Tag: Nuclear weapons

This week’s peace picks

Three Afghanistan events in within two days, two Iran events on successive days.  Hard to believe the thinktanks are thinking hard about audience, but it’s an ample week:

1.  Does Afghanistan’s Reconstruction Have a Future?, Monday February 4, 9:30 AM-10:30 AM, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Venue: Center for Strategic and International Studies, B1 A/B Conference Room, 1800 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006

Speakers: John F. Sopko, Robert D Lamb

The CSIS Program on Crisis, Conflict, and Cooperation (C3) invites you to the launch of SIGAR’s Quarterly Report: “Does Afghanistan’s Reconstruction Have a Future? Hard Questions” by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) John F. Sopko, Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction

Please join Special Inspector Sopko for a discussion about his recent visit to Afghanistan and SIGAR’s Quarterly Report launch to Congress. The observations from his trip mirror the message of the report: the United States faces very tough questions about the future of its reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. As the United States and allies prepare to transfer security and other responsibilities to the Afghan government, will civilian reconstruction efforts have the same security they need to continue? How will projects be monitored and progress measured? Above all, what are the objectives of civilian reconstruction and can the United States provide the support needed to achieve them?

To RSVP please email csima@csis.org
Follow live tweeting from @CSISC3 #SIGAR

Website: http://csis.org/event/does-afghanistan…

2.  Afghanistan 2014: Planning for the Transition, Monday February 4, 12:15 PM-1:45 PM, New America Foundation

Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St., NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036

Speakers: Saad Mohseni, Peter Bergen

Many wonder if Afghanistan can succeed as a stable, self-sustaining country when NATO completes its combat mission at the end of 2014. Afghanistan continues to rely on massive amounts of foreign aid, and its fledgling security forces are now taking the reins of a tough military campaign against well-entrenched insurgents. But some Afghans remain confident that their nation will pull through. Saad Mohseni, Chairman of the Moby Group, is among those who are confident in the country. His company’s portfolio includes Tolo TV, the leading broadcaster in Afghanistan, and he has been described as Afghanistan’s first media mogul. Please join the New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program for a conversation with Mohseni about the reasons for his bullishness on Afghanistan’s future.

Director, National Security Studies Program, New America Foundation

Website: http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/…

3.  The United States and Central Asia After 2014, Tuesday February 5, 4:00 PM- 6:00 PM, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Venue: Basement Level Conference Rooms A & B, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K St, NW, Washington, DC, 20006

Speakers: Jeffrey Mankoff, Thomas E. Graham, Frederick Starr, Andrew Kuchins

With the drawdown of international forces from Afghanistan in 2014, Central Asia will cease to be a region of pressing strategic focus in U.S. global strategy. This shift threatens to undermine the region’s precarious stability, which could in turn create new problems for the United States and the broader international community. Thus the United States must recast its strategy in Central Asia to address potential threats from within the region while also seeking productive engagement with other external players, including Russia and China.

The new report from the CSIS Russia & Eurasia Program, “The United States and Central Asia After 2014,” offers a number of useful recommendations grounded in regional realities that can help advance U.S. engagement in Central Asia and promote security cooperation, political stability, and sustainable regional economic growth.

Dr. Jeffrey Mankoff
Deputy Director and Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program at CSIS

Discussants:
Thomas E. Graham
Managing Director, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
S. Frederick Starr
Chairman, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute
Senior Research Professor, Johns Hopkins SAIS

Moderated by:
Dr. Andrew Kuchins
Director and Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program at CSIS

Website: http://csis.org/event/united-states-an…

4.  Dealing with a Nuclear Iran, Wednesday February 6, 8:30 AM- 12:30 PM, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Venue: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K St, NW, Washington DC 20006

Speakers: John Hamre, Olli Heinonen, James Cartwright, Jon Alterman, Andrew Kuchins, Haim Malka and more

Both the Bush and Obama administrations have attempted to end the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. Most outside parties fear the implications of Iran growing closer to a real nuclear weapons capability, including how security is calculated throughout the Middle East. The prospect of an Iranian bomb is so daunting that several countries-including the United States-have indicated a willingness to use military action to set back the Iranian effort, and the consequences of such a strike could themselves shake the foundations of diplomatic and security relationships throughout the Middle East.

With the U.S. and Israeli elections over, and with Iranian elections looming, are there alternatives to a steady Iranian march toward a nuclear weapons capacity? Is it possible to envision a solution or process that could be acceptable to Iran, the United States and its allies, other permanent members of the UN Security Council and Iran’s neighbors? If so, what would it look like and how should it be pursued? What steps should be taken to make it more likely that it is part of a genuine process of de-escalation rather than merely marking time until Iran acquires a weapon?

Please join us on Wednesday, February 6th for a half-day forum with CSIS experts to consider what successful solutions might require from Iran, the United States and other key states.

Please RSVP to the Proliferation Prevention Program at PPP@csis.org or (202) 457-8768.

8:30am-8:45am
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION
Dr. John Hamre, President and CEO, CSIS

8:45am-9:15am
A conversation with Dr. Olli Heinonen, Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University and Sharon Squassoni, Director, Proliferation Prevention Program

9:15am-9:45am
A conversation with General James Cartwright (USMC, Ret.), Harold Brown Chair in Defense Policy Studies and Dr. Jon Alterman, Zbigniew Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy and Director, Middle East Program

BREAK
10:00am-11:00am
Middle East Equities (Moderated by Dr. Andrew Kuchins, Director and Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program)

The view from Israel, Mr. Haim Malka, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Middle East Program, CSIS
The view from the Gulf, Dr. Jon Alterman, Zbigniew Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy and Director, Middle East Program
11:00am-12:30pm
Allies and Others (Moderated by Sharon Squassoni, Director, Proliferation Prevention Program)
Panelists:

European interests, Ms. Heather Conley, Senior Fellow and Director, Europe Program
Russian interests, Dr. Andrew Kuchins, Director and Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program,
Sanctions impact and oil markets – Mr. David Pumphrey, Co-Director and Senior Fellow, Energy & National Security Program

Website: http://csis.org/event/dealing-nuclear-…

6.  Bosnia and Herzegovina: Economic Reform to Prosperity for Fiscal Collapse and What to Do About It?, Wednesday February 6, 10:00 AM- 12:00 PM, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

Venue: Bernstein-Offit Building, Johns Hopkins SAIS, 1717 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington DC 500

Speakers: Enes Cengic, Mujo Selimovic, Goran Nedic, Dominik Tolksdorf, Jonathan Moore, Daniel Serwer, Zivko Budimir

Enes Cengic, CEO of Energoinvest; Mujo Selimovic, CEO of MIMS Group; Goran Nedic, executive board member of the America-Bosnia Foundation; Dominik Tolksdorf, TAPIR and Security Fellow at the SAIS Center for Transatlantic Relations (CTR); Jonathan Moore, director of the Office of South Central European Affairs at the U.S. Department of State; and Daniel Serwer (moderator), SAIS CTR senior fellow and senior research professor in the Conflict Management Program, will discuss this topic. Zivko Budimir, president of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, will deliver opening remarks.

Website: http://sais-jhu.edu/events/2013-02-06-…

7.  Moving to Decision: US Policy toward Iran, Thursday February 7, 12:00 PM- 2:00 PM, Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Venue: Stern Library and Conference Room, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1828 L Street NW Suite 1050, Washington DC 20036

Speakers: Ambassador Thomas Pickering, Ambassador James F. Jeffrey

All signs point to 2013 being a year of decision on Iran. In particular, the Obama administration must crystallize its diplomatic and military options for confronting the challenge, which includes making the president’s “prevention” threat credible in the absence of clear redlines and addressing concerns that a pivot to Asia could leave America militarily exposed in a confrontation.

To help U.S. policymakers prepare for the weighty choices that will emerge in the coming weeks and months, The Washington Institute will release a new report assessing the diplomatic, military, and broader strategic response to Tehran’s nuclear activities.

To mark the publication of this study, the Institute will host a Policy Forum luncheon with Ambassador Thomas Pickering and the report’s author, Ambassador James F. Jeffrey.

Thomas Pickering is a former career U.S. diplomat who served with distinction for five decades. His many posts included undersecretary of state for political affairs and ambassador to the UN, Russia, India, Israel, Nigeria, Jordan, and El Salvador, among other key assignments in Washington and abroad. Currently, he is vice chair of the international consulting firm Hills & Company.

James F. Jeffrey is a distinguished visiting fellow at The Washington Institute and former U.S. ambassador to Turkey (2008-2010) and Iraq (2010-2012). He also served as assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor in the George W. Bush administration.

Website: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pol…

8. The Battle for Syria, Friday February 8, 12:15 PM- 2:00 PM, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave, NW Washington DC, 20036

Speakers: Karim Sadjadpour, Paul Sham, Frederic Hof, Henri Barkey, Emile Hokayem

As Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad mercilessly clings to power, proxy battles among neighboring countries-namely Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and Qatar-are helping determine which armed factions will emerge victorious from the rubble. What role are external powers playing in Syria’s political and humanitarian crisis, how is Assad’s unraveling affecting regional power dynamics, and what are the implications for U.S. policy?

Website: http://carnegieendowment.org/events/?f…

 

Tags : , , , ,

Adagio

There is slow movement, adagio not andante, on two fronts, Syria and the Iran nuclear issue:

  1. Syrian opposition leader Moaz al Khatib’s proposal for conditional talks with the regime has elicited some interest on the part of Syria, Iran and Russia.
  2. The P5+1 (that’s the US, UK, France, Russia and China + Germany) have agreed to meet with Iran to discuss nuclear issues February 25 in Kazakhstan.  The US and Iran are indicating willingness to meet bilaterally as well.

There is no breakthrough here.  These are small steps forward at the glacial pace that often characterizes diplomatic moves.  But given how frozen things seemed on both fronts even a few days ago, this is progress.

On Syria, Khatib’s proposal was a personal one, made initially on his Facebook page without approval of his Coalition.  It reflects in part the view of the National Coordination Committee, which is an inside Syria opposition group that has long wanted to start a dialogue with the regime.  The expatriate opposition was not pleased with the proposition.  My guess is that the Americans are okay with it, even though they continue to insist that Bashar al Asad step aside.

Dialogue could lead to a split in the regime between hawks who want to continue the crackdown and doves who see promise in talking with the opposition.  Of course it could also lead to a similar split in the opposition, with hardline Islamists opting to continue the fighting and relative moderates interested in talking.  The key issue is whether Bashar is prepared to leave power.  If not, dialogue with the regime is likely to become a snare and a delusion, wrecking the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces that Khatib leads.

On Iran’s nuclear program, the outline of a deal is increasingly clear:

  • limits on uranium enrichment (e.g., an end to Iranian enrichment above 20%, shipment out of the country of stockpile uranium enriched beyond 5%, and likely also something restricting plutonium production, which has not been much of a public issue so far);
  • a serious, verifiable and irreversible commitment not to develop nuclear weapons (including “coming clean” on past nuclear weapons-related activities);
  • an end to American and multilateral economic and financial sanctions.

It is the sequencing of the many steps that need to be taken to get to this result that has caused so much difficulty.  The Americans and Europeans want the nuclear commitments implemented up front.  The Iranians want sanctions relief first.  Lack of trust makes compromise difficult, but it would not seem completely out of reach, provided Iran is prepared to make a serious and verifiable commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.

What we’ve got here are two instances of coercive diplomacy, where outside powers are bringing pressure to bear in order to end one regime and to curtail fundamentally the options available to another one.   The odds of success are not high, since the regimes involved have a good deal at stake (and are allied with each other).  Bashar al Asad would have to come to the conclusion that his life is worth more than his position.  Tehran would have to come to the conclusion that regime survival is more likely if it accepts limits on its nuclear program than if it rejects them.

On the other side, the key ingredient is credibility.

The Americans and Europeans need to convince Bashar that they are fully committed to end his rule.  To do so, they need to back more fully and visibly Khatib’s Coalition, making it a serious governing alternative to the Syrian regime.  This is more important now than arms supplies, which seem to be reaching the rebellion in substantial if not overwhelming quantities.

Washington and Brussels also need to convince Tehran that they will tighten sanctions further if there is no nuclear deal.  And Washington needs to make the threat of military force more credible than it appeared at former Senator Hagel’s confirmation hearing last week.

Even  if talks with the Syrian regime and with the Iranians begin soon, at this pace we still have a long way to go before we can be certain of acceptable outcomes on either front.  But slow movement is better than none.

Tags : , , , , , ,

Masterful

Secretary of State-designate John Kerry was masterful today in his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing.  It wasn’t so much the details of what he said, but the breadth and depth.  This is a guy who really knows international affairs.

His prepared statement was notable for some high points:  the emphasis on the importance of American economic health in determining the country’s role abroad, the clarity about preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons and the vigor of his defense of the State Department budget.  I would also note that John Kerry regards USAID, whose functions he mentioned but not its name, as an integral part of the State Department.

Then Kerry showed a lot of agility in dealing with not only the questions but also a demonstrator, expressing respect for her cries to be heard.  He defended Secretary of Defense-designate Hagel’s views on getting rid of nuclear weapons, which he said was an aspiration for a world different from the one we live in today.  He described his own changed view of Syria’s President Asad, whom he now hopes to see go soon.

He showed his clear commitment to maintaining the high priority Secretary Clinton has given to gender issues.  He was non-committal on the Keystone pipeline, deferring to the official process under way.  He was gentle with the Russians, citing their cooperation on particular issues (other than Syria).   He was supportive of American anti-corruption and human rights efforts abroad.  He showed he knows what is going on in Sudan’s Blue Nile and South Kordofan provinces.  He parried accusations about Benghazi.

Of course part of the reason for this masterful performance is the attitude of the questioners, who showed enormous respect for their long-standing colleague.  Gone was the idiot questioning of yesterday’s hearing with Secretary of State Clinton on the Benghazi murders.  There was little “gotcha.”  Certainly had the President nominated Susan Rice, who is far more combative, the tone if not the substance of the hearing would have been different.  In a week’s time the Hagel hearing may be far more contentious, even if Hagel himself comes close to matching Kerry in knowledge and equanimity.

On Syria, Kerry advocated changing Bashar al Asad’s calculations, but he was unclear about the means to achieve that.  He wants an orderly transition.  The Russians appear willing, but differ on the timing and manner of Bashar’s departure.  Kerry fears sectarian strife, implosion of the Syrian state and what they might mean for chemical weapons.

The Syrian opposition has not been ready to talk, Kerry said.  In a sentence he struck–one of his few moments of hesitation in this long hearing–he started to say that we need to increase the ability of the opposition to do something unspecified.   I’d sure like to know how that sentence was supposed to end:  increase their ability to negotiate?  increase their ability to strike the regime militarily?  There’s a big difference.  It sounded to me more like he wanted them to be more flexible on negotiations, but I’m not certain.

Kerry hit a lot of other subjects.  On Afghanistan, he put his chips on a good April 2014 presidential election, which has to provide legitimacy to Karzai’s successor.  Kerry wants “a metric” for stopping infiltration and attacks on Americans from Pakistani territory.  He noted China is “all over” Africa (and America has to get into the game).  Al Qaeda has dispersed at the urging of Osama bin Laden and is now a threat in the Arabian Peninsula and the Maghreb, where the solution is not only drone strikes but (unspecified) civilian efforts.  We don’t like what Egyptian President Morsi says about Jews, but we need him to maintain the peace treaty with Israel.  On Israel/Palestine, Kerry was cagey and refused to be drawn out, except to reiterate commitment to the two-state solution.  The solution to climate change is energy policy, which will enable job growth.  The “war on drugs” is ill-conceived.  We need to do more on the demand side.

Here is the lengthy (four hours?) video of the hearing:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Tags : , , , , , , , , , ,

Frugal superpower puts on airs

With Senate hearings scheduled for January 24 for former Senator John Kerry as Secretary of State and January 31 for former Senator Charles Hagel as Secretary of Defense, the American press is wondering what their nominations portend.  Will there be big changes in policy?  Or will there be more continuity?

At least one of my colleagues worries that Hagel’s nomination will be seen as undermining President Obama’s commitment to preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but Hagel will also have a great deal of credibility the day he tells the Iranians the deal they’ve been offered is the very best they can expect.  Even on Iran, I anticipate more continuity in attitude than abrupt change in direction.  That is partly because Obama is still in charge.  Hagel will not only conform what he says to the Administration’s policy, he will also want to maximize the chances for success in blocking Iran from getting nuclear weapons.  That necessarily means making the military option credible, even if in private life he was inclined against it.

But for other issues circumstances may not remain constant.  In particular the budget challenge is likely to be greater than in the past.  The government ran on continuing resolutions throughout Obama’s first term, to the dismay of conservatives.  That gives government departments relatively decent financing, compared to what they would get if Congress triggers the sequester or if the House Republicans get the dollar cut in expenditures for every dollar increase in the budget ceiling that they are demanding.  If instead of continuing current expenditure levels, we head in the direction of big cuts, both Defense and State are likely to get hammered.

Defense, bloated after years of doubling its budget even without counting Iraq and Afghanistan war spending, can afford it better than State, though State (and USAID) are relatively flush as well.  The problem is that both institutions have far-flung capital commitments to bases and embassies that are essentially fixed costs.  Even if you cut back on personnel presence overseas, you can’t turn off the heat and electricity.  It will take time and effort to de-accesssion unneeded facilities.  Bureaucrats at both State and Defense will be more inclined to keep the heat and lights on, hoping for budget increases in the future.

Senator Kerry visited Rome once when I was Charge’ d’affaires ad interim there.  He wondered why we needed 800 people in the diplomatic mission to Italy.  I said we didn’t, but that 36 different agencies of the U.S. government had made separate decisions that put them there.  He threatened to cut the Embassy budget.  I noted that would leave more than 90% of the staff still screaming for State Department services–their salaries and benefits were paid by the mostly domestic agencies that put people in Rome.

None of this will be discussed in the confirmation hearings, which are conducted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC).  It has no budgetary responsibility–that is the purview of the appropriations subcommittees in both House and Senate.  SFRC will focus not on budget and overseas presence but rather on “policy” issues.  Right now that likely means the Benghazi murder of U.S. diplomatic personnel (Hillary Clinton will appear in Congress a day before Kerry’s hearing to testify on that unforgiving subject), the Al Qaeda push in Mali, the hostage crisis in Algeria, Iran’s nuclear program, maybe a bit of Syria and Egypt and a quick look at Asia (rising China, nuclear North Korea, America’s treaty obligations).  My order of priority might be different, but that’s because I’ve got a 3-5 year time frame.  The Congress has more like a one week-one year time frame.

There is little doubt that Hagel and Kerry will be confirmed.  The question is how far they will have to go to satisfy Congressional critics in committing the United States to military action in Iran, Syria and Mali.  The President seems determined to keep his powder dry for Iran, but there is a good deal of agitation for more military support to the Syrian opposition and for assisting the French intervention in Mali.  Neither budgets nor domestic politics will warrant much more than that, even if the Senators give eloquent speeches advocating it.  We are in the era of the frugal superpower, but you won’t know it from the upcoming hearings.

Tags : , , , , , , , ,

This week’s peace picks

The holiday season has ended.  Monday is particularly busy:

 

1. A Bleak Winter:  Providing Needed Aid to Those Fleeing Conflict in Syria, Monday January 14, 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM, Migration Policy Institute

Venue:  Migration Policy Institute, 1400 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 300 (third floor), MPI Conference Room

Speakers:   Mort Abramowitz, George Rupp, Fadi al Khankan, Kathleen Newland

The humanitarian crisis in and around Syria is intensifying as more people are forced to flee their homes in the face of continuing violence. More than half a million Syrians have left the country, at least two million are internally displaced, and many more have seen their normal lives and livelihoods destroyed. As winter sets in, stocks of food and fuel are dwindling. The strain on neighboring countries is testing their ability to keep borders open to Syrian refugees and international assistance is not keeping up with the growing needs. No one seems to expect an early end to the displacement, even if the Assad regime falls in the near future.

A delegation of the International Rescue Committee (IRC) visited Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Iraq in late November to discuss the humanitarian crisis with refugees, officials from host and donor governments, representatives of international humanitarian organizations and local nongovernmental agencies; and to get a firsthand look at the work of IRC partners and staff who are directly involved in providing assistance to the refugees and to Syrians trapped inside the country.

Please join MPI and IRC on January 14 to discuss the delegation’s report, augmented by the perspective of Dr. Al Khankan, representing the Syrian Expatriates Organization, an organization of Syrian professionals who are raising funds, sending critically needed supplies, and providing direct humanitarian assistance within Syria. The discussion will be moderated by MPI’s Kathleen Newland, who is an IRC overseer and was a member of the delegation that produced the report.

Register for this event here.

 

2.  Conference on Israel’s 2013 Election, Monday January 14, 10:00 AM – 3:30 PM, Georgetown University

Venue:  Georgetown University, 37th and O Streets NW, Washington, DC 20057, Copley Hall, Copley Formal Lounge

Speakers: Moran Stern, Natan Sachs, Natasha Mozgovaya, Ghaith Al-Omari, Dennis Ross, Dan Schueftan, Robert Lieber, David Makovsky, Robert Wexler

A conference examining the upcoming general election in Israel, scheduled for January 22, 2013. Experts will discuss the issues that will be factors influencing Israelis as they prepare to go cast their ballots.

This all-day conference in Copley Hall’s Formal Lounge will feature three panels examining domestic politics, regional politics, and Israel-US relations.

Domestic Politics, 10:00 am-11:30 am
Moran Stern (Georgetown, moderator); Natan Sachs (Saban Center at the Brookings Institution); Natasha Mozgovaya (Haaretz Daily Newspaper)

Regional Politics, 11:40 am-1:00 pm
Moran Stern (Georgetown, moderator); Ghaith Al-Omari (American Task Force on Palestine); Amb. Dennis Ross (Georgetown); Dan Schueftan (Georgetown); Gunol Tol (Middle East Institute)

Israel-US relations, 2:00 pm-3:30 pm
Robert Lieber (Georgetown, moderator); David Makovsky (Washington Istitute for Near East Policy); The Honorable Robert Wexler (S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace).

Register for this event here.

 

3. A Kingdom’s Future:  Saudi Arabia Through the Eyes of its Twentysomethings, Monday January 14, 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM, Wilson Center

Venue:  Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004, 5th Floor

Speaker:  Caryle Murphy

The “Arab Awakening” has focused the world’s attention on young people in the Arab world, where they have been agitating for political reform. But what about young Saudis, who have not taken to the streets like many of their peers? Have they been affected by the “Arab Awakening?” A Kingdom’s Future: Saudi Arabia Through the Eyes of Its Twentysomethings explores the self-image of young Saudis and what they want when it comes to education, marriage, politics, religion, and personal liberties. It is based on research during Murphy’s three-year reporting tour in the kingdom, as well as scores of interviews while a public policy scholar at the Wilson Center.

Register for this event here.

 

3. Turkey Rising:  Challenges and Prospects for the New Administration, Monday January 14, 12:30 PM, Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Venue:  Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1828 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 1050, Stern Library and Conference Room

Speakers: Ross Wilson, James F. Jeffrey, Soner Cagaptay

With a booming economy and improving ties with the United States and NATO, Turkey now has a real chance to become a regional power. Yet formidable challenges remain, such as resolving the Kurdish issue, competing with Iran, and easing domestic political friction. To assess these issues and their impact on U.S. policy, The Washington Institute invited Ambassador Ross Wilson, Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, and Soner Cagaptay to address a Policy Forum luncheon in Washington, DC, on Monday, January 14, 2013, starting at 12:30 p.m. EST. The speakers will also discuss Dr. Cagaptay’s new report on Turkey.

Register for this event here.

 

4. What’s Next for Syria:  Humanitarian and Political Perspectives, Monday January 14, 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM, Brookings Institution

Venue:  Brookings Institution, 1774 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Falk Auditorium

Speakers: Ross Wilson, James F. Jeffrey, Soner Cagaptay

With a booming economy and improving ties with the United States and NATO, Turkey now has a real chance to become a regional power. Yet formidable challenges remain, such as resolving the Kurdish issue, competing with Iran, and easing domestic political friction. To assess these issues and their impact on U.S. policy, The Washington Institute invited Ambassador Ross Wilson, Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, and Soner Cagaptay to address a Policy Forum luncheon in Washington, DC, on Monday, January 14, 2013, starting at 12:30 p.m. EST. The speakers will also discuss Dr. Cagaptay’s new report on Turkey.

Register for this event here.

 

5.  The International Development Assistance Ecosystem of the U.S.:  A Development and Foreign Policy Strategic Asset, Monday January 14, 3:00 PM – 5:00 PM, CSIS

Venue:  CSIS, 1800 K Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, B1 Conference Room

Speakers: Carol Lancaster, Paul O’Brien, Tessie San Martin, Susan Reichle, Asif Shaikh, Daniel Runde

Since the end of the Cold War, the method by which the United States delivers foreign aid to the developing world has changed considerably. During this time, as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) saw large-scale staff reductions coupled with an increase in programs, a large base of U.S for-profit and nonprofit organizations grew up to implement projects and programs in the developing world. Although the budgetary situation reversed beginning in 2002, staffing levels at USAID remained low and a need to engage the U.S. implementer community continues. Concurrently, a broader discussion occurred over the effectiveness of development assistance by major donors. This effort, which resulted in the Paris Declaration of 2005 and later agreements at Accra in 2008 and Busan in 2011, enshrined the notion of country ownership—that the developing world must drive its priorities to ensure sustainability. The Obama administration launched its USAID Forward agenda to re-establish USAID as the premier development agency in the world. A central aspect of this agenda are reforms designed to reduce the Agency’s dependence on contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with U.S. development implementers and shift to a greater use of government to government support and local organizations.

The report argues that the current U.S. ecosystem of international development assistance should be treated as a strategic asset that plays an important role in meeting U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives. As with all systems, it can and should be improved; however, it should be strengthened, not weakened. This system, while imperfect, delivers a level of accountability and transparency for the U.S. government that is vital to continued political support for foreign assistance. The development implementers must do more to evolve to meet the changing nature of how the U.S. government sees development and the broader trends in the field. However, there are significant risks associated with USAID’s proposed reforms, which, if fully implemented, may not achieve the results desired.

Please join us for a panel discussion of this timely report. Copies will be available at the meeting and online the day of the event.

RSVP for this event to ppd@csis.org.

 

6.  Two Years Later:  Assessing Tunisia’s Progress since the Jasmine Revolution, Monday January 14, 5:30 PM – 7:30 PM, Johns Hopkins University

Venue:  Johns Hopkins University, Bernstein Offit Building, 1717 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Room 500

Speakers: Leila Chennoufi, Eamonn Gearon, Stephen McInerny, Samia Msadek, Mohamed Malouche, Daniele Moro

On January 14, 2011, Ben Ali was forced to leave Tunisia by a popular uprising commonly known as the Jasmine Revolution. This historic event triggered mass protests that would sweep the Arab world, forcing other longstanding authoritarian leaders from power and potentially transforming the region. Since that time, Tunisia has witnessed the country’s first free and fair elections, the emergence of new political parties and coalitions, and the many difficulties of maintaining stability amid an uncertain political transition. On the second anniversary  of this historic moment, it is important to assess Tunisia’s progress in its difficult transition to democracy and examine the prospects and challenges that lie ahead.

Register for this event here.

 

7.  U.S. Grand Strategy in the Middle East:  Is There One?, Wednesday January 16, 9:30 AM – 12:00 PM, Rayburn House Office Building

Venue: Rayburn House Office Buidling, Washington, DC 20515, Gold Room (2168)

Speakers: Chas W. Freeman Jr., William B. Quandt, Marwan Muasher, John Duke Anthony, Thomas R. Mattair

The Middle East Policy Council invites you and your colleagues to our 71st Capitol Hill Conference. Live streaming of this event will begin at approximately 9:30am EST on Wednesday, January 16th and conclude around noon. A questions and answers session will be held at the end of the proceedings. Refreshments will be served.

RSVP for this event to info@mepc.org.

 

8.  The Iran Nuclear Challenge:  Explore Policy Options, Wednesday January 16, 12:30 PM – 1:30 PM, American Security Project

Venue: American Security Project, 1100 New York Ave, NW Washington DC, Suite 710W, Conference Room E

Speakers: William Fallon, Frank Kearney, Lawrence Wilkerson, Stephen Cheney

Join us for a discussion with retired military leaders on U.S. military options towards Iran. The discussion will begin promptly at 12:30 p.m.  Please arrive by 12:15 p.m. for registration.
We hope you can join us.

RSVP for this event to events@americansecurityproject.org.

 

9.  Freedom in the World 2013 Launch, Wednesday January 16, 1:30 PM – 3:00 PM, Council on Foreign Relations

Venue: Council on Foreign Relations, 1777 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006

Speakers: David Kramer, Mark Lagon, Arch Puddington, Jill Dougherty, Larry Diamond, Tamara Wittes

Please join us as we release the findings of Freedom in the World 2013, the latest edition of Freedom House’s annual assessment of political and civil rights. This event will feature an in-depth discussion of advances and setbacks in freedom over the past year and the challenges these trends pose for American foreign policy.

Register for this event here.

 

10.  The Way Forward in Afghanistan, Friday January 18, 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM, Heritage Foundation

Venue: Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20002, Lehrman Auditorium

Speakers:  Lisa Curtis, Thomas Donnelly, Bill Roggio, Steven Bucci

The United States is moving into a new phase of engagement with Afghanistan as it draws down its combat presence in the country. During last year’s presidential campaign, President Obama declared a goal of bringing American troops home and focusing instead on “nation building” here in the U.S. But a hasty U.S. troop withdrawal and a failure to remain seriously engaged with the Afghans in other ways risks sacrificing everything the U.S. has fought for over the last decade.

What are the best options for the pace and scope of withdrawal over the next two years? What level and type of U.S. troop presence should remain in Afghanistan post-2014 to ensure the country does not revert to its previous status of terrorist safe haven? What are the realistic possibilities for reconciling with the Taliban in a way that preserves democratic and human rights gains?

Join us as a distinguished group of experts addresses these and other questions related to the future of U.S. engagement with Afghanistan.

Register for this event here.

 

Tags : , , , , , , , ,

This week’s peace picks

A light week as Washington gets back into the swing of things after the holidays. 

 1. Crux of Asia Conference, Thursday January 10, 9:30 AM – 4:15 PM, Carnegie Endowment

Venue:  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036

Speakers:   Jessica Matthews, Kurt Campbell, David Shambaugh, Frederic Grare, Ashley Tellis, Xia Liping, Srikanth Kondapalli, Daniel Blumenthal, Shen Dingli, Bharath Gopalaswamy, Kevin Pollpeter,  Zha Daojiong, Sunjoy Joshi, Sean Mirski

The rise of China and India as major world powers promises to test the established global order in the coming decades. If history is any indication, Beijing, New Delhi, and Washington may all have different visions for this new international system. China and India’s many developmental similarities belie their deep strategic rivalry, which shapes their competing priorities on major global issues. As both states grow, their views on the international system will become increasingly relevant for their relationship, for the United States, and for the world as a whole.

Register for this event here.

 

2.  Discussion with Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction on Challenges Facing the US, Thursday January 10, 2:30 PM – 4:00 PM, Stimson Center

Venue:  Stimson Center, 1111 19th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, 12th Floor

Speakers: John Sopko, Ellen Laipson

In light of plans to transfer security responsibility for Afghanistan to its government by the end of 2014, the United States has a two year window of opportunity to overcome challenges presently facing its reconstruction efforts.  Many of those challenges have been identified by audits and investigations conducted by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.  Most recently its contributions include chronicling “persistent delays in instituting basic anti-money laundering procedures” at the Kabul Airport, detailing the Afghanistan National Security Forces’ difficulties in assuming responsibility for their operations and maintenance costs, and auditing the US’ Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund in response to schedule slips and inadequate sustainability plans.

Afghanistan’s struggles with insecurity and corruption are likely to continue well past the 2014 transition.  Meanwhile the US has entered an era of fiscal austerity that will limit resources available to the Pentagon, State Department, and other government agencies involved in reconstruction.  Sustainability has become one of the foremost issues for reconstruction investments as a consequence.

Mr. John Sopko’s address at the Stimson Center is his first on-the-record, public speech since taking office in July 2012, and he will use it to comment on the factors that underpin these challenges.  Ellen Laipson, Stimson’s President and CEO, will moderate a panel discussion to follow, adding some additional perspectives about reconstruction efforts.  We hope this event will provide a useful public forum to consider the US role in Afghanistan’s reconstruction, through 2014 and beyond.

Register for this event here.

 

3. Overkill:  The Case for Reevaluating the U.S. Nuclear Strategy, Thursday January 10, 6:30 PM – 10:00 PM, Cato Institute

Venue:  Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Avenue Northwest, Washington, DC 20001

Speaker:  Christopher Preble

The United States has far more nuclear weapons and delivery systems than deterrence requires. The triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and bomber aircraft reflects bureaucratic Cold War planning, not strategic vision. Can the United States achieve an effective nuclear program which makes us safer, while adapting to the need for a smaller defense budget? Join us as Christopher Preble, the Vice President of Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, discusses U.S. nuclear strategy, and the need to bring it into the 21st century.

Register for this event here.

Tags : , , , ,
Tweet