Tag: Economy
Peace Picks | December 2 – December 6
Lessons for Building Creative Economies | December 3, 2019 | 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM | CSIS Headquarters, 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Many countries around the world have large populations of impoverished people and high unemployment rates. In order to improve conditions in these countries, national governments must come up with effective economic growth strategies, and strengthening the creative industries should be at the forefront of these strategies. Over 100 countries have national plans for their creative economies, but few have made significant progress toward creating the enabling environment for creative industries—film, fashion, music, art, gaming, etc.—to thrive. World trade in creative goods and services grew at an average annual rate of 14 percent between 2002 and 2008, even during the 2008 global financial crisis. The countries with the largest creative economies in 2013 were the United States, China, Britain, Germany, Japan, France, and Brazil. The creative economy is a major driver of job creation, and countries that are implementing policies to boost their creative industries are already reaping the benefits. The longer countries wait, the more difficult it will be to create an enabling environment needed for culture and creative industries.
Overtaking Europe and North America, the Asia-Pacific is now the world’s leading region in CCIs, producing $743 billion in revenue in 2013. Through the launch of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy under President Donald Trump’s administration, the United States is rapidly expanding its engagement in Asia. Similarly, Taiwan launched the New Southbound Policy (NSP) in 2016, aiming to expand its development impact among its neighbors. One country that is looking for partners on the creative economy is Indonesia, which has enormous potential for growing both its creative imports and exports.
As part of this public event, CSIS will be releasing a report, Lessons for Building Creative Economies, based on recent case study trips to Taipei, Taiwan and Jakarta, Indonesia. The report will be posted on this webpage on December 3, and hard copies will be available at the public event.
This event is made possible with generous support from the Ministry of Culture of Taiwan.
FEATURING
Chairperson, Taiwan Creative Content Agency (TAICCA)
Senior Deputy Chairman, National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)
Author, The Creative Wealth of Nations
Managing Director, American Chamber of Commerce in Indonesia
The Afghan People Make Their Voices Heard | December 3, 2019 | 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM | 2301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Register Here
The past year has been marked by great uncertainty for the people of Afghanistan. Continued attacks, record-high levels of civilian deaths, and the repeated postponement of presidential elections have taken a toll on Afghan society. Meanwhile, unprecedented talks between the U.S. and Taliban inspired both hope and fear before they broke down in September. With confidence in a peace process still tempered by concerns over an abrupt U.S. withdrawal and the implications for Afghan women, the importance of comprehensive, reliable data on the views of Afghan citizens cannot be overstated.
Join USIP as we host The Asia Foundation for the launch of their 15th Survey of the Afghan People. First commissioned in 2004, the annual survey provides an unmatched barometer of Afghan public opinion over time and serves as a unique resource for policymakers, the international community, the Afghan government, and the broader public in Afghanistan. This year’s survey added new questions to further explore Afghan attitudes toward the peace process, elections, and the prospects for reconciliation.
Based on face-to-face interviews with a nationally representative sample of 17,812 citizens across all 34 Afghan provinces, the results reveal citizens’ views on a wide range of key issues, including security, the economy, corruption, justice, reconciliation with the Taliban, access to media, the role of women, governance, and political participation.
Speakers
Nancy Lindborg, opening remarks
President and CEO, U.S. Institute of Peace
David D. Arnold, opening remarks
President and Chief Executive Officer, The Asia Foundation
Abdullah Ahmadzai
Country Director, Afghanistan, The Asia Foundation
Tabasum Akseer
Director of Policy and Research in Afghanistan, The Asia Foundation
Amb. Daniel Feldman
Asia Foundation Trustee, Senior of Counsel, Covington &
Burling; Former U.S Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
Scott Worden, moderator
Director, Afghanistan and Central Asia Programs, U.S Institute of Peace
The Seas as the Next Frontier: Is Maritime Security in the Gulf a Flashpoint or Starting Point? | December 4, 2019 | 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM | 1050 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 1060, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
On December 4, AGSIW hosts a panel discussion on the issue of maritime security in the Gulf.
The recent attacks on oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz were a potent reminder of the need for the Gulf Arab countries as well as their neighbors and international partners to address an issue of fundamental importance to the region: maritime security.
Until recently, most Gulf Arab countries paid scant attention to maritime security, despite its centrality to their economies. However, the situation has changed considerably in the last decade, as a result of a realization that their lack of military readiness in the Gulf waters and Indian Ocean is a substantial vulnerability. Regional ambitions and a desire to participate in international security initiatives also have served as catalysts for Gulf Arab states’ action.
Yet, even as tensions in and around the Gulf have grown so has a perception that maritime security may provide a sorely needed starting point for discussions between Gulf Arab states and Iran. How do recent events in the Gulf of Oman and elsewhere around the Arabian Peninsula figure into the broader context of regional maritime security? Do the Gulf Arab states share the same threat perceptions and agree on the remedies? What role can international partners play in helping to ensure freedom of navigation in these waterways, which are crucial to global commerce?
Speakers
Senior Fellow, International Institute for Strategic Studies
Consultant and Policy Advisor
Senior Policy Analyst, RAND Corporation
Moderator
Visiting Scholar
The Middle East Institute’s 10th Annual Turkey Conference | December 4, 2019 | 9:00 AM – 4:00 PM | National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20045 | Register Here
The Middle East Institute (MEI) and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES) are pleased to host the 10th Annual Conference on Turkey. The conference will bring together policymakers and experts to discuss the challenges Turkey faces domestically and its relations with the Middle East and the West.
Agenda:
9:00am-9:15am | Welcome Remarks
Knut Dethlefsen
Representative to the U.S. and Canada, FES
Gönül Tol
Director, Center for Turkish Studies, MEI
9:15am-10:45am | Panel I: Turkey after the Istanbul
elections
Ruşen Çakır
Journalist, Medyascope
Aykan Erdemir
Senior fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Fehmi Koru
Freelance journalist
Giran Özcan
Washington representative, Peoples’ Democratic Party
Gönül Tol (moderator)
Director, Center for Turkish Studies, MEI
10:45am-11:00am | Coffee Break
11:00am-11:45am | Keynote Remarks & Audience Q&A
Hon. Nils Schmid, MP
Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, German Bundestag
Congressman Brendan F. Boyle
Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Representatives, U.S.
Congress
Ambassador (ret.) Gerald Feierstein (moderator)
Senior Vice President, MEI
12:00pm-1:30pm | Panel II: Art in the time of
authoritarianism
Kenan Behzat Sharpe
Founder & Co-Editor, Blind Field: A Journal of Cultural Inquiry
Ayşe Öncü
Professor, Department of Sociology, Sabancı University
Sarp Palaur
Director & Musician, Susamam
Lisel Hintz (moderator)
Assistant professor of international relations, Johns Hopkins SAIS
1:30pm-2:30pm | Lunch Buffet
2:30pm-4:00pm | Panel III: Turkey between NATO and Russia
Ivan Safranchuk
Associate Research Scholar & Lecturer, MacMillan Center for International
and Area Studies, Yale University
Aydın Selcen
Columnist, GazeteDuvar & DuvarEnglish
General (ret.) Joseph Votel
Distinguished Senior Fellow on National Security, MEI
Jim Zanotti
Specialist, Middle Eastern Affairs, Congressional Research Service
Barbara Slavin (moderator)
Director of Future of Iran Initiative, Atlantic Council
4:00pm | Close
US Strategic Interests in Ukraine | December 4, 2019 | 11:30 AM | Capitol Visitor Center, First St NE, Washington, DC 20515, Congressional Meeting Room North (CVC) | Register Here
Perhaps more than ever before, Ukraine dominates the news and the domestic political conversation. Despite the ongoing debate, Russia continues to wage an undeclared war in Ukraine, which has led to the death of 13,000 Ukrainians. Additionally, Ukraine’s newly elected president and parliament face considerable challenges and opportunities as they pursue critical reforms and a just peace in eastern Ukraine and Crimea. This bipartisan event is meant to reaffirm US support for Ukraine, as well as to propose key policy recommendations for US lawmakers.
Speakers
Welcoming Remarks
The Hon. Marcy Kaptur
US Representative for Ohio’s 9th Congressional District
The Hon. Brian Fitzpatrick
US Representative for Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District
The Hon. Andy Harris
US Representative for Maryland’s 1st Congressional District
Special Remarks
The Hon. Chris Murphy
US Senator for Connecticut
Panel: Why does Ukraine matter to the United States?
Leon Aron
Resident Scholar; Director, Russian Studies
American Enterprise Institute
Ilan Berman
Senior Vice President
American Foreign Policy Council
Heather Conley
Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic; Director, Europe
Program
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Ambassador John
Herbst
Director, Eurasia Center
Atlantic Council
Dr. Donald N. Jensen
Editor in Chief, Senior Fellow
Center for European Policy Analysis
Moderated by
Myroslava
Gongadze
Chief
Ukrainian Service, Voice of America
Special Remarks
The Hon. Ron Johnson
US Senator for Wisconsin
Panel: What can be done to ensure Ukraine succeeds?
Luke Coffey
Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy, Kathryn and
Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
Glen Howard
President
The Jamestown Foundation
Jonathan Katz
Senior Fellow
The German Marshall Fund of the United States
Dr. Alina
Polyakova
Director, Project on Global Democracy and Emerging Technologies
The Brookings Institution
Dr. Paul Stronski
Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Moderated by
Melinda
Haring
Deputy Director, Eurasia Center
Atlantic Council
Global Partnerships to Combat Cybercrime & the Challenge of Going Dark | December 5, 2019 | 2:30 PM – 4:00 PM | CSIS Headquarters, 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Digital technologies are creating new challenges for law enforcement agencies around the world. Cybercrime is proliferating due to the growing sophistication of online criminal networks and the difficulties of trans-national enforcement. Investigations of traditional crimes are also becoming more difficult as encryption, ephemerality, and other technical measures create obstacles for accessing digital evidence. This event will examine how global cooperation can help to address these issues in a way that ensures a balance between the protection of civil liberties and the needs of the law enforcement community.
Agenda
2:15 pm – Registration
2:30 pm – Keynote
Ferdinand Grapperhaus, Dutch Minister of Justice and Security
2:50 pm – Moderated Panel Discussion
Theo van der Plas, Chief Superintendent, Deputy Chief
Constable, National Program Director Cybercrime and Digitization
Jennifer Daskal, Professor and Faculty Director of the Tech, Law, Security
Program at American University Washington College of Law
Matthew Noyes, Director of Cyber Policy and Strategy at the U.S. Secret
Service
3:20 pm – Audience Q&A
3:50 pm – Closing Thoughts
4:00 pm – END
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Friday stock taking
It’s Friday, so let’s take a look at how effectively the Trump Administration has dealt with world and domestic events this week while it obsesses over impeachment:
- The North Koreans continue to launch increasingly capable ballistic missiles.
- While suffering from reimposed sanctions, Iran is defying the US and increasing uranium enrichment beyond the limits specified the nuclear deal the US withdrew from.
- The Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil production facilities has elicited no visible response from the US or Saudi Arabia, which is joining the United Arab Emirates in playing footsie with Iran.
- While failing to remove from Syria all the troops Trump said would be withdrawn, the US has allowed Turkey to take over a buffer zone along its border with Syria, leading to large-scale displacement of people there. Russia has also gained a foothold in northeastern Syria, as has the Assad regime.
- The trade war with China drags on, with the US trade deficit ballooning and Asian partners and allies doubting US commitments in the region.
- Venezuelan autocrat Maduro has survived despite American pressure, as has the Communist regime in Cuba and Evo Morales’ rule in Bolivia.
- In Europe, French President Macron is describing NATO as “brain dead” because of Trump’s lack of commitment to it and Trump’s pal UK Prime Minister Johnson is being forced into an election to try to confirm his Brexit plan, which Trump has supported.
- In the Balkans, the Administration has confused everyone with the appointment of two special envoys whose relationship to each other and to US policy is opaque.
- That’s all without even mentioning Ukraine, where State Department officials have confirmed that President Trump tried to extort an investigation of his political rivals from newly elected President Zelensky in exchange for Congressionally approved military aid.
The home front is even worse:
- A New York State Court has forced Trump into a $2 million settlement in which he has admitted improper and fraudulent use of his family foundation.
- Republicans lost the governorship in Kentucky and control of both houses of the Virginia assembly in off-year elections earlier this week. Congressional Republicans are nervous.
- President Trump’s personal lawyer affirmed that everything he did in Ukraine was to serve his client’s personal interests, a statement that confirms public assets were used for private purposes.
- The Attorney General, a stalwart defender of his boss, has declined to make a public statement supporting Trump’s claim that he did nothing wrong in his infamous phone call with President Zelensky.
- The House Democrats are piling up subpoenas that the White House is ignoring, heightening the likelihood that obstruction of Congressional oversight will be added to the impeachment charges and limiting the news to the sharp critiques of non-White House officials.
- The economy is slowing, especially in some “swing” districts vital to Trump’s hopes for a win in the electoral college in 2020, when he is sure to lose the popular vote once again, likely by a wider margin than in 2016.
I suppose it could get worse, and likely will. But it has been a long time since we’ve seen an American Administration in worse shape than this.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Good election, big challenges
On October 29 the Middle East Institute (MEI) and Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) hosted an event entitled “Observations from the Tunisian Election.” Tunisian Ambassador Fayçal Gouia delivered the opening remarks and participated in the panel discussion. Georgetown Professor and North Africa specialist William Lawrence moderated the discussion. Panelists included Jeffrey England, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the National Democratic Institute (NDI), Patricia Karam, Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa division of the International Republican Institute (IRI), Sarah Yerkes, Middle East Fellow at the Carnegie Institute for International Peace, and Thomas Hill, senior program officer for North Africa at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP).
England emphasized that the joint election observation undertaken by NDI and IRI demonstrated several positive aspects of the Tunisian election. Despite the fact that the July 25 death of former President Essebsi required the election to be held sooner than originally planned, it was peaceful and administered professionally. England also highlighted that the Parliamentary and Presidential debates that were held for the first time are evidence that the democratic system continues to mature. He noted that while there are lingering questions about turnout in the election, there was a larger pool of voters in both rounds than expected. England felt that because President Kais Saied does not belong to a political party he may be better able to hold the parties in Parliament to account.
Karam agreed that the election observation demonstrated several positive developments but noted that Tunisia should amend several aspects of its electoral framework prior to the next election, including campaign finance regulations, media rules, and the interaction between the judicial and electoral systems. Polling shows a crisis of confidence in politicians, growing dissatisfaction with the democratic experiment, and the sense that Tunisian political parties lack a clear vision for economic reform. This dissatisfaction is particularly deep among Tunisian youth, with preliminary data showing that youth turnout in the election may have been as low as 16%. Karam believes Tunisians voted for Saied because they prioritized stability in government, even if it comes with older, more conservative ideas.
Yerkes argued that while Saied received 70% of the votes, giving him a strong mandate, the incarceration of his opponent Karoui during the election was a significant flaw in the democratic process. She believes the election was unquestionably free but does not think it was fair. Karoui’s incarceration highlighted the need for Tunisia to implement a system for absentee voting. The electoral law allows prisoners to vote but there is currently no mechanism for them to do so, meaning that Karoui was unable to vote for himself.
Several panelists agreed that Tunisia’s economy was the key issue in this election and will play a key role in the future of its democracy. Gouia stated that job creation and delivering economic reform will be the first priority of the new administration. England asserted that while the electorate’s main concern was revolution in 2011 and identity in 2014, now people want to see results, particularly on economic issues. Hill argued that the Tunisian social contract has shifted so that graduates expect the government to create jobs for them rather than being entrepreneurial. England agreed, stating that the economic problems cannot be solved before the next election. He felt that the government should focus on developing a long-term plan to reform the economy and attempt to reframe the people’s expectations so that they understand that economic change will take time.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, August 31
In an extraordinary story, WaPo reports that John Bolton has repeatedly been excluded from invitations to presidential policy meetings on Afghanistan and even denied access to the Taliban negotiations documents. Bolton’s only denial of the story was that he and his staff did not leak. It’s unclear whether this story was prompted by Bolton supporters who want him to resign in protest of Administration policies or opponents who want to further marginalize him by making this known to the world. [It is not unusual for senior officials to fall in and out of favor with a president. Nor is it unusual for one faction to try to exclude opponents from policy meetings. People in the Clinton and Obama administrations, for example, told me of deliberately excluding Richard Holbrooke from meetings because he was deemed disruptive. But to sideline the person in charge of the interagency process from a key policy matter is not a good sign.]
Another puzzling development Friday was a presidential tweet with what appears to be a classified intelligence photo of an Iranian missile site along with a Trump statement that the US was not responsible for the failed launch. NYT has background on both matters, including a discussion of the law on covert actions.
WaPo had a piece discussing Gen. Mattis’ refusal to criticize President Trump, linking it to broader issues of civil-military relations and whether retired senior officers can adjust to political roles like SecDef. Civ-mil scholars like Professors Karlin and Peter Feaver are quoted.
CBO’s latest economic report has details on the impact of the trade wars on the US economy. See box 2.2 in the full report.
NYT tells the sad story of the rise and fall of the president’s personal assistant and how she built large groups of supporters and opponents by how she controlled access to the Oval Office.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, August 26
[The Congress class starts next week, so I’ll be giving extra emphasis to news about the legislative branch.]
Congress will be in session only 15 days in September, then recessing for two weeks [Jewish high holidays]. Lawmakers have to fund the government, probably by passing a short term continuing resolution. They dodged a bullet by approving a two year budget topline and suspending the debt limit last month.
Another July accomplishment was a new law making it easier for congressional offices to do constituent casework that requires some kind of approval paperwork.
In an apparent effort to preclude further stock market declines, President Trump said the Chinese had called and wanted to restart trade talks. Bloomberg says the Chinese Foreign Ministry knows of no such calls, and other US officials previously said there would be more talks next week. Anyway, the president has now discovered the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [IEEPA] and thinks it would allow him to forbid US companies from having Chinese customers or subsidiaries. Here’s background on IEEPA from the Congressional Research Service, and another paper on broader national emergencies laws. [Note that both CRS and FAS have CRS papers now.]
The Atlantic has a piece showing China’s effective soft power at work.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The mercantile solution
Maybe trade talks with China are back on, or so says Donald Trump. The Chinese want to talk, he claims. More likely he is the one that needs to find an out: the slowing world and American economies and sharp drops in the stock market are flashing alerts: by November 2020 we could be in recession. His re-election prospects would be dealt a big blow if that materializes. No doubt he got an earful about all this from his G7 colleagues over the weekend.
An early solution to the trade war appears unlikely. The American position in the talks advocates fundamental changes in the way the Chinese manage their economy and treat foreign investors. The American negotiators want no technology transfer requirements, a free-floating Chinese currency, and an end to state subsidies. These are so-called “structural” changes that are difficult for the Chinese to concede. China needs more than 6% growth to accommodate its population’s expectations.
President Trump couldn’t care less about all that. He is interested mainly in the bilateral trade balance. A mercantilist, he regards imports as bad and exports as good. What he wants is not complicated structural change–which takes time and attention to detail–but rather simple Chinese commitments to import more from the US. The Chinese have understood this and are likely willing to give him what he wants: they should not care less whether they get soybeans from the US or from Brazil.
Negotiating with the US is therefore a two-level game. The Chinese have understood this: they will do their best to satisfy Trump on reducing the giant bilateral trade deficit while stiffing his negotiators on the structural changes. They will hope this approach will bend the President towards lifting the tariffs he has imposed while Beijing avoids fundamental reforms.
It may work, but it may not. If Trump is a true mercantilist, he will want to make the tariffs permanent, or at least of indefinite duration. Only then could he hope for American companies to do what he “ordered” last week: return to the US, where he would need to protect them from foreign competition with tariffs. If this is Trump’s real ambition, you can expect any renewed trade talks to fail.
You can also expect a permanent decline in US competitiveness as other countries meet competitive challenges while the US is protected from them. Americans will be less well off, productivity will suffer, foreign investment will shrink, the economy will grow more slowly, and the stock market–hesitant now–will fall to new lows. The mercantile solution is a bad one, but hard to rule out with a President who is a mercantilist.
RSS - Posts
