Tag: UN
Peace Picks | October 21 – October 25
U.S. Policy Priorities for Afghanistan: A Conversation with U.S. Representative Mike Waltz | October 21, 2019 | 3:00 PM – 4:00 PM | Middle East Institute, 1763 N Street NW, Washington, District of Columbia 2003 | Register Here
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host U.S. Representative (FL) Michael Waltz to address U.S. policy priorities for Afghanistan. In conversation with Dr. Marvin Weinbaum, director of Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies at MEI, Rep. Waltz will discuss the many complicated challenges facing Afghanistan, key regional challenges to consider, and policy prescriptions given the fallout of the deal with the Taliban.
Yemen and International Humanitarian Law: Briefing from UN Experts | October 21, 2019 | 2:30 PM – 4:00 PM | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036-2103 | Register Here
The conflict in Yemen has killed more than 90,000 Yemenis and put more than 20 million in need of humanitarian assistance. The UN Group of Eminent International and Regional Experts on Yemen (GEE) have just released a new report describing a “pervasive lack of accountability” for violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. How will the latest developments in the conflict, including the rift between Saudi Arabia and the UAE, affect the dire conditions in the country and the prospects for accountability?
Please join the Carnegie Middle East Program and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies for a briefing by the experts on their recent report. Chair Kamel Jendoubi as well as members Melissa Parke and Charles Garraway will present their findings. Yemeni human rights defender Radhya al-Mutawakel will add her perspective. Carnegie’s Michele Dunne will moderate the conversation.
This event is co-sponsored by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.
More in the Med: Revitalizing NATO’s Southern Strategy for an Era of Great Power Competition | October 22, 2019 | 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM | Atlantic Council Headquarters, 1030 15th Street NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20005 | Register Here
Over the last 5 years, NATO has made huge strides to defend and deter against Russia in Europe’s northeast – what NATO does best. But its work in Europe’s south – in the Mediterranean, Middle East, and Africa – continues to fall short. This is not only a missed opportunity to mitigate the real, and growing, challenges along NATO’s Mediterranean and Black Sea frontiers, such as instability, terrorism, and uncontrolled migration, together with a more aggressive Russia and rising China; neglecting the threats closest to home for southern allies also threatens the solidarity and cohesion among allies that are essential to transatlantic security in an era of intensifying great power competition.
To help reinvigorate NATO’s southern strategy for today’s environment, the Transatlantic Security Initiative is launching a new report, co-authored by Ambassador Alexander Vershbow and Lauren Speranza. The paper argues that NATO’s south is not just about projecting stability, but also defense, deterrence, and containment. It outlines specific recommendations for how to project stability better, make the south ‘the new east’ through an enhanced Southern presence, and bolster regional leadership – particularly from Italy, a key ally at the heart of NATO’s south.
Opening Remarks
Damon Wilson
Executive Vice President
Atlantic Council
Alessandro Profumo
Chief Executive Officer
Leonardo S.p.A.
Keynote Address
General James L. Jones, Jr., USMC (Ret.)
Executive Chairman Emeritus
Atlantic Council
Discussion
Ambassador Philip Reeker
Acting Assistant Secretary of European and Eurasian Affairs
US Department of State
Ambassador Alexander Vershbow
Distinguished Fellow, Transatlantic Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security
Atlantic Council
Ambassador Armando Varicchio
Ambassador
Embassy of Italy to the United States
Kirsten Fontenrose
Director, Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative
Atlantic Council
Moderator
Lauren Speranza
Deputy Director, Transatlantic Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security
Atlantic Council
Are Sanctions Working in Venezuela? | October 23, 2019 | 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM | CSIS Headquarters | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
As the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela continues to deteriorate, a debate has risen among policymakers as to whether or not sanctions may be worsening conditions for Venezuelan citizens.
While the United States, the Lima Group, the European Union, and other like-minded nations continue to increase pressure on the regime of Nicolás Maduro with diplomatic measures such as challenging his government’s legitimacy, the question remains as to whether sanctions are an effective measure for changing the behavior of the Venezuelan regime and pushing Maduro to step down. Despite external support by Russia, Cuba, China, and a few other countries, Maduro is more alienated on the world stage than ever before. However, stiff sanctions and diplomatic isolation have not yet convinced Maduro to negotiate his exit, as his regime has proven to be resilient and adaptable.
The expert panel will assess the efficacy
of sanctions, including what is and is not working, as well as implications for
U.S. foreign policy, the energy sector, and the impact on Venezuela’s
humanitarian crisis and its struggle for democracy.
Panel Discussion Featuring:
Eric B. Lorber, Director, Financial Integrity
Network
Elizabeth
Rosenberg, Senior Fellow and Director of the Energy, Economics,
and Security Program, Center for a New American Security
David
Smolansky, Coordinator of the OAS Working Group on Venezuelan
Migrants and Refugees; Former Mayor of El Hatillo, Venezuela
Francisco J.
Monaldi, Fellow, Latin American Energy Policy, Rice University
Moderated by:
Moises Rendon, Director, The Future of Venezuela Initiative; Fellow, CSIS Americas Program
The Navy in an era of great power competition | October 23, 2019 | 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM | Brookings Institution, Saul/Zilkha Room, 1775 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
America’s maritime forces are undergoing significant changes to address the realities of great power competition. Evolving technology, ongoing uncertainty about the budgetary and fiscal climate, and accelerating innovation by America’s competitors have forced the Navy and Marine Corps to adapt quickly and comprehensively to fulfill the vision laid out for them in the National Defense Strategy. Much work, though, remains to be done.
On October 23, the Brookings Institution will host Richard Spencer, the 76th secretary of the Navy, to discuss naval modernization, the budgetary environment, and the challenges posed by America’s great power rivals to America’s maritime forces. The keynote address will be followed by a discussion between Secretary Spencer and Michael E. O’Hanlon, a Senior Fellow at Foreign Policy.
Partners against crime: Fighting cartels and corruption in the Americas | October 25, 2019 | 9:00 AM – 11:00 AM | AEI, 1789 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Transnational organized crime is a threat that reaches throughout the Western Hemisphere in the form of drug cartels, gangs, guerrilla groups, and crooked officials. These groups destabilize governments, spread violence, and undermine economic development. The United States relies on vital regional cooperation and partnerships to combat this threat, yet these partnerships can be disrupted by political shifts, corruption, and a lack of institutional capacity.
Please join AEI for a conversation on transnational organized crime, corruption, and the importance of regional partnerships. Attorney General of El Salvador Raúl Melara will deliver opening remarks, followed by a panel discussion with leading experts.
Panelists:
Ryan Berg, AEI
Roberto Gil Zuarth, President of the Senate of Mexico (2015–16)
Celina Realuyo, William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, National Defense University
Moderator:
Juan José Daboub, AEI
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Weaponizing humanitarian corridors
Yesterday, Moscow and Damascus proposed to open humanitarian corridors into Aleppo. But their corridors aren’t intended to let humanitarian aid in. What they want to do is let Aleppans leave the besieged city.
Why would they want to do that?
There are two good reasons:
- The Syrian army and its militia allies are stretched thin. A block-to-block fight in the opposition-controlled eastern part of the city will take a big toll. Reducing number of opposition fighters will reduce the hit Assad’s forces take.
- The 300,000 or so people left in the east after more than five years of fighting are diehard opposition supporters. President Assad doesn’t want them staying, as they will no doubt continue to oppose his rule.
So what we’ve got here from the Russians and Syrians is a proposal to cleanse Aleppo of its opposition population, who are mostly Sunni. No doubt Assad intends to replace them with loyalists, in due course. He has caused so much destruction, and has so little money with which to rebuild, the eastern part of the city is likely to remain deserted for some time to come, or be populated by only the most desperate of the down and out.
What we are seeing is a purposeful effort to re-engineer the demography of Syria, now divided among areas controlled by the regime, the opposition, the Kurds, the Islamic State and other extremists, to simplify things a bit. Assad has no intention of welcoming home the more than four million people who have fled the country. Nor does he want another seven million who are internally displaced to go automatically back to where they came from. What he wants is to determine who goes where, consolidating those who support his rule in what he terms “useful Syria” (the Damascus/Aleppo axis and the west) and dispersing to other less attractive areas those who don’t.
The US has characterized the Russian/Syrian proposal as a “demand for surrender.” The UN has said it doesn’t respond to humanitarian needs, which are for pauses in the fighting and free access for UN aid going in and for people who want to leave, via any route they choose.
I see the Russian/Syrian proposition as an effort to weaponize the concept of humanitarian corridors, using them to achieve objectives that would otherwise require the application of military force. I can’t however rule out that the US will fall for the idea, in one form or another. Washington has shown no interest in the dire situation in Aleppo. It is entirely focused on fighting the Islamic State.
That is a mistake. Allowing Assad to conquer Aleppo and cleanse it of his opponents will help extremist recruitment and extend the growing international insurgency they are indulging in. He has made it absolutely clear he has no intention of governing in a way that would be sufficiently inclusive to counter the extremists.
Some of my friends are wondering whether allowing Assad to stay in place might calm things enough to allow for a transition to take place in due course. I’d have to see the details of such a proposition before commenting, but what indication is there that Assad will ever give up power unless he is forced to do so? The cynicism of weaponizing the idea of humanitarian corridors should remind us all that we are dealing, in both Russia and Syria, with people determined to have their way by any means, foul or fair.
RSS - Posts
