Tag: Democracy and Rule of Law
Good election, big challenges
On October 29 the Middle East Institute (MEI) and Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) hosted an event entitled “Observations from the Tunisian Election.” Tunisian Ambassador Fayçal Gouia delivered the opening remarks and participated in the panel discussion. Georgetown Professor and North Africa specialist William Lawrence moderated the discussion. Panelists included Jeffrey England, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the National Democratic Institute (NDI), Patricia Karam, Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa division of the International Republican Institute (IRI), Sarah Yerkes, Middle East Fellow at the Carnegie Institute for International Peace, and Thomas Hill, senior program officer for North Africa at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP).
England emphasized that the joint election observation undertaken by NDI and IRI demonstrated several positive aspects of the Tunisian election. Despite the fact that the July 25 death of former President Essebsi required the election to be held sooner than originally planned, it was peaceful and administered professionally. England also highlighted that the Parliamentary and Presidential debates that were held for the first time are evidence that the democratic system continues to mature. He noted that while there are lingering questions about turnout in the election, there was a larger pool of voters in both rounds than expected. England felt that because President Kais Saied does not belong to a political party he may be better able to hold the parties in Parliament to account.
Karam agreed that the election observation demonstrated several positive developments but noted that Tunisia should amend several aspects of its electoral framework prior to the next election, including campaign finance regulations, media rules, and the interaction between the judicial and electoral systems. Polling shows a crisis of confidence in politicians, growing dissatisfaction with the democratic experiment, and the sense that Tunisian political parties lack a clear vision for economic reform. This dissatisfaction is particularly deep among Tunisian youth, with preliminary data showing that youth turnout in the election may have been as low as 16%. Karam believes Tunisians voted for Saied because they prioritized stability in government, even if it comes with older, more conservative ideas.
Yerkes argued that while Saied received 70% of the votes, giving him a strong mandate, the incarceration of his opponent Karoui during the election was a significant flaw in the democratic process. She believes the election was unquestionably free but does not think it was fair. Karoui’s incarceration highlighted the need for Tunisia to implement a system for absentee voting. The electoral law allows prisoners to vote but there is currently no mechanism for them to do so, meaning that Karoui was unable to vote for himself.
Several panelists agreed that Tunisia’s economy was the key issue in this election and will play a key role in the future of its democracy. Gouia stated that job creation and delivering economic reform will be the first priority of the new administration. England asserted that while the electorate’s main concern was revolution in 2011 and identity in 2014, now people want to see results, particularly on economic issues. Hill argued that the Tunisian social contract has shifted so that graduates expect the government to create jobs for them rather than being entrepreneurial. England agreed, stating that the economic problems cannot be solved before the next election. He felt that the government should focus on developing a long-term plan to reform the economy and attempt to reframe the people’s expectations so that they understand that economic change will take time.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks October 28-November 3
Africa in Transition: The Role of Women in Peace and Security|October 29, 2019|9:30am-11:30am|Wilson Center|1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004 |Register Here
The prosperity of a nation cannot be divorced from the prosperity of its women. In sub-Saharan Africa, demographic trends, including rapid population growth and urbanization, ethnic tensions, and environmental degradation and climate change represent some of the compound security risks facing the region. A multisector and integrated approach that is inclusive of women is a precondition to curbing the underlying trends influencing instability in the region. When women are involved in security decision-making, the likelihood for conflict decreases, and peace negotiations last longer.
Please join the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program and Maternal Health Initiative, in partnership with The Population Institute, to discuss holistic approaches to complex security challenges in sub-Saharan Africa at the third public event in our three-part series, Africa in Transition.
Speakers
Moderator: Monde Muyangwa, Africa Program Director
Ambassador (ret.) Phillip Carter III, President, Mead Hill Group, LLC; former U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea
Chantal de Jonge Oudraat , President, Women in International Security (WIIS)
Alex Ezeh, Professor of Global Health, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University
Elizabeth Leahy Madsen,Senior Program Director, International Programs, Population Reference Bureau
Israel’s Tightening Control of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza|October 30, 2019|12:30pm-2:00pm|Middle East Institute|1763 N St. NW, Washington, District of Columbia 20036|Register Here
While some corners of Washington and the international community are waking up to the reality of Israel’s de facto annexation of Palestinian land in the West Bank and recurrent crisis in Gaza, few policymakers understand how the policies that have created this brutal and often tedious reality look like on the ground. This panel of seasoned Israeli experts will untangle the mess of occupation and annexation facing Palestinians living in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, as well as the decisions required to address Gaza’s chronic problems.
This event is part of the George and Rhonda Salem Family Foundation Lecture Series.
Participant Biographies
Avner Gvaryahu is the Executive Director of Breaking the Silence as well as an M.A. candidate in the Institute for the Study of Human Rights at Columbia.
Daniel Seidemann is a practicing attorney in Jerusalem who specializes in legal and public issues in East Jerusalem.
Celine Touboul is the Co-Director General of the Economic Cooperation Foundation (ECF), an Israeli policy planning think-tank designing and advancing initiatives aimed at creating the conditions for the resumption of a genuine Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the realization of a viable two state-solution.
Dr. Bashar Azzeh (moderator) is a Member of the PLO Palestine National Council, PLO Center Council, PPSF Party international secretary and Advisor to the PLO.
Recent Trends in Democracy and Development in the Emerging World|October 31, 2019|10:00am-11:30am|Brookings Institution|Saul/Zilkha Auditorium, 1775 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington DC 20036|Register Here
By the end of 2019, more people will have cast a vote than ever before. Nearly 2 billion voters in 50 countries around the world will have headed to the polls to elect their leaders. At the same time, data show that citizens’ trust in governments is weak and political polarization is growing almost everywhere. Many are feeling left behind and find it hard to coexist with people who have different views. Social networks and echo chambers amplify this mistrust. Simultaneously, the world is getting richer, with just over half of the global population now middle class or wealthier. Many countries, ranging from autocracies to liberal democracies, are struggling to form political platforms that can satisfy a broad middle-class majority.
On October 31, the Global Economy and Development program at Brookings and the Center for the Implementation of Public Policies for Equity and Growth (CIPPEC) from Argentina will co-host an event to assess democratic trends in the developing world and tease out implications for growth and development, drawing from recent electoral results in Africa, Latin America, and South Asia. The event will kick off with a brief presentation on global attitudes toward democracy by the Pew Research Center. A moderated panel with regional experts will follow.
Speakers
Homi Kharas (Welcome Remarks): Interim Vice President and Director, Global Economy and Development
Richard Wike: Director of Global Attitudes Research, Pew Research Center
Julia Pomares: Executive Director, Centre for the Implementation of Public Policy for Equity and Growth (CIPPEC)
Landry Signé: David M. Rubenstein Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Africa Growth Initiative
Irfan Nooruddin: Professor, Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Richard Wike (Moderator): Director of Global Attitudes Research, Pew Research Center
Iran Hostage Crisis 40th Anniversary Panel Discussion|October 31, 2019|10:30am-12:00pm|Wilson Center|1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004 |Register Here
On November 4, 1979, a crowd of Iranian students charged into the US embassy in Tehran and took hostage 52 American diplomats and citizens. The resulting diplomatic standoff would last 444 days. Now, 40 years later, the Iran Hostage Crisis continues to loom as one of the defining moments in US-Iran relations. To mark the anniversary of this crucial event, a panel of US-Iran relations experts meet to discuss how the Crisis is viewed today and how it continues to play a role in US foreign policy.
The panel will be moderated by Haleh Esfandiari, former director and founder of the Wilson Center’s Middle East Program.
Dr. Esfandiari will be joined on the panel by:
Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow and Director of The Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institute.
Suzanne Maloney, Deputy Director of the Foreign Policy Program and Senior Fellow at the Center for Middle East Policy, Energy Security and Climate Initiative at the Brookings Institute.
John Limbert, retired US Diplomat and Distinguished Professor of International Affairs at the US Naval Academy. Ambassador Limbert was stationed in the US embassy in Iran in 1979 and was one of the diplomats held hostage, for which he received the Award of Valor.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
“A place to promote war criminals”
The Belgrade-based Humanitarian Law Center writes:
At this year’s Book Fair, the „Defence“ Media Centre, publishing organ of the Ministry of Defence (MoD), will again present books whose author is Nebojša Pavković, and organise a panel devoted to the NATO Intervention. The panel speakers, beside the retired commanders of the Yugoslav Army (VJ)/Serbian Army (VS), Božidar Delić and Ljubiša Diković, will be Vladimir Lazarević and Vinko Pandurević, both convicted war criminals. The Humanitarian Law Center (HLC) points out that by financing and promoting books and public forums where convicts for the most serious crimes are speakers, the MoD are openly treating with contempt the victims of those crimes, and demonstrating a clear adherence to the politics that led to numerous crimes in the former Yugoslavia, and denying the facts established before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
As currently scheduled, the book by Nebojša Pavković will be presented at the 64th Book Fair on October 25, 2019, at 2 p.m. During the conflict in Kosovo, Pavković was the Commander of the Third Army of the VJ. He is a convicted war criminal. The book, entitled “The smell of gunpowder and death at KiM 1998”, is published by the Ministry of Defence in the “Warrior” series, whose author is Nebojša Pavković. Namely, at the last year’s Book Fair, Pavković’s war diary, entitled “Seventy-Eight Days of the Third Army in the Arms of the Merciful Angel” was presented, as well as three other books – the testimonies of war commanders and narratives of certain events (“The Battle for Paštrik” and “The Battle at Košare”). The HLC recalls that Pavković was sentenced to 22 years in prison before the ICTY for deportations, forcible transfers, murders and persecutions as crimes against humanity, and for killings as violations of the laws and customs of war. But this was not discussed at the presentation of the war diaries. The HLC also notes that the MoD spent almost 4 million dinars on costs related to the edition “Warrior” series. By promoting war criminals before the public as heroes and spending budget funds for this purpose, the MoD continues its past policy, which led to crimes against Albanian civilians in Kosovo, and had thereby reinterpreted the facts established before the ICTY.
On the same day, starting at 6 p.m. at the fair stand, the MoD is organising a panel on “Experiences from Actions during the NATO Aggression – Remembered by the Book” whose moderator will be the head of the publishing department of the Serbian Armed Forces, Miroslav Toholj, former Minister of Information in the Government of Republika Srpska (from 1993 to 1995). The panellists will be: Vladimir Lazarević, Commander of the VJ Priština Corps, sentenced by the ICTY to 14 years in prison for deporting and forcibly displacing the Albanian population during the Kosovo conflict; Vinko Pandurević, Commander of the Zvornik Brigade of the Republika Srpska Army, sentenced to 13 years in prison before the ICTY for helping and supporting crimes against humanity and violating the laws or customs of war; Ljubiša Diković, Commander of the 37th Motorised Brigade (37th mtbr) of the VJ and former Chief of the General Staff of the Serbian Armed Forces: and Božidar Delić, Commander of the 549th mtbr VJ. The HLC has recently presented evidence to the public about the role of Ljubiša Diković and Božidar Delić in crimes committed during the Kosovo conflict. Namely, the HLC presented facts and evidence in two Dossiers – Ljubiša Diković and Rudnica – regarding the involvement of the VJ 37th mtbr and Ljubiša Diković in crimes committed against Albanian civilians, as well as on the role of the VJ 549 mtbr whose commander was Božidar Delić. In the areas of responsibility of these two brigades in Kosovo, some 3,500 Albanian civilians were killed. The Serbian Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor has never investigated the HLC’s allegations of the involvement of Diković and Delić in these crimes.
In addition, the Media Defence Centre announces the publication of a book by Dragoljub Ojdanić, a former Chief of the VJ General Staff who was sentenced to 15 years in prison before the ICTY for helping and supporting the deportations and forcible transfers of the Albanian population from Kosovo.
The HLC calls on Serbian institutions to stop promoting and rehabilitating convicted war criminals and to pursue a policy that accepts established facts and takes into account the suffering of victims and their families.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A plea from Deir Ezzor
A plea that arrived today from residents of Deir Ezzor in northeastern Syria:
Recent and sudden political developments on the ground in North East Syria, led to political negotiations that created a dangerous and volatile military environment in Eastern Syria. As a result, the Assad regime and its allied proxy militias recently entered many regions in Northern
Syria. The area has become unstable. Residents fear for their safety and that of their families.
We, the people of Deir Ezzor living inside and outside of Deir Ezzor, express our position in response to these political and military developments by declaring the following:
· We will deny the Assad regime and its Iranian terrorist militias entry into Deir Ezzor under any circumstances.
· We refuse any attempt to negotiate an agreement with the Assad regime and its allied terrorist militias that will facilitate the regime’s entry into our areas or allow it to manipulate and endanger the safety and security of the population.
· We consider any party, group or individual(s) working for or with the Assad regime our enemies and the enemies of the people of Deir Ezzor.
· We demand that the Autonomous Administration and the Syrian Democratic Forces to respect the security concerns of local citizens and that they abide by the political decisions of the civil and military forces representing the people of Deir Ezzor.
· We call upon the people of Deir Ezzor to stand united against any threat to the security of its perimeter. We alert the revolutionary community to be fully prepared to fend off any assault or attack perpetrated against the population by the Assad regime and its terrorist allies.
· We demand, yet again, that the international community fulfill its legal, human and moral obligations to protect areas in Eastern Syria generally and Deir Ezzor in particular. The international community must prevent the Assad regime and its Iranian terrorist allies from entering the area. If the international community allows the Assad regime and its Iranian backed terrorist militias to enter the area, the coalition will lose all political, social and military gains achieved by it and local population. Further, allowing the Assad regime to enter will result in a humanitarian disaster, resulting in collateral damage that will be hard to mitigate. Civilians opposed to the Assad regime and those wanted by the regime’s security apparatus will be in danger. They will be subject to arbitrary detention, physical abuse, and death.
· Finally, we demand that the international community, represented by the United Nations, the international coalition against terrorism, and those countries sponsoring the political transition in Syria in accordance with the relevant international resolutions, immediately address the political demands and security concerns of the people living in the north and east of Syria generally, and Deir Ezzor in particular. The Assad regime and its Iranian backed terrorist militias threaten any effort to ensure a democratic political transition in Syria. These changes also indicate a serious humanitarian disaster and upcoming violations. This region is entering a dangerous phase, the catastrophic results of which will reverberate into the future and not be confined to Syria or the region.
· We hope the international community will finally come together to prevent the impending catastrophe that is about to befall the east.
Victory to the Syrian people’s motivation and cause of freedom, dignity, and democracy.
DeirEzzor
16th October 2019
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A vote for change
Kosovo voted for a new parliament today. The results are striking: the two parties that formed most of the majority in the last parliament came in third and fourth. Two opposition parties came in first and second. The PDK (Democratic Party of Kosovo), which has been in government since independence, has declared it will go into opposition. The electoral mechanism seems to have functioned well, but official assessments won’t be available for a couple of days.
The leaders were the LDK (Democratic League of Kosovo), which led the non-violent protest movement before the 1999 war and has participated in government coalitions in the past, and VV (Self-Determination), which is a post-war movement that has never been in the government. At this writing, VV is claiming to have won. The cautious and moderate Isa Mustafa, a former prime minister, leads the LDK. The sometimes unruly and charismatic Albin Kurti leads VV. Many have thought they might govern together in the next coalition, but that was before they won virtually equal shares of yesterday’s vote. There are now presumably other arithmetic possibilities, so an intense negotiation is likely, taking weeks if not months unless the LDK and VV agree quickly on a prime minister and a government program.
Yesterday’s result was foreshadowed in National Democratic Institute polling from March, which concluded:
The research shows that citizens desire reforms that will foster social cohesion, economic opportunity, and the rule of law. Tackling corruption cuts across all of these areas and remains at the forefront of citizen priorities. On dialogue with Serbia to normalize post-war relations, citizens seek greater transparency and are not in favor of border changes to bring about a resolution. Generally, citizens seek greater efforts of political leaders to foster consensus to bring policy changes that will improve their lives.
The citizens wanted change and voted for it. Those who think the US and Europe are determined to maintain “stabilocracy” take note: Washington and Brussels will not be unhappy to see alternation in power.
The governing challenge will be a big one. Complaints about corruption in Kosovo in my experience focus on two levels:
- Grand corruption by political leaders and their families, who are known to control assets far larger than their salaries can have provided;
- More or less petty corruption via nepotism, especially in hiring for government positions.
I hope the new government, whoever enters it, will launch a major effort to document and prosecute grand corruption. Nepotism is going to be harder: Kosovo is a society in which extended family ties are still strong. Hiring your cousin is a familial obligation that many see as corrup only when others do it.
The dialogue with Serbia will be another priority, as both Brussels and Washington are pressing for complete normalization of relations between Pristina and Belgrade. But they are pressing for different solutions: Washington is looking for a land swap that its newly appointed Special Envoy will no doubt press; Brussels is looking for a solution that maintains Kosovo’s territorial integrity even if it compromises its sovereignty over Serb communities. This kind of split between the EU and the US is not a good omen.
Nor is the impending Serbian election, due by April next year. President Vucic is a skilled manipulator of Western thinking, even if he has presided over a years-long slide of Serbia in Russia’s direction. He will argue that Serbia has to “get something” in the negotiations with Kosovo because he needs a parliament that will have to ratify the outcome. In order to get a good deal, Pristina will need to be ready to walk away from a bad one, but that will be difficult if Brussels and Washington decide to back it.
One unfortunate wrinkle in the election results: over 90% of Serbs voted for a list controlled by Belgrade. Vucic regards this as a triumph. I regard it as betraying the unfortunate autocratic control Belgrade exercises among the Serbs of Kosovo. Maybe it is also evidence that Serbia can agree to just about anything on Kosovo without Vucic getting something.
Any government that wants to please the citizens of Kosovo will want to deliver economic results. Kosovo has not done all that badly in recent years:
That’s 2000 on the lower left and 2018 on the upper right. The World Bank appropriately puts this performance in perspective:
Kosovo is a lower-middle-income country which has experienced solid economic growth over the last decade. Kosovo is one of only four countries in Europe to experience growth in every year since the onset of the global financial crisis in 2008.
Like it or not, Kosovo’s economy is heavily dependent on the Balkans region, which in turn is heavily dependent on Europe. Growth at higher rates than in the recent past (about 4%) will require that the EU grow faster, but the next Kosovo government would do well to prepare for that day by increasing transparency and reducing grand corruption. That’s what change should mean on the economic front.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Time to spill the beans
Yes, I do know both Bill Taylor and Kurt Volker. Bill and I worked together at USIP for several years. We were good colleagues, not personal friends. Kurt I know less well, but he was for a while a colleague at SAIS in the Center for Transatlantic Relations. Both are bright, devoted, distinguished professional diplomats, but like all of us they have their distinct personalities and foibles. Bill is more moderate and cautious, Kurt more daring and political, in the sense of making known his Republican affiliation. I have no idea what party Bill prefers.
That is the rule among Foreign Service officers: they keep their professional interactions apolitical, even if many of us have strong preferences. I have been a registered Democrat since my last years in the State Department in the 1990s, but I rarely mentioned that while in the Service and I never asked anyone else about political affiliation.
Bill’s contribution in the now-public text messages exchanged among US officials concerned with Ukraine is clear: he questioned whether the effort to squeeze Ukraine into conducting a judicial investigation of former Vice President and now presidential hopeful Biden by denying military assistance was proper. To the even modestly practiced eye, it looks like the use of public office for private gain, which is the definition of corrupt abuse of power. It might have been legitimate had the Trump Administration provided any credible evidence of wrongdoing by Biden, or asked through judicial channels, but they didn’t. This was what President Trump often accuses his opposition of doing: a witch hunt intended to knock the strongest candidate (at least in current polling) out of the race.
My guess is that Bill’s days in Kiev, where he is serving as an interim ambassador in a post he occupied from 2006 to 2009, are numbered. Trump will want to be rid of him as soon as possible but may hesitate for a while fearing what testimony Bill will give in Congress once he is freed from government service. I can’t imagine Bill will want to stay, though his devotion to Ukraine might weigh in that direction. In any event, he won’t have much influence after questioning the President’s corrupt attempt to get a Ukrainian judicial investigation going by leveraging US military assistance.
Kurt is already out of government service and was deposed Friday behind closed doors in the House, which saw fit to make public some of the unclassified text messages. His situation requires a bit more explication.
Kurt was an unpaid Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations. In my view, he has done good things in that role most notably getting the State Department to declare that the US would not recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea, which Moscow seized by force from Kiev in 2014. He has also advocated successfully for the US to ship lethal, even if defensive, weapons to Kiev’s forces, which are still battling an insurgency Russia supports in southeastern Ukraine.
So when President Trump held up on Congressionally authorized arms shipments to Ukraine, Kurt would have been understandably anxious to get them moving. That was what he was trying to do when he engaged with the Ukrainians and the President’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. There is nothing inherently wrong with Kurt having helped Giuliani. Diplomats often help Americans and American companies to do things that are consistent with US policy. The problem here is not his making an appointment or arranging a phone call, per se, but rather what the President’s personal lawyer was up to: he was using the arms shipments to get the Ukrainians to do what Trump wanted for his campaign. Kurt clearly understood this and might have objected, but let’s remember: he wanted the arms shipments to restart. The President’s purpose he might well have considered above his pay grade.
There is one other wrinkle in Kurt’s story: while unpaid in his government role, he continued to be affiliated with a consulting firm that had business with the Ukrainian government. He is reported to have “recused” himself from contact with that aspect of the business. I don’t know whether his dual role violated the law, and there have been no allegations of wrongdoing of which I am aware. But it doesn’t pass my smell test, which also dislikes Hunter Biden’s roles in China and Ukraine, even if there was no wrongdoing. Appearances matter. Kurt might have known better.
Whatever foibles Kurt and Bill may display, the bigger picture is clear: the President of the United States thinks he has the right to demand foreign investigations of his political opponents, which amount to illegal foreign assistance to his campaign. He did it with Russia, which he encouraged to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails. Now he is doing it again with Ukraine and China. He said so yesterday:
The lesson here is clear: even consummate professionals end up getting sullied if they serve with this Administration. It is time for those who can afford to do so to leave, spilling the beans to Congress as well as the press and helping to liberate from Trump’s grip the 20 Republican Senators needed to remove this President from office after he is impeached in the House.
RSS - Posts
