Tag: Libya
Reconstruction in the Middle East
On January 16 the Middle East Institute hosted a panel discussion titled, Reconstruction in the Civil War Zones of the Middle East. The panel showcased the upcoming release of the World Bank’s Building for Peace in MENA: Reconstruction for Security, Sustainable Growth and Equity this coming February, the Middle East Institute’s Escaping the Conflict Trap, and Fractured Stability: War Economies and Reconstruction in the MENA.
Speakers on the panel included, Steven Heydemann, nonresident Senior Fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution, Luigi Narbone, Director of the Middle East Directions Programme at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute, Francesca Recanatini Senior Public Sector Specialist in Governance at the World Bank, and Ross Harrison, senior fellow at The Middle East Institute and faculty of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. The panel was moderated by Paul Salem, President of the Middle East Institute.
Inaccurate assumptions
Heydemann criticized three assumptions that the international community typically uses to guide reconstruction efforts that are contextually mistaken:
- War completely destroys the pre-war economy.
- Since pre-war institutions are destroyed, the task of post-conflict is to rebuild states and use this reconstruction effort to avoid future conflict.
- The destruction of the prewar institutions generates constituencies that wholeheartedly support reconstruction.
Heydemann critically analyzed these assumptions in the context of the MENA region, proclaiming that oftentimes in MENA there is continuity in the economic norms and practices during wartime. War even amplifies and further consolidates these norms. Secondly, conflict empowers actors to reimpose institutions they can exploit, reigniting previous conflicts. In the process of power sharing negotiations, weak participants are more concerned with positions than than reconstruction efforts.
Harrison emphasized the need for the right diagnosis of the regional conflicts in order to design proper solutions. He challenged the notion that regional actors are only proxy actors, proclaiming that this model is not complex enough to reflect the actual situation. We need realignment at the international and regional levels to create a cooperative environment for reconstruction to take place in.
Competing powers
Narbone spoke about the typical Western liberal blueprint utilized in post-conflict settings, which is not the only power in the region. The MENA conflicts incorporate a plethora of leaders in the region who do not believe in this model, specifically Russia and Iran. Consensus is lacking on the drivers of conflict, with each participant blaming the others. “Reconstruction fatigue” may be appealing but it will have detrimental effects.
Local participation
Recanatini centered her rhetoric around the World Bank’s upcoming report and the importance of citizen participation. After surveying 15,000 Yemeni, Iraqi, and Libyan citizens, asking “What do you believe has been lacking in previous peacebuilding work in your country?” over 19% of Yemenis interviewed, 18% of Libyans interviewed, and 17% of Iraqis agreed that the international community is lacking a vision guiding peacebuilding. Recanatini emphasized the need for international organizations to speak with different actors to ensure that all parts of society are being incorporated and heard. She also urged thinking outside of mandates and crossing into sectors and areas traditionally unexplored by international organizations.
What now?
The panelists all agreed that while civil war conflict zones in MENA would need billions of dollars for reconstruction, smaller grants of money can be used to set examples. Without this kind of support the resulting society will be full of disparities, hierarchies of privilege, vast discrimination and marginalization, etc. All the panelists posited that there is not just one solution to reconstruction in the context of the Middle East. We must be critical of any assumptions underlying efforts in the region.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 16
GAO has ruled that the delay in Ukraine aid was illegal. Here’s a story and the text of the judgment. This is the same procedure Sen.Bentsen and I used to block Sec. Cheney’s effort to kill the V-22 Osprey in 1991.
Politico says the administration does not want the annual state of the world hearing with the heads of the intelligence community to have any unclassified sessions — in order to avoid public contradictions of Trump.
CFR has another of those grand strategies for China relations that looks pretty good; has 22 pretty specific recommendations.
Monkey Cage has a good explainer of the Libya situation.
And here’s how NYT verified the Ukraine airplane video.
I missed this earlier edition:
– WaPo says Trump threatened Europeans with a 25% tariff on autos if they didn’t start the process under the Iran nuclear deal to restore sanctions.
-Iraqi prime minister says US troop presence will be decided by his successor.
– Look what Australia is doing about Huawei and 5G.
– NYT has good list of what’s in and not in new China trade agreement.
– WSJ doubts trade deal will meet its goals.
– New book by WaPo reporters depicts Trump as erratic and ill-informed.
– CFR has a new foreign policy jobs site..
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks|January 13-19
Is an International Financial Commission Libya’s Last Hope? | January 13, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | The Middle East Institute 1763 N Street NW Washington DC | Register Here
As the battle for Tripoli rages into its ninth month and Libya’s struggle for post-Qadhafi succession enters its ninth year, international peace-making efforts remain stymied. The root causes of the country’s malaise, its flawed economic institutions and the lack of a social contract, remain unaddressed. Thus, Libya’s economic structures will continue to impede peace building or attempts to end foreign interference unless Libya’s semi-sovereign economic institutions are forced to become more transparent. This can be achieved via a Libyan-led International Financial Commission empowered with the tools to compel transparency and reform Libya’s institutions and dysfunctional incentive structure.
The Middle East Institute is pleased to host a public panel featuring the UN’s Deputy Special Representative for Political Affairs in Libya Stephanie Williams, former Commercial Officer at the US Embassy in Tripoli Nate Mason, and former US Special Envoy to Libya Jonathan Winer. They will be participating in a discussion launching MEI Non-Resident Fellow Jason Pack’s paper, “An International Financial Commission is Libya’s Last Hope.” The event will present research on the roots of Libya’s unique forms of dysfunction and examine how the Berlin Conference process and pending Congressional legislation (the 2019 Libya Stabilization Act) can be used as correctives and incentives to move towards an economic-based approach to peacemaking in Libya.
Speakers:
Nate Mason is currently a consultant based in Washington DC, Chief of Operations and Executive Director of Strategic Advisory Solutions International, and Partner on EyeOnISISinLibya.com.
Jason Pack is a consultant, author, and commentator with over two decades of experience living in, and working on, the Middle East.
Stephanie Williams currently serves as Deputy Special Representative for Political Affairs in Libya, United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL).
Jonathan Winer (moderator) has been the United States Special Envoy for Libya, the deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement, and counsel to United States Senator John Kerry.
What Do Tunisians Expect from Their New Government? | January 14, 2020 | 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 1779 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington DC | Register Here
As Tunisia marks the ninth anniversary of its revolution, the country faces a new set of challenges. A new president and parliament, elected with the promise to fight corruption and improve the lives of the Tunisian people, must find a way to address the longstanding social and economic grievances that its predecessors have failed to remedy.
The Carnegie Middle East Program is pleased to host a discussion with three young Tunisian activists who will explain what Tunisians are expecting from their new leaders and what will happen if those expectations are not met. Fellow Sarah Yerkes will moderate the discussion. A light lunch will be served.
Speakers:
Sarah Yerkes is a fellow in the Carnegie Middle East Program.
Amir Ben Ameur is a social activist who advocates for youth development and democracy
Aymen Abderrahmen is a program coordinator in the Leadership Division in IREX.
Oumayma Ben Abdallah is a human rights researcher and Tunisia analyst.
The Future Army in Great-Power Competition | January 14, 2020 | 9:00 AM – 10:15 AM | Atlantic Council 1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor Washington DC | Register Here
Please join the Atlantic Council for a public conversation on “The Future Army in Great-Power Competition” with General James C. McConville, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, as part of the Atlantic Council’s Commanders Series. The event will take place on Tuesday, January 14, 2020 from 9:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. at the Atlantic Council’s Headquarters (1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor, West Tower Elevators, Washington, DC 20005).
Since releasing the 2017 National Security Strategy and the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the United States has shifted its geopolitical focus toward renewed great-power competition with Russia and China. However, this reassessment of national security threats, while significant, is only the first step. The maintenance of robust deterrence and defense in the coming decades will demand strategic planning, critical investments, and intelligent innovations now. Moreover, the United States must continue to confront the long-term threat posed by near-peer adversaries while navigating a variety of difficult crises and scenarios, such as current tensions with Iran. Accordingly, the US Army and the other armed services have been modernizing their capabilities and adapting their operational concepts in order to define their roles in future warfare.
As the Army’s 40th chief of staff, General McConville will join us to discuss how the Army is preparing itself for the future of geostrategic competition and military conflict. This conversation will focus on the Army’s perception of the Russian and Chinese threats, its development of Multi-Domain Operations doctrine, and its modernization efforts to incorporate new technologies.
The Commanders Series is the Atlantic Council’s flagship speakers’ forum for senior military and defense leaders. The series provides a platform to discuss current strategic issues with an impressive audience drawn from across Washington’s policy community, including think tanks, media, industry, embassies, and the US government. In 2019, the Atlantic Council hosted then-Secretary of the Army Mark T. Esper, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph F. Dunford, and then-Chief of Naval Operations John M. Richardson.
Reflections on 25 Years of US Policy in the Middle East | January 15, 2020 | 11:30 AM – 1:00 PM | Atlantic Council 1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor Washington DC | Register Here
Join us on Wednesday, January 15, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. for a conversation with Nabeel Khoury, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and twenty-five-year member of the US Foreign Service, and Thomas L. Friedman, foreign affairs columnist for The New York Times.
The past three decades have seen massive US military and diplomatic engagements in the Middle East and events that will continue to shape the world for years to come. Why has the security environment changed so drastically for the United States in the region, and what lessons should be drawn? What does US diplomacy look like on the ground in the region right now, and are we in a position to meet our foreign policy and national security goals?
Nabeel will draw on reflections from his recently published book, Bunker Diplomacy: An Arab-American in the U.S. Foreign Service: Personal Reflections on 25 Years of US Policy in the Middle East.
The Prospects for U.S.-Russia Arms Control | January 15, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM | Center for Strategic International Studies 2nd Floor Conference Room 1616 Rhode Island Ave NW Washington DC | Register Here
With the demise of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and an unclear future for New START, U.S.-Russian arms control is in dire condition. Some experts in both capitals question the feasibility or necessity of further bilateral arms control. However, any U.S. and Russian administration will face the task of managing its own arsenal and relations with a nuclear armed competitor, which requires some level of arms control—formal or informal. How do Moscow and Washington approach this task? What are most immediate concerns and what could be on the table in the future negotiations? How possible is trilateral arms control with China? What are the arms control mechanisms short of formal treaties? Andrey Baklitskiy, visiting fellow with the Russia and Eurasia Program, will present his analysis of the different options for U.S.-Russian arms control.
The event will be webcast live from this page.
Speakers:
Andrey Baklitskiy, Visiting Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
Jeffrey Mankoff, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
Impacts and Implications of the 2020 Taiwanese Elections | January 16, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM | Brookings Institute Falk Auditorium 1775 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Washington DC | Register Here
Taiwan held elections for the president and all the members of the Legislative Yuan on January 11. Although President Tsai Ing-wen had maintained a strong lead in the polls, there were questions about the reliability of some polls. Moreover, the outcome of the legislative elections was very uncertain. China, which has long made clear its dislike of the Tsai administration, had predictably intensified its pressure campaign against Tsai and Taiwan, hoping to impact these elections. In the end, Tsai Ing-wen was reelected, and the Democratic Progressive Party maintained its majority in the Legislative Yuan.
On January 16, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution will host a panel of policy experts for a discussion on the results of the elections and their implications for domestic governance in Taiwan, relations between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, U.S.-Taiwan relations, and other policy implications.
Speakers
Jacques deLisle is the Director of the Asia Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute
Alexander C. Huang is the Director of the Institute of Strategic Studies and the Institute of American Studies
Thomas Wright is the Director of the Center on the United States and Europe and Senior Fellow in Project on International Order and Strategy at the Brookings Institute.
Yun Sun is a nonresident Fellow with the Africa Growth Initiative. She also serves as co-director of the East Asia Program, and Director of the China Program at the Stimson Center.
Richard C. Bush (moderator) is the Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute and holds the Chen-Fu and Cecilia Yen Koo Chair in Taiwan Studies in the Center for East Asia Policy Studies (CEAP).
Reconstruction in the Civil War Zones of the Middle East | January 16, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | The Middle East Institute 1763 N Street NW Washington DC | Register Here
The civil wars in the Middle East have taken a massive humanitarian toll on Syrian, Iraqi, Yemeni and Libyan societies, and have disrupted the regional political and economic order of this already tumultuous region.
The Middle East Institute is pleased to invite you to a panel discussion addressing ways for mitigating the effects of these violent and destructive conflicts. The panel will showcase the findings of the recently released book Fractured Stability: War Economies and Reconstruction in the MENA, edited by former diplomat Luigi Narbone, and contributed to by Professor Steven Heydemann. The panel discussion will answer questions such as, what does it mean to exit a civil war conflict economy? What is required to restore economic and political normalcy in countries in civil war? The panel will also address how the rebuilding of hard infrastructure is necessary, but that equally important for reaching and sustaining stability is the forging of new social contracts and establishment of new political and economic norms. Another area that will be explored is how changes at the regional and international levels have influenced possibilities for post-conflict economic reconstruction, and what regional and international preconditions are necessary for a successful reconstruction and transition to peace.
The Middle East Institute has established itself as a thought leader in providing a better understanding of the causes of these conflicts. It has just launched a book “Escaping the Conflict Trap: Toward Ending Civil Wars in the Middle East“, and participated in the World Bank’s Building For Peace project. Stay tuned for announcements of future MEI sponsored events that offer important findings about both the underlying causes and possible remedies for these civil conflicts.
Speakers:
Ross Harrison is a senior fellow at The Middle East Institute and is on the faculty of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.
Steven Heydemann is a nonresident Senior Fellow in the Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution.
Luigi Narbone is Director of the Middle East Directions Programme at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute.
Francesca Recanatini is a Senior Public Sector Specialist in Governance at the World Bank
Paul Salem (moderator) is President of the Middle East Institute
Deconstructing the Soleimani Killing: Implications for the Region and Beyond | January 16, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | Arab Center Washington DC, National Press Club First Amendment Lounge 529 14th St., NW Washington DC | Register Here
Speakers
Daniel Brumberg is an Associate Professor of Government at Georgetown University and a nonresident Senior Fellow at the Arab Center Washington DC
Abbas Kadhim is the Director of Iraq Initiative and Resident Senior Fellow of Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council
Negar Mortazavi is an Iranian-American journalist and media analyst for BBC, Al Jazeera, and CGTN
Reframing the U.S.- Pakistan Strategic Relationship: A Conversation with Foreign Minister Qureshi | January 16, 2020 | 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM | Center for Strategic International Studies 1616 Rhode Island Ave NW Washington DC | Register Here
For the last 20 years, the relationship between Pakistan and the United States has been refracted through the prism of Afghanistan.
Pakistan and the U.S. have a shared interest in working toward peace in Afghanistan. Pakistan and the U.S. have an opportunity to reframe the bilateral relationship. Prime Minister Imran Khan’s meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House last July is seen as a turning point for the two countries after a difficult period.
There is a good case for a broader Pakistan-U.S. partnership: Pakistan is the fifth most populous country in the world, located in a central geographic part of the world, has the largest percentage of young people globally, and is the native land of over one million affluent and politically engaged Pakistani Americans. There is tremendous investment opportunity for U.S. companies in Pakistan’s enormous energy, agriculture, and tourism sectors.
Please join us for a conversation with Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi of Pakistan as he lays out his vision for the Pakistan-U.S. relationship.
The event will be webcast live from this page.
Speakers
John J. Hamre is President and CEO of CSIS
Daniel F. Runde is the Senior Vice President and Director of the Project on Prosperity and Development.
Seth G. Jones is the Director of the Transnational Threats Project and Senior Adviser to the International Security Program.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Worse than Benghazi
President Trump was at pains yesterday to say that what is happening at the embassy in Baghdad is “no Benghazi.” He’s right: it is worse.
Not until now in terms of lives lost. The Baghdad embassy staff is said to be barricaded in a safe place, which of course means they are safe only if the demonstrators are kept out. Ambassador Chris Stevens died in a “safe” haven in Benghazi. I hope and pray nothing of that sort will happen in Baghdad.
But the broader political picture in Baghdad is much worse than it was in Benghazi, where the group that conducted the attack was a ragtag gang of extremists unsupported by the broader population. In Baghdad, the attackers belong to a government-allied (though not necessarily controlled) militia with a lot of support among Iraq’s majority Shia population and wholehearted Iranian backing.
The Americans withdrew from Libya quickly after the Benghazi attack, because American interests there were minimal. The Embassy is still not back in Tripoli. Iraq is far more important: it is a major oil producer and a front-line state vis-a-vis Iran. Thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars have been spent to ensure a friendly and semi-democratic government as well as to secure a competitive foothold in Iraq, where 5000 or so US troops are still training Iraqi security forces. US withdrawal from Iraq would constitute a major Iranian victory, allowing Tehran to consolidate its access to Syria and Lebanon as well as the Mediterranean.
Withdrawal is therefore still unlikely, but the Baghdad Embassy will not be able to function as before. It was always a ludicrous behemoth, an immense fortress with 20-foot high walls in the center of the most valued neighborhood in the city. Its heavily watered and manicured lawns represented American arrogance at its most obvious: an attempt to install in Baghdad an isolated suburban-style campus protected from the local population. It was an obvious target: symbolic and indefensible unless the Iraqis defended it, as the Vienna conventions require.
It would be hard for any Iraqi government to exert the effort required after an American attack that killed, in retaliation for the death of one American contractor, a couple of dozen Iraqis belonging to one of the militias credited–rightly or not–with defeating the Islamic State and preventing a Shia holocaust. President Trump has vaunted his commitment to disproportionate retaliation, but he forgets it’s a game the Iranians can play as well. The attack on the embassy is their version of escalation. The additional US troops being sent may be able to prevent any deaths or capture of Americans, but they won’t be able to restore the Embassy to normal functionality. Evacuation of most the civilians is likely.
Nor will the US troops be able to prevent the Iraqi politicians who want complete American troop withdrawal from gaining traction. Until the American attack on the Iraqi militiamen, Iraqis were loudly protesting the Iranian presence in the country. That tide has now gone out. Iraq is in the midst of a government crisis: the prime minister has resigned and will remain only until a new one gets a majority in parliament. The US attack and Iranian response make it likely the next one will not be nearly as friendly to the US as the incumbent, Adel Abdul Mehdi. Even if nothing more happens at the Embassy, Tehran has won the current exchange of fire.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The end is nigh 2019
Except for my 401k, the teens have not been a great decade. We’ve watched the Arab spring turn into the Arab civil wars, Russia reassert itself annexing Crimea and invading Ukraine, China increase its overt and covert challenges to the US, and North Korea defy American efforts to limit or eliminate its nuclear and missile programs. The US has initiated trade wars, withdrawn from international commitments (including the Paris climate change accord as well as the Iran nuclear deal and the intermediate nuclear forces agreement), and abandoned its support for democracy and rule of law, not only but importantly in Israel and Palestine.
Several of these developments could worsen in 2020. The Iran/US tit-for-tat is more likely to escalate than de-escalate. Some Arab civil wars like Yemen and Syria are burning out, but others are spreading beyond the Arab world, with Turkey intervening in Syria and Libya, Russia and Egypt in Libya, and Iran in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Russia is not advancing in Ukraine, but it seems disinclined to withdraw via the Minsk II agreement that would re-establish Ukraine’s control over its southeastern border with Russia and allow a significant degree of autonomy for Luhansk and Donetsk. China and the US have reached a limited and partial agreement on trade, but no more comprehensive accord is in sight. North Korea is bound to test more missiles, if not nuclear weapons.
US mistakes are especially concerning. The withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal has freed Iran to begin to violate its provisions, accelerating the date at which Tehran will have all the technology it needs to make nuclear weapons. Global warming is accelerating and the arms race with Russia is quickening. NATO is not brain dead, but US leadership of the alliance is more in doubt than ever before due to the President’s inability to recognize the real advantages a multilateral partnership gives to American power projection. American abandonment of even the pretense of evenhandedness in Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians has opened the door to extremist Jewish ambitions to annex the West Bank.
Only 11 months remain before the next US presidential election. It will focus mainly on domestic issues like the economy, health care, religion, and race. But there can be no doubt the United States is less well positioned internationally than it was in January 2017, when President Trump took office. The rest of the world increasingly regards the U.S. as a menace to peace and security, not its guarantor. Excessive reliance on military force and erratic decisionmaking have reduced American influence. Even the relatively strong economy, which has continued to grow at the pace established in the Obama administration and thereby reduced unemployment to historic lows, has not propped up American prestige, because of Trump’s trade wars. Enthusiasm for America is at a nadir in most of the world.
We can hope for better and toast the prospects this evening. But there is little reason to believe the United States is going to recover until it gets new leadership, not only in the White House but also in the Senate, where the new year will see some semblance of a “trial” of President Trump on self-evident impeachment charges. He tried to extort Ukraine into investigating a political rival for his personal benefit using US government resources and has withheld cooperation with the resulting investigation. But few if any Republican Senators seem ready to acknowledge the facts. I might hope Chief Justice Roberts will refuse to preside over a sham procedure and insist on testimony, but he has given no hint of that yet.
America is a great country. It has survived many mistakes. But whether it can get through the next year without doing itself irreversible harm is in doubt. It could “acquit” and re-elect a president most of the world regards as more of a threat to peace and security than Vladimir Putin. Or it could, against the odds, redeem itself and its role in the world with a conviction, a good election free of international interference, and inauguration of someone the world and most its citizens can respect. Take your choice, America.
And happy New Year!
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 21 and 22
December 22
– Washington awaits North Korean missile test with policy in disarray, NYT says.
– WSJ says Navarro endures on trade issues.
-Former CIA official reflects on Post’s Afghanistan articles. I agree.
-Newly released emails show OMB blocking Ukraine aid 90 minutes after Zelensky phone call.
– NYT compares political situations of Nixon and Trump.
December 21
– The administration forced Congress to back down on a provision in the omnibus spending bill that would have forced early release of military aid to Ukraine.
– NYT can track you by your phone, and they did it on the president.
-WaPo lists the contenders fighting in Libya.
– NYT says there’s vote rigging in Venezuela..
– The fight over control of the world’s financial system.
– FP explains why US and Israel don’t have a formal alliance.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
