Category: Lydia Jabs
Peace picks February 6-12
1. Missing OPEC? The Unwelcome Return Of Boom-Bust Oil Prices | Monday Feb 6 | 5:00 pm – 7:30 pm | Johns Hopkins SAIS – Rome Building | Register Here
Bob McNally will discuss his new book, Crude Volatility – The History and Future of Boom-Bust Oil Prices. World oil prices have fallen drastically over the last two years, spurred partly by the rise of tight oil production in the US, and by OPEC’s failure to cut production.
Recently, in an effort to raise oil prices, OPEC is attempting to regroup and has agreed to lower its production. Will it succeed? This is one of the questions to be discussed at this energy forum which will also review the history of oil prices. Kevin Book, Managing Director at Clearview Energy Partners will serve as the commentator.
2. Rebuilding Syria: Reconstruction and Legitimacy | Tuesday February 7, 2017 | 10-11:30 AM | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Please join the Atlantic Council for a discussion on the technical and political challenges ahead for rebuilding Syria with country and development experts on February 7, 2017.
3. Media Consumption in Turkey | Wednesday, February 8, 2107 | 9-10 AM | Gallup World Headquarters | Register Here
The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and Gallup invite you to attend a research briefing on media use in Turkey.
Despite the crackdown on opposition media over the past few years, most adults in Turkey (71.8%) say they are at least somewhat satisfied with the information provided by the country’s media. However, far fewer are very satisfied with media coverage in the country.
The widespread adoption of broadband connections and smartphones in Turkey has made the internet a major source of news for many residents. About two-thirds of adults (65.0%) currently say they go online for news at least weekly in Turkey, up from half (49.7%) in 2013. Among Kurdish speakers in Turkey, the rise has been even sharper, from 49.8% in 2013 to 70.8% in the current study. In conjunction with the growing use of online news, weekly audiences for TV and radio news have tapered slightly.
The speakers will share data on media trends in the country, and review attitudinal data from the Gallup World Poll. Speakers include Chris Stewart, Partner, Gallup, Ben Ryan, Research Consultant, Gallup, and William Bell, Research Director, Voice of America.
4. From Aleppo to Washington: Crisis in Syria | Thursday February 9, 2017 | 6-8 PM | AMIDEAST | Register Here
Join the Penn State School of International Affairs and AMIDEAST on Thursday, February 9, for a panel discussion on the conflict in Syria and what it means for the Syrian people, American foreign policy in the Trump administration, and the international community at large. “From Aleppo to Washington: Crisis in Syria,” features a panel of distinguished foreign policy experts and practitioners, all of whom are connected with the School of International Affairs
The speakers include Vice Admiral (Ret.) James W. Houck, retired judge advocate general of the U.S. Navy, Theodore Kattouf, former U.S. Ambassador to Syria, Flynt Leverett, professor of international affairs at Penn State, former Middle East analyst at the CIA, Rachel Sayre, senior disaster specialist for Iraq and Syria at the U.S. Agency for International Development, and Scott Sigmund Gartner (moderator), director of the Penn State School of International Affairs.
5. NAFTA 2.0? | Thursday February 9, 2017 | 9-10:30 AM | Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center | Register Here
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Canada, Mexico, and the United States, was signed by U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Carlos Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1992. By 1993, the agreement was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries, and by December 8, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the agreement into law. NAFTA entered into force on January 1, 1994. By 2014, the agreement reached it’s 20th year anniversary, acknowledged by the “Three Amigos Summit” in February of that same year. After the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign season, NAFTA once again was brought to the forefront of the political and economic discussions. Please join WITA as we look at the future of trade in North American, and what revisiting the 22-year old agreement might look like.
6. The Transatlantic Policy Symposium (TAPS) | Thursday February 9, 2017 | 10 AM- 8:30 PM | Georgetown University’s Copley Formal Lounge | Register Here
Georgetown University is hosting the Transatlantic Policy Symposium (TAPS) this Thursday February 9, 2017. The transatlantic relationship has flourished in the post-war era, becoming a cornerstone of both American and European foreign policy. In light of contemporary challenges, including issues of global security, humanitarian assistance and the re-emergence of populism in both Europe and the United States, it is imperative to evaluate the current state of the transatlantic relationship as well as speculate on its future.
Join the expert and graduate student panelists as they discuss and explore these issues in relation to the future of the transatlantic relationship.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
It’s the oil
On Monday, Georgetown University’s Centers for Contemporary Arab Studies and Latin American Studies hosted an event “Oil, Authoritarianism, and Populism” to compare governance in the Middle East and Latin America after the discovery of oil. The discussion featured Daniel Neep, author of Occupying Syria under the French Mandate: Space, Insurgency and State Formation, Georgetown Associate Professor Joseph Sassoon (author of Saddam Hussein’s Ba‘th Party: Inside an Authoritarian Regime), and Angelo Rivero Santos, adjunct professor and director of Venezuela Programming at the McDonough School of Business.
Neep described the study of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) as idiographic, isolated in part due to the complexity and variety in the region itself. At the end of the Cold War, the field of international relations started to shift and scholars increasingly focused on democratization. By the 2000s, the conversations switched to ways authoritarianism evolves and roots itself in the context of state and society. Much of this research is concerned with individual nations or bilateral comparisons, with little attention paid to international trends. Neep argued that there is much to learn from international interregional comparison. Comparisons between Latin America and the Middle East are particularly interesting. Populist authoritarianism is more successful in the Arab world, but Neep pointed out that political society’s conception of authoritarianism started in Latin America. He highlighted state-led industrialization, class uprisings, and land reform as key elements in comparisons of pre-2005 Syria, Egypt under Nasser, and South American countries. It is essential that scholars look at similar experiences across the globe to fully understand long term trajectories.
Additionally, Neep highlighted the error in thinking of authoritarian and democratic systems as diametrically opposed, or even as different“species.” He rejected the tendency to consider authoritarian regimes as a stage before the development of a democratic system. A more accurate way of thinking frames authoritarianism as a particular type of state. He went on to cite the current political crisis in the US as an example of crossover, a democratic regime with (potential?) authoritarian characteristics.
Sassoon identified fundamental elements of Middle Eastern regimes congruent with Latin American history such as widespread use of torture, a strong security apparatus, and a strong military. Yet, despite its military dictatorships, Latin America managed to move past authoritarian structures. Sassoon proposed that oil might be the factor retarding democratic progress in the MENA region, especially considering the failure of the 2011 uprisings in the region. Sassoon points out that Iraq and Egypt were more developed than Chile in the 1960’s, but this couldn’t be farther from the truth today. Aspirations for reform suffered from a lack of proper opposition and control of the ruling party.
Latin America possessed requisite structures to establishing a strong opposition entrenched in civil society that are not present in the Middle East. Sassoon warned that whether nations are producers or intermediaries of oil, there is too much reliance on the resource. This is a fundamental issue. No country has figured out how to divert oil wealth into something more productive. Sassoon used Libya as an example of this challenge; when Gadhafi took power Libya was a rich country, with no border disputes and no enemies in the world. Forty years later it is a failed state.
Santos identified Venezuela as the best country in Latin America to compare with the Middle East because of its position as the second biggest oil producer in the Western hemisphere after the US. The history of democracy in Venezuela is complicated, with over 25 constitutions since it’s independence in 1810. Equally complex is its relationship with oil: it is both a curse and a blessing. Oil propelled Venezuela to relevancy in the world stage through membership in OPEC and the Jose Accords, and triggered social and political transformations at home. But the country is a classic example of “Dutch Disease,” where the discovery of oil shifted the formerly diverse agricultural economy to one dependent on a single resource.
Venezuela differs from many countries in the MENA region because the government always believed that the oil belonged to the people, and worked to create social contracts that addressed the role of oil in society and how to distribute resource wealth. However, you cannot distribute wealth that you do not have, and Santos remarked that low oil prices cause problems such as the current unrest.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump’s choices on Turkey and Syria
The Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA) hosted three panels last Thursday on Turkey and the Middle East under the Trump Administration. The panels discussed the future of US/Turkish relations as well as Turkish involvement in the Syria conflicts.
The first panel, “Syria and Iraq’s impact on US/Turkey Relations,” was moderated by Ahmet Selim Tekelioglu of the SETA Foundation and featured Hasan Basri Yalcin, director of the Strategy Program at the SETA Foundation, Sasha Gosh-Siminoff, President and Co-Founder of People Demand Change, and Luke Coffey, Director of the Center for Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation.
Yalcin said the bilateral relationship between the US and Turkey under the Obama administration proved disappointing for both parties, leaving Turkey no choice but to align with Russia. He remained optimistic for the Trump administration and identified three policies tracks it might pursue: 1) interventionist, 2) non-interventionist policy, or 3) simply a continuation of the Obama policy. The best policy for more balanced US/Turkish relations would be an interventionist approach. Increased support would swing Turkey back to the US and away from Russia and Iran.
Gosh-Siminoff noted that US and Turkish interests align in their desire for stabilization in Syria, but the war on ISIS complicates US involvement. The Trump administration faces a multifaceted challenge: they must balance the needs of traditional allies with the needs of the Syrian people and the terrorist threat.
Coffey sees a need for a greater understanding of the ground troops America supports and arms in the Syrian conflict. He expressed doubt that Americans would support Kurdish fighters if they knew more about their Marxist ideology and ties to the PKK terrorist group; he criticized legislative laziness in differentiating among Kurdish groups. Coffey stated that there are not enough moderates on the ground in Syria to enact change, a statement Gosh-Siminoff contested, arguing that greater support for civil society is essential to deterring extremist ideology and the threat of terrorism long-term. He claimed that Syria’s history as pluralist and moderate society means the country will likely return to that path, if we can provide the environment for this to happen.
The second panel, “The Trump Administration and Middle East Policy,” was moderated by Kadir Ustun, Executive Director at the SETA Foundation, and featured Kilic Kanat, Research Director at the SETA Foundation, Nicholas Heras, Fellow at the Center for New American Security, and Hassan Hassan, Fellow at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy.
Kanat identified external influences, such as the upcoming European elections, that will impact Trump’s policy in the Middle East. The new administration will likely be focused primarily on Iran, and it will be difficult to balance regional policies with the nuclear deal. The US will need to reassure traditional allies and assuage growing dissatisfaction with the US in Turkish public opinion.
Heras said National Security Adviser Flynn wants to follow a Balkans model in Syria, dividing it into zones with the cooperation of local forces, then focusing on securing borders and improving governance to maintain Syria’s territorial integrity. The challenge for the Trump team will be convincing other Arab states to contribute to the effort while they are busy in Yemen. Hassan echoed the idea of dividing Syria into zones, but warned that if we focus attention on one area, ISIS will pop up in another. The administration needs a plan, not for an occupation but rather to help communities upgrade themselves.
The final panel, “Turkey’s Fight Against ISIS,” shifted the focus to Turkey’s role in regional politics. The panel was moderated by Kanat and featured Ufuk Ulutas, author of the recently released State of Savagery, Murat Yesiltas, Director of the Security Policy Program at the SETA Foundation, and Bassam Barabandi, a political adviser at the Syrian High Negotiation Committee.
Ulutas sees ISIS as a proto-state: it maintains a sophisticated and professional army and intelligence network while providing public services. Its emphasis on ex-communicating rivals and establishing a caliphate make it different from other Salafi jihadists like al-Qaeda. ISIS has diverted the attention of the international community towards themselves, exacerbating chaos in the region and giving it an opportunity to fill the vacuum. Yesiltas followed this with an overview of Turkish efforts to defeat ISIS, including ways ISIS has targeted Turkey in retaliation and poses threats to Turkey’s borders and stability. Barabandi added that if the US and the Turks do not depend on local forces they will be unable to defeat ISIS. They need Sunni Arabs for a real solution. The more they recruit and empower the Arabs, the better and more lasting the solution will be.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Next US steps in Syria
Knowledgeable people gathered last Thursday under Chatham House rules to discuss shifting US objectives in Syria and how the new administration might pursue its ends. The explicit intent of American involvement in the conflict, most thought, should be population protection, because the greatest threat to US interests and security stems from violence against civilians and the resulting population displacement. The most likely outcome for post-conflict Syria is a fragmented and weakened state. The issue would then become how the United States could influence and stabilize the various regions.
The current Russian ceasefire is likely to prove little more than a strategic reset; a true end to the violence will not be realized. There are various strategies the United States might undertake to stop the bloodshed, including reducing the regime’s capacity for aerial bombardment and incentivizing a cessation of violence. It should be made clear that these moves aim to exact a cost on those who thwart US funded humanitarian efforts or directly harm civilians, rather than to engender regime change.
The United States needs to work with partners outside of the regime to establish a lasting ceasefire and dismantle terrorist control. It is particularly important to secure the borders of Syria, an effort in which both Turkish and Kurdish fighters need to be involved. The hostility between them derails peace efforts. One commentator called for senior US leaders to demand a ceasefire between Turkey and the Kurds as a necessary benchmark before any meaningful objectives or lines are drawn. Some participants demonstrated concern for the potential success of this strategy given a growing desire within the Pentagon to leave areas in the east under Assad’s control, and America’s general reluctance to get involved.
The conversation made it clear that the security of post-conflict Syria as a federal system of statelets depends on the “de-marbleization” of opposition groups. Separation of the groups would lead to their turning against Al-Qaeda and subsequently the stabilization of the country. International support today is not sufficient to achieve this. In addition the moderates must be linked to civil society to lead and maintain the separation. Though one speaker was averse to the moderate label, remarking that “moderates never win,” he described a need for a genuine Syrian nationalist movement. There is a lot of local discontent with extremist control. It is urgent to consolidate and support this resentment before it is supplanted with anti-Western rhetoric. The US government must determine which areas to support, and whether or not it is willing to trade off regions of control.
The United States is not alone. Turkey has actively worked to demarbleize opposition groups, and the upcoming peace talks in Astana are an example of its efforts. The Turkish government has reached out to local civil society and non-militant groups to attend these talks in addition to opposition political leaders, though no one expressed confidence in the potential of success of these efforts.
Turkey’s intentions are questionable. The growing power of Erdogan and his willingness to make territorial concessions to the Assad regime are worrisome to US interests and values. Successful implementation of US strategy in Syria requires long term commitment as well as clear limits on the expenditure of US blood and treasure. While the US must wholeheartedly commit to the effort, it cannot do so alone, nor can it dictate the outcome.
RSS - Posts
