Tag: Africa
The growing nuclear threat
Pantelis Ikonomou, a former IAEA nuclear inspector, writes:
The United States and Russia are building up their nuclear capabilities in an actio – reactio mode. The other seven nuclear weapon states are following quietly. A globe without nukes is becoming utopian. The spiral of fear moves steadily faster and higher. The risk of a catastrophic derailing of global peace grows. Accident or miscalculation will not ultimately matter. We all know it is going to be tragic. The two big powers know it much best. Yet, the spiral continues. Moscow and Washington think that the opponent will give up first. As in the 1980s, when Reagan with his gigantic and extremely expensive Star Wars plans drove the Soviet Union to collapse.
No-one should be surprised. The nuclear escalation game started some time ago. In October 2016, a month before President Trump’s election, Russian President Putin suspended two nuclear agreements with the US and terminated a third one, all related to nuclear disarmament and bilateral cooperation in nuclear science and technology. The agreements had been valid since 2000 and were considered exemplars of the effort by the two strongest opponents of the Cold War towards a peaceful rapprochement.
What happened and why the change? Despite Putin’s explanation, ‘‘a consequence of the Crimea sanctions,’’ many saw his nuclear decisions as an attempt to strengthen his position in anticipation of Donald Trump winning the US presidential elections. Since Trump had already expressed surprisingly irrational nuclear positions, Putin wanted to take the initiative. Shortly after Trump’s election, both presidents announced in December 2016, as if in pre-agreement, that their countries would pursue expansion and modernization of their nuclear arsenals.
The US president has continued his aggressive pro-nuclear policy, encouraging friendly States to develop nuclear weapons, showing disrespect to the UN’s responsible global watchdog (the International Atomic Energy Agency), and degrading the Iran deal (JCPOA). In December 2017 president Trump announced the National Security Strategy and in the beginning of February 2018 the Pentagon presented the Nuclear Posture Review. Both documents stated that in upcoming years US nuclear capability will be strengthened and its nuclear arsenal modernized. Reason given: deterrence of Russia.
It did not take long for Moscow to reply. Russia cancelled talks with the ‘’unfriendly’’ US on strategic stability, set for March 6 and 7 in Vienna. A few days earlier the US ‘’snubbed’’ a meeting with Russia in Geneva on cybersecurity. Then last Thursday Putin in a highly impressive and nuclear-heavy State of the Nation Address announced an array of new Russian nuclear weapon systems ‘‘ready for operation.’’ They included difficult to detect ICBMs carrying multidirectional nuclear warheads capable of reaching the US over the South Pole, underwater long distance torpedoes loaded with the strongest ever nuclear warhead, and ultrasonic missiles. Furthermore, nuclear mini reactors would power Mars satellites ‘‘under development’’ aimed to outsmart enemy defense systems.
As a nuclear Safeguards inspector, I carried out stringent inspections to prevent nuclear proliferation for many years in states like Libya, South Africa, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina and many others. These missions were performed in accordance with the countries’ Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) commitments, including their binding obligation to undergo rigorous international inspections.
How can I understand your rationale for what the speechless world is now witnessing? You are the world leaders and main initiators of the NPT regime and are now consciously revitalizing a nuclear race, 28 years after the end of the Cold War!This is contrary to your international undertaking under the NPT (Article VI) “… to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament …”.
Can you not recognize the high risk of jeopardizing the integrity of the non-proliferation architecture? Do you not see the imminent risk of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation by aspiring candidates in the Middle East and in North East Asia? Is North Korea not enough? Can you not assess the growing nuclear threat to humanity?
PS: Here is the video that accompanied Putin’s claims of new nuclear weapons systems:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, March 5 – March 11
- Oil in Iraq: Pathways to Enabling Better Governance | Monday, March 5 | 2:00pm – 3:30pm | Middle East Institute | Register here |
Despite setbacks from the war against ISIS, Iraq remains the world’s fourth largest producer of oil, second only to Saudi Arabia among OPEC states. However, the administration of this vital natural resource has been plagued by corruption and disputes over how revenues should be allocated to promote equitable economic growth. How can Iraq harness oil revenue to strengthen institutions, grow the economy, and empower Iraqis to rebuild their society? How are relations between Baghdad and Erbil and other sectarian tensions complicated by the “resource curse,” and what can be done to overcome it? The Middle East Institute is pleased to host a panel discussion examining options and priorities for improving governance in Iraq, featuring Erin Banco (investigative reporter for the Star-Ledger and NJ.com), Alan Eyre (US Department of State), Omar Al-Nidawi (Gryphon Partners), and Jean Francois Seznec (Scholar, MEI). The panel will be moderated by Randa Slim (Director of Program on Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues, MEI). ___________________________________________________________
- Preventing Conflict to Create Pathways for Peace | Tuesday, March 6 | 9:00am – 10:30am | United States Institute of Peace | Register here |
Violent conflict today is surging after decades of relative decline. Direct deaths in war, refugee numbers, military spending, and terrorist incidents have all reached historic highs in recent years. Today, the consequences of failing to act together are alarmingly evident, and the call for urgent action has perhaps never been clearer. To answer this call, the United Nations and the World Bank Group are launching their joint study, “Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict” to share how defense, diplomacy, and development should work together to successfully keep conflict from becoming violent. Join the U.S. Institute of Peace to hear from experts on how the international community can promote better policies and programs to pave the way forward to peace. Featuring Oscar Fernandez-Taranco (Assistant Secretary-General for Peacebuilding Support, United Nations), Franck Bousquet (Senior Director, Fragility, Conflict & Violence, World Bank), Deqa Hagi Yusuf (Minister of Women and Human Rights Development, Somalia), and Nancy Lindborg (President, U.S. Institute of Peace), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- Performance and Prospects for Russia’s Economy | Tuesday, March 6 | 2:00pm – 3:30pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
After a difficult transition to a market-based system in the 1990s, the Russian economy experienced rapid growth into the 2000s. However, in the last few years, falling gas prices, Western sanctions and diminishing foreign investments, and a continued lack of effective structural reforms have taken a toll on the economy and the citizens of the Russian Federation. The Russian economy has been buffeted by increasing re-nationalization of enterprises and international sanctions. It remains energy-focused, and highly oligarchical. Although recovering slightly, the trajectory and sustainability of the Russian economic model is under intense scrutiny. The possibility of additional sanctions just adds to the uncertainty. This panel, entitled “Performance and Prospects for Russia’s Economy,” will explore the development of Russia’s economy, including its place in the international economic system, and its prospects for the next decade. Featuring Dr. Sergey Aleksashenko (senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Brookings Institution), Dr. Anders Åslund (Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council), Elizaveta Osetinskaya (Fellow, University of California, Berkeley). Ambassador Clifford Bond (Former Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Coordinator for Assistance to Europe and Eurasia, US Department of State) will moderate the discussion.
___________________________________________________________
- Governor Geraldo Alckmin of São Paulo on Brazil’s Economic and Political Outlook in an Unpredictable Election Year | Wednesday, March 7 | 9:30am – 12:00pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
Elected four times to lead São Paulo, Brazil’s richest and most influential state, Governor Geraldo Alckmin is widely expected to run in October’s presidential election. This will be a second attempt to reach the Palácio do Planalto for Alckmin, who lost to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2006. Despite his low polling numbers—and widespread rejection of establishment politicians—seasoned political analysts believe the governor could emerge as a strong centrist candidate backed by the middle class and the business community, and someone who—if he wins—could build the alliances needed to govern in Brazil’s coalitional political system. However, the race is highly unpredictable and will likely remain so for months. Join the Wilson Center for a conversation with Governor Geraldo Alckmin; speakers and panelists include Paulo Sotero (Director, Brazil Institute), Cassia Carvalho (Executive Director, Brazil-U.S. Business Council), and Roberto Simon (Director, FTI Consulting), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- The Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership: Implications for Global Trade | Wednesday, March 7 | 2:00pm – 5:00pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
On March 8, representatives of eleven countries will meet in Chile to sign the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), creating a massive free trade bloc connecting 500 million people and economies with a combined GDP of over $10 trillion. Signatories include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The current agreement includes several major economies that will have a profound influence on the future of global trade and investment. The United States withdrew from negotiations in January 2017. Join the Wilson Center to discuss the economic impact of the agreement for member and non-member countries and the future of integration of the Asia-Pacific region and the Western Hemisphere. Featuring the Honorable Carlos Pareja (Ambassador to the United States, Peru), the Honorable Ashok Kumar Mirpuri (Ambassador to the United States, Singapore), and Jeffrey J. Schott (Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- Regional Cooperation in the Middle East: The Baghdad Declaration | Wednesday, March 7 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | Middle East Institute | Register here |
Since 2014, the Middle East Institute has convened the Middle East Dialogue, a Track 1.5 initiative involving current and former officials and senior experts from across the Middle East as well as from China, Europe, Russia and the United States. These meetings focus on the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, and on the principles and architecture of a new regional cooperation framework in the Middle East. At the Dialogue’s most recent meeting in Baghdad, the group issued a consensus document outlining Good Neighborhood Principles for the Middle East. Is a new regional cooperation framework possible in today’s Middle East? What are the principles and institutional architecture that would underpin this framework? What are the obstacles? What are realistic interim confidence-building measures? How can the international community assist in moving this process forward? MEI is pleased to host a panel discussion involving participants from the Middle East Dialogue. Featuring Naufel Alhassan (Deputy Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister of Iraq), Abdallah Al-Dardari (Senior Advisor on Reconstruction in the MENA, World Bank), and Paul Salem (Senior Vice President for Policy Research and Programs, MEI). Randa Slim (Director of Program on Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues, MEI) will moderate.
___________________________________________________________
- How Film Captures the Roles of Women in War and Peace | Thursday, March 8 | 9:30am – 12:00pm | United States Institute of Peace | Register here |
Ten years ago, the film Pray the Devil Back to Hell premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival, where it won the award for Best Documentary for its powerful depiction of the nonviolent women’s movement that helped bring an end to Liberia’s bloody civil war. Since its release, producers and directors have taken up the challenge to tell the stories of the often-invisible lives of women in conflict. These films have brought forward women’s critical voices to the stories of war and peace, and amplified the global agenda of Women, Peace and Security. Join USIP on International Women’s Day to discuss how film has been an innovative tool for translating policy frameworks into social change. This event will bring together the worlds of film and policy to celebrate the progress that has been made in advancing women’s roles in peace and security, and spreading their stories. Featuring Abigail Disney (Filmmaker & President and CEO, Fork Films), Michelle Bekkering (Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, USAID), and Suhad Babaa (Executive Director, Just Vision), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- Japan-Korea Relations 20 Years After the Kim-Obuchi Summit | Thursday, March 8 | 2:00pm – 7:00pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | Register here |
Nearly twenty years ago, the leaders of Japan and South Korea raised hopes for “a new Japan-Korea partnership for the twenty-first century,” backed by an action plan to foster broader cooperation and closer people-to-people ties. Although progress has been made, disagreements over history have stymied the desired transformation in their relationship, even as North Korean nuclear threats grow. This half-day conference—featuring scholars and former officials of that time from Japan, South Korea, and the United States—combines a look back with a look ahead, reflecting on what types of polices and initiatives have succeeded or failed since 1998 and why. Speakers and panelists include Douglas H. Paal (Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Carol Gluck (George Sansom Professor of History, Columbia University), and James Zumwalt (CEO, Sasakawa Peace Foundation USA), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- US-Sudan Relations: What’s Next? | Thursday, March 8 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
Following the Trump administration’s October 2017 decision to lift most economic sanctions against Sudan, the Atlantic Council sent task force members to Sudan in January 2018—the third delegation in two years—to conduct research in three critical, related areas: governance and political reform; economic reform and impediments to investment; and prospects for greater cultural engagement. The resulting issue briefs put forward recommendations for the United States and Sudan to continue their positive engagement in a way that serves US interests but also supports peace, security, and inclusive governance for the Sudanese people. Featuring Dr. J. Peter Pham (Vice President for Research and Regional Initiatives, Atlantic Council), Ambassador Tim Carney (Former US Ambassador to Sudan), and Dr. Jeffrey Herbst (Co-Author, Making Africa Work & former CEO of the Newseum), among others. Kelsey Lilley (Associate Director, Africa Center, Atlantic Council) will moderate the discussion.
___________________________________________________________
- Anti-Corruption and the Fight for Democracy in Russia | Friday, March 9 | 10:00am – 11:30am | Wilson Center (co-organized with Freedom House) | Register here |
Russian activists Nikita Kulachenkov and Mikhail Maglov will talk about their work exposing corruption in Russia from abroad and the impact that these investigations have on the Kremlin’s legitimacy. They will also discuss how illicit financial flows from Russia, including real state and luxury goods, reach the West and what can be done to stop them. Featuring Charles Davidson (Executive Director of the Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute), Nikita Kulachenkov (Forensic Investigator, Anti-Corruption Foundation), and Mikhail Maglov (Former Activist of “Solidarnost”).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Two new lows
President Trump has hit two new lows: his racist comment on the origins of some American immigrants and his renewed threat to abrogate the Iran nuclear deal.
Neither is a surprise. His racism has long been apparent. What else was all that “birther” stuff about where Barack Obama was born? He believes, with good reason, that racial prejudice appeals to his almost entirely white base. He has reportedly been saying so to those he has talked to privately since his comments became public. I have no doubt he is correct.
There is just no getting around the hard fact: more than one-third of the American electorate either holds racist views or doesn’t regard racism as a political disqualification. Never mind that African immigrants to America are more educated than its native born, or that Norwegian immigrants to the US fared remarkably poorly. Prejudice ignores the facts.
On the Iran nuclear deal, the President is promising to withdraw unless he gets satisfaction within four months on two issues I regard as important: the deal’s “sunset” (i.e. expiration clauses) and inspection of Iranian nuclear sites. But neither problem, important as they are, can be solved with a unilateral withdrawal four months from now.
It has been apparent since the conclusion of the agreement that something would have to be done about its expiration. But trying to do that now, 7 years before the first of the expirations, is impossible: the Europeans will not go along with a US threat to withdraw and reimpose sanctions at this stage in the deal’s implementation. They might do so as expiration approaches, but they are correct in thinking there is no urgency about the matter.
The US attempt to impose urgency will fail. The Iranians will then have a choice: continue to implement the agreement with the Europeans, or withdraw and make a rush for nuclear weapons. Either move will weaken the US. We could go to war in a last-ditch effort to prevent Iran from going nuclear, but the odds of success in that endeavor are not good and the ramifications for the region are disastrous. I’d bet though on the Iranians continuing to implement the deal, making European support for extending it far less likely and any US rush to war unjustifiable.
As for Iranian military sites, the issues involved are serious and complicated. But neither the US nor the Europeans have exhausted the provisions in the deal to press for inspections to ensure that these sites are not in violation. They should do that first. Trump’s threat all but guarantees they won’t.
The threat to withdraw from the nuclear deal is cast as an ultimatum to the Europeans, not to Iran, to fix these two main issues: expiration and inspection of all sites the International Atomic Energy Agency requests. It ignores the option the Europeans have to continue the agreement without the US. This is Trump’s frequently repeated error in negotiation: he threatens to act on his own best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) but ignores the other guy’s. The result is that he rarely gets what he wants. The other guy has options too. In this case, both Iran and the Europeans can do better without us than we can by withdrawing.
Trump is still campaigning against Barack Obama: both his statement on the nuclear deal, which refers explicitly to his predecessor, and his racist remarks should be read in that light. The result is two new lows that weaken America’s standing in the world.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Compare and contrast
I’m just going to leave this eloquent and dignified testimony here:
Most of my readers will have no difficulty comparing and contrasting it with the mendacity of the Donald Trump, who tweeted this morning:
I had a very respectful conversation with the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson, and spoke his name from beginning, without hesitation!
Would someone who respected the families of fallen soldiers react this way?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Jihadism in Libya
On Tuesday, the Atlantic Council hosted a forum featuring experts Jason Pack, Rhiannon Smith, and Karim Mezran to mark the release of their collaborative report, “The Origins and Evolution of ISIS in Libya.” Christopher Chivvis, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation and Associate Director at the International Security and Defense Policy Center, joined the three authors. The report—which seeks to understand the trajectory of jihadist organizations in Libya through a study of the Islamic State—emphasized the crisis of a weak and divided central authority, the allure of Islamist opposition, and the adaptability of jihadist groups in Libya.
In the wake of longtime Libyan autocrat Muammar Qaddafi’s deposition and demise in 2011, the state collapsed into a series of territorial struggles. Libyan jihadism emerged out of this turbulent climate. Pack, Smith, and Mezran report produces three key findings:
- A divided political climate and weak state control enabled the growth of ISIS in Libya.
- The majority of Libyans oppose ISIS, expressing distaste for the organization’s brutal policies and techniques.
- Libyan jihadism is driven by Libyan concerns, despite the dressing of Salafist religious rhetoric.
The crisis of governance in Libya “opened the door for local jihadist groups,” noted Chivvis. In particular, ISIS strategy targeted “under-governed” cities with historical links to global jihadist networks, such as Derna in the east. As jihadist militias proliferated and tensions between Islamists and anti-Islamist General Khalifa Haftar’s forces escalated, increasing numbers of jihadist commanders pledged allegiance to ISIS. Ultimately, ISIS seized Derna in October 2014.
Rival jihadist group Derna Mujahideen Shura Council (DMSC) expelled ISIS from Derna in May 2016 . However, notes the report, “jihadist organizations have been able to survive and thrive in Libya because they offer governance functions to a population that is starved for them.” Jihadist groups will continue to take advantage of weak governmental authority and local instability.
For this reason, a purely counterterror approach is insufficient. Smith and Pack noted that any successful foreign effort to combat ISIS in Libya must involve targeted capacity building to fill vacuums in Libyan industry and government. The upcoming 2018 national elections could help fill this void, provided that sufficient centralized authority exists at that time to carry them out.
“ISIS is the symptom,” reiterated Pack, “not the cause. The underlying disease is statelessness.”
The lack of a strong national government and consequent decentralization of authority in Libya also means that loyalties—whether to militia leaders or ISIS commanders—are predominantly local. For this reason, Pack explained, it is vitally important that concerned foreign actors focus their efforts on empowering local councils and institutions. Yet since 2011, both the Obama and Trump administrations have limited themselves to assassinations and air strikes in the region. While reluctance to deploy troops is understandable, deferring the problem could lead to perpetual instability, Chivvis cautioned.
Feelings of abandonment are another force driving jihadism in the country. Sirte is a prime example. One of the last Qaddafi holdouts, the city fell to National Transitional Council (NTC) rebel forces in 2011. After NTC control waned, ISIS seized control of the city only to be expelled by Misratan forces allied with the new national authority (the Government of National Accord). Disaffected citizens embraced Islamist opposition in the form of al-Qaeda-affiliated Ansar ash-Sharia. Now that Ansar ash-Sharia has also been expelled, Tuesday’s panelists fear the power vacuum left in its wake. Pack cautioned that the cycle of government control followed by superseding jihadist or Islamist opposition may persist.
The great danger and advantage of jihadist groups is adaptability. Although ISIS has lost territory, warned Smith, it now possesses the freedom to mutate—especially if conflict breaks out once again in Sirte.
Networks between Libyan cities and the Levant remain active. In Pack’s estimation, the country functions as a kind of “postgrad for jihadists”: prospective agents are trained in Syria, but learn how to survive and innovate in outposts like Libya. According to Chivvis, ISIS actively sought to build a new front in the country.
Despite the dire situation in Libya, there remains staunch resistance to jihadism. Smith suggests that the Libyan people possess a deep-seated mistrust of foreign interference that ultimately places them in opposition to foreign-based groups like ISIS. This may extend to regional jihadist groups as well.
“The lesser evil of 2011 was, ‘Let’s work with Islamists.’ The lesser evil of 2016 is, ‘Let’s work with French and British and American forces to rid our country of jihadists,’” observed Pack.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Heresies
I’ve been hesitating to write about Donald Trump’s catastrophic 30% budget cut to the State Department and USAID, because I find myself out of tune with most of my deserving Foreign Service colleagues. Not about the size of the cut: it’s ridiculous. Anything even close to 30% in a single year would render most organizations non-functional, because of their fixed costs. The foreign policy establishment is no different: it has rents to pay, buildings to heat, computers to maintain, and payroll to meet that prevent anything like a 30% cut.
My heresies start with Rex Tillerson’s hesitancy to appoint his subordinates until he has had a look at which jobs he wants to keep and which he wants to abolish. No one intent on cutting positions would want to fill them first. And unlike most commentators, I know that professional Foreign Service and Civil Service officers have stepped up as “actings” to fill the shoes of the missing Trump political appointees, who aren’t likely to be as capable (or as much in tune with my preferences). Of course they should in principle have political guidance, but in its absence they will do what I think is likely best: continue doing what they did before January 20.
Nor do I necessarily disagree with the notion that AID might be folded into State. AID was conceived, and continues to regard itself, as a poverty-reduction organization committed to economic development. But it no longer has anywhere near the resources required to make even a minor dent in global poverty. Nor is it clear that it knows any better how to create jobs abroad than the US government does at home. In any event, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the regional development banks have much greater capacity to reduce poverty than AID, as does the US Millennium Challenge Corporation.
What we need AID money for in the early part of the 21st century is something else. Though I am a diehard Obamista, Mitt Romney had most of it right in a speech on AID during the 2012 campaign: we should be using its resources to help our friends abroad build the institutions required for free enterprise, including protection of property rights and rule of law. What the US needs in abroad is socially and environmentally sensitive capitalist development, including strong civil society organizations that will insist on inclusivity, transparency and accountability. In a word: building states and their civil society counterparts.
AID has the amounts of money that could make a real difference in state- and society-building. But in order to be effective in fraught political environments, it would have to operate under close foreign policy supervision. Thus I’d be happy to see AID–or much of it–folded into the State Department, which is capable of giving the kind of politically sensitive guidance that is difficult when the organizations are separate.
This won’t really happen, any more than the 30% cut. AID’s humanitarian and health programs have strong advocates in Congress, who will keep them intact and separate from State. But much of the rest of AID–in particular the money for its regional economic development activities as well as its “transition” and democratization portfolios–should be given over to state- and society-building under State Department supervision, in particular in the war-torn and fragile states of the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia.
Look at Latin America and East Asia: with notable exceptions like Venezuela and Thailand, these regions are moving pretty decisively in the democratic, middle income direction, with ups and downs. Brazil is in a trough at the moment, but for those of us who served there 30 years ago, it is vastly improved, both in political and economic terms. The Asia Pacific has developed relatively prosperous, at least semi-democratic states: South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia (with reservations), Philippines (even if I don’t like Duterte). Their relatively peaceful evolution is one of the unsung blessings of our time. It is no accident that these are for the most part not the areas of the world generating terrorist threats to the US.
States are a key element of this evolution, as is regional cooperation among them. Washington, stuck in the poverty reduction rut, has not had the funds needed to back either, though it sometimes does well supporting civil society in fragile states, all too often however as an alternative to government. Yes, fold a large part of AID into State, but change the goals it seeks to be commensurate with US interests and the volume of its resources: build viable states that can elaborate and enforce the norms required for modern economies, support cooperation on a regional basis among those viable states, and make sure that civil society has the resources to monitor, evaluate, and advocate for political and economic reform.
RSS - Posts
