Tag: Democracy and Rule of Law
A warm welcome to the no swagger Secretary of State!
Newly confirmed Secretary of State Blinken appeared at a press briefing today. The difference was dramatic. Secretary’s Pompeo bragged about his “swagger.” Blinken isn’t bragging and there was no swagger, just a deliberate and careful (though not over-cautious) effort to re-assert American competence and leadership. Blinken is not going to please those who won’t settle for less than hyperbolic denunciation of the Chinese Communist Party and over-the-top admiration for Russian President Putin, but he doesn’t mince words. He was unequivocal in denouncing Beijing’s genocide of Uighurs and Moscow’s effort to murder Alexei Navalny.
He was also anxious to allay the concerns of allies and friends, most of whom have found the Trump Administration little short of a disaster. Biden and Blinken see friendly foreigners as force multipliers, not burdens. They aren’t going engage in the Europe-baiting and South Korea-slamming that Trump’s people enjoyed. There will be differences with friends and allies, but this Administration will try to handle them calmly and professionally, not provocatively and counterproductively.
That will be true for individuals and issues as well. Blinken has already asked Zal Khalilzad, who has negotiated an agreement with the Taliban for US withdrawal from Afghanistan, to stay on. The Administration is reviewing a Trump decision on declaring the Houthis in Yemen terrorists that could hinder assistance to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. Blinken praises Trump’s “Abrahamic” agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Israel and Bahrain, though he stayed silent on whether the Administration will stick with Trump’s decision to recognize Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara, which was a change in US policy offered as a quid pro quo for normalization of Morocco’s relationship with Israel.
Blinken’s strong endorsement of the free press and its role in democracy is just as welcome as his calm and professionalism. In the wake of an administration that regarded the best of the press as the “enemies of the people,” it is truly a pleasure to hear that the new administration welcomes interaction with the press and public scrutiny. A warm welcome to the no swagger Secretary of State!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Thai protests make progress, but…
In 2020, a youth-led protest movement began to spread across Thailand as protestors called for fundamental political change in the Kingdom, including a new election, constitution and reforms to the structure of the monarchy. On January 19, the United States Institute of Peace convened a roundtable to discuss the political dynamics of the movement, its future, and the potential for the US government to craft a constructive response. Speakers and their affiliations are listed below:
Brian Harding (Moderator): Senior Expert, Southeast Asia, U.S. Institute of Peace
Rattaphol “Ahn” Onsanit: Thai Service Chief, Voice of America
Penchan Phoborisut: Assistant Professor, California State University, Fullerton
Jonathan Pinckney: Senior Researcher, Nonviolent Action, U.S. Institute of Peace
Desmond Walton: Senior Director, BowerGroupAsia; U.S. Army Colonel (ret.) and former U.S. Defense Attaché to Thailand
Twitter enables the movement
Throughout 2020–and continuing into 2021–a youth-led pro-democracy movement has emerged across Thailand. While the largest demonstrations have largely been concentrated in Bangkok, Onsanit notes that the emergence of symbolic protests in schools throughout the countryside indicates that the movement is more generational and ideological than it is geographic.
Social media has largely driven the movement’s momentum. Phoborisut points to the relatively high saturation of Twitter among the Thai as a particularly critical factor. Activists have used hashtags such as #whatshappeninginthailand to raise awareness for their campaign, while protestors have also used Twitter to create transnational networks with activists in foreign countries. In particular, the hashtags #milkteaalliance and #howtomob have connected Thai protestors with activists in Hong Kong, who have shared lessons learned and tactical advice from their own experiences with protests.
Positive prospects, but no guarantees
According to Pinckney, two elements of the Thai protest movement suggest positive prospects for the future. First, the movement has exhibited the tactical flexibility typical of most successful protests. By switching between mass demonstrations and dispersed tactics such as the display of banners, hand gestures, and flash mobs–a necessity due to both government repression and the COVID-19 pandemic–the movement has continued to place pressure on King Vajiralongkorn despite the trying times. Second, the movement to date has managed to largely remain nonviolent. As a result, protestors maintain popular legitimacy while government repression has sparked widespread public backlash, leading to the possibility of a more broad-based movement in the future.
However, Pinckney cautions that activists should not count on the ability of social media to generate international awareness and support in the long-term. As protests in other countries have demonstrated, international attention can quickly waver without durable, institutional commitments to the movement. Moreover, Onsanit also warns that protest leaders have so far shown an unwillingness to compromise, diminishing the prospects for a negotiated agreement between activists and the monarchy.
Limits on US support
In the past, the US government has consistently prioritized security and economic issues over political issues when developing its relationship with Thailand. The political dimension, which has included coup attempts, growing authoritarian tendencies, and human rights abuses, has been the shakiest pillar of the US-Thai relationship long before the current wave of protests. Given this history, Walton suggests that the incoming Biden administration is more likely to support reform-oriented dialogue rather than an anti-monarchy agenda. Thai activists’ current refusal to negotiate could thus complicate the US response to the protests.
Nevertheless, he also proposes concrete steps that the new administration can take to maximize its decision-making ability. First, he recommends returning to career ambassadors in Thailand with deep knowledge of the country and region. Second, the Biden administration should reconcile differences between the idealists and pragmatists in his administration as the Thai monarchy can weaponize inconsistencies in US foreign policy around the world to diminish America’s ability to support protests in Thailand. Ultimately, then, US influence will hinge on a combination of the outcome of ideological competition within the movement and strategic decision-making by the U.S.
To watch the event in full, please click here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 6
Election specialists say both Democrats won in Georgia, giving Democrats control of Congress. Stacey Abrams takes a bow.
Looking for a job with Biden? The new Plum Book lists political jobs.
Subcabinet nominees in State include Wendy Sherman and Jon Finer.
IC officials formally blame Russia for recent hack. Amy Zegart cautions against overreacting to it.
Just before adjournment, Congress passed a new foreign aid bill for Eastern Europe.
Dozens of democracy activists arrested in Hong Kong.
Rand study says US military pay is too high.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | November 30 – December 4, 2020
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
1. France and Islam: Identity, Politics, and Geopolitics | November 30, 2020 | 4:00 – 5:15 PM ET | Brookings Institute | Register Here
France’s contentious policy on the public practice of Islam has struck multiple identity and political fault lines, not only in France or Europe, but also across the Muslim world. What was essentially a domestic French political debate has morphed into a global debate on relations between state and religion, liberalism and secularism, and the West and Islam/Muslim-majority countries. The intensifying controversy in France comes amid growing populist calls for limiting migration, especially from Muslim countries, and ongoing government initiatives that would deepen the securitization of Islam in the country. President Macron’s rhetoric has dovetailed with France’s foreign policy toward the Middle East’s ideological and geopolitical cleavages, ensuring the amplification of reactions abroad. While the public reaction in the Middle East has been largely uniform, official reactions have exposed existing divisions and conflicts on regional affairs.
The Brookings Doha Center invites you to attend a webinar on France’s evolving policy on the public and political manifestations of Islam. Among other topics, the webinar will address the following questions: What are the domestic and foreign policy drivers of France’s new policy on Islam and Islamism? How is this policy shaping identity debates on Islam and Muslims in the West? What does this policy tell us about populism, nativism, and multiculturalism in France in particular and the West in general? And what will be the geopolitical implications of this new policy in the Middle East and the Muslim world?
Speakers:
Galip Dalay, moderator: Nonresident Fellow – Brookings Doha CenterRichard von Weizsäcker Fellow, Robert Bosch Academy
François Burgat: Senior Research Fellow – French National Centre for Scientific Research
Jocelyne Cesari: Visiting Professor of Religion, Violence, and Peacebuilding – Harvard Divinity School
Rim-Sarah Alouane: Ph.D candidate in Comparative Law – Université Toulouse
2. Taking Stock: Five Years of Russia’s Intervention in Syria | November 30, 2020 | 10:30 – 11:30 PM EST | Carnegie Endowment for Peace | Register Here
Russia’s military intervention in Syria in October 2015 changed the course of the civil war, saving the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.
Five years on, al-Assad is still in power and the country remains unstable. Turkey’s incursion into northeastern Syria and the United States’ withdrawal of troops in late 2019 have redesigned the geography of the conflict, while the EU has been largely absent from the diplomatic efforts to halt the war.
Speakers:
Marc Pierini: visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe, where his research focuses on developments in the Middle East and Turkey from a European perspective.
Jomana Qaddour: nonresident senior fellow at the Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East Program of the Atlantic Council, where she leads the Syria portfolio.
Dmitri Trenin: director of the Carnegie Moscow Center. Also chairs the research council and the Foreign and Security Policy Program.
Frances Z. Brown: senior fellow with Carnegie’s Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program
3. Contested Waters: Flashpoints for Conflict in Asia | December 1, 2020 | 9:00 – 10:30 AM ET | United States Institute for Peace | Register Here
No modern states have ever declared war over water. In fact, nations dependent on shared water sources have collaborated far more frequently than they have clashed. Nevertheless, global surveys have counted over 40 hostile or militarized international actions over water—from riots to border skirmishes to larger battles—in the first six decades after World War II.
Join USIP for a virtual discussion on the future of water conflict and water diplomacy. Environmental peacebuilding experts and activists from Burma, India, and Pakistan will discuss the strategies they use to mitigate water conflict risks in their countries, as well as examine insights from a new USIP report, “Water Conflict Pathways and Peacebuilding Strategies,” that may help develop early warning indicators for emerging water-based conflicts.
Speakers:
Tegan Blaine: Senior Advisor on Environment and Conflict, U.S. Institute of Peace
David Michel: Senior Researcher, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute; Author, “Water Conflict Pathways and Peacebuilding Strategies”
Abdul Aijaz: Doctoral Candidate, Indiana University Bloomington
Amit Ranjan: Research Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore
Z Nang Raw: Director of Policy and Strategy, Nyein Foundation
Jumaina Siddiqui, moderator: Senior Program Officer for South Asia, U.S. Institute of Peace
4. U.S.-China Relations Under Biden: A Look Ahead | December 1, 2020 | 9:00 – 10:00 AM ET | Carnegie Endowment for Peace | Register Here
While the recent election of Joe Biden likely signals a raft of domestic political changes, its impact on U.S.-China relations remains unclear. The Trump administration has remolded the relationship, which is now defined by confrontations over economic practices, emerging technologies, and security. There is also growing bipartisan support for pursuing a tougher approach to China, and the Justice, State, and Defense departments are increasingly prioritizing new initiatives to push back on Beijing. Will Biden maintain the confrontational tone and policies of his predecessor? Or will he devise an entirely different posture toward Beijing? The answers to these questions will not only have critical consequences for the two countries in question, but for the broader international community as well.
One month after the U.S. election, Paul Haenle will moderate a discussion with American and Chinese experts on how the Biden administration will approach China, as well as how Beijing is gearing up for the new U.S. president.
Speakers:
Paul Haenle: Maurice R. Greenberg Director’s Chair at the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center based at Tsinghua University in Beijing, China
Evan A. Feigenbaum: Vice President for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Xie Tao: Professor of Political Science and Dean of the School of International Relations and Diplomacy, Beijing Foreign Studies University
5. Hinge of History: Governance in an Emerging New World | December 2, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:30 PM ET | United States Institute for Peace | Register Here
With rapid technological change, shifting global demographics, and tectonic geopolitical shifts, the world faces an inflection point—where the choices that leaders make in the coming years will have profound implications for generations. In response to this moment, former Secretary of State George P. Shultz has organized a project at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution called Hinge of History: Governance in an Emerging World to explore what these shifts mean for global democracy, economies, and security.
Join USIP and Stanford’s Hoover Institution for a timely conversation on the project’s findings and its implications for U.S. and international policy. The panel discussion will evaluate the major demographic, technological, and economic trends that are creating tectonic shifts in our geopolitical landscape and forcing a strategic rethink of governance strategies in the 21st century. In light of the challenges identified, panelists will also consider how the United States and others can harness these changes to usher in greater security and prosperity.
Agenda
2:00pm – 2:20pm | A Conversation with Secretary George P. Shultz
The Honorable Stephen J. Hadley: Chair, Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace
Secretary George P. Shultz: Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
2:20pm – 3:20pm | Panel Discussion: Governance Strategies for the Emerging New World
Dr. Chester A. Crocker, moderator: James R. Schlesinger Professor of Strategic Studies, Georgetown University
Dr. Lucy Shapiro: Virginia and D. K. Ludwig Professor of Developmental Biology, Stanford University
Ambassador George Moose: Vice Chair, Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace
Dr. James P. Timbie: Annenberg Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Dr. Silvia Giorguli-Saucedo: President, El Colegio de México
3:20pm – 3:30pm | Closing Remarks
Ambassador George Moose: Vice Chair, Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace
6. Venezuela’s Assembly Elections | December 3, 2020 | 11:30 AM – 12:45 PM ET | Wilson Center | Register Here
On Sunday, December 6, 2020, Venezuela will hold elections to choose members of the National Assembly for five-year terms. Since 2015, Venezuela’s political opposition has held a majority in the Assembly, the body from which Juan Guaidó emerged as interim President in January 2019.
This December’s Assembly elections take place against a backdrop of acute restrictions on political freedoms under the regime of Nicolás Maduro. For example, to limit and undermine the National Assembly’s authority, the regime convened elections in 2017 for a parallel Constituent Assembly, elections condemned by over 40 countries in Latin America and around the world. In recent years, leading opposition figures have been summarily prohibited from offering their candidacy, and in 2020, the Venezuelan Supreme Court arbitrarily removed the leadership of opposition parties, substituting others appointed by the government.
Amidst these growing restrictions on democratic space, the opposition has decided not to participate in the December 6 elections, a decision supported by scores of countries who have recognized the interim presidency of Juan Guaidó.
What, then, do these elections mean for the political future of Venezuela? What future strategies are available to the opposition? Will citizens, exhausted by chronic shortages of basic goods and in the midst of a raging pandemic, show up to vote? What will a new Assembly mean for the political future of Juan Guaidó?
Speakers:
Michael Penfold: Abraham F. Lowenthal Public Policy Fellow; Professor of Political Science, Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administración (IESA) Business and Public Policy School, Venezuela
Margarita Lopez Maya: Professor, Center for Development Studies (CENDES), Universidad Central de Venezuela
Beatriz Borges: Director, Center for Justice and Peace (CEPAZ)
Phil Gunson: Senior Analyst, Andes, International Crisis Group
Cynthia J. Arnson, moderator: Director, Latin American Program
7. What Challenges will the UN Pose for the Joe Biden Administration? | December 3, 2020 | 3:30 – 5:00 pM ET | American Enterprise Institute | Register Here
The incoming administration will confront a United Nations that increasingly serves as a theater for great-power competition, rather than the forum for global peace and understanding that its founders hoped to achieve. In addition, some of the greatest violators of human rights are on the UN’s Human Rights Council, while the World Health Organization stands accused of hampering the international COVID-19 response due to political pressures.
Please join AEI for an in-depth discussion on the key challenges the UN faces in an era of competition among the US, China, and Russia and how the Biden administration can strengthen the UN-US relationship.
Speakers:
Ivana Stradner, opening remarks: Jeane Kirkpatrick Fellow, AEI
Sam Daws: Director, Project on UN Governance and Reform, University of Oxford
Hillel Neuer: Executive Director, UN Watch
Stewart M. Patrick: Director, International Institutions and Global Governance Program, Council on Foreign Relations
Danielle Pletka: Senior Fellow, AEI
John Yoo: Visiting Scholar, AEI
Kori Schake, moderator: Director, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, AEI
8. Pakistan’s Internal Dynamics and Changing Role in the World | December 4, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM ET | Brookings Institute | Register Here
For the last two decades, discussions on Pakistan have centered around the U.S. war in Afghanistan and on Pakistan’s struggle with extremism, while its rich history, complex internal dynamics, and the aspirations of its citizens were largely excluded from the narrative. Nearly 20 years after 9/11, it is time for the United States to reexamine its relationship with, and understanding of, this complicated country.
On December 4, the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will host a panel discussion taking a multifaceted look at this nation of 220 million people. The event will include a discussion on domestic issues, ranging from the human and women’s rights situation to Islamist politics and ethnic and religious insurgencies within the country. In addition, the conversation will focus on the implications of a Biden presidency for Pakistan, as well as the country’s changing role in the Greater Middle East and South Asia.
Speakers:
Madiha Afzal: David M. Rubenstein Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy, Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology
Bruce Riedel: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy, Center for Security, Strategy, and TechnologyDirector – The Intelligence Project
Declan Walsh: Cairo Bureau Chief – New York Times
9. The U.S.-India Partnership: Looking Forward | December 4, 2020 | 8:30 – 9:30 AM ET | Carnegie Endowment for Peace | Register Here
The growth of the U.S.-India strategic partnership has been a significant achievement both in Washington and in New Delhi over the last two decades. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Laura Stone and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Reed Werner will review recent successes and identify future goals for the relationship. Carnegie’s Ashley J. Tellis will moderate.
Speakers:
Laura Stone: deputy assistant secretary of state for India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Maldives, and Bhutan.
Reed Werner: deputy assistant secretary of Defense for South and Southeast Asia.
Ashley J. Tellis: Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs and is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, specializing in international security and U.S. foreign and defense policy with a special focus on Asia and the Indian subcontinent.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
It’s getting serious, even if it isn’t
President Trump’s refusal to begin the transition to President-elect Biden was at first an annoyance with relatively little practical impact. Now, however, it is blocking serious planning for distribution of Covid-19 vaccines, making intelligence briefings for Biden and his team impossible, and casting doubt on US troop commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Trump is, as usual, prioritizing his personal interests in maintaining control of the Republican Party and raising money under the guise of contesting a stolen election. He knows he has lost but won’t give up until someone either chucks him out or he gets something in return. It is up to Republicans in Congress to chuck him out, at least until December 14 when the Electoral College meets and confirms Biden’s election. I can’t think of anything anyone respectable would want to give him in exchange for allowing the transition planning to start, but no doubt he would like some guarantees from Biden not to pursue judicial investigations.
The claims about a stolen election are demonstrating once again how far from reality so many of Trump’s supporters have wandered. There weren’t many at his “million” MAGA march last weekend in DC, perhaps 5,000 but certainly not 10,000. Describing downtown DC as flooded with demonstrators, as NPR did, was ludicrous. Downtown DC requires at least ten times that number to be even remotely described as flooded. Last weekend wasn’t much more than a sprinkle.
But out in the country there are still lots of people–70% of Republicans–who believe there were serious election irregularities, despite the fact that no one has found any. Aware of the likelihood such charges would arouse, state election officials appear to have run the cleanest, most correct elections ever, despite the onslaught of early voting and mailed-in ballots. I hope that the recounts and certifications to come will convince some people, but there is little sign of openness among the Republican base to the notion that Trump lost. Period.
He lost big in the popular vote–by more than 5 million–but that doesn’t really count. The Electoral College looks to be divided precisely as it was in 2016 (306/232), a margin Trump has always described as a landslide. I would say decisive, not a landslide. People are still trying to figure out just what happened, but it appears Trump lost support in the suburbs. I guess they weren’t so interested in his saving them from lower-income people, partly because lots of lower-income people already live there.
Biden now faces the prospect of trying to govern without a full transition period, with a narrowed majority in the House, and with a Republican majority in the Senate, unless the Democrats manage to pull of the unlikely feat of winning the two run-off contests in Georgia January 5. But he faces that prospect with an unusually wide and deep talent pool, many with fairly recent experience in governing and four years in the wilderness to think about how to do it better. So the President-elect may be handicapped, but when you are choosing your Secretary of State from among Susan Rice, Bill Burns, Tony Blinken, Chris Murphy, and some other political stars you are still well off.
Trump may of course still have some tricks up his sleeve, though so far his lawyers have lost two dozen election-related cases in court and won just one that will not affect the election outcome. The only virtue of the agony he is putting the nation through is the possibility it will convert a few of his cultists to reality-based politics. But there is no sign of that yet. The lack of transition is getting serious, even if the people who are causing it are not.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, October 6
– NYT says 15 senior Trump officials are serving illegally because they are in violation of the Vacancies Act.
– Lawfare notes how court decisions have weakened congressional oversight powers.
– HFAC leaders suggest Pompeo is violating Hatch Act.
– And it’s not just Pompeo.
– NYT says USTR Lighthizer is fighting measures to punish China urged by others, including State push for trade deal with Taiwan.
– RollCall piece says a Democratic Congress would try to claw back power even from a President Biden.
– Lee Drutman explains how hatred has infected US politics.
Recommended viewing: In the past week I watched Netflix’s documentary “Challenger: The Final Flight,” a documentary with amazing archive footage and interviews with former officials and family members of the crew. Episode 4 is especially good at showing the bureaucratic coverup and exposure by a whistleblower. I also just saw a private screening of an upcoming HBO film “The Perfect Weapon” a documentary showing how the US has been a victim and a user of offensive cyber operations.
RSS - Posts
