Tag: United Nations
Peace Picks | November 30 – December 4, 2020
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
1. France and Islam: Identity, Politics, and Geopolitics | November 30, 2020 | 4:00 – 5:15 PM ET | Brookings Institute | Register Here
France’s contentious policy on the public practice of Islam has struck multiple identity and political fault lines, not only in France or Europe, but also across the Muslim world. What was essentially a domestic French political debate has morphed into a global debate on relations between state and religion, liberalism and secularism, and the West and Islam/Muslim-majority countries. The intensifying controversy in France comes amid growing populist calls for limiting migration, especially from Muslim countries, and ongoing government initiatives that would deepen the securitization of Islam in the country. President Macron’s rhetoric has dovetailed with France’s foreign policy toward the Middle East’s ideological and geopolitical cleavages, ensuring the amplification of reactions abroad. While the public reaction in the Middle East has been largely uniform, official reactions have exposed existing divisions and conflicts on regional affairs.
The Brookings Doha Center invites you to attend a webinar on France’s evolving policy on the public and political manifestations of Islam. Among other topics, the webinar will address the following questions: What are the domestic and foreign policy drivers of France’s new policy on Islam and Islamism? How is this policy shaping identity debates on Islam and Muslims in the West? What does this policy tell us about populism, nativism, and multiculturalism in France in particular and the West in general? And what will be the geopolitical implications of this new policy in the Middle East and the Muslim world?
Speakers:
Galip Dalay, moderator: Nonresident Fellow – Brookings Doha CenterRichard von Weizsäcker Fellow, Robert Bosch Academy
François Burgat: Senior Research Fellow – French National Centre for Scientific Research
Jocelyne Cesari: Visiting Professor of Religion, Violence, and Peacebuilding – Harvard Divinity School
Rim-Sarah Alouane: Ph.D candidate in Comparative Law – Université Toulouse
2. Taking Stock: Five Years of Russia’s Intervention in Syria | November 30, 2020 | 10:30 – 11:30 PM EST | Carnegie Endowment for Peace | Register Here
Russia’s military intervention in Syria in October 2015 changed the course of the civil war, saving the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.
Five years on, al-Assad is still in power and the country remains unstable. Turkey’s incursion into northeastern Syria and the United States’ withdrawal of troops in late 2019 have redesigned the geography of the conflict, while the EU has been largely absent from the diplomatic efforts to halt the war.
Speakers:
Marc Pierini: visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe, where his research focuses on developments in the Middle East and Turkey from a European perspective.
Jomana Qaddour: nonresident senior fellow at the Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East Program of the Atlantic Council, where she leads the Syria portfolio.
Dmitri Trenin: director of the Carnegie Moscow Center. Also chairs the research council and the Foreign and Security Policy Program.
Frances Z. Brown: senior fellow with Carnegie’s Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program
3. Contested Waters: Flashpoints for Conflict in Asia | December 1, 2020 | 9:00 – 10:30 AM ET | United States Institute for Peace | Register Here
No modern states have ever declared war over water. In fact, nations dependent on shared water sources have collaborated far more frequently than they have clashed. Nevertheless, global surveys have counted over 40 hostile or militarized international actions over water—from riots to border skirmishes to larger battles—in the first six decades after World War II.
Join USIP for a virtual discussion on the future of water conflict and water diplomacy. Environmental peacebuilding experts and activists from Burma, India, and Pakistan will discuss the strategies they use to mitigate water conflict risks in their countries, as well as examine insights from a new USIP report, “Water Conflict Pathways and Peacebuilding Strategies,” that may help develop early warning indicators for emerging water-based conflicts.
Speakers:
Tegan Blaine: Senior Advisor on Environment and Conflict, U.S. Institute of Peace
David Michel: Senior Researcher, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute; Author, “Water Conflict Pathways and Peacebuilding Strategies”
Abdul Aijaz: Doctoral Candidate, Indiana University Bloomington
Amit Ranjan: Research Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore
Z Nang Raw: Director of Policy and Strategy, Nyein Foundation
Jumaina Siddiqui, moderator: Senior Program Officer for South Asia, U.S. Institute of Peace
4. U.S.-China Relations Under Biden: A Look Ahead | December 1, 2020 | 9:00 – 10:00 AM ET | Carnegie Endowment for Peace | Register Here
While the recent election of Joe Biden likely signals a raft of domestic political changes, its impact on U.S.-China relations remains unclear. The Trump administration has remolded the relationship, which is now defined by confrontations over economic practices, emerging technologies, and security. There is also growing bipartisan support for pursuing a tougher approach to China, and the Justice, State, and Defense departments are increasingly prioritizing new initiatives to push back on Beijing. Will Biden maintain the confrontational tone and policies of his predecessor? Or will he devise an entirely different posture toward Beijing? The answers to these questions will not only have critical consequences for the two countries in question, but for the broader international community as well.
One month after the U.S. election, Paul Haenle will moderate a discussion with American and Chinese experts on how the Biden administration will approach China, as well as how Beijing is gearing up for the new U.S. president.
Speakers:
Paul Haenle: Maurice R. Greenberg Director’s Chair at the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center based at Tsinghua University in Beijing, China
Evan A. Feigenbaum: Vice President for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Xie Tao: Professor of Political Science and Dean of the School of International Relations and Diplomacy, Beijing Foreign Studies University
5. Hinge of History: Governance in an Emerging New World | December 2, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:30 PM ET | United States Institute for Peace | Register Here
With rapid technological change, shifting global demographics, and tectonic geopolitical shifts, the world faces an inflection point—where the choices that leaders make in the coming years will have profound implications for generations. In response to this moment, former Secretary of State George P. Shultz has organized a project at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution called Hinge of History: Governance in an Emerging World to explore what these shifts mean for global democracy, economies, and security.
Join USIP and Stanford’s Hoover Institution for a timely conversation on the project’s findings and its implications for U.S. and international policy. The panel discussion will evaluate the major demographic, technological, and economic trends that are creating tectonic shifts in our geopolitical landscape and forcing a strategic rethink of governance strategies in the 21st century. In light of the challenges identified, panelists will also consider how the United States and others can harness these changes to usher in greater security and prosperity.
Agenda
2:00pm – 2:20pm | A Conversation with Secretary George P. Shultz
The Honorable Stephen J. Hadley: Chair, Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace
Secretary George P. Shultz: Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
2:20pm – 3:20pm | Panel Discussion: Governance Strategies for the Emerging New World
Dr. Chester A. Crocker, moderator: James R. Schlesinger Professor of Strategic Studies, Georgetown University
Dr. Lucy Shapiro: Virginia and D. K. Ludwig Professor of Developmental Biology, Stanford University
Ambassador George Moose: Vice Chair, Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace
Dr. James P. Timbie: Annenberg Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Dr. Silvia Giorguli-Saucedo: President, El Colegio de México
3:20pm – 3:30pm | Closing Remarks
Ambassador George Moose: Vice Chair, Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace
6. Venezuela’s Assembly Elections | December 3, 2020 | 11:30 AM – 12:45 PM ET | Wilson Center | Register Here
On Sunday, December 6, 2020, Venezuela will hold elections to choose members of the National Assembly for five-year terms. Since 2015, Venezuela’s political opposition has held a majority in the Assembly, the body from which Juan Guaidó emerged as interim President in January 2019.
This December’s Assembly elections take place against a backdrop of acute restrictions on political freedoms under the regime of Nicolás Maduro. For example, to limit and undermine the National Assembly’s authority, the regime convened elections in 2017 for a parallel Constituent Assembly, elections condemned by over 40 countries in Latin America and around the world. In recent years, leading opposition figures have been summarily prohibited from offering their candidacy, and in 2020, the Venezuelan Supreme Court arbitrarily removed the leadership of opposition parties, substituting others appointed by the government.
Amidst these growing restrictions on democratic space, the opposition has decided not to participate in the December 6 elections, a decision supported by scores of countries who have recognized the interim presidency of Juan Guaidó.
What, then, do these elections mean for the political future of Venezuela? What future strategies are available to the opposition? Will citizens, exhausted by chronic shortages of basic goods and in the midst of a raging pandemic, show up to vote? What will a new Assembly mean for the political future of Juan Guaidó?
Speakers:
Michael Penfold: Abraham F. Lowenthal Public Policy Fellow; Professor of Political Science, Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administración (IESA) Business and Public Policy School, Venezuela
Margarita Lopez Maya: Professor, Center for Development Studies (CENDES), Universidad Central de Venezuela
Beatriz Borges: Director, Center for Justice and Peace (CEPAZ)
Phil Gunson: Senior Analyst, Andes, International Crisis Group
Cynthia J. Arnson, moderator: Director, Latin American Program
7. What Challenges will the UN Pose for the Joe Biden Administration? | December 3, 2020 | 3:30 – 5:00 pM ET | American Enterprise Institute | Register Here
The incoming administration will confront a United Nations that increasingly serves as a theater for great-power competition, rather than the forum for global peace and understanding that its founders hoped to achieve. In addition, some of the greatest violators of human rights are on the UN’s Human Rights Council, while the World Health Organization stands accused of hampering the international COVID-19 response due to political pressures.
Please join AEI for an in-depth discussion on the key challenges the UN faces in an era of competition among the US, China, and Russia and how the Biden administration can strengthen the UN-US relationship.
Speakers:
Ivana Stradner, opening remarks: Jeane Kirkpatrick Fellow, AEI
Sam Daws: Director, Project on UN Governance and Reform, University of Oxford
Hillel Neuer: Executive Director, UN Watch
Stewart M. Patrick: Director, International Institutions and Global Governance Program, Council on Foreign Relations
Danielle Pletka: Senior Fellow, AEI
John Yoo: Visiting Scholar, AEI
Kori Schake, moderator: Director, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, AEI
8. Pakistan’s Internal Dynamics and Changing Role in the World | December 4, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM ET | Brookings Institute | Register Here
For the last two decades, discussions on Pakistan have centered around the U.S. war in Afghanistan and on Pakistan’s struggle with extremism, while its rich history, complex internal dynamics, and the aspirations of its citizens were largely excluded from the narrative. Nearly 20 years after 9/11, it is time for the United States to reexamine its relationship with, and understanding of, this complicated country.
On December 4, the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will host a panel discussion taking a multifaceted look at this nation of 220 million people. The event will include a discussion on domestic issues, ranging from the human and women’s rights situation to Islamist politics and ethnic and religious insurgencies within the country. In addition, the conversation will focus on the implications of a Biden presidency for Pakistan, as well as the country’s changing role in the Greater Middle East and South Asia.
Speakers:
Madiha Afzal: David M. Rubenstein Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy, Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology
Bruce Riedel: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy, Center for Security, Strategy, and TechnologyDirector – The Intelligence Project
Declan Walsh: Cairo Bureau Chief – New York Times
9. The U.S.-India Partnership: Looking Forward | December 4, 2020 | 8:30 – 9:30 AM ET | Carnegie Endowment for Peace | Register Here
The growth of the U.S.-India strategic partnership has been a significant achievement both in Washington and in New Delhi over the last two decades. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Laura Stone and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Reed Werner will review recent successes and identify future goals for the relationship. Carnegie’s Ashley J. Tellis will moderate.
Speakers:
Laura Stone: deputy assistant secretary of state for India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Maldives, and Bhutan.
Reed Werner: deputy assistant secretary of Defense for South and Southeast Asia.
Ashley J. Tellis: Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs and is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, specializing in international security and U.S. foreign and defense policy with a special focus on Asia and the Indian subcontinent.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Forty-five years is too long to wait for a referendum
Bouela Lehbib, who was a Middle East Institute research intern with me in 2019 during his time as the first Fulbrighter from Western Sahara, writes:
The 29-year UN-brokered ceasefire that had been in place since September 1991 between the Polisario Front and Morocco has collapsed. Morocco’s military incursion on November 13 in the Guergarat’s buffer-strip — a UN- designated demilitarized zone in the south-western corner of Western Sahara — prompted the Polisario Front, a liberation movement seeking independence, to resume armed struggle.
Morocco claims its operation comes as a response to “restoring free circulation and commercial traffic” towards sub-Saharan Africa. It had been blocked since October 21 by dozens of Saharawi civilians protesting peacefully against what they consider Moroccan occupation of their land and plundering of their natural resources.
The Polisario Front sees Morocco’s move as a violation of the ceasefire and a bid to alter the status quo in its favor. Both parties had agreed according to the UN peace plan of 1991 to keep maintain the status quo until the final status of the territory is decided.
Tensions have been on the rise in Guergarat since 2016, when Morocco tried to asphalt an approximately 5-km road in Western Sahara, across the buffer strip and into Mauritania near Nouadhibou. The Polisario interfered with the work, claiming it was illegal. The military agreement No.1, signed in the late 1990s, forbids any military presence in the buffer strip. It allows, though, Saharawi civilian circulation under Polisario Front control.
There was no crossing point at the time of the ceasefire agreement. It was introduced by Morocco on March 2001. Although MINURSO, the UN mission for the referendum in Western Sahara, warned Morocco the road construction and change of the status quo “raised sensitive issues and involve activities that could be in violation of the ceasefire agreement,” the latter went ahead with the work.
For Rabat, ensuring a crossing point and an asphalted road in Guergarat is strategically and economically significant. Since 2010, Morocco has invested widely in West African countries, becoming the first investor in the region and the third in all Africa, with its communication, construction, and bank enterprises leading the market. In 2017, it had officially requested to become a member of ECOWAS, the Economic Community of West African States. Though admission was blocked, Morocco still has political and economic clout in the region and seeks to neutralize the Saharawi Republic in the African Union, which it joined on January 2017. An asphalted road in Guergarat would link Morocco to ECOWAS economically but, most importantly, it contests the Polisario Front in the 20% territory it considers liberated.
Pundits blame the UN for the region slipping into tension. MINURSO has not fulfilled its mandate of holding a self-determination referendum according to Security Council resolution 690. Nor has it maintained a neutral position as an independent entity. Its vehicles carry Moroccan plates and its staff passports carry Moroccan stamps. The UN is playing a waiting game.
Security Council members, including the US, bear some of the blame. Its do-nothing policy and effort to ignore 45 years of low-intensity conflict have allowed the return of war. Joe Biden’s victory has raised the possibility that a shift in US policy towards Western Sahara could fix past mistakes. A self-determination referendum that both Morocco and the Polisario Front accept and the UNSC ratifies remains by far the best way out of this long-standing dispute.
With war in Libya and chaos in Mali, the new conflict in Western Sahara is likely to expose the region to much more instability. But it can also be an opportunity for the new Administration, as the moment looks ripe to bring a just solution to what many see as the last colony in Africa.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | November 9 – November 13, 2020
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
- The Future of Transatlantic Policy Towards Russia | November 9, 2020 | 9:00 – 9:45 AM ET | CSIS | Register Here
Please join CSIS and the Centre for Polish-Russian Dialogue and Understanding (CPRDU) for a conversation with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Stephen E. Biegun and Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Marcin Przydacz on strengthening the transatlantic relationship amid today’s shifting geostrategic landscape of great power competition and a global pandemic in order to counter the foreign and security policy challenges posed by Russia.
This conversation begins a four-part series of discussions as part of the ninth annual Transatlantic Forum on Russia which will discuss the impact of geostrategic competition on the international system, growing domestic unrest in Russia, and the future of European energy security.
Speakers:
Stephen E. Biegun: U.S. Deputy Secretary of State
Marcin Przydacz: Polish Deputy Foreign Minister
Ernest Wyciszkiewicz: Director, Centre for Polish-Russian Dialogue and Understanding
2. Election 2020: State of Play and Implications | November 10, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:00 PM ET | Brookings Institute | Register Here
As many predicted, the 2020 election results were not finalized on Election Day. Voter turnout surged across the country, with record participation numbers that shattered levels from previous years. More than 100 million people voted early nationwide, and the country is on track for the highest turnout in more than a century.
Donald Trump and Joe Biden remain neck and neck in a handful of battleground states that have yet to declare a winner. Some House races across the country remain undecided, and control of the Senate hangs in the balance. Results have been trickling in slowly but mounting legal action and false accusations of voting fraud threaten to further delay the results.
On November 10, Governance Studies at Brookings will host a webinar examining the results of the 2020 election. Panelists will analyze state-by-state outcomes, voter turnout trends, election administration, implications for future policy implementation, and the stakes for American democracy.
Speakers:
Darrell M. West, moderator: Vice President and Director – Governance StudiesSenior Fellow – Center for Technology Innovation
Camille Busette: Senior Fellow – Economic Studies, Governance Studies, Metropolitan Policy ProgramDirector – Race, Prosperity, and Inclusion Initiative
John Hudak: Deputy Director – Center for Effective Public ManagementSenior Fellow – Governance Studies
Elaine Kamarck: Founding Director – Center for Effective Public ManagementSenior Fellow – Governance Studies
Molly E. Reynolds: Senior Fellow – Governance Studies
3. Myanmar’s Post-Election Future: A New Beginning? | November 10, 2020 | 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM ET | Stimson Center | Register Here
In Myanmar’s upcoming general elections, Aung Sang Suu Kyi’s ruling party, the NLD, is widely expected to emerge victorious. Nevertheless, since the party came to power in 2015, it has faced numerous international challenges.
During these pivotal times for Myanmar, join East Asia Program Co-Director Yun Sun, Ambassador U Aung Lynn, Dr. Aung Naing Oo, and Priscilla Clapp in a post-election virtual discussion unpacking the results and what they mean for the future of the peace process, the Rohingya crisis, and Myanmar’s relationship with the world.
Speakers:
U Aung Lynn: Ambassador to the United States from Myanmar
Dr. Aung Naing Oo: Executive Director of Center for Peace and Reconciliation
Priscilla Clapp: Senior Advisor, USIP; former U.S. Chargé d’Affaires in Yangon
4. Election Cycle United States and Brazil: The Impact of the 2020 Elections for Brazil | November 10, 2020 | 4:00 PM ET | Atlantic Council | Register Here
The American and municipal presidential elections in Brazil adapted to the new reality of COVID-19. In addition to voting by mail in the U.S. and changing the election date in Brazil, Brazilian municipal elections are also the first to follow changes established by the 2019 Electoral Reform and following historic presidential elections in Brazil in 2018.
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, economic recession and continuous polarization, what parallels can we establish between the American and Brazilian elections? How can the outcome of the American elections impact the future of bilateral relations with Brazil? How can these elections impact the Brazilian response to coronavirus and low economic growth?
Speakers:
Maurício Moura: President, Idea Big Data
Patrícia Campos Mello: Journalist, Folha de S. Paulo
Bruno Carazza: Professor, Ibmec and Fundação Dom Cabral;Columnist, Valor Econômico
Suelma Rosa: Director of Government Relations, Dow Brasil; President, Irelgov
Roberta Braga: Deputy Director, Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, Atlantic Council
5. Running to Stand Still? The Impact of the United Nations in the Middle East, 75 Years On | November 11, 2020 | 4:00 – 5:15 PM ET | Brookings Institute | Register Here
In its 75th year, the United Nations (U.N.) faces immense challenges in its mission to promote peace and security around the world. During the September 2020 General Assembly meeting, the U.N. reaffirmed its commitment to multilateralism as a means to address the world’s problems. But is the U.N. Charter as relevant today as it was 75 years ago?
Preventing the illegal use of force and ensuring equality and dignity for all people are the cornerstones of the U.N. Charter. How has this mission fared in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region? What lessons have we learned from the U.N.’s role in conflicts such as those in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Palestine, and Syria? Is it still realistic to discuss Security Council reform? What impact would such reform have on conflicts in the MENA region?
Furthermore, there are a number of U.N. political missions and special envoys working on complex issues in countries including Yemen, Libya, and Syria. Their role has often been controversial. What alternatives must be considered to address conflict mediation in the MENA region? Does the U.N. still serve as an effective multilateral mechanism through which to pursue conflict resolution?
The Brookings Doha Center invites you to attend this webinar that discusses these questions and more. The panelists will critically reflect on the achievements, challenges, and potential trajectories of the U.N. in the MENA region, in light of the organization’s 75th anniversary.
Speakers:
Noha Aboueldahab, moderator: Fellow – Foreign Policy, Brookings Doha Center
Habib Nassar: Director of Policy and Research – Impunity Watch
Jakkie Cilliers: Chairman of the Board and Head of African Futures & Innovation – Institute for Security Studies
Lise Grande: United Nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator – Yemen
7. Ramifications of the US Elections for Change in the EU’s Eastern Neighborhood | November 11, 2020 | 8:00 – 9:00 AM ET | Wilson Center | Register Here
We have recently seen a period of US disengagement with Europe and its Eastern neighborhood. In this event, we explore changes in American foreign policy toward this region after the Presidential elections on November 3, the risks of a possible prolonged transition in Washington, and access the broader implications for the region, including those stemming from recent developments in Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, and Moldova as well as the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.
We have recently seen a period of US disengagement with Europe and its Eastern neighborhood. In this event, we explore changes in American foreign policy toward this region after the Presidential elections on November 3, the risks of a possible prolonged transition in Washington, and access the broader implications for the region, including those stemming from recent developments in Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, and Moldova as well as the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.
We will explore how a “more geopolitical Europe” will react to these changes, and whether European leaders can count on a more supportive administration in Washington as they deal with the growing number of crises and challenges to regional security, including an assertive Russia and Turkey.
Speakers:
Daniel S. Hamilton: Director, Global Europe Program; Austrian Marshall Plan Foundation Distinguished Fellow
Cristina Gherasimov: Research Fellow, Robert Bosch Center for Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia, DGAP
Stefan Meister: Head of Tbilisi Office, Heinrich Böll Foundation; Associate Fellow, DGAP
Milan Nič, moderator: Head of Program, Robert Bosch Center for Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia, DGAP
8. What are Pakistan’s Aims in Afghanistan? | November 12, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:15 AM ET | Middle East Institute | Register Here
Pakistan’s aims in Afghanistan are variously described as the chief obstacles to a peace process in that country, or as serving as an active partner with the international community in working for a political solution to the Afghan conflict. However, on one issue, there is ordinarily little dispute: Pakistan looks at the outcome in Afghanistan as critical to its security interests. Arguably, no outside country has more to gain and lose from what happens in Afghanistan. The Middle East Institute (MEI), in co-sponsorship with INDUS, is pleased to host a panel of experts to discuss Pakistani interests and aims in Afghanistan.
How relevant currently is the concept of “strategic depth”? What kind of regime would Pakistan prefer in Kabul? What is the nature of Pakistan’s relationship with the Taliban and how much influence does it exercise over the insurgency’s political wing? How important to the course of the Afghan conflict today are Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan?
Speakers:
Madiha Afzal: David M. Rubenstein fellow, Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution
Asad Durrani: Former chief, military intelligence and inter-services intelligence, Pakistan
Afrasiab Khattak: Former Senator, Pakistan; Pashtun political and human rights activist; analyst, regional affairs
Jawed Ludin: Former deputy foreign minister of Afghanistan; president, Heart of Asia Society
Marvin Weinbaum, moderator: Director, Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies, MEI
9. US-Taiwan Policy in 2021 and Beyond | November 12, 2020 | 9:00 – 11:00 AM ET | Brookings Institute | Register Here
U.S.-Taiwan relations have advanced in recent years. At the same time, tensions have been rising in cross-Strait relations and in U.S.-China relations, raising concerns about Taiwan’s overall security. How will the results of the U.S. presidential election impact these developments? What issues relating to Taiwan should command the greatest attention from U.S. policymakers in 2021 and beyond?
On November 12, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution will host a group of policy experts to examine the future of U.S.-Taiwan policy. Panelists will participate in a cross-cutting discussion analyzing the next administration’s inheritance of U.S.-Taiwan relations and examining a range of issues critical to Taiwan’s future, including cross-Strait dynamics, Taiwan’s international space, economic security, technology issues, and security issues.
Speakers:
Ryan Hass, moderator: The Michael H. Armacost Chair Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, John L. Thornton China CenterInterim Chen-Fu and Cecilia Yen Koo Chair in Taiwan Studies
Richard C. Bush: Nonresident Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, John L. Thornton China Center
Bonnie S. Glaser: Senior Adviser for Asia and Director, China Power Project – Center for Strategic and International Studies
Syaru Shirley Lin: Nonresident Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies
Eric Sayers: Adjunct Senior Fellow, Asia-Pacific Security Program – Center for a New American Security
10. The UN Nuclear Ban Treaty Enters Into Force in January: Then What? | November 13, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM ET | Carnegie Endowment of Peace | Register Here
Fifty countries recently signed and ratified the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which will take effect in January 2021. This marks a major milestone in international efforts to ban nuclear weapons, but notably, the United States, its allies, and all other nuclear-armed states refused to take part.
So what effect, if any, will the treaty have on international security and nuclear disarmament efforts? And how will treaty promoters attract additional states to sign and ratify it? Join Beatrice Fihn, Togzhan Kassenova, Zia Mian, and George Perkovich for a conversation on the future of the nuclear ban.
Speakers:
Beatrice Fihn: executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize-winning campaign coalition that works to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons.
Togzhan Kassenova: nonresident fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment.
Zia Mian: physicist and co-director of Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security, part of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs.
George Perkovich: works primarily on nuclear strategy and nonproliferation issues; cyberconflict; and new approaches to international public-private management of strategic technologies.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria’s detainees and missing
I missed this statement when it first came out November 1, but glad to publish it now:
Statement to the UN Regarding the Constitutional Committee Releasing detainees and revealing the fate of missing persons should be the utmost priority of the Constitutional Committee
The Constitutional Committee held its first session by late October among celebrations by the international community and anticipation among Syrians. In the meanwhile, the Syrian Government continues to detain Syrians and refuses to reveal the fate and whereabouts of tens of thousands held in captivity. Moreover, the Syrian government continues to hold mock trials lacking the minimal standards of justice without even committing to the measures and regulations outlined in the current Syrian law and constitution.
The UN Special Envoy to Syria have failed to ensure the release of any detainee as outlined in the UN resolution 2254 (2015) which clearly calls for the release of any arbitrarily detained persons, particularly women and children.
We, the undersigned Syrian victims’ associations and organizations, call upon the UN to ensure the implementation of the confidence-building measures outlined in the UN Resolution 2254 (2015). We call upon the UN to explicitly declare that releasing detainees and revealing of the fate of missing persons remain to be its absolute priority and the priority of its special envoy for Syria Mr. Geir Pederson. We call upon them to ensure that before commencing in constitutional discussions which we only see as a delay mechanism while our children remain in prisons and secret detention centers.
We call upon the UN, in the name of victims and their families, to pressure the Syrian Government into granting immediate access to independent international investigation committees to prisons and detention centers in Syria. The UN must also guarantee transparent and public legal proceedings to all detainees regardless of the allegations made against them.
As we, the undersigned Syrian victims’ associations and organizations, have lost faith in political parties contributing to the Constitutional Committee. We call upon the UN Special Envoy to Syria to adhere to our rights and to apply all necessary measures to champion our demands in releasing detainees and revealing the fate of missing persons before proceeding with constitutional clauses discussion. We also hold civil society members accountable for the consequences of compromising the rights of victims if the demands of families and victims’ associations were overlooked.
Signatory Organizations:
Association of Detainees & The Missing in Sednaya Prison
Caesar Families Association
Families for Freedom
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Little by little is too little
On July 8 the United States Institute of Peace hosted a panel discussion titled “The North Korea Sanctions Regime a Year After Singapore.” The panel featured Dan Wertz, Program Manager at the National Committee on North Korea, Joshua Stanton, a DC-based lawyer who played a significant role in North Korea sanctions, Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt, a member of the UN Panel of Experts (Resolution 1874) dealing with North Korea, and Elizabeth Rosenberg, Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Frank Aum, former Senior Advisor for North Korea at the Defense Department, moderated the discussion.
Stanton views the history of US leadership on North Korea issues as many “instant gratification policies” instead of better thought out and more effective long-term policies. North Korea is highly dependent on access to US financial systems because of the status of the dollar. Since many North Korean transactions have to go through US banks, financial sanctions blocking transactions and freezing North Korean accounts can be highly effective.
Stanton believes the conversation on sanctions relief is coming about two years too early. More pressure on the Kim regime is needed so that he has a diplomatic incentive to work with the US. Even small sanctions relief is enough for North Korea to catch a breather and continue the status quo. The argument that North Korea can’t survive without nuclear weapons and therefore won’t give them up is ahistorical, according to Stanton, because North Korea has survived for decades without nuclear weapons and can continue to do so. The threat to North Korea is mainly internal.
On possible sanctions relief, Stanton clarifies that Congress has set strict rules dependent not only on issues such as nuclear disarmament and denuclearization but also contingent on human rights, human trafficking, and other issues. The current direction in congress is towards stricter rules for sanctions relief, with the goal of complete, verifiable and undisputed denuclearization of North Korea. The US has to work together with its allies to set up financial sanctions that pressure Pyongyang while at the same time allowing transactions for non-military purposes that benefit the North Korean people. Humanitarian aid should be given to North Korea regardless of political or military actions since it benefits the poor and starving civilians, a point all the panelists agreed on.
Kleine-Ahlbrandt notes that the goal of the UN sanctions regime is to persuade North Korea to dismantle its nuclear and missile programs and prevent the proliferation of WMDs. Sanctions shouldn’t be the objective, which is to catalyze what she calls “effective dialogue.” At the same time the negative impact of sanctions on the economy and civilian population of North Korea should be limited. The UN sanctions regime is broad, but member states have insufficiently implemented the sanctions and evasion tactics by North Korean entities and individuals have undermined compliance. North Korea currently has full access to the international financial system through complicit foreign nationals, a network of agents, and cyberattacks aimed at financial institutions.
Wertz views the sanctions as having a threefold purpose: signaling to North Korea that provocative actions such as missile tests come at a cost, constraining progress on WMDs and other military capabilities, and coercing North Korea through sanctions pressure to make concessions and abandon the nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Coercion is difficult because translating economic pressure to political actions is difficult. UN sanctions, which are focused on the missile and nuclear programs, can be modified if political consensus is reached within the UNSC on whether North Korea’s behavior warrants relief.
US sanctions are trickier since they are premised on a broad range of topics from WMDs to human rights, cyber-attacks, currency counterfeiting and more. The executive branch has some leeway on how it administers individual sanctions or waives them on a case by case basis, but to lift sanctions as a whole the White House has to certify to Congress that North Korea has made significant progress on several of the issues listed. This divergence of US and UN sanctions could potentially lead to a clash if North Korea abandons its nuclear program but doesn’t improve on human rights or other issues.
Wertz suggests that a program of phased sanctions relief in return for meaningful concessions on the nuclear program could be in the US interest down the road and lists five principles for sanctions relief:
- Any trade of sanctions relief for North Korean nuclear concessions should be premised on the ultimate goal of denuclearization but should also make sense on its own terms.
- The US should start with the sanctions that have the least direct connection to the nuclear program and can be most easily adjusted and snapped back.
- The US shouldn’t ease up on measures intended to deny hard currency to North Korea until it can guarantee the money won’t be funneled to military programs.
- Sanctions relief should be structured in a way that pushes North Korea towards an open economy and minimal respect for labor rights.
- If sanctions relief goes forward the United States and allies should continue to enforce sanctions that haven’t been lifted, but not expand the scope of sanctions.
Rosenberg suggests the lack of compliance with sanctions is in part because many individuals or companies don’t understand or know about the rules. Awareness and compliance protocols in industries other than finance are rare. Before sanctions are removed, Rosenberg says it is valuable to think about what unwinding sanctions could look like. Sanctions shouldn’t be lifted as an incentive; behavioral change has to happen before sanctions are lifted because they are in place for specific concerns. Instead more work should be put into establishing communication and cultural as well as diplomatic exchanges as incentives, none of which require sanctions relief.
Rosenberg also warns that a “little-by-little” approach to removing sanctions in exchange for limited progress doesn’t work. North Korea’s track record of cheating on sanctions means incremental change might create a façade behind which North Korea can do as it pleases. The only politically viable way ahead for the US is major sanctions relief after North Korea makes major and verified progress on denuclearization.
Here is the video of the event:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
How the UN serves US interests
The Center for Strategic and International Studies June 13 hosted a panel on “US Interest and Leadership in the United Nations” featuring Catherine Bertini, former Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Programme, and Bill Richardson, former Governor of New Mexico and former US Ambassador to the United Nations. Daniel F. Runde, Senior Vice President and William A. Schreyer Chair and Director of the Project on Prosperity and Development, moderated.
Asked why the US should keep investing in and care about the UN and what the UN does for the US, Bertini said the UN has a responsibility for peace and security. Given the US veto power in the Security Council, Washington has a lot of leverage to pursue American interests. Richardson made a case for multilateralism, saying the US needs international support to advance American goals. With rising populism and anti-institutionalism, bipartisan support is needed to maintain the UN, which surveys show a substantial number of Americans support.
Due to member states (the US included) not paying some or all of their dues, the UN is in a financial crisis. If the US doesn’t pay UN dues it loses leverage and sets a bad example for other nations, who also refuse to pay, causing more harm to US interests in the long run. An audience member pointed out that when the US paid its peacekeeping dues for 8 years straight reforms were made, many peacekeeping missions were completed successfully, and troops could be withdrawn with a solid exit strategy.
Runde asked if the UN is a vehicle for burden sharing, which Bertini affirmed. Washington pays 22% of regular dues and 28% of peacekeeping operations. The peacekeeping operations are vital and decided on by the Security Council. The benefit for the US is that the troops on the ground are not Americans. It would cost the US eight times as much if they were all American soldiers.
Runde listed several common critiques of the UN such as anti-Israel moves, corruption, the human rights commission, and millions of dollars in unpaid parking tickets by UN officials in New York. Richardson said the answer is not to focus on the negatives but to work on marketing and politics, especially aimed at the younger generations. Changing the system right away isn’t going to work, therefore the focus should be on the positives instead of individually rebutting each critique.
Bertini agreed, saying that while some critiques are valid they are only a small piece of the picture. The UN also saves the lives of children, helps feed people, and protects refugees. The UN is also involved in many things such as food safety, copyright law, and postal rules that many people never think about but are part of the international social order.
Richardson also pointed out that UN sanctions brought North Korea to the negotiating table and that the UN World Food Program remains an important humanitarian link that could lead North Korea to reform. Called upon from the audience by Runde, former State Department official Pat Kennedy mentioned that issues such as unpaid parking tickets in New York are often overstated in tabloid media.
Richardson suggested that both a lack of US public understanding of the UN and a perception around the world that Washington dominates the P5 cause lack of support for the UN. He suggests the UN needs more women and people from underrepresented regions in leadership positions at the same time as an updated selection and transition process to ensure that qualified people are hired. Bertini agrees that currently support for transition from one official to another is lacking. Richardson also suggests expanding the Security Council to include Germany and Japan as permanent members without veto power and revamping the rotation system for the regional spots on the UNSC.
Her is a full video of the event:
RSS - Posts
