Tag: Democracy and Rule of Law

Peace picks, April 9 – 15

Posted in Adam Friend, Sebastian Gerlach - April 8, 2018 - 0 Comment
  1. Russia and the European Court of Human Rights after 20 Years | Monday, April 9 | 9:30am – 11:00am | Wilson Center | Register here |

Despite ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights 20 years ago, the Russian government today remains widely criticized for its human rights record. Using the findings of the recent book Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: the Strasbourg Effect, the panel will discuss what socialization has taken place in Russia as a result of its participation in the ECHR system. Featuring Marina Agaltsova (Galina Starovoitova Fellow on Human Rights and Conflict Resolution, Human Rights Center), Maria Issaeva (Threefold Legal Advisers, Moscow), and Lauri Mälksoo (Professor of International Law, University of Tartu, Estonia).

___________________________________________________________

  1. The Race is On: 2018 Electoral Landscape Starts to Take Shape in Brazil | Monday, April 9 | 10:00am – 12:00pm | Wilson Center | Register here |

Join the Wilson Center for a conversation with leading political analysts, six months out from perhaps the most consequential election since Brazil’s return to democracy and just days after the Brazilian Supreme Court voted to reject former President Lula’s request to remain free while he appeals a corruption conviction, likely ending his bid for the presidency. The looming April 7th deadline for prospective candidates for the presidency of Brazil to affiliate with a political party and resign from their current executive positions will also help to define an electoral landscape that has been unusually difficult to predict. Although opinion polls at this early stage often tell us little about an election’s eventual outcome, the field of contenders is beginning to take shape and will soon provide the first real indications of where this race could be headed. Featuring David Fleischer (Professor Emeritus, University of Brasilia), Christopher Garman (Managing Director for the Americas, Eurasia Group), Mauricio Moura (CEO and Founder, IDEIA Big Data), and Ricardo Sennes (Director and Partner, Prospectiva Consultoria Internacional). With introductory remarks by Paulo Sotero (Director, Brazil Institute, Wilson Center). There will be a live webcast of this event.

___________________________________________________________

  1. The Russian Way of Warfare | Monday, April 9 | 10:30am – 12:00pm | CSIS | Register here |

After ten years of military modernization and defense reform, Russia’s military is now a reliable instrument of national power that can be used in a limited context to achieve vital national interests. Russian strategists, concerned about instability along the Russian periphery or an aerospace attack on the Russian heartland, are focused on preserving influence in buffer states and on reinforcing defensive bulwarks. Russian military strategy and operations show an increasing degree of coordination, deception, and simultaneity to achieve objectives quickly while minimizing vulnerabilities. What does the evolution of Russia’s armed forces, its strategy, and the way it uses force tell us about the future? Featuring Scott Boston (Defense Analyst, RAND), Dara Massicot (Policy Researcher, RAND), Olga Oliker (Senior Adviser and Director, Russia and Eurasia Program, CSIS), and Michael Kofman (Research Scientist, Russia Studies Program, CNA) as moderator. There will be a live webcast of this event.

___________________________________________________________

  1. Mexico Elections 2018: A Referendum on Populism? | Monday, April 9 | 6:00pm – 7:30pm | Johns Hopkins SAIS | Register here |

Join the Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) for insights on the state of the Mexican political and economic climate ahead of the country’s upcoming presidential election. Featuring Dr. Monica de Bolle (Practitioner in Residence, Johns Hopkins University SAIS & Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics), Dr. Antonio Ortiz-Mena (Senior Vice President, Albright Stonebridge Group & Former Head of Economic Affairs, Embassy of Mexico in the United States), Mr. Christopher Wilson (Deputy Director, Mexico Institute, Wilson Center), and Dr. Riordan Roett (Professor & Director, Latin American Studies Program, Johns Hopkins University SAIS) as moderator.

___________________________________________________________

  1. The UN’s New “Sustaining Peace” Agenda | Wednesday, April 11 | 9:30am – 11:00am | Stimson Center | Register here |

From North Africa and the Middle East to South Sudan, Ukraine, and Afghanistan, the past several years have witnessed a marked uptick in political violence within states, reversing the trend recorded since the end of the Cold War. In 2016 alone, more countries experienced violent conflict than at any time in nearly 30 years, including the continued sharp rise in terrorist attacks. Earlier this year, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres released his Report on Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace to inform a related UN General Assembly High-Level Meeting planned for April 24-25, 2018 in New York. This panel discussion will explore whether and how best the UN’s new “Sustaining Peace” Agenda can help to reduce violence substantially in fragile and conflict-affected countries, while building more just, inclusive, and resilient societies. Featuring Ambassador Tariq Al-Ansari (Director of the Department of International Cooperation, Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Charles Call (Associate Professor, American University), Eric Gaudiosi (Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, DOS), Corinne Graff (Senior Policy Scholar, USIP), Elizabeth Hume (Senior Director for Programs and Strategy, Alliance for Peacebuilding), and Richard Ponzio (Director, Just Security 2020 Program, Stimson & Co-Chair, UNA-NCA Peace & Security Committee) as moderator.

___________________________________________________________

  1. The French-American Alliance in an America-First Era | Thursday, April 12 | 10:30am – 12:00pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |

In April 2018, President Donald Trump will host French President Emmanuel Macron for the first state visit of the US president’s term. As these two unlikely partners meet again, the visit will signal a pivotal moment in the bilateral relationship between the United States and France that has matured markedly in the last decade. It could set the stage for continued deep cooperation that has flourished in recent years or preface a return to competitive rivalry in an occasionally tempestuous relationship between Washington and Paris. On the occasion of the launch of Non-Resident Senior Fellow Jeff Lightfoot’s report “The French-American Alliance in an America-First Era,” the Future Europe Initiative will convene a panel of experts to discuss this forthcoming state visit as well as assess the outlook of the US-French relationship more broadly. Featuring H.E. Gérard Araud (Ambassador, Embassy of France in the United States), Ms. Susan Glasser (Staff Writer, The New Yorker), and Mr. Pierre-Andre Imbert (Social Policy Advisor, Office of the President of the Republic of France).

___________________________________________________________

  1. Palestine in Political Limbo: What the Loss of the Two-State Framework Means for Palestinians | Thursday, April 12 | 1:00pm – 3:00pm | New America | Register here |

The emerging consensus is that the two-state solution is all but dead, largely due to the continuing expansion of Israeli settlement colonies in the occupied Palestinian territory and President Trump’s proclamation recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. How will Israel’s efforts to legalize certain aspects of its occupation under its domestic law impact Palestinians in historic Palestine and in the diaspora? Will Israel’s warming relations with the Arab world complicate or facilitate a just solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict? What role might the international community play as Israel attempts to extend its sovereignty over Palestine? Might recent events have opened up new opportunities for Palestinians to re-imagine Palestine? Featuring Zena Agha (Co-founder and Executive Director, Al-Shabaka), Yara Hawari (US Policy Fellow, Al-Shabaka), Nadia Hijab (Palestine Policy Fellow, Al-Shabaka), and Zaha Hassan (Middle East Fellow, New America).

___________________________________________________________

  1. The Venezuelan Refugee Crisis: Challenges and Solutions | Friday, April 13 | 10:00am – 11:30am | Brookings Institution | Register here |

The current mass exodus of Venezuelans into neighboring Colombia, Brazil, and other South American countries has the potential to wreak havoc in border communities and budgets. Official figures place the number of Venezuelan residents in Colombia at 600,000 and in Brazil at around 40,000, with observers on the ground estimating the real numbers to be much higher. To manage such an enormous challenge, the international community—including the U.N. system, international institutions, and other private, public, and multilateral stakeholders—will have to work together to mobilize the necessary resources and forge a collective response that provides relief to suffering Venezuelans fleeing their country. Featuring Karen L. Freeman (Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, USAID), Matthew Reynolds (regional representative for the United States and the Caribbean, UN High Commissioner for Refugees), and Dany Bahar (David M. Rubenstein Fellow, Brookings Institution) as moderator. With introductory remarks by Ted Piccone (Senior Fellow, Latin America Initiative and Charles W. Robinson Chair, Brookings).

___________________________________________________________

  1. Ending Civil Wars: How Can We Succeed with Limited Opportunities? | Friday, April 13 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register here |

As a part of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ ongoing project on Civil Wars, Violence and International Responses, the second volume of a special issue of the journal Dædalus was released in January 2018 to explore trends in civil wars and solutions moving forward. Join us as experts discuss their findings and recommendations on how the United States can better respond to intrastate conflict and promote both development and stability to create lasting peace. Featuring Nancy Lindborg (President, USIP), Dr. Stephen Biddle (Professor, George Washington University), Stephen Krasner (Professor, Stanford University), Barry Posen (Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Clare Lockhart (Director and Co-Founder, Institute for State Effectiveness), and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry (Director, U.S.-Asia Security Initiative, Stanford University) as moderator.

Tags : , , , , , , , ,

A game of chicken

Posted in Daniel Serwer - April 7, 2018 - 0 Comment

President Trump thinks a trade war will be easy to win.

When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy!

Like so much of what he says, that is false.

Let’s consider the warring parties. The US still has the larger economy, but exports much less to China than it imports from China. Trump has tweeted we therefore have less to lose. But that nonsense is based on the notion that imports represent losses and exports represent gains. That just isn’t true: for everything sold by China in the US, there is a willing buyer. Ditto in China: for everything the US sells there, there is also a willing buyer. US imports of Chinese goods and services, and Chinese imports of US goods and services, are a net plus for consumers in both countries, no matter what their impact on producers.

So the question is not who has less to lose, but rather the more canonical one in negotiation theory: who has a better alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA)? It is true that China will run out of US products it can levy tariffs on faster than the US will run out of products it can levy tariffs on, but that really doesn’t matter. China is a highly centralized polity that has lots of levers it can pull to hurt US companies doing business in China, which by the way are also main importers of US products. The US government will have a harder time doing this, because it lacks the same degree of control over American media, business associations, consumer groups, and politicians. Trump is already getting a lot of backlash against the tariffs from the agricultural sector, which the Chinese have targeted with their retaliation.

Centralized control is however also a vulnerability for China. At the national level, there are no “safety valves” to release social and political pressures that build up against the tariffs. Trump may lose big in the November election, in part because he has precipitated a big trade war, but he will remain in power (unless impeached and removed from office for other reasons). Xi Jinping has no election he can lose but still hold on to power, free media that can air grievances, or civil society to pressure his regime. Discontent could go directly to the street, especially if the trade war precipitates China’s first post-Communist recession. An autocracy has one main instrument–the security forces–to use against its people in the street. Tienanmen hinted how risky and deadly its use can be.

So who is more resilient? Is it the liberal democracy with limited presidential control that allows for dissent, protest, and political opposition? Or is it the autocracy that controls the levers of power but leaves no room for dissent, protest, an political opposition? I would prefer not to find out, but I’ll enjoy that luxury only if Xi or Trump backs down.

My bet is on Trump to flinch first. He is all bully and bluster, not to mention the damage that the tariffs will do to China’s willingness to be helpful with North Korea and to the American economy. Xi has consolidated power and can’t flinch without losing face in a way that would put his hold on power at risk. His lack of resiliency means he has reason to be more inflexible, not less. In the short run, he has the advantage in a game of chicken. He’ll do his best, by targeting the tariffs against those states that voted for Trump, to make sure we never get to the long term. The US stock and labor markets are already signaling distress at the consequences, and the Fed will have to consider raising rates to counter the inflationary impact of the tariffs as well as the recent tax cut and budget deal. Trump  will need to have more staying power than he has demonstrated on many issues so far to win this game of chicken.

 

Tags : , , ,

Russia should be job 1

Posted in Daniel Serwer - March 29, 2018 - 1 Comment

Far be it from me to in any way align myself with John Bolton, but there are things he could get the Administration to do consistent with at least some of his stated positions that would be preferable to the hodge-podge of contradictory signals Washington is currently sending on foreign policy.

For the moment, President Trump has prioritized the Iran nuclear deal. He is trying to use his threat to withdraw as leverage to get the Europeans to agree to amend the deal in order to gain access to Iranian military sites, restrain Tehran’s missile program, and end the “sunset” (expiration) clauses. His self-imposed deadline is May 12, when Congress requires him to certify once again that the deal is in the US interest. He didn’t do that last time around and said he would withdraw if the agreement wasn’t fixed by the next deadline.

Withdrawing from the deal is patently not in the US national interest. Either Iran will also withdraw and re-initiate its nuclear program, giving it the potential for nuclear weapons within a year or so. Or Tehran and Brussels will decide to proceed without the US, splitting the Western alliance on a vital issue. US withdrawal would also spell the end of any distant hope (but see below) for a deal with North Korea, as Pyongyang would be correct to conclude that the US can’t be trusted to hold up its end, and strain relations further with China and Russia (who helped negotiate the agreement with Iran and continue to support it). There are simply no gains from withdrawal, only losses, unless you want to provide yourself with an excuse to go to war. That means risking the Sixth Fleet as well as numerous US bases and troops in the Gulf and Iraq, as well as attacks elsewhere in the Middle East and even inside the US.

Another apparent priority is North Korea. It already has nuclear weapons and credible if not certain means to deliver them, at least against US forces and allies in South Korea, Japan, and Guam. The odds of successfully negotiating “denuclearization” with Pyongyang are risible. There simply is no better protection for North Korea against an American attempt at regime change than Kim Jung-un’s nukes. Once again, the only real option to “denuclearize” is war. The consequences would be worse than catastrophic: at the very least a massive artillery barrage by the North against Seoul, killing tens of thousands, if not a nuclear exchange.

A third priority for Trump has been trade, in particular the North American Free Trade Agreement, (that is, Canada and Mexico) as well as China’s intellectual property expropriation and excess capacity in steel and aluminum. There is little hope of anything good coming of Trump’s unilateral measures (tariffs on steel and aluminum as well as on Chinese products), beyond the agreement already reached with South Korea (which has lots of reasons to be nice to the US these days). Tariffs are a blunt tool that has nothing to do with intellectual property theft, and the US doesn’t import much steel or aluminum from China. It does from Canada and Mexico, which have already been exempted from the tariffs, whose main impact will be to raise prices to American consumers (not only for steel and aluminum but for all the products in which they are used).

The remaining priority is Russia, which has distinguished itself in recent years by defying the norms of the liberal international order: murdering its opponents abroad and at home (including with nerve gas in a public place!), refusing to leave parts of other countries (Moldova and Abkhazia), annexing Crimea, invading Ukraine, threatening the Baltics as well as Sweden and Finland, meddling in democratic elections while making its own non-competitive, and intervening to slaughter the relatively moderate opposition as well as thousands of civilians in Syria while launching a mercenary attack on US troops and allies there. Moscow is the capital of a state that has gone rogue.

Bolton is no friend of Russia. He recognizes and has denounced most if not all of the offenses listed here. The problem is the President. While the Administration rightly boasts that it has done more against Russia (in expulsion of diplomats and sanctions) than Obama did (partly because Russia has done more against the US than in Obama’s time), President Trump has still not uttered a word of criticism against Vladimir Putin. Such consistency is not his normal habit and raises the question worldwide whether the US really speaks with one voice. That incoherence limits the impact of the modest moves made so far to counter Russia’s troublemaking.

It seems to me the right order of priorities is this:

  1. Russia: pushback worldwide, with a view to reaching a new, more balanced, modus vivendi
  2. Iran: no withdrawal from the nuclear deal but instead get it and its proxies out of Syria, where they pose a threat to Israel
  3. Trade: by using the WTO and other well-established multilateral mechanisms, not unilateral tariffs and exceptions that will shift imports but do little to limit them
  4. North Korea: deterrence is really the only option

More in a future post on how to accomplish at least 1 and 2.

 

Tags : , , , , , , ,

Fragile states pose security threats

Posted in Sebastian Gerlach - March 25, 2018 - 0 Comment

State fragility is on the rise. In recent years, civil wars have proliferated throughout the world. In 2015, the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) reported 49 active intrastate conflicts, the highest number since 1991; likewise, casualties have increased consistently during the past 25 years. These developments are worrying. In contrast to most interstate conflict, civil wars are extremely difficult to resolve. Studies on intrastate conflicts since 1945 have shown that civil wars tend to last an average of about seven to twelve years, making their repercussions tremendous. As the brutal civil war in Syria exemplifies, the fallout includes humanitarian crises, the rise of extremist organizations, and regional political instability. Policy makers in the West must thus adopt more effective policies to stabilize fragile and failed states.

On March 19, the United States Institute of Peace hosted a high-profile panel discussing how the United States and the international community can address better the national security challenges stemming from state fragility. Nancy Lindborg, President of the US Institute of Peace, was joined by Ilan Goldenberg, Director of the Middle East Security Program at Center for a New American Security, and Kimberly Kagan, founder and President of the Institute for the Study of War. Joshua Johnson, host of NPR’s program 1A, moderated the discussion.

 

 

State fragility poses critical security threats. According to Nancy Lindborg, fragile states are characterized by the inability to provide basic public goods such as security and lack political legitimacy as governments typically exclude parts of their citizenry from participating in politics, the country’s social life, and the economy. As a result, fragile states suffer from weak institutions and are less able to manage shocks like disasters and conflict. In this respect, Ilan Goldenberg emphasizes that fragile states often require merely a spark to disintegrate. Collapsing states create serious security vacuums. As outside actors are concerned about losing political influence, they are incentivized to intervene. This generally exacerbates and perpetuates the conflicts already unfolding within failed states.

Syria is a prime example for this vicious dynamic. Goldenberg argues that the 2011 Arab Spring caused the disintegration of the Syrian state and ignited a domestic conflict, which has developed into a regional and international fight over influence in the Levant. Today, Syria is divided into five different zones of influence: a Jordanian-supported rebel pocket in southwestern Syria, the Iran-backed Assad regime in the center of the country, an al-Qaeda safe haven in the province of Idlib, a Turkish-controlled territory in the north, and a Kurdish canton that enjoys US support. Conflict erupts at the intersections of these “tectonic plates.” To pacify Syria, all involved parties must first agree on long-term political arrangements concerning these hotspots before a national reconciliation project can be launched. Goldenberg is however not hopeful that positive change will occur soon. Kimberly Kagan affirms this observation and stresses that the diverging interests of the foreign actors involved in Syria impede any peace progress.

YPG and U.S. army in Hassaka, Syria. Source: Qasioun News Agency, Wikimedia Commons.

To avoid more Syria-like scenarios, the United States must invest more effort in stabilizing fragile states and pacifying failed states. Given U.S. economic strength, Lindborg argues that Washington has a moral obligation to help fragile states. Support must thereby exceed simple humanitarian assistance and rather address the sources of fragility. Kagan highlights that moral obligations often align with political and security interests such as counteracting breeding grounds of terrorism. She thus advocates more US engagement in form of a balanced hard and soft power approach to help fragile states recover themselves and create situations whereby governance can return. Goldenberg adds that the United States also acts as a role model in addressing state fragility. If the US demonstrates leadership, other states follow suit.

However, Washington is currently unwilling to meets is obligation of providing stability around the world. Lindborg points out that US policies are too reactive. Although consecutive administrations have identified state fragility as a key security threat, they have only responded to crises after they had become far too problematic. The United States is in a state of “hunkering down” whereby Americans are “tired of playing world police.”

It is clear, however, that the United States and European states must tackle state fragility more proactively. While conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, or South and Central America often appear to be localized problems at first glance, they have critical repercussions on the political, societal, and economic situation in the developed world. The international refugee crises and its impact on European and US politics is evidence enough for this circumstance.

Tags : , , , , ,

Peace picks, March 26 – April 1

Posted in Adam Friend, Sebastian Gerlach - March 24, 2018 - 0 Comment
  1. Will the Russians Meddle in Latin American Elections? | Monday, March 26 | 9:30am – 11:00am | Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS) | Register here |

2018 will see presidential elections in several countries across Latin America, notably in Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, and Venezuela. This event will discuss Russia’s strategic interests in Latin America, including how the region should prepare for potential Russian meddling in upcoming presidential elections. Featuring Javier Lesaca (Visiting Scholar, School of Media and Public Affairs, GWU) and David Salvo (Resident Fellow, Alliance for Securing Democracy, GMF).

This event will be webcast live.

___________________________________________________________

  1. The New Geopolitics of Turkey and the West | Monday, March 26 | 10:30am – 12:00pm | Brookings Institution | Register here |

Turkey’s relations with the United States and the European Union are under significant strain, and they are likely to remain difficult ahead of Turkey’s parliamentary and presidential elections, scheduled for 2019. Ankara and Washington remain at loggerheads over the way forward in Syria; several EU member states have been calling for an end to the accession process; and Turkey’s domestic politics are raising further questions about Turkey’s place in the trans-Atlantic alliance. Yet, there is much at stake: Turkey is facing threats from terrorism, struggling to manage 3.5 million Syrian refugees, and dealing with the aftermath of a failed coup. Europe and the United States have shared interests in addressing regional challenges with Turkey, especially as Russia seeks to expand its influence in the region. So how should the West handle this important but challenging ally? Featuring Eric Edelman (Roger Hertog Distinguished Practitioner-in-Residence, SAIS), Kemal Kirişci (Director, The Turkey Project, Brookings), Amanda Sloat (Robert Bosch Senior Fellow, Center on the United States and Europe), and Stephen F. Szabo (Senior Fellow, American Institute for Contemporary German Studies). Lisel Hintz (Assistant Professor of International Relations and European Studies, SAIS) will moderate the discussion.

___________________________________________________________

  1. US in a Post-ISIS Iraq and Syria: Realigning Allies and Constraining Adversaries | Monday, March 26 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Hudson Institute | Register here |

In the Post-ISIS Middle East, Iran, Bashar al-Assad, and Russia continue to pose challenges for the U.S. as the Trump Administration develops its policy for Iraq and Syria. Turkey’s expansion of its Syria operations has the U.S. and NATO allies concerned that Turkish actions in the region run counter to NATO goals. Additionally, cooperation between Russia and Iran continues to disrupt the balance of power in the region. Hudson Institute will host a panel to explore U.S. options to realign our allies with traditional NATO and U.S. positions, hold adversaries responsible for atrocities, and prevent security backsliding in the region. Featuring Hillel Fradkin (Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute), Michael Pregent (Adjunct Fellow, Hudson Institute), Jennifer Cafarella (Senior Intelligence Planner, Institute for the Study of War), and Dr. Nahro Zagros (Vice President, Soran University).

___________________________________________________________

  1. Addressing the Ongoing Humanitarian Crisis in Nigeria | Monday, March 26 | 2:00pm – 3:30pm | Brookings Institution | Register here |

Widespread violence has plagued Nigeria over the years, with an epicenter of activity in northeast parts of the country. Much of this violence is related to the Boko Haram insurgency, although other battles between ethnic groups have also intensified, largely over land and partly due to a growing drought. Despite some success by Nigerian security forces in tamping down violence, lives continue to be lost and communities displaced. All of this is ongoing as the country prepares to hold elections next year. Featuring Alexandra Lamarche (Advocate, Refugees International), Mark Yarnell (UN Liaison and Senior Advocate, Refugees International), and Vanda Felbab-Brown (Senior Fellow, Brookings). Michael O’Hanlon (Senior Fellow, Brookings) will moderate the conversation, while adding his own perspectives.

___________________________________________________________

  1. Russian Influence in Moldova | Monday, March 26 | 3:30pm – 5:00pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |

Since emerging from the Soviet Union as an independent country, the Republic of Moldova has faced various challenges. Moldova, together with Ukraine and Georgia, were “captive nations” of the former Soviet Union; today, the three countries are still affected by Russian interference. For Moldova, the autonomous region of Transnistria raises questions regarding the state’s path forward with various international bodies, and the Kremlin still has clear influence in Moldovan politics. With Moldovan parliamentary elections approaching this year, the stakes are high for Moldova’s future as a free, whole, and secure European state. Featuring Ambassador John Herbst (Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council), Dr. William Hill (Global Fellow, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and Professor, National Defense University), Dumitru Mînzărari (State Secretary for Defense Policy and International Cooperation, Ministry of Defense, Republic of Moldova), and Agnieszka Gmys-Wiktor (Program Officer, National Endowment for Democracy). Mark Simakovsky (Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council and Vice President, Beacon Global Strategies) will moderate the discussion.

___________________________________________________________

  1. Elections in Tunisia and Hope for Democratic Reform | Thursday, March 29 | 10:00am – 11:30am | Middle East Institute | Register here |

Leading up to long-awaited municipal elections, Tunisia is at a crossroads. The beginning of 2018 saw widespread protests and social unrest in both cities and rural areas, as economic stagnation and unemployment continue to worsen. However, the vote currently set for May 6 signals an opportunity for Tunisian youth, women, and minorities to make their voices heard. How might the elections encourage confidence among Tunisians in a transparent democratic process? Could the results promote or undermine Tunisia’s fragile stability? How can the international community better support Tunisia and its government to address the rising social tensions? The Middle East Institute is pleased to host Ambassador Fayçal Gouia (Ambassador of Tunisia to the United States) and Elie Abouaoun (Director, Middle East and North Africa Programs, USIP) for a panel discussion to examine Tunisia’s political challenges—both local and national—ahead of the elections. Paul Salem (Senior Vice President for Policy Research and Programs, MEI) will moderate the discussion.

___________________________________________________________

  1. Securing Their Roles: Women in Constitution-Making | Thursday, March 29 | 10:00am – 11:30am | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register here |

Women’s participation in drafting constitutions leads to more equitable legal frameworks and socially inclusive reforms, laying the groundwork for sustainable peace. Yet new research from Inclusive Security reveals that while 75 conflict-affected countries oversaw significant reform processes between 1995-2015, only one in five constitutional drafters in these environments have been women. As actors from Syria, Libya, and other countries marked by violence are taking steps towards building new constitutions, USIP and Inclusive Security are convening a panel to draw out lessons for policymakers by discussing women’s roles in constitution-making, gender equality in constitutional provisions – including in relation to constitutions developed with an Islamic identity—and their implications for long-term, inclusive peace and security. Featuring Palwasha Kakar (Senior Program Officer, Religion and Inclusive Societies, USIP), Marie O’Reilly (Director of Research & Analysis, Inclusive Security), Amira Yahyaoui (Founder, Al Bawsala), and Jason Gluck (Policy Specialist, Political Dialogues and Constitutional Processes, UNDP). Carla Koppell (Vice President, Applied Conflict Transformation, USIP) will moderate the discussion.

___________________________________________________________

  1. Ukraine’s Future Leaders on the Front-lines of Change | Thursday, March 29 | 4:00pm – 5:30pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |

In the four years since the end of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine has not answered its most important question: how will the country ensure democratic values in its future development? Much of Ukraine’s hope lies in its young leaders who will drive the country forward in the coming years. Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) has been fortunate to provide a year-long residency to some of these future leaders as part of the inaugural year of the Center’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program. This event will feature this year’s Ukrainian leaders Oleksandra Matviichuk (Chairwoman, Center for Civil Liberties), Dmytro Romanovych (Member, Reform Delivery Office of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine), and Olexandr Starodubtsev (Head, Public Procurement Regulation Department, the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine). They will each discuss their own perspectives on opportunities and challenges to democracy and development in their home country, as well as objectives for strengthening public administration, civil society, and economic reforms upon their return to Ukraine With introductory remarks by Ambassador John Herbst (Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council) and a keynote address by Dr. Francis Fukuyama (Mosbacher Director, CDDRL, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University). Melinda Haring (Editor, UkraineAlert, Atlantic Council) will moderate the discussion.

___________________________________________________________

  1. After Syria: The United States, Russia, and the Future of Terrorism | Friday, March 29 | 10:00am -11:30am | Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS) in partnership with EastWest Institute | Register here |

The collapse of Islamic State control in Syria has been hailed in both Russia and the United States as a victory over terrorism. Both credit their country’s military involvement with victory. But the war that continues in Syria also lays bare Moscow and Washington’s conflicting definitions and approaches when it comes to terrorism, insurgency, and combat operations. Moreover, even if a path to stabilization in that country is found, America and Russia will continue to face terrorism and terrorists at home and abroad. The ways in which these two crucial countries respond as the threat evolves will shape both their own polities and the world as a whole. Featuring Dr. Kim Cragin (Senior Research Fellow for Counterterrorism, National Defense University), Dr. Ekaterina Stepanova (Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Unit, Institute of World Economy and International Relations), Dr. Irina Zvyagelskaya (chief research fellow, Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Oriental Studies), and Dr. Seth Jones (Harold Brown Chair; Director, Transnational Threats Project; and Senior Adviser, International Security Program, CSIS). Dr. Olga Oliker (Senior Adviser and Director, Russia and Eurasia Program, CSIS) will moderate the discussion.

This event will be webcast live.

Tags : , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Peace picks, March 19 – March 25

Posted in Adam Friend, Sebastian Gerlach - March 18, 2018 - 0 Comment
  1. Japan’s Balancing Between Nuclear Disarmament and Deterrence | Monday, March 19 | 1:00pm – 2:30pm | Stimson Center | Register here |

Join us for the launch of Balancing Between Nuclear Deterrence and Disarmament: Views from the Next Generation. This volume offers analyses by five scholars who examine the complex question of how Japan should balance between its short-term requirement for effective nuclear deterrence and its long-term desire for a nuclear-free world in the face of increasing uncertainty relating to nuclear weapons in its own neighborhood. Yuki Tatsumi leads a panel discussion of the report with its five authors: Masahiro Kurita, Fellow at the National Institute for Defense Studies in the Ministry of Defense of Japan; Wakana Mukai, Assistant Professor at the Faculty of International Relations, Asia University; Masashi Murano, Research Fellow at the Okazaki Institute; Masahiro Okuda (joining via pre-recorded remarks), Ph.D. candidate at the Takushoku University Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies; and Heigo Sato, Vice President of the Institute for World Studies at Takushoku University.

___________________________________________________________

  1. Foreign Policy and Fragile States | Monday, March 19 | 2:00pm – 3:00pm | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register here |

Seven years into a brutal civil war in Syria, we are reminded how fragile states can lead to regional instability, cause humanitarian crises, and fall prey to extremist organizations such as ISIS. In this discussion, we’ll ask how the United States and the international community can address these national security challenges. How should U.S. assistance be prioritized and allocated? What is the difference between stabilizing a country versus nation building? How can the international community help a country like Syria? What lessons can be learned from efforts in countries, such as Nigeria and Colombia, preventing violence? And ultimately, how can we get ahead of the underlying causes of fragility that lead to and perpetuate violent conflict? Join leading experts at the United States Institute of Peace to discuss these vital questions. With Nancy Lindborg, President of the U.S. Institute of Peace; Ilan Goldenberg, Director of the Middle East Security Program at Center for a New American Security; Kimberly Kagan, Founder and President of the Institute for the Study of War. Moderated by Joshua Johnson, host of NPR’s program 1A.

This event will be live-taped for future broadcast on Public Radio International’s America Abroad and WAMU’s 1A.

___________________________________________________________

  1. Looking Ahead at the Next Presidential Term in Russia | Monday, March 19 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |

Few doubt that Vladimir Putin will be re-elected to a fourth presidential term on March 18, but there are many questions regarding what that election outcome will mean for Russia’s future. Putin’s main competitor, Alexei Navalny, was barred from participating and has called for a boycott. While a widespread boycott is unlikely, the number of recent protests suggest that political dissatisfaction is growing among at least a well-organized minority. Many questions also remain about where the next Putin Administration will take the Russian political system, economy, and foreign policy. The Atlantic Council will host a discussion on what’s next for the Russian government and population during the new presidential term. With Dr. Anders Åslund (Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council), Vladimir Kara-Murza (Chairman, Boris Nemtsov Foundation for Freedom), Dr. Lilia Shevtsova (Associate Fellow, Chatham House), and Ambassador Alexander Vershbow (Distinguished Fellow, Atlantic Council); moderated by Ambassador John Herbst (Director of the Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council).

___________________________________________________________

  1. Charting a Path Forward for the Democratic Republic of the Congo | Tuesday, March 20 | 10:00am – 11:30am | Brookings Institution (hosted by Service Employees International Union) | Register here |

Amid rising turmoil in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), President Joseph Kabila remains in power despite a constitutional mandate calling for the end of his rule in December 2016. Although the next round of presidential and parliamentary elections is now scheduled for December of this year, and opposition leaders are gearing up for a fight, there is considerable uncertainty regarding Kabila’s real intentions. Facing numerous calls from Western leaders to step down, regional nations such as Botswana have also called attention to the rise in violence as an effect of Kabila’s corrosive hold on the DRC. The Foreign Policy program at Brookings, in collaboration with Stand With Congo, will host a discussion on the current state of the DRC as violence rises and elections are purportedly on the horizon. Panelists will include Tom Perriello, former U.S. special envoy for the African Great Lakes and Congo-Kinshasa; Omékongo Dibinga, professor at American University; and EJ Hogendoorn from the International Crisis Group. Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon will moderate the conversation.

___________________________________________________________

  1. Challenges to Democracy in the Digital Age | Wednesday, March 21 | 9:30am – 11:00am | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register here |

While the United States and the European Union have different approaches to privacy and data protection, both are critical partners to protecting freedom online. Europe and the United States have faced an escalation of hate speech, terrorist content, fake news, and misinformation online. They both encounter challenges in accessing electronic evidence for investigative purposes and in protecting personal data against cyberattacks. Join CSIS on Wednesday, March 21 for a timely conversation with H.E. Věra Jourová, EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers, and Gender Equality, on the EU approach to the challenges democracies face in the digital age. The subsequent panel will review transatlantic efforts to countering hate speech, misinformation, and protecting personal data. Featuring Renate Nikolay, Head of Commissioner Jourová’s Cabinet; with CSIS experts James Andrew Lewis, Heather A. Conley, and Samm Sacks.

This event will be webcast live from this page.

___________________________________________________________

  1. Hidden Wounds: Trauma and Civilians in the Syrian Conflict | Wednesday, March 21 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register here |

Seven years of conflict in Syria have exacted an enormous human toll and led to widespread physical destruction. The psychological impact of the war, although less visible, has been just as devastating. The levels of trauma and distress impacting Syrian civilians have been staggering, with nearly 500,000 killed, half the population displaced, and more than 13 million Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance. The traumatic impact of the Syrian conflict is less often acknowledged, but could significantly impair the ability of Syrian civilians to recover and build a more peaceful future. Please join USIP and specialists from the Syrian American Medical Society, the U.S State Department and Save the Children for a panel discussion, addressing an aspect of the Syrian conflict that often receives less attention than it deserves. Featuring Catherine Bou-Maroun of the U.S. Department of State, Dr. Mohamed Khaled Hamza of the Syrian-American Medical Society, and Amy Richmond of Save the Children. The panel will be moderated by Mona Yacoubian of USIP, with opening remarks from USIP President Nancy Lindborg.

___________________________________________________________

  1. Transnational Organized Crime in Latin America and the Caribbean | Wednesday, March 21 | 3:00pm – 4:30pm | Hudson Institute | Register here |

On March 21, Hudson Institute will host a panel to discuss transnational organized crime in Latin America. The panel will discuss a new book, Transnational Organized Crime in Latin America and the Caribbean: From Evolving Threats and Responses to Integrated Adaptive Solutions, by Dr. Evan Ellis. The book details the interaction and evolution of various criminal entities, including powerful cartels, criminal bands, territorially-oriented gangs, groups performing intermediary functions in the international criminal economy, and groups with a focus on political or religious extremist objectives. The conversation will be moderated by Hudson Senior Fellow Ambassador Jaime Daremblum.

___________________________________________________________

  1. Can the Balkans Really Join the EU? | Wednesday, March 21 | 4:30pm – 6:00pm | SAIS Conflict Management Program and Center for Transatlantic Relations | Register here |

The European Union has opened the window for accession of new Balkan members starting in 2025. It is not clear when the window will close. Can the countries of the region take advantage of this opportunity? Who leads and who trails? What can be done to ensure success? This conversation features a panel of representatives from various Balkan states: Josip Brkic, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Vlora Citaku, Ambassador of Kosovo to the United States; Srdjan Darmanovic, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro; Djerdj Matkovic, Ambassador of Serbia to the United States; Vasko Naumovski, ambassador of Macedonia to the United States. Moderated by SAIS professor Daniel Serwer.

Tags : , , , , , , ,
Tweet