Israel - peacefare.net

Tag: Israel

Peace Picks: December 3 – 9

Posted in Tal Marom - December 3, 2018 - 0 Comment

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

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

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

The Middle East Institute (MEI) and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES) are pleased to announce the 9^th 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.

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

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

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

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

Tags : artificial intelligence, Asia, Counterterrorism, eastern europe, gaza, Israel, maritime, Palestine, Security, South Korea, Syria, The Middle East, Turkey

Trump is right

Posted in Daniel Serwer - November 29, 2018 - 0 Comment

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.

Tags : China, Gulf states, India, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United States, Yemen

Peace Picks: October 22 – 28

Posted in Tal Marom - October 21, 2018 - 0 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags : Africa, Balkans, Brexit, European Union, Ireland, Israel, Israel/Palestine, Latin America, Somalia, Syria, Yemen

Peace Picks – June 25-July 1

Posted in Marc-Andrea Fiorina - June 24, 2018 - 0 Comment

1. An Alternative Vision for Israel | Monday, June 25, 2018 | 10:00 am – 11:00 am | Brookings Institution | Register Here

On June 25, the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will host Member of Knesset Yair Lapid for an Alan and Jane Batkin International Leaders Forum. M.K. Lapid will join for a public conversation on his vision for Israel’s future. M.K. Lapid, the former finance minister of the State of Israel, will discuss a wide-ranging set of issues confronting Israel today, from its position in the Golan Heights, its strategy toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, to the state U.S.-Israel alliance and bipartisan support for Israel in the United States.

A former journalist, television presenter, and author, Lapid founded the centrist Yesh Atid Party in 2012. The party garnered a surprising 19 seats in its first elections, and was the second largest party in the Knesset. Yesh Atid today polls as the main opposition challenger to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party.

Introductory Remarks: John R. Allen, President, The Brookings Institution

Moderator: Tamara Cofman Wittes, Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution

Featured Speaker: Yair Lapid, Chairman – Yesh Atid Party

2. More Than Burden Sharing: Five Objectives for the 2018 NATO Summit | Tuesday, June 26, 2018 | 8:15 am – 9:45 am | Center for New American Security | Register Here

In early-July, NATO will host the first full-length summit at its new headquarters in Brussels. It will also be the first NATO summit for President Donald Trump’s foreign-policy team. President Trump will arrive in Brussels with only one thing on his mind: burden sharing. This is hardly a new concern for an American president, or indeed for many European leaders. Although continuing to push allies to take on a bigger share of the burden is important, the United States should not allow this single issue to eclipse the entire summit agenda. This summit needs to be about more than burden sharing. It is with this in mind that the Center for a New American Security’s Transatlantic Security Program has published its latest report, “More Than Burden Sharing: Five Objectives for the 2018 NATO Summit.”

We cordially invite you to the formal release of this report on Tuesday, June 26 at 8:15 AM at the CNAS office (1152 15th Street NW, Suite 950) as we examine the additional issues that NATO allies should tackle at the Summit including the Black Sea, counter-terrorism, emerging domains of warfare, NATO-EU defense planning, and readiness. This public, on-the-record event will feature opening remarks by the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ine Eriksen Søreide. A panel discussion with CNAS experts Julianne Smith and Jim Townsend, along with Ian Brzezinski of the Atlantic Council will follow. The event will be moderated by Professor Rosa Brooks of Georgetown University.

3. Mapping the Role of Religion in Fragile States – Insights from Libya, South Sudan and Iraq | Tuesday, June 26, 2018 | 9:30 am – 11:00 am | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here

From Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani’s influence in the Iraqi elections to the involvement of religious actors in South Sudan’s peace process, the role of religion in conflict zones continues to dominate headlines. Please join field researchers and U.S. Institute of Peace experts on June 26, as they present an approach for mapping the role of religious actors and institutions to better understand their legitimacy and influence in contributing to peace and conflict, exploring findings from three recent mappings from Libya, South Sudan, and Iraq based on work from the field.

The religious landscape of any conflict zone is undergoing constant change, making it difficult for stakeholders to engage and partner with religious actors. This event presents a methodology that relies on local researchers to understand the influence and legitimacy of religious actors and institutions, taking a unique approach to identifying key informants to facilitate trust and accuracy. Researchers who participated in the project in South Sudan and Iraq will be present to answer questions about challenges faced and how they were overcome.

Speakers:

Welcoming remarks: Col. Paul Hughes, Acting Vice President, Center for Applied Conflict Transformation, U.S. Institute of Peace

Introductory remarks: Rev. Susan Hayward, Senior Advisor, Religion & Inclusive Societies, U.S. Institute of Peace

Moderator: Rosarie Tucci, Director, Inclusive Societies, U.S. Institute of Peace

Palwasha Kakar, Senior Program Officer, Libya Project Coordinator, U.S. Institute of Peace

Dr. Jacqueline Wilson, Lead Researcher and South Sudan Project Coordinator, U.S. Institute of Peace

Dr. Ann Wainscott, Lead Researcher and Iraq Project Coordinator, U.S. Institute of Peace

Zainab Qassim, Networks Manager, Sanad for Peacebuilding, U.S. Institute of Peace

Monica Pio, South Sudan Researcher, Forcier Consulting

4. Is There Reason to Hope? – Turkey after the 2018 Elections | Tuesday, June 26, 2018 | 10:00 am – 11:30 am | Project on Middle East Democracy | Register Here

On June 24, Turkish voters will go to the polls to select the first president and parliament to be elected under the constitutional reforms of 2016. With President Recep Tayyip Erdogan poised to assume even greater powers if he wins, these elections have been described as Turkey’s last off-ramp before dictatorship. While some observers remain optimistic about the possibility of a surprise opposition victory, others fear that a contested or stolen vote could end in protests and violence.

With the stakes higher than ever, please join us for an expert panel on Tuesday, June 26, that will discuss the results of Turkey’s elections as well as their implications for the future of Turkish democracy and for the U.S.-Turkish relationship.

Please join the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) and the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) for a panel discussion featuring:

Moderator: Amy Hawthorne, Deputy Director for Research, POMED

Henri Barkey Cohen, Professor of International Relations, Lehigh University; Senior Fellow, Middle East Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

Nicholas Danforth, Senior Analyst, Bipartisan Policy Center

Howard Eissenstat, Associate Professor, St. Lawrence University; POMED Nonresident Senior Fellow

Lisel Hintz, Assistant Professor of International Relations and European Studies, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University

Gönül Tol, Founding Director, Center for Turkish Studies, Middle East Institute; Adjunct Professor, George Washington University

Turkey’s snap Presidential and Parliamentary elections take place on June 24, and the outcome will shape the future of Turkey for years to come. How will these elections impact Turkey’s foreign policy toward the United States?

Please join THO on June 26 for a timely discussion on the results of the Turkish Elections. Our distinguished experts will provide insight on how the election will impact U.S.-Turkey relations. ***A light lunch will be provided for all guests***

Speakers:

Moderator: Melike Ayan, Bloomberg TV

Peter Van Praagh, President, Halifax International Security Forum

Defne Sadiklar-Arslan, Executive Director, Atlantic Council Turkey ( via Skype from Istanbul)

Luke Coffey, Director of Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy, The Heritage Foundation

Paul McCarthy, Deputy Director of Europe, International Republican Institute

6. Who won Turkey? Implications from Erdoğan’s Snap Elections | Wednesday, June 27, 2018 | 10:30 am – 12 pm | Brookings Institution | Register Here

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has called snap presidential and parliamentary elections for June 24. Following the failed coup attempt in July 2016, the constitutional referendum in April 2017 that approved a more powerful executive presidency, and recent economic turbulence, Turkish politics have become increasingly volatile. Recent polls suggest it is likely that Erdoğan will win the presidency in a run-off, but his Justice and Development Party (AKP) will lose its majority in parliament. What would be the domestic, economic, and foreign policy implications of such a mixed result? And what would a renewed mandate for Erdoğan mean for Turkey’s democracy, economy, and relations with the United States and Europe?

To address the outcome of the elections and its wide-ranging implications, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings will convene an expert panel on Wednesday, June 27. The panel will feature Ali Çarkoğlu, professor in political science at Koç University; Charles Johnston, BIAC executive board vice chair and managing director of international government affairs at Citi; Amanda Sloat, Robert Bosch senior fellow at Brookings; and Kemal Kirişci, TÜSİAD senior fellow and director of the Turkey Project at Brookings. The discussion will be moderated by Karen DeYoung, associate editor and senior national security correspondent for The Washington Post.

7. Russia in the Middle East: A View from Israel | Wednesday, June 27, 2018 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | Wilson Center | Register Here

Since Russia entered the Syrian conflict in September 2015, it has positioned itself as a major player in the region. Israel in particular has had to contend with Russia’s presence right across its border. How does Israel perceive Russia’s influence in the region? How does it impact on Israel’s ability to maintain its security interests? The speakers will address these questions and related issues.

Speakers:

Moderator: Matthew Rojansky, Director, Kennan Institute

Major General (Res.) Amos Gilead, Executive Director of the Institute for Policy and Strategy at Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya

Dr. Col. (Res.) Shaul Shay, Director of Research of the Institute for Policy and Strategy at Interdisciplinary Center, Herzilya

Dr. Dmitry Adamsky, Professor, Interdisciplinary Center, Herzilya

Tags : Election, Iraq, Israel, NATO, Religion, Russia, Turkey

Syrian chessboard

Posted in Sebastian Gerlach - April 7, 2018 - 0 Comment

Entering its eighth year, the civil war in Syria has developed into a serious regional conflict. What started as a popular uprising by the Syrian public against Bashar al-Assad’s authoritarian regime has become a struggle for power between external actors, including both regional heavyweights such as Turkey and major global powers like Russia. Today, the Syrian theater is a battlefield for the mostly opposing interests of these actors. This competition has obstructed any progress towards a peace settlement for Syria. Rather, the conflict of interest is perpetuating the Syrian ‘civil war,’ with dire consequences for the country and its population.

On April 2, the Wilson Center hosted a panel addressing the issue of outside powers and the future of Syria. Moderated by Aaron David Miller, Vice President for New Initiatives and Middle East Program Director at the Wilson Center, the discussion sought to break down the array of interests present in the Syrian conflict and the different roles that Russia, Iran, Turkey, and Israel have assumed. Paul du Quenoy, Associate Professor of History at American University of Beirut, Amy Austin Holmes, Associate Professor of Sociology at American University in Cairo, David Pollock, Kaufman Fellow at the Washington Institute and Director of Project Fikra, and Robin Wright, USIP-Wilson Center Distinguished Fellow, offered their perspectives as long-time analysts of Syria and the Middle East.

Paul du Quenoy argues that Russia’s primary interest is to maintain a presence in the Middle East through preserving the Moscow-friendly Assad regime. Following the Arab Spring in 2011, Russia felt marginalized and humiliated. The political changes in countries such as Libya sidelined Moscow in regional affairs and sparked fears that the wave of public protests and regime instability could even reach Russia. To protect its influence in the Middle East, Moscow thus intervened in the civil war in 2015.

Although Russia has achieved its core goal, the overall track record of its intervention has been meager, highlights du Quenoy. Moscow succeeded in stabilizing the Assad regime. However, it is now bogged down in a costly conflict requiring continuous military activities. Russian hopes for becoming the core facilitator of a lasting peace solution for Syria and a central actor in the profitable business of rebuilding the country have not materialized. Instead, Moscow has had to recognize its limited leverage. Since Russia’s strategic interests are tied to the survival the Assad regime, the despot can exert influence on Moscow’s agenda and even obstruct unfavorable Russian policies.

In contrast to Russia, Iran has been more successful at promoting its interests, says Robin Wright. Tehran’s Middle East policy is driven by a feeling of vulnerability. Against the backdrop of its Shia religious orientation, Iran “feels strategically lonely,” that is, it considers itself surrounded by a hostile Sunni camp. To cope with this adverse environment, Tehran seeks to project power beyond its borders. This undertaking of expanding Iranian influence in the Middle East has been mostly implemented through establishing a strategic corridor linking Tehran in the East with Beirut in the West. Syria is an integral part of this land bridge. Although its intervention in the Syrian conflict has been costly, Tehran considers its efforts to sustain the Assad regime a long-term strategic investment essential to Iranian national security.

Syria. Source: CIA World Factbook 2015, Wikimedia Commons.

According to Austin Holmes, Turkey likewise sees its national security at stake in the Syrian conflict. Ankara’s primary interest is to keep the Syrian Kurds—who maintain close relations with their Turkish brethren—at bay. Faced with an ongoing domestic Kurdish insurgency promoted by the PKK, Turkey wants to avoid the establishment of a Kurdish autonomous zone in northern Syria stretching all along the Syrian-Turkish border. In 2016, Ankara launched its first intervention in Syria dubbed ‘Euphrates Shield’ to prevent a connection of the Kurdish cantons of Afrin and Kobane. In January 2018, Turkey stepped up its military activities to further weaken the Kurds, launching operation ‘Olive Branch’ aimed at occupying Afrin. While Ankara succeed at taking over the Kurdish stronghold, the repercussions have been inimical. Holmes stresses that the Turkish attacks on the Syrian Kurds undermine the fight against ISIS and jeopardize the Kurdish governance project of ‘Rojava,’ which she views as seeking to establish democratic principles in northern Syria.

For Israel, the Syrian civil war has become an existence-threatening challenge, says David Pollock. In essence, the Israeli leadership has been preoccupied with its immediate, narrow interest of keeping the border with Syria secure, and has tried to stay out of the broader Syrian conflict. This approach translated into a threefold strategy: (i) securing the Golan Heights as a buffer zone, (ii) reducing the presence of and threats from hostile actors—including Hezbollah, the IRGC, other Iranian militias, and jihadists—near Israeli territory, and (iii) obstructing the transfer of advanced weapons to any of these actors. To achieve these goals, the Israeli air force has in the past conducted targeted air strikes. Israel has also engaged in intensive talks with Russia and has provided humanitarian assistance to populations in southeastern Syria to build strategic goodwill.

However, Pollock points out that Israel’s interests are eroding. Air strikes have merely achieved tactical successes and were unable to prevent Iran and its proxies from expanding their presence in Syria. Perception of a strategic threat is growing. Moreover, the United States remains disinterested in Syria and is unwilling to counteract Iranian encroachment. Israel therefore sees a need to intensify its involvement in the Syrian conflict to protect itself, and will most likely expand its military interventions in the foreseeable future.

Syria’s future looks bleak. The civil war has evolved into an open-ended confrontation among regional and international actors, which will continue to add fuel to the fire. Destruction and killing of innocent civilians will drag on. Unwilling to force an end to the conflict, the West should at least alleviate the human suffering that millions of Syrians both inside and outside the country endure.

Tags : Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, Russia, Syria, Turkey, United States

What’s in store for Lebanon?

Posted in Khulood Fahim - December 6, 2017 - 0 Comment

Apologies to Khulood Fahim, who prepared this piece in a timely way. It got stuck in my queue:

On November 20, Michael Doran of the Hudson Institute, Mohammed Alyahya of the Atlantic Council, and Tony Badran of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies attempted with moderator Lee Smith of the Hudson Institute to answer the question, “Is Lebanon Saudi Arabia’s New Zone of Confrontation with Iran?” The event took place at the Hudson Institute and was live-streamed online, which is how I accessed the discussion. The question, timely in light of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s recent resignation announcement from Saudi Arabia, was answered from a Saudi perspective (Alyahya), a Lebanese perspective (Badran), and an American perspective (Doran), all three of whom agreed with each other on several issues.

That the media has falsely portrayed recent events and Saudi Arabia’s intentions was a common theme presented by the speakers. Alyahya stated that there were two important issues at hand. First, Prime Minister Hariri cited several reasons for his resignation, including the dysfunctional nature of the Lebanese government and Hezbollah’s political control. The media’s narrative, however, has assumed that Hariri had been detained and placed under house arrest by Saudi Arabia, and has disregarded the reasons that Hariri himself put forth for his resignation. The second issue is the fear mongering efforts about strikes against Hezbollah by Saudi Arabia, the US, and Israel, when no such intentions are present in any of those countries. These tactics, Alyahya maintained, are efforts to distract from “real problems” in Lebanon. The image of Saudi Arabia as an aggressor is one that the US media has been perpetuating as well, Doran added. The popularity of this image is due to two factors: persisting Obama foreign policy views that support Iran’s influence in Lebanon, and efforts to contradict President Trump, who is close to Saudi Arabia.

Badran also offered American policies from the Obama administration as reasons for the negative light in which Saudi Arabia is portrayed. In 2013, when Hezbollah began its military involvement in Syria, causing retaliation in the form of attacks in Beirut, Obama’s policy was to share intelligence with the Lebanese Armed Forces and to work with Hezbollah to limit such threats. The American goal of preserving Lebanon’s stability actually served to maintain Hezbollah’s power, Badran commented. In 2015, the basis upon which the US was supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces changed from UN Resolution 1701 to the portrayal of the Armed Forces as partners in counterterrorism efforts directed primarily at “Sunni jihadism,” a category in which the Obama administration also included Saudi Arabia. Such a narrative, then, made of Saudi Arabia an enemy, and further allowed for a “pro-Iran policy” in Lebanon.

Continuing to present an alternate picture, the speakers discussed the true extent of the power possessed by Prime Minister Hariri and Hezbollah. The initial idea that Hariri’s return to power in 2016 could limit Hezbollah’s power was erroneous, Alyahya began, and Saudi Arabia had opposed it from the beginning. Badran agreed, saying that the lesson learned in the last few weeks is that there are no strong Lebanese actors opposing Hezbollah, and that the government can be considered an “accomplice” to the organization. Echoing the Saudi stance, Badran opined that their original mistake was to allow Hariri to return to power in the first place, and that their recent push for his resignation was needed, albeit a “year too late.” Hezbollah’s power can be best imagined when seen in a regional context, as the organization is not merely a Lebanese problem. Hezbollah’s influence can be seen in multiple countries and on many levels, including in logistical planning on the behalf of Houthi rebels in Yemen, and in military involvement in Syria and elsewhere as Iranian proxies.

Saudi policy, Doran contended, is a message to Washington that there is no Lebanese alternative to Hezbollah’s power, and that, like Iran and Russia in Syria, Hezbollah has been building its power in Lebanon through the establishment of “red lines”- boundaries that it forces everyone to respect. Despite this, Doran explained that American policy so far has adopted an indirect approach, avoiding confrontation with Iranian proxies and instead supporting its own proxies, such as the Abadi regime in Iraq and the Lebanese Armed Forces. This approach has not been effective, as American proxies “never win” in clashes.

Badran stated that there is a desire in Lebanon to maintain the status quo, encouraging Saudi Arabia to deal with the Hezbollah by confronting Iran elsewhere and not Lebanon. Badran criticized this by saying that Lebanon is critical to Hezbollah’s activities, as it is a training ground and a base for its actors. “Lebanon,” he maintained, “is an exporter of destabilization to the region.”

Most pertinent in the discussion was what the panelists considered widespread misrepresentation of the situation, which has resulted in harmful misinterpretations, but Badran thought conflict or a “proxy war” in Lebanon unlikely.

Tags : Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United States

peacefare.net

Tag: Israel

Peace Picks: December 3 – 9

Like this:

Trump is right

Like this:

Peace Picks: October 22 – 28

Like this:

Peace Picks – June 25-July 1

Like this:

Syrian chessboard

Like this:

What’s in store for Lebanon?

Like this:

Click to get your own:

From War to Peace:

Righting the Balance

MailChimp Signup Form

Subscribe to peacefare via Email

Blogroll

Recent Posts

peacefare.net

danielserwer

Subscribe to individual posts via Email

Subscribe to peacefare.net

Meta

Creative Commons

Tag: Israel

Share this, I'll really appreciate it:

Like this:

Share this, I'll really appreciate it:

Like this:

Share this, I'll really appreciate it:

Like this:

Share this, I'll really appreciate it:

Like this:

Share this, I'll really appreciate it:

Like this:

Share this, I'll really appreciate it:

Like this:

Click to get your own:

From War to Peace:

Righting the Balance

MailChimp Signup Form

Subscribe to peacefare via Email

Tags

Blogroll

Recent Posts

Subscribe to individual posts via Email

Subscribe to peacefare.net

Meta

Creative Commons