Peace Picks, January 11-15
- Japan-South Korea Relations and Prospects for a U.S. Role in Historical Reconciliation in East Asia | Monday, January 11th | 9:00-12:00 | The Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Expectations are high that a landmark agreement on the legacies of World War II reached between Japan and South Korea will allow the two countries to further bilateral relations. Under the December 2015 agreement, Tokyo and Seoul stated they reached a “final and irrevocable resolution” regarding Korean women who were forced to serve as sex slaves under Japanese occupation. The deal is expected to allow the two countries to work more closely together on issues of mutual concern amid a rapidly changing economic, political, and security landscape in East Asia. For the United States too, successful implementation of the agreement is critical to bring its two closest allies in the region together and to establish a strong trilateral alliance that would work together to face common challenges. In this forum, scholars of history and international relations will discuss how to address issues of historical contention, and they will also discuss what role the United States could play to ensure that historical reconciliation between South Korea and Japan continues to move forward. See here for a full list of panels and speakers.
- Guantanamo Bay: Year 14 | Monday, January 11th | 3:00-4:45 | New America | REGISTER TO ATTEND | On January 22, 2009, just days after becoming president, Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13492, ordering the closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Now in the last year of his presidency, 107 detainees remain. January 11th marks the 14th anniversary of the prison’s creation.New America is pleased to welcome Dr. Karen Greenberg, Director of the Center on National Security at Fordham University and author of The Least Worst Place: Guantanamo’s First 100 Days, Thomas B. Wilner, a lawyer with Shearman & Sterling LLP and co-founder of Close Guantanamo, who was the Counsel of Record to Guantanamo detainees in two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and Andy Worthington, co-founder of Close Guantanamo and the author of The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison, for a discussion about what can or can’t be done in the next year, and whether President Obama’s promise will ever be fulfilled. Peter Bergen, Vice President of New America, will moderate the discussion Join the conversation online using #GTMO14th and following @NatSecNAF.
- Building Afghanistan’s Economy Through Regional Connectivity | Tuesday, January 12th | 3:00-4:30 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please join the Atlantic Council for a special conversation with Dr. Mohammad Humayon Qayoumi on the economy of Afghanistan. More than a year after coming into power, Afghanistan’s National Unity Government has sought to re-establish Afghanistan’s role as a roundabout for economic connectivity between Central, South and East Asia, and Europe. With new progress made in the areas of power and gas transmission, fiber-optic linkages and movement of goods, the government has also launched a Jobs for Peace Plan, which seeks to provide near term economic opportunity across the country and soften the economic impact caused by the military drawdown. How will Afghanistan’s plans advance its self-reliance reform agenda, link its economy to the region, and provide jobs to its citizens? How can the US-Afghan strategic partnership best advance common security and economic interests? Join us for a special session with Dr. Qayoumi, Chief Advisor to President Ghani for infrastructure, IT and human capital who will provide firsthand what the Afghan government has in store to revive the Afghan economy. The conversation will be moderated by the Hon. James Cunningham, Senior Fellow and Khalilzad Chair, South Asia Center, Atlantic Council.On Twitter? Follow @ACSouthAsia and use #ACAfghanistan
- Blood Oil: Tyrants, Violence, and the Rules that Run the World | Tuesday, January 12th | 4:00-5:30 | Center for Global Development | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The slave trade, colonial rule and apartheid were once all legal. Hard power then won lawful authority: might literally made legal rights. The global revolutions that abolished those coercive rights were extraordinary—yet they left today’s multi-trillion trade in oil and minerals untouched. Current law incentivizes authoritarianism, conflict and corruption so strongly that oil states in the developing world today are no freer, no richer and no more peaceful than they were in 1980. All of the recent reforms around extractives—from transparency to certification to oil-to-cash—point toward the modern idea that the people, not power, should have the ultimate right to control a country’s resources. Can the US lead the West toward the next global revolution, by abolishing its legal trade in authoritarian oil and conflict minerals? Join us for a conversation with Leif Wenar, Chair of Philosophy and Law, King’s College London and author of Blood Oil, and Todd Moss, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development and author of Oil to Cash: Fighting the Resource Curse through Cash Transfers.
- The Europe-Russia Relationship: From the Ukraine Crisis and the Rise of the Far Right to the War in Syria | Thursday, January 15th | 12:30-2:00 | GWU Elliot School of International Affairs | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Two years ago, Ukraine’s Euromaidan revolution set off a new era in the Europe- Russia relationship. Europe responded to the annexation of Crimea with economic sanctions, prompting Russia to ban some European imports. Last fall, the conflict in Eastern Ukraine was overshadowed by Europe’s refugee crisis, Moscow’s strikes in Syria, and the Paris attacks. Taking advantage of rising anti-immigration sentiment and Islamophobia, Europe’s far-right parties, whose leaders express their admiration for President Putin, have fared well at the polls. European leaders must now work with Russia on conflict resolution in the Middle East while managing growing political polarization at home and helping Ukraine stabilize. Join us for a discussion on the topic featuring Marie Mendras, Transatlantic Academy; Alina Polyakova, Atlantic Council; and Marlene Laruelle, Research Professor of International Affairs; Director, Central Asia Program; Associate Director, Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, GW. Jeff Mankoff of the Center for Strategic and International Studies will moderate the discussion.
- Book Launch: The Outcast Majority: War, Development, and Youth in Africa | Thursday, January 14th | 2:00-3:00 | The Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | While African youth are demographically dominant, most see themselves as members of an outcast minority. Their outlier perspective directly informs the fresh and compelling new thinking about war, development, and youth in The Outcast Majority: War, Development, and Youth in Africa by former Wilson Center fellow and youth expert Dr. Marc Sommers. Featuring interviews with development experts and young people, this book contrasts forces that shape and propel youth lives in war and post-war Africa with those that influence and constrain the international development aid enterprise. With an eye on the colossal populations of excluded and profoundly undervalued youth in conflict-affected Africa and far beyond, the concluding framework delivers practical steps for making development work significantly more relevant and effective.Please join the Wilson Center Africa Program in the 5th floor conference room as we speak with Dr. Sommers about his latest publication and examine the implications of his research for international development policy. This event will feature a conversation between Dr. Sommers and Mr. Mark Hannafin, Executive Secretary and Senior National Security Adviser at USAID and co-chair of the new USAID policy on youth in development. Monde Muyangwa, Africa Program Director, will moderate the conversation.
- Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution: On 5th Anniversary, What’s Next? | Thursday, January 14th | 2:30-4:00 | US Institute of Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Five years ago this month, the Tunisian people’s protests calling for respect of their civil liberties resulted in the downfall of the 24-year authoritarian regime of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and the start of a rocky but largely peaceful process toward an inclusive political system. Please join the U.S. Institute of Peace and the International Republican Institute on Jan. 14 as we commemorate the 5th Anniversary of the Jasmine Revolution and examine the issues facing the country in the coming year and how the international community can help.Tunisia is confronting the regional rise of violent extremism that has led to terrorist attacks in its own country, spotlighting the struggle to balance security and human rights. Its frail economy remains a danger to social peace, with unemployment even higher than when the Jasmine Revolution began. Many of Tunisia’s youth are especially vulnerable to these factors.The panelists will consider these issues as well as specific decisions coming up in 2016, including the political situation, decentralization and economic reform. Join the conversation on Twitter with #Tunisia5. Speakers include: Ambassador Faycal Gouia, Embassy of the Republic of Tunisia; Scott Mastic, International Republican Institute; and Amy Hawthorne, Project on Middle East Democracy; Linda Bishai, U.S. Institute of Peace, will moderate the discussion, and Ambassador William B. Taylor will give opening remarks.
- Kazakhstan Nationbuilding and Kazakh Nationalism: A Debate | Thursday, January 14th | 3:00-6:00 | GWU Elliot School of International Affairs | REGISTER TO ATTEND | A new social activism has emerged in Kazakhstan, organized by different small groups self-defining as Kazakh nationalists. Who are they? What is their audience? What political and national projects do they advance? How do they position themselves toward the current authorities, the relationship to Russia, to the Islamic world, and to their Central Asian neighbors?Join us for a discussion with activists representative of this new trend and a roundtable with DC-based experts. Speakers include: Aidos Sarym, Altynbek Sarsenbayuly Foundation; Valikhan Tuleshov, Almaty Management University; Serik Beissembayev, Central Asia Program Visiting Fellow and Center of Social and Political Studies ‘Strategy’ in Almaty; Ulan Bigozhin, Doctoral Student at Indiana University; and Marat Raimkhanov, Hubert Humphrey Fellow at the University of Maryland.
- Foreign Intervention in South Asia: A Case Study from Sri Lanka | Thursday, January 14th | 3:30-5:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please join the Atlantic Council for a conversation with a panel of experts to discuss Norway’s experience mediating conflict in Sri Lanka, and explore the role foreign actors play in South Asia more broadly.Across South Asia, external actors have often intervened to mediate conflict and build stability. Despite best efforts and often better resources, international involvement in South Asian conflicts has often faltered from lack of local support or consensus coupled with concerns over sovereignty. This was the case in Sri Lanka, where a five-year long Norwegian-led mediation process between the Tamil Tigers and Sri Lankan government unraveled, in part, due to a failure in securing bipartisan political support. The South Asia Center will convene a panel of experts to discuss Norway’s experience mediating conflict in Sri Lanka, and explore the role foreign actors play in South Asia more broadly. Speakers include Mark Salter, Author of To End a Civil War; Richard L. Armitage, President, Armitage International, L.C.; and Erik Solheim, Development Assistance Committee Chair, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The discussion will be moderated by Bharath Gopalaswamy, Director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council.
On Twitter? Follow @ACSouthAsia and use #ACSriLanka. - The Arab Spring Five Years Later: Towards Greater Inclusiveness | Friday, January 15th | 10:15-11:45 | The Brookings Institution | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Five years have passed since the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia sparked revolts around the Arab world and the beginning of the Arab Spring. Despite high hopes that the Arab world was entering a new era of freedom, economic growth, and social justice, the transition turned out to be long and difficult, with the Arab world now in turmoil with revolutions, counter revolutions, wars, civil strife, and the worst refugee crisis of our times. The response to the Arab Spring and its aftermath has focused almost exclusively on political and security issues, and on the very divisive questions of national identity and political regimes. Economic and social questions have been put on the back burner. On January 15, Global Economy and Development at Brookings will host a discussion on a new book, The Arab Spring Five Years Later, which explores the critical economic and social issues driving the Arab Spring agenda and the real economic grievances that must be addressed in order to achieve peace, stability, and successful political transitions as well as provides an approach to addressing those grievances. Hafez Ghanem and Shinchi Yamanaka will present the key findings of the book, followed by a panel discussion featuring Masood Ahmed, Director of the Middle East Department, IMF; Sanjay Pradhan, CEO, Open Government Partnership; and Tamara Cofman Wittes, Director of the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. The panel will be moderated by Shanta Devarajan, Chief Economist, Middle East and North Africa Region, World Bank.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ready or not, here comes transitional justice
I got to Colombo just two days ago. I’ve spent most of the time walking and exploring this bustling town that eats lots of very spicy curry and somehow manages to ignore the spectacular Indian Ocean that lies just off its far too rundown shores. This is not Beirut, Tel Aviv or Miami, despite the gaggle of high-rise hotels in the central Fort district.
Friday afternoon I made it over to the Sri Lanka Foundation for a discussion of transitional justice chaired by Colombo University law professor Dinesha Samaratne, with Centre for Policy Alternatives lawyer Bhavani Fonseka and NYU professor Allen Feldman presenting. The focus of the session was on the applicability (or not) of South Africa’s experience with its Truth and Reconciliation Commission and amnesty, but it in fact ranged far more widely.
Sri Lanka ended its war against the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) in 2009 with a government victory over the insurgents, who were trying to establish an independent Tamil state. A year ago (almost to the day), President Rajapakse, who won the war, stepped aside, defeated at the polls by one of his sidekicks, now President Sirisena. He and parts of Rajapakse political coalition cooperated with the leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, to form a “consensual” government, whose forces won a clear parliamentary majority in August.
By all reports, the atmosphere in Sri Lanka has changed dramatically since last January. Repression is far less in evidence. People feel free to speak their minds. The Rajapaksa government, which included close relatives of the president, was triumphalist, centralizing and moving in the direction of autocracy. A constitutional amendment has undone at least part of the damage and strengthened independent commissions. The Sirisena government has said it is committed to truth, justice and reconciliation. It wants a new constitution.
Whereas Rajapaksa rejected international involvement in the war’s aftermath, the Sirisena government agreed to a UN Human Rights Council resolution that lays out a process that includes a special court with still undefined international participation, a truth and reconciliation process, accounting for missing persons (about 16,000) and compensation to victims. All who spoke agreed there can be no backing away from this commitment.
But none of this has happened yet, and lots of important details are still undecided. Fonseka emphasized that those decisions are up to Sri Lankans, who need to make it clear what they want, including things that go beyond what the UN suggested like security sector reform and vetting of officials. What will the balance be between truth and justice? While it is clear that there can be no amnesty for the most serious crimes, what incentives will perpetrators have to talk? How will it be possible to avoid prioritizing some victims over others? It is not even clear what time period the transitional justice process will cover (the civil war lasted, off and on, for 26 years). A government task force has been formed for public consultations, which will last however only two and a half months.
Discussion of the South African experience, led principally by Feldman, underlined that there was no blanket amnesty there. Relatively few people who sought amnesty received it. Forensic investigations are still going on, a South African embassy official said, that sometimes contradict the testimony perpetrators provided to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The main impact of the South African process was to make it impossible to continue to deny what had happened and to clarify the political motives that underlay the behavior of both sides. Citizens, Feldman underlined with reference to Solon, need to participate in the post-war process, as they did in the war. The consequences should be democratizing, equalizing the voices of victims with those of perpetrators.
Samaratne and others in the audience made it clear that the issues the war raised did not end with the war. There have been reports Feldman cited of post-war cases of torture, even some abuses during the last year Fonseka said. The problem is that the justice system has crumbled. It needs to be reconstructed. The current Sri Lankan legal framework and institutions are not adequate to the challenges they face.
Sri Lanka is not ready for transitional justice, one participant concluded. The state should be held accountable for what was done in its name. From this perspective, even limited amnesty risks reducing deterrence, which depends on punishment.The situation in South Africa was dramatically different: there the oppressed came to power and magnanimously agreed to a generous Truth and Reconciliation process. In Sri Lanka , many of the same people are in power and are likely to want to protect themselves. People in the north of the country (where the insurgency was concentrated) are still abused and still afraid.The victims want justice before reconciliation.
That expectation will not be easy to fulfill. Ready or not, transitional justice in some form is on its way.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Sound and fury
Josh Rogin has pretty much nailed the North Korea nuclear issue with his inspired application of the stages of grief. Bottom line: we’ll end up accepting what we can’t change. Sound and fury will signify nothing.
Does it matter?
Yes. Allowing the North Korean dictatorship to persist in thumbing its nose at the UN Security Council and the international community breaches important international norms. The Security Council, which has mandated that North Korea not conduct nuclear or missile tests, is supposed to be authoritative. Non-nuclear states once signatories to the Nonproliferation Treaty (as North Korea was) are supposed to stay non-nuclear. Pyongyang’s defiance will be an inspiration to others and risks confirming a new international norm: once a state acquires nuclear weapons it is virtually immune to pressure, because it can unleash devastating destruction on its neighbors and other adversaries, provided it has the required delivery vehicles.
But that doesn’t mean there is a lot the United States, or anyone else, can do about it. Barack Obama is thought to be holding his tongue because he doesn’t want to give Kim Jong-un the satisfaction of getting a rise out of the US president. That seems to me wise, especially given the difficulty the President has had making his other red lines stick. A lot of noise about North Korea now would only encourage more misbehavior. What would the President do then? Any parent knows the risks of escalation with an unruly teenager.
No doubt it has been made clear to the North Koreans that US nuclear weapons may now target their homeland. It is even said that was a motive for the latest test. Few Americans realize it, but the US does not have a doctrine of no first use against nuclear states, only against non-nuclear states. The North Koreans certainly know that and are ready to run the risk, which they will presume low given the consequences for Washington if it were to use its nuclear capabilities.
There are of course other options. We could re-tighten financial sanctions, which in the past seemed to be having a serious impact. We could destroy North Korean nuclear facilities or any nuclear-capable missiles Pyongyang seeks to test, as former Sectary of Defense Bill Perry urged years ago. We could undertake a much more concerted effort to undermine the North Korean regime and its iron grip on its people. I imagine there are officials within the US government working on all these options, which could be undertaken either overtly or covertly.
But the sad fact is that these well-known options have downsides and none are guaranteed to work. Tightening sanctions and undermining the North Korean regime run the risk of causing collapse, which from the Chinese and South Korean perspectives is almost as frightening as Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal. Beijing and Seoul don’t like the North Korean regime, but they don’t want millions of North Koreans fleeing uncontrollably. Destroying nuclear facilities can cause serious radioactive contamination. Missiles are a better target, but we’d have to be pretty sure the response would not be a nuclear strike on one of North Korea’s neighbors (its missiles cannot yet hit the US, so far as I am aware).
I’m afraid the only serious option at the moment, other than ignoring the bastards, is to talk with the North Koreans and try to get them to back down from their current defiance of the Security Council and other international pressures. Yes, that will unavoidably give them some of the international acknowledgment and recognition they crave. Nuclear weapons confer privileges. One of them is not being ignored completely.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Gulf style
Saudi Arabia’s decision to break diplomatic relations with Iran raises the question of how much worse things can get. It depends of course on Riyadh’s and Tehran’s objectives and what they are willing to risk to gain them.
Marc Lynch at Monkey Cage today suggests the Saudi motives for escalating its conflict with Iran by executing Shia cleric Nimr al Nimr are three: to isolate and contain Iran even as the nuclear deal proceeds, to distract from foreign policy failures and to rally regional Sunni support. He regards domestic repression as a relatively unimportant factor, which I find hard to credit. Only four of those executed last weekend are known to be Shia. The other 43 were presumably Sunni, many of them extremists responsible for attacks that occurred a decade or more ago. Someone is surely trying to send a strong signal to Sunni extremists about the consequences of targeting the Kingdom.
But let’s examine the international factors and their consequences.
Executing a nonviolent Shia cleric isn’t a likely way to isolate or contain Iran. But Tehran helped the Saudi cause when it allowed Riyadh’s embassy to be sacked. That’s a surefire way of getting negative diplomatic attention, especially from the US and UK. Score one own goal for Riyadh. The Supreme Leader also threatened Saudi Arabia with God’s wrath. That puts him in good company with some right-wing American politicians who are likewise convinced that God acts on their behalf (and maybe even at their behest).
Riyadh is getting some regional support. Bahrain, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates have downgraded their relations with Tehran. That doesn’t count for much more than an improved field position in my book. Nor are the executions likely to distract much from foreign policy failures, and then only temporarily. The wars in Syria and Yemen are not going well from the Kingdom’s perspective. Riyadh is going to have to throw even more money and hardware into them, while encouraging others to do likewise, if it wants to have a serious impact.
The US failed to condemn the Saudi executions, though it regretted their contribution to increasing sectarian tensions in the region. Friends don’t condemn friends, I guess. It certainly would not have helped Washington’s relations with Riyadh, which are already tense because the Saudis are feeling sold out in the Iran nuclear deal. The question is how much longer friendship will trump honesty. The Americans are in no position to object to executions per se, but no one in Washington thinks much of the Saudi justice system. At least from what is readily available in public, it is hard to picture how anything al Nimr said would justify the death penalty.
The blowup between Iran and Saudi Arabia puts at risk the UN-sponsored Syria peace talks, which are scheduled to being January 25 in Geneva. But it also makes them all the more important. You wouldn’t know it from the headlines, but the Saudis and Iranians have a common enemy in the Islamic State. If only they could agree on how to fight it.
On BBC Five Live last night I was asked whether the current downward spiral could lead to war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It’s hard to rule that out, as breaking diplomatic relations can be a prelude to war and feelings are certainly running high. But both countries seem much keener to fight on third-country turf than on their own. Iran has Revolutionary Guard forces commanding and training in Syria, but most of the actual fighting is done by Hizbollah on Tehran’s behalf. The Saudis are bombing Houthi forces in Yemen, but they seem to have kept their ground forces mostly out of the fight. Some naval dueling in the Gulf, possibly involving tankers, might be in the offing, but proxy war through intermediaries is more the Gulf style.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A bad way to start the new year
2015 was a disastrous year for the Middle East. Uncivil war in Syria raged on, with Russia pitching in on behalf of the Assad regime. Yemen also descended into full-fledged war, with Saudi Arabia pitching in on behalf of President (or former President, depending whose side you are on) Hadi. Libya’s UN-brokered peace agreement seems far from implementation, with two parliaments, two governments and many militias, as well as a growing Islamic State presence. The Islamic State lost territory in Syria (to Kurds) and in Iraq (to Kurds Yezidis, Shia militias and Iraqi government forces), but it would be hard to claim the tide of war has changed direction. Egypt continues to crack down on not only the Muslim Brotherhood and more extremist Islamist threats but also on moderate secularists. Israel and the Palestinians are at an impasse, one in which deadly violence on both sides is escalating.
Can it get worse?
The weekend’s events answer that question: yes. Friday Saudi Arabia, current chair of the UN Human Rights Council, executed 47 people, one of whom was a Shia cleric whose commitment to nonviolence seems uncontested, even if he was no friend of the (Sunni) monarchy. Yesterday Iranians responded by sacking part of the Saudi Embassy, a move that will remind the world of how little the Islamic Republic can be relied upon to protect diplomatic facilities. Today the Saudis claimed that Iran executed hundreds last year with little legal basis. The Iranians are promising that God will punish the Saudi monarchy.
We are clearly in the midst of a downward spiral that could well end in more sectarian bloodletting. Iran can pump more weapons and fighters (both Hizbollah and its own Revolutionary Guards) into Syria. Saudi Arabia can beef up support for insurgents there and escalate its attacks on the Houthis in Yemen. The more regional conflict and chaos, the stronger the Islamic State and Al Qaeda grow in Syria, Yemen, Libya and Afghanistan, even if they are losing territory in Iraq and northern Syria. Instability breeds instability.
President Obama wants to keep the United States out of the fray, except to attack those who directly threaten the homeland. That means the Islamic State as well as Al Qaeda and its affiliates. His astoundingly disciplined refusal to engage otherwise leaves a vacuum that militants expand to fill. Those who think the President indecisive or irresolute have misunderstood. He is determined not to get drawn back in to the Middle East. Watching the Iranians and Saudis go at it should be enough to make many Americans sympathize.
But not doing things is just as much a policy as doing them. It has consequences. The downward spiral is unlikely to stop of its own accord. The Middle East is a high wire act without a net. There is no regional security framework or even a loose association like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to help de-escalate. The Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation is far too weak a reed. The Gulf Cooperation Council is an adversary of Iran, not a neutral. Neither Europe nor the U.S. has had much success in getting the Islamic Republic and the Kingdom to temper their conflict.
It is difficult to see how this ends well. It may well be we are heading for a conflagration with much more catastrophic consequences than we have seen so far. Only when the Saudis and Iranians see that happening are they likely to stop. And then it may be too late.
We haven’t seen much yet of 2016. Just enough to know it is a bad way to start a new year.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, January 4-8
- Stability and Human Security in Afghanistan in 2016 | Monday, January 4th | 10:30-12:00 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In 2016, the year of the U.S. presidential election, the international community will mark another milestone in its 15-year engagement in Afghanistan. Despite billions of dollars spent by the international community to stabilize the country, Afghanistan has seen little improvement in terms of overall stability and human security. The situation on the ground for Afghans continues to be grave, and while the international coalition suffered the least number of casualties in 2015, casualty levels have greatly increased for Afghan security forces. Security for the Afghan people has also deteriorated in large swaths of the country, further complicating humanitarian response. Afghan civilians are at greater risk today than at any time since Taliban rule, with a dramatic increase in the numbers of mostly young Afghans fleeing their country. Afghanistan’s economic situation also remains poor, and major political challenges lie ahead in 2016.In response to these troubling trends, President Obama decided to keep more than 5,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan through the end of his presidency. Looking at and beyond the coming year, what are the key security, economic, political, and humanitarian challenges and opportunities that need to be addressed in Afghanistan?On January 4, the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at Brookings will host an event focused on the current status of the war and stabilization effort in Afghanistan. Panelists include Che Bolden, federal executive fellow at Brookings; Jason Cone, executive director at Doctors Without Borders; Brookings Senior Fellow Vanda Felbab-Brown; and Ann Vaughan, director of policy and advocacy at Mercy Corps. Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon, and author of “The Future of Land Warfare” (Brookings Institution Press, 2015), will moderate the discussion.
- Insight Turkey 5th Annual Conference: Turkish Foreign Policy After Elections | Wednesday, January 6th | 8:30-4:30 | SETA Foundation | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Foundation for Political, Economic, and Social Research (SETA) will hold its annual conference on Turkey on Wednesday. Panel topics include: Neighboring Civil Wars; The Kurdish Question as a Regional Challenge; and the US-Turkey Relationship. The keynote address will be given by Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister, Mehmet Şimşek. Please see here for a full schedule and list of participants.
- Iraq: Can Good Governance Erode Support for Militants? | Wednesday, January 6th | 1:00-2:30 | US Institute for Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Extremist groups like ISIS have seized control in swaths of Iraq and Syria in part because they tout themselves as an alternative to corrupt and inept government at all levels. Join USIP on January 6 to hear about new research by the global humanitarian and development organization Mercy Corps on the connection between citizens’ perceptions of governance and public support for armed opposition. Panelists will explore how good governance may erode the pull of sectarian identity politics, and showcase instances when governance successes have appeared to reduce support for armed opposition and violence. USIP experts will discuss the research results in light of what the Institute’s staff and partners on the ground have learned in the course of their conflict mitigation and peacebuilding work. Panelists include Nancy Lindborg, President at USIP; Dr. Jacob N. Shapiro, Associate Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; Michael Young, Senior Advisor a Mercy Corps; Dr. Elie Abouaoun, Director of Middle East Programs at USIP; and Sarhang Hamasaeed, Senior Program Officer at USIP.
- Readout on the Paris Climate Agreement: What Was Achieved and What Comes Next? | Thursday, January 7th | 10:30-12:00 | Center for Strategic & International Studies | RSVP to attend | The CSIS Energy and National Security Program is pleased to invite you to a discussion on the Paris Agreement reached at the 21st Conference of Parties meeting under the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change (COP21). To help us understand what the new climate agreement means for future U.S. and international efforts to combat climate change, Paul Bodnar, Senior Director for Energy and Climate Change, National Security Council, The White House, will discuss what the agreement entails and what actions the U.S. government and the international community are likely to focus on in the coming years. Sarah Ladislaw, Director and Senior Fellow with the CSIS Energy and National Security Program, will moderate the discussion.
- The Great Tradeoff: Confronting Moral Conflicts in the Era of Globalization | Thursday, January 7th | 12:15-1:30 | Peterson Institute for International Economics | Online Event – Open to Attend | The Peterson Institute will release its latest book, The Great Tradeoff: Confronting Moral Conflicts in the Era of Globalization, by Steven R. Weisman, the Institute’s vice president for publications and communications. The book has an important theme that there is a moral case to be made for globalization, but the case is far from simple. American Enterprise Institute (AEI) President Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI); Steven Rattner, former counselor to the secretary of the Treasury; and Stelios Vasilakis, the Stavros Niarchos Foundation’s Director of Programs and Strategic Initiatives, will be discussants at the book launch on January 7, 2016.The global financial and economic crisis that began in 2008 highlighted the profound moral concerns long surrounding globalization. In his book, Weisman addresses the questions whether materialist excess, doctrinaire embrace of free trade and capital flows, and indifference to economic injustice contributed to the disaster of the last decade, and whether it was ethical to bail out banks and governments. The Great Tradeoff blends economics, moral philosophy, history, and politics, and Weisman argues that the concepts of liberty, justice, virtue, and loyalty help to explain the passionate disagreements spawned by a globally integrated economy. The Institute is grateful to the Stavros Niarchos Foundation for its generous support of this project and of the Institute’s prior research in this interdisciplinary area.
- GULAG: Gone but not Forgotten | Friday, January 8th | 10:00-11:30 | Woodrow Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | GULAG, a system of Soviet forced labor camps, was officially shut down more than half a century ago, but its memory remains a topic of dispute. Only a few of the camps’ survivors and former employees are still alive and can share their stories and reflections. For her book, 58th Uneliminated, Elena Racheva interviewed those affected by the GULAG and will recount some of their remarkable stories. She will also analyze what role the memory of these camps plays for the newer generations of Russians. Professor Kathleen Smith will discuss commemorative projects in Russia, and how they have changed over the course of Russia’s independence.
- Uncivil Rites: Palestine and the Limits of Academic Freedom | Friday, January 8th | 12:30-2:00 | The Palestine Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In the summer of 2014, renowned American Indian Studies professor Steven Salaita had his offer of a tenured professorship revoked by the University of Illinois Board of Trustees. Salaita’s employment was terminated in response to his public tweets criticizing the Israeli government’s summer assault on Gaza. His firing generated a huge public outcry, with thousands petitioning for his reinstatement, and more than five thousand scholars pledging to boycott the University of Illinois. His case raises important questions about academic freedom, free speech on campus, and the movement for justice in Palestine. In this book, Salaita combines personal reflection and political critique to provide a thorough analysis of his controversial termination. He situates his case at the intersection of important issues that affect both higher education and social justice activism. A light lunch will be served at 12:30; the event begins at 1:00.
RSS - Posts
