We still don’t know precisely what Jamal Khashoggi’s fate is: was he abducted in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul? Did he die there or elsewhere? Was he murdered or was his death unintentional?
What we know is that he has disappeared. The last sighting was his entry into the consulate. That makes his fate an issue for the Saudis to clarify. They haven’t bothered. Beyond denying responsibility for his disappearance, Riyadh has said almost nothing.
Others are saying a lot. President Trump, while declaring he will get to the bottom of the disappearance, initially emphasized that Jamal was not a US citizen and that his (grossly exaggerated) $110 billion in arms sales to Riyadh will have to go ahead no matter what. Under pressure, the President is now promising “severe punishment” if Saudi Arabia killed Khashoggi. The Congress is pressing the Administration for an investigation and threatening sanctions against Saudi Arabia.
Turkey is busily leaking videos of suspicious movements of Saudis into and out of Istanbul and the consulate, as well as letting on that they have audio and video of what happened inside the consulate. Jamal’s Washington Post employers and many other news outlets are devoting valuable space to insisting on clarification and expressing their dismay that it has not been forthcoming. Many Washington think-tank colleagues are publishing vociferous protests and testimonials to a courageous journalist.
The paucity of hard facts makes it difficult to say more. Ankara and Riyadh have agreed to a joint committee to pursue the investigation. But there is little likelihood it will come up with anything if the Saudis don’t want it to. That perhaps is the most damning signal at present. If Jamal were alive, or had left the consulate alive, why would Saudi Arabia not have demonstrated that already?
The brouhaha over Jamal’s disappearance is unlikely to amount to much more than verbal protest. Turkey can do little damage to Saudi Arabia, with which it is already at odds. The Trump Administration has wedded itself to the Kingdom, which it needs for the campaign against Iran. Washington still has lots of issues with Turkey, even after the release Friday of an American pastor arrested two years ago. Trump will stick with the Kingdom as his favored ally in the Gulf. He has no real alternative.
The larger significance of Jamal’s still undetermined fate is this: the spirit of open inquiry and freedom of expression that he practiced and championed is evaporating. Russia’s use of chemical weapons against “turncoats” in Britain, Duterte’s murderous rampage against drug dealers in the Philippines, Iran’s arming of Hizbollah, the Houthis, and Shia militias in Syria and Iraq, and Trump’s denunciations of the press as “enemies of the people” are creating new norms: states can violently attack their opponents whenever and wherever they like. Unless they are caught red-handed murdering innocents, the consequences are likely to be minimal. Maybe I should say even if they are caught red-handed.
This somewhat skeptical Washington Post version of the Turkish-provided videos purporting relevance to Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance is worth a look:
“The territory controlled by the Syrian opposition must be demilitarized,” Erdogan told reporters in the Russian town of Sochi. “But together with Russia, we will put our efforts into clearing those territories of radical elements,” he said, referring to al-Qaeda-linked extremists in Idlib.
What could go wrong?
Everything. Such “safe zones,” where civilians are herded for supposed protection, are vulnerable. There are foreseeable problems:
They can’t protect themselves but will have to rely for protection on Turkish and Russian forces as well as restraint by the regime and Iranian-backed militias. The Russians are unreliable at best. The regime, the Iranians, and their friends are pernicious.
Provocateurs will hide in these safe zones and give nearby Syrian and Iranian-backed forces an excuse to attack them, most likely using barrel bombs and other stand-off weapons.
Eventually, the Syrian opposition people who take refuge in such safe zones will be turned over to a regime that has been killing “reconciled” fighters and likely also civilians.
People who fail to take refuge in what amount to unsafe zones will be subjected to the kind of brutal bombardments that have characterized the regime takeovers of East Ghouta, Aleppo, Daraa and other former opposition-controlled area.
To be effective, civilian protected zones would require the presence and active assistance of impartial military forces, which simply don’t exist in Syria, as well as a kind of restraint neither the regime nor the Iranian-backed forces have shown. Woe betide the innocent civilian who thinks she will be safe in a demilitarized zone.
What would be better? Agreement for the Turks to take over all of Idlib and do what they can to disarm and arrest extremists would be better. Non-extremist fighters would then cooperate with the Turks and ensure the safety of the entire province, provided the regime and its friends would agree not to attack. That is what the regime should want if it looks forward to the eventual reintegration of Idlib with the rest of the country.
But Assad is not into peaceful reintegration. He is trying to prove his state so fierce (the word Steve Heydemann uses to great effect) that no one will ever try to buck his rule again. This is achievable, as the Algerian regime has demonstrated, and Egypt’s President Sisi is trying to confirm. When you’ve gone to war for more than seven years and presided over the deaths of more or less half a million people, people would be stupid not to be afraid. Now all Assad has to do is kill a few thousand more and he’ll have achieved a large part of his objective.
He will still however have a big chunk of his country outside his regime’s: control: the north and east are in the hands of the Turks and Americans, supported by Turkman, Kurdish and Arab allies. If they could somehow act in a unified way, Ankara and Washington would have some serious cards to play in the coming diplomacy over post-war Syria. We’ll have to wait and see whether they can somehow make their common interests in not returning the areas they occupy to Syrian and Iranian control prevail without a political transition in Damascus over their differences with respect to the Kurds. Either they hang together, or they hang separately, in Benjamin Franklin’s striking phrase.
Here are Putin and Erdogan announcing their agreement:
We are all transfixed with the anonymous Times op/ed that told us nothing new and with the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, but really the outcome there is clear: he will be confirmed, because he opposes the right to chose abortion, resists accountability for police and companies, and will vote against any attempt to subpeona this president. That’s why he was nominated, and that’s why the Republicans will confirm him.
The new news today is President Trump’s decision to keep US forces in Syria indefinitely, not only to prevent the resurgence of ISIS but also to counter Iran. This means, like it or not, that the US is committed to trying to stabilize the northeastern part of Syria that it controls with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), led by by Kurdish YPG fighters. And once it has stabilized the area it will need to reconstruct it, if conditions for withdrawal have not yet been created. We broke it and we own it, until there is a viable alternative that meets American requirements: no Iran, no ISIS.
This is classic mission creep, but that doesn’t mean it is necessarily bad. The options were these:
Leave northeastern Syria to its fate and watch while our friendly Kurds patch things up with Damascus and go to war against NATO ally Turkey.
Stay to deny Iran its land route to the Levant and negotiate for a political outcome in Damascus more acceptable than simple restoration of Assad’s dictatorship.
Staying entails putting US forces at risk. The current number, around 2000, will have to grow significantly to protect the stabilization and eventual reconstruction effort required to prevent the return of ISIS or some other extremist group. Staying also means trying to prevent the Kurds from attacking inside Turkey or providing assistance to their PKK compatriots there.
These are not small responsibilities. The reconstruction effort should come in part from UNDP, the World Bank , the Europeans, and the Gulf, but will in any event require a significant American contribution in dollars and personnel. Preventing the Kurds from attacking inside Turkey is partly a question of incentives: both the Turks and Kurds want the Americans to stay, so they should lay off each other. But a lot of fevered negotiation will be required to maintain the standoff, a model for which is already operating in Manbij.
Negotiation is also the key to the political outcome in Damascus. Assad is looking for total victory, assisted by Iran and Russia. But the US has some leverage if it stays in northeastern Syria. The area was Syria’s breadbasket before the war and it produced most of the country’s oil and gas. The oil is now being shipped in part to a regime-controlled refinery and fuels an electric generator serving Damascus. Assad needs the oil and gas fields back under his control, which means he and his allies may pressure the US militarily while trying to convince the Kurds that Damascus will give them a better deal.
Presidents Assad, Putin, and Rouhani agreed today to put off an assault on Idlib, giving Turkey some time to arrange withdrawal of Al Qaeda-linked extremists and thus avoiding a humanitarian catastrophe involving the 3 million civilians in the province. American pressure against the assault may have had some impact, but I suspect the Russians were hesitant to saddle their newfound Turkish friends a new influx of refugees. Best to keep Erdogan on side, in particular because he has promised to buy Russian air defenses. The Iranians and Assad will be disappointed, but they can hope Turkey will fail and the assault will only be postponed.
The new American commitment in northeastern Syria is likely to be long-term and big. The President owes the American people an honest explanation of why it is necessary and how it will be staffed and paid for. That isn’t likely to happen. Instead, Jim Jeffrey, Trump’s capable and well-informed new Syria envoy, made the announcement to a gaggle of reporters. No offense to Jim, whose experience in Turkey and Iraq make him an excellent choice for his new role, but that is not adequate for a policy change of this magnitude.
1. Tensions with Turkey: A Calleo Series Panel on Turkey and the West | Tuesday, September 4, 2018 | 5:30 pm – 7:00 pm | Johns Hopkins SAIS | Rome Auditorium, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW | Register Here
The SAIS European and Eurasian Studies (EES) Program cordially invites you to our Fall Seminar Series at the Washington campus. In tribute to his many contributions and support, series is named in honor of Professor David P. Calleo, who continues to inspire EES scholars through his research and engagement. View the series schedule and RSVP at https://calleoseminars.eventbrite.com.
Join us Tuesday, September 4, 2018 as we kick off the 2018-2019 academic year with a panel discussion on “Tensions with Turkey: A Calleo Series Panel on Turkey and the West.”
Confirmed speakers include:
Nicholas Danforth – Senior Analyst at Bipartisan Policy Center
Amanda Sloat – Robert Bosch senior fellow, Brookings Institution
Ambassador Eric Edelman – Johns Hopkins SAIS
Lisel Hintz – Assistant Professor of IR and European Studies, Johns Hopkins SAIS
RSVP and a valid JHU or government-issued ID is required for entry. Appetizers and drinks are served.
2. China’s “War on Terrorism” an the Xinjiang Emergency | Wednesday, September 5, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm | Hudson Institute | Register Here
For the last sixteen years, the Chinese Communist Party has been telling the Chinese people and the world at-large that it is waging its own “war on terrorism” in the Uyghur homeland of Xinjiang, known to Uyghurs as “East Turkestan.” Xinjiang has since become the most heavily garrisoned and surveilled part of the People’s Republic of China. As many as one million Uyghurs are now detained in Communist Party “political re-education” camps, where they have been subject to torture, medical maltreatment, and other abuses. Meanwhile, the “stability” of the region has become essential for PRC’s strategic “One Belt, One Road” initiative, and the Communist Party has used its influence around the world to stifle criticism of the human rights emergency in Xinjiang that it has created.
What is at stake for the Chinese Communist Party in Xinjiang? How has the PRC’s conduct and repression in Xinjiang affected its foreign relations, including with Pakistan, the countries of Central Asia, and the Middle East? What do we know about the policy debates among Chinese authorities and the people of China concerning Xinjiang and what, if any, are the dissenting views? What does the PRC’s conduct in Xinjiang tell us about the nature of the Communist Party’s power and the PRC’s ambitions to transform itself into a superpower?
On September 5, Hudson Institute will host a discussion on the PRC’s “war on terrorism.” The panel will include Dr. Michael Clarke, associate professor at the Australian National University; Louisa Greve, director of external affairs for the Uyghur Human Rights Project; Andrew Small, a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund; Sean Roberts, an associate professor at George Washington University; and Rushan Abbas, a former Uyghur Service journalist with Radio Free Asia. The discussion will be moderated by Hudson senior fellow Eric Brown.
3. Securing a Democratic World – A Case for a Democratic Values-Driven U.S. Foreign Policy | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 9:00 am – 10:30 am | Center for American Progress | Register Here
Liberal democracy around the world is under threat. The waves of democratization of the 1980s and 1990s have stalled. Democracies from Hungary to Turkey and Poland to the Philippines are backsliding. Autocracies such as China and Russia are attempting to undermine democracies from within. And here in the United States, democratic institutions face an unprecedented series of threats from the very leaders chosen to safeguard democracy.
It is increasingly clear that the future of U.S. national security and a liberal democratic world depends on America embracing democratic values, locking arms with its democratic allies to stem the rise of authoritarianism, and growing the community of democratic nations. This is the focus of an upcoming Center for American Progress report, “Securing a Democratic World: The Case for a Democratic Values-Driven U.S. Foreign Policy.”
To discuss the state of U.S. support for democracy around the world, the importance of democratic values in foreign policy, and what the United States should do going forward, please join CAP for a conversation with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) will share his perspective on the importance of democratic values in American foreign policy in a keynote address.
Speakers:
Keynote Remarks: Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Madeleine K. Albright – former U.S. Secretary of State
Kelly Magsamen – Vice President, National Security and International Policy, Center for American Progress
4. After Elections, What’s Next for Pakistan? | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 9:30 am – 1:00 pm | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
With the votes now counted and new assembly members sworn in, Pakistan’s July 25th elections have ushered in a change of civilian governments and a new coalition led by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party and its leader Imran Khan. Opposing parties, particularly the previous national incumbent party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, and the Pakistan People’s Party, have challenged the election results with claims of rigging, intimidation, and military influence.
Join USIP on September 6th for two panels that will explore the election results, the factors that influenced them, as well as looking forward towards their implications for the new government – its opportunities, challenges, and the future of Pakistan’s democracy. The first panel will examine the main electoral outcomes, including the role of gender, political parties and opposition forces in the election. The second panel will address the influence of actors outside the formal electoral system, including the role of the judiciary, military, religious parties, and electoral violence dynamics. Speakers will include academic experts and policy professionals. Join the conversation on Twitter with #USIPPakistan.
Agenda
9:30am – 11:00am – Panel 1: Analyzing the Main Electoral Results
Colin Cookman – Program Officer, U.S. Institute of Peace
Sarah Khan – Postgraduate Associate, Yale University
Mariam Mufti – Assistant Professor, University of Waterloo
Sahar Shafqat – Professor, St. Mary’s College of Maryland
Moderator: Jumaina Siddiqui, Senior Program Officer, U.S. Institute of Peace
11:15am – 12:45pm – Panel 2: Analyzing the Non-electoral Factors
Sahar Khan – Visiting Research Fellow, CATO Institute
Yasser Kureshi – PhD Candidate, Brandeis University
Niloufer Siddiqui – Assistant Professor, University of Albany
Joshua White – Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins University
Moderator: Tamanna Salikuddin, Senior Program Officer, U.S. Institute of Peace
5. The Enablers: How Western Professionals Import Corruption and Strengthen Authoritarianism | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 10:00 am – 11:30 am | Hudson Institute | Register Here
As globalization began breaking down divisions between Western elites and their counterparts in the Eastern hemisphere, some American legal, financial, and communications professionals sought new opportunities among clients with fortunes of dubious provenance.But instead of carrying the rule of law into corrupt societies, networking between U.S. professional services providers and kleptocrats linked to authoritarian regimes has undermined American values, democracy, and national security. Some of the most distinguished and influential professions have become importers of dirty money and underhand practices.
On September 6, 2018, join Hudson Institute’s Kleptocracy Initiative for a discussion of “The Enablers: How Western Professionals Import Corruption and Strengthen Authoritarianism,” a new report examining what policies are needed to close the loopholes commonly exploited by foreign kleptocrats and their professional facilitators in the United States.
Speakers:
Charles Davidson – Executive Director, Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute; Publisher, The American Interest
Elise Bean – Former Staff Director and Chief Counsel, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate
Mark Hays – Anti-Money Laundering Campaign Leader, Global Witness
Ben Judah – Research Fellow, Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute
Nate Sibley – Program Manager, Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute
6. The Future of the U.S.-Turkey Relationship in the Trump Administration | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 11:00 am – 12:30 pm | Turkish Heritage Organization | The City Club of Washington – President Room, 555 13th Street NW, Washington, DC 20004 | Register Here
The mutual endorsement of the Manbij roadmap was a positive step forward, since then the relations between the U.S. and Turkey have been nothing but hostile. From Pastor Andrew Brunson being rejected an appeal for release, U.S. sanctioning two Turkish officials and imposing tariffs on Turkish goods, Turkey reciprocating in the same manner with freezing assets of two U.S. officials, as well as ordering sanctions against U.S. products. Meanwhile, Congress has delayed the delivery of F-35s to Turkey. With a number of major developments in the relationship of the two strategic allies, we ask ourselves what comes next?
Please join THO on Thursday, September 6 to hear from our distinguished panel of experts as they analyze the Future of the U.S.-Turkey Relationship.
Speakers:
Moderator: Dr. Mark Meirowitz – Associate Professor, SUNY Maritime College; THO Advisory Board Member
Joel Rubin – Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for House Affairs, State Department
Molly Montgomery – VP at Albright Stonebridge Group, Former State Department and White House Senior Official
Akif Kirecci (via Skype) – President, Ankara Center for Political and Economic Research (ASEM)
7. War or Peace: The Struggle for WorldPower | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm | Heritage Foundation | Register Here
The Pax Americana – the global order established after the collapse of the Soviet Empire – is increasingly being challenged especially by former imperial behemoths China and Russia. There is a growing chorus questioning the so-called “Washington Consensus” in favor of a “Beijing Consensus” in economic policy. As the United States ceases to be the sole superpower willing and able to maintain a global PAX, today there is an increasing global “disorder.”
Deepak Lal offers a study of the causes and consequences for this disorder, examining alternative claims for a desirable future economic policy. He argues that the origins of this increasing disorder lie, in part, in the great economic recession of 2008 in the United States, which has tarnished the free market based capitalism of the West. He examines how the U.S. (and its European outpost, the E.U), China, Russia, India and, potentially, Japan will be involved in this new “Great Game” and how their strategic decisions will determine whether we see a repeat of the past, with potentially another completely unnecessary world war, or if they will succeed in avoiding a reversion to their earlier types.
8. Rethinking Human Rights and Islam | Thursday, September 6, 2018 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Please join the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East for the launch of a new report, “The Islamic Tradition, Human Rights Discourse & Muslim Communities,” and a wide-ranging discussion of human rights issues facing Muslim communities around the world.
From the niqab ban in Denmark, to de-facto bans on freedom of expression in some Muslim majority countries, to the so-called Muslim Ban in the United States, Muslim communities around the world are faced with numerous challenges to human rights and attacks on personal freedoms. Still, contemporary conversations on Islam often question the compatibility of Islamic and Western values. Today, with millions of Muslims on the receiving end of numerous human rights violations at the hands of both Muslim majority and non-Muslim states, the current discourse is proving to be outdated and restrictive.
With generous support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Atlantic Council Nonresident Senior Fellow Dr. H.A. Hellyer engaged dozens of scholars, grassroots activists, and religious leaders on four continents on issues surrounding the human rights discourse and Muslim communities worldwide. The content of these critical engagements is captured in the new report: “The Islamic Tradition, Human Rights Discourse & Muslim Communities.”
To examine the issues addressed in the report, the Atlantic Council will bring together a panel of experts to discuss and offer their own perspectives on rethinking the dominant narrative on human rights and Islam.
Speakers:
Moderator: Adbul-Rehman Malik – Associate on Middle East Studies, Coordinator of the Muslim Social Justice Leadership Lab at the Dwight Hall Center for Social Justice, Yale University
Dr. Hisham A. Hellyer – Nonresident Senior Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, Atlantic Council
Dr. Dalia Fahmy – Associate Professor of Political Science, Long Island University
Dr. Mohammad Fadel – Associate Professor, Canada Research Chair, Law & Economics of Islamic Law, University of Toronto
Dr. Peter Mandaville – Professor of International Affairs, George Mason University ; Nonresident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
9. Iran and Al Qa’ida: The View from Abottabad| Friday, September 7, 2018 | 12:15 pm – 1:45 pm | New America | Register Here
In May 2018, President Trump announced that the Iran deal would be terminated. In doing so he accused Iran of supporting Al Qa‘ida. But what is the true relationship between Iran and Al Qa‘ida? In her new report Al-Qa‘ida’s Contested Relationship With Iran: The View from Abbottabad, New America Senior Fellow Nelly Lahoud cuts through the politicized discourse with an examination of almost 300 of Al Qa‘ida’s own documents regarding its relationship with Iran.
Nelly Lahoud is a Senior Fellow with New America’s International Security Program. She holds a Ph.D. from the Research School of Social Sciences — Australian National University. Her research has focused on the evolution and ideology of Al-Qa’ida (AQ) and the ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS/ISIL). She was previously an associate professor at the Department of Social Sciences and senior associate at the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point; and assistant professor of political theory, including Islamic political thought, at Goucher College.
Join the conversation online using #AQIran and following @NewAmericaISP.
Moderator: Peter Bergen – Vice President, New America; Director, International Security Program, New America
Speaker: Nelly Lahoud – Senior Fellow, New America International Security Program; Author, Al-Qa’ida’s Contested Relationship with Iran: The View from Abottabad
1. U.S.-Turkey Relations in Crisis: Where Are We Headed? | Wednesday, August 22, 2018 | 10:00 am – 11:00 am | The Wilson Center | Register Here
Please note: Ground Truth Briefings are conducted exclusively by phone. There will be no physical meeting at the Wilson Center.
The U.S.-Turkish relationship is in crisis. The disagreement over the detention of American pastor Andrew Brunson has exposed deeper fault lines in U.S.-Turkish ties that have been building for a decade or more, undermining any sense of confidence and trust. Are the ties that bind Washington and Ankara stronger than those political, economic and regional forces threatening to pull them apart? And is there hope of a pathway back to a more functional relationship?
Join us as four veteran observers and analysts of Turkish politics and U.S.-Turkish relations address these and other issues.
U.S. toll-free number: 888-942-8140
International call-in number: 1-517-308-9203
Participant passcode: 13304
Speakers:
Introduction: Jane Harman – Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center
Moderator: Aaron David Miller – Vice President for New Initiatives and Middle East Program Director, Wilson Center
Asli Aydintasbas – Senior Policy Fellow, European Council on Foreign Relations; columnist for the Turkish daily, Cumhuriyet
Henri Barkey – Bernard L. and Bertha F. Cohen Professor in International Relations, Lehigh University; Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies, Council on Foreign Relations; former Director, Wilson Center Middle East Program
Soner Cagaptay – Senior fellow at The Washington Institute and author “The New Sultan: Erdogan and the Crisis of Modern Turkey”
Lisel Hintz – Assistant Professor of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies
2. The Challenge of Cyber Strategy | Wednesday, August 22, 2018 | 4:00 pm – 5:30 pm | Atlantic Council | Register Here
In the age of cyber conflict, coercion combines with disruption, cyber espionage and influence campaigns to shape the behavior of antagonists. As the character of power evolves, cyber operations are increasingly becoming a modern form of political warfare, with major implications for coercive policy options and cyber strategies.
Join us as we partner with the Marine Corps University Foundation to convene cyber practitioners and academics for a forward-thinking dialogue on shaping policy to account for this changing security environment and maintain US advantage in long-term cyber competition.
Speakers:
Moderator: JD Work – Donald Bren Chair of Cyber Conflict and Security, Marine Corps University
Dr. Benjamin Jensen – Senior Fellow, Foresight Strategy and Risks Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council; Associate Professor, Marine Corps University; Scholar in Residence, American University
Lt. Gen. Loretta Reynolds – Deputy Commandant for Information, Marine Corps Forces Cyber Command
Dr. Brandon Valeriano – Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council; Donald Bren Chair of Armed Politics, Marine Corps University
Dr. Chris Whyte – Assistant Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University
3. Afghanistan: 17 Years On | Thursday, August 23, 2018 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | Hudson Institute | Register Here
For four decades Afghanistan and its citizens have lived through civil war, instability, and an unending terrorist insurgency. Last year, President Trump announced his Afghanistan and South Asia strategy to help address many of the chronic issues plaguing the region. Yet the Taliban and their allies continue to conduct attacks, often from safe havens across the border in Pakistan.Some experts have suggested that the way out of this destructive cycle is through peace talks and negotiations with the Taliban. Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani has repeatedly demonstrated his openness to such discussions, and has coordinated a number of them with American, Afghan, and Taliban officials in recent years. Others question the wisdom of peace talks involving the Taliban and the viability of any resolution that might require the withdrawal of foreign—especially American—troops from a still unstable Afghanistan.
On August 23, Hudson Institute’s South and Central Asia Program will host a panel to discuss the current political climate in Afghanistan. Panelists will include: Omar Samad, former Ambassador of Afghanistan to France and Canada; David Sedney, acting president of American University of Afghanistan and senior associate at the Center for Strategic and international Studies; and Husain Haqqani, former Ambassador of Pakistan to the United States and director of the South and Central Asia Program at Hudson Institute.
RSS - Posts
