Tag: China
This week’s peace picks
It’s a relatively light week for foreign policy events with all eyes focused on the US elections.
1. Political Shiism in the Arab World: Rituals, Ideologies, and Politics, Monday November 5, 9:00 AM – 11:30 AM, George Mason University
Venue: George Mason University, Arlington Campus, 3301 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 2201, Truland Building, Room 555
Speakers: Jana al Horr, Solon Simmons, Terrence Lyons
Researchers and experts on Arab politics have often debated the role of political Shiism as a source of regional instability and conflict following the 2003 U.S-Iraq war. Some argue that the expansion of political Shiism in the Arab world is a quest for political leadership resulting from a long-standing conflict with Sunnis, coupled with centuries of Shiite political and economic marginalization. Other argue that political Shiism holds revolutionary elements that can be re-interpreted to fit any political context that Shiites perceive as threatening. This view perceives that Shiite religious elements can be made to fit the current needs of various political contexts and are the main drivers of political mobilization and ultimately conflict. Both these views offer a narrow and restricted description of political Shiism; hence, the literature on political Shiism lacks a systematic understanding of the phenomenon. To address this gap, the research asks the following questions: (1) What is political Shiism? Is it monolithic? What are its forms? And who are its ideologues?; and (2) How do Arab Shiites mobilize for political protests?
In order to answer these questions, the research provides an examination of rituals, ideologies, and speeches of political Shiism embedded in the historical and geographical context of the Arab region in specific, and the Middle East in general, during the last century. Following a combination of methodological approaches, the research will first examine the centrality of Ashura rituals and celebrations in political Shiism; second, the research will explore the plurality of political Shiism thought in the twentieth, its progression from quietism to activism, and the influence of regional politics on its development; third, through analyzing current speeches of Shiite leaders in Lebanon and Iraq, the research will shed light on contemporary political Shiism language, its themes that mobilize the masses, and its connection to past ideologues previously examined.
The research seeks to extend the debate over the forces of mobilization of political Shiism, and contribute to a more constructive and coherent understanding of Shiite political actions in the Arab world. It confirms that the transformation of political Shiism from quietism to activism can be traced back socio-political changes that occurred in the early twentieth century. Additionally, it identifies how conflict associated with political Shiism is not linked to the Sunni-Shiite schism. Instead, the divide between the Arab world and the West is at the heart of political Shiism. Furthermore, the research highlights the importance of Ashura in political Shiism, but it is the rituals coupled with local and regional political events that create mobilization.
One important contribution of the dissertation is that it offers an inside descriptive look into the formation of political Shiism, its main ideologues, and issues that distinguish political Shiism as one of the main forces for political mobilization in the Arab world. The research aims at providing a broader understanding of political Shiism to address the gaps that exist in the current literature, and offer a new way of thinking about this rising religio-political phenomenon.
2. The Challenge of Security Sector Reform in the Arab World, Monday November 5, 9:30 AM – 11:30 AM, USIP
Venue: USIP, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037
Speakers: Steven Heydemann, Robert Perito, Querine Hanlon, Daniel Brumberg, Manal Omar
If the first season of the “Arab Uprisings” brought hope, the second season has illustrated many hard challenges, not least of which is restructuring the military, policy and intelligence services of Arab states. Even in Tunisia, where the military played a crucial role in supporting the “Jasmine Revolution,” the ultimate loyalty of the security services remains an open question. To examine this issue, USIP will convene a panel of experts on Monday, November 5, 2012 from 9:30am-11:30am to discuss the institutional, economic and political challenges posed by the quest to remake security sectors into allies of pluralistic democratic change. Please join us for what promises to be a revealing and provocative discussion.
Register for this event here.
3. Turkey in the Middle East: Role, Influence, and Challenges, Monday November 5, 6:00 PM – 7:15 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Lindner Family Commons, Room 602
Speakers: Omer Taspinar, Bulent Aliriza, Edward Skip Gnehm
Under the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoan, Turkey is a major player in the Middle East. Turkey’s active involvement in the Syrian crisis, rivalry with Iran, and outspoken advocacy of Palestinian statehood place Turkey at the center of regional events. The panelists will examine Turkey’s rising role in the region, addressing regional opportunities as well as domestic politics.
Register for this event here.
4. Aiding Conflict: The Impact of U.S. Food Aid on Civil War, Tuesday November 6, 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, Hall of Government, 2115 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Kendrick Seminar Room, Room 321
Speaker: Nathan Nunn
This paper examines the effect of U.S. food aid on conflict in recipient countries. To establish a causal relationship, we exploit time variation in food aid caused by fluctuations in U.S. wheat production together with cross-sectional variation in a countrys tendency to receive any food aid from the United States. Our estimates show that an increase in U.S. food aid increases the incidence, onset and duration of civil conflicts in recipient countries. Our results suggest that the effects are larger for smaller scale civil conflicts. No effect is found on interstate warfare.
Register for this event here.
5. Post-Election Day Analysis – What Happened and What Comes Next?, Wednesday November 7, 10:00 AM, Brookings Institution
Venue: Attendance by webcast only.
Speaker: Benjamin Wittes, William A. Galston, Robert Kagan, Thomas E. Mann, Isabel V. Sawhill
This year’s presidential and congressional elections are likely to be close—perhaps very close. They will have a profound impact on the nation’s future course in both the domestic and foreign policy spheres. The outcome of the November 6 election will raise important policy and political questions: What was key to the winning presidential candidate’s success, and what do the results reveal about the 2012 American electorate? In what direction will the new administration take the nation? What might a lame duck Obama administration and Congress look like—and how will the negotiations over the fiscal cliff proceed? What will be the congressional dynamics? What are the incoming administration’s policy prospects during the 113th Congress? And what are the consequences for U.S. foreign policy?
On November 7, the Campaign 2012 project at Brookings will host a final forum analyzing the election’s outcomes and how these results will affect the policy agenda of the next administration and Congress. Panelists will discuss the approach of the incoming administration, the political makeup of the new 113th Congress and the prospect for policy breakthroughs on key social, fiscal and foreign policy issues.
After the program, panelists will take questions from the audience. Participants may follow the conversation on Twitter using the hashtag #BI2012.
6. Syria: The Path Ahead, Thursday November 8, 9:30 AM – 11:30 AM, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Saul/Zilkha Room
Speakers: Daniel L. Byman, Michael Doran, Salman Shaikh
As the Syrian conflict approaches its twentieth month, fears are mounting that Bashar al-Assad’s regime may stay in power or that Syria will collapse into sectarian war. An enduring conflict in Syria will have far-reaching consequences for the region, could threaten key U.S. partners, and may require urgent decisions. Has the struggle for democracy in Syria been lost? Is there more the United States could do to influence events there? What steps could the international community take to prevent strife and sectarianism from spreading throughout the region?
On November 8, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will explore these and other questions about the conflict in Syria. Panelists Mike Doran, the Roger Hertog senior fellow in the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, and Director of the Brookings Doha Center Salman Shaikh, appearing by video conference, will discuss policy options for the U.S. and international community, with a focus on Shaikh’s recently authored paper, “Losing Syria (And How to Avoid It).” Daniel L. Byman, senior fellow and research director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, will moderate the discussion.
Participants can follow the conversation on Twitter using hashtag #SavingSyria. After the program, the panelists will take audience questions.
Register for this event here.
7. Ending Wars Well: Order, Justice, Conciliation, Thursday November 8, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM, Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs
Venue: Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs, Georgetown University, 3307 M Street, Washington, DC 20007, Suite 200
Speakers: Eric Patterson, Timothy Shah, John P. Gallagher
Why don’t wars “end well?” From Rwanda to Colombia to Afghanistan, it seems that modern wars drag on and on, with terrible costs for civilians and their neighbors. In his new book, Ending Wars Well, Berkley Center Senior Research Fellow Eric Patterson argues that just war principles can provide a framework for bringing wars to modest yet enduring conclusions. More specifically, he criticizes grandiose peace schemes that are not rooted in the realities of security and political order. In contrast, he proposes a model that begins with investment in Order as a practical and moral imperative. This provides a foundation for Justice (e.g. punishment, restitution) and Conciliation in unique situations.
Patterson uses Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, East Timor, the Camp David Accords, and the US Civil War as test cases for this model. The Berkley Center’s Timothy Samuel Shah will moderate Patterson’s discussion with LtCol John Gallagher, a former West Point professor and current staff officer to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Register for this event here.
8. Anti-Extremism Laws in Russia, Pakistan, and China and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Thursday November 8, 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM, Freedom House
Venue: Freedom House 1301 Connecticut Ave. NW 4th Floor Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: David Kramer, Virab Khachatryan, Peter Roudik, Aleksandr Verhovsky, Laney Zhang
Freedom House is pleased to host a roundtable with the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom on the anti-extremism legal frameworks in China, Pakistan, and Russia. Moderated by Freedom House President David Kramer, the on-the-record roundtable will provide an opportunity for participants to engage experts and authors of The Law Library of Congress’s report Legal Provisions on Fighting Extremism. The participants will compare and contrast the differing approaches to anti-extremism laws in China, Pakistan, and Russia. The round table comes at an important time as repressive regimes are developing anti-extremism laws and implementing them in broad terms to suppress criticism.
Register for this event here.
9. Afghanistan 2014: What Happens Next? A Discussion with the Former Ambassador of Afghanistan Said Tayeb Jawad, Thursday November 8, 7:30 PM – 9:00 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Henry Harding Auditorium, Room 213
Speaker: Said Tayeb Jawad
Delta Phi Epsilon Professional Foreign Service Sorority and the Afghan Student Association proudly present “Afghanistan 2014: What Happens Next? A Discussion with the Former Ambassador of Afghanistan, Said Tayeb Jawad.” The Ambassador will discuss the future of Afghanistan with the scheduled U.S. withdrawal and the 2014 Afghan elections.
Register for this event here.
10. Cyber as a Form of National Power, Friday November 9, 5:00 PM – 6:30 PM, Institute of World Politics
Venue: The Institute of World Politics, 1521 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speaker: Samuel Liles
Dr. Samuel Liles is an associate professor at Purdue University West Lafayette in the Computer Information Technology Department of the College of Technology where he teaches computer forensics. Dr. Liles is a faculty member with CERIAS at Purdue University. CERIAS is known as the premier multidisciplinary academic center in information security and assurance, and has produced nearly half of the PhD graduates in that field in the US over the last 15 years. Previously he was a professor in the Information Resources Management College at The National Defense University in Washington DC, and prior to that the Computer Information Technology Department at Purdue University Calumet. As a researcher his interest is in cyber warfare as a form of low intensity conflict has had him presenting to audiences world-wide. Samuel Liles completed his PhD at Purdue University primarily studying cyber conflict, issues of cyber conflict, information assurance and security, and cyber forensics.
RSVP for this event to kbridges@iwp.edu.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Not a good idea
Governor Romney will no doubt repeat tonight that he will label China a currency manipulator on his first day in office. This is what he won’t say:
1. The Chinese have already revalued their currency a good bit (yuan/dollar), much of it during the Obama administration:
2. The designation of currency manipulator is one provided for in U.S. law, not in international agreements. Labelling China one would only require that the U.S. government negotiate with Beijing about their sin, something it has been doing for years (with the results portrayed above). There is no other legal consequence in domestic legislation. Washington could file a complaint with the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organization, but the consequences of doing that are unclear. Neither organization has tried in the past to provide a remedy for currency manipulation.
3. The Brazilians have been accusing the U.S. of manipulating its currency downwards (through the Fed’s “quantitative easing,” which injects dollars into the world economy), in order to compete more effectively. Any success we have in pursuing a remedy against China will pave the way for a Brazilian complaint against the U.S.
4. The most likely immediate Chinese reaction would be to halt the appreciation of the renminbi in preparation for a difficult negotiation with Washington. This would certainly harm U.S. exports. The Chinese could also retaliate in other ways: not buying U.S. bonds or blocking U.S. investment.
Bottom line: we have a lot more to lose than gain from a rhetorically stirring but ineffectual declaration that China is a currency manipulator. Maybe that’s why the Bush and Obama administrations have both passed on the option Romney is pushing?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A few questions for tonight
It’s a high campaign week. I don’t expect tonight’s town hall debate to focus much foreign policy. Apart from budget, about which I’ll write during the next week, the main difference on international affairs is one of tone, not substance: Romney accuses Obama of projecting weakness, not strength. On Iraq and Afghanistan in particular Romney has criticized the Administration’s past performance but offered little or no idea how he would handle things differently in the future. Obama has so far mostly vaunted the withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the killing of Osama bin Laden, and mocked Romney’s lack of distinctive policy proposals.
But there are several areas of real difference: China, Israel/Palestine and Iran are the important ones. A few sharp questions are in order.
China: Romney says he would label China a currency manipulator on his first day in office. Someone tonight should ask what difference that would make.
It could form the basis of a complaint to the World Trade Organization (WTO), but there is no guarantee that the complaint would be found justified or that the WTO could provide a remedy. In fact, the Chinese currency (renminbi, whose primary unit is the yuan) has already been revalued by more or less the percentage it was once regarded as undervalued. This was currency manipulation the U.S., including Mr. Romney, should welcome. Chinese retaliation for an American president who declared Beijing a currency manipulator could include not buying U.S. government bonds and maybe even manipulating the renminbi back down, which would help revive the slowing Chinese economy. In short, the U.S. has as much to lose from this macho first-day-in-office declaration as the very uncertain gains.
The Obama administration deserves at least some of the credit for the revaluation of the renminbi. It has also filed trade complaints focused on auto parts with the WTO, but so far as I can tell none of those have been decided yet. It takes years. Using the WTO to bring specific cases has clear advantages over the blanket “currency manipulator” approach: the Chinese have agreed to WTO rules and retaliation is far less likely if a specific case is won there.
Israel/Palestine: Romney now says he favors the two-state solution that has been the U.S. goal for a long time, putting him in tune with the rest of the world. But that’s not what he said on the 47% video, when he proposed just kicking the can down the road and hoping for something good to happen. He gets substantial funding from Sheldon Adelson and others who actively oppose the two-state solution and want Israel to hold on to “Judea and Samaria,” aka the West Bank. You can choose to believe that Romney would buck his moneyed supporters, but I doubt it.
The Obama Administration has failed to deliver a two-state solution, like the administrations that preceded it. You can blame it all on Prime Minister Netanyahu and his right-wing government if you like, but the fact remains: little or nothing has been accomplished between Israel and Palestine, which however has begun to build a more credible state apparatus than existed in the past. Little credit to be gained on this issue, except that the relative peace has held, including with Hamas-controlled Gaza.
The question to be asked is this: what specifically would you do to bring about a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine?
Iran: The difference here is certainly in part one of tone. Those who have spoken with Romney advisor John Bolton come away with the impression that he would relish war with Iran, which other advisors have advocated. Obama administration insiders want a deal and see a credible threat of force as a tool in getting one.
But there is also the “red line” issue. The President has refused to specify his red line, essentially reserving to himself the decision on when Iran has gone so far that he needs to use force. Romney wants to prevent Iran from getting the “capacity” to produce nuclear weapons. This is in some ways just as vague a concept, but it implies willingness to draw the line, for example, at accumulation of only as much 20% enriched uranium as would be required to make less than one nuclear weapon. Romney also wants to reach an explicit agreement on the red line with Israel, so that there is “no daylight” between us on this issues.
Personally, I prefer an American president who decides whether to go to war based on American interests and does not outsource the decision to a foreign leader. But however you feel about it, someone should ask tonight how each candidate would decide whether or not to go to war with Iran.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Obama’s second term international priorities
I admit to being cheered last weekend looking at the TPM Electoral Scoreboard. It has President Obama over the 270 electoral votes needed to win, counting only the states that strongly favor, favor or lean in his direction. All the toss-up states save North Carolina are showing thin margins in favor of the President. Key Senate races in Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Virginia are likewise showing small margins for the Democratic contenders. It is still a long time (and three nationally televised debates) to election day, but the drift for the moment is clear.
The President is also getting over 50 per cent approval for his handling of foreign policy. Far be it from me to want to rain on his parade, but I think he should do more and better on international issues in the future.
The President hasn’t had much to say about what he would do on foreign policy in a second term, apart from completing the U.S. turnover of security responsibility to the Afghans (as well as withdrawing more troops) and preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, preferably by diplomatic means but if necessary using force. He hasn’t said much on the Middle East peace process (such as it isn’t), maintained silence on Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s re-concentration of power, showed reluctance to do anything about Syria, hesitated to challenge China, and lacks new ideas on Pakistan and Russia.
I don’t say all this is wrong. Hesitation with China definitely beats Romney’s bellicosity, which will create the animosity we need to avoid. China has already revalued its currency significantly, something the President might want to take more credit for. It is not at all clear to me what he can do about Pakistan or Russia at this point. Maybe let them stew in its own juices for a while, until they soften up. The choices in Syria are difficult ones. Doing anything more will have real costs.
America needs, as the President never fails to say, to put its own house in order. Nation-building at home he calls it. But I would still like to know what his foreign policy priorities will be in 2013-17. The fact that Mitt Romney has failed to force Obama to specify more clearly his future foreign policy priorities is just one of the many shortcomings in a Republican campaign that will be remembered for its many unforced errors and lapses in good judgment.
But there are a few things even a convinced Obamista like me would like to see the President do or say. With no need to worry about re-election after November 6, I hope he’ll get tough with both Israelis and Palestinians. Admittedly he tried during the first term, insisting on a complete settlement freeze. But this was an ill-conceived formulation that led to intransigence on both sides rather than progress. The situation in Syria has deteriorated so badly that it may be worth another run in the Security Council at a no-fly zone. Once the Americans are down to whatever minimum numbers are required in Afghanistan, I hope Obama will find ways to toughen his stance with Pakistan. Iraq, too, needs a bit tougher love.
But none of these things comes close to the big one: avoiding a nuclear Iran and the proliferation of nuclear weapons it will precipitate. This is the overwhelming first priority, as it threatens a shift in the balance of power in the Middle East and a sharp increase in the risks of war, even nuclear war, there. Israel lacks the means to do serious and permanent damage to Iran’s nuclear program with conventional weapons, but it has all it needs to obliterate Iran with nuclear weapons.
If we fail to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the prospects are grim. What do you think Israel is likely to do if it perceives that Iran is getting ready to launch a nuclear weapon targeted on Tel Aviv? Will it wait and see whether the Iranians are, as many people think, “rational actors”? Or will it try to ensure that none of Iran’s missiles will ever get to launch? Launch on warning, which is what the Israelis will most likely do, is inherently unstable.
Lots of my colleagues are having second looks at containment, because the prospects for conventional military action against the Iranian nuclear program look so limited. Admittedly, containment is the fallback position.
But containment with two convincing rational actors who have the better part of an hour to make decisions, the best conceivable communications with each other and no serious threat to regime survival other than a single adversary is one thing. Containment with two actors who each believe the other is irrational (both could even be right), one of whom has less than full confidence in regime survivability even without a war, maybe 10 minutes to make decisions, and no reliable communications is something else. Yes, India and Pakistan have survived almost 15 years without using nuclear weapons on each other, and the increasing trade between the two creates disincentives to war. But a nuclear exchange between the two is still far more likely than war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. And we are a long way from trade between Iran and Israel as a barrier to conflict.
Andrew Sullivan, in a fit of hopefulness, comments:
To date, Obama’s response has been like Reagan’s: provide unprecedented military defense systems for Israel, deploy our best technology against Iran, inflict crippling sanctions, and yet stay prepared, as Reagan did, to deal with the first signs of sanity from Tehran. Could Obama find an Iranian Gorbachev? Unlikely. But no one expected the Soviet Union to collapse as Reagan went into his second campaign either, and it had not experienced a mass revolt in his first term, as Iran did in Obama’s. And yet by isolation, patience, allied unity, and then compromise, the unthinkable happened. I cannot say I am optimistic—but who saw the fall of the Berlin Wall in October 1984?
Hope however is not a policy. What should Obama do to try to resolve the Iran nuclear issue in a second term?
The Administration has been understandably reluctant to put a serious package of incentives for Iran to forgo a nuclear weapon on the table before the U.S. election. Negotiating a deal with Iran is not going to help on November 6. But I hope after November 6 the Administration will make a direct and convincing offer to Tehran: temporary suspension of enrichment, a full accounting of past activities, tight and unfettered safeguards, no enrichment ever above 20%, no stockpiles of enriched uranium in a form that can be further enriched, and a permanent commitment not to seek nuclear weapons in exchange for full sanctions relief. That would be a policy, not a hope.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
There is far too much happening Monday and Tuesday in particular. But here are this week’s peace picks, put together by newly arrived Middle East Institute intern and Swarthmore graduate Allison Stuewe. Welcome Allison!
1. Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Political Progress in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Monday September 10, 10:00am-12:00pm, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, The Bernstein-Offit Building, 1740 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Room 500
Speaker: Patrick Moon
In June 2012, the governing coalition in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had taken eighteen months to construct, broke up over ratification of the national budget. In addition, there has been heated debate over a proposed electoral reform law and the country’s response to a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. Party leaders are once again jockeying for power, and nationalist rhetoric is at an all-time high in the run-up to local elections in early October.
Register for this event here.
2. Just and Unjust Peace, Monday September 10, 12:00pm-2:00pm, Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace, & World Affairs
Venue: Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace, & World Affairs, 3307 M Street, Washington, DC 20007, 3rd Floor Conference Room
Speakers: Daniel Philpott, Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Lisa Cahill, Marc Gopin
What is the meaning of justice in the wake of massive injustice? Religious traditions have delivered a unique and promising answer in the concept of reconciliation. This way of thinking about justice contrasts with the “liberal peace,” which dominates current thinking in the international community. On September 14th, the RFP will host a book event, responding to Daniel Philpott’s recently published book, Just and Unjust Peace: A Ethic of Political Reconciliation. A panel of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scholars will assess the argument for reconciliation at the theological and philosophical levels and in its application to political orders like Germany, South Africa, and Guatemala.
Register for this event here.
3. The New Struggle for Syria, Monday September 10, 12:00pm-2:00pm, George Washington University
Venue: Lindner Family Commons, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Room 602
Speakers: Daniel L. Byman, Gregory Gause, Curt Ryan, Marc Lynch
Three leading political scientists will discuss the regional dimensions of the Syrian conflict.
A light lunch will be served.
Register for this event here.
4. Impressions from North Korea: Insights from two GW Travelers, Monday September 10, 12:30pm-2:00pm, George Washington University
Venue: GW’s Elliot School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Room 505
Speakers: Justin Fisher, James Person
The Sigur Center will host a discussion with two members of the GW community who recently returned from North Korea. Justin Fisher and James F. Person will discuss their time teaching and researching, respectively, in North Korea this Summer and impressions from their experiences. Justin Fisher spent a week in North Korea as part of a Statistics Without Borders program teaching statistics to students at Pyongyang University of Science and Technology. James Person recently returned from a two-week trip to North Korea where he conducted historical research.
Register for this event here.
5. America’s Role in the World Post-9/11: A New Survey of Public Opinion, Monday September 10, 12:30pm-2:30pm, Woodrow Wilson Center
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004, 6th Floor, Joseph H. and Claire Flom Auditorium
Speaker: Jane Harman, Marshall Bouton, Michael Hayden, James Zogby, Philip Mudd
This event will launch the latest biennial survey of U.S. public opinion conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and is held in partnership with them and NPR.
RSVP for this event to rsvp@wilsoncenter.org.
6. Transforming Development: Moving Towards an Open Paradigm, Monday September 10, 3:00pm-4:30pm, CSIS
Venue: CSIS, 1800 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, Fourth Floor Conference Room
Speakers: Ben Leo, Michael Elliott, Daniel F. Runde
Please join us for a discussion with Mr. Michael Elliot, President and CEO, ONE Campaign, and Mr. Ben Leo, Global Policy Director, ONE Campaign about their efforts to promote transparency, openness, accountability, and clear results in the evolving international development landscape. As the aid community faces a period of austerity, the panelists will explain how the old paradigm is being replaced by a new, more open, and ultimately more effective development paradigm. Mr. Daniel F. Runde, Director of the Project on Prosperity and Development and Schreyer Chair in Global Analysis, CSIS will moderate the discussion.
RSVP for this event to ppd@csis.org.
7. Campaign 2012: War on Terrorism, Monday September 10, 3:30pm-5:00pm, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Falk Auditorium
Speakers: Josh Gerstein, Hafez Ghanem, Stephen R. Grand, Benjamin Wittes
With both presidential campaigns focused almost exclusively on the economy and in the absence of a major attack on the U.S. homeland in recent years, national security has taken a back seat in this year’s presidential campaign. However, the administration and Congress remain sharply at odds over controversial national security policies such as the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. What kinds of counterterrorism policies will effectively secure the safety of the United States and the world?
On September 10, the Campaign 2012 project at Brookings will hold a discussion on terrorism, the ninth in a series of forums that will identify and address the 12 most critical issues facing the next president. White House Reporter Josh Gerstein of POLITICO will moderate a panel discussion with Brookings experts Benjamin Wittes, Stephen Grand and Hafez Ghanem, who will present recommendations to the next president.
After the program, panelists will take questions from the audience. Participants can follow the conversation on Twitter using hashtag #BITerrorism.
Register for this event here.
8. Democracy & Conflict Series II – The Middle East and Arab Spring: Prospects for Sustainable Peace, Tuesday September 11, 9:30am-11:00am, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, ROME Building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speaker: Azizah al-Hibri, Muqtedar Khan, Laith Kubba, Peter Mandaville, Joseph V. Montville
More than a year and a half following the self-immolation of a street vendor in Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia, Arab nations are grappling with the transition toward sustainable peace. The impact of the Arab Spring movement poses challenges for peaceful elections and establishing stable forms of democratic institutions. This well-versed panel of Middle East and human rights experts will reflect on the relevance and role of Islamic religious values and the influence of foreign policy as democratic movements in the Middle East negotiate their futures.
Register for this event here.
9. Israel’s Security and Iran: A View from Lt. Gen. Dan Haloutz, Tuesday September 11, 9:30am-11:00am, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036, Falk Auditorium
Speakers: Lt. Gen. Dan Haloutz, Kenneth M. Pollack
While Israel and Iran continue trading covert punches and overheated rhetoric, the question of what Israel can and will do to turn back the clock of a nuclear Iran remains unanswered. Some Israelis fiercely advocate a preventive military strike, while others press just as passionately for a diplomatic track. How divided is Israel on the best way to proceed vis-à-vis Iran? Will Israel’s course put it at odds with Washington?
On September 11, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will host Lt. Gen. Dan Haloutz, the former commander-in-chief of the Israeli Defense Forces, for a discussion on his views on the best approach to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Brookings Senior Fellow Kenneth Pollack will provide introductory remarks and moderate the discussion.
After the program, Lt. Gen. Haloutz will take audience questions.
Register for this event here.
10. Montenegro’s Defense Reform: Cooperation with the U.S., NATO Candidacy and Regional Developments, Tuesday September 11, 10:00am-11:30am, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Room 211/212
Montenegro has been one of the recent success stories of the Western Balkans. Since receiving a Membership Action Plan from NATO in December 2009, in close cooperation with the U.S. it has implemented a series of defense, political, and economic reforms, which were recognized in the Chicago Summit Declaration in May 2012 and by NATO Deputy Secretary General Vershbow in July 2012. Montenegro contributes to the ISAF operation in Afghanistan and offers training support to the Afghan National Security Forces. In June 2012 it opened accession talks with the European Union.
Register for this event here.
11. Inevitable Last Resort: Syria or Iran First?, Tuesday September 11, 12:00pm-2:00pm, The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies
Venue: The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, 901 N. Stuart Street, Arlington, VA 22203, Suite 200
Speakers: Michael S. Swetnam, James F. Jeffrey, Barbara Slavin, Theodore Kattouf, Gen Al Gray
Does the expanding civil war in Syria and its grave humanitarian crisis call for immediate international intervention? Will Iran’s potential crossing of a nuclear weapon “red line” inevitably trigger unilateral or multilateral military strikes? Can diplomacy still offer urgent “honorable exit” options and avoid “doomsday” scenarios in the Middle East? These and related issues will be discussed by both practitioners and observers with extensive experience in the region.
RSVP for this event to icts@potomacinstitute.org or 703-562-4522.
12. Elections, Stability, and Security in Pakistan, Tuesday September 11, 3:30pm-5:00pm, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Frederic Grare, Samina Ahmed
With the March 2013 elections approaching, the Pakistani government has an opportunity to ensure a smooth transfer of power to the next elected government for the first time in the country’s history. Obstacles such as a lack of security, including in the tribal borderlands troubled by militant violence, and the need to ensure the participation of more than 84 million voters threaten to derail the transition. Pakistan’s international partners, particularly the United States, will have a crucial role in supporting an uninterrupted democratic process.
Samina Ahmed of Crisis Group’s South Asia project will discuss ideas from her new report. Carnegie’s Frederic Grare will moderate.
Register for this event here.
13. Islam and the Arab Awakening, Tuesday September 11, 7:00pm-8:00pm, Politics and Prose
Venue: Politics and Prose, 5015 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20008
Speaker: Tariq Ramadan
Starting in Tunisia in December 2010, Arab Spring has changed the political face of a broad swath of countries. How and why did these revolts come about–and, more important, what do they mean for the future? Ramadan, professor of Islamic Studies at Oxford and President of the European Muslim Network, brings his profound knowledge of Islam to bear on questions of religion and civil society.
14. Beijing as an Emerging Power in the South China Sea, Wednesday September 12, 10:00am, The House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Venue: The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 2170 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Speakers: Bonnie Glaser, Peter Brookes, Richard Cronin
Oversight hearing.
15. The Caucasus: A Changing Security Landscape, Thursday September 13, 12:30pm-4:30pm, CSIS
Venue: CSIS, 1800 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, B1 Conference Center
Speakers: Andrew Kuchins, George Khelashvili, Sergey Markedonov, Scott Radnitz, Anar Valiyey, Mikhail Alexseev, Sergey Minasyan, Sufian Zhemukhov
The Russia-Georgia war of August 2008 threatened to decisively alter the security context in the Caucasus. Four years later, what really has changed? In this conference, panelists assess the changing relations of the three states of the Caucasus — Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan — with each other and major neighbors, Russia and Iran. They also explore innovative prospects for resolution in the continued conflicts over Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the possibility of renewed hostilities over Nagorno-Karabakh. This conference is based on a set of new PONARS Eurasia Policy Memos, which will be available at the event and online at www.ponarseurasia.org. Lunch will be served.
RSVP for this event to REP@csis.org.
16. Author Series Event: Rajiv Chandrasekaran, “Little Afghanistan: The War Within the War for Afghanistan”, Thursday September 13, 6:30pm-8:30pm, University of California Washington Center
Venue: University of California Washington Center, 1608 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speaker: Rajiv Chandrasekaran
In the aftermath of the military draw-down of US and NATO forces after over ten years in Afghanistan, examinations of US government policy and efforts have emerged. What internal challenges did the surge of US troops encounter during the war? How was the US aiding reconstruction in a region previously controlled by the Taliban?
Rajiv Chandrasekaran will discuss his findings to these questions and US government policy from the perspective of an on-the-ground reporter during the conflict. This forum will shed light on the complex relationship between America and Afghanistan.
Register for this event here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
Another quiet week in DC as the summer nears its end
1. U.S. Drones Policy: Strategic Frameworks and Measuring Effects, American Security Project, Monday August 20, 12:00pm-1:30 pm
Venue: American Security Project, 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 710w, Washington, DC
Join us for a fact-based discussion with leading experts on counterterrorism about how we can better understand the effects and effectiveness of America’s drone campaign.
Are drones effective at containing al-Qaeda? Can we measure the social and political effects of a drone campaign? Is there a way to empirically determine what effects lethal drone strikes have on a country, on a terrorist movement, and on the broader global war on terrorism?
Speakers:
Aaron Zelin is the Richard Borow Fellow at The Washington Institute and the editor of Jihadology.net.
Will McCants is a research analyst at CNA, adjunct faculty at the John’s Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and the editor of Jihadica.com.
Christine Fair is an assistant professor in the Center for Peace and Security Studies (CPASS) at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. She is a renowned expert on South Asia and Islamist groups.
Moderated by:
Joshua Foust
Fellow for Asymmetric Operations at ASP who researches the strategic uses of drones, terrorism, insurgencies, and national security strategy – focused on Central and South Asia. He is also a columnist for PBS and The Atlantic Monthly.
This discussion will be on the record
The discussion will begin promptly at 12:30 p.m. Please arrive by 12:15 p.m. for registration.
2. Three Elections that Might Change the World, Center for National Policy, Tuesday August 21, 12:00pm-1:00pm
Venue: Russel Senate Office Building, Room SR-485, Washington, DC 20510
In 2012, elections in the United States and Taiwan, along with the leadership transition in the PRC will all take place in less than a year’s time. What are the prospects for continuity and change in the complex triangle that is the US-PRC-Taiwan relationship?
Featuring:
Richard Bush
Director, Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies
The Brookings Institution
Wei (Victoria) Hongxia
Visiting Scholar
Carnegie Endowment’s Asia Program
Anil Mammen
Fellow for American Government and Politics
Center for National Policy
*A light lunch will be served*
RSS - Posts
