Tag: Extremism
Stevenson’s army, September 10
-WaPo tells how Senate GOP hopes to jam House GOP on budget
-DOD says China targets US military personnel
– NYT says Vietnam seek secret arms deal with Russia
– Defense One says Russians were in Africa just before coups
– VOA says Somalia shift tactics against al-Shabaab
– G20 communique is compromise on Ukraine and other topics
Interesting background pieces: Malta beat Apple, WSJ reports
– Democracy experts warn of history of compromises with extremists
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. 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).
– SAIS prof Henry Farrell tells how US came to weaponize semiconductors
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
– WSJ says US envisions Israel-like security guarantees for Ukraine.
– CNN says Pentagon has backed off efforts to combat extremism.
– Sinn Fein wins in Northern Ireland.
– NYT has long articles on the difficulties of adopting innovation.
– CBS says military contractor price-gouging.
– Biden predicts “thaw” in relations with China.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. 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 UAE as peace brokers
In this episode of Battlegrounds, H.R. McMaster and Yousef Al Otaiba discuss the Abraham Accords, the threat from Iran, and great power competition in the Middle East. Speakers and their affiliations are listed below:
Yousef Al Otaiba: United Arab Emirates (UAE) Ambassador to the United States (US)
H. R. McMaster: Fouad and Michelle Ajami Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University
The Abraham Accords and Normalization with Israel
The defining feature of the discussion between Ambassador Otaiba and McMaster was the rapidly evolving dynamics of both the Gulf and the Middle East writ large. Nowhere is that more true than with respect to Israel and the recently signed Abraham Accords. Otaiba in particular stressed that people in the region are tired of decades-long conflicts and are increasingly desirous of new approaches to old problems. One indication of how widespread this desire for change is is how quickly three countries followed the UAE’s lead in normalizing relations with Israel.
McMaster called attention to an op-ed penned by Otaiba prior to the Accords in which he argued that annexation would critically inhibit the ability of countries like the UAE to negotiate with Israel. Both agreed that the signal sent by the publication of this opinion piece–which was also published in Hebrew–served as an effective opening salvo of signaling that ultimately facilitated the negotiations that generated the Accords.
Iran, the Gulf, and Extremism
McMaster pointed to the name of the Accords themselves as an attempt to transcend the religious and sectarian divisions that have plagued the region in recent decades. He also pointed to Iran as an actor that has consistently complicated these aims. In particular, he identified Iran’s support of proxy actors in conflict, attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf, and the promotion of ideological justifications for sectarianism and theocracy as ways in which Iran has complicated the dynamics of peace processes in the region.
Otaiba also identified Iran’s support for violent extremists as a significant complicating factor in peace processes. Notably, he argued that it was not only the rise of Shia extremism at issue, but also the way in which Iran’s rhetoric has motivated Sunni extremism as well. Otaiba pointed to the UAE’s work to combat extremism as an important step in this regard. For example, the UAE invited the Pope to visit the country and developed a complex that included a synagogue, mosque, and church. By doing so, the country aims to challenge the perception among some that extremists are the true guardians of community and society.
The Future of the Region
Otaiba argued that the way in which Iranian rhetoric has reinforced Sunni extremism is indicative that the future of the region will not be defined by a Sunni-Shia fault line, but rather a debate over the role of religion in governance. This fault line will be divided, according to Otaiba, between those who believe in a separation between church and state–as he does–and those who believe that religion ought to be incorporated into governance.
McMaster and Otaiba also believed that the Biden administration will differentiate itself from the conciliatory approach to Iran that characterized the Obama administration. This difference in outlook is largely attributed to the Trump administration’s policy of maximum pressure, which has given this new administration a stronger hand with which to leverage more concessions out of Iran. While both were fairly optimistic that the Biden administration will maintain a strong line against Iran, Otaiba expressed some concern about the prospects of the administration’s push for peace and withdrawal in Afghanistan. The UAE has taken some steps away from this theater in recent years, diminishing its ability to leverage its role as a broker to achieve peace. While Otaiba expressed that the UAE was willing to accept the outcome of any agreement between the US, the Taliban, and the government, he also expressed disbelief that all three parties could come to a durable agreement.
To watch the event in full, please click here
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | October 19 – 23
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
1. New START and the Future of US-Russia Arms Control | October 19, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM EDT | Wilson Center | Register Here
The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) is the last strategic nuclear arms control agreement still in force between the United States and Russia. It will expire in less than 4 months unless extended, and negotiations to that end are now underway. On October 19, Lynn Rusten and Feodor Voitolovsky will join us for a conversation on the American and Russian perspectives on the future of New START and the changing technological and security landscape that will shape the next five years of arms control.
Speakers:
Lynn Rusten: Vice President, Global Nuclear Policy Program, Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)
Feodor Voitolovsky: Head of Section, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of World Economy and International Relations of Russian Academy of Sciences
Matthew Rojansky, moderator: Director, Kennan Institute
2. RESOLVE Network 2020 Global Forum: Violent Extremism in 2020 and Beyond | October 19, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:15 AM EDT | United States Institute for Peace | Register Here
The year 2020 has ushered in rapid and significant shifts in existing threats to global security. From the COVID-19 pandemic to climate change and longstanding violent conflict, the pressures facing our current global system are increasingly complex and all-encompassing. Among these, violent extremism remains a significant challenge—shifting as actors adapt and take advantage of ongoing and emerging global shocks and sources of instability.
How has the violent extremism landscape changed in the five years since the “fall” of ISIS? How has rising global instability, populism, and disinformation altered violent extremist operations and ideologies, and vice versa? What challenges do we face in addressing violent extremism in the new threat landscape? Can we apply any lessons from past experiences to address emerging threats and dynamics in 2020 and beyond?
Please join the RESOLVE Network and USIP for a discussion about these challenges and more during part one of RESOLVE’s fifth annual Global Forum series. Convened virtually, the forum will bring together leading experts and researchers for thought-provoking conversations on evolving trends and dynamics in the violent extremist landscape.
Speakers:
Dr. Mary Beth Altier: Clinical Associate Professor, Center for Global Affairs, New York University
Dr. Amarnath Amarasingam: Assistant Professor, School of Religion, Queen’s University, member of the RESOLVE Research Advisory Council
Dr. Colin P. Clarke: Senior Research Fellow, The Soufan Center, member of the RESOLVE Research Advisory Council
3. Amid Multiple Crises, a Divided Nation | October 19, 2020 | 1:00 – 2:30 PM EDT | Brookings Institute | Register Here
In the wake of over 210,000 deaths from the coronavirus, massive unemployment, protests over racial justice, the death of a U.S. Supreme Court justice, and unprecedented wildfires in multiple western states, questions remain about who will turn out to vote and what will drive them to the polls. Now, a new and extensive national survey of more than 2,500 Americans reveals a great deal about the public’s views of the presidential candidates and their attitudes toward pressing issues such as health care, the economy, racial justice, immigration, the changing demographics of the nation, climate change, and the fairness and reliability of the elections themselves.
On October 19, Governance Studies at Brookings and PRRI will host the release of PRRI’s eleventh annual American Values Survey (AVS). A panel of experts will discuss the survey results and what they reveal about Americans’ attitudes toward a variety of issues that are sure to shape the outcome of this presidential election. The survey also highlights the impact of media consumption on attitudes, long-term trends in partisan and religious affiliation, and how these changes have produced two starkly contrasting visions for the nation.
Speakers:
E.J. Dionne, Jr., moderator: W. Averell Harriman Chair and Senior Fellow – Governance Studies
William A. Galston, moderator: Ezra K. Zilkha Chair and Senior Fellow – Governance Studies
Karlyn Bowman: Senior Fellow – American Enterprise Institute
Andra Gillespie: Associate Professor of Political Science; Director, James Weldon Johnson Institute – Emory University
Robert P. Jones: CEO and Founder – PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute)
4. Cross-Strait Seminar Series: Taiwan and the future of US-China strategic competition | October 19, 2020 | 1:00 PM EDT | The Atlantic Council | Register Here
As US-China relations continue to deteriorate in the era of COVID-19, the role of Taiwan has received increasing attention from both Washington and Beijing. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has made reunification with Taiwan, peaceful or otherwise, a key objective of his extended tenure, and has overseen a ratcheting up of military exercises, influence operations, and other pressures across the Taiwan Strait in recent years. Meanwhile, the United States has taken a series of concrete steps to demonstrate renewed commitment to its relationship with Taiwan, including recently issuing a joint declaration on 5G security, launching a new bilateral economic dialogue, and sending Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex M. Azar II and Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Keith Krach – the two highest-profile visits from US officials to Taiwan since 1979.
These major developments raise a number of key questions about Taiwan’s role in the future of US-China strategic competition. What is the long-term vision and strategic goals of the US-Taiwan relations? Where does Taiwan fit into the US Indo-Pacific strategy? Likewise, how do US relations fit into the second Tsai administration’s vision for foreign and economic policy? How are recent developments in US-Taiwan relations shaping cross-strait geopolitics, and how the US and Taiwan can work with other US allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific approaching engagement with Taiwan in light of ongoing developments? What should be Taiwan’s role in a broader network of global democracies on key strategic issues such as 5G, global supply chains, maritime security, defense technology, and countering influence operations? Ultimately, what will the decade ahead hold for the Taiwan Strait as one of greatest geopolitical flashpoints in US-China relations?
Please join the Atlantic Council’s Asia Security Initiative, housed within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, for a public panel discussion on the changing role of Taiwan amid US-China strategic competition.
Speakers:
Mr. Michael Mazza: Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Mr. Dexter Tiff Roberts: Nonresident Senior Fellow, Asia Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Mr. Randall G. Schriver: Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Affairs; Chairman, Project 2049
Ms. Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, moderator: China Reporter, Axios
5. A Fragmented Society: the Internal Dynamics of Libya’s Conflict | October 19, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:30 AM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
While most discussions about the Libyan crisis revolve around geopolitics and international interference, internal divisions within Libya’s civil society and political institutions have also played a fundamental role in destabilizing the country since the fall of Moamar Gaddafi in 2012. Governance in Libya is fragmented with very few truly national actors. It also continues to lack political institutions that are seen by all Libyans as legitimate. The ongoing conflict consists of many contending local and tribal players, including spoilers who have demonstrated opposition to either peace or reconciliation except on the basis of total victory by their group.
What are the major obstacles to stabilization? How can Libya approach the establishment of political institutions? In what ways can the international community support a Libyan-led peace process? The Middle East Institute, the Regional Program Political Dialogue South Mediterranean of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, and the Policy Center for the New South are pleased to jointly host a group of experts to discuss these questions and more in a closed roundtable format.
Speakers:
Youness Abouyoub: Director, Governance and State-Building Division for the MENA Region, United Nations; former senior political advisor to the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General to Libya
Emadeddin Badi: Nonresident senior fellow, Atlantic Council
Virginie Collombier: Research fellow, European University Institute
Mohamed Dorda: Co-Founder, Libya Desk
Mohamed Eljarh: Co-Founder, Libya Outlook for Research and Consulting
Mary Fitzgerald: Independent researcher
Amanda Kadlec: Founder and director, Evolve Governance
Karim Mezran: Resident senior fellow, Atlantic Council
Tarik Mgerisi: Policy fellow, North Africa and Middle East Programme, European Council on Foreign Relations
Amal Obeidi: Associate professor of Comparative Politics, Department of Political Science; faculty of Economics, University of Benghazi, Libya
Jason Pack: Nonresident scholar, Middle East Institute; founder, Libya-Analysis LLC
Jonathan Winer: Nonresident scholar, Middle East Institute; former United States Special Envoy for Libya
Len Ishmael, moderator: Senior Fellow, Policy Center for the New South
6. Iran and North Korea: Proliferation and Regional Challenges for the Next Administration | October 20, 2020 | 3:00 – 4:00 PM EDT | Brookings Institute | Register Here
Among the numerous and varied foreign policy challenges facing the next administration will be the nuclear proliferation and regional security threats posed by Iran and North Korea. The next administration will need to consider how to build international and domestic support for addressing those threats, whether and when to engage those regimes diplomatically, and the balance between pressure and diplomacy in pursuing U.S. policy objectives.
On Tuesday, October 20, the Foreign Policy program at Brookings will host an online discussion with experts who previously served as Defense and State Department officials, nuclear negotiators, and intelligence community officers.
Speakers:
Suzanne Maloney, moderator: Vice President and Director – Foreign Policy
Jung H. Pak: SK-Korea Foundation Chair in Korea StudiesSenior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies
Robert Einhorn: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative
Matthew Kroenig: Professor – Georgetown UniversityDeputy Director of The Scowcroft Center – Atlantic Council
Eric Edelman: Roger Hertog Distinguished Practitioner-in-Residence – School of Advanced International Studies
7. Women Transforming Peace: Celebrating 20 Years of UNSCR 1325 and Beyond | October 20, 2020 | 9:30 – 11:00 AM EDT | United States Institute for Peace | Register Here
Twenty years ago, the U.N. Security Council sparked a global policy revolution when it recognized, for the first time, the unique experiences of women and girls in violent conflict. Resolution 1325, otherwise known as the Women, Peace, and Security agenda, laid a foundation for governments and civil society to place women at the center of peace processes—not only as victims, but as essential builders of peace. However, despite national action plans and legislation in 84 countries, women remain undervalued in peacebuilding and underrepresented in peace processes. Policymakers and practitioners must look beyond this policy framework first established two decades ago to achieve women’s meaningful participation in peace and security moving forward.
Join USIP and the U.S. Civil Society Working Group on Women, Peace and Security to mark the 20th anniversary of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325. The discussion will look at how countries are expanding on the Women, Peace and Security agenda by adopting feminist foreign and development policies—and how civil society organizations have invested in masculinities programming as a complementary approach. These and other frameworks may prove more effective in advancing gender equality in peace and security, especially in light of the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic.
Ambassador Jacqueline O’Neill: Ambassador for Women, Peace and Security, Government of Canada
Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins: Founder and President, Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security and Conflict Transformation & Member of U.S. CSWG
Rita M. Lopidia: 2020 USIP Women Building Peace Award Recipient & Executive Director and Co-Founder, Eve Organization for Women Development, South Sudan and Uganda
Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, MBE: Founder and CEO, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) & U.S. CSWG Member
Anthony Keedi: Masculinities Technical Advisor, ABAAD: Resource Center for Gender Equality, Lebanon
Kathleen Kuehnast, moderator: Director, Gender Policy and Strategy, U.S. Institute of Peace
8. How Crimea’s Tatars are Fighting Occupation and Displacement | October 20, 2020 | 10:00 AM EDT | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Crimea’s indigenous Tatar population has faced persecution and adversity for generations. Today, as Crimea is held under Russian occupation, new hardships have forced Crimean Tatars to make their voices heard. When Kremlin forces illegally seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, Moscow began rapidly moving hundreds of thousands of Russians to the territory, instituted discriminatory laws that targeted the predominately Muslim Tatars, and displaced approximately one-sixth of the almost 300,000 Tatars in Ukraine.
One of the biggest challenges for Crimean Tatars now is the documentation of violence and rights violations against those living under Russian occupation—a police state, where affiliation with religious groups and the reporting of abuse leads to numerous Tatars being imprisoned by authorities. Crimean Tatars are fighting to be heard—is anyone listening? How can Kyiv and the international community step in to support this marginalized and targeted ethnic minority? How are Crimean Tatars standing against their occupiers?
Speakers:
Ayla Bakkalli: US representative, executive member, World Congress of Crimean Tatars. representative of the Crimean Tatars at the United Nations
Rustem Umerov: member of parliament in the Verkhovna Rada
Terrell Jermaine Starr (moderator): Eurasia Center fellow; senior reporter at The Root
9. Conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia: Scope and Implications | October 21, 2020 | 9:30 – 10:30 AM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has entered its fourth week. The scope of the war has not been limited to the boundaries of the combat zone, resulting in human loss and destruction of civil infrastructure. The region’s important network of energy infrastructure, including oil and gas pipelines, are not immune to this latest round of fighting. The military confrontation is taking place in proximity to the critical energy infrastructure that connects the Caspian basin with the European markets. Can the fighting cause disruption to oil and gas flows to the West? What could potential disruption mean for global markets? Can the Southern Gas Corridor be prevented from being launched by the end of this year as had been planned? What are the interests of regional stakeholders such as Turkey, Georgia, Russia, Iran and others that are either energy exporters, consumers or transit nations for Caspian hydrocarbons. And finally, what are the interests of the United States in this conflict and its impact on the energy markets?
Speakers:
Rauf Mammadov: Scholar, MEI
Mamuka Tsereteli: Nonresident scholar, Frontier Europe Initiative, MEI
Alex Vatanka: Senior fellow and director, Iran program, MEI
10. Tackling the Pandemic in Situations of Fragility, Conflict, and Violence | October 23, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM EDT | CSIS | Register Here
Fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV) pose critical development challenges. By 2030, up to two-thirds of the world’s extreme poor will live in fragile and conflict-affected countries, threatening efforts to end extreme poverty and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In recent years we have seen more violent conflicts globally than at any time in the past 30 years, and 79.5 million people have been forcibly displaced by conflict and violence worldwide. FCV therefore has a significant destabilizing impact, and takes a huge toll on human capital, creating vicious cycles that reduce people’s lifetime productivity, earnings and socioeconomic mobility. The Covid-19 crisis has exacerbated these challenges and caused significant health and economic harm to those living in FCV settings, threatening to further hinder stability and progress over the longer-term. This event will address how the international community can work together to (1) mitigate the impact of the pandemic on existing drivers of fragility and conflict through enhanced stabilization efforts, (2) support the most vulnerable, (3) better coordinate bilateral and multilateral responses to Covid-19 in fragile contexts, and (4) rebuild societies and economies post pandemic.
Speakers:
Stephanie Hammond: Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability and Humanitarian Affairs
Franck Bousquet: Senior Director of the World Bank’s Fragility, Conflict, & Violence Group
James (Jim) A. Schear: Adjunct Senior Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 17
– Wired has a great story of the long and winding road US has followed against Huawei.
– DIA has new unclassified report on foreign challenges to US space security.
– A former student sends an article on DOD foreign language needs.
-WaPo reports growing strength of al-Shabaab.
-And there’s bipartisan opposition to US drawdown from Africa.
– Lawfare has a cute history report on the different actions for which other officials than presidents have been impeached.
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:
Community empowerment > CVE
On September 18, the United States Institute of Peace hosted the RESOLVE Network 2019 Global Forum. This year, the topic of the forum was resetting priorities to address violent extremist threats. Several TED-style presentations and several panels were held throughout the day. Experts from around the world gathered to present their work and discuss the challenges extremist groups present.
The first of these panels was a discussion on non-state governance and “going local.” The discussants were Houda Abadi, the founder and Executive Director of Transformative Peace, Linda Bishai, a professorial lecturer at the GWU Elliot School of International Affairs, and Katherine Zimmerman, a research fellow at American Enterprise Institute. The panel was moderated by David Yang, the Vice President of the Applied Conflict Transformation Center at USIP.
Yang asked what going local meant for the panelists. Abadi responded by criticizing current counter extremist efforts as too focused on security operations over community building. She argued that ISIS still is in MENA, hyper localized and addressing grievances where a village’s government and Western powers could not. US countering violent extremism (CVE) strategy needs to shift from establishing counter narratives that attempt to combat radical jihadist views to creating counter offers to forge relationships with community members.
Zimmerman continued by discussing how communities have become fragile and violent extremist groups have filled a gap in governance. ISIS and other violent extremist organizations (VEOs) exchange predictable rule of law and a level of stability to a community for the ability to operate in their village.
Bishai suggested that the structural conditions that explain why locals turn to VEOs have been largely ignored and need to be thoroughly analyzed to create a strategy to counter them. Personnel working in these areas have a high rate of turnover and are unable to build trust with local community leaders. Abadi agreed and said the focus needs to be on empowering communities and not countering ideology. Metrics such as the number of extremists eradicated are not relevant. Understanding the mechanisms that turn people to these groups is need to establish long-term stability and counter VEOs.
Zimmerman said that going local is pivotal for CVE. Local nuances have been overlooked by Western practitioners in MENA and other regions. Western practitioners must understand the local context as well or better than VEOs to effectively counter the proliferation of radical ideology. Bishai suggested that vocabulary ought to be changed to community empowerment rather than CVE or other aggressive terminology. Locals feel as if they are considered an enemy to Westerners and not a partner in combating extremism. Abadi confirmed that sentiment and stated that in her field work, local people feel as if they are “lab rats” in an experiment for foreign entities to figure out what strategies work to counter extremists. The counter terrorism paradigm needs to end and move towards building communities from a hyper localized starting point.
RSS - Posts
