1. The War on Something-ism: 17 Years and Counting | Monday, September 10, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm | Hudson Institute | 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004 | Register Here
The devastating toll of the September 11, 2001 attacks galvanized the global community to fight Islamic extremism and defeat al-Qaeda. What began in Afghanistan, continues in Iraq and Syria, in Yemen and the Horn of Africa, in Europe. 17 years on, the engagement dubbed “the never-ending war” continues, as religious extremism takes new forms and continues to destabilize the Middle East and North Africa, and continues in Southwest Asia.
The Trump Administration has expressed optimism that victory will be achieved once the remaining Islamic State (ISIS) strongholds are eliminated. However, the intelligence community already sees signs of new extremist groups cropping up in Iraq, ISIS emerging in Afghanistan, extremist strongholds in Syria. Pulling the U.S. out too early and declaring victory without a strategy to win will enable old extremist groups to re-establish their hold on the region and allow new groups to compete for territory.
Thomas Joscelyn, Speaker – Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Bill Roggio, Speaker – Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Michael Pregent, Speaker – Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Michael Doran, Speaker – Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Catherine Herrridge, Moderator – Chief Intelligence Correspondent, Fox News
2. Countering Disinformation: Interdisciplinary Lessons for Policymakers | Monday, September 10, 2018 | 3:00 pm – 4:30 pm | Center for Strategic and International Studies | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
With the growth of social media, disinformation has become an increasingly potent political tool. State and non-state actors from various countries, among them Russia and China, have become adept at manufacturing and spreading disinformation or using covert campaigns to influence public perception and political outcomes in democratic countries around the world. Responding to this threat requires policy makers to integrate insights from different countries and from academic fields that are too often siloed, including communications, computer science, and social psychology.
Speakers:
Joshua Eisenman – Assistant Professor of Public Affairs, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin
Jakub Janda – Director, European Values Think Tank (Prague)
Saiph Savage – Assistant Professor of Computer Science and Director, Human Computer Interaction Laboratory, West Virginia University
Tabea Wilke – Founder and CEO, Botswatch
Jeffrey Mankoff – Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program, CSIS
3. Weapons of Mass Destruction and Cooperative Threat Reduction: Looking Ahead | Tuesday, September 11, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm | Hudson Institute | 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004 | Register Here
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, preventing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) from falling into the hands of a state or non-state adversary has been a critical priority for the U.S.
A report of a workshop conducted by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Committee on International Security and Arms Control examines how the U.S. government is managing the threat posed by WMDs through its Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs. As argued in “Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs for the Next Ten Years and Beyond,” the cooperative dimension of CTR programs has allowed the U.S. to collaborate with other governments, nongovernmental agencies, and the private sector to reduce WMD threats outside of the United States. However, as the report co-chairs assert, more can and should be done. By tailoring engagement and enhancing the impact of the CTR programs through for example, more government-industry collaborations and better cooperation with multilateral organizations, cooperative threat reduction can continue to improve the long-term security of the U.S. and its allies.
On September 11, Hudson will convene a panel with the co-chairs of the new report to discuss their assessments of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs. Copies of the report will be available.
David R. Franz, Speaker – Board Member, Integrated Nano-Technologies
Elizabeth Turpen, Speaker – President, Octant Associates and Non-Resident Adjunct, Institute for Defense Analyses
Richard Weitz, Moderator – Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Political-Military Analysis, Hudson Institute
Eunjung Lim is an Assistant Professor at College of International Relations, Ritsumeikan University. Before joining Ritsumeikan’s faculty, she taught at Johns Hopkins SAIS (2013-2017). Her areas of specialization are South Korean and Japanese political economy, comparative and global governance, and energy security policies of East Asian countries. More specifically, Dr. Lim has been working on nuclear issues of East Asian countries.
She has been a researcher and visiting fellow at several institutes, including the Center for Contemporary Korean Studies at the University of Tokyo, the Institute of Japanese Studies at Seoul National University, the Institute of Japan Studies at Kookmin University, and Institute of Energy Economics, Japan. She earned a BA from the University of Tokyo, an MIA from Columbia University and a PhD from SAIS, Johns Hopkins University. She is fluent in Korean, Japanese and English.
5. Russia and Arctic Governance: Cooperation in Conflict | Wednesday, September 12, 2018 | 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm | Stimson Center | 1211 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 8th Floor, Washington DC, 20036 | Register Here
Finland, the country currently chairing the Arctic Council, proposed a high-level Arctic summit during a recent bilateral meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin. While discussion of the summit and a broader suite of Arctic and environmental issues proceeded smoothly, Russian concerns and protests over a large upcoming NATO alliance exercise in Norway, in which Finland will participate, were also raised. All of the Arctic states, including Russia, have long sought to primarily present the circumpolar region as one of peace – and potential wealth. While the question of whether there will be more cooperation or more conflict in the Arctic is a popular and easy one to pose, the more productive question is how cooperation against the backdrop of other, more global tensions has long characterized and continues to shape Arctic governance development. So, how does Russia – the largest Arctic state – engage in the process of pursuing cooperative outcomes and a regional peace conducive to economic gains? How do such cooperative efforts play out against a backdrop of security rivalry between Russia and most of the Arctic states? How robust are circumpolar cooperative venues to worsened relationships between Russia and its partners? Are the solutions produced by the Arctic states so far dimensioned to the challenges facing the region? The Stimson Center discussion will seek to address these key questions as part of a seminar based on Elana Wilson Rowe’s recently published book Arctic Governance: Power in Cross-Border Cooperation (Manchester University Press in the UK/Oxford University Press in the USA).
ELANA WILSON ROWE, Research Professor, the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs
Elana Wilson Rowe holds a PhD in Geography/Polar Studies from the University of Cambridge (2006). Her areas of expertise include international relations in the Arctic, science and expert knowledge in global governance, climate politics and Russian foreign and northern policy. She is the author of Russian Climate Politics: When Science Meets Policy (Palgrave, 2009) and Arctic Governance: Power in cross-border cooperation (Manchester University Press, 2018).
YUN SUN, Co-Director, East Asia Program, Stimson Center
Yun Sun is Co-Director of the East Asia Program and Director of the China Program at the Stimson Center. Sun’s expertise is in Chinese foreign policy, U.S.-China relations and China’s relations with neighboring countries and authoritarian regimes. From 2011 to early 2014, she was a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution, jointly appointed by the Foreign Policy Program and the Global Development Program, where she focused on Chinese national security decision-making processes and China-Africa relations. From 2008 to 2011, Sun was the China Analyst for the International Crisis Group based in Beijing, specializing on China’s foreign policy towards conflict countries and the developing world.
MARLENE LARUELLE, Research Professor, Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies, George Washington University
Marlene Laruelle is a Research Professor at the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (IERES), at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs. She is the Director of the Central Asia Program at IERES and co-director of PONARS (Program on New Approaches to Research and Security in Eurasia). She received her PhD from the National Institute of Oriental Languages and Cultures. She has authored Russia’s Strategies in the Arctic and the Future of the Far North (M.E. Sharpe, 2013), and edited New Mobilities and Social Changes in Russia’s Arctic Regions (Routledge, 2016).
6. Election Interference: Emerging Norms of Digital Statecraft | Wednesday, September 12, 2018 | 4:00 pm | the Atlantic Council | 1030 15th Street Northwest, 12th Floor | Register Here
The reemergence of great power politics in a digitalized global security environment has led to new tools of statecraft wielded by nation-states in advancing their foreign policy objectives. During this event, we will engage cybersecurity professionals, journalists and key stakeholders to discuss the development of norms around election influence and interference and lessons learned from the international community’s brief history with these new tools of statecraft. What toolsets will governments wield in the future as they attempt to control media narratives, target dissidents, and influence other states? And how will the toolsets and norms we currently see in play shape the future of state use of technology?
This panel will look into the future of digital statecraft as technology progresses at an unprecedented rate and nation-states consider ways to wield these persuasive and cunning new tools to potent effect. With recent reports of foreign influence and interference in elections around the world calling public trust in institutions into question, it has become imperative that governments work together to establish norms around nation-state behavior across digital borders and have an informed dialogue about future toolsets for political influence. A reception will follow the event.
Ms. Laura Galante, speaker – Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council;
Founder, Galante Strategies
Mr. Sean Kanuck, speaker – Director, Cyber, Space and Future Conflict, International Institute for Strategic Studies
Ms. Michele Markoff, speaker – Deputy Coordinator for Cyber Issues, State Department
Ms. Klara Jordan, moderator – Director, Cyber Statecraft Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Nearly twenty years after 9/11, extremist ideologies have survived global counterterrorism efforts. What have we learned from the response, and what new approaches are needed? Tony Blair, Farah Pandith, and Frances Townsend discuss challenges in the global response to extremism to date and the evolution in approach necessary to overcome terrorist threats.
Tony Blair, speaker – Executive Chairman of the Institute for Global Change; Former Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Farah Pandith, speaker – Adjunct Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations; Senior Fellow, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Frances Fragos Townsend, speaker – Executive Vice President, MacAndrews & Forbes, Inc.; Former Homeland Security Advisor, White House
Tom Gjelten, presider – Religion and Belief Correspondent, National Public Radio
8. With Us and Against Us: Counterterrorism Strategy Post-9/11 | Thursday, September 13, 2018 | 5:30 pm – 7:00 pm | American University SIS | Abramson Family Founders Room, 4400 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20016 | Register Here
In the wake of the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush drew a line in the sand, saying, “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” Join the School of International Service at American University as we discuss Dr. Stephen Tankel’s new book, With Us and Against Us: How America’s Partners Help and Hinder the War on Terror,and the future of counterterrorism operations in a post-9/11 world more widely in a conversation moderated by Dr. Audrey Kurth Cronin.
Participants:
Bruce Hoffman is a Professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and Shelby Cullom and Kathryn W Davis Senior Visiting Fellow for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security at the Council on Foreign Relations. Dr. Hoffman previously held the Corporate Chair in Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency at the RAND Corporation and was also Director of RAND’s Washington, D.C. Office. From 2001 to 2004, he served as RAND’s Vice President for External Affairs and in 2004 he also was Acting Director of RAND’s Center for Middle East Public Policy. Dr. Hoffman was appointed by the U.S. Congress in 2013 to serve as a commissioner on the Independent Commission to Review the FBI’s Post-9/11 Response to Terrorism and Radicalization, which concluded its work in March 2015.
Audrey Kurth Cronin is Professor of International Security at the School of International Service, and American University’s Founding Director of the Center for Security, Innovation and New Technology. She was previously founding Director of both the International Security Program and the Center for Security Policy Studies at George Mason University. Dr. Cronin has held a vareity of positions in government, including time as a Specialist in Terrorism at the Congressional Research Service, advising Members of Congress in the aftermath of 9/11. She has also served in the Executive branch, including in the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Policy; the Office of the Secretary of the Navy; and the American Embassy in Moscow. Dr. Cronin is the author of a forthcoming book on terrorism and new technologies, to be published by Oxford University Press in early 2019.
Matt Olsen is an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security and former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Appointed by the President to serve as the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Olsen led the government’s efforts to integrate and analyze terrorism information and coordinate counterterrorism operations from 2011 to 2104. Prior to joining NCTC, Olsen was the General Counsel for the National Security Agency, serving as NSA’s chief legal officer and focusing on surveillance law and cyber operations.
Stephen Tankel is an Associate Professor at the School of International Service and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. In his recent book, With Us and Against Us: How America’s Partners Help and Hinder the War on Terror, Dr. Tankel analyzes the factors that shape counterterrorism cooperation, examining the ways partner nations aid international efforts, as well as the ways they encumber and impede effective action. His recent work considers the changing nature of counterterrorism, exploring how counterterrorism efforts after 9/11 critically differ both from those that existed beforehand and from traditional alliances.
Pristina daily Koha Ditore has given me permission to republish in English Besnik Krasniqi’s in-depth interview of Ambassador Lulzim Peci, published Sunday:
Lulzim Peci has insisted that “the correction” of borders, for which the president Hashim Thaçi and his Serbian counterpart, Aleksandar Vučić, are being engaged, is a euphemism for the partition of Kosovo. He is against this option, becaues he thinks that it will cause human tragedies in the forms of masive expulsions and displacements.
Peci is the founder and the Executive Director of the Institute KIPRED, and in the past he has served as Ambassador in Stockholm, as well as the first Liasion Representative of Kosovo in Belgrade.
In an interview given to “Koha Ditore,” he spoke on the option of “the correction” of borders between Kosovo and Serbia, which was warned to be put in discussion in the final phase of the dialogue in Brussels. He told what the country will lose from this process, and he spoke on the effects that such a solution will have in the region and abroad. He argued that neither the supporters in Washington nor in Brussels will be able to manage the effects of such a solution.
Among other things, in this interview Peci has told why he considers this “innovative” policy of Brussels as a triumph of Russian foreign policy in the Balkans and in its surroundings, as well as the barriers which it will create for Kosovo in its rush to become a member of the UN and integrated into the EU.
Koha Ditore:Mr. Peci, what is the meaning for Kosovo of the fact that its President has already agreed to discuss the option of “the correction” of borders in the final phase of the dialogue with Serbia?
Peci: First of all, it should be clear to us that “the correction” of borders is a euphemism for the partitioning of Kosovo, with or without exchange of territories with Serbia. The accuracy of the borderline between Kosovo and Serbia was not contested at all, for enabling anyone to correct it, given that the borders between federal units of former Yugoslavia were determined with cadastral borders of the municipalities which were in the two sides of the respective borders. Serbia has demanded, and is demanding, the partition of Kosovo, but so far it has never contested the accuracy of the borderline. Also, based on these well-defined borders, the Mission of NATO (KFOR) was established, and the Kumanovo Agreement of June 9th, 1999 was enforced, including the Land and Air Security Zone.
On the other hand, we should keep in mind that interstate borders can be corrected only if the mistakes acceptable for all the sides in the process of demarcation of the borderline are ascertained, and such a thing can be done only between two independent and sovereign states which do recognize each other. In the case in which it explicitly does not recognize Kosovo, it is very likely that Serbia will not interpret this “correction” as a correction of interstate borders, but as a correction of administrative ones, which will further complicate the situation. Furthermore, it is unlikely that Serbia will recognize Kosovo without taking the largest part of the North, as well as the territory of the Municipality of Raniluk in the Southeast of Kosovo, and, in the best case, it will give as a compensation to Kosovo a number of villages in the Valley, perhaps with the inclusion of the city of Preshevo. This option can have consequences not only for the Albanian population that has remained in the North – for which the political cynics can easily say that majority of them were already expelled – given that we can have further displacements, if not even the outright expulsions, of Albanians remaining on the other side of the border, as well as of the Serbs below the river Ibar.
If Serbia would accept to recognize Kosovo, by exchanging the Municipality of Preshevo with that of Leposaviq, which was appended to Kosovo in 1959, then this option could have been considered as a bilateral correction of the border, without any major consequences for both, the Albanian population in the North, and the Serbian population below the Ibar river, but we cannot believe that this option would imply the terminology of “the correction of borders” of Thaçi, or that of “razgraničenje” [delimitation] of Vučić, which was inspired by the ideas of Dobrica Čosić .
Consequently, the acceptance of Thaçi to discuss this issue in the dialogue with Serbia, does not have to do with any correction of borders between Kosovo and Serbia. It has to do with changing of borders and the partitioning of the country. Such a discussion will put in question for the first time the territorial integrity of the state of Kosovo, which was not contested by anyone until now. There is no doubt that this option will undo the results of Kosovar politics and of international support over the last two decades, including here the military intervention of NATO, and it will also pave the way for the partition of the country based on ethnic geopolitics, and, as such, it will mark the first case of change of interstate borders according to this principle in the post-Cold War Europe.
Koha Ditore: So, you are among those who oppose the negotiations on territory? What does really Kosovo lose from touching the borders?
Peci: First of all, I am against this option as a human being, given that I think that it will cause human tragedies in the form of masive displacements, of Albanians from the northern part of Kosovo, and of Serbs from the part below the river Ibar. Albanians and Serbs do not deserve something like this 20 years after the end of the war, as well as after the results which were achieved with so many difficulties – results that can, indeed, be modest, but which, nevertheless, cannot be ignored – in the creation of a democratic and multiethnic society.
Secondly, I think that countries that aim at monoethnicity end up as xenophobic and fascistoid, and this is in complete contradiction with my political convictions and trust in liberal democracy, and, thirdly, given that Kosova, with the option of the partition, will put in question the safety of its water and energetic sources, as well as its potential for economic development, if the Ujman (Gazivode) Lake passes under the sovereignty of Serbia.
After the proposal of Thaçi for “moratorium for the solution of Kosovo status” of the year 2003, the entry into the game of “the correction of borders” is undoubtedly his biggest political adventure, but this time this adventure can engender irreparable consequences.
Koha Ditore: More precisely, which are the borders in which you are afraid that Kosovo might end up, if the borders are put on the Brussels discussion table, and what Kosovo gains and loses from a solution based on the exchange of territories?
Peci: As I have mentioned above, I apprehend that Kosovo will lose four municipalities in the North, as well as the Municipality of Raniluk in the East of the country, in exchange for some villages inhabited with Albanian majority in the Valley, and, perhaps, the city of Preshevo. The cost of this option will be extremely burdensome, even if Serbia does explicitly recognize the statehood of Kosovo. On the other hand, we should not forget that without normalization of relations with Kosovo, Serbia cannot get membership in the EU. Therefore, we have no major reason for entering into the game of “the correction” of borders, in order to do a service to Belgrade, by working against Berlin, given that without Berlin’s approval neither Kosovo, nor Serbia, can have any European future.
Furthermore, I doubt very much that the EU’s five non-recognizers will recognize Kosovo, even if Serbia recognizes it explicitly, after the change of borders based on ethnic geopolitics, given that for the partition of territories in which their numerous minorities live, this can be interpreted as a precedent that is even more dangerous then the Kosovo’s independence itself. I can only imagine how can such a “historical agreement” be interpreted by Cyprus, Slovakia, or Romania, regardless of the fact that with their non-recognition of Kosovo they have contributed themselves for the opening of such an option, by emboldening Serbia, as well as by hindering Kosovo’s European future. Therefore, I fear that with “the correction of borders” Kosovo will lose both, the territory, and the perspective for the membership in the EU.
Koha Ditore: Does the President have the mandate to represent Kosovo in the final phase of the dialogue and to negotiate the borders of the state without the blessing from the Assembly? If not, do you see any actions that should be taken against him?
Peci: Nobody in Kosovo has the mandate to negotiate its borders, given that this is in contradiction with the Constitution of the country, from the point view of the territorial integrity, as well as of the territorial claims against any other country. On the other hand, I think that the President has no explicit constitutional obstacles to represent the country in the dialogue with Serbia, but he must represent the country and the unity of the people in this dialogue, first of all by building political unity – which he has abused and destroyed by bypassing the Assembly and the Government, as well as by talking, in opposition with the Constitution, for changing the borders of the country. So far as the opening of the issue of the changing of borders of the country in the dialogue with Belgrade is concerned, I think that there is sufficient space for treating the constitutionality of this Thaçi’s action by the Constitutional Court.
For me, it is very surprising how can Thaçi push with such a zeal his already common agenda with Vučić for “the correction of borders,” given that I assume that he knows how unlikely it is that it will be approved at the Assembly of Kosovo. But he is perhaps calculating exactly on the small-minded interests of the politicians from the position and opposition, which were shown so successful so far in the execution of the partition of Kosovo. We should not forget that with this type of political action Thaçi has kept himself effectively in power during the last 11 years. We should not exclude here Thaçi’s possible attempts to manipulate the passing of this option by bypassing the Assembly of Kosovo by asking for the opinion of the Constitutional Court. Regardless of the fact how difficult this is to be realized, it should not be neglected as a possible scenario.
On the other hand, the option of the approval of this agreement through referendum is absurd, given that this cannot be done, not only because Kosovo has no law on referendum – which Thaçi has a mandate to sponsor, but because the change of the Constitution of the country, including here of its borders, can be done only through parliamentary procedures which demand the approval of the two-thirds of the deputies, including the two-thirds of the deputies of non-majority communities. The epilogue of these actions leaves only two options to Thaçi: to be considered as the biggest Don Quixote of the Kosovar politics, or as a genius of political skills, and I don’t believe that there is any middle solution here.
Koha Ditore: How do you see the role of institutions and of political subjects regarding this development, and is there any danger that the Assembly will arrive in a stage in which it will deliver the North to Serbia, together with Ujman (Gazivoda), a part of Trepça, etc.?Read more
1. Tensions with Turkey: A Calleo Series Panel on Turkey and the West | Tuesday, September 4, 2018 | 5:30 pm – 7:00 pm | Johns Hopkins SAIS | Rome Auditorium, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW | Register Here
The SAIS European and Eurasian Studies (EES) Program cordially invites you to our Fall Seminar Series at the Washington campus. In tribute to his many contributions and support, series is named in honor of Professor David P. Calleo, who continues to inspire EES scholars through his research and engagement. View the series schedule and RSVP at https://calleoseminars.eventbrite.com.
Join us Tuesday, September 4, 2018 as we kick off the 2018-2019 academic year with a panel discussion on “Tensions with Turkey: A Calleo Series Panel on Turkey and the West.”
Confirmed speakers include:
Nicholas Danforth – Senior Analyst at Bipartisan Policy Center
Amanda Sloat – Robert Bosch senior fellow, Brookings Institution
Ambassador Eric Edelman – Johns Hopkins SAIS
Lisel Hintz – Assistant Professor of IR and European Studies, Johns Hopkins SAIS
RSVP and a valid JHU or government-issued ID is required for entry. Appetizers and drinks are served.
2. China’s “War on Terrorism” an the Xinjiang Emergency | Wednesday, September 5, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm | Hudson Institute | Register Here
For the last sixteen years, the Chinese Communist Party has been telling the Chinese people and the world at-large that it is waging its own “war on terrorism” in the Uyghur homeland of Xinjiang, known to Uyghurs as “East Turkestan.” Xinjiang has since become the most heavily garrisoned and surveilled part of the People’s Republic of China. As many as one million Uyghurs are now detained in Communist Party “political re-education” camps, where they have been subject to torture, medical maltreatment, and other abuses. Meanwhile, the “stability” of the region has become essential for PRC’s strategic “One Belt, One Road” initiative, and the Communist Party has used its influence around the world to stifle criticism of the human rights emergency in Xinjiang that it has created.
What is at stake for the Chinese Communist Party in Xinjiang? How has the PRC’s conduct and repression in Xinjiang affected its foreign relations, including with Pakistan, the countries of Central Asia, and the Middle East? What do we know about the policy debates among Chinese authorities and the people of China concerning Xinjiang and what, if any, are the dissenting views? What does the PRC’s conduct in Xinjiang tell us about the nature of the Communist Party’s power and the PRC’s ambitions to transform itself into a superpower?
On September 5, Hudson Institute will host a discussion on the PRC’s “war on terrorism.” The panel will include Dr. Michael Clarke, associate professor at the Australian National University; Louisa Greve, director of external affairs for the Uyghur Human Rights Project; Andrew Small, a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund; Sean Roberts, an associate professor at George Washington University; and Rushan Abbas, a former Uyghur Service journalist with Radio Free Asia. The discussion will be moderated by Hudson senior fellow Eric Brown.
3. Securing a Democratic World – A Case for a Democratic Values-Driven U.S. Foreign Policy | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 9:00 am – 10:30 am | Center for American Progress | Register Here
Liberal democracy around the world is under threat. The waves of democratization of the 1980s and 1990s have stalled. Democracies from Hungary to Turkey and Poland to the Philippines are backsliding. Autocracies such as China and Russia are attempting to undermine democracies from within. And here in the United States, democratic institutions face an unprecedented series of threats from the very leaders chosen to safeguard democracy.
It is increasingly clear that the future of U.S. national security and a liberal democratic world depends on America embracing democratic values, locking arms with its democratic allies to stem the rise of authoritarianism, and growing the community of democratic nations. This is the focus of an upcoming Center for American Progress report, “Securing a Democratic World: The Case for a Democratic Values-Driven U.S. Foreign Policy.”
To discuss the state of U.S. support for democracy around the world, the importance of democratic values in foreign policy, and what the United States should do going forward, please join CAP for a conversation with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) will share his perspective on the importance of democratic values in American foreign policy in a keynote address.
Speakers:
Keynote Remarks: Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Madeleine K. Albright – former U.S. Secretary of State
Kelly Magsamen – Vice President, National Security and International Policy, Center for American Progress
4. After Elections, What’s Next for Pakistan? | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 9:30 am – 1:00 pm | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
With the votes now counted and new assembly members sworn in, Pakistan’s July 25th elections have ushered in a change of civilian governments and a new coalition led by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party and its leader Imran Khan. Opposing parties, particularly the previous national incumbent party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, and the Pakistan People’s Party, have challenged the election results with claims of rigging, intimidation, and military influence.
Join USIP on September 6th for two panels that will explore the election results, the factors that influenced them, as well as looking forward towards their implications for the new government – its opportunities, challenges, and the future of Pakistan’s democracy. The first panel will examine the main electoral outcomes, including the role of gender, political parties and opposition forces in the election. The second panel will address the influence of actors outside the formal electoral system, including the role of the judiciary, military, religious parties, and electoral violence dynamics. Speakers will include academic experts and policy professionals. Join the conversation on Twitter with #USIPPakistan.
Agenda
9:30am – 11:00am – Panel 1: Analyzing the Main Electoral Results
Colin Cookman – Program Officer, U.S. Institute of Peace
Sarah Khan – Postgraduate Associate, Yale University
Mariam Mufti – Assistant Professor, University of Waterloo
Sahar Shafqat – Professor, St. Mary’s College of Maryland
Moderator: Jumaina Siddiqui, Senior Program Officer, U.S. Institute of Peace
11:15am – 12:45pm – Panel 2: Analyzing the Non-electoral Factors
Sahar Khan – Visiting Research Fellow, CATO Institute
Yasser Kureshi – PhD Candidate, Brandeis University
Niloufer Siddiqui – Assistant Professor, University of Albany
Joshua White – Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins University
Moderator: Tamanna Salikuddin, Senior Program Officer, U.S. Institute of Peace
5. The Enablers: How Western Professionals Import Corruption and Strengthen Authoritarianism | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 10:00 am – 11:30 am | Hudson Institute | Register Here
As globalization began breaking down divisions between Western elites and their counterparts in the Eastern hemisphere, some American legal, financial, and communications professionals sought new opportunities among clients with fortunes of dubious provenance.But instead of carrying the rule of law into corrupt societies, networking between U.S. professional services providers and kleptocrats linked to authoritarian regimes has undermined American values, democracy, and national security. Some of the most distinguished and influential professions have become importers of dirty money and underhand practices.
On September 6, 2018, join Hudson Institute’s Kleptocracy Initiative for a discussion of “The Enablers: How Western Professionals Import Corruption and Strengthen Authoritarianism,” a new report examining what policies are needed to close the loopholes commonly exploited by foreign kleptocrats and their professional facilitators in the United States.
Speakers:
Charles Davidson – Executive Director, Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute; Publisher, The American Interest
Elise Bean – Former Staff Director and Chief Counsel, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate
Mark Hays – Anti-Money Laundering Campaign Leader, Global Witness
Ben Judah – Research Fellow, Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute
Nate Sibley – Program Manager, Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute
6. The Future of the U.S.-Turkey Relationship in the Trump Administration | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 11:00 am – 12:30 pm | Turkish Heritage Organization | The City Club of Washington – President Room, 555 13th Street NW, Washington, DC 20004 | Register Here
The mutual endorsement of the Manbij roadmap was a positive step forward, since then the relations between the U.S. and Turkey have been nothing but hostile. From Pastor Andrew Brunson being rejected an appeal for release, U.S. sanctioning two Turkish officials and imposing tariffs on Turkish goods, Turkey reciprocating in the same manner with freezing assets of two U.S. officials, as well as ordering sanctions against U.S. products. Meanwhile, Congress has delayed the delivery of F-35s to Turkey. With a number of major developments in the relationship of the two strategic allies, we ask ourselves what comes next?
Please join THO on Thursday, September 6 to hear from our distinguished panel of experts as they analyze the Future of the U.S.-Turkey Relationship.
Speakers:
Moderator: Dr. Mark Meirowitz – Associate Professor, SUNY Maritime College; THO Advisory Board Member
Joel Rubin – Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for House Affairs, State Department
Molly Montgomery – VP at Albright Stonebridge Group, Former State Department and White House Senior Official
Akif Kirecci (via Skype) – President, Ankara Center for Political and Economic Research (ASEM)
7. War or Peace: The Struggle for WorldPower | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm | Heritage Foundation | Register Here
The Pax Americana – the global order established after the collapse of the Soviet Empire – is increasingly being challenged especially by former imperial behemoths China and Russia. There is a growing chorus questioning the so-called “Washington Consensus” in favor of a “Beijing Consensus” in economic policy. As the United States ceases to be the sole superpower willing and able to maintain a global PAX, today there is an increasing global “disorder.”
Deepak Lal offers a study of the causes and consequences for this disorder, examining alternative claims for a desirable future economic policy. He argues that the origins of this increasing disorder lie, in part, in the great economic recession of 2008 in the United States, which has tarnished the free market based capitalism of the West. He examines how the U.S. (and its European outpost, the E.U), China, Russia, India and, potentially, Japan will be involved in this new “Great Game” and how their strategic decisions will determine whether we see a repeat of the past, with potentially another completely unnecessary world war, or if they will succeed in avoiding a reversion to their earlier types.
8. Rethinking Human Rights and Islam | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Please join the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East for the launch of a new report, “The Islamic Tradition, Human Rights Discourse & Muslim Communities,” and a wide-ranging discussion of human rights issues facing Muslim communities around the world.
From the niqab ban in Denmark, to de-facto bans on freedom of expression in some Muslim majority countries, to the so-called Muslim Ban in the United States, Muslim communities around the world are faced with numerous challenges to human rights and attacks on personal freedoms. Still, contemporary conversations on Islam often question the compatibility of Islamic and Western values. Today, with millions of Muslims on the receiving end of numerous human rights violations at the hands of both Muslim majority and non-Muslim states, the current discourse is proving to be outdated and restrictive.
With generous support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Atlantic Council Nonresident Senior Fellow Dr. H.A. Hellyer engaged dozens of scholars, grassroots activists, and religious leaders on four continents on issues surrounding the human rights discourse and Muslim communities worldwide. The content of these critical engagements is captured in the new report: “The Islamic Tradition, Human Rights Discourse & Muslim Communities.”
To examine the issues addressed in the report, the Atlantic Council will bring together a panel of experts to discuss and offer their own perspectives on rethinking the dominant narrative on human rights and Islam.
Speakers:
Moderator: Adbul-Rehman Malik – Associate on Middle East Studies, Coordinator of the Muslim Social Justice Leadership Lab at the Dwight Hall Center for Social Justice, Yale University
Dr. Hisham A. Hellyer – Nonresident Senior Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, Atlantic Council
Dr. Dalia Fahmy – Associate Professor of Political Science, Long Island University
Dr. Mohammad Fadel – Associate Professor, Canada Research Chair, Law & Economics of Islamic Law, University of Toronto
Dr. Peter Mandaville – Professor of International Affairs, George Mason University ; Nonresident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
9. Iran and Al Qa’ida: The View from Abottabad| Friday, September 7, 2018 | 12:15 pm – 1:45 pm | New America | Register Here
In May 2018, President Trump announced that the Iran deal would be terminated. In doing so he accused Iran of supporting Al Qa‘ida. But what is the true relationship between Iran and Al Qa‘ida? In her new report Al-Qa‘ida’s Contested Relationship With Iran: The View from Abbottabad, New America Senior Fellow Nelly Lahoud cuts through the politicized discourse with an examination of almost 300 of Al Qa‘ida’s own documents regarding its relationship with Iran.
Nelly Lahoud is a Senior Fellow with New America’s International Security Program. She holds a Ph.D. from the Research School of Social Sciences — Australian National University. Her research has focused on the evolution and ideology of Al-Qa’ida (AQ) and the ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS/ISIL). She was previously an associate professor at the Department of Social Sciences and senior associate at the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point; and assistant professor of political theory, including Islamic political thought, at Goucher College.
Join the conversation online using #AQIran and following @NewAmericaISP.
Moderator: Peter Bergen – Vice President, New America; Director, International Security Program, New America
Speaker: Nelly Lahoud – Senior Fellow, New America International Security Program; Author, Al-Qa’ida’s Contested Relationship with Iran: The View from Abottabad
Those who favor a still ill-defined but all too real “border correction/land swap” between Serbia and Kosovo are justifying it on grounds that it would be legal. I think they are right: I don’t know of anything that prohibits sovereign states from exchanging territory and people, even if it has not been done a lot lately. But let’s be clear about two things:
The swap would exchange human beings as well as the land they live on. That’s fine for the Serbs in northern Kosovo and the Albanians in southern Serbia. But there are also Albanians who live in the parts of northern Kosovo Serbia wants, and Serbs who live in the parts of southern Serbia that Kosovo wants. Tens of thousands are going to end up moving.
Mutual recognition of sovereignty and territorial integrity would have to come before the exchange. A state not recognized as sovereign would be crazy to attempt a swap with a non-recognizer.
The arguments against the land swap are not legal. They are practical and realist.
Defenders of the proposition on the Pristina side are saying it would also have to include UN membership. That is something Belgrade cannot guarantee. Only the permanent members of the Security Council could do so. I haven’t heard anything yet that suggests Russia or China is prepared to let Kosovo’s UN membership through the Security Council. Russia will seek a quid pro quo, most likely US recognition of the annexation of Crimea as well as the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Russian puppet states inside Georgia. China will hesitate because of what it perceives as Tibetan independence aspirations. The only thing worse than Kosovo independence for Beijing would be rearranging its territory on an ethnic basis.
There are also good reasons inside Serbia and Kosovo to doubt that this swap is viable. Kosovo’s main water supply is in the Serb-controlled north. Would it be prepared to see that transferred to Serbia? Serbia’s main outlet to the sea is the north/south road through southern Serbia to Thessaloniki. The Serbian army has always wanted to keep not only the road but as much territory surrounding it as possible. Are the generals suddenly willing to give in?
Any land/people swap would also raise questions about the Serb population in Kosovo south of the Ibar river, where the majority live close by the most important Serb religious sites. That population is already aging. A land swap would undermine any confidence the Kosovo Serbs south of the Ibar have in their future. It would also create temptations for radical nationalist Albanians, since they will see any land swap as prelude to union with Albania, which is what the political movement that got the second largest number of votes in the last Kosovo election wants. That movement has split, but a land swap will vastly increase the appeal of its more radical faction.
I hardly need rehearse again all the other arguments against the swap proposition: Russian President Putin would welcome it. The liberal democratic ideals of the EU and US would be weakened. Not to mention that it would put Bosnia and Herzegovina at serious risk: Republika Srpska President Dodik has made it clear he is prepared to declare independence if a land swap occurs. Serbia won’t recognize the RS as independent because that would destroy its EU ambition, but Dodik won’t care. He’ll be happy to rule a Russian-sponsored satrapy like South Ossetia and Abkhazia, so long as Moscow provides the needed rubles.
What is the alternative to a land swap? Kosovo and Serbia need to institute the political and economic reforms required for EU membership. That is far more urgent, and popular in both countries, than a land swap. The closer Serbia gets to EU membership, the greater the pressure it will feel to recognize Kosovo, without a land/people swap. That’s good enough for me.
Hard not to write about John McCain, but most of what needs saying has been said: he was a Vietnam War hero, a stalwart supporter of a strong and democratizing American role in the world, and a flawed presidential candidate who lowered the level of electoral discourse with his choice of a know-nothing vice presidential candidate whose name should be forgotten. I disagreed with many of the Senator’s domestic policy preferences and didn’t vote for him, but give him ample credit for saving the Affordable Care Act at a crucial moment.
McCain liked to be called a maverick, but he only occasionally behaved like one. A Republican loyalist to the end, McCain was critical of President Trump but never quite broke with him completely. This is unfortunate, as he might have led a Congressional rebellion to limit Trump’s worst impulses. But to expect that of someone dying of a malignant brain tumor really is too much. McCain merits a lot of credit, especially for his principled stand on supporting human rights and democracy, at home and abroad.
It is apparently also too much to expect the President to show even minimal respect for a war hero whose entire life is admittedly a condemnation of Trump’s. He managed to issue a pro forma recognition of McCain a day or two after his death and to order flags flown at half mast, after pointedly refusing to answer questions about McCain and having the White House flag raised in a purposeful show of disrespect.
It is hard for me to understand how the US military puts up with Trump, never mind likes him. It is not only McCain he disdains. Trump has failed to visit troops in a conflict zone since becoming president. His most intense personal interest in the troops was on display when he needed them for his now-cancelled parade in Washington. The troops will be grateful that isn’t happening.
McCain’s death represents a big loss for American foreign policy. He was a stalwart of NATO and advocate for a strong American leadership role abroad. Trump thinks the allies are worthless and the leadership role too expensive. His Make America Great Again has amounted to making America alone again, as it was after the first world war when it declined to join the League of Nations. We know how well that worked.
Trump touts his trade deal with Mexico, which updates a small portion of NAFTA. It is only a little more real than his denuclearization agreement with North Korea and his “deal of the century” between Israel and the Palestinians, both of which amount to nothing. Never mind that the Mexicans have refused to pay for his wall and he is stiffing the Canadians over a few million additional dollars of dairy exports, wrecking relationships that the US should be treasuring.
Everyone is looking for a hedge against Trump’s bombast and unpredictability. My own today is to think about the other great American to be buried this week: Aretha Franklin. I saw and heard her at Radio City Music Hall about 1995, but here she is the year I graduated:
RSS - Posts
