Tag: Nuclear weapons
Up a creek without a paddle
A Wilson Center panel yesterday considered recent developments with Iran, particularly Trump’s groundbreaking decision to exit the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, aka Iran nuclear deal). With the Wilson Center’s Aaron David Miller as moderator, panel members Michael Singh of the Washington Institute, Tamara Coffman Wittes of the Brookings Institution, Robert Litwak of the Wilson Center, and Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations discussed the JCPOA, the American departure from it, and future prospects.
Singh argued that Trump’s decision had both political and substantive roots. The President decided to use a problematic model of “maximum pressure” to create a new Iran deal. Where there was once convergence with foreign allies and partners on the way forward with Iran, with diplomatic efforts creating a multilateral sanctions campaign, there is now divergence, which makes Trump’s strategy of “maximum pressure” harder to implement.
Next steps, Singh believes, should include:
1. Heal the rift with European allies and reach a US-E3 agreement, at least an agreed roadmap on the way forward.
2. Nest the withdrawal from the JCPOA in a more comprehensive Iran strategy, as sanctions alone are not enough.
There is no real Administration strategy on Iran, Singh suggested. It talks tough but is reluctant to get dragged into the Middle East. Iran is a revisionist state and the only way to confront it is with commitment to the Middle East and the use of every policy tool.
Wittes understands Trump’s JCPOA decision as based on a desire to fulfill campaign promises and cater to domestic policy and interests. But it was reckless. Iranian influence, opportunities, and gains since 2011 have expanded as they compete with Sunni states and Israel for power. This unfortunately comes at a time of US pullback from the Middle East, which troubles US allies concerned more about Iran’s regional behavior than nuclear weapons, and a turn of foreign policy focus towards Asia. Wittes does not see how a new US-Iran agreement can happen. She does believe, however, that in the current Israel-Iran standoff, both sides are sending careful and calibrated messages as neither side seeks escalation, although it could still happen.
Litwak thinks the exit from the JCPOA is a departure from the US grand strategy of exerting power via international institutions. The US, not Iran, is being seen as the foreign policy issue and outlier state. America First is turning into America Alone. The JCPOA had a transactional, not transformational, basis as it sought to constrain Iran’s nuclear program, which has existed for over 40 years. Without the JCPOA, it is harder to address other Iran issues. The re-imposition of US sanctions could lead to a trade war with Europe should it take a defiant stance. It also strengthens Iranian hardliners and opens the door for Iran to leave the deal and restart its nuclear program. The exit from JCPOA could make it more difficult to negotiate a nuclear deal with North Korea. Trump’s transformational goal for a new Iran deal is over-reach. Litwak believes the US should be more pragmatic.
Takeyh anticipates that the US and Iran will eventually return to negotiations, considering the dearth of unofficial dialogues with Iran. The JCPOA was seriously flawed, especially the sunset clauses. A new deal with Iran must be permanent, a treaty approved in the Senate with minority party support. Ultimately, arms control will need to be an aspect of Iran policy, not the totality of it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
North Korea bites back
Here, via @JChengWSJ, is North Korea’s statement on the prospective Summit between Presidents Trump and Kim:
This tirade is aimed not at Trump but at Bolton, who over the weekend cited the “Libya model,” by which he seems to have meant the access Qaddafi provided to his nuclear and chemical weapons programs when he committed to abandoning them. But of course the North Koreans remember what happened to Qaddafi thereafter. They are trying to signal to Trump that his hawkish National Security Adviser is not with the program, which has to include Kim Jong-un’s survival, hoping that Trump will throw “regime change” Bolton under the bus.
Bolton may be what provoked Pyongyang’s ire, but the statement is clear enough on other issues: it rejects the standard American versions of what “denuclearization”means as well as the notion that North Korea can be bought off with economic benefits, an idea Secretary of State Pompeo has been touting. It essentially says that Washington needs to end its belligerence towards North Korea, possibly by removing troops from South Korea as well as signing a peace treaty formally ending the Korean war, without clarifying precisely what Pyongyang is prepared to provide in return, but the implication is some sort of limit on, but not abandonment of, its nuclear weapon and missile programs. The zero option is out, the North Koreans are saying.
This is far short of what the US has wanted, and far short of what it had achieved in the Iran nuclear deal that Washington has abrogated. The North Korean statement, however, was made only in the name of a vice minister of foreign affairs, which is far from the top of the hierarchy. There is certainly the possibility that Kim will be more forthcoming at a summit.
But I wouldn’t bet on it. Just the fact of the Rocket Man/Dotard Summit is an enormous “get” for North Korea, as it puts Kim on an equal footing with the US President, confirming the North Korean leader’s legitimacy both domestically and internationally.
Kim needs a successful summit only if he needs sanctions relief. That is not yet clear. A lot depends on whether China and Russia are prepared to keep tightening the screws. Their annoyance with US withdrawal from the Iran deal, Moscow’s peeve at US sanctions, and Beijing’s concern about bilateral trade issues will all factor in to their willingness to continue the united front against North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs.
Trump and Bolton are nowhere near Kim’s diplomatic league. Their skills were honed on Fox TV, where they rarely face any opposition. They are used to saying what they feel like and having everyone nod yes. Kim knows how to bite back.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, May 14 – May 20
- The Fallout from Trump’s Decision on the Iran Deal | Monday, May 14 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
May 12 is the deadline for President Trump to renew sanctions waivers under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In January, he vowed to pull out of the JCPOA unless European nations met his demands for new pressure on Iran’s ballistic missile program, more stringent inspections of Iran’s military installations and a commitment to extend curbs on the Iranian nuclear program beyond the terms of the nuclear deal. The Future of Iran Initiative, the Global Business and Economics Program, and the Middle East Security Initiative invite you to a discussion of the ramifications of Trump’s decision on the likely responses of Iran and US European allies as well as the consequences for non-proliferation and conflict in the Middle East. A conversation with Axel Hellman (Policy Fellow; European Leadership Network), Elizabeth Rosenberg (Director, Energy, Economics and Security Program; Center for a New American Security), Ali Vaez (Iran Project Director; International Crisis Group), and David Mortlock (Nonresident Senior Fellow, Global Energy Center; Atlantic Council). Moderated by Barbara Slavin (Director, Future of Iran Initiative; Atlantic Council), with keynote remarks by David O’Sullivan (Ambassador and Head, European Union Delegation to the United States).
___________________________________________________________
- How to Talk to North Korea | Monday, May 14 | 10:00 am – 11:00 am | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | Register Here |
As a possible Trump-Kim summit draws closer, join Carnegie for a conversation about what negotiating with North Korea is really like. Previous U.S. negotiators and experts will talk about what lessons have been learned in previous rounds of talks, and what the United States should know going forward. The New York Times’ Mark Landler will moderate. Panel includes Suzanne DiMaggio (Director and Senior Fellow, New America), Robert L. Gallucci (Professor, Georgetown University), Christopher Hill (Professor, University of Denver), and Daniel Russel (VP for International Security and Diplomacy, Asia Society Policy Institute)
- US Policy Towards Iran: Strategic Options | Monday, May 14 | 10:00 am – 11:30 am | Bipartisan Policy Center | Register Here |
The president’s decision on the future of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has dominated the discussion in Washington. But recent events also reinforce the need for an American strategy for the broader challenge posed by Iran. Returning some measure of stability to the increasingly fractured Middle East—a vital and enduring U.S. national security interest—requires confronting the spread of Iranian influence.
Join us on May 14 for a discussion on Iran’s influence in Syria and Iraq, and the release of a report from the Task Force on Managing Disorder in the Middle East on U.S. Policy Toward Iran: Strategic Options. Fireside chat includes Amb. Eric Edelman (Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey) and Jake Sullivan (Former Director of Policy Planning, U.S. State Department and Former National Security Advisor to the Vice President). Panel includes Amb. James Jeffrey (Former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and Iraq), Mary Beth Long (Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs), Denise Natali (Director, Center for Strategic Research at the Institute for National Strategic Studies) and Blaise Misztal (Director of National Security, Bipartisan Policy Center). Moderated by Arshad Mohammed (Diplomatic Correspondent, Reuters).
A Tale of Two Elections: Recapping the Polls in Lebanon and Iraq | Tuesday, May 15 | 12:00pm – 2:00pm | Middle East Institute | Register here |
As Lebanon holds its first parliamentary elections in nine years and Iraq paves a way forward in the aftermath of the war against ISIS, many questions remain as to what the political future holds for both countries. The parliamentary elections in Lebanon on May 6, and in Iraq on May 12, serve as a barometer for transparency, inclusion, and the political realities in both countries. The polls have raised pressing political and governance issues such as how to overcome sectarianism, corruption, and economic stagnation in order to encourage further openness and plurality. The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a panel discussion to examine these issues. MEI’s Bilal Y. Saab and Paul Salem will be joined by Abbas Kadhim (SAIS), Omar al-Nidawi (Gryphon Partners), and Bilal Wahab (WINEP) for a two-hour panel event moderated by MEI’s director for conflict resolution and the Track II Dialogues initiative, Randa Slim.
___________________________________________________________
5. Cuba: Post-Castro Transition | Wednesday, May 16 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Hudson Institute | Register here |
In April, Miguel Díaz-Canel became the 19th President of Cuba and the first in over 40 years who was not a member of the Castro family. This appointment — not election — of a new Cuban president raises a number of important questions about the future and stability of the regime. In a post-Castro era, Cuban politics will likely change, though the direction and magnitude of those changes remains to be seen. On May 16, Hudson Institute will host a panel to explore these issues and discuss the possibility of a democratic transition on the island. Panelists will include Eduardo Ulibarri, a Costa Rican journalist, diplomat, university professor, and international consultant; Hector E. Schamis, a teacher at Georgetown University’s Center for Latin American Studies and Democracy & Governance Program; and Ambassador Jaime Daremblum, senior fellow and director of Hudson Institute’s Center for Latin American Studies.
___________________________________________________________
6. Decision Point: Iran, the Nuclear Deal, and Regional Stability | Wednesday, May 16 | 1:00pm – 2:30pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement will have far reaching implications for U.S. policy; the trans-Atlantic alliance; non-proliferation efforts; and even on regional stability – particularly in the Israeli-Lebanese-Iranian-Syrian arena. Indeed, those implications may go far in defining the U.S. posture in the region for years to come. Join us as four veteran analysts and policy advisers on the Middle East assess the implications of the president’s decision, including on U.S. foreign policy in the region at large. Featuring speakers Robert S. Litwak (Senior Vice President and Director of International Security Studies, Wilson Center), Michael Singh (Managing Director and Senior Fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy), Ray Takeyh (Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations), and Tamara Cofman Wittes (Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution). Moderated by Aaron David Miller (Vice President for New Initiatives and Middle East Program Director, Wilson Center), with introductory remarks by Jane Harman (Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center).
There will be a live webcast of this event.
___________________________________________________________
7. Turkey’s Early Elections | Wednesday, May 16 | 2:00pm – 3:30pm | SETA Foundation | Register here |
On June 24, Turkey will hold its first presidential and parliamentary elections under the new presidential system that was adopted in the 2017 constitutional referendum. In the presidential race, several political parties have nominated their own candidates, while in the parliamentary elections, several parties have formed alliances to gain the majority in the legislature. The winner of the presidential election will form the first Turkish government under the new presidential system for the next five years. The parliamentary makeup will be of critical importance in the transition to the new system. Please join the SETA Foundation at Washington DC for a timely discussion on Turkey’s upcoming June elections, current coalitions, political party dynamics, and the future of Turkish politics. With speakers Ihsan Aktas, President, GENAR Research and Polling; Nebi Mis, Director, Domestic Policy, SETA Foundation; and Murat Yesiltas, Director, Security Policy, SETA Foundation; with moderator Kilic Bugra Kanat, Research Director, SETA Foundation.
___________________________________________________________
8. The Risk of Interstate War(s) in the Middle East | Thursday, May 17 | 10:00am – 11:30am | Middle East Institute | Register here |
While armed nonstate actors and proxy militias have been grabbing most headlines in recent years, the risk of interstate war in the Middle East is rising at an alarming rate. Tensions between Israel and Iran have boiled over several times in recent weeks in Syria, risking a serious escalation between the two countries. Iranian-supplied missiles have been launched from Houthi-held areas in Yemen targeting Riyadh and other Saudi towns and cities, risking an escalation between the two regional powers. Tension also persists between the United States and Iran as the Trump administration moves away from the JCPOA. In Syria, U.S. and Russian forces are flying missions in a crowded air and military space; the risk of escalation there between the two superpowers also cannot be discounted. How high is the risk of interstate war in the Middle East? What are the dynamics of these various tension axes? How could the United States and other regional and international powers help avert such potential outbreaks? The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a panel featuring Martin Indyk of the Brookings Institution, Kenneth Pollack of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), MEI’s Bilal Y. Saab, Julianne Smith of the Center for New American Security (CNAS) to discuss these mounting tensions and how best to address them. MEI’s senior vice president for policy research and programs, Paul Salem, will moderate the discussion.
___________________________________________________________
9. Decentralization in Tunisia — Empowering Towns, Engaging People | Thursday, May 17 | 10:00am – 11:30am | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | Register here |
Tunisia’s first ever democratic local elections in May are a crucial step in the country’s efforts to devolve power from the national to the local level. In their latest paper, Decentralization in Tunisia: Empowering Towns, Engaging People, Carnegie Fellow Sarah Yerkes and Vice President for Studies Marwan Muasher argue that if done right, decentralization will both empower local actors and introduce a new political class outside of the country’s traditionally dominant political parties. Successful decentralization requires strong political will from central government officials, who must demonstrate their commitment to participatory local governance both on paper and in practice, and from local officials who must build trust with their constituents, provide opportunities for citizen engagement, and prevent the recreation of ineffective institutions at the local level. With the participation of Carnegie Senior Vice President for Studies Thomas Carothers and PBS NewsHour’s P.J. Tobia in the first session (10:05 – 10:45); Director of the Tunisian Institute of Elected Officials Elyès Ghanmi, independent consultant on local and international governance Laura J. Hogg, and programmes director at the Jasmine Foundation and researcher at Sciences Po Paris Intissar Kherigi with Sarah Yerkes and Marwan Muasher in the second session (10:50 – 12:15).
A light lunch will follow.
___________________________________________________________
10. The Transatlantic Alliance and the Western Balkans | Thursday, May 17 | 10:30am – 12:30pm | Johns Hopkins SAIS | Register here |
Amid a growing number of foreign policy rifts between the United States and the European Union, the Western Balkans remains one region where the new US administration has identified an opportunity for close cooperation with Brussels. As European political leaders convene in Sofia for the Western Balkan Summit, we will talk about the past and present challenges to transatlantic cooperation in the Western Balkans and how these might be overcome. As European political leaders convene in Sofia for the Western Balkan Summit, we will talk about the past and present challenges to transatlantic cooperation in the Western Balkans and how these might be overcome. The timing for such a discussion is critical, given the renewed secessionist threats in the region and the need for a joint US and EU response to grapple with this challenge. A conversation with Lord Paddy Ashdown, Member of the House of Lords and former High Representative and EU Special Representative to Bosnia and Herzegovina; Ms. Marsaili Fraser; former Head of the Political Department of the EU Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina; and Mr. James O’Brien, Vice Chair of Albright Stonebridge Group and former Special Presidential Envoy for the Balkans; moderated by Dr. Majda Ruge, Fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins SAIS.
___________________________________________________________
11. Politics and Economics in Putin’s Fourth Term | Friday, May 18 | 9:45am – 11:00am | Atlantic Council | Register here |
As Vladimir Putin begins an unprecedented fourth term as president of Russia, his country stands at a critical crossroads. With a volatile economy and an increasingly authoritarian government, the country is facing high levels of political and economic uncertainty. At this event, Vladimir Milov, Russian opposition politician and economist, will join a panel of US-based experts to discuss the political and economic future of Putin’s Russia. Featuring Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center Dr. Anders Åslund and David M. Rubenstein Fellow at the Brookings Institution Dr. Alina Polyakova, with moderation by Director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center Ambassador John Herbst.
___________________________________________________________
12. Can Inclusive Peace Processes Work? Strategies for Meeting Resistance to Inclusion | Friday, May 18 | 10:00am – 11:30am | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register here |
Too often, peace processes only include dueling parties — leaving women; religious, indigenous, and ethnic groups; youth; and survivors of violence excluded from critical discussions that shape the future landscape of a country. Yet, sidelining their voices often results in a resurgence of conflict and fails to achieve comprehensive or sustainable peace. Join the U.S. Institute of Peace and Conciliation Resources for a discussion on overcoming challenges to inclusive peace processes and negotiated settlements. The research draws on case studies and local perspectives with local partners from Colombia, Bougainville and Nepal, exploring how inclusion is negotiated in war to peace transitions, common barriers to and trade-offs between inclusion and stability, and types of external and internal support that have been effective. In three segments: Presentation of Findings with Zahbia Yousuf (Senior Advisor, Peace and Transition Process, Conciliation Resources) and Sophia Close (Senior Advisor, Gender and Peacebuilding, Conciliation Resources); Application and Experiences on the Ground with Deepak Thapa (Director, Social Science Baha; Kathmandu, Nepal) and Rosa Emilia Salamanca (Director, Institute for Social and Economic Research and Action; Bogota, Colombia); and Policy Implications with Esra Cuhadar (JR Senior Fellow, U.S. Institute of Peace) and Jennifer Marron (Peace Process Advisor, Bureau of Conflict Stabilization and Operations, Department of State). With moderator Rosarie Tucci (Director, Inclusive Societies, U.S. Institute of Peace) and introduction by Nancy Lindborg (President, U.S. Institute of Peace).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No formula for success
The downsides of withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal are all too obvious. But it behooves any conflict management type like me to consider the other side: what does the Administration think it will accomplish, and why do some allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia support withdrawal?
The Administration is saying that its main reason for withdrawing was the sunset clause, that is the expiration of parts of the agreement seven years from now. That sounds silly: why not wait until just before the agreement expires to threaten re-imposition of sanctions in order to negotiate a follow-on agreement? The answer is that Washington is trying to prevent Iran from gaining the economic benefits that will accrue during those seven years.
The Administration’s goal is to squeeze Iran through not only re-imposition of US sanctions but also through secondary sanctions that will dis-incentivize European, Russian, Chinese, and other companies from doing business with Tehran. Proponents of withdrawal believe this will at least limit Iranian capabilities–non-nuclear as well as nuclear–and make Iran less of a threat in the future. Some Americans seem to hope it will even bring the Islamic Republic to its knees, precipitating regime change.
These effects would depend on virtually universal adherence to the re-imposed sanctions. Why would the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese play ball? A well-informed Israeli put it this way, with respect to the Europeans: they fear war with Iran more than they fear re-imposition of sanctions. They will, in other words, go along in order to avoid an American attack on Iran. Even if you believe that–and I doubt it–it leaves Russia and China unconstrained. They are unlikely to be as easily cowed as the Europeans. They and many other countries will gladly do business with Iran, surreptitiously if not openly.
There is thus no reason to believe that sanctions can be made nearly as tight as they were in 2015 when the UN Security Council was unanimous and the nuclear deal was negotiated. Nor do I think the Europeans will buckle easily to American will. They are far more likely to try to sustain the agreement, which is what Iranian President Rouhani is saying he wants to do as well, so long as Tehran sees the consequent economic benefits.
If the Europeans withdraw, I suspect the Iranians will ramp up their enrichment activity and weapons research so as to reduce their breakout time to well under the one year the nuclear deal was designed to maintain. But Tehran will also want enough transparency through international inspections to ensure that the Israelis and Americans can be reasonably confident they are not actually producing nuclear weapons. It is not in Tehran’s interest for there to be any doubt on that score, since Israel can be expected to react or even pre-empt in kind if it perceives that it might be subject to a nuclear attack.
As for the hope that Iran may be constrained or even fatally weakened by re-imposed sanctions, that day is far off. It suits the Islamic Republic, especially its hardliners, well to have a foreign enemy it can blame for its own economic failures. The public demonstrations of the last year or so occurred precisely because the regime could no longer blame only the foreigners. Nor do I know of any regime that has wanted nuclear weapons that couldn’t find the financial resources to fund the program. North Korea has demonstrated how even a very poor country can do it. Iran will do likewise, no matter what sanctions are re-imposed.
As in many things, Trump has over-estimated his own power and underestimated his enemy. That is not a formula for success.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
BIG mistake
As expected, Donald Trump today announced American withdrawal from the nuclear deal, re-imposition of sanctions, and a threat of sanctions against any country that helps Iran’s economy. He justifies these moves on the basis of Iran’s missile program, support for terrorists and regional behavior, none of which are covered under the agreement.
It is uncertain what will happen next, but it is Tehran’s move. Its main options are
- Maintain the nuclear agreement, along with Europe, China and Russia. That will create an enormous split in the West and discourage allies in Asia from joining with the US in a nuclear agreement with North Korea. It will also provide Iran with the lion’s share of the economic benefits it was promised, at least until the US levies secondary sanctions on European, Russian and Chinese banks and companies that do business with Iran. When the US does that, it will drive the Europeans into the arms of the Iranians, Chinese and Russians.
- Withdraw itself and re-embark on its nuclear weapons program. It is likely not much more than a year from having nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. We won’t know as much as we do today about Iran’s nuclear capability, because the Iranians will likely kick out the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. Tehran may try to maintain some level of nuclear transparency, not least because of the risks associated with misunderstanding of its intentions. No one in Iran should want Israel to conclude that a nuclear weapon is being mounted on a missile. We all know how the Israelis would deal with that eventuality.
I’d bet on Tehran choosing Option 1, which provides economic and diplomatic benefit not available in Option 2.
In both options, the US and Israel are losers. Trump has done precisely what the hardliners in Iran have wanted. His pitch at the end of his TV appearance to the Iranian people will fall on deaf ears, crowded out by the chorus of denunciation of the US and its unreliability. Some of the hardliners will want to retaliate against the US in Iraq, Syria, or even in the US.
This is the worst US foreign policy decision since the invasion of Iraq, but with one important difference: the entire intelligence community and a good part of the cabinet believes Iran has been fulfilling the terms of the nuclear agreement and the US is wrong to withdraw. President Bush at least had the lame excuse that the intelligence community told him Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. This president has no one else to blame for a blatantly BIG mistake.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, May 7 – May 13
- War by Other Means: Russian Disinformation Undermining Democracy, Spurring Conflict | Monday, May 7 | 2:00pm – 3:00pm | U.S. Institute for Peace | Register here |
Russia’s concerted disinformation campaign against the West is sowing confusion and distrust and undermining democratic institutions from Ukraine to the United States. Anne Applebaum—a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, thought leader and commentator on politics and foreign policy—and U.S. Institute of Peace Executive Vice President William Taylor will discuss the challenges to the West from Russian aggression and the weapons of disinformation and disruption, and what the United States and its allies need to do to respond. Join USIP for an engaging and timely discussion about Russia’s influence on democratic processes in both Ukraine and the United States. Featuring Anne Applebaum (Washington Post columnist, Pulitzer-Prize winning author and Professor of Practice, Institute of Global Affairs, London School of Economics) and William Taylor (Executive Vice President, USIP).
___________________________________________________________
- The Future of War and Challenges for Humanitarians – Featuring the President of the ICRC | Monday, May 7 | 2:00pm – 3:30pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
Will tomorrow’s wars be fought on the same terms as today’s? How will humanitarians need to adapt? Digitalization, artificial intelligence, and big data are transforming our world – and new technologies, such as autonomous weapons and the tools of cyber warfare, are new cause for humanitarian concern. Featuring Peter Maurer (President, International Committee of the Red Cross), Ambassador Martin Dahinden (Ambassador of Switzerland to the United States), Amb. Andreas Kellerhals (Director, Europa Institute, University of Zurich), and Robert S. Litwak (Senior Vice President and Director of International Security Studies, Wilson Center), as moderator. With introductory remarks by Jane Harman (Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center).
___________________________________________________________
- Governance and Security in North Africa and the Sahel | Tuesday, May 8 | 9:00am – 3:30 pm | Carnegie Endowment | Register here |
This conference brings together leading scholars, policy analysts, and practitioners from around the world to address the changing political, socioeconomic, and security dynamics within the Maghreb-Sahel region. Panelists will examine the expanding horizons of insecurity and the challenges of uneven development, political contestation, and socio-religious change. They will also discuss the wider implications of the trends for development, peace, and security in both regions.
Panel 1: Contestation and Adaptation in the Maghreb (9:00am – 10:30am) featuring Anouar Boukhars (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Azzedine Layachi (St. John’s University), Sarah Yerkes (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), and Michele Dunne (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) as moderator.
Panel 2: The Challenges of Governance and Security in the Sahel (10:45am – 12:15pm) featuring Boubacar N’Diaye (Wooster College), Ibrahim Yahya Ibrahim (University of Florida), Ousseina Alidou (Rutgers University), Azeez Olaniyan (Ekiti State University, Nigeria), and Cyril Obi (African Peacebuilding Network, Social Science Research Council) as moderator.
Panel 3: Cross-Border Security Challenges (12:45pm – 2:00pm) featuring Jacques Roussellier (American Military University, South Africa), Mohamed Gain (Ibn Tofail University, Morocco), Rawia Tawfik (Cairo University), and Anouar Boukhars (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) as moderator.
Panel 4: Libya’s Impact on Sahel-Maghreb Security (2:15pm – 3:30pm) featuring Lydia Sizer (Independent Consultant), Karim Mezran (Atlantic Council), Manal Taha (USIP), and Frederic Wehrey (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) as moderator.
___________________________________________________________
- The Rise of China’s Private Security Companies | Tuesday, May 8| 10:00am –11:30am | Carnegie Endowment | Register here |
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative includes many state-owned enterprises that are operating in foreign countries for the first time and face unprecedented security issues. Instead of relying on the People’s Liberation Army or People’s Armed Police, hundreds of newly formed private security companies (PSCs) have been created to provide security services for these new ventures. Aside from the competence of these PSCs, questions remain regarding their effectiveness as a stand-in for the Chinese military and ability to work in harmony with China’s state interests. Featuring Alessandro Arduino (Co-Director, Security and Crisis Management Program, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences) and Michael D. Swaine (Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).
___________________________________________________________
- Trump and the JCPOA: It’s the End of the World As We Know It? | Wednesday, May 9 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Hudson Institute | Register here |
The Trump Administration is expected to announce plans later this month for U.S. participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran Deal. With John Bolton directing the National Security Council, Mike Pompeo confirmed as the new Secretary of State, and Secretary James Mattis at the helm of the Defense Department, the President’s foreign policy team is in place. But while all the President’s men have successfully established their ability to influence the administration’s policy, their recommendations for U.S. participation in the JCPOA have been contradictory to date. Secretary Mattis has signaled that he supports the U.S. remaining in the Iran Deal, while Secretary Pompeo and Bolton seem to support withdrawal. Panelists include Michael Doran (Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute), Michael Pregent (Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute), Richard Goldberg (Senior Advisor, Foundation for Defense of Democracies), and Behnam Ben Taleblu (Research Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies).
___________________________________________________________
- Forty Years of U.S.-China Relations | Friday, May 11 | 8:30pm – 1:30pm | CSIS | Register here |
The United States and China are approaching the 40th anniversary of the establishment of formal diplomatic relations. To commemorate this historic milestone, CSIS is hosting a half-day event on the morning of May 11, 2018, to discuss the twists and turns in the relationship over the last four decades and the challenges that lay ahead. The conference will feature key policy figures and experts from both the United States and China. It will begin with a keynote address from a current member of Congress, then have two star-studded panels discussing “The First 40 Years” and “The Next 40 Years,” and then wrap up with a luncheon armchair discussion.
Panel 1: The First Forty (9:25 am – 10:40 am) featuring Mr. James Mann (Scholar-in-Residence, Johns Hopkins SAIS), Amb. Charlene Barshefsky (Partner, WilmerHale), Dr. Suisheng (Sam) Zhao (Director, Center for China-U.S. Cooperation, University of Denver), Dr. Wang (Henry) Huiyao (President, Center for China and Globalization) and Dr. Scott Kennedy (Deputy Director, Freeman Chair in China Studies, CSIS) as moderator.
Panel 2: The Next Forty (10:50am – 12:00pm) featuring Mr. Daniel H. Rosen (Partner, The Rhodium Group), Dr. Oriana Skylar Mastro (Assistant Professor, Georgetown University), Dr. Chen Dongxiao (President, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies), Mr. Wang Wen (Executive Dean, Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China), and Bonnie S. Glaser (Senior Adviser for Asia & Director, China Power Project, CSIS) as moderator.
Luncheon & Armchair Discussion: US-China Relations at a Crossroad (12:00pm – 1:30pm) featuring Sec. William S. Cohen (Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, The Cohen Group), Amb. Cui Tiankai (Chinese Ambassador to the United States), and Mr. Christopher K. Johnson (Senior Adviser and Freeman Chair in China Studies, CSIS) as moderator.
RSS - Posts
