Tag: United States

Water, food, oil, gas: many problems, or one?

Last week, the Transatlantic Academy gathered a plethora of academics and policy makers to discuss the global competition for natural resources. Among several pressing issues, the panel placed particular emphasis on the interaction between different resources and the political and economic outcomes emerging from that “nexus.”

Particularly in the raw materials industry, resources are used in abundance to extract others, or in some cases to create new ones. Water is used to extract oil and gas. These three resources are used to raise corn, which itself is used to produce ethanol. And all the aforementioned resources are used to extract minerals. The web is obviously larger, but even this small picture illustrates what scholars and policy makers have come to label a “nexus of resources.”

In a world where resources are scarce, this interconnectivity presents problems for the global economy and creates political complications. Spikes in oil or food prices have ripple effects, and for this reason it is no longer appropriate to analyze resource markets in isolation. A nexus-driven approach must now be the standard.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the market for food, particularly agricultural goods. As the situation stands today, food production rates must increase dramatically to keep pace with projected population growth and dietary changes related to the rise of the middle class. And yet, for years, as Julie Howard from USAID points out, large fluctuations in food prices failed to capture the attention of policy makers as important political events. Only with the onset of the 2008-09 price spikes did governments begin to truly appreciate the impact of food security on international and intra-state politics.

Numerous factors account for the recent spikes in food prices, but several reports emphasize the role of the biofuels industry in particular. Paul Faeth, a fellow at CNA Corporation, points out that the amount of corn available for consumption compared to that used for ethanol production has decreased by 15% in the last ten years. Increasing demand for corn in the U.S. ethanol industry has contributed to global food shortages, and a recent UN report tacitly implicates this practice in the price spikes many associate with uprisings in the Arab world. Leaving the efficacy of biofuels aside, Howard insists this reality nonetheless begs for the elevation of food security to a higher rung on governments’ list of international assistance priorities.

Food security is also closely related to water supplies. Especially in arid regions such as the Middle East and North Africa, heavy agricultural irrigation can create what Andrew Martin of the New York Times called a twisted “quandary, as [countries] are forced to choose between growing more crops to feed an expanding population or preserving their already scant supply of water.” As a result, MENA countries have become dependent on food imports, exposing citizens to cruel scenarios in the event of sudden global food price increases.

Another high usage area for water is in oil and gas extraction. With the recent developments in fracking technology used in the shale gas industry, water footprints are expanding. The issue here, as Robert Kleinberg of Schlumberger-Doll points out, isn’t waste necessarily, since 100% of the water taken out of the ground after fracking can be sanitized and reused, although Kleinberg does mention that only 1/3 of water put in the ground is actually recoverable.

But as far as water waste goes, the natural gas industry pales in comparison to agriculture. The real problems with fracking are the environmental hazards associated with the process of extraction. Trucks spewing emissions transport water to extraction sites, which themselves suffer surface erosion. And, fracking leaves highly saline and often radioactive water in the ground, which can cycle into farm irrigation systems and other water supplies. For these reasons, as both Faeth and Kleinberg seem to accept, the astronomical potential of natural gas as a profitable and clean(er) fossil fuel must be harnessed to a regulatory scheme that requires producers to meet environmental standards, or else pay for the negative externalities.

Though I missed the final session on the geopolitics of energy, I can imagine that Faeth and Kleinberg also recognize shale’s strategic potential given the large reserves in the U.S. They seem to agree that energy independence is less important that efficiency, but domestic natural gas production could address both these issues.

Strategic considerations also abound when it comes to food security and regime stability in the Arab world. For all the concern about ethnic and sectarian tensions in MENA—undoubtedly fundamental sources of conflict in the region—perhaps Mathew Burrows from the National Intelligence Council is correct to argue that resource scarcity could be the deciding factor, tipping these frictions in the wrong direction.

Tags : ,

Context matters, and so does U.S. support

I gave a talk yesterday at West Virginia University’s Law School on U.S. policy towards democracy-seeking rebellions.  The star attraction at the conference was Erica Chenoweth, co-author of Why Civil Resistance Works:  The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict.  Some of you will have seen my tweets summarizing her talk, which I won’t try to reproduce here.  Suffice it to say that she provides hard statistical evidence that nonviolent civil resistance really does work, even against the most repressive regimes, and she gives a coherent rationale for why.  She also notes that foreign monetary assistance does not appear to work well.

I was asked to address the U.S. policy response, in particular to the Arab Spring.  Here are my speaking notes, which of course do not represent exactly what I said:

West Virginia University

 November 10, 2011

1.  While I am an admirer of Dr. Chenoweth’s quantitative methodology, I am going to rely today on the much less impressive techniques of the historian and diplomat:  stories, I would call them, rather than “cases.”

2.  Arab spring is far from over yet, but I’ll try to focus on the transition phase:  that is, the phase after a regime falls and before a new one has yet emerged.

3.  I am thoroughly convinced of the efficacy of what Dr. Chenoweth calls civic resistance in the earlier phase.

4.  But things get much more complicated when that resistance has to turn into something more constructive.

5.  There are three cases already in the transition phase, more or less:  Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.  Each is quite different.

6.  In Tunisia, the autocrat left the scene quickly and the regime was pushed aside fairly easily.  First elections have already been held and there is a clear roadmap ahead.  A classic, fairly smooth case, with no sign of counter-revolution on the horizon.  Good chance of consolidating a democratic regime.

7.  In Egypt, the autocrat also left pretty quickly, but the regime was not pushed aside easily and the protesters called on the army to manage the transition.  It is doing so, but in a way that consolidates its control over some aspects of governance (security, foreign policy) and a big piece of the economy.  I’d say much less likelihood of success in the transition.  Might be rather like Serbia, where a similar deal was made with the security forces and the transition has been slow and halting as a result.

8.  In Libya, there was a violent revolution that has the advantage of having swept the old regime away completely, with foreign help.  There has been good leadership, decent planning and ample resources.  I give the Libyans a decent chance at success in consolidating a democracy, albeit less probability than Tunisia.

9.  What of Yemen, Syria and Bahrain, all of which are still in progress?

10.  Yemen has turned violent, even if the protesters themselves have stuck with nonviolence.  The odds of successful transition to democracy seem to be small, because the opposition to Saleh most likely to take power is the violent one, which is no more inclined to democracy than he is.

11.  Syria could be headed in the same direction, though there is still some hope of keeping it on a nonviolent course.  That’s vital for success.  Violence will lead to sectarian and ethnic breakdown (similar to Iraq) that will be difficult to overcome.

12.  Bahrain is an odd case.  The protesters have been nonviolent, but the crackdown was effective, unlike Syria and Yemen.  A lot depends on the Bassiouni commission report:  will it revive nonviolent resistance, or will the regime be able to keep the lid on?

13.  What of the other monarchies:  Morocco and Jordan?  Saudi Arabia and Oman?

14.  These four, each in its own way, is attempting to preempt resistance with reform, albeit minimal reform in the case of Riyadh.  So far, they are largely succeeding.

15.  I do think the monarchies have some advantage in this respect:  not because they are somehow nicer, but because their legitimacy is understood not to derive from elections but rather from heredity.

16.  It is much harder for a republic to claim that there is no need to change who is in power in order to reform the system.

17.  But that does not mean the monarchies will succeed forever.  The fact that all Saudi Arabia experts agree that it can’t happen there, that the succession is ensured, is a clear earlier indicator that it may well happen there.

18.  If I were advising the Saudis and the other monarchies, I would suggest they get ahead of the curve and stay ahead, by taking truly meaningful steps to redistribute power and ensure that their security services are shifting from protecting the rulers to protecting the ruled.

19.  If there is one mistake common to all the Arab Spring successes so far—and also to those places where rebellion is still in progress—it is the use of regime violence against the population.

20.  These guys need to learn that legitimacy comes from the people, who will be much more inclined to confer it on those who protect them than on those who attack them.

21.  We should also be thinking about how we can encourage security sector reform in advance of rebellion and revolution—it would be far cheaper and more effective than doing it after the fact.

22.  America should certainly be supporting those who demonstrate nonviolently for their rights, but I confess to doubts that it should be done through embassies.

23.  Robert Ford, our ambassador in Syria who has bravely gone to “observe” demonstrations, is the exception that proves the rule.

24.  The rule is that embassies need to stay on good terms with the host government, even if it is an autocracy.  They cannot be implicated in support to revolutionaries.

25.  Assistance to democracy and human rights advocates should flow not through embassies but through nongovernmental organizations, including the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute as well as non-American counterparts.

26.  The more these can be made distinct from our official representation, the better.

27.  America is condemned to spreading democracy.  If you really believe that all people are created equal, you have no choice but to sympathize with those who claim their rights.  But the specific modalities for when and how to do it depend a great deal on context.

PS:  In answer to a question, I said yes it can happen in Iran, but American efforts to support it there are problematic because of our fraught relationship with Tehran, which includes both concern about nuclear weapons and attempts to foment ethnic strife inside Iran.  In the end, I think Obama got the reaction to the Green Movement about right in the end:  rhetorical support without repainting it red, white and blue.

Chenoweth and Serwer at West Virgina University Law School November 10
Serwer at West Virginia University Law School November 10
Tags : , , , , , , , , ,

No no-brainer

Eric Edelman, Andrew Krepinevich, and Evan Braden Montgomery argue that President Obama should “take out” Iran’s nuclear program:

The closer Iran gets to acquiring nuclear weapons, the fewer options will be available to stop its progress. At the same time, Iran’s incentives to back down will only decrease as it approaches the nuclear threshold.

This is an argument to be taken seriously, as it is surely also being made inside the United States government.  Dismissing it summarily, as commenters on the Foreign Affairs website have done so far, is foolish.

There are two propositions here: 1) fewer options in the future to stop Iran’s progress; 2) Iran’s incentives to back down only decrease as it approaches the nuclear threshold.  There are problems with both.

Even after Iran develops and deploys nuclear weapons, we would have the option of striking their key nuclear facilities and as many of their nuclear weapons as we could find.  The difficulty with doing this is that it invites a nuclear counter-strike with any surviving weapons, at Israel if not at the U.S.  But even if we strike now, we are unlikely to be 100% successful, and we would be giving Iran an enormous incentive to accelerate their nuclear program as best they could with whatever facilities they had remaining.  The danger of an Iranian counter-strike might not be immediate, but it would be just as real.  This takes us down the road of repeated strikes on Iran.  I’d like to discuss the regional consequences of that before assuming it is preferable to strike now.

As for Iran’s incentives, I think it likely they can achieve as much or more of what they want by approaching the nuclear threshold but not going over it, which in effect is what they say they are doing. Having the material and technology to produce nuclear weapons will give Iran regional prestige and clout without necessarily setting off the regional arms race that Edelman, Krepinevich and Montgomery fear.  Going over the threshold will not only precipitate nuclear programs by far richer countries, it will also cause the U.S. to target Iran with nuclear weapons (let’s assume Israel already does), vastly increasing Tehran’s uncertainty about what might happen.

Edelman et. al. put the bottom line this way:

Given these trends, the United States faces the difficult decision of using military force soon to prevent Iran from going nuclear, or living with a nuclear Iran and the regional fallout.

Even in this formulation, the answer is by no means self-evident. But to imply that there will not be regional fallout from using military force is clearly wrong.  I might reformulate it this way:

The United States faces the difficult decision of using military force soon and repeatedly to prevent Iran from going nuclear, or continuing to ratchet up sanctions, cyberattacks and other efforts in convince the Iranians that crossing the nuclear threshold will be injurious and not beneficial to their national security.

We are going to have to live with regional fallout, which will be different but substantial whichever choice we make.  This is not a no brainer.

Tags : , ,

Best freebie next week

Game Changer: Policy and Politics  

For a New Middle East

  The Grand Hyatt Hotel 

1000 H Street NW

Washington, DC 20001

Thursday, November 17, 2011

8:45am-5:30pm     

Tickets: FREE. Register HERE.

Conference Schedule

8:45am-9:00am – Opening remarks

Ambassador (ret.) Wendy Chamberlin, Middle East Institute President

9:00am-10:30am – After the Arab Spring: Assessing US Policy in the Middle East

Steve Clemons, New America Foundation, The Atlantic

Ambassador (ret.) Daniel Kurtzer, Princeton University

Ambassador (ret.) Ron Schlicher, Former US Department of State

Tamara Cofman Wittes, Deputy Assist. Secretary of State-NEA

10:45am-12:15pm – The Road Ahead for Emerging Arab Democracies

Esraa Abdel Fattah, Egyptian Democratic Academy

Michele Dunne, Atlantic Council

Larry Diamond, Stanford University

Radwan Masmoudi, Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy

2:15pm-3:45 pm – Shifting Regional Power Dynamics in an Era of Change

Abdelkhaleq Abdalla, UAE University

Jamal Khashoggi, Al-Arab TV
Haim Malka, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Mohsen Milani, South Florida University

Paul Salem, Carnegie Middle East Center

4:00pm-5:30pm- Economic and Development Strategies for a Middle East in Transition

Adel Abdellatif, UN Development Programme

Odeh Aburdene, OAI Advisors

Iman Bibars, Ashoka/MENA

Ambassador William B. Taylor, US Department of State

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

Nuclear cabal

The big news today is Iran’s progress towards nuclear weapons.  The reports are based on information reported to have been given to the UN-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which administers the Non-proliferation Treaty (Iran is a “state party”).

It is the people who gave the information to the IAEA who seem to have leaked the information, which includes details of Iranian efforts not only to obtain the necessary highly enriched uranium but also to learn how to detonate a nuclear weapon.  Foreign assistance from Russia, Pakistan and North Korea is alleged to be involved.

I have no reason to doubt the assertions, but no confirmation either.  The IAEA will not necessarily publish its findings later this week with all the spin that accompanies today’s revelations. It is often more cautious than the Americans like, and presumably today’s leaks are an effort to box the IAEA into taking a hard line.

For what purpose?  My best guess is that the Americans are trying to get the Security Council to go along with ratcheting up the sanctions on Tehran.  While there has been audible saber-rattling from Israel the last few days, I don’t think we can expect that to happen in the lead-up to a real attack.  Israel needs tactical surprise to pull it off.  The rumbling from Israel is also preparation for tougher sanctions, I imagine.

The most interesting aspect of the reports today is the part about foreign assistance.  Those in charge of nonproliferation policy in my past often assumed that no state with nuclear weapons would consciously help another get them.  That assumption has evaporated.  We seem to have a kind of nuclear cabal willing to do things thought anathema in the past.

 

Tags : , , ,

This week’s “peace picks”

Very busy calendar the first part of the week.  Remember there may be registration and RSVP requirements not cited here.  Best to check on the respective web pages.

1.  The EU-brokered Negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia:  Challenges and Prospects, Woodrow Wilson Center, November 7, 12-1 pm

Nearly three and a half years after Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia, the EU is bringing both sides back to the negotiation table. This meeting will address: why Serbian and Kosovar governments are negotiating now?; what is the nature, format and context of these negotiations, and what are the goals that the EU hopes to achieve?

Jovan Teokarevic, associate professor of political science at the University of Belgrade will compare the current negotiations with those that had been unsuccessfully brokered by the UN and describe the strategies; and tactics used by both sides; and the role of international actors – the EU, the US, NATO, EULEX–in this process. A number of possible outcomes will be presented and discussed, including the types of negotiations that might be developed in the future. Most importantly, Teokarevic will address the need for a sustainable solution for the Serbian enclave in northern Kosovo, which would be part of a general reconciliation between Serbians and Kosovar Albanians.

2.  Economic Development in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Absence of Government and Its Consequences, SAIS, Bernstein-Offit 500, November 7, 2-4 pm

Hosted By: SAIS Center for Transatlantic Relations (CTR)
Summary: Svetlana Cenic, an independent analyst in Bosnia-Herzegovina; Mujo Selimovic, CEO of MIMS Group; Edin Saracevic, executive director of Personal Inc.; Marco Mantovanelli, country operations adviser of the International Finance Corporation; and Michael Haltzel (moderator), CTR senior fellow, will discuss this topic. For more information and to RSVP, visit http://www.eventbrite.com/event/2454347018/mcivte.
3. Cyber Defense:  International Cooperation and Deterrence, CSIS, November 7, 9 am-2pm
As cybersecurity grows in importance for the international community, individual states and international organizations struggle to adapt existing legal norms and military doctrines to this ongoing change in the global security environment.  In recent years, the transatlantic community began to address these issues by making cybersecurity a critical pillar of the NATO security agenda.  Yet many questions still surround the concepts of cyber defense, deterrence, and collective defense in cyberspace.  Please join us to discuss the challenges and opportunities posed by the ideas of cyber deterrence and international cyber defense cooperation, their implications for the transatlantic security relationship, and their possible impact on relations between the alliance and non-NATO powers.

We hope you will be able to join us for this timely and informative discussion.  Please RSVP to ktimlin@csis.org.

Keynote Address:

Dr. Mart Laar,
Minister of Defense, Estonia

Mr. William J. Lynn III
Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense

Panel Presentations by:

Dr. Martin Libicki,
Senior Management Scientist, RAND Corporation

Col. Ilmar Tamm,
Director, Collective Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence

Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch,
President, Asymmetric Cyber Operations, LLC

Ms. Michele Markoff,
Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues, U.S. Department of State

Dr. Stephen Flanagan,
Henry A. Kissinger Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Mr. Frank Kramer,
Member of the Board, the Atlantic Council

Closing Remarks:

Dr. James Miller,
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, U.S. Department of Defense

4. What’s Next for the Arab Spring?  Pavilion Room International Trade Center Ronald Reagan Building 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, November 7, 2011 5-6:15 pm
Inspiring, confusing, tumultuous and sometimes violent, there is little doubt that the Arab Spring signifies growing demand for dignity and democracy by the people of the Middle East and North Africa. Please join former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and author, journalist and Aspen Institute President and CEO Walter Isaacson for a discussion on these momentous developments. A panel of experts from Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen will discuss the reform movement and prospects for further political change.
Panelists are:
Atia Lawgali (Libya) joined the National Transitional Council in Libya as Minister of Culture in May 2011. He previously served as a private consultant for development and management in Tripoli and Benghazi and was manager of the Health Department Information Center in the Ministry of Health in Benghazi from 1988 to 2000.
Sheikh Mohammed Abu Luhoum (Yemen) is a prominent founding member of the recently formed Justice and Building Party. He served as a member of parliament in Yemen’s first legislature after North and South Yemen were unified in 1990 and joined the ruling party in 2004. He served as chairman of various party committees focusing on the economy and development, and was director of bilateral relations at the Ministry of Development.
Dr. Amal Habib Al Yusuf (Bahrain) is an activist and ophthalmic surgeon focusing on defending the rights of Bahraini patients and healthcare workers. She was one of the doctors trapped in the main hospital in Bahrain during the siege by military forces last March.
Mohammad Al Abdallah (Syria) is a lawyer, human rights activist and writer who formed the Committee for Families of Political Prisoners after his father and brother were arrested. Abdallah faced military trials and was imprisoned twice for his writing and lobbying. Abdallah worked for Human Rights Watch in Lebanon, and now writes for several English and Arabic newspapers and blogs.
Rafat Al Akhali (Yemen) is a youth activist who returned to Yemen from Canada to participate in the protests. Akhali is a leader in Resonate! Yemen, an organization that promotes youth engagement on policy initiatives.
Dr. Muneera Fakhro (Bahrain) was a candidate in Bahrain’s November 2006 and October 2010 parliamentary elections. Fakhro earned her doctoral degree in social policy, planning and administration from Columbia University and served as an associate professor at the University of Bahrain until 2006. She has published three books and authored studies focusing on gender and democracy.
Dr. Azza Kamel (Egypt) is the director of Appropriate Communication Techniques for Development and the founder of the Women Research Centre. As a civic activist, Kamel has published numerous studies on gender equality, the impact of violence against women, the portrayal of women and men in the media, and voter education.
5.  Tail Wags the Dog: U.S.-Pakistan Relations and the Internal Dynamics of Pakistan, SAIS, Rome Building Auditorium, November 6, 5-6:30 pm
Summary: Najam Sethi, editor-in-chief of The Friday Times in Pakistan, and Touqir Hussain (moderator), senior Pakistan fellow in the SAIS South Asia Studies Program and former Pakistani ambassador to Brazil, Japan and Spain, will discuss this topic. For more information and to RSVP, contact southasia@jhu.edu.
6.  NDU National Security Symposium – Forging an American Grand Strategy:  Securing a Path Through a Complex Future, November 8-9
Far too elaborate and complex to reproduce the whole program here.  Check out the Agenda.
7.  Book Discussion:  Counterstrike, CSIS, November 8, 5-6:30 pm

Eric Schmitt
Terrorism Correspondent, The New York Times

and

Thom Shanker
Pentagon Correspondent, The New York Times

Introductory Remarks by

H. Andrew Schwartz
Senior Vice President, CSIS External Relations

Moderated by

Thomas M. Sanderson
Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, CSIS Transnational Threats Project

Tuesday, November 8, 5:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.
1800 K Street, NW, CSIS B1 Conference Center

A reception will begin at 5:00 p.m. with light refreshments and snacks. The event will begin at 5:30 p.m. Books will be available for purchase. RSVP required for admission.

8.  Ripples Across the Sands:  The Impact of the Fall of Gaddafi ion Security in the Maghreb and Sahel, Atlantic Council, November 9, 2-4:30 pm
Please join the Michael S. Ansari Africa Center on November 9 for a panel discussion on the impact of the fall of Muammar Gaddafi on security in the Maghreb and Sahel. The panel will begin with a briefing on the current situation and will then proceed to a discussion of these questions from a variety of angles, including that the new Libyan government and the US military’s efforts at building regional counterterrorism capabilities and encouraging cooperation between local partners. It will conclude with a sobering analysis of the potential threat for even greater insecurity in the event that the current challenges are not addressed.

While the death of Muammar Gaddafi and the virtual collapse of his regime forces have freed Libyans from more than four decades of tyranny, it has also complicated the security situation for their neighbors in the Maghreb and Sahel. Fighters loyal to the deposed dictator have taken refuge abroad and, as cross-border attacks they have carried out from Algeria show, still pose a threat, not only to the new government in Tripoli, but to regional stability. Moreover, there is the question of the impact that the arrival of mercenaries and others who fought for Gaddafi as well as copious quantities of arms will have in a region already beset by various armed movements from Taureg tribesmen to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to the Nigerian group Boko Haram to the Polisario Front separatists as well as penetrated by narco-traffickers and other criminals.

Panel Discussion with

Geoffrey D. Porter
President
North Africa Risk Consulting, Inc.

Fadel Lamen
President
American Libyan Council

Roger Peña
Senior Legislative Assistant for Defense and Foreign Affairs
Office of Senator Kay Hagan

Edward M. Gabriel
Former US Ambassador to Morocco

Moderated by

J. Peter Pham
Director, Michael S. Ansari Africa Center
Atlantic Council

DATE: Wednesday, November 9, 2011
TIME: 2:00 PM – 4:30 PM
LOCATION: Atlantic Council
1101 15th Street NW, 11th Floor
Washington, DC 20005

RSVP with your name and affiliation to ksmith@acus.org.

Religion has been a source of conflict throughout human history, but religion can also be a tremendous force for peacebuilding.

9. Religion and Peacemaking:  Reflections on Current Challenges and Future Prospects, USIP, November 9, 9 am-1 pm

For ten years, USIP’s Religion and Peacemaking program has helped lead an evolution of the field. There has been a demonstrated interest in engaging religious leaders in efforts to advance conflict management and peacebuilding. Religious peacebuilding is now integrated into U.S. government policies.

To mark the program’s anniversary, USIP will host a workshop to reflect on what the wider field of religious peacebuilding has achieved and how best to move forward over the next decade. On November 9, a panel of practitioners, policymakers and academics will address the challenges and opportunities of religious peacebuilding and how outside actors, including the U.S. government, can support such opportunities.

Speakers:

  • Richard Solomon, Introductory comments
    U.S. Institute of Peace
  • Joshua Dubois
    White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
  • Suzan Johnson Cook
    Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom
  • Scott Appleby
    Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies
  • Rabbi Michael Melchior
    Mosaica Center for Inter-Religious Cooperation
  • Jackie Ogega
    Religions for Peace
  • Qamar-ul Huda
    U.S. Institute of Peace
  • Mohammed Abu-Nimer
    American University
  • David Smock, Moderator
    U.S. Institute of Peace
10.  New Silk Road Strategy: Views From the Region, SAIS , Rome Auditorium, November 9, 5:30-7 pm

Fall 2011 Rumsfeld Fellows Samiullah Mahdi (Afghanistan); Ramid Namazov (Azerbaijan); Khatuna Mshvidobadze (Georgia); Uluk Kydyrbaev (Kyrgystan); Bayasgalan Naranzul (Mongolia); Kakhorjon Aminov (Tajikistan); Jamshed Rahmonberdiev (Tajikistan); Dadebay Kazakov (Turkmenistan); Hikmat Abdurahmanov (Uzbekistan), and Frederick Starr (moderator), CACI chairman, will discuss this topic. A reception will precede the forum at 5 p.m. For more information and to RSVP, contact saiscaciforums@jhu.edu or 202.663.7721.

Tags : , , , , , , ,
Tweet