Tag: Democracy and Rule of Law
Peace Picks June 10- June 15
1. India’s Election results: Impacts on the Economy and Economic Relations with Washington|June 10th, 2019|2:30pm-4:30pm|Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004|Register Here
On May 23, India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was catapulted back into power with a landslide victory in national elections. Two of the biggest immediate challenges in its second term will be economic: Tackling rising unemployment, and pursuing an economic reform plan that struggled during the BJP’s previous term. The new Indian government will also confront considerable challenges in its trade relations with Washington, a key partner. What is the election result’s impact for India’s economy? What might it mean for the U.S.-India economic relationship, which has lagged behind the fast-growing defense partnership? What is the potential for bilateral cooperation in the high-tech and innovation sectors? More broadly, how significant are the strains on the commercial side, and to what extent do they affect U.S.-India strategic partnership? Do U.S.-China trade tensions have implications for India and U.S.-India relations? This event will address these questions and more.
Moderator:
Michael Kugelman, Deputy Director and Senior Associate for South Asia at the Wilson Center
Speakers:
Suman Bery, Public Policy Fellow at the Wilson Center
Richard M. Rossow, Wadhwani Chair, U.S.-India Policy Studies, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Seema Sirohi, Senior Journalist and Columnist, The Economic Times (India)
Jeremy Spaulding, Founder and President, JMS Innovation & Strategy, and Senior Advisor and Program Architect, Alliance for US International Business
2. The Deal of the Century: What About Palestinian Citizens of Israel?|June 11th, 2019|10:00am-11:00am|Foundation for Middle East Peace, 1319 18th Street NW Washington, DC|Register Here
In addition to examining the ramifications of recent political and legislative developments in Israel and the so-called “Deal of the Century,” panelists will discuss the central role of the Palestinian Arab minority in promoting the conditions necessary for a sustainable peace and how the international community can support it in that role.
Moderator:
Lara Friedman, President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP)
Panelists:
Jafar Farah, Founder and Director of the Mossawa Center, the Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens in Israel
Shibley Telhami, Sadat Professor for Peace and Development, Director of the University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Maya Berry, Executive Director of the Arab American Institute (AAI).
Jeremy Ben-Ami, President of J Street, bringing to the organization deep experience in American politics, a strong belief in the power of diplomacy and a passionate commitment to the state of Israel.
3. Strategic Interest and Leadership in the United Nations|June 13th, 2019|9:30am-11:00am|CSIS Headquarters, 1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
Although there are existing criticisms surrounding the United Nations, a functioning United Nations remains in the U.S. interest. One of the most critical roles the United Nations plays is addressing global problems and burden sharing the costs of security, development, and other public goods. CSIS would like to use this opportunity to identify areas of bipartisan agreement over the U.S. role in the United Nations. Please join us for a public armchair discussion with Governor Bill Richardson and Catherine Bertini which will reflect on the progress made at the United Nations since its formation and will examine how the United States can partner with the United Nations for its economic and national security interests.
Speakers:
Catherine Bertini, Former Executive Director, United Nations World Food Programme
Bill Richardson, Former Governor of New Mexico and Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
4. The Future of Taiwan-US Relations | June 12th, 2019 | 10am-12:45am | The Heritage Foundation, Lehrman Auditorium 214 Massachusetts Ave NE Washington, DC 20002 | Register Here
In this, the 40th year of the Taiwan Relations Act, it bears evaluating the state of the Taiwan-US relationship. There are many positive signs, arms sales, significant unofficial diplomatic contact, and a peak in Congressional activity. There are also signs of reserve on the part of the US administration, including uncertainty over the sale of F-16 fighter jets that have been under consideration for more than 10 years, a failure to pick up on the idea of a US-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement, and a low key opening of the new American Institute in Taiwan. On the other side of the relationship, Taipei is election season, with a range of possible outcomes. So where are US-Taiwan relations today and where are they headed in the short to medium term. Please join us for an assessment, led by Deputy Foreign Minister Szu-chien Hsu and a discussion with leading experts on the relationship from both sides of the relationship.
Panel 1: Economic Statecraft and Opportunity
Panelists:
Moderator: Walter Lohman, Director, Asian Studies Center, The Heritage Foundation
Szu-chien Hsu, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan)
Riley Walters, Policy Analyst, Asia Economy and Technology, The Heritage Foundation
Roy Chun Lee, Associate Research Fellow and Deputy Director of the Taiwan WTO and RTA Center, Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research
Panel 2: The Defense of Taiwan, Peace and Security
Moderator: Walter Lohman, Director, Asian Studies Center, The Heritage Foundation
Panelists:
I-Chung Lai, President of the Prospect Foundation
Scott Harold, Associate Director of the RAND Center for Asia Pacific Policy
5. What is happening in Idlib?|June 13th, 2019|11:00am-12:00pm|Turkish Heritage Organization|Register Here
Please join THO as we host a teleconference on the current situation in Idlib. More details will be announced soon.
Speakers:
Ammar Al Selmo, White Helmets Volunteer
Mariam Jalabi, Representative to the UN for the Syrian National Coalition
6. The Role of Open Data in Strengthening Nigerian Democracy|June 11th , 2019|2:00pm-3:30pm|National Endowment for Democracy, 1025 F Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20004|Register Here
Transparent, accessible, and credible data has emerged as a key tool for safeguarding the integrity of Nigeria’s democracy against conflict, corruption, and abuses of power. Data empowers civil society, journalists, and citizens to hold power-holders accountable and to expose and address corruption. Data equips government to make policy by providing foundational information about the Nigerian population and its needs. Data improves Nigeria’s information space, countering disinformation and enhancing the quality of reporting. Yet, data has not been used to its full potential in Nigeria. Though the government is increasingly releasing data to the public, it is often inaccessible and difficult to understand. Further, lack of capacity and political will has hindered robust data collection on critical issues. Join us in discussion with our esteemed panelists.
Speakers:
Joshua Olufemi, Current head of knowledge and innovation at Premium Times and Program Director at the Premium Times Centre for Investigative Journalism (PTCIJ) in Abuja
Christopher O’Connor, senior program officer for West Africa at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a private, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world
7. Peering Beyond the DMZ: Understanding North Korea behind the Headlines|June 11th , 2019|12:00pm-1:30pm|Hayek Auditorium, Cato Institute|Register Here
Negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program are at an impasse, and tensions are rising. And while neither side appears to want a war, the path to a diplomatic solution remains unclear. What is obvious, however, is that most U.S. policymakers have little understanding of what the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is or how it operates, a fact that limits America’s ability to peacefully resolve the crisis. Join us as our panelists offer their insights into the “Hermit Kingdom”
Moderator:
Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
Panelists:
Heidi Linton, Executive Director, Christian Friends of Korea
Randall Spandoni, North Korea Program Director and Senior Regional Advisor for East Asia, World Vision
Daniel Jasper, Public Education and Advocacy Coordinator for Asia, American Friends Service Committee
Moderator: Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
Hard transition
The Project on Middle East Democracy held a panel discussion April 15 about Algeria’s protests and what will happen next. The panel included Rochdi Alloui, Independent Analyst on North Africa at Georgia State University, Alexis Arieff, Specialist in African Affairs at Congressional Research Service, Amel Boubekeur, Research Fellow at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, and William Lawrence, Visiting Professor at George Washington University.
Boubekeur stated that people are protesting on the street asking for a functional state to provide water, electricity, and decent jobs. Since 1962, the regime built its legitimacy on the revolution by painting itself as the ones who got rid of France, built the military, and thus deserve to be leading the country. This narrative echoed for a while. By installing the recently ousted president in 1999, the army had wanted to end the civil war with armed Islamic groups, show the people that a new civil president would lead the country, and extract itself from politics. But throughout Bouteflika era, the president’s circle, the secret services and the army have governed. Ousting Bouteflika peacefully has shown the people that the country can do without him and even build a stronger state. Contrary to the regime’s narrative, he was not the only source of stability and peace.
Alloui pointed out the protests did not happen out of the blue, and the causes are complex. The political structure around Bouteflika seeking a fifth term was drove people to take to the street, in addition to grievances accumulated over decades. The people united around an important theme: kicking Bouteflika out. Once this goal was accomplished, it gave the protest movement a further boost and raised the bar to ridding Algeria of its traditionally bad politics. The protest movement wants to restructure the Algerian state to reproduce a new system and embark upon the second republic. Many pitfalls may lie ahead that can still divide the protest movement.
Lawrence gave an overview of the first Algerian democratic opening started in the late eighties, which Algerians have begun calling the first Arab spring. The Algerian regime since then has acted opaquely, operating on the basis of consensus reached in secret meetings to select the president. But recently many cracks have appeared: the veterans’ association, army officers, the National Liberation Front all turned against the president. High official figures like Algeria’s richest businessman, Ali Haddad, was caught at the Tunisian border trying to escape. The current protest movement is unlikely to be able to replace the regime. It may look like a “soft” revolution like those in 2001, but the Algerian military is likely to come out on top.
Arieff argues Algeria is probably the least market-driven economy in the world. That does not, however, mean young people want to move to a market economy and get rid of the social safety net. Living standards in Algeria have increased quite a bit over the last two decades. People have more access to social services than before, mainly in the restive southern part of the country. Most undemocratic leaders attribute the problems their states are going through to economic grievances rather than political ones. But the Algerian protest movement has grown mature enough to know that the two are intertwined: oligarchic rule and corruption have an impact on an individual opportunity for those without connections.
Bottom line: Pushing the president to resign and asking high political figures involved in corruption to do the same thing might be a good start towards a more democratic country but will certainly have implications on the functioning of the state. It is hard to replace a system that has been running the country for decades with a new one without facing structural challenges. Finding a person who is trusted and with integrity to serve as president will be difficult. It also remains to be seen how successful and democratic the transition will be in Algeria with the military still having a big say in politics.
Netanyahu redux
The Wilson Center held a panel discussion April 11 analyzing the Israeli elections, with David Horovitz, Founding Editor of The Times of Israel, Natan Sachs, Director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, Dana Weiss Chief Political Analyst, and David Halbfinger, Jerusalem Bureau Chief at The New York Times.
Horovitz opines that it might seem the elections were to a large extent a referendum on Netanyahu and that the public wants more of him. But it is more complex than that. The election was a referendum on Netanyahu’s leadership. Voters were looking at Netanyahu as the world leader who kept Israel safe in a toxic and unpredictable region for the past decade. Israelis are not convinced they need to change their leadership in the current hostile environment. Netanyahu is viewed as successful in confronting Iran as it seeks nuclear weapons. He also succeeded in painting the Blue and White alliance, including three chiefs of staff (among them his own former defense minister) as weak leftists who won’t be able to keep the country safe.
Horovitz suggests the interesting thing to focus on after the elections is what Netanyahu will do vis-vis the Palestinians and the corruption allegations against him. He has said will annex all the settlements in the West Bank, where he will apply Israeli laws. Even more important is how Netanyahu will fight off his indictment, using the Knesset to change the process and evade prosecution.
Sachs points out that since 1977, the first time the Likud party came to power in Israel, there have been fourteen elections, ten of which Likud has won. There is a structural advantage to the right wing. The majority of Israelis are right wing, with a small number (around 16%) calling themselves left wing. The left lost credibility among the Israeli voters after 2000 when Israel withdrew from Gaza and the second Intifada broke out. Israelis are pessimistic and skeptical of the possibility of reaching peace any time soon with the Palestinians.
Weiss stated Netanyahu did whatever it takes to win the election. He orchestrated the campaign by himself and a few young media experts. Elections were supposed to take place last November, but Netanyahu held them in April so that he would be strengthened in efforts to evade being indicted and to get immunity. Today, left and right are not about the conflict, it is about the nature of Israel. It is unclear if it will stay democratic and bound to the rule of law. The Blue and White wants to feel more Israeli than Jewish, seeking to keep Israel a democracy and the rule of law consistent. Netanyahu wants the opposite.
Halbfinger suggested that Netanyahu sold the electorate stability as well as economic and military leadership. He demonized his opponents. The fight over the Supreme Court and the judiciary is not personal to Netanyahu. There is a belief on the right that the Supreme Court in Israel, which is very liberal, has been overreaching. The right believes it needs to be brought back under control. For Halbfinger this is brewing into a constitutional crisis in a country that has no constitution.
Doing something
Mohammad al Abdallah puts it well in his acceptance speech for the Anne Frank Award to the Syrian Justice and Accountability Center (SJAC) from the Dutch government:
“We are not going to sit there, watch and do nothing.”
Caveat emptor: I sit on the Board of SJAC. I don’t think justice and accountability are coming soon, but it takes people of courage and generosity (notice how much time he spends encouraging support for institutions other than SJAC) to make sure they overcome some day.
The world is watching
I received this letter last week from Kosovo Assembly members Xhelal Sveçla and Driton Selmanaj. I’m pleased to take up their suggestion that I make this case more widely known as the one year anniversary of the events investigated approaches on Friday. I hasten to add that Kosovo is a young democracy that deserves credit for this investigation as well as any steps it takes to correct the issues revealed. I also hasten to add that I know little more about this case than I have read in the attached documents. Anyone who would like to exercise the privilege of a reply should let me know.
We write to you in our capacity as Chair and Vice-Chair of the Parliamentary Investigative Committee established last year to elucidate the matter of the expulsion of six Turkish nationals from the territory of the Republic of Kosovo on 29 March 2018.
We would like to let you know that the committee has completed its work. We have uncovered a total of 31 legal violations during the whole course of the expulsion process, a number of them committed by high-ranking state officials of the Republic of Kosovo.
The details of the committee’s work are summarized in the following four documents:
- A list of the 26 witnesses interviewed by the committee;
- A brief timeline of events relating to the expulsion;
- A detailed report with recommendations prepared by a US human rights expert, engaged by the committee for the purpose of fact-finding and legal evaluation of the case;
- A list of the 31 legal violations uncovered by the committee, indexed to the report.
This is the first time in the Republic of Kosovo’s brief history that a parliamentary committee has thoroughly investigated allegations of serious human rights abuses. We have now submitted all of the above materials to the Special Prosecution of the Republic of Kosovo for further investigation, focused on possible crimes committed during the expulsion process.
However, due to the culture of impunity that still plagues Kosovo institutions, we do not believe that state prosecutors will conduct a meaningful investigation and bring high-ranking perpetrators to justice without significant international support. Indeed, it is in large part due to the international concern surrounding this case that the Assembly agreed to establish our committee in the first place.
Surely, even more international encouragement will be required to ensure both that the prosecutors handling the case conduct a thorough criminal investigation, and that the Assembly institute the necessary legislative safeguards to prevent similar human rights violations from ever happening again. Putting these safeguards into place has become even more urgent in recent days, given that Turkey continues to insist that last year’s expulsions were completely legal; and according to recent reports, Turkish authorities are already laying the groundwork for a second round of expulsions.
The Embassies of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany in Prishtina have already released statements in support of the committee’s work (see the U.S. Embassy’s statement).
In conclusion, we firmly believe that the expulsion of the six Turkish nationals would not have happened if state officials knew that the world was watching. And we just as firmly believe that, in order to bring this case to a successful conclusion, it is absolutely essential that the Special Prosecution Office and the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo be made aware that the world is still watching — and waiting for them to fulfill their legal and institutional responsibilities to the fullest extent possible.
Criminal whitewash
Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort got off easy. Convicted in Federal court of five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failure to disclose a foreign bank account, the judge gave him less than four years in prison, claiming Manafort had lived an “otherwise blameless life.” That’s rich, as he was a political adviser to a corrupt Ukrainian prime minister and worked hard to fulfill Vladimir Putin’s political ambitions, both in Ukraine and in the US. He also violated his cooperation agreement with prosecutors and sought to influence witnesses during the trial. Before sentencing, he expressed no remorse for his crimes but claimed to have suffered greatly.
There really is only one way of understanding this travesty of justice: Manafort is rich and white. A poor or black defendant convicted of such charges would be looking at twice the time in prison, if not three or four times. Appointed by President Reagan, Judge Ellis had often expressed sympathy for Manafort and distaste for the prosecutors, who work for Special Counsel Mueller. Ellis seems to have decided early on that Manafort was “one of us” caught by overzealous prosecutors in what the judge considered victimless white collar crimes.
Manafort still faces serious problems, as a different Federal judge in a different court will sentence him next week on conspiracy convictions. She has shown no sympathy for Manafort and is expected to throw the book at him, which likely means an additional ten years in prison for the 69-year-old felon. Manafort may yet end his life in prison, though early release is common for good behavior. Surely there are parole boards who, like Judge Ellis, have sympathy with “one of us.” And the President could still pardon Manafort.
This sentencing has international import. President Trump has already enormously weakened America’s stance on democracy and the rule of law, which he regards as demands to make of Washington’s adversaries and not its friends. Judge Ellis’ sentencing has now added insult to injury. Who would believe that the US really stands for equality before the law, when a pal of the President gets such kid glove treatment? This criminal whitewash may obscure Manafort’s malfeasance, but it is a stain on America’s reputation. It will encourage autocrats worldwide to continue to resist the rule of law. That is precisely what Donald Trump wants to do, so long as the autocrats are his friends.