Category: Nathaniel Haas
One more time: prevention
The Keough School of Global Affairs July 18 hosted a multi-panel event titled “Unity on Global Fragility: Can Today’s Momentum in Washington Stop Tomorrow’s Violent Conflicts?” The event was headlined by Senator Chris Coons (Delaware) and Senator Todd Young (Indiana) who sponsored the Global Fragility Act of 2019. After remarks by Denise Natali, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations at the State Department, a panel discussion was held featuring Pete Marocco, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, Patrick Antonietti, Director of Stabilization and Peace Operations in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability and Humanitarian Affairs, Department of Defense, Shamil Idriss, CEO, Search for Common Ground, and Dafna Rand, Vice President for Policy & Research, Mercy Corps. Uzra Zeya, President and CEO, Alliance for Peacebuilding, moderated.
A second panel followed immediately with Rear Admiral Tim Ziemer (US Navy, Ret.), Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance at USAID, Anne A. Witkowsky, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability and Humanitarian Affairs, Nancy Lindborg, President and CEO, US Institute of Peace, Jake Harriman, Founder ad CEO ofNuru,and Anselme Wimye, Director of Program Quality, DRC Bukavu Office, Search for Common Ground. The second panel was moderated by George A. Lopez, Rev Theodore M. Hesburgh, Professor Emeritus of Peace Studies, Keough School of Global Affairs. Dean Scott Appleby, Marilyn Keough Dean, Keough School of Global Affairs, University of Notre Dame provided the opening and closing remarks.
Here are 5 takeaways from the event:
1. Prevention is better than reactive response:
Senator Young shared a UN statistic that there are currently more than 400 violent conflicts worldwide and half of the conflicts that ended since 2000 restarted within 7 years. Senator Coons added that the US counter-terrorism strategy since 9/11 has been ineffective and costly, listing Libya and Syria as examples of failure. If the US doesn’t invest in prevention it will end up paying more on the back end. The deployment pace for US troops is too high and often times they are ill equipped to deal with the challenges they face, which don’t require direct application of force. Young quoted Benjamin Franklin’s “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Ziemer said many USAID operations running now are because of prior ineffectiveness in prevention.
2. Prevention needs more funding, better spending and updated success metrics:
Current spending on preventive measures is inadequate and wastes the limited funds available. Coons stated it costs $1,000,000 for every soldier deployed abroad per year, much more than it would cost to send humanitarian and development workers to stabilize weak countries. Admiral Ziemer added that the $1.2 billion over the next 5 years provided by the Global Fragility Act is a drop in the bucket of the budget. One issue is the difficulty in measuring a non-event, making it harder to justify spending to constituents. How do you value avoided cost and pain? To address this the Senators propose new metrics for success rather than money spent, which isn’t tied to any actual results. Both agree that spending should be monitored and if proven to be ineffective should be reevaluated. Witkoswky mentioned much of the funding comes with constraints hampering progress, highlighting the need for more flexible funding.
3. The problem of risk-aversion:
All the panelists agreed that the State Department is too risk averse. Without taking risks and accepting failures it can’t be effective in the crisis areas that most need its help. Harriman said adopting a “fail fast, learn fast” mentality will allow State to work in crisis areas and build off prior experience to formulate better strategy.
4. The need for inter-Agency cooperation and cohesive strategy:
Both the Senators and panelists agree a more cohesive strategy is needed to effectively address global fragility. Currently different departments within the US government and its allies work in many places to fight global fragility but their efforts are fragmented. Defense, Diplomacy and Development need to work together. The State Department needs to work better alongside the Department of Defense to formulate a joint strategy. Coons said “We need to retrain everybody to play the same game.”
Marocco finds State needs to deploy more with the Defense Department to understand the situation on the ground instead of dictating policy from Washington. Antonietti believes stabilization can be planned during all stages of conflict and shouldn’t be left to wait until the initial fighting is over. Harriman added the military needs to find better ways to work with nongovernmental organizations in conflict areas to win hearts and minds. He also emphasized the tendency to promote humanitarian assistance when sustainable development is needed to solve root issues. Anselme Wimye affirmed all the above points, saying that often policies are well-intended but ignore the situation on the ground and the needs of the people who live in crisis areas. If the US. can create a cohesive strategy including military, State Department, allies, and NGOs real progress can be made.
5. Understanding the long-term
Global fragility is a long-term issue. The US can’t spend for 5 years and expect large-scale results. The timeframe is at least a decade, so there is a need for continued support and funding. Ziemer pointed to the President’s Malaria Initiative (2005), which had roughly the same cost, bridged 3 administrations and resulted in a 60% reduction of mortality from malaria. The framework to deal with global fragility is in place, now the hard work of improving it, funding it, and working with allies has to be stepped up to have a significant impact.
A full video of the event is available here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks July 22-July 28
1. Ground Truth Briefing: Ukraine’s Parliamentary Elections|July 22, 2019|10:00am-11:00am|Wilson Center|1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004|Register Here
Ukraine will hold its parliamentary elections to the Supreme Rada on Sunday July 21. These elections will shape the course of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s policies and whether he will have a majority in the parliament to fulfill his ambitious agenda.
In this Ground Truth Briefing, experts will analyze the results of the parliamentary elections and discuss what they will mean for Ukraine and the Zelenskyy administration.
Speakers
Introduction:
Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center
Moderator:
William E. Pomeranz, Deputy Director, Kennan Institute
Speakers:
Mykhailo Minakov, Senior Advisor; Editor-in-Chief, Focus Ukraine Blog
Victor Andrusiv, Executive Director, Ukrainian Institute for the Future
Olena Lennon, Title VIII-Supported Short-Term Scholar, Adjunct Professor of Political Science and National Security, University of New Haven
2. Beyond Control: Iran and its Opponents Locked in a Lopsided Confrontation|July 22, 2019|12:00pm|Atlantic Council|1030 15thSt NW, 12thFloor, Washington, DC|Register Here
At a time of rising tensions between the United States and Iran, various active opposition groups among Iran’s exiled communities, each with their own unique ideology, continue to bid for the position of powerful alternative to the Islamic Republic. Largely fragmented, these opposition groups and their figures have had limited success in posing a real challenge to Tehran’s establishment. The Islamic Republic, however, has continued to view them as an existential threat. To discuss the realities, perceptions, and impact of these groups, please join us for a panel discussion that will also mark the release of a new issue brief, “Beyond Control: Iran and its Opponents Locked in a Lopsided Confrontation.” The issue brief, written by Atlantic Council nonresident senior fellow Borzou Daragahi, sketches out the landscape of the various major political opposition groups in Iran and addresses the question of why Iran perceives them as such a challenge.
The discussion will be held July 22, 2019 from 12:00 to 1:30 pm at the Atlantic Council. The event is open to press and on the record.
Introductory Remarks:
General James L. Jones, USMC (Ret.), Executive Chairman Emeritus, Chairman, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
A conversation with:
Borzou Daragahi, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Nader Uskowi, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Jonathan Winer, Scholar, Middle East Institute
Moderated by:
Suzanne Kianpour, Foreign Affairs & Political Journalist, BBC News
3. Employment and Reintegration for Returnees & At-Risk Populations in Afghanistan|July 23, 2019|9:00am-10:30am|Center for Strategic and International Studies|1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
A negotiated settlement may be the only solution to end the 18 years of war in Afghanistan. Though peace is possible, it feels like a distant hope. Afghans and others are cautiously talking about life after armed conflict, but a much-desired peace brings its own challenges. Chiefly among them is to address the livelihood needs of former fighters, some 2 million returned refugees, more than 2.5 million internally displaced persons, and many other vulnerable people.
The panel of distinguished experts will discuss challenges, options, and opportunities as Afghanistan attempts to address employment for these at-risk segments of the population. During the panel session, Dean Piedmont of Creative Associates will present a white paper on disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) of former fighters in the country.
FEATURING
H.E. Roya Rahmani, Ambassador of Afghanistan to the United States
Dean Piedmont, Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration Expert, Creative Associates International
Earl Anthony Wayne, Former Deputy U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan
Rohullah Osmani, Visiting Scholar, Johns Hopkins University SAIS & ADB North America
Yesim Oruc, Deputy Director, UNDP Washington Office
Nitin Madhav, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, USAID Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs
4. America’s Highly Skilled Workforce, the Talent Pipeline, and H-1B Visas|July 23, 2019|10:00am-12:00pm|Wilson Center|1300 Pennsylvania NW, Washington, DC 20004|Register Here
Shortages of highly skilled professionals are one of the most significant challenges for industries across the United States. Many observers believe that government and industry-led training initiatives, access to high-skilled foreign nationals, and robust STEM education programs can and should be part of the solution.
Please join the Wilson Center’s Asia Program and NASSCOM, along with the Wilson Center’s Science and Technology Innovation Program, for a discussion on current talent challenges and how best to address them. The event will launch new reports produced by IHS Markit on H-1B visas and the global IT services industry; include expert analysis of the issues that companies are experiencing with the visa program; and feature exploration of industry and government workforce and STEM education initiatives.
Agenda
Welcome/Introductory Comments
Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO, The Wilson Center
Opening Remarks
Ambassador Harsh Shringla, Indian Ambassador to the United States
Session 1: Presentation of IHS research findings
Karen Campbell, Associate Director—Economics & Country Risk, IHS Markit
Michael Kugelman, Asia Program Deputy Director and Senior Associate for South Asia, The Wilson Center (moderator)
Session 2: The H-1B Visa Program and Implications for the U.S. Economy
Stuart Anderson, Executive Director, National Foundation for American Policy
Jon Baselice, Executive Director, Immigration Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Spencer Abraham, Former U.S. Energy Secretary and Senator (moderator)
Session 3: Industry and Government Training and STEM Education
Robin Fernkas, Acting Deputy Administrator, Office of Workforce Investment, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor
Robin Wright, Director, Division of Undergraduate Education, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation
Kapil Sharma, Vice President for Government and Public Affairs North America, Wipro
Elizabeth Newbury, Director, Serious Games Initiative, Science and Technology Innovation Program, The Wilson Center (moderator)
Closing Remarks
Debjani Ghosh, President, NASSCOM
5. Security and Foreign Policy in 2020: A Conversation with Washington Journalists|July 23, 2019|5:30pm-6:30pm|Center for Strategic and International Studies|1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
Join the Center for Strategic and International Studies for a Smart Women, Smart Power conversation with four Washington-based journalists to discuss foreign policy and security issues in the 2020 campaign.
Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Venezuela, global migration, and immigration are just a few of the international issues that have dominated the headlines this year, but just how much of a factor will they be in next year’s presidential election remains to be seen. The panel will also explore the potential impact of disinformation and malign influence efforts on media coverage of all campaign 2020 issues.
FEATURING
Helene Cooper, The New York Times
Susan B. Glasser, The New Yorker
Jennifer Griffin, FOX News Channel
Lara Seligman, Foreign Policy
6. 9thAnnual South China Sea Conference|July 24, 2019|9:00am-4:45pm|Center for Strategic and International Studies|1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
The CSIS Southeast Asia Program and Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative are pleased to present the Ninth Annual South China Sea Conference on Wednesday, July 24, 2019. This full-day conference will provide opportunities for in-depth discussion and analysis of developments in the South China Sea over the past year and potential paths forward. Panels will address the state of play in the South China Sea, the history and historiography of disputes in the South China Sea, pathways for dispute management, and the global stakes related to the South China Sea.
9:00 a.m. Morning Keynote
9:45 a.m. State of Play in the South China Sea
Evan Laksmana, Senior Researcher, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta
Huong Le Thu, Senior Analyst, Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
Gregory B. Poling, Director, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative; Fellow, Southeast Asia Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Liu Xiaobo, Associate Research Fellow; Director, World Navy Research Center, National Institute for South China Sea Studies
Moderator
Bonnie Glaser, Senior Adviser for Asia and Director, China Power Project, Center for Strategic and International Studies
11:00 a.m. Coffee Break
11:15 a.m. How Did We Get Here? History and Historiography
Kavi Chongkittavorn, Senior Fellow,Institute of Security and International Studies, Chulalongkorn University
Bill Hayton, Associate Fellow, Asia-Pacific Programme, Chatham House
Stein Tønnesson, Research Professor,Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)
Marites Vitug, Editor-at-Large, Rappler
Moderator
Amy Searight, Senior Adviser and Director, Southeast Asia Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
12:30 p.m. Lunch Served
1:15 p.m. Lunch Keynote
Admiral Scott H. Swift, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet
2:00 p.m. Pathways for Dispute Management
Jay Batongbacal, Associate Professor; Director, Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea, University of the Philippines
Lan Nguyen, Assistant Professor, Utrecht University School of Law
Prashanth Parameswara, Senior Editor,The Diplomat
Ian Storey, Senior Fellow, ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute
Moderator
Gregory Poling, Director, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Fellow, Southeast Asia Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
3:15 p.m. Coffee Break
3:30 p.m. Global Stakes
Pooja Bhatt, PhD Candidate, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Sarah Kirchberger, Researcher, Center for Asia-Pacific Strategy and Security, Institute for Security Policy at Kiel University (ISPK)
Toshihiro Nakayama, Professor, Faculty of Policy Management, Keio University
Bec Strating
Senior Lecturer, Politics, La Trobe University; Asia Studies Visiting Fellow, East-West Center in Washington
Moderator
Michael J. Green
Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan Chair, CSIS; Director of Asian Studies, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
4:45 p.m. Adjourn
7. US-Japan-Australia Infrastructure Collaboration in the Indo-Pacific: Opportunities and Obstacles|July 25, 2019|10:30am-12:00pm|Stimson Center|1211 Connecticut Ave NW 8thFloor, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
Infrastructure needs in developing Asia are vast: the Asian Development Bank estimates that $26 trillion is needed through 2030. Bridging this infrastructure gap will require significantly increased engagement and public spending from governments, assistance from donor governments and international financial institutions, and—most importantly—unlocking investment from the private sector. The Free and Open Indo-Pacific has a focus on supporting high-quality infrastructure as a sustainable and economical alternative to China’s Belt and Road state-driven investments, but FOIP goals and approaches differ significantly between the United States and its allies Japan and Australia.
How can these allies coordinate effectively to ensure a sustainable infrastructure future for the Indo-Pacific region? Deputy Head of Mission Katrina Cooper from the Australian Embassy will kick off the conversation with opening remarks. Emerging experts Dr. Huong Le, Courtney Weatherby, and Hiroshi Yasui will explore the context of FOIP infrastructure engagements from each country and discuss specific obstacles and opportunities to collaborate moving forward. The panel discussion will be moderated by Vice President for Policy Marc Mealy of the US – ASEAN Business Council and the discussion will be followed by a Q&A session. This event is part of the Building the Indo-Pacific series, which convenes thought-leaders from the US, ASEAN, and other Indo-Pacific countries to promote messaging around key FOIP infrastructure and development programs.
These experts include:
Marc Mealy, Senior Vice-President for Policy at the US-ASEAN Business Council (MODERATOR)
Katrina Cooper, Deputy Head of Mission from the Australian Embassy
Dr. Huong Le Thu, Senior Analyst, Australia Strategic Policy Institute
Courtney Weatherby, Research Analyst, Stimson Center Southeast Asia Program
Hiroshi Yasui, Infrastructure Finance Expert and Summer Intern Researcher at the Stimson Center
8. The Value of Our Veterans: A Conversation with Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA) and Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) on Reforming the VA|July 26, 2019|8:15am-10:00am|American Enterprise Institute|1789 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) is at the heart of the nation’s care for veterans. Yet despite its best intentions, the VA struggles to adequately equip veterans with resources that enable them to flourish after service. How can the VA better assist veterans reentering the workforce while also combating the damaging “broken veteran” narrative?
Please join AEI for a discussion with House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Chairman Mike Levin (D-CA) and Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), sponsors of the VET OPP Act, as they tackle this question. Following their remarks, an expert panel will explore how the VA can modernize its approach to veterans’ transition programs.
Agenda
8:00 AM Registration
8:15 AM Introduction:
Gary J. Schmitt, AEI
8:20 AM Remarks:
Mike Levin, Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity (D-CA)
8:30 AM Remarks:
Brad Wenstrup, US House of Representatives (R-OH)
8:40 AM Discussion:
Mike Levin, Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity (D-CA)
Leo Shane, Military Times
Brad Wenstrup, US House of Representatives (R-OH)
8:55 AM Q&A
9:00 AM Panel discussion
Participants:
Rebecca Burgess, AEI
Cynthia L. Gilman, Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine
Mike Hutchings, Combined Arms
Rory Riley-Topping, Riley-Topping Consulting
Moderator:
Leo Shane, Military Times
9:45 AM Q&A
10:00 AM Adjournment
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Little by little is too little
On July 8 the United States Institute of Peace hosted a panel discussion titled “The North Korea Sanctions Regime a Year After Singapore.” The panel featured Dan Wertz, Program Manager at the National Committee on North Korea, Joshua Stanton, a DC-based lawyer who played a significant role in North Korea sanctions, Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt, a member of the UN Panel of Experts (Resolution 1874) dealing with North Korea, and Elizabeth Rosenberg, Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Frank Aum, former Senior Advisor for North Korea at the Defense Department, moderated the discussion.
Stanton views the history of US leadership on North Korea issues as many “instant gratification policies” instead of better thought out and more effective long-term policies. North Korea is highly dependent on access to US financial systems because of the status of the dollar. Since many North Korean transactions have to go through US banks, financial sanctions blocking transactions and freezing North Korean accounts can be highly effective.
Stanton believes the conversation on sanctions relief is coming about two years too early. More pressure on the Kim regime is needed so that he has a diplomatic incentive to work with the US. Even small sanctions relief is enough for North Korea to catch a breather and continue the status quo. The argument that North Korea can’t survive without nuclear weapons and therefore won’t give them up is ahistorical, according to Stanton, because North Korea has survived for decades without nuclear weapons and can continue to do so. The threat to North Korea is mainly internal.
On possible sanctions relief, Stanton clarifies that Congress has set strict rules dependent not only on issues such as nuclear disarmament and denuclearization but also contingent on human rights, human trafficking, and other issues. The current direction in congress is towards stricter rules for sanctions relief, with the goal of complete, verifiable and undisputed denuclearization of North Korea. The US has to work together with its allies to set up financial sanctions that pressure Pyongyang while at the same time allowing transactions for non-military purposes that benefit the North Korean people. Humanitarian aid should be given to North Korea regardless of political or military actions since it benefits the poor and starving civilians, a point all the panelists agreed on.
Kleine-Ahlbrandt notes that the goal of the UN sanctions regime is to persuade North Korea to dismantle its nuclear and missile programs and prevent the proliferation of WMDs. Sanctions shouldn’t be the objective, which is to catalyze what she calls “effective dialogue.” At the same time the negative impact of sanctions on the economy and civilian population of North Korea should be limited. The UN sanctions regime is broad, but member states have insufficiently implemented the sanctions and evasion tactics by North Korean entities and individuals have undermined compliance. North Korea currently has full access to the international financial system through complicit foreign nationals, a network of agents, and cyberattacks aimed at financial institutions.
Wertz views the sanctions as having a threefold purpose: signaling to North Korea that provocative actions such as missile tests come at a cost, constraining progress on WMDs and other military capabilities, and coercing North Korea through sanctions pressure to make concessions and abandon the nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Coercion is difficult because translating economic pressure to political actions is difficult. UN sanctions, which are focused on the missile and nuclear programs, can be modified if political consensus is reached within the UNSC on whether North Korea’s behavior warrants relief.
US sanctions are trickier since they are premised on a broad range of topics from WMDs to human rights, cyber-attacks, currency counterfeiting and more. The executive branch has some leeway on how it administers individual sanctions or waives them on a case by case basis, but to lift sanctions as a whole the White House has to certify to Congress that North Korea has made significant progress on several of the issues listed. This divergence of US and UN sanctions could potentially lead to a clash if North Korea abandons its nuclear program but doesn’t improve on human rights or other issues.
Wertz suggests that a program of phased sanctions relief in return for meaningful concessions on the nuclear program could be in the US interest down the road and lists five principles for sanctions relief:
- Any trade of sanctions relief for North Korean nuclear concessions should be premised on the ultimate goal of denuclearization but should also make sense on its own terms.
- The US should start with the sanctions that have the least direct connection to the nuclear program and can be most easily adjusted and snapped back.
- The US shouldn’t ease up on measures intended to deny hard currency to North Korea until it can guarantee the money won’t be funneled to military programs.
- Sanctions relief should be structured in a way that pushes North Korea towards an open economy and minimal respect for labor rights.
- If sanctions relief goes forward the United States and allies should continue to enforce sanctions that haven’t been lifted, but not expand the scope of sanctions.
Rosenberg suggests the lack of compliance with sanctions is in part because many individuals or companies don’t understand or know about the rules. Awareness and compliance protocols in industries other than finance are rare. Before sanctions are removed, Rosenberg says it is valuable to think about what unwinding sanctions could look like. Sanctions shouldn’t be lifted as an incentive; behavioral change has to happen before sanctions are lifted because they are in place for specific concerns. Instead more work should be put into establishing communication and cultural as well as diplomatic exchanges as incentives, none of which require sanctions relief.
Rosenberg also warns that a “little-by-little” approach to removing sanctions in exchange for limited progress doesn’t work. North Korea’s track record of cheating on sanctions means incremental change might create a façade behind which North Korea can do as it pleases. The only politically viable way ahead for the US is major sanctions relief after North Korea makes major and verified progress on denuclearization.
Here is the video of the event:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The US needs a green-water navy
On June 26 the Hudson Institute hosted two author presentations followed by a panel discussion on maritime irregular warfare. The panel consisted of Benjamin Armstrong, author of Small Boats and Daring Men: Maritime Raiding, Irregular Warfare, and the Early American Navy, Joshua Tallis, author of The War for Muddy Waters: Pirates, Terrorists, Traffickers and Maritime Insecurity, Peter Haynes, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and former Deputy Director, Strategy, Plans, and Policy (J5) of the U.S. Special Operations Command, Martin N. Murphy, Visiting Fellow of the Corbett Centre for Maritime Policy Studies, and Linda Robinson, Senior International/Defense Researcher at the RAND Corporation. Patrick Cronin, the Hudson Institute’s Asia-Pacific Security Chair, moderated.
Armstrong gave an overview of the two prevalent schools of naval thought, guerre de course (commerce raiding) and guerre d’escadre (fleet to fleet battle). These, however, leave out large parts of US naval tradition, in particular guerre de razzia, or “war by raiding.” In this school of thought the focus lies on raiding coasts and colonies using a “green water” navy. Armstrong believes that strategies of guerre de razzia are important for naval operations today.
Tallis pointed to the 2007 Cooperative Strategy for Maritime Seapower serves as a guide for the US Navy, Marines and Coast Guard. With Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 NATO’s focus shifted back to great power competition. The 2015 review of the 2007 strategy and the 2018 National Defense Strategy echo this shift. Tallis warns that there can be more than one trend at a time, and a full shift towards great power competition would ignore important issues.
Population growth and urbanization all put stresses on the Global South and poor governments, which leads to other actors, such as the Houthis in Yemen, cropping up. The issues caused by these groups don’t stay local and matter to global powers too. Tallis argues that maritime insecurities are more like crime than war. Coast guards and navies recognize issues but are equipped for war and lack the proper tools to respond. He warns against militarization of a criminal problem. It often leads to an us vs. them or fortress mentality in which the people the coast guard is supposed to protect resist it.
Using the broken windows theory, Tallis says crime is context-dependent and multidimensional, which extends to maritime security. By addressing the eco-system of maritime criminality, links between illegal fishing and piracy or human trafficking can be found and progress can be made. Maritime security needs to be treated as a cohesive discipline instead of individual issues like piracy or illegal fishing. The US needs to become better at following the local lead and listening to local communities in areas where it provides maritime security.
Haynes views the return to maritime great power competition with China as the first since the Empire of Japan in WWII. The difference is China competes across many different fields (economically, socially, militarily), in part due to globalization. The US Navy has defined competition too narrowly. It sees itself as a blue-water navy and focuses almost exclusively on war and anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD). It lacks the small boats, such as the river boats used in Vietnam, needed for green- and brown-water operations.
Maritime control is important. 65% of goods and 90% of internet traffic go by sea. Complementing Armstrong’s argument, Haynes says the US does a poor job of using history to analyze and develop strategies to counter irregular maritime threats. Part of the issue stems from the Cold War hyper-rational thinking, which is harder to apply to irregular maritime warfare.
Murphy thinks the US is not prepared to deal with irregular maritime challenges because it lacks of maritime political intention and policy cohesion, while China sees economic opportunities in the sea and devotes funding to maritime projects such as a network of ports. The US is a naval power without maritime power, because it sees the sea as a medium to project US power onto land. US naval operations have shifted away from the sea to supporting ground and air forces.
Robinson agreed and and pointed towards opponents using irregular warfare as a centerpiece to their global strategy: China expanding its exclusive economic zone, and Russia through the Wagner mercenary group as well as Iran through its famous use of proxies in both the military and political realm. The US needs to establish a cohesive response. Armstrong added that irregular warfare and great power competition are intermixed. States use irregular warfare when they don’t want to go to full war. Treating them as separate would be fatal.
The US is stuck in a WWII view of war, Robinson argued. Once more modern circumstances are appreciated, a shift in spending will follow. Haynes supported her argument: under no circumstances would he trade a singe F-18 for several smaller boats, which would be useful for green-water navy strategies. The incapability for the US to see the gray zone between war and peace and adjust both strategy and spending could be very costly.
A full video of the event is available here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Russia’s Venezuela Gamble
On June 20 the Atlantic Council hosted an event on “Russian Influence in Venezuela: What Should the United States Do?” with an introductory speech by Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) followed by a panel discussion. The panel featured Ambassador John Herbst, Director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council, Ambassador Paula J. Dobriansky, Senior Fellow at the Harvard University Belfer Center and former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, Francisco Monaldi, Director of the Latin America Initiative and fellow on Latin American Energy Policy, Evelyn N. Farkas, Resident Senior Fellow at the German Marshall Fund and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, Mark D. Simakovsky, Nonresident Senior Fellow of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, and Konstantin Eggert, a columnist for Deutsche Welle and former vice-president for public and government affairs for ExxonMobil Russia Inc. Jason Marczak, Director of the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, moderated.
Senator Scott painted a picture of the situation in Venezuela, describing the hunger and poverty that has driven thousands to flee into neighboring countries. Scott said Maduro’s regime is intentionally starving parts of the population, calling it a genocide. Russia is propping up Maduro and Scott believes the house of cards will fall if Russia pulls its support. Russia has sent nuclear capable bombers to Venezuela and reports of mercenaries from Russia’s “Wagner Group” are abundant. Scott called Russia’s support for Venezuela “the most aggressive Russian threat since the Cuban Missile crisis,” saying the US needs to act now to prevent a Syria in our hemisphere.
Ambassador Paula Dobriansky explained that Russia’s behavior can be explained by four principles.
- Russia’s goal is to marginalize, minimize and eradicate US power abroad.
- Putin’s statement at the 2007 Munich Security Conference that Russia doesn’t support the institutions and values that promote peace.
- The desire to reconstitute the Soviet Union or Russia’s sphere of influence and make Russia a visible global actor once more.
- The importance for Russia to find and align itself with like-minded actors, in part due to its economic troubles.
Taking these principles into account Dobriansky says Russia’s investment in Venezuela ($17 billion since 2005) is important, but its behavior is driven by the political investment: Chavez and now Maduro’s alignment with Russia and Putin. Monaldi agrees but adds that economically the collapse of Venezuelan oil production is good for Russia. Herbst added that Russia doesn’t want dictators to fall to protesters in the street, partially out of fear that such a situation could arise in Russia.
Farkas concurred. Putin needs the kleptocracy in Russia to keep himself afloat. She compares Venezuela to Syria: Russia is playing a high stakes political game at low cost, but avoids direct conflict with the US. The only way Russia would step away from Venezuela is if the US “gave them” the Ukraine. Herbst says such a notion is pure fantasy and commends American patience since Russia is bound to lose in both places in the long-term. However, Farkas warns the longer the stalemate drags on the more refugees flee Venezuela and destabilize neighboring countries, potentially forcing the US to act.
Eggert agreed but says there are limits to what Putin can do. Five years of falling take-home pay have angered the population and the expense of Crimea is vastly unpopular. Putin cannot pull of an economic miracle again to appease the Russian population. Syria is cheaper and logistically easier for Russia to deal with than Crimea. An agreement for Maduro to leave Venezuela the regime will be good for Russia down the line. Maduro knows that Russia is the only country that can exfiltrate him out of Venezuela if necessary. Dobriansky adds that while Russia wants to prevent regime change it cares more about its political investment in Venezuela and not who is in charge, which could mean the Kremlin pulling support for Maduro’s regime if it is no longer politically feasible.
Simakovsky analyzed the economics of the situation. Sanctions seem to have worked and Russia hasn’t made any significant investments in terms of arms deals or loan guarantees as a result. Russia realizes its limits but also realizes US limits and the stalemate at hand. Simakovsky warns that Washington has to be careful with its sanctions so as not to alienate allies in Venezuela and push them towards Russia.
Eggert and Farkas agreed everything in Russia’s foreign policy since 2014 leads back to Ukraine. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 was the first forcible border change in Europe since WWII and represented an attempt by Russia to regain its place as a status-quo power. All panelists brought up the Wagner group as an important foreign policy tool for Russia, but Eggert mentioned how things can go wrong. This was the case in Syria when an estimated 200 Wagner mercenaries were killed attacking a coalition base. Incidents like these worry Farkas, who says they pose a greater risk of escalating into unwanted conflict than strategic nuclear bombers deployed to Venezuela. Eggert concurred. Russian posturing isn’t of concern, but a situation in which Russia feels forced to show strength in order to save face poses a real threat.
Asked what a redline in Venezuela would be for the US, Simakovksy referred to the Monroe Doctrine. If Russia pursues a Ukraine-like scenario in Venezuela the US would have to pushback. Washington wasn’t successful in preventing Russia from invading Georgia in 2008 or annexing Crimea in 2014 but it has to be clear on Venezuela. Dobriansky said the best way to keep pressure on Russia is through sanctions on Rosneft in particular, as well as calling Russia out directly for keeping Maduro in power.
The full video of the event is available on the Atlantic Council’s Youtube channel here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
How the UN serves US interests
The Center for Strategic and International Studies June 13 hosted a panel on “US Interest and Leadership in the United Nations” featuring Catherine Bertini, former Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Programme, and Bill Richardson, former Governor of New Mexico and former US Ambassador to the United Nations. Daniel F. Runde, Senior Vice President and William A. Schreyer Chair and Director of the Project on Prosperity and Development, moderated.
Asked why the US should keep investing in and care about the UN and what the UN does for the US, Bertini said the UN has a responsibility for peace and security. Given the US veto power in the Security Council, Washington has a lot of leverage to pursue American interests. Richardson made a case for multilateralism, saying the US needs international support to advance American goals. With rising populism and anti-institutionalism, bipartisan support is needed to maintain the UN, which surveys show a substantial number of Americans support.
Due to member states (the US included) not paying some or all of their dues, the UN is in a financial crisis. If the US doesn’t pay UN dues it loses leverage and sets a bad example for other nations, who also refuse to pay, causing more harm to US interests in the long run. An audience member pointed out that when the US paid its peacekeeping dues for 8 years straight reforms were made, many peacekeeping missions were completed successfully, and troops could be withdrawn with a solid exit strategy.
Runde asked if the UN is a vehicle for burden sharing, which Bertini affirmed. Washington pays 22% of regular dues and 28% of peacekeeping operations. The peacekeeping operations are vital and decided on by the Security Council. The benefit for the US is that the troops on the ground are not Americans. It would cost the US eight times as much if they were all American soldiers.
Runde listed several common critiques of the UN such as anti-Israel moves, corruption, the human rights commission, and millions of dollars in unpaid parking tickets by UN officials in New York. Richardson said the answer is not to focus on the negatives but to work on marketing and politics, especially aimed at the younger generations. Changing the system right away isn’t going to work, therefore the focus should be on the positives instead of individually rebutting each critique.
Bertini agreed, saying that while some critiques are valid they are only a small piece of the picture. The UN also saves the lives of children, helps feed people, and protects refugees. The UN is also involved in many things such as food safety, copyright law, and postal rules that many people never think about but are part of the international social order.
Richardson also pointed out that UN sanctions brought North Korea to the negotiating table and that the UN World Food Program remains an important humanitarian link that could lead North Korea to reform. Called upon from the audience by Runde, former State Department official Pat Kennedy mentioned that issues such as unpaid parking tickets in New York are often overstated in tabloid media.
Richardson suggested that both a lack of US public understanding of the UN and a perception around the world that Washington dominates the P5 cause lack of support for the UN. He suggests the UN needs more women and people from underrepresented regions in leadership positions at the same time as an updated selection and transition process to ensure that qualified people are hired. Bertini agrees that currently support for transition from one official to another is lacking. Richardson also suggests expanding the Security Council to include Germany and Japan as permanent members without veto power and revamping the rotation system for the regional spots on the UNSC.
Her is a full video of the event:
RSS - Posts
