Category: Nicolas Reeves
Peace picks July 2 – 15
1. Mexican Ambassador Discusses the Evolving U.S.-Mexico Relationship | Tuesday, July 3, 2018 | 11:30 am – 12:30 pm | Hudson Institute | Register Here
On July 3rd, Hudson Institute will host Gerónimo Gutiérrez Fernández, Ambassador of Mexico to the United States, for a discussion about the current state of U.S.-Mexico relations. The conversation will be moderated by Hudson Distinguished Fellow Walter Russell Mead.
The U.S.-Mexico relationship has recently faced new challenges. Immigration enforcement has intensified along the shared border; NAFTA renegotiations have progressed slowly, leading some in the Trump Administration to consider bilateral trade deals as an alternative approach with its North American partners; and new tariffs imposed on Mexican steel and aluminum have triggered retaliatory measures. Yet Mexico has long served as a strong regional trade ally and critical partner in efforts to combat narcotics trafficking. Voters in Mexico’s presidential elections on July 1st will likely be influenced by the rapidly evolving relationship between these two countries.
Gerónimo Gutiérrez Fernandez was named Ambassador of Mexico to the United States on January 13, 2017 by President Enrique Peña Nieto. During a more than 15-year career as a public servant, Ambassador Fernandez has served under four Mexican presidents. Prior to his most recent appointment, he was the Managing Director of the North American Development Bank (NADB).
Speaker:
His Excellency Gerónimo Gutiérrez Fernández, Ambassador of Mexico to the United States
Moderator:
Walter Russell Mead, Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute
2. Stabilizing Sino-Indian Security Relations: Managing Strategic Rivalry After Doklam | Tuesday, July 10, 2018 | 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM | Carnegie Institute for International Peace | Register Here
The Doklam standoff between Indian and Chinese troops in the summer of 2017 coincided with an ongoing deterioration in bilateral relations, and accelerated pre-existing military competition. Frank O’Donnell provides a detailed analysis of Indian and Chinese nuclear and conventional ground force posturing, and illustrates darkening rival perceptions of these actions and their underlying strategic intentions. Join Carnegie for a discussion with O’Donnell on his new paper, Stabilizing Sino-Indian Security Relations, which proposes new measures to limit the recurrence of future Doklam-like episodes and their inherent risk of escalation. Copies of the paper will be available.
Speakers:
Sameer Lalwani: senior associate and co-director of the South Asia program at the Stimson Center.
Tanvi Madan: director of the India Project and fellow in the Project on International Order and Strategy in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution.
Frank O’Donnell: Stanton junior faculty fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, and a nonresident fellow in the South Asia program at the Stimson Center.
George Perkovich: Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini chair and vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
3. Senator Jeff Merkley on Violence and Humanitarian Response in Africa | Wednesday, July 11, 2018 | 9:00 am – 10:00 am | US Institute of Peace | Register Here
Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) recently returned from a five-country visit to Somalia, South Sudan, Djibouti, Kenya, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to assess the region’s humanitarian crises while seeking to better understand their root causes. He held over 35 meetings with civil society, refugees living in camps, aid workers, government officials, and U.N. peacekeepers. During his visit, it became clear to Senator Merkley that U.S. diplomatic leadership, development aid, and humanitarian response are critical to addressing the root causes of conflict, climate change and corruption.
Senator Merkley will speak about Congress’ priorities on humanitarian- and conflict-related issues in Africa.
Speaker:
Senator Jeff Merkley, US Senator from Oregon, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Multilateral International Development, Multilateral Institutions, and International Economic, Energy, and Environmental Policy.
Moderator:
Nancy Lindborg, President, U.S. Institute of Peace.
4. Rethinking globalization: How do we rebuild support? | Wednesday, July 11, 2018 | 10:00 am – 11:30 am | American Enterprise Institute | Register Here
The Trump administration’s America First approach to economic policy has brought into stark relief the declining support among a growing number of Americans for what has come to be called “globalization.” But anti-globalization sentiment in the United States has broader support than the Trump base alone and reflects deeper social and economic drivers that policymakers have failed to address over time. Increasingly, Americans wonder what is in “globalization” for them. In today’s hyper-divisive environment, how can policymakers cut through the fractious political discourse and improve our understanding of the impact of an increasingly interconnected world on the American people?
Join AEI and the Brookings Institution for the launch of “Reconceptualizing Globalization,” a joint project to address globalization, anti-globalization, and the importance of engagement for all Americans.
Agenda:
9:45 am – Registration
10:00 am – Discussion
Participants:
Jared Bernstein, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Daniel W. Drezner, Tufts University
Stephen J. Hadley, RiceHadleyGates
Merit Janow, Columbia University
Moderators:
Joshua Meltzer, Brookings Institution
Neena Shenai, AEI
11:10 am – Q&A
11:30 am – Adjournment
5. War or Deal? The Impact of Trade on the East Asian Economies | Thursday, July 12, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm | Stimson Center | Register Here
Whether a trade war or trade deal, U.S.-China trade disputes are guaranteed to have a spillover effect on the East Asian regional economies. The Trump administration’s recent escalation of tariffs on Chinese goods – with immediate reciprocation from Beijing – is already rippling through the global economy, but U.S. allies and partners in East Asia could be among the hardest hit. Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea have significant exposure to Chinese production, both as importers and exporters in the regional value chain. How does the ongoing trade war – or potential deals in the future – impact the interests of Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea? Join us for a panel discussion with Dr. Liu Shih-Chung, Vice Chairman at the Taiwan External Trade Development Council, Troy Stangarone, Senior Director at the Korea Economic Institute of America, Matthew Goodman, Senior Vice President at the Center for Strategic & International Studies (invited), and Yun Sun, Co-Director of the East Asia Program at Stimson (moderator). A light lunch will be served.
6. Beheading Dragons: Streamlining China’s Environmental Governance | Thursday, July 12, 2018 | 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm | The Wilson Center | Register Here
In March, China’s National People’s Congress passed sweeping reforms to streamline environmental governance in order to more rapidly mitigate China’s crushing air, water, and soil pollution. Natural resource and pollution regulation have long been fragmented and managed by overlapping bureaucracies in China, leading to infighting and buck passing. The Chinese idiom “nine dragons rule the waters” (jiu long zhi shui) aptly captures how nine different government agencies have competed to regulate water. Under today’s reforms, China’s lead environmental watchdog—newly renamed Ministry of Ecological Environment (MEE)—will share water regulation with the Ministry of Water Resources, decreasing nine dragons to two. Another major dragon-slaying reform was to grant most regulatory power over climate change to MEE, a move that will require this newly reconfigured agency to become significantly more powerful than its earlier incarnation.
On July 12, CEF has invited three speakers to unpack the drivers and impacts of this major reform in China. Liu Zhuoshi (Environmental Law Institute) will detail how legal and regulatory authorities around pollution and climate issues are changing. He will also reflect on hurdles Chinese government faces to expand these reforms at the subnational level. Hu Tao (WWF – U.S.) will explore how the new MEE could act more holistically to manage complex pollution issues, like a better coordination on the joint management of air pollution and carbon emission regulations. Liu Shuang (Energy Foundation China) will reflect on the implication of China’s recent governance reforms on efforts to create a national carbon emissions trading systems and what other policies and institutional changes are needed to make it succeed.
Speakers:
Zhuoshi Liu, Staff Attorney at Environmental Law Institute.
Tao Hu, Director of the China program at World Wildlife Fund – US.
Shuang Liu, Director of the Low Carbon Economic Growth Program at Energy Foundation China.
Moderator:
Jennifer L. Turner, Director, China Environment Forum & Manager, Global Choke Point Initiative.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stabilization again
During the Stabilization Symposium on Tuesday, a panel consisting of Frances Brown (Fellow – Carnegie Institute), Ciara Knudsen (Policy Planning Staff, Office of the Secretary – Department of State), Katherine Donahue (Office of Transition Initiatives – USAID), and Colonel Joe Holland (Chief, Stability and Humanitarian Engagement Division, J-5 Global Policy & Partnerships – Department of Defense) discussed avenues for building peace and stability in post-conflict situations, using the Stabilization Assistance Review (SAR) as a blueprint.
According to Brown, three key obstacles make it complicated to transition from conflict to peace: defining success, measuring progress, and governmental organization. The SAR states that post-conflict stabilization is inherently political, allowing the US to better confront the first challenge. Specifically, it provides the US government with the flexibility to candidly judge whether the legitimate political actor on the ground wants peace and stability, making it possible for interventions to succeed. This mindset would have been crucial in Afghanistan, where large sums were poured into stabilization efforts that derailed because president Karzai’s government was not on board.
Brown argued that the SAR also allows the US to adopt more realistic measures for success in stabilization operations. In Afghanistan, cherry-picked stories were used to evaluate US peace building efforts, causing onlookers in Washington to mistakenly believe that the success of three, US-implemented district councils was indicative of the state of affairs in the country as a whole. Brown expressed confidence that the SAR’s emphasis on a coordinated, cross-government strategy for stabilization will make US implementers more accountable to each other, increasing the likelihood that future interventions will adopt more accurate measures of success.
Knudsen used her experience with the Defeat ISIS Campaign to critique the SAR’s inapplicability to situations where short-term, cosmetic interventions will not work because no legitimate on-site actors exist. ISIS has systematically destroyed entire communities’ physical and social infrastructure by reducing cities to rubble, planting IEDs, assassinating tribal leadership, and leaving sleeper cells behind in liberated areas.
These conditions breed a climate of fear and distrust in target communities, making it nearly impossible to find actors who enjoy the legitimacy to inspire the unity necessary to accomplish stabilization. Thus, stabilizing institutions in destroyed cities like Mosul and Raqqa will require meaningful, long-term engagement. Knudsen argued that the SAR does not recognize that most conflict situations call for more than quick, low-budget interventions to develop lasting peace.
Donahue struck a more positive tone than Knudsen, praising the SAR for being realistic and encouraging swift governmental interventions to stabilize conflict zones. The SAR’s declaration that stabilization is an iterative process falls directly in line with the philosophy OTI uses for its intervention strategy. According to Donahue, this will give the US government the flexibility to behave more like OTI, allowing it to mobilize quickly instead of getting bogged down in crafting grand strategies that often do not apply to the situation on the ground. Instead, the SAR strategy centers around learning on the go, recognizing that moving quickly and being correct at the 80% level is more productive than shooting for 100% effectiveness and failing because of inaction.
During his assignment to Kirkuk in the Iraq War, Holland was responsible for facilitating provincial reconstruction teams in the area. In what was indicative of the broader White House strategy at the time, military officers were under the impression that the Department of Defense was spearheading stabilization efforts in Iraq. Little interagency coordination occurred as a result. This military-centric approach led to planning gaps, causing stabilization attempts to end largely in failure. Iraqis remained employed for a snapshot in time, so communities slid back into conflict following US withdrawal. The SAR’s emphasis on interagency coordination represents a building block for future stabilization success, opening the door for long-term, sustainable development by legitimate regional partners after US troops end the mission.
The Bottom Line: The SAR is promising, but it has limits and presents little more than a framework to guide future US stabilization efforts in conflict regions. While this general blueprint will give US actors on the ground considerable flexibility in crafting case-specific strategies, the SAR’s desire for quick, low-cost interventions ignores that most conflicts are multidimensional and can only be solved by long-term stabilization initiatives. Reluctance to commit significant time and resources to stabilization means that future US peace building efforts will likely fail, or that the US will avoid intervening in these situations altogether.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Israel’s “center”
On Monday, the Brookings Institution hosted M.K. Yair Lapid, founder of the centrist Yesh Atid party, the largest opposition party in the Knesset. Lapid shared his views about current Israeli domestic and foreign policy, including its relationship with the US, as well as his vision for the country’s future. John R. Allen, president of the Brookings Institution, gave introductory remarks, and Tamara Coffman Wittes, senior foreign policy fellow at Brookings Center for Middle East Policy, moderated the discussion. Below, I discuss key takeaways from Lapid‘s remarks.
Foreign Policy Flashpoints
At a time when regional conflict threatens Israel’s relative stability, Lapid described how his country and the international community should approach Israel’s main foreign policy challenges to ensure future Israeli security. On the Palestinian front, Lapid stressed the importance of breaking the silence that has stalled negotiations on a two state solution since the Trump embassy move. A return to dialogue represents the only road to peace. A Palestinian Jerusalem, however, is off the table. Lapid stated that “Jerusalem is a capital; if someone came to DC and asked [the US] to share it with Mexico, they would refuse.” Lapid also criticized UNRWA, arguing that having a refugee agency solely for Palestinians allows Arab countries to maintain a false moral high ground in the conflict.
Lapid blamed Hamas for the recent killing of hundreds of protestors in Gaza by Israeli snipers, saying that the violent protests threatened national security. Although it is not at fault for the violence, Israel must work quickly to solve the humanitarian crisis; after all, Gazan sewage contaminates Israeli water. However, any Israeli efforts to solve the crisis must be predicated by Hamas’ fall from power, clearing the way for humanitarian aid to reach Gazan hands without funding terrorist activities.
Lapid also used national security to defend his country’s controversial position in the Golan Heights. In addition to their strategic importance in fending off the rising Iranian and Hizbollah threat, giving the Golan Heights back to Assad is simply not an option, as it would put 22,000 Jewish lives at risk. Similarly, opening the northeastern border to Syrian Arab refugees also represents an unacceptable security risk. Instead, Lapid called on the US to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Heights, arguing that this move would allow the US to send the message that it does not tolerate Assad’s human rights abuses.
Israeli-US Relations: Troubling Times Ahead?
While Lapid lauded the Trump administration’s goodwill towards Israel, he expressed concern that positive relations on the executive level are papering over fissures that will emerge after Trump leaves office. Chief among these is American Jewry’s increasing disinterest in Israel. Orthodox Jews in Israel have criticized American Reform Jews too much, causing them to feel alienated. Increasing anti-Israel discourse on US college campuses has prevailed over American Jews’ ties to their ancestral homeland. Lapid also linked heightened partisanship under Trump to the erosion of the bipartisan support Israel has enjoyed in the past. As a consequence, bilateral relations could deteriorate during the next democratic administration, leaving Israel more exposed than ever to national security threats from within the Arab world.
Careful Optimism: A Winning Call?
As he discussed his chances for beating Netanyahu in the next parliamentary elections, Lapid emphasized that Israelis are more hesitant about large political shifts than US voters. For that reason, Lapid argued that emphasizing satisfaction with the status quo while calling for gradual crackdowns on corruption and moving towards a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict will be a winning call in 2019. In addition, Lapid advocated for a move away from using empty rhetoric to avoid confronting issues head-on, saying that “we need a government that actually does stuff, not [one] that just eloquently describes the problem.” While his strategy of emphasizing continuation and subtle changes might mean that Yesh Atid does not differentiate itself enough from Likud enough to win in 2019, Lapid hopes that centrist success in Germany and France might bode well for Israel.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Levant: from bad to worse
The Wilson Center hosted a panel yesterday entitled “The Middle East: A Region in Chaos?” to discuss the current situation in the Middle East and the U.S. government’s reaction to this situation. Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO of the Wilson Center, introduced the speakers before the moderator, Michael Yaffe, Vice President, Middle East and Africa at the U.S. Institute of Peace, provided a brief summary of the many developments in the region in 2018. The panel included:
Robin Wright – USIP-Wilson Center Distinguished Fellow
Bruce Riedel – Senior Fellow and Director, Brookings Intelligence Project, Brookings Institution
Mona Yacoubian – Senior Advisor, Syria, Middle East and North Africa, U.S. Institute of Peace
Aaron David Miller – Vice President for New Initiatives and Middle East Program Director, Wilson Center.
This post will focus on the panel’s analysis of recent developments in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Syrian Conflict. A previous post focused on the Iran/Saudi Arabia dimension.
As the conversation shifted to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Miller painted a bleak picture of future prospects for a two-state solution. At a time when Syria, Iraq, and Egypt – traditional, vocal allies of the Palestinian cause – are projecting less power across the region because of unrest at home, the US-Israel relationship has reached unprecedented strength. This realignment is a central premise of Jared Kushner’s peace plan strategy. Kushner hopes that aligning fully with Israel on previous roadblocks, such as the governance of Jerusalem, will take these issues off the table while heaping pressure on Netanyahu to accept concessions made to the Palestinians. At the same time, Palestinian demoralization with the current state of affairs will push them back to the negotiating table if any unexpected compromises are made. Miller argued that Kushner’s moves will have the opposite effect; Palestinian trust in America to be an honest broker has evaporated over the last six months, leaving them less inclined than ever even to engage with the United States to find a viable two-state solution.
Miller and Yacoubian also highlighted the diminishing US leadership as power vacuums emerge across the region due to the dysfunction of many Arab states. As Trump continues the Obama administration’s hands-off approach to the region, these voids are being filled by Russia, Turkey, Israel, and non-state actors. US aversion to conflict has also allowed Iran to dramatically increase its influence in Syria, leading to direct military engagement between Israel and the Islamic Republic. Yacoubian argued that a possible Israeli airstrike on Iranian positions close to the Syria-Iraq border could mean that more escalation is on the horizon. Paradoxically, continued hostilities could drag the United States into a proxy war between Israel and Iran fought in Syria and Iraq.
On the southern front, the Syrian Arab Army’s ongoing siege of Dera’a and Al-Quneitra provinces could force even more refugees to flee to Jordan. The Hashemite Kingdom is already reeling from the political blowback to tax hikes designed to combat the country’s ailing economy, and another refugee influx would further inflame internal tensions. Yacoubian argued that recent US inaction in Syria suggests that the State Department’s promise for “firm and appropriate measures” in response to cease fire violations in Southern Syria is also bluster, so Jordan is on its own. Yacoubian also revealed that efforts to convince the Kurds to leave Manbij and move east of the Euphrates in northern Syria could easily derail, leading to more violence, while Trump’s desire to quickly withdraw US. troops could leave a power vacuum that ISIS would exploit.
The Bottom Lines: The political situation in the Levant has gone from bad to worse over the last six months. Increased US support of Israel at the expense of Palestinian goodwill appears to have driven them away from the negotiating table completely, at least for now. In Syria, immediate US withdrawal will only lead to further destabilization. While the train has left the station for Trump to intervene in the south to limit further economic and political strain on Jordan, maintaining a presence in the east could prevent a resurgence of ISIS in this sparsely populated, US-controlled region.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Chemical weapons: how and who
The deployment of chemical weapons in Homs, Syria by the Assad regime in late 2012 ended a 20-year freeze on state employment of chemical weapons. Since then, the use of these weapons of mass destruction has exploded, with over 200 attacks reported in Syria alone, in addition to incidents in Iraq, Malaysia, and the United Kingdom.
One week before the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OCPW) meets to discuss multilateral methods to enforce accountability for users of chemical weapons, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) convened a group of chemical weapons experts to share their ideas for enforcing accountability for users of chemical weapons. Ahmet Üzümcü, Director-General of the OCPW, gave the keynote address before a panel moderated by Rebecca Hersman, Director of the Project on Nuclear Issues at CSIS, discussed the issue of chemical weapons proliferation. The panel included:
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance
Samantha Job, Counsellor for Foreign and Security Policy, British Embassy Washington
Nicolas Roche, Director of Strategic, Security and Disarmament Affairs, French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Üzümcü detailed the successes of his tenure as OPCW Director-General, which included the elimination of 96 percent of declared chemical weapons stockpiles worldwide. He also delved into the challenges the OPCW faces in the coming years, emphasizing that increased chemical weapon attacks in Syria and elsewhere call for heightened international coordination to reinforce nonproliferation. However, Russia’s enabling attitude towards Syria’s chemical weapons use has actually eroded this norm. In recent years, Russia has vetoed UN Security Council resolutions to condemn Assad’s actions. Putin has also led a defamation campaign against the OPCW’s investigation methods. In the face of this challenge to the OPCW and its mission, the Director-General advocated for member states to give the organization the power to conduct investigations to identify the perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks.
Roche focused on France’s desire to combat chemical weapons use by strengthening multilateral institutions. He stressed the importance of international partnerships for information gathering and sharing, as well as the need for a stronger OPCW with the power to identify perpetrators of chemical weapons violence. In what could be seen as a slight to both the US and Russian behavior vis-a-vis international institutions over the last year, Roche emphasized that a multilateral regime for addressing the attribution gap in chemical weapons investigations is a greater good. France will move forward with multilateralism in combating the chemical weapons threat, regardless of who is on board.
Poblete agreed that multilateralism should be at the forefront of the fight against chemical weapons proliferation, but argued that bilateral negotiations between states should also play a role. International approaches fail when compromise becomes the enemy of the good. Poblete defended president Trump’s bilateral strategy with North Korea, repeating multiple times that the administration was well-informed going into the Kim summit. Trump’s failure to mention Kim’s chemical weapons program in the buildup or the aftermath of the meeting in no way indicated that dismantling North Korean stockpiles was off the table.
Job took the point about the need for multilateralism a step further, focusing on the critical role OPCW plays in strengthening the international norm against chemical weapons proliferation. Job emphasized the need to combat Russia’s attacks on the legitimacy of the Chemical Weapons Convention’s regulatory body, arguing that member countries should appoint permanent representatives to the OPCW to accomplish this goal. OPCW also needs increased funding to face the threat of chemical weapons attacks by non-state actors. Like Roche, Job also explicitly endorsed giving the OPCW the power to fill the attribution gap that currently exists in the prosecution of chemical weapons crimes.
Bottom Line: The international community is currently at a crossroads when it comes to dealing with the rejuvenated threat of chemical weapons attacks. Our European allies have already decided on the way forward: multilateralism. The United States is still welcome at the international negotiation table, but like with the JCPOA, France and other European powers will not capitulate to the US preference for bilateralism. The United States must present a united front with its allies on the chemical weapons issue, both for the sake of nonproliferation and for prevention of further erosion of American credibility in the current international framework.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks, June 18 – 24
1. ROK-U.S. Strategic Forum 2018: Assessing the Trump-Kim Summit | Monday, June 18 | 9:00 am – 4:30 pm | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register here
Join CSIS for a timely discussion with scholars, experts, opinion leaders, and government officials from the United States and South Korea who will participate in a series of panel discussions focused on the historic inter-Korean and U.S.-North Korean summit meetings, the potential for denuclearization and building a peace regime on the Korean peninsula, and regional implications of summit diplomacy in Northeast Asia.
9:00 am: Registration
9:30 am: Welcoming Remarks
Dr. John Hamre, President and CEO, CSIS
Ambassador Lee, Sihyung, President, The Korea Foundation
9:45 am: Opening Keynote Address
His Excellency Lim, Sungnam, First Vice Foreign Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea
Moderated by:
Dr. Victor Cha, Senior Adviser and Korea Chair, CSIS; D.S. Song-KF Professor of Government, Georgetown University
10:15 am: Coffee Break
10:30 am: Session I: Assessing the Inter-Korean Summit and the U.S.-North Korea Summit
Ms. Rachel Martin, Host, Morning Edition and Up First, National Public Radio
Dr. Victor Cha, CSIS and Georgetown University
Dr. Sue Mi Terry, Senior Fellow, Korea Chair, CSIS
Dr. Paik, Haksoon, President, The Sejong Institute
Dr. Kim, Joon Hyung, Professor, Handong Global University
11:45 am: Luncheon and Keynote Conversation
Moderated by:
Ambassador Mark Lippert, Vice President, Boeing International; Former U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea, U.S. Department of State
1:00 pm: Session II: Denuclearization and Peace Regime on the Korean Peninsula
Mr. Evan Osnos, Staff Writer, The New Yorker
Ms. Rebecca Hersman, Director, Project on Nuclear Issues; Senior Adviser, International Security Program, CSIS
Mr. John Schaus, Fellow, International Security Program, CSIS
Dr. Yoon, Young-kwan, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea
Dr. Lee, Sang Hyun, Senior Research Fellow, The Sejong Institute
2:15 pm: Coffee Break
2:20 pm: Session III: Regional Implications of Summit Diplomacy
Dr. Kim, Heung-Kyu, Professor, Ajou University
Dr. Michael Green, Senior Vice President and Japan Chair, CSIS; Professor and Director, Asian Studies Program, Georgetown University
Mr. Christopher Johnson, Senior Adviser and Freeman Chair in China Studies, CSIS
Dr. Lee, Hochul, Professor, Incheon National University
Dr. Lee, Shin-wha, Professor, Korea University
3:35 pm: Coffee Break
3:45 pm: Closing and Keynote Address
Senator Cory Gardner, United States Senator for Colorado
Moderated by:
Dr. Victor Cha, CSIS and Georgetown University
4:30 pm: Adjournment
2. Strategic Challenges in the Baltic Sea Region | Monday, June 18 | 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm | The Atlantic Council | Register here
Please join the Atlantic Council’s Transatlantic Security Initiative and Future Europe Initiative for a public event on “Strategic Challenges in the Baltic Sea Region: Russia, Deterrence, and Reassurance” on Monday, June 18, 2018 from 1:00 pm. to 2:30 pm.
As an assertive Russia continues to threaten the stability and security of the Baltic Sea region, NATO’s deterrence posture and readiness continues to evolve. The nations of Northern Europe are also working to address the current gaps in national defense capabilities and ensure the security of the Baltic Sea region.
At this crucial juncture for the future of Northern Europe and the Baltic Sea region the Atlantic Council is hosting a public discussion on the new book “Strategic Challenges in the Baltic Sea Region: Russia, Deterrence, and Reassurance” edited by Council senior fellow Ann-Sofie Dahl. This new book sheds light on the complex security challenges of the Baltic Sea region, and provides insights on next steps for bolstering defense and deterrence in the region.
Featuring:
Dr. Ann-Sofie Dahl, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Dr. Andres Kasekamp, Professor, Elmar Tampolf Chair of Estonian Studies, University of Toronto
Dr. Robert Lieber, Professor, Department of Government, Georgetown University
Mr. Magnus Nordenman, Director, Transatlantic Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, Distinguished Fellow, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
3. Chinese Expansion and the South China Sea: Beijing’s Strategic Ambition and the Asian Order| Monday, June 18 | 3:00 pm – 4:00 pm | The Wilson Center | Register here
China’s ambitions to become Asia’s undisputed regional hegemon is perhaps most evident in the South China Sea, as Beijing creates military bases along remote reefs and islands in a 1.5-million-square mile expanse. Join us for a discussion with Humphrey Hawksley, author of Asian Waters: The Struggle Over the South China Sea and the Strategy of Chinese Expansion and Los Angeles Times Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Bob Drogin for a discussion on the rivalry between China and the United States, and the dilemma facing countries in the region including Vietnam, South Korea, Indonesia, Japan, and the Philippines to challenge China’s dominance. James Clad, the CNA Corporation’s senior advisor for Asia and former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia, will also join the discussion.
4. Restoring Restraint: Enforcing Accountability for Users of Chemical Weapons | Tuesday, June 19 | 9:00 am – 11:30 am | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register here
In 2012, a 20-year moratorium on state employment of chemical weapons use was broken. Since then there have been more than 200 uses – against civilians, military targets, and political enemies. These attacks have broken norms against the use of weapons of mass destruction and create a gap in the nonproliferation fabric – despite the robust international architecture of laws, treaties, agreements, and norms designed to restrain the proliferation and use of these weapons. Accountability for these recent attacks has been limited or non-existent, which threatens the credibility of the nonproliferation regime and only encourages further use. Leaders must find the political and moral strength to use a full spectrum of tools to re-establish this system of restraint. This event will discuss ways in which the international community is working to rebuild the system of restraint against chemical weapons, and CSIS will also launch on a report on this topic.
9:30 am: Welcome, Rebecca Hersman, Director, Project on Nuclear Issues, and Senior Adviser, International Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
9:45 am: Keynote Address, H.E. Mr Ahmet Üzümcü, Director-General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
10:20 am: Panel Discussion, Moderator: Rebecca Hersman, Director, Project on Nuclear Issues, and Senior Adviser, International Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Dr. Yleem D.S. Poblete, Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance
Samantha Job, Counsellor for Foreign and Security Policy, British Embassy Washington
Nicolas Roche, Director of Strategic, Security and Disarmament Affairs, French Ministry of Foreign Affairs
11:45 am: Event Concludes
4. Columbia’s Vote: The Road Ahead for the Next President | Tuesday, June 19 | 12:00 pm | The Atlantic Council | Register here
The June 17 presidential runoff election between Iván Duque and Gustavo Petro comes at a critical moment for the country’s future. Colombians will choose between two starkly different visions at a time of deep divide. What will be the trajectory for a hemispheric leader and a close US ally on the regional and world stages?
The next president takes office on August 7 with many immediate tasks including: jumpstarting economic growth now as a member of the OECD; determining next steps around the peace process; putting in place new mechanisms to combat corruption; and navigating the challenges of a deepening crisis next door in Venezuela. What new policies can we expect in these crucial areas?
Join the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center on Tuesday, June 19 from 12:00pm to 1:00pm (EDT)— two days after the Colombian election — for a rapid reaction discussion on what to expect from Colombia’s next president on some of the most pressing issues facing the country today.
Speakers:
Alina Dieste, Washington Correspondent, Agence France-Presse
Tomás González, Member, Atlantic Council Colombia Task Force; Executive Director, Colombia, International Monetary Fund
Juan Carlos López, US Political Director & Anchor, CNN en Español
Jason Marczak, Director, Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, Atlantic Council
5. Lawless Skies: Airstrikes and Civilian Casualties in Libya | Wednesday, June 20 | 12:15 pm – 1:45 pm | New America | Register here
In 2011, NATO intervened during a national uprising in Libya to protect civilians from the forces of Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi. Today, the environment remains chaotic. At least four countries and two Libyan armies have continued to carry out airstrikes since the end of the NATO intervention.
New America and Airwars, the UK-based airstrike monitoring group, investigated those strikes and published our findings in the paper “Air Strikes and Civilian Casualties in Libya,” co-authored by Peter Bergen, Vice President at New America, and director of New America’s International Security Program (ISP) and Alyssa Sims, a policy analyst in ISP. New America and Airwars documented more than 2,000 airstrikes that were reportedly conducted between September 2012 to June 2018 in Libya. According to news reports and accounts on social media, at least 242 civilians were killed in these strikes, taking the lowest estimate, and as many as 392 killed, by the highest estimate. This study is the first accounting of these civilian deaths.
To discuss the results of the study and the political environment in Libya, New America welcomes Jonathan M. Winer, the State Department’s Special Envoy for Libya during the Obama administration, Chris Woods, an investigative journalist and the director of Airwars, Oliver Imhof, a Libya researcher and data analyst, and Alyssa Sims.
6. The Middle East: A Region in Chaos? | Wednesday, June 20 | 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm | The Wilson Center | Register here
Last December, the Wilson Center and the U.S. Institute of Peace co-sponsored an event on turmoil across the Middle East with four experienced analysts and practitioners. We agreed to gather again a half-year later to review our observations and conclusions.
Six months later, a scan of the landscape reveals many changes: a new phase in the ongoing war in Syria; recent elections in Iraq, Tunisia, and Lebanon; and U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement. At the same time, we see a stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process – and yet, the possibility of a new peace initiative from the Trump administration; the continuing war in Yemen; a continuing rift within the GCC; and potential for a serious Israeli-Iranian conflict in Syria.
Please join the Wilson Center as our four veteran analysts reconvene to address these and related issues in a region whose volatility shows no signs of abating.
Speakers:
Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center
Mike Yaffe, Vice President, Middle East and Africa, U.S. Institute of Peace
Aaron David Miller, Vice President for New Initiatives and Middle East Program Director, Historian, analyst, negotiator, and former advisor to Republican and Democratic Secretaries of State on Arab-Israeli negotiations, 1978-2003; Global Affairs Analyst with CNN
Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow and Director, Brookings Intelligence Project, Brookings Institution
Robin Wright, USIP-Wilson Center Distinguished Fellow, Journalist and author/editor of eight books, and contributing writer for The New Yorker
Mona Yacoubian, Senior Advisor, Syria, Middle East and North Africa, U.S. Institute of Peace
RSS - Posts
