Tag: Democratic Republic of Congo
Peace picks, December 16-20
DC is beginning to slow down as the holiday season is fast approaching, but there are still some great events this week. We won’t likely publish another edition until January 5, as the year-end doldrums will likely last until then:
1. The Middle Kingdom Looks East, West, North, and South: China’s Strategies on its Periphery
Monday, December 16 | 9:00am – 10:30am
Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Fifth Floor
China’s recent declaration of an air defense identification zone in the East China Sea and its territorial claims over 80% of the South China Sea are focusing renewed American attention on Chinese strategy. To understand China’s policies, deployments, and ambitions in the Western Pacific, we must analyze China’s attitudes toward all of its 14 border States and Pacific neighbors, and toward its near and more distant seas.
The Kissinger Institute’s 2013 series of public programs will conclude with a talk by renowned author Edward Luttwak, who will lead a discussion of China’s strategy throughout its periphery, with an emphasis on the Diaoyu/Senkakus and other regional disputes.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ituri: DRC’s forgotten conflict zone
Matthias Witt, who studied post-conflict reconstruction and humanitarian response at Georgetown University, currently works in public health and emergency programming for an international NGO in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)’s Ituri district. He reports:
The DRC has been covered in the news extensively since fighting flared up again in November 2012, when the M23 rebel movement took over Goma. This was yet another reminder of the international community’s failed efforts to stabilize the region and keep the “peace.”
The events were not without consequences; they led to the Kampala peace negotiations between a variety of armed groups and the Congolese government, and they catalyzed an African Union summit paper aimed, as so often before, at supporting regional stability. It also led to the creation of yet another UN post – the Special Envoy of the Secretary General to the Great Lakes, a role now occupied by Ireland’s Mary Robinson – and the extension of the mandate of the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO). The Security Council added some extra firepower in the form of a “Special Intervention Brigade” authorized to seek out and eliminate armed rebel movements in the country’s troubled East. The almost comical international legalese of this particular resolution aside – the mandate of the Special Brigade is apparently “unprecedented, yet without setting a precedent” – the dynamics coming out of this decision could make for some dramatic developments in the region, for better or worse. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The UN’s challenges
I’ve been in New York since Thursday, unable to tweet or blog due to inexplicable wireless router problems at the home of friends, where we were staying. My focus was naturally on the UN, where the renovation of the Secretariat building is said to be nearing completion but you wouldn’t know it from the way it looks. I hope the people who move back in are feeling more renovated than the facility.
Here’s a quick list of things I’ve learned:
- Lots of angst at the UN about its expanding role in peace enforcement operations. In Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Mali, UN forces are being asked to go beyond impartiality to combat bad guys, some of whom may not be a lot worse than the folks the UN is helping. Life is complicated.
- The war in Syria is presenting enormous difficulties to the UN observers in Golan, where the UN staff is subject to threats, intimidation, kidnapping and murder. Troop contributing countries are withdrawing their soldiers, the rebels are using the neutral zone to mount operations and the Syrian army is lobbying artillery shells that occasionally land in Israel.
- Some countries are nevertheless pledging troops conditionally for post-war Syria. Lakhtar Brahimi will stay on as a personal representative of the Secretary General to help prepare contingency plans while possibly resigning his more formal mandates from the Security Council and the Arab League, which has seated the Syrian opposition coalition in Damascus’ place.
- Some folks think it would be a good idea to keep the UN out of stabilization operations altogether: it lacks understanding of local situations, imposes insensitive, standardized approaches, is opaque and unaccountable and leaves behind pathologies like prostitution and trafficking, not to mention the warlords it helps install in power and teaches the finer arts of corruption by shortcircuiting proper procurement procedures in the name of urgency.
- In any event, everyone is expecting financial stringency as a result of the American sequester. I expect the Americans, if they can overcome their ideological distaste for the UN, to load it up with more tasks, not fewer, as they do triage and and toss the lower priorities in the UN’s direction whenever the Security Council permits. It was pretty clearly a mistake not to have a beefier UN mission in Libya, for example, to help with demobilization and retintegration of the militias that are wrecking havoc with the transition, aided by a disappointing performance from the parliament elected last summer.
The UN reminds me of the High Line, New York’s elevated freight railroad spur now converted to an elongated park (where I spent an hour this morning, see the photos below). Created under different conditions for different purposes, the High Line has been repurposed and is now playing a starring role as a people magnet, attracting tourists and New Yorkers alike.
The UN was created in San Francisco to ensure post-World War II peace and security and to that end:
- to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
- To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
- To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
- To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
The circumstances were very different in 1945, but these purposes remain valid, far more so than during the Cold War. What the UN needs more than repurposing is reform to ensure that it has the knowledge, talents and resources to meet its high purposes in a 21st century environment.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
1. Iran’s Nuclear Program: Is a Peaceful Solution Possible?. Tuesday February 19, 10:00 AM-11:30 AM, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, Falk Auditorium, 1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington DC 20036
Speakers: Tamara Cofman Wittes, Thomas Pickering, Kenneth M. Pollack
After several years of increasingly punishing sanctions against its economy, there is hope that Iran is now prepared to resume negotiations with the international community to reach a solution to the ongoing nuclear standoff. Many experts fear that Iran is quickly approaching the nuclear threshold, and that 2013 could be the last chance to avoid this outcome. If the international community cannot seize that opportunity, it may be left only with much worse alternatives.
On February 19, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will host a discussion to examine strategies for resolving the nuclear standoff. Panelists will include former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, co-founder of The Iran Project, who will present the organization’s latest set of recommendations for addressing the nuclear issue, and Brookings Senior Fellow Kenneth Pollack. Senior Fellow Tamara Cofman Wittes, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, will provide introductory remarks and moderate the discussion.
After the program, panelists will take audience questions.
Website: here
2. America’s Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, Tuesday, February 19, 1:00 PM- 3:00 PM, US Institute of Peace
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC
Speakers: Daniel Kurtzer, Willian Quandt, Shibley Telhami, Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen
Please note: This event has been rescheduled for February 19th, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. If you plan to attend on this rescheduled date, please RSVP here.
As President Barack Obama embarks on his second term and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu builds his coalition government, many warn that time is running out for the two-state solution. On the occasion of its publication, David Ignatius will join three of the authors of ‘The Peace Puzzle: America’s Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace’ and USIP’s Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen to discuss their own views on whether and why that door is closing, and what the next Obama administration can do to keep it open.
‘The Peace Puzzle’ was written by Daniel C. Kurtzer, Scott B. Lasensky, William B. Quandt, Steven L. Spiegel, and Shibley Z. Telhami and co-published by USIP Press and Cornell University Press. It offers a uniquely objective account and assessment of the American role in the peace process over the last two decades, concluding with 11 recommendations for the next administration to strengthen its role in resolving the conflict. While the tone of the book remains optimistic, the authors question whether the ‘determined, persistent, creative, and wise’ American diplomacy and leadership that have ushered in breakthroughs in the past can be recaptured and whether the lessons learned from two decades of failures will be embraced.
Please join us for this discussion with David Ignatius on the prospects for a breakthrough in the peace process and the lessons offered in ‘The Peace Puzzle.’
Website: http://www.usip.org/events/americas-quest-arab-israeli-peace
3. A National Security Strategy for Lebanon, Wednesday, February 20, 12:30-2:00 PM, Aspen Institute
Venue: Aspen Institute, One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 700, Washington DC 20036
This event will feature a panel of experts to explore the challenges facing Lebanon’s national security and promote actionable recommendations for a solvent national security strategy for the country going forward, especially as it relates to US-Lebanese relations, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran.
Website: http://www.aspeninstitute.org/events/2013/02/20/national-security-strategy-lebanon
4. Arab Perspectives on Iran’s Role in a Changing Middle East, Thursday February 21, 10:00 AM-12:00 PM, US Institute of Peace
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
Speakers: Kristin Lord, Shibley Telhami, Michele Dunne
This meeting is co-sponsored by the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center and the United States Institute of Peace.
While there is much talk of an ‘Arab’ view of Iran, there are in fact significantly divergent views on Tehran’s role, even among rulers in the region. Additionally, despite the Sunni-Shiite divide, Arab public views of Iran and of its regional role are far more complex than-and often at odds with-the views of their leaders. Even those Arab governments that fear Iran most and, in some cases, support American military actions to weaken Iran’s influence, differ markedly from Israel’s calculations and expectations.
Shibley Telhami will present his analysis and paper on this subject on February 21, 2012 from 10:00am to 12:00pm. This is the second in a five-part series co-sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace and the Wilson Center’s Middle East program on ‘The Changing Security Architecture in the Middle East.’
Website: http://www.usip.org/events/arab-perspectives-iran-s-role-in-changing-middle-east
5.Women in Combat: The Changing Roles of Women in the US Military, Thursday February 21, 12:00 PM- 1:15 PM, Center for National Policy
Venue: Truman National Security Project & Center for National Policy- Capitol Hill Office, 1 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington DC, Suite 333
Speakers: Michael Breen, Kayla Wiliams, Scott Bates
On January 24th, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the elimination of the ground combat exclusion rule for women in the military. Panetta stated his desire to move forward with a plan to eliminate all gender-based barriers to service. Join CNP President Scott Bates and an expert panel as they discuss the effects Secretary Panetta’s decision will have on current, and future generations of service-members, as well as which barriers will be the most challenging to overcome.
Website: http://cnponline.org/ht/display/EventDetails/i/41816
6. The Rise of Radical and Nonofficial Islamic Group in Russia’s Volga Region, Thursday February 21, 3:00 PM-5:00 PM, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Venue: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, NW Washington DC 20006, Basement Level Conference Rooms A & B
Speakers: Sergey Markedonov, Gordon M. Hahn, Andrew C. Kuchins
In the two decades since the dissolution of the USSR, Russian and Western experts, human-rights activists, and journalists have become accustomed to the political violence of the North Caucasus. Recent tragedies in Russia’s Volga region suggest that this sort of violence – and the Islamist terrorists who perpetrate it – may not be confined to the Caucasus. This has raised a question: how likely is it that the North Caucasus scenario will be repeated in the Volga region? Any attempt to answer this question is complicated by the variety of non-official Muslim groups of both local and international origin active there and the complex set of linkages between them.
This report sheds light on the ideological sources and resources of radicalism in the Volga region, nonofficial Islamic movements’ support among the regional population, and opportunities for the potential growth of different forms of Islamist activities. It describes the origins of different nonofficial Islamic movements as well as their post-Soviet development, ideology, and relationship with the authorities and official Muslim clergy. The report also offers practical approaches both for Russian domestic policy and for the U.S.-Russian security cooperation agenda.
Website: http://csis.org/event/rise-radical-and-nonofficial-islamic-groups-russias-volga-region
7. Tunisia: Are Economic Decline and Political Violence Prevailing?, Thursday February 21, 5:30 PM- 7:30 PM, John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS-Rome Building, 1619 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington DC, Room 812
Speakers: Mustapha Kamel Nabli, Emauele Santi, Stephen McInerney, Alexis Arieff, Daniele Moro
Mustapha Kamel Nabli, governor of the Central Bank of Tunisia and senior adviser to the World Bank chief economist; Emanuele Santi, principal country economist at Tunisia African Development Bank; Stephen McInerney, executive director of the Project on Middle East Democracy; Alexis Arieff, an analyst in African Affairs at Congressional Research Services; and Daniele Moro (moderator), visiting scholar in the SAIS African Studies Program, will discuss this topic.
8. The Middle East: What’s Next? With General James Mattis, Thursday, February 21, 6:00 PM- 7:30 PM, Young Professionals in Foreign Policy
Venue: Russel Senate Office Building, Constitution Avenues and 1st street, NE, Kennedy Caucus Room (SR-325)
Speakers: Gen. James N. Mattis
As the Middle East continues to undergo tectonic political, social, and economic change, the future of the U.S role in the region seems ever-more complex and uncertain. General James Mattis, Commander of U.S. Central Command, will share his analysis of the ongoing impact of the Arab Spring, long term American strategy in Afghanistan, U.S.-Pakistan relations, troubles with Iran, the future of Iraq, and the shifting balance of power within the Middle East. Gen Mattis will also discuss his perspectives on what Middle Eastern issues are likely to consume the attention of the next generation of foreign policy leaders.
9. Eastern Congo: Changing Dynamics and the Implications for Peace, Friday, February 22, 10:00 Am-11:30, US Institute of Peace
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC
Speakers: Raymond Gilpin, John Prendergast, Bennett Freeman, Ida Sawyer, Sasha Lezhnev
Unrest in northeastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) continues to claim lives, disproportionately target women, fuel the illicit economy, constrain development and undermine prospects for peace. Mediation efforts by the United Nations and the DRC’s neighbors have yielded few tangible results and mistrust is rife. Major issues include the role of the M23 in the peace process, widespread gender-based violence and the resilient illicit economy (particularly in the mining sector).
The M23 rebel group was formed on 4 April 2012 when some 300 soldiers mutinied, citing poor conditions in the army and the government’s unwillingness to implement the 23 March 2009 peace deal. They seized control of Goma, the capital of North Kivu province in November 2012 and have been involved in regionally-brokered mediation efforts since being forced out in December.
On February 5, the South African government arrested a group of 19 Congolese belonging to a shadowy group called the Union of Nationalists for Renewal, who were allegedly plotting a violent coup in the DRC. This further complicates an already dire situation and injects an added sense of urgency. In light of these developments, peacebuilding in the DRC requires a nuanced assessment of conflict dynamics and creative strategies to leverage windows of opportunity.
On February 22, the U.S. Institute of Peace will convene an event on recent changes in the war in eastern Congo and their implications for peace. Panelists will share insights from recent trips to the region, examine opportunities and risks for advancing a meaningful peace process, and highlight lessons from other relevant peace processes potentially applicable to the Great Lakes.
Website: http://www.usip.org/events/eastern-congo-changing-dynamics-and-the-implications-peace
10. Is there a Widening Sunni-Shia Schism?, Friday February 22, 2:00 PM- 3:30 PM, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington DC, 20036
Speakers: Durriya Badani, Suzanne Maloney, Geneive Abdo, Bruce Riedel
An upswing in sectarian violence in Pakistan, Bahrain and elsewhere in recent months highlights the historic tensions, and contemporary political importance of schisms between Sunni and Shia communities across the Muslim world. Why is the level of violence rising and what regional and internal factors are influencing it? What are the implications for these countries should the relationship between the two sects continue to deteriorate? What role does the U.S. or other external actors play in shaping these developments and what could they do to alleviate tensions?
On February 22, the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World at Brookings will host a discussion to explore the factors behind this apparently worsening conflict between Sunni and Shia communities. Panelists will include Brookings Senior Fellow Bruce Riedel, director of the Brookings Intelligence Project, and Geneive Abdo, fellow at the Middle East program at the Stimson Center and author of a forthcoming Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings paper examining sectarianism in the context of the Arab Awakening. Durriya Badani, deputy director of the Project, will offer welcoming remarks. Brookings Senior Fellow Suzanne Maloney will moderate the discussion.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Round 1 to the French
As the residents of Timbuktu and Gao celebrate their French liberation from Islamist extremists, it is tempting to think that things are now okay and we can go back to ignoring Mali. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Mali was a problem last week, it is still a problem this week too. What the French have done is to chase the extremists northwards, into even more forbidding terrain. They were not resoundingly defeated. If given the chance, there they will regroup.
Here’s your primer on the main jihadi players. Get ready for the pop quiz. None of them sound like people who will be giving up the cause anytime soon.
One key to what happens now are the Tuareg. Their National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (NMLA) precipitated the current difficulties with a rebellion last spring that chased the Malian army from the north, with cooperation from al Qaeda-linked Islamist extremists. But the Tuareg fell out with the Islamists. They will now presumably try to take advantage of the Islamist defeat at the hands of the French to reassert control over “Azawad” and continue their push for independence.
Will the French contest the Tuareg? They are more likely to try to get them on side. They will be relieved if the Tuareg oust the Islamists and hope thereafter to broker a deal between the Tuareg and the central government in Bamako. Will the Tuareg do in the Islamists? Hard to tell. It is not clear they can, even if they try. The jihadi betrayed them first time around, and proved a more formidable fighting force, but if independence is their objective the Tuareg cannot really expect to get it from the French, who support the government in Bamako. Nor from the trans-national jihadi.
Meanwhile, the African Union is pledging to solve Africa’s problems. With the French army retaking northern Mali and conflicts raging in Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and elsewhere, that seems unlikely. But it is still worth considering the proposition of getting African forces more engaged than they have been so far in Mali. There is already UN Security Council authorization. The question is whether the Africans can get their act together to field a serious force, as they appear to have done in Somalia.
The French army seems to have won this round. Good for them, and for Malians who like music. But the war is unlikely to be over.
PS: Here’s a piece I participated in for Voice of America that tries to make similar points:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Prevent what?
Most of us who work on international affairs think it would be much better to use diplomacy to prevent bad things from happening rather than waiting until the aftermath and then cleaning up after the elephants, which all too often involves expensive military action. But what precisely would that mean? What do we need to prevent?
The Council on Foreign Relations survey of prevention priorities for 2013 was published last week, just in time to be forgotten in the Christmas rush and New Year’s lull. It deserves notice, as it is one of the few nonpartisan attempts to define American national security priorities. This year’s edition was in part crowd-sourced and categorizes contingencies on two dimensions: impact on U.S. interests (high, medium, low) and likelihood (likely, plausible, unlikely).
Syria comes out on top in both dimensions. That’s a no-brainer for likelihood, as the civil war has already reached catastrophic dimensions and is affecting the broader region. Judging from Paul Stares’ video introduction to the survey, U.S. interests are ranked high in part because of the risk of use or loss of chemical weapons stocks. I’d have ranked them high because of the importance of depriving Iran of its one truly reliable ally and bridge to Hizbollah, but that’s a quibble.
CFR ranks another six contingencies as high impact on U.S. interests and only plausible rather than likely. This isn’t so useful, but Paul’s video comes to the rescue: an Israeli military strike on Iran that would “embroil” the U.S. and conflict with China in the East or South China seas are his picks to talk about. I find it peculiar that CFR does not treat what I would regard as certainly a plausible if not a likely contingency: a U.S. attack on Iran. There are few more important decisions President Obama will need to make than whether to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Certainly it is a far more challenging decision than whether to go to war against China in the territorial disputes it is generating with U.S. allies in Pacific. I don’t know any foreign policy experts who would advise him to go in that direction.
It is striking that few of the other “plausible” and high-impact contingencies are amenable to purely military responses:
- a highly disruptive cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure
- a mass casualty attack on the U.S. homeland or on a treaty ally
- severe internal instability in Pakistan, triggered by a civil-military crisis or terror attack
It is not easy to determine the origin of cyberattacks, and not clear that a military response would be appropriate or effective. The same is also sometimes true of mass casualty attacks; our military response to 9/11 in Afghanistan has enmired the United States in its longest war to date, one where force is proving inadequate as a solution. It is hard to imagine any military response to internal instability in Pakistan, though CFR offers as an additional low probability contingency a possible U.S. military confrontation with Islamabad “triggered by a terror attack or U.S. counterterror operations.”
In the “moderate” impact on U.S. interests, CFR ranks as highly likely “a major erosion of security in Afghanistan resulting from coalition drawdown.” I’d certainly have put that in high impact category, as we’ve still got 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and a significant portion of them will still be there at the end of 2013. In the “moderate” impact but merely plausible category CFR ranks:
- a severe Indo-Pakistan crisis that carries risk of military escalation, triggered by a major terror attack
- a severe North Korean crisis caused by another military provocation, internal political instability, or threatening nuclear weapons/ICBM-related activities
- a significant increase in drug trafficking violence in Mexico that spills over into the United States
- continuing political instability and emergence of a terrorist safe haven in Libya
Again there are limits to what we can do about most of these contingencies by conventional military means. Only a North Korea crisis caused by military provocation or threats would rank be susceptible to a primarily military response. The others call for diplomatic and civilian responses in at least a measure equal to the possible military ones.
CFR lets two “moderate” impact contingencies languish in the low probability category that I don’t think belong there:
- political instability in Saudi Arabia that endangers global oil supplies
- renewed unrest in the Kurdish dominated regions of Turkey and the Middle East
There is a very real possibility in Riyadh of a succession crisis, as the monarchy on the death of the king will likely move to a next generation of contenders. Kurdish irredentist aspirations are already a big issue in Iraq and Syria. It is hard to imagine this will not affect Iran and Turkey before the year is out. Neither is amenable to a purely military response.
Most of the contingencies with “low” impact on U.S. interests are in Africa:
- a deepening of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo that involves military intervention from its neighbors
- growing popular unrest and political instability in Sudan
- military conflict between Sudan and South Sudan
- renewed ethnic violence in Kenya surrounding March 2013 presidential election
- widespread unrest in Zimbabwe surrounding the electoral process and/or the death of Robert Mugabe
- failure of a multilateral intervention to push out Islamist groups from Mali’s north
This may tell us more about CFR and the United States than about the world. Africa has little purchase on American sentiments, despite our half-Kenyan president. All of these contingencies merit diplomatic attention, but none is likely to excite U.S. military responses of more than a purely emergency character, except for Mali. If you’ve got a few Islamist terrorists, you can get some attention even if you are in Africa.
What’s missing from this list? CFR mentions
…a third Palestinian intifada, a widespread popular unrest in China, escalation of a U.S.-Iran naval clash in the Persian Gulf, a Sino-Indian border crisis, onset of elections-related instability and violence in Ethiopia, unrest in Cuba following the death of Fidel Castro and/or incapacitation of Raul Castro, and widespread political unrest in Venezuela triggered by the death or incapacitation of Hugo Chavez.
I’d add intensification of the global economic slowdown (high probability, high impact), failure to do more about global warming (also high probability, delayed impact), demographic or financial implosion in Europe or Japan (and possibly even the U.S.), Russian crackdown on dissent, and resurgent Islamist extremism in Somalia. But the first three of these are not one-year “contingencies,” which shows one limit of the CFR exercise.
I would also note that the world is arguably in better shape at the end of 2012 than ever before in history. As The Spectator puts it:
Never has there been less hunger, less disease or more prosperity. The West remains in the economic doldrums, but most developing countries are charging ahead, and people are being lifted out of poverty at the fastest rate ever recorded. The death toll inflicted by war and natural disasters is also mercifully low. We are living in a golden age.
May it last.
RSS - Posts
