Category: Colin Tait
Peace Picks | September 23 – 27
1. How to Avoid the Arab Resource Curse | September 23, 2019 | 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM | Georgetown University-Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, 3700 O Street, N.W., 241 Intercultural Center (ICC), Washington, DC 20057, USA | Register Here
For over eighty years the Arab region has been deriving massive wealth from its natural resources. Nevertheless, its economic performance has been at the mercy of ebbs and flows of oil prices and its resources have been slowly depleting. The two critical questions are why and how Arab countries might escape the oil curse.
Institutions and Macroeconomic Policies in Resource-Rich Arab Economies focuses on the unique features of the Arab world to explain the disappointing outcomes of macroeconomic policy. It explores the interaction between oil and institutions to draw policy recommendations on how Arab countries can best exploit their oil revenues to avoid the resource curse. Case studies and contributions from experts provide an understanding of macroeconomic institutions (including their underlying rules, procedures and institutional arrangements) in oil-rich Arab economies and of their political economy environment, which has largely been overlooked in previous research.
The volume offers novel macroeconomic policy propositions for exchange rate regimes, fiscal policy and oil wealth distribution that is more consistent with macroeconomic stability and fiscal sustainability. These policy reforms, if implemented successfully, could go a long way in helping the resource-rich countries of the Arab region and elsewhere to avoid the oil curse.
Join CCAS for a book launch of the new volume, “Institutions and Macroeconomic Policies in Resource-rich Arab Economies,” featuring editors and contributing authors to the book.
Featuring
Joseph Sassoon (Discussion Chair) Professor, School of Foreign Service and History Department, Georgetown University
Ibrahim Elbadawi (Contributing Author) Minister of Finance and Economy, Republic of Sudan (joining via video call)
Shanta Devarajan (Contributing Author) Professor, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Hoda Selim (Volume Co-editor) Research Fellow, Economic Research Forum
Nada
Eissa (Discussant) Associate Professor,
McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University
2. A Climate of Concern: What Climate Change Means for Food Security and Political Stability in Africa | September 25, 2019 | 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Please join the CSIS Global
Food Security Project for a discussion with a panel of experts on the
relationship between climate change, political instability, and food security
using current events on the African continent as a lens. The emerging consensus
is that climate change poses significant national security
threats. However, specific linkages between climate change and
political instability are still opaque. As climate change reshapes the
agricultural landscape across Africa, there is concern that higher food prices
and falling yields will lead to widespread urban unrest and catalyze
participation in armed extremist movements.
Preceded by a keynote from Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), the discussion will
examine how climate change is interacting with demographic trends in Africa to
both heighten risks associated with agriculture in rural areas and those
associated with dependence on global markets in urban areas. Our panelists will
explore several issues such as how averting crisis in the face of climate
change and food insecurity will require:
- Better incorporation of agricultural production and food prices—both global and local—into risk assessments.
- Reinvestment in agricultural and transport infrastructure to reform global agricultural trade to make it more climate-resilient for consumers and producers in the developing world.
- Opportunities
to work with regional governments to develop more inclusive responses to manage
political and economic instability.
FEATURING
U.S. Senator (D-PA)
Vice President for Policy, U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP)
Director & Practice Head, Africa, Eurasia Group
Erin Sikorsky
Deputy Director, Strategic Futures Group, National Intelligence Council, Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Professor, Korbel School of
International Studies (University of Denver) & Director, Sié Chéou-Kang
Center for International Security and Diplomacy
3. Beyond the Brink: Escalation Dominance in the U.S.-China Trade War | September 25, 2019 | 2:30 PM – 5:00 PM | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
The U.S.-China trade war is unprecedented in size, scope, and importance. The potential economic costs of the conflict—and any decoupling it prompts—are enormous, not only to the United States and China but to the global economy. Nearly 18 months since escalation began, the path to resolution is still unclear.
In this event, senior experts will discuss the state of U.S.-China trade relations today and roll out a major CSIS report on escalation dynamics in economic conflict. The event will draw on game theory as well as observations of real-world escalation to help policymakers manage economic conflict with China.
Agenda:
Welcome
and Presentation of Findings
Matthew P. Goodman
Senior Vice President and Simon Chair in Political Economy, CSIS
Expert Panel Discussion
Scott Kennedy
Senior Adviser and Trustee Chair in Chinese Business and Economics, CSIS
William Reinsch
Senior Adviser and Scholl Chair in International Business, CSIS
Claire Reade
Senior Counsel, Arnold & Porter
Stephanie Segal
Senior
Fellow, Simon Chair in Political Economy, CSIS
4. Syria Study Group Releases Final Report | September 26, 2019 | 2:30 PM – 4:30 PM | U.S. Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Register Here
Well into its ninth year, the conflict in Syria is a devastating humanitarian tragedy and a source of regional instability with serious implications for U.S. national security. Last year, Congress directed USIP to facilitate the bipartisan Syria Study Group (SSG) in order to examine the current state of the conflict and make recommendations on the military and diplomatic strategy of the United States going forward.
The release of the SSG’s final report follows months of extensive consultations across a broad range of stakeholders and experts, as well as travel to the region. It represents the consensus of all twelve Congressionally-appointed SSG members and offers a bipartisan roadmap for the way ahead.
Please join the Syria Study Group for a panel
discussion and presentation of the final report’s assessments and
recommendations. The event will include a keynote address from Senator Jeanne
Shaheen (D-NH), who spearheaded the creation of the bipartisan study group.
Stay tuned for additional speaker updates. The list of SSG members can be seen here.
5. The Future of Nuclear Arms Control | September 26, 2019 | 12:15 PM – 1:30 PM | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave NW | Register Here
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is pleased to invite you to a discussion on The Future of Nuclear Arms Control with Mrs. Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland, and Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway, of The Elders.
Founded by Nelson Mandela, The Elders are a group of former heads of state and senior United Nations officials who work together for peace, justice and human rights. Robinson and Brundtland will present some of the key insights and recommendations for minimizing the dangers posed by nuclear weapons contained in the recent paper, Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.
Following the brief presentation, George Perkovich will lead a discussion with Robinson and Brundtland and then open the floor for dialogue with audience participants. A lite lunch will be served.
6. Governing in a Post-Conflict Country in Transition | September 27, 2019 | 10 AM | Johns Hopkins University – Kenney-Herter Auditorium 1740 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 | Register Here
Since 2011 and the fall of the Gaddafi regime in 2011, Libya has been going through a difficult and often violent transition. Mr. Serraj, the head of Libya’s Presidential Council and Prime Minister, who assumed office at the end of 2015, will share with us his experience in governing in such difficult post-conflict circumstances, the prospects for the future of Libya, and what the US and International Community can do to help.
Mr. Faiez Sarraj was born in Tripoli, Libya, in 1960. He currently serves as the President of the Presidential Council of Libya and the Prime Minister of the Government of National Accord.
Mr. Sarraj began his political career as a member of the National Dialogue Committee and he was elected to the House of Representatives for the District of Andalus in the city of Tripoli.
Mr. Sarraj had previously worked in the Libyan Social Security Fund, Department of Project Management. He served as a consultant in the Utilities Engineering Consultancy Office in Libya and worked in the private sector for an engineering project management firm. Moreover, Mr. Al-Sarraj worked as the chairman of the Housing Committee in the House of Representatives in Libya and was a member of the Energy Committee in the House of Representatives.
7. War Crimes in Syria: Identifying Perpetrators and Seeking Justice | September 27, 2019 | 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM | Middle East Institute, 1763 N Street NW Washington, District of Columbia 20036 | Register Here
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a joint panel with the Pro-Justice to launch the new book, Blacklist: Violations Committed by the Most Prominent Syrian Regime Figures and How to Bring Them to Justice.
Blacklist identifies and provides detailed information on nearly 100 individuals accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria over the past eight years. The book also sheds light on the crimes themselves and outlines potential political and judicial avenues available to bring the perpetrators to justice.
A panel of experts will delve into prospects for promoting transitional justice and accountability in Syria as part of any post-conflict scenario.
Speakers:
- Anne Barnard is a New York Times journalist who covers climate and environment for the Metro desk.
- Wael Sawah is the president and director of Pro-Justice.
- Charles Lister is a senior fellow and director of the Countering Terrorism and Extremism program at the Middle East Institute.
- Joyce Karam (moderator) is the Washington Correspondent for The National, a leading English daily based in Abu Dhabi, and an adjunct professor at George Washington University, school of Political Science.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Community empowerment > CVE
On September 18, the United States Institute of Peace hosted the RESOLVE Network 2019 Global Forum. This year, the topic of the forum was resetting priorities to address violent extremist threats. Several TED-style presentations and several panels were held throughout the day. Experts from around the world gathered to present their work and discuss the challenges extremist groups present.
The first of these panels was a discussion on non-state governance and “going local.” The discussants were Houda Abadi, the founder and Executive Director of Transformative Peace, Linda Bishai, a professorial lecturer at the GWU Elliot School of International Affairs, and Katherine Zimmerman, a research fellow at American Enterprise Institute. The panel was moderated by David Yang, the Vice President of the Applied Conflict Transformation Center at USIP.
Yang asked what going local meant for the panelists. Abadi responded by criticizing current counter extremist efforts as too focused on security operations over community building. She argued that ISIS still is in MENA, hyper localized and addressing grievances where a village’s government and Western powers could not. US countering violent extremism (CVE) strategy needs to shift from establishing counter narratives that attempt to combat radical jihadist views to creating counter offers to forge relationships with community members.
Zimmerman continued by discussing how communities have become fragile and violent extremist groups have filled a gap in governance. ISIS and other violent extremist organizations (VEOs) exchange predictable rule of law and a level of stability to a community for the ability to operate in their village.
Bishai suggested that the structural conditions that explain why locals turn to VEOs have been largely ignored and need to be thoroughly analyzed to create a strategy to counter them. Personnel working in these areas have a high rate of turnover and are unable to build trust with local community leaders. Abadi agreed and said the focus needs to be on empowering communities and not countering ideology. Metrics such as the number of extremists eradicated are not relevant. Understanding the mechanisms that turn people to these groups is need to establish long-term stability and counter VEOs.
Zimmerman said that going local is pivotal for CVE. Local nuances have been overlooked by Western practitioners in MENA and other regions. Western practitioners must understand the local context as well or better than VEOs to effectively counter the proliferation of radical ideology. Bishai suggested that vocabulary ought to be changed to community empowerment rather than CVE or other aggressive terminology. Locals feel as if they are considered an enemy to Westerners and not a partner in combating extremism. Abadi confirmed that sentiment and stated that in her field work, local people feel as if they are “lab rats” in an experiment for foreign entities to figure out what strategies work to counter extremists. The counter terrorism paradigm needs to end and move towards building communities from a hyper localized starting point.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Confrontation intensifies
On September 12, The Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington (AGSIW) hosted a panel discussion entitled, “As Maximum Pressure and Maximum Resistance Max Out, Where’s the Confrontation with Iran Headed?”. The panel consisted of Ali Alfoneh, Senior Fellow at AGSIW, Dina Esfandiary, International Security Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, and Kirsten Fontenrose, Director for Regional Security, Middle East at the Atlantic Council. The discussion was moderated by Hussein Ibish, Senior Resident Scholar at AGSIW.
Since President Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, Washington has pursued a strategy of “maximum pressure,” largely through intensifying economic sanctions. Iran has responded with “maximum resistance,” mostly with low-intensity, and sometimes deniable, military provocations. Signs are growing that both strategies have maxed out and further escalation could lead to consequences unwanted by either side. Where do both parties go from here and can these strategies work?
Fontenrose argued that theoretically, the US policy of maximum pressure can work. The rationale beyond this is that every country has a finite amount of resources to dedicate to defense and domestic needs. The use of sanctions squeezes Iran and forces them to make difficult decisions. The US has a limited number of coercive tools. By maxing out sanctions, the Washington avoids using kinetic activities that could escalate potential conflict. Alfoneh and Esfandiary agreed that the US has not set clear goals for their use of sanctions. If the US established clear goals, Iran might respond in kind.
President Trump will benefit electorally if he is able to have a summit with Supreme Leader Khamenei. Alfoneh predicted that Trump will use increased tensions with Tehran to negotiate a deal that mirrors the JCPOA. By doing so, Trump would signal to his supporters that he can resolve global conflict. Esfandiary responded that Iran has no reason to trust the US. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Iran was abiding by the JCPOA, but the Trump Administration tore it up. Fontenrose agreed that trust building will be required before acceptable concessions can be made by either side.
Iran has few choices aside from continuing its low-level provocations. Alfoneh brought up an article published in an Iranian economic newspaper a month after the US left the JCPOA. The Supreme National Security Council outlined its strategy to counteract US sanctions. First, the impact of the sanctions will not be palpable because of trade deals with European countries and China. Second, Iran will limit the level of their obligations in the JCPOA. Third, if nothing works and Iran’s economy continues to fail, Tehran will provoke a crisis in the Persian Gulf. Iran clearly and publicly announced its plans and has followed through with the strategy.
The panel discussed the significance of John Bolton’s dismissal as the national security adviser. Fontenrose said that the Republicans will not allow Trump to choose someone who will threaten the election. Bolton’s hawkish tendencies could scare off voters. Brian Hook, the State Department’s point man on Iran, is on the short list of potential replacements. Hook is a known as a hawk in the international community and his appointment would signal to Iran that the US will continue to squeeze its economy.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Not a great deal
The Middle East Institute hosted a panel of four Afghanistan experts September 5 to assess the opportunities and hurdles of a US–Taliban deal. Until President Trump suspended negotiations this weekend, the two delegations were expected to approve a timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. In return, the Taliban leadership was to deny terrorist groups like al Qaeda a presence on Afghan soil. The panel consisted of Javid Ahmad, a senior fellow the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, Lt. General David Barno (ret.) a visiting professor at John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Jarret Blanc, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Laurel Miller the director of the Crisis Group’s Asia Program.
Here are the major takeaways from the event, which may or may not remain valid in the current situation:
- The Taliban are winning
The agreement is a peace agreement between the United States and the Taliban, with hopes that a subsequent peace process will start between the Afghan central government and the Taliban. According to Ahmad, the Taliban are winning on the battlefield and at the negotiation table. They will not sign an agreement unless they can have the basis of victory.
- The negotiations are generating uncertainty
There have been nine rounds of negotiations in Doha between the US and the Taliban. There is a growing sense that a deal will be made, but in the meanwhile uncertainty among Afghans does not help maintain stability. The agreement says little about implementation following US withdrawal. This ambiguity makes the future of Afghanistan uncertain.
- The US has already made a major concession
There is no ceasefire agreement. The US has agreed to negotiate with the Taliban even while they fight against the Afghan government. This reflects American warweariness: President Trump has clearly stated his disapproval of the current extent of America’s overseas commitments. The war in Afghanistan has lasted for 18-years and he is anxious to end it.
- The Taliban has no incentive to negotiate with the Afghan government once the US withdraws
Afghanistan’s forces are not as strong as the insurgents and will struggle to maintain the territory they currently control without US support. Blanc commented, “Why would they negotiate themselves out of power? Without the US present, the Taliban can continue their offensive.” The central government and the Taliban favor different political landscapes in Afghanistan – one democratic and one autocratic. Why would the Taliban share power with a democratic political institution if they can continue to conquer territory?
- The Taliban is not unified in their vision for the future
Afghan government and Taliban negotiators are scheduled to meet in Oslo, Norway later this month to discuss a potential peace process. The Taliban are sending 19 representatives to the negotiation table. However, only 5 of them are actual negotiators and the group is not fully representative of the organization. Miller discussed how neither the Taliban nor the Afghan government have a straight-forward agenda or clear objectives.
- Major US threats converge in Afghanistan
In the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the Trump Administration defined five key threats to US national security: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and global terrorism. North Korea is the only one not involved in Afghanistan in one way or another. How can the United States preserve its national security interests without a foothold in such a geopolitically important country ? Barno said that there are two implications of US disengagement from Afghanistan: it will likely revert to harboring terrorist organizations and US influence on Pakistan and Iran will decrease. Before withdrawal, the US should have a reliable partner in Kabul to continue counter terrorism efforts throughout the region.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | September 9 – 13
1. Countering Violent Extremism in Libya: A Peacebuilding Perspective | September 10, 2019 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm | The SETA Foundation at Washington D.C. | Register Here
Instability in Libya after the revolution that toppled the 42 years’ authoritarian rule of Muammar Gaddafi has become a golden opportunity for extremist groups, including DAESH, Ansar al-Sharia, and Madkhali Salafis, to gain territory and influence in the country. Concerned about rising radicalism and violent extremism in Libya, external actors have attempted to address as well as exploit this emerging problem. States, international organizations, and regional organizations have strived to play a decisive role in restoring Libyan stability but their efforts have proven insufficient. Libya has been driven into a bloody civil war due to political and social fragility and external interventions. Based on an extended study and field research, Dr. Talha Köse will present a CVE model based on the peacebuilding perspective. This event will feature the initial findings and summary of the SETA Foundation’s latest field research on Libya, “Countering Violent Extremism in Libya: A Peacebuilding Perspective” authored by Dr. Talha Köse, a researcher at SETA Istanbul, and Bilgehan Öztürk, a researcher at SETA Ankara. Please kindly join us for an important discussion on the external players’ perspectives on countering violent extremism in Libya. Speakers: Dr. Talha Köse, Senior Researcher at the Strategy Program of the SETA Foundation in Istanbul and Chair of the Political Science and International Relations Department at Ibn Haldun University Dr. Karim Mezran, Director of the North Africa Initiative and Resident Senior Fellow at Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East Moderator: Kilic B. Kanat, Research Director, The SETA Foundation at Washington D.C.
2. The counter-ISIS coalition: Diplomacy and security in action | September 10, 2019 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | Brookings Institution, Falk Auditorium | Register Here
On September 10, 2014, the United States announced the formation of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. Since then, ISIS has lost nearly all the territory it once claimed authority over, simultaneously losing most of its sources of revenue. Even as the caliphate’s power has significantly waned, the fight continues in an effort rout out the remnants of the group. Today Coalition partners are dealing with the challenges of returning foreign fighters, securing and rebuilding territory formerly held by ISIS, and addressing the humanitarian challenges in communities who experienced ISIS’s brutality. On September 10, the Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace will host an event commemorating the fifth anniversary of the founding of the Coalition, discussing the early days of the diplomatic and military efforts to bring together a diverse coalition of partner nations, how their efforts were organized, and recommendations on where the Coalition can go from here. General John Allen, president of Brookings, will be joined by Brett McGurk, nonresident senior fellow at Carnegie, in a conversation moderated by Susan Glasser. Following the discussion, the participants will take questions from the audience.
3. Qatar Inside and Out: A Close Look at the Gulf State’s Politics, Human Rights, and Foreign Policy | September 10, 2019 | 2:30 PM- 4:00 PM | Project on Middle East Democracy, Suite 617 | Register Here
The tiny Gulf state of Qatar, the world’s largest supplier of liquefied natural gas, is the wealthiest country in the world per capita. A close strategic partner of the United States, Qatar is home to the largest U.S. military base in the region, Al Udeid Airbase, and among the world’s top purchasers of American weapons. Criticism of U.S. policy toward Qatar has largely focused on its foreign policy, with its internal politics and human rights record receiving far less scrutiny. This relative lack of attention is curious, given the well-documented human rights abuses in Qatar, especially toward migrant workers, and the autocratic nature of its political system, an absolute monarchy. Please join us for a special Human Rights Watch-POMED event that will examine these domestic issues in the context of Qatar’s regional role and why they matter to the United States.
Speakers: Marti Flacks Deputy Director & Head of North America Office, Business and Human Rights Resource Centre Andrea Prasow Acting Washington Director, Human Rights Watch Kristian Ulrichsen Fellow for the Middle East, Baker Institute, Rice University David Weinberg Washington Director for International Affairs, Anti-Defamation League
Moderated by: Stephen McInerney Executive Director, Project on Middle East Democracy
4. Weaponizing Justice: Rule of Law and Cuba’s New Constitution | September 11, 2019 | 9:00 AM – 11:00 AM | Inter-American Dialogue, Suite 800 | Register Here
In April 2018, the Cuban National Assembly anointed Miguel Díaz-Canel as the country’s president, the first non-Castro to lead the island nation in almost 60 years. With new leadership came a new Constitution, which ostensibly reflects expanded due process protections for Cuba’s citizens. However, these constitutional rights coexist with a Criminal Code that is routinely employed by judicial authorities to silence dissent and punish political opposition. What kind of constitutionality exists in Cuba’s one-party state? What nominal rights exist, and are they respected? Does the new Constitution—effective as of April 2019—augur hopes for more freedom of expression and respect for the rule of law? To answer these questions and pursue a broader discussion on the administration of justice in Cuba, the Inter-American Dialogue is pleased to partner with the International Institute on Race, Equality and Human Rights to present “Weaponizing Justice: Rule of Law and Cuba’s New Constitution.” The discussion will include a presentation of the Institute’s new report, “Premeditated Convictions: An Analysis of the Situation of the Administration of Justice in Cuba.”
OPENING REMARKS Carlos Quesada Executive Director, International Institute for Race, Equality and Human Rights (@Raceandequality)
SPEAKERS Luis Carlos Battista Cuban-American lawyer and host of the Nuestra América Podcast (@lcbattisa) and Caitlin Kelly Legal Program Officer, International Institute on Race, Equality and Human Rights
MODERATOR Michael Camilleri Director, Peter D. Bell Rule of Law Program, Inter-American Dialogue (@camillerimj)
5. Pathways Out of Crisis: Views from Venezuelan Civil Society | September 12, 2019 | 9:30 AM – 11:30 AM | Woodrow Wilson Center | Register Here
As the political, economic, and social crisis in Venezuela deepens, civil society organizations are playing a vital role in resisting authoritarianism and defending fundamental rights. As Venezuela’s opposition engages in negotiations to achieve a transition, Venezuelan civil society is also advancing meaningful proposals for a democratic, peaceful solution that reflect urgent human rights and humanitarian needs on the ground. Please join us for a discussion of the latest in the country’s crisis, and of the role of the United States and the international community in supporting a peaceful return to democracy. Spanish to English translation will be provided.
Speakers: Feliciano Reyna President Acción Solidaria, Luz Mely Reyes Editor Efecto Cocuyo Marino, Alvarado Coordinator Venezuelan Program of Action Education in Human Rights (PROVEA), Beatriz Borges Executive Director Justice and Peace Center (CEPAZ), Alfredo Romero Executive Director, Foro Penal Venezolano Lowenthal Fellow, Wilson Center
6. Impact of the Arab Muslim Ban on Migration | September 12, 2019 | 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM | Gulf International Forum | Register Here
Nearly four years ago when the possibility of the current Administration was shrugged-off by many pundits and experts amongst the political elite, the already controversial Trump Presidential campaign on December 6, 2015 released a memo calling for, “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” While the response among many to the proclamation was swift and oppositional, in some ways the eventually elected President Trump was able to deliver on parts of this promise when on January 27, 2017 the Trump Administration issued Executive Order No. 13769, effectively banning entry into the United States for those from countries including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Since then there has been a struggle in the courts in which several aspects of the travel ban have been struck down, however many restrictions on travel for individuals from these countries remain in place. In response, in May 2019 legislation colloquially referred to as the “No Ban Act” was introduced in both chambers of Congress, a symbolic yet largely ineffectual means to undo the remaining aspects of the executive order. Meanwhile, the order is not alone in a series of measures enacted under the Administration that limit the ability of individuals from GIF’s region of focus from travelling to the United States, either as immigrants, asylum seekers or refugees. Where do efforts stand to overturn the Arab and Muslim ban? How has the ban affected people from Yemen, Iraq and Iran? What allowed Iraq to eventually be excepted from the ban? Has the ban had consequences for United States Foreign Policy in the Muslim World? In what ways has the grassroots community collaborated in order to challenge the ban? While none of these questions have easy answers, Gulf International Forum and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee are pleased to invite you to this discussion, where our assembled panel of experts will address issues related to the Arab and Muslim ban’s effect on Gulf populations, and the efforts taken to address the mandates of the Trump Administration.
Featured Speakers: Dania Thafer (moderator), Dr. Debbie Almontaser, Abed Ayoub Esq., Dr. Erdoan A. Shipoli, and Wa’el Alzayat
7. The Potential U.S.-Taliban Deal: A Step Forward for Peace in Afghanistan? | September 13, 2019 | 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
After nearly a year of extensive negotiations in Doha, the United States and the Taliban have reportedly agreed in principle on a deal addressing U.S. troop withdrawal and Taliban anti-terrorism guarantees. This is intended to be just the first step toward a durable peace in Afghanistan. Next, intra-Afghan dialogues are planned to arrive at a political settlement and a permanent cessation of hostilities. Adding further complications is the upcoming presidential election—currently scheduled for September 28—with key actors disagreeing about the sequencing of the polls and the peace process. At this pivotal juncture, USIP is bringing together a panel of distinguished experts to discuss what a U.S.-Taliban agreement means for the possibility of peace in Afghanistan. Recent Taliban attacks have raised questions about whether the group is serious about a political settlement or are simply looking to be rid of foreign troops. Prospects for a sustainable, inclusive peace forged through compromise among Afghan stakeholders hang in the balance.
Nancy Lindborg, welcoming remarks President and CEO, United States Institute of Peace Ambassador
Roya Rahmani, opening remarks Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to the United States
Clare Lockhart, Director and co-founder, Institute for State Effectiveness Barnett Rubin Senior Fellow and Associate Director, Center for International Cooperation, New York University
Michael Semple Visiting Professor, Queen’s University Belfast, Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation and Social Justice
Scott Worden, moderator, Director of Afghanistan and Central Asia Programs, United States Institute of Peace
RSS - Posts
