Tag: Syria
Backfire
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday obliterated his own argument against the Iran nuclear deal. Let’s leave aside whether it is appropriate for a country that has clandestinely produced nuclear weapons to criticize others for attempting to do the same thing. Netanyahu presented evidence that before 2004 Iran had such a clandestine nuclear weapons program. This is well known and confirmed at the time by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It is a major reason the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is needed: to stop and to some extent reverse Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons.
Netanyahu doesn’t like the JCPOA because some of its provisions expire in the 2020s and none of its provisions deal with ballistic missiles. What he has failed to explain is how the US withdrawing from the deal now would fix that or in any other way make Israel and the US better off. The Europeans have made it plain they will stick with the deal if the Iranians do. The Iranians are divided: some want to keep to it while others want to withdraw. If they continue the deal with the Europeans, US re-imposition of sanctions is unlikely to get Tehran to negotiate a follow-on agreement. The sanctions worked in 2015 because everyone was supporting them. If the Iranians withdraw, they can go hell bent for nuclear weapons immediately.
If US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal doesn’t benefit Israel, what then might Netanyahu be trying to achieve? One possibility is a crisis that would result in a US attack on Iran’s remaining nuclear facilities. Another is the worsening of Iran’s economic situation to encourage demonstrations and eventual regime change.
Both of these are dicey propositions. While the US certainly now has an excellent idea of precisely where the nuclear facilities are located (credit to the IAEA), any attack on them would precipitate Iranian retaliation against US forces and civilians in the Gulf, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, in addition attacks on Israel from Gaza, Lebanon and Syria as well as from Iran. Trying to prompt regime change is always iffy, but especially so in an Islamic Republic that has weathered several episodes of mass demonstrations that might have brought down a less entrenched or less brutal regime.
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Netanyahu is pushing for a withdrawal from the JCPOA without any clear notion of what the benefits might be. That however isn’t likely to phase Donald Trump, whose ability to reason things through is limited. He likes acting on impulse, especially when flattered by someone he thinks well of like Netanyahu. Sheldon Adelson’s campaign contributions are no doubt another factor in favor of withdrawal.
Fortunately, there will be some in the Administration who will argue against, noting that the US has already gotten most of the benefits withdrawal might produce: the Europeans are open to discussing a follow-on agreement that could encompass ballistic missiles and banks have hesitated to provide financing to Iran and those who want to do business there. The US, by contrast, continues to benefit from the IAEA inspections and the delay in Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Secretary of Defense Mattis has made it plain that Iran is complying with the JCPOA, which has ample provision for verification. He no doubt also understands that the prospects for a nuclear deal with North Korea, already dim, would evaporate entirely if the US walks away from the JCPOA.
So Netanyahu’s showy non-TED talk yesterday was unconvincing. I’d would say it even backfired. The US (and Israel) will be far better off if the US stays in the nuclear deal.
PS: A chat April 30 with someone well-informed about Israel suggested Netanyahu’s aim is to get the Europeans to re-impose sanctions, so that the Iran of the 2020s is far less resource-rich than it would be otherwise. Asked why the Europeans would do that, I was told they are more afraid of war with Iran than they are of reimposing sanctions. That game is called chicken and often ends in catastrophe.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, April 23 – 29
- Washington’s Shifting Syria Policy: Implications for U.S.-Turkey Relations | Monday, April 23 | 11:00am – 12:30pm | Turkish Heritage Foundation | Register here |
As the Syrian civil war enters its eighth year, political dynamics are beginning to shift. On April 4, a tripartite summit to further discussions on the resolution of the conflict was held in Ankara between Turkey, Russia, and Iran – critical countries that once had deeply conflicting priorities in Syria. Notably absent from this high-level diplomacy is the U.S., whose priority in Syria remains fixated on defeating ISIS. On the same day that the presidents of Turkey, Russia, and Iran were meeting in Ankara, President Trump stated his intention to withdraw U.S. troops after the defeat of ISIS, raising questions and concerns about Washington’s long-term role in Syria. The Syrian civil war has heavily strained U.S.-Turkey relations, with Turkey’s Operation Olive Branch in Afrin against the YPG being the most recent example of the troubling rift between the NATO allies. The impact of the shift in Washington’s Syria policy and post-ISIS long-term role will determine the next phase of the relations between the U.S. and Turkey. Featuring Mariam Jalabi (Representative, Syrian National Coalition’s office at the UN), Bradley A. Blakeman (Former White House Senior Staff under President George W. Bush; Commentator, Fox News), Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Peter B. Zwack (Senior Research Fellow, Center for Strategic Research, Institute for National Strategic Studies), Dr. Mesut Hakki Casin (Academic, Ozyegin University, Air Force and Turkish Military Academies), and Dr. Sahar Khan (Research Fellow, CATO Institute).
___________________________________________________________
- ISIS in North Africa: Past and Future Trajectories | Monday, April 23 | 12:15pm – 1:45pm | New America | Register here |
From 2013 through 2014 ISIS recruited thousands of fighters from North Africa to fight in Syria and established a fallback position in Libya. Today, ISIS has lost much of its territory both in Syria and in North Africa. How did ISIS emerge in North Africa and what is its future in the region? Featuring Sarah Yerkes (Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Aaron Y. Zelin (Richard Borow Fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy), and David Sterman (Senior Policy Analyst, New America; Co-author, All Jihad is Local: ISIS in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula).
___________________________________________________________
- The Future of Political Islam: Trends and Prospects | Tuesday, April 24 | 9:30am – 11:00am | Brookings Institution | Register here |
Since the 2011 Arab uprisings, the progression of events in the Middle East has provoked new questions on the role of political Islam in the region. The Arab Spring offered Islamist parties the opportunity and challenge of governance, and the widely varying results led many observers to reconsider basic assumptions on political Islam. Lines drawn between ideology and politics have become blurred. Common conceptions of Islam and the nation-state as incompatible have come under review. As scholars and Islamists alike imagine the future of political Islam, these considerations and others will play a central role. Featuring Shadi Hamid (Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution), Peter Mandaville (Nonresident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution), and Jocelyne Cesari (Professor of Religion and Politics, University of Birmingham; Senior Fellow, Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, Georgetown University).
___________________________________________________________
- Public Protests and Prospects for Reform in Iran | Tuesday, April 24 | 1:30pm – 3:00pm | Middle East Institute | Register here |
Over the last few months, Iran has experienced a series of street protests in rural areas and social arenas once seen as the key support base for the Islamic Republic. Politically active youth are voicing their frustrations with the country’s political, social, and economic prospects. Many of these protests as well as online activism have been met with pushback from conservatives and crackdown from the government. What are the prospects for change in Iran’s existing political system? Is there a dynamic that might foster greater openness, pluralism and democratization? Who are the rising political figures who may lead such a change? How can the international community support a political shift in Iran that benefits its own society? The Middle East Institute is pleased to host Daniel Brumberg (Co-editor (with Farideh Farhi) of Power and Political Change in Iran), Azadeh Pourzand (Co-founder and executive director, Siamak Pourzand Foundation), and Shadi Mokhtari (Professor, American University) to examine the unfolding political struggles in Iran and their potential implications for the Islamic Republic. Alex Vatanka (Senior Fellow, Middle East Institute) will moderate the discussion. ___________________________________________________________
- The Battle for the New Libya | Tuesday, April 24 | 5:30pm – 7:00pm | Carnegie Endowment | Register here |
The death of Muammar Qadhafi in 2011 freed Libya from forty-two years of despotic rule, raising hopes for a new era. But in the aftermath of the uprising, the country descended into bitter rivalries and civil war, paving the way for the Islamic State and a catastrophic migrant crisis. What went wrong? Based on years of field reporting in Libya, Carnegie’s Frederic Wehrey will discuss his new book, The Burning Shores: Inside the Battle for the New Libya, which tells the stories of Libyan lives upended by the turmoil, sheds new light on the country’s afflictions, and provides valuable lessons for the future. Longtime Libyan activist and medical doctor Laila Bugaighis will serve as a discussant and journalist Robert F. Worth will moderate. The discussion will be followed by a short reception, and copies of the book will be available for purchase. Featuring Frederic Wehrey (Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Laila Bugaighis (former deputy director general and CEO, Benghazi Medical Center), and Robert F. Worth (contributing writer, New York Times Magazine; author, A Rage for Order: The Middle East in Turmoil, from Tahrir Square to ISIS).
___________________________________________________________
- Iraq’s Upcoming Elections: Likely Outcomes and Impact on US-Iraqi Relations | Wednesday, April 25 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
Please join the Atlantic Council for a conversation with a panel of experts to discuss Iraq’s upcoming parliamentary election, post-election dynamics, alliances to form a new government we may see emerge, what political and constitutional reforms the next government needs to adopt, and how the election may impact US-Iraq relations. Featuring Ambassador Feisal al-Istrabadi (Founding Director, Center for the Study of the Middle East, Indiana University, Bloomington), Ambassador Rend al-Rahim (Co-Founder and President, Iraq Foundation), Dr. Harith Hasan Al-Qarawee (Nonresident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council), Ambassador Ryan Crocker (Visiting Lecturer and Diplomat-in-Residence, Princeton University), and Ms. Vivian Salama (Political Reporter, NBC News) as moderator. With introductory remarks by Frederick Kempe (President and CEO, Atlantic Council).
___________________________________________________________
- New Year, New Strategy: Shifting Policies on North Korea in 2018 | Wednesday, April 25 | 1:30pm – 3:00pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
After more than a year of escalating tensions over North Korea’s nuclear provocations and a war of words between Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump, we have seen an abrupt shift in strategy on the Korean Peninsula. Declaring himself content with North Korea’s nuclear weapons arsenal in late 2017, Kim Jong Un began 2018 with a new approach: diplomatic outreach. A summit between Kim and ROK President Moon Jae-in inside the Demilitarized Zone will be held later this month, the first inter-Korean summit in more than a decade. On the eve of the summit between the leaders of the Koreas, several leading scholars will discuss this shift in strategy, including lessons from history, prospects for peace and reconciliation, and implications for the United States as President Trump prepares for his summit with Kim. Join the Wilson Center for a discussion that will provide background and context as a season of summits between the North Koreans and its Korean War foes unfolds. Featuring Abraham Denmark (Director, Asia Program, Wilson Center), Jean H. Lee (Director, Hyundai Motor-Korea Foundation Center for Korean History and Public Policy), Jung H. Pak (Senior Fellow, SK-Korean Foundation Chair in Korea Studies, Brookings Institution), and Jake Sullivan (Martin R. Flug Visiting Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School). With introductory remarks by Joonho Cheon (Minister, Embassy of the Republic of Korea).
___________________________________________________________
- Afghanistan in 2020: Is Peace Possible? | Wednesday, April 25 | 2:30pm – 4:30pm | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register here |
The search for peace has become a central focus of Afghanistan policy in Washington and for Kabul. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani offered the Taliban constitutional reform and status as a legitimate political party in late February on the condition that the group makes peace. In recent months, the Taliban have also publicly offered talks with the United States and prominent Afghan powerbrokers, and high-profile peace demonstrations in conflict-torn Helmand province have spread across much of the country. Featuring Ambassador Timothy Carney (Former U.S. Ambassador to Sudan and Haiti), John Wood (Associate Professor, National Defense University; former U.S. National Security Council Senior Director for Afghanistan), Johnny Walsh (Senior Expert, Afghanistan, USIP; former DOS lead for Afghan reconciliation), Courtney Cooper (International Affairs Fellow, CFR; former U.S. National Security Council Director for Afghanistan), Ahmad Mohibi (Founder and President, Rise to Peace), and Michael Sherwin (Assistant United States Attorney, DOS; former U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer) as moderator.
___________________________________________________________
- Iran: As Anti-Government Protests Continue, Can the U.S. Help Maintain Momentum? | Thursday, April 26 | 3:30pm – 4:30pm | Hudson Institute | Register here |
In January, the Iranian regime announced that the anti-government protests that unexpectedly swept through the country had successfully been suppressed. In truth, this struggle continues–if not in the streets, then on social media, on city walls, and in the private lives of citizens. In the eyes of the younger generation of the Shiite majority, who are the backbone of the protests, the mullahs are losing legitimacy. This discontent is not limited to economic grievances and has taken aim at the political and social leadership as a whole. Many of these protests have begun to target laws like mandatory headscarves. Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, the mandatory headscarf for women has been the enduring symbol of the mullahs’ political control and of women’s restricted status. Foregoing the hijab in public is to risk arrest, job loss, lashing, reeducation classes or other punishments, so these protesters have resorted to posting photos and videos of themselves on social media. Featuring Masih Alinejad (Founder, My Stealthy Freedom), Mehrangiz Kar (Iranian feminist scholar), Mariam Memarsadeghi (Co-founder and Co-director, Tavaana), Nina Shea (Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Religious Freedom, Hudson Institute).
___________________________________________________________
- Investing in Iraq: Reconstruction and the Role of the Energy Sector | Thursday, April 26 | 5:00pm – 6:00pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
On the heels of the Kuwait conference in February, and with an oil and gas bidding round and elections on the horizon, this wide-ranging conversation will focus on the state of investment in Iraq, including the role the energy sector can play in enabling recovery, and the challenges ahead in terms of rebuilding and recovery. Featuring H.E. Dr. Fareed Yasseen (Iraqi Ambassador to the United States), Majid Jafar (CEO, Crescent Petroleum), Ben Van Heuvelen (Editor in Chief, Iraq Oil Report), Ellen Scholl (Deputy Director, Global Energy Center, Atlantic Council) as moderator. With introductory remarks by Frederick Kempe (President and CEO, Atlantic Council).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Not enough to make a difference
My piece on the US/French/British attack on Syria’s chemical weapons plants is up on The National Interest, three days after I submitted it and without significant changes, but authors aren’t supposed to complain about such things. My only regret is that I didn’t get a chance to insert a few words about ways in which the attack could conceivably shift the political terrain, both internationally and within the US. I am grateful to an unnamed Syrian friend for inspiring this post.
Internationally, the attack in principle could send a strong signal to the Russians that they no longer have completely free reign in Syria. Three permanent members of the UN Security Council are prepared to act without its authorization. The Americans, Brits and French also managed either to evade Russian countermeasures or to convince the Russians not to use them. Of course President Trump undermined the strong signal when he backed off the Russia sanctions his Administration was recommending.
The attack also suggested that those within the Administration who want US troops to stay are gaining ground. There is no real connection between the troop presence in eastern Syria and the attack, but if we care enough to send 105 missiles against Assad presumably we also care enough not to withdraw the troops without something in return. Trump is also the joker in that pack, since he could of course just summarily withdraw, apparently hoping that some Arab force will materialize to do the hard work of stabilization and reconstruction. Fat chance of that.
So I’m afraid even with these political shifts, if in fact they have occurred, the likelihood of any further intervention in Syria is small. The Russians will continue their air assault on Syrian opposition-controlled areas. Assad will either abstain from chemical use for a while or test us by starting small and building up to larger attacks. He has gotten away with it for years–it is even possible the Douma attack was not supposed to kill so many people. I don’t see any sign Trump is ready to attack again unless something big happens.
The Russians meanwhile are delaying the arrival of the inspectors from the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Warfare (OPCW) at the attack site, hoping to clean it up thoroughly so that there will forever be some doubt in some people’s minds that a chemical attack even took place. The OPCW in any event doesn’t determine who was responsible for the attack, only whether the chemicals were used. So Assad and Putin can continue to claim that the rebels did it. Why they always use the chemicals against themselves and never against their Syrian, Iranian or Russian enemies doesn’t bother those who are pleased to hear the Russian denials.
So I stick with my main point: Trump did just enough not to be accused of failing to defend his red line, but not enough to make any real difference in Syria’s wars.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Pragmatism, not ideals
The United States and France look back on a steadfast relationship. Providing support during the American War of Independence, France became the first ally of the nascent United States in 1778. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, the Franco-American relationship was strong, despite minor tensions during World War II and the presidency of Charles de Gaulle. In the early 2000s, disagreements over the Iraq War cooled down relations, but cooperation between both states has flourished again in the last decade. However, Donald Trump’s election victory in 2016 and the President’s confrontational rhetoric towards Europe raises questions whether this positive trend will continue.
On April 12, the Atlantic Council hosted a panel discussing the implications of the upcoming state visit of French President Emmanuel Macron to Washington in mid-April. H.E. Gérard Araud, Ambassador of France in the United States, and Pierre-Andre Imbert, Social Policy Advisor to President Macron, offered their perspective along with Frances Burwell, Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council, and Atlantic Council Senior Fellow Jeff Lightfoot, whose recent publication “The French-American Alliance in an America-First Era” provides a broad overview of the current state of US-French relations. Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President at the Atlantic Council, delivered an introductory statement and Susan Glasser, staff writer at the The New Yorker, moderated the discussion.
President Macron has been able to establish a fruitful working relationship with President Trump, according to Ambassador Gérard Araud. As the other European heavyweights Great Britain and Germany have been preoccupied with internal problems during the past year, Macron was able to position France as the primary European interlocutor for the United States after coming to office in May 2017.
Both Washington and Paris are pragmatic. President Macron has decided that France needs to maintain a good working relationship with whoever is in power in Washington. The US administration respects Frances’s international engagement, particularly in combating terrorism in the Sahel and the Levant. Disagreements exist—for instance on the nuclear deal with Iran and trade policies—but are not fundamental. Both Presidents acknowledge each other’s position and remain invested in addressing common challenges with joint forces. The United States and France share similar interests and values and must thus solve global problems together, stresses Araud. The Franco-American relationship will remain strong in spite of Trump’s aggressive foreign policy rhetoric.
Jeff Lightfoot highlights that the French public opinion of Trump is very low and Macron could easily define himself in opposition to the US president. If Trump decides to snub Europe, for instance by revoking the Iran nuclear agreement or imposing tariffs, Macron’s popularity might suffer. Yet Araud argues that the French are able to differentiate between Trump’s personality and the need to maintain a good working relationship with any US president. The ongoing positive dialogue indicates that there exist no fundamental disagreement The problem is rather the US press, which is using Macon against Trump. We should not expect any spectacular outcomes from the state visit.
Whether Macron will be able to maintain his role as Europe’s spokesman largely depends on the outcome of his domestic agenda. Pierre-Andre Imbert underlines that Macron is pursuing fundamental reforms in France. His successes in both the presidential and parliamentary elections have transformed the country’s political landscape. Now the president seeks to utilize his standing to deliver on his promises to prepare France for the future. The overall goal is sustainable, inclusive growth. To achieve this, fundamental reforms—for instance of the labor market— are needed.
Frances Burwell also stresses that the French president needs to maintain his strong domestic standing to be able to both shape the European Union and maintain his role as the primary European interlocutor for the United States. So far, Macron has pushed through his economic reforms with relentless effort. Even though domestic opposition is currently mounting, he still has time to reap the fruits of his policies ahead of the next elections schedule for 2022.
In the meantime, France will continue play a central role in global affairs, says Araud. On the micro level, Paris will in particular seek to revive the international dialogue on Syria to initiate a political transition in the country. Only by doing so, can Syrian be stabilized and vital threats like terrorism and mass migration tackled. On the macro level, Macron will address the crumbling of the Western-dominated world order and seek to reform the current system. The United States remain a crucial partner in taking up this challenge.
In a period of global turmoil, the United States and France depend on strong bilateral relations. Both Presidents are aware of the need for cooperation. In spite of Trump’s antagonistic rhetoric and other gloomy signs, we can expect this bilateral transatlantic relationship to remain strong.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, April 16 – 22
- Colombia Peace Forum: Elections & Peace Processes in Colombia | Monday, April 16 | 9:30am – 11:30am | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register here |
While threats of violence marred recent legislative campaigns in Colombia, the March 11 election was Colombia’s most peaceful in decades. Although the FARC’s new political party underperformed, its comprehensive demobilization was palpable and the National Liberation Army (ELN), the country’s second-largest rebel group, respected a temporary unilateral ceasefire. For the first time in 50 years, ballots were cast freely throughout the country and not a single incident of violence was recorded. With the composition of Colombia’s next Congress set, jockeying and coalition-building among the main candidates is fully underway ahead of the May 27 presidential polls. The outcome will have important implications for the precarious implementation of the 2016 FARC peace accord. Join the U.S. Institute of Peace for a discussion on security and protection throughout the electoral process, analysis of the impact the outcome may have on the implementation of the FARC peace agreement, and the implications for the ongoing process with the ELN. Featuring Alejandra Barrios (Director, Electoral Observation Mission), Juanita Goebertus (Colombian Congresswoman and Former Member of the Government Peace Delegation with the FARC), Mark Schneider (Senior Advisor, CSIS), Jonas Claes (Senior Program Officer, Preventing Election Violence, USIP), and Steve Hege (Senior Program Officer, Security & Justice, USIP) as moderator.
This event will be webcast live.
___________________________________________________________
- Hidden Wounds: Trauma and Civilians in the Syrian Conflict | Monday, April 16 | 1:30pm – 3:00pm | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register here |
Seven years of conflict in Syria have exacted an enormous human toll and led to widespread physical destruction. The psychological impact of the war, although less visible, has been just as devastating. The levels of trauma and distress impacting Syrian civilians, especially children have been staggering with nearly 500,000 killed, half the population displaced and more than 13 million Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance. The traumatic impact of the Syrian conflict is less often acknowledged, but could significantly impair the ability of Syrian civilians to recover and build a more peaceful future. Syrian doctors and humanitarian relief experts have increasingly engaged on this issue and are developing new and innovative approaches to help address and heal these invisible wounds. Please join USIP and specialists from the Syrian American Medical Society, the U.S. State Department and Save the Children for a panel discussion, addressing an aspect of the Syrian conflict that often receives less attention than it deserves. Featuring Catherine Bou-Maroun (Foreign Affairs Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, DoS), Dr. Mohamed Khaled Hamza (Mental Health Committee Chair & Foundation Board Member, Syrian American Medical Society), Amy Richmond (Director, Child Protection in Emergencies, Save the Children), and Mona Yacoubian (Senior Advisor, Syria, the Middle East and North Africa, USIP) as moderator. With opening remarks by Nancy Lindborg (President, USIP).
___________________________________________________________
- US-Europe Cooperation and The China Challenge | Tuesday, April 17 | 10:30am – 12:00pm | The Heritage Foundation | Register here |
The U.S. and nations of Europe are allies across a range of issues that have kept much of the world free, secure and growing in prosperity for decades since the end of World War II. Is there a future for greater such cooperation in the Indo-Pacific – particularly in the face of challenges presented by China? In areas like international trade and investment, China presents American and European capitals a dilemma. It brings capital to the table, but capital laden with state ownership and support that distorts the global economic environment, sometimes to the detriment of domestic concerns. Politically, Beijing models a system of governance that runs contrary to centuries of Western political tradition, while its growing clout gives comfort to some of the world’s most repressive regimes. And in some areas, like international maritime law, Beijing threatens to overturn standards that have underpinned not only the region’s peace and prosperity, but its own. How can the U.S. and Europe promote their common values in the face of these challenges? What is the balance between cooperation with China and opposition to the negative byproducts of its rise, and can the U.S. and Europe agree on that balance? Featuring Theresa Fallon (Director, Center for Russia Europe Asia Studies), Philippe Le Corre (Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, HKS), Jamie Fly (Senior Fellow & Director, Future of Geopolitics & Asia Programs, GMF), and Walter Lohman (Director, Asian Studies Center, Heritage Foundation) as moderator.
___________________________________________________________
- Democracies Under Duress: Are We Losing Central Europe? | Tuesday, April 17 | 11:00am – 12:00pm | CSIS | Register here |
Central Europe’s reintegration with the West and its commitment to democracy and the rule of law were signature foreign policy achievements in the post-Cold War era for the United States. Increasingly, European and U.S. policymakers question whether Central Europe is really committed to democratic values and principles. Corruption, nativism, anti-Semitism, and weak institutions and civil society contribute to the drift of some NATO and EU members in Central Europe toward illiberalism. Join CSIS for a timely conversation on what policy tools Washington and Brussels can use to address democratic backsliding in Central Europe. Featuring Dr. Charles Gati (Senior Research Professor of European and Eurasian Studies, Johns Hopkins SAIS), David Frum (Senior Editor, The Atlantic), Radek Sikorski (Distinguished Statesman, CSIS), and Heather A. Conley (Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic & Director, Europe Program, CSIS).
This event will be webcast live.
___________________________________________________________
- Countering Russian Kleptocracy | Tuesday, April 17 | 11:00am – 12:30pm | Hudson Institute | Register here |
Kleptocratic regimes use corruption and as a means of control at home and a weapon of influence abroad. Russian oligarchs and other Kremlin agents have become adept at exploiting the global financial system to launder illicit funds and convert them into new forms of power projection, including attacks on Western democratic institutions. The Kremlin’s attempts to influence elections have exposed a series of systemic vulnerabilities in the United States, whose national security now requires a sustained response. Hudson Institute’s new report, Countering Russian Kleptocracy, outlines policy that, if implemented, would provide a comprehensive and effective strategy to counter Moscow’s aims. Featuring Charles Davidson (Executive Director, Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute), Clay Fuller (Jeane Kirkpatrick Fellow, AEI), Jeffrey Gedmin (Senior Fellow, Georgetown University), Ben Judah (Research Fellow, Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute), and Nate Sibley (Program Manager, Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute).
___________________________________________________________
- Sustaining Growth in Africa: Economic Diversification, Job Creation, and Infrastructure Financing | Tuesday, April 17 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Brookings Institution | Register here |
Improved economic and political governance, together with a favorable global external environment, over the past two decades or so, have set the foundation for Africa’s economic prosperity. Most economies across Africa responded with resilience to the 2014 commodity price shock, and the recovery is gaining momentum. However, obstacles, including jobless growth and increasing debt, loom in the distance. In its 2018 “African Economic Outlook,” the African Development Bank assesses these challenges and provides some policy recommendations, including economic diversification, development of labor-absorbing sectors, as well as investments in human capital, and in industries with high payoffs. It also recommends a focus on smart and catalytic debt management and infrastructure development. In particular, policymakers should consider institutional, regulatory and project-level challenges to infrastructure development and prioritize sectors and access given large infrastructure financing needs of $130-$170 billion, almost double the long-accepted estimate of $93 billion a year. Featuring Bongi Kunene (Executive Director, The World Bank), Alan Gelb (Senior Fellow and Director of Studies, Center for Global Development), Jeffrey Gutman (Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development), Louise Fox (Chief Economist, USAID), and Brahima Sangafowa Coulibaly (Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development & Director, Africa Growth Initiative, Brookings Institution) as moderator. With introductory remarks by Charles O. Boamah (Senior Vice President, AfDB), and a presentation by Abebe Shimeles (Manager, Macroeconomic Division, AfDB).
___________________________________________________________
- Politics and Policy of East Asia’s Economic Future | Thursday, April 19 | 1:90pm – 4:00pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the most recent, and a highly ambitious, step along a familiar road of international economic liberalization and integration through multilateral trade-plus pacts. It promised to deepen and extend openness through commitments on trade in goods and services, investment, harmonization of national regulation on a wide range of economics-related matters labor and the environment, and robust protections for intellectual property and processes for transnational dispute resolution.
Panel 1: After the U.S. TPP “Opt-Out” 1:00 PM to 2:15 PM
Shortly after taking office, President Trump announced that the U.S. would be opting out of the TPP. Although less prominent in the U.S. and elsewhere in the West, domestic political pressures and policies favoring greater protectionism have been on the rise in some East Asian states as well. At the same time, the China-centered alternative to the once-U.S.-led TPP—the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership—persists. And the remaining members of the TPP have determined to go forward without the United States. All of this has been occurring against the backdrop of the WTO’s fading as a force for global economic liberalization. What do these developments portend for economic relations within East Asia and U.S. economic relations with the region? Featuring Inu Manak (Visiting Scholar, Cato Institute), Derek Scissors (Resident Scholar, AEI; Chief Economist, China Beige Book), Bruce Hirsh (Principal and Founder, Tailwind Global Strategies), and Jacques deLisle (Director, Asia Program, FPRI; Professor of Law and Political Science and Deputy Director, Center for the Study of Contemporary China, University of Pennsylvania) as moderator.
Panel 2: Looking to the Future 2:30 PM to 3:45 PM
The politics of international economic policy have created much uncertainty. But this is far from the only, or potentially the most disruptive, force in play. Technological transformation, the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” and kindred developments pose additional challenges and impetuses for change. These shifts are potentially especially significant in East Asia. The region is home to many of the world’s most dynamic economies, has long been a hub of technological innovation, and now faces the consequences of China’s ambitious agenda to create an “innovation economy.” What do these trends and possible future developments portend for economies in East Asia? Featuring Eleonore Pauwels (Director of the Anticipatory Intelligence (AI ) Lab, Science and Technology Innovation Program, Wilson Center), Samm Sacks (Senior Fellow, Technology Policy Program, CSIS), Robert Atkinson (Founder and President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation), and Shihoko Goto (Senior Northeast Asia Associate, Asia Program, Wilson Center) as moderator.
___________________________________________________________
- China’s Growing Influence in the Indian Ocean: Implications for the U.S. and Its Regional Allies | Friday, April 12 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Hudson Institute | Register here |
For a long time, the Indian Ocean was considered a secondary concern with less strategic value than other parts of the region. This view is rapidly changing, driven in large part by China’s entry into the Indian Ocean. Recently, China signed an almost century-long lease of Hambantota port in Sri Lanka, demonstrating its interest in establishing a long-term presence in the region. China is already deploying warships in the Indian Ocean and playing a more active role in regional conflicts. The Hudson Institute is delighted to host a panel to discuss the growing strategic relevance of the Indian Ocean and the implications for the U.S. and its regional allies. Featuring Toshi Yoshihara (Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments), Asanga Abeyagoonasekera (Director General, Institute of National Security Studies of Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan Ministry of Defence), Aparna Pande (Research Fellow and Director, Initiative on the Future of India and South Asia, Hudson Institute), Satoru Nagao (Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute), and Jonas Parello-Plesner (Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute) as moderator.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Delay can be good
Yesterday’s bravado has given way to today’s hesitation. President Trump tweeted this morning:
Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all!
This kind of inconsistency creates confusion and uncertainty that can undermine US standing in the world and even contribute to crisis escalation. Flip-flops are no better in diplomacy than they are in domestic politics. In addition, the delay has given the Syrian government time to park its aircraft and other assets close by the Russians, whom the Americans will not want to hit.
But this particular delay could still be a good thing, if it gives Washington time to do three things:
- Assemble unequivocal evidence that Syrian President Assad was responsible for the chemical attack last week on Douma;
- Plan a serious combined military and diplomatic campaign to end at least the use of chemical weapons in Syria, if not the war itself;
- Rally domestic as well as international support for that combined campaign.
I don’t see much sign that the US is working on any of these things, but it should.* This post is about what Washington should be doing now, before any military action.
First is to gather the evidence. Intelligence doesn’t flow instantaneously. Materials often have to be translated and analyzed, not the least for veracity. Many countries may have collected against Syrian targets. To put together an unclassified version of the evidence against the Syrian government, cleared by all those agencies and governments that have contributed something, takes time and concentration.
That material should then be presented publicly, first and foremost to the Congress. Members on both sides of the aisle are nervous about allowing the President to act without at least Congressional consultation, if not approval. They fear another exclusively presidential decision, like last year’s cruise missile attack on the Syrian base that had launched a sarin attack, would set an undesirable precedent for military action against North Korea and Iran. Some in Congress are also loathe to do anything that will get the US more involved in Syria, as the President has also been. Americans are not keen on taking on more responsibility for that devastated country.
Evidence against Bashar al Assad also needs to be presented internationally, both in classified and unclassified formats. France and the UK are thought to be considering participation in military action. Others, like Germany and Saudi Arabia, have good reason to be sympathetic with the US even if they are reluctant to participate. Russia de facto controls Syrian air defenses, which have mostly stood idly by while the US and especially Israel flies at will over and near Syria. If Moscow can be convinced to continue to hold its fire, Assad will be more chastened. It is not only cruise missiles that send a message.
A one-off strike, tightly targeted on those who launched the chemical attack on Douma, will do no more this year than last year. Assad is fighting not only to hold on to power, but also for his life. Only the prospect of a broad, sustained military campaign against his capabilities will affect his calculations about using chemical weapons, which are important to him because he is short of manpower after 7 years of war. The Administration needs to be asking whether targeting the presidential palace (with or without a warning) or the Syrian Air Force intelligence facilities that plan chemical attacks would send a stronger message than targeting just runways and aircraft.
The Administration also needs to consider what happens if Russians or Iranians or their proxies are killed, intentionally or unintentionally. Does the US have the capability to respond to escalation? Would it want to do so? Is it prepared for what Russia might do in Ukraine, the Baltics or the Balkans? Does it have the capability to respond to what Iran and its proxies might do in Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen, or even inside the US?
The Syrian conflict has widened from non-violent protests against autocracy to a civil war and now to a geopolitical contest between some of the most powerful states on earth. It behooves the US to think carefully about the many diplomatic, political, and military consequences that may follow from military action. Once it has carefully chosen a course of action, it needs to assemble as much support as possible and move decisively, not only in Syria but also defensively worldwide.
*Curt Mills at The National Interest attributes the hesitation to domestic, rightwing pressure. I suspect he is correct.
RSS - Posts
