Tag: Economy

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).

Tags : , , ,

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).

Tags : , , , ,

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.

Tags : , ,

Peace Picks | August 5 – 9

How to Talk About People Disengaging from Violent Extremism – The Power of Strategic Language | August 06, 2019 | 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM | U.S. Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Register Here

Around the world, many countries face a challenging security question: what to do with citizens who have joined violent extremist groups. While many face criminal trial, thousands who traveled to live with ISIS will have to reintegrate into their communities, meaning rehabilitation must play a central role in any realistic security approach. Based on experience and research, this rehabilitation is possible through a two-way “re-humanization” effort. Yet we currently lack the language in public discourse to talk about those disengaging from violent extremism without reinforcing stigmas that hinder reconciliation.

It is critical for returning persons and community members to again see and treat each other as people with whom they share a basic human nature. Prosocial engagement between returning persons and community members and institutions is key to that effort. However, public discourse insists on using language steeped in fear and anger: the returning persons are “terrorists,” “jihadists,” “ISIS brides,” or “fighters.” The stigma this language produces is a self-fulfilling prophecy—it impedes empathy, erects barriers to prosocial engagement, and perpetuates the isolation and dehumanization that often fuels violent radicalization in the first place.

Speakers:

  • Dr. Arie Kruglanski, Distinguished University Professor, University of Maryland
  • Shannon Foley Martinez, Consultant for the prevention and disruption of targeted identity violence
  • Dr. Hollie Nyseth-Brehm, Associate Professor of Sociology, The Ohio State University 
  • Dr. Paul Thibodeau, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Oberlin College and Conservatory

Moderator:

  • Leanne Erdberg, Director, Countering Violent Extremism, U.S. Institute of Peac

Contemporary India: Foreign Policy, Development Strategy, and Regional Priorities for Modi 2.0 | August 06, 2019 | 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM | The Heritage Foundation | Lehrman Auditorium, 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002 | Register Here

Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India’s foreign policy and engagement with the world has acquired new energy and dynamism. Following India’s historic elections this spring, Modi’s second term will continue to focus on creating an enabling environment for India’s growth and development, while pursuing security and growth for all in India’s neighborhood and beyond. To discuss the Modi government’s foreign policy imperatives, and particularly India’s priorities in its regional engagements, India’s Ambassador to the U.S., His Excellency Harsh Vardhan Shringla will join Heritage Foundation South Asia scholar Jeff M. Smith for a wide-ranging conversation.

Speakers:

  • H.E. Harsh Vardhan Shringla, Ambassador of India to the United States
  • Jeff M. Smith, Research Fellow, South Asia, Heritage Foundation Asian Studies Center

A View from Iraq: A Conversation with Iraqi MP Sarkawt Shamsulddin | August 06, 2019 | 12:00 PM | The Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20005 | Register Here

With a new Kurdistan Regional Government in place, the Atlantic Council’s Iraq Initiative invites you to join us for a conversation with Iraqi Council of Representatives Member Sarkawt Shamsulddin to hear a view from Iraq. In 2018, Shamsulddin became the youngest member of the Iraqi parliament, securing the top position of the New Generation Movement in Sulaymaniyah Province. He is now one of the leaders of The Future parliamentary bloc and a member of the Iraqi-American Friendship Committee.

The discussion topics will include how Iraq views the tensions between the United States and Iran, how the new Kurdistan Regional Government cabinet is re-setting relations with Baghdad, and what can be done to promote reforms, counter corruption, and build bridges between civil society organizations in Baghdad in Erbil.

Speakers:

  • Mr. Sarkawt Shamsulddin, Member, Council of Representative of Iraq

Moderator:

  • Dr. Abbas Kadhim, Senior Fellow and Director, Iraq Initiative, Atlantic Council

The Japanese-South Korean Trade Dispute: Ramifications and the Path Forward | August 07, 2019 | 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM | The Heritage Foundation | Allsion Auditorium, 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002 | Register Here

Japan and South Korea have recently imposed rulings that impact each other’s financial interests and risk triggering a strategic trade war. During previous spikes in tensions, bilateral economic and security sectors were not involved and instead served as moderating influences. That changed for the worse last year. Strained bilateral economic relations undermine U.S. allied diplomatic and security coordination to deal with the North Korean threat. What role should Washington play in resolving disputes between two critically important Asian allies?

Speakers:

Panel I – Competing Views and Economic Considerations (1:30 – 3:00 p.m.)

  • Scott Snyder, Senior Fellow for Korea Studies and Director of the Program on U.S.-Korea Policy, Council on Foreign Relations
  • Yuki Tatsumi, Senior Fellow and Co-Director of the East Asia Program and Director of the Japan Program, The Stimson Center
  • Riley Walters, Policy Analyst for Asia Economy and Technology, The Heritage Foundation

Panel II – Implications for Economics, Security, and U.S. Strategic Objectives (3:00 – 4:30 p.m.)

  • Matthew Goodman, Senior Vice President, Senior Adviser for Asian Economics, and the Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies
  • James Schoff, Senior Fellow, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
  • Patrick Cronin, Asia-Pacific Security Chair, The Hudson Institute

Hosted by:

  • Bruce Klingner, Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia, The Heritage Foundation

Building Bridges? Development and Infrastructure in U.S.-China Relations | August 08, 2019 | 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM | CSIS Headquarters, 2nd Floor | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here

Amid escalating U.S.-China tensions, Washington and Beijing are focused on managing their differences on bilateral trade. At the same time, both countries have a major stake in the functioning of the global economic order—the institutions, rules, and norms that shape international economic affairs. Even as they address bilateral issues, it is also important for the two sides to confront strains in the global order.

During this event, U.S. and Chinese experts will discuss an important set of issues in the global economic order: infrastructure and development finance. They will explore where the two sides may be able to cooperate and where they need to manage their differences. The event will roll out a collection of essays written in parallel by U.S. and Chinese scholars on trade, finance, technology, and other key issues in the global economic order. This essay series is the culmination of a multi-year effort to promote U.S.-China dialogue funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Speakers:

  • Nancy Lee, Senior Policy Fellow, Center for Global Development
  • Peter Raymond, Senior Associate (Non-resident), Reconnecting Asia Project and Simon Chair in Political Economy, CSIS; Former Advisory Leader, Capital Projects and Infrastructure, PwC
  • Stephanie Segal, Senior Fellow, Simon Chair in Political Economy, CSIS 
  • Ye Yu, Associate Research Fellow & Assistant Director, Institute for World Economy Studies, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS)

Moderator:

  • Matthew P. Goodman, Senior Vice President and Simon Chair in Political Economy, CSIS

Confrontation in the Gulf: Unpacking Recent Escalations and the Prospects of US-Iran Talks | August 08, 2019 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | Arab Center Washington DC | National Press Club, Holeman Lounge, 529 14th St., NW Washington, DC 20045 | Register Here

Tensions in the Persian Gulf threaten to escalate as regional and international actors look to improve their strategic standing at the expense of their adversaries. The last few weeks witnessed a number of attacks on oil tankers and platforms, seizures of ships operating in the Gulf and traversing the Strait of Hormuz, and the mutual downing of American and Iranian unmanned aerial vehicles. Left unaddressed, these actions ratchet up tensions and could quickly lead to a conflagration that would devastate all states in the region and disrupt the free flow of hydrocarbon supplies to the international economy. Over the last few months, many efforts have been made to find a compromise that could help address the sources of tension and spare the strategic area the outcomes of a confrontation, including calls and statements by regional and international actors as well as by the United States and Iran. Despite attempts at de-escalation, the stalemate persists and talks have not taken place.

Join Arab Center Washington DC to discuss the recent escalation of hostilities in the region, the economic, political, humanitarian, and strategic risks of a potential military conflagration, the possibility for negotiations and the measures needed to advance talks between Iran and the Trump Administration, and the impact of the current stalemate and policy responses from the actors involved.

Speakers:

  • Shireen Hunter, University Associate, Georgetown University
  • Kenneth Katzman, Middle East Specialist, Congressional Research Service 
  • Assal Rad, Research Fellow, National Iranian American Council
  • Barbara Slavin, Director and Nonresident Senior Fellow, Future of Iran Initiative, Atlantic Council

Moderator:

  • Daniel Brumberg, Associate Professor and Director, Democracy and Governance Studies, Georgetown University, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Arab Center Washington DC
Tags : , , , , , , , ,

Peace Picks June 17-23

1. Transatlantic Cooperation in an Era of Crisis and Competition|June 17|3:15pm-5:00pm|Hudson Institute|1201 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20004|Register Here

Hudson Institute will host distinguished scholars from France’s Institut Montaigne for a discussion on transatlantic relations. Founded in 2000, Institut Montaigne is a pioneering independent think tank dedicated to public policy in France and Europe. Panelists will include Michel Duclos, special advisor on Geopolitics at Institut Montaigne and former French Ambassador to Syria and Switzerland; and François Godement, senior advisor for Asia at Institut Montaigne.

Against a backdrop of surging populism in democracies and rising authoritarianism worldwide, Europe finds itself at the center of a return to great power rivalry between China and the United States. Disputes over trade and security are straining longstanding areas of cooperation even as global power centers shift and new partnerships beckon. How should policymakers in Washington, Brussels, and capitals across Europe respond to these challenges? What is the future of the transatlantic relationship in a rapidly changing world?

Speakers:

Michel DuclosSpecial Advisor, Geopolitics, Institut Montaigne and former French Ambassador to Syria and Switzerland

François GodementSenior Advisor for Asia, Institut Montaigne

Ben JudahResearch Fellow, Hudson Institute

Peter RoughFellow, Hudson Institute

Ken WeinsteinPresident and CEO, Hudson Institute

2. South Sudan’s Stalled Path to Peace|June 18|9:30am-11:30am|United States Institute of Peace|2301 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20037|Register Here

In early May, South Sudan’s ruling and opposition parties agreed to extend the pre-transitional period of the South Sudan peace agreement leading to the formation of a unified Government for an additional six months. The extension of this period presents an opportunity to reflect on the progress and challenges to establishing a just peace in the country. South Sudanese citizens are desperate for peace, but many are asking what channels exist to support a meaningful reduction of violence. Between January and March alone, 25,000 people fled the country, adding to the already two million South Sudanese refugees worldwide. Without full implementation of the peace process, national- and local-level conflicts will continue to threaten hard-won development gains and require greater investments in lifesaving humanitarian aid.

Please join USIP for a look at South Sudan’s peace agreement and the measures required to build peace in the young nation. In this live-streamed discussion, experts from USIP, the Enough Project, and Democracy International will offer concrete, evidence-based recommendations for how to mitigate conflict, promote peace and advance accountability.

Speakers

David Acuoth, Founder, Council on South Sudanese-American Relations

Brian AdebaDeputy Director of Policy, Enough Project, @kalamashaka

Mark Ferullo, Senior Advisor, The Sentry

Morgan Simpson, Deputy Director of Programs, Democracy International

Susan StigantDirector of Africa Programs, U.S. Institute of Peace, @SusanStigant

3. Is the US Decoupling from Asia’s Economic Architecture|June 19|9:00am-1:30pm|Center for Strategic and International Studies|1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here

The CSIS Japan Chair, the CSIS Simon Chair, and JETRO cordially invite you to join us for the annual CSIS-JETRO conference.

9:00-9:05        Welcoming Remarks
John J. Hamre, President and CEO, CSIS
9:05-9:35        Opening Remarks (TBD) 
9:35-10:00      Keynote Address
 Nobuhiko Sasaki, Chairman and CEO, Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO)
10:00-11:15     Regional Perspectives on Indo-Pacific Economic Integration
China:
Xinquan Tu, Dean and Professor, Center for WTO Studies, University of
International Business & Economics, Beijing
Japan:
Yasuyuki Todo, Professor, Graduate School of Economics, Waseda, University
ASEAN:
Deborah Elms, Founder and Executive Director, Asian Trade Centre,Singapore
Moderator: Matthew P. Goodman, Senior Vice President; William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy and Senior Adviser for Asian Economics, CSIS
11:15-11:30   Break
11:30-12:30   Status and Impact of U.S. Trade Policy
Charles Freeman, Senior Vice President for Asia, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Lorraine Hawley, Senior Director, International Government Relations,Archer Daniels Midland Company
Aaron Cooper, Vice President, Global Policy, BSA | The Software Alliance  
Moderator:
Michael J. Green, Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan Chair, CSIS;Director of Asian Studies, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service,Georgetown University
12:30-13:30   Luncheon Address (TBD)                       

13:30              Adjourn

4. 2019 Atlantic Council-East Asia Foundation Strategic Dialogue|June 19|9:30am|Atlantic Council|1030 15thSt NW, 12thFloor, Washington, DC 20005|Register Here

Please join the Atlantic Council’s Asia Security Initiative, housed within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, for the 2019 Atlantic Council-East Asia Foundation Strategic Dialogue. This day-long conference will explore the current state of the United States and Republic of Korea’s ongoing negotiations with North Korea and the broader strategic picture developing in the Indo-Pacific. The Strategic Dialogue will feature keynote addresses by US Special Representative for North Korea Stephen Biegun and ROK Special Representative for Korean Peninsula Peace and Security Affairs Do-hoon Lee. This will be H.E. Lee’s first public address in the United States, as well as the first time both Special Representatives will speak on the same stage.

One year ago, President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un met in Singapore for an unprecedented, historic summit that concluded with a promise to deliver lasting peace to a denuclearized Korean peninsula. Today, the question remains: will this promised future become a reality? Will the coming months see a continued stalemate in negotiations, a major crisis, or a dramatic breakthrough? Ultimately, how will developments on the peninsula shape the Republic of Korea’s role in the broader Indo-Pacific under intensifying US-China strategic competition?

Breakfast and lunch will be provided.

Agenda:

WELCOME REMARKS (9:30 a.m. – 9:50 a.m.)

Mr. Barry PavelSenior Vice President, Arnold Kanter Chair, and Director,Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council

Minister Sung-hwan Kim, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Republic of Korea; Board Member, East Asia Foundation

KEYNOTE REMARKS (9:50 a.m. – 10:50 a.m.)

The Hon. Stephen Biegun, US Special Representative for North Korea,US Department of State

H.E. Do-hoon LeeROK Special Representative for Korean PeninsulaPeace and Security Affairs,ROK Ministry of Foreign Affairs

PANEL DISCUSSION: SEEKING A POST-HANOI BREAKTHROUGH ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA(11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.)

Dr. Toby DaltonCo-Director, Nuclear Policy Program,Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

H.E. Jong-dae Kim, Member, 20th National Assembly; Head of the Foreign Affairs and Security Division;Member of the National Assembly’s National Defense Committee;Head of the Foreign Affairs and Security Division; Member, Justice Party

H.E. Jae-jung Lee, Member, 20th National Assembly; Spokesperson, Democratic Party of Korea

Amb. Joseph YunFormer US Special Representative for North Korea Policy, US Department of State; Senior Adviser, Asia Program, United States Institute of Peace

Mr. Barry Pavel (Moderator)Senior Vice President, Arnold Kanter Chair, and Director,Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council

LUNCH CONVERSATION (1:00 p.m. – 1:45 p.m.)

Amb. Paula J. DobrianskyFormer US Under Secretary of State; Senior Fellow, The Future of Diplomacy Project, JFK Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University

Dr. Chung-in Moon, Special Adviser to the President for Unification, Foreign, and National Security Affairs, Republic of Korea

PANEL DISCUSSION: CHARTING KOREA’S ROLE IN US-CHINA STRATEGIC COMPETITION IN THE INDO-PACIFIC(2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.)

The Hon. Ami Bera, US House of Representatives (D-CA); Chair, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House Foreign Affairs Committee; Co-Chair, Congressional Caucus on Korea

H.E. Ihk-pyo Hong, Member, 20th National Assembly; Vice Chairman of the National Assembly’s Public Administration and Security Committee; Chief Spokesman, Democratic Party of Korea

Prof. Jaeho Hwang, Director of Global Security Cooperation Center, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies

H.E. Sun-suk Park, Member, 20th National Assembly; Member, National Assembly’s Science, ICT, Future Planning, and Communications Committee,Member, Bareunmirae Party

The Hon. Ted S. Yoho DVMUS House of Representatives (R-FL), Lead Republican, Subcommittee on Asia, The Pacific, and Nonproliferation; Member, Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, and Trade, House Foreign Affairs Committee 

Dr. Miyeon Oh (Moderator)Director and Senior Fellow, Asia Security Initiative,Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council

CLOSING REMARKS (3:30 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.)

Mr. Barry PavelSenior Vice President, Arnold Kanter Chair, and Director, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council

5. Sixth Annual Building a Competitive U.S.-Mexico Border Conference|June 20|8:30am-4:30pm|Woodrow Wilson Center|1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004|Register Here

The Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute and the Border Trade Alliance invite you to save the date for our sixth annual high-level “Building a Competitive U.S.-Mexico Border” conference, which will focus on improving border management in order to strengthen the competitiveness of both the United States and Mexico. Topics covered at the conference will include the USMCA (the renegotiated NAFTA), strengthening security and efficiency at border ports of entry, the impact of tariffs and reduced staffing on trade, and growing crossborder cooperation for regional economic development.

Confirmed Speakers*

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)

Congressman Will Hurd (R-TX 23)
Ambassador Martha Bárcena, Ambassador of Mexico to the United States

C.J. Mahoney, Deputy United States Trade Representative 

John Sanders, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Gustavo de la Fuente, Executive Director, Smart Border Coalition

Lance Jungmeyer, President, Fresh Produce Association of the Americas

Mario Lozoya, Executive Director, Greater Brownsville Incentives Corporation

Federico Schaffler, Director, Texas Center for Border Economic Enterprise Development, Texas A&M International University

Christopher Wilson, Deputy Director, Mexico Institute, Wilson Center

Britton Clarke, President, Border Trade Alliance

6. Russian Influence in Venezuela: What Should the United States Do?|June 20|9:00am|Atlantic Council|1030 15thSt NW, 12thFloor, Washington, DC 20005|Register Here

As a wave of public support for democratic transition is sweeping Venezuela and the international community, Moscow continues to stand by Nicolás Maduro. Displays of military force, Rosneft’s ownership of 49.9 percent of CITGO shares, and billions in loans to Maduro, showcase Russia’s rooted geopolitical and economic interests in Venezuela and the hemisphere.

What drives Russian support for Maduro? What is its role in the unfolding humanitarian, economic, and political crisis? How can the United States counter Russian involvement in Venezuela?

Join the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center and Eurasia Center on Thursday, June 20, 2019 from 9:00 to 10:30 a.m. for a public event that will discuss the extent of Russian involvement in Venezuela, Moscow’s motivations and possible next moves, and how the United States should react.

Breakfast will be provided.

Speakers to be announced.

7. The Global Peace Index 2019 Launch|June 20|9:00am-10:30am|Center for Strategic and International Studies|1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here

The Human Rights Initiative of CSIS invites you to a public launch event of the 2019 Global Peace Index (GPI). The Global Peace Index is the world’s leading measure of global peacefulness, ranking 163 countries and territories according to their level of relative peacefulness. Created by the Institute for Economics and Peace, the report presents the most comprehensive data-driven analysis to-date on trends in peace and its economic value.

The report findings will be followed by a panel discussion considering the implications of closing civic space and inequality for peace. It will look particularly at the factors that IEP has found to be necessary preconditions for peace in its Positive Peace Report, many of which rely on an active civil society and limits on inequality.

This event is made possible by the Institute of Economics and Peace (IEP).

Featuring:

Stephen Lennon, Senior Policy Adviser to USAID’s bureau of Democracy Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs (DCHA)

Shannon Green,Senior Director of Programs at the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC)

Jonathan Drimmer, Senior Adviser at Business for Social Responsibility (BSR)

Laurie Smolenski, Outreach and Development Officer, Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP)

Tags : , , , , , , ,

What Serbia can get

Berlin will be hosting Balkan leaders Monday. This summit will be EU High Representative Mogherini’s last chance before she leaves office to strike a deal on “normalization” of relations between Serbia and Kosovo. The Germans have let it be known that they are firmly opposed to border changes as part of such a deal and hope to kill the idea. But that leaves open the question of what Serbia could get from recognizing Kosovo as a sovereign and independent state.

Belgrade lost sovereignty over Kosovo due to Slobodan Milosevic’s depredations, including annulment of Kosovo’s autonomy under Socialist Yugoslavia, the expulsion of Albanians from its Serbia institutions, the establishment of an apartheid-like regime, mass atrocities committed against innocent women and children, state violence to chase Albanians out of Kosovo, and continued hostility after the fall of Milosevic to the establishment of self-governing democratic institutions that provide significant privileges for Serbs. Even after the fall of Milosevic, Serbia did nothing to “make unity attractive,” in the Sudanese phrase.

Serbia is entitled to nothing in Kosovo, but of course not being entitled doesn’t mean you can’t ask for what you want and use what leverage you have to get it. Serbia has leverage because it has been successful in blocking entry for Kosovo into some international institutions, including the United Nations. No doubt they give awards for that in the Serbian foreign ministry, but it isn’t doing anything for Serbia or Serbs except denying the Kosovars their dreams and holding out the forlorn hope that some day Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo can be restored. Inat (spite, more or less) is emotionally gratifying but not otherwise rewarding.

The trick for Serbia and for Kosovo is to ask for things that your adversary, or someone else, can give. That is where President Vucic has failed. He has asked for a chunk of northern Kosovo that includes a municipality that was Albanian-majority before the war as well as Kosovo’s major non-energy mineral deposits and its main water supply. Alternatively, Vucic appears ready to accept an Association of Serb Municipalities that would allow Belgrade to govern all the Serbs of Kosovo, north and south of the Ibar river. No self-respecting Kosovo president could concede these intrusions on sovereignty, no Kosovo parliament would approve them, and no popular referendum is likely to confirm them.

What could Vucic reasonably hope for? First and foremost is removal of an otherwise insurmountable obstacle to European Union membership. Germany and several other EU member states have made it plain that they will not ratify Serbia’s membership without complete and irreversible normalization of relations with Kosovo. Even if their governments wanted to do so, which they don’t, their parliaments would not. If Serbia, as it has planned to do, waits until it is fully qualified for EU membership, it can expect nothing in return for normalization with Kosovo, since all the leverage will then be with the EU and its member states. All membership aspirants yield on the last issues remaining once they have met the other EU membership requirements. Ask the Slovenians and Croatians.

Having wisely decided to normalize earlier rather than later, what can Vucic hope for? Pristina’s recently approved negotiating platform gives one hint: a good deal on payment of former Yugoslavia’s sovereign debts. There are other possibilities:

  • Kosovo has approved conversion of its lightly armed security force into an army, not least so it can join NATO. Belgrade says it fears the Kosovo army would be used against Serbs. It is not hard to imagine a Kosovo army entirely designed for international missions that would pose no threat to Serbs either in Kosovo or in Serbia, whose army is far larger and better equipped than anything Kosovo can afford. Two hints: focusing on helicopters (the Americans have them conveniently at hand at Camp Bondsteel) and cyber defense would give the Kosovo army opportunities to add real value to NATO.
  • The most important Serb historical and religious sites in Kosovo are south of the Ibar river, where most of the Serb population lives in enclaves. Further enhanced security arrangements that would ensure the sites and the people remain inviolate but still respect Pristina’s sovereignty should be doable.
  • Kosovo has imposed high tariffs on Serb imports, in an effort to force Serbia into normalization. That isn’t working: Serb goods are entering Kosovo without passing through the official entry points. The Europeans and Americans are berating and threatening Pristina. The tariffs need to end, as they are no more than an incentive for smuggling and enrichment of organized crime that neither Kosovo nor Serbia should want if they want to be taken seriously by the EU.
  • Kosovo’s constitutional court has issued a ruling that clarifies what kind of Association of Serb Municipalities would be acceptable. If Serbia is prepared to respect Kosovo’s constitutional order, it should take what is on offer, and provide comparable arrangements for Albanian communities inside Serbia.
  • The nub of territorial contestation between Kosovo and Serbia is the municipality of North Mitrovica, which is still controlled by Belgrade (insofar as it is controlled) but was majority Albanian before the 1999 war. The Americans managed a similarly sensitive town in northeast Bosnia, Brcko, by declaring it a condominium of both the Federation and Republika, the two halves of the country. That effectively removed it from control of both and made it a self-governing entity with a special status, under American tutelage, within the context of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty. A similar solution for North Mitrovica, within the sovereignty of Kosovo, is conceivable. Whether American tutelage is practicable is another question.
  • Both Belgrade and Pristina want immunity from prosecution for their own citizens who participated in the 1990s fighting, some of whom still serve in high positions. Odious though it may be to me, mutual amnesty for everything but war crimes and crimes against humanity is permissible. In both capitals it is widely assumed that whichever leaders take up President Trump’s invitation to sign a historic deal in the Rose Garden will be immune from prosecution.

None of this can happen quickly or easily, but there are some immediate steps that would point in the right direction:

  1. The defense chiefs of staff should meet and begin the process, common among neighboring countries, of exchanging information on their respective forces and defense strategies. They should also discuss security for Serb communities and sites in Kosovo as well as for Albanian communities and sites in Serbia.
  2. CEFTA, the central European free trade association in which both Serbia and Kosovo participate should begin an intense process of examining trade complaints by both Belgrade and Pristina, including the tariffs, with a view to resolving them by the end of this year.
  3. Kosovo’s Ministry of Communities and Returns should begin talking with Serbia’s Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government about reciprocal cooperation arrangements for Serb communities in Kosovo and Albanian communities in Serbia.
  4. All those concerned should read Bill Farrand’s account of what he did at Brcko in the first years after the war and how he did it. It is hard to picture that any international could reproduce that success in North Mitrovica without extraordinary and plenipotentiary powers. And it is pretty much inconceivable that anyone but an American, aided by a Russian and a European, could even begin to hope for success in less than a decade of concerted, well-resourced efforts, including backup by whatever NATO forces can be provided.
  5. Both Serbia and Kosovo need foreign investment and faster economic growth, not least to provide employment and keep their young people at home rather than fleeing to the European Union. The EU and US should be prepared to ante up for a multi-billion dollar/euro package of economic support, provided Pristina and Belgrade implement a serious normalization process.

Normalization may not arrive in one magical package this year, as some overly sanguine diplomats have been hoping, but as the result of a long and difficult process. It is going to require a lot of intense and complex cross-border cooperation. The time to start that has arrived.

Tags : , , ,
Tweet