Tag: United States

Diplomacy imitates confused reality

Yesterday’s Bonn conference on Afghanistan reflected all too starkly the war.  Lots of countries showed up, but Pakistan–certainly among the most important–did not.  The Taliban weren’t there either.  Iran was, but sounding out of tune with both the Americans and Afghans, who emphasized the need for continuing assistance and foreign military presence.  Tehran blames the whole mess on foreign intervention.  Afghanistan was looking for long-term commitment, not specific pledges.  There was no progress on the country’s confusing current reality.

The best I can say for the event is that Hillary Clinton knows what is important:  she emphasized rule of law, including the fight against corruption, and underlined the importance of being realistic about what can be achieved.  Some might claim that these two points are mutually contradictory, but that’s the confusing reality.

I am surprised that the pressures for withdrawal from Afghanistan are not stronger than they are.  I guess having an opposition devoted to “winning” gives a Democratic president a free hand to remain longer, if he wants to do so and can keep his own party in line.  But it is hard to see how we’ll make it to 2014, when most of the U.S. troops are supposed to be on their way home, unless there is progress in negotiating with the Taliban.

No one seems to think that is happening, but I admit it would be hard to tell from outside.  Negotiations of this sort go slowly and badly until suddenly they go well. It is worth trying, if only because success in is so important to rescuing the overall effort from failure.

Today’s sectarian attacks on Shia targets, which are unusual in Afghanistan, can be interpreted at least two ways:  either there is a Taliban splinter group (or Al Qaeda) that is trying to wreck ongoing negotiations, or the Taliban have decided to widen their war in a sectarian direction, hoping to bring more chaos to Kabul and Afghanistan generally (one of the attacks took place in the usually quiet northern town Mazar-i-Sharif).  More confused reality.

PS:  The Taliban have joined in condemnation of the attacks.  A Pakistani group with ties to al Qaeda,  Lashkar-e-Jhangvi al-Alami, has now claimed responsibility.

PPS:  Those asking for the U.S. to complete the job in Afghanistan seem to me to be asking for more than we are likely to give.

Tags : , , , ,

Next week’s “peace picks”

1. Looking to the Future of Pakistan

With each passing day, Pakistan becomes an even more crucial player in world affairs. Home of the world’s second largest Muslim population, epicenter of the global jihad, location of perhaps the planet’s most dangerous borderlands, and armed with nuclear weapons, this South Asian nation will go a long way toward determining what the world looks like ten years from now.

Event Information

When

Monday, December 05, 2011
2:00 PM to 4:00 PM

Where

Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC
Map

Email: events@brookings.edu

Phone: 202.797.6105

Register Now

RELATED CONTENT

Save to My PortfolioOut of the Nuclear Loop

Stephen P. Cohen
The New York Times
February 16, 2004

Save to My PortfolioArmageddon in Islamabad

Bruce Riedel
The National Interest
July/August 2009

Save to My PortfolioThe Pakistan Time Bomb

Stephen P. Cohen
The Washington Post
July 3, 2007

More Related Content »

On December 5, Foreign Policy at Brookings will host the launch of The Future of Pakistan(Brookings Institution Press, 2011), which evaluates several scenarios for how the country will develop and evolve in the near future. A team of 17 experts from Pakistan, the United States, Europe and India, led by Brookings Senior Fellow Stephen P. Cohen, contributed chapters to the book, looking at pieces of the Pakistan puzzle. Several of the authors will join other Pakistan experts on two panels to examine the issues, relevant actors and their motivations, different outcomes they might produce, and what it all means for Pakistanis, Indians, the United States, and the entire world.After each panel, participants will take audience questions
Participants

2:00 PM — Opening Remarks

Stephen P. Cohen

Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, 21st Century Defense Initiative

2:10 PM — Panel 1 – Paradoxical Pakistan

Moderator: Teresita C. Schaffer

Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, 21st Century Defense Initiative

C. Christine Fair

Assistant Professor
Georgetown University

William Milam

Senior Scholar
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Shuja Nawaz

Director, South Asia Center
The Atlantic Council

Moeed Yusuf

South Asia Adviser
U.S. Institute of Peace

3:10 PM — Panel 2 – Pakistan: Where To?

Moderator: John R. Schmidt

Professorial Lecturer
The George Washington University

Pamela Constable

Staff Writer
The Washington Post

Bruce Riedel

Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy

Marvin Weinbaum

Scholar-in-Residence
Middle East Institute

Joshua T. White

Ph.D. Candidate
Johns Hopkins University, SAIS

2. Which Way Forward for Egypt?

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 – 12:15pm – 1:45pm

New America Foundation

1899 L Street NW Suite 400

Washington, DC 20036

Egypt’s first parliamentary elections since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak began on November 28th. The vote for the People’s Assembly will stretch over six weeks into January 2012.

An outpouring of enthusiastic voters has for the moment raised a note of optimism in Egypt. Yet following days of mass protest over the military’s continued rule, state violence, and deepening political and social polarization, it appears that Egypt’s transition will be long and rocky.

Join us for a conversation co-hosted by the Egyptian American Rule of Law Association about the election’s impact, transitional prospects, and implications for the wider MENA region and U.S. foreign policy.

A light lunch will be served.

Participants

Featured Speakers
Randa Fahmy
Vice President, Egyptian American Rule of Law Association

Nathan Brown
Professor, Political Science & International Affairs, George Washington University
Nonresident Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Michael Wahid Hanna
Fellow, The Century Foundation (will have just returned from Egypt)

Moderator
Leila Hilal
Co-Director, Middle East Task Force
New America Foundation

3. Islamist Terrorism and Democracy in the Middle East

A Book Launch for a USIP-funded study by Katerina Dalacoura

Wednesday, December 7 from 3:00-4:30

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Choate Room
1779 Massachusetts Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20036

The putative relationship between political repression and terrorism remains a matter of active debate in scholarly and policymaking circles.  Based on investigations into individual Islamist movements and the political environments in which they operate, this study assesses whether the emergence of Islamist terrorism is linked to the absence of political participation and repression.

The U.S. Institute of Peace is pleased to sponsor an in-depth discussion with Dalacoura centered on her recently-published work.

Funded by a grant from USIP, the volume draws on a series of case studies that include al Qa’eda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Groupe Islamique Armé, Gamaa Islamiyya, the Jordanian and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhoods, the Tunisian Nahda Movement, the Turkish Justice and Development Party, and Iranian Islamist movements.

“Drawing on her deep knowledge of Middle East politics, Dalacoura powerfully challenges past assumptions about a simple link between democratic deficits and the spread of Islamist terrorism,” said Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Conceptually rigorous, empirically rich, incisive and searching, this is a major study.”

Speakers

  • Daniel Brumberg, Chair
    U.S. Institute of Peace
  • Katerina Dalacoura, Author
    London School of Economics and Political Science
  • Dafna Rand
    Department of State
  • Eric Goldstein
    Human Rights Watch

4.  The Arab Spring:  Implications for US Policy and Interests

A publication launch and discussion featuring

Middle East Institute scholars:

Allen Keiswetter

Principal Coordinator and Author
with

Charles Dunne
Amb. Art Hughes

Amb. Molly Williamson

Thursday, December 8, 2011

12:00pm-1:30pm

SEIU Building, Room 2600

2nd Floor

1800 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036

*Please note that this event is not being held at MEI. An ID is required for entrance into the building.*

The Middle East Institute is proud to present its first ever policy paper produced exclusively by MEI scholars.  Entitled “The Arab Spring: Implications for US Policy and Interests,” it draws upon the broad expertise of 25 Middle East Institute scholars to examine the impact of this year’s popular uprisings in the Arab world on a variety of sectors and issues, including oil and energy, Iran, the peace process, and democratization and reform.  The paper is based on a series of roundtable discussions amongst MEI scholars in response to the historic and unprecedented changes taking place in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and beyond, and offers and offers insights and recommendations for US policymakers recalibrating America’s approach to the Middle East.  Please join us for the launch of this MEI featured publication and a discussion with principal coordinator and author Allen Keiswetter and contributors Amb. Molly Williamson, Amb. Art Hughes, and Charles Dunne.  You can read the full paper in advance of the event here.

TO RSVP for this event, please click here.
5.  Getting Rights…Right: How Companies are Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

Thursday, December 8, 2011
9:00 AM – 4:30 PM

Grand Ballroom, 3rd Floor
Marvin Center, 800 21st Street, NW

To mark International Human Rights Day 2011, George Washington University, the UN Global Compact US Network, and the US Institute of Peace will host a one day conference on the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. These principles, approved by the UN Human Rights Council in June, are designed to help business monitor its human rights impact. These guidelines clarified both the human rights responsibilities of states and firms and made them clear and actionable. Our speakers, representing business, civil society, the US Government, and academia, will focus on practical approaches to implementing the Guiding Principles (the GPs).

9:00-9:10 – Welcoming Remarks
Stephen C. Smith, Professor of Economics and International Affairs; Director, Institute for International Economic Policy, GW

Dave Berdish, Manager of Sustainable Business Development, Ford Motor Company

9:10-9:45 – “Why Firms Should Advance Human Rights: Manpower’s Approach”
David Arkless, President, Corporate and Government Affairs, ManpowerGroup

9:45-11:15 – Panel 1 – “Addressing the Problems of Slavery and Human Trafficking”
Brenda Schultz, Manager of Responsible Business, Carlson Hotels Worldwide Samir Goswami, Director of Corporate Responsibility, Rule of Law, Lexis Nexis

Jean Baderscheider, Vice President, Global Procurement, Exxon Mobil

Indika Samarawickreme, Executive Director, Free the Slaves

Moderator:
Pamela Passman, President and CEO, CREATe

11:15-11:30 – Coffee Break

11:30-1:00 – Panel 2 – “How Business Should Operate in Conflict Zones”
Bennett Freeman, Senior Vice President for Social research and Policy, Calvert Group

Charlotte Wolff, Corporate Responsibility Manager, Arcellor Mittal

Olav Ljosne, Regional Director of Communications, Africa, Shell Corporation

Moderator:
Raymond Gilpin, Director, Center for Sustainable Economies, U.S. Institute of Peace

1:00-2:15 – Luncheon Keynote
Ursula Wynhoven, General Counsel, UN Global Compact

Gerald Pachoud, Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary General, UN and former Senior Advisor, Special Representative on Business and Human Rights

2:15-3:45 – Panel 3: General Implementation of the Guiding Principles Is it difficult to get buy in? Is it costly? What recommendations or roadblocks have you found?
Mark Nordstrom, Senior Labor & Employment Counsel, General Electric

Dave Berdish, Manager of Sustainable Business

Brenda Erskine, Director of Stakeholder and Community Relationships, Suncor

Meg Roggensack, Senior Advisor for Business and Human Rights, Human Rights First

Moderator:
Susan Aaronson, Associate Research Professor of International Affairs, GW

3:45-4:30 – General Discussion: What should policymakers do to encourage adoption of the GPs?

RSVP at: http://tiny.cc/guidingprinciples

Sponsored by Institute for International Economic Policy, U.S. Institute for Peace, U.N. Global Compact, and the U.S. Network

6.  The Valley’s Edge: A Year with the Pashtuns in the Heartland of the Taliban

Start: Friday, December 9, 2011 4:30 PM
End:   Friday, December 9, 2011 6:00
You are cordially invited to a book lecture with author Daniel R. Green for his new book
The Valley’s Edge: A Year with the Pashtuns in the Heartland of the Taliban Friday, December 9
4:30 PMThe Institute of World Politics
1521 16th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Please RSVP to kbridges@iwp.edu.This event is sponsored by IWP’s Center for Culture and Security.

About the author

Daniel R. Green is a Soref Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and is pursuing a PhD in political science at the George Washington University. For his work in Afghanistan in 2005-2006, he received the U.S. Department of State’s Superior Honor Award, the U.S. Army’s Superior Civilian Honor Award, and a personal letter of commendation from then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace. He has also received the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Exceptional Public Service Award and in 2007 served with the U.S. military in Fallujah, Iraq. He lives in Washington, D.C.

About the book

In this gripping, firsthand account, Daniel Green tells the story of U.S. efforts to oust the Taliban insurgency from the desolate southern Afghan province of Uruzgan. Nestled between the Hindu Kush mountains and the sprawling wasteland of the Margow and Khash Deserts, Uruzgan is a microcosm of U.S. efforts to prevent Afghanistan from falling to the Taliban insurgency and Islamic radicalism.

Green, who served in Uruzgan from 2005 to 2006 as a U.S. Department of State political adviser to a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT), reveals how unrealistic expectations, a superficial understanding of the Afghans, and a lack of resources contributed to the Taliban’s resurgence in the area. He discusses the PRT’s good-governance efforts, its reconstruction and development projects, the violence of the insurgency, and the PRT’s attempts to manage its complex relationship with the local warlord cum governor of the province.

Upon returning to Afghanistan in 2009 with the U.S. military and while working at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul until 2010, Green discovered that although many improvements had been made since he had last served in the country, the problems he had experienced in Uruzgan continued despite the transition from the Bush administration to the Obama administration.

 

Tags : , , , , , , , , , ,

China and the U.S. in Africa

I’m at the Chinua Achebe Colloquium on Africa at Brown this weekend.  I thought this session on “China and the United States in Africa:  Cooperation or Confrontation” would be of particular interest:

  • Robert Rotberg, Harvard:  Chinese goods and traders are ubiquitous in Africa, Chinese growth is Africa’s great hope but Chinese human rights record in Africa is appalling.  China’s focus is access to resources:  trying to convince Khartoum and Juba to settle pipeline issues (which is a good thing), helping with the Zimbabwe crackdown on protests.  Chinese and Americans in Africa have different agendas and will have to find a mutual accommodation.
  • Walter Carrington, former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria:  China offers trade and aid without onerous Western conditions.  But United States also is there for its own interests, and it was indifferent to moral considerations throughout the Cold War.  U.S. business would gladly see Washington behave the way Beijing does.  Africom assures access to African oil supplies.  We should avoid competition with China, which behaves like the capitalists we hoped they would one day become.
  • James Hentz, VMI:  Strategic framework is important:  either realist, in which China challenges the U.S. (power transition model) and tries to deny U.S. resources, especially oil, metals; or liberal, in which growing trade and commerce is a good thing, Chinese construction of infrastructure benefits other powers as well.  China and U.S. both have huge stakes in stability in Africa, but China does not like American advocacy of democracy.  Chinese will want good governance and transparency in Africa, but not American-style democracy.
  • Scott D. Taylor, Georgetown:  U.S. and China so far moving along parallel tracks.   How do Africans view the two?  China viewed favorably in most countries.  Even in Zambia, China has traction.  Views of China are approaching the highly positive levels of views of the U.S., which are slipping because of Africom, hunt for Lord’s Resistance Army, use of drones in Somalia, reduction of PEPFAR funding, toppling of Qaddafi.  Anti-U.S. sentiment is growing, to the benefit of the Chinese.
  • Omer Ismail, Enough!  China and the U.S. compete for resources and markets.  The approaches are different:  China leads with the state, the U.S. with the market.  China has now passed the U.S. in trade with Africa, in corporate deals with Africa, in percentage of oil imports from Africa, supplying weapons to all sides.  Possible areas for cooperation:  agriculture, security and diplomacy, and environment.  What is in it for the people of Africa?  That is what U.S. and China should focus on.  There is a real possibility for cooperation. 
  • Deborah Brautigan, American University:  China represents a big challenge that echoes for Americans the Cold War and Japanese economic competition.  It is a developing country with low labor and environmental standards.  Chinese foreign policy emphasizes mutual benefit and non-interference.  But China is changing rapidly, we often exaggerate Chinese activities in Africa and have little understanding what they are actually doing.  Chinese credit practices can be good because they guarantee that the Chinese get what they pay for, which is better than much Western foreign assistance has done.

Overall message:  some competition is inevitable, but the Chinese role in Africa is already more positive that many think (finance, infrastructure) and more like U.S. private sector behavior than we like to admit.  There is a negative side:  supporting unworthy rulers, use of veto at the UN, Chinese racial attitudes, and company exploitation of diamonds in Zimbabwe.  But Chinese are evolving in a direction that may allow more cooperation on Africa in the UN and in an Africa that is increasingly democratic and resistant to exploitation.

Chinua Achebe at his Brown Colloquium, December 4, 2011
Tags : , ,

Responding to the Islamist wave

Islamists have now won pluralities in recent Tunisia, Morocco and the first round of the Egyptian elections.  There is every reason to believe they will continue to do well in Egypt and in Libya.  How should the U.S. and Europe respond?

Calmly.  It is not surprising that relatively well-organized Islamists, who for decades led often underground opposition to nominally secularist and nationalist autocrats in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya (and to the monarchy in Morocco), are doing well in the first sort-of free and fair elections.  Yes, relatively secularist youth led the protests earlier this year, but they are not reaping the electoral fruits.  There has not been nearly enough time for them to organize, and in Egypt they have been more inclined to protest in Tahrir than to get out to the hustings.  Secularism, stained by autocrats and often viewed as synonymous with atheism (not only in Muslim countries), faces a long uphill struggle.  Separation of mosque and state is not even on the horizon.

In Tunisia and Morocco, the parties winning pluralities seem determined to avoid the worst excesses of Islamism, but there are going to be constant tussles over veiling, alcohol, status of women and other religious/social issues.  In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has also been toeing a relatively moderate line, but the far less moderate and Salafist Nour party is also doing well. In all three countries, at least some of the Islamists would like to imitate the success of the ruling Turkish Islamists, who have managed to gain a clear majority by moderating their once more militant views.

The Islamists who do well this year will have an enormous challenge ahead of them, as economic conditions are going to be difficult.  This may force some degree of moderation, or at least reduce the saliency of social/religious issues and give secularists some time to get their act together.

The key battleground in my view will be rule of law.  Rule of law is where secular regimes in Muslim countries have most obviously failed.  It is also the area where many Muslims regard Islamists as offering a credible alternative.

Islamists think Sharia should be the basis of law in Muslim countries, as in fact it nominally was even under supposedly secular autocrats.  The question is one of degree and interpretation.  If Europe and the United States want the 2011 Arab spring to result in democratic regimes that respect human rights and see eye to eye with the West, they are going to need to engage seriously on rule of law issues.  This would mean helping the judiciaries of these countries to rid themselves of corruption and enabling them to establish the kind of independence from executive authority and moderate interpretations of Sharia that might lead to legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

Sincere secularists have advantages in this struggle for hearts and minds.  The more than 50 per cent of the population that is female cannot expect equal rights under the more extreme interpretations of Sharia.  It is hard to picture the substantial middle classes of Tunisia or Morocco accepting public stoning of adulterers.  Egypt’s Christian minority will want a more moderate legal regime.

But to take advantage of these advantages, secularists and more moderate Islamists will need to regroup after these elections and get serious about protecting individual human rights and independence of the judiciary.  Their friends in the West should provide support.

Tags : , , , , , ,

The Balkans in Europe whole and free

My colleague here at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, Kurt Volker, testified earlier this month in the House on the Balkans.  Kurt and I don’t agree entirely on some policy points in his presentation, but I think the analysis was spot on and the policy recommendations–as would be expected from a former ambassador to NATO and principal deputy assistant secretary for Europe at the State Department–were well crafted in the broader context of Europe whole and free.  So I am delighted he has given me permission to post his written statement.  It is well worth a read for the Balkan-watchers (and inhabitants) among you.

Here are Kurt’s main policy points:

• In the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Dayton framework has stalled out. It is time to launch a new, major push from the international community to go beyond Dayton and establish lasting, effective governing structures – a Dayton Two. The Butmir process of a few years ago was a good effort, but ultimately did not succeed. We should go further.

There are plenty of positive forces for change in Bosnia today – from reformers and young people to civil society to businessmen and so forth. The conditions for progress have never been better. But the current political structures have guaranteed long-term divisions inside the country that play to the hands of nationalist and separatists. We should not close down the Office of the High Representative, or phase out the EU Force, until political structures are settled and functioning. So we should make a major push to settle these very issues.

• Likewise, we need a fresh push for political progress on Kosovo – in particular arrangements for Mitrovica in the north. Ethnic Serbs in southern Kosovo are well-protected and able to participate actively in society in Kosovo. There is no reason ethnic Serbs in the north could not do the same, but they are radicalized and held back. Criminal interests – both local and from Serbia proper – Serbian interior ministry police, and of course the nature of the Kosovo government and international community’s past engagement, have all played a role. But it has gotten worse with time, not better, and it is time to push for a more wide-reaching resolution.

Here, one needs also to push the European Union on its role. Despite years of history and the ruling of the International Court of Justice, five EU member states do not recognize Kosovo’s independence, as the United States and 22 other EU members have done. This serves to perpetuate the belief in Serbia, and in Mitrovica, that Kosovo’s independence can be un-done. It can’t. And neither can partitions or territory swaps solve Kosovo’s problems. Indeed, such steps would add new problems in the entire region. While no one can force any state to recognize another, the sooner the EU develops a stronger and more unified position, the sooner both sides in Kosovo can stop looking backward and start looking forward. With all the other problems Europe has to tackle right now, it makes no sense to continue contributing to this one.

• I want to add a word on Macedonia as well. In 2008, Macedonia was ready to be invited to join NATO, but there was no consensus within NATO to do so, because the name dispute with Greece was unresolved. Under the interim agreement of 1995, Greece had supported Macedonia’s participation in international organizations under the temporary name of “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.” But Greece broke with this practice when it came time to admit Macedonia to NATO. Since then, Macedonia itself has slid backwards on some reforms, and has ramped up its use of controversial symbols of ancient Macedonia as a means of rallying the public and distracting from other issues at home.

Macedonia should be a vibrant crossroads of the Balkans – linking Greece to the north and linking the Western Balkans to Greece and the Mediterranean. The current stand-off serves no one’s interests: Not Greece, not Macedonia, not Europe, not the people of the Balkans, and not the United States. For years, we have supported the UN lead in negotiating a possible solution to the name issue. All of the elements have been put on the table at one point or another. It is time for the U.S. and EU together to make a concerted effort to (a) re-assert the validity of the 1995 interim agreement and use of FYROM as a temporary name, which – with Greek agreement – would allow Macedonia to join NATO and progress toward the EU; and (b) simultaneously, launch a major political push, including with incentives and disincentives, in support of the UN process, to get both sides to a final settlement.

Where would I differ?

Mainly on Bosnia: I would not be able to tell the Secretary of State that she should risk another failure like Butmir. Dayton 2 is much more likely to lead in a more ethnic nationalist direction, which is the wrong one in my view.

On Kosovo, only in nuance: I think we should make resolution of Kosovo issues–at least of the north–a condition for Serbia’s EU candidacy, which should not go ahead December 9 unless there is a clear and irreversible Belgrade commitment to cooperate in reintegrating the north with the rest of Kosovo.

On Macedonia, not at all: the interim accord is the way to go.  I understand an International Court of Justice decision on this is due December 5. Let’s hope it is clear and unequivocal in Skopje’s favor.

Thank you, Kurt for a terrific overview!

Tags : , ,

Next week’s peace picks

I am not one for 2.5 day events, but for those who can sit still that long and pay the admission fee the 7th International Lessons Learned Conference November 30-December 2 might be a good place to find your muse.  For others, here are the events this week in DC I might consider attending (were I not working feverishly to finish writing my own book).  As always, writeups of these events will be considered for posting on www.peacefare.net (just let me know in advance if you are planning to do one):
1. Tunisia: From Dictatorship to Democratic Era
Hosted By: SAIS, Conflict Management Program and American Tunisian Association
November 29, 4:30 PM – 6:00 PM
Location: Room 500, The Bernstein-Offit Building
Summary: Salah Bourjini, former division chief of the U.N. Development Program, will discuss this topic. A reception will follow at 6 p.m. For more information and to RSVP, contact itlong@jhu.edu.
2.  Foreign Policy and the 2012 Elections

Tuesday, November 29th

6:00 – 7:00 PM
Registration and Networking Reception

7:00 – 8:00 PM
Panel Discussion and Q&A

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1779 Massachusetts Avenue Northwest

         Speakers:        Steve Hayes
         Speakers:        The Weekly Standard
         Speakers:        Josh Rogin
         Speakers:        Foreign Policy

        Moderator:       Elise Stefanik
        Moderator:       Foreign Policy Initiative

To RSVP, please click here.
3.  America’s Challenge: Engaging a Rising China in the Twenty-First Century

Michael D. Swaine, David Lampton, Geoff Dyer Wednesday, November 30, 2011 – Washington, D.C.
9:00 AM – 10:30 AM EST

Register to attend

As the world’s predominant political, economic, and military force, the United States faces a significant challenge in responding to China’s rising power and influence, especially in Asia. This challenge will require more effective U.S. policies and a reassessment of America’s fundamental strategic assumptions and relationships.

Carnegie’s Michael Swaine will discuss his new book America’s Challenge. He will be joined by David M. Lampton of Johns Hopkins University, who will provide comments. Geoff Dyer of the Financial Times will moderate.
4.  Aiding Without Abetting: Making Civilian Assistance to Pakistan Work for Both Sides
November 30, 2011 // 11:00am — 12:30pm
There will be a live webcast of this event.
More than two years after President Obama signed the Kerry-Lugar-Berman (KLB) Act into law, the U.S. civilian assistance program to Pakistan is under fire in both countries. Many are prepared to deem it a failure. What can be done to salvage KLB? This event marks the release of a major new report on U.S. civilian assistance, the culmination of the year-long deliberations of a Wilson Center working group convened to reevaluate the aid program.
Speakers:
Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO, Woodrow Wilson Center
Jonah Blank, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Polly Nayak, Chair, Woodrow Wilson Center Working Group on Pakistan
Robert M. Hathaway, Asia Program Director, Woodrow Wilson Center
Others to be announced
Location:
6th Floor, Woodrow Wilson Center
5.  Dan Drezner Book Talk
11:00 am – noon, Thursday, December 1, Abramson Family Founders Room, SIS Building, American University

Daniel W. Drezner will be speaking on his new book from Princeton University Press, called Theories of International Politics and Zombies. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a senior editor at The National Interest. Prior to Fletcher, he taught at the University of Chicago and the University of Colorado at Boulder. Drezner has received fellowships from the German Marshall Fund of the United States, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Harvard University. He has previously held positions with Civic Education Project, the RAND Corporation, and the Treasury Department.

Host:
School of International Service
Contact:
Catherine Favier Kelly
Send email to Catherine Favier KellySend email to Catherine Favier Kelly
Tags : , , ,
Tweet