Tag: Health
Peace Picks | September 28 – October 2, 2020
Notice: Due to recent public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
1. Political, Security, and Public Health Dimensions in the Horn of Africa | September 28, 2020 | 3:00 – 4:30 PM EDT | Brookings | Register Here
The Horn of Africa continues to face multiple challenges from persistent terrorism and militancy threats to significant global warming repercussions. A country of significant U.S. and international state-building and counterterrorism investments, Somalia continues to struggle with increasing al-Shabaab militancy, a security situation in which Ethiopia, Kenya, and other members of the African Union Mission in Somalia play important counterinsurgency roles. Yet Somalia and Ethiopia are also undergoing large and challenging political transitions. Ethiopia, too, faces the rise of escalating intra-ethnic tensions and political violence. The entire region has become a place of difficult competition among regional and great powers. Layered over these issues, the coronavirus pandemic has devastated local economies, exacerbating already high levels of poverty. Moreover, it has further destabilized fragile, fractious, and explosive political processes.
On September 28, the Africa Security Initiative at Brookings will hold a panel discussion to explore these complex and overlapping issues. The panel will feature Director of Programmes of the United Nations University’s Centre for Policy Research Adam Day, Brookings Senior Fellow Vanda Felbab-Brown, United States Institute of Peace Senior Advisor Payton Knopf, Institute for Security Studies Senior Researcher Allan Ngari, and Brookings Nonresident Fellow Zach Vertin. Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon will moderate the discussion.
Speakers:
Adam Day: Director of Programmes – Centre for Policy Research, United Nations University
Vanda Felbab-Brown: Co-Director – Africa Security InitiativeSenior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence
Payton Knopf: Senior Advisor – United States Institute of Peace
Allan Ngari: Senior Researcher, Complex Threats in Africa Programme – Institute for Security Studies
Zach Vertin: Nonresident Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence
Michael E. O’Hanlon (moderator): Director of Research – Foreign PolicyCo-Director, Security and StrategySenior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and IntelligenceThe Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
2. 2020 Election Integrity and Foreign Interference | September 29, 2020 | 3:00 PM EDT | Atlantic Council | Register Here
As part of our Interference 2020 effort, please join the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) on September 29 from 3:00 – 4:00 pm ET for a timely discussion of recent allegations of foreign interference in the 2020 election. The event will be opened by Craig Newmark, who has worked to uplift journalism in the face of disinformation, as well as connect efforts working to counter destabilizing foreign interference. The discussion will feature POLITICO’s Natasha Bertrand and David Sanger of the New York Times on their experience covering foreign interference ahead of the election and their process when assessing credibility of interference claims and attribution.
The DFRLab will also launch the Foreign Interference Attribution Tracker, an open-source database that captures allegations of foreign interference in U.S. elections. This event will offer a first look at the tool which is intended to build public attribution standards, provide an independent and reliable record of foreign interference in the 2020 election, serve as a resource for stakeholders about the evolving threat, and help to build public resilience against future efforts of foreign influence and disinformation.
Disinformation poses an existential threat to the future of American democracy. Nowhere is this more evident than in the question of foreign interference: a phenomenon which is heavily dependent on the spread of disinformation, yet which is also increasingly the subject of it. Over the past nine months, numerous U.S. officials, agencies, technology companies, and civil society organizations have identified instances of foreign disinformation campaigns and social media manipulation—often using drastically different standards of evidence to make their case.
We hope you will join us online and in the effort ahead of U.S. elections.
Speakers:
Craig Newmark: Founder: Craigslist, Craig Newmark Philanthropies
David Sanger: National Security Correspondent, New York Times
Natasha Bertrand: National Security Correspondent, POLITICO
Emerson Brooking: Resident Fellow, Digital Forensics Research Lab
Graham Brookie: Director and Managing Editor, Digital Forensics Research Lab
3. Domestic Terrorism and the U.S. Presidential Election | September 30, 2020 | 1:30 – 2:30 PM EDT | CSIS | Register Here
Please join the CSIS Transnational Threats Project and Defending Democratic Institutions Project on Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 1:30pm to discuss the domestic terrorism threat in the United States before, during, and after the 2020 presidential election. The panel will examine the domestic terrorism threat landscape; the role of security and law enforcement; the use and misuse of military force, including legal provisions governing violence mitigation; the spread of extremism on digital platforms; and the role of foreign actors.
Seth Jones, CSIS Harold Brown Chair and Director of the Transnational Threats Project and Suzanne Spaulding, Senior Adviser for Homeland Security to the International Security Program will be joined by Brian Michael Jenkins, Senior Adviser to the RAND President, RAND as well as Cathy Lanier, Senior Vice President, Chief Security Officer, National Football League (NFL), and former Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia.
Speakers:
Brian Michael Jenkins: Senior Adviser to the RAND President, RAND
Cathy Lanier: Senior Vice President, Chief Security Officer, National Football League (NFL); and former Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia
4. Envisioning COVID-19’s Legacy on Global Stability and Security | September 30, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:00 PM EDT | American Enterprise Institute | Register Here
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has taken lives, devastated the world economy, and threatened the fabric of politics around the world. As Henry Kissinger warned, “The coronavirus epidemic will forever alter the world order.” So what will a post-COVID-19 world order look like? In their new book, “COVID-19 and World Order” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2020), AEI’s Hal Brands and Francis Gavin of Johns Hopkins University convened leading experts in policy, economics, governance, international security, medicine, and technology to consider the international aftermath of the pandemic.
Please join AEI’s Hal Brands, Kori Schake, and Colin Dueck for a panel discussion with Elizabeth Economy and Francis Gavin to examine COVID-19’s legacy on global stability and security.
Speakers:
Hal Brands: Resident Scholar, AEI
Elizabeth C. Economy: Senior Fellow for China Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
Francis J. Gavin: Director of Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
Kori Schake: Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, AEI
Colin Dueck: Visiting Scholar, AEI
5. The Future of US Policy in Afghanistan | September 30, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM EDT | Brookings | Register Here
Over the course of the past 19 years of war in Afghanistan, successive American presidents and presidential candidates have promised to make ending the war and bringing troops home a priority. While the U.S.-Taliban deal signed in February and the intra-Afghan peace talks that began earlier this month in Doha offer a path toward complete U.S. withdrawal, the talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government will be long and difficult and a successful deal between the two parties is far from guaranteed. Questions also remain regarding whether the Taliban did indeed cut off ties with al-Qaida, as outlined in the U.S.-Taliban deal.
On September 30, Foreign Policy at Brookings will host a virtual event to assess political and security developments in Afghanistan, U.S. interests in the country, and foreign policy options for the next administration to pursue.
Viewers can submit questions via email to events@brookings.edu or via Twitter at #Policy2020.
Policy 2020 events aim to empower voters with fact-based, data-driven, non-partisan information so they can better understand the policy matters discussed in the 2020 election.
Speakers:
Madiha Afzal: Assistant Professor, School of Public Policy – David M. Rubenstein Fellow: Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence, Center for Middle East Policy
Vanda Felbab-Brown: Co-Director – Africa Security InitiativeSenior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence
Michael O’Hanlon: Director of Research – Foreign PolicyCo-Director, Security and StrategySenior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and IntelligenceThe Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
6. Turning Black to Green | September 30, 2020 | 17:00—18:00 EEST (UTC+3) | Carnegie Endowment for Peace | Register Here
While September 2020 marks 100 years since the Proclamation of the State of Greater Lebanon, the country today is plagued by a myriad of crises. This may prove a critical inflection point for Lebanon as a whole. The Carnegie Middle East Center and Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung are hosting a four-part series of panel discussions, which will look at where Lebanon stands on its Centennial, as well as the opportunities and challenges for the new century.
Lebanon is endowed with a rich and diverse national ecosystem, and has the potential and responsibility to fight pollution and deforestation, while investing in green spaces and clean energy. Moving forward, how can Lebanon ensure that the environment does not take a back seat in its national priorities, given the many other pressing issues facing the country today?
Join us on Tuesday, September 29 from 5:00-6:00 p.m. Beirut (GMT+3) for this fourth panel discussion on Lebanon’s environmental concerns and potential. The event will be held in English. Viewers may submit their questions via the Live Chat feature on YouTube during the livestream.
Speakers:
Ziad Abi Chaker: CEO of Cedar Environmental.
Marc Ayoub: research assistant with the Energy Policy and Security department at the American University of Beirut.
Nada Ghorayeb Zarour: former president of the Lebanese Green Party and the current head of its Arbitration Council.
Dalal Mawad: award-winning journalist and senior MENA video producer and correspondent with the Associated Press.
7. Regional Expansionism: Iran’s Militias in the Levant | October 1, 2020 | 1:00 PM EDT | Atlantic Council| Register Here
The United States’ policy towards Iran is one of the most contentious foreign policy issues currently dividing Democrats and Republicans in the 2020 election season. While containing Iran’s nuclear activity is a priority for both parties, it remains unclear how either one plans to deal with Iranian-backed militias, which remain a threat to lasting stability in the Middle East and a danger to America and its allies’ national security interests.
Speakers:
Joel Rayburn:Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Levant and Special Envoy for Syria, US Department of State
Michael B. Herzog: Milton Fine International Fellow, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Ariane Tabatabai: Middle East Fellow, Alliance for Securing Democracy, The German Marshall Fund of the United States
Hamdi Malik: Middle East Analyst; Contributor, Iran International TV; Al-Monitor
Navvar Saban: Conflict Analyst and Expert; Nonresident Researcher, Omran Center for Strategic Studies; Orsam Center
8. Election 2020 U.S. Foreign Policy Forum | October 1, 2020 | 3:00 PM EDT | Council on Foreign Relations | Register Here
Between the first and second presidential debates, please join us for a discussion of the foreign policy challenges awaiting the winner of the 2020 election and the critical issues for Americans to consider as they cast their vote this November.
This event is free and open to all. To register, please sign up on the Eventbrite page. Zoom access instructions will be emailed to registrants on the evening of Wednesday, September 30.
Speakers:
Reuben E. Brigety II: Vice-Chancellor and President, University of the South; Former U.S. Representative to the African Union and U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN Economic Commission for Africa (2013–2015)
Richard N. Haass: President, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Special Assistant to President George H.W. Bush (1989–1993)
Jami Miscik: CEO and Vice Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.; Former Co-Chair, President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (2014–2017); Former Deputy Director of Intelligence, CIA (2002–2005)
Frances Fragos Townsend: Vice Chairman, General Counsel, and Chief Administration Officer, MacAndrews & Forbes Incorporated; Former Assistant to President George W. Bush for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Chair, Homeland Security Council (2004–2008)
Juju Chang: Co-anchor, Nightline, ABC News
9. Overcoming Polarization in Ukraine | October 2, 2020 | 10:00 AM EDT | Atlantic Council| Register Here
Since Ukraine first gained independence in 1991, historical memory and national identity have been a point of contention and subject for manipulation. Thanks in good part to Kremlin aggression, a real sense of Ukrainian identity has emerged in the center and east of the country, too. Yet, the memory war that has characterized Ukraine for the past three decades has not disappeared. And it has been exacerbated by Kremlin disinformation campaigns. The Kremlin has inflamed controversy over historical narratives, weaponizing history in the unsuccessful effort to undermine Ukrainian statehood. A groundbreaking recent report by the London School of Economics and Political Science’s (LSE) Arena program, From ‘Memory Wars’ to a Common Future: Overcoming Polarisation in Ukraine, outlines the scope of challenges facing Ukraine’s information environment along with comprehensive recommendations for reducing societal polarization.
Speakers:
Anne Applebaum: Director, Arena, LSE
Natalia Gumenyuk: Co-founder, Public Interest Journalism Lab
Peter Pomerantsev: Visiting Senior Fellow, Institute of Global Affairs, LSE
Yevhen Hlibovytsky: Founder, ProMova
Ambassador John Herbst: Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
10. Disinformed Democracy: The Past, Present, and Future of Information Warfare | October 2, 2020 | 9:15 AM – 1:0 PM EDT | Brookings | Register Here
In 2016, Russian operatives waged an information war, including cyberattacks and inauthentic social media campaigns, designed to stoke political divisions and undermine the U.S. presidential election. Before they became front-page news, Russian influence operations had existed for decades. But in recent years, a range of domestic and international factors — in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere — have spotlighted the dangers of information manipulation campaigns, which now threaten the 2020 election. These drivers, alongside a rapidly evolving information technology and communications landscape, necessitate innovative policy ideas and a whole-of-society approach to protect democratic societies.
On October 2, Foreign Policy at Brookings will host a virtual conference to examine the past, present, and future of disinformation and efforts to combat it. Following welcome remarks by Brookings President John R. Allen, Brookings Senior Fellow Fiona Hill and former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster will frame the event with a conversation on McMaster’s new book, “Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World.” Then, Hill and Brookings Fellow and Deputy Director of the Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technology Initiative Chris Meserole will moderate three panel discussions on the history of Russian influence operations leading up to 2016, the domestic factors that contribute to disinformation and other threats to democracy, and novel strategies for combatting information warfare in the future.
Speakers and Schedule:
Welcome remarks
John Allen: President – The Brookings Institution
Opening conversation: How disinformation threatens world order
H.R. McMaster: Former U.S. National Security Advisor, Fouad and Michelle Ajami Senior Fellow – Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Fiona Hill: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe
Panel 1: The road to Russian interference in 2016
Catherine Belton: Special Correspondent – Reuters
Arkady Ostrovsky: Russia and Eastern Europe Editor – The Economist
Thomas Rid: Professor of Strategic Studies – Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
David Shimer: Global Fellow – Woodrow Wilson International Center for ScholarsAssociate Fellow – Yale University
Fiona Hill: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and
Panel 2: Domestic drivers of disinformation
Renee DiResta: Research Manager – Stanford Internet Observatory
Elaine Kamarck: Founding Director – Center for Effective Public ManagementSenior Fellow – Governance Studies
Kate Starbird: Associate Professor, Human Centered Design & Engineering – University of Washington
Chris Meserole: Deputy Director – Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technology Initiative, Fellow – Foreign Policy
Panel 3: Novel strategies for countering information warfare
Eileen Donahoe: Executive Director – Global Digital Policy Incubator, Stanford University; Former U.S. Ambassador – United Nations Human Rights Council
Thomas Kent: Adjunct Associate Professor of International and Public Affairs – Columbia University
Daniel Kimmage: Principal Deputy Coordinator, Global Engagement Center – U.S. Department of State
Teija Tiilikainen: Director – European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats (Hybrid CoE)
Fiona Hill: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
She’s terrible but can’t do much more harm
Lots of things are wrong with the nomination of a diehard originalist, anti-abortion activist, and Trump enthusiast to “replace” on the Supreme Court the justice who made women equal under the law in the United States. But I incline to the view that the damage Amy Coney Barrett can do is limited, even if she opts–as is likely–to make decisions that toe the conservative line. Here’s why:
- Abortion: If Barrett joins other conservatives on the Court in reversing Roe v Wade or allowing very strict limits on abortion, the issue will be then be decided by the states. Abortion is not going to become illegal throughout the country. Blue states will continue to legalize it. Some red states will severely restrict or prohibit it. If you live in a red state and don’t like that, wake up and vote.
- Obamacare: If she becomes the deciding vote against the constitutionality of the current system for providing health insurance to the uninsured, the Democrats will move swiftly to pass Medicare for All. Provided they gain control of both the House and Senate, which seems likely at the moment, the Republicans will have unintentionally done universal health care a big favor.
- Guns: It’s a bit hard for me to see how the gun lobby can make any gains over the already unconstrained availability of firearms. At some point, minorities and liberal whites will begin carrying guns to protect themselves from the Boogaloo Boys. Then the conservatives will think again about the need for gun safety. That’s not a pretty picture, but it is a realistic one.
- Immigration: Here too it is difficult to see how things can get much worse, in particular for refugees wanting resettlement in the US and immigrants seeking asylum from well-founded fears of persecution. The conditions in which people, especially children separated from their parents, are detained are already appalling. The failure of the Republicans to provide an option for undocumented children (DACA) brought to the US by their parents is inexcusable. The refusal of visas to Muslims and black people as well as restrictions on international students are going to wreck tourism and higher education in the US, even after Covid19 is under control. Lifting of temporary protected status for people who have been in the US for decades is simply cruel.
- Affirmative action: The Court has already made achieving diversity in college admissions and employment far more difficult than it should be, but it seems unlikely even a more conservative court will eliminate affirmative action entirely. Many companies and universities–especially the better ones–are wanting more diverse staff and student bodies. They will find the ways and means to get them or fall victim to the competition.
- Religious freedom: Barrett belongs to a Christian community, the People of Praise, who describe themselves as charismatic and ecumenical (as in Christian ecumenical). She is thought to have committed herself to its “covenant,” which has not to my knowledge been published. We can expect her to come down on the side of those who favor the rights of religious communities over the rights of individuals, for example by allowing them to deny abortion rights under their employee health plans. But the Court has already moved far in that direction. Her voice will be an added one to the conservative majority.
Barrett describes herself as an “originalist” in the mold of her mentor, the late Justice Scalia. Whatever this label once meant, it now allows its adherents to decide just about anything the right wing of the political establishment wants: restrictions on a woman’s right to control her own body, an individual right to bear arms outside the context of a “well-ordered” militia, restrictions on the decisions of universities and companies about which students and employees will serve their purposes best, harsh treatment of immigrants, denial of government-subsidized health insurance to tens of millions of Americans, and a preference for religious communities over the rights of individuals.
So yes, Amy Coney Barrett is a terrible choice for the Supreme Court and will live up to all the negative expectations people like me have of her. With a 6/3 right-wing majority the Court will lose the respect of the more than half the country that will vote for Joe Biden and want him to appoint Ginzburg’s successor. But a lot of the damage Barrett might cause has already been done. I doubt she can do a lot more.
PS: I realize I failed to consider the impact of Barrett, if confirmed before the election, on its outcome. Judging from past performance on the Court, all the Republican-appointed judges will favor Trump’s election in any case that gets to the Court. So Barrett’s appointment does not change the majority on election issues either.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Landslide is the only solution
Bob Woodward’s confirmation that President Trump lied about the seriousness of Covid19 is no surprise. Anyone with a functioning brain knows that by now. But getting the admission on tape, along with the fact that the source of some of the information on contagiousness of the virus was Chinese President Xi, was a journalistic coup. It would have been even more so had Woodward published it earlier, but he claims he wanted to save it for his book because that afforded him the longer form to provide fuller context. It also of course helps him market his product.
In a rational world, Woodward’s revelation would end Trump’s ability to market himself. His “playing down” the virus cost more something like 150,000 lives, so far. Shutdowns, masks and social distancing earlier and more consistently would have saved about that many. People are still dying as a result of Trump’s neglect of the most important Presidential responsibility: to protect Americans. This appalling dereliction of duty has had real world consequences.
It is hard for me to imagine how anyone could vote for a President who did such a thing. His achievements are easy to list: appointing supposedly conservative but too often unqualified judges, a massive tax cut for the rich, and validation of white nationalism as a political force in the United States. His failures, in addition to his mendacious response to Covid19, take longer:
- Inability to cope with social justice protests in a productive way and encouragement of violence and threats of violence against peaceful protesters.
- A collapsed economy that even before the epidemic was growing no faster than in President Obama’s last three years.
- A ballooning budget deficit, again even before the epidemic hit.
- Unfounded attacks on the right to vote.
- Repeated efforts to deprive millions of Americans of the health insurance they obtained from Obamacare, without providing an alternative.
- Failure in the trade war with China, which has cost the US government many billions in agricultural and other subsidies to offset the export losses due to tariffs.
- Accelerated Iranian progress towards nuclear weapons, entirely due to Trump’s withdrawal of the US from the nuclear deal.
- North Korean refusal to give up their nuclear weapons, despite offers of massive economic assistance.
- Consolidation of President Maduro’s power in Venezuela.
Trump wants you to think that withdrawal of a few thousand troops from Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the Israel/UAE deal were big achievements. Far from it: the US still has more troops in the greater Middle East than before he took office. The UAE/Israel deal only contributes to peace between two countries who have never been at war and have precious little reason to fight. It makes an Israel/Palestine deal more difficult, not less.
Even before the latest headlines, Jeffrey Goldberg had assembled the evidence of Trump’s disdain for the American military. That, too, was well-known to anyone paying attention to Trump’s mythical bonespurs and his public denunciation of John McCain, but the things Trump has said in private about the troops being “losers” and “suckers” compounded what some might have hoped to dismiss as misdemeanors into felonies. Polling of America’s troops suggests that they will be voting against a Republican for the first time in a long while.
The right thing for Trump to do now is resign and allow Pence to take over, hoping that would improve Republican prospects in the November 3 election. He could then re-assume the office and would be hard to fault for doing so, as the voice of the people would have been heard. He won’t do that, because he can’t afford to lose this election or even leave office for a few months. Both his finances and his freedom are at risk, because the Russians won’t continue anteing up and state Attorneys General will be indicting him on felony charges. So instead he will stay on the ballot and try to de-legitimize the election results, especially if they show him winning on election night but losing due to mail-in ballots a couple of days later.
The only way of preventing that is a landslide in favor of Biden, starting on election night. Even then, Trump may try to prevent Biden from getting a majority in the Electoral College by convincing Republican governors to withhold communication of their electoral votes. But a clear and unequivocal electoral vote victory, in addition to Biden’s all but certain popular vote margin, would do a great deal to save America from a chaotic outcome.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, June 29
– NYT has more details of how US forces came to suspect Russian bounties to the Taliban. While the president says the IC didn’t find it credible, note what NYT says:
One senior administration official offered a similar explanation, saying that Mr. Trump was not briefed because the intelligence agencies had come to no consensus on the findings.
But another official said there was broad agreement that the intelligence assessment was accurate, with some complexities because different aspects of the intelligence — including interrogations and surveillance data — resulted in some differences among agencies in how much confidence to put in each type.
Though the White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, claimed on Saturday that Mr. Trump had not been briefed about the intelligence report, one American official had told The Times that the report was briefed to the highest levels of the White House. Another said it was included in the President’s Daily Brief, a compendium of foreign policy and national security intelligence compiled for Mr. Trump to read.
Ms. McEnany did not challenge The Times’s reporting on the existence of the intelligence assessment, a National Security Council interagency meeting about it in late March and the White House’s inaction. Multiple other news organizations also subsequently reported on the assessment, and The Washington Post first reported on Sunday that the bounties were believed to have resulted in the death of at least one American service member.
– Academic studies say Fox News is hazardous to your health.
– Jim Fallows does thought experiment, analyzing US response to the coronavirus as if it were NTSB investigation of a plane crash.
– NYT columnist agrees with Princeton prof that our “napalm politics” began in 1980s with Newt Gingrich. I agree, too.
– WSJ says China will dominate rare earths.
– CFR has explainer on China’s new security laws.
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. 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, May 1
-WaPo says the administration is developing a package of anti-China measures,
many extreme and unprecedented, like demanding reparations for pandemic
costs and refusing to pay interest on Chinese-held US bonds.[As I said
in class, I support vigorous US measures to thwart Chinese military
expansion and to compete economically, especially in advanced
technologies. But I resent Trump’s weaponizing these measures mainly for
his political campaign and as a distraction from his delays and
failures handling the pandemic.]
– Part of this effort, NYT reports, is pressuring the intelligence community to prove Chinese culpability for release of the coronavirus.
– And SecState Pompeo was already in a pissing contest with Beijing.
– WSJ profiles national security adviser O’Brien, who says NSC staff is now down to the 120s.
– Yes, the FISA court consists of Article III [life-tenured] federal judges.
– NYT reports that Zoom sessions can be bad for your health.
And while I’m in a grumpy mood, how about this:
Lawmakers Vote by Mail to Roll Back Vote by Mail
April 30, 2020 at 3:10 pm EDT
“An emergency plan for Louisiana’s delayed spring elections was approved by the state Legislature after Republican lawmakers rolled back an expansion of mail-in ballots for people concerned about the coronavirus,” the Baton Rouge Advocate reports.
“Lawmakers voted by mail on the emergency plan.”
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. 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, April 27
– In Australia and New Zealand, they seem to have vanquished the virus, at least for now.
– Global military spending is surging.
– WaPo says Trump administration has multi-pronged effort to marginalize WHO.
– In effort to force continued sanctions on Iran, US has told JCPOA signatories that US is still legally part of the agreement.
– Jackson Diehl notes that US has a veto over Israeli annexation.
– CDC says Covid-19 is more complex than previously understood. And the number of basic questions is huge.
– Who deserves to be rescued in the shrinking economy? NYT notes that FDR saved artists.
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. 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).
RSS - Posts
