Tag: Israel/Palestine
Peace Picks, January 20-24
It’s a shortened week in DC, as Monday is Martin Luther King Day. But still lots of good events from Tuesday on:
1. What Will 2014 bring for North Korea’s Nuclear Program?
Tuesday, January 21 | 9am – 12pm
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW
2013 witnessed new levels of threatening behavior from North Korea: a satellite launch that could portend an improved long-range ballistic missile capability; a third nuclear test; and declarations that the Korean peninsula would witness “an all-out war, a nuclear war.” Recent perturbations among the North Korean leadership also raise the possibility of greater instability and unpredictability. What will 2014 bring in terms of North Korean nuclear behavior?
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Asan Institute for Policy Studies invite you to a discussion on what to expect from North Korea on nuclear matters in 2014. Five experts will discuss the status of North Korea’s nuclear activities, what negotiating tactics North Korea might attempt, and whether there are lessons to be drawn in managing North Korea’s nuclear ambitions from the Iranian and South Asian experiences.
SPEAKERS
Toby Dalton is the deputy director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His research focuses on cooperative nuclear security initiatives and nuclear challenges in South Asia and East Asia.
Choi Kang is a senior research fellow and the vice president for research at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies. He was previously the dean of Planning and Assessment at the Korea National Diplomatic Academy.
Joel Wit is a visiting scholar at the US-Korea Institute at SAIS and a senior research fellow at Columbia University Weatherhead Institute for East Asian Studies.
Park Jiyoung is a research fellow and director of the Science and Technology Policy Center at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies. Park was previously managing director of the Research and Development Feasibility Analysis Center at the Korea Institute of S&T Evaluation and Planning.
Shin Chang-Hoon is a research fellow and the director of the International Law and Conflict Resolution Department at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies. He is also the director of the Asan Nuclear Policy and Technology Center.
James L. Schoff is a senior associate in the Carnegie Asia Program. His research focuses on U.S.-Japanese relations and regional engagement, Japanese politics and security, and the private sector’s role in Japanese policymaking.
Go Myong-Hyun is a research fellow and the director of the Center for Risk, Information, and Social Policy at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies. Go’s research focuses on social networks, complex social interactions over space, and geospatial modeling of disease.
2. Peace for Israel and Palestine? Public Opinion 20 Years after Oslo
Wednesday, January 22 | 9:30 – 11am
New America Foundation, 1899 L St NW, Suite 400
As Secretary of State John Kerry’s April deadline for a peace agreement approaches, a key concern is whether the Israeli and Palestinian publics are ready to support an agreement. Where do Israelis and Palestinians stand on key issues, and what kind of peace agreement do they want?
Twenty years after the signing of the Oslo Accords, Zogby Research Services examined these questions in its latest public opinion poll on Israeli and Palestinian attitudes toward the peace process. Please join the Arab American Institute and the New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force for the survey’s public release and a discussion of its findings. The poll, conducted for the Sir Bani Yas Forum in the UAE, provides critical insights for today’s peace negotiators as they seek a viable agreement that both the Israeli and Palestinian publics can support.
In collaboration with the Arab American Institute.
PARTICIPANTS
Presenter:
James Zogby, President, Arab American Institute and Zogby Research Services
Panelists:
Khaled Elgindy, Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution
Lara Friedman, Director, Policy and Government Relations, Americans for Peace Now
Moderator:
Leila Hilal, Director, Middle East Task Force, New America Foundation
If you are unable to join us in person, please tune in to our live webcast of the event.
3. The Role of Entrepreneurship in Building a Better Egypt
Wednesday, January 22 | 12 – 1:45pm
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW
In Egypt, innovative enterprise development has taken off in the wake of the 2011 protests with thousands of youth turning to entrepreneurship as a means of creating economic opportunity as well as addressing social challenges.
The Middle East Institute is proud to host a discussion about Egypt’s burgeoning start-up sector with entrepreneurs Yumna Madi (KarmSolar), Mona Mowafi (Rise Egypt), and Dina Sherif (Ahead of the Curve, Silatech), who will discuss their companies’ innovative ideas, the opportunities and challenges they face as entrepreneurs, and their hopes to see greater development and job creation in Egypt through the support of more innovators and start-ups. James A. Harmon,chairman of the Egyptian-American Enterprise Fund, will discuss U.S. and international support for emerging business initiatives in the country. Christopher M. Schroeder, author of Startup Rising: The Entrepreneurial Revolution Remaking the Middle East, will lead the discussion.
* A light lunch will be served at this event
4. Pakistan Media: Democratic Inclusion, Accountability and Peaceful Contestation
Thursday, January 23 | 2:15 – 4pm
US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Ave NW
The challenges and opportunities facing Pakistan’s media in many ways reflect the challenges and opportunities facing the country’s democracy. After a decade of transformation, Pakistan’s media have become an increasingly coherent platform for raising popular concerns and needs. Yet, considerable constraints remain. Decades of state manipulation undermined the development of robust media organizations. Legal protections are weak, security threats are many and the industry is not financially sound. Consequently the media remains vulnerable to exploitation by state and non-state actors as they compete for power.
This event will also feature a new policy briefing from BBC Media Action, a case study from USIP’s research into political violence reporting, and analysis from Pamela Constable, author and longtime reporter on Pakistan.
5. Perspectives on Colombia’s Peace Process and Opportunities for U.S. Engagement
Thursday, January 23 | 9am – 5pm
The Elliott School of International Affairs at the George Washington University City View Room, 1957 E Street NW, 7th Floor
Colombia appears to be nearing an end to its bitter internal armed conflict. After 50 years, a death toll approaching a quarter million and the forced displacement of over five million, Colombia has its best chance in decades of securing peace. Peace talks between the government and the country’s largest guerilla group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, FARC), are in their second year. The parties have reached tentative agreements on the first two agenda points – land and political participation – and are now discussing a solution to the issue of illicit drugs. As the talks continue in Havana, Cuba, the potential for a positive US role in designing both policies and aid packages that support peace is becoming increasingly evident. In this three-panel event, Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) will convene leading human rights defenders, security analysts, and policymakers from the United States and Colombia to discuss the status of the talks and opportunities for US engagement.
The event will be held in English and Spanish, and simultaneous interpretation will be provided. A light lunch will also be provided. For more information, please contact Adam Schaffer at (202) 797 2171.
The event will be available via live stream at www.wola.org. To RSVP for the live stream, please click here. A video of the event will be available shortly after.
6. Rethinking Islamist Politics: A Panel Discussion
Thursday, January 23 | 12 – 2pm
Elliott School of International Affairs, Lindner Family Commons, Room 602; 1957 E Street NW
Join the Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS) to analyze the state of Islamist politics in the Middle East. The panel will examine the current directions of the Muslim Brotherhood and electoral politics, Salafism, and jihadist movements, as well as trends in the broader Islamic context.
SPEAKERS
Panelists:
François Burgat, Researcher, Institut de Recherches et d’Etudes sur le Monde Arabe et Musulman
Thomas Hegghammer, Research Fellow and Director of Terrorism Research, Norwegian Defense Research Establishment
Bruce Lawrence, Professor of Religion, Duke University
Tarek Masoud, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Moderated by:
Marc Lynch, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs and Director of the Institute for Middle East Studies, GW
A light lunch will be provided.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The problem with Maliki
Former Ambassador to Iraq Jim Jeffrey argues in this morning’s Washington Post for more wholehearted support to Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki and other allies willing to fight Al Qaeda:
…as also often happens in this region, the administration is sounding an uncertain tone, seemingly signaling to everyone that its top priority is to not get the United States into any sort of military engagement…
Let’s leave aside whether the tone is really all that uncertain and whether President Obama has accurately read the sentiment of the American people. They certainly don’t want American troops going back to Iraq, and there is no clear sign that Maliki wants them either.
There is another problem with Jim’s argument. Maliki has contributed to the problem in Iraq, by alienating the Sunni population.
Jim acknowledges this in passing, but fails to recognize that a more whole-hearted endorsement would send the wrong message and make the problem worse. The challenge for American diplomacy is to restrain Maliki’s autocratic instincts while helping him militarily. This is a difficult trick. It requires not wholehearted endorsement but rather nuance: we’ll help you with what you need on the battlefield, but we expect you to play a more democratic game politically.
Maliki has more than enough reasons of his own to fight Al Qaeda. He doesn’t need our moral support. He does need some military equipment and intelligence shraing. He also needs our wisdom on how to manage dissent and sectarian conflict in a relatively open society.
The notion that changing the American tone in the Middle East would buck up our allies and magically defeat our enemies is silly. Israel and Saudi Arabia, which Jim mentions explicitly, are unhappy with American policy because it is not sufficiently supportive of their absolutist views of Palestine and Iran. Backing those views would not help the Administration succeed in its current efforts to mediate a final settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict or in its negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program. To the contrary: increased rhetorical support in public to Netanyahu and Riyadh could wreck the prospects for diplomatic solutions to both. Better to do what we appear to be doing: provide Israel with whatever security assistance it needs to ensure that a settlement with the Palestinians poses no danger and consult frequently and in depth with Saudi Arabia on how to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capabilities.
I agree with Jim that Iraq is important, both because it is a central player in the Arab and Kurdish worlds and because its oil production helps now and can help in the future to stabilize the world oil market. But the problem with American policy is not insufficient support to Maliki. It is insufficient frankness with him about what we expect of our friends and allies.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
History is irreversible
Yesterday’s New York Times suggests “Power Vacuum in Middle East Lifts Militants.” US withdrawal is of course the cause of the power vacuum. For years however we’ve been hearing that US presence in the Middle East is what generates militant reactions. American bases in Saudi Arabia and the American occupation of Iraq are often cited as prime movers of Islamic militancy.
Similar contradictory statements appear often about Bashar al Asad. The Western press is now full of claims that getting rid of him will leave Syria open to the possibility of a Sunni extremist takeover. But his continued hold on power all too obviously also encourages radicalization of the opposition to his rule.
The simple fact is that we don’t know much about what feeds violent militancy. While William Pape and James Feldman claim that suicide terrorism–certainly a salient characteristic of some contemporary Islamic extremists–is rooted in foreign occupation, there are ample reasons to believe that it doesn’t stop with American withdrawal. It certainly did not in Iraq and likely won’t in Afghanistan either.
With respect to Asad’s impact on militancy, we know even less. He has benefitted from, and even encouraged, violent resistance to his regime, which empowers him to respond violently. But would violent resistance end if Bashar stepped aside in favor of a transitional government with full executive powers (as foreseen in the June 2012 UN communique)? I doubt it.
The world does not run backwards. Removing a cause, post facto, does not get you back to where you started. Washington pulled the rug out from under Hosni Mubarak in February 2011 and helped to force his resignation, but that did not reverse the effect in Egyptian minds of decades of US support for military rule in Egypt. An Israel/Palestine agreement now may be highly desirable, but it is unlikely to have the same impact it might have had in the 1990s. There is just too much that has happened since and won’t be forgotten, on both sides.
Violence is particularly important in preventing history from running in reverse. People won’t forget Bashar’s use of mass violence to compensate for his lack of legitimacy, protect Alawites and bolster territorial control. Syria when I studied Arabic there in 2008 was peaceful and tolerant, even though repressed and authoritarian. Ending Bashar’s rule will not take us back there. Any future dictatorship in Syria will have to be much more brutal than Bashar’s was. Any future democracy will face problems that a democracy emerging from a less violent transition would not have to face.
Where does this leave us with respect to US behavior? We are clearly going to need to find indirect and less expensive ways to influence world events than the military interventions we used so boldly from 1995 to 2003. Bosnia and Kosovo were relatively cheap and killed no Americans. The legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan is a gigantic tab–on the order of $6 trillion I read somewhere this morning–plus thousands of dead, military and civilian. I don’t agree with Mearsheimer’s notion that America is unhinged (and responsible for militancy in Syria) but clearly we are not going back to large-scale military interventions, even if economic and financial conditions improve.
What we need is to be much more proactive, preventing unhappy events before they happen. We clearly failed at that in the Arab world, where we were caught unawares despite a large and well-established diplomatic presence. But American diplomacy has a pretty good record in recent decades of nurturing, or at least permitting, nonviolent change in Latin America and Asia. Let’s remember how to do it, because history is irreversible.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
How to stay out of trouble
It would be easy to be pessimistic about 2014. But as Adam Gopnik cleverly illustrates it is really impossible to know whether we are on the Titanic, destined for disaster, or its twin the Olympic, which plied the seas for two more decades without faltering.
The question is what will keep America out of trouble? How do we avoid the icebergs of contemporary international relations? Gopnik suggests avoiding challenges to honor and face and worrying little about credibility or position. This seems to me wise. The question of reputation in international affairs is fraught, but anyone of the Vietnam generation will want to be skeptical about claims the United States needs to intervene in the world to prevent its reputation from being sullied or to prove its primacy.
Hubris is the bigger danger. I, along with many others, don’t like the Obama Administration’s aloof stance towards Syria. But the least good reason for intervention there is to meet the Russian challenge, reassert primacy in the Arab world or prevent others from thinking America weak. We are not weak. We are strong, arguably far stronger than we would have been had we intervened in Syria a year ago and gotten stuck with enhanced responsibilities there. The reasons for intervention in Syria are more substantial: the threat of a terror-exporting Sunni extremist regime either in Damascus or in some portion of a partitioned Syria as well as the risk to neighboring states (Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Israel) from Syrian collapse. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The 2013 vintage in the peace vineyard
2013 has been a so-so vintage in the peace vineyard.
The Balkans saw improved relations between Serbia and Kosovo, progress by both towards the European Union and Croatian membership. Albania managed a peaceful alternation in power. But Bosnia and Macedonia remain enmired in long-running constitutional and nominal difficulties, respectively. Slovenia, already a NATO and EU member, ran into financial problems, as did Cyprus. Turkey‘s long-serving and still politically dominant prime minister managed to get himself into trouble over a shopping center and corruption.
The former Soviet space has likewise seen contradictory developments: Moldova‘s courageous push towards the EU, Ukraine‘s ongoing, nonviolent rebellion against tighter ties to Russia, and terrorist challenges to the Sochi Winter Olympics. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The end is nigh, once again
2013 is ending with a lot of doom and gloom:
- South Sudan, the world’s newest state, is suffering bloodletting between political rivals, who coincide with its two largest tribes (Dinka and Nuer).
- The Central African Republic is imploding in an orgy of Christian/Muslim violence.
- North Korea is risking internal strife as its latest Kim exerts his authority by purging and executing his formally powerful uncle.
- China is challenging Japan and South Korea in the the East China Sea.
- Syria is in chaos, spelling catastrophe for most of its population and serious strains for all its neighbors.
- Nuclear negotiations with Iran seem slow, if not stalled.
- Egypt‘s military is repressing not only the Muslim Brotherhood but also secular human rights advocates.
- Israel and Palestine still seem far from agreement on the two-state solution most agree is their best bet.
- Afghanistan‘s President Karzai is refusing to sign the long-sought security agreement with the United States, putting at risk continued presence of US troops even as the Taliban seem to be strengthening in the countryside, and capital and people are fleeing Kabul.
- Al Qaeda is recovering as a franchised operation (especially in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and North Africa), even as its headquarters in Pakistan has been devastated.
- Ukraine is turning eastward, despite the thousands of brave protesters in Kiev’s streets.
The Economist topped off the gloom this week by suggesting that the current international situation resembles the one that preceded World War I: a declining world power (then Great Britain, now the US) unable to ensure global security and a rising challenger (then Germany now China). Read more
RSS - Posts
