Tag: South Sudan
Public servants for now and the future
Here is an interview with Patricia Thomson, former Executive Vice President of the United States Institute of Peace. She has spent most of the last ten years devoted to the School of Public Service in Juba, South Sudan.
You are the founder of the School of Public Service at the University of Juba in South Sudan. You called for its establishment more than ten years ago, and eight years ago you and I discussed its successes and challenges, Since then, South Sudan has experienced continued internal conflicts, as well as a civil war in Sudan, its northern neighbor, that has impacted South Sudan’s oil exports.
Update
Q: Please update us on what the School of Public Service has been able to accomplish. Has it been able to function effectively? How many graduates are there? Where are they working?
A: Thanks, Dan. It’s hard to believe over ten years have passed since we first began lobbying for the school in 2013. We admitted our first class in August 2015, and since then the School has continued to operate without disruption; this despite South Sudan’s ongoing conflicts and widespread economic instability. We have an eight-year track record of success, and hundreds of graduates working across the government of South Sudan, as well as with a wide-variety of international and nongovernmental organizations [IOs and NGOs].
Q: Are your graduates making a difference?
A: Yes. Not only are they leaders, they are change agents – positively impacting their organizations, as well as the thousands of people those organizations serve. In a recent poll of alumni, over 95% of respondents reported that the School gave them valuable skills that have significantly improved their ability to both manage and lead.
Looking forward
Q: Looking forward, what are the main educational priorities of the School?
A: SPS is a graduate school. We’ve designed the core program, a Master in Public Policy (MPP), for people who already have technical skills acquired through their undergraduate education and some real-world experience – teachers, engineers, financial manager, healthcare providers. We help them develop leadership, management, and policy-making skills. This has been our priority to date.
But we are now entering a new period of development (our more technically inclined staff call it SPS 2.0). During this phase our priorities include women and NGOs, two groups vital to the development of the country. We’ve already mobilized two programs. The Leadership Crucible is a year-long program for undergraduate women interested in politics and public service. The NGO Initiative is a center of learning and research that recognizes the vital role NGOs play in developing the country, as well as in providing services to its citizens.
I’m particularly excited about the NGO Initiative’s first program, the NGO Management Certificate. This year-long program for both current and prospective NGO managers enables them to continue to work while studying with us.
We are also developing specialized MPPs. So, in addition to our current degree – an MPP with a Concentration in Leadership and Management – we are mobilizing an MPP with a Concentration in Environmental Policy. We are also considering degrees in Public Finance, Education Policy, and Health Policy. I really hope to foster more cross-disciplinary collaboration at the University – the MPP with a Concentration in Environmental Policy is a collaboration between SPS and the School of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies. So…lot’s going on at SPS…
Challenges
Q: It’s been a tough decade for South Sudan. How are its challenges impacting the School?
A: Yes, it has been a tough decade. Since independence South Sudan has suffered from internal conflicts, natural disasters, and kleptocracy. Patronage systems, facilitated by easy access to oil money, probably limited violent conflict, but also diverted funds from development and camouflaged the country’s deep ethnic and political divides. Now one of the biggest issues is the impact of the war in Sudan, particularly on oil revenue.
To get oil to international markets, South Sudan is completely dependent on two pipelines running through Sudan, and one of these pipelines hasn’t been working for months. The value of the pound has plummeted, the cost-of-living has increased, and the government is struggling to pay its bills. All of this impacts the prospects for long-term peace and development.
So, what does all this mean for SPS? South Sudan has always underfunded public service. Now things are even worse. For example, public servants, including our staff, haven’t been paid for almost a year. Obviously, that impacts our ability to fulfill our mission – although I am constantly amazed by our team, who remain committed to SPS and continue to show up. Since about half of our students work in government, the funding situation also impacts enrollment. When your employer isn’t paying salaries, It’s hard to pay tuition.
Financing
Q: So how are you addressing this lack of funding for staff and for tuition?
A: We highlight the non-financial benefits of working for a university (the gravitas that comes with the position, the ability to do research and to develop emerging leaders). More importantly, we allow staff to consult or to have a second job. We are also working with the university and others to secure outside funding to supplement staff salaries, as well as to fund scholarships. Finally, we are fundraising for an endowment.
Q: An endowment? Talk more about that?
A: We are calling it the Endowment for Public Service Leadership. $2 million will cover the cost of a Professor of Public Leadership and 40 scholarships every year for 25 years. Like all endowments, the original funding will be invested. Each year, returns earned from the endowment will be withdrawn to cover the cost of the scholarships and the endowed professorship. A trust located in the United States or Europe will oversee it.
Funding the program this way has several advantages. First, the programs involved will continue to have access to reliable stable funds for the life of the endowment. Second, the funding will grow without the need for additional contributions. Finally, the endowment can be placed in reserve when necessary. For example, if classes are suspended due to an emergency, the interest that would have been spent to run the program will be left in the endowment. It will continue to grow until classes resume or the money can be re-purposed. Endowments are a well-tested funding model. But they are still unusual in much of Africa. Once proven, I hope the model will be replicated.
Q: Forty scholarships for 25 years for $2M, that’s hard to believe?
A: I know (laughter)! Two million is enough because tuition is so low, currently $1000/year. SPS offers such great value. Exchange rates are a source of much discussion here in Juba. Instead of converting dollars to pounds, I find myself converting to number of scholarships. For example, if the average salary of an expat working for an international NGO or the UN is about $110,000, that’s the equivalent of 110 SPS scholarships. The World Bank recently approved $15M for an institution-building project in South Sudan. That equates to 15,000 scholarships – 400 years worth.
School leadership
Q: You gave up your position as Dean of the School. Why did you do that? Do you still think it was a wise decision?
A: Absolutely. Dr. Anne Itto, a freedom-fighter, political party leader, and former Minister of Agriculture took over from me. When she left to represent South Sudan in the East African Legislative Assembly, Dr. Paul Atem took over. He has experience as a state minister and as an advisor to the national government. He also has a PhD in Planning from the University of South Australia.
Two alumni ably support Dr. Atem: the Deputy Dean, Elia Makur and the Registrar, Michael Nhial Mabil Koak. I continue to believe that the School of Public Service is a national institution of which South Sudan can be proud. It should be led by a South Sudanese. And I like the sound of Dean Emerita (smile).
Values
Q: Do you see South Sudan’s tribal conflicts reflected in the School and its functioning? If so, how has that been handled?
A: It hasn’t been too much of a problem, but when tribal biases do emerge, we see it as a learning opportunity. Better to address them and try to change mindsets than pretend they’re not there. We also try to manage them through the School’s culture, as reflected in our core values. We take these very seriously. They’re not just aspirations. They guide our day-to-day conduct. They are integrated into our training, evaluations, and decision-making.
One of them, teamwork, centers on a shared commitment to build the nation and to not let tribal differences become divisive The actual language of this core value is “We find strength in diversity, and unity in a shared commitment to build the nation; we do not let tribal, regional, or political differences become divisive. We also collaborate and help each other succeed.”
International community contributions
Q: How has the international community helped or hindered development of the School? What could they do to support the School?
A: Historically, we haven’t been aggressive in seeking outside support. International aid isn’t intended to be on-going, and we’ve wanted to ensure the School is self-sustaining. But as we enter this next phase, and given the economic situation, we’ll need partners. So, glad you asked.
Here’s a wish list:
- funding for the Endowment that we discussed earlier;
- scholarships for the NGO Management Certificate program;
- support for women, including funding for the Leadership Crucible;
- funding for a Legislative and Executive Leadership Center – where legislators, legislative staff, Undersecretaries, and Directors General can learn through reliable, recurring, professional training programs;
- funding for a local and state government program- something like the Bloomberg Cities Leadership Initiative; and
- support for a Center for Applied Statistics to address the country’s serious gap in statistical skills.
Support doesn’t always mean funding. Technical expertise can also be really helpful. For example, experts on-loan can help us develop our Masters in Public Finance and our MPP in Environmental Policy. The international community has amazing models that we can leverage. SPS is modeled on some of the world’s best graduate schools, including Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.
Politics and public service
Q: South Sudan is rated “not free” by Freedom House. How have your educational objectives been affected by politics and less than democratic governance?
A: I believe the School is valued by South Sudan’s leaders across the political spectrum. To my knowledge, they have never interfered with our programs. Our focus is on building “technical” skills – leadership, management, policy-making – not on South Sudan’s current politics.
That being said, students often debate the current situation. During these debates, we try to get them to be forward-thinking, to draw on theory and the experiences of other countries, and to hone their critical thinking skills.
No matter who’s in charge, cadres of skilled public servants are essential to sustained peace and long‐term development. Who will implement all the provisions of the country’s peace agreements, all the initiatives included in the Revised National Development Strategy? Success requires a large number of skilled leaders to plan, budget, and manage all these efforts…for decades. Unfortunately, few leadership programs exist for public servants, and they are fragmented. Even fewer programs exist for NGO and IO staff, although they do much of the country’s development work. SPS’s mission is to fill these gaps, and to develop a strong cadre of public servants for now and the future.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | March 8 – March 12, 2021
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream
1. The Women Who Took on ISIS | March 8, 2021 | 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM ET | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register Here
Speakers
Gayle Tzemach Lemmon: Author, Journalist, and a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations
Beverly Kirk: Fellow and Director for Outreach, International Security Program, CSIS
Nina Easton: Non-resident Senior Associate
Please join the Center for Strategic and International Studies for a Smart Women, Smart Power celebration of International Women’s Day featuring New York Times best-selling author Gayle Tzemach Lemmon. She will discuss her new book, The Daughters of Kobani (2021), her best-selling book Ashley’s War: The Untold Story of a Team of Women Soldiers on the Special Ops Battlefield (2015), which is being made into a major motion picture, and her extensive research and experience covering the women who serve and live in conflict-affected areas of the world.
2. The Politics of History in Saudi Arabia | March 8, 2021 | 4:00 PM – 5:00 PM ET | Wilson Center | Register Here
Speakers
Rosie Bsheer: Harvard University
Christian F. Ostermann (moderator): Director, History and Public Policy Program, Wilson Center
Eric Arneson (moderator): Professor of History, George Washington University
Sherene Seikaly: Professory, University of California Santa Barbara
Asher Orkaby: Fellow, Wilson Center
3. The Voices of South Sudan’s Women | March 8, 2021 | 10:00 AM – 11:15 AM ET | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
Speakers
Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins: Founder and Executive Director, Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security and Conflict Transformation
Rita Lopidia: Executive Director, EVE Organization for Women Development
Nyachangkuoth Rambang Tai: Special Assistant, Chairperson Advisor to the African Union
Susan Stigant: Director, Africa Center, U.S. Institute of Peace
In recent years, South Sudanese women have made significant strides in their push for inclusion in national peace processes. Women negotiators were crucial in shaping the 2018 peace agreement—revitalizing what had been a stalled and contentious process—and also secured a new quota that requires 35 percent of government representatives to be women, opening the door for a more expansive role in national affairs. But despite these signs of progress, women’s voices remain conspicuously absent among publicly written narratives of South Sudan, which continue to be dominated by the opinions, analysis, and stories of male writers. In celebration of International Women’s Day, please join USIP, Oxfam International, and FEMRITE—the Ugandan Women Writers Association—for a discussion about how women’s literary voices can contribute to building a deeper understanding of the impact of conflict in South Sudan and inspire progress toward peace.
4. US-German and trans-Atlantic relations in the 21st century | March 9, 2021 | 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM ET | Brookings Institution | Register Here
Speakers
John Allen: President, Brookings Institution
H. E. Heiko Maas: Federal Foreign Minister, Federal Republic of Germany
H. E. Emily Haber: German Ambassador to the United States
Fiona Hill: Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Constanze Stelzenmüller: Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Suzanne Maloney: Vice President and Director, Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution
Since the end of the Second World War, trans-Atlantic relations have been the bedrock of the rules-based international order. The development of a prosperous, democratic, and reunited Germany stands as a testament to the results of more than 75 years of trans-Atlantic cooperation. Today, the United States, Germany, Europe, and the larger international order are beset by numerous challenges, from illiberal actors at home to challenges posed by authoritarian strategic competitors like China and Russia. On Tuesday, March 9, Foreign Policy at Brookings will host German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas for a keynote address in honor of the launch of the Fritz Stern chair, followed by a panel discussion considering the current state of U.S.-German and U.S.-European relations and the prospects for reform to best address the challenges of the 21st century.
5. Ending the Yemen conflict – Voices of local peace-builders | March 9, 2021 | 8:00 AM – 9:00 AM ET | European Council on Foreign Relations | Register Here
Speakers
Radhya Al-Mutawakel: Co-founder and Chairperson, Mwatana for Human Rights
Rasha Jarhum: Founder and Director, Peace Track Initiative
Muna Luqman: Executive Director, Food4Humanity
Helena Gronberg: Program Director, Better Peace Initiative, ICAN
Ellie Geranmayeh (moderator): Deputy Director, MENA program, ECFR
After six years of conflict, culminating in what the UN has labelled the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis, the new Biden administration has vowed to redouble US support to the political process in Yemen. But despite recent momentum, securing peace in Yemen is going to be immensely challenging and the humanitarian situation looks set to worsen this year. This event will consider how women peace-builders in Yemen are providing essential gender-responsive humanitarian and peacemaking support, including by helping broker negotiations on the ground, while also advocating for human rights, the release of detainees and ceasefires. The discussion will explore why and how these efforts should be included in the UN-led political process in Yemen.
6. The Arab Spring: Precursor to the disinformation age? | March 10, 2021 | 11:00 AM ET | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Speakers
Rasha A. Abdulla: Professor, Journalism and Mass Communication Department, The American University in Cairo (AUC)
Andy Carvin: Resident Senior Fellow and Managing Director, DFRLab, Atlantic Council
Borzou Daragahi: Nonresident Senior Fellow, Middle East Programs, Atlantic Council
As we mark the 10th anniversary of the revolutions across North Africa and the Middle East collectively known as the Arab Spring, one question that remains unanswered is whether the use of social media during the that time presaged today’s world of rampant disinformation, coordinated online trolls and weaponized information. While most governments were initially caught flat-footed when it came to using the Internet in response to these revolutions, manipulating information to maintain domestic control is increasingly commonplace. How did we get here? In this virtual event organized by The Atlantic Council, we will explore how social media was turned on its head over the course of a single decade from a symbol of hope to a tool for manipulation.
7. Bridging the Divide Between Elite and Grassroots Anti-Corruption Activists | March 10, 2021 | 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM ET | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | Register Here
Speakers
Abigail Bellows: Non-resident scholar, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Bruno Brandão: Director, Transparency International-Brazil
Hussein Khalid: Executive Director, HAKI Africa
Ketakandriana Refitoson: Executive Director, Transparency International-Madagascar
Nada Zohdy: Director, Open Gov Hub
Around the world, ineffective and even fraudulent responses by governments to COVID-19 have escalated citizens’ demands for greater transparency and accountability and civil society actors are responding to meet that need. But tangible progress against corruption will require more than just showing up. It will necessitate cooperation between “elite” and “grassroots” civil society organizations. This event will feature three leading practitioners on how they forge civic partnerships in the era of COVID-19.
8. Reflections on US-China Relations | March 10, 2021 | 8:30 AM – 9:30 AM ET | Hoover Institution | Register Here
Speakers
Matt Pottinger: Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution
Elizabeth Economy: Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
H.R. McMaster: Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
The Hoover Institution will host a discussion about the great-power competition between the United States and China, the rising risks for Western businesses in China, and the strategic pitfalls the West must avoid. After his remarks, Matt Pottinger will join Hoover Institution Fellows Elizabeth Economy and H.R. McMaster in conversation.
9. Light Water Capitalism: Nonproliferation and U.S. Global Power | March 11, 2021 | 12:15 PM – 2:00 PM ET | Belfer Center | Register Here
Speakers
Jayita Sarkar: Ernest May Fellow in History & Policy, International Security Program
How do the exports of U.S. power reactors relate to nonproliferation, global capitalism, and U.S. empire? And what does that tell us about the dominance by design of U.S. government and businesses in the decolonized world, where they promised development but delivered debt? This seminar pursues this inquiry through investigating the role of the light water reactor as an instrument of U.S. nonproliferation policy from the mid-1950s until the end of the 1980s.
10. MEI Defense Leadership Series: Episode 11 with Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East Simone Ledeen | March 12, 2021 | 9:30 AM – 10:30 AM ET | Middle East Institute | Register Here
Speakers
Bilal Y. Saab: Director, Defense and Security Program, MEI
Simone Ledeen: Former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East
In this episode, MEI Senior Fellow and Director of the Defense and Security Program Bilal Y. Saab speaks to former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East Simone Ledeen, currently a Nonresident Senior Fellow with MEI’s Defense and Security Program. This conversation will focus on U.S. policies toward the Middle East during the Trump administration and lessons learned. Saab will be taking audience questions throughout, and factor as many as possible into the discussion.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
South Sudan’s six month delay
June 18 the United States Institute of Peace held an event discussing the political, military, and humanitarian situation of South Sudan following a May agreement wherein ruling and opposition parties extended the pre-transitional period of the peace agreement by six months. Under the agreement, the ruling and opposition parties will work to form a unified Government.
The panel included David Acouth, founder of the Council on South Sudanese-American relations, Brian Adeba, Deputy Director of Policy at the Enough Project, Mark Ferullo, Senior Advisor at the Sentry, Morgan Simpson, Deputy Director of Programs at Democracy International, and Emily Koiti, a frequent representative at South Sudanese peace talks. Susan Stigant, Director of Africa Programs at the U.S. Institute of Peace, moderated the discussion.
Adeba shared general sentiments of people on the ground in South Sudan regarding the peace agreements and recent events. As violence has subsided in the wake of the peace agreement, there is a general sense of optimism in South Sudan. However, he stressed that humanitarian issues, lack of resource provision, and the lingering threat of latent military groups are still present. The biggest challenge facing the people of South Sudan is the subtle increases in militarization of certain opposition groups, despite the peace agreement. Adeba suspects that because many of these groups have access to complicated weapons, they may have connections to various politicians within the ruling party, further complicating peace proceedings.
Acouth echoed Adeba’s sentiments regarding the general attitudes of the South Sudanese regarding the peace agreement. The message of decreased violence has reached people living in camps, prompting their hasty return to the cities and homes they abandoned. This has exacerbated humanitarian and economic issues, since there is not enough food or employment in metropolitan areas. Adeba theorizes that the issues that there is a larger underlying economic and humanitarian crisis in the absence of widespread fighting. Koiti continued this line of argument, noting that a reduction in violence has not translated into amelioration of other problems in the country. People leaving camps are not aware of the challenges that they might face when they return home. In addition to economic issues and food shortage, many locales and residences are still occupied by armed groups.
Morgan believes that the decision to extend the pre-transitional period by 6 months was the correct decision. Compared to the failed peace process of 2015, there is more movement to implement the polices detailed in the peace agreement. There is also greater participation of civil society groups, scholars, and women. However, the issues of security sector reform and the redrawing of state lines are still stagnant. Morgran believes that in order to form a new, functional government, cantonment sites in civilian areas must be dismantled. Furthermore, transitional justice mechanisms are difficult to implement because of their emphasis on accountability.
Koiti is less optimistic about the situation and does not believe that ruling and opposition forces will be able to form a unified government at the end of the six-month period in November. The government is not allocating the resources needed to address pressing issues like security sector reform and cantonment sites. Furthermore, she notes that the responsible commissions are opaque about why they are unable to achieve goals.
Adeba believes the lack of reform provisions for the National Security Service of South Sudan in the peace agreement is particularly concerning. The organization is oppressive and infringes upon civil rights—often holding people indefinitely and without trial. There is also a “parallel army” emerging for the sole purpose of serving the President. On paper, it answers to the National Security Minister, but in reality they are responsible to the President and are funded through his budget. This is concerning because the president’s budget is private, making oversight of this branch of the security services difficult, and contributing to a general lack of transparency.
Regarding the future of South Sudan, Ferullo describes two areas of key importance. First is the formation of a committee to deal with the issue of drawing state boundaries. The way that boundaries are drawn will determine resource allocation, governance, and the economy of South Sudan. A focus on transparency is needed to ameliorate some of the economic woes of the country. Increases in transparency can be accomplished through building an “e-transparency” system to track financial transactions of government departments, and by providing more support to local civil society groups. He posits that civil society groups are more familiar with the needs of specific locales and can direct funding more effectively and equitably than a larger, centralized body might.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks June 17-23
1. Transatlantic Cooperation in an Era of Crisis and Competition|June 17|3:15pm-5:00pm|Hudson Institute|1201 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20004|Register Here
Hudson Institute will host distinguished scholars from France’s Institut Montaigne for a discussion on transatlantic relations. Founded in 2000, Institut Montaigne is a pioneering independent think tank dedicated to public policy in France and Europe. Panelists will include Michel Duclos, special advisor on Geopolitics at Institut Montaigne and former French Ambassador to Syria and Switzerland; and François Godement, senior advisor for Asia at Institut Montaigne.
Against a backdrop of surging populism in democracies and rising authoritarianism worldwide, Europe finds itself at the center of a return to great power rivalry between China and the United States. Disputes over trade and security are straining longstanding areas of cooperation even as global power centers shift and new partnerships beckon. How should policymakers in Washington, Brussels, and capitals across Europe respond to these challenges? What is the future of the transatlantic relationship in a rapidly changing world?
Speakers:
Michel Duclos, Special Advisor, Geopolitics, Institut Montaigne and former French Ambassador to Syria and Switzerland
François Godement, Senior Advisor for Asia, Institut Montaigne
Ben Judah, Research Fellow, Hudson Institute
Peter Rough, Fellow, Hudson Institute
Ken Weinstein, President and CEO, Hudson Institute
2. South Sudan’s Stalled Path to Peace|June 18|9:30am-11:30am|United States Institute of Peace|2301 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20037|Register Here
In early May, South Sudan’s ruling and opposition parties agreed to extend the pre-transitional period of the South Sudan peace agreement leading to the formation of a unified Government for an additional six months. The extension of this period presents an opportunity to reflect on the progress and challenges to establishing a just peace in the country. South Sudanese citizens are desperate for peace, but many are asking what channels exist to support a meaningful reduction of violence. Between January and March alone, 25,000 people fled the country, adding to the already two million South Sudanese refugees worldwide. Without full implementation of the peace process, national- and local-level conflicts will continue to threaten hard-won development gains and require greater investments in lifesaving humanitarian aid.
Please join USIP for a look at South Sudan’s peace agreement and the measures required to build peace in the young nation. In this live-streamed discussion, experts from USIP, the Enough Project, and Democracy International will offer concrete, evidence-based recommendations for how to mitigate conflict, promote peace and advance accountability.
Speakers
David Acuoth, Founder, Council on South Sudanese-American Relations
Brian Adeba, Deputy Director of Policy, Enough Project, @kalamashaka
Mark Ferullo, Senior Advisor, The Sentry
Morgan Simpson, Deputy Director of Programs, Democracy International
Susan Stigant, Director of Africa Programs, U.S. Institute of Peace, @SusanStigant
3. Is the US Decoupling from Asia’s Economic Architecture|June 19|9:00am-1:30pm|Center for Strategic and International Studies|1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
The CSIS Japan Chair, the CSIS Simon Chair, and JETRO cordially invite you to join us for the annual CSIS-JETRO conference.
9:00-9:05 Welcoming Remarks
John J. Hamre, President and CEO, CSIS
9:05-9:35 Opening Remarks (TBD)
9:35-10:00 Keynote Address
Nobuhiko Sasaki, Chairman and CEO, Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO)
10:00-11:15 Regional Perspectives on Indo-Pacific Economic Integration
China:
Xinquan Tu, Dean and Professor, Center for WTO Studies, University of
International Business & Economics, Beijing
Japan:
Yasuyuki Todo, Professor, Graduate School of Economics, Waseda, University
ASEAN:
Deborah Elms, Founder and Executive Director, Asian Trade Centre,Singapore
Moderator: Matthew P. Goodman, Senior Vice President; William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy and Senior Adviser for Asian Economics, CSIS
11:15-11:30 Break
11:30-12:30 Status and Impact of U.S. Trade Policy
Charles Freeman, Senior Vice President for Asia, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Lorraine Hawley, Senior Director, International Government Relations,Archer Daniels Midland Company
Aaron Cooper, Vice President, Global Policy, BSA | The Software Alliance
Moderator:
Michael J. Green, Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan Chair, CSIS;Director of Asian Studies, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service,Georgetown University
12:30-13:30 Luncheon Address (TBD)
13:30 Adjourn
4. 2019 Atlantic Council-East Asia Foundation Strategic Dialogue|June 19|9:30am|Atlantic Council|1030 15thSt NW, 12thFloor, Washington, DC 20005|Register Here
Please join the Atlantic Council’s Asia Security Initiative, housed within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, for the 2019 Atlantic Council-East Asia Foundation Strategic Dialogue. This day-long conference will explore the current state of the United States and Republic of Korea’s ongoing negotiations with North Korea and the broader strategic picture developing in the Indo-Pacific. The Strategic Dialogue will feature keynote addresses by US Special Representative for North Korea Stephen Biegun and ROK Special Representative for Korean Peninsula Peace and Security Affairs Do-hoon Lee. This will be H.E. Lee’s first public address in the United States, as well as the first time both Special Representatives will speak on the same stage.
One year ago, President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un met in Singapore for an unprecedented, historic summit that concluded with a promise to deliver lasting peace to a denuclearized Korean peninsula. Today, the question remains: will this promised future become a reality? Will the coming months see a continued stalemate in negotiations, a major crisis, or a dramatic breakthrough? Ultimately, how will developments on the peninsula shape the Republic of Korea’s role in the broader Indo-Pacific under intensifying US-China strategic competition?
Breakfast and lunch will be provided.
Agenda:
WELCOME REMARKS (9:30 a.m. – 9:50 a.m.)
Mr. Barry Pavel, Senior Vice President, Arnold Kanter Chair, and Director,Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Minister Sung-hwan Kim, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Republic of Korea; Board Member, East Asia Foundation
KEYNOTE REMARKS (9:50 a.m. – 10:50 a.m.)
The Hon. Stephen Biegun, US Special Representative for North Korea,US Department of State
H.E. Do-hoon Lee, ROK Special Representative for Korean PeninsulaPeace and Security Affairs,ROK Ministry of Foreign Affairs
PANEL DISCUSSION: SEEKING A POST-HANOI BREAKTHROUGH ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA(11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.)
Dr. Toby Dalton, Co-Director, Nuclear Policy Program,Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
H.E. Jong-dae Kim, Member, 20th National Assembly; Head of the Foreign Affairs and Security Division;Member of the National Assembly’s National Defense Committee;Head of the Foreign Affairs and Security Division; Member, Justice Party
H.E. Jae-jung Lee, Member, 20th National Assembly; Spokesperson, Democratic Party of Korea
Amb. Joseph Yun, Former US Special Representative for North Korea Policy, US Department of State; Senior Adviser, Asia Program, United States Institute of Peace
Mr. Barry Pavel (Moderator), Senior Vice President, Arnold Kanter Chair, and Director,Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
LUNCH CONVERSATION (1:00 p.m. – 1:45 p.m.)
Amb. Paula J. Dobriansky, Former US Under Secretary of State; Senior Fellow, The Future of Diplomacy Project, JFK Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Dr. Chung-in Moon, Special Adviser to the President for Unification, Foreign, and National Security Affairs, Republic of Korea
PANEL DISCUSSION: CHARTING KOREA’S ROLE IN US-CHINA STRATEGIC COMPETITION IN THE INDO-PACIFIC(2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.)
The Hon. Ami Bera, US House of Representatives (D-CA); Chair, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House Foreign Affairs Committee; Co-Chair, Congressional Caucus on Korea
H.E. Ihk-pyo Hong, Member, 20th National Assembly; Vice Chairman of the National Assembly’s Public Administration and Security Committee; Chief Spokesman, Democratic Party of Korea
Prof. Jaeho Hwang, Director of Global Security Cooperation Center, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
H.E. Sun-suk Park, Member, 20th National Assembly; Member, National Assembly’s Science, ICT, Future Planning, and Communications Committee,Member, Bareunmirae Party
The Hon. Ted S. Yoho DVM, US House of Representatives (R-FL), Lead Republican, Subcommittee on Asia, The Pacific, and Nonproliferation; Member, Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Civilian Security, and Trade, House Foreign Affairs Committee
Dr. Miyeon Oh (Moderator), Director and Senior Fellow, Asia Security Initiative,Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
CLOSING REMARKS (3:30 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.)
Mr. Barry Pavel, Senior Vice President, Arnold Kanter Chair, and Director, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
5. Sixth Annual Building a Competitive U.S.-Mexico Border Conference|June 20|8:30am-4:30pm|Woodrow Wilson Center|1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004|Register Here
The Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute and the Border Trade Alliance invite you to save the date for our sixth annual high-level “Building a Competitive U.S.-Mexico Border” conference, which will focus on improving border management in order to strengthen the competitiveness of both the United States and Mexico. Topics covered at the conference will include the USMCA (the renegotiated NAFTA), strengthening security and efficiency at border ports of entry, the impact of tariffs and reduced staffing on trade, and growing crossborder cooperation for regional economic development.
Confirmed Speakers*
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)
Congressman Will Hurd (R-TX 23)
Ambassador Martha Bárcena, Ambassador of Mexico to the United States
C.J. Mahoney, Deputy United States Trade Representative
John Sanders, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Gustavo de la Fuente, Executive Director, Smart Border Coalition
Lance Jungmeyer, President, Fresh Produce Association of the Americas
Mario Lozoya, Executive Director, Greater Brownsville Incentives Corporation
Federico Schaffler, Director, Texas Center for Border Economic Enterprise Development, Texas A&M International University
Christopher Wilson, Deputy Director, Mexico Institute, Wilson Center
Britton Clarke, President, Border Trade Alliance
6. Russian Influence in Venezuela: What Should the United States Do?|June 20|9:00am|Atlantic Council|1030 15thSt NW, 12thFloor, Washington, DC 20005|Register Here
As a wave of public support for democratic transition is sweeping Venezuela and the international community, Moscow continues to stand by Nicolás Maduro. Displays of military force, Rosneft’s ownership of 49.9 percent of CITGO shares, and billions in loans to Maduro, showcase Russia’s rooted geopolitical and economic interests in Venezuela and the hemisphere.
What drives Russian support for Maduro? What is its role in the unfolding humanitarian, economic, and political crisis? How can the United States counter Russian involvement in Venezuela?
Join the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center and Eurasia Center on Thursday, June 20, 2019 from 9:00 to 10:30 a.m. for a public event that will discuss the extent of Russian involvement in Venezuela, Moscow’s motivations and possible next moves, and how the United States should react.
Breakfast will be provided.
Speakers to be announced.
7. The Global Peace Index 2019 Launch|June 20|9:00am-10:30am|Center for Strategic and International Studies|1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
The Human Rights Initiative of CSIS invites you to a public launch event of the 2019 Global Peace Index (GPI). The Global Peace Index is the world’s leading measure of global peacefulness, ranking 163 countries and territories according to their level of relative peacefulness. Created by the Institute for Economics and Peace, the report presents the most comprehensive data-driven analysis to-date on trends in peace and its economic value.
The report findings will be followed by a panel discussion considering the implications of closing civic space and inequality for peace. It will look particularly at the factors that IEP has found to be necessary preconditions for peace in its Positive Peace Report, many of which rely on an active civil society and limits on inequality.
This event is made possible by the Institute of Economics and Peace (IEP).
Featuring:
Stephen Lennon, Senior Policy Adviser to USAID’s bureau of Democracy Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs (DCHA)
Shannon Green,Senior Director of Programs at the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC)
Jonathan Drimmer, Senior Adviser at Business for Social Responsibility (BSR)
Laurie Smolenski, Outreach and Development Officer, Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP)
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The state of State
President Trump’s FY2020 budget cuts the foreign affairs budget by 23%, while significantly boosting the Pentagon. The cut is mostly from Overseas Contingency Operations (wars and post-war stabilization and transition), which is zeroed out. Trump expects America’s future wars to be fought entirely without the civilian component that helps to fix the damage after the military is done. Yemenis, Libyans, Syrians, Somalis, South Sudanese, Ukrainians and others can expect little or no civilian assistance once their wars are over, if Trump gets his way.
The Administration also anticipates no need for international disaster assistance and a small fraction of what was spent in the past on refugees and migration. Big percentage cuts also hit the already very small National Endowment for Democracy (almost 2/3, to $67 million and change) and United States Institute of Peace (almost 50% to $19 million), which both engage in trying to prevent wars and in post-war efforts stabilization, the former by promoting democracy and the latter by promoting conflict resolution.
This presidential budget has little practical significance, since it will be dead on arrival in Congress, but it signals the Administration’s priorities all too clearly: it intends to continue to overuse the military instrument and to forget about civilian contributions to the projection of American power. Conventional diplomacy of the embassy/cocktail party type is not cut. In fact, the “representation” budget for that activity is increased. You wouldn’t want your big campaign contributors not to get reimbursed for entertaining foreigners. Trump is saying he doesn’t need state/nationbuilding, conflict prevention, post-war stabilization and reconstruction, countering violent extremism, refugee protection and repatriation, and response to emergencies abroad. In short, all the most pressing needs of the past two decades and more.
He is not alone in thinking we can ignore civilian commitments to national security. A good part of America believes Washington spends more than one-quarter of the national budget on foreign aid, apparently because they think it includes military spending abroad. If I thought that, I’d want to cut the foreign affairs budget too. In fact the non-military figure is around 1%, counting not only foreign aid but also all operations of State, AID and related agencies, including international organizations. I’ve had people tell me the reason we have a big national debt is foreign aid, which in fact accounts for an infinitesmal portion of it.
Congress fortunately has been fairly supportive of foreign affairs in recent years. The one virtue of this presidential proposal is that it is guaranteed to arouse opposition. Most members travel abroad and know what embassies, consulates, aid workers, and other civilians do. Most Americans do not, despite my efforts. At least 64% of Americans do not have a passport and therefore do not travel abroad or care much about what happens there, though they believe the U.S. should play a strong international leadership role. I imagine the Congress will save the day, as it did last year, and restore a lot of the funding the President would like to cut. Leadership depends as much on civilians as on the military.
Restoring the foreign affairs budget will depend however on a broader budget agreement, since sequestration will come back for 2020 if there is none. Trump will not want that, since sequestration would cut Defense back 13%, instead of the increase he is proposing. So yes, there is likely to be a compromise. But getting there will not be easy.
The state of State is weak, and getting weaker.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ain’t happening
Bill Burns, Michele Flournoy, and Nancy Lindborg unveiled this morning a report on U.S. Leadership and the Challenge of State Fragility. It says all the right things: we should be strategic in choosing where we engage, systemic and selective in our engagement, and sustain the the effort for however long it takes. Its all about partnerships (within the US government, between the US government and fragile states, and within fragile states). The aim is inclusive, legitimate, accountable states. What’s to complain about?
My main complaint is that isn’t happening. Asked about the considerable capacity the US built up in Iraq and Afghanistan in Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), Bill replied that yes, we need to make sure that the experience acquired in the last 15 years is preserved. I don’t think the State Department could name even its own officers who had PRT jobs, never mind the many contractors and Defense Department people involved. Asked about how to deal with a country like Turkey that is turning towards autocracy, no one had much to say. Never mind Egypt. Audience members, not panelists, were quick to point out that President Obama’s budget requests have not emphasized fragile states or the programs aimed at repairing them.
The sad fact is that the Obama Administration has dismantled many of the capacities in the US government to deal with fragile states and reduced use of diplomatic leverage (sanctions, conditionality, etc.) to counter human rights violations and other international abuses associated with them. Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are all enjoying to one extent or another immunity. All these states fail to provide full inclusion to portions of their populations, but at least in public Washington has pulled its punches in order to achieve high priority security objectives. We are seeing in South Sudan the results of immunity. When will we seem them in Rwanda? What do you do when local authorities simply aren’t willing to acknowledge or act on the problems we see all to clearly?
The two positive examples the study provides are instructive: Colombia and Myanmar. Plan Colombia was extraordinarily expensive and sustained over a long period, but the study group rightly emphasizes the importance of local political and financial commitment. The October 2 referendum on the peace agreement is still pending, but we can hope things will turn out all right. Myanmar has been far less expensive, but the outcome is still in doubt. It will be at least another 5-10 years before we can really say whether it has been able to overcome its internal conflicts and make the transition to a democratic state and society.
How do we get to the point of being able to make such long-term commitments?
The Study Group wants a strategic foresight cell at the National Security Council, consultation with Congress to identify priority fragile states and provide necessary resources, and personnel policies intended to enhance interagency cooperation. It also wants to expand the partnership model based on the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States, build local capacity in fragile states, and increase US government capabilities in a grab bag of areas: security sector reform, conflict mediation, anti-corruption, assistance to support peaceful elections, civil society support, public-private partnerships, sanctions implementation, international education and exchanges, as well as the de rigeur learning and evaluation.
I’m fine with all of this, even if I’d have included things this report skips. I’d certainly want to think about whether our current institutions–State, Defense and AID–are suitable to the tasks defined. I doubt it. I would also want a much clearer definition of the end states we should seek in fragile states–that among other things is what makes the New Deal compelling. “Inclusive, legitimate, accountable” are nice, but how would we recognize them? What is required to achieve them? What indicators are most appropriate, or are they entirely context dependent?
But my main concern is just that it ain’t happening.
RSS - Posts
