Tag: Moldova
Want to make an impression? Send the airborne
Last month’s threat by Serb political boss Milorad Dodik is fading into the holiday mist. No one who watches Bosnian poitics should relax. He has made it clear his goal is de facto secession of Republika Srpska. This regional entity’s authority extends to 49% of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s territory.
Dodik is moving small step by small step. Each time he slices the salami to get closer to what he wants. Last month the RS National Assembly convened to begin planning for withdrawal starting in six months from Bosnia’s security, justice, and taxation institutions. These were all established in the aftermath of the 1992-95 war that ended in the Dayton peace agreements. American efforts “to walk Bosnia back from the cliff” at least made Dodik stop at the edge.
The plan is to eviscerate the minimal Bosnian state
He is unlikely to step much farther back or to declare independence. Dodik’s plan is to eviscerate the Bosnian state, minimal though it is. He wants the RS to withdraw from Sarajevo’s vital institutions under a veil of legislative approval. He would then be all-powerful and unaccountable in his own fief. Failing that, he wants his threat of secession to prevent any further strengthening of Sarajevo governance.
Russia will support Dodik’s moves and try to protect him. Moscow is already denying the authority of the High Representative in Bosnia, who is responsible for civilian implementation of the Dayton agreements. Serbian President Vucic will be more circumspect, as he fears EU and US disapproval. But his minions, including Interior Minister Vulin, cheer more openly. The RS is an important component of what they call the “Serbian world.” That would be a Greater Serbian state incorporating neighboring Serb populations.
The ethnic authoritarian paladin
Dodik is the embodiment of the ethnic authoritarian ideal. He started political life as a relative moderate in the Bosnian context. But he has become a denier of crimes (including genocide) the RS committed during the 1990s war. He is now a champion of Serb exceptionalism, a subservient puppet of Moscow, and a deeply corrupted pocketer of ill-gotten gains. The Dayton agreements divide the Bosnian pie along ethnic lines. That reduces political competition and incentivizes predatory behavior. Most people in Washington and Brussels understand that Dodik is irredeemable. So their diplomats work hard instead to get Serbian President Vucic to restrain him, offering mostly carrots and few sticks.
That is no longer working as well as once it did. Like his genocidaire predecesssor Radovan Karadzic, Dodik regards himself as a political competitor to Vucic in Belgrade, not just a provincial party chief in Banja Luka. The time is coming for a showdown between these Serb paladins.
Vucic is unquestionably more powerful, but Dodik is more useful to the Russians. They would regard de facto RS secession as a useful precedent and bargaining chip for breakaway provinces in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Moscow would also enjoy derailing a Western triumph of the 1990s unipolar moment: the negotiated end of the Bosnian war.
What is to be done?
Dodik is making it impossible for the US and EU to continue ignoring his moves towards de facto independence. The question is: what can they do about it? Next time he slices the salami, how should they react?
First, the EU and US need to nullify any decisions in the RS Assembly that contradict the Dayton accords and subsequent decisions of the High Representative. This the HiRep can do with the stroke of a pen. But then what? How do his decisions get enforced?
Once upon a time, the HiRep would not have hesitated to remove Dodik from office. But is that any longer feasible? Another possibility is his arrest for insurrection against the Bosnian state, of which he is blatantly guilty. But Bosnia’s prosecutors seem unwilling and likely incapable of doing that.
The US and EU will need to act
If nothing can be done inside Bosnia, then the burden falls to Washington, Brussels, and European capitals (if the EU fails to act jointly). They will need to levy punishing sanctions on Dodik personally, all members of the RS Assembly who vote for withdrawal from Bosnian institutions, and the RS institutionally, including an end to all World Bank and IMF as well as bilateral assistance and access to international financial markets. If the RS has de facto seceded from Bosnia, it shoud not benefit from grants or loans available to its sovereign. It would be rank hypocrisy to allow any international financiing or official development assistance to reach the RS.
There are other possible moves. Brussels and Washington could shut down RS representational offices. The international military presence, EUFOR, could move troops to the vital northeast town of Brcko while the UK and US deploy NATO troops there, to prevent any effort by either Sarajevo or Banja Luka to seize it. Want to make an impression? The British and Americans could arrive in the hundreds by parachute outside Banja Luka, in a NATO training exercise.
Dodik and any other politicians supporting de facto secession could be barred from Sarajevo and any requirements for Serb approval of Bosnian government actions there could be abrogated. Any funding for the RS from Sarajevo could stop. Bosnia could revert to its pre-war constitution, or devise a new one that erases the RS as well as the Federation and its cantons, relying on municipalities for local governance.
Dodik should not be ignored
This is an illustrative, not an exhaustive, list of options, not recommendations. The main point is that Brussels and Washington should no longer downplay or ignore Dodik’s moves. If they do, patriotic Bosnians, who were the main victims of the 1992-95 war, will take matters into their own hands, seizing Brcko before Dodik does.
That too, would mark a failure of Dayton, but one that would preserve the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as its multi-ethnicity. For anyone thinking democracy is a preferable system of government, it would be better than secession by genocide-denying political and ideological successors to Radovan Karadzic, bent on ethnic authoritarian rule with Moscow’s support and on creation of Milosevic’s Greater Serbia.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Admire Russia’s provocative statecraft, even if its objectives are odious
Russian President Putin is feeling his oats. He is pushing against the West along a front that extends from the Baltics to Syria and possibly beyond. Here is an incomplete account of his maneuvers:
- The Baltics: Russia has concentrated troops along its border with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Moscow is also conducting menacing exercises and violating Allies’ airspace.
- Belarus: Again lots of military exercises, but more inventively Putin has encouraged President Lukashenko to import Kurds from Iraq and try to push them across the border into Poland and thus the EU. This constitutes intentional weaponization of third-country nationals.
- Ukraine: Moscow has (again) concentrated military forces on the border with the apparent intention of threatening an expansion of Russian-controlled territory inside Ukraine beyond Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea. Moscow is also raising gas prices and shipping more gas to the West avoiding Ukraine and thus reducing its revenues.
- The Balkans: Russia is giving and selling arms to a vastly re-armed Serbia, is financing the Serb entity inside Bosnia and Herzegovina and encouraging secession talk there, and has gained vastly increased influence through proxies inside Montenegro.
- Turkey: Moscow has sold its advanced air defense system to Turkey, which as a result has lost its role in manufacturing components of the American F-35 fighter and will likely look to Russia for modernization of its fighter fleet.
- Syria: Russian air forces intervened in Syria in 2015, when rebels were seriously threatening the regime in Damascus. Russian forces have occasionally tested their mettle against the Americans and US-supported forces in the northeast.
Russian military forces have also taken on a “peacekeeping” role inside Azerbaijan after its 2020 clash with Armenian-supported secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh. Moscow’s troops were already stationed inside Armenia. Prior Russian interventions in Georgia and Moldova were explicitly aimed at preventing NATO and EU membership, respectively, and have resulted in separate governance of Russian-controlled territories within those states.
For Putin, not only NATO but also the EU is an enemy. He is right: the EU and NATO are committed to open societies, democratic governance, and the rule of law, which are anathema to Putin. He wants none of their members on Russia’s borders or even nearby. The Eurasian Economic Union is intended as the economic dimension of his fight against the West. He is also seeking to weaken the EU and NATO from within. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is Russia’s handmaiden within the EU. Montenegro risks becoming one inside NATO.
It is difficult to know how the West should respond to all this. Neither the EU nor NATO is skilled at anticipating and preventing trouble. Nor can they coordinate and focus resources as quickly as an autocrat can. But it is important to recognize that for Russia all these pieces are part of the same puzzle. Obsessed with being surrounded, Russia responds by trying to expand and establish autocratic hegemony in what it regards as its near abroad, even if that designation is no longer so commonly used. You have to admire Russia’s provocative statecraft, even if the objectives are odious.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A Bronx cheer for a dumb idea
COVID-19 isn’t the only epidemic in the Balkans. There is an even more deadly one: proposals to move borders. There is no vaccine to prevent their spread. Below is a good pictorial summary, courtesy of Rada Trajkovic, who tweets:
Balkans corrupt, criminalised, illiberal leaders have been so emboldened by their unfettered domestic power grabs that they now believe they can play a (bloody) game with our borders. Perfect distraction from their poor domestic records & a way to destabilise the EU for decades.
Greater Albania, Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia: the wet dream of Franjo Tudjman, Slobodan Milosevic, Hasan Pristina. Everyone wins!
But of course there are losers, both on this map and beyond. The Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims to the American press, no matter how unreligious) get an indefensible, rump state surrounded by sworn enemies and ripe for radicalization. The Kosovo Albanians lose their state and become the northeastern province of Albania. The major Serb Orthodox sites south of the Ibar River in Kosovo would no longer be sustainable. Macedonia loses perhaps 40% of its territory. Several hundred thousand people (maybe half a million or more?) on the “wrong” side of ethnically defined new borders would have to relocate or run the risks associated with minorities in ethnically defined states.
Beyond this map the repurcussions would also be dramatic: once the principle of not changing borders to accommodate ethnic differences is breached, the Russian position on South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, Transnistria in Moldova, and Crimea and Donbas in Ukraine would be vastly strengthened. Russian challenges to the terriorial integrity of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania would not be far behind.
All of this is well understood in the United States and Europe. Few in Washington, London, or Brussels are interested in opening Pandora’s Box. But the West is distracted. The US is confronting a long list of foreign policy challenges. The EU is preoccupied with COVID-19, economic recession, and the aftermath of Brexit. Ditto the UK. Chancellor Merkel, the EU’s trump card when it comes to pursuing liberal democracy in the Balkans and many other matters, is getting ready to retire without a worthy heir apparent.
The current preference in the West is not to move borders but to make them less cumbersome. This proposition goes under the heading of “mini-Schengen,” an effort on the regional level to mirror the EU’s borderless Schengen area. Removing visas, tariffs and non-tariff barriers while shortening the waiting time for trucks at the all too frequent border stations in the Balkans could improve efficiency and hasten the day that the Balkans can join the “maxi” Schengen area.
That is a much easier and more promising prospect than moving half a million people, many of them against their will. Violence is the only force that could achieve what the map above projects. American and European troops would either need to suppress murder and mayhem in Kosovo, Bosnia, and North Macedonia or evacuate, something that would no doubt be celebrated in Moscow. Nor would violence stop there: the Serbs of Montenegro would seek union with Serbia while the Bosniaks of Serbia’s Sandjak seek union with rump Bosnia, pushing aside people of other ethnicities in the effort. Perhaps the Russians could use renewed Balkan violence as a pretext for deploying their own troops, as they did recently to end the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
In short: the map above is a proposal for death and destruction, instability, NATO and European embarrassment, and still another Russian win, in addition to ensuring the ethnic nationalist political stranglehold in the Balkans for another generation. Those who propose such an outrage merit oppropbrium from real democracies. I hope the US and EU can spare a few moments from their many other priorities to give this distraction the diplomatic equivalent of the Bronx cheer it deserves:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | November 16 – November 20, 2020
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
1. Corruption in Kyrgyzstan: The Path Forward | November 16, 2020 | 9:00-10:00 AM ET | Carnegie Endowment for Peace | Register Here
It has been over a month since political upheaval in Kyrgyzstan resulted in the collapse of the government of now-former President Sooronbay Jeenbekov and the rise of Sadyr Japarov, a former convict, to the position of acting president. With new presidential elections now planned for January, the country’s political landscape is changing fast, with Japarov implausibly promising an anti-corruption campaign—a key concern of those who protested on the streets in October.
This dramatic shift is driven by growing anger over corruption and poor governance—laid particularly bare by the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, despite the public’s demands for stronger government accountability, corrupt organized crime is still flourishing and poised to have increased influence in a plausible Japarov presidency.
Please join us for a discussion on Kyrgyzstan’s legacies of corruption, prospects for better governance, and popular responses to the recent social and political upheaval the country has witnessed, all based on a new, groundbreaking report released by RFE/RL, Kloop, and OCCRP.
Speakers:
Shirin Aitmatova: former member of Kyrgyz Parliament and a leader of Umut 2020 – a people’s movement that focuses on anti-corruption investigations.
Asel Doolotkeldieva: associate research fellow at the OSCE Academy in Bishkek. Her research examines social mobilization, religiosity and gender, democratization and institution-building, rent-seeking from natural resources, and migration in Kyrgyzstan. She holds a PhD from the University of Exeter.
Bruce Pannier: senior Central Asian affairs correspondent, who writes the Qishloq Ovozi blog and appears regularly on the Majlis podcast for RFE/RL.
Carl Schreck: RFE/RL’s enterprise editor. He has covered politics, crime, business, and sports in Russia and the former Soviet Union for nearly 20 years, including nearly a decade while based in Moscow.
Paul Stronski: senior fellow in Carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia Program, where his research focuses on the relationship between Russia and neighboring countries in Central Asia and the South Caucasus.
2. Trans-Atlantic Cooperation and the International Order After the US Election | November 16, 2020 | 9:45 – 11:45 AM ET | Brookings Institute | Register Here
Over the past four years, the United States has often abdicated its traditional leadership role, leaving allies across the Atlantic to fend for themselves. Now, as Americans and Europeans alike process the results of the U.S. election, significant practical and political questions about the future of the trans-Atlantic relationship and the global order abound. With Joe Biden in the White House, will European leaders be willing to once again rely on the U.S. as an ally? While a Biden administration will certainly be more friendly to trans-Atlantic relations and multilateralism, will this shift be lasting or merely a lapse amid an increasingly isolationist era of American foreign policy? With Republicans likely to retain control of the Senate, what impact would a divided government have on the new administration’s foreign policy?
On Monday, November 16, Foreign Policy at Brookings will host a conference to consider these questions and other implications of the next U.S. administration for the future of the international order and trans-Atlantic cooperation. Questions from the audience will follow the discussion.
Schedule and Speakers:
Welcoming Remarks: 9:45 AM – 10:00 AM
Suzanne Maloney: Vice President and Director – Foreign Policy
Henry Alt-Haaker: Senior Vice President, Strategic Partnerships and Robert Bosch Academy – Robert Bosch Stiftung
Panel Discussion: 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM
James Goldgeier: Robert Bosch Senior Visiting Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe
Fiona Hill: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe
Stormy-Annika Mildner: Head of Department, External Economic Policy – Federation of German Industries
Rachel Rizzo: Director of Programs – Truman National Security Project; Adjunct Fellow, Transatlantic Program – Center for a New American Security
Marietje Schaake: International Policy Director – Cyber Policy Center at Stanford University
Constanze Stelzenmüller, moderator: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe
Keynote: 11:00 AM – 11:45 AM
Nathalie Tocci: Director – Istituto Affari Internazionali; Honorary Professor – University of Tübingen
Thomas Wright, moderator: Director – Center on the United States and Europe; Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Project on International Order and Strategy
3. Assessing Perceptions of Affected Communities in Northern Iraq on Peace, Justice and Governance | November 16, 2020 | 11:30 AM ET | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Please join the Atlantic Council’s Iraq Initiative and the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative on Monday, November 16 from 11:30 am – 12:30 pm ET presenting a timely survey which offers a snapshot of the perceptions and attitudes in northern Iraq about peace and justice within communities affected by the conflict with the Islamic State (IS). The discussion will feature Abulrazzaq Al-Saiedi, research manager, Iraq country expert and policy advisor at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Abbas Kadhim, director of the Iraq Initiative at the Atlantic Council, Phuong Pham, director of evaluation and implementation science at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Patrick Vinck, research director at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, and moderated by Kirsten Fontenrose, director of the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council.
The report (available in Arabic) by the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative’s Peace and Human Rights Data Program, details how northern Iraqi communities targeted by the Islamic State (IS) are denied justice. Based on 5,213 interviews conducted in 2019 among a representative sample of internally displaced persons in northern Iraq and residents of the city of Mosul and surrounding areas, the research documents a severe lack of trust in official institutions, particularly in the Government of Iraq itself, stemming in large part from the belief that these institutions do not act in the best interest of the population.
Speakers:
Abulrazzaq Al-Saiedi: Research Manager, Iraq Country Expert, and Policy Advisor, Harvard Humanitarian Initiative
Abbas Kadhim: Director, Iraq Initiative, Atlantic Council
Phuong Pham: Director of Evaluation and Implementation Science, Harvard Humanitarian Initiative
Patrick Vinck: Research Director, Harvard Humanitarian Initiative
Kirsten Fontenrose, moderator: Director, Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, Atlantic Council
4. Moldova’s Presidential Elections | November 16, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:15 PM ET | Wilson Center | Register Here
On November 15, incumbent Moldovan President Igor Dodon will face pro-European opposition candidate Maia Sandu in a national run-off election. Sandu has promised to fight corruption, poverty, and reform the criminal justice system. Dodon is considered the most pro-Russian candidate, advocating to make Russian compulsory in schools and to strengthen Moldova’s strategic partnership with Russia. Amb. William Hill, former Moldovan Minister of Foreign Affairs Nicu Popescu, and DGAP Research Fellow Cristina Gherasimov will consider the results of the runoff election, its implications, and how the next president in Chisinau will manage Moldova-Russian relations.
Speakers:
William H. Hill: Global Fellow; Former Professor of National Security Strategy, National War College, Washington D.C.
Nicu Popescu: Director, Wider Europe Programme, European Council on Foreign Relations
Cristina Gherasimov: Research Fellow, Robert Bosch Center for Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia, DGAP
Matthew Rojansky, moderator: Director, Kennan Institute
5. US and Iranian Strategies for a Biden Administration | November 17, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM ET | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The looming arrival of the Joe Biden administration in January 2021 provides the leadership in Tehran with an opportunity to seek a qualitatively different relationship with the United States. President-elect Biden has already expressed a desire to salvage the 2015 nuclear deal, which the Trump administration abandoned in 2018. While Tehran awaits to see what, if any, conditions the Biden team has for the resumption of the diplomatic track and removal of US-led sanctions, a policy fight is already under way inside the Iranian state about the future of US-Iran relations.
The American question in Tehran is not just a foreign policy file but ultimately linked to the question of whether the Islamic Republic opts to continue a revolutionary and militant foreign policy or settles for a path of de-escalation with Washington and other rivals. How much of this policy competition in Tehran will shape Washington’s next steps vis-à-vis Iran?
To discuss these matters and other key challenges in the path of US-Iran relations in the coming Biden administration, we are delighted to host a panel of experts.
Speakers:
Jon Alterman: Senior vice president, Zbigniew Brzezinski chair in Global Security and Geostrategy, and director, Middle East Program, CSIS
Hannah Kaviani:Staffer, RFE/RL’s Persian language service, Radio Farda
Behnam Ben Taleblu: Senior fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Alex Vatanka (moderator): Senior fellow and director, Iran program, MEI
6. The Future of Palestinian Politics under a Biden Administration | November 17, 2020; November 19, 2020 | 11:30 AM – 12:45 PM ET | Middle East Institute | Register Here
Former Vice President Joe Biden’s election victory over President Donald Trump is likely to produce a major reset in American-Palestinian relations as well as in Washington’s role in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. No U.S. president had done more to isolate Palestinians and delegitimize Palestinian national aspirations than Trump. Meanwhile, Biden has pledged to reverse the most destructive aspects of Trump’s policies and restore U.S.-Palestinian relations in the hope of salvaging what remains of a two-state solution.
Yet even as the Palestinians breathe a collective sigh of relief at Trump’s departure, the Palestinians’ internal house remains in a state of disarray and decline. The Palestinian national movement, now at one of the lowest points in its history, continues to be racked by political division, institutional stagnation, and a lack of strategic clarity.
To shed light on these and other issues, the Middle East Institute (MEI) invites you to join a two-part webinar series on the Future of Palestinian Politics Under a Biden Administration, moderated by MEI’s Khaled Elgindy
Speakers:
Part 1 – Reviving Palestinian Political Life
Tareq Baconi: Senior analyst, International Crisis Group
Sam Bahour: Ramallah-based business consultant
Mustafa Barghouti:General secretary, Palestinian National Initiative
Noura Erakat: Human rights attorney; assistant professor, Rutgers University
Khaled Elgindy, moderator: Senior fellow and director, Program on Palestine and Palestinian-Israeli Affairs, MEI
Part 2 – Toward a Palestinian National Strategy
Dana ElKurd: Researcher, Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies
Mariam Barghouti: Political commentator and writer
Yousef Munayyer: Non-resident fellow, MEI
Nasser AlKidwa: Former Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations and Palestinian Foreign Minister
Khaled Elgindy, moderator: Senior fellow and director, Program on Palestine and Palestinian-Israeli Affairs, MEI
7. Building a Climate Resilient and Just Future for All: Delivering Action and Ambition | November 17, 2020 | 1:00 PM ET | Atlantic Council | Register Here
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought resilience to the fore. It has laid bare the vulnerability of our societies and economies and exposed the lack of risk planning in countries. During this event, speakers will focus on the need to carry out ambitious actions on building resilience and identify what can be done to set up a decade of action.
This high level event will bring together the outcomes of the Regional Resilience Dialogues and Race to Zero resilience-focused dialogues and highlight how to advance the action of non-state actors and initiatives to deliver outcomes at COP26 and beyond. The High Level Champions, Gonzalo Muñoz and Nigel Topping, will also use this event to share their developing plans for a Race for Resilience campaign as a sister to the Race to Zero campaign to deliver a decade of action.
This dialogue will build upon previous Marrakech Partnership for Global Climate Action roundtables held at COP23, COP24 and COP25 events, the Global Commission on Adaptation, and from the UN Climate Action Summit and the Call to Action on Adaptation and Resilience.
Speakers:
Opening Remarks
Nigel Topping: High Level Climate Action Champion, UK, COP26
Gonzalo Muñoz: High Level Climate Action Champion, Chile, COP26
Panel Discussions
Panel 1: The Challenge: Why action on Resilience is a must?
Johan Rockstrom: Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Professor in Earth System Science, University of Potsdam; Chair of the Global Resilience Partnership Advisory Council
Saleemul Huq: Director, International Centre for Climate Change & Development (ICCCAD); Chair of Resilience track for UN Food Systems Summit 2021
Emma Howard-Boyd: UK Commissioner, Global Commission on Adaptation and Chair of the Environment Agency
Wanjira Mathai, moderator: Vice President and Regional Director for Africa, World Resources Institute
Panel 2: Opportunities for Ambitious Action
Kathy Baughman McLeod: Senior Vice President and Director, Adrienne Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center; Atlantic Council, representing the Extreme Heat Resilience Alliance (EHRA)
Zakia Naznin: Programme Manager, Concern Worldwide, representing the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance
Karen Sack: CEO, Ocean Unite, representing Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance
Wanjira Mathai, moderator: Vice President and Regional Director for Africa, World Resources Institute
Panel 3: Delivering Ambition and a Decade of Action
Julio Cordano: Head, Department of Climate Change, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Chile and COP 25 Chilean Presidency Representative
Patrick Verkooijen: Chief Executive Officer, Global Center on Adaptation
Anne-Marie Trevelyan: UK International Champion on Adaptation and Resilience, COP26
Wanjira Mathai, moderator: Vice President and Regional Director for Africa, World Resources Institute
Closing Remarks
Nigel Topping: High Level Climate Action Champion, UK, COP26
Gonzalo Muñoz: High Level Climate Action Champion, Chile, COP26
8. Lebanon: Out with the Old, In with the What? | November 17, 2020 | 16:00 – 17:00 EET | Carnegie Endowment for Peace | Register Here
While Lebanon’s ruling elite continues to delay the formation of a new cabinet under Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri, French President Emmanuel Macron is growing impatient as he watches his initiative and timeline for reforms crumble. The Trump Administration, meanwhile, is still ramping up sanctions on Hezbollah’s allies in government. Where does the government formation stand today? What remains of the French initiative? How might U.S. foreign policy towards Lebanon shift under President-Elect Joe Biden?
Speakers:
Ishac Diwan: Chaire d’Excellence Monde Arabe at Paris Sciences et Lettres and is a professor at the École Normale Supérieure, Paris
Dorothée Schmid: senior research fellow and heads the Turkey and Middle East Program at the French Institute of International Relations.
Randa Slim: senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and a non-resident fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced and International Studies (SAIS) Foreign Policy Institute.
Maha Yahya: Director of the Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center, where her research focuses on citizenship, pluralism, and social justice in the aftermath of the Arab uprisings.
9. What Does the World Expect of President-elect Joe Biden? | November 17, 2020 | 2:30 – 4:00 PM ET | Wilson Center | Register Here
The next U.S. Administration faces a complicated, volatile world. Please join Wilson Center experts on Russia, China, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and Latin America as they interview colleagues and experts on the ground in their regions to discuss what a Biden Administration means in terms of our relationships around the globe.
Our experts will host a spirited conversation on the foreign policy expectations and challenges confronting the next President of the United States.
Speakers:
Jane Harman: Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center
Cynthia J. Arnson: Director, Latin American Program
Robert Daly: Director, Kissinger Institute on China and the United States
Daniel S. Hamilton: Director, Global Europe Program; Austrian Marshall Plan Foundation Distinguished Fellow
Merissa Khurma: Program Manager, Middle East Program
Monde Muyangwa: Africa Program Director
Matthew Rojansky: Director, Kennan Institute
Duncan Wood: Director, Mexico Institute
John Milewski, moderator: Director of Digital Programming; Moderator, Wilson Center NOW
10. Exceptions to the Rules: Civilian Harm and Accountability in the Shadow Wars | November 19, 2020 | 9:30 – 11:00 AM ET | Stimson Center | Register Here
Nearly two decades after 9/11, the CIA and Special Operations Forces have become increasingly involved in U.S. counterterrorism operations around the world –often operating in the shadows and under a growing set of broad exceptions to the rules that govern the lawful use of lethal force, civilian harm mitigation, transparency, and accountability. Join the Stimson Center and the Center for Civilians in Conflict for a discussion of these programs and the launch of a new report examining the tradeoffs involved with normalizing these exceptions, and offering concrete recommendations for increasing public awareness and strengthening oversight and accountability.
Speakers:
Daniel Mahanty: Director, US Program, Center for Civilians in Conflict
Rita Siemion: Director, National Security Advocacy, Human Rights First
Rachel Stohl, Vice President, Stimson Center
Stephen Tankel: Associate Professor, American University; Adjunct Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security
11. Elections in the Black Sea Region | November 19, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM ET | Middle East Institute | Register Here
Elections are taking place across the Black Sea, including in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. The three countries have Association Agreements with the EU and have benefitted from significant Western support over the last years. All three countries also share the problems of separatist and frozen conflicts on their territories that affect their security and stability. Elections outcomes in all three countries will have important implications for the foreign policy orientation of the countries and their role in the Black Sea region. Elections in the region coincide with the COVID-19 pandemic and an economic crisis with potentially devastating effects for the region. The Middle East Institute (MEI) Frontier Europe Initiative is pleased to host a discussion with the Ambassadors of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine to the United States on the election process, outcomes, and implications for the Black Sea region.
How did the election process and the results fair out for Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine? What are the main challenges around the elections in the context of the pandemic and economic crisis? How will the election results impact their foreign policies in the years to come?
Speakers:
David Bakradze: Georgian Ambassador to the United States
Eugen Caras: Moldovan Ambassador to the United States
Yelchenko Volodymyr: Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States
Iulia Joja, moderator: Senior Fellow, Frontier Europe Initiative
12. RESOLVE Network 2020 Global Forum: Violent Extremism in 2020 and Beyond | November 19, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:15 AM ET | USIP | Register Here
The year 2020 has ushered in rapid and significant shifts in existing threats to global security. From the COVID-19 pandemic to climate change and longstanding violent conflict, the pressures facing our current global system are increasingly complex and all-encompassing. Among these, violent extremism remains a significant challenge—shifting as actors adapt and take advantage of ongoing and emerging global shocks and sources of instability.
How has the violent extremism landscape changed in the five years since the “fall” of ISIS? How has rising global instability, populism, and disinformation altered violent extremist operations and ideologies, and vice versa? What challenges do we face in addressing violent extremism in the new threat landscape? Can we apply any lessons from past experiences to address emerging threats and dynamics in 2020 and beyond?
Please join the RESOLVE Network and USIP for a discussion about these challenges and more during part one of RESOLVE’s fifth annual Global Forum series. Convened virtually, the forum will bring together leading experts and researchers for thought-provoking conversations on evolving trends and dynamics in the violent extremist landscape.
Speakers:
Dr. Alastair Reed, opening remarks: Senior Expert and Executive Director of the RESOLVE Network
Dr. Mary Beth Altier: Clinical Associate Professor, Center for Global Affairs, New York University
Dr. Amarnath Amarasingam: Assistant Professor, School of Religion, Queen’s University, member of the RESOLVE Research Advisory Council
Dr. Colin P. Clarke: Senior Research Fellow, The Soufan Center, member of the RESOLVE Research Advisory Council
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks October 15-21
- Defusing the South China Sea Disputes: A Regional Blueprint | Monday, October 15, 2018 | 10 am – 12 pm | Center for Strategic and International Studies | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Please join us for the launch of Defusing the South China Sea Disputes: A Regional Blueprint by the CSIS Expert Working Group on the South China Sea, which brings together prominent experts on maritime law, international relations, and the marine environment from China, Southeast Asia, and beyond. Members of the group gathered three times between July 2017 and July 2018 to discuss issues that they consider necessary for the successful management of the South China Sea disputes, and produced blueprints for a path forward on each. The members believe these three proposed agreements add up to a robust model for managing the South China Sea disputes, one which would be both legally and politically feasible for all parties.
The working group includes a diverse set of 27 experts from claimant states and interested countries, including the United States. It is chaired by Gregory Poling, director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at CSIS. All members take part in their personal capacities, not as representatives of their home institutions. They are invited to join the group based on their subject matter expertise and willingness to reach creative compromises.
Agenda
Summary of Blueprints
Gregory B. Poling, Director, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, CSIS
Panel Discussion with Members
Bonnie S. Glaser, Senior Adviser for Asia and Director, China Power Project, CSIS
Prashanth Parameswaran, Senior Editor, The Diplomat
Amy Searight, Senior Adviser and Director, Southeast Asia Program, CSIS
This report was made possible by general funding to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative.
2. The Evolving Iranian Strategy in Syria: A Looming Conflict with Israel | Wednesday, October 17, 2018 | 9 am – 10:30 am | Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St. NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20005 | Register Here
Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, the Iranian regime has spent considerable energy capitalizing on chaos in Syria to establish transit routes from Iran to the Mediterranean. Israel has followed the movements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its proxies in Syria warily, laying out clear red lines to deter Iranian overreach. The IRGC-Quds Force rocket attack on Israeli military posts in the Golan in May 2018 instigated Israeli retaliation against Iranian-backed ground forces. Although Iran did not respond in kind, tensions along Israel’s northwestern border and in southern Syria persist, and the potential for an Israeli-Iranian conflict looms.
Please join the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft and Rafik Hariri Centers on Wednesday, October 17 from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. for the launch of nonresident senior fellow Nader Uskowi’s issue brief on Iran’s evolving strategy in Syria and the implications for regional security. This discussion will focus on the possibility for future conflict between Iran and Israel as the Syrian conflict enters its next phase, as well as how the United States can adapt its own policies to reflect the altered power structure in the region.
A conversation with:
Nader Uskowi
Nonresident Senior Fellow
Atlantic Council
Assaf Orion
Military Fellow
Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Jennifer Cafarella
Director of Intelligence Planning
Institute for the Study of War
3. Championing the Frontlines of Freedom: Erasing the “Grey Zone” | Thursday, October 18, 2018 | 9 am – 4:30 pm | Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC | Register Here
The countries of Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine stand at a crossroads. Perched between Russia and the West, they have chosen a path of economic and political reform and closer relations with the West. They face substantial challenges dealing with the systemic legacy of the Soviet period as they pursue reform, while also confronting Kremlin interference in their affairs and occupation of their land. Once described as part of a geopolitical “grey zone,” these countries are working to instead be seen as states on the “frontlines of freedom” with futures as free, whole, and secure European states.
At this conference, the Atlantic Council will convene a group of experts to discuss topics such as the historical origins of the so-called “grey zone,” the Kremlin’s use of frozen conflicts, transatlantic policy toward the region, and democratic progress in these states.
This event will include a spotlight address from the Hon. A. Wess Mitchell, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, on US strategy in Central and Eastern Europe.
Agenda
Introduction
Mr. Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President, Atlantic Council
Keynote Remarks
The Hon. Roger Wicker, US Senator for Mississippi, US Senate
Address: The Historical Origins of the Frontlines of Freedom
Dr. Serhii Plokhii, Director, Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University
Address: “Grey Zone” Past and Future
The Hon. Kurt Volker, US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, US Department of State
Fireside Chat
Dr. Serhii Plokhii, Director, Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University
The Hon. Kurt Volker, US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, US Department of State
Moderated by: Mr. Mark Simakovsky, Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Panel I: Frozen Conflicts and the Kremlin’s Agenda
Mr. Denis Cenusa, Researcher, Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Justus-Liebig-Universität
Ambassador John Herbst, Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Minister Tinatin Khidasheli, Former Defense Minister, Republic of Georgia
Ms. Maria Snegovaya, Adjunct Fellow, Center for European Policy and Analysis; Research Associate, Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland
Ambassador James Warlick, Partner and Senior Policy Adviser, Egorov Puginsky Afanasiev & Partners
Moderated by: Dr. Michael Carpenter, Senior Director, Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement; Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Spotlight Address: Strategy in Central and Eastern Europe
The Hon. A. Wess Mitchell, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, US Department of State
Introduced by: Mr. Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President, Atlantic Council
Panel II: Transatlantic Policy Towards the Region
H.E. David Bakradze, Ambassador of Georgia to the United States
Mr. David Kramer, Senior Fellow, Vaclav Havel Program for Human Rights and Diplomacy, Steven J. Green School of International and Public Affairs, Florida International University
Mr. Alex Tiersky, Senior Policy Adviser, US Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Mr. Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President, Atlantic Council
Moderated by: Ms. Melinda Haring, Editor, UkraineAlert, Atlantic Council
Panel III: Democratic Progress in the Frontlines of Freedom
Mr. Carl Gershman, President, National Endowment for Democracy
Dr. Laura Jewett, Senior Associate and Regional Director for Eurasia, National Democratic Institute
Mr. Stephen Nix, Regional Director, Eurasia, International Republican Institute
Moderated by: Ms. Eka Gigauri, Executive Director, Transparency International Georgia
4. Restraining Great Powers: Soft Balancing From Empires to the Global Era | Thursday, October 18, 2018 | 2 pm – 4 pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Countering traditional notions of balance-of-power theory, smaller states have not joined together militarily to oppose the United States’ rising power at the end of the Cold War, Chinese aggression in the South China Sea, or Russian offensives along its Western border. Instead, balance-of-power politics has taken a different form.
In a new book, Restraining Great Powers: Soft Balancing from Empires to the Global Era, T.V. Paul argues that leading powers have engaged in “soft balancing,” which seeks to restrain threatening powers through the use of international institutions, informal alignments, and economic sanctions. Placing the evolution of balancing behavior in historical context, Paul examines how subtler forms of balance-of-power politics can help states achieve their goals against aggressive powers without wars or arms races. Paul will be joined in conversation by Richard Fontaine and Ellen Laipson. Carnegie’s Ashley J. Tellis will moderate. Copies of the book will be available for sale.
T.V. PAUL
T.V. Paul is James McGill Professor of International Relations in the department of Political Science at McGill University.
RICHARD FONTAINE
Richard Fontaine is the president of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).
ELLEN LAIPSON
Ellen Laipson is the director of the Master’s in International Security degree program and the Center for Security Policy Studies at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University.
ASHLEY J. TELLIS
Ashley J. Tellis holds the Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs and is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
5. Breaking Rules to Build Peace: The Role of Leadership and Accountability in Peacebuilding | Thursday, October 18, 2018 | 3 pm – 5 pm | US Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Register Here
Why do peacebuilders sometimes succeed and sometimes fail, even within the same country? Why can organizations not guarantee the same results from the same policies? Peacebuilders struggle to answer these questions and create programs with consistently positive results. Join the U.S. Institute of Peace as we discuss policy recommendations drawn from new research highlighting unexpected solutions to a long-standing challenge.
Organizations that work to build peace in fragile states often fail to meet the stated goals of the programs they design to resolve violent conflict. In her newly published book, Global Governance and Local Peace: Accountability and Performance in International Peacebuilding, Susanna Campbell dives into why peacebuilding organizations often fail and presents one of the keys to success: local actors that force organizations to stay accountable to local peacebuilding goals. Join experts as they discuss Campbell’s findings and how country-based staff can sidestep normal accountability procedures and empower local actors to push for innovative solutions to local problems.
Speakers
Susanna Campbell
Assistant Professor, School of International Service, American University
Michael Barnett
Professor, International Affairs and Political Science, The George Washington University
Mike Jobbins
Senior Director of Partnerships and Engagement, Search for Common Ground
Kate Somvongsiri
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau of Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, U.S. Agency for International Development
Leanne Erdberg, moderator
Director, Countering Violent Extremism, The U.S. Institute of Peace
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Partition has failed, prepare something else
Serbian President Vucic has announced that his efforts to get something in negotiations with Kosovo have failed. What could he mean, and what does the announcement portend? It is hard to tell, but my guess is that Vucic has come to realize that there will be no unilateral partition of Kosovo.
That is what Vucic wanted: the northern majority-Serb municipalities in exchange for some sort of recognition of rump Kosovo. Kosovo President Thaci has made it clear he would only agree to some version of that proposal if Kosovo gets equivalent territory in southern Serbian municipalities that have Albanian majorities as well as UN membership.
The Serbian security services have no doubt told Vucic that is unacceptable. The land/people swap just isn’t going to work out, as it fails to protect vital interests of both Belgrade and Pristina: the former is concerned about its main route to the sea through southern Serbia and the latter with its main water supply in the north. Moreover, Serbia can no longer–if it ever could–commit to UN membership for Kosovo, which is blocked by a Russian veto in the Security Council.
The failure of this proposition is a relief, as it will avoid raising questions about borders in Macedonia, Bosnia, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Vucic and Thaci may regret it, but the rest of the world should rejoice that Putin has not been handed a prize he would use to try to shift borders to accommodate Russians in what he regards as his “near abroad.” We should also be glad that Serbia itself, Spain, China, and other countries with ethnically diverse regions will not find ethnic secessionists re-empowered.
So far so good, but what about Kosovo? What are its prospects if the land/people swap is dead?
Again I’m guessing, but I think there are still deals to be had. They will not involve UN membership, because Russia now has its own interests in blocking that unless it gets satisfaction on South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, Crimea, and Donbas. But Pristina still wants and needs bilateral recognition, or at least de facto acknowledgement of it authority on all the territory of Kosovo, not least so that it can join multilateral organizations as well as settle issues still outstanding with Belgrade: unpaid pensions, state property, border demarcation, Serbian efforts to prevent Serbs from joining its police and security forces, protection of Serbs and Serb religious sites throughout Kosovo, and creation of a Kosovo army.
Belgrade has wanted to use the creation of an Association of Serb Municipalities, something that has already been agreed, to create in Kosovo a de facto self-governing Serb “entity,” analogous to Republika Srpska (RS) in Bosnia, with veto powers in Pristina. Vucic is likely now to double down on that idea, but it is clearly something Thaci cannot deliver. The Kosovo constitutional court has already ruled out anything analogous to the RS, which has rendered governance in Bosnia dysfunctional. The votes for a constitutional amendment to enable creation of a Serb entity in Kosovo simply don’t exist in the Kosovo Assembly.
Nor do the votes exist in the Serbian parliament for changing its constitution, which claims Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia. Those votes are unlikely to emerge before EU accession is imminent. At that point, Serbia can expect to get nothing in return, since all the leverage will be with the EU, which will not accept Serbia until normalization with Kosovo is a done deal.
So whatever emerges now is likely to be messy. That is not unusual. Colleagues in KIPRED have done us all a favor by reviewing some available options that have proved feasible elsewhere. I’d suggest Vucic and Thaci read that fine paper. They’ve both got good thinkers available. Put them in the same room to come up with something viable for both parties. And in the meanwhile focus political efforts on preparing their electorates for the inevitable compromises.
RSS - Posts
