Tag: North Korea
Peace picks, June 11 – June 17
- Avoiding Nuclear War – A Discussion with the Mayor of Hiroshima | Monday, June 11| 10:00 am – 11:30 am | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | Register Here
Nuclear war remains the top man-made threat to global stability and the dramatic diplomacy around North Korea’s nuclear program highlights the challenge of averting it. Cities are mobilizing to counter this threat, including Hiroshima—a city which has already borne the brunt of nuclear conflict.
Join Carnegie for a discussion with the mayor of Hiroshima, Kazumi Matsui. Mayor Matsui will describe what the people of Hiroshima and other cities are doing to reduce risks of nuclear war. An expert discussion on diplomatic progress with North Korea and broader disarmament issues will follow, with Mayor Matsui commenting from the perspective of a municipal government. Panel also includes Jon Wolfsthal (Director, Nuclear Crisis Group) and James L. Schoff (Senior Fellow, Asia Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).
- Shaping a New Balance of Power in the Middle East: Regional Actors, Global Powers, and Middle East Strategy | Tuesday, June 12 | 9:00 am – 3:00 pm | Johns Hopkins SAIS | Register Here
The Gulf and the Middle East are suffering a paroxysm of conflict involving virtually all the regional states as well as the US and Russia and many different non-state actors. What dynamics are driving this chaos? What can be done to contain or reverse the damage? How might a new balance of power emerge? Conference schedule and speakers:
9-9:30: Registration
9:30-9:45: Opening Remarks
- Ezzedine Abdelmoula, Manager of Research, Aljazeera Centre for Studies, Aljazeera Media Network
9:30-11:00: Dynamics of Political Geography in the Middle East
- Chair: Daniel Serwer, Director, SAIS Conflict Management Program
- Ross Harrison, Non-resident Senior FellowMiddle East Institute
- Kadir Ustun, Executive Director, SETA Foundation
- Khalid al Jaber, Gulf International Forum
- Suzanne Maloney, Deputy Director, Foreign Policy Program and Senior Fellow, Center for Middle East Policy and Energy Security and Climate Initiative, Brookings Institution
11:00-11:15: Coffee Break
11:15-12:45: Non-State Actors and Shadow Politics
- Chair: Paul Salem, Senior Vice President for Policy Research & Programs, Middle East Institute
- Randa Slim, Director of Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues Program, Middle East Institute; Fellow, SAIS Foreign Policy Institute
- Fatima Abo Alasrar, Senior Analyst, Arabia Foundation
- Crispin Smith, Harvard Law School
- Anouar Boukhars, Non-Resident Scholar, Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Associate Professor of International Relations, McDaniel College
12:45-1:30: Lunch
1:30-3:00: New Balance of Power
- Chair: Mohammed Cherkaoui, Aljazeera Centre for Studies, and George Mason University
- Jamal Khashoggi, independent writer
- Terrence Hopmann, Professor of International Relations, SAIS, Conflict Management Program
- Camille Pecastaing, SAIS, Middle East Studies
- Hussein Ibish, Senior Resident Scholar, Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington
- Denuclearization or Deterrence? Evaluating Next Steps on North Korea | Tuesday, June 11 | 11:00 am – 12:30 pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | Register Here
Negotiations to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear program remain highly uncertain. While diplomacy plays out, the United States and its allies in Asia will continue strengthening their deterrence capabilities to hedge against future threatening North Korean behavior. Yet, these actions could further exacerbate tensions in East Asia.
Please join the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace for an expert panel discussion on denuclearization diplomacy, the potential Trump-Kim summit, and Plan B options to deter North Korean coercive behavior. At the event, Carnegie will release a new report, “Security Spillover: Regional Implications of Evolving Deterrence on the Korean Peninsula.” Panel includes Chung Min Lee (Nonresident Senior Fellow, Asia Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Narushige Michisita (executive advisor to the president and director of the Security and International Studies Program, Strategic Studies Program, and Maritime Safety and Security Policy Program at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo), Tony Zhao (Fellow, Nuclear Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), and Toby Dalton (Co-director, Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).
- The Trump Administration’s Post-JCPOA Iran Policy | Wednesday, June 12 | 10:30 am – 12:00 pm | The SETA Foundation at Washington DC | Register Here
On May 8, President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iranian nuclear accord crafted by his predecessor. The withdrawal came after efforts by US allies in Europe to keep the US in the deal, and suggests division between the US and some of its closest partners in the years to come.
In a recent speech at the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC, Mike Pompeo, Trump’s newly appointed Secretary of State and a well-known critic of the Iran deal, declared that the Trump administration will take steps to punish the Iranian regime for regional aggression and impose stiff financial penalties. However, Pompeo also suggested that the administration is open to a new deal that addresses what it sees as the JCPOA’s failings. Under the guidance of Secretary of State Pompeo and Trump’s new national security advisor John Bolton, the Trump administration seems to be charting a much more confrontational policy towards Iran.
Please join the SETA Foundation at Washington DC for an insightful discussion with our panel of experts on this major turning point in US foreign policy as we discuss what it means for US relations with its allies in Europe and the Middle East and what US-Iranian interactions may look like moving forward. Panel includes Hussein Ibish (Senior Resident Scholar, Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington), Reza Marashi (Research Director, National Iranian American Council), Sigurd Neubauer (Middle East Analyst and Columnist), Barbara Slavin (Director, Future of Iran Initiative, Atlantic Council), and Randa Slim (Director of Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues Program, Middle East Institute). Moderated by Kilic B. Kanat (Research Director, SETA Foundation at Washington DC).
- Raising the Curtain on the 2018 NATO Brussels Summit | Wednesday, June 13 | 2:00 pm – 5:30 pm | Atlantic Council | Register Here
One month ahead of the July meeting, this event will serve as a primer for the Summit, highlighting many of the top issues on the Alliance’s agenda. The discussions will focus on priorities for strengthening collective defense and deterrence in Northern Europe and beyond, including US proposals to improve capabilities, readiness, and decision-making. The conference will also explore the Alliance’s broader agenda on the road to Brussels, including the way forward for NATO’s southern flank and what the Alliance must do to address terrorism, hybrid threats, and capacity-building in the region.
Convening senior officials, military leaders, top experts, business executives, and media from across the Euro-Atlantic policy community, the conference will provide a unique platform to discuss critical issues for the NATO alliance at a time when the threats have never been more pressing. Speakers include H.E. Raimundas Karoblis (Minister of National Defense, Republic of Lithuania), Dr. Richard Hooker (Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Europe and Russia, US National Security Council), Hon. Michael Turner (OH-10), (Head of the US Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and Member, US House of Representatives), Gen. Frank Gorenc, USAF (Ret.), (Fmr. Commander, US Air Forces in Europe and Africa and NATO Allied Air Command), Amb. Alexander Vershbow (Fmr. Deputy Secretary-General, NATO and Distinguished Fellow, Atlantic Council), Laura Rosenberger (Director and Senior Fellow, Alliance for Securing Democracy, German Marshall Fund), and Dr. Fabrizio Luciolli (President, Atlantic Treaty Association and President, Italian Atlantic Committee).
- America, Russia, and Vladimir Putin: Russian Opposition Perspectives | Thursday, June 14 | 2:30 pm – 4:00 pm | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register Here
As of May 7, Vladimir Putin has begun his fourth term as the President of the Russian Federation. The next six years seem poised to be pivotal, with U.S. foreign policy in flux, the world responding, and Russia redefining its roles and responsibilities. Yet, one trend that continues unabated is a downward spiral in tensions between Moscow and Washington. Many western experts see Putin himself as the reason for problems past and present. What, then, does his continued rule mean for U.S. Russian relations, and how might each country adjust its policies to better further domestic, foreign policy, and security goals? Join us in this conversation with past Russian government and opposition leaders regarding what Moscow and Washington can do, and what they are likely to. This event is organized in cooperation with the Institute of Modern Russia (IMR). Panel includes Andrei Kozyrev (Fmr. Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation from 1991-1996), Vitali Shkliarov (Russian Political Strategist, Fmr. Senior Campaign Advisor to Ksenia Sobchak), Vladimir Kara-Murza (Vice Chairman, Open Russia and Fmr. Deputy Leader of the People’s Freedom Party), and Olga Oliker (Senior Adviser and Director, Russia and Eurasia Program).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Atlantic alliance shattered, Pacific next stop
Having trashed the G7 summit in Quebec, President Trump is now getting ready to meet with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un on Tuesday. Last week President Trump said
I don’t think I have to prepare very much. It’s about attitude.
He might be right, because he has defined down the goals of the summit:
I think it’s going to be a process. But the relationships are building, and that’s a very positive thing…a beginning and a getting-to-know-you meeting-plus.
While Secretary of Defense Mattis is still declaring the American goal to be “compete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization” (CVID in the trade), the President has retreated from achieving that. Under cover of the furor caused by his temporary cancellation of the meeting, he has lowered the bar. Now he is even saying he’ll know within a minute whether the summit will be successful.
CVID is not going to happen. Kim Jong-un is not giving up his nukes or his missiles, though he may limit the number of the former and the range of the latter. He’ll want in return not just relief from sanctions but also withdrawal of at least some American forces from South Korea. There is simply no better guarantee of his regime than holding on to a limited number of nukes and missiles, which ensure no invasion and no US effort at regime change.
The question is whether those possible limits can simultaneously satisfy the US, South Korea, and Japan. It doesn’t look likely. South Korea and Japan aren’t interested in limiting the range of the missiles, since that decouples their security from the US: the US will feel safe but they won’t. Nor will they be interested in US withdrawal from South Korea, since the American forces there provide a vital tripwire to ensure that the US is prepared to intervene with force if the South is invaded.
There is no way such difficult issues can or should be resolved in a meeting where Seoul and Tokyo are absent. The best Trump can do is to initiate a negotiation that will likely take years to complete. The outcome cannot be nearly as satisfactory as the Iran nuclear deal, which set back Tehran from nuclear weapons and included a permanent commitment to the international safeguards required to prevent any future nuclear weapons program. North Korea is going to remain a nuclear power with significant missile capabilities.
The worst Trump can do is sell out our South Korean and Japanese allies by agreeing to withdraw US troops from Korea and accept Pyongyang’s nuclear status. This cannot be entirely ruled out. The man is desperate for a win and cares not a whit about allies. He admires dictators and likes to break crockery. Kim Jong-un has so far played him like a fiddle. Trump might well be vulnerable to flattery and the prospect of the Nobel Prize the Norwegians will never give him. They are not as dumb as he is.
Trump did serious damage to the Atlantic alliance in the past couple of days. Let’s hope he doesn’t repeat the disaster in the Pacific.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The 7 – 1 reality sitcom
That’s what is meeting in Quebec today. The odd one out at the G7 is the United States, which has managed to unite Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Japan in a display of pique against President Trump’s trade policy. That’s what you get for using spurious national security arguments to raise tariffs on steel and aluminum rather than pursuing your complaints through the World Trade Organization (WTO) and withdrawing from a nuclear deal with Iran that the other 6 view as vital to their security.
The vodka will be flowing in Moscow, which will be delighted to hear its Shanghai Cooperation Organization (that’s China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) compared favorably with the more venerable, more powerful, and in the past more effective G7. President Putin is getting his money’s worth: Trump is dismantling Washington’s relationship with its friends and allies in both the Atlantic and the Pacific, dramatically weakening the West and providing openings for Moscow and Beijing to fill the vacuums. Trump has even called for Russia to be invited back into the G7 (which for a time was the G8). If you find that hard to believe, watch it:
Trump is also claiming this morning that Iran has moderated its behavior due to his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal:
They’re no longer looking so much to what’s going on in Syria, what’s going on in Yemen and lots of other places. They’re a much different country over the last three months.
This is completely untrue. Iran has done nothing to withdraw or lessen its involvement in Syria, Yemen, and other places. It is not only the same country over the last three months, it is getting ready to start up a plant to produce advanced centrifuges for uranium enrichment.
And the President is vaunting his meeting next week with Kim Jong-un:
Obama, Schumer and Pelosi did NOTHING about North Korea, and now weak on Crime, High Tax Schumer is telling me what to do at the Summit the Dems could never set up. Schumer failed with North Korea and Iran, we don’t need his advice!
No Democratic president ever wanted to concede a summit with the North Korean dictator without getting something in return up front. Trump has done so, to no noticeable benefit to the US so far. Nor is there any sign he will get anything tangible in Singapore, though you can bet on his vaunting a fantastic triumph.
The simple fact is that Trump is finding it a lot easier to offend America’s friends and allies than to get anything from our adversaries, who recognize that he is a bullshitter who flogs flim-flam. It would all be laughable–a kind of reality sit-com–if it weren’t real. The G7-1 is however unified and represents an economy larger than that of the US. Trump may prefer a light-on-substance summit with Kim Jong-un, and he may want to falsely claim that Iran has moderated its behavior, but neither our friends nor our adversaries will be fooled. The only fool in this reality sit-com resides in the White House.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Things aren’t getting better
I’m back from 10 days in Piedmont (that’s Italy, not Virginia), where the inhabitants are far better at ignoring their politics than most of us in DC. I didn’t have a single serious conversation about the government crisis there, which after weeks of uncertainty has produced a coalition that is almost as weird as the Freedom Caucus combining with the Green Party in the US. My Italian friends don’t like it, but they know their governments are highly constrained by the European Union, market forces, and a tradition of compromise. So let’s have lunch.
Here things are less felicitous. The food isn’t as good and the politics are less constrained. Here’s a quick summary of some changes while we were away:
- The Dotard/Rocket Man Summit is back on for June 12, but with an important difference: the President says it is the beginning of a process, not the precedent-shattering agreement on denuclearization he advertised once upon a time.
- The US is levying tariffs on European steel and aluminum and threatening them on luxury cars. These will all eventually be found to violate our obligations to the World Trade Organization, but the current Administration doesn’t care about that.
- The Europeans are trying to figure out how to ensure Iran continues in the nuclear deal by allowing it to reap economic advantages, which will require them to block US “secondary” sanctions.
- President Trump has declared himself above the law, not only on Twitter but in a letter sent by his lawyers in January to the Special Counsel claiming he can end the investigation or pardon himself. The last president to make such a bold claim was Richard Nixon. We know how that ended.
- Trump has also issued pardons clearly intended to signal to his former minions (Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort) that he has their back if they keep silent.
- Just yesterday, the Special Counsel accused Manafort of witness tampering in a case pending against him for lobbying for a foreign entity (namely the Russia-backed president of Ukraine) without proper registration. The evidence includes wire taps.
Senate Democrats are warning that they won’t lift sanctions for a quicky nuclear deal with North Korea, but there is precious little they can do on the other issues. The Republicans are remaining united in backing Trump in both the House and the Senate. If Trump fires Mueller or pardons his minions, all indications are nothing will be done about it in Congress, but it is becoming harder to see how the judicial investigations can be entirely shut down.
In other news, the President canceled a meeting at the White House with the Superbowl champion Philadelphia Eagles because some of them want to continue their kneeling protest during the national anthem.* This from a president who himself had to be reminded by his immigrant wife to put his hand on his heart during the national anthem:
*PS: I was wrong about this. It turns out the Eagles had never knelt, but quite a few of them refused the invitation to the White House. Trump canceled the event in order to avoid being embarrassed, then scheduled another event at which he demonstrated he does not know the words to either the national anthem or “America the Beautiful.” Impossible to make this stuff up,
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, June 4 – 10
- U.S. – North Korean Summit: Cancelled or Postponed? Tuesday, June 5 | 1:30 pm – 4:30 pm | The Heritage Foundation | Register Here
What are the ramifications of the sudden termination of the planned meeting between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un? What factors led to the cancellation and has the door been permanently closed on a diplomatic solution to the North Korean nuclear problem? Will North Korea abandon its moratorium and resume nuclear and missile tests and escalate tension on the Korean Peninsula. Will there be a resumption of advocacy for a U.S. preventive military attack on North Korea? As Pyongyang, Seoul, Beijing, and Washington engaged in summit diplomacy, Japan had been the neglected partner. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had established the closest relationship with President Trump of any world leader but then seemed ignored during the summit mania. Does the U.S.-North Korea summit cancellation vindicate Abe’s firm approach to Pyongyang or has there been lasting impact on his political strength as well as Japan’s relationship with the United States?
Join us as two panels of distinguished experts discuss these and other topics as well as make recommendations for U.S. policy in the uncertain time ahead. Speakers include Duyeon Kim (Visiting Senior Research Fellow, Korean Peninsula Future Forum), Dr. Lee Sung-Yoon (Kim Koo-Korea Foundation Professor in Korean Studies and Assistant Professor, The Fletcher School, Tufts University), Dr. Sue Mi Terry (Senior Fellow, Korea Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies), Dr. Jeffrey W. Hornung (Political Scientist, The RAND Corporation), James Schoff (Senior Fellow, Asia Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) and Yuki Tatsumi (Co-Director of the East Asia Program and Director of the Japan Program, The Stimson Center).
- The Long Search for Peace in Afghanistan | Thursday, June 7 | 1:30 pm – 4:30 pm | US Institute of Peace | Register Here
Please join the U.S. Institute of Peace on Thursday, June 7 for a multi-panel discussion on practical steps for the search for peace in Afghanistan. This effort has moved to center stage in recent months following President Ashraf Ghani’s late February peace offer to the Taliban, a series of major international conferences that consolidated support for a peace deal, and a wave of pro-peace demonstrations across Afghanistan. Crucial questions nonetheless remain: What it will take to get the Taliban to join peace talks in earnest? What will a prospective peace agreement look like? How does the peace process affect the Afghan and international military campaign?
The event will examine the issue from two crucial perspectives: the top-down effort to reach a political settlement involving the Taliban, and the bottom-up effort to forge peace in local communities. We will feature a distinguished and diverse range of American, Afghan, and other experts who have directly worked on this issue in government, the United Nations, academia, and civil society. They will provide a comprehensive look at an effort that is vital to Afghanistan’s future, but often poorly understood outside a small community of experts. Speakers include Steve Brooking (Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Afghanistan), Laurel Miller (Former State Department Acting Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan), Barnett Rubin (Senior Fellow and Associate Director of the Center for International Cooperation, New York University), Michael Semple (Visiting Professor, Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation and Social Justice, Queen’s University, Belfast), Kate Clark (Director, Afghan Analysts Network) and Erica Gaston (Non-Resident Fellow, Global Public Policy Institute). Moderated by Johnny Walsh (Senior Expert on Afghanistan, US Institute of Peace).
- Colombia’s Choice: Analyzing the First Round of the Presidential Election | Thursday, June 7 | 3:00 pm – 4:30 pm | Inter-American Dialogue | Register Here
On Sunday, May 27, Colombians head to the polls for the first round of a critically important presidential election, the first since a peace accord was signed with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in late 2016. Polls show Iván Duque of the Democratic Center Party with the lead, followed by Gustavo Petro, who heads a leftist coalition. The country remains highly polarized around the terms and implementation of the peace agreement. Combating corruption and curbing drug cultivation and trafficking are key challenges, as responding to the exploding migration crisis in Venezuela. The next government will also have to deal with a tough fiscal situation as it seeks to improve education, health and infrastructure.
The Dialogue is pleased to host a discussion after the first round of the presidential race, to interpret the results and explore what we can expect, should there be a second round on June 17. What is the outlook moving forward? What are the implications of the vote for addressing the country’s wide-ranging and complex peace/security, political, economic and social agendas? Speakers include Catalina Botero (Dean of the Law School at Universidad de los Andes), Juan Carlos Iragorri (Director, Club de Prensa, NTN24) and Peter Schechter (Political commentator and co-host of the Altamar Podcast). Moderated by Michael Shifter (President, Inter-American Dialogue).
- U. S. – Indonesia Relations and the Rise of China | Friday, June 8 | 10:00 am – 11:30 am | The Heritage Foundation | Register Here
The Rise of China is a reality. Its influence – and the opportunity it represents – is being felt from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Southeast Asia, however, is a neighbor. Indonesia, in fact, given Indonesian maritime claims, is right next door. Indonesia has a centuries-long history of dealing with China’s power. How should its government today see the balance between threat and opportunity represented in its rise? How should it make the most of China’s economic contributions to the region’s development? How should it push back on unwelcome initiatives, particularly around issues of maritime security? Where are the intersecting areas of interest with the United States and how should it view a U.S.-China rivalry? What is ASEAN’s role? These are just a few of the questions on the table for this event. Please join us we explore them and many more with our distinguished guests. Speakers include Hon. Rizal Ramli (Former Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and former Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs, Republic of Indonesia), Cameron Hume (Chairman, American Indonesian Chamber of Commerce, and former U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia) and Brian Harding (Deputy Director and Fellow, Southeast Asia Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies). Hosted by Walter Lohman (Director, Asian Studies Center).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Get serious
Pantelis Ikonomou, a former IAEA inspector and nuclear security consultant, writes:
President Trump’s sudden decision, two months ago, to meet the DPRK’s Kim Jong-un was enigmatic in its cause and ambiguous to its goal. Some observers regarded it as opportunity while others as trap. Then through a polite letter to his counterpart few days ago, the President announced his decision to cancel their summit. Yet, preparations are still currently in process.
Would the swinging between ‘’summit,’’ “no summit,’’ and again “summit” result in new disappointments or in relief? As long as question-marks are hanging over the summit, uncertainty grows, as does danger.
What is the summit’s attainable goal? Do both sides have the same understanding of “denuclearization”? What is the “no summit” follow-up plan? What is this pendulum’s driving force? Is there inability to comprehend the complex nature of a nuclear crisis? It is worth recalling Obama’s confession to Bob Woodward on his thoughts during a sensitive nuclear briefing he was given at a secure facility in Chicago: “It’s good that there are bars on the windows here because if there weren’t, I might be jumping out.”
Summit or no summit, proper consideration of some key facts is paramount for the peaceful solution of DPRK’s nuclear crisis:
- Pursuing denuclearization by force is impossible. A nuclear holocaust would be the result.
- The DPRK giving up its nukes completely and effectively, within a reasonable time and in an agreed, verifiable and irreversible manner, would be an improbable expectation. As the most recent Worldwide Threat Assessment says:“ Pyongyang’s commitment to possessing nuclear weapons …. while repeatedly stating that nuclear weapons are the basis for its survival, suggests that the regime does not intend to negotiate them away.”
- States who acquired nuclear weapons outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), like India, Pakistan and allegedly Israel, never abandoned them. They were and remain their strongest deterrence. The exception of South Africa in 1991 was forced by the end of apartheid.
- Nuclear weapons outside the international legal frame constitute a well-defined global threat. The global nuclear security architecture would be severely undermined by accepting new nuclear weapons owners.
- Mitigation of risks related to nuclear threat is a top priority task, according to IAEA’s nuclear security guidelines and to any serious national security response plan.
Political determination is the precondition for a successful agreement. Erratic decisions detached from comprehensive planning and expert advice would not engage the DPRK nuclear crisis at the level of its complexity and with the importance it deserves.
RSS - Posts
