr. Nehginpao Kipgen, a top expert on Burma, will discuss developments involving the Rohingya since the 2017 crackdown, including key recent events, and what might be in store next for the troubled community. Does the political will exist in Burma to improve conditions for the Rohingya and to address the underlying issues that fuel their persecution? What will become of the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh? Dr. Kipgen will address these questions and more.
Speakers
Nehginpao Kipgen, Associate Professor and Executive Director at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies
Michael C. Davis, Fellow Professor of Law and International Affairs, Jindal Global University, Delhi, India
2. Ukraine’s Presidential Election| Tuesday, April 2, 2019 | 12:00pm| The Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St NW, Washington, DC 20005| Register Here |
The March 2019 presidential election is a pivotal event in Ukraine’s history. Outside attempts to influence the elections have been documented, particularly by the Kremlin, which has employed a full-range of hybrid tactics in Ukraine in an effort to destabilize the country.
Recognizing the high stakes, the Atlantic Council, the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, and the Transatlantic Commission on Election Integrity have established the Ukrainian Election Task Force. Working with other Ukrainian institutions and analysts–StopFake, Razumkov Centre, and Detector Media–the Task Force is a rapid-response team with the ability to monitor, evaluate, and disclose the full range of foreign subversive activities in Ukraine and to propose suitable responses.
Agenda
Panel One Discussion:
Dr. Anders Aslund, Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Mr. Carl Gershman, President, National Endowment for Democracy
Ms. Nataliya Bugayova, Director of Development and Research Fellow, Russia Team
Institute for the Study of War
Ambassador John Herbst, Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Moderated by:
Ms. Melinda Haring, Editor for Ukraine Alert, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Panel Two Discussion:
Mr. David J. Kramer, Senior Fellow Vaclav Havel Program for Human Rights and Diplomacy,
Ms. Laura Galante, Cyber Lead; Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Ukrainian Election Task Force; Atlantic Council
Mr. Jakub Kalenský, Disinformation Lead; Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Ukrainian Election Task Force; Atlantic Council
Mr. Oleksiy Melnyk, Kinetic Lead; Co-Director, Foreign Relations and International Security Programs
Moderated by:
Ms. Geysha Gonzalez, Deputy Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
3. Reform, Challenges and Adaptation: Egypt’s Evolving Economic Outlook| Tuesday, April 5, 2019 | 9:00pm- 10:30| The Middle East Institute | 1319 18th St. NW, Washington D.C. 20036| Register Here |
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a panel discussion on the future of Egypt’s economy. While Egypt’s recent economic reforms have made good inroads into improving the macroeconomic outlook, the pace of global development means that Egyptian businesses must work twice as hard to keep pace, and even harder if they want to pull ahead of the pack. Egypt’s state economy is huge, particularly in comparison with that of other emerging markets, but new reforms may give the private sector the opportunity to become Egypt’s growth engine.
Speakers
Sarah El-Battouty, Chairman and founder, ECOnsult
Girgis Abd El-Shahid, Managing partner, Shahid Law Firm
Tarek Tawfik, Chairman, Cairo Poultry Group; President, American Chamber of Commerce
Dalia Wahba, Chairman, CID Consulting
Mirette F. Mabrouk, moderator, Senior fellow and director of the Egypt program, MEI
4. Redefining U.S. national security: interlinkages with American society and foreign policy| Tuesday, April 5, 2019 | 9:00am- 19:00pm| Brookings Institution | 1775 Massachusetts Avenue N.W.Washington, DC 20036| Register Here |
President Donald Trump won the 2016 election largely by carrying Rust Belt states and doing especially well with a demographic skeptical of America’s role in the world regarding trade, investment, diplomacy, alliances, and immigration policy. His election has had consequences for U.S. foreign policy, from reducing foreign aid and pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, to imposing highly restrictive immigration policies and questioning numerous alliances.
Yet, U.S. foreign policy remains in flux as President Trump’s approach evolves, with the 2018 midterm elections demonstrating that many voters are not satisfied with the direction of the country. This situation provides a rich backdrop for debate, now and in the run-up to the 2020 political season, about how to best advance America’s interests at home and abroad.
Introduction
9:00 AM- 9:05 AM
Bonnie Jenkins, Executive Director – Nonresident Senior Fellow -The Brookings Institution
Discussion
9:05 AM – 9:30 AM
DISCUSSANT
Bonnie Jenkins, Executive Director, Nonresident Senior Fellow -The Brookings Institution
Jenkinsbd
Arsalan Suleman, Chair – America Indivisible
Panel I
US voting and US foreign policy: Regional focus
9:35 AM – 10:45 AM
MODERATOR
Michael E. O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow – The Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
Panelists
Jeannine Scott, Board President – Constituency for Africa
Sylvia Mishra, India-US Fellow in Public Interest Technology – New America
Asha Castleberry, Adjunct Professor – George Washington University
Jung H. Pak, SK-Korea Foundation Chair in Korea Studies, Senior Fellow – Center for East Asia Policy Studies
Laura Kupe, Counsel – Committee on Homeland Security, US House of Representatives
Emily Mendrala, Executive Director – Center for Democracy in the Americas
Panel II
US voting and new national security issues
10:45 AM – 11:55 AM
MODERATOR
Liza Arias, Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow – Center for Strategic & International Studies
PANELISTs
Uzra Zeya, President and CEO – Alliance for Peacebuilding
Daniel Lucey, Senior Scholar – O’Neill Institute, Georgetown University
Sean Shank, Vice President – BNY Mellon
Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, Member – Third Way Cyber Enforcement Initiative Advisory Board
Dr. Muhammad Fraser-Rahim, Executive Director – North America for Quilliam International
Closing
11:55 AM – 12:00 PM
Michael E. O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow -Director of Research, The Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
5. The Future of Statecraft | Tuesday, April 2, 2019 | 9:00 am – 4:45pm | Center for Strategic and International Study | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036| Register Here|
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) are pleased to host another conference as part of the Future Strategy Forum, an initiative to connect scholars who research national security with its leading practitioners.
The 2019 focus is “The Future of Statecraft” and will examine the future of great power cooperation, international institutions, and economic statecraft. The conference will feature a keynote conversation with former National Security Advisor Ambassador Susan Rice.
Conference Schedule
8:30 AM – 9:00 AM Registration and Breakfast
9:00 AM – 9:15 AM Welcome Remarks
Dr. Kathleen Hicks, Senior Vice President; Henry A. Kissinger Chair
Dr. Francis J. Gavin, Giovanni Agnelli Distinguished Professor and Director Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs Johns Hopkins SAIS
Ms. Sara Plana and Ms. Rachel Tecott , PhD Candidates, Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
9:15 AM – 10:45 AM Panel 1: “Great Power Cooperation”
Ms. Lindsey Ford, Director of Political-Security Affairs, Richard Holbrooke Fellow, and
Deputy Director of the Washington D.C. Office, Asia Society Policy Institute
Dr. Angela Stent, Director of the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies and Professor of Government and Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Distinguished Resident Fellow in African Studies, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University
Dr. Irene Wu, Former Fellow, Wilson Center and Georgetown University
Ms. Meg Guliford (Moderator), PhD Candidate, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University
10:45 AM – 11:00 AM Coffee Break
11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Panel 2: “International Institutions”
Dr. Esther Brimmer, Executive Director and CEO, NAFSA: Association of International Educators
Ms. Heather Conley, Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic; and Director, Europe Program, CSIS
Ms. Naima Green, PhD Candidate, Harvard University
Dr. Kristina Spohr, Helmut Schmidt Distinguished Professor, Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Dr. Mischa Thompson (Moderator), Director of Global Partnership, Policy, and Innovaiton, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
12:30 PM – 1:45 PM Lunch and Talk
1:45 PM – 3:15 PM Panel 3: “Economic Statecraft”
Ms. Elizabeth Rosenberg, Senior Fellow and Director, Energy Economics and Security Program, Center for a New American Security
Dr. Sarah Sewall, Speyer Family Foundation Distinguished Scholar, Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Ms. Camille Stewart, Esq., Cybersecurity Policy Fellow, New America
Ms. Tori K. Whiting, Jay Van Andel Trade Economist, Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Dr. Radha Iyengar Plumb (Moderator), Adjunct Economist, RAND Corporation
3:15 PM – 3:30 PM Coffee Break
3:30 PM – 4:45 PM Keynote Discussion with Ambassador Susan Rice
Ambassador Susan Rice, Former National Security Advisor and U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Dr. Kathleen Hicks (Moderator), Senior Vice President; Henry A. Kissinger Chair; Director, International Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
4:45 PM – 5:30 PM Closing Reception
6. State capture: how Conservatives Claimed Power and How to Restore Balance| Tuesday, April 5, 2019 | 12:30pm- 2:00pm| New America| 740 15th St NW #900 Washington, D.C. 20005| Register Here |
Over the past forty years, conservatives have mastered the art of pursuing policy change at the state level, while similar liberal efforts have floundered. Today, conservatives fully control 26 state legislatures and governorships — one of the largest advantages either party has had since the New Deal.
What did the party do right? How have conservatives learned from their mistakes over the years? And why have liberals struggled to build similar cross-state organizing clout?
In State Capture: How Conservative Activists, Big Businesses, and Wealthy Donors Reshaped the American States — and the Nation, Alex Hertel-Fernandez provides the first in-depth and accessible history of the rise of cross-state conservative lobbying groups, including the American Legislative Exchange Council, the State Policy Network, and Americans for Prosperity, documenting both their victories and their missteps over time. In his book, Hertel-Fernandez also spells out the specific policy consequences of conservative cross-state organizing, including its effects on labor market standards, unions, and the Affordable Care Act. The book also tracks liberal efforts to counter-balance the right and why they have frequently failed to match conservative scale and clout.
Presenters
Alex Hertel-Fernandez, Assistant Professor of Public Affairs, Columbia SIPA
Lydia Bean, Fellow, Political Reform Program at New America
Mark Schmitt, Director, Political Reform Program at New America
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Religion as power
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hosted a panel discussion March 19 about religious authority in the Middle East and its implications for US policy. The panel included Courtney Freer, Research Fellow at Middle East Center, Annele Sheline, Zwan Postdoctoral Fellow, Sharan Grewal, Fellow at Center for Middle East Policy, andYusuf Sarfati, Director of the Middle Eastern and South Asian Minor Program.
The following cases are a synopsis of studies showing the magnitude of religious authority in different Middle Eastern countries.
Turkey
Sarfati pointed out that though a layman, President Erdogan some Turks see him as commanding religious authority. His authority comes from a combination of his public performance of piety, charisma and his status as a graduate of an Islamic school, in addition to being leader of an Islamist party. At the same time, there is a wide segment of the society that does not trust him as a religious authority. There are many other outstanding religious figures who are not as well ranked as Erdogan but have gained trust as religious authorities such as Mehmet Gomez and Hayrettin Karaman, among others. Fethullah Gulen and Abu-Bakar Al Baghdadi are the least trusted and generally viewed negatively in Turkey. Unlike many other Muslim countries, religious authority in Turkey is confined to its borders and not influenced by religious authorities in Arab countries. Many Turks don’t approve religious leaders and show skepticism of religious authority. Official Islam and political Islam overlap. People believe in Islamism and support a state religion as two sides of the same coin.
Tunisia
Founded by Sheik Rachid Ghannouschi, Grewal argues that the Islamic party the Ennahda (Renaissance) has been the primary Islamic political party in Tunisia. It became a dominant political player after 2011, performing well in elections, but it is not widely seen as an authority in religious matters. Despite their linkage with and dependence on the Tunisian state, traditional religious authorities like the grand mufti and Imam of Zaytuna mosque have substantial popularity. Surprisingly, the Islamic State continues to wield considerable religious authority in Tunisia, even while domestic Salafi-Jihadis groups like Ansar-al Sharia do not.
Morocco
Sheline stated that the King Mohammed VI is considered the highest religious authority. This status reflects a taboo against questioning his authority as the Commander of Faithful. He has succeeded in establishing his religious credentials through state messaging. The King’s authority goes beyond the religious sphere. He bolsters Morocco´s soft power and strengthens strategic relationships with key allies. In the context of the war on terror, a demonstrable heritage of moderate Islam is a valuable commodity. Following 9/11 the government supported Sufism in hopes that it could serve as a counterbalance to extremist forms of Salafism. The palace’s promotion of moderation contributes to its liberalizing image while maintaining security and stability, making it an ideal partner in the eyes of the US and EU. The US should support the King’s initiative to promote moderate Islam without making it public, as that could undermine his religious standing.
Saudi Arabia
Freer asserted the most trusted religious leaders are among the official religious establishment. Shaykh Saad Bin Nasser Al-Shethri, who serves as advisor to the Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman is the most trusted. Also, Abdullah Al-Sheikh, the head of the Permanent Committee for Islamic Research and Issuing Fatwas, enjoys wide religious authority. Consensus exists among nationals and non-nationals due in part to the official state religious narrative. It holds considerable sway in the religious sector and society more broadly. The more institutionalized indigenous religious influence is, the more likely constituents are to adhere to their authority. While in other Middle East states, religious groups have mobilized support through their provision of social services, the Saudis do not, because of the welfare system in place. The wealthy rentier status of Saudi Arabia negates the effects of income levels on opinions about religion and religious authority.
RSS - Posts
