Category: Yuanyi Liu
The Pakistan rollercoaster
Pakistan is in a period of neither high promise nor crisis. An expert group of independent academics, policy analysts, and retired government has taken the opportunity to lay out a range of concrete proposals for US policymakers to shape the bilateral relations. On March 3, the Middle East Institute hosted a panel discussion with some of the participants on “Pathways to a Stable and Sustainable Relationship between Pakistan and the United States.” The discussion featured eight speakers:
Syed Mohammed Ali: Adjunct professor, Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities
Ambassador (ret.) Gerald M. Feierstein: Senior Vice President, MEI
Ambassador Ali Jehangir Siddiqui: Pakistani Ambassador at Large for Foreign Investment
Marvin G. Weinbaum: Director of Afghanistan and Pakistan studies, MEI
William Milam: Former US Ambassador to Pakistan
Touqir Hussain: Visiting professor at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities
Dana Marshall: President, Transnational Strategy Group
Polly Nayak: Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Institute
Pakistan-US relations
Feierstein described US-Pakistan relations as a mistrust-driven roller coaster while Siddiqui emphasized economic cooperation, culture exchange, and regional development, following a period of security focus in the 2000s. Weinbaum thinks relations have been unstable, waxing and waning, climbing to heights of interdependence and sinking to mutual recrimination. Hussain attributed the unsustainability to contradictions in strategic interests, which led to the 1998-2001 US sanctions on Pakistan.
Why now?
Weinbaum noted that today is a period of calm without major crises in the region. It’s an opportune moment to improve cooperation and put the relationship on a solid footing. We should seek better understanding as well as awareness of differences. Pakistan is critical to US regional interests in terms of eradicating ISIS and Al-Qaeda affiliates, achieving a stable Afghanistan, and alleviating the threat of nuclear proliferation. Hussain added that while the US is withdrawing from Afghanistan, it should continue its proactive engagement with South Asia, maintaining good relations with both India and Pakistan in the long run. Both Nayak and Milam believe the period before the upcoming election is an opportunity to address key issues in specific areas.
What the proposals are about?
Ali said the proposals focusing on Pakistan-US strategic interests, including recommendations on intelligence sharing between US and Pakistan, counterterrorism cooperation, peace between Pakistan and India, the US role in crisis management, China’s investments in Pakistan, clean energy, US investments, etc. The proposals aim to balance security with civil society and human rights, which can increase US diplomatic status in the region.
Nayak believes nuclear weapons should not be the heart of rebuilding relations. Normalization should rely on strategic economic cooperation because Pakistan faces deficits and underemployment. The proposals attempt to expand business and navigate differences in corporate and social culture.
Marshall stated that Pakistan needs more commercial and economic opportunities. Establishing a reconstruction zone could incentivize investment on border zone between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US can leverage its strategic relations with Pakistan by tying trade to security.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks|February 2-8
- Syria’s Tragedy, Our Lessons| March 2, 2020 | 3:00 PM – 4:00 PM | CSIS | Register Here
The CSIS Middle East Program and Humanitarian Agenda are pleased to host David Miliband, President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee, to discuss the current crisis in Idlib, the dangerous lessons of war, and how Syria could serve as a model for future conflicts.
Jacob Kurtzer, Interim Director of the CSIS Humanitarian Agenda, will provide welcome remarks to open the discussion. Mr. Miliband’s keynote address will be followed by a Q&A moderated by Jon B. Alterman, Senior Vice President, Zbigniew Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy, and Director of the Middle East Program.
Speakers:
David Miliband: President and CEO, International Rescue Committee
Jon B. Alterman: Senior Vice President, Zbigniew Brzezinski Chair in Global Security; Director of the Middle East Program
Jacob Kurtzer: Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Humanitarian Agenda
- Leveraging a Moment of Change: Pathways to a Sustainable U.S.-Pakistan Relationship | March 3, 2020 | 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The relationship between Pakistan and the United States has never been easy or stable, and in recent years has come under increasing strain. Yet both countries have a vital stake in the maintenance of a working relationship. Several factors have complicated prospects for bilateral cooperation in the past, leading to a growing strategic divergence in how both countries view one another, and their interests vis-a-vis other regional players. Perhaps the biggest shortcoming in the Pakistan-US relationship has been that both sides have tried to address the issues between them without common frames of reference, resulting in differences of perceptions and policies.
An expert group of academics, policy analysts, and retired government officials have recently convened at the Middle East institute to study the Pakistan-US relationship. The product of their discussions is a paper that explores a range of ideas and concrete proposals designed to move the relationship in a positive and stable direction.
Speakers:
Syed Mohammad Ali: Adjunct professor, Georgetown and Johns Hopkins
Ambassador (ret.) Gerald M. Feierstein: Senior Vice President, MEI
Ambassador Ali Jehangir Siddiqui: Pakistani Ambassador at Large for Foreign Investment
Marvin G. Weinbaum: Director of Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies, MEI
- Crash Landing into Freedom: The Stories of Former North Korean Soldiers| March 4, 2020 | 11:30 AM – 1:30 PM | Hudson Institute | Register Here
Join Hudson Institute for an event with two former North Korean soldiers as they discuss their escapes from the hermit kingdom. U.S. Representative Ted Yoho will present keynote remarks on the need for greater freedom across Asia.
Weeks before critical diplomatic talks between the Trump administration and North Korea commenced, OH Cheong Seong successfully attempted a daring escape within the heavily guarded demilitarized zone. Under gunfire, Seong, a driver in a North Korean military police unit, drove a truck to the border and crossed by foot into South Korea. For the first time in public in the United States, he will discuss his escape and the factors that compelled him to flee.
LEE Unggil, a former solider in North Korea’s 11th Corps Special Forces who escaped while completing university studies, will explain the plight of North Korean soldiers and the motivations for those seeking freedom.
Panelists will give insight into what life is like inside the country and describe why so many North Koreans, if given the choice, would choose freedom.
Speakers:
Dr. Patrick M. Cronin: Asia-Pacific Security Chair, Hudson Institute
Colonel Steve Lee, U.S. Army (Ret.): Senior Vice President, Korea Defense Veterans Associations
OH Cheong Song: Former Driver in the North Korean Panmunjom Military Police Unit of the Operations Bureau
LEE Unggil: Former Member of the North Korean People’s Army 11th Corps Special Forces and Member of the North Korean People’s Liberation Front
Congressman Ted Yoho: U.S. Representative, Florida’s 3rd District, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and Nonproliferation
- The Iran Crisis and American Energy Security| March 4, 2020 | 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM | CATO Institute | Register Here
On January 8, President Trump addressed the nation following an Iranian missile attack on U.S. positions in Iraq. Buried in his speech was a fascinating aside. The president argued that:
“…America has achieved energy independence … these historic accomplishments changed our strategic priorities … we are now the number-one producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world. We are independent and we do not need Middle East oil.”
Yet the Trump administration’s own policies in the region contradict his statement. Since 2016, the United States has doubled down on its military presence in the Middle East, adding more than 14,000 troops to a region already full of U.S. bases. And the Trump administration has pursued a maximum-pressure campaign against Iran that uses oil-focused sanctions in an attempt to weaken Iran’s regional influence and perhaps even topple the regime.
The Iran crisis thus highlights the changing relationship between U.S. foreign policy and global oil markets. If — as the president suggests — the United States is indeed energy independent, why have our strategic priorities not changed? Why do we remain overcommitted to the Middle East? And what can sanctions on Iran tell us about the increasing weaponization of global markets by U.S. policymakers?
Speakers:
Rosemary Kelanic: Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame
Ellan Wald: President, Transversal Consulting
Joshua Rovner: Associate Professor, School of International Service, American University
Emma Ashford: Research Fellow in Defense and Foreign Policy Studies, CATO Institute
- Why Should the US Care about Ukraine | March 4, 2020 | 2:30 PM | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Throughout the recent impeachment hearings, witness after witness claimed that support for Ukraine is obviously in US national interests, without clearly explaining why. In response, on December 22, 2019, The National Interest published an article by George Beebe in which he compared current US policy toward Ukraine to the “groupthink” that led to disastrous US policies in Vietnam. Ambassador John Herbst responded to Beebe, arguing that the United States has vital strategic interests in maintaining a strong partnership with Ukraine.
For the first time, Ambassador John Herbst and Dr. Alina Polyakova, President and CEO, Center for European Policy Analysis, face off against George Beebe, Vice President and Director of Studies, Center for National Interest, and Dr. Will Ruger, Vice President, Research and Policy, Charles Koch Institute and Vice President for Research, Charles Koch Foundation, in a debate. Melinda Haring, Deputy Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council and Jacob Heilbrunn, Editor, The National Interest, will co-moderate the discussion.
Speakers:
Ambassador John E. Herbst: Former US Ambassador to Ukraine; Director of Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Dr. Alina Polyakova: President and CEO, Center for European Policy Analysis
George Beebe: Vice President ad Director of Studies, Center for National Interest
Dr. Will Ruger: Vice President, Research and Policy, Charles Koch Institute
- The Outlook on US-China Relations| March 4, 2020 | 4:30 PM – 6:00 PM | Johns Hopkins University SAIS | Register Here
This panel discussion will examine American policy, trade, Taiwan, and other key factors affecting the US-China relations.
Speakers:
Ambassador J. Stapleton Roy: Former U.S. Ambassador to China (1991-1995), USCPF Board Member
Ambassador Craig Allen: President, US-China Business Council, Former U.S. Ambassador to Brunei (2014-2018)
Robert Sutter: Professor of Practice of International Affairs, Elliott School, GWU
David J. Keegan: Former Deputy Director of the American Institute in Taiwan. Former Director, Office of Taiwan Policy, Bureau of Eastern Asian and Pacific Affairs
- US-Brazil Economic Relations: The Path to A Trade Agreement | March 5, 2020 | 9:30 AM -12:00 PM| Atlantic Council | Register Here
The United States and Brazil have long been critical commercial partners. Now, as the United States and Brazil double down on delivering on a stronger bilateral agenda, the moment is ripe to help guide discussions on practical next steps.
What actions can Brazil and the US pursue in the short term to achieve deeper collaboration? How will those pave the way for greater growth and prosperity in both countries?
The event will also mark the launch of the report “US-Brazil Trade and FDI: Enhancing the Bilateral Economic Relationship,” authored by Ken Hyatt and Lisa Schineller on the US side and Abrão Neto and Daniel Godinho on the Brazil side.
Speakers:
The Hon. Darin Lahood: US Representative (R-IL), US Congress
Sergio Segovia: President, Brazilian Trade and Investment Promotion Agency, ApexBrasil
Nestor Forster: Appointed Ambassador of Brazil to the US
Joe Semsar: Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, International Trade Administration, US Department of Commerce
Pedro Miguel da Costa e Silva: Secretary of Bilateral and Regional Negotiations in the Americas, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil
Maria Cameron: Deputy Director, Office of Latin America and the Caribbean, International Trade Administration, US Department of Commerce
Kevin O’Reilly: Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, US Department of State
Lisa Schroeter: Global Director of Trade & Investment Policy, Dow Chemical Company
Lisa Schineller: Managing Director, Latin American Sovereign Ratings, S&P Global Ratings
Abrão Neto: Executive Vice President, AmCham Brasil; Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, Atlantic Council; Former Secretary of Foreign Trade, Brazil’s Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade
Kenneth Hyatt: Senior Advisor, Albright Stonebridge Group; Former Acting Under Secretary and Deputy Under Secretary for International Trade, US Department of Commerce
Jason Marczak: Director, Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, Atlantic Council
Roberta Braga: Associate Director, Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, Atlantic Council
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Missing in action
2020 marks the ninth year after Gadhafi’s ouster. On February 24, the Brookings Institution hosted a panel discussion on “Solving the Civil War in Libya.” The discussion featured two speakers: Federica Saini Fasanotti, a nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Karim Mezran, director of the North Africa Initiative and a resident senior fellow with the Rafik Hariri Center at the Atlantic Council. Michael E. O’Hanlon, senior fellow and director of research in Foreign Policy at Brookings, moderated.
Today’s Libya
Fasanotti described the situation in Libya as bad. Khalifa Haftar and his Tripoli headquartered forces are attacking Tripoli, headquarters of the internationally legitimized Government of National Accord (GNA). Egypt and Russia are supporting Haftar with arms. Even in colonial times, Egypt posed a threat to Italy’s control over Libya due to insurgents’ mobility along the border. Fighters still pass easily over the border, which has allowed Egypt to help Haftar conquer the eastern part of Libya.
Mezran added that the mujahideen fighters believe Muslims are obliged to keep infidels out of the area. But religious narratives are misleading. Haftar is neither an Islamist militia nor a secularist, but rather a creation of foreign powers. The issues are political and difficult to resolve.
Remedies?
Fasanotti attributed the difficulty to solving the Libyan civil war to four factors.
- Media coverage on different narratives is disruptive.
- A variety of militias in Tripoli makes it hard to start a conversation with Haftar.
- Haftar is accused of murder and torture in Benghazi.
- The Berlin Conference and peace talks failed.
Both Haftar and the GNA have become stronger because of their external backers. Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey all have different economic and political interests in Libya. This spoils the chance to bring peace.
Mezran believes that peace plans don’t work because situations keep changing on the ground. Bombardments against civilians induce continued struggles and attempts at negotiation. Mezran suggests neighboring states, such as Egypt and Algeria, can do much more than the Berlin Conference.
Fasanotti is disappointed that the US is missing in action in Libya. She called for President Trump to expand bilateral relations and encourage the Secretary of Defense to resolve conflicts with Libya. Mezran argues that Libya is not important in comparison with other US geopolitical interests in the region, which make it unlikely the US will restrain the states that support Haftar.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Consensus is hard
Following elections in September and October, Tunisia is having difficulty forming a government. Presiding is a populist president without a political party who has in the past proposed radically overhauling the entire system, abolishing political parties, and creating a form of direct democracy.
On February 19, the Middle East Institute hosted a panel discussion on “The State of Tunisia’s Democratic Transition and the Power and Perils of Consensus Politics.” The discussion featured four speakers:
Daniel Brumberg, director of Democracy and Governance Studies at Georgetown University and a senior non-resident fellow at POMED,
Sharan Grewal, an assistant professor of government at the College of William & Mary,
Mohamed-Dhia Hammami, a scholar at Wesleyan University in the College of Social Studies and Government, and
Sabina Henneberg, a postdoctoral fellow in the African Studies Program at SAIS.
William Lawrence, a visiting professor of political science and international affairs at American University, moderated
Current context
Hammami attributed the difficulty of forming a government to the fragmented parliament and the president, whose lack of party affiliation contributed to the disarray. President Said designated Elyes Fakhfakh as the new prime minister because of Ennahda’s inability to gain enough votes to form a new government. Fakhfakh excluded Heart of Tunisia from his coalition because of Nabil Karoui’s corruption cases, scandals, and lobbying with the Israelis. Ennahda withdrew its support from Fakhfakh to call for a government of national unity. A new parliamentary election would be risky. President Said thus invited UGTT, which is a labor union with political legitimacy, to act as a mediator between Fakhfakh’s government and opposing parties.
Consensus politics
Brumberg indicated that social, ideological, political, and geographical divisions in the society show Tunisia’s divisions. Identity politics reflect concern of exclusion, make a majoritarian system difficult. For a diverse group to achieve consensus, parties have to postpone difficult issues, such as economic reforms, the need for a supreme court, and security reforms. Brumberg believes that there’s no alternative to deal with Tunisia’s pluralistic structure other than reaching a consensus. If Tunisians were to move beyond the consensus, to deal with the issues that have been postponed and approach a majoritarian system, it could be troubling for the entire state.
Grewal added that consensus politics was important from 2011 to 2014 during the establishment of the constitution. The transition to democracy should be done only once rules are set. The national unity government in 2015 continued the transition, thus postponing divisive issues. The parties thereby escaped blame for failed policies and avoided bringing back the polarization that plagued 2012-13.
Henneberg attributed the 2012-13 polarization to Ennahda’s inexperience, insecure domestic context, and the rise of opposition to the Egyptian Islamist government. She agreed that Tunisia required an inclusive consensus to write a successful constitution. This resulted in the establishment of the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet to overcome the polarization.
Ennahda’s concerns
Hammami argued that Ennahda is in favor of sustaining consensus politics, which helps it to survive. Ennahda’s support for including Heart of Tunisia in the parliament was due to the lack of consensus to pass political, security, and economic reforms. Grewal noted that Ennahda also has concerns about Fakhfakh, who might repolarize politics.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks|February 17-23
Understanding China’s Economic Slowdown: Countering Belt and Road and Beijing’s Plans to Dominate Global Innovation| February 18, 2020 | 11:30 AM – 1:30 PM | Hudson Institute | Register Here
Amid a time of open challenges to the United States for strategic and economic leadership in the Indo-Pacific by General Secretary Xi Jinping, China’s economic growth is at its slowest pace since 1992. Through the development of political and economic plans such as the Belt and Road Initiative and Made in China 2025, China is attempting to set global development standards while simultaneously increasing other nations’ dependence on China’s technologies and its financial and developmental practices.
What is the significance of the Chinese economic slowdown and its implication for the U.S. and its allies? How can we accurately assess Chinese strengths and weaknesses, and how do we more effectively counter Beijing’s policies and actions that undermine U.S. and allied interests?
Join Hudson Institute for a conversation with experts on what China’s attempts to redefine development standards and practices means for the United States in the era of great power competition. The event will draw on John Lee’s recent report, China’s Economic Slowdown: Root Causes, Beijing’s Response and Strategic Implications for the U.S. and Allies and his upcoming report, Ambition and Overreach: Countering One Belt One Road and Beijing’s Plans to Dominate Global Innovation.
Speakers:
Patrick Cronin: Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Thomas Duesterberg: Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Nicholas Lardy: Anthony M. Solomon Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute
John Lee: Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
——————————————————————————————————————–
Censorship and Self-Censorship in Russia| February 18, 2020 | 3:30 PM – 5:00 PM | Wilson Center | Register Here
State control on information and media and aggressive pressure on journalists seeking to maintain their independence are critical elements of the modern Russian state. Although the Russian constitution has an article expressly prohibiting censorship, in reality censorship is a constant factor in the life of the Russian media. Censorship is carried out both directly and indirectly by state pressure and through self-censorship by journalists. In partnership with IREX, the Kennan Institute will host three well-known Russian publicists, analysts, and commentators, Konstantin Sonin, Konstantin Eggert, and Gleb Cherkasov, to discuss censorship and self-censorship in Russia and its role in Russian society.
Speakers:
Konstantin Sonin: John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy
Konstantin Eggert: Independent journalist, political analysts and communication consultant
Gleb Cherkasov: Journalist; Former Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Kommersant
Sergey Parkhomenko: Senior Advisor, Jounalist, “Echo of Moscow” Radio; Former Editor-in-Chief, Itogi, Vokrug Sveta
——————————————————————————————————————–
Ending Our Endless War in Afghanistan: Washington Perspectives on a U.S.-Taliban Agreement| February 18, 2020 | 4:00 PM – 5:15 PM | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
After over a year of intensive talks, press reports indicate that an official agreement between the U.S. and Taliban is imminent. The agreement reportedly begins with an immediate reduction in violence by all sides, followed by the signing of a U.S.-Taliban agreement. This would lead to intra-Afghan peace negotiations, accompanied by a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops. Implementing and verifying each step in this process will require meticulous diplomacy, but this reported agreement could mark a major turning point in the effort to end the war in Afghanistan.
Speakers:
The Honorable Stephen J. Hadley: Chair, Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace; former National Security Advisor
The Honorable Michele Flournoy: Co-Founder and Managing Partner, WestExec Advisors
Ambassador Douglas Lute: Senior Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to NATO
Ambassador Richard Olson: Senior Advisor, U.S. Institute of Peace; former U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
Scott Smith: Senior Advisor, U.S. Institute of Peace
——————————————————————————————————————–
Conservative Nationalism in the Age of Trump| February 20, 2020 | 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM | Carnegie Endowment | Register Here
The driving force of nationalism within the Republican party is squarely in the spotlight, with the U.S. 2020 elections in sight and questions of how the United States will approach diplomatic, economic, and military issues in the balance. In his new book, Age of Iron: On Conservative Nationalism, Colin Dueck examines the strengths and weaknesses of President Trump’s foreign policy and the overarching role of conservative nationalism in the past, present, and future of U.S. foreign policy. He will be joined in conversation by Danielle Pletka and Richard Fontaine, with Carnegie’s Ashley J. Tellis as moderator.
Speakers:
Colin Dueck is a professor in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and a non-resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
Richard Fontaine is the chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).
Danielle Pletka is a senior fellow in foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where she focuses on U.S. foreign policy generally and the Middle East specifically.
Ashley J. Tellis holds the Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs and is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, specializing in international security and U.S. foreign and defense policy with a special focus on Asia and the Indian subcontinent.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Bridging strategies: Infrastructure efforts in Southeast Asia in an era of great power competition| February 20, 2020 | 12:00 PM | Atlantic Council | Register Here
As the geographical heart of the Indo-Pacific, Southeast Asia will play a critical role in determining the region’s political, military, and economic trajectory for decades to come. As a rapidly growing region home to more than 655 million people, Southeast Asia has become a priority destination for US and Japanese infrastructure investment in the Indo-Pacific, as well as Chinese infrastructure efforts under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
How do these regional infrastructure projects fit into intensifying strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific? Are the new G20 Principles for Quality Infrastructure compatible or competitive with China’s BRI? How can the US, Japan, and other likeminded allies and partners best operationalize these principles in the region? Ultimately, what are the geopolitical and security implications of the evolving infrastructure investment landscape across the Indo-Pacific?
The Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the United States and the world. The Center honors General Brent Scowcroft’s legacy of service and embodies his ethos of nonpartisan commitment to the cause of security, support for US leadership in cooperation with allies and partners, and dedication to the mentorship of the next generation of leaders.
Speakers:
Mr. Bart W. Edes: Representative of the North American Office, Asian Development Bank
Mr. Jonathan Hillman: Senior Fellow, Simon Chair in Political Economy, and Director, Reconnecting Asia Project, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Mr. Makoto Lyori: Visiting Fellow, Asia Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Dr. Miyeon Oh: Asia Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Ms. Shannon Tiezzi: Editor-in-Chief, The Diplomat
——————————————————————————————————————–
The Impact of the Conflict on Human Rights in Syria| February 20, 2020 | 4:30 PM – 6:00 PM | Johns Hopkins University | Register Here
The Commissioners of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (Chair Professor Paulo Pinheiro, Commissioner Karen Abuzayd and Commissioner Hanny Megally) will discuss recent conflict dynamics in Syria and their impact on the human rights situation. In this context, the Commission will discuss their recently published report on child rights violations.
Speakers:
Paulo Sergio Pinheiro: A Chairman of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry for Syria
Karen Koning Abuzayd: A Commissioner of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry for Syria
Hanny Megally: A senior fellow at the New York University Center on International Cooperation
——————————————————————————————————————–
The Crisis in Syria’s Idlib| February 21, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:00 PM | Middle East Institute | Register Here
Nearly 600,000 people have been displaced in northwestern Syria in the last two months, in what is now the biggest humanitarian crisis in nine years of war. The brutal military assault being conducted by the Syrian government, Russia and Iran shows no signs of abating and has in recent weeks sparked direct and deadly clashes between Syrian and Turkish troops. Hospitals and schools continue to be struck from the air, IDP camps have reached capacity and humanitarian agencies are warning of an impending humanitarian disaster.
Since the Syrian government and its allies began an offensive on Idlib in the Spring of 2019, approximately 25% of the opposition-controlled territory has fallen – roughly 75% still remains. Amid this ongoing crisis and unprecedented levels of civilian displacement and human suffering, the international community appears to have been rendered powerless. The Middle East Institute is pleased to host a panel discussion on the situation in Idlib, in order to discuss the nature of the crisis and the international response; the geopolitical dynamics at play; concerns over terrorism; and what possible paths might exist to resolve the situation.
Speakers:
Zaher Sahloul: President and Founder, MedGlobal
Elizabeth Tsurkov: Fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute
Charles Lister: Senior Fellow and Director of the Countering Terrorism and Extremism Program, MEI
Alexander Marquardt: Senior national correspondent, CNN
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Realism redefined
Different from previous plans, Trump’s Middle East Peace Plan addresses key issues like borders, Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees. Although the plan has enraged the Palestinians , it has received a much more favorable reception from many states than experts predicted, such as Europe and the Middle East. Without a Palestinian partner, is the plan destined, as its critics argue, to fail? Or will it, as its supporters claim, reshape the conflict in significant, beneficial, and lasting ways?
On February 11, the Hudson Institute hosted a panel discussion on the topic of “President Trump’s Plan for Peace in the Middle East.” The discussion featured two speakers: Michael Doran and Jon Lerner. Both serve as senior fellows at the Hudson Institute.
Previous plans vs Trump’s
Lerner and Doran noted that Trump’s plan addresses all final status topics in detail, including Jerusalem, settlement, borders, and right to return, while previous plans left out these issues. Lerner believes that Trump’s plan accepts the reality, contrary to previous plans that sought to change reality on the ground. This plan guarantees Israel’s control over a unified Jerusalem rather than dividing the city. Since it is impossible for Israelis to uproot settlements from the West Bank, Trump legalizes Israeli settlements. Although this plan is a setback for Palestinians, it creates an independent Palestinian state with a capital, grants economic support to Palestinians, allows Palestinians access to Israeli ports, and proposes a tunnel connecting the West Bank and Gaza.
Bilateral or trilateral?
Because most Arab states have more concerns other than than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they didn’t offer united supports to pressure Israel into concessions, Lerner says. Due to the lack of support, Palestine should consider engaging with the US and Israel. Lerner predicts that,
- If the Palestinian were to engage in negotiations but didn’t accept the plan, they would receive a receptive audience, which could force Israel to stop its annexation.
- If the Palestinians don’t engage in negotiations, which is likely, Israel will keep moving forward and weaken the Palestinians further.
Lerner thinks the Palestinian made a wrong choice to cut all dialogue with the US after Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017. Instead, the Palestinians should have rejected Trump’s decision and worked with him on a plan until they achieved what they want. Lerner urges the Palestinian to engage in negotiations, or they will be more likely to lose ground.
US interests
Doran argues that the US has more issues in the region nowadays and needs to cooperate with its allies. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has weakened its Israeli ally, especially after Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza failed to bring stability. If the US forced Israel out of the West Bank and handed its control to Abbas, he would not have the capability to maintain control and fend off Hamas. Jordanian security could not be guaranteed either. Lerner added that the US avoided the unproductive perception of even-handedness with allies on one side, and sympathy towards Palestinians on the other. Trump’s plan is rooted in realism and the administration’s support for allies.
Lerner pointed out that irrespective of who wins the presidential election in November, the content of this plan has changed political dynamics in both Israel and the US. It will be hard for the Israeli government to accept a less generous plan than Trump’s in the future. It will also be difficult for future US administrations to propose any plan more like previous plans and less like Trump’s plan.
RSS - Posts
