Category: Yuanyi Liu
Accountability now
During Syria’s conflict, the Assad regime has continued committing many war crimes. Although de-escalation zones were established to mitigate conflict violence, the number of displaced Syrians increased. On February 5, Arab Center Washington DC hosted a panel discussion and a book review on the topic of Accountability in Syria: Achieving Transitional Justice in a Postconflict Society. The discussion involved three speakers: Radwan Ziadeh, a senior fellow for the Arab Center Washington DC, Mai El-Sadany, the legal and judicial director at the Tahrir Institute, and Mohammad Alaa Ghanem, a Syrian academic and pro-democracy campaigner.
War crimes
Ziadeh noted that because justice and accountability are left out in the Geneva and Astana talks, he wrote the book Accountability in Syria to call for attention to war atrocities and raise the issue of accountability. He listed five crimes that the Assad regime has committed in the last eight years.
- Use of air force: Opposition areas have been exposed to heavy, systematic, widespread, and indiscriminate bombing. While only 1% of victims killed by barrel bombs are opposition but 99% of victims are civilians. Other governments have failed to prevent the Syrian government from utilizing barrel bombs.
- Use of prohibited weapons: The Assad regime has utilized prohibited chemical weapons 37 times.
- Siege: Half a million of Syrians live besieged by Assad’s “surrender or starve” strategy.
- Torture and sectarian crimes: The regime carried out systematic torture at its secret prisons.
- Forced displacement: Displacement aims to remove people who have been disloyal. Forced displacement induces both the demographic change and the flight of Syrian refugees.
Forced displacement
Ghanem says that ceasefires, such as the Idlib and Daraa de-escalation zones, are a prelude to liquidation. Political analysts in Washington misunderstood ceasefires, which they thought would constitute a win-win solution that could empower local communities. Instead, ceasefires emboldened and benefited Assad’s regime, which used them to induce demographic change. He presented three purposes of ceasefires:
- Ceasefires have helped the Assad regime to conquer more territories by setting up a 1-2 year de-escalation period to relinquish oppositions’ heavy weapons and evacuate fighters.
- Ceasefires serve to relieve shortage of Assad’s manpower by freeing up regime resources to focus on other priority areas.
- Ceasefires provide an illusion of political process by designating areas for reconstruction while permitting the regime to commit systematic sectarian cleansing.
Remedies
El-Sadany argues that it’s time for justice now. Three tools are available for accountability:
- Documentation: Civil society, journalists, and lawyers should act together to preserve history and contribute to truth. For example, the New York Times utilizes open source investigation.
- UN Mechanisms: The United Nations has disappointed Syrians because of UN Security Council vetoes and the failure to make a referral to International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the UN Human Rights Council’s commissions of inquiry serves accountability by fact-finding and investigating crimes and perpetrators. In addition, the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) was created to prepare files and assist the investigation and prosecution of crimes.
- Prosecution outside Syria: Syria is not a party to the Rome Statute and the UNSC has failed to refer its crimes to the ICC. But prosecution in other states is still possible.
El-Sadany proposes that the international community needs to amend, strengthen, and improve accountability mechanisms. Advocates should lobby their governments for more funding for accountability efforts and improved human rights laws. Lawyers should translate materials, especially on universal jurisdiction, into Arabic to reach Syrian victims and civil society.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What is fueling MENA fires
“Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners have transferred American-made weapons to al Qaeda-linked fighters, hardline Salafi militias, and other factions waging war in the Middle East, putting US national security interests in jeopardy.”
On January 27, the New York Center for Foreign Policy Affairs hosted a panel discussion on the topic of “Betrayed by an Ally: U.S. National Security in the Middle East” at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. The discussion included three speakers: Bassima Alghussein, the CEO of Alghussein Global Strategies and a former White House Appointed Congressional Advisor, Jeff Stacey, a national security and global development consultant, contributor to the New York Times, and former State Department official, and Edward P. Joseph, a broadcast and print commentator, US foreign policy professional, and veteran. The discussion was moderated by Joel Rubin, a national security, foreign policy, and congressional expert, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, and the current Jewish Outreach Director for the Bernie Sanders Presidential Campaign.
Saudi Arabia
Alghussein claims that $8 billion in US arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE have exposed three facts:
- The weapons fell into the wrong hands because they were captured by the Houthis in Yemen.
- Saudi Arabia conducts human rights violations with US weapons in Yemen.
- US arms sales to Saudi Arabia fuel an arms race between the Saudis and the Iranians.
Alghussein believes that arm sales without restriction may threaten US interests. When the Trump administration enabled Riyadh’s blockade against Qatar, Doha moved closer to Tehran without fulfilling any Saudi demands.
Iran
Joseph is more concerned with Iran’s behavior. Its nuclear program is based more on internal motives than external fears. The Saudis have shown restraint. They didn’t retaliate when the Iranians attacked oil facilities in September. If Iran can develop a nuclear program based on fears of Israeli strikes, why can’t Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Jordan develop their own nuclear programs? Joseph believes it is Iran that creates its own security risks by taking a provocative position.
Stacey reminded that Iran favored the JCPOA, which brought it with economic and diplomatic benefits. He suggested that the US should remove sanctions against Iran, which constrain moderates in the parliament. The assassination of Soleimani was unwise and unjustified because it strengthened Iranian political hardliners. He noted different reactions to the assassinations of Soleimani and al Muhandis between Iraq and Iran. Things are still under control in Iraq, which has maintained strategic relations with the US. In Iran, the killing of Soleimani and the downing of a Ukrainian airliner have aroused anti-regime protests and galvanized cries of “death to the dictators.”
Libya
Joseph emphasized the complexity of the conflict in Libya, which includes regional, ideological, identity, and tribal factors as well as external drivers. Russia and Turkey intended to establish an agreement similar to the Astana process for Syria by gathering domestic and external oppositions in Moscow earlier this month. That failed, because the Government of National Accord sought a ceasefire, but General Haftar did not.
The Libya summit January 19 in Berlin succeeded in bringing outside actors and Libyan rivals together. Joseph points out that the Berlin Summit was subsequent to previous Italy-Libya and France-Libya meetings. While Italy aims to maintain control over its former colony and ensure Libya’s security, France has competing economic interests. Italy and France will continue to compete in Libya.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks|February 3-9
- Making the Case for Sustained U.S. Engagement in a Transitioning Afghanistan| February 5, 2020 | 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM | CSIS | Register Here
In the United States, there is a sense of “Afghanistan fatigue.” While there are certainly valid criticisms that can be levied against U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, a significant amount of social, economic, political, and public health progress has resulted from our engagement and Afghans’ own hard work and commitment.
The under-five mortality and maternal mortality rates have nearly halved since 2000. Virtually no one in Afghanistan had electricity in 2000, but by 2016, nearly 85 percent of the population did. Women’s education was practically non-existent under Taliban rule, but 3.5 million Afghan women are now enrolled in school. 170 radio stations, hundreds of print media outlets, and dozens of TV stations have opened since 2001 as free media, cell phones, television, and the internet have transformed Afghan society. GDP per capita has tripled since 2001, and official development assistance (ODA) as a percentage of central government expenditure decreased from 206 percent in 2006 to 59 percent in 2015. The Afghan National Army is now the primary group fighting the Taliban, and U.S. troop presence has dropped from 110,000 in 2011 to the current plan of 8,600. But Afghanistan’s political progress and social gains are at risk of collapse if the United States chooses to completely disengage from the country. Given the mix of gains and disappointments, how do we establish the correct framework for U.S. engagement with a transitioning Afghanistan in 2020 and beyond?
Speakers:
Representative Michael Waltz: U.S. Representative for Florida’s 6th Congressional District
Rina Amiri: Senior Fellow, NYU Center for Global Affairs and Steering Committee Member, Alliance in Support of the Afghan People (ASAP)
Peter Bergen: Vice President of Global Studies and Fellows, New America
Earl Gast: Executive Vice President for Programs, Creative Associates International and Former Afghanistan Mission Director, USAID
- A Women’s Place: US Counterterrorism Since 9/11 Policy Roundtable| February 5, 2020 | 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM | Stimson Center | Register Here
We will be joined by Dr. Joana Cook, author of the new book “A Woman’s Place: US Counterterrorism Since 9/11,” Seamus Hughes of the George Washington University Program on Extremism, and Lauren Protentis, communications and national security expert.
- United States Strategy for Central Asia: Advancing Sovereignty and Economic Prosperity| February 5, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:15 AM | The Heritage Foundation | Register Here
The Heritage Foundation will host a moderated discussion to launch the United States’ new Strategy for Central Asia (2019-2025). Deputy Assistant to the President Lisa Curtis will join Ambassador Alice Wells and Acting Assistant Administrator Gloria Steele for a public address and discussion on the administration’s priorities and future prospects for U.S. engagement in Central Asia. Remarks will outline how the United States will support the five countries’ efforts to improve regional security, bolster economic connectivity, and ensure sovereignty and independence across the region.
Speakers:
Lisa Curtis: Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for South and Central Asia, National Security Council
Ambassador Alice: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, Department of State
Gloria Steele: Acting Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Asia, United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
Luke Coffey: Director, Douglas & Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy
- Accountability in Syria: Achieving Transitional Justice in A Postconflict Society| February 5, 2020 | 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM | Arab Center Washington DC | Register Here
Join us for a book discussion on the challenges of achieving accountability and justice in postconflict Syria. Gross violations of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Laws have been committed in Syria. After a full cessation of violence, launching transitional justice processes will signal to the victims that those responsible for committing these crimes will be brought to reparation and that the time of impunity is over. This book discusses the available options of justice and how accountability will be achieved through international systems and a new hybrid court system.
Speakers:
Mai El-Sadany: Legal and Judicial Director, The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy
Mohammad Alaa Ghanem: Syrian Academic and Pro-democracy Campaigner
Radwan Ziadeh: Senior Fellow, Arab Center Washington DC
- Escaping the Conflict Trap: Toward Ending Civil Wars in the Middle East| February 6, 2020 | 9:30 AM – 12:45 AM | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The civil wars racking the Middle East have torn
the political, social and economic fabric of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya
and Yemen. MEI has released a pathbreaking book, Escaping the Conflict Trap:
Toward Ending Civil Wars in the Middle East, to deal with these difficult but
important issues. The book was co-edited by MEI President Paul Salem and MEI
Senior Fellow Ross Harrison, and includes contributions from former senior
diplomats, MEI experts and academics.
This half-day
conference will address the insights and findings from this important book.
Contributing authors will share their views about the individual civil wars, as
well as their regional and global geopolitical backdrop.
Speakers:
Nadia Bilbassy: Senior Correspondent, Al-Arabiya TV and MBC TV
Chester Crocker: Former Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of African Affairs; James R. Schlesinger Professor of the Practice of Strategic Studies
Ambassador (ret.) Robert Ford: Senior Fellow, MEI; Former US Ambassador to Syria
Ambassador (ret.) Gerald Feierstein: Senior Vice President, MEI; Former US Ambassador to Yemen
Ross Harrison: Senior Fellow, MEI
Anne Patterson: Former Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
Paul Salem: President, MEI
Dan Serwer: Non-resident scholar, MEI; director, Conflict Management and American Foreign Policy program, John Hopkins SAIS
Randa Slim: Senior Fellow and Director, Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues Program, MEI
Marvin Weinbaum: Director, Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies, MEI
Jonathan Winer: Non-resident scholar, MEI
- Is War Over| February 6, 2020 | 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM | CATO Institute | Register Here
A scholarly debate has emerged over trends in global conflict and the future of warfare. Is the international system becoming more peaceful, or is it just as violent and war-prone as it always has been? Is great-power war a thing of the past, or has it merely been dormant under changing technological and institutional conditions? Crafting an appropriate U.S. foreign policy is dependent on accurately measuring the state of war and peace in the world. Please join us for a discussion of these vital issues.
Speakers:
Paul Poast: Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago
John Mueller: Political Scientist, Ohio State University; Senior Fellow, CATO Institute
Christopher Fettweis: Professor of Political Science, Tulane University
Bethany Lacine: Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Rochester
John Glaser: Director of Foreign Policy Studies, CATO Institute
- NATO and the New Decade: Assessing the Transatlantic Alliance| February 7, 2020 | 11:45 AM – 1:00 PM | Hudson Institute | Register Here
Last year, NATO marked the 70th anniversary of the founding of the alliance. At the start of the new decade, a united, flexible, and future-minded NATO is needed more than ever.
Join Hudson Institute for a discussion with NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoana. Mr. Geoana has served as the minister of foreign affairs of Romania, the president of the Romanian Senate, and as ambassador of Romania to the United States. He has held his current role since July 2019.
Calls for a reexamination of NATO’s relevance and effectiveness come amidst a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. President Trump has been a vocal proponent of burden sharing to ensure the organization’s lasting success. Speaking in December at the NATO Leaders Meeting, he said the alliance had taken positive steps and “increased the numbers that other countries are paying … by $130 billion.”
How is NATO delivering on burden sharing and what impact does this have on the alliance’s ability to carry out its missions and operations? How is the organization adapting to a new security environment? What are the key challenges facing the alliance in the decade ahead?
Speakers:
Mircea Geoană: Deputy Secretary General, NATO
Peter Rough: Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Ken Weinstein: President and CEO, Hudson Institute
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Middle East without Soleimani
Following the US assassination of Qasem Soleimani, who was an IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) general and the Quds Force commander, Iran retaliated against the US by launching a missile attack on US bases in Iraq. What further impact will Soleimani’s death have? And what will it mean for US interests in the region?
On January 22, Carnegie Endowment for International Studies hosted a panel discussion on The killing of Soleimani and the future of the Middle East. The discussion included three speakers: Rasha Al Aqeedi, the managing editor of Irfaa Sawtak (Raise Your Voice) and a research analyst of contemporary Iraqi politics and political Islam, Dexter Filkins, a journalist for The New Yorker, and Emile Hokayem, a senior fellow for Middle East Security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The panel discussion was moderated by Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow with the Carnegie Middle East Program.
Soleimani projected Iran’s power in the region
Filkins described Soleimani as a “master spy” and “a man in the shadow.” His influence was pervasive. Lebanese people didn’t decide their government, Soleimani did. Assad was not running the war, Soleimani was. Soleimani was a product of the Iran-Iraq War, during which he worked on strengthening and allying with the Shia around the Middle East.
Hokayem depicted him as one of the most influential actors in the Levant for securing Iran’s long-term interests. Soleimani turned Hezbollah from a formidable insurgent group into a conventional actor with missile forces menacing Israel. He was implicated in Hariri’s assassination in 2005, led efforts to shore up the Assad regime in 2012, and was also involved in the Battle of Kirkuk in 2017.
Al Aqeedi noted that when ISIL (The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) took over Mosul in 2014, Soleimani reacted by forming security forces/militias to help Iraq, based on Iran’s interests. Since then, Soleimani had kept the US-trained Iraqi army as weak as possible, while strengthening and formalizing the Shia militias in Iraq. In 2017, Soleimani rallied the Iraqi army to forcefully retake Kirkuk and suppress the results of Kurdistan’s independence referendum.
Further retaliation?
Sadjadpour believes that the assassination has energized the radicals of the Iranian regime, who may intensify their repression, but the downing of the Ukrainian airline has constrained popular support for retaliation. Filkins doubts benefits to US interests from the assassination.
Al Aqeedi noted that if any Iranian retaliation targeted US embassies or Americans, the US may intensify its retribution against Iran. Hence, Iran and the US need to think twice before taking any further actions. Hokayem suggested Iran possesses lots of tools to retaliate, not necessarily against American targets but also against regional American proxies, such as Saudi Arabia.
Impacts
Hokayem emphasized that the assassination neither mitigates Iran’s threat to its regional rivals nor changes the ordering of the region. Iran has secured its presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. He also claimed that the Trump administration doesn’t care much about Iraq. The US military presence was keeping a low profile even before the Iraqi parliament urged the government to expel foreign troops from its territory.
Al Aqeedi agreed with Hokayem that the US isn’t interested in being involved in the Iraqi protests. She underlined that the US presence in Iraq is not an occupation, and there is no US military base in Iraq. Hence, she argued that the current campaign against US presence in Iraq is a distraction from the protest, which targeted the IRGC. The Iraqi protesters are reluctant to be dragged into the US-Iran confrontation and want Iraq to avoid becoming a proxy for any external actors. Al Aqeedi is deeply concerned that Iraqi protesters are likely to encounter more violence from the IRGC and forces it controls.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks|January 21-24
Ground Truth Briefing: What to Make of Putin’s Power Play| January 21, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM | The Wilson Center | Register Here
On January 15, the Russian government resigned following President Vladimir Putin’s state of the nation address in which he proposed sweeping constitutional reforms. Putin then elevated former Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to the role of Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council and Medvedev’s replacement, Mikhail Mishustin, was approved as the new prime minister on January 16.
In this Ground Truth Briefing, our experts will assess Putin’s proposed reforms and political machinations.
Dial in phone numbers:
U.S. toll-free number:
800-369-2054;
International call number:
1-312-470-7127;
Participant passcode: 6238346
Speakers:
Mathew Rohansky is the director of the Kennan Institute.
Sergey Parkhomenko is a senior advisor and a journalist for “Echo of Moscow” Radio. He previously served as the editor-in-chief for the Russian journal Itogi and the Russian magazine Vokrug Sveta.
William E. Pomeranz is the deputy director of the Kennan Institute.
Maxim Trudolyubov is a senior advisor and an editor-in-chief for Russia File. He also serves as editor-at-large at Vedomosti Daily.
Unmaking the Presidency: A Book Discussion with Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes | January 21, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM | Brookings Institute | Register Here
The extraordinary authority of the U.S. presidency has no parallel in the democratic world. Today that authority resides in the hands of one man, Donald J. Trump. But rarely, if ever, has the nature of a president clashed more profoundly with the nature of the office. From the moment of his inauguration, Trump has challenged our deepest expectations of the presidency. But what are those expectations, where did they come from, and how great is the damage? In their new book, “Unmaking the Presidency: Donald Trump’s War on the World’s Most Powerful Office,” Brookings Senior Fellows Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes tell the story of the confrontation between a person and the institution he almost wholly embodies.
On January 21, Hennessey and Wittes will debut their new book at Brookings and will be joined by journalist Fred Hiatt for a conversation. After the discussion, speakers will take audience questions. This event will be webcast live.
Speakers:
Fred Hiatt is an editorial page editor for the Washington Post.
Susan Hennessey is a senior fellow in Governance Studies. She currently serves as the executive editor for Lawfare.
Benjamin Wittes is a senior fellow in Governance Studies. He currently serves as the editor-in-chief for Lawfare.
Disengaging from Violent Extremism Kickoff for USIP Initiative on Violent Extremist Disengagement and Reconciliation| January 21, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
Governments and communities worldwide are now grappling with what to do when citizens who participated in violent extremist conflicts return home. Though the violent radicalization process is complex, it is inherently social in nature—and disengagement efforts will need to address those social factors too. Many returning persons will face prosecution, while others will reintegrate directly into local communities. But once the justice systems mete out their sentences, returnees need processes that enable them to abandon their violent attitudes and behaviors, and communities need approaches that can create social cohesion to avoid further violence, revenge, and future radicalization.
Join USIP as we kick off our VEDR initiative to progress past conventional notions of deradicalization—which generally focus on transforming a person’s beliefs about ideologies—and instead develop a systemic approach that simultaneously encourages disengagement and builds social cohesion and community resilience to prevent the reoccurrence of violence.
This panel will explore the cognitive, social, and structural factors involved in the disengagement, reintegration, and reconciliation of violent extremists within local communities. The premise of the panel is that sustained, positive, inclusive engagement with local communities is critical for building bonds, generating a sense of belonging, and fostering a cognitive opening to disengage from violent extremism.
Join the conversation on Twitter with #ReintegratingExtremists.
Speakers:
Dr. David Yang is the vice president of the Center for Applied Conflict Transformation (ACT) at the United States Institute of Peace.
Dr. Laura G.E. Smith is a senior lecturer at the University of Bath.
Dr. Mary Beth Altier is a clinical associate professor at the New York University.
Dr. B. Heidi Ellis is the director of the Refugee Trauma and Resilience Center at Boston Children’s Hospital.
Dr. Rebecca J. Wolfe is a lecturer at the University of Chicago.
Dr. Stevan M. Weine is a professor of Psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Mr. Chris Bosley is a senior program officer of the Countering Violent Extremism at the US Institute of Peace.
The Killing of Soleimani and the Future of the Middle East| January 22, 2020 | 9:00 AM – 10:00 AM | Carneige Endowment for International Peace| Register Here
The killing of Iranian major general Qassem Soleimani has sent shockwaves through Iran and the Middle East. What impact will his death have? And what will it mean for U.S. interests in the region?
Speakers:
Rasha Al Aqeedi is the managing editor of Irfaa Sawtak (Raise Your Voice) and a researcher and analyst of contemporary Iraqi politics and political Islam.
Dexter Filkins is a journalist for The New Yorker.
Emile Hokayem is a senior fellow for Middle East security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Karim Sadjadpour is a senior fellow with the Carnegie Middle East Program.
The Future of Europe:
French and German Perspectives
A Conversation with
German Ambassador Emily Haber and French Ambassador Philippe Etienne | January 22, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:15 AM
| Center for Strategic International Studies|
Register Here
In 2020, Europe will be
facing a unique set of political, economic, and security challenges, including
Brexit. However, the beginning of the new decade also offers an opportunity to
lay out an ambitious vision for the future of Europe and for progress in areas
of common concern.
Please join us for a timely conversation with German
Ambassador to the U.S. Emily Haber and French Ambassador to the U.S. Philippe
Etienne as they discuss their vision for Europe over the next decade, the
foreign policy challenges facing Europe in 2020, and the future of
transatlantic relations.
Speakers:
Ambassador Emmily Haber, German Ambassador to the United States
Ambassador Philippe Etienne, French Ambassador to the United States
Rachel Ellehuus, Deputy Director, Europe Program
The New Status Quo in Northeast Syria: Humanitarian and Security Implications| January 23, 2020 | 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM | The Washington Institute for Near East Policy| Register Here
President Trump’s announcement of a U.S. withdrawal from northeast Syria, followed swiftly by the Turkish military incursion, raised urgent questions about influence and control in that critical region. While a slimmed-down U.S. contingent remains in the area, a new status quo has emerged that includes a greater role for Russia and the Assad regime and a more circumscribed role for America’s local partners, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. How will this shifting balance of power affect counterterrorism efforts, humanitarian conditions, governance, and the political/military stature of various local and international actors, including the United States? To address these questions, The Washington Institute is pleased to host a Policy Forum with Gonul Tol, Wladimir van Wilgenburg, and Dana Stroul.
Speakers:
Gonul Tol is founding
director of the Middle East Institute’s Turkish Studies Program and an adjunct
professor at George Washington University’s Institute for Middle East Studies.
She has written extensively on U.S.-Turkish relations, Turkish domestic politics,
and the Kurdish issue.
Wladimir van
Wilgenburg is coauthor of the 2019 book The Kurds of
Northern Syria: Governance, Diversity and Conflicts (with Harriet
Allsopp). A commentator for numerous international media outlets, he has
covered major battles against the Islamic State on the ground in Syria and
Iraq, among other regional topics.
Dana Stroul, the Kassen
Fellow in The Washington Institute’s Geduld Program on Arab Politics,
co-chaired last year’s bipartisan Syria Study Group with her
Institute colleague Michael Singh. Previously, she served as a senior
professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, covering
the Middle East, North Africa, and Turkey.
Strategic Implications of Iraq’s Multiple Crises| January 23, 2020 | 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM | Arab Gulf States Institute| Register Here
A series of seismic systemic shocks has rocked Iraq in recent months. Fragile internal cohesion was severely disrupted by a series of demonstrations in the final months of 2019, with young protesters denouncing corruption, unemployment, state dysfunction, and, increasingly, undue influence by Iran and its client militias. An ensuing crackdown by security forces and pro-Iranian elements of the Popular Mobilization Forces left hundreds of people dead and thousands injured. Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi resigned, leaving the country without a stable government or national consensus.
Perhaps even worse, Iraq has been increasingly dragged into the confrontation between the United States and Iran. A series of rocket attacks attributed to one of the largest pro-Iranian militia groups, Kataib Hezbollah, killed a U.S. contractor and two Iraqi police officers and injured four servicemen. U.S. strikes in response killed at least 24 Kataib Hezbollah militia members, prompting supporters of the group to besiege the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on December 31. Although that confrontation ended without loss of life, a U.S. drone strike on January 3 killed senior Iranian commander Major General Qassim Suleimani and Kataib Hezbollah leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, leading to angry vows of revenge from Iran and widespread calls in Iraq for the removal of all U.S. military forces from the country.
How can Iraq avoid being further dragged into the intensifying U.S.-Iranian confrontation? Can U.S. and other foreign forces stay in Iraq, even just in parts of the country such as the Kurdistan region, and if not, what impact would that have on Iraqi society? Will the anti-government, anti-militia, and anti-Iranian protests continue or has the national focus now shifted to the U.S. rather than Iranian role in Iraq? And how do these multiple and intersecting crises impact the strategic and foreign policy interests of Gulf Arab countries and their still-fledgling efforts to re-establish strong relations with Baghdad while limiting Iranian hegemony in Iraq?
A light lunch will be served. Unable to attend? Check back to watch live on January 23 at 12:30 pm EST.
Speakers:
Ambassador Feisal Amin Rasoul al-Istrabadi, Non-Resident Fellow, AGSIW; Founding Director, Center for the Study of the Middle East, Indiana University Bloomington
Ambassador Douglas A. Silliman, President, AGSIW
Randa Slim, Senior Fellow and Director of the Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues Program, Middle East Institute
Hussein Ibish, Senior Resident Scholar
Intellectuals and Fascism in Interwar Romania: The Criterion Association| January 23, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | Wilson Center| Register Here
In 1930s Bucharest, some of the country’s most brilliant young intellectuals converged to form the Criterion Association. Bound by friendship and the dream of a new, modern Romania, their members included historian Mircea Eliade, critic Petru Comarnescu, Jewish playwright Mihail Sebastian and a host of other philosophers and artists. Together, they built a vibrant cultural scene that flourished for a few short years, before fascism and scandal splintered their ranks. Cristina A. Bejan asks how the far-right Iron Guard came to eclipse the appeal of liberalism for so many of Romania’s intellectual elite, drawing on diaries, memoirs and other writings to examine the collision of culture and extremism in the interwar years. The first English-language study of Criterion and the most thorough to date in any language, this book grapples with the complexities of Romanian intellectual life in the moments before collapse.
Cristina A. Bejan is an Oxford DPhil and a Rhodes and Fulbright scholar. She has held fellowships at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), Georgetown University and the Woodrow Wilson Center. Currently she teaches world history at Metropolitan State University of Denver. A theatre artist, Bejan has written 17 plays and directed/sound designed/produced countless shows in the US and abroad. A spoken word poet, she got her start at Washington DC’s Busboys & Poets. Her poetry collection Green Horses On the Walls (Finishing Line Press) will be released this year and grapples with the inherited trauma of communism within the Romanian diaspora. While a researcher at USHMM in 2013, she founded the arts & culture collective Bucharest Inside the Beltway (BiB), which currently promotes local and international art in Colorado. For more info please visit cristinaabejan.com.
In dialogue with the author of the book’s foreword, Vladimir Tismaneanu, Professor of Politics, University of Maryland (College Park); Global Fellow, Woodrow Wilson Center
Speakers:
Blair A. Ruble, Distinguished Fellow; Former Wilson Center Vice President for Programs (2014-2017); Director of the Comparative Urban Studies Program/Urban Sustainability Laboratory (1992-2017); Director of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies (1989-2012) and Director of the Program on Global Sustainability and Resilience (2012-2014)
Vladimir Tismaneanu, Former Wilson Center Fellow and Director, Center for the Study of Post-Communist Societies, University of Maryland
Cristina Bejan, Founding Executive Director, Bucharest Inside the Beltway; Researcher, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum; Former East European Studies Title VIII Scholar, Wilson Center
Non-Violent Resistance and Palestinian Self- Development| January 24, 2020 | 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The Middle East Institute, in conjunction with the Foundation for Middle East Peace, the New Israel Fund, Americans for Peace Now, and J Street, is pleased to welcome Ali Abu Awwad to Washington, DC. Abu Awwad will discuss his work to mobilize a movement of nonviolent resistance to the occupation in the Palestinian Territories, what led him to this path, his reception in Palestinian society, his engagement with Israeli civilians and military authorities and his hopes and concerns for the future.
Speaker:
Ali Abu Awwad is a leading peace activist and a leader of several peace-building initiatives, including the Taghyeer (Change) Palestinian Nonviolence Movement and the Karama Center. His life and work have been featured in two award-winning films, Encounter Point and Forbidden Childhood.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Tunisia looks for a government
Nine years after the revolution, although the Tunisian government brought effective democratic change, little economic or social progress has been made. In October, Kais Said, a political newcomer, won the presidential election with 73% of the vote, beating Nabil Karoui, who was previously jailed for corruption. Ennahda won the parliamentary election and selected Habib Jemli to be prime minister-designated. However, on January 10, Habib Jemli stepped down as he failed to win a vote of confidence.
On January 14, Carnegie Endowment for International Studies hosted a discussion on the topic of what Tunisians are expecting from their new leaders and what will happen if those expectations are not met. The discussion included three young Tunisians: Amir Ben Ameur, a social activist who advocates for youth development and democracy, Aymen Abderrahmen, a program coordinator in the Leadership Division at IREX, and Oumayma Ben Abdallah, a human rights research and Tunisia analyst. The discussion was moderated by Sarah Yerkes, a fellow in the Carnegie Middle East Program.
Why the government failed to form
Abderrahmen explained the political system in Tunisia and emphasized that Tunisians are sick of the replication of political phases. They lack trust towards the previous government because it failed to fulfill its reform and anti-corruption promises. They also believed that the government was too weak to deliver economic reforms.
Abdallah attributed the failure to the lack of administrative transparency, parliamentary consensus and participation, and detailed reform guidelines. Ameur blamed lack of transparency and the lack of common ground between Jemli and rival parties. He pointed out the government’s failure to tackle real problems. Corruption galvanized doubts among Tunisians.
Remedies
Ameur thinks Tunisia needs a government with greater accountability. The government should bring out detailed, grassroot reforms in a long-term vision. Tunisians need more confidence in government despite current hardships . Abdallah wants more transparency and conviction. She also noted that since the current parliament is fragmented, the new/proposed government should result from political consensus.
To fix unemployment, the government needs a clear strategy for social and economic reform. Abderrahmen noted that the government has recently publicized some plans, but further work in this direction is needed.
Enthusiasm for the transition
All three guests indicated that Tunisians feel deprived of dignity because revolutionary demands were not met. Ameur claimed that young people still have some hope for the government because launching another revolution would be a devastating move. He and Abdallah acknowledged that Tunisia is overall a free country, but economic challenges are still severe. Politicians need to fulfill their promises.
Why the President won
Abderrahmen noted that President Said didn’t try to cater to young people. People were not voting for Said, but against Karoui. Ameur underlined that the younger generation likes Said because he made no promises. Although other candidates had more political and government experience, people were not confident in them as they previously failed to deliver. Abdallah is concerned that since the president ran as an independent, he has no parties backing him, which will make it hard to tackle corruption problems.
The next government
Abderahmen hoped to see another election so that different parties may come up with a consensus. Ameur expressed a desire to have more young people lead the government. Abdallah was not enthusiastic about a new election, which can generate political risks. Instead of presenting a new election, it is urgent to find solutions to economic and social problems.
RSS - Posts
