Tag: Burma
Foreign policy is also made by omission
Secretary of State Blinken outlined Biden Administration foreign policy yesterday. Here is the short version:
- End the pandemic
- Rebuild the economy
- Protect democracy
- Treat immigrants humanely but reduce incentives for migration
- Revitalize relations with friends
- Slow climate change
- Lead in hi tech
- Manage the rise of China
All of this is to be done with two things in mind: benefiting Americans and mobilizing other countries to carry part of the burden.
Tony is also at pains to underline that all these foreign policy issues have important domestic dimensions and that diplomacy will come before military action. The former is not new and underlay Trump’s “America First” slogan, especially on trade issues. The latter isn’t new either, but it is diametrically the opposite of what Trump was inclined to do. He thought cruise missiles and drones could get the US out of Syria without any need for talking with anyone. He tried talks with the Taliban, but did not wait for them to succeed before withdrawing half the troops.
It’s hard for me to quarrel with much of what Tony said. But there are things missing, as Tony acknowledges. Often in international affairs, as in domestic politics, what is not said is as significant as what is said.
Apart from the mention of China and some other geopolitical threats (Russia, Iran North Korea), there is no mention at all of specific regions and little of specific countries. My friends in the Middle East and the Balkans should take note. You are not going to get all the attention you crave. This is a major change from the traditional diplomatic “tour d’horizon” and suggests a shift from the State Department’s traditional emphasis on bilateral relations, as represented in its “geographic” bureaus and accentuated in the transactional Trump Administration, to “transnational” issues represented in State’s “functional” bureaus.
Among the “transnational” issues, one important one is omitted: nuclear non-proliferation. This may reflect a realistic recognition that with respect at least to North Korea and perhaps even Iran the cat is out of the bag: we are not going to be able to convince them to give up their nuclear ambitions entirely. It may also reflect a desire to leave room for some of our friends and allies to respond in kind. We’ve long exercised a tacit double standard with respect to Israel’s nuclear weapons. We might be willing to do so for other countries like Japan or South Korea whose neighbors threaten them with nukes. Trump famously uttered this heresy out loud, but his departure doesn’t make the issue evaporate. Confidence in the American nuclear umbrella fades as Pyongyang acquires the capacity to nuke Los Angeles.
Of course the urgent in foreign policy often comes before the merely important. Tony knows he won’t be able to ignore Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the Palestinians, democratic backsliding in the Balkans, the coup in Burma, or the agreed withdrawal from Afghanistan, which the Administration needs to either confirm or postpone. This Administration’s minds and hearts are in the right place. But that does not guarantee success. They face a challenging global environment, not least from all the omissions.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks 1-5
1. What´s Next for the Rohingya?| Tuesday, April 2, 2019 | 3:00 am – 4:30pm | The Wilson Center | 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004-3027| Register Here |
In August 2017, security forces in Burma’s Rakhine state staged a harsh and extended crackdown on the Rohingya—a deeply marginalized and persecuted Muslim minority community. Thousands are estimated to have died, while more than half a million fled to neighboring Bangladesh. United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres described the tragedy as ethnic cleansing. At this event, Dr. Nehginpao Kipgen, a top expert on Burma, will discuss developments involving the Rohingya since the 2017 crackdown, including key recent events, and what might be in store next for the troubled community. Does the political will exist in Burma to improve conditions for the Rohingya and to address the underlying issues that fuel their persecution? What will become of the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh? Dr. Kipgen will address these questions and more.
Speakers
Nehginpao Kipgen, Associate Professor and Executive Director at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies
Michael C. Davis, Fellow Professor of Law and International Affairs, Jindal Global University, Delhi, India
2. Ukraine’s Presidential Election| Tuesday, April 2, 2019 | 12:00pm| The Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St NW, Washington, DC 20005| Register Here |
The March 2019 presidential election is a pivotal event in Ukraine’s history. Outside attempts to influence the elections have been documented, particularly by the Kremlin, which has employed a full-range of hybrid tactics in Ukraine in an effort to destabilize the country.
Recognizing the high stakes, the Atlantic Council, the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, and the Transatlantic Commission on Election Integrity have established the Ukrainian Election Task Force. Working with other Ukrainian institutions and analysts–StopFake, Razumkov Centre, and Detector Media–the Task Force is a rapid-response team with the ability to monitor, evaluate, and disclose the full range of foreign subversive activities in Ukraine and to propose suitable responses.
Agenda
Panel One Discussion:
Dr. Anders Aslund, Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Mr. Carl Gershman, President, National Endowment for Democracy
Ms. Nataliya Bugayova, Director of Development and Research Fellow, Russia Team
Institute for the Study of War
Ambassador John Herbst, Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Moderated by:
Ms. Melinda Haring, Editor for Ukraine Alert, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Panel Two Discussion:
Mr. David J. Kramer, Senior Fellow Vaclav Havel Program for Human Rights and Diplomacy,
Ms. Laura Galante, Cyber Lead; Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Ukrainian Election Task Force; Atlantic Council
Mr. Jakub Kalenský, Disinformation Lead; Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Ukrainian Election Task Force; Atlantic Council
Mr. Oleksiy Melnyk, Kinetic Lead; Co-Director, Foreign Relations and International Security Programs
Moderated by:
Ms. Geysha Gonzalez, Deputy Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
3. Reform, Challenges and Adaptation: Egypt’s Evolving Economic Outlook| Tuesday, April 5, 2019 | 9:00pm- 10:30| The Middle East Institute | 1319 18th St. NW, Washington D.C. 20036| Register Here |
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a panel discussion on the future of Egypt’s economy. While Egypt’s recent economic reforms have made good inroads into improving the macroeconomic outlook, the pace of global development means that Egyptian businesses must work twice as hard to keep pace, and even harder if they want to pull ahead of the pack. Egypt’s state economy is huge, particularly in comparison with that of other emerging markets, but new reforms may give the private sector the opportunity to become Egypt’s growth engine.
Speakers
Sarah El-Battouty, Chairman and founder, ECOnsult
Girgis Abd El-Shahid, Managing partner, Shahid Law Firm
Tarek Tawfik, Chairman, Cairo Poultry Group; President, American Chamber of Commerce
Dalia Wahba, Chairman, CID Consulting
Mirette F. Mabrouk, moderator, Senior fellow and director of the Egypt program, MEI
4. Redefining U.S. national security: interlinkages with American society and foreign policy| Tuesday, April 5, 2019 | 9:00am- 19:00pm| Brookings Institution | 1775 Massachusetts Avenue N.W.Washington, DC 20036| Register Here |
President Donald Trump won the 2016 election largely by carrying Rust Belt states and doing especially well with a demographic skeptical of America’s role in the world regarding trade, investment, diplomacy, alliances, and immigration policy. His election has had consequences for U.S. foreign policy, from reducing foreign aid and pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, to imposing highly restrictive immigration policies and questioning numerous alliances.
Yet, U.S. foreign policy remains in flux as President Trump’s approach evolves, with the 2018 midterm elections demonstrating that many voters are not satisfied with the direction of the country. This situation provides a rich backdrop for debate, now and in the run-up to the 2020 political season, about how to best advance America’s interests at home and abroad.
Introduction
9:00 AM- 9:05 AM
Bonnie Jenkins, Executive Director – Nonresident Senior Fellow -The Brookings Institution
Discussion
9:05 AM – 9:30 AM
DISCUSSANT
Bonnie Jenkins, Executive Director, Nonresident Senior Fellow -The Brookings Institution
Jenkinsbd
Arsalan Suleman, Chair – America Indivisible
Panel I
US voting and US foreign policy: Regional focus
9:35 AM – 10:45 AM
MODERATOR
Michael E. O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow – The Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
Panelists
Jeannine Scott, Board President – Constituency for Africa
Sylvia Mishra, India-US Fellow in Public Interest Technology – New America
Asha Castleberry, Adjunct Professor – George Washington University
Jung H. Pak, SK-Korea Foundation Chair in Korea Studies, Senior Fellow – Center for East Asia Policy Studies
Laura Kupe, Counsel – Committee on Homeland Security, US House of Representatives
Emily Mendrala, Executive Director – Center for Democracy in the Americas
Panel II
US voting and new national security issues
10:45 AM – 11:55 AM
MODERATOR
Liza Arias, Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow – Center for Strategic & International Studies
PANELISTs
Uzra Zeya, President and CEO – Alliance for Peacebuilding
Daniel Lucey, Senior Scholar – O’Neill Institute, Georgetown University
Sean Shank, Vice President – BNY Mellon
Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, Member – Third Way Cyber Enforcement Initiative Advisory Board
Dr. Muhammad Fraser-Rahim, Executive Director – North America for Quilliam International
Closing
11:55 AM – 12:00 PM
Michael E. O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow -Director of Research, The Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
5. The Future of Statecraft | Tuesday, April 2, 2019 | 9:00 am – 4:45pm | Center for Strategic and International Study | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036| Register Here|
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) are pleased to host another conference as part of the Future Strategy Forum, an initiative to connect scholars who research national security with its leading practitioners.
The 2019 focus is “The Future of Statecraft” and will examine the future of great power cooperation, international institutions, and economic statecraft. The conference will feature a keynote conversation with former National Security Advisor Ambassador Susan Rice.
Conference Schedule
8:30 AM – 9:00 AM Registration and Breakfast
9:00 AM – 9:15 AM Welcome Remarks
Dr. Kathleen Hicks, Senior Vice President; Henry A. Kissinger Chair
Dr. Francis J. Gavin, Giovanni Agnelli Distinguished Professor and Director Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs Johns Hopkins SAIS
Ms. Sara Plana and Ms. Rachel Tecott , PhD Candidates, Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
9:15 AM – 10:45 AM Panel 1: “Great Power Cooperation”
Ms. Lindsey Ford, Director of Political-Security Affairs, Richard Holbrooke Fellow, and
Deputy Director of the Washington D.C. Office, Asia Society Policy Institute
Dr. Angela Stent, Director of the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies and Professor of Government and Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Distinguished Resident Fellow in African Studies, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University
Dr. Irene Wu, Former Fellow, Wilson Center and Georgetown University
Ms. Meg Guliford (Moderator), PhD Candidate, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University
10:45 AM – 11:00 AM Coffee Break
11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Panel 2: “International Institutions”
Dr. Esther Brimmer, Executive Director and CEO, NAFSA: Association of International Educators
Ms. Heather Conley, Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic; and Director, Europe Program, CSIS
Ms. Naima Green, PhD Candidate, Harvard University
Dr. Kristina Spohr, Helmut Schmidt Distinguished Professor, Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Dr. Mischa Thompson (Moderator), Director of Global Partnership, Policy, and Innovaiton, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
12:30 PM – 1:45 PM Lunch and Talk
1:45 PM – 3:15 PM Panel 3: “Economic Statecraft”
Ms. Elizabeth Rosenberg, Senior Fellow and Director, Energy Economics and Security Program, Center for a New American Security
Dr. Sarah Sewall, Speyer Family Foundation Distinguished Scholar, Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Ms. Camille Stewart, Esq., Cybersecurity Policy Fellow, New America
Ms. Tori K. Whiting, Jay Van Andel Trade Economist, Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Dr. Radha Iyengar Plumb (Moderator), Adjunct Economist, RAND Corporation
3:15 PM – 3:30 PM Coffee Break
3:30 PM – 4:45 PM Keynote Discussion with Ambassador Susan Rice
Ambassador Susan Rice, Former National Security Advisor and U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Dr. Kathleen Hicks (Moderator), Senior Vice President; Henry A. Kissinger Chair; Director, International Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
4:45 PM – 5:30 PM Closing Reception
6. State capture: how Conservatives Claimed Power and How to Restore Balance| Tuesday, April 5, 2019 | 12:30pm- 2:00pm| New America| 740 15th St NW #900 Washington, D.C. 20005| Register Here |
Over the past forty years, conservatives have mastered the art of pursuing policy change at the state level, while similar liberal efforts have floundered. Today, conservatives fully control 26 state legislatures and governorships — one of the largest advantages either party has had since the New Deal.
What did the party do right? How have conservatives learned from their mistakes over the years? And why have liberals struggled to build similar cross-state organizing clout?
In State Capture: How Conservative Activists, Big Businesses, and Wealthy Donors Reshaped the American States — and the Nation, Alex Hertel-Fernandez provides the first in-depth and accessible history of the rise of cross-state conservative lobbying groups, including the American Legislative Exchange Council, the State Policy Network, and Americans for Prosperity, documenting both their victories and their missteps over time. In his book, Hertel-Fernandez also spells out the specific policy consequences of conservative cross-state organizing, including its effects on labor market standards, unions, and the Affordable Care Act. The book also tracks liberal efforts to counter-balance the right and why they have frequently failed to match conservative scale and clout.
Presenters
Alex Hertel-Fernandez, Assistant Professor of Public Affairs, Columbia SIPA
Lydia Bean, Fellow, Political Reform Program at New America
Mark Schmitt, Director, Political Reform Program at New America
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks September 17 – 23
1. China’s Role in Myanmar’s Internal Conflicts | Monday, September 17, 2018 | 11:00 am – 12:30 pm | U.S. Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Register Here
As China becomes more assertive internationally, it has begun to encounter conflict and instability in fragile states worldwide. Nowhere is this truer than in Myanmar, where China is a key actor in the peace process and has come to the defense of the government over the Rohingya crisis in Rakhine State. Assessing China’s role in and perspectives toward Myanmar’s internal conflicts can offer important insights into conflict dynamics inside the country and help inform potential U.S. peace support policies.
For six months this year, USIP convened a group of 13 senior experts to examine China’s involvement in Myanmar’s internal conflicts—particularly those in Rakhine, Kachin, and Shan states—and peace process. Join USIP on September 17 for a discussion with the group’s co-chairs on the main findings of their report, which is the first in USIP’s China Senior Study Group series examining China’s influence on conflict dynamics around the world.
Speakers
Nancy Lindborg, opening remarks
President, U.S. Institute of Peace
Ambassador Derek Mitchell
President, National Democratic Institute
Co-chair, USIP China-Myanmar Senior Study Group
Daniel Twining
President, International Republican Institute
Co-chair, USIP China-Myanmar Senior Study Group
David Steinberg
Distinguished Professor of Asian Studies Emeritus, Georgetown University
Member, USIP China-Myanmar Senior Study Group
Jennifer Staats, moderator
Director, East and Southeast Asia Programs, U.S. Institute of Peace
Executive Director, USIP China Senior Study Groups Series
2. Food Insecurity as a Security Challenge | Monday, September 17, 2018 | 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm | Center for Strategic and International Studies | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Please join the Center for Strategic and International Studies for a Smart Women, Smart Power conversation with Ambassador (ret.) Ertharin Cousin, former executive director of the World Food Programme. She will discuss global food insecurity and hunger and the role they play in other security issues, including violent extremism.
Ambassador Cousin served as executive director of the World Food Programme from 2012 to 2017. It’s the world’s largest humanitarian organization, with 14,000 staff who aid some 80 million people in 75 countries. She previously served as the U.S. ambassador to the UN Agencies for Food and Agriculture in Rome.
Prior to her global work on food security, Ambassador Cousin was executive vice president and chief operating officer of America’s Second Harvest, which is now known as Feeding America, a confederation of more than 200 U.S. foodbanks that serve more than 50 million meals annually.
She currently serves as the Payne Distinguished Lecturer and Visiting Fellow at the Center on Food Security and Environment and the Center on Democracy, Development and Rule of Law at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. She is also a Distinguished Fellow of Global Agriculture at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Ambassador Cousin is a Chicago native and holds degrees from the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Georgia School of Law. She was named one of TIME’s “100 Most Influential People,” and Foreign Policy magazine’s “500 Most Powerful People on the Planet.” She has also been named to the Forbes “100 Most Powerful Women” list and as the Fortune “Most Powerful Woman in Food and Drink.”
Featuring:
3. One State/ Two States: Pathways for the Israeli-Palestinian Dispute | Tuesday, September 18, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 2:00 pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
U.S. policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is shifting rapidly. After the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference brought Israelis and Palestinians together in direct negotiations for the first time, an international consensus emerged that the eventual solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would involve the creation of a Palestinian state existing in peace and security with the state of Israel. But an actual agreement has proved elusive. Today, the idea of a two-state solution is under serious challenge due to political shifts in the Israeli and Palestinian camps, changes on the ground, and changes in the US stance. Do we need new ideas based on the emerging one-state reality? Or do we need new determination and political will behind a two-state solution?
Please join the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy for a discussion of their latest report on future pathways for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Edward P. Djereijian of the Baker Institute and Marwan Muasher from the Carnegie Endowment will present their findings of their report. An expert panel discussion will follow.
A light lunch will be served from 12:00 to 12:30 p.m. The presentation and panel discussion will begin at 12:30 p.m.
EDWARD P. DJEREJIAN
Edward P. Djerejian is the director of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and the former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Syria.
MARWAN MUASHER
Marwan Muasher is vice president for studies at Carnegie, where he oversees research in Washington and Beirut on the Middle East.
NATHAN J. BROWN
Nathan J. Brown is a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University and a nonresident senior fellow with the Carnegie Middle East Program.
ZAHA HASSAN
Zaha Hassan is a visiting fellow with the Carnegie Middle East Program and human rights lawyer.
GILEAD SHER
Gilead Sher is a former Israeli senior peace negotiator and chief of staff to Prime Minister Ehud Barak. He heads the Center for Applied Negotiations (CAN) of the Institute for National Security Studies.
JOYCE KARAM
Joyce Karam is the Washington correspondent for The National.
4. RESOLVE Network 2018: Innovative Approaches to Understanding Violent Extremism | Thursday, September 20, 2018 | 9:00 am – 5:00 pm | U.S. Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, Dc 20037 | Register Her
The threat of violent extremism is evolving. However, significant knowledge gaps continue to pose obstacles to those seeking to prevent and address it. Join the U.S. Institute of Peace and the RESOLVE Network for the Third Annual RESOLVE Network Global Forum on September 20 to explore new research angles and approaches for prevention and intervention of violent extremism in policy and practice.
As the territorial hold by violent extremist organizations diminishes, new problems are emerging as these groups evolve and others seek to manipulate governance and security vacuums to spread their warped mission to new populations and locations. To effectively address dynamic global trends, policymakers and practitioners require a holistic understanding of the nature of violent extremism at both the global and local level.
This forum will build from the RESOLVE Network’s previous efforts to meet the needs of policymakers and practitioners to better address the significant gaps in research, evidence, and data on drivers of violent extremism and conflict. The forum will convene RESOLVE’s partner organizations, international researchers, practitioners, and policymakers for thought-provoking TED Talk style presentations and salon-style discussions in addition to engaging breakout discussions, presenting an opportunity to learn from experts from across the globe and contribute your own knowledge and expertise to the discussion. Join the conversation on Twitter with #RESOLVEForum.
Agenda
8:30am – 9:00am: Informal RESOLVE Stakeholder Meet and Greet
9:00am – 9:20am: Welcome & Introductory Remarks
- Ms. Nancy Lindborg, President, U.S. Institute of Peace, @nancylindborg
- Ms. Leanne Erdberg, Director of CVE, U.S. Institute of Peace
9:20am – 10:30am – Session 1: Individual and Social Conduits of Violent Extremism – TED-Talk Style Presentations
- Radicalization & Reintegration: Mr. Jesse Morton, Parallel Networks, @_JesseMorton
- Neuroscience & Conflict: Mr. Michael Niconchuk, Beyond Conflict, @mcniconchuk
- Social Media & New Threats: Ms. Julia Ebner, Institute for Strategic Dialogue, @julie_renbe
- Historical Grievances & Data: Dr. Chris Meserole, Brookings Institute, @chrismeserole
10:30am – 11:30am: Breakout Discussions
11:30am – 1:30pm – Morning Salon: Secularism in the Lake Chad Basin
- Dr. Ousmanou Adama, RESOLVE Network Research Fellow – Cameroon
- Dr. Brandon Kendhammer, RESOLVE Network Principal Investigator – Cameroon
- Dr. Remadji Hoinathy, RESOLVE Network Research Fellow – Chad
- Dr. Daniel Eizenga, RESOLVE Network Principal Investigator – Chad
- Dr. Medinat Adeola Abdulazeez, RESOLVE Network Research Fellow – Nigeria
- Dr. Abdoulaye Sounaye, RESOLVE Network Principal Investigator – Nigeria
- Moderator: Dr. Jacob Udo-Udo Jacob
12:30pm – 1:30pm: Lunch
1:30pm – 2:45pm – Session 2: From Complex Systems to Meaningful Interventions – TED-Talk Style Presentations
- Role of Traditional Media: Dr. Emma Heywood, University of Sheffield, @emmaheywood7
- Everyday Peace Indicators: Dr. Pamina Firchow, George Mason University, @everydaypeacein
- Comedy & Creative Communications: Mr. Pryank Mathur, Mythos Labs, @PriyankSMathur
- Nonviolent Action: Dr. Maria J. Stephan, U.S. Institute of Peace, @MariaJStephan
2:45pm – 3:45pm: Breakout Discussion
3:45pm – 5:00pm – Afternoon Salon: Practical Applications of Research to Policy and Practice
5:00pm: Closing Remarks & Reception – Mr. Pete Marocco, Deputy Assistant Secretary and Senior Bureau Official for the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO)
5. China, America, and the New Competitive Space | Thursday, September 20, 2018 | 9:30 am – 11:00 am | New America | 740 15th St NW #900 Washington, DC 20005 | Register Here
Keynote remarks:
Honorable Randy Schriver
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs
Panel discussion to follow on natural resources, innovation, and cultural and economic power, featuring:
- Nancy Sung, Senior Science Advisor, National Science Foundation;
- David Rank, Senior Advisor to the Cohen Group and former Deputy Chief of Mission, U.S. Embassy Beijing;
- Andrew Gulley, Mineral Economist at the United States Geological Survey; and
- Leon Clarke, Senior Scientist at the Joint Global Change Research Institute.
Breakfast will be served.
6. The Liberal International Order: Past, Present, and Future | Thursday, September 20, 2018 | 11:00 am – 12:15 pm | CATO Institute | 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 | Register Here
Recent political tumult and the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency have driven anxious commentators to lament the collapse of a post-1945 liberal world order. Invoking the supposed institution building and multilateralism of the last 70 years, the order’s defenders urge U.S. leaders to restore a battered tradition, uphold economic and security commitments, and promote liberal values. Others caution that nostalgia has obscured our understanding of the old order’s hard edges and its shortcomings, and has forestalled a serious assessment of the changes that will be needed going forward.
Panelists will discuss the core principles of the liberal international order — both as those principles have been professed by its defenders and as they have been practiced by U.S. and world leaders. They will also consider the present and future of the liberal order. What revisions, if any, are necessary? Should U.S. leaders embrace the old liberal international order and reaffirm American leadership within that order? Or is it time to reassess U.S. grand strategy and bring U.S. goals in line with modern-day realities? Join us for an important and timely discussion.
Featuring Patrick Porter, Professor of International Security and Strategy, University of Birmingham and Senior Associate Fellow, Royal United Services Institute; Michael Mazarr, Senior Political Scientist, RAND Corporation; Jake Sullivan, Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Co-chair, National Security Action; moderated by Christopher Preble, Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies, Cato Institute.
7. U.S. – Japan Cooperation Strategic Island Defense | Friday, September 21, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm | Hudson Institute | 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004 | Register Here
China’s rising military capabilities and increased assertiveness in the East China Sea pose a challenge to the Japanese Ryukyu Islands and by extension the United States, which maintains a strategic military presence on the largest island of Okinawa. Along with the islands of Taiwan and the Philippines, the Ryukyu Islands represents a geographic chokepoint for China’s naval and civilian activities. As a strategic impediment to China’s power projection, the island chain has been a major focal point of Beijing’s recent military modernization and expansion.
In their recent report U.S.-Japan Strategic and Operational Cooperation on Remote Island Defense, General James Conway USMC (Ret) and Hudson Senior Fellows Seth Cropsey and Jun Isomura lay out recommendations for how the United States and Japan can strengthen their operational and strategic cooperation in defense of the Ryukyus.
Please join Hudson Institute on September 21 for a discussion of the report, the importance of joint U.S.-Japanese defense of Japan’s southwest islands, and the broader significance of the bilateral security relationship between the two countries for the region.
Speakers
General James T. Conway Speaker
Fmr. Commandant, USMC (Ret)
Seth Cropsey Speaker
Senior Fellow and Director, Center for American Seapower
Jun Isomura Speaker
Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Dreamers and the Rohingya
Yes, of course there are important differences between what President Trump has decided to do–remove the “deferred action” status accorded by President Obama to 800,000 people, most of whom have never lived anyplace but the US–and Myanmar’s efforts to expel Rohingya who have lived there for generations. Trump isn’t burning the Dreamers’ houses to the ground or forcibly expelling them from the US (at least not yet). But they will become subject to deportation–even though they may have lived their entire conscious lives in the US–and the basic motive is similar: to rid the country of people who don’t fit an ethnic definition of citizenship.
The Rohingya are mostly Muslims (some are Hindu) in a majority-Buddhist country, one that rejects their claim to citizenship despite generations of living in Myanmar. The Dreamers are mostly Latinos (78% Mexican) brought as children to the US illegally by their parents. Apart from the President (as candidate) challenging a judge’s bona fides because his parents were Mexican, there isn’t much Trump and Attorney General Sessions can do about the millions of Latino citizens already in the US, so they are targeting whom they can. Anyone who thinks this is not ethnically motivated hasn’t spent any time listening to Jeff Sessions or Donald Trump, both of whom have openly advocated discriminatory immigration policies.
President Trump ducked announcing the end of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and left it to Jeff Sessions, who refused to take questions. No new DACA applications will be accepted and the program will end March 5, 2018. There is of course the possibility Congress will pass corrective legislation, but the main reason President Obama instituted DACA by executive order was its failure to do so. With the legislative agenda bursting, it is not clear that immigration policy can get to the top of the priority list.
Deportation of Dreamers will be relatively easy. In exchange for deferred action, they registered with the US government, which therefore knows where they live and how to get in touch with them. For the Dreamers, many of whom don’t even speak Spanish (or another language native to their parents’ place of origin), deportation would be a wrenching experience: deprived of the country they grew up in, placed in a cultural and linguistic context with which they are unfamiliar, and separated permanently from their lifetime and career ambitions. Cruel is not too strong a word.
Of course all this will be challenged in court. There the Dreamers are a lot better off than the Rohingya, who haven’t got that option. But the odds of winning in court in the absence of a legislative fix are not good. Courts have a way of not wanting to validate illegal acts, even indirectly. We can hope they will see deportation as going to far, but that doesn’t seem likely. I hope I’m wrong about that.
President Trump has assured the Dreamers repeatedly that they have nothing to fear. But of course he has promised his core supporters that he would get rid of both DACA and large numbers of Latinos. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind which commitment he is keeping.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Myanmar’s still long road ahead
On Wednesday, the Carnegie Endowment hosted a panel discussion on Myanmar’s November 8 elections: ‘What happened and what happens now?’ featuring William Sweeney, president and CEO of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES); U Aung Din, senior adviser at the Open Myanmar Institute; and Christina Fink, professor of practice in International Affairs at George Washington University, The panel was moderated by Carnegie Senior Associate Vikram Nehru.
Sweeney painted an optimistic picture of the elections, in which Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) won a staggering 80% of the three quarters of parliamentary seats up for contention in both lower and upper houses (the final quarter being reserved for the military). IFES had worked with Myanmar’s Union Election Commission for three years on several aspects of national elections: stakeholder engagement, updating the national voter list, voter education, women’s leadership, and inclusion of people with disabilities.
The breadth and inclusivity of the 33.5 million-person voter list was particularly impressive, with its complete digitization and incorporation of 6.5 million corrections, checked and checked again on a local level. Sweeney pointed out that an inaccurate or incomplete voter list is often the thing that prevents citizens from voting once they reach the polls.
Despite this promising achievement, there is still a long road ahead to reach stable democratic governance. There will be a four-month transition process. As Din pointed out, there are no clear candidates for president, nominated by parliament. The candidate has to be palatable to both parties and cannot have a military background. The constitution bars Suu Kyi from becoming president because her sons are British citizens, but she plans to play the leading role: ‘the president will have no authority,’ she has said.
This transition takes place in the context of long-running civil wars and ongoing peace processes. Fink stated that there is a complex field of contention, with multiple ethnic-minority armed groups arrayed against the military and a long history of distrust. The military and President Thein Sein aren’t united on strategy, with the army continuing to advance into ethnic minority territory.
While a ceasefire was finally signed in October, and passed on Tuesday, only eight of the fifteen armed rebel groups have signed the agreement, which Fink believes plays into the military’s favored strategy of divide and rule. Further, Suu Kyi and the NLD have not as yet weighed in on the issue of the conflict with ethnic rebels or the peace process, though Suu Kyi has has at least stated that her cabinet will have minority representation.
Though there were ethnic minority candidates running with the NLD, no ethnic-minority political party made significant gains in the elections, which also centers the focus on how Suu Kyi will deal with the issue of minority political representation. There were no Muslim candidates at all with the NLD – as Din pointed out, the NLD intentionally excluded them. In Sweeney’s view, lack of Muslim representation is something society at large, as well as all the political parties, will have to confront.
Myanmar is now in a transition period, economically as well as politically, which increases feelings of insecurity and sentiments of exclusionary nationalism amongst its populace, in Fink’s view. Sweeney highlighted interesting parallels with the debate about immigration and citizenship in Europe and the US, as much of Myanmar’s Muslim population immigrated to the country decades ago, and yet have not acquired citizenship.
With the accomplishment of successful elections behind them, Myanmar needs to continue to negotiate issues of citizenship and reconciliation in the hopes of building a more inclusive society.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Transition matters
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hosted a panel on Thursday entitled “Searching for Answers to Troubled Democratic Transitions,” co-sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy, the Inter-American Dialogue, and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA). The panel gave Abraham Lowenthal, professor emeritus of International Relations at USC, and Sergio Bitar, non-resident senior fellow and project director at Inter-American Dialogue, the opportunity to present their new book, Democratic Transitions: Conversations with World Leaders, an edited volume of lengthy interviews the two editors conducted with leaders who oversaw the gradual and successful transition of their countries from autocracy to democracy, as well as with some opposition figures from those countries.
The aim of conducting the interviews was to determine whether lessons can be drawn from earlier transitions in ‘Third Wave’ countries such as Indonesia, Chile, and Ghana and applied during what some have termed a democratic recession. After their overview, the president of the National Endowment for Democracy, Carl Gershman, contributed comments, while the audience also heard from two experts on countries currently on the cusp of transitions: Priscilla Clapp, senior advisor at the US Institute of Peace and the Asia Society, discussed Myanmar, while Moisés Naím, distinguished fellow at Carnegie, discussed Venezuela.
Carnegie’s vice president for Studies, Thomas Carothers, introduced the panel, remarking that the world has not seen a single new democracy emerge in the past decade. The Arab Spring was a period of hope, but with transitions thwarted in many of those countries, we have also been observing worrying global trends that would seem to suggest the push for democracy has slowed or even begun to reverse. Carothers still believes that the arc of history bends toward democracy, however, and the panelists would appear to agree.
Lowenthal underlined that the aim of the book was not to produce a work of theoretical comparative politics, but to try to distil best practices and recurrent issues for democratic transitions from the experiences of leaders who had lived and struggled through them. The narrative of prior experience can provide general principles that politicians in developing democracies can apply to local problems. Through their interviews, Lowenthal and Bitar observed that a set of issues cropped up in each case, apparently inherent to the process of transitioning. These included the problems of unifying oppositions while marginalizing destabilizing elements within them, preventing violence while separating a legitimate police force from the armed forces, and fighting corruption and impunity, among others.
Lowenthal and Bitar came up with ten imperatives for transition:
- Move gradually and take every opportunity, not waiting for a ‘better’ choice
- Maintain a hopeful vision about the process
- Build coalitions between political parties and social movements
- Protect the spaces of open dialogue
- Build a constitution that represents all members of society and institutes a system for problem-solving
- Enhance and reinforce political parties, or create them if necessary
- Separate the police from the armed forces and ensure the latter is subject to the government
- Ensure transitional justice
- Manage the political economy of transition, to provide the basic conditions for governance
- and manage external support, so that it converges with domestic forces
Gershman found the book instructive. Despite apparent autocratic resurgence and a crisis of confidence or political dysfunction in many advanced democracies, he thought what is currently occurring should not be understood as a democratic recession, but rather a ‘third reverse wave’ following on the Third Wave of the late 20th century. He offered steps that ought to be taken by advanced democracies to shepherd democratic transitions elsewhere, including a call to regain the will to fight the political and intellectual battle for liberal democratic values.
Gershman was uncompromising; he diverged from Lowenthal and Bitar in rejecting gradualism, saying that we cannot accept hybrid regimes as better than dictatorships. The editors, however, confirmed that all the interviewees had come out strongly in favor of gradual transitions. That is often how transitions transpired successfully.
Clapp found much similarity between the cases described in the book and the situation in Myanmar today, although the transition there is still in early stages and needs to be further developed. The international community entertains very high expectations given Myanmar’s specific history and context: it has been for so long a repressed society and still faces significant challenges in its transition, in military-civilian relations, an economy thoroughly controlled by an oligarchy, and exclusion of ethnic minorities.
Naím presented a dissent. By interviewing leaders only, the book presents one perspective on the transition process. Valuable as this work is, there are significant differences with many of the countries today on the cusp of transitioning, as opposed to the Third Wave countries covered in the book. These ignored factors include the phenomenon of states incorporating crime into their behaviour, as ‘mafia states’ (like Russia or Venezuela); the crucial role oil plays in oil-producing autocracies, shoring up regimes; the outsized influence of foreign actors; the role of social media; and expanding middle classes. Naím also thought it a simplification that militaries are treated as unified institutions, when really within militaries there are numerous factions competing for power.
A key issue remained unresolved: whether the experiences of Third Wave democracies could be applied to countries in North Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere in the future.
RSS - Posts
