Category: Rory Coleman
Lost, but not paradise
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hosted a discussion Wednesday with Daniel Seidemann, founder and director of Terrestrial Jerusalem. He was joined by Zaha Hassan, a human rights lawyer and visiting fellow at the Carnegie Middle East program. They reviewed recent events in Israel and Jerusalem and discussed the implications for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the near future.
Seidemann’s portrayal of the political future in Israel was bleak. The move by the Trump administration to relocate the American embassy to Jerusalem was the death knell for American leadership in the crisis. Worse, there is no other state willing and able to fill America’s role as neutral arbiter in the conflict. Seidemann warned that hopelessness, which he called “the great destabilizer”, now reigned in East Jerusalem. He expressed no confidence in the ability of the current administration to approach Jerusalem with the seriousness that it deserves, or even recognize what he characterized as the basic fact of occupation in East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank. Instead he characterized the American policy as “buy them and break them” hoping to stifle dissent with budgetary crumbs, combined with a bleak situation intended to break Palestinian political will.
Seidemann also warned that Israel, along with most of the West, is in danger of sliding into authoritarianism. Institutions are under attack all across Israel. Netanyahu will be attending the inauguration of Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s new President-elect who more than toyed with fascism while on the campaign trail. Netanyahu’s move towards authoritarianism is largely due to the noose around his neck: he faces the specter of imminent indictment on corruption charges, which he hopes to ride out and remain in office.
Domestic pressure may play a part in pushing Netanyahu towards construction of two “doomsday” settlements: the E1 settlement in East Jerusalem which would create a bottleneck in the West Bank, and another settlement which would sit between East Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Both settlements would create a serious barrier to the realization of a continuous Palestinian state, as well as displace Palestinians from their homes in numbers unseen since 1997. Though this plan has been paused in the past due to international pressure, it is conceivable given the vacuum of American leadership that Netanyahu may move to strengthen his base in Israel.
Zaha offered an overview of Palestinian strategy in the wake of American withdrawal as an effective mediator. Palestinians have engaged in a flurry of international engagement, hoping to advocate for themselves on the world stage. They filed a complaint to the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the first ever state-to-state complaint handled by the UN. The committee, consisting of experts on racial discrimination, will tackle among other issues the accusation of apartheid in Israel.
Another complaint has been lodged with the International Criminal Court, and deals with human rights violations committed on Palestinian territory. Since many of the allegations have taken place in East Jerusalem the case will necessarily involve a ruling on whether East Jerusalem is part of the territory of the Palestinian State.
A case in the International Court of Justice questions whether the US can legally relocate its embassy to Jerusalem given the city’s special status. While the US under Trump will likely ignore an unfavorable ruling, the decision will have repercussions for states who are considering an embassy move but seek to abide by international law.
The situation in Israel underlines the need for a renewed American policy in the Middle East. Seidemann urged that it is not too soon to begin considering what American policy in Israel should be after Trump, but he warned against viewing previous American policy as paradise lost, saying “it is lost, but it’s not paradise.” Instead America needs a new plan for thoughtful leadership in the Middle East, free of gimmicks and mindful that the world is no longer unipolar. The silver lining to America’s withdrawal under Trump is an opportunity to reconstitute US foreign policy.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Middle East wants reform
On Tuesday the Middle East Institute (MEI) hosted the presentation of the latest Middle East Public Opinion poll by James Zogby. Polling was conducted in 10 countries: Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey and Iran. Zogby, Co-founder and President of the Arab American Institute and Director of Zogby Research Services, presented a summary of the data and key points before a panel discussion that featured Paul Salem, President of MEI, Kate Seelye, Vice President of MEI, Alex Vatanka, an MEI Senior Fellow, and Steven Cook, Eni Enrico Mattei Senior Fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Throughout the Middle East citizens expressed discontent with the policies of their governments. Only in the UAE did a majority of respondents indicate that their country was on the right track. This discontent spanned the rough divide opened by the Arab spring. Egypt and Tunisia both followed the “democratic track” after successful revolutions in 2011, but a majority of respondents there believe their countries to be on the wrong track, joining Iraq and Palestine as states with majority disapproval. In Egypt the drop included the military, whose confidence levels have fallen 50 points since 2013. Government reform was ranked 3rd overall in the list of political priorities, topping extremism, foreign enemies, health care, and personal rights. This contradicts a common narrative, which justified the failure of the Arab Spring by claiming that the people desired only improved economic and security conditions and cared little for political reform as long as those conditions were met. Downplaying the desire for reform may have been simply wishful thinking by authoritarian leaders in the region. The survey conveyed a sense of foreign policy pragmatism. Regarding Syria there was growing support for a national unity government with participation of Bashar al Assad. Regarding Iran, while majorities supported the Trump administration’s move to pull out of the nuclear deal, in every country except Tunisia and Egypt the majority believe that peace between Iran and the Arab world is “very possible” or “somewhat possible.” Eight out of ten countries, including Iran, held the majority view that it is important to bring Iran into a regional security arrangement with the Arab countries to help bring peace to the region. One exception to this pragmatism is the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A growing majority in 5 out of 7 Arab states were opposed to a partnership with Israel, even if Israel returns occupied Palestinian lands and fulfills the terms of the Arab Peace Initiative. Palestinians themselves remained overwhelmingly prepared for peace with Israel if the refugee issue is solved and Israel returns to its pre-1967 borders, but a growing number believe the Israelis would never agree to those terms. Given the growing struggle between Saudi Arabia and Turkey for regional influence, the polling reflected just how close the competition is. Turkey surpasses the Saudis for favorability in Tunisia, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Iraq, and tightened the gap in Egypt. A majority of Arab countries view Turkey as playing a more positive role than Saudi Arabia in both Iraq and Syria. Public opinion of America has fallen in the region. The EU, Russia and China all fared better than America. The panel believed that this drop in opinion was largely due to the perception of the American government as inept. The polling indicates a continued sense of unrest in the region. With little faith in their own institutions, the people of the Middle East remain largely uninspired by the jingoistic foreign policies of their governments and continue to seek an end to costly civil wars, in order to focus on domestic reforms and economic improvement.Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks December 10 – 16
- Reflections on the Middle East in 2018 | Tuesday, December 11 | 12 pm – 1:30 pm | Middle East Institute and Arab American Institute | 1319 18th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
The Middle East Institute (MEI) and the Arab American Institute (AAI) are pleased to host James Zogby (Co-founder and President, AAI and Director, Zogby Research Services) to reflect on his latest poll of perspectives from across the Middle East and North Africa. The report includes the opinions of 8,628 adults from eight Arab countries as well as Turkey and Iran on the current landscape of employment opportunities, confidence in governmental institutions, and the future of Palestine. The poll also assessed regional attitudes towards the U.S.’s role in the region, the Iran Nuclear Deal, the region’s refugee crisis, and the fight against extremism.
Joining James Zogby to discuss these findings are Nadia Bilbassy(DC Bureau Chief, Al Arabiya News), Steven Cook (Eni Enrico Mattei Senior Fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies, Council on Foreign Relations), and Alex Vatanka (Senior Fellow, MEI).
The poll and resulting report were organized by the UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The findings are available for use by the public on the website of Zogby Research Services.
2. The Open Society and its enemies in South Korea: from Right Authoritarianism – to Left? | Tuesday, December 11 | 3 pm – 5 pm | American Enterprise Institute | 1789 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
The North Korean nuclear crisis and the US–Republic of Korea (ROK) military alliance dominate international coverage of the Korean Peninsula, but what about South Korea itself? South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s administration has reportedly clamped down on media outlets, restricted freedom of speech, and encouraged partisanship in the judiciary and civil service.
Is the ROK government on a path to limit freedoms in the South? Or is this all just politics as usual in a democracy with different rules from our own? Please join AEI for a discussion on the domestic politics of South Korea and their implications for the ROK, the US, and North Korea.
Agenda
2:45 PM
Registration
3:00 PM
Panel: Toward illiberal democracy? South Korea under the Moon administration
Panelists:
Jean Lee, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Tara O, Pacific Forum; Institute for Corean-America Studies
Joshua Stanton, One Free Korea
Moderator:
Nicholas Eberstadt, AEI
4:10 PM
Conversation: The open society and its enemies in Korea: Reckoning with the ironies of history
Participants:
Nicholas Eberstadt, AEI
Sung-Yoon Lee, Tufts University
5:00 PM
Adjournment
3. Resilience in Conflict: Lessons from a Youth Exchange with the Dalai Lama | Wednesday, December 12 | 10 am – 11 am | US Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Register Here
The world’s most violent conflicts are being fought within its most youthful populations. In the five countries that suffered nearly 80 percent of recent deaths from violent extremism, half of all people were younger than 22. The youth in these countries are also some of their communities’ most effective peacebuilders and best hopes for breaking cycles of violence. What does it take for these young leaders to overcome crisis, conflict, and displacement? Please join the U.S. Institute of Peace on December 12 for a streamed forum with thought leader and youth leader participants from USIP’s Youth Leaders’ Exchange with His Holiness the Dalai Lama as they share their expertise, discuss what it takes to build inner resilience and, crucially, examine how to strategically apply it to peacebuilding.
In the third year of the Exchange, USIP’s Generation Change program brought 27 youth leaders from 12 countries to Dharamsala, India, where they enhanced their peacebuilding skills through trainings in conflict management, leadership, and prejudice awareness and reduction. They engaged His Holiness the Dalai Lama on issues ranging from cultivating inner peace, building bridges across social divides, human rights and the refugee crisis, and youth leadership. By the end of the program, the participants had learned from and inspired each other, and returned home ready to redouble their efforts to reduce violence in their communities.
Speakers
Wadi Ben-Hirki
Founder, Wadi Ben-Hriki Foundation (Nigeria)
Jimmie Briggs
Executive Director, Leave Out Violence-U.S., (U.S.)
Meron Kocho
Member of Council, MESPO-Iraq (Iraq)
Maya Soetoro-Ng
Advisor, Obama Foundation (U.S.)
Gregg Zoroya
Editorial Writer, USA Today (U.S)
4. How Should the Trans-Atlantic Alliance Counter Russian Aggression? | Wednesday, December 12 | 10 am – 11:30 am | Brookings Institution | 1775 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
The West is searching for a response to Russia’s ongoing malfeasance, including its recent attack on Ukraine in the Black Sea and its just-revealed effort to “muck around” in U.S. 2018 midterm elections. These are the latest in a long sequence of transgressions on the part of the Kremlin, ranging from the invasion of Georgia, to the violation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, to interference in the democratic processes of NATO member states, perhaps most dramatically seen in Putin’s assault on the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As a result, on both sides of the Atlantic, democratic values and institutions—and the trans-Atlantic alliance predicated upon them—are at risk.
On Dec. 12, Governance Studies and the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings will jointly co-host an event with the bipartisan Transatlantic Democracy Working Group (TDWG), featuring an expert panel that will discuss the threats emanating from Russia and elsewhere to security, democracy, and the trans-Atlantic alliance—and what the alliance can and should do about it.
Panel Speakers
Mary Louise Kelly, Host, All Things Considered – NPR
Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Senior Fellow and Director, Transatlantic Security Program – Center for a New American Security
Bill Kristol, Editor at Large – The Weekly Standard
Alina Polyakova, David M Rubenstein Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe
Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, Distinguished Fellow – The Atlantic Council
5. Can International Organizations Promote Democracy? | Wednesday, December 12 | 10 am – 11:30 am | Stimson Center | 1211 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Organizing Democracy, a new book by Paul Poast and Johannes Urpelainen, argues that new democracies are more likely to flourish when they receive support from international organizations to help them provide public goods to their populations. This event will present the findings of Organizing Democracy, analyze the relationships between new democracies and international organizations in the cases of Ukraine and Libya, and explore policy implications for democracy promotion by the U.S. government.
FEATURING:
PAUL POAST, Co-Author, Organizing Democracy, and Assistant Professor, Political Science, University of Chicago
STEPHEN LENNON, Director, Office of Transition Initiatives, USAID
STEVEN GRINER, Director, Department of Sustainable Democracy and Special Missions, Organization of American States
AMANDA KADLEC, Policy Analyst, RAND Corporation
ADITI GORUR, Director, Protecting Civilians in Conflict Program, Stimson Center (Moderator)
6. Discussion with Jerusalem Expert Daniel Seidemann | Wednesday, December 12 | 11 am – 12 pm | Foundation for Middle East Peace | 1779 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 |
Please RSVP to Blair Scott by no later than Monday, December 10
The Trump Administration has implemented a wholesale shift in US policy in Jerusalem. From the moving of the US embassy and recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, to de-funding Palestinian hospitals in East Jerusalem, to the decision to close down the US Consulate General, to removing the brakes on East Jerusalem settlement activity, the policies playing out today in Jerusalem have profound implications locally, regionally, and in the geopolitically. Please join FMEP and the Carnegie Endowment for a discussion with Jerusalem expert Danny Seidemann examining these and related issues.
Speakers:
Daniel Seidemann is a practicing attorney in Jerusalem who specializes in legal and public issues in East Jerusalem. He has participated in numerous Track II talks on Jerusalem between Israelis and Palestinians and served in an informal advisory capacity to the final status negotiations as a member of a committee of experts commissioned by Prime Minister Barak’s office to generate sustainable arrangements in Jerusalem. He is the founder and director of Terrestrial Jerusalem, an Israeli nonprofit that that works to identify and track developments in Jerusalem that could impact the political process or permanent status options, destabilize the city, spark violence, or create humanitarian crises.
Michele Dunne is the director and a senior fellow in Carnegie’s Middle East Program, where her research focuses on political and economic change in Arab countries, particularly Egypt, as well as U.S. policy in the Middle East. She was the founding director of the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East at the Atlantic Council from 2011 to 2013 and was a senior associate and editor of the Arab Reform Bulletin at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace from 2006 to 2011. Dunne was a Middle East specialist at the U.S. Department of State from 1986 to 2003, where she served in assignments that included the National Security Council, the Secretary’s Policy Planning Staff, the U.S. embassy in Cairo, the U.S. consulate general in Jerusalem, and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. She also served as a visiting professor of Arabic language and Arab studies at Georgetown from 2003 to 2006.
Zaha Hassan is a Middle East Fellow at New America. She is a human rights lawyer and former coordinator and senior legal advisor to the Palestinian negotiating team during Palestine’s bid for UN membership (2010-2012). She is a member of Al Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network, and is a contributor to the Hill and Ha’aretz. Her political commentary and analysis has been published by the New York Times, CNN, Salon, the Oregonian, the Detroit News, and other outlets. She is the former cohost of the Portland, Ore.-based radio show, One Land Many Voices, on KBOO 90.7 FM.
7. Our Uncertain Nuclear Future: How Do We Proceed if Treaties are Trashed? | Wednesday, December 12 | 4 pm – 6 pm | Stimson Center | 1211 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Donald Trump’s announcement of intent to withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty constitutes another severe blow to a treaty-based system of nuclear arms and threat reduction. One last treaty governing formal, verifiable draw-downs of nuclear forces remains — the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Mr. Trump has vacillated wildly in his comments on the future of U.S. strategic forces, ranging from an expressed interest in deep cuts to significant arms build-ups. For now, he has declined Vladimir Putin’s offer of extending New START. Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, might be expected to seek withdrawal from New START, and he might well succeed, rather than to leave the decision of its extension and further reductions to the winner of the next presidential election.
Please join us for a discussion of our nuclear future with Nina Tannenwald, Director of the International Relations Program at Brown University, Jon Wolfsthal, Director of the Nuclear Crisis Group and Senior Advisor to Global Zero, and Lynn Rusten, Vice President of the Global Nuclear Policy Program at the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Our speakers will address the following questions: What role will norms play in our nuclear future? What role will treaties play, with specific reference to New START? Will we be entering a future of “arms control without agreements”? If so, what might this look like? Stimson’s Co-founder, Michael Krepon, will moderate our discussion.
8. Targeted Sanctions on Human Rights Abusers and Kleptocracies: Lessons Learned and Opportunities from the Global Magnitsky Santions | Thursday, December 13 | 9 am – 10:30 am | Center for Strategic and International Studies | 1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Please join the Human Rights Initiative for reflections from U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), the author of the Global Magnitsky Act. He will be followed by a panel examining the impact of the Global Magnitsky sanctions, opportunities to improve implementation, and how the sanctions fit within financial sector approaches to human rights and corruption. These sanctions enable targeted designations based on human rights abuse and corruption around the world, and have been imposed on officials and companies in a number of recent high profile situations, including Myanmar, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Nicaragua.
Keynote Speaker
U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Panel
Robert Berschinski
Senior Vice President Policy at Human Rights First
Robert Peri
Director of US Sanctions at Citibank
Joshua White
Director of Policy and Analysis at The Sentry
9. How Can U.S. Foreign Policymakers Do Better for the Middle Class? | Thursday, December 13 | 9:30 am – 10:45 am | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | 1779 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Americans are increasingly skeptical that the U.S. role abroad benefits them economically at home. What will it take to bridge the divide between America’s foreign policy and domestic imperatives? Join Susan Glasser for a conversation with two former White House chiefs of staff on how to make U.S. foreign policy work better for America’s middle class.
This event will launch a new report, U.S. Foreign Policy for the Middle Class: Perspectives from Ohio — the first in a series of state-level case studies from Carnegie’s bipartisan task force on foreign policy for the middle class
William J. Burns is president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He previously served as U.S. deputy secretary of state.
Joshua Bolten served as White House chief of staff under president George W. Bush, and is currently president and CEO of the Business Roundtable.
Denis McDonough is served as White House chief of staff for president Barack Obama’s second term, and is currently a visiting senior fellow in Carnegie’s Technology and Internatinal Affairs Program.
Susan B. Glasser is a staff writer at the New Yorker, where she writes a weekly column on life in Trump’s Washington. She was a founding editor of Politicoand editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy Magazine.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
National defense strategy
Johns Hopkins SAIS Wednesday hosted the release of the new congressionally-mandated report on the 2018 National Defense Strategy. The report was presented and discussed by the commission’s co-chairs, Ambassador Eric Edelman, Roger Hertog Distinguished Practitioner-in-Residence at SAIS’s Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies, and Admiral Gary Roughead, USN (Ret.), Robert and Marion Oster Distinguished Military Fellow at the Hoover Institution. The discussion was moderated by Eliot Cohen, SAIS Vice Dean for Education and Academic Affairs.
1. Great power competition
The strategy focused primarily on China and Russia, laying out plans for competition with them, and contingencies for the possibility of war. US national defense strategy has come a long way since the last edition in 2014 towards accepting the return of great power competition. Iran, North Korea, and international terrorism were noted as problem areas requiring continued focus, but took a backseat to China and Russia in the discussion.
The US Could Lose a State-to-State War
One striking observation of the report was the uncertainty that the US would win in a full-scale war against Russia in the Balkans or against China in Taiwan. Until recently US policy was shaped by the assurance that superior technology granted us total control in the air and at sea. However, poor investment and upkeep on the part of the US paired with smart investments by China and Russia have shrunk the technology gap to the point where the US could feasibly lose a state-to-state conflict.
2. Technology change
Since the end of the Cold War the US has increased the military’s workload, from the war on terror to interventions in civil wars and natural disasters worldwide. While military spending has also increased, the defense strategy frames these increases as insufficient. Investment in new technologies has been hampered by the deadlock in US politics. Failure by Congress to hammer out new national security budgets has led to several continuing resolutions (CRs) over the past few years. These CRs impede the ability of the military to flexibly invest in new technology and equipment.
New technology entails risk
The net result is that the Department of Defense has adapted by trimming the fat from all investments, hoping to eliminate any “risky” spending in favor of sure bets. But reducing risk cuts investment in innovation, as it is impossible to create the next generation of military technology it. Meanwhile private sector investment in new technologies has exploded, meaning that advanced capabilities are available to anyone who has the money to pay for them. The result is that America’s military, modernized in the 1980s, has made little technological progress since then. It has ceded ground to both the private sector and our adversaries.
The call for redoubled investment extended to the need for recapitalization of America’s nuclear arsenal. Roughead emphasized that in an era of renewed great power competition, it is vital for America’s nuclear arsenal to be second to none. China and Russia have been busy modernizing, while the US has neglected even basic upkeep.
Edelman discussed the need to plan for the possibility that the US could be sucked into wars with both Russia and China at the same time. The drastic nature of this scenario only heightens the need to consider it, including its implications for America’s economy and society. They would have to be mobilized in a way they haven’t been since World War II.
The changing nature of military technology also creates new policy considerations for the economy. Questions include whether and to what degree tech companies should be required to cooperate with the Department of Defense, and whether the increasingly interconnected nature of military technology will require other countries to choose between American weapons systems or, say, Russian ones, when previously it was possible to mix and match.
3. Civilian – military imbalance
Finally the panelists highlighted the concern expressed within the 2018 strategy regarding the imbalance of power between civilian and military voices in charge of the military. Control has increasingly gone to the Joint Staff, while civilian positions such as in the Office of the Secretary of Defense have gone chronically understaffed. Without even tackling the larger disparity between the Department of Defense and the largely absent State Department, the commission believed this imbalance to be a glaring flaw within the national security system, which must soon be addressed.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks November 26 – December 2
- How to Rehabilitate and Reintegrate Violent Extremists | Tuesday, November 27 | 10 am – 12 pm | United States Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Register Here
As the loss of ISIS territory drives thousands of “foreign terrorist fighters” to return home, and hundreds of people convicted of terrorism-related offenses are scheduled for release over the next several years, communities worldwide are faced with rehabilitating and reintegrating people disengaging from violent extremism. Often returning to the same environments and social networks that facilitated violent radicalization initially, significant psychosocial and other support will be key to addressing trauma, reducing stigma, and guarding against recidivism.
The trauma- and stigma-related barriers to help-seeking behavior, prosocial interactions, and social healing are new challenges to preventing and countering violent extremism. While there is increasing consensus on the urgency of systematic rehabilitation and reintegration programs, a realistic or concrete proposition of just what such mechanisms might look like, and how they might operate, has not been put forward. Join USIP for a discussion of how policies and programs can address trauma and reduce stigma to foster cross-cutting affiliations and social learning, enable rehabilitation, and ease reintegration for people disengaging from extremist violence.
Panelists
Jesse Morton
Founder and Co-director, Parallel Networks, and co-author of the forthcoming report, “When Terrorists Come Home: The Need for Rehabilitating and Reintegrating America’s Convicted Jihadists”
Dr. James Gordon
Founder and Executive Director, The Center for Mind-Body Medicine
Dr. Sousan Abadian
Franklin Fellow, Office of International Religious Freedom, Department of State
Stacey Schamber
Senior Program Officer, International Civil Society Action Network
Colette Rausch, moderator
Senior Advisor, U.S. Institute of Peace
2. The Role of the Business Sector in Peacebuilding in Africa | Tuesday, November 27 | 10:30 am – 12 pm | Wilson Center | 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004 | Register Here
Many traditional approaches to peacebuilding in Africa have emphasized the roles of government, civil society organizations, and multilateral international organizations over that of the private sector, specifically business. While the economic power of the business sector can help to reduce unemployment and increase economic opportunity—both key factors in conflict prevention—big business has also contributed to conflict and fragility in parts of the continent. However, there is an increasing awareness that businesses can play an important role in peacebuilding efforts, but the question of what this role is, and what it should be, needs further exploration. This event will examine the landscape of business sector efforts in conflict management and peacebuilding in Africa, including the key challenges and opportunities.
The discussion will explore the role that the business sector might play, including how to better and more effectively integrate the sector into peacebuilding frameworks and post-conflict reconstruction efforts. In addition to assessing the role of international corporations, the event will also discuss the role of the African business sector—including small and medium-sized enterprises and the informal sector—in peacebuilding, address the possibility of reimagining corporate social responsibility initiatives to more effectively contribute to peace, and discuss the potential for effective private-public partnerships. The event will also provide policy-oriented options to the business sector, as well as policymakers and practitioners, to make the business sector a more effective partner for peacebuilding in Africa.
Speakers
Introduction
- Jane Harman Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center
- Mr. Eddie C. Brown, CFA Founder, Chairman and CEO, Brown Capital Management
Moderator
- Dr. Monde Muyangwa Africa Program Director
Speakers
- Dr. Raymond Gilpin Academic Dean at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, National Defense University
- Ms. Mary Porter Peschka Director, Environment, Social and Governance, International Finance Corporation
- Ms. Viola Llewellyn Co-Founder and President, Ovamba Solutions, Inc.
- Mr. Stephen D. Cashin CEO and Founder, Pan African Capital Group, LLC
3. Europe in 2019 | Tuesday, November 27 | 2 pm – 3:30 pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
A multitude of challenges confront the EU in 2019. The Brexit deadline at the end of March, uncertainty over Italy’s economic situation, and the forthcoming European Parliament elections in May are key determinants shaping the direction of the European project. On top of these flashpoints, looming challenges such as the continued spread of populism and illiberalism, fragmentation of European cooperation, and a changing security landscape add further complexity. How European leaders address these developments over the course of the next year will have far-reaching consequences. Join a panel of experts to discuss the future of Europe and its wider implications.
FEDERIGA BINDInonresident scholar in the Europe Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace working on European politics, EU foreign policy, and transatlantic relations.
ERIK BRATTBERG director of the Europe Program and a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. He is an expert on European politics and security and transatlantic relations.
KAREN DONFRIED president of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Before assuming her current role in April 2014, Donfried was the special assistant to the president and senior director for European affairs on the National Security Council at the White House.
PIERRE VIMONTsenior fellow at Carnegie Europe. His research focuses on the European Neighborhood Policy, transatlantic relations, and French foreign policy.
JONATAN VSEVIOV Estonia’s ambassador to the United States since August 2018. This is his third diplomatic posting in Washington, DC.
4. Soft Power in a Sharp Power World: Countering Coercion and Information Warfare | Wednesday, November 28 | 9 am – 10 am | United States Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Register Here
Global adversaries, especially states like Russia, China and Iran, use sharp power tools of coercion, disinformation and proxy campaigns to achieve their geopolitical goals and weaken Western influence. This new way of doing business threatens the post-Cold War stability that fostered peace, freedom and development around the globe.
Former U.S. ambassadors Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) will discuss their views on how soft power tools can and should be used to counter sharp power employed by global adversaries at USIP’s seventh Bipartisan Congressional Dialogue on Wednesday, November 28 from 9:00-10:00 a.m. Rep. Rooney is the vice chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and former U.S. ambassador to the Holy See. Rep. Beyer is the vice ranking member of the Science, Space and Technology Committee and former U.S. ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein.
Speakers
Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL)
19th Congressional District of Florida, U.S. House of Representatives
@RepRooney
Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA)
8th Congressional District of Virginia, U.S. House of Representatives
@RepDonBeyer
Nancy Lindborg, moderator
President, U.S. Institute of Peace
@nancylindborg
5. The Commission on the National Defense Strategy | Wednesday, November 28 | 9 am | Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | 1740 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
The Dean’s Forum has partnered with Strategic Studies to host the Commission on the National Defense Strategy’s presentation of its newly released, congressionally-mandated report. Established by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the NDS Commission, co-chaired by Eric Edelman and Gary Roughead, is a panel of bipartisan national security experts appointed by Congress to review and evaluate the NDS, which Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced in January 2018 at SAIS.
The Commission’s final report offers recommendations for ensuring the U.S. maintains the strong defense the American people deserve and expect, taking into account current and prospective circumstances as well as the broader geopolitical environment. Following opening remarks from Dr. Mara Karlin, Dr. Eliot Cohen will moderate a discussion with the Commission’s co-chairs on the report’s observations and recommendations.
Keynote Speakers
Ambassador Eric Edelman
Roger Hertog Distinguished Practitioner-in-Residence at the Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies, appointed by Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) to the NDS Commission
Admiral Gary Roughead, USN (Ret.)
Robert and Marion Oster Distinguished Military Fellow at the Hoover Institution, appointed by Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) to the NDS Commission
Moderator
Dr. Eliot Cohen
SAIS Vice Dean for Education and Academic Affairs and Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies
Opening Remarks
Dr. Mara Karlin
Acting Director of the Strategic Studies Program and Executive Director of The Merrill Center for Strategic Studies
6. Building Peace from the Bottom Up | Thursday, November 29 | 10 am – 11:30 am | United States Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Register Here
Do postwar peacebuilding interventions work to keep peace? How do we measure the effectiveness of such international interventions? Join former USIP Jennings Randolph Senior Fellow Pamina Firchow as she discusses her findings on how to measure the impact of local-level interventions on communities affected by war.
Firchow shows in her book “Reclaiming Everyday Peace: Local Voices in Measurement and Evaluation after War” that efforts by international organizations to implement peacebuilding interventions are often ineffective, overly focused on reconstruction, governance, and development assistance while paying significantly less attention to rebuilding local community relations.
Firchow presents empirical evidence from villages in Uganda and Colombia on local level peacebuilding effectiveness using community generated indicators that reflect how people measure their own everyday peacefulness. Firchow develops a new way of establishing accountability of international and domestic actors to local populations and opening more effective channels of communication among these groups.
Speakers
Kevin Avruch, Opening Remarks
Dean, The School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University
Kathleen Kuehnast, Introduction
Director, Gender Policy and Strategy, U.S. Institute of Peace
Pamina Firchow
Assistant Professor, The School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University
David Connolly
Director, Learning, Evaluation & Research, U.S. Institute of Peace
Roger MacGinty
Professor, School of Government and International Affairs, Durham University, United Kingdom
Anthony Wanis-St. John
Associate Professor, School of International Service, American University
7. China’s Power: Up for Debate | Thursday, November 29 | 8:15 am – 5 pm | Center for Strategic and International Studies | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
The challenges and opportunities presented by China’s rise are hotly contested. ChinaPower’s annual conference features leading experts from both China and the U.S. to debate core issues underpinning the nature of Chinese power.
8:15 a.m. Opening/Greeting
Bonnie S. Glaser Director, China Power ProjectSenior Adviser for AsiaCSIS
8:30 a.m. Morning Keynote: TBD
9:15 a.m. Proposition: U.S. engagement policy toward China has failed.
FOR: Ely Ratner Executive Vice President and Director of StudiesCenter for a New American Security (CNAS)
AGAINST: J. Stapleton Roy Former U.S. Ambassador to ChinaFounding Director Emeritus and Distinguished ScholarKissinger Institute on China and the United States, Wilson Center
10:25 a.m. Coffee break
10:40 a.m. Proposition: China is an illiberal state seeking to reshape the international system in its own image.
FOR: Pei Minxin Tom and Margot Pritzker ‘72 Professor of GovernmentGeorge R. Roberts FellowClaremont McKenna College
AGAINST:Wu Xinbo Professor and Dean, Institute of International StudiesDirector, Center for American StudiesFudan University
11:50 a.m. Proposition: Made in China 2025 and China’s broader industrial program pose a threat to global innovation and the world economy.
FOR: Scott Kennedy Deputy Director, Freeman Chair in China StudiesCSIS
AGAINST:Mu Rongping Director-General, Center for Innovation and DevelopmentChinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)
1:00 p.m. Lunch
1:40 p.m. Proposition: China is likely to be the leader of the coming artificial intelligence revolution.
FOR: Edward Tse Founder and CEO
Gao Feng Advisory Company
AGAINST: Samm Sacks
Cybersecurity Policy Fellow
New America
2:50 p.m. Proposition: China has the capability to control the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States.
FOR: Bryan ClarkSenior Fellow
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
AGAINST: Peter Dutton Professor and Director, China Maritime Studies InstituteU.S. Naval War College
4:00 p.m. Coffee break
4:15 p.m. Afternoon Keynote (VTC)
Admiral Philip S. Davidson 25th Commander of United States Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM)
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Insufficient
November 12, the Atlantic Council convened a panel to discuss the challenges of hybrid warfare. Russia and other authoritarian powers are wielding cyberattacks and active measures, campaigns of disinformation and propaganda, against the US and its allies. Ambassador Victoria Nuland, former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, Thomas Rid, Professor of Strategic Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced Studies, and General Riho Terras, Commander of the Estonian Defense Forces, gathered to discuss these threats in a conversation moderated by Jonatan Vseviov, Estonia’s Ambassador to the United States.
Cyberattacks and active measures are two different forms of covert action, but both are increasingly common in the digital age. The US and its allies have been slow to understand and adapt. Both often seek to exploit weaknesses arising from division and decentralization. They undermine the sovereignty of states, but there is no clear international framework to neutralize the threat or reprimand the perpetrators.
Even though active measures have a long history predating the internet, technology has drastically changed how they are carried out. As described by Rid, active measures are now more active and less measured than ever before. More active because the speed of communication and analysis allows disinformation campaigns to be fine-tuned while in motion. Less measured, as cyber infiltration techniques have increased ease of exfiltrating massive amounts of information.
According to Rid it is also easier than ever to lead journalists and activists to inadvertently aid hostile foreign initiatives. The 2016 Democratic National Committee hack in the US illustrates these changes: the stolen information was uploaded to Wikileaks in one massive dump, leaving American journalists to sort through and expose the most explosive stories. The strategic challenge for liberal states is to change the cost-benefit analysis for authoritarian states considering these measures. Potential victims must harden themselves and demonstrate a willingness to impose costs on perpetrators.
Nuland outlined reforms which the US ought to implement in anticipation of future influence campaigns. The US needs a framework to bring together its various intelligence agencies, technology experts and business leaders, similar to the coordinated restructuring on counter-terrorism implemented after 9/11. She highlighted tech companies as especially vulnerable due to the incentives against cooperation or sharing of information and design. The US government has an opportunity to build a framework to guarantee intellectual property and encourage tech companies to come together and discuss shared vulnerabilities in design, code, and supply chain that expose them to foreign exploitation.
Internationally there is need for similar coordination, allowing both flexibility and cooperation between countries. Terras noted there is no single public response which would work just as well in Estonia as it does in the US, so NATO members should retain flexibility on how best to counter disinformation and propaganda. At the same time, there is a need for greater cooperation between allied intelligence services in identifying culprits and international solidarity in ascribing blame.
The trickiest issue may be domestic political messaging. The panel discussed the importance of informing the public on hybrid warfare without overstating its effects. Publicly acknowledging and attributing foiled attacks is a key tool for discouraging future attempts. Acknowledging the problem is also a necessary step in educating the public on critical reading and cyber security skills.
At the same time, Rid warned of the risk of over-estimating the effects of foreign interference on domestic politics. In reality the effects of these methods are short-term, serving mostly to exploit existing domestic divides. Nations must maintain a faith in the efficacy of their own institutions and public discourse. The tendency to blame all domestic issues on foreign adversaries is itself characteristic of authoritarian countries.
The issue of appropriate response is more open to debate. States could counter with cyberattacks of their own. Aside from the risks of escalation, the panel discussed the risks inherent to cyber weapons: they are difficult to aim, easily attributed, and easily turned against their makers by adversaries. Other measures like sanctions and attribution of attacks to individual hackers can also deter and demoralize hybrid warfare attempts. No clear decision was reached on the most effective form of deterrence, but the panel agreed that the efforts made by the US and its allies to date have been insufficient.
RSS - Posts
