Tag: Israel/Palestine
Israel and the Palestinian economy
Yael Mizrahi-Arnaud, who recently completed the requirements for a Masters degree in international economics and Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins SAIS, contributed this post to the Matzav blog of the Israel Policy Forum (reprinted here with its permission). She is a former Israel Air Force officer, and project manager at the Peres Center for Peace. She has conducted research in Israel and Iraq on innovative conflict management solutions.
Recent months have seen an increase in unilateral plans to resolve, or at least mitigate, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since the Oslo Accords of the mid-1990s, the international community has embraced the consensus that a two-state solution is the only viable outcome. But barring any progress towards that result on the political front, buttressing the Palestinian economy may be the only realm in which tangible results can be achieved. A boost in the Palestinian economy will not only benefit the lives of millions of people and restore waning public confidence in the Palestinian Authority, but also set up the Palestinians as a self-supporting peace partner that can maintain the institutions of statehood.
A new push to buttress the Palestinian economy would stem not from an economic-peace rationale, which sees economic advances predicating political advances and statehood, but rather from the idea that a functioning Palestinian economy is a crucial component in and of itself, independent of negotiations. The desire is to merely keep the door open for a future resilient Palestinian polity, one that can be a viable state and a constructive neighbor to Israel. The Israeli military chief of staff has put it most aptly: “there is a clear Israeli interest, beyond the issue of values, to develop the Palestinian economy.”
Current trends in Palestinian demography and economics provide reason to worry. Unemployment stands at 27 percent, and for people 20 to 24, rises to 40 percent. With half of the population under 18, the Palestinians face a youth time bomb; without avenues for employment and advancement, these youth represent a growing security threat to Israel.
In addition, the Palestinian economy relies heavily on international aid to fuel its consumption, and suffers from a bloated public sector and static private sector. Annual GDP has improved, from -0.4 percent in 2014 to 3.5 percent in 2015. These trends arise due to restrictive and outdated economic arrangements with Israel, as well as poor governance by the Palestinian leadership.
A recent World Bank Report estimated that the PA loses $285 million a year as a result of its current economic arrangements with Israel, which date back to the 1993 Paris Protocol. That agreement saw the creation of an Israeli-Palestinian customs union, and a joint economic committee tasked with overseeing the movement of goods and labor between the two economies. A common truism of the Israel-Palestinian narrative, that the interim often becomes the reality, is nowhere truer than here.
The bulk of this loss comes from value-added tax (VAT) and import duties that Israel collects on the PA’s behalf, which are handed over on a monthly basis. These taxes are known as clearance revenues, and make up two-thirds of the PA’s public revenues. Israel takes a three-percent collection and processing fee on the VAT and import duties.
Any delay in these payments creates instability in the Palestinian economy, as the PA is the largest single employer in the West Bank, employing over 16 percent of citizens. Late payments mean the PA must take out bank loans, turn to foreign aid, or leave a large number of its employees unpaid. The last of these scenarios unfolded in the first quarter of 2015, when 40 percent of public sector wages went unpaid due to Israel’s withholding clearance revenues in protest of the Palestinian move to join the International Criminal Court.
Recent deals that Israeli Minister of Finance Moshe Kahlon struck with PA Finance Minister Shukri Bishara and Civil Affairs Minister Hussein al-Sheikh have led to the transfer of $128 million in unpaid clearance revenues. Coupled with the proposed increase in cooperation in the high-tech, medical, and construction fields, this is a good start.
Still, it is far from enough. Congress also recently voted to unblock $108 million in funds placed on hold after PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s September 2015 statement that the Palestinians were not longer bound by the Oslo Accords. An additional $51 million remains blocked today. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks April 18-22
- A Conversation on Jerusalem and the Future of the Peace Process with Daniel Seidemann | Monday, April 18th | 12:15-1:30 | Middle East Institute and Johns Hopkins SAIS | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Middle East Institute (MEI) and the Conflict Management Program of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) are pleased to host internationally renowned Jerusalem expert and activist Daniel Seidemann in a discussion with Al Arabiya TV’s Muna Shikaki about ongoing settlement activities in Jerusalem and challenges to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. Seidemann has observed that Jerusalem is becoming “the central arena for Israeli-Palestinian skirmishing of such intensity that developments there jeopardize the very possibility of a two-state solution and threaten to undermine both local and regional stability.” In the absence of a political dialogue, Israel is extending physical barriers and discussing ideas to more thoroughly separate the communities, particularly in Jerusalem. In this period of growing crisis, what steps can advocates of a two-state solution – in the region and in the U.S. and Europe – take to preserve the prospect? Daniel Serwer (SAIS and MEI) will introduce the program.
- Beyond Migration: The Refugee Crisis in Europe and the Challenges of Immigrant Integration | Monday, April 18th | 3:30-5:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Despite decades of immigration, even the most multicultural countries in Europe are struggling with the scale of the current refugee crisis, and the challenge of integrating the newcomers. This crisis, one of Europe’s biggest of the past century, has the potential to alter the political fabric of the continent and undermine the foundation of post-WWII transnational institutions. The political and humanitarian consequences of the EU’s deal with Turkey have drawn much attention. But what about those refugees who have already made the trip and are now settling in Europe, if only temporarily? Looking back, what lessons can European governments learn from successes and failures in integrating earlier generations of immigrants? Join us for a discussion of the dilemmas of immigration control in Europe, as well as the longer-term issues of immigrant integration, identity, and belonging. Speakers include Henri J. Barkey, Director of the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center, James Hollifield, Public Policy Fellow at the Wilson Center, and Riva Kastoryano, Senior Research Fellow, Center for International Research, SciencesPo, Paris.
- High Stakes at the Gulf Summit: What President Obama Should Get from the GCC Meeting | Tuesday, April 19th | 2:00-3:30 | Center for Transatlantic Relations and Human Rights First | REGISTER TO ATTEND | On April 21 President Obama will attend the Gulf Co-operation Council Summit in Saudi Arabia, with a series of crises confronting the Gulf monarchies. Syria, Yemen and Iran will be key components of the discussions, as well how to prevent violent extremism. Join us for a panel discussion featuring regional specialists on what Obama should achieve in the GCC meeting, and why it matters so much. Introductory remarks will be made by Ambassador Andras Simonyi, Managing Director, CTR. Speakers include Hala Aldosari, Visiting Scholar, the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, Brian Dooley, Director, Human Rights Defenders, Human Rights First, and Matar Ebrahim Matar, former member of the Bahraini Parliament. Mihai Patru, Senior Fellow, Center for Transatlantic Relations, will moderate.
- The Idea of Culture and Civilization in Contemporary Turkish Politics: Public Debate, Policy and Foreign Relations | Wednesday, April 20th | 9:30-2:30 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Join us for a conference that explores new ideas among Islamist and secular intellectuals in contemporary Turkey and inquire whether novel understandings exist about the relationship between Islam and modernity, East and West, and the position of Turkey itself within them. The conference will also investigate the impact of these understandings on public debate domestically in Turkey and on its foreign policy, specifically its relations with the United States and Europe, Russia, and the Middle East. This event consists of three panels. Speakers and panels may be found here.
- The Value of Values: Reconsidering the Role of Human Rights in U.S.-China Relations | Wednesday, April 20th | 2:30-4:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Issues of ideology, values, and human rights are again moving to the top of the United States’ China agenda and underlie many frictions in U.S.-China relations. The competing virtue narratives and disparate systems of the United States and China fuel suspicions in the military, economic, and global governance spheres. Please join us for an examination of values, rights, and ideals in the U.S.-China relationship and in the evolution of regional and world orders. Speakers include J. Stapleton Roy, Founding Director and Distinguished Scholar at the Wilson Center, Sharon Hom, Executive Director, Human Rights in China, Zheng Wang, Global Fellow, and Robert Daly, Director, Kissinger Institute on China and the United States.
- Western Defense Reassurances to Gulf Arab After the Iran Deal: Are We on the Same Page? | Thursday, April 21st | 10:00-11:30 | International Institute for Strategic Studies | REGISTER TO ATTEND | You are invited to an IISS discussion meeting on Thursday, April 21st, on Western defense reassurances to Gulf Arabs after the Iran deal. Panelists include Ellen Laipson, Distinguished Fellow and President Emeritus of the Stimson Center, Michael Eisenstadt, director of The Washington Institute’s Military and Security Studies Program, Caroline Hurndall, Head of the Middle East Team at the British Embassy, and Bilal Saab, Resident Senior Fellow for Middle East Security at the Atlantic Council. The panel will discuss whether post-Iran deal arms sales to Gulf Cooperation Council countries meet the goal of reassurance, whether arms sales from different NATO counties are complementary or competitive, and how the sales are affecting the geopolitics of the region. Following the hour-long panel discussion, there will be a 30-minute Q&A session with the audience. The full event will be on the record and webcast live on the IISS website.
- Protecting Religious Minorities | Thursday, April 21st | 1:30-3:00 | United States Institute for Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Propelled by the atrocities against religious minorities in several Muslim-majority countries in recent years, particularly at the hands of the Islamic State group, senior religious leaders meeting in Morocco in January issued the Marrakesh Declaration to prevent such violence in the future. Join the U.S. Institute of Peace and its co-hosts on April 21 as renowned Islamic legal scholar Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah, who designed the legal framework for the declaration and convened the Morocco meeting, discusses the next steps in ensuring the terms of this call to action can be implemented. The violence wrought by violent extremists creates an imperative for people in the Muslim world across sectarian, ethnic, and national lines to affirm positive teachings within the tradition, address historical points of disagreement and transform the underlying causes of violent extremism into peaceful change.The Marrakesh Declaration courageously acknowledges the oppression and violence against religious minorities within some predominantly Muslim countries. Inspired by the Charter of Medina, which was established in the time of the Prophet Muhammad to guarantee religious freedoms, the declaration presents a way to apply a religious legal and theological framework to uphold human rights. But much of the success of the Marrakesh Declaration will depend on how it is implemented. In this discussion co-hosted by the Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers and Sheikh bin Bayyah’s Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies, he will address the urgency of the Marrakesh Declaration in light of current events. He also will outline plans to work with individuals and organizations to use the declaration as a source of authority and accountability to advance the goals of this call to action.
- A Stronger UN for a Peaceful World—Conversation with Ambassador Natalia Gherman | Thursday, April 21st | 4:00-5:00 | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Women in Public Service Projectand the Kennan Instituteinvite you to a discussion with Ambassador Natalia Gherman, candidate for United Nation Secretary General. Amb. Gherman will outline her unique perspective and goals for new UN leadership, before taking audience questions. Ambassador Natalia Gherman has previously served as acting Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of the Republic of Moldova. As a Chief Negotiator, she led Moldova towards the Association Agreement, Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, and visa liberalization regime with the EU. She served as Ambassador to Austria and Permanent Representative to the UN Agencies in Vienna and the OSCE, and Ambassador to Sweden, Finland, and Norway.
- The Changing Role of Egypt’s Private Sector | Friday, April 22nd | 9:00-10:30 | Middle East Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a discussion about the evolving role of Egypt’s private sector and the emergence of new business models to meet the demands of sustainable development. Egyptian business leaders Mohamed El-Kalla (Cairo for Investment and Development), Dina Sherif (The Center for Entrepreneurship, AUC) and Tarek Tawfik (Federation of Egyptian Industries) will be joined by American attorney and investment adviser Samar Ali (Bone McAllester Norton PLLC) for an examination of the changing nature of private enterprise in Egypt. Egypt’s new generation of entrepreneurs and corporate leaders are increasingly prioritizing sustainable development, accountability, and responsible business practices as key tools for economic growth. The panel will discuss the drivers of change, the challenges that private business faces from the state, and how the U.S. government and business community can encourage the new trend. Randa Fahmy will moderate the discussion.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The difference between Jews
I spent an hour today with two really smart guys: Dov Waxman of Northeastern University and Ilan Peleg of Lafayette College. The occasion was a Middle East Institute event we hosted at SAIS on Dov’s newly published book, Trouble in the Tribe: The American Jewish Conflict over Israel. I can’t review it, because I haven’t read it yet, but the two professors certainly gave me a good deal to think about.
I confess I was uncomfortable with the book’s title. I don’t regard myself as a member of a tribe but rather as an individual who has chosen to be what my parents were: Jews and Americans. Many years ago a co-worker referred to the Jewish owner of the factory we worked in as my Landsmann. That grates to this day. Of course I share with at least some Jews many things: history, culture, beliefs, norms, and support for the state of Israel. But I also share those things with many non-Jews. And I differ from many Jews on some of those things. I am not indifferent to the religious connection, just not willing to prioritize it over everything else and assume a familial tie to someone I had never met.
This turned out to be one of Dov’s main points: many American Jews, especially the millennial generation (of which I am definitively not a member), feel the way I do. We prioritize liberal values rather than ethnic connections. In so doing, we are increasingly at odds with an Israel that has returned to its 19th century roots as a Jewish national movement, especially but not only under Benyamin Netanyahu’s leadership. We want to see Palestinians treated in accordance with liberal values as equals endowed with inalienable rights. Bernie Sanders expressed this view last night in the debate with Hillary Clinton.
So why, I asked, do so many American politicians, like Clinton, support Israel so unconditionally? Even Barack Obama has been assiduous, more so than his predecessors, in protecting Israel from undesired UN Security Council resolutions. Part of the answer is that they get vital support and money from doing so. I’m not going to be able to match Sheldon Adelson as a political donor, but in addition I wouldn’t prioritize Israel as my top issue. He will. Passion counts and most of it is on the side of those who want unconditional support for Israel as the Jewish state. They don’t much care about how Palestinians are treated.
They even deny that they exist, saying they are really just Jordanians. If anyone argues that with you, tell them to talk with a Jordanian and ask what Jews who lived in the Holy Land were called before Israeli independence in the 1948. The answer will shock: they were called Palestinians, albeit Jewish rather than Arab ones. The term “Arab Jew” then applied to the many Jews whose native language was Arabic. Today many use the Hebrew term: Mizrahi Jews, which includes Jews from other than Arab countries.
More important is that Christians, in particular evangelicals, have lined up solidly in more or less unconditional support of Israel. Bernie of course doesn’t have to worry about them, because they will never support him. He is much more interested in that millennial generation, including the young New York Jews he wants to vote for him on Tuesday. So he grabbed the third rail of American politics with both hands and seems to have survived the immediate shock, though I won’t be surprised if Clinton beats him in New York on Tuesday.
Apart from the domestic political issues arising from the palpable split in the American Jewish community, there are potentially serious foreign policy issues. Ilan pointed to the split between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu over the Iranian nuclear deal and Dov mentioned Israeli opposition to the American role in the fall of Egyptian President Mubarak in 2011. On the Iranian nuclear deal, it seems to me the split is already partly healed: Netanyahu has become a cheerleader for strict implementation, since that is manifestly in Israel’s interest.
But the healing is only partial, because the President is inclined to allow at least a partial return of Iran to something more like its traditional role in the region (in exchange for postponement of its nuclear ambitions) while Netanyahu is increasingly aligned with the Sunni Arab states in actively resisting that. He has also begun to imitate some of their less liberal practices in cracking down on Israeli civil society and making life hard for those who speak out against excessive use of force against Palestinians. That really offends my liberal sensibilities.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Who didn’t come to pander?
Yesterday four candidates for President of the United States (Democrat Clinton plus Republicans Kasich, Cruz and Trump) appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) yesterday and tried to outdo each other in supporting Israel and denouncing Palestinian violence. I imagine my Arab and Muslim readers will see nothing new in this. But they may also assume that it reflects prevailing Jewish views. After all, AIPAC is the leading “Israel lobby” organization and it draws a BIG crowd. What else are these candidates doing if not trying to bring around Jewish voters?
They will be surprised, as will many others around the world, to learn that this Chris Hayes video from last night, featuring the only Jew ever to begin to get close to a major party presidential nomination nomination, is much closer to representing majority views among Jewish Americans, especially those of more liberal bent (who are more numerous than the orthodox). Bernie Sanders wants to reach out to Palestinians and Arabs, who he says cannot be ignored:
Most American Jews in fact vote Democratic: 78% for Obama in 2008 and 69% for Obama in 2012, even after Prime Minister Netanyahu’s intense effort to undermine him. It would be a truly historic shift for Republicans–Trump, Cruz or Kasich–to win more than 50% of the relatively small Jewish vote. That hasn’t happened for 100 years. The only states with enough Jews to make a real difference even in a close race in this year’s election are New York, which has voted Democratic since 1984, and California, which has voted Democratic since 1992. Neither is a likely Republican win this year.
So if it’s not about Jewish votes, what is it about? Some will say money, and I won’t deny, that is a factor. Sheldon Adelson isn’t the only Jewish donor pulling strings to make candidates say what he wants them to say. A lot of the big Jewish money supports Hillary Clinton, which gives her a good reason to show up at AIPAC and say lots of pro-Israel things, even if she is guaranteed the lion’s share of the Jewish vote.
But for the Republicans it is about the Christians, not the Jews, and more than the money. More American Christians think God gave Israel to the Jewish people than American Jews do (44 vs. 40%). Among white evangelical Protestants, that figure is 82%.
AIPAC is a necessary stop for Republicans not because of the Jewish votes, but rather because of the Christian ones. This is especially important for Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, who are in a tug-of-war for evangelical votes. It is simply extraordinary that the thrice-divorced braggart (that’s Trump) can somehow attract votes away from the evangelical preacher’s son (that’s Cruz), but it seems to be happening. Ben Carson, who has joined the Trump camp, isn’t alone.
Trump at AIPAC was at best incoherent. He said he will cancel the Iran nuclear deal and that he will enforce it vigorously. He said he would be more evenhanded–which would put him in Bernie’s ball park–but then advocated moving the US embassy to the “eternal capital of the Jewish people,” Jerusalem. He is apparently unaware that would align him solidly with Israel and wreck prospects for a the mutually beneficial deal he somewhat eloquently insisted upon.
My capital is in Washington DC, not Jerusalem. I have no idea what God thinks or did several millenia ago and I doubt anyone else does either. Most American Jews I know feel the same way, even those who have a great deal of affection for Israel, as Bernie Sanders–who has lived on a Kibbutz–clearly does. What we want is the deal Trump talks about but then makes unlikely. Believe me, he says, I didn’t come to pander. Then he does.
PS: For those of more literary bent, here is the speech Bernie Sanders did not give at AIPAC.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks March 14-18
- Director’s Forum: A Conversation with H.E. Moshe Ya’alon, Minister of Defense of the State of Israel | Monday, March 14th | 9:00-10:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Israel sits in a turbulent and chaotic region. Never has the Middle East been as unstable and challenging: a rising Iran; meltdown in Syria; an impasse in the Palestinian issue; Russian intervention and the rise of ISIS. How does Israel prioritize these challenges? And more importantly, what is Israel’s strategy for dealing with them? Join us for what promises to be a fascinating conversation and discussion of these and other issues with Israel’s Minister of Defense.
- Legal Restrictions on Thought and Expression in Pakistan, Egypt, Thailand, and Bahrain | Monday, March 14th | 12:00-2:00 | National Endowment for Democracy | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In a number of countries, counter-terrorism, blasphemy, sedition and similar laws are increasingly used to restrict free inquiry and expression, resulting in a shrinking academic and societal space for dialogue. Wrongful prosecutions under these laws not only threaten the well-being of targeted individuals, but undermine the quality of academic work and public discourse and deny everyone in society the benefits of expert knowledge, scientific and creative progress, and free expression. These laws are often defended as reasonable restrictions on violent or anti-social conduct or as appropriate expressions of national or cultural prerogatives. In practice they are used to restrict thought, punish expression, and intimidate individuals and society generally. Panelists from Pakistan, Egypt, Bahrain, and Thailand will discuss how these laws affect their work and research.
- Autocracies Failed and Unfailed: Limited Strategies for State Building | Tuesday, March 15th | 8:30-10:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The paper, written by the Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations Stephen D. Krasner, and featuring a foreword by Ambassador James B. Cunningham, argues that successful democratization attempts depend mostly on the interests of local elites. To address this “fundamental challenge” Krasner outlines the three elements of “good enough governance” that contribute to a relatively successful democratization effort: 1) security; 2) better service provision; and 3) economic growth.The Atlantic Council Strategy Papers series is designed to enrich the public debate and build consensus on the great strategic challenges of our time, as well as to help shape strategic thinking in US and allied governments, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the global media. The event will feature opening remarks from Dr. Peter Ackerman, Managing Director of Rockport Capital.
- From Homs to Hamburg: Refugee movements from Syria to Europe and beyond | Tuesday, March 15th | 10:15-11:15 | Brookings | REGISTER TO ATTEND | As the Syrian civil war enters its sixth year, the associated massive flow of refugees into neighboring countries and onward into Europe continues to overwhelm the international refugee system. As the UNHCR prepares to host a ministerial-level meeting on mechanisms for admitting refugees, the international community urgently needs to coordinate assistance to major host countries, as well as generate creative options for legal channels of migration. On Tuesday March 15, the Foreign Policy program at Brookings will host U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi to discuss recent developments in the refugee crisis and ways for the international community to equitably share responsibilities in addressing the crisis. Bruce Jones, vice president and director of the Foreign Policy program at Brookings, will provide introductory remarks, and Robert McKenzie, visiting fellow for the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World, will moderate the conversation. Following the conversation, Grandi will take questions from the audience. This event is the latest in a series of Brookings events focusing on the Syrian refugee crisis and the U.S. and international community’s responses to it.
- The Inner Workings of ISIS | Tuesday, March 15th | 12:30-2:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please join the Atlantic Council’s Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security for a public discussion with a panel of experts focusing on the inner workings of the Islamic State (ISIS) and how the US-led anti-ISIS coalition can translate this understanding into military success against the group. The Islamic State (ISIS) initially seized the international spotlight by capturing territory spanning western Iraq and eastern Syria, instilling fear in its opponents and administering brutal rule over civilian populations under its control. Over time, ISIS has inspired and carried out attacks from San Bernardino to Paris to the Maghreb and Sinai, becoming a challenge of global proportions. ISIS continues to hold territory, carry out attacks in Iraq and Syria, and brutalize the people living under its rule even as the group faces increasing pressure from the US-led international coalition formed to degrade and destroy it. As the Iraqi government gears up for a US-supported campaign to retake the city of Mosul, how can states translate their understanding of ISIS and its ideology into military successes? How can the US and its partners disrupt the image the group presents online through social media and lessen its appeal to potential recruits? The event will feature Michael Weiss, co-author of the book ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, as well as Martin Chulov of The Guardian and ISIS cyber researcher Jade Parker of TAPSTRI.
- A Conversation with South American Chiefs of Mission | Wednesday, March 16th | 8:45-10:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Join us as we discuss President Obama’s upcoming trip to Latin America as well as key political and economic developments in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay and what they mean for U.S. policy in the hemisphere. Our expert panel includes: Alex Lee Deputy Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State, the Honorable Liliana Ayalde, U.S. Ambassador to Brazil, the Honorable Mike Hammer, U.S. Ambassador to Chile, and Bradley Freden, Chargé d’Affaires, Montevideo, Uruguay. The event will be moderated by Cynthia J. Arnson, Director, Latin American Program at the Wilson Center and Paulo Sotero, Director, Brazil Institute at the Wilson Center.
- Divided They Fall: Social Atomization in Putin’s Russia | Wednesday, March 16th | 10:00-11:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The marginalization of NGOs and political groups is a feature of many authoritarian regimes. In Russia, this is compounded by atomized social bonds and civil society dysfunction even absent government interference. Drawing on her research within Russian communities, Anna Arutunyan will look at how these patterns of interaction impact agency and politics in modern civil society. Anna Arutunyan, a Moscow-based journalist and writer will speak.
- U.S.-Colombia Relations: A Conversation with U.S. Ambassador to Colombia, Kevin Whitaker | Wednesday, March 16th | 11:15-12:15 | REGISTER TO ATTEND | On March 16, Foreign Policy at Brookings’ Latin America Initiative will host U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Kevin Whitaker who will offer an assessment of the state of U.S.-Colombia relations and the prospects for a successful peace accord between the Colombian government and the FARC. Vice president and director of Foreign Policy Bruce Jones will provide introductory remarks. Senior Fellow Harold Trinkunas will moderate the discussion. Kevin Whitaker was confirmed as Ambassador to Colombia in April 2014. He has previously served as deputy assistant secretary of state for South America, as well as deputy chief of mission in Venezuela and diplomatic posts in Jamaica, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Following initial remarks and the opening discussion, Ambassador Whitaker will take audience questions.
- The Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015? Implications for Egypt and the Region | Thursday, March 17th | 12:00-2:00 | Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Amb. Ibrahim Rasool (former Amb. of South Africa), Prof. Nader Hashemi (Univ. of Denver) and Dr. Radwan Masmoudi, President of CSID, will make three short presentations, followed by Q&A, on the dangers and implications of this bill on the democratization process in Egypt and in the region. As you know, this bill is moving forward very quietly, but quickly, in congress, and has already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee (in a 17-10 vote along partisan lines). The Congressional hearing was extraordinarily brief. As two members of the committee pointed out, it completely ignored the usual process of expert testimony from the State Department, intelligence agencies and Middle East and terrorism experts. We, as scholars and strong believers and activists for democracy in the region, think that this bill – if adopted – will have extremely bad repercussions on stability and democracy in the region, on relations between the US and the Muslim World, and will further radicalize millions of young Muslims, in Egypt and in the region, who are seeking to have a role and a voice in shaping the future of their country.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Superbowl, Academy awards, election debate
I’ve missed all three: I didn’t watch the Superbowl, the Academy awards or last night’s Republican debate. I suppose this makes me downright anti-American, but I’ve got what I regard as good reasons to skip all three.
The Superbowl is the ultimate American sports event. It features sudden rushes of activity and physical collisions so violent that they are maiming and killing the participants at a terrifying rate. I’ve always wondered how the Romans found gladiatorial contests appealing. I know now. It is simply inhumane to continue to play this sport as it is played today. A parent who would encourage a kid to play tackle football is a child abuser.
The Academy awards are easy to skip. They were always boring. The failure this year to nominate any black people makes them more so. Chris Rock, whose monologue I read, did little to convince me this is anything but gross and inexcusable prejudice by people who know better. Hollywood has often been a trailblazer when it comes to responding to prejudice. How could it allow itself to sink to symbolizing it?
I’m sure last night’s Republican presidential debate was more entertaining than the Academy awards. But I’ve had enough, not only of Trump’s vulgarity but also of Cruz and Rubio’s attempts to match him.
That said, Trump represents an important slice of the American public, in particular blue collar whites who have benefitted little from the extraordinary economic recovery of the last seven years, topped off last month with almost 250,000 new jobs created. But unfortunately he has chosen to appeal to them with barely disguised racism and grossness, from within a political party that has blocked many attempts to level the playing field and redistribute some of the benefits of the expansion in their direction.
I’d like to see the end of two great American traditions. The Academy awards are the most likely to go first. They have lost a large part of their audience because they are boring and irrelevant. Unfortunately football is still thriving, but young people are increasingly turning to soccer. I hope that trend continues, with the long-term consequence of removing football from its exalted place as the leading American professional sport.
As for the Republican debate, it suggests the party is imploding. It may well nominate Trump, who as a major party candidate is more or less guaranteed one-third, maybe even 40%, of the vote. But he is a loser with all the voters who are counting for more these days in getting over 50%: independents, women, blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians. Most of my Republican friends will prefer to vote for Clinton, but of course that over-intellectualized elite counts for little.
It is also possible the Stop Trump movement will succeed and nominate someone like Senators Cruz or Rubio, or Governor Kasich. But in doing so it will lose Trump’s appeal to white blue collars, who are likely to stay home in droves. In any event, it looks as if the economy will be in good shape for November. If anything, its momentum is on the rise, which is the single most important factor in determining US election outcomes.
This is Hillary Clinton’s election to lose. She might do that. The Benghazi issue is fading, not least because of her own performance in Congressional testimony. There simply is no there there. But the question of her unclassified, private email server is still bubbling. Most Democrats don’t seem to care, but she could be indicted. Even if that doesn’t happen, the poor judgment she showed in following a precedent Republican Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condi Rice had set will weaken her with some independents.
Foreign policy will be an issue in this election, even if not a primary one. The threat of Islamic extremism, Russia’s misbehavior in Ukraine and Syria, the Chinese economic and military challenge, and US support for its European and Middle Eastern allies (especially Israel) will all figure, one way or another. The Republicans will bash President Obama’s two big (and popular) recent achievements: the Paris climate change agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. They will have a harder time with Trans-Pacific Partnership trade trade agreement, which Clinton opposes but the Republican establishment supports.
What won’t matter in the election or in the world are the Academy awards and the Superbowl. Nor in the end will Trump. He’ll either be nominated and lose or be edged out somehow and some other Republican will have to figure out how to make Clinton lose, which is unlikely but no impossible.
RSS - Posts
