Tag: Al Qaeda
The Middle East Institute (MEI) hosted a discussion on February 21 about understanding what the Taliban wants, with former Ambassador Omar Samad, Nonresident Senior fFellow with the Atlantic Council. He was joined by William Maley, professor of diplomacy at the Asian-Pacific College of Diplomacy, Candance Rondeaux, professor in the School of Politics and Global Studies at Arizona State University, and Ahmed Majidyar, Senior Fellow and Director of Iranobserved at MEI.
Samad gave an overview of the emergence of Taliban twenty-five years ago, emphasizing that it is not known how they evolved and gained support inside and outside Afghanistan. Nor is it known how much control Pakistan has over them, their agenda, and their connection with terrorism. Taliban leaders reside outside Afghanistan; some of them go back and forth. The group grew from madrasa system in Afghanistan and Pakistan, supported by foreign fighters from Central Asia and the Caucasus. While they have updated their beliefs on women rights, democracy and governance, the Taliban’s current intentions remain to be tested and verified. They are proclaiming victory, claiming to have won the war and thus wanting to have a say in any future political settlement in Afghanistan.
Maley thinks the US as a wrong approach to the Taliban based on a Western model of leadership. he Taliban wanted to negotiate directly with the US and other international interlocutors to delegitimate the Afghani government. But since the death of Mullah Omar, the Taliban no longer have a leader whose word will bind the rest of the group. Little is known about what is needed now to negotiate effectively with the Taliban.
Evolving in a network of networks, Rondeaux thinks the Taliban do have a strong command structure, as demonstrated during the recent ceasefire. They gave a pledge and kept it, which showed they have control over their groups. Their command and control has grown, with lines of communication stretching from Peshawar to the interior of Afghanistan as well as to Doha and Turkey. This is considerable progress compared to 2001 and 2012, when they were on their back foot and fleeing across the borders. Now they have military courts and a justice system. Because of their cohesiveness, they are having meetings with the UN, ICRC, and other stakeholders.
Majidyar claims that after the US intervention in Afghanistan the Taliban military structure has become more decentralized and shifted from a disorganized insurgent movement to an organized shadow government. Having their leadership inside Pakistan, the Taliban counts on a cabinet that includes a Ministry of Education, a Ministry of Religious Affairs, and a Ministry of War, among others. They have also set up shadow governors and different committees running the day-to- day affairs. Along with the help of NGOs and the UN, they attend to the needs of the population in terms of health, education, and other sectors. Taliban recruitment comes from refugees inside Pakistan, madrasas, and the local community. Their area of influence has expanded from the south and east all across Afghanistan. With growing legitimacy, the Taliban had deepened ties with Russia, China, and the Gulf States.
According to Majidyar, the Taliban have not changed their connection with national and international terrorist groups. Despite the pledges given to the US, they still maintain ties with Al Qaeda active in the region. While pledging to respect human rights and international law once in power, the Taliban’s views on women’s and other human rights have not changed.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
The Middle East Institute (MEI) hosted a book talk on February 14 with Kenneth Pollack, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), former CIA intelligence analyst, and the author of Armies of Sand: The Past, Present, and Future of Arab Military Effectiveness.
Pollack argues that since the second world war, Arab armies had underperformed. He believes that the size, material factors and the weaponry with which they waged war could have enabled Arabs to win easily, but instead they lost catastrophically. The few times they won were modest victories. Reflecting on the core reason for Arab military backwardness in the last seventy years, Pollack attributes it to Arab society itself. He argues that what defines a good and bad military in the industrial age warfare is a hierarchy based on mission-oriented orders in which the general gives the subordinate a sense of what he is trying to achieve and leaves it to them to figure out how best to do it. Arab culture’s educational system, though, inculcates a rigidly top-down system of organization and hierarchy.
Pollack explained that every culture develops in response to its own circumstances. And Warfare is usually a competitive activity against the organization of another society that organizes itself differently. Arabs were trying to fight industrial warfare in a way that their culture and society did not equip them to do, against foes who were way better equipped l(ike, for instance, the Israelis).
Strikingly similar patterns of underperformance in Middle Eastern wars suggest recurrent problems. Descriptions of Egyptian performance in 1948 and Iraqi performance in 2014 read like plagiarized versions of one another. Arabs have not experienced the industrial revolution, or the information revolution of today.
Apart from the cultural piece, Pollack identifies a set of problems Arab armies suffer. Most Arab generals were inexperienced and did not know what they were doing. Junior officers are passive, inflexible, unimaginative, and unable to respond to battlefield developments. At the bottom of Arab chain of command, personnel had difficulties handling their weapons and maintaining them properly. The more sophisticated a weapon it is, the harder for them to handle. For instance, All countries who trained Arab armies (the Russians, French, Americans, and British) attest that they performed better with the older Soviet MIG 17 and MIG 21 than they did with American F4 and F16. Providing Arab armies with sophisticated weapons did not improve their combat capability.
In addition, the Arab world is replete with bad civil military relations. Many regimes lacking legitimacy tend to be concerned the generals surrounding them, as the leaders themselves came to power by overthrowing others. They seek therefore to hobble the military so that can not do likewise. Saddam Hussein was an outstanding example, as he put people in charge whom he knew to be incompetent. The golden rule has thus always been loyalty over competence.
It is important for those who want the US out of the region that it not to be replaced by Iran, Hezbollah, ISIS, or Al-Qaeda. Without the US, it is imperative to leave behind a strong Arab army able of defending against these threats.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
President Trump’s first tweet of September 11 was this:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
1. The War on Something-ism: 17 Years and Counting | Monday, September 10, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm | Hudson Institute | 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004 | Register Here
The devastating toll of the September 11, 2001 attacks galvanized the global community to fight Islamic extremism and defeat al-Qaeda. What began in Afghanistan, continues in Iraq and Syria, in Yemen and the Horn of Africa, in Europe. 17 years on, the engagement dubbed “the never-ending war” continues, as religious extremism takes new forms and continues to destabilize the Middle East and North Africa, and continues in Southwest Asia.
The Trump Administration has expressed optimism that victory will be achieved once the remaining Islamic State (ISIS) strongholds are eliminated. However, the intelligence community already sees signs of new extremist groups cropping up in Iraq, ISIS emerging in Afghanistan, extremist strongholds in Syria. Pulling the U.S. out too early and declaring victory without a strategy to win will enable old extremist groups to re-establish their hold on the region and allow new groups to compete for territory.
Thomas Joscelyn, Speaker – Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Bill Roggio, Speaker – Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Michael Pregent, Speaker – Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Michael Doran, Speaker – Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Catherine Herrridge, Moderator – Chief Intelligence Correspondent, Fox News
2. Countering Disinformation: Interdisciplinary Lessons for Policymakers | Monday, September 10, 2018 | 3:00 pm – 4:30 pm | Center for Strategic and International Studies | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
With the growth of social media, disinformation has become an increasingly potent political tool. State and non-state actors from various countries, among them Russia and China, have become adept at manufacturing and spreading disinformation or using covert campaigns to influence public perception and political outcomes in democratic countries around the world. Responding to this threat requires policy makers to integrate insights from different countries and from academic fields that are too often siloed, including communications, computer science, and social psychology.
Speakers:
Joshua Eisenman – Assistant Professor of Public Affairs, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin
Jakub Janda – Director, European Values Think Tank (Prague)
Saiph Savage – Assistant Professor of Computer Science and Director, Human Computer Interaction Laboratory, West Virginia University
Tabea Wilke – Founder and CEO, Botswatch
Jeffrey Mankoff – Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program, CSIS
The event will be webcast live from this page.
3. Weapons of Mass Destruction and Cooperative Threat Reduction: Looking Ahead | Tuesday, September 11, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm | Hudson Institute | 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004 | Register Here
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, preventing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) from falling into the hands of a state or non-state adversary has been a critical priority for the U.S.
A report of a workshop conducted by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Committee on International Security and Arms Control examines how the U.S. government is managing the threat posed by WMDs through its Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs. As argued in “Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs for the Next Ten Years and Beyond,” the cooperative dimension of CTR programs has allowed the U.S. to collaborate with other governments, nongovernmental agencies, and the private sector to reduce WMD threats outside of the United States. However, as the report co-chairs assert, more can and should be done. By tailoring engagement and enhancing the impact of the CTR programs through for example, more government-industry collaborations and better cooperation with multilateral organizations, cooperative threat reduction can continue to improve the long-term security of the U.S. and its allies.
On September 11, Hudson will convene a panel with the co-chairs of the new report to discuss their assessments of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs. Copies of the report will be available.
David R. Franz, Speaker – Board Member, Integrated Nano-Technologies
Elizabeth Turpen, Speaker – President, Octant Associates and Non-Resident Adjunct, Institute for Defense Analyses
Richard Weitz, Moderator – Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Political-Military Analysis, Hudson Institute
4. Beyond DPRK, History and Prospect of U.S. R.O.K. Nuclear Cooperation | Tuesday, September 11, 2018 | 4:30 pm – 6:00 pm | Johns Hopkins SAIS | Rome Auditorium, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Eunjung Lim is an Assistant Professor at College of International Relations, Ritsumeikan University. Before joining Ritsumeikan’s faculty, she taught at Johns Hopkins SAIS (2013-2017). Her areas of specialization are South Korean and Japanese political economy, comparative and global governance, and energy security policies of East Asian countries. More specifically, Dr. Lim has been working on nuclear issues of East Asian countries.
She has been a researcher and visiting fellow at several institutes, including the Center for Contemporary Korean Studies at the University of Tokyo, the Institute of Japanese Studies at Seoul National University, the Institute of Japan Studies at Kookmin University, and Institute of Energy Economics, Japan. She earned a BA from the University of Tokyo, an MIA from Columbia University and a PhD from SAIS, Johns Hopkins University. She is fluent in Korean, Japanese and English.
5. Russia and Arctic Governance: Cooperation in Conflict | Wednesday, September 12, 2018 | 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm | Stimson Center | 1211 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 8th Floor, Washington DC, 20036 | Register Here
Finland, the country currently chairing the Arctic Council, proposed a high-level Arctic summit during a recent bilateral meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin. While discussion of the summit and a broader suite of Arctic and environmental issues proceeded smoothly, Russian concerns and protests over a large upcoming NATO alliance exercise in Norway, in which Finland will participate, were also raised. All of the Arctic states, including Russia, have long sought to primarily present the circumpolar region as one of peace – and potential wealth. While the question of whether there will be more cooperation or more conflict in the Arctic is a popular and easy one to pose, the more productive question is how cooperation against the backdrop of other, more global tensions has long characterized and continues to shape Arctic governance development. So, how does Russia – the largest Arctic state – engage in the process of pursuing cooperative outcomes and a regional peace conducive to economic gains? How do such cooperative efforts play out against a backdrop of security rivalry between Russia and most of the Arctic states? How robust are circumpolar cooperative venues to worsened relationships between Russia and its partners? Are the solutions produced by the Arctic states so far dimensioned to the challenges facing the region? The Stimson Center discussion will seek to address these key questions as part of a seminar based on Elana Wilson Rowe’s recently published book Arctic Governance: Power in Cross-Border Cooperation (Manchester University Press in the UK/Oxford University Press in the USA).
ELANA WILSON ROWE, Research Professor, the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
Elana Wilson Rowe holds a PhD in Geography/Polar Studies from the University of Cambridge (2006). Her areas of expertise include international relations in the Arctic, science and expert knowledge in global governance, climate politics and Russian foreign and northern policy. She is the author of Russian Climate Politics: When Science Meets Policy (Palgrave, 2009) and Arctic Governance: Power in cross-border cooperation (Manchester University Press, 2018).
YUN SUN, Co-Director, East Asia Program, Stimson Center
Yun Sun is Co-Director of the East Asia Program and Director of the China Program at the Stimson Center. Sun’s expertise is in Chinese foreign policy, U.S.-China relations and China’s relations with neighboring countries and authoritarian regimes. From 2011 to early 2014, she was a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution, jointly appointed by the Foreign Policy Program and the Global Development Program, where she focused on Chinese national security decision-making processes and China-Africa relations. From 2008 to 2011, Sun was the China Analyst for the International Crisis Group based in Beijing, specializing on China’s foreign policy towards conflict countries and the developing world.
MARLENE LARUELLE, Research Professor, Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies, George Washington University
Marlene Laruelle is a Research Professor at the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (IERES), at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs. She is the Director of the Central Asia Program at IERES and co-director of PONARS (Program on New Approaches to Research and Security in Eurasia). She received her PhD from the National Institute of Oriental Languages and Cultures. She has authored Russia’s Strategies in the Arctic and the Future of the Far North (M.E. Sharpe, 2013), and edited New Mobilities and Social Changes in Russia’s Arctic Regions (Routledge, 2016).
6. Election Interference: Emerging Norms of Digital Statecraft | Wednesday, September 12, 2018 | 4:00 pm | the Atlantic Council | 1030 15th Street Northwest, 12th Floor | Register Here
The reemergence of great power politics in a digitalized global security environment has led to new tools of statecraft wielded by nation-states in advancing their foreign policy objectives. During this event, we will engage cybersecurity professionals, journalists and key stakeholders to discuss the development of norms around election influence and interference and lessons learned from the international community’s brief history with these new tools of statecraft. What toolsets will governments wield in the future as they attempt to control media narratives, target dissidents, and influence other states? And how will the toolsets and norms we currently see in play shape the future of state use of technology?
This panel will look into the future of digital statecraft as technology progresses at an unprecedented rate and nation-states consider ways to wield these persuasive and cunning new tools to potent effect. With recent reports of foreign influence and interference in elections around the world calling public trust in institutions into question, it has become imperative that governments work together to establish norms around nation-state behavior across digital borders and have an informed dialogue about future toolsets for political influence. A reception will follow the event.
Ms. Laura Galante, speaker – Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council;
Founder, Galante Strategies
Mr. Sean Kanuck, speaker – Director, Cyber, Space and Future Conflict, International Institute for Strategic Studies
Ms. Michele Markoff, speaker – Deputy Coordinator for Cyber Issues, State Department
Ms. Klara Jordan, moderator – Director, Cyber Statecraft Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
7. Battling Global Extremism: What Next? | Thursday, September 13, 2018 | 8:30 am | Council on Foreign Relations
Nearly twenty years after 9/11, extremist ideologies have survived global counterterrorism efforts. What have we learned from the response, and what new approaches are needed? Tony Blair, Farah Pandith, and Frances Townsend discuss challenges in the global response to extremism to date and the evolution in approach necessary to overcome terrorist threats.
Tony Blair, speaker – Executive Chairman of the Institute for Global Change; Former Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Farah Pandith, speaker – Adjunct Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations; Senior Fellow, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Frances Fragos Townsend, speaker – Executive Vice President, MacAndrews & Forbes, Inc.; Former Homeland Security Advisor, White House
Tom Gjelten, presider – Religion and Belief Correspondent, National Public Radio
8. With Us and Against Us: Counterterrorism Strategy Post-9/11 | Thursday, September 13, 2018 | 5:30 pm – 7:00 pm | American University SIS | Abramson Family Founders Room, 4400 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20016 | Register Here
In the wake of the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush drew a line in the sand, saying, “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” Join the School of International Service at American University as we discuss Dr. Stephen Tankel’s new book, With Us and Against Us: How America’s Partners Help and Hinder the War on Terror,and the future of counterterrorism operations in a post-9/11 world more widely in a conversation moderated by Dr. Audrey Kurth Cronin.
Participants:
Bruce Hoffman is a Professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and Shelby Cullom and Kathryn W Davis Senior Visiting Fellow for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security at the Council on Foreign Relations. Dr. Hoffman previously held the Corporate Chair in Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency at the RAND Corporation and was also Director of RAND’s Washington, D.C. Office. From 2001 to 2004, he served as RAND’s Vice President for External Affairs and in 2004 he also was Acting Director of RAND’s Center for Middle East Public Policy. Dr. Hoffman was appointed by the U.S. Congress in 2013 to serve as a commissioner on the Independent Commission to Review the FBI’s Post-9/11 Response to Terrorism and Radicalization, which concluded its work in March 2015.
Audrey Kurth Cronin is Professor of International Security at the School of International Service, and American University’s Founding Director of the Center for Security, Innovation and New Technology. She was previously founding Director of both the International Security Program and the Center for Security Policy Studies at George Mason University. Dr. Cronin has held a vareity of positions in government, including time as a Specialist in Terrorism at the Congressional Research Service, advising Members of Congress in the aftermath of 9/11. She has also served in the Executive branch, including in the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Policy; the Office of the Secretary of the Navy; and the American Embassy in Moscow. Dr. Cronin is the author of a forthcoming book on terrorism and new technologies, to be published by Oxford University Press in early 2019.
Matt Olsen is an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security and former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Appointed by the President to serve as the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Olsen led the government’s efforts to integrate and analyze terrorism information and coordinate counterterrorism operations from 2011 to 2104. Prior to joining NCTC, Olsen was the General Counsel for the National Security Agency, serving as NSA’s chief legal officer and focusing on surveillance law and cyber operations.
Stephen Tankel is an Associate Professor at the School of International Service and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. In his recent book, With Us and Against Us: How America’s Partners Help and Hinder the War on Terror, Dr. Tankel analyzes the factors that shape counterterrorism cooperation, examining the ways partner nations aid international efforts, as well as the ways they encumber and impede effective action. His recent work considers the changing nature of counterterrorism, exploring how counterterrorism efforts after 9/11 critically differ both from those that existed beforehand and from traditional alliances.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags :
Afghanistan, Africa, Al Qaeda, China, Democracy and Rule of Law, Iraq, ISIS, North Korea, Nuclear weapons, Russia, Yemen
We are all transfixed with the anonymous Times op/ed that told us nothing new and with the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, but really the outcome there is clear: he will be confirmed, because he opposes the right to chose abortion, resists accountability for police and companies, and will vote against any attempt to subpeona this president. That’s why he was nominated, and that’s why the Republicans will confirm him.
The new news today is President Trump’s decision to keep US forces in Syria indefinitely, not only to prevent the resurgence of ISIS but also to counter Iran. This means, like it or not, that the US is committed to trying to stabilize the northeastern part of Syria that it controls with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), led by by Kurdish YPG fighters. And once it has stabilized the area it will need to reconstruct it, if conditions for withdrawal have not yet been created. We broke it and we own it, until there is a viable alternative that meets American requirements: no Iran, no ISIS.
This is classic mission creep, but that doesn’t mean it is necessarily bad. The options were these:
- Leave northeastern Syria to its fate and watch while our friendly Kurds patch things up with Damascus and go to war against NATO ally Turkey.
- Stay to deny Iran its land route to the Levant and negotiate for a political outcome in Damascus more acceptable than simple restoration of Assad’s dictatorship.
Staying entails putting US forces at risk. The current number, around 2000, will have to grow significantly to protect the stabilization and eventual reconstruction effort required to prevent the return of ISIS or some other extremist group. Staying also means trying to prevent the Kurds from attacking inside Turkey or providing assistance to their PKK compatriots there.
These are not small responsibilities. The reconstruction effort should come in part from UNDP, the World Bank , the Europeans, and the Gulf, but will in any event require a significant American contribution in dollars and personnel. Preventing the Kurds from attacking inside Turkey is partly a question of incentives: both the Turks and Kurds want the Americans to stay, so they should lay off each other. But a lot of fevered negotiation will be required to maintain the standoff, a model for which is already operating in Manbij.
Negotiation is also the key to the political outcome in Damascus. Assad is looking for total victory, assisted by Iran and Russia. But the US has some leverage if it stays in northeastern Syria. The area was Syria’s breadbasket before the war and it produced most of the country’s oil and gas. The oil is now being shipped in part to a regime-controlled refinery and fuels an electric generator serving Damascus. Assad needs the oil and gas fields back under his control, which means he and his allies may pressure the US militarily while trying to convince the Kurds that Damascus will give them a better deal.
Presidents Assad, Putin, and Rouhani agreed today to put off an assault on Idlib, giving Turkey some time to arrange withdrawal of Al Qaeda-linked extremists and thus avoiding a humanitarian catastrophe involving the 3 million civilians in the province. American pressure against the assault may have had some impact, but I suspect the Russians were hesitant to saddle their newfound Turkish friends a new influx of refugees. Best to keep Erdogan on side, in particular because he has promised to buy Russian air defenses. The Iranians and Assad will be disappointed, but they can hope Turkey will fail and the assault will only be postponed.
The new American commitment in northeastern Syria is likely to be long-term and big. The President owes the American people an honest explanation of why it is necessary and how it will be staffed and paid for. That isn’t likely to happen. Instead, Jim Jeffrey, Trump’s capable and well-informed new Syria envoy, made the announcement to a gaggle of reporters. No offense to Jim, whose experience in Turkey and Iraq make him an excellent choice for his new role, but that is not adequate for a policy change of this magnitude.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
1. Tensions with Turkey: A Calleo Series Panel on Turkey and the West | Tuesday, September 4, 2018 | 5:30 pm – 7:00 pm | Johns Hopkins SAIS | Rome Auditorium, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW | Register Here
The SAIS European and Eurasian Studies (EES) Program cordially invites you to our Fall Seminar Series at the Washington campus. In tribute to his many contributions and support, series is named in honor of Professor David P. Calleo, who continues to inspire EES scholars through his research and engagement. View the series schedule and RSVP at https://calleoseminars.eventbrite.com.
Join us Tuesday, September 4, 2018 as we kick off the 2018-2019 academic year with a panel discussion on “Tensions with Turkey: A Calleo Series Panel on Turkey and the West.”
Confirmed speakers include:
Nicholas Danforth – Senior Analyst at Bipartisan Policy Center
Amanda Sloat – Robert Bosch senior fellow, Brookings Institution
Ambassador Eric Edelman – Johns Hopkins SAIS
Lisel Hintz – Assistant Professor of IR and European Studies, Johns Hopkins SAIS
RSVP and a valid JHU or government-issued ID is required for entry. Appetizers and drinks are served.
2. China’s “War on Terrorism” an the Xinjiang Emergency | Wednesday, September 5, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm | Hudson Institute | Register Here
For the last sixteen years, the Chinese Communist Party has been telling the Chinese people and the world at-large that it is waging its own “war on terrorism” in the Uyghur homeland of Xinjiang, known to Uyghurs as “East Turkestan.” Xinjiang has since become the most heavily garrisoned and surveilled part of the People’s Republic of China. As many as one million Uyghurs are now detained in Communist Party “political re-education” camps, where they have been subject to torture, medical maltreatment, and other abuses. Meanwhile, the “stability” of the region has become essential for PRC’s strategic “One Belt, One Road” initiative, and the Communist Party has used its influence around the world to stifle criticism of the human rights emergency in Xinjiang that it has created.
What is at stake for the Chinese Communist Party in Xinjiang? How has the PRC’s conduct and repression in Xinjiang affected its foreign relations, including with Pakistan, the countries of Central Asia, and the Middle East? What do we know about the policy debates among Chinese authorities and the people of China concerning Xinjiang and what, if any, are the dissenting views? What does the PRC’s conduct in Xinjiang tell us about the nature of the Communist Party’s power and the PRC’s ambitions to transform itself into a superpower?
On September 5, Hudson Institute will host a discussion on the PRC’s “war on terrorism.” The panel will include Dr. Michael Clarke, associate professor at the Australian National University; Louisa Greve, director of external affairs for the Uyghur Human Rights Project; Andrew Small, a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund; Sean Roberts, an associate professor at George Washington University; and Rushan Abbas, a former Uyghur Service journalist with Radio Free Asia. The discussion will be moderated by Hudson senior fellow Eric Brown.
3. Securing a Democratic World – A Case for a Democratic Values-Driven U.S. Foreign Policy | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 9:00 am – 10:30 am | Center for American Progress | Register Here
Liberal democracy around the world is under threat. The waves of democratization of the 1980s and 1990s have stalled. Democracies from Hungary to Turkey and Poland to the Philippines are backsliding. Autocracies such as China and Russia are attempting to undermine democracies from within. And here in the United States, democratic institutions face an unprecedented series of threats from the very leaders chosen to safeguard democracy.
It is increasingly clear that the future of U.S. national security and a liberal democratic world depends on America embracing democratic values, locking arms with its democratic allies to stem the rise of authoritarianism, and growing the community of democratic nations. This is the focus of an upcoming Center for American Progress report, “Securing a Democratic World: The Case for a Democratic Values-Driven U.S. Foreign Policy.”
To discuss the state of U.S. support for democracy around the world, the importance of democratic values in foreign policy, and what the United States should do going forward, please join CAP for a conversation with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) will share his perspective on the importance of democratic values in American foreign policy in a keynote address.
Speakers:
Keynote Remarks: Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Madeleine K. Albright – former U.S. Secretary of State
Kelly Magsamen – Vice President, National Security and International Policy, Center for American Progress
4. After Elections, What’s Next for Pakistan? | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 9:30 am – 1:00 pm | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
With the votes now counted and new assembly members sworn in, Pakistan’s July 25th elections have ushered in a change of civilian governments and a new coalition led by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party and its leader Imran Khan. Opposing parties, particularly the previous national incumbent party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, and the Pakistan People’s Party, have challenged the election results with claims of rigging, intimidation, and military influence.
Join USIP on September 6th for two panels that will explore the election results, the factors that influenced them, as well as looking forward towards their implications for the new government – its opportunities, challenges, and the future of Pakistan’s democracy. The first panel will examine the main electoral outcomes, including the role of gender, political parties and opposition forces in the election. The second panel will address the influence of actors outside the formal electoral system, including the role of the judiciary, military, religious parties, and electoral violence dynamics. Speakers will include academic experts and policy professionals. Join the conversation on Twitter with #USIPPakistan.
Agenda
9:30am – 11:00am – Panel 1: Analyzing the Main Electoral Results
- Colin Cookman – Program Officer, U.S. Institute of Peace
- Sarah Khan – Postgraduate Associate, Yale University
- Mariam Mufti – Assistant Professor, University of Waterloo
- Sahar Shafqat – Professor, St. Mary’s College of Maryland
- Moderator: Jumaina Siddiqui, Senior Program Officer, U.S. Institute of Peace
11:15am – 12:45pm – Panel 2: Analyzing the Non-electoral Factors
- Sahar Khan – Visiting Research Fellow, CATO Institute
- Yasser Kureshi – PhD Candidate, Brandeis University
- Niloufer Siddiqui – Assistant Professor, University of Albany
- Joshua White – Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins University
- Moderator: Tamanna Salikuddin, Senior Program Officer, U.S. Institute of Peace
5. The Enablers: How Western Professionals Import Corruption and Strengthen Authoritarianism | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 10:00 am – 11:30 am | Hudson Institute | Register Here
As globalization began breaking down divisions between Western elites and their counterparts in the Eastern hemisphere, some American legal, financial, and communications professionals sought new opportunities among clients with fortunes of dubious provenance.But instead of carrying the rule of law into corrupt societies, networking between U.S. professional services providers and kleptocrats linked to authoritarian regimes has undermined American values, democracy, and national security. Some of the most distinguished and influential professions have become importers of dirty money and underhand practices.
On September 6, 2018, join Hudson Institute’s Kleptocracy Initiative for a discussion of “The Enablers: How Western Professionals Import Corruption and Strengthen Authoritarianism,” a new report examining what policies are needed to close the loopholes commonly exploited by foreign kleptocrats and their professional facilitators in the United States.
Speakers:
Charles Davidson – Executive Director, Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute; Publisher, The American Interest
Elise Bean – Former Staff Director and Chief Counsel, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate
Mark Hays – Anti-Money Laundering Campaign Leader, Global Witness
Ben Judah – Research Fellow, Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute
Nate Sibley – Program Manager, Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute
6. The Future of the U.S.-Turkey Relationship in the Trump Administration | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 11:00 am – 12:30 pm | Turkish Heritage Organization | The City Club of Washington – President Room, 555 13th Street NW, Washington, DC 20004 | Register Here
The mutual endorsement of the Manbij roadmap was a positive step forward, since then the relations between the U.S. and Turkey have been nothing but hostile. From Pastor Andrew Brunson being rejected an appeal for release, U.S. sanctioning two Turkish officials and imposing tariffs on Turkish goods, Turkey reciprocating in the same manner with freezing assets of two U.S. officials, as well as ordering sanctions against U.S. products. Meanwhile, Congress has delayed the delivery of F-35s to Turkey. With a number of major developments in the relationship of the two strategic allies, we ask ourselves what comes next?
Please join THO on Thursday, September 6 to hear from our distinguished panel of experts as they analyze the Future of the U.S.-Turkey Relationship.
Speakers:
Moderator: Dr. Mark Meirowitz – Associate Professor, SUNY Maritime College; THO Advisory Board Member
Joel Rubin – Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for House Affairs, State Department
Molly Montgomery – VP at Albright Stonebridge Group, Former State Department and White House Senior Official
Akif Kirecci (via Skype) – President, Ankara Center for Political and Economic Research (ASEM)
7. War or Peace: The Struggle for World Power | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm | Heritage Foundation | Register Here
The Pax Americana – the global order established after the collapse of the Soviet Empire – is increasingly being challenged especially by former imperial behemoths China and Russia. There is a growing chorus questioning the so-called “Washington Consensus” in favor of a “Beijing Consensus” in economic policy. As the United States ceases to be the sole superpower willing and able to maintain a global PAX, today there is an increasing global “disorder.”
Deepak Lal offers a study of the causes and consequences for this disorder, examining alternative claims for a desirable future economic policy. He argues that the origins of this increasing disorder lie, in part, in the great economic recession of 2008 in the United States, which has tarnished the free market based capitalism of the West. He examines how the U.S. (and its European outpost, the E.U), China, Russia, India and, potentially, Japan will be involved in this new “Great Game” and how their strategic decisions will determine whether we see a repeat of the past, with potentially another completely unnecessary world war, or if they will succeed in avoiding a reversion to their earlier types.
8. Rethinking Human Rights and Islam | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Please join the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East for the launch of a new report, “The Islamic Tradition, Human Rights Discourse & Muslim Communities,” and a wide-ranging discussion of human rights issues facing Muslim communities around the world.
From the niqab ban in Denmark, to de-facto bans on freedom of expression in some Muslim majority countries, to the so-called Muslim Ban in the United States, Muslim communities around the world are faced with numerous challenges to human rights and attacks on personal freedoms. Still, contemporary conversations on Islam often question the compatibility of Islamic and Western values. Today, with millions of Muslims on the receiving end of numerous human rights violations at the hands of both Muslim majority and non-Muslim states, the current discourse is proving to be outdated and restrictive.
With generous support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Atlantic Council Nonresident Senior Fellow Dr. H.A. Hellyer engaged dozens of scholars, grassroots activists, and religious leaders on four continents on issues surrounding the human rights discourse and Muslim communities worldwide. The content of these critical engagements is captured in the new report: “The Islamic Tradition, Human Rights Discourse & Muslim Communities.”
To examine the issues addressed in the report, the Atlantic Council will bring together a panel of experts to discuss and offer their own perspectives on rethinking the dominant narrative on human rights and Islam.
Speakers:
Moderator: Adbul-Rehman Malik – Associate on Middle East Studies, Coordinator of the Muslim Social Justice Leadership Lab at the Dwight Hall Center for Social Justice, Yale University
Dr. Hisham A. Hellyer – Nonresident Senior Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, Atlantic Council
Dr. Dalia Fahmy – Associate Professor of Political Science, Long Island University
Dr. Mohammad Fadel – Associate Professor, Canada Research Chair, Law & Economics of Islamic Law, University of Toronto
Dr. Peter Mandaville – Professor of International Affairs, George Mason University ; Nonresident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
9. Iran and Al Qa’ida: The View from Abottabad | Friday, September 7, 2018 | 12:15 pm – 1:45 pm | New America | Register Here
In May 2018, President Trump announced that the Iran deal would be terminated. In doing so he accused Iran of supporting Al Qa‘ida. But what is the true relationship between Iran and Al Qa‘ida? In her new report Al-Qa‘ida’s Contested Relationship With Iran: The View from Abbottabad, New America Senior Fellow Nelly Lahoud cuts through the politicized discourse with an examination of almost 300 of Al Qa‘ida’s own documents regarding its relationship with Iran.
Nelly Lahoud is a Senior Fellow with New America’s International Security Program. She holds a Ph.D. from the Research School of Social Sciences — Australian National University. Her research has focused on the evolution and ideology of Al-Qa’ida (AQ) and the ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS/ISIL). She was previously an associate professor at the Department of Social Sciences and senior associate at the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point; and assistant professor of political theory, including Islamic political thought, at Goucher College.
Join the conversation online using #AQIran and following @NewAmericaISP.
Moderator: Peter Bergen – Vice President, New America; Director, International Security Program, New America
Speaker: Nelly Lahoud – Senior Fellow, New America International Security Program; Author, Al-Qa’ida’s Contested Relationship with Iran: The View from Abottabad
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags :
Al Qaeda, Authoritarianism, China, Democracy and Rule of Law, Election, Human Rights, Iran, Islam, Pakistan, Peace, Terrorism, Turkey, United States
RSS - Posts
