Tag: United States
Quandaries
Max Boot asks:
Does the Press Have Better Intel than the White House?
The answer is yes, in particular in Benghazi, for the reasons Boot cites. The press has people on the ground. Both the State Department and intel officers from Benghazi were evacuated immediately after the September 11 attack on the consulate, according to press reports.
What difference does that make?
Eyes and ears on the ground are vital to accurate intelligence. Once upon a time, I was in the office of the Italian prime minister’s diplomatic adviser when a call for me from the White House situation room interrupted our chat. They wanted to know what was going on at Fiumicino airport, because they had a report of AK47 firing nearby. I asked the diplomatic advisor, who knew nothing about it and called the intelligence service. Yes, they said, some dufus who had bought an automatic weapon decided to enjoy target practice at his farm, which happened to be on the final approach to a Fiumicino runway.
I don’t really know how the White House got wind of this in the first place, but if I had to guess it was probably sigint (signals intelligence). Highly reliable in and of itself, sigint doesn’t always tell you what is actually happening and its significance. The sit room clearly imagined it was more menacing than a gun enthusiast enjoying his latest acquisition. You need eyes and ears on the ground, or in front of the Benghazi consulate, to really understand the situation.
The press is better informed than the intelligence community in many circumstances because it takes greater risks. Journalists move towards the sound of gunfire. Diplomats and intel officers do not. My friend Kurt Schork, dean of American war reporters in his day, was killed in Sierra Leone when he followed the sound of gunfire into an ambush. The press does not evacuate its people readily. Even when it does, it maintains stringers who continue to report. The results show all too clearly in the statistics: a lot more journalists are killed in conflict zones these days than diplomats or intelligence officers.
Of course the press also makes a lot of mistakes in what it reports, and social media reports from conflict zones can be both highly informative and difficult to interpret, not to mention misleading. Having people on the ground is not a guarantee of accuracy, only a healthy check on fallacious interpretation.
The problem is that we move our government officials away from risk en masse in a quixotic effort to reduce risks to zero. It is absurd that FBI agents were apparently not allowed for weeks to visit the Benghazi consulate to collect evidence. Benghazi is relatively friendly turf. I’m not guessing–I’ve been there (without personal protection other than anonymity) twice since Qaddafi fell. Would Chris Stevens have been safer to walk out to the street and melt into the night than to seek refuge in a supposed safe haven in which he apparently suffocated to death? We can certainly put a couple of anonymous FBI agents on the ground in Benghazi quietly for a day or two, moving them low profile with some Libyan protection. But we hesitate, because we don’t want to risk the embarrassment of another incident, no matter how small the risk. Put yourself in President Obama’s size 11s.
There is an additional problem. Highly classified material is valued highly in the bureaucracy. It takes time to reach the top. The President’s daily intel brief does not include a lot of “open source” material (that’s material from the press, blogs, Twitter or other generally available media). UN Ambassador Susan Rice apparently had ample classified intelligence material telling her that the attack on the consulate originated from a demonstration against the Innocence of Muslims video, which had already generated problems in Cairo earlier in the day. She would not be alone in the government in believing the highly classified stuff rather than the New York Times. The CIA reportedly prepared her talking points but decided later on that the initial report was erroneous.
There are a lot of quandaries here: should we maximize the safety of our people, or take greater risks in order to keep eyes and ears on the ground? do we do as good a job as we should in integrating “open source” material with highly classified intelligence? how quickly should intelligence estimates move up the chain of command? should we communicate what we think we know about an incident to the American people, or should we hold back until we are sure what happened?
But let’s be clear: there is no absolute safety, no perfect intelligence, no error-free transmission of information and no absolute certainty. We are not likely to know the complete story until publication of the Accountability Review Board’s report, if then. Tonight’s presidential debate is not the time or place to shed light on who or what caused the tragedy.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Follow the money
The real difference between the candidates on foreign policy issues is not what they say they would do but what they want to fund, which ultimately affects what whoever is elected can do. The Ryan budget proposal, which Romney has said he backs, cuts international affairs spending by almost 10% in 2013 and close to a quarter by 2016 while funding a giant military buildup (on top of the buildup that has occurred since 9/11). Obama does not propose cuts to military spending, but he is trying to keep it below previously projected levels. His “international affairs” budget proposal for 2013 would keep that category more or less at current levels, taking inflation into account.
The consequences of this difference between the candidates for American foreign policy are dramatic. We are already overusing our highly competent, effective and expensive military forces. In Iraq and Afghanistan, they often substituted for far cheaper, but unavailable, civilians: the military provided not only humanitarian aid, which it is required to do in “non-permissive” environments, but also development and state-building assistance. I won’t be surprised if the U.S. military (along with the paramilitary parts of CIA) now has more foreign assistance money available than USAID. The Ryan budget proposal, if adopted, would dramatically increase reliance on the U.S. military for non-military aid, statebuilding, international law enforcement and other fundamentally civilian tasks.
This is not smart. At well over $1 million per deployed soldier (counting support and infrastructure costs), the U.S. military is a fabulously expensive way of getting things done. Relying on it for civilian tasks is the international equivalent of relying on emergency rooms for routine medical care. You may get it done, but only at a far higher price than providing the same care in doctors’ offices or community clinics.
The supposedly business-savvy Governor Romney is suggesting both health care in emergency rooms and use of our armed forces when civilians might suffice. Moreover, experience indicates that the existence of a strong military instrument without equally strong civilian instruments will get us into wars that we might otherwise avoid: need I mention Iraq? If anyone doubts whether our military has been thinking ahead to Iran, this map should be instructive:
I do not mean to suggest, as many of those publishing this map do, that we would be better off without these military installations. Clearly they lend credibility to the threat of force that will be essential if ever there is a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear problem. And if diplomacy fails, the military option needs to be on the table.
But it is hard for me to imagine that we spend more 1 one-thousandth of the cost of these bases on the diplomatic effort with Iran. We may in fact spend significantly less. That means that a 1 one-thousandth chance of a diplomatic solution is worth pursuing. I would put the real odds of diplomatic success at more like 50/50 or maybe 25/75. Someone on the right might say the odds are 1/10. But what Ryan and Romney are proposing is that we cut the diplomatic effort and increase the military push. Does that make financial sense?
I hasten to note that Romney has also made some sensible proposals to use American foreign assistance money more effectively by focusing on rule of law and establishing conditions for successful private initiative. The trouble is there won’t be any money in the government kitty to do those things if he is elected and the Ryan budget adopted.
Iran is the odd problem these days. It may require a military solution, but that is unusual. China as a currency manipulator does not. Even Russia as a geopolitical threat, if you think it one, requires diplomacy more than military mobilization. George W. Bush, no retiring violet, did not try to respond militarily to Russia when it went to war with Georgia, a country he wanted to get into NATO. The list of problems not amenable to military solution is long: Pakistan’s drift toward extremism, Afghanistan’s corrupt government, the stalled Middle East peace process. It is striking that the international community is busy mobilizing an exclusively military response to Islamist extremism in Mali, where a more balanced approach that emphasizes local community economic development would be far more likely to succeed.
I know it won’t happen, but this is what the two candidates should be asked at the debate: given the strains on the U.S. military, what would you do to strengthen America’s civilian instruments of foreign policy and how are those priorities reflected in your budget proposals?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Hoisted by his own petard
There is no doubt Mitt Romney was injured last night by a device (that’s more or less what a petard is: an explosive device to breach a wall) he intended to use against Barack Obama. The Governor’s claim that the President had not labelled the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans a terrorist act for 14 days was quickly fact-checked and found untrue on the spot.
The question is why this claim had any currency at all. It has been circulating now for weeks and was false all along. Why does the supposedly liberal media repeat ad infinitum a claim that it took only seconds to invalidate?
Part of the problem is that the Administration muddled its own message with ambiguous statements that came after the President’s Rose Garden reference to the attack as an act of terror. Vice President Biden and UN Ambassador Susan Rice have cited intelligence reporting as the basis for the suggestion that the attack was related to a demonstration against the “Innocence of Muslims” video. Anyone who has dealt with raw intelligence reports can easily imagine that this–and possibly several other explanations–were offered up in the aftermath of the incident. Human intelligence (humint) sources are only too anxious to earn their keep when an incident occurs by offering their own version. With the CIA station in Benghazi cleaned out, it would have been difficult to make contact and verify information from sources that are often unreliable.
Another part of the problem is the media’s obvious effort to bend over backwards to avoid the charge that it has a liberal bias. These charges from the right have had a palpable impact, causing what Sarah Palin calls the “lamestream” media to hesitate when faced with right-wing bluster. If you think you are being objective, any claim of bias will make you think twice. Fox News, which does not pretend to be objective, has no problem with Jon Stewart’s nightly assaults on its veracity.
I was surprised by the President’s mild reaction to Romney’s false claim. He continued seated and uttered what I took to be a mild grunt when the moderator confirmed the falsehood. But of course a black man in America has to be careful about showing too much anger. It would not have been well received in parts of the electorate.
Will Romney’s mistake/lie/exaggeration/mistatement affect the election outcome? I doubt it. Those who like him will write it off as a mistake. Those who don’t will be confirmed in their distaste. Those who haven’t made up their minds will wonder why anyone would think it important compared to all the serious policy issues at stake.
Nevertheless, hoisted by his own petard.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Second meeting, second chance
The Second Meeting, a documentary film by Zeljko Mirkovic, examines a period Serbs want to forget but need to remember, Serbian Ambassador Vladimir Petrovic said at last night’s premier in Washington, DC. The war between Serbia and NATO captured in this film illustrates how successful America and Serbia have been in repairing relations. Philip Reeker, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs who supervises the Balkan region, pointed out that this year is the 133rd anniversary of US-Serbia diplomatic relations.
The film however focuses on the developing relationship between two families. Serb Zoltan Dani, now a baker, served in his country’s military for over thirty years. Dani’s Yugoslav anti-aircraft missile unit shot down an American F-117A “stealth” fighter participating in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia on March 27, 1999. The American pilot was Dale Zelko. Zelko survived and managed to evade capture. An American search and rescue unit found and evacuated him by helicopter. Dani’s unit, often targeted, was never hit.
The incident pushed both men into the limelight. Zelko declined press appearances, despite suggestions from General Wesley Clark and President Bill Clinton. Dani was lauded for his ability to find and successfully target stealth planes but refused generous offers from other militaries over the next few years. In the end, both men chose to leave military service and pursue lives based on their core values: family and faith. The title of the film references not only a second meeting, but a second chance.
Mirkovic’s film uses a mix of video diary clips made by Zelko and Dani, old news footage, and material from Mirkovic’s film crew. It strives to expose the humanity beneath international conflict. In the question and answer period after the film, Mirkovic underlined that there are not two sides to this story. Both men acted on orders and dealt with the consequences. Both joined the military because of their pride in their countries and in the end, both left the military because of a desire to spend more time with family.
The message here is the simple and undeniable truth of our shared humanity.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The wrong way
As my appearance on Up with Chris Hayes yesterday has generated some nasty comments, I thought I might review the most neuralgic point: the function of Marine security guards at U.S. embassies and consulates. Here is the Marine Embassy Security Group’s own statement of its mission:
The primary mission of the Marine Security Guard (MSG) is to provide internal security at designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities in order to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States.
Yes, in a crisis the Marine guards will act to protect a U.S. diplomatic facility from attack. But they are not equipped, trained or staffed to respond to an assault of the type that apparently occurred on September 11 in Benghazi. That’s why the Embassy was asking for more specialized teams (for Tripoli, not Benghazi).
The primary responsibility for protection of diplomatic facilities lies with the “host” government, in this case Libya. That’s the problem: the new Libyan regime is still lacks the means.
We’ll have to wait for the Accountability Review Board Tom Pickering is chairing to know where responsibility for the incident lies. That’s why I was careful on TV and peacefare not to imply that the murder of our personnel was due to this, that or the other failure. It is simply too early to make that judgment. I have, however, cited ample reason for the U.S. government to know that there was a serious threat in Benghazi, so those who accuse me of letting the Obama administration off the hook should understand that their vituperation and scatological suggestions are not just unwelcome, but reciprocated.
The notion that the only way to respond to a serious threat in Benghazi was deployment of Marines is simply wrong. It doesn’t matter at all that the Embassy in Paris, where the threats are different, has Marine guards. Here are the obstacles to using Marines in Benghazi:
- You need the permission of the host government, which is unlikely to have been forthcoming (they’ve been resisting even private contractors).
- The number of Marines trained for diplomatic security is limited, so sending them to Benghazi requires that you judge the threat there to be greater than the threat in Kabul, Baghdad, Cairo and a few dozen other places.
- You have to believe they are the best force to meet the threat, which given their mission statement (and associated preparation for it) is ridiculous.
Anonymity and unpredictability are the best defenses for most of our diplomats. An ambassador has difficulty achieving either. Libyan guards properly trained and equipped are a far better option for close personal protection and external defense of a diplomatic compound, because Americans have a hard time “reading” the street and understanding what is going on there. But Libyan guards of that type did not yet exist in Tripoli and Benghazi. It is ironic, and sad, that Ambassador Stevens apparently died in a building that was considered a safe haven. That should cast serious doubt on the all too heavy reliance on fortresses to protect our diplomats.
But given the reaction in Congress and the CYA approach of most bureaucracies, I’d be willing to bet that this incident leads us to further harden our fortresses, reduce our movements and eliminate anonymity by requiring even lower-ranking diplomats to use personal security details. That is the wrong way to go.
For those who wish me ill because I say these things: I have lived and worked as a U.S. official both with and without extensive personal protection (Italian in my case, as I spent about eight months in Rome as Charge’ d’affaires ad interim after the election of Bill Clinton) and Embassy Marine guards. I have also traveled and worked in conflict zones like Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, both with and without personal protection details. Each to his own, but I personally prefer the low-profile, unpredictable movements, anonymous approach to security, when it is possible. Those who tweeted that they wish me in Benghazi without personal protection and U.S. embassy guards are calling for throwing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch: that’s exactly how I’ve enjoyed Benghazi on two visits since the revolution and would gladly go back any day, so long as I thought I could maintain a low profile, anonymous approach to my own security.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
It’s a busy week with a focus on peacebuilding and subjects that parallel key issues in the presidential debates, like foreign policy in the next administration and violence at embassies.
1. Talking to the Taliban, Monday October 15, 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 400
Speakers: Anatol Lieven, Peter Bergen
Please join the New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program for a conversation with award-winning author Anatol Lieven. He will discuss his talks in July with figures close to the Taliban and the views they expressed on the contours of a possible peace settlement.
Officials recently dismissed the possibility of securing a political deal to end the conflict in Afghanistan, a longtime keystone of the American military strategy in Afghanistan, saying their goal now is to leave Afghanistan with the best tools possible for maintaining security and political stability. After 11 years of war, has the conflict budged at all in either the coalition’s or the insurgents’ direction? Lieven and Bergen will discuss this question, as well as the likelihood of different future scenarios for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Register for this event here.
2. The European Union and International Organizations in a Time of Crisis, Monday October 15, 5:30 PM – 7:00 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Lindner Family Commons
Speaker: Francois Rivasseau, Romuald Sciora, Harvey Feigenbaum
Mr. Rivasseau will discuss the relationship between the EU and other international organizations, such as the UN, NATO, the World Bank, and the IMF, during this time of crisis. He will also assess the place of the EU in the new global order.
Register for this event here.
3. Religion, Culture, and Interpretations of Democracy: Implications for Peacebuilding, Tuesday October 16, 9:30 AM – 11:30 AM, United States Institute of Peace
Venue: United States Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037
Speakers: Marc Gopin, Mohammad Abu-Nimer, James Patton, Juliette Schmidt
The final meeting of the three-part series on democracy and conflict will reflect on the influence of religion and culture on interpretations of democracy around the world and the implications for peacebuilding and conflict prevention. Political parties, civil society actors, church leaders, as well as western governments and donors are all participating in the process of building and maintaining democracies in post-conflict settings. This distinguished panel will discuss specific factors that play a role in the perception and development of democratic institutions in different parts of the world, and their relationship with sustainable peace.
Register for this event here.
4. Realism, Idealism & the Politics of Obama’s Foreign Policy, Tuesday October 16, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM, Georgetown University
Venue: Georgetown University, Mortara Building, 3600 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20057
Speakers: James Mann, Tom Hamburger
Author and former Los Angeles Times correspondent Jim Mann will discuss his latest book, The Obamians, with Tom Hamburger, a member of the National Staff of the Washington Post. They’ll talk about politics and foreign policy, and the current presidential campaign. James Mann is a Washington-based author who has written a series of award-winning books about American foreign policy and about China. Mr. Mann is a former newspaper reporter, foreign correspondent and columnist who wrote for more than twenty years for the Los Angeles Times. He is now an author-in-residence at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. Tom Hamburger joined The Washington Post’s national desk in 2012 after working for more than eight years in the Los Angeles Times’ Washington bureau as a reporter specializing in the intersection of money and politics in the nation’s capital. He has covered the White House, Congress and the courts and has written extensively about lobbying, campaign finance and corruption at all levels of government. A finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 1996, he worked previously for The Wall Street Journal, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the Arkansas Gazette.
Register for this event here.
5. Is Al-Qaeda Defeated? An Experts’ Debate, Tuesday October 16, 12:15 PM – 1:45 PM, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 400
Speaker: Peter Bergen, Thomas Lynch III, Thomas Joscelyn, Bill Roggio, Reuel Gerecht
In Collaboration with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
While some counterterrorism analysts and officials say that U.S. military efforts over the past 11 years have resulted in the defeat of al-Qaeda, others argue that the terrorist organization is more durable than that. The successes won by the CIA drone program in Pakistan’s tribal regions and the symbolic killing of Osama bin Laden might be tempered by the growing strength of al-Qaeda’s affiliates in countries such as Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. On the other hand, many point out that al-Qaeda has failed to carry out a large-scale terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11.
With the Taliban toppled in Afghanistan, hundreds of militants killed in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, and the death of bin Laden last year, has the United States come to the end of the “War on Terror”? The New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies invite you to a lively debate on whether or not we have seen the defeat of al-Qaeda. Peter Bergen, the director of New America’s National Security Studies Program, and Col. Thomas Lynch III, a Distinguished Fellow at National Defense University, will argue for the motion that al-Qaeda is defeated. Foundation for Defense of Democracies Senior Fellows Thomas Joscelyn and Bill Roggio will argue against the motion.
Register for this event here.
6. Transforming Terrorism and Radicalism with Muslim Nonviolent Alternatives, Tuesday October 16, 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM, USIP
Venue: USIP, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
Speakers: Qamar-ul Huda, Chaiwat Satha-Anand, Ayse Kadayifci-Orellana
The violent and nonviolent protests around the Muslim world regarding the anti-Islamic film, “Innocence of Muslims,” have reinvigorated the debate over the prevalence of nonviolent practices in Islamic communities. With religious extremists and zealous secularists posing serious threats to societies, it is critically important to examine the ethos of pluralism, peacebuilding activities, and the culture of sustainable peace in conflict zones in Muslim-majority countries.
Please join us for a conversation with Dr. Chaiwat Satha-Anand, a prominent nonviolent activist and scholar from Thammasat University in Bangkok, Thailand, on the subject of transforming radical extremism with principles of nonviolence action. Has the rise of extremist voices weakened principles of nonviolence and moderation in Muslim communities? Are moderate Muslims capable of defeating extremism with nonviolent practices of tolerance, social justice, and education? Dr. Satha-Anand will explore these and other questions.
USIP’s efforts in the Middle East and larger Muslim world have aided in developing the capacity of civil society actors in peacebuilding and conflict management. Whether it be a peace education curriculum for madrasas in Pakistan, or an inter-faith mediation center in Nigeria, or a gender peacebuilding training toolkit in Iraq, USIP’s on-the-ground field work and research aims to resolve conflicts through nonviolent means.
Register for this event here.
7. Waging War on Corruption – Inside the Movement Fighting the Abuse of Power, Tuesday October 16, 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM, George Mason University
Venue: George Mason University, Founders Hall, 3351 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201, Room 125
“The Arab Spring was the trigger that prompted me to finally start writing a book that Ihad long been thinking about – a book that aims to change the conversation about one of the gravest problems facing most countries: corruption in government. I have been involved in civil society organizations dedicated to fighting corruption for more than 20 years and seen remarkable progress in this period. The achievements have been formidable. It is time to convert discussion about the prospects of curbing graft and bribery from one of skepticism, indeed cynicism often, to one of cautious optimism and hope. The upbeat conclusion of this book rests, above all, on the remarkable – often exceptionally courageous – work of many heroes in many countries, from the civil society activists on the front lines, to the public prosecutors, investigative journalists, outstanding political leaders and former leaders of the United Nations and World Bank, “think tank” academics, and philanthropists. I believe individuals do change history. The heroes in this book are changing history. But, all of the work of these remarkable people would be in vain without massive public engagement. In the Arab Spring we saw tens of thousands of people overcome fear of vicious security forces to go into the streets and the town squares in the name of their personal dignity and self-respect and to protest illegitimate governments. The valor seen in Tunisia and Egypt, replicated in many countries now, represents a tipping point in the fight against the abuse of office by politicians and government officials for their personal enrichment. And, the anti-corruption movement, which overlaps so closely with efforts to promote human rights, protect journalists and build democracy, has been enormously powered in most recent times by the Internet in a hyper-connected age of transparency where the villains haveever fewer places to hide. I believe that if more people are made aware of the progress being seen in many countries today in the war on corruption then that in itself will further power vital efforts for reform and improve the human condition. This book does not minimize the challenges. The anti-corruption movement has reached base camp, but still has an Everest of corruption to climb. But for the skeptics, let me say bluntly there is a powerful momentum now in campaigns for transparency, accountability and justice and, as I note in the final line of the book, it is important for people now to stand on the right sideof history.” ~Frank Vogl, September 2012.
8. The Middle East: Policy Choices for the New Administration, Wednesday October 17, 9:30 AM – 12:00 PM, Rayburn House Office Building
Venue: Rayburn House Office Building, 45 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20515
Speakers: Paul Pillar, Scott McConnell, Jocelyne Cesari, Nathaniel Kern, Thomas R. Mattair
The Middle East Policy Council invites you and your colleagues to our 70th Capitol Hill Conference. Live streaming of this event will begin at approximately 9:30am EST on Wednesday, October 17th and conclude around noon. A questions and answers session will be held at the end of the proceedings. Refreshments will be served.
RSVP for this event to info@mepc.org.
9. Understanding Iranian Public Opinion, Wednesday October 17, 9:00 AM – 11:00 AM, Stimson
Venue: Stimson, 1111 19th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Twelfth Floor
Speakers: Ebrahim Mohseni, Steven Kull, Geneive Abdo, Sebastian Grafe
In the midst of bombastic rhetoric exchanged among Iran, Israel, and Western states over the nuclear issue, Iranian public opinion is often lost in the discussion. Where do the Iranian people stand? Iranian public opinion is seldom heard on topics such as the nuclear program, international sanctions, and a potential military strike.
Please join Heinrich Böll Stiftung North America and Stimson for a discussion of Iranian public opinion. Drawing on polls from numerous sources, including recent surveys conducted inside Iran, as well as polls conducted by calling into Iran, the speakers will analyze Iranian attitudes on the country’s nuclear program, nuclear weapons, international sanctions, and a potential military strike. The discussion will also focus on how sanctions and military threats have shaped Iranian opinion toward their own government and the West.
Register for this event here.
10. Bringing Peace Through Facilitated Dialogue: A Book Launch, Wednesday October 17, 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM, USIP
Venue: USIP, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
Speaker: Daniel Serwer, Rusty Barber, Colette Rausch, David Smock
Today’s international conflicts typically involve multiple actors, interests, and drivers that have sparked long, violent histories. Ending these conflicts relies more and more on facilitated dialogue, a process in which a neutral third party helps a broad spectrum of conflicting parties overcome the many barriers to effective communication.
Facilitating Dialogue: USIP’s Work in Conflict Zones, edited by David Smock and Daniel Serwer, presents seven case studies of the U.S. Institute of Peace’s facilitated dialogue efforts in Iraq, Kosovo, Israel/Palestine, Colombia, Nigeria, and Nepal. Covering a variety of conflict situations and peacemaking efforts, the cases tell stories of peacebuilding successes, efforts in progress, limitations on what can be achieved, and lessons learned.
This workshop will present samples of the chapters in the book and a summary of lessons learned. Facilitating Dialogue: USIP’s Work in Conflict Zones will be available for purchase at this event.
Register for this event here.
11. Pedagogies for Peace in Post-Conflict and Fragile States, Thursday October 18, 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM, USIP
Venue: USIP, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
Speaker: Margaret Sinclair, Jeff Helsing, Xanthe Ackerman, Qamar-ul Huda, Lili Cole
What kind of curricula promote the best education for long-term peace in post-conflict, fragile and low resource contexts? Many kinds of primary and secondary school curricula aim to promote social cohesion, greater tolerance and recovery from violence. But until recently we have had little research on the different benefits of various curricula in different types of conflict, or on how they can be used together most effectively, and on whether these curricular approaches need to be sequenced temporally after conflict, and if so, how.
In May 2012, Education Above All, a Doha-based education group, commissioned papers from practitioners and thematic experts that map and analyze the most widely used of these different curricula, collectively designated as “education for global citizenship,” and the policies that have accompanied their implementation. A major finding of this research project was that “transformative education for local, national and global citizenship and peace CAN be implemented even under difficult conditions if there is a policy commitment to do so.” To explore this important issue, the project director, technical adviser and expert on conflict and education, Margaret Sinclair, will discuss these research findings with experts from the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Brookings Institution.
Through its Academy for Conflict Management and Peacebuilding, research by Senior Fellows, and projects supported by grants, USIP has considerable experience in the creation of citizenship, human rights, history and peace curricula, including peace curricula specifically designed for use in Muslim religious schools, or madrasas, most recently in Sudan, Iraq and Pakistan. Two USIP staff members, Lili Cole and Qamar-ul Huda, contributed essays to Education for Global Citizenship.
Young people between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four represent nearly one-fifth of the population of the Middle East and North Africa. This group has played a central role in shaking up the old order, and while so far they have not been able to shape the policies of the new regimes, it remains key to the outcome of transitions in the region. A Generation on the Move, a study cosponsored by The Issam Fares institute at the American University in Beirut and UNICEF, offers important insights on the aspirations and problems of Arab youth. The study includes polling data that reveals further information about this demographic.
Register for this event here.
13. US-Pakistan Relationship Post-2014, Thursday October 18, 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM, Center for National Policy
Venue: Center for National Policy, One Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001, Suite 333
Speakers: Stephen Tankel and Timothy Hoyt
U.S.-Pakistani relations have been defined by a curious mixture of antagonism and cooperation. Even before the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan was involved in the illegal proliferation of nuclear technology and support for militant Islamist organizations. Since 9/11, the bilateral relationship has rested on occasional cooperation against al-Qaeda, while being severely strained by state support for the Taliban, Haqqani Network and other militants at war against the Afghan state and the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
With the ISAF mission drawing down to a close by the end of 2014, what is the future of this troubled relationship between “frenemies?” Will relations improve as the strain of the Afghan campaign diminishes? Or will the U.S. more openly express its bitterness once its military is no longer reliant on supply routes that pass through Pakistan? Will Pakistani support for terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba persist? There are factors that may only further radicalize the Pakistani security services following an ISAF drawdown such as the potential for renewed civil war and Indian “meddling” in Afghanistan. How will these affect relations with the United States?
Register for this event here.
14. Reality Diplomacy: How Ambassadors Deal with Crime and Corruption Abroad, Thursday October 18, 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM, George Mason University
Venue: George Mason University, Founders Hall, 3351 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201, Room 113
Speakers: Richard Kauzlarich and Kenneth Yalowitz
For American business operating abroad, crime and corruption are realities of doing business internationally that must be avoided. The risk is that companies end up on the wrong side of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Further in many cases they need the help of US Embassies to avoid having to deal with corrupt host government officials. For non-official Americans living abroad, the facilitative payment to the traffic cop who arbitrarily stops their car to check papers, or to the border guard to speed up clearance of their household effects through customs is simply a small price to pay in societies that seem to operate on different standards of public service than Americans are used to. For students and academics, crime and corruption are political and sociological phenomena to be sliced and diced in the classroom and in scholarly articles as impediments to good governance to be eliminated through establishing independent judiciaries and democratically-elected legislatures passing the right sort of laws. Ambassadors Kenneth Yalowitz and Richard Kauzlarich, retired Senior Foreign Service Officers, have dealt with crime and corruption in countries where US foreign policy and national security objectives are at risk through the interaction criminal and corrupt official behavior. What can Ambassadors do when confronted with this nexus of crime and corruption while trying to accomplish a broad set of US political, economic and security priorities? Ambassadors Kauzlarich and Yalowitz will discuss their professional experiences in this regard and provide lessons-learned that will underscore the importance of better understanding how the intersection of terrorism, transnational crime and corruption represents a major non-traditional security challenge for the United States in the 21st Century.
15. Next Steps in Reducing Nuclear Arms, Friday October 19, 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Falk Auditorium
Speakers: Martin S. Indyk, Michael O’Hanlon, Steven Pifer, Strobe Talbott
As the 50th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis approaches, nuclear arms control has received scant attention in the current U.S. presidential campaign. Yet the future of arms control has major implications for U.S. national security, and no matter who is elected on November 6, the next president will have an opportunity to use arms control to enhance domestic and global security. In their new Brookings Focus Book, The Opportunity: Next Steps in Reducing Nuclear Arms (Brookings Press, 2012), Brookings Senior Fellows Steven Pifer and Michael O’Hanlon make a strong case for further steps in nuclear arms control, explain in clear and straightforward prose the background to complex arms control issues, and offer practical and realistic proposals for action by the administration in 2013 and beyond.
On October 19, the Arms Control Initiative and 21st Century Defense Initiative at Brookings will host a discussion to explore the possibilities for next steps on arms control and place them in a broader foreign policy context. They will relate the issues to the Pentagon’s budget situation and the longer-term vision of trying to move to a world without nuclear weapons. Pifer and O’Hanlon will be joined by Brookings President Strobe Talbott. Vice President Martin Indyk, director of Foreign Policy at Brookings, will moderate the discussion.
After the program, panelists will take audience questions. Copies of The Opportunity: Next Steps in Reducing Nuclear Arms will be available for sale at the event.
Register for this event here.
16. European and US Perspectives on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Friday October 19, 12:00 PM, American Institute for Contemporary German Studies
Venue: American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, 1755 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 700, R.G. Livingston Conference Room of AICGS
Speakers: Dominik Tolksdorf
Please join AICGS on Friday, October 19, 2012, for a seminar with Mr. Dominik Tolksdorf, DAAD/AICGS Fellow, on “European and U.S. Perspectives on Bosnia and Herzegovina.” The discussion will take place at 12pm in the R.G. Livingston Conference Room of AICGS, 1755 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 700. A light luncheon will be served.
Transatlantic cooperation in Bosnia can generally be considered as strong. However, diverging views have become apparent in the past years. The future role of the international community in the country and of the Office of the High Representative is especially debated. However, the U.S. and the EU do share a common interest in supporting constitutional reform in Bosnia. The seminar will focus on the roles of the European Union and the U.S. in Bosnia in the past years and transatlantic efforts to reform the Dayton system.
Dr. Dominik Tolksdorf holds a PhD from the University of Munich. In his dissertation he examined the European Union’s support to reform processes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since 2006, he has worked as research fellow at the Center for Applied Policy Research (CAP) at the University of Munich, as senior associate researcher at the Institute for European Studies, and as adjunct assistant professor at Vesalius College at the Vrije Universiteit Brussels. In his research, he focuses on the EU’s external relations, including the pre-accession process with the western Balkan states and Turkey, EU neighborhood policies, and the structure of the External Action Service.
Please register by Wednesday, October 15.
Please register for this event here.
RSS - Posts
