Tag: United States
The future will be nasty, brutish and long
The collapse of the Afghan security forces is pretty much complete. They opted not to fight, rendering the hundreds of billions that the US has spent on them over almost two decades worthless. “By, with, and through,” the Pentagon’s mantra for how it goes about security assistance, has amounted to naught.
The same cannot be said however of US civilian assistance. While no doubt pundits will be talking for years about how hopeless it was to think that Afghanistan could be made into a thriving democracy, significant social, economic, and political process was made. Until this week, Afghanistan was a relatively open society with lively and partly free media, education not only for men but also for women, vastly improved health conditions, sharply increased per capita income (which has stagnated for the past five years), and a government that owed its existence to not very fair or entirely free elections. Civil society in Afghanistan was robust. The country’s low scores on various governance and economic indices were due largely to the Taliban insurgency and corruption, which had reached dreadful levels.
Can any of the limited progress be preserved in a renewed Taliban regime?
Today’s Taliban are saying that girls and women will be able to go to school and work, which they weren’t permitted to do under the Taliban in the 1990s. The official Taliban line is amnesty for former government officials and troops. Their current hesitation in entering Kabul may cause some to hope that they will be more restrained than last time around.
But there are reports from some provinces that revenge killings and assassinations are already occurring, as are forced marriages. The Taliban have not renounced hudud punishments, which include cutting off hands and feet as well as stoning to death. The Taliban would be foolish to fight their way into Kabul, as that would cause a good deal of destruction and ruin their international bona fides. It will be far better for them to negotiate a handover of power that enables them to claim some sort of legitimacy other than by force of arms. The Taliban have definitely gotten savvier about their image in Western media.
But international attention won’t last, and they know it.
The Taliban are still totalitarians: they do not abide opposition, they do not respect human rights, and they won’t share power for long. If we can anticipate future performance from past behavior, there will be no parliament, only some sort of high council of religious leaders. Accountability and transparency will be minimal. Civil society will be squelched. Free media will be closed. Drug trafficking will be rife. Other economic activity will be marginal. Minorities will not only be discriminated against but abused and murdered.
There has been a good deal of concern about the thousands of Afghans who have worked with the US military, mainly as interpreters. But the numbers of Afghans at risk due to their cooperation with the Americans is much greater than that. It includes a couple of thousand who worked at the Embassy, many more thousands who have worked on US-funded development and governance projects, and still more thousands who took seriously the opportunity to organize civil society organizations to press for various causes that will no longer be permitted under the Taliban. If all of them were to leave Afghanistan, prospects would dim further. Those who stay–either because they can’t get out or because they have the courage not to–aren’t likely to last long.
I could be wrong about all of this. We’ll have to wait and see. But my guess is that the future will be nasty, brutish, and long.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
It’s all over but the shouting, in Kabul or not
It is hard to keep up with the Taliban advance in Afghanistan, which has now engulfed at least 12 provincial capitals and perhaps two-thirds of the country. The Afghan National Army (ANA) is collapsing in many places. Civilians who can are fleeing to the capital. Civilians who can’t are suffering dreadful Taliban depredations. There will soon be little left of the hard-won progress on women’s rights, relatively free media, improved health care, and property rights. The Taliban will take what they want, destroy the hospitals and clinics, dictate to radio and TV, and drive women into hiding. Their is no sign that their years out of power have moderated their extremist views.
The American withdrawal unquestionably precipitated this debacle. It was poorly executed and far too fast for the limited ANA capabilities. President Biden, who says he doesn’t regret it, will take the rap, but it was President Trump who agreed to it. Taliban promises have proven empty. They have not negotiated seriously with the government delegation in Doha and they have not broken with Al Qaeda. They may still do both, but only if the government forces are able to block their advance. That is unlikely.
It would be wrong however to conclude that everything would have been okay had the Americans stayed. The Taliban were already gaining territory before the American withdrawal. The ANA might well have collapsed, even if more slowly, had American support continued. A longer “decent interval” might have allowed for more negotiation in Doha, but the ultimate outcome would likely not have been a lot better than we are likely to see now.
What are we likely to see now? The Taliban will want to secure as much of the country as they can. The only big question is whether they will try to take Kabul by force. They could conceivably conclude it would be better not to do that, in hope of capturing some international aid, or avoiding international opprobrium, in the aftermath. But if they spare Kabul, they will still want President Ghani out and some sort of transitional regime friendly to their cause installed. There is no hope that the negotiations in Doha can produce better results than the military situation on the ground, which is catastrophic from Ghani’s perspective.
Western countries are busy threatening the Taliban with isolation if they continue the offensive. That is pointless. The Taliban don’t care about isolation from the West, which they assume will not provide assistance in the aftermath. The countries whose attitudes will count for the Taliban are the neighboring powers, especially Pakistan, Iran, China, and Russia. Pakistan in particular has a lot of clout, because it provides the Taliban with safe haven, but Chinese or Russian aid might carry some weight as well. It will be interesting to see if the Taliban avoid atrocities against the (Shia) Hazaras, in order not to provoke Iran. It will also be interesting to see if the Taliban continue to maintain friendly relations with Al Qaeda and even allow it to use Afghanistan again as a platform for international terror.
President Ghani is calling on civilians to arm and resist the Taliban, including the warlords whom he has rightly tried to marginalize in recent years. Even if he did not try to summon support, the prospect of insurgency against Taliban rule is real. That will make their behavior in victory more abusive, not less. They will want to squelch any armed resistance as quickly and decisively as possible. No one should doubt their level of brutality.
It’s all over but the shouting, in Kabul or not.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Turkey and Israel need to compartmentalize disagreements and cooperate
Not too long ago, Turkey and Israel had a good working relationship. That changed with the rise of Erdogan in Turkey and the increasing focus on Turkey’s intended leadership of the Islamic world. After 2010, the two countries no longer have diplomatic relations, and recently discussions of Eastern Mediterranean gas pipelines became a new potential stumbling block. However, these two countries are key US allies. The importance of their cooperation only increases now that the US is slowly withdrawing from the Middle East. A recent call between Israeli president Herzog and Turkey’s Erdogan could signal a new opening.
The Atlantic Council convened a panel of diplomats and academics to discuss these issues and their implications for the future. The experts saw potential for future cooperation, but this will depend on the states’ ability to understand each others security red lines, and to compartmentalize their relationship.
The speakers were:
Jonathan H. Ferziger
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Middle East Programs
Atlantic Council
Former Middle East Correspondent
Bloomberg
Amb. Mithat Rende
Former Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Turkey to the OECD
Prof. Brenda Shaffer
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Global Energy Center
Atlantic Council
Amb. Matthew J. Bryza (moderator)
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council in Turkey; Global Energy Center & Eurasia Center,
Atlantic Council
Defne Arslan (introduction)
Director, Atlantic Council in Turkey
Atlantic Council
How we got here
Bryza explained that Israel and Turkey had what amounted to a strategic partnership until relatively recently. He and co-panelist Rende lobbied at that time to realize an Israeli-Turkish gas pipeline. With the rise of Erdogan to power this all changed. His increased focus on Islamic solidarity drew him away from Israel, which he criticized for its treatment of Palestinian rights. The relationship reached a low point with the ‘Mavi Marmara Incident’ also known as the Gaza Flotilla Raid in 2010. Turkey was attempting to break the Israeli blockade on Gaza in Ferziger‘s words, by sending a shipment with aid to the enclave by boat. Israel responded by raiding the boat, leading to the deaths of nine Turkish nationals. Afterwards, Erdogan severed diplomatic relations.
In recent times, there have been cautious signs of improvements. Most notable is the call between Erdogan and Herzog on July 12. Ferziger reminded that Herzog’s role is largely ceremonial in Israeli politics, meaning that this shouldn’t be seen as a call on the highest level. Nonetheless, it does signal willingness on both sides for some level of communication.
Current disagreements
At the core of the bilateral strife are the Palestinians. Erdogan attacks Israel frequently and supports Hamas, whose leaders are often present in Turkey itself. This support for Hamas is an absolute red line to Israel. Shaffer believes that diplomatic initiatives are infeasible if a military presence of Hamas in Turkey remains. Some sort of civilian representation might be feasible, but no more than that. Furthermore, Bryza explained that Turkey’s rhetoric angers Israelis. Erdogan has moderated his comments recently, but with (potentially early) elections coming up, Bryza questioned if he will he be able to avoid nationalist rhetoric in his battle against right-wing rivals.
Israeli domestic politics also complicate the matter. Ferziger said that it is certain that Netanyahu will do whatever he can to paint reconnection with Turkey as a bad choice, while he privately is convinced that it is a good thing. The opposition will use Turkey’s ties to Hamas to make this diplomatic development very difficult.
Ferziger explained that the Hamas connection does help Erdogan, although not as much as one might think. He is popular in Gaza. But in the West Bank he is ‘banned’ and support for him is repressed by the Palestinian Authority. In East Jerusalem, PA control is not universal, meaning that this repression is less total. Nonetheless, Erdogan isn’t the only leader attempting to woo the Palestinians. Saudi Arabia is also engaging in humanitarian and development projects in Palestine. Alongside streets adorned with images of Erdogan, there are streets with those of Mohammed bin Salman. Moreover, Turkish attempts to become involved with the al-Aqsa mosque are met with resistance from Jordan, who currently operates it.
Rende underlined an issue from the Turkish perspective. There is a perception in Turkey that Israel supports the YPG and the establishment of an autonomous territory for the Kurds in Syria. Turkey rejects this as it considers the YPG a terrorist organization linked to the PKK. Shaffer believes that Turkish support for Hamas appears similar to Israel as Israel’s support to the YPG appears to Turkey. There is a need to understand from both sides that support for the Palestinians doesn’t have to equal support for Hamas and that support for the Kurds doesn’t have to equal support for the PKK.
The potential for future cooperation
Despite these issues, the panel generally appeared optimistic on the prospect of cooperation in other fields. The potential for establishing a natural gas pipeline was often mentioned in this regard. Turkey is the region’s only growing market for natural gas according to Rende. As Shaffer opined, connecting Israeli gas to Europe is most logical by attaching to the existing pipelines in Turkey. She explained that Israel is in doubt whether to attempt a gas pipeline through Greece or through Turkey. As Shaffer put it, there is an idea in Israel that it’s either good relations with Greece or with Turkey. But Turkey and Greece have more functional relationships with one another than Israel and Turkey. “There is no reason to be more Greek than the Greeks.”
The prospect of compartmentalizing their relationship was something some panelists were enthusiastic about. Shaffer suggested Turkey should deal with Israel as it does with China. The suppression of Uyghurs in China is completely unpalatable to the Turkish population, and yet Turkey is able to compartmentalize the relationship and engages with China extensively. Iran and Turkey too have tensions surrounding the Azeri population of Iran, which Erdogan has hinted in the past should be united with Azerbaijan. Despite these tensions, Turkey engages with Iran where necessary. Rende added that Turkey has huge differences with the US as well, but that doesn’t stop from cooperating fruitfully.
Shaffer hoped the US might attempt to steer Israel and Turkey more in that direction. The role of a superpower is not only to fight its enemies but to manage its allies. Obama and Trump have done a bad job at this according to her. Having Israel, Turkey, Cyprus, etcetera bickering is not good for the US.
Rende summarized his perspective neatly. Common grounds:
- Trade
- Tourism
- Energy/natural gas
- Defense industry/technology
- Agriculture/water
But the countries countries suffer from a lack of trust and confidence in one another. They must build these up slowly again.
Good steps towards this would be:
- Re-establish ambassadors
- Stop harsh rhetoric through the media
- Establish (ad-hoc) working groups and establish an agenda for cooperation
Watch the recording of the event here:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks August 9 – 15, 2021
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
- Update on the Victims of Sinjar: The Need to Locate Thousands of Missing Yezidis | August 10, 2021 | 10:00 AM EST | The Wilson Center | Register Here
In 2014 the Islamic State began its campaign to annihilate Yezidis in Iraq and Syria. The territorial defeat of ISIS did not, however, end the suffering of Yezidis and other victims of Daesh. Until now, there are an estimated 2,868 Yezidis whose whereabouts are still unknown. Many of them were presumed to be dead. However, in July, Yezidi women were discovered in Syria and Iraq who had been missing since 2014 – underscoring the need for concerted international search efforts. Yezidi civil society organizations have called upon the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, the Iraqi Government, the Kurdistan Regional Government, the Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria, Interpol, UNITAD, UNAMI, and other stakeholders to craft a plan and mount a serious effort to locate Yezidi abductees who are still alive and suffering.
Speakers:
Peter Galbraith
Former U.S. Ambassador to Croatia and Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations in Afghanistan
Abid Shamdeen
Co-Founder & Executive Director, Nadia’s Initiative
Nisan Ahmado
Journalist, Voice of America
Merissa Khurma (introduction)
Program Direct, Middle East Program, The Wilson Center
Amy Austin (moderator)
Public Policy fellow and former visiting Scholar at Harvard University
- RESCHEDULED: U.S. National Security in the Indo-Pacific: A Conversation with Senator Tammy Duckworth | August 10, 2021 | 11:30 AM EST | Center for Strategic and International Studies | Register Here
Please join the Center for Strategic and International Studies for a Smart Women, Smart Power conversation with U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL). She will discuss U.S. national security in the Indo-Pacific and her recent visit to the region. Senator Duckworth is an Iraq War Veteran, Purple Heart recipient and former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. A Blackhawk helicopter pilot, she was among the first handful of Army women to fly combat missions during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Senator Duckworth served in the Reserve Forces for 23 years before retiring at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in 2014. She was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2016 after representing Illinois’s Eighth Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives for two terms.
Senator Duckworth serves on the Armed Services Committee; the Environment & Public Works Committee; the Commerce, Science, Transportation Committee; and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Committee.
Speakers:
U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
Nina Easton
Senior Associate (non-resident), CSIS
Beverly Kirk
Fellow and Director for Outreach, International Security Program, and Director, Smart Women, Smart Power Initiative
- The Future of Data, Oceans, and International Affairs | August 11, 2021 | 12:00 PM EST | The Atlantic Council | Register Here
Oceans are known as the final frontier. Currently, humanity knows less about oceans than about outer space. The oceans present potential solutions to some of our world’s most pressing problems such as climate change and food security, and are also an emergent strategic geopolitical battleground, with recent increased activity in the South China Sea. This GeoTech Hour will cover current oceanic data gaps, how and when these data gaps may be filled, and the implications of filling such data gaps. It will further touch upon the intersection between the oceans and international affairs, and how data is transforming this relationship.
Additionally, understanding both the deep ocean as well as coastal areas will be essential for our future ahead. Our panelists will also discuss the need to be prepared for when climate change starts to cause both extreme ocean-related weather events, such as severe hurricanes and typhoons – as well as “splash over events”, where ocean water mixes with land-based sources for potable freshwater.
Speakers:
Thammy Evans
Nonresident Senior Fellow, GeoTech Center, Atlantic Council
Horst Kremers
Secretary-General, Senior Engineer and Information Scientist, andInformation Systems Strategy Advisor, RIMMA CoE
Eric Rasmussen
CEO, Infinitum Humanitarian Systems (IHS)
Sahil Shah
Co-founder and Director, Sustainable Seaweed
David Bray, PhD
Director, GeoTech Center, Atlantic Council
- Hindsight Up Front: Afghanistan | Ambassador Mark Green in Conversation with H.R. McMaster | August 12, 2021 | 10:00 AM EST | The Wilson Center | Register Here
This event, part of Hindsight Up Front, the Wilson Center’s new Afghanistan initiative, features a discussion with H.R. McMaster, a national security adviser in the Trump administration and currently the Fouad and Michelle Ajami Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. The conversation—moderated by Wilson Center President, Director, and CEO Mark Green—will assess nearly 20 years of U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, focus on the U.S. withdrawal and its implications, and consider options for future U.S. policy. The discussion will also explore immediate policy recommendations for the Biden administration, and what can be done to ensure that U.S. interests in Afghanistan continue to be advanced.
Speakers:
Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster
Ambassador Mark Green (moderator)
President, Director & CEO, Wilson Center
- Exploring Humanitarian Frameworks for Venezuela: Learning from Iraq’s UN Program Failure | August 11, 2021 | 2:00 PM EST | The Atlantic Council | Register Here
On August 13, the Venezuelan opposition and Maduro will meet in Mexico to kick off Norwegian-mediated negotiations. With political discussions soon to be underway, it’s simultaneously important to consider pathways for expanded and more effective humanitarian assistance. One historical experience that offers insight into what does not work and what could work: Iraq’s 1996 oil-for-food program with the United Nations.
What are the lessons learned from Iraq’s humanitarian program that are applicable to Venezuela? How can the role of the US and the international community in the Iraq experience be applied to present-day Venezuela? What other avenues exist to address Venezuela’s ongoing humanitarian crisis?
Speakers:
Abbas Kadhim
Director, Iraq Initiative, Atlantic Council
Hagar Hajjar Chemali
Nonresident Senior Fellow, GeoEconomics Center, Atlantic Council; Former Director of Communications and Spokesperson, US Mission to the United Nations
Francisco Monaldi
Director and Fellow,Latin America Initiative, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University
Patricia Ventura
Director,Regional Public Affairs and Government Relations, IPD Latin America
Tamara Herrera
Managing Director and Chief Economist, Síntesis Financiera
Jason Marczak (moderator)
Director, Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, Atlantic Council
Diego Area (moderator)
Associate Director, Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, Atlantic Council
- Reign of Terror: How the 9/11 Era Destabilized America and Produced Trump | August 13, 2021 | 11:00 AM EST | CATO Institute | Register Here
For an entire generation, at home and abroad, the United States has waged a war on terror. Fighting it has produced neither peace nor victory, but it has transformed America. A politically divided country turned the war on terror into a cultural and then tribal struggle, first on the ideological fringes and ultimately expanding to open a door for today’s nationalist, exclusionary resurgence.
In Reign of Terror, journalist Spencer Ackerman argues that war on terror policies laid a foundation for American authoritarianism. In Ackerman’s account, Barack Obama’s failure to end the war on terror after the killing of Osama Bin Laden allowed cultural polarization to progress and set the groundwork for Donald Trump’s rise to power. As we approach the 20th anniversary of 9/11, please join us for a discussion of how the war on terror transformed the United States and the prospects for moving away from its divisive excesses.
Speakers:
Spencer Ackerman
Author, Contributing Editor, Daily Beast
Abigail R. Hall
Associate Professor in Economics, Bellarmine University
Erin M. Simpson
Former Co-Host, Bombshell podcast from War on the Rocks
Justin Logan
Senior Fellow, CATO Institute
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Some ideas are better than others
I have been puzzled by some Balkan economic initiatives. So I turned to Demush Shasha, Executive Director of the Pristina-based thinktank EPIK and former Secretary General of the Ministry for European Integration, for answers. While I think Demush has done an admirable job of analyzing the situation, I’d be glad to hear from others who may have different views of the merits and demerits of the initiatives discussed. Demush writes:
First let’s try and delineate the discussion surrounding these issues. So, these are two separate, though related, conversations.
1. CEFTA vs SEFTA;
2. Mini-Schengen vs Berlin process.
Former is more specific and economic discussion, later is more general and political discussion. To put it differently, the former is about “free movement of goods” – so almost exclusively a trade discussion. Later is about more than trade, it is about ALL types of freedoms in Western Balkans – people, capital, goods, establishment of companies, recognition of academic and professional qualifications, etc.
With that out of the way, a few words on differences between competing proposals.
CEFTA vs SEFTA
Kosovo proposed that CEFTA is succeeded by SEFTA. There are two reasons for this: (1) When CEFTA was launched Czechoslovakia was part of it 😊. So, the first argument is that agreement was designed for a different time and place, and it needs simply an update to new realities. (2) Kosovo is not a party to CEFTA as a sovereign country, but through UNMIK. This is because of Serbian veto within CEFTA mechanisms and procedures. So, Kosovo believes that with the launch of SEFTA, as a new mechanism, this issue can be addressed. Serbia on the other hand, for obvious reasons is against the proposal.
Mini-Schengen vs Berlin process
The Berlin process was launched in 2014 by the EU as a political mechanism to spur political cooperation in the region, allocate funds for important infrastructure investment, and ensure that the region gradually increases its competitiveness and prepares itself for EU Single Market. Since the launch, all 6 WB [Western Balkan] countries + 10 EU countries have been part of the process. So no brainer, everything was running great and smooth, until…
Mini-Schengen was launched in 2019 by three WB countries, without serious international political support, it failed to ensure inclusiveness of all WB countries and without any financial resources. Immediately, after a few first meetings it was obvious that this is not a serious undertaking, but rather a platform from which frustrated WB countries can get together and communicate their displeasure with the EU. Albania and North Macedonia were not being allowed to start accession talks, and Serbia’s accession process practically stalled, without any new negotiating chapter being opened.
In this light, Kosovo decided that it will continue to support Berlin process initiative and stay out of the Mini-Schengen. This decision is based on several factors:
1. Berlin process goal is regional cooperation in view of EU accession. Mini-Schengen goal is to create a mechanism that “will take the fate of the Balkans in our own hands”. You can imagine why in the Balkans, and in particular countries like Kosovo and BiH [Bosnia and Herzegovina], this kind of language makes people edgy.
2. The Berlin process is led by Germany, and supported by its key EU member states. Mini-Schengen is led by Serbia.
3. Mini-Schengen goal is to undermine the Berlin process and EU influence in the region, since it is a duplication of the Berlin process. Mini-Schengen would create a political forum where out of all participating countries, Serbia would be a natural leader of the group. This raises eyebrows with regard to creating an opening for Russian influence in the region through Serbia and Mini-Schengen.
4. The Berlin process has at its disposal 9 billion EURO funding, for 2021-2027, allocated by the EU in the forms of grants, which the EU has assessed will generate additional 20 billion investments in loans. Mini-Schengen has zero.
On US position: No high level US official ever took part in Mini-Schengen meetings. Mini-Schengen is mentioned in Washington KS [Kosovo]-SRB [Serbia] letters of intent, but it was never followed-up in any serious and structural manner by US administration. My reading is that the US supports any initiative that contributes to regional cooperation, and additionally on Mini-Schengen I think they understand the politics of it and they are simply allowing those 3 countries (Srb, Alb, NM) for the moment to vent some (justified to an extent) displeasure with the EU.
On EU position: Despite that the initiative in its title had the word “Schengen”, and aimed to transpose four fundamental freedoms of the EU, the EU never supported the initiative. They have continuously communicated that the Berlin process is the way forward. However, noting the current lack of enlargement momentum they really had little moral capital to be more aggressive publicly.
In a nutshell, I think it is one of those things that is not on the priority list of the US/EU, so they refrained from going publicly against it. They recognize that the initiative has no teeth, nor future. However, I believe that behind the public eye, they have strongly advised Kosovo, Montenegro and BiH to stay outside of the initiative.
PS: At this event earlier this week, Jim O’Brien of Albright-Stonebridge gave a vigorous and detailed defense of “Open Balkans,” which is a rebranding of mini-Schengen:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | August 2-6, 2021
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
- Restoring a federal governance system in Sudan | Aug 2, 2021 | 9:00 AM EST | Chatham House | Register Here
The signing of the Juba Peace Agreement in October 2020, and a constitutional decree issued in March 2021 by the Chairman of the Sovereign Council, are both significant markers towards the restoration of a federal governance system in Sudan. Establishing a decentralized system of governance that bridges the development gap between the centre and the regions is a significant challenge. But it is hoped that the genuine devolution of power will support peace-building, result in more equitable distribution of wealth and resources, and amplify local priorities in Sudan’s regions.
At this event, panellists will discuss the implementation of a new federal governance architecture in Sudan, the establishment of structures that will ensure more equitable development across the country and priorities for local governance.
Speakers:
Hon. Adeeb Yousif
Governor of Central Darfur, Republic of Sudan
Anwar Elhaj
Researcher and Political Analyst
Dr. Mona Mohamed Taha Ayoub
Lecturer, Institute of Public Administration and Federalism, University of Khartoum
Dr. Louise Walker
Chargé d’Affaires, British Embassy in Sudan
Ahmed Soliman (Chair)
Research Fellow at the Africa Programme, Chatham House
- Turkey-Israel relations in a changing geopolitical landscape | Aug 4, 2021 | 8:30 AM EST | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Relations between Turkey and Israel have been historically low since a diplomatic rift in 2010, characterized by an atmosphere of mutual distrust and punctuated by recurring crises. Historically, as the United States’ two closest allies in the region, Turkey and Israel had enjoyed a close strategic relationship. Now, with changing regional dynamics in the form of the Abraham Accords, mutual concerns about the Syrian War and Iran’s role in the region, and the recent change in Israel’s government present new opportunities and environments for the two countries to engage in dialogue.
This panel will discuss the outlook for the relation between these two regional powers.
Speakers:
Jonathan H. Ferziger
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Middle East Programs, Atlantic Council
Former Bloomberg Middle East Correspondent
Amb. Mithat Rende
Former Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Turkey to the OECD
Prof. Brenda Shaffer
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Global Energy Center, Atlantic Council
Amb. Matthew J. Bryza (moderator)
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council IN TURKEY, Global Energy Center & Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Defne Arslan (welcoming remarks)
Director, Atlantic Council IN TURKEY, Atlantic Council
- Enhancing security in the Black Sea: The future of security cooperation | Aug 4, 2021 | 10:00 AM EST | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Since Moscow launched its war on Ukraine in 2014, NATO has taken substantial steps to bolster security for its eastern members, particularly with a stronger presence in the Baltic states, Poland, and Romania. The NATO approach to security in the Baltic Sea has been comprehensive, as all NATO members in the region and other states recognize the dangers posed by a revisionist Kremlin. But NATO efforts along the southern flank, in the Black Sea region, are not as far along.
This panel will discuss NATO’s role in the Black Sea region and what security cooperation among these states will look like in the future.
Speakers:
Leah Scheunemann (welcoming remarks)
Deputy Director, Transatlantic Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Alton Buland
Director, South and Central Europe, US Department of Defense
Dr. Can Kasapoğlu
Director of Security and Defense Research, The Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies (EDAM)
Ambassador Elena Poptodorova
Vice President, Atlantic Club of Bulgaria
Dr. Harlan Ullman
Senior Advisor, Atlantic Council; Chairman, The Killowen Group
Irina Zidaru
Director General for Strategic Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania
Amb. John Herbst (moderator)
Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
- Why Tunisia’s democratic transition still matters? | Aug 4, 2021 | 10:00 AM EST | Chatham House | Register Here
Late on Sunday 25 July 2021, the 64th anniversary of the proclamation of the Tunisian Republic, the Tunisian president, Kais Saied declared he will assume the executive power in country, dismissing the government of the Prime Minster Hichem Mechichi and suspending the parliament. He also declared the suspension of the legal immunity of parliament members and taking control of the general prosecutor’s office.
Struggle over powers and mandates has been characteristic of the Tunisian political system over the past decade. Since the eruption of the Tunisian revolution in 2011, significant political progress towards democracy has been achieved. However, over the past year, Tunisia has witnessed disagreements over cabinet reshuffles and control of the security forces, complicating the efforts to handle a recent fierce COVID-19 wave, structural economic hardship and a looming fiscal crisis. Are the shaky political progress and the sluggish economic progress a threat to the nascent democratic transition in Tunisia? Or are the ongoing developments part of Tunisia’s democratization process?
The webinar will explore the factors that paved the way to the dramatic moment of the evening of 25 July 2021, assess the options for Tunisia’s democratic transition, and why this transition is still relevant in the first place.
Speakers:
Dr Laryssa Chomiak
Associate Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House
Fadil Aliriza
Editor In Chief, Meshkal
Prof Daniel Brumberg
Director of Democracy and Governance Studies, Georgetown University; Non-resident Senior Fellow, Arab Center Washington DC
Aymen Bessalah
Advocacy and Policy Analyst, Al Bawsala
Dr Lina Khatib (moderator)
Director, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House
- A New Transatlantic Policy Approach Towards the Western Balkans | Aug 4, 2021 | 11:30 AM EST | CSIS | Register Here
As the Biden administration pledges to work closely with its European allies, new policy approaches, development tools, and dialogue mechanisms to revitalize transatlantic policy across the region are essential as these countries grapple with weak institutions, endemic corruption, democratic backsliding, and are increasingly influenced by strategic competition.
The panel will engage in an in-depth regional conversation that explores German policy toward the region and how the U.S. and Germany and the EU can achieve better policy outcomes in the Western Balkans.
Speakers:
MdB Peter Beyer
Coordinator of Transatlantic Cooperation, German Federal Foreign Office; Western Balkans Rapporteur, German Parliament
James O’Brien
Vice Chair, Albright Stonebridge Group
Heather A. Conley
Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic & Director of the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program, CSIS
Paul Linnarz (opening remarks)
Director, Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung Office USA
- Tunisia’s Constitutional Crisis and Yearning for Democracy in Northwest Africa | Aug 5, 2021 | 10:00 AM EST | Arab Center Washington DC | Register Here
On July 25, 2021, Tunisian President Kais Saied fired the prime minister and suspended Parliament in what some have called a coup. The move followed nationwide protests demanding the premier’s resignation and the dissolution of the parliament as the coronavirus outbreak pushed the healthcare system to collapse and worsened economic conditions.
In light of these developments in Tunisia, site of the Arab Spring’s only democratic success story, Arab Center Washington DC is organizing a webinar to discuss the status of democratization in Northwest Africa, specifically focusing on Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, and Morocco. Panelists will discuss the implications of President Saied’s move and its constitutionality, the state of democratization in the region and the impact of events in Tunisia, the role and interventions by regional powers like Egypt and Gulf countries, and policy recommendation to support democratic processes and governance reform across Northwest Africa.
Speakers:
Yasmina Abouzzohour
Visiting Fellow, Brookings Doha Center
Khaoula Ben Gayesse
Tunisian Journalist
Dalia Ghanem Yazbeck
Resident Scholar, Carnegie Middle East Center
- Pakistan’s National Security Outlook: A Conversation with Pakistani National Security Advisor Moeed Yusuf | Aug 5, 2021 | 11:00 AM EST | The United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
Since the country’s founding, Pakistan’s national security priorities have been largely defined by the realities of its geopolitical neighborhood. Now, with escalating violence in Afghanistan, intensifying competition between the United States and China, limited hopes for rapprochement with India, and the COVID-19 pandemic, Pakistan’s neighborhood is evolving — and Pakistan’s national security approach will have to evolve with it.
This discussion with Pakistan’s National Security Advisor Moeed Yusuf will look at what these developments mean for Pakistan’s national security outlook towards its neighbors and its relationship with the United States, as well as how the pandemic impacts Pakistan’s security and economic policy.
Speakers:
Dr. Moeed Yusuf
National Security Advisor, Islamic Republic of Pakistan
Hon. Stephen J. Hadley (moderator)
Chair of the Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace
RSS - Posts
