Category: Jordanna Yochai
IDPs protest in Iraq, but refugees not so much in Lebanon
Both Lebanon and Iraq are experiencing nationwide popular protests. Protesters are calling for an end to government corruption, greater economic opportunity, and more reliable public services. On August 21, 2020, the Middle East Institute convened a panel to discuss the role that refugees and displaced people play in political organizing in each country. Speakers and their affiliations are listed below.
Joyce Karam (Moderator): Washington Correspondent, The National
Sawsan Abdulrahmin: Associate Professor of Public Health, American University of Beirut
Noof Assi: Women’s Protection & Empowerment Coordinator, Emergency Response Team, International Rescue Committee; Co-Founder, IQ Peace
Background & Context
Lebanon and Iraq are both home to refugees, migrants, and/or displaced peoples. But the composition of each state’s domestic public is different.
Lebanon is home to approximately 1.7 million refugees. It hosts the greatest number of Syrian refugees per capita in the entire world, with 1.5 million. The remaining refugees are Palestinian and inhabit Lebanon’s southern region.
Iraq, by comparison, is home to few refugees, who reside in Iraqi Kurdistan. But one-third of all Iraqis, approximately 1.4 million people, are internally displaced. The majority of Iraq’s IDPs were displaced as a result of the Islamic State’s territorial campaigns. For the most part, IDPs live in camps in central and southern Iraq.
Political Organizing in Lebanon
For much of the last year, Lebanon’s economy has been in shambles. These issues pervade Lebanese society, affecting the middle class, the working class, and refugees as well. In response to the bleak economic situation and decades of government mismanagement, a protest movement emerged. Though refugees were adversely affected by the crisis, they played a minor role, if any, in the protest movement. Much of the protestors’ rhetoric was nationalistic. Only a minority of protestors had any interest in refugee rights.
On August 4, 2020, approximately 3,000 tons of ammonium nitrate exploded at Beirut’s port. The explosion devastated the city, and compounding the ongoing crisis. It rendered 300,000 people homeless and killed more than 200 people. The explosion’s effect was multinational and cross-class.
Immediately following the explosion, the Lebanese authorities published a list with the names of the individuals killed or rendered missing as a result of the blast. The list, however, was incomplete. It excluded the names of refugees and migrant workers. Approximately 40 Syrian refugees, 4 Bangladeshi migrant workers, and 2 Palestinian refugees were either killed or rendered missing as a result of the Beirut Port explosion.
Fortunately, the tide seems to be turning. The media has begun to tell the stories of the refugees and migrant workers injured in the blast. Funds have been raised for Syrian refugees whose injuries required major surgery. Some television programs even recognized the Palestinian Civil Defense for its involvement in rescue operations.
Refugees did not have a major presence at the protests which followed the explosion.
Political Organizing in Iraq
Iraq is no stranger to political protests. That said, the October 2019 protest movement is unique. It is led by Iraq’s youth and does not have one single leader. The protesters are asking for the fulfillment of their basic needs. They have faced live ammunition, though they have been entirely nonviolent. Some participants have been kidnapped and even assassinated. Approximately 700 protesters have been killed, and another 25,000 have been injured. They refuse to be intimidated, however. According to Noof Assi, they have nothing to live for and, thus, nothing to lose.
Displaced peoples have had a major presence at the protests. Indeed, issues related to displacement played a role in the onset of the protests. The government has failed to make former ISIS territory inhabitable but has also evicted thousands of people from IDP camps. Many of Iraq’s 1.4 million displaced peoples have nowhere to return to and are reliant on aid from NGOs. They were compelled to act.
To watch the event in full, please click here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A big hole in the IRGC
On January 3, 2020, a United States drone strike killed Major General Qassem Soleimani of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force. Soleimani was arguably Iran’s most powerful military leader, and his death marked a critical juncture in US-Iran relations. On August 6, the Middle East Institute convened a panel to discuss the impact of Soleimani’s death on the Islamic Republic. Speakers and their affiliations are listed below.
Alex Vatanka (Moderator): Director, Iran Program, Middle East Institute
Tarek Osman: Author & Broadcaster
Ariane Tabatabai: Middle East Fellow, Alliance for Securing Democracy, German Marshall Fund of the United States
Morad Vaisibiame: Journalist & Editor, Radio Farda, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Immediate Aftermath
Soleimani, like Iran itself, was received differently across the Middle East. Some revered him, some feared him, and others thought of him infrequently, if at all. His assassination, however, caught the attention of the entire region, and most people worried that US-Iran conflict was imminent.
Some days later, it became clear that violent conflict was unlikely. Iran’s response was relatively small in scale, and the US did nothing to further escalate tensions. To many, Tarek Osman included, this confirmed that the success that Iran had experienced over the last decade, epitomized by improved relations with parts of the Arab world, was over. Iran lacked the will or the means to retaliate proportionately for Soleimani’s assassination.
Long-Term Changes
In spite of its apparent weakness, Iran regularly confronts the United States, albeit in a less-than-noteworthy manner. Iran targets US forces and personnel on a weekly basis. Though these skirmishes rarely make the news, they are playing out in the Arab world, Iraq especially.
In Soleimani’s absence, the core of Iran’s national security strategy remains unchanged: the Islamic Republic wishes to preserve its influence in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. It achieves its objectives by working with co-sectarian forces, including the Shi’a in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen. Tabatabai posits that this will continue to serve as Iran’s modus operandi, as it is both inexpensive and fairly effective.
Observers who predicted the fall of the regime overestimated the role of individuals like Soleimani in the decision-making process, argues Tabatabai. Soleimani was an influential figure but ultimately not essential to the regime’s survival. When he died, the institutions to which he belonged simply found new leaders.
Morad Vaisibiame contends that, though the leadership structure is the same, the dynamic is markedly different. Qassem Soleimani was well-known, highly regarded, and thus quite influential; he was able to impact both domestic and foreign policy. His replacement, Ismail Ghani, is not as widely respected. Under his tenure, the Quds Force no longer has a particularly “special” relationship with the Supreme Leader. Ghani commands less respect from the other Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders, as well as from his own subordinates. He also holds less influence over the commanders of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansar Allah in Yemen. In this sense, Qassem Soleimani’s absence is deeply felt.
To watch the event in full, please click here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | September 8 – 11, 2020
- Election 2020: Challenges & Opportunities for U.S. Policy in the Middle East | September 8, 2020 | 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The Middle East is going through one of the most unstable periods in its recent history. Each country in the region faces its own unique challenges, but there are also cross-cutting issues ranging from proxy conflict and terrorism to climate change and water security that permeates throughout the region. The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to launch Election 2020: Challenges and Opportunities for US Policy in the Middle East. The briefs in this book offer policy insights from MEI scholars on key issues in the Middle East and serve as a contribution to the broader discussion about the challenges and opportunities for US policy in the region.
What are the key issues the next administration must prioritize? In what ways can the US pursue and achieve its policy goals in the Middle East through diplomacy, conflict resolution, and military engagement? How can a concerted regional strategy address region-wide issues and their global impacts?
Speakers:
Amb. Gerald Feierstein (Moderator): Senior Vice President, Middle East Institute
Paul Salem: President, Middle East Institute
Randa Slim: Senior Fellow & Director, Conflict Resolution & Track II Dialogues Program, Middle East Institute
Gen. Joseph Votel: Distinguished Senior Fellow on National Security, Middle East Institute - U.S. Policy in the Middle East: A Conversation With Assistant Secretary of State David Schenker | September 9, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:15 AM EDT | Brookings Institution | Register Here
The United States has been very active diplomatically in the Middle East as of late, despite public focus elsewhere, on issues ranging from the crisis in Lebanon, to maritime tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean, to U.A.E.-Israeli normalization of relations.
On September 9, the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will host a discussion with David Schenker, assistant secretary of Near Eastern affairs at the U.S. Department of State to examine the current state of U.S policy and diplomacy in the region and its future trajectory. Assistant Secretary Schenker will be returning from a mission to the region, which includes stops in Kuwait, Qatar, and Lebanon and will offer thoughts on his recent meetings. Natan Sachs, director of the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, will moderate the conversation.
Speakers:
Suzanne Maloney (Introduction): Vice President & Director, Foreign Policy, Brookings
David Schenker: Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Natan Sachs: Director, Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings - Rising Political Polarization in Southeast Asia | September 9, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:30 AM CEST | Carnegie Endowment | Register Here
Rising levels of political polarization are hurting democracy in many Southeast Asian countries. Drawing on a recent Carnegie Endowment report on the topic, this event will examine three critical cases—Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand—to gain a regional understanding of why polarization is increasing, its political effects, and how political and civic actors can take steps to address it.
This event is being held in collaboration with the Institute of Asian Studies.
Speakers:
Thomas Carothers: Senior Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment
Janjira Sombatpoonsiri: Associate Fellow, German Institute for Global & Area Studies
Naruemon Thabchumpon: Deputy Director for Research Affairs, Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University
Eve Warburton: Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Asia Research Institute, National Research University of Singapore
Bridget Welsh: Honorary Research Associate, Asia Research Institute, University of Nottingham Malaysia - A New Direction for U.S. Policy on North Korea | September 9, 2020 | 5:00 – 6:30 PM EDT | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register Here
Since the February 2019 Hanoi Summit failed to reach an agreement, the United States and North Korea have been mired in a diplomatic stalemate with minimal negotiations. At the same time, Pyongyang has continued to advance its nuclear and ballistic missile programs while reversing many of the inter-Korean tension reduction measures achieved in 2018. The next U.S. administration, whether Republican or Democratic, will have the opportunity to break this deadlock with a North Korean regime that is increasingly confident in its nuclear capabilities but still insecure about its longevity.
The next U.S. administration will encounter a North Korean regime that has promised to demonstrate a “new strategic weapon” in its nuclear weapons program and vowed to withstand the international sanctions campaign. The policy approach taken by the next administration will help determine whether Pyongyang will cling to its nuclear weapons or if the two countries will set a new course for building peace and reducing tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
Speakers:
Frank Aum (Moderator): Senior Expert, North Korea, U.S. Institute of Peace
Christine Ahn: Founder & Executive Director, Women Cross DMZ; Co-Founder, Korea Peace Network
Suzanne Dimaggio: Chair, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft; Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment
Markus Garlauskas: Nonresident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council; Former National Intelligence Officer for North Korea, Office of the Director for National Intelligence
Van Jackson: Senior Lecturer in International Relations, Victoria University of Wellington; Former Senior Defense Strategist, U.S. Department of Defense
Ankit Panda: Stanton Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment - Ecological Threats to Peace | September 10, 2020 | 1:00 – 2:00 PM EDT | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register Here
Global warming, extreme weather events, and rising sea levels are already adversely affecting food and water security throughout the world—leaving the least resilient countries with an increased risk of political instability, social fragmentation, and economic collapse. A more accurate measurement of levels of exposure to tomorrow’s ecological threats is key to helping these countries maintain peace today and can enable others to better prepare and adapt for the future.
The new Ecological Threat Register (ETR), produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, synthesizes and visualizes data on environmental indicators to estimate which countries, regions, and areas are most vulnerable to environment-induced conflict. In particular, the ETR underscores that 141 countries are vulnerable to ecological threats, and that approximately 1.2 billion people could be displaced globally by ecological disasters in the next 30 years.
Speakers:
Tyler Beckelman (Moderator): Director, International Partnerships, U.S. Institute of Peace
Sagal Abshir: Nonresident Fellow, Center on International Cooperation, New York University
Michael Collins: Executive Director, Institute for Economics & Peace
Dr. Joseph Hewitt: Vice President for Policy, Learning, & Strategy, U.S. Institute of Peace - Jihadism at a Crossroads | September 11, 2020 | 9:00 – 10:00 PM EDT | Brookings Institution | Register Here
Almost 20 years after 9/11, jihadi groups are no longer in the spotlight. However, ISIS, al-Qaida, and al-Shabab remain active, and new groups have emerged. The movement as a whole is evolving, as is the threat it poses.
On September 11, the Center for Middle East Policy will host a virtual panel event to discuss the current status of jihadi groups. The panel will feature Thomas Hegghammer, senior research fellow at the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment and author of the new book, “The Caravan: Abdallah Azzam and the Rise of Global Jihad.”Other panelists will include Tricia Bacon, assistant professor at American University, and Bruce Riedel, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Brookings Senior Fellow Daniel Byman will moderate the discussion.
Speakers:
Daniel L Byman: Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Brookings
Tricia Bacon: Professional Lecturer, School of Public Affairs, American University
Thomas Hegghammer: Senior Research Fellow, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment
Bruce Riedel: Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Brookings
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Civil resistance requires stamina
In June, U.S. Institute of Peace Program Officer Jonathan Pinckney published From Dissent to Democracy: The Promise and Perils of Civil Resistance Traditions. The book centers upon political transitions brought about by civil resistance, and attempts to explain why certain resistance movements result in democratization while others do not. To review the book’s core assertions, as well as gauge its applicability to ongoing resistance movements, the US Institute of Peace convened a panel of the following:
Maria Stephan (Moderator): Director, Nonviolent Action, US Institute of Peace
Erica Chenoweth: Berthold Beitz Professor in Human Rights & International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Zachariah Mampilly: Marxe Chair of International Affairs, City University of New York
Hardy Merriman: President & CEO, International Center on Nonviolent Conflict
Jonathan Pinckney: Program Officer, Nonviolent Action, US Institute of Peace
Huda Shafig: Program Director, Karama
Civil Resistance in Writing
Since World War II, there have been more than 300 political transitions. Of these transitions, 78 were brought about by civil resistance. Pinckney’s book examined all of the aforementioned transitions, albeit some in greater detail than others. Pinckney studied three cases closely: Brazil in 1984, Zambia in 1991 and Nepal in 2006.
He found that political transitions initiated through civil resistance were three times more likely to result in democratization than other types of political transitions. Nevertheless, civil resistance transitions were not certain to result in democratization. He identified two key challenges to the onset of democracy: mobilization and maximalism.
Pinckney stressed the importance of maintaining mobilization, as successful resistance movements require targeted and consistent activism. He also cautioned would-be protestors against adopting an all-or-nothing attitude. Instead, Pinckney advocated for moderation and dialogue. Civil resistance is the most direct road from authoritarianism to democracy, but its success is determined by how effectively a resistance movement mobilization is maintained and maximalism is avoided.
Civil Resistance in Theory
In recent years, the prevalence of civil resistance has increased dramatically. Its efficacy, however, has decreased. Chenoweth attributes this unfortunate shift to the manner in which resistance movements currently manifest. Contemporary resistance movements are intent on achieving quick results and consequently lack the ability to organize, engage in negotiations, and ultimately herald a political transformation. Digital organizing and street demonstrations are important but not at the expense of capacity-building, Chenoweth argues.
According to Merriman, movements can address this issue by setting clear expectations. The average civil resistance movement takes three years to conclude, and many resistance movements persist for far longer. The vast majority of participants, however, expect to see results in as little as 3-6 months time. When participants understand the scope of their commitment, Merriman asserts, they are better equipped not only to dismantle existing institutions but also to build new ones.
Civil Resistance in Practice
This is certainly the case in Sudan, where a popular resistance movement has been active for upwards of seven months and succeeded in effecting political change. Despite Sudan’s rich history of citizen protest, the protests were only able to trigger a political transition last year.
In Shafig’s eyes, the ongoing movement has been successful because it is unlike its predecessors. It began outside of Sudan’s capital, Khartoum; participants share a commitment to non-violence; the movement is well-coordinated, with common policy goals; and the movement’s de-centralized nature allows for local leaders to immerse themselves in the movement and tailor it to their respective needs.
In a nod to Pinckney’s book, Shafig also notes that Sudan’s resistance movement has maintained participant mobilization well. Participants engage in continuous activism via neighborhood-based resistance committees. These local committees engage in joint-planning talks with other committees across Sudan, ensuring that support for the transition is widespread. Perhaps Sudan can serve as a model for future civil resistance movements.
To watch the event in full, click here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
20 Years of Backward Progress
In July of 2000, Israelis and Palestinans met at Camp David. Their goal was to negotiate a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Predictably, the negotiations failed to produce a settlement. Twenty years later, on June 21, 2020, the Carnegie Endowment convened a panel to evaluate the Camp David Summit’s legacy and determine what the future holds for U.S.-mediated negotiations. Speakers and their affiliations are listed below.
Aaron David Miller: Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Shlomo Ben Ami: Former Foreign Minister of Israel
Nabil Shaath: Former Foreign Minister of Palestine
Tamara Cofman Wittes: Senior Fellow, Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution
Where Did It All Go Wrong?
The panelists began by debating the summit’s legacy. Miller was quick to deem the negotiation a failure, as it obviously did not end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In his view, Ehud Barak’s expectations were too high and Yasser Arafat was never genuinely interested in the negotiations.
Ben Ami cast doubt on Miller’s prescriptions. The former Foreign Minister argued that, even in the absence of a negotiated settlement, the Camp David Summit was a crucial step in the peace process. It emphasized the importance of multilateralism and equity in the negotiating process, and it notably provided a framework for the Clinton Peace Parameters. The Clinton Peace Parameters, in turn, served as the basis for Ehud Olmert’s famous 2008 peace offer.
A Bleak Present (& Equally Bleak Future)
Twenty years later, however, Ben Ami lamented that “the two state solution has never been so far.” By his own admission, the peace camp in Israel is dwindling, and the electorate has shifted farther right. Against this backdrop, and under the direction of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli government expanded its West Bank settlements, doggedly avoided negotiations, and largely ignored the Palestinian question. The sincerity of Israel’s commitment to a two state solution is doubtful at best. Shaath, for one, believes that it is impossible to earnestly support a two-state solution while expanding settlements and threatening annexation. In brief, neither side feels confident that the other is a true partner for peace.
According to Cofman Wittes, the collapse of the Oslo Process is at least partially responsible for this phenomenon. Oslo’s gradualism, intended to bolster prospects for coexistence, actually undermined them. Over time, Palestinians grew suspicious and began to wonder whether gradualism was simply an excuse for Israeli inaction.
In the post-Oslo and Camp David world, Cofman Wittes believes that the United States must drastically alter its approach to mediation. Rather than force policies and summits upon the Israelis and Palestinians, whom she believes are not prepared to negotiate, the US must re-enter the pre-negotiation phase. Only after the United States understands each side’s position, its goals and red lines, can it even attempt to resolve the conflict. It is also worth noting that Cofman Wittes and Shaath each recommended that future negotiations involve multiple regional and international stakeholders.
Cofman Wittes’ suggestions unlikely to change the current administration’s course, which seems intent on destroying the United States’ credibility as a mediator. To quote veteran American diplomat Aaron David Miller, “no one has ever lost money betting against success in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.”
To watch the event in full, click here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | August 31 – September 4, 2020
Notice: Due to recent public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
The Implications of the Israel-UAE Deal | September 1, 2020 – September 2, 2020 | 11:00 AM – 12:15 PM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
On August 13th, President Trump announced that Israel and the United Arab Emirates had agreed to “finalize a historical [sic] peace agreement” that would involve full normalization of relations between the two nations. Trump stated: “Not since the Israel-Jordan peace treaty was signed more than 25 years ago has so much progress been made towards peace in the Middle East.”
In this context, the Middle East Institute (MEI) and the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP) invite you to join a two-part webinar series: The Implications of the Israel-UAE Deal. These two webinars, co-moderated by MEI’s Khaled Elgindy and FMEP’s Lara Friedman, will explore what the Israel-UAE does (and doesn’t) mean, the political context that led to its achievement, and its implications for the future.
Speakers:
Part 1: Israeli & Palestinian Perspectives
Khaled Elgindy (Moderator): Director, Program on Palestine & Palestinian-Israeli Affairs, Middle East Institute
Lara Friedman (Moderator): President, Foundation for Middle East Peace
Sam Bahour: Ramallah-Based Business Consultant, Applied Information Management
Marwa Fatafta: Policy Analyst, Al Shabaka
Elizabeth Tsurkov: Research Fellow, Forum for Regional Thinking
Part 2: U.S. Expert Perspectives
Khaled Elgindy (Moderator): Director, Program on Palestine & Palestinian-Israeli Affairs, Middle East Institute
Lara Friedman (Moderator): President, Foundation for Middle East Peace
Steven Cook: Eni Enrico Mattei Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
Annelle Sheline: Research Fellow, Quincy Institute
James Zogby: Director, Zogby Research Services
Japan After Abe: Legacy & Next Moves | September 1, 2020 | 4:00 – 5:00 PM EDT | Center for Strategic & International Studies | Register Here
On August 28, 2020, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced he would resign due to a recurring illness. Please join us for an online panel discussion where CSIS experts will assess his legacy across a range of policy areas including security, diplomacy, and economics, as well as Japan’s political and strategic trajectory.
Speakers:
John J. Hamre (Introduction): President & CEO, Langone Chair in American Leadership, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Michael J. Green (Moderator): Senior Vice President for Asia & Japan Chair, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Victor Cha: Senior Adviser & Korea Chair, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Matthew P. Goodman: Senior Vice President for Economics & Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Yuko Nakano: Associate Director, US-Japan Strategic Leadership Program, Japan Chair, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Nicholas Szechenyi: Senior Fellow & Deputy Director, Japan Chair, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Iran, Israel, and the Changing Geopolitics of the Middle East | September 3, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The defenders of President Donald Trump’s Iran policy maintain that the “maximum pressure” campaign is working. They argue that not only is an Iran under pressure less able to undermine the interests of the US and its allies in the Middle East, but that this strategy is resulting in new geopolitical realities. They point to the recent Israel-UAE agreement as evidence. Critics of the “maximum pressure” campaign disagree and claim there is little evidence that Washington has been able to reshape Iran’s regional ambitions. This panel will look at these topics and examine where Iran and Israel stand vis-à-vis each other and specifically consider ways the US and allies can seek to address Tehran’s rejection of Israel as a fellow UN member state.
Speakers:
Alex Vantanka (Moderator): Director, Iran Program, Middle East Institute
Mark Dubowitz: Chief Executive, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Meir Javedanfar: Senior Research Fellow, Meir Ezri Center for Iran & Persian Gulf Studies
Ksenia Svetlova: Senior Research Analyst, Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policy
The Scramble for a Vaccine: Putin’s Sputnik V –– “Trust Me!” | September 2, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:00 PM EDT | Center for Strategic & International Studies | Register Here
Please join the CSIS Commission on Strengthening America’s Health Security on Wednesday, September 2, 2020 from 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. EDT for a discussion with Heather A. Conley, Senior Vice President and Director of the CSIS Europe Program; Judyth Twigg, Senior Associate with the CSIS Global Health Policy Center and Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University; and Vasily Vlassov, Professor and Senior Research Fellow at the National Research University Higher School of Economics. J. Stephen Morrison, Senior Vice President and Director of the CSIS Global Health Policy Center, will introduce and moderate the event discussion on Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine and its geo-strategic implications.
On August 11, Russia announced that it had approved the first Covid-19 vaccine for human use: Sputnik V. This announcement immediately stirred question and controversy within Russia and around the world, because the vaccine is unproven – it has not undergone large scale phase III clinical trials for safety and efficacy. Launching a vaccination campaign in Russia – and potentially elsewhere – without adequate safety and efficacy data could have global ramifications.
This event will feature a diverse panel of experts that will examine the implications of this announcement and what may lie ahead in the future. How might this play out within Russia – what resistance is Putin facing domestically, and what assets have been mobilized to support the campaign? Is there a success scenario for Putin? What might this mean for Russia’s distribution partnerships with other countries? What has the reception been in Europe, the United States, China, and at the World Health Organization? Does this development signal the degradation of international norms around vaccine development?
This discussion is part of a series of events hosted by the CSIS Commission on Strengthening America’s Health Security examining the global scramble for a Covid-19 vaccine. The first event, The Scramble for Vaccines and the COVAX Facility, focused on COVAX, a nascent international initiative to develop and equitably distribute Covid-19 vaccines to benefit all countries, rich and poor.
Speakers:
Vasily Vlassov: Professor & Senior Research Fellow, National Research University Higher School of Economics
J. Stephen Morrison: Senior Vice President & Director, Global Health Policy Center, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Heather A. Conley: Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic & Director, Europe Program, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Judyth Twigg: Non-Resident Senior Associate, Russia and Eurasia Program & Global Health Policy Center, Center for Strategic & International Studies
Sanctions-Busting in the DRC | September 3, 2020 | 2:00 PM EDT | Atlantic Council | Register Here
The Sentry released a new report, “Overt Affairs,” documenting how two North Korean businessmen openly busted international sanctions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). International sanctions programs on North Korea focus heavily on disrupting access to the international financial system due to the danger that revenue generated overseas could ultimately be used to fund the country’s nuclear weapons program. Private and public sector institutions in the DRC should have stopped this activity in its tracks, and the fact that they did not is more than a simple lapse. These frailties not only put the DRC’s banking sector and broader economy in significant danger, but they can also have global implications by undermining the effectiveness of international sanctions programs and the integrity of the international financial system.
Please join the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center in partnership with The Sentry on Thursday, September 3, at 2:00 p.m. (EDT) for a virtual conversation on North Korean sanctions-busting in the DRC. The conversation will feature a panel with counter-proliferation finance analyst Ms. Darya Dolzikova and DRC expert Dr. Pierre Englebert, with moderation by Africa Center Director of Programs and Studies Ms. Bronwyn Bruton and an introduction to the report by The Sentry’s Senior Investigator Mr. John Dell’Osso. Additional speakers will be added to this page once confirmed.
Speakers:
John Dell’Osso (Introduction): Senior Investigator, The Sentry
Bronwyn Bruton (Moderator): Director of Programs & Studies, Africa Center, Atlantic Council
Darya Dolzikova: Research Analyst, Proliferation & Nuclear Policy Programme, Royal United Services Institute
Dr. Pierre Englebert: H. Russell Smith Professor of International Relations, Pomona College; Senior Fellow, Africa Center, Atlantic Council
The Violence Inside Us | September 3, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:00 PM EDT | Brookings Institution | Register Here
In many ways, the United States sets the pace for other nations to follow. Yet on the most important human concern—the need to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe from physical harm—America isn’t a leader. In his new book, “The Violence Inside Us: A Brief History of an Ongoing American Tragedy,” Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) explores the origins of our violent impulses, the roots of our obsession with firearms, and the mythologies that prevent us from confronting our national crisis. Senator Murphy comes to the conclusion that while America’s relationship to violence is indeed unique, America is not inescapably violent. Even as he details the reasons we’ve tolerated so much bloodshed for so long, he explains that we have the power to change.
On September 3, Governance Studies at Brookings will host a webinar with David M. Rubenstein Fellow Rashawn Ray and Senator Murphy on his new book. The pair will discuss the history of violence in America and its long-term impacts, as well as the concrete steps that must be taken to change the nation’s narrative.
Speakers:
Rashawn Ray: David M. Rubenstein Fellow Rashawn Ray, Governance Studies, Brookings Institution
Hon. Chris Murphy: Senator (D-Conn.), United States Senate
RSS - Posts
