Posted in Uncategorized - July 29, 2012 - 19 Comments
I promised yesterday a solution to Macedonia’s problems today, but to get there I am going to have to detour. The Macedonia “name” issue is unique. I can’t think of another situation, current or historical, in which a country wants a neighbor to change its name. It is also a zero sum problem: if Athens gains, Skopje loses, and vice versa.
It would be really nice if Athens came to the conclusion that rule of law requires it to give in on NATO membership for The FYROM (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), even if it believes the December 2011 International Court of Justice decision finding it in violation of a 1995 agreement is wrong. A few potential investors might even be favorably impressed and open their wallets.
But I am not holding my breath for that. Zero sum problems without solutions require reframing. Why is the “name” issue important? Because it prevents Macedonia from entering NATO and getting a date to begin its EU negotiations. Why is that important? Because those are the paths on which Macedonia has to make progress to avoid aggravating its inter-ethnic tensions, which in their most extreme form might lead to claims of exclusive territorial control over parts of the country or calls for Greater Albania or Greater Kosovo.
Ah! That is a problem I recognize from elsewhere in the Balkans. It exists almost everywhere: Serbs and Croats in Bosnia want to govern themselves on their own territory, Albanians in Kosovo feel the same way (as do Serbs in the north), some Macedonians would like to establish exclusive control over a homeland. We’ve had analogous problems in Croatia in the past (Serbs in the krajina, or borderlands) and there are latent problems inside Serbia (Bosniaks in Sandjak and Albanians in Presevo, not to mention Hungarians, Slovaks and Croats in Vojvodina).
Many of the ethnic problems of the Balkans boil down to this: why should I live as a minority in your territory, when you can live as a minority in mine?
This question could lead to an unending series of partitions along ethnic lines, something some of my colleagues in Washington do not fear. I do. Ethnic partition is a proven formula for precipitating violence, death and destruction on a grand scale. All those folks who agree on governing themselves find it difficult to decide where to draw the territorial lines, which is what leads to ethnic cleansing and war. The question is how to stop it, because once it starts it will spread from Kosovo and Macedonia at least as far as Bosnia and even Cyprus, with de jure division of the northern Turkish Republic from the rest of the island.
That is what Greeks should be worrying about, not the name of its northern neighbor.
The international community has been wise to use existing boundaries in the Balkans and try to avoid drawing new ones. While some would like to portray the independence of Kosovo as an ethnic partition of Serbia, it was not. No ethnic adjustment of Kosovo’s boundary was made when it was upgraded to a border. The same is true throughout the Balkans: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia and Montenegro all gained independence within well-established lines. There is no reason to depart from this course.
We’ve reached the point that a concerted and explicit international campaign to stop ethno-territorial division of the Balkans is in order. Rather than each country fighting these battles on its own, I’d like to see Europeans and Americans joining with partners in the Balkans to declare unequivocally that no territorial adjustments in the Balkans will be made on an ethnic basis, that the widely known and accepted borders are permanent and will be demarcated bilaterally, and that all concerned will join in an effort to take the measures necessary to prevent any changes.
These measures should be explicit and far-reaching, including:
implementation of the Ahtisaari plan in northern Kosovo, with additional details required worked out in talks between Pristina and Belgrade
admission of Macedonia into NATO as “The FYROM” in accordance with the 1995 interim accord, with explicit guarantees to Greece on its border if Athens wants them
negotiation of EU membership only within a framework determined by central governments (in particular in Bosnia and Kosovo),
a fixed time frame for a negotiated end to the de facto division of Cyprus,
a region-wide agreement that each state will ensure the highest human rights standards for its minorities, with periodic verification by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
It is time that Macedonia and Bosnia as well as their friends in Albania, Montenegro and Croatia (that group is known in diplomatic parlance as the Adriatic 5) as well as Kosovo make common cause against ethnic partition in the Balkans, instead of struggling against it each country on its own.
The A5 and Kosovo will need some strong European allies against ethnic partition. The best bets are Germany, whose chancellor has been vigorous in her opposition to Serbian state structures in northern Kosovo, and the United Kingdom, where the idea of ethnic partition of Bosnia is rightly despised. If Greece joins the effort, to inoculate itself against irredentist claims from Macedonia, so much the better. A vigorous diplomatic initiative that engages the United States in addition would stand a chance of driving a wooden stake through the ethnic partition zombie that still haunts too much of the Balkans.
They taught me in school that if I didn’t know the answer to a question, I should ask a better one and answer that. Killing the ethnic partition zombie that haunts the Balkans seems to me far more important than finding a name Athens and Skopje can agree on.
A day after a Mitt Romney adviser told the Daily Telegraph that he would pay special attention to the special relationship with his Anglo-Saxon confrères (“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special”), the candidate himself blew up that relationship with remarks about London’s lack of preparedness for the Olympics and popular lack of enthusiasm for the games. Things reportedly went better at a fundraiser attended mainly by American expat financiers, who may actually be more Mitt’s type than (Conservative) Prime Minister David Cameron. Or mayor of London Boris Johnson:
Even for an Obamista like me, it is too much to hope that Romney’s awkward performance will be repeated in Poland and Israel, where Mitt is headed next. But there are some ripe possibilities: in Jerusalem, there is the touchy issue of where Christ will reappear on earth. I’m no expert on Mormon theology, but Missouri seems to play a role that makes things awkward for Romney and may surprise many Christians (as well as those Jews still waiting for the Messiah). I won’t even try to guess what gaffes are possible in Warsaw. It is a city so full of both human horror and musical glory that there are lots of possibilities. I hope Romney knows he is supposed to like Chopin.
I’m all in favor of the growing tradition of American presidential candidates going abroad. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have lived in foreign countries (principally France and Indonesia, respectively), which is refreshing for those of us who have lived a good part of our lives abroad (mine in Geneva, Rome, Brasilia and the Balkans). Foreigners don’t vote, but Americans should get some idea of how a candidate will project in other countries.
Then there is the Americans abroad constituency, which is substantial in all three countries Romney is stopping in. More than six million Americans are thought to live abroad. This is a serious number, more than 2% of the American citizenry, a number that could possibly determine the election outcome.
Romney will be focusing on Israel’s many Americans, who provide a goodly number of the settlers in the West Bank. It will not be hard for him to fish for votes among them. All he needs to do is make noises of stronger-than-Obama support for Israel’s security and forget to mention the two-state solution, blaming the failure of negotiations on the Palestinians. This will align him with the settlers who see themselves as the solution, not the problem.
That is a snare and a delusion. Here is where an amateur tour of the world gets serious and dangerous. We can all laugh at a candidate’s advisor who thinks it is important that Romney is more Anglo-Saxon than Barack Obama, who himself has lots of “Anglo-Saxon” genes in him (certainly more than I do!). We can enjoy the gaffe about the Olympics. I’ll even giggle if Romney says Chopin is boring. But if he in effect abandons the two-state solution and lines up with Sheldon Adelson’s settler friends, that will put America at serious risk of electing a president committed to perpetual war with the Palestinians and the Arab world.
Mitt Romney’s foreign policy speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars is getting slammed on both the right and left. There are two problems with Romney’s approach. One is the absence of specific ideas about how he would approach foreign policy issues, including Iran, China, Afghanistan, Egypt and other serious challenges. The other is his one big idea: that good old American resolve and strength will be sufficient to meet any challenge.
The poverty of specific ideas is profound. Nowhere does Romney tell us how he would do what he claims to be capable of. Iran will not get a nuclear weapon or even uranium enrichment. But there are no hints as to how this will be achieved. China must stop exploiting an artificially weak currency, but how they are to be convinced (and the fact that China has revalued its currency dramatically during the Obama administration) is omitted. The war in Afghanistan will be pursued to a successful conclusion in the same time frame foreseen by Barack Obama, but what is to be done differently? Aid to Egypt is to be made conditional, but on what is not clear.
The one big idea is even more troubling. I would be tempted to call it “triumph of the will” if that rubric had not already been used by others:
It’s a mistake — and sometimes a tragic one — to think that firmness in American foreign policy can only bring tension or conflict. The surest path to danger is always weakness and indecision. In the end, it is resolve that moves events in our direction, and strength that keeps the peace.
Without hints as to how they will be applied to specific issues, vague appeals to American strength and resolve are almost guaranteed to lead America into the kind of over-extension of its power that the George W. Bush administration indulged in. The budget-draining eight years of occupation in Iraq and thirteen years of war in Afghanistan were the unfortunate consequences. Romney’s implication that more defense spending will somehow improve America’s economic position is just hogwash.
Mitt Romney and those who write his foreign policy speeches have not faced up to the facts of life: resolve is a virtue only under particular circumstances, costly military power is less important in much of the world than it once was, power today takes many non-military forms and American dominance will persist for most of the next century no matter who is president come January 2013. The question the next president faces is not so much about where to use American power, but rather how to husband and preserve it for instances in which our national interests are truly at stake.
I confess to thinking that Barack Obama has understood this rather better than Mitt Romney, who shows every sign of being willing to be drawn into prolonged displays of American resolve against adversaries who do not threaten vital American interests. The country is in no mood for that: across the political spectrum, Americans are looking forward to containing defense expenditures, not expanding them in a time of budget stringency.
Flag-waving has great virtue in American political campaigns. No doubt Obama will indulge as much as Romney. But we need foreign policy restraint and limits on defense commitments today more than we need to set out bold claims to a century of American dominance. That dominance will last longer if we show restraint. Resolve needs to be reserved for the instances in which there are real threats to vital American interests. Certainly that is not the case with Iran’s enrichment of uranium to the levels required for commercial reactor operations. Nor are China’s currency manipulation and software piracy causes that requires military mobilization.
Romney needs to learn to modulate his excessive enthusiasm for the exercise of American power. Dominance requires that America conserve, not waste, its considerable strength.
1. Crisis in Syria: What are US Options? Middle East Policy Council, 9:30am-12:00pm, July 23
The Middle East Policy Council invites you and your colleagues to our 69th Capitol Hill Conference. Live streaming of this event will begin at approximately 9:30am EST on Monday, July 23rd and conclude around noon. A questions and answers session will be held at the end of the proceedings. Refreshments will be served. If you are watching the livestream and want to submit a question for one of the speakers, email MEPCQuestions@gmail.com. Please be sure to be concise and specify the speaker you are addressing.
2. Police Reform in Pakistan,Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 3:00-5:00 pm July 25
Pakistan’s police force faces formidable challenges, ranging from rising crime rates and sustained terrorist campaigns, to limited resources, inadequate training, and poor management. Despite this reality, policymakers have yet to include the law enforcement sector as a top priority for investment and reform.
In this context, Asia Society Senior Advisor Hassan Abbas and experts from both Pakistan and the United States have collaborated to provide a framework for law enforcement reform throughout the country. The culminating report by the Independent Commission on Pakistan Police Reform is the result of extensive interviews conducted throughout Pakistan with experienced police officials, security analysts, and legal experts, in addition to articles contributed by experts in the field. The report is also informed by Dr. Abbas’s service in Pakistan’s police force in the 1990s and his subsequent research and work on counterterrorism during his academic career in the United States.
In conjunction with the launch of the report, Commission members will discuss the current state of Pakistan’s police force and offer recommendations for enhancing the capacity of police to check the growth of organized crime and conduct critical counterterrorism operations throughout the country.
This event is being held in partnership with the Middle East Institute.
SPEAKERS: Hassan Abbas is a Senior Advisor and Bernard Schwartz Fellow at Asia Society and Professor of International Security Studies at National Defense University’s College of International Security Affairs. As a former government official in Pakistan, he served in the administrations of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (1995–1996) and President Pervez Musharraf (1999–2000).
Aitzaz Ahsan is a Barrister-at-Law and a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of Pakistan. He is a former Federal Minister for Law and Justice, Interior, Narcotics Control, and Education. Elected to the Senate of Pakistan in 1994, he then served as the leader of the House and the leader of the Opposition. He was previously the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
Arif Alikhan is Deputy Executive Director for Law Enforcement and Homeland at Los Angeles World Airports and a former Distinguished Professor of Homeland Security and Counterterrorism at National Defense University. He previously served as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and as Deputy Mayor for Homeland Security and Public Safety for the City of Los Angeles.
Wendy Chamberlin (moderator) is President of the Middle East Institute. She previously served as Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees from 2004 to 2007. A 29-year veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service, she was Ambassador to Pakistan from 2001 to 2002.
Location:
1779 Massachusetts Avenue Northwest Washington, DC 20036
3. Bearing Witness to Syria’s Tragedies, New America Foundation, Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 12:15pm-1:45pm
The New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force and the Syrian American Council invite you to a discussion with Rev. Paolo Dall’Oglio on the situation inside Syria and future prospects for the country.
A month ago, Father Paolo, an Italian Jesuit priest, was expelled by the Syrian government for his work on behalf of the opposition and his outspoken criticism of the government’s repression. Father Paolo left behind a 30 year long legacy of promoting interfaith dialogue, having helped to restore a 1,000 year old monastery in Nebek, north of Damascus, which became a site of Christian and Muslim understanding and welcomed all faiths.
What are the prospects for political and religious unity among the opposition? What is the likely impact of a new Syrian government with much broader ethnic and religious representation should the current Regime fall? What avenues for action does the international community have so long as Russia and China remain opposed to pressure? Father Paolo will speak about the dynamics between different minority groups, the current state of play on the ground, and focus especially on what lies ahead.
PARTICIPANTS
Featured Speaker Father Paolo Dall’Oglio
Italian Jesuit Priest
Moderator Leila Hilal
Director, Middle East Task Force
New America Foundation
Location: 1899 L Street NW Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036
4. IISS-US Roundtable Discussion-Iran’s Ballistic Missile Capabilities, International Institute for Strategic Studies, Tuesday July 24th, 2-3pm
Michael Elleman is Senior Fellow for Regional Security Cooperation at the IISS-Middle East, located in Bahrain. He previously worked at Booz Allen Hamilton, where he supported Department of Defense, Department of Energy and Defense Threat Reduction Agency programs. Prior to that, he worked for the United National Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission as a missile expert for weapons inspection in Iraq and Lockheed Martin’s Research and Development laboratory. He is a graduate of physics from the University of California, Berkeley. This meeting was moderated by Andrew Parasiliti, Executive Director, IISS-US and Corresponding Director, IISS-Middle East.
IISS-US events are for IISS members and direct invitees only. For more information, please contact events-washington@iiss.org or (202) 659-1490.
Location: IISS-US, 2121 K Street NW, Suite 801, Washington, DC 20037
5. Israel and Egypt: In-Depth Reports from a Changing Region, July 25th, The Washington Institute, 12:30pm-2:00pm
Egypt and Israel, whose chilly peace has long provided an anchor of stability in a troubled area, are responding politically and strategically to powerful forces within their countries and from abroad. Egypt’s new government is a dynamic work in progress. Israel’s broad new coalition government confronts domestic tensions as well as potential threats from the north, south, and east.
During his recent visit to Israel and Ramallah in the Palestinian Authority, David Makovsky interviewed top political and military leaders who shared their thoughts on the Arab Spring, Syria, Iranian nuclearization, and peacemaking. Eric Trager spent the past month in Egypt, where he met with the emerging leadership of the Egyptian government, opposition members, diplomats, and academics.
Makovsky and Trager will provide a detailed account of evolving events and highlight potential hotspots for U.S. policymakers on July 25, 2012, in Washington DC. The discussion begins at 12:30 p.m.
6. The Obama and Romney Foreign Policy Agendas: A Discussion with the Candidate’s Leading Advisors, Brookings Institution, 2:00pm-3:30pm, July 25th, 2012
On July 23 and July 24, President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will address the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, laying out their foreign, defense and national security agendas just weeks before the national political conventions. Following his speech, Governor Romney will depart on a multi-country overseas trip, with stops in Britain, Israel, and other possible destinations in Europe. These campaign events come as the crisis in Syria dissolves into civil war, the European economic crisis continues to unfold, and U.S. troops prepare to leave Afghanistan.
On July 25, Foreign Policy at Brookings will host a discussion examining the foreign policy, defense and national security agendas of candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, featuring Michele Flournoy, co-chair of the National Security Advisory Committee for Obama for America and Rich Williamson, senior adviser for foreign and defense policy for Romney for President, Inc. Vice President Martin Indyk, director of Foreign Policy, will provide introductory remarks. Brookings Guest Scholar Marvin Kalb will moderate the discussion.
After the program, speakers will take audience questions.
People sometimes ask what I say to my colleagues in the State Department about Balkans issues. It’s often difficult to answer, since I usually talk with them, though a lot less often than some people may imagine. But a queasy feeling of things coming apart moved me last week to write a note to Bill Burns, the deputy secretary. Here is what I said:
While I realize the Balkans are not anywhere near the top of your “do” list, even within Europe, I fear things could come apart there. Washington needs to ensure that does not happen. With the likely formation of a new, more nationalist governing coalition in Belgrade, forceful steps are needed that only Washington can inspire. At stake are achievements that have protected the lives and well being of people who regard the United States as their friend and ally.
There are three places action is needed:
Bosnia: I won’t urge you to get involved in Bosnia’s constitutional issues, as there have already been three U.S.-sponsored failures. Only the Bosnians working together are going to be able to modify the Dayton state so that it can qualify for European Union membership. But we need to ensure in the meanwhile that Bosnia does not come apart. The EU should end its growing inclination to negotiate membership separately with Republika Srpska and move its remaining troops in the country to Brcko, which is the linchpin that holds Bosnia together.
Kosovo: The de facto partition of Kosovo at the Ibar River is a threat to stability not only inside Kosovo but also in Macedonia, Bosnia, Serbia and Cyprus. A small spark could set off a region-wide conflagration and a series of ethnic partitions. Key agreements reached in the talks on practical issues remain unimplemented. We need a concerted US and EU effort to establish Kosovo’s sovereignty in the north in accordance with the Ahtisaari peace plan. This will require a serious U.S. effort to convince the five remaining EU members who have not yet done so to recognize Kosovo.
Serbia: The end of the Tadic presidency frees Brussels and Washington to press Belgrade for more definitive resolution of issues in Bosnia and Kosovo. At the same time, both the EU and the US should try to preserve in Serbia a vigorous pro-EU political opposition and civil society committed to maintaining Serbia’s Western ties and blocking Russia’s already outsized influence in Belgrade.
Washington has too many other problems on its plate to do a lot of heavy lifting in the Balkans, where the Europeans should carry most of the burden. I am not asking much:
Get the Europeans to deal more with the government in Sarajevo on accession and move their troops to where they will signal serious intent of holding Bosnia together,
Convince five EU members to recognize Pristina’s sovereignty and implement the Ahtisaari plan in northern Kosovo,
Maintain a vigorous democratic opposition in Belgrade.
These are steps well within the capability of your able diplomats without major new resources.
With respect and appreciation for your many efforts,
What if the Syrian opposition doesn’t unite? Are the Alawites preparing for a separate state? Are the Kurds? What is the likely impact of a Sunni dominated Syrian government on the region? How much U.S. intervention is the right amount? Joshua Landis discusses these questions and the future of Syria.
Associate Professor and Director, Center for Middle East Studies, University of Oklahoma and author of “Syria Comment,” daily newsletter on Syria
2. War and Protest in Sudan, Center for American Progress, 1-2:30 pm July 16
The one-year anniversary of South Sudan’s independence is fast approaching. South Sudan and Sudan have seemingly stepped back from the brink of all-out war, but they have yet to resolve many outstanding issues within the context of the ongoing North-South negotiation process. Meanwhile, conflict is deepening in a number of Sudan’s regions, while the pro-democracy movement – led by youth, civil society organizations, and opposition political parties – is protesting Sudan’s dictatorship. This violence and unrest poses significant implications for South Sudan and the region at large.Join us for a discussion that will address these multiple and interconnected challenges and explore ways to build peace and security within and between the two Sudans.The Enough Project will also debut a short video – shot in South Sudan – highlighting the reflections of South Sudanese and Sudanese on the occasion of South Sudan’s first anniversary of independence.Featured speakers: Sarah Cleto Rial, Program Director, My Sister’s Keeper Francis Deng, Former U.N. Special Advisor for the Prevention of Genocide Omer Ismail, Senior Advisor, Enough Project John Prendergast, Co-founder, Enough Project
Moderated by: John C. Bradshaw, Executive Director, Enough Project
This event has been moved to the Constitution Ballroom Grand Hyatt Washington. Event registration is now closed. You can view the live event webcast on this page.
On Tuesday, July 17, join the New America Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Center for a New American Security for an in-depth discussion of the opportunities and challenges posed to the United States by events in the Greater Middle East. Panelists will discuss electoral transitions following the Arab Spring, the changing role of Turkey, and Iran’s regional and international profile. Ambassador Dennis Ross will provide introductory remarks.
This event continues a unique collaboration among these institutions in the presidential campaign season, “Election 2012: The National Security Agenda.” Past conversations covered the U.S. role in the world, policy in East Asia, and the national security budget.
Schedule:
12:00 p.m. — Registration and Lunch
12:30 p.m.-2:00 p.m. —Panel Discussion and Q&A
Featured Speaker
Ambassador Dennis Ross
Counselor, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Former Special Assistant to President Obama
Former National Security Council senior director for the Central Region
Former Special Advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
Panelists
Dr. Marc Lynch
Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security
Danielle Pletka
Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies
Former Director for Iraq on the National Security Council under Bush and Obama administrations
Senior National Security Studies Fellow, New America Foundation
CNN will livestream this event on the Opinion page. On Twitter? Follow #natsecurity2012 for updates throughout the series.
About the Series:
This fall’s presidential election comes at a critical moment for the United States and the world. The demands for U.S. leadership are substantial–particularly in the dynamic Middle East and Asia-Pacific–yet fiscal challenges are forcing reductions in defense spending, sparking new thinking about American engagement with the world. In this important election season, many Americans will look to the next U.S. president to repair the economy, but he will nonetheless inherit complicated military and diplomatic engagements and govern as commander-in-chief of the globe’s most powerful nation. As a result, the discussion of national security issues must take a central role in the 2012 presidential election.
This event is the fourth in a series of campaign-season seminars on the critical issues of U.S. foreign and defense policy, sponsored by AEI, the Center for a New American Security and the New America Foundation.
4. Electoral Reform in Lebanon: What’s in Store for 2013, Aspen Institute, 12:30 pm July 17
The U.S.-Lebanon Dialogue Program will host “Electoral Reform in Lebanon: What’s in Store for 2013” to launch Dr. Ekmekji’s new policy paper exploring the complexities of Lebanon’s confessional society and avenues for reform in its electoral system. During this conversation, experts will discuss Dr. Ekmekji’s paper in light of the debate on democratic representation and the rights of minorities in Lebanon, Syria, and the region. The panelists will also offer actionable recommendations for lasting reform that reflects Lebanon’s democratic prospects, leading up to the parliamentary elections in 2013.
Dr. Arda Arsenian Ekmekji is the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Haigazian University in Beirut, Lebanon. She is professor of intercultural studies and a member of various non-governmental organization boards in Lebanon, such as World Vision and the Middle East Council of Churches. She was the only female member on the National Commission for a New Electoral Law (2006) and on the Supervisory Commission for the Electoral Campaign (2009).
We hope you will join us for what will be an interesting and informative discussion on:
July 17, 2012 at 12:30PM
The Aspen Institute
One Dupont Circle
Suite 700
Washington, D.C.
Please contact Sarah Harlan at sarah.harlan@aspeninst.org or 202-736-2526 to RSVP. We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Featuring Dr. Arda Ekmekji, Dean of Arts and Sciences, Haigazian University – Beirut, Lebanon; Author, “Confessionalism and Electoral Reform in Lebanon” Mr. Hassan Mneimneh, Senior Transatlantic Fellow, German Marshall Fund of the United States In a moderated discussion with Mr. Leslie Campbell, Senior Associate and Regional Director, Middle East and North Africa (MENA),
National Democratic Institute
5. Democratization in the Arab World, Carnegie, 12:15-1:45 pm July 18
Wednesday, July 18, 2012 – Washington, D.C.
12:15 PM – 1:45 PM EST
Based on the democratization experiences of other countries, what are the chances that the Arab Spring will lead to a flowering of democracy? In a new book, RAND Corporation experts extensively analyze past democratization examples over nearly four decades and analyze the Arab revolutions that up-ended longstanding authoritarian regimes.
Laurel Miller and Jeffrey Martini of the RAND Corporation will discuss what the successes and setbacks of other transitions from authoritarianism suggest about the problems ahead for Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere, and how they might be overcome. Carnegie’s Thomas Carothers will discuss and Marina Ottaway will moderate.
Please join the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center on July 18 for a public discussion entitled, “Can Pakistan Grow Again?” with deputy chairman of the Planning Commission of Pakistan Nadeem Ul Haque.
In the face of major domestic, regional, and international political and economic difficulties, Pakistan’s growth rate has suffered in recent years, falling well behind the growth of its population. Unemployment is rampant, especially among the burgeoning youth population. Rising urbanization is creating new challenges for policymakers. A low tax-to-GDP ratio is often cited as a major hindrance to growth. Yet, there are many other underlying economic issues behind Pakistan’s problem. Dr. Haque will offer his views on how growth may be regenerated in Pakistan and the potential pitfalls that lie ahead.
A discussion with
Nadeem Ul Haque Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission
Government of Pakistan
Moderated by
Shuja Nawaz Director, South Asia Center
Atlantic Council
DATE:
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
TIME:
3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
LOCATION:
Atlantic Council
1101 15th Street, NW, 11th Floor,
Washington, DC 20005
To attend, RSVP with your name and affiliation (acceptances only) tosouthasia@acus.org.
Nadeem Ul Haque
Dr. Nadeem Ul Haque is the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission of Pakistan, the agency responsible for managing growth and development policies in the country. As a key member of the economic management team of Pakistan, he has led the country-wide research and consultative effort for the development of the “framework for economic growth,” which emphasizes economic reform for sustained long-term productivity. The framework has been approved by all levels of the government of Pakistan and has been implemented into policy.
Dr. Haque has over twenty-four years of wide-ranging operational and research experience from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), including leading technical assistance missions, and policy and research teams. With a strong background in economic analysis and policy development, Dr. Haque has published numerous publications including books and papers in academic and policy journals. Dr. Haque holds a PhD in economics from the University of Chicago.
7. Oslo: Twenty Years Later, IIACF, 9 am-12 pm July 19
Oslo – Twenty Years Later
Capitol Hill – Washington, D.C. July 19th, 2012
9:00am – 12:00pm
No meaningful negotiations have taken place in almost two years, yet the death of the peace process remains a taboo topic in Washington. Recently, both Palestinian and Israeli voices have bemoaned the lack of progress. Mahmoud Abbas is rumored to be, once again, flirting with the idea of dissolving the Palestinian Authority. Yossi Beilin, considered one of the architects of the Oslo Peace Accords, has said it is time to move on.
After 20 years and little positive progress, the time has come to reevaluate our thinking and try a new approach – it is the only hope of moving towards a lasting peace.
Join the IIACF on Thursday, July 19th from 9:00am to noon as we bring together journalists, policy experts and government officials who are shaping the future of peace in the Middle East.
Location: Longworth House Office Building, Room 1539
Address: 45 Independence Avenue SW, Washington D.C.
8. Diplomacy in Syria: U.S.-Russia Relations and International Intervention, Center for National Policy, 12-1 pm July 19
Please join CNP President Scott Bates and an expert panel for a discussion on the current state of the U.S.-Russia relationship, Russia’s evolving foreign policy posture, and the corresponding implications for the crisis in Syria.
Featuring:
Jeff Mankoff Adjunct Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program,
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Mark Adomanis Contributor, The Russia Hand, Forbes Magazine *A light lunch will be served*
Where
Center for National Policy
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 333
9. Can Libya Really Become a Democracy?, SAIS, 2-3:30 pm July 19
“Can Libya Really Become a Democracy?”
Hosted By: Conflict Management Program and the Middle East Institute
Time: 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM
Location: Room 417, The Nitze Building (main building)
Summary: Christopher Blanchard, research manager at the Congressional Research Service, will discuss this topic. For more information and to RSVP, contact itlong@jhu.edu.
10. Assad’s Coming Downfall?, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 9:30 am July 20
David Enders, Ammar Abdulhamid, John Hannah, Reuel Marc Gerecht
Unbeknownst to most Americans, reports suggest that the rebels fighting Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad may have taken control of a growing portion of the country, and may now be closer to wresting it away from him altogether. While some Syrian soldiers have defected to Turkey, many more are deserting, or simply refusing to fight. Is Assad’s central authority breaking down? Are new power brokers emerging? If so, how can the United States and its allies prevent further humanitarian catastrophe?
To assess these questions and others, FDD is pleased to host a breakfast conversation with:
David Enders, a Pulitzer Center grantee on Crisis Reporting, recently returned from a month of reporting alongside the rebels fighting Bashar Assad’s government in Syria. Author of Baghdad Bulletin, a firsthand account of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, he has reported from the Middle East for news outlets ranging from The Nation to The National, Al-Jazeera, Vice, and the Virginia Quarterly Review.
Ammar Abdulhamid, a fellow at FDD, is a leading Syrian human rights and democracy activist, and also director of the Tharwa Foundation, a grassroots organization that works to break the Assad government’s information blockade by enlisting local activists and citizen issues to report on developments inside Syria. Before founding Tharwa, Mr. Abdulhamid served as a fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He has briefed the President of the United States and testified before the U.S. Congress, and has appeared in many media outlets, including the New York Times.
John Hannah is a senior fellow at FDD, before which he served as national security advisor to Vice President Richard B. Cheney. Mr. Hannah has served in a range of senior policy positions in both Democratic and Republican administrations, as a senior member of Secretary of State James A. Baker’s Policy Planning staff during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, and later as a senior advisor to Secretary of State Warren Christopher under President William J. Clinton. Mr. Hannah’s articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal, and he blogs regularly at ForeignPolicy.com and National Review Online.
Reuel Marc Gerecht is a Senior Fellow at FDD and a former Iran analyst at the CIA’s Directorate of Operations. He focuses on the Arab Revolt, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism, and intelligence. Mr. Gerecht is the author of The Wave: Man, God, and the Ballot Box in the Middle East, Know Thine Enemy: A Spy’s Journey into Revolutionary Iran, and The Islamic Paradox: Shiite Clerics, Sunni Fundamentalists, and the Coming of Arab Democracy. He is a contributing editor for The Weekly Standard and a correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, as well as a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and other publications.
Capitol Hill – Washington, D.C.
RSS - Posts
