Tag: NATO
Peace picks, October 28 – November 1
Out early this week:
1. Impact of Donor Counter-Terrorism Measures on Principled Humanitarian Action
Monday, October 28, 2013 | 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM
CSIS – 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC
Introductory Remarks by: Sam Worthington , President & CEO, InterAction
Panel Discussion:
Valerie Amos Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, United Nations
Jan Egeland Secretary General, Norwegian Refugee Council
Ambassador Daniel Fried Coordinator of Sanctions Policy, U.S. State Department
Ambassador William Garvelink Senior Adviser, CSIS Project on U.S. Leadership in Development and Former U.S. Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Moderated by: Daniel Runde Director of the Project on Prosperity and Development and William A. Schreyer Chair in Global Analysis, CSIS
Please RSVP to PPD@csis.org.
Despite the global attention to counter-terrorism and human rights issues, the impact of counter-terrorism measures on humanitarian action has not been studied in detail. To address this gap, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the Norwegian Refugee Council released a report in July 2013 entitled the Study of the Impact of Donor Counter-Terrorism Measures on Principled Humanitarian Action. The report takes a comprehensive look at how counter-terror measures are impacting the ability of humanitarian agencies to respond to emergencies, especially in countries on the front lines of the war on terror, and makes recommendations on how to reconcile these measures with the humanitarian imperative. Join us for a conversation with representatives from the United Nations, the Norwegian Refugee Council, and the United States Government as they discuss the impact of these restrictions in countries such as Afghanistan, Somalia, and the West Bank and Gaza, and in countries of possible future impact, including Mali, Pakistan, and Yemen.
2. WOMEN AND PEACEBUILDING: WOMEN’S ROLES IN POLITICAL TRANSITIONS IN YEMEN AND THE REGION
Monday, October 28, 2013 2:30 – 4:00 p.m.
National Democratic Institute 8th Floor Board Room 455 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, D.C.
And streaming online at: www.ndi.org/live
With Amat Al Alim Alsoswa, Delegate, Yemen National Dialogue Conference and former Minister of Human Rights
Susan Markham, Director, Women’s Political Participation, NDI
Summer Lopez, Regional Coordinator for the Middle East (Acting) Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance, USAID
The importance of including women in peace negotiations, transitional governments and long-term political processes is increasingly recognized by national and international bodies as critical for the stability of emerging democracies. In each stage of a country’s transition, whether entrenched in conflict or moving forward in reconciliation, there are opportunities available for women’s inclusion that can have a profound effect on the successful outcome of a country’s transition of power, peace and security.
This discussion will draw upon Yemen’s National Dialogue process and examples from ongoing transitions in the Middle East and North Africa to highlight challenges and lessons learned for promoting women’s participation in peace negotiations and political transitions.
Please RSVP via this webform.
3. Political Turmoil, Human Costs: Reflections on the Kashmir Conflict
3:00 PM – 4:30 PM EST
REGISTER TO ATTEND
With incidents along their disputed border still relatively common, India and Pakistan’s decades-old quarrel over Kashmir shows little hope of subsiding. Join Kashmir-born author and journalist Rahul Pandita for a discussion of the conflict and his new memoir of his childhood in and exile from Kashmir, Our Moon Has Blood Clots(Random House India, 2013).
Pandita will offer a rare perspective on the dispute, combining political analysis with the personal experience of growing up as part of a religious minority group in one of the world’s most unstable regions. Carnegie’s Ashley J. Tellis will moderate.
RAHUL PANDITA
Rahul Pandita is a journalist and author based in New Delhi. He was the 2010 recipient of the International Red Cross award for conflict reporting, and has written extensively about conflict in Iraq, Sri Lanka, and Kashmir.
ASHLEY J. TELLIS
Ashley J. Tellis is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace specializing in international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues.
4. New Leadership in Tehran: Time for Rapprochement?
DATE / TIME Monday, October 28, 2013 / 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM
LOCATION Elliott School of International Affairs, SMPA 1957 E Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20052 (map)
SPEAKER(S) John Limbert, Dr. Shireen Hunter
Ambassador John Limbert, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran
Dr. Shireen Hunter, Visiting Fellow, Center for Christian Muslim Understanding and Director, Carnegie Endowment Project on reformist Islam
The George Washington University International Affairs Society and the American Iranian Council will be hosting ‘New Leadership in Iran: Time for Rapprochement?’, a conference that will identify the prospects and mechanisms for a breakthrough in U.S.-Iran relations. The conference aims to build upon the momentum created by the election of moderate Dr. Hassan Rouhani as Iranian President, President Obama’s engagement policy with Tehran and the recent events in Geneva and at the United Nations General Assembly to generate ideas for a possible settlement of the nuclear dossier.
RSVP: bit.ly/GThrgi
Sponsored by the GW International Affairs Society and the American Iranian Council
5. Regional Cooperation: An Imperative for Transatlantic Defense
October 29, 2013 – 1:30 pm
1030 15th Street, NW, 12th Floor
Washington, DC
An address and discussion with
H.E. Carl Haglund
Minster of Defense
Republic of Finland
Introduced and Moderated by
Damon Wilson
Executive Vice President
Atlantic Council
Please join the Atlantic Council for an address by, and discussion with, Finnish Minister of Defense Carl Haglund, who will detail the importance of regional cooperation for transatlantic security.
Building on the successes of Nordic Defense Cooperation (NORDEFCO), Minister Haglund will make a case for NATO member and partner countries to follow a similar framework to sustain present-day interoperability levels and enhance military capabilities. NORDEFCO’s five members states—Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden—use regional networking to increase their interoperability via cross-border cooperation, build-up and maintain necessary military capabilities, and provide cost-effective contributions to international efforts.
Representatives of the press are welcome, and all the proceedings of this event are on-the-record.
When you arrive, please use the the West Tower elevators.
Business attire is requested.
If you encounter problems with the registration process, please contact us.
Bios
H.E. Carl Haglund has been the minister of defense of Finland since July 5, 2012. Previously, he served as the party leader of the Swedish People’s Party, and from 2009 to 2012 he was a member of the European Parliament. In 2008, he assumed the position of state secretary for the minister of culture and sport, and in 2007 he was an adviser to the ministers of the Swedish People’s Party.
6. Iraq’s Transition: Remarks by Iraqi Prime Minister H.E. Mr. Noori al-Maliki
USIP – Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:00am
The United States Institute of Peace will host Iraqi Prime Minister H.E. Mr. Noori al-Maliki for public remarks and a discussion on U.S.-Iraq relations, and the current challenges facing Iraq and the region.
Webcast: This event will be webcast live beginning at 10:00am ET on October 31.
Iraq has made significant progress since the last of U.S. troops left the country in December 2011, but continues to face serious challenges. Iraq’s economy became stronger, provincial and regional elections were organized, and the country has made steady steps toward regaining its regional and international stature. At the same time, the country is struggling with high levels of violence and other spillover effects from Syria, as it tries to hold national elections in 2014 and find a workable common vision of governance.
To discuss these matters and more, kindly join us for what promises to be an interesting event at 10:00-11:30am on October 31, 2013 at USIP’s Headquarters in Washington D.C. Follow the conversation on Twitter with @USIP, @IraqiEmbassyUSA, and #USIPIraq.
Agenda:
Jim Marshall, Opening Remarks and Moderator President, U.S. Institute of Peace
Ambassador Beth Jones, Introductory Remarks Acting Assistant Secretary of State – Near Eastern Affairs
H.E. Noori al-Maliki, Keynote Remarks Prime Minister of Republic of Iraq
Moderated discussion
7. The Way Forward in Afghanistan: Embracing Opportunity in the Midst of Transition
Thursday October 31, 2013 12:15-1:45pm
New America Foundation
Since 2001, the United States has been heavily engaged in Afghanistan. The failures of this effort have been well documented, but what has often been overlooked are the immense gains that have been achieved.
As Afghanistan enters a turbulent transition period, including presidential elections in April 2014, the ongoing transition from U.S.-led to Afghan-led security operations, and the draw down of U.S. troops, it is important that U.S. policymakers keep the full picture in mind.
Calls for the United States to walk away from Afghanistan ignore the progress that has been made, and such a result would be catastrophic for the people of Afghanistan. It would also call into question the last 12 years of U.S.efforts in the country.
The New America Foundation and the Alliance in Support of the Afghan People are pleased to invite you to a discussion about the prospects for Afghanistan’s future,in light of past progress and upcoming challenges.
Featured Speakers:
Haseeb Humayoon
Member of Afghanistan 1400
Clare Lockhart
President, Institute for State Effectiveness
David Sedney
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Afghanistan,
Pakistan, and Central Asia
Eleanor Smeal
President, Feminist Majority Foundation
Moderator:
Senior Fellow, New America Foundation
To RSVP for the event, click on the red button or go to the event page:
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/the_way_forward_in_afghanistan
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Russia redux, at Syrian expense
This morning’s breakfast discussion at the Atlantic Council of prospects for a political settlement in Syria focused mainly on whether the US/Russia agreement on chemical weapons could be expanded to broader issues, and on Russia’s role in both the political negotiations and in supporting the Asad regime. With Atlantic Council Executive Vice President Damon Wilson moderating, former US Syria negotiator Fred Hof, former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson tried to find a way forward.
Describing the situation on the ground as appalling, Hof suggested Syria is headed for state failure and terrorist safe haven. While the regime is consolidating its position in the west, Kurds are dominating the north and east while the center and south are in chaos. The regime war on civilian populations, attenuated in late August and early September after the chemical weapons incident, has resumed. Islamist fighters and organizations are leaving the Coalition (Etilaf) in favor of joining the jihadists. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Fight and talk
It appears we may be headed for American-led attacks to punish, degrade and deter Syria’s use of chemical weapons. There are still preliminaries to be accomplished: the Obama Administration needs to present the evidence it has collected in some form that is convincing at home and abroad. It needs to complete its consultations with individual members of Congress, which isn’t scheduled to be back in session until September 9.
The Administration also needs to rally a stronger international coalition. The British and French are on board, though the British are now asking for a UN Security Council discussion that is unlikely to generate a resolution that approves the use of force. This could sharpen the dispute with the Russians and Chinese. The Arab League, while denouncing the use of chemical weapons, has not asked for military intervention. The UN wants its chemical weapons inspection team out of Damascus before any military action.
Let’s assume that the Administration can get this all done between now and the time the President is supposed to appear in St. Petersburg for the G20 Summit September 5/6, which seems ambitious, or shortly thereafter, which might be wiser. What impact might bombing have on the course of the war and prospects for negotiations?
The history is not encouraging. Most of the interventions Michael Knights discussed yesterday did not aim at or lead to negotiated solutions.
The ones that did–Bosnia and Kosovo–are exceptions that prove the rule.
In the case of Bosnia, the 1995 bombing was undertaken in response to a Serb attack on the Sarajevo “safe area.” NATO ran out of primary targets quickly, as the Serbs parked their artillery and tanks near schools and the remaining mosques in areas under their control. Somewhere down on the list of targets were the communication nodes of the Bosnian Serb Army, which was relatively small and depended on rapid and secure communications to move its forces quickly wherever they were needed. The result was a rout: the Bosnian Army and the Croat Defense Force, with ample support from the Croatian Army, advanced quickly and created the conditions for a successful negotiation at Dayton.
In Kosovo, months of bombing focussed mainly on military targets about which Milosevic cared little, but he gave in because the 78-day, open-ended bombing, as well as the prospect of escalation, put him in a corner: he had no leverage over NATO, the Russians were abandoning him, popular opinion turned against him, concern about damage to infrastructure was rising, and a future invasion was possible. The negotiated outcome left him in place. It was about the best he could hope for.
The Obama Administration is not contemplating anything like the kind of open-ended commitment to bombing that would tilt the battlefield back in the direction of the Syrian opposition. To the contrary: rumint would have it that the Americans are focusing on hitting a limited set of targets associated with the launch of chemical weapons over a time frame fixed in advance.
There is nevertheless good reason to use the prospect of this military action to advance the diplomatic agenda. The State Department is rightly trying to do that. Their focus seems to be on the Russians and Iranians, not on Bashar al Asad himself. That too is correct: Bashar will be moved only by an existential threat, which limited bombing will not accomplish. But government failure in repressing an insurgency correlates with external support, because it may weaken or be withdrawn. The Russians have repeatedly said they are not immutably attached to Bashar al Asad, and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was busy yesterday denouncing the use of chemical weapons (which however Tehran attributes not to the regime but to “terrorists”).
The odds of diplomatic success are however low. The kind of limited bombing apparently being planned will be wholly insufficient to threaten Bashar al Asad’s hold on power. He may well respond by using more of his chemical weapons, lest he lose the capability to use them. That would certainly be cause for escalation on the US side, but that is precisely the slippery slope President Obama is trying to avoid. Nor will tightly limited bombing give the Russians and Iranians much reason to withdraw their support for the Asad regime, provided he does not escalate.
So the odds are bad for “fight and talk.” But that is no reason not to pursue a diplomatic solution, as President Nixon did for four years while fighting North Vietnam. If Moscow shows any inclination to convene the Geneva 2 talks that were postponed this summer, Washington should certainly be ready to deal, including with Tehran.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Solid kernels in a not so good idea
My SAIS colleague Ed Joseph and Aaron David Miller earlier this week put forward a proposal for a Union of Arab Democracies that merits examination despite its deep and fatal flaws. There are nuggets therein worth preserving.
The idea in their words is this:
Egypt and its fractious neighbors desperately need a unifying vision that can inculcate respect for democratic norms across glaring differences. Although Arab nations have no interest in joining the European Union or NATO, the Arab world can draw on the model of Eastern European transition, with fledgling Arab democracies devising their own supra-national organization dedicated to advancing democracy. Like the E.U. in its infancy, this Union of Arab Democracies (UAD) could start with limited objectives and evolve toward ambitious goals, including, ultimately, pan-Arab political union.
Waving their magic wand, Ed and Aaron then tell us all the good things that would happen if such an organization were to come into existence, despite the shambolic history of pan-Arab political union proposals.
If Egypt and the other Arab uprising countries were capable of creating such an organization, they wouldn’t need it. The weakness of the proposal is all too apparent when Ed and Aaron get to proposing that Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority (known to me as Palestine) would be the leading democracies, with transitioning countries (Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen) and supposedly “liberalizing” countries (Morocco, Jordan and possibly Oman) tagging along. What a democratic club! Several are more likely to find themselves joining an Islamic union than a democratic one.
Nevertheless, there is a core idea here that is important: transitions need a destination. When the Berlin wall fell, the former Soviet satellites of eastern Europe and the Baltic “captive nations” quickly set their aim on meeting European Union and NATO standards. This gave direction and impetus to countries that would otherwise have wandered as aimlessly as the North African revolutions are doing today.
The way to answer the question “transition to what?” is not to have nascent Arab democracies try to figure it out for themselves. They cannot reasonably aim for membership in NATO or the EU, but they should be able to aim at two easier targets: the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe or, as my Turkish colleague Aylin Unver Noi suggests, the Council of Europe.
OSCE comprises 57 states and plays an important role in the Balkans and the more Asian parts of Eurasia. Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia are already among its “cooperating partners.” Several OSCE members are no farther along in democratizing than their Middle Eastern partners. With 47 member states, the Council of Europe regards itself as the continent’s leading human rights organization. It has a human rights court with some real enforcement capacity that could provide minorities in the Middle East with real recourse if their mother countries were to join.
The idea of extending OSCE and the Council of Europe to the southern littoral of the Mediterranean may seem far fetched, but efforts to construct more ad hoc arrangements have not worked well. Neither the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership nor the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative gained much traction before 2011, Aylin says, and their relevance will be further reduced by the Arab uprisings.
Another of the world’s more restrictive clubs, the rich people’s Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) , has opened its doors to newly developed states like Korea and Mexico, much to their benefit and the benefit of the organization. Opening the OSCE and Council of Europe to new Middle Eastern members, who would need to meet clearly defined criteria in order to get in, would be a worthwhile experiment. It would give the Arab uprisings, if they want it, a destination as well as a tough-minded qualification process, which is really what Ed and Aaron were calling for.
So “no” to the Arab Democratic Union. “Yes” to Arab democracy that aims to meet the not too exacting standards of the OSCE and respects human rights as defined by the Council of Europe.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Kosovo: aspirations and prospects
Someone asked me to talk today about Kosovo’s aspirations and prospects as well as interethnic relations. Here are the notes I used to respond:
1. Kosovo has achieved its greatest aspiration: it is independent and more or less sovereign.
- More or less because NATO still ensures a safe and secure environment, especially in the north, EULEX still provides prosecutors and judges, OSCE still monitors elections.
- Most Kosovo Albanians don’t mind: essential that the Serb police, paramilitaries and army are not coming back and they get to choose their own municipal and national governments.
- The exception is Vetevendosje and its maybe 20% of the population, which insists Kosovo should be able to choose whether to unite with Albania, contradicting its constitution.
2. For most Kosovars today, earning a living is the immediate priority, but joining the EU remains the long-term objective.
- Legislation is already vetted for consistency with EU requirements. The problem is weak implementation, as it is in Serbia and elsewhere in the Balkans.
- There is still a long way to go, even for the visa waiver, because the state is weak.
- The business environment is open to foreign investment but still far from meeting European standards, especially for corruption, the informal sector and electricity reliability.
- Economic growth has been relatively strong, but not fast enough to absorb a rapidly increasing labor force.
- The result is continuing frustration within Kosovo and migration out when the opportunity arises.
- Today that is often to Albania and Macedonia, creating a much wider and distinctly Albanian cultural space.
3. Ethnic tensions and the underlying political issues are a low priority for most Kosovars, as they are for most Serbs in Serbia.
- Albanians and Serbs are more or less content with separate self-governance for the Serb municipalities south of the Ibar.
- The only really strong ethnic tensions are in the north.
4. Those should not be ignored, because they have the potential to unravel the Balkans.
- Partition of northern Kosovo could lead to partition of southern Serbia, northwestern Macedonia, Bosnia and even Cyprus.
- The April agreement shows the way forward through implementation of the Ahtisaari plan, which was already an integral part of Kosovo’s constitution.
- Implementation is spotty, both of the political agreements and the more technical ones.
- Amnesty was only the first step. The key will be municipal elections in the fall.
- A lot depends on whether Belgrade uses all the leverage it has.
- If Serbs not hostile to Pristina win the municipal elections, which is likely if the pro-Belgrade Serbs boycott, there will still be a good deal to be done but it will happen. If not, there could still be trouble.
5. What remains to be done?
- Lots of things, but I will focus on three disparate ones that bear on inter-ethnic relations: the Kosovo army, the business environment and education.
- Kosovo is now entitled to have an army. It has hesitated because of pressure from internationals and the expense, but once NATO starts to draw down the issue will arise.
- How big an army Kosovo needs and its capabilities depend on the threat: if Serbia does not accept Kosovo’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, the threat needs to be taken seriously.
- But if Serbia recognizes, or if NATO provides guarantees, Kosovo can do with less, which would reduce interethnic suspicions and tensions.
- As for the business environment, the main issue is the role of political parties, which play too strong a role in hiring and public investment.
- The reported rate of paying bribes (16%) is not especially high, but there is a pervasive sense that political connections are important to getting any major projects done.
- It’s the nexus between politics and the economy that needs to be cleaned up. There is particular dissatisfaction with tendering and contracting, which Kosovars are convinced gets done in ways that block open competition.
- Education is the key to Kosovo’s economic future.
- It should be done at least in part in English, to ease entry into Europe, reduce pan-Albanian sentiment and promote integration.
- Voluntary K-12 education in English would attract both Albanians and Serbs, enable Kosovo to accelerate its preparations for the EU, and vastly increase employment prospects.
6. Even if all these issues are resolved satisfactorily, there will remain the question of distant inter-ethnic relations.
- The missing ingredient, on both sides, is acknowledgement of the harm done and sincere expression of regret.
- Missing people are a particular source of unhappiness.
- Once there is real acknowledgement of harm, that problem will be resolved and there will be many more opportunities for exchange, collaboration and cooperation.
- I’d like to see lots of Serb visitors to Kosovo and Albanian visitors to Serbia. Increasing contact is vital to develop healthier inter-ethnic relations.
- Extending the Durres/Pristina road to Nis is particularly important, but there are many other regional infrastructure improvements that could be undertaken, including in energy and telecoms.
- The April agreement foresees entry of both Serbia and Kosovo into the EU, each on its own bottom: that, ultimately, is what will fix inter-ethnic relations in both Kosovo and Serbia.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks July 29 – August 2
1. Squaring the circle: General Raymond T. Odierno on American military strategy in a time of declining resources, American Enterprise Institute, Monday, July 29, 2013 / 10:30 AM – 11:30 AM
Venue: American Enterprise Institute
1150 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Mackenzie Eaglen, General Raymond T. Odierno
With sequestration a reality and little hope for a bargain on the horizon, the US military is facing a steeper-than-planned defense drawdown that few wanted but fewer still seem to be willing or able to stop. What are the implications for the men and women of the US Army if the sequester stays on the books for the foreseeable future?
AEI’s Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies will host General Raymond Odierno, Chief of Staff of the US Army, for the second installment of a series of four events with each member of the Joint Chiefs.
Register for the event here:
RSS - Posts
