Tag: United States
The angel sings, but the devils are in the details
President Biden today gave his first speech to the United Nations outlining his foreign policy priorities and approach more clearly than he has so far. He aimed to restore trust in American leadership, not only in the aftermath of the Trump Administration but also in the wake of the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and controversy surrounding the deal to sell nuclear submarines to Australia that shocked and annoyed France.
The priorities were strikingly different from Trump’s:
- Ending the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Slowing climate change
- Encouraging respect for human rights
- Rebalancing geopolitcs
- A level playing field for trade
- Ensuring benefits, and limiting harm, from technology
- Countering terrorism
The first three items would not have appeared on any Trump Administration list. Numbers 4-7 would have, but with a distinctly America First (i.e. alone) spin.
Biden’s means are at least as different from Trump’s as his priorities. He favors diplomacy over war, multilateralism over unilateralism, and the power of America’s example at home over American intervention abroad.
In my book, this is all well and good, but then come the difficulties in applying these methods to actual issues. Encouraging booster shots to Americans is likely not the best way to end the COVID-19 epidemic, but exporting vaccines to poor countries exposes the Administration to criticism, so Biden is trying to split the difference by doing both. Slowing climate change is a grand idea, but can Biden get the legislation through Congress to meet his own goals for limits on American production of greenhouse gases. Encouraging respect for human rights is fine, but what do you do about Saudi Arabia, whose Crown Prince is thought culpable for the murder of a US-based journalist? Rebalancing geopolitics is fine, but what if selling nuclear submarines to Australia requires you to blind-side and offend your longest-standing ally?
And so on: a level playing field for trade is hard to achieve when a major competitor is using prison (or slave) labor to produce manufactured good. Responding to state-sponsored cyber attacks is proving a particularly difficult challenge. Facial-recognition technology, with all its defects, is spreading rapidly around the world even though it is prone to misidentification and other abuses. You may prefer a less military approach to counter-terrorism, but if there is a successful mass casualty attack in the US the military response will be dramatic. Never mind that 20 years of military responses have not been effective and have killed a lot of innocent non-combatants.
As for methods, there too there are problems. The State Department is a notoriously weak diplomatic instrument. Can it carry the weight of additional responsibilities? Diplomacy may be preferable to prevent Iran and North Korea from getting a nuclear weapons, but will Tehran agree? A two-state solution would be best, but how can we get there from here? Multilateralism is often preferable, but not always possible. One of my mentors used to quote President Carter (I think) saying multilaterally where we can, unilaterally when we must. But that judgment is not a simple one. America should be a shining “city on the hill,” as President Reagan hoped, but what then about the January 6 insurrection and the anti-voting legislation in more than two dozen states?
Biden’s angel sang well this morning at the UN. But the devils are in the details. It isn’t going to be easy to get those right in a divided country and a competitive, if not downright chaotic, global environment.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Parsing the Afghanistan quandary: humanitarian aid now, nothing more
The UN is anticipating that virtually the entire population of Afghanistan will soon require humanitarian assistance. The country’s economy is imploding. The new Taliban government is broke. The neighbors currying favor with the new authorities in Kabul are not traditional sources of aid: Pakistan, Iran, China, and Russia, not to mention Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekhistan, and Tajikistan. The UN and non-governmental relief organizations will be willing, but they depend on financing from the usual suspects: the US, the EU, Japan, and other developed countries. The one willing Gulf donor is presumably Qatar, which played a role in the negotiations between the US and the Taliban and now runs Kabul airport.
The humanitarian imperative is clear: provide the aid to those in need, no matter what the politics. Life with dignity is everyone’s right. But this is an odd situation: the Taliban just ousted the internationally recognized government, they have not fulfilled the minimal requirements the UN Security Council has levied, and the countries now expected to provide aid are those the Taliban spent twenty years fighting. American taxpayers, having just witnessed the humiliation of the US withdrawal, are now expected to ante up in ways that will make the Taliban regime sustainable?
The problem extends beyond humanitarian assistance. At least that can be done without putting cash in Taliban pockets. The Taliban will still benefit, as otherwise the burden of feeding the population would fall to them. But assistance with government expenditures, including so-called “early-recovery” and reconstruction, will directly help the Taliban to hold on to the power they gained by force, as will unfreezing of Afghanistan’s foreign currency reserves and allowing the Taliban to cash in the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights. The Taliban will be no less clever than the previous government in skimming off some percentage.
American interests in this situation need to be parsed. Collapse of Taliban rule and the likely subsequent civil war would be awful from Washington’s perspective. An Islamic State (Khorasan) takeover would be worse. The Americans want what the UNSC resolution specified: exit of those US citizens and supporters who want to leave, access for humanitarian relief, respect for human rights (especially those of women and girls), and an inclusive transitional government. The Taliban have already disappointed by naming a government of their own militants, including people linked to Al Qaeda. While it is early days, they have not demonstrated respect for human rights. Nor have they allowed the exit of more than a minimal number of people.
So do we discount the Taliban failures so far and go ahead with humanitarian relief? I’m afraid we don’t have a lot of choice, both as a matter of principle and pragmatic policy. Humanitarian relief may not save the Taliban government from collapse, but it is the right thing to do and could help to stave off civil war or an IS takeover. We should provide the funds with eyes wide open, trying to verify that access is unhindered and that food and other assistance flows to those in need and is not monetized or otherwise pocketed by Taliban-connected warlords.
There is an argument for at least partially unfreezing reconstruction assistance and Afghanistan’s hard currency assets, because that too could help prevent civil war or worse. Certainly the Taliban will try to extract hard currency with promises to fight the Islamic State. The Pentagon may be sympathetic to this argument. Here I would be far more cautious. The Islamic State is a rival of the Taliban: a jihadi group that wants to govern Afghanistan (and more). The Taliban have their own reasons for wanting to crush IS (Khorasan). I’d prefer to see them doing it for their own good reasons.
As for Al Qaeda, it is clear from inclusion of the Haqqani network, an Al Qaeda affiliate, in their government that the Taliban are not prepared to treat it as an enemy. There is still a question whether a government that includes Sirajuddin Haqqani as “interim” Interior Minister will allow the use of Afghan territory to plot or organize attacks on the US. It is arguable that it is better to have Al Qaeda in the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in. I wouldn’t buy it though: it really doesn’t matter that much where Al Qaeda plots its next attack against the US–9/11 may have been conceived while Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan, but most of the plot was organized and conducted elsewhere. Wherever the Haqqani network helps Al Qaeda, the US interest is clear: weaken both.
Bottom line: Humanitarian assistance yes, but nothing more until it is clearer how the Taliban will govern and whether they will cooperate with those who target, or allow others to target, the United States. Hoisting their flag over the presidential palace in Kabul on 9/11 was not a good omen.
PS: What Ahmed Rashid has to say is always interesting:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Patriots wear masks and get vaccinated, no compromise
Today is 9/11, but today is also a day on which more than 1500 Americans will die of COVID-19. That is half of the number dying every day as died in the 9/11 attacks twenty years ago. The total confirmed deaths due to the corona virus now number well over 600,000. That is close to 1000 times the number of American service members killed in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past twenty years. Or, if you prefer, about 500 times the number of troops and contractors killed during two decades of the war on terror and two hundred times the number killed on 9/11.
The differences are obvious: COVID-19 has killed people over a year and half, not in a single day, and all over the country, not in one, two, or three places. It has killed mostly older people with pre-existing conditions and mostly brown and black people. But I still find it hard to understand how (mostly white) people who regard themselves as patriots can resist doing what each of them needs to do to prevent fellow-Americans from dying:
These are not difficult things to do. They do not infringe on personal freedom. Virtually every American gets at least half a dozen required vaccines while growing up. Masking to prevent yourself from infecting others is a social obligation. It should be a no-brainer.
It isn’t. Why not? Because you identify with a party and politicians who have decided to oppose vaccines and masking no matter the consequences. Maybe you also think the US government had a hand in attacking the twin towers. Likely you thought Barack Obama was not born in the US. Even more likely, you think Biden won the 2020 election due to fraud. You are prepared to personally interfere with women’s freedom to choose whether she wants to have a baby (as encouraged by a recent Texas law), but you are not willing to have the government, which is responsible for the public welfare, or your employer, who is required to provide a safe workplace, insist that you take simple precautions not to infect others.
9/11 was a moment of extraordinary unity among Americans. We reacted in shock and horror, applauded the first responders, mourned the dead, and sought punishment for those who planned and ordered the attacks. The results 20 years later are not just disappointing but counter-productive: there are now more jihadists in more countries than ever before. It is hard to justify the sacrifice not just of Americans but also the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Afghans, and others who have died in the war on terror.
Now we find ourselves sharply divided, between those willing to do what little needs to be done for the common good and those who are unwilling. That division doesn’t sound like a winning formula either, but we’ll have to live with it. The unwilling are not patriots. They have betrayed their fellow citizens and are willing to see many more die. President Biden is right to require them to protect others or lose their livelihoods. Patriots wear masks and get vaccinated. There should be no compromise.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Sanctioning Syria might work, but not the way it’s done now
The Assad regime and the Syrian economy at large have been under Western sanctions for years, but they have yet to lead to serious concessions. This has caused some analysts and policy makers to favor lifting most sanctions altogether, fearing that their only effect currently is to harm the Syrian civilian population. However, concessions from the Assad regime remain elusive, making this option difficult to realize. In response to these issues and considerations, the Middle East Institute’s Wael Alalwani and Karam Shaar published a paper reviewing US and EU sanctions on Syria earlier this month. On August 24, MEI convened a panel to discuss the report and the issue in general. The discussants agreed that the West lacks focus on the Syrian conflict. Western sanctions regimes lack thought and dedication, causing them to fail at bringing about regime change, while disproportionately harming the Syrian civilian population. Sanctions have a definite function in the fight against injustice in Syria, but their types and application need to be seriously reviewed for them to fulfil it efficiently.
The speakers were:
Natasha Hall
Senior Fellow, Middle East Program
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Jomana Qaddour
Nonresident Senior Fellow & Head of Syria
Atlantic Council
Member
Syrian Constitutional Committee
Karam Shaar
Research Director,
Operations Policy Center (OPC)
Nonresident Scholar,
MEI
Senior Lecturer
Massey University
Andrew Tabler
Matin J. Gross Fellow, Geduld Program on Arab Politics
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
former Senior Advisor to the U.S. Special Envoy for Syria Engagement
Charles Lister (moderator)
Senior Fellow and Director, Syria and Countering Terrorism and Extremism programs
MEI
The report
Karam Shaar summarized the findings of the report:
- Lift certain sanctions and rely more on others. All country or sector-wide sanctions should be lifted, as they hurt civilians the most and can’t be maintained in the long run. These should be lifted in exchange for concessions as soon as possible. On the other hand, targeted sanctions such as travel bans, asset freezes and secondary sanctions should be expanded.
- Implement a more proactive, all-of-Syria policy and focus on it. The current policy lacks focus and dedication.
- Pursue Syrian officials by using universal jurisdiction legislation in Western countries. Only small steps have been taken in this direction.
- Improve the effectiveness of sanctions. This can be done by targeting the deep cadres of the regime, not the tip of the iceberg (e.g. target known security chiefs who aren’t currently sanctioned, rather than a cabinet minister with little actual importance to the regime). The US and EU should also expand their use of secondary sanctions that target third parties who cooperate with or aid sanctioned individuals, even in activities that aren’t technically under sanctions.
- Make realistic demands. It is completely unrealistic for Assad to agree to the current demand, namely a political transition which will inevitably lead to his downfall and possibly even his death. Regime allies will also never favor this option. If this is the aim, far more pressure would be necessary than is currently applied.
Shaar considers the current sanctions policy a lazy attempt by the US and EU to feign an interest in the fate of the Syrian people, while allowing the situation to fester.
In response, Tabler, who was part of designing Syrian sanctions in the US government until recently, emphasized that mistakes are inevitable. However, it is also important to remember that certain decisions might be made based on classified information that the public isn’t privy to. He also considered scrapping all sector-based sanctions unrealistic. Certain sectors must remain sanctioned, although he does admit that there are sanctions that disproportionately harm citizens.
Bypassing sanctions
Natasha Hall turned the panel’s attention to regime efforts to bypass sanctions. North Korea’s ‘Room 39’ works on ways to access hard currency for Pyongyang through drug trafficking, ransomware, etc. The Assad regime’s ‘Room 39’ activities are perhaps more advanced than that already. It gains currency through the expropriation of IDP assets, as well as UN food aid. Qaddour added that the Syrian regime has become a major exporter of the illegal drug Captagon. The value of only the seized Captagon in the Gulf in 2020 was five times that of the legitimate exports of Syria.
Tabler described sanctions as good for the long haul. The threat of military action has a limited shelf life and diminishing deterrent value. However, when challenged by Shaar and Hall, he acknowledged that sanctions are a cat-and-mouse game. They must continuously be updated as those under sanctions discover loopholes to avoid them. Shaar criticized the Biden administration’s decision not to review and update sanctions, but rather continue to implement the Trump administration’s existing package. This has allowed such loopholes to expand.
The UN has also become a threat to the effectiveness of sanctions. Hall mentioned that the UN doesn’t have to adhere to US or EU sanctions and does work with regime insiders to deliver aid. Qaddour pointed out that this year’s UNSC discussion on aid provision led to the inclusion of early recovery assistance for the first time. Such efforts need to be viewed skeptically. If we can ensure strong conditions and follow-up for where this aid goes, it can benefit ordinary Syrians through the reconstruction of hospitals and schools. Otherwise, it is likely to flow into the pockets of companies owned by regime insiders.
Civilian wellbeing
Qaddour emphasized the need to balance the regime and the welfare of normal Syrians. We shouldn’t maintain a philosophy of ‘down with Assad or we burn the country’. Hall also warned that a failure to engage in sanctions as part of a broader strategy would lead to a North Korea on the Mediterranean: a heavily sanctioned regime that perseveres while its population suffers.
However, Qaddour thinks that Syrian citizens opposed to Assad are aware of the good intentions behind the current sanctions. This is particularly true for the Kurdish-held areas, which don’t bear the brunt of the sanctions and where Assad’s propaganda isn’t a factor. Also in regime areas, people tend to have a nuanced perspective. They can see firsthand that whatever wealth does enter the country flows to those in the regime. Their suffering is starkly contrasted with the wealth of regime insiders.
Re-engaging the West
The panel was unanimous in thinking that the West isn’t engaged enough with the Syrian conflict and that its actions reflect that. Hall made clear that there is much more at stake for the West than humanitarian considerations. The war and the Syrian regime cause arms trafficking, drug (Captagon) smuggling, and potentially the trafficking of foreign fighters. Especially if the regime captures Kurdish-held areas, thousands of foreign fighters would come under its jurisdiction. Tabler also feared that the West underprioritizes Syria.
There are those in Washington who favor ending sanctions. Not for love of the Assad regime, but for fear of the effects. Particularly the experience of Iraq in the 1990s and the suffering caused by US sanctions without tangible results inform this idea, according to Hall and Tabler. However, Qaddour pointed out that lifting sanctions without receiving concessions is impossible. It would devastate US and EU credibility in the future, and vindicate authoritarians claiming that the West will lose interest after a while.
Hall also indicated that ending sanctions won’t solve the suffering of the Syrian people. They would still be under the stress of the demographic engineering the Assad regime is engaging in. The expropriations of IDP and regime opponents property while investing reconstruction efforts in loyal areas that aren’t the most in need makes it impossible for many refugees to return to the country. Under these conditions reconstruction won’t succeed: it will lack the human capital that must also be rebuilt. If we lift sanctions now, we would just allow the entrenchment of a system of injustice. Shaar suggested there is no reason at all to lift targeted personal sanctions such as asset freezes. These don’t hurt Syrian civilians.
The panel came to a number of immediate recommendations:
- They agreed that establishing a high-ranking special envoy for Syria would serve to signal US seriousness and allow the sanctions system to be applied in earnest.
- Hall also recommended a comprehensive review of the effects and effectiveness of our current sanctions regimes.
- Shaar was pessimistic about the prospect of enticing European or American governments to take a genuine interest. He believed the best bet is to focus on what Syrians and those that do care about Syrian interests can do without their help.
Watch the recording of the event below:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | August 30-September 3, 2021
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
- Grim Prospects for Women and Girls in Afghanistan | Aug 31, 2021 | 10:00 AM EST | The Heritage Foundation| Register Here
As the world watched Afghanistan fall to the Taliban in a matter of weeks, one point was clear: the lives of Afghan women and girls would forever be changed. Over the last twenty years, women and girls made tremendous gains by going to school, holding political office, and entering the working world. Hard-won freedoms became a part of everyday life, and Afghan women were actively enjoying them.
With the Taliban back in power, many of these gains will likely be lost. So, what can be done now to safeguard the rights of Afghan women and girls? Join the Heritage Foundation as a distinguished panel of experts tackles the scale of the problem and realistic actions that the United States and the international community can take to mitigate the damage.
Speakers:
Lisa Curtis
Senior Fellow and Director, Indo-Pacific Security Program, Center for a New American Security
Heela Najibullah
Conflict and Peace Researcher
Author of “Reconciliation and Social Healing in Afghanistan”
Amb. Roya Rahmani
Former Ambassador of Afghanistan to the United States
Nicole Robinson (moderator)
Research Associate, Allison Center for Foreign Policy, The Heritage Foundation
2. #GermanyVotes – One month to go: The 2021 German elections and their implications | Sep 1, 2021 | 9:00 AM EST | Atlantic Council | Register Here
This event kicks off the Europe Center’s #GermanyVotes: The Superwahljahr Series, a collection of virtual and hybrid events focusing on Germany’s upcoming federal elections. Germans head to the polls on September 26 to pick a new government at a crucial moment in German politics. The elections will mark more than the usual electoral turnover as Chancellor Angela Merkel steps down after sixteen years at the helm of Europe’s largest political and economic power.
The panel will discuss what changes a new government and leadership in Berlin will bring about for Germany, Europe, and the transatlantic alliance. Against the backdrop of a still-new US administration, global crises including the impact of the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the COVID-19 pandemic, and new challenges to the country’s economic model, what new vision will a future German government and chancellor forge for Germany and its place in the world?
Speakers:
Tyson Barker
Head, Technology and Global Affairs Program, German Council on Foreign Relations
Constanze Stelzenmüller
Senior Fellow, Center on the United States and Europe; Fritz Stern Chair on Germany and trans-Atlantic Relations, Brookings Institution
Ines Pohl (moderator)
Washington Bureau Chief, Deutsche Welle
- The 9/11 Attacks from a Historical Perspective | Sep 2, 2021 | 7:45 AM EST | Royal United Services Institute | Register Here
The attacks by the Al Qaeda terrorist organisation on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon, on 11 September 2001 were cataclysmic in totally changing the global strategic environment. This event will commemorate the 20th anniversary.
Speakers:
Prof. Peter Neumann
Professor of Security Studies, Department of War Studies, King’s College London; Senior Associate Fellow, RUSI
Suzanne Raine
Trustee, RUSI
Sir John Scarlett KCMG OBE
Distinguished Fellow, RUSI; Former Chief, MI6
- Tunisia – What Now? | Sep 2, 2021 | 9:00 AM EST | CSIS | Register Here
Tunisia, the lone democracy remaining from the Arab Spring, is at a crossroads. The Covid-19 pandemic devastated an already struggling economy, while the political system has grown increasingly ineffectual. Last month, Tunisia’s president Kais Saied suspended the parliament, sacked the prime minister, and significantly increased his own power for 30 days, and on August 23 he extended those moves indefinitely.
What does the future hold for Tunisia? What can the United States and its allies, who together have invested billions of dollars in the Tunisian democratic experiment, do to support Tunisia in its crisis?
Speakers:
Congressman David Price (D-NC)
Chairman, House Democracy Partnership; Member, House Appropriations Subcommittee on State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Bowman Cutter
Chairman, the Tunisian Enterprise Fund
Mohamed Malouche
Chairman, Tunisian American Young Professionals
Lobna Jeribi
Founder and President, Solidar Tunisia
Shawna Bader-Blau
Executive Director, Solidarity Center
Jon B. Alterman
Senior Vice President, Zbigniew Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy, and Director, Middle East Program, CSIS
Marti Flacks
Director and Senior Fellow, Human Rights Initiative, CSIS
5. Climate Change: Entry Point for Regional Peace in the Middle East | Sep 2, 2021 | 10:00 AM EST | Clingendael Institute | Register Here
Climate change is hitting the Middle East region hard with unbearable temperatures, water scarcity, desertification and saltwater intrusion undermining local food production. After the recent eruption of violence the need to address underlying stresses of grievances of people living in the region is mentioned as a factor that deserves extra attention. Whereas conflicts over identity and history are hard to overcome, it may still be possible to enter into renewed dialogues over how to build resilience against climate change and use renewables to enhance the level of energy security that could be used for air conditioning and water desalination. In a region prone to tensions, climate change is a common enemy that people in the region are facing.
By using practical examples, this online event will consider how a focus on climate adaptation and mitigation could be used as an entry point for bringing together people that otherwise might hardly talk to each other. What can they gain from entering into a dialogue over better management and distribution of scarce natural resources, and may this also foster a more general spirit of mutual understanding?
Speakers:
Yana Abu Taleb
Director, EcoPeace Middle East – Jordan
Rene van Nes
Head, Division of Conflict Prevention and Mediation Support, European External Action Service
Prof. Alon Tal
Member, Knesset
Dr. Shaddad Attili
Advisor ranking Minister, Negotiations Support Department, PLO
Louise van Schaik (moderator)
Head, EU & Global Affairs Unit, the Clingendael Institute
Tobias von Lossow (Q&A)
Research Fellow, the Clingendael Institute
6. Syria Today: How Assad “Won” beyond the Military | Sep 2, 2021 | 11:00 AM EST | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to announce a panel discussion featuring contributors to The Middle East Journal’s 2021 Spring and Summer Issues. As the civil war in Syria endures after a decade of conflict, Bashar al-Assad continues to pursue his consolidation of authority and regime legitimization. Aside from military tactics, Assad has diversified his approach to this pursuit through a number of tactics, including swaying influential social and religious leaders to support state security measures and depending on foreign aid to support the reconstruction of the country. A panel of journal contributors will join to discuss these broader themes featured in their articles and delve deeper into the internal workings of the Syrian regime.
Speakers:
Rahaf Aldoughli
Contributor, Middle East Journal; Lecturer, Middle East and North African Studies, Lancaster University
Guy Burton
Contributor, Middle East Journal; Visiting Fellow, LSE Middle East Centre
Eric Lob
Contributor, Middle East Journal; Associate Professor, Department of Politics and International Relations, Florida International University
Emma Beals (moderator)
Non-resident scholar, MEI
7. Prospects for US-Iran Relations under Raisi | Sep 2, 2021 | 11:00 AM EST | Arab Center Washington DC | Register Here
The Iranian Studies Unit of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies and Arab Center Washington DC invite you to a lecture by Dr. Vali Nasr on the prospects for US-Iran relations under the Ebrahim Raisi and Joe Biden Administrations. Dr. Nasr is the Majid Khadduri Professor of International Affairs and Middle East Studies at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), and Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center.
Speakers:
Vali Nasr (speaker)
Majid Khadduri Professor of International Affairs and Middle East Studies, Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)
Khalil E. Jahshan (moderator)
Executive Director, Arab Center Washington DC
Mehran Kamrava (moderator)
Chair, Iranian Studies Unit, Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies
8. Learning the Lessons of Afghanistan | Sep 2, 2021 | 7:00 PM EST | Institute for Policy Studies | Register Here
IPS’ Fellow, Phyllis Bennis will be featured in a webinar series, presented by Massachusetts Peace Action. A forum of three deeply knowledgeable speakers who will give their response to these themes and their suggested lessons.
Speakers:
Kathy Kelly
Nonviolent activist
Phyllis Bennis
Middle East Politics Specialist, Institute for Policy Studies
Chris Velazquez
Afghanistan War veteran; Digital Director, Veterans for Peace
Will Hopkins (moderator)
New Hampshire Peace Action
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | August 23-27, 2021
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
- Policy Pulse: The Fall of Afghanistan | August 23, 2021 | 10:00 AM EST | The Heritage Foundation | Register Here
In recent weeks, Americans have watched in horror as the Taliban overran Afghanistan. The scenes from Kabul have alarmed the nation, and the Biden Administration has denied responsibility while allowing the crisis to spiral out of control. In the midst of the chaos, decision-makers must be clear about how these events came about, how they will impact U.S. national security, and what America’s options are for securing its interests moving forward. Policy professionals won’t want to miss this 30-minute Policy Pulse as Heritage’s leading foreign policy minds to respond to the fall of Afghanistan and break down the critical steps that must be taken in the aftermath.
Speakers:
Luke Coffey
Director, Douglas & Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy
Jeff M. Smith
Research Fellow, South Asia
- Afghanistan’s Collapse and the Implications for Global Jihadism and Counterterrorism | August 23, 2021 | 10:30 AM EST | The Middle East Institute | Register Here
Emboldened by the U.S. decision to withdraw from Afghanistan in April, the Taliban has surged across the country in a dramatic offensive. In response, Afghan security forces have collapsed like dominos, militarily overwhelmed or simply coerced into surrender. The fate of Kabul and the central government looks decidedly uncertain. For the first time in many years, al-Qaeda and its central leadership look likely to have a safe-haven in which to operate, while the group’s network of jihadist allies will feel similarly confident about what the future holds.
What lessons can be learned from 20-years of counterterrorism operations? Should the West try to stop the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan? How has the Taliban’s ascendance impacted the Afghan terrorism landscape, and how does it affect global jihadism?
Speakers:
Karen Joy Greenberg
Director, Center on National Security, Fordham University School of Law
David Kilcullen
President and CEO, Cordillera Applications Group, Inc.; Director, Thesigers and Native Data
Anne Likuski
Senior Research Fellow, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI)
Asfandyar Ali Mir
Senior Expert, United States Institute of Peace (USIP)
Charles Lister (moderator)
Senior Fellow and Director, Syria and Countering Terrorism and Extremism programs, MEI
- The State of Play in Afghanistan | August 23, 2021 | 11:30 AM EST | The Atlantic Council | Register Here
The Taliban’s swift and stunning takeover of Afghanistan has shocked the world. As the dire situation continues to unfold, critical questions arise about, most urgently, the safe and prompt evacuation of Americans and US allies and the needed force posture for accomplishing such operations.
Please join the Atlantic Council to hear from General David Petraeus (USA, Ret.), former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. General Petraeus served over 37 years in the United States Army; his assignments included commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and commander, US Forces – Afghanistan (USFOR-A). GEN (Ret.) Petraeus also served as the 10th commander, US Central Command (USCENTCOM).
General Petraeus will address a wide range of critically important issues, including the long-term implications for US alliances, particularly NATO, and what effective policy options are available to the United States for setting its relationship with a Taliban-led Afghanistan. Also central to this discussion will be the nature of any renewed terrorist threats from a reconstituted Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups who may seek safe haven in Afghanistan, and the most effective homeland defense and counterterrorism policies and posture in this new environment.
Speakers:
General David H. Petraeus, U.S. Army (retired)
Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Board Director, Atlantic Council; Partner, KKR and Chairman, KKR Global Institute
Ambassador Paula J. Dobriansky
Vice Chair, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security
Barry Pavel
Senior Vice President and Director, The Atlantic Council
- How Veterans can Protect American Democracy | August 24, 2021 | 10:00 AM EST | Brookings Institute | Register Here
Democracies around the world are under attack and authoritarianism is on the march in nations like Turkey, Venezuela, Hungary, and Poland, resulting in an unprecedented loss of public faith in our institutions and troubling hyper-partisanship here at home. Many Americans understand that democratic values must be protected and passed from one generation to the next, and few take this obligation more seriously than the men and women who have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and placed their bodies in harm’s way in the defense of the nation. This spirit of service to the country does not end when one leaves the military, and most veterans believe it is their duty to continue to protect American democracy as engaged citizens.
Speakers:
The Honorable Sean O’Keefe
69th Secretary of the Navy, Department of Defense
General Tony Zinni, USMC (retired)
Former Commander-in-Chief, United States Central Command
Admiral Jim Loy
21st Commandant, United States Coast Guard
The Honorable Louis Caldera
17th Secretary of the Army, Department of Defense
Michael E. O’Hanlon (moderator)
Director of Research, Foreign Policy; Co-Director, Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology, Africa Security Initiative; Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Security, Strategy and Technology
- Syria and the West: The Efficacy of Economic Sanctions | August 24, 2021 | 11:00 AM EST | The Middle East Institute | Register Here
The U.S. and European Union have constructed an expansive and complex array of sanctions against Syria’s regime over the last 30 years, and particularly in the past decade. While such measures have been punitive in nature, the West has sought to utilize them since 2011 as a source of pressure and diplomatic leverage amidst the long-standing deadlock facing negotiations over the country’s future. Despite the best intentions, sanctions have not yielded any meaningful change in Syria diplomacy and as a result, they have become a source of intense political and analytical debate – for some, they are still of value and for others, they are only a source of humanitarian suffering, even if unintentional.
Speakers:
Natasha Hall
Senior Fellow, Middle East Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Jomana Qaddour
Nonresident Senior Fellow & Head of Syria, Atlantic Council
Karam Shaar
Research Director, Operations Policy Center (OPC); Nonresident Scholar, MEI; Senior Lecturer, Massey University
Andrew Tabler
Martin J. Gross Fellow, Geduld Program on Arab Politics, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy; former Senior Advisor to the U.S. Special Envoy for Syria Engagement
Charles Lister, moderator
Senior Fellow and Director, Syria and Countering Terrorism and Extremism programs, MEI
What are the successes and failures of Western sanctions against the Syrian regime? How can Western governments adapt their strategies moving forward? In what ways might sanctions be used to effectively change nefarious behavior and create diplomatic leverage?
- Afghanistan Aftershocks | August 25, 2021 | 1:00 PM EST | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register Here
Following the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan, aftershocks are being felt worldwide. Please join the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on Wednesday, August 25 for a discussion with our experts on the global impacts of the U.S.’ withdrawal from Afghanistan and of the Taliban assuming control.
The conversation will cover critical questions surrounding human rights under the Taliban, the impending refugee crisis, the proliferation of Salafi-Jihadist terrorist groups, the United States’ global reputation, the responses of Russia, China, and Iran, and the broader geopolitical impacts in South and East Asia, among other topics.
CSIS Chief Communications Officer H. Andrew Schwartz will give opening remarks, followed by an expert panel discussion moderated by Susan Glasser of The New Yorker. The panel discussion will feature CSIS’s Seth G. Jones, Harold Brown Chair and Director of the International Security Program, Michael J. Green, Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan Chair, and Marti Flacks, Director and Senior Fellow of the Human Rights Initiative.
Speakers:
Seth G. Jones
Senior Vice President; Harold Brown Chair; and Director, International Security Program
Marti Flacks
Director and Senior Fellow, Human Rights Initiative
Michael J. Green
Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan Chair
H. Andrew Schwartz
Chief Communications Officer
- The Long Game: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order | August 26, 2021 | 11:00 AM EST | Brookings Institute | Register Here
China has emerged as a global superpower that could rival, if not eclipse, the United States. What does China want, does it have a grand strategy to achieve it, and what should the United States do about it?
In his new book from Oxford University Press — “The Long Game: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order” — Rush Doshi outlines how China’s grand strategy has evolved and offers solutions for an effective U.S. response.
On August 26, the Foreign Policy program at Brookings will host a webinar exploring the themes addressed in this new volume. The event will feature a moderated discussion with Rush Doshi, former director of the Brookings China Strategy Initiative and a former fellow in Brookings Foreign Policy, and Michael O’Hanlon, director of research in Brookings Foreign Policy, followed by a panel discussion with experts who will focus on analysis concerning the U.S.-China relationship and China’s grand strategy.
Speakers:
Suzanne Maloney
Vice President and Director, Foreign Policy
Michael E. O’Hanlon (moderator)
Director of Research, Foreign Policy; Co-Director, Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology, Africa Security Initiative; Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Security, Strategy and Technology
Rush Doshi (discussant)
Former Brookings Expert
Thomas Wright (moderator)
Director, Center on the United States and Europe; Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Project on International Order and Strategy
David Edelstein (panelist)
Vice Dean and Professor, Georgetown University
Jackie Deal (panelist)
Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute; President and CEO, Long Term Strategy Group
Jude Blanchette (panelist)
Freeman Chair in China Studies, CSIS
RSS - Posts
