Tag: Democracy and Rule of Law
DRC election
SAIS student Qifan Huang reports:
Last Wednesday, the SAIS African Studies Program hosted an event discussing the upcoming election in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) with Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja, former President of the African Studies Association (ASA).
The DRC faces extreme difficulty in conducting an orderly and peaceful transition between regimes. Nzongola-Ntalaja attributed this difficulty to the weakness of political institutions, including the parliament and civil society. The fragile governance structure in Africa, coupled with its history of invasion, occupation, colonialism, are the root causes of the prevalence of money politics and political crimes, including crimes of war in Sudan, crimes against humanity in Chad, and a number of genocides. The DRC’s present failures must also be observed through these lenses, in both the national and international contexts since 1960.
On the national level, Nzongola-Ntalaja argued that an illegitimate, corrupt and weak regime is the primary reason for DRC’s current situation. The nation is not fundamentally different from Mobutu’s Zaire, with the same failed governance structure. Figures from the Mobutu regime can be found in all branches of the government. Their primary interest is not to serve the people, but themselves.
The progress Congo has made since the fall of Mobutu has not been reflected in the livelihood of ordinary Congolese citizens. Criminals were not punished. Assassinations of journalists and human rights activists with the collusion of the police are prevalent. Political office is seen as an avenue to personal enrichment.
As a result, the Kabila regime has no legitimacy, which is particularly reflected in the 2011 elections when the government manipulated the parliament to change the constitution and directed the security forces to unleash terror and violence against the President’s major opponent. Kabila has also taken desperate measures to win the 2016 election, including attempts to change the electoral law so that national census, which may take up to four years, must be conducted before any election. That attempt was only curbed after the Senate rejected the proposal due to widespread demonstrations by young students. Kabila claims that logistical barriers are the main reasons for him postponing the election, but Nzongola-Ntalaja pointed out that the obstacles are largely political, not technical: they can be solved if the government is committed. Kabila is just using them as excuses.
From the international perspective, Nzongola-Ntalaja pointed to the interference in internal DRC politics by Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi, as well as the acquiesce of the international actors, as reasons for Congo’s bad governance. He argued that Kabila is a “puppet,” a warlord without the vision, capability and organization to rule Congo. The country’s eastern provinces are in the hands of Rwanda: James Kabarebe, Kabila’s first Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, is now the Minister of Defense of Rwanda.
Because the 1996 “civil war” was, in essence, a war of aggression against the DRC by Rwanda, Uganda and other regional states supported by Western powers, Kabila was never recognized as someone representing the interest of the general Congolese public. In the years following the conclusion of the civil war, international attempts to ameliorate the situation in DRC, including the 11 plus 4 mechanism and the Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework, failed, adding to the instability of the Kabila regime. Support for Kabila by the EU, the UN, among other international actors, including their recognition, at least partially, of the 2011 election, contributed to Kabila’s desire to stay in power.
Only the Congolese people can save themselves from Kabila, Nzongola-Ntalaja argued, praising the recent protests in Kinshasa and other regions of the country and wishing for a fair election in the second half of 2016.
In the Q&A session, Nzongola-Ntalaja discussed further the indulgence of the international community towards Rwandan President Kagame, due to the fear of Rwanda no longer engaging in peacekeeping and fighting terrorism. The strength of civil society in Eastern Congo, peacekeeping offensives against M23 and other rebel groups, and the role of Angola were also discussed.
To conclude, Nzongola-Ntalaja pointed to the dire need for the protesters to find good leadership who can mobilize the population and fight the regime, as well as mobilize regional and international backers, to curb Kabila’s ambitions. He has full confidence in the power of the people to elect a truly democratic president in the near future.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Kosovo’s glass half full
Kosovo daily Koha Ditore asked questions. I responded, more or less on the even of the country’s February 17 independence day:
Q: How do you see the journey of Kosovo eight years after independence? Which are the achievements and failures of the state?
A: Kosovo has built a state with wide but not universal recognition that seeks to govern as a parliamentary democracy and interacts effectively with other countries, including those that don’t recognize its sovereignty and territorial integrity. I’ll leave to Kosovo’s citizens the privilege of judging the adequacy or inadequacy of the state in managing domestic affairs at the next election, but it seems to me internal security and the economy are vastly improved since 1999 and even since 2008.
Q: Kosovo independence continues to be challenged not only from abroad but also from within. Seven years after independence, Kosovo is not part of the UN and is not recognized by all EU members, while constitutionality is not yet extended to northern Kosovo, where the Serbs are the majority. Do you see improvement related these issues, in the near future?
A: I hope for improvements on these issues, but I really don’t know if it will happen in the near future. It is important to note that Belgrade has acknowledged the validity of the Kosovo constitution on its entire territory and will have to accept implementation of the Association of Serb Municipalities, for example, in accordance with the decision of the Kosovo constitutional court.
A main challenge from within are the political formations that don’t accept Kosovo’s constitution and statehood. They exist both among the Serbs and among the Albanians. The Kosovo state would be far strong if they abandon their hopes that Kosovo be taken over by Belgrade or Tirana.
The big international recognition issue in my view is Serbia’s non-recognition and blocking of Kosovo from UN membership. The Europeans have made it clear to Belgrade that its progress towards accession will depend on completely normalizing relations with Kosovo, which means at the very least UN membership and some sort of exchange of diplomatic representatives beyond liaison officers. I expect the next Serbian government to have to make some difficult decisions.
Q: After independence, the international community has assisted Kosovo in strengthening institutions by sending a mission responsible for Justice–EULEX. But this mission has been heavily criticized for no progress in fighting corruption and organized crime, as well in war crimes prosecutions. How do you evaluate the work of EULEX?
A: I don’t feel confident to evaluate EULEX, but I’ve long been convinced that success in fighting corruption and organized crime will require Kosovo’s citizens to take up the cudgels. Your press, civil society organizations, prosecutors, judges and government officials need to find the courage to confront those who are ripping off the country.
War crimes are different. It seems to me there the international community has a stronger role to play, through the Special Court once it is created. No Balkans country has yet found the capacity to deal adequately with its own war-time criminals, because they fought in a cause that most of the citizens supported. I won’t claim the US does a great job of prosecuting its own soldiers either. But for Kosovo bringing people to justice who committed atrocities against Serbs, Albanians and likely others is a necessary step in the state-formation process. I’d like to see parliament create a court that can get on with the job.
I also commend to interested readers Congressman Engel’s well-crafted piece on Keeping Kosova on the Path Toward Democracy.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What to do when peace talks stall
The Syria peace talks stalled even faster than I might have predicted, though I wasn’t sanguine about their success. The reason for the suspension is all too clear: the Syrian army is making headway in north Latakia, around Aleppo and elsewhere, with vigorous support from Russian air strikes as well as Hizbollah ground forces and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps “advisors” (more like commanders). President Assad and his allies see no reason to halt the offensive. The Syrian opposition, which had asked at the talks for an end to air strikes and opening up of humanitarian access, sees no reason to talk while its people are getting slaughtered. Those of us who said this conflict was not “ripe” for peace talks, which includes almost everyone knowledgeable about the situation, were right.
That is little comfort. Nor does it mean the UN was wrong to try.
It is the UN’s role in today’s world order to take on cases no one else wants touch. That’s how it ended up with Libya, Yemen and Syria. The Americans and Europeans left Libya to its own devices, which sufficed for a while but then proved unequal to the state-building challenge. Now there is an agreement of sorts, but no implementation. The Houthis and Saudis wrecked a four-year peace process in Yemen, based on a Gulf Cooperation Council agreement and UN mediation, with military action. A recent effort to reinitiate talks has been postponed until at least late this month. Syria has already seen two failed UN efforts to end the war–Geneva I and II they are called–to no avail. Geneva III looks likely to fail too. Let’s hope they don’t catch up with the Superbowl numbering.
These stalled peace processes are bad for Libyans, Yemenis and Syrians, but they don’t have much say in the matter. Civilians are today the most frequent victims of war, as the contestants are so often vying for power within a state rather than trying to defeat the regular military forces of another state. Moving civilians, or persuading them to accept your rule, is therefore the objective, not an unintended consequence. It is far less perilous to guys with guns (yes most of them are guys, though not always all) to go after unarmed civilians, or even armed insurgents, than to contest another state’s armed forces.
The only real beneficiaries of continued fighting in Libya, Yemen and Syria are likely to be the extremist forces affiliated with Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. They thrive on disorder–areas that have witnessed chaos are more likely to accept their draconian rule–and the extremists often fill the vacuum as states concentrate their efforts against less extreme insurgents. The one thing we can be pretty sure of from the experience of fighting extremists since 9/11 is that attacking them from the air without establishing order on the ground thereafter ensures that we will have to roll Sisyphus’ rock up the hill once again. And with each iteration the extremists get bolder, smarter and more lethal.
We are all too clearly losing the war against violent extremism. We should be thinking hard about whether the means we are using are appropriate to the task. Washington’s purpose should be to eliminate safe havens for extremists who might strike Americans. Drones have dinstinct advantages. They keep their operators safe while killing bad guys, but they can’t reestablish governance on territory from which extremists have been driven. Only legitimate state authorities can do that. It is time to refocus our attention on where they are going to come from.
Stalled talks are an opportunity. The warring parties in Libya, Yemen and Syria as well as their international supporters should be thinking hard about how these countries will be governed once the killing has stopped. Both the fighting and the peacemaking are worthless without an answer to that question.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks, January 11-15
- Japan-South Korea Relations and Prospects for a U.S. Role in Historical Reconciliation in East Asia | Monday, January 11th | 9:00-12:00 | The Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Expectations are high that a landmark agreement on the legacies of World War II reached between Japan and South Korea will allow the two countries to further bilateral relations. Under the December 2015 agreement, Tokyo and Seoul stated they reached a “final and irrevocable resolution” regarding Korean women who were forced to serve as sex slaves under Japanese occupation. The deal is expected to allow the two countries to work more closely together on issues of mutual concern amid a rapidly changing economic, political, and security landscape in East Asia. For the United States too, successful implementation of the agreement is critical to bring its two closest allies in the region together and to establish a strong trilateral alliance that would work together to face common challenges. In this forum, scholars of history and international relations will discuss how to address issues of historical contention, and they will also discuss what role the United States could play to ensure that historical reconciliation between South Korea and Japan continues to move forward. See here for a full list of panels and speakers.
- Guantanamo Bay: Year 14 | Monday, January 11th | 3:00-4:45 | New America | REGISTER TO ATTEND | On January 22, 2009, just days after becoming president, Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13492, ordering the closure of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Now in the last year of his presidency, 107 detainees remain. January 11th marks the 14th anniversary of the prison’s creation.New America is pleased to welcome Dr. Karen Greenberg, Director of the Center on National Security at Fordham University and author of The Least Worst Place: Guantanamo’s First 100 Days, Thomas B. Wilner, a lawyer with Shearman & Sterling LLP and co-founder of Close Guantanamo, who was the Counsel of Record to Guantanamo detainees in two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and Andy Worthington, co-founder of Close Guantanamo and the author of The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison, for a discussion about what can or can’t be done in the next year, and whether President Obama’s promise will ever be fulfilled. Peter Bergen, Vice President of New America, will moderate the discussion Join the conversation online using #GTMO14th and following @NatSecNAF.
- Building Afghanistan’s Economy Through Regional Connectivity | Tuesday, January 12th | 3:00-4:30 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please join the Atlantic Council for a special conversation with Dr. Mohammad Humayon Qayoumi on the economy of Afghanistan. More than a year after coming into power, Afghanistan’s National Unity Government has sought to re-establish Afghanistan’s role as a roundabout for economic connectivity between Central, South and East Asia, and Europe. With new progress made in the areas of power and gas transmission, fiber-optic linkages and movement of goods, the government has also launched a Jobs for Peace Plan, which seeks to provide near term economic opportunity across the country and soften the economic impact caused by the military drawdown. How will Afghanistan’s plans advance its self-reliance reform agenda, link its economy to the region, and provide jobs to its citizens? How can the US-Afghan strategic partnership best advance common security and economic interests? Join us for a special session with Dr. Qayoumi, Chief Advisor to President Ghani for infrastructure, IT and human capital who will provide firsthand what the Afghan government has in store to revive the Afghan economy. The conversation will be moderated by the Hon. James Cunningham, Senior Fellow and Khalilzad Chair, South Asia Center, Atlantic Council.On Twitter? Follow @ACSouthAsia and use #ACAfghanistan
- Blood Oil: Tyrants, Violence, and the Rules that Run the World | Tuesday, January 12th | 4:00-5:30 | Center for Global Development | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The slave trade, colonial rule and apartheid were once all legal. Hard power then won lawful authority: might literally made legal rights. The global revolutions that abolished those coercive rights were extraordinary—yet they left today’s multi-trillion trade in oil and minerals untouched. Current law incentivizes authoritarianism, conflict and corruption so strongly that oil states in the developing world today are no freer, no richer and no more peaceful than they were in 1980. All of the recent reforms around extractives—from transparency to certification to oil-to-cash—point toward the modern idea that the people, not power, should have the ultimate right to control a country’s resources. Can the US lead the West toward the next global revolution, by abolishing its legal trade in authoritarian oil and conflict minerals? Join us for a conversation with Leif Wenar, Chair of Philosophy and Law, King’s College London and author of Blood Oil, and Todd Moss, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development and author of Oil to Cash: Fighting the Resource Curse through Cash Transfers.
- The Europe-Russia Relationship: From the Ukraine Crisis and the Rise of the Far Right to the War in Syria | Thursday, January 15th | 12:30-2:00 | GWU Elliot School of International Affairs | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Two years ago, Ukraine’s Euromaidan revolution set off a new era in the Europe- Russia relationship. Europe responded to the annexation of Crimea with economic sanctions, prompting Russia to ban some European imports. Last fall, the conflict in Eastern Ukraine was overshadowed by Europe’s refugee crisis, Moscow’s strikes in Syria, and the Paris attacks. Taking advantage of rising anti-immigration sentiment and Islamophobia, Europe’s far-right parties, whose leaders express their admiration for President Putin, have fared well at the polls. European leaders must now work with Russia on conflict resolution in the Middle East while managing growing political polarization at home and helping Ukraine stabilize. Join us for a discussion on the topic featuring Marie Mendras, Transatlantic Academy; Alina Polyakova, Atlantic Council; and Marlene Laruelle, Research Professor of International Affairs; Director, Central Asia Program; Associate Director, Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, GW. Jeff Mankoff of the Center for Strategic and International Studies will moderate the discussion.
- Book Launch: The Outcast Majority: War, Development, and Youth in Africa | Thursday, January 14th | 2:00-3:00 | The Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | While African youth are demographically dominant, most see themselves as members of an outcast minority. Their outlier perspective directly informs the fresh and compelling new thinking about war, development, and youth in The Outcast Majority: War, Development, and Youth in Africa by former Wilson Center fellow and youth expert Dr. Marc Sommers. Featuring interviews with development experts and young people, this book contrasts forces that shape and propel youth lives in war and post-war Africa with those that influence and constrain the international development aid enterprise. With an eye on the colossal populations of excluded and profoundly undervalued youth in conflict-affected Africa and far beyond, the concluding framework delivers practical steps for making development work significantly more relevant and effective.Please join the Wilson Center Africa Program in the 5th floor conference room as we speak with Dr. Sommers about his latest publication and examine the implications of his research for international development policy. This event will feature a conversation between Dr. Sommers and Mr. Mark Hannafin, Executive Secretary and Senior National Security Adviser at USAID and co-chair of the new USAID policy on youth in development. Monde Muyangwa, Africa Program Director, will moderate the conversation.
- Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution: On 5th Anniversary, What’s Next? | Thursday, January 14th | 2:30-4:00 | US Institute of Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Five years ago this month, the Tunisian people’s protests calling for respect of their civil liberties resulted in the downfall of the 24-year authoritarian regime of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and the start of a rocky but largely peaceful process toward an inclusive political system. Please join the U.S. Institute of Peace and the International Republican Institute on Jan. 14 as we commemorate the 5th Anniversary of the Jasmine Revolution and examine the issues facing the country in the coming year and how the international community can help.Tunisia is confronting the regional rise of violent extremism that has led to terrorist attacks in its own country, spotlighting the struggle to balance security and human rights. Its frail economy remains a danger to social peace, with unemployment even higher than when the Jasmine Revolution began. Many of Tunisia’s youth are especially vulnerable to these factors.The panelists will consider these issues as well as specific decisions coming up in 2016, including the political situation, decentralization and economic reform. Join the conversation on Twitter with #Tunisia5. Speakers include: Ambassador Faycal Gouia, Embassy of the Republic of Tunisia; Scott Mastic, International Republican Institute; and Amy Hawthorne, Project on Middle East Democracy; Linda Bishai, U.S. Institute of Peace, will moderate the discussion, and Ambassador William B. Taylor will give opening remarks.
- Kazakhstan Nationbuilding and Kazakh Nationalism: A Debate | Thursday, January 14th | 3:00-6:00 | GWU Elliot School of International Affairs | REGISTER TO ATTEND | A new social activism has emerged in Kazakhstan, organized by different small groups self-defining as Kazakh nationalists. Who are they? What is their audience? What political and national projects do they advance? How do they position themselves toward the current authorities, the relationship to Russia, to the Islamic world, and to their Central Asian neighbors?Join us for a discussion with activists representative of this new trend and a roundtable with DC-based experts. Speakers include: Aidos Sarym, Altynbek Sarsenbayuly Foundation; Valikhan Tuleshov, Almaty Management University; Serik Beissembayev, Central Asia Program Visiting Fellow and Center of Social and Political Studies ‘Strategy’ in Almaty; Ulan Bigozhin, Doctoral Student at Indiana University; and Marat Raimkhanov, Hubert Humphrey Fellow at the University of Maryland.
- Foreign Intervention in South Asia: A Case Study from Sri Lanka | Thursday, January 14th | 3:30-5:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please join the Atlantic Council for a conversation with a panel of experts to discuss Norway’s experience mediating conflict in Sri Lanka, and explore the role foreign actors play in South Asia more broadly.Across South Asia, external actors have often intervened to mediate conflict and build stability. Despite best efforts and often better resources, international involvement in South Asian conflicts has often faltered from lack of local support or consensus coupled with concerns over sovereignty. This was the case in Sri Lanka, where a five-year long Norwegian-led mediation process between the Tamil Tigers and Sri Lankan government unraveled, in part, due to a failure in securing bipartisan political support. The South Asia Center will convene a panel of experts to discuss Norway’s experience mediating conflict in Sri Lanka, and explore the role foreign actors play in South Asia more broadly. Speakers include Mark Salter, Author of To End a Civil War; Richard L. Armitage, President, Armitage International, L.C.; and Erik Solheim, Development Assistance Committee Chair, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The discussion will be moderated by Bharath Gopalaswamy, Director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council.
On Twitter? Follow @ACSouthAsia and use #ACSriLanka. - The Arab Spring Five Years Later: Towards Greater Inclusiveness | Friday, January 15th | 10:15-11:45 | The Brookings Institution | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Five years have passed since the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia sparked revolts around the Arab world and the beginning of the Arab Spring. Despite high hopes that the Arab world was entering a new era of freedom, economic growth, and social justice, the transition turned out to be long and difficult, with the Arab world now in turmoil with revolutions, counter revolutions, wars, civil strife, and the worst refugee crisis of our times. The response to the Arab Spring and its aftermath has focused almost exclusively on political and security issues, and on the very divisive questions of national identity and political regimes. Economic and social questions have been put on the back burner. On January 15, Global Economy and Development at Brookings will host a discussion on a new book, The Arab Spring Five Years Later, which explores the critical economic and social issues driving the Arab Spring agenda and the real economic grievances that must be addressed in order to achieve peace, stability, and successful political transitions as well as provides an approach to addressing those grievances. Hafez Ghanem and Shinchi Yamanaka will present the key findings of the book, followed by a panel discussion featuring Masood Ahmed, Director of the Middle East Department, IMF; Sanjay Pradhan, CEO, Open Government Partnership; and Tamara Cofman Wittes, Director of the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. The panel will be moderated by Shanta Devarajan, Chief Economist, Middle East and North Africa Region, World Bank.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ready or not, here comes transitional justice
I got to Colombo just two days ago. I’ve spent most of the time walking and exploring this bustling town that eats lots of very spicy curry and somehow manages to ignore the spectacular Indian Ocean that lies just off its far too rundown shores. This is not Beirut, Tel Aviv or Miami, despite the gaggle of high-rise hotels in the central Fort district.
Friday afternoon I made it over to the Sri Lanka Foundation for a discussion of transitional justice chaired by Colombo University law professor Dinesha Samaratne, with Centre for Policy Alternatives lawyer Bhavani Fonseka and NYU professor Allen Feldman presenting. The focus of the session was on the applicability (or not) of South Africa’s experience with its Truth and Reconciliation Commission and amnesty, but it in fact ranged far more widely.
Sri Lanka ended its war against the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) in 2009 with a government victory over the insurgents, who were trying to establish an independent Tamil state. A year ago (almost to the day), President Rajapakse, who won the war, stepped aside, defeated at the polls by one of his sidekicks, now President Sirisena. He and parts of Rajapakse political coalition cooperated with the leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, to form a “consensual” government, whose forces won a clear parliamentary majority in August.
By all reports, the atmosphere in Sri Lanka has changed dramatically since last January. Repression is far less in evidence. People feel free to speak their minds. The Rajapaksa government, which included close relatives of the president, was triumphalist, centralizing and moving in the direction of autocracy. A constitutional amendment has undone at least part of the damage and strengthened independent commissions. The Sirisena government has said it is committed to truth, justice and reconciliation. It wants a new constitution.
Whereas Rajapaksa rejected international involvement in the war’s aftermath, the Sirisena government agreed to a UN Human Rights Council resolution that lays out a process that includes a special court with still undefined international participation, a truth and reconciliation process, accounting for missing persons (about 16,000) and compensation to victims. All who spoke agreed there can be no backing away from this commitment.
But none of this has happened yet, and lots of important details are still undecided. Fonseka emphasized that those decisions are up to Sri Lankans, who need to make it clear what they want, including things that go beyond what the UN suggested like security sector reform and vetting of officials. What will the balance be between truth and justice? While it is clear that there can be no amnesty for the most serious crimes, what incentives will perpetrators have to talk? How will it be possible to avoid prioritizing some victims over others? It is not even clear what time period the transitional justice process will cover (the civil war lasted, off and on, for 26 years). A government task force has been formed for public consultations, which will last however only two and a half months.
Discussion of the South African experience, led principally by Feldman, underlined that there was no blanket amnesty there. Relatively few people who sought amnesty received it. Forensic investigations are still going on, a South African embassy official said, that sometimes contradict the testimony perpetrators provided to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The main impact of the South African process was to make it impossible to continue to deny what had happened and to clarify the political motives that underlay the behavior of both sides. Citizens, Feldman underlined with reference to Solon, need to participate in the post-war process, as they did in the war. The consequences should be democratizing, equalizing the voices of victims with those of perpetrators.
Samaratne and others in the audience made it clear that the issues the war raised did not end with the war. There have been reports Feldman cited of post-war cases of torture, even some abuses during the last year Fonseka said. The problem is that the justice system has crumbled. It needs to be reconstructed. The current Sri Lankan legal framework and institutions are not adequate to the challenges they face.
Sri Lanka is not ready for transitional justice, one participant concluded. The state should be held accountable for what was done in its name. From this perspective, even limited amnesty risks reducing deterrence, which depends on punishment.The situation in South Africa was dramatically different: there the oppressed came to power and magnanimously agreed to a generous Truth and Reconciliation process. In Sri Lanka , many of the same people are in power and are likely to want to protect themselves. People in the north of the country (where the insurgency was concentrated) are still abused and still afraid.The victims want justice before reconciliation.
That expectation will not be easy to fulfill. Ready or not, transitional justice in some form is on its way.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, January 4-8
- Stability and Human Security in Afghanistan in 2016 | Monday, January 4th | 10:30-12:00 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In 2016, the year of the U.S. presidential election, the international community will mark another milestone in its 15-year engagement in Afghanistan. Despite billions of dollars spent by the international community to stabilize the country, Afghanistan has seen little improvement in terms of overall stability and human security. The situation on the ground for Afghans continues to be grave, and while the international coalition suffered the least number of casualties in 2015, casualty levels have greatly increased for Afghan security forces. Security for the Afghan people has also deteriorated in large swaths of the country, further complicating humanitarian response. Afghan civilians are at greater risk today than at any time since Taliban rule, with a dramatic increase in the numbers of mostly young Afghans fleeing their country. Afghanistan’s economic situation also remains poor, and major political challenges lie ahead in 2016.In response to these troubling trends, President Obama decided to keep more than 5,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan through the end of his presidency. Looking at and beyond the coming year, what are the key security, economic, political, and humanitarian challenges and opportunities that need to be addressed in Afghanistan?On January 4, the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at Brookings will host an event focused on the current status of the war and stabilization effort in Afghanistan. Panelists include Che Bolden, federal executive fellow at Brookings; Jason Cone, executive director at Doctors Without Borders; Brookings Senior Fellow Vanda Felbab-Brown; and Ann Vaughan, director of policy and advocacy at Mercy Corps. Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon, and author of “The Future of Land Warfare” (Brookings Institution Press, 2015), will moderate the discussion.
- Insight Turkey 5th Annual Conference: Turkish Foreign Policy After Elections | Wednesday, January 6th | 8:30-4:30 | SETA Foundation | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Foundation for Political, Economic, and Social Research (SETA) will hold its annual conference on Turkey on Wednesday. Panel topics include: Neighboring Civil Wars; The Kurdish Question as a Regional Challenge; and the US-Turkey Relationship. The keynote address will be given by Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister, Mehmet Şimşek. Please see here for a full schedule and list of participants.
- Iraq: Can Good Governance Erode Support for Militants? | Wednesday, January 6th | 1:00-2:30 | US Institute for Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Extremist groups like ISIS have seized control in swaths of Iraq and Syria in part because they tout themselves as an alternative to corrupt and inept government at all levels. Join USIP on January 6 to hear about new research by the global humanitarian and development organization Mercy Corps on the connection between citizens’ perceptions of governance and public support for armed opposition. Panelists will explore how good governance may erode the pull of sectarian identity politics, and showcase instances when governance successes have appeared to reduce support for armed opposition and violence. USIP experts will discuss the research results in light of what the Institute’s staff and partners on the ground have learned in the course of their conflict mitigation and peacebuilding work. Panelists include Nancy Lindborg, President at USIP; Dr. Jacob N. Shapiro, Associate Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; Michael Young, Senior Advisor a Mercy Corps; Dr. Elie Abouaoun, Director of Middle East Programs at USIP; and Sarhang Hamasaeed, Senior Program Officer at USIP.
- Readout on the Paris Climate Agreement: What Was Achieved and What Comes Next? | Thursday, January 7th | 10:30-12:00 | Center for Strategic & International Studies | RSVP to attend | The CSIS Energy and National Security Program is pleased to invite you to a discussion on the Paris Agreement reached at the 21st Conference of Parties meeting under the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change (COP21). To help us understand what the new climate agreement means for future U.S. and international efforts to combat climate change, Paul Bodnar, Senior Director for Energy and Climate Change, National Security Council, The White House, will discuss what the agreement entails and what actions the U.S. government and the international community are likely to focus on in the coming years. Sarah Ladislaw, Director and Senior Fellow with the CSIS Energy and National Security Program, will moderate the discussion.
- The Great Tradeoff: Confronting Moral Conflicts in the Era of Globalization | Thursday, January 7th | 12:15-1:30 | Peterson Institute for International Economics | Online Event – Open to Attend | The Peterson Institute will release its latest book, The Great Tradeoff: Confronting Moral Conflicts in the Era of Globalization, by Steven R. Weisman, the Institute’s vice president for publications and communications. The book has an important theme that there is a moral case to be made for globalization, but the case is far from simple. American Enterprise Institute (AEI) President Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI); Steven Rattner, former counselor to the secretary of the Treasury; and Stelios Vasilakis, the Stavros Niarchos Foundation’s Director of Programs and Strategic Initiatives, will be discussants at the book launch on January 7, 2016.The global financial and economic crisis that began in 2008 highlighted the profound moral concerns long surrounding globalization. In his book, Weisman addresses the questions whether materialist excess, doctrinaire embrace of free trade and capital flows, and indifference to economic injustice contributed to the disaster of the last decade, and whether it was ethical to bail out banks and governments. The Great Tradeoff blends economics, moral philosophy, history, and politics, and Weisman argues that the concepts of liberty, justice, virtue, and loyalty help to explain the passionate disagreements spawned by a globally integrated economy. The Institute is grateful to the Stavros Niarchos Foundation for its generous support of this project and of the Institute’s prior research in this interdisciplinary area.
- GULAG: Gone but not Forgotten | Friday, January 8th | 10:00-11:30 | Woodrow Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | GULAG, a system of Soviet forced labor camps, was officially shut down more than half a century ago, but its memory remains a topic of dispute. Only a few of the camps’ survivors and former employees are still alive and can share their stories and reflections. For her book, 58th Uneliminated, Elena Racheva interviewed those affected by the GULAG and will recount some of their remarkable stories. She will also analyze what role the memory of these camps plays for the newer generations of Russians. Professor Kathleen Smith will discuss commemorative projects in Russia, and how they have changed over the course of Russia’s independence.
- Uncivil Rites: Palestine and the Limits of Academic Freedom | Friday, January 8th | 12:30-2:00 | The Palestine Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In the summer of 2014, renowned American Indian Studies professor Steven Salaita had his offer of a tenured professorship revoked by the University of Illinois Board of Trustees. Salaita’s employment was terminated in response to his public tweets criticizing the Israeli government’s summer assault on Gaza. His firing generated a huge public outcry, with thousands petitioning for his reinstatement, and more than five thousand scholars pledging to boycott the University of Illinois. His case raises important questions about academic freedom, free speech on campus, and the movement for justice in Palestine. In this book, Salaita combines personal reflection and political critique to provide a thorough analysis of his controversial termination. He situates his case at the intersection of important issues that affect both higher education and social justice activism. A light lunch will be served at 12:30; the event begins at 1:00.
RSS - Posts
