Tag: Israel
Similar interests, opposing views
The Middle East Institute (MEI) held a panel discussion on February 26 about potential future geopolitical scenarios in the Middle East with Ambassador Gerald Feierstein, Senior Vice President at MEI and Rolf Mützenich, Member of German Bundestag and Deputy Parliamentary Leader for Foreign Policy, Defense, and Human Rights.
Feierstein gave an overview of Trump priorities in the Middle East: defeating the Islamic state and violent extremism around the world, containing Iran’s ballistic missile program and interference in internal affairs of its neighbors, and advancing an Israel/Palestine “deal of the century.” According to Feierstein, the US and EU allies hold similar views on challenges Iran poses to regional security and stability.
But there are different views on the way to address those challenges, and in particular whether to reimpose sanctions on Iran. On the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the US and Germany agree on the importance of resolving it but disagree on whether the Administration was correct in its decision to formalize the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. While the US has cut off fund for UNRWA, Germany made a big move by stepping in to replace it.
Regarding the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, Feierstein dwelt on the long history of cooperation between the US and Saudi Arabia in establishing peace and security in the region. During the 1960s, Washington and Riyadh worked together to contain the expansion of the Soviet communism. In the 1980s, they stood up against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Today, they still share fundamental interests on global economy security, the energy market, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and concern over Iran. Despite these shared interests, the US and Saudi Arabia hold different values, especially in attitudes towards their citizens, reflected in their views of the Khashoggi affair.
Mützenich emphasized that solving the current crisis in the Middle East requires that people participate in socio-economic progress, not the conclusion of big arms deals. It is imperative to encourage the governments of the region to respect human rights and invest in their people, particularly young people. The killing of Khashoggi aroused a dispute in the EU over arms exports to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. While Chancellor Merkel decided to no longer export arms to Saudi Arabia, France and Britain did not.
Mützenich expressed concern about ran’s behavior in the region, stressing the importance of international community pressure on Iran’s elite.
The deal with Iran was a great success because it limited Iran’s nuclear capabilities. There is no viable alternative.
While agreeing that the response to ISIS needs to be military, Mützenich argues that ISIS can only be defeated by social and economical inclusion. In Europe, there is a wide debate on whether human rights are a core value or just rhetoric. It was not only Merkel’s position to stop providing arms to Saudi Arabia; the issue was even raised during the negotiations over the coalition government. Ironically, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has allowed women to drive, but women who fought for this right are still behind bars. Mützenich welcomed discussions in the US Congress to try to make the Administration change its position on exporting arms to Saudi Arabia.
There are no grandiose solutions for the big problems facing our world, but humanitarian aid for internally displaced people and refugees can make a difference. The German BundeStag allocates every year €2 billion to humanitarian aid.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Dim future
The Wilson Center held a panel discussion on February 26 exploring the future of the US-Iran relationship . The panel included Robin Wright, journalist and USIP-Wilson Center Distinguished Fellow, Michael Singh, Managing Director and Senior Fellow at Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Robert Malley, President and CEO of the International Crisis Group.
Wright claims that Iranian Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif wanted to resign for several reasons. Internally, jealous rivals surround him and sought to impeach him in the parliament (but the issue never came to a vote). He is realist but does not represent the majority; the Supreme Leader and the hardliners are on top of him. Zarif was upset for not being invited when Bashar Assad turned up in Tehran for a meeting with the Supreme Leader. Externally, he failed to sustain the nuclear deal and prevent the Trump administration re-imposition of sanctions. He was also unable to respond to the pressure of Western governments to release a dual national American detainee in Iran or get Iranian banks to comply with international banking standards that were imposed post 9/11.
Singh pointed out that US administrations from Jimmy Carter until now had some engagement with Iran, but it was President Obama who took relations in a different direction with the nuclear agreement. At odds with US policy and interests, Iran does not operate according to conventional norms. It resorts to proxy wars in Lebanon, Yemen, and Bahrain. These destabilizing actions in the region seek to keep Israel and Saudi Arabia focused on border problems and not Iran itself. Iran has wanted the US out of the region. Obama sought a balance of power in the Middle East between US friends and Iran. That did not happen, and more chaos is coming . While there are shared interests between the US and Iran on counter-narcotics in Afghanistan and ensuring a stable government in Iraq, the ways they pursue those interests tend to be diametrically opposed.
Malley asserted that Democrats and Republicans have engaged with Iran using a mix of coercion and engagement. Both have failed to establish normal relations with Tehran. Even Trump tried to meet Rouhani at the UN. Historically, the US relationship with Iran was not built on a strong basis: take for instance the hostage crisis, the ousting of Mosaddegh, and US support for the Shah.
Most importantly, the Iran-Iraq war, in which almost every country including the US backed Iraq, had a psychological impact on Iran’s attitude toward the US and the region, which is not only polarized between Iran and Saudi Arabia but also between Iran and Israel. Iran wants to play a key major role, but the US has deep strategic interests in oil, support for Israel, and counter-terrorism. Iran believes US backing for Tehran’s foes is an obstacle to its natural weight in the region: Iraq in the past or Saudi Arabia and Israel today.
According to Malley, the one agreement that could have sustainably changed Iranian behavior is the JCPOA. It was better to have that agreement, defuse the nuclear crisis, and prevent a catastrophic war. The JCPOA succeeded because there was pressure and a realistic outcome that Iran and the US with difficulty could accept. Without it, the future is dim.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Needed: better Arab armies
The Middle East Institute (MEI) hosted a book talk on February 14 with Kenneth Pollack, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), former CIA intelligence analyst, and the author of Armies of Sand: The Past, Present, and Future of Arab Military Effectiveness.
Pollack argues that since the second world war, Arab armies had underperformed. He believes that the size, material factors and the weaponry with which they waged war could have enabled Arabs to win easily, but instead they lost catastrophically. The few times they won were modest victories. Reflecting on the core reason for Arab military backwardness in the last seventy years, Pollack attributes it to Arab society itself. He argues that what defines a good and bad military in the industrial age warfare is a hierarchy based on mission-oriented orders in which the general gives the subordinate a sense of what he is trying to achieve and leaves it to them to figure out how best to do it. Arab culture’s educational system, though, inculcates a rigidly top-down system of organization and hierarchy.
Pollack explained that every culture develops in response to its own circumstances. And Warfare is usually a competitive activity against the organization of another society that organizes itself differently. Arabs were trying to fight industrial warfare in a way that their culture and society did not equip them to do, against foes who were way better equipped l(ike, for instance, the Israelis).
Strikingly similar patterns of underperformance in Middle Eastern wars suggest recurrent problems. Descriptions of Egyptian performance in 1948 and Iraqi performance in 2014 read like plagiarized versions of one another. Arabs have not experienced the industrial revolution, or the information revolution of today.
Apart from the cultural piece, Pollack identifies a set of problems Arab armies suffer. Most Arab generals were inexperienced and did not know what they were doing. Junior officers are passive, inflexible, unimaginative, and unable to respond to battlefield developments. At the bottom of Arab chain of command, personnel had difficulties handling their weapons and maintaining them properly. The more sophisticated a weapon it is, the harder for them to handle. For instance, All countries who trained Arab armies (the Russians, French, Americans, and British) attest that they performed better with the older Soviet MIG 17 and MIG 21 than they did with American F4 and F16. Providing Arab armies with sophisticated weapons did not improve their combat capability.
In addition, the Arab world is replete with bad civil military relations. Many regimes lacking legitimacy tend to be concerned the generals surrounding them, as the leaders themselves came to power by overthrowing others. They seek therefore to hobble the military so that can not do likewise. Saddam Hussein was an outstanding example, as he put people in charge whom he knew to be incompetent. The golden rule has thus always been loyalty over competence.
It is important for those who want the US out of the region that it not to be replaced by Iran, Hezbollah, ISIS, or Al-Qaeda. Without the US, it is imperative to leave behind a strong Arab army able of defending against these threats.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks: December 3 – 9
1. Ending Gaza’s Perpetual Crisis | Monday, December 3, 2018 | 10:00 am – 12:00 pm | Brookings Institution | Falk Auditorium: 1775 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
An acute crisis has been unfolding in the Gaza Strip for over a decade. Its nearly 2 million residents live amid a man-made humanitarian disaster, with severe urban crowding, staggering unemployment, and a dire scarcity of basic services, including electricity, water, and sewage treatment. Three rounds of open warfare have devastated Gaza while placing Israelis under constant threat. Recent weeks have seen a sharp escalation in fighting, again illustrating the precarious balance of this situation. Moreover, the continued political and physical separation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank hinders Palestinian national development while making a two-state solution even more remote.
On December 3, the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings and the Center for a New American Security will launch their new report, “Ending Gaza’s Perpetual Crisis: A New U.S. Approach.” The authors, informed by the deliberations of a high-level task force on the future of U.S. policy toward Gaza, argue that the United States should no longer accept the perpetuation of the current state of affairs in Gaza, given its moral, security, and political costs. They propose instead a route by which American policymakers can help bring an end to this continued state of crisis.
Speakers
Hady Amr
Visiting Fellow, Foreign Policy
Natan Sachs
Director, Center for Middle East Policy
Ilan Goldberg
Senior Fellow and Director, Middle East Security Program at Center for a New American Security
Khaled Elgindy
Fellow, Foreign Policy & Center for Middle East Policy
Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen
Director, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Program at US Institute of Peace
Dennis Ross
William Davidson Distinguished Fellow, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
2. Belarus and Eastern Europe Security Challenges | Monday, December 3, 2018 | 1:30pm – 3:00 pm | Wilson Center | 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20004 | Register Here
After the Ukraine crisis, Belarus has improved its image as a contributor to regional security. Part of this shift stems from greater cooperation with the West. This, along with Minsk’s selective non-compliance with Eurasian integration, however, brings closer scrutiny and potential pressure from Moscow. This panel will host a delegation of Belarusian analysts, organized by Pact and USAID, to offer a fresh examination of Belarus’s relationship with the West and with Moscow
Speakers
Vasili Kukharchyk
Country Director, Pact Belarus
Chief of Party, USAID BRAMA Activity
Kateryna Bornukova
Academic Director, Belarus Economic Research and Outreach Center
Yauheni Preiherman
Director, Minks Dialogue
3. Asia Transnational Threats Forum | Tuesday, December 4, 2018 | 9:00 am – 12:30 pm | Brookings Institution | Falk Auditorium: 1775 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
How is the threat of terrorism defined in the East Asia Pacific? Who are the actors and what are their objectives? What are the technologies of terrorism and appropriate policy measures to combat the evolving threat? Moreover, how do individual states and the international community ensure that counterterrorism policies protect individual rights under the rule of law?
On December 4, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies at Brookings will host distinguished U.S. and Asian counterterrorism experts to articulate the terrorist threat in East Asia and how it has evolved in the region. Panelists will also assess the mechanisms for protecting civil liberties and good governance under a counterterrorism strategy, as well as its implications for regional and international cooperation. This conference is part of the Asia Transnational Threats Forum, an interdisciplinary forum launched by the Brookings Korea Chair that harnesses the collective expertise of U.S. and foreign partners to tackle key strategic issues affecting all of Asia. The first event was on cybersecurity in Asia on June 2018.
Speakers
Jung H. Pak
SK-Korea Foundation Chair in Korea Studies
Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy & Center for East Asia Policy Studies
Yeong Gi Mun
Director, National Counterterrorism Center of the Republic of Korea
Audrey Kurth Cronin
Professor of International Security, American University
Mayuko Hori
Chief Officer, Counterterrorism Cooperation Unit of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan
Samm Sacks
Cybersecurity Fellow and China Digital Economy Fellow, New America
Joshua Geltzer
Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University
Zachary Abuza
Professor of National Security Strategy, National War College
James Baker
Visiting Fellow, Governance Studies
Ji-Hyang Jang
Senior Fellow, Asian Institute for Policy Studies
Jeffrey Feltman
Visiting Fellow, Foreign Policy
4. 9th Annual Conference on Turkey | Tuesday, December 4, 2018 | 9:00 am – 4:00 pm | Middle East Institute | FHI 360 Conference Center: 1825 Connecticut Ave NW, 8th Floor, Washington, District of Columbia 20009 | Register Here
The Middle East Institute (MEI) and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES) are pleased to announce the 9th Annual Conference on Turkey. The conference will bring together international policy makers and experts to discuss the challenges Turkey faces domestically and its relations with the Middle East and the West.
Speakers
Knut Dethlefsen
Representative to the US and Canada, FES
Gonul Tol
Director, Center for Turkish Studies at Middle East Institute
Mustafa Akyol
Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity at the CATO Institute
Abdullah Akyuz
Former President, Turkish Industry and Business Association
Sinan Ciddi
Executive Director, Institute for Turkish Studies at Georgetown University
Menderes Cinar
Professor of Political Science, Baskent University
Max Hofman
Associate Director, National Security and International Policy at Center for American Progress
The Honorable Serpil Midyatli
Member, State Parliament of Germany
Berkin Safak Sener
International Consultant on Employment, UN Development Programme
Semuhi Sinanoglu
PhD Student at Department of Political Science, University of Toronto
Amb. (ret.) Gerald Feierstein
Senior Vice President, Middle East Institute
… and others.
5. Stabilizing Syria: Toward a Human Security Framework | Wednesday, December 5, 2018 | 9:00 am – 10:30 am | Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St. NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20005 | Register Here
Over the past two years, the Atlantic Council’s Rebuilding Syria Initiative has worked to inform and advance transatlantic policy to foster a transition toward legitimate public order in Syria through economic reconstruction and stabilization. In this effort, we have pooled expertise from specialists to cover the many challenges of rebuilding Syria, including in political economy, development, infrastructure, civil society, law, and employment.
Lessons learned from these engagements are captured in the Initiative’s final report, “Rethinking Stabilization in Eastern Syria: Toward a Human Security Framework,” authored by Dr. Steven Heydemann.
The report finds that as the focus of the Syrian conflict narrows to the two remaining contested areas of the country, the presence of US forces on the ground gives the United States some leverage in shaping the closing trajectory of the conflict. In eastern Syria, the United States has an opportunity to use stabilization—a political endeavor to create conditions where locally legitimate authorities and systems can peaceably manage conflict—to advance both short- and long-term interests.
Speakers
Dr. Steven Heydemann
Professor in Middle East Studies, Smith College
Dr. Tamara Cofman Wittes
Senior Fellow, Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution
Faysal Itani
Senior Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East at the Atlantic Council
6. Artificial Intelligence & Quantum Technology: Implication for US National Security | Wednesday, December 5, 2018 | 11:30 am – 1:30 pm | Hudson Institute |1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20004| Register Here
Hudson Institute will host a timely discussion on the increasing risk that rapidly emerging advanced technologies pose to U.S national security. To explore these critical issues, Rep. Mike McCaul, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, will deliver keynote remarks then engage in a moderated Q&A with Senior Fellow Arthur Herman, director of Hudson’s Quantum Alliance Initiative.
Competitor nations, such as Russia and China, have devoted significant resources in the areas of artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum information science, particularly quantum computing. A recent report from the bipartisan Commission on the National Defense Strategy for the United States warned that “U.S. superiority in key areas of innovation is decreasing or has disappeared [while] U.S. competitors are investing heavily in innovation.” Given their enormous promise for benefiting human kind, how should Washington respond to ensure U.S. military superiority while also promoting the peaceful use of AI and quantum technology?
A panel discussion will follow Rep. McCaul’s remarks with Dr. Herman, Aaron VanDevender from Founders Fund, Elsa Kania from the Center for New American Security, Andrew Kim from Google, and Hudson Senior Fellow Sorin Ducaru, a former senior NATO official for emerging security challenges.
Speakers
The Honorable Mike McCaul (R-TX)
Chair, Homeland Security Committee, House of Representatives
Aaron Van Devender
Chief Scientist, Founders Fund
Elsa Kania
Adjunct Fellow, Technology and National Security Program, Center for New American Strategy
Sorin Ducaru
Former Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges, NATO
Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Arthur Herman
Senior Fellow and Director, Quantum Alliance Initiative, Hudson Institute
Andrew Kim
Senior Analyst, Public Policy and Government Relations, Google
7. Maritime Security Dialogue | Thursday, December 6, 2018 | 9:30 am – 10:30 am | Center for Strategic & International Studies | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Please join CSIS and the United States Naval Institute (USNI) for a Maritime Security Dialogue event featuring a conversation with the Honorable Richard V. Spencer, 76th Secretary of the Navy. He will be discussing the state of the Navy and Marine Corps and innovation in the naval domain.
Speakers
The Honorable Richard V. Spencer
76th Secretary of the Navy
Vice Admiral Peter Daly, USN (ret.)
Chief Executive Officer, US Naval Institute
John J. Hamre
CSIS President and CEO
8. What’s Next for Syria? | Friday, December 7, 2018 | 10:30 am – 12:00 pm | Middle East Institute |1319 18th Street NW, Washington, District of Columbia 20036 | Register Here
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a moderated conversation on Syria with Salman Shaikh, the founder and CEO of The Shaikh Group, and Ambassador Frederic C. Hof. Syria’s political process is at a standstill, with a constitutional commission still not formed and UN Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, soon to depart his role. With the conflict continuing to evolve and international attention shifting, new thinking is needed to tackle the Middle East’s most thorny issue: how to resolve the crisis in Syria.
Shaikh will discuss his lessons learned from many years of intensive Track II efforts on Syria and how they might be applied to designing more effective, alternative pathways forward; and Hof will expand on the implications and sustainability of the newly announced U.S. strategy in Syria and prospects for progress on the political track.
MEI’s senior fellow and director of the Countering Terrorism and Extremism program Charles Lister will moderate the conversation.
Speakers
Amb. Frederic C. Hof
Professor and Diplomatic in Residence, Bard College
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, Atlantic Council
Salman Shaikh
Founder and CEO, The Shaikh Group
Charles Lister
Senior Fellow and Director, Countering Terrorism and Extremism Program, Middle East Institute
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump is right
Donald Trump said earlier this week about the Middle East:
Now, are we going to stay in that part of the world? One reason is Israel. Oil is becoming less and less of a reason because we’re producing more oil now than we’ve ever produced. So, you know, all of a sudden it gets to a point where you don’t have to stay there.
This is more sensible than 99% of what the man says, even if I think Israel can more than take care of itself. But the main reason for US military deployments in the Middle East is oil, which is far less important than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. That is what prompted President Carter’s 1980 pledge to defend the flow of oil from the Gulf:
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
President Carter’s Doctrine was a response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which he feared presaged a thrust towards the Gulf. The Soviet Union is gone, Afghanistan is a mess, and the US economy is now far less dependent on oil imports and energy of all sorts than it was in 1980. The Gulf oil producers, especially Saudi Arabia, are far more dependent on oil exports, which they send predominantly to Asia, especially China, Japan, India, and South Korea.
The US nevertheless spends about 12% of the Pentagon budget on protecting the flow of oil from the Gulf and holds a Strategic Petroleum Reserve of well over 100 days of imports, thus protecting our principal economic competitors from the effects of an oil supply disruption while they free ride on our preparations. It is true of course that an oil supply disruption would also affect the US economy, since oil prices are set in a global market and US consumers would feel the price hike in imports of goods of all sorts. But changed circumstances should affect burden-sharing: we need to do less and other oil consumers need to do more.
There are other ways in which the Middle East merits lower priority for American foreign policy. Middle East terrorism now has little impact on Americans both at home, where right-wing attackers are far more common than Islamic ones, and abroad, where relatively few Americans have suffered harm, most of them either by sheer accident or by travel into known danger zones. Nuclear proliferation is still an issue, but mainly a self-inflicted one due to American withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran, which is far from the giant threat the Administration is portraying it as. Even if that were not true, American deployments in the Gulf are far too close to Iran for war-fighting purposes. We would need to move them farther away in order to use them in an attack.
The problem is that withdrawal from the Middle East is as problematic as intervention there. That is what President Obama demonstrated. His restraint in Libya, Syria, and Yemen left vacuums filled by jihadis, Iranians, and Gulfies. The results have been catastrophic for each of the states in question. Intervention by middling powers without multilateral authorization and on one side or the other in a civil war is known to have little chance of success and to prolong conflicts. Where the US re-committed its forces in Iraq, whose state was in far better shape than those in Libya, Syria, or Yemen, the results were far more salutary, even if not completely satisfactory.
Part of the problem for the US is lack of diplomatic capacity. American diplomacy has become far too dependent, both physically and strategically, on military presence. Military withdrawal requires a diplomatic posture that can be sustained without the troops. Many other countries by necessity have learned the trick of hitting above their military weight with diplomatic capacity. Witness an extreme example like Norway, or a less dramatic one like Germany. These are countries that lead with their diplomatic and economic clout, not with their troops, ships and planes.
There has been to my knowledge no serious discussion of the difficulties of withdrawal and how they can be met. Part of solution lies in beefing up the political, economic, and cultural capacities of American diplomacy. But withdrawal will remain perilous anyplace a legitimate, inclusive, well-functioning state does not exist. Statebuilding has gotten a really bad name from the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it remains a vital component of any effort to reduce US commitments abroad. About that, both Trump and Obama have been wrong.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks: October 22 – 28
1. Completing Europe: Will Macedonia seize its moment? | Monday, October 22, 2018 | 4:00 pm – 5:15 pm | Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St. NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 2005 | Register Here
On September 30, Macedonians voted in a referendum that would rename the country North Macedonia and remove the key obstacle to NATO and European Union (EU) membership. A boycott effort, outside influences, and ambivalent results – more than 90 percent voting yes, but below 40 percent turnout – raise questions about what comes next.
Will the government in Skopje muster the constitutional majority required to adopt the changes called for in the Prespa Agreement it negotiated with Greece? If not, will the country face snap parliamentary elections? How does this influence the calculus in Greece ahead of its own difficult parliamentary vote on the agreement? What impact does this have on the region and prospects for future NATO and EU enlargement. What roles are the United States, Europe and Russia playing in all this?
Speakers
The Rt. Hon. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
Former Secretary General of NATO
Lilica Kitanovska
Chief, VOA Macedonian Service
Damon Wilson
Executive Vice President, Programs and Strategy, Atlantic Council
2. Turmoil in Nicaragua: Is there an end in sight? | Tuesday, October 23, 2018 | 9:00 am – 11:00 am | Wilson Center | 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20004 | Register Here
Since April 2018, Nicaragua has been rocked by street protests against the government of President Daniel Ortega. Amidst harsh measures that criminalize social protest, the government arrested over two dozen opposition activists and leaders on Sunday, October 14th, subsequently releasing them after an international outcry.
According to the OAS Inter-American Human Rights Commission, over 300 people have been killed, the majority of them anti-government demonstrators. A broad civic alliance consisting of the private sector, student, labor, and human rights groups, and intellectuals has demanded an end to the repression, the resignation of Ortega, and the holding of early elections. Attempts by the Catholic Church to mediate a dialogue have thus far failed.
Speakers
Cynthia J. Arnson
Director, Latin American Program, Woodrow Wilson Center
Douglas Castro
Professor & Researcher, Universidad Centroamericana
Member of Alianza Cívica’s Political Committee
Lesther Alemán
Student of Communications, Universidad Centroamericana
Member of Alianza Cívica’s Political Committee
Jeancarlo López
Student of Engineering, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua
Member of Alianza Cívica’s Political Committee
Dr. Shelley McConnell
Associate Professor of Government
St. Lawrence University
3. Israel in a Turbulent Region: A Conversation with Ephraim Sneh | Tuesday, October 23, 2018 | 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm | Wilson Center | 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20004 | Register Here
Israel sits at the center of a region in the throes of several major challenges, including the situations in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon as well as the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Join the Wilson Center for a conversation with Ephraim Sneh, a long-time Israeli official and analyst of Israel’s foreign policy and the region at large. He will address these challenges as well as the state of U.S.-Israeli relations.
Speakers
Jane Harman
Director, President and CEO, Wilson Center
Aaron David Miller
Vice President for New Initiatives and Middle East Program Director, Wilson Center
General (Ret.) Ephraim Sneh
Chairman, S. Daniel Abraham Center for Strategic Dialogue, Netanya Academic College Former Cabinet Member and Knesset Member
4. On the Brink of Brexit: The United Kingdom, Ireland and Europe | Tuesday, October 23, 2018 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | Brookings Institution | Falk Auditorium: 1775 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
The United Kingdom will leave the European Union on March 29, 2019. But as the date approaches, important aspects of the withdrawal agreement as well as the future relationship between the U.K. and EU, particularly on trade, remain unresolved. Nowhere are the stakes higher than in Northern Ireland, where the re-imposition of a hard border with Ireland could threaten a hard-fought peace. Scotland, which voted resoundingly against Brexit, has raised questions about the future of devolved governance arrangements in the U.K., while the independence question remains alive. As Robert Bosch Senior Fellow Amanda Sloat writes in her recent report “Divided kingdom: How Brexit is remaking the UK’s constitutional order,” “Brexit will alter not one but two unions: the European Union and the United Kingdom.”
On October 23, 2018, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings will host a panel discussion on the Brexit endgame. It will examine what the decisions of the coming weeks could mean for the U.K., Ireland and Northern Ireland, Scotland, the European Union, and the United States. Sloat will be joined on the panel by Douglas Alexander, former U.K. Secretary of State for Scotland and Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; Lucinda Creighton, former Irish Minister for European Affairs; and Sir Kim Darroch, British Ambassador to the United States. Edward Luce of the Financial Times will moderate.
Speakers
Thomas Wright
Director, Center on the United States and Europe
Amanda Sloat
Robert Bosch Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe
Douglas Alexander
Senior Fellow, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Chair, UNICEF UK
Lucinda Creighton
CEO, Vulcan Consulting
Sir Kim Darroch
British Ambassador to the United States, British Embassy
Edward Luce
Washington Columnist and Commentator, Financial Times
5. The Future of AMISOM | Wednesday, October 24, 2018 | 1:30 pm – 3:30 pm | Center for Strategic & International Studies | 1616 Rhode Island Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
A panel discussion addressing the evolution, challenges, and future of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). Deployed in 2007 to counter the threat of al-Shabaab in Somalia, AMISOM remains the African Union’s most extensive and dangerous military intervention. Eleven years later, however, Somalia’s security challenges persist. As al-Shabaab continues to stage deadly attacks, questions linger regarding AMISOM’s transition, the commitment of its Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs) and the ability of the Somali National Army to stand on its own.
The event will feature Paul D. Williams, and his recent book, Fighting for Peace in Somalia: A History and Analysis of the African Union Mission (AMISOM), 2007-2017, which offers a meticulous account of AMISOM since its deployment. Paul Williams will present insights from his book on the history and obstacles of AMISOM, and address how AMISOM’s funders and troop contributors envision its future. Amanda Dory, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs, will then weigh in on potential avenues through which AMISOM could transition from Somalia.
Speakers
Paul D. Williams
Associate Director of the Security Policy Studies M.A. Program, George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs
Amanda Dory
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs, Office of the Secretary of Defense
Judd Devermont
Director, Africa Program
6. US Policy & The War in Yemen | Thursday, October 25, 2018 | 10:00 am – 11:30 pm | Brookings Institute | Falk Auditorium: 1775 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
The war in Yemen is in its fourth year of unabating violence. What began as a power struggle within the government has now ensnared a population of nearly 30 million. With tens of thousands killed, millions displaced, and many more dependent on humanitarian assistance for survival, the state is on the brink of collapse
Yemen now constitutes one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the world, in a large and impoverished country. Nonetheless, little discussion is devoted to how U.S. policy affects this disaster and what might be done to ease the dire conditions on the ground. The United States supports the war effort of the Saudi- and Emirati-led coalition in the war, fighting against Iranian-backed Houthis. The war will also have major implications for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its stability. Riyadh is America’s oldest ally in the region and Washington has important geopolitical interests at stake. In September, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo certified that the U.S. allies were working to reduce civilian casualties, reportedly overriding staff recommendations on this.
Speakers
Natan Sachs
Director, Center for Middle East Policy
Bruce Riedel
Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence, Center for Middle East Policy
Dafna Rand
Vice President for Policy and Research, Mercy Corps
Fatima Abo Alasrar
Senior Analyst, Arabia Foundation
Daniel L. Byman
Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy
7. Next Steps for US Strategy in Syria | Friday, October 26, 2018 | 12:00pm – 1:30 pm | Hudson Institute | 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004 | Register Here
Hudson Institute will host a panel to assess U.S. policy in Syria. Panelists will consider how the Trump Administration’s new Syria strategy diverges from previous administrations’ and analyze how the new strategy intends to respond to outside influencers, particularly Russia, Iran, and the Islamic State, who continue to obstruct U.S. efforts within Syria.
Speakers
Mariam Jalabi
Representative, Syrian Opposition Coalition to the United Nations
Michael Doran
Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Jonas Parello-Plesner
Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Jomana Qaddour
Doctoral Candidate, Georgetown University Law Center
Former Senior Policy Analyst, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
8. Prevent to Protect: From Counter-Radicalization to Disengagement | Friday, October 26, 2018 | 2:00pm – 3:00 pm | Center for Strategic & International Studies | 1616 Rhode Island Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Join Muriel Domenach, Secretary General of the French government’s Inter-ministerial Committee for the Prevention of Delinquency and Radicalization (CIPDR), as she discusses France’s ongoing efforts to counter radicalization and violent extremism.
“Prevent to Protect,” the plan released by CIPDR in February 2018, offered 60 measures to refocus France’s policy of prevention around five key themes:
- Shielding individuals from radicalization
- Widening the detection and prevention network
- Understanding and preparing for developments in radicalization
- Training local stakeholders and assessing practices
- Tailoring disengagement schemes
After Ms. Domenach’s remarks, Seth G. Jones, Harold Brown Chair and Director of the CSIS Transnational Threats Project, will host a moderated armchair discussion comparing and contrasting the French and American perspectives on the issues of returning foreign fighters, counter-narrative efforts, and building community resilience.
Speakers
Muriel Domenach
Secretary General, Interministerial Committee for the Prevention of Delinquency and Radicalization
Seth G. Jones
Harold Brown Chair
Director, Transnational Threats Project
Senior Adviser, International Security Program
RSS - Posts
