Tag: United States
Peace Picks | October 19 – 23
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
1. New START and the Future of US-Russia Arms Control | October 19, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM EDT | Wilson Center | Register Here
The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) is the last strategic nuclear arms control agreement still in force between the United States and Russia. It will expire in less than 4 months unless extended, and negotiations to that end are now underway. On October 19, Lynn Rusten and Feodor Voitolovsky will join us for a conversation on the American and Russian perspectives on the future of New START and the changing technological and security landscape that will shape the next five years of arms control.
Speakers:
Lynn Rusten: Vice President, Global Nuclear Policy Program, Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)
Feodor Voitolovsky: Head of Section, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of World Economy and International Relations of Russian Academy of Sciences
Matthew Rojansky, moderator: Director, Kennan Institute
2. RESOLVE Network 2020 Global Forum: Violent Extremism in 2020 and Beyond | October 19, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:15 AM EDT | United States Institute for Peace | Register Here
The year 2020 has ushered in rapid and significant shifts in existing threats to global security. From the COVID-19 pandemic to climate change and longstanding violent conflict, the pressures facing our current global system are increasingly complex and all-encompassing. Among these, violent extremism remains a significant challenge—shifting as actors adapt and take advantage of ongoing and emerging global shocks and sources of instability.
How has the violent extremism landscape changed in the five years since the “fall” of ISIS? How has rising global instability, populism, and disinformation altered violent extremist operations and ideologies, and vice versa? What challenges do we face in addressing violent extremism in the new threat landscape? Can we apply any lessons from past experiences to address emerging threats and dynamics in 2020 and beyond?
Please join the RESOLVE Network and USIP for a discussion about these challenges and more during part one of RESOLVE’s fifth annual Global Forum series. Convened virtually, the forum will bring together leading experts and researchers for thought-provoking conversations on evolving trends and dynamics in the violent extremist landscape.
Speakers:
Dr. Mary Beth Altier: Clinical Associate Professor, Center for Global Affairs, New York University
Dr. Amarnath Amarasingam: Assistant Professor, School of Religion, Queen’s University, member of the RESOLVE Research Advisory Council
Dr. Colin P. Clarke: Senior Research Fellow, The Soufan Center, member of the RESOLVE Research Advisory Council
3. Amid Multiple Crises, a Divided Nation | October 19, 2020 | 1:00 – 2:30 PM EDT | Brookings Institute | Register Here
In the wake of over 210,000 deaths from the coronavirus, massive unemployment, protests over racial justice, the death of a U.S. Supreme Court justice, and unprecedented wildfires in multiple western states, questions remain about who will turn out to vote and what will drive them to the polls. Now, a new and extensive national survey of more than 2,500 Americans reveals a great deal about the public’s views of the presidential candidates and their attitudes toward pressing issues such as health care, the economy, racial justice, immigration, the changing demographics of the nation, climate change, and the fairness and reliability of the elections themselves.
On October 19, Governance Studies at Brookings and PRRI will host the release of PRRI’s eleventh annual American Values Survey (AVS). A panel of experts will discuss the survey results and what they reveal about Americans’ attitudes toward a variety of issues that are sure to shape the outcome of this presidential election. The survey also highlights the impact of media consumption on attitudes, long-term trends in partisan and religious affiliation, and how these changes have produced two starkly contrasting visions for the nation.
Speakers:
E.J. Dionne, Jr., moderator: W. Averell Harriman Chair and Senior Fellow – Governance Studies
William A. Galston, moderator: Ezra K. Zilkha Chair and Senior Fellow – Governance Studies
Karlyn Bowman: Senior Fellow – American Enterprise Institute
Andra Gillespie: Associate Professor of Political Science; Director, James Weldon Johnson Institute – Emory University
Robert P. Jones: CEO and Founder – PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute)
4. Cross-Strait Seminar Series: Taiwan and the future of US-China strategic competition | October 19, 2020 | 1:00 PM EDT | The Atlantic Council | Register Here
As US-China relations continue to deteriorate in the era of COVID-19, the role of Taiwan has received increasing attention from both Washington and Beijing. Chinese leader Xi Jinping has made reunification with Taiwan, peaceful or otherwise, a key objective of his extended tenure, and has overseen a ratcheting up of military exercises, influence operations, and other pressures across the Taiwan Strait in recent years. Meanwhile, the United States has taken a series of concrete steps to demonstrate renewed commitment to its relationship with Taiwan, including recently issuing a joint declaration on 5G security, launching a new bilateral economic dialogue, and sending Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex M. Azar II and Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Keith Krach – the two highest-profile visits from US officials to Taiwan since 1979.
These major developments raise a number of key questions about Taiwan’s role in the future of US-China strategic competition. What is the long-term vision and strategic goals of the US-Taiwan relations? Where does Taiwan fit into the US Indo-Pacific strategy? Likewise, how do US relations fit into the second Tsai administration’s vision for foreign and economic policy? How are recent developments in US-Taiwan relations shaping cross-strait geopolitics, and how the US and Taiwan can work with other US allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific approaching engagement with Taiwan in light of ongoing developments? What should be Taiwan’s role in a broader network of global democracies on key strategic issues such as 5G, global supply chains, maritime security, defense technology, and countering influence operations? Ultimately, what will the decade ahead hold for the Taiwan Strait as one of greatest geopolitical flashpoints in US-China relations?
Please join the Atlantic Council’s Asia Security Initiative, housed within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, for a public panel discussion on the changing role of Taiwan amid US-China strategic competition.
Speakers:
Mr. Michael Mazza: Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Mr. Dexter Tiff Roberts: Nonresident Senior Fellow, Asia Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Mr. Randall G. Schriver: Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Affairs; Chairman, Project 2049
Ms. Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, moderator: China Reporter, Axios
5. A Fragmented Society: the Internal Dynamics of Libya’s Conflict | October 19, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:30 AM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
While most discussions about the Libyan crisis revolve around geopolitics and international interference, internal divisions within Libya’s civil society and political institutions have also played a fundamental role in destabilizing the country since the fall of Moamar Gaddafi in 2012. Governance in Libya is fragmented with very few truly national actors. It also continues to lack political institutions that are seen by all Libyans as legitimate. The ongoing conflict consists of many contending local and tribal players, including spoilers who have demonstrated opposition to either peace or reconciliation except on the basis of total victory by their group.
What are the major obstacles to stabilization? How can Libya approach the establishment of political institutions? In what ways can the international community support a Libyan-led peace process? The Middle East Institute, the Regional Program Political Dialogue South Mediterranean of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, and the Policy Center for the New South are pleased to jointly host a group of experts to discuss these questions and more in a closed roundtable format.
Speakers:
Youness Abouyoub: Director, Governance and State-Building Division for the MENA Region, United Nations; former senior political advisor to the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General to Libya
Emadeddin Badi: Nonresident senior fellow, Atlantic Council
Virginie Collombier: Research fellow, European University Institute
Mohamed Dorda: Co-Founder, Libya Desk
Mohamed Eljarh: Co-Founder, Libya Outlook for Research and Consulting
Mary Fitzgerald: Independent researcher
Amanda Kadlec: Founder and director, Evolve Governance
Karim Mezran: Resident senior fellow, Atlantic Council
Tarik Mgerisi: Policy fellow, North Africa and Middle East Programme, European Council on Foreign Relations
Amal Obeidi: Associate professor of Comparative Politics, Department of Political Science; faculty of Economics, University of Benghazi, Libya
Jason Pack: Nonresident scholar, Middle East Institute; founder, Libya-Analysis LLC
Jonathan Winer: Nonresident scholar, Middle East Institute; former United States Special Envoy for Libya
Len Ishmael, moderator: Senior Fellow, Policy Center for the New South
6. Iran and North Korea: Proliferation and Regional Challenges for the Next Administration | October 20, 2020 | 3:00 – 4:00 PM EDT | Brookings Institute | Register Here
Among the numerous and varied foreign policy challenges facing the next administration will be the nuclear proliferation and regional security threats posed by Iran and North Korea. The next administration will need to consider how to build international and domestic support for addressing those threats, whether and when to engage those regimes diplomatically, and the balance between pressure and diplomacy in pursuing U.S. policy objectives.
On Tuesday, October 20, the Foreign Policy program at Brookings will host an online discussion with experts who previously served as Defense and State Department officials, nuclear negotiators, and intelligence community officers.
Speakers:
Suzanne Maloney, moderator: Vice President and Director – Foreign Policy
Jung H. Pak: SK-Korea Foundation Chair in Korea StudiesSenior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies
Robert Einhorn: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative
Matthew Kroenig: Professor – Georgetown UniversityDeputy Director of The Scowcroft Center – Atlantic Council
Eric Edelman: Roger Hertog Distinguished Practitioner-in-Residence – School of Advanced International Studies
7. Women Transforming Peace: Celebrating 20 Years of UNSCR 1325 and Beyond | October 20, 2020 | 9:30 – 11:00 AM EDT | United States Institute for Peace | Register Here
Twenty years ago, the U.N. Security Council sparked a global policy revolution when it recognized, for the first time, the unique experiences of women and girls in violent conflict. Resolution 1325, otherwise known as the Women, Peace, and Security agenda, laid a foundation for governments and civil society to place women at the center of peace processes—not only as victims, but as essential builders of peace. However, despite national action plans and legislation in 84 countries, women remain undervalued in peacebuilding and underrepresented in peace processes. Policymakers and practitioners must look beyond this policy framework first established two decades ago to achieve women’s meaningful participation in peace and security moving forward.
Join USIP and the U.S. Civil Society Working Group on Women, Peace and Security to mark the 20th anniversary of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1325. The discussion will look at how countries are expanding on the Women, Peace and Security agenda by adopting feminist foreign and development policies—and how civil society organizations have invested in masculinities programming as a complementary approach. These and other frameworks may prove more effective in advancing gender equality in peace and security, especially in light of the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic.
Ambassador Jacqueline O’Neill: Ambassador for Women, Peace and Security, Government of Canada
Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins: Founder and President, Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security and Conflict Transformation & Member of U.S. CSWG
Rita M. Lopidia: 2020 USIP Women Building Peace Award Recipient & Executive Director and Co-Founder, Eve Organization for Women Development, South Sudan and Uganda
Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, MBE: Founder and CEO, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) & U.S. CSWG Member
Anthony Keedi: Masculinities Technical Advisor, ABAAD: Resource Center for Gender Equality, Lebanon
Kathleen Kuehnast, moderator: Director, Gender Policy and Strategy, U.S. Institute of Peace
8. How Crimea’s Tatars are Fighting Occupation and Displacement | October 20, 2020 | 10:00 AM EDT | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Crimea’s indigenous Tatar population has faced persecution and adversity for generations. Today, as Crimea is held under Russian occupation, new hardships have forced Crimean Tatars to make their voices heard. When Kremlin forces illegally seized the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, Moscow began rapidly moving hundreds of thousands of Russians to the territory, instituted discriminatory laws that targeted the predominately Muslim Tatars, and displaced approximately one-sixth of the almost 300,000 Tatars in Ukraine.
One of the biggest challenges for Crimean Tatars now is the documentation of violence and rights violations against those living under Russian occupation—a police state, where affiliation with religious groups and the reporting of abuse leads to numerous Tatars being imprisoned by authorities. Crimean Tatars are fighting to be heard—is anyone listening? How can Kyiv and the international community step in to support this marginalized and targeted ethnic minority? How are Crimean Tatars standing against their occupiers?
Speakers:
Ayla Bakkalli: US representative, executive member, World Congress of Crimean Tatars. representative of the Crimean Tatars at the United Nations
Rustem Umerov: member of parliament in the Verkhovna Rada
Terrell Jermaine Starr (moderator): Eurasia Center fellow; senior reporter at The Root
9. Conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia: Scope and Implications | October 21, 2020 | 9:30 – 10:30 AM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has entered its fourth week. The scope of the war has not been limited to the boundaries of the combat zone, resulting in human loss and destruction of civil infrastructure. The region’s important network of energy infrastructure, including oil and gas pipelines, are not immune to this latest round of fighting. The military confrontation is taking place in proximity to the critical energy infrastructure that connects the Caspian basin with the European markets. Can the fighting cause disruption to oil and gas flows to the West? What could potential disruption mean for global markets? Can the Southern Gas Corridor be prevented from being launched by the end of this year as had been planned? What are the interests of regional stakeholders such as Turkey, Georgia, Russia, Iran and others that are either energy exporters, consumers or transit nations for Caspian hydrocarbons. And finally, what are the interests of the United States in this conflict and its impact on the energy markets?
Speakers:
Rauf Mammadov: Scholar, MEI
Mamuka Tsereteli: Nonresident scholar, Frontier Europe Initiative, MEI
Alex Vatanka: Senior fellow and director, Iran program, MEI
10. Tackling the Pandemic in Situations of Fragility, Conflict, and Violence | October 23, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM EDT | CSIS | Register Here
Fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV) pose critical development challenges. By 2030, up to two-thirds of the world’s extreme poor will live in fragile and conflict-affected countries, threatening efforts to end extreme poverty and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In recent years we have seen more violent conflicts globally than at any time in the past 30 years, and 79.5 million people have been forcibly displaced by conflict and violence worldwide. FCV therefore has a significant destabilizing impact, and takes a huge toll on human capital, creating vicious cycles that reduce people’s lifetime productivity, earnings and socioeconomic mobility. The Covid-19 crisis has exacerbated these challenges and caused significant health and economic harm to those living in FCV settings, threatening to further hinder stability and progress over the longer-term. This event will address how the international community can work together to (1) mitigate the impact of the pandemic on existing drivers of fragility and conflict through enhanced stabilization efforts, (2) support the most vulnerable, (3) better coordinate bilateral and multilateral responses to Covid-19 in fragile contexts, and (4) rebuild societies and economies post pandemic.
Speakers:
Stephanie Hammond: Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability and Humanitarian Affairs
Franck Bousquet: Senior Director of the World Bank’s Fragility, Conflict, & Violence Group
James (Jim) A. Schear: Adjunct Senior Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Escaping the shadow of the past
A Serbian friend writes:
The saying that “nothing grows in the shadow of a big tree” reflects the last 20 years of effort to normalize the relationship between Belgrade and Pristina. The “big tree of the past” provided a comfortable shadow for nationalism, negative stereotypes, corruption, and isolation. The wartime generation of political leaders did not look beyond their nationalistic mindsets and political agendas, which secured them leading positions in decision-making structures and the economy for decades. They controlled the money flow from dubious business people and kept the region outside global financial streams. Isolation was the way for them to hold on to power.
Kosovo was a convenient issue on which to demonstrate patriotism and solidify economic interests and political influence. For decades it was considered politically incorrect to offer an alternative approach. Resolution of Kosovo’s status was considered a sine qua non for stability and wellbeing of the region. The international community was hesitant to step beyond a conventional approach that mixed morality, selective interpretation of history, and conviction that Serbia was primarily responsible and would need to pay the price for generations to come. This approach did not yield tangible results.
How we should interpret Belgrade-Pristina economic agreement signed in the White House on September 4, 2020? Why did Ambassador Richard Grenell succeed where many failed before him? Has he ushered in a new peace?
Grenell’s approach: economy before status
Grenell came with an open mind, investing himself fully in the process while applying bulldozer style diplomacy once practiced by the architect of the Bosnia Dayton Peace Accords, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke. Coming from the President’s inner circle, Grenell could make things happen. His recent visit to Belgrade and Pristina (September 21- 22, 2020, two weeks after the White House event) made it clear that economic progress between Belgrade and Pristina is high on his agenda. He was accompanied by Adam Boehler, CEO of the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), US EXIM Bank officials, as well as representatives of various other US agencies. The DFC opened a regional office in Belgrade and signed a separate agreement with Pristina. The Americans committed to secure equity and insurance for infrastructural projects and financial incentives for small and medium-sized enterprises.
Both Belgrade and Pristina needed a powerful interlocutor like Grenell, who serves as an alibi before their domestic constituencies to start with something new. Both gained at home. The White House meeting injected President Vucic with legitimacy. It is something no other Serbian leader has achieved, a tête-à-tête with a US President. The same applies to Pristina Prime Minister Abdullah Hoti, who is walking on thin ice at home. Opposition to parts of the deal by his coalition partner nearly destroyed chances to reach agreement. After some friendly arm-twisting, Hoti walked out of the Oval Office strengthened politically.
The American bulldozer provided both leaders with an excuse to step aside from well-rehearsed nationalist rhetoric, at least for a moment. The immature political culture and zero-sum thinking of the 90s could certainly return.
By putting “economy before status,” Grenell’s achieved a lot:
- The US returned as an active and committed political, economic, and security factor in the region. Belgrade and Pristina are back on America’s radar.
- There is new hope in the region with the shift of diplomatic focus to the economy and well-being of ordinary citizens.
- The US military presence in the region, essential for stability, has been reaffirmed. It is now unlikely that the Trump Administration will pull US troops out of KFOR and close Camp Bondsteel, close to the Serb community of Urosevac.
- Washington will close the strategic gap and prevent further expansion of Chinese and Russian influence in Belgrade, Pristina, Tirana, and Skopje by investing in infrastructure and economic projects that counter the Chinese sponsored Belt and Road Initiative.
A new game
Economic progress cannot resolve the status issue, but it could relax the negotiating atmosphere. Until now, profound distrust and zero-sum logic has prevailed. The war generation of leaders were unable to step out of their comfortable habits to become peacemakers.
Rarely do hawks transform into doves. The hawks controlled local economies, generating significant personal wealth from illegal and half-legal businesses. In most cases, state institutions turned a blind eye or even openly supported wartime barons in exchange for material compensation. Professional patriots exploited economic activities aimed to increase personal wealth. They had zero incentive to change things.
Only outside intervention could break the decades-long connection between shady local money and nationalist political options. Substantial US investments can marginalize their influence and empower ordinary citizens, build knowledge-based capacity, introduce strict business standards, strengthen the entrepreneurial spirit, and support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). US money comes with conditions.
The peace process is a marathon with numerous obstacles on the way. Agreements are just benchmarks on the way. Implementation is crucially important. Furthermore, although basic elements have been publicized (the promise of overall $3.2 billion allocated to rail, roads, air projects as well as support for SMEs), the specific elements are still not clear. Both Belgrade and Pristina would have to be careful taking multi-billion loans since that would be a significant economic burden for generations to come. Additionally, it is yet to be seen if the US presidential election will influence implementation.
Not everybody is delighted with this US pivot to the Western Balkans. Maria Zaharova, spokesperson of the Russian Federation Ministry of Foreign Affairs, tweeted that the Trump-Vucic meeting looked like a scene from the film “Basic Instinct,” implying that Vucic looked like he was being interrogated. Later she and Foreign Minister Lavrov apologized, unconvincingly. Marko Djuric, an official of Vucic’s Serbian Progressive Party, reminded the Russians that Vucic waited for an hour and a half for a meeting with President Putin.
Despite Serbian high hopes, Belgrade is not high on Russia’s agenda. Lacking confidence in Serbian loyalty, Moscow is suspicious and resentful of this American initiative for economic normalization.
Europeanization vs. Americanization
Connecting the US initiative with ongoing EU efforts is important. Positive things happen when the US and the EU join efforts in the region. The EU has invested significant amounts of financial aid and political capital in the region since the 2003 EU – Western Balkans Summit, when the Union pledged to open a European perspective for the countries of the region. That was 17 years ago. In the meanwhile only Slovenia (2004) and Croatia (2013) have become member states, while the other countries have made only modest progress in the accession process. The EU is the largest investor in the region, but so far has not managed to capitalize on its role and secure normalization of relations between Belgrade and Pristina.
The EU sponsored Belgrade – Pristina dialogue has gone on for 9 years without yielding impressive results. There are many reasons for that, but one of them certainly is not a lack of effort and goodwill by the EU. On the contrary, the EU has invested a lot of its political credibility. One of the fundamental reasons for the modest success so far is the complex EU decision-making process. Henry Kissinger asked, “who do I call if I want to call Europe?” It is easier for Grenell to wield both carrot and stick than for EU High Representative Joseph Borrell, who cannot move quickly because he need multiple approvals. Grenell is not the most popular diplomat in Germany or the EU, but he has made significant progress.
From an outside perspective, it is obvious that the US and the EU need each other to secure long-term stabilization of the Western Balkans and other parts of the world. With loads of energy and strong influence in Belgrade and Pristina, Grenell could move things forward quickly. The EU could provide a slower but more systematic and institutional-based process that solidifies American efforts. The US needs to rediscover the advantages of multilateral diplomacy and put aside the do it alone approach. The EU should embrace Grenell’s initiative and try to build on it, since it furthers EU objectives in the region. Both partners should be ready to share glory and burdens to achieve sustainable results.
Where next?
Outside intervention can be an important element, but local players are the main agents of any profound change. Grenell’s involvement is positive and important, but he should not be seen as a messianic figure. He still has a lot to do. Neither Washington nor Brussels can resolve decades of problems with a magic wand.
Everything comes down to Belgrade’s and Pristina’s estimates of what is good for them. President Vucic decided to invest his political capital in President Trump’s process because it offered an alternative to well-known ready-made blueprints coming from Washington for decades. By contrast, the Kosovo side might want to wait for the results of the US Presidential elections before committing. Former Vice President Biden has strong feelings for Kosovo. If he wins, American policy may shift. Every option comes with risk. The important thing is to choose a strategic orientation wisely and keep moving forward in that direction. Every process takes time to solidify and produce tangible results.
The Economic Normalization Agreement is a step in good direction. If we keep moving, we can escape the shadow of the big tree.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trumpworld is preparing for violence
Quinta Jurecic at The Atlantic nails my malaise: President Trump creates a lot of daily brouhaha but there is little to be said about him other than the obvious. He is a four-flushing misogynist and white supremacist grifter. We already knew he hadn’t paid income taxes for many years, but the details grab headlines: $70k in deductions for his hairdresser and more than that for consulting by his daughter-in-law when she was already on the payroll as an employee.
Those details are trivial, however tantalizing. Jurecic urges us not to get caught up in them but rather to think and write about the world that made Trump possible. I see and hear little of that world. In my corner of DC, where I walk more than 7 miles per day, I haven’t seen a single Trump lawn sign in six months. So I was struck when this epistle crossed my desk yesterday:
If you are a liberal who can’t stand Trump, and cannot possibly fathom why conservatives would ever vote for him, let me finally fill you in. It’s not that we love Donald Trump so much. It’s that we can’t stand you! And we will do whatever it takes — even if that means electing a rude, obnoxious, unpredictable narcissist (your words, not ours) to the office of President of the United States — because the biggest threat to this nation is you.
How is that possible you might ask? Well, you have done everything in your power to destroy our country; from tearing down the police, tearing down our history, to tearing down our borders, and systematically destroying our schools while brainwashing our kids into believing socialism is the answer to anything (despite being an unmitigated failure everywhere). You have demonized religion and faith, while glorifying abortion, violence, and thug culture.
You call us racists because we expect everyone, of any skin color, to follow our laws equally. You tell us that our tolerance and acceptance of lifestyles we don’t agree with isn’t nearly enough. No, we must “celebrate” any lifestyle choice or scienceless gender option you throw our direction, or you think it’s fine to calls us homophobic or some other degrading slur you decide is okay to call us. Ironically all while lecturing us on hate speech. While you gaslight us about 52 genders, polyamory, grown men in dresses sharing public locker rooms with little girls, and normalize the sexualization of young children, you simultaneously ridicule us for having the audacity to wish someone a “Merry Christmas” or hang a flag on the 4th of July, stand for the national anthem, or (horror of horrors) don a MAGA hat in public. So much for your “tolerance.” (See why we think you are just hypocrites??)
We are not interested in the fact that you want to abolish free speech, unless we only agree with you. You can’t get the violence in the cities you manage under control, and yet you think you can unilaterally decide that 250 years of the right-to-bear-arms against a tyrannical or ineffective government should be abolished .
The screed goes on in that vein, making claims of victimhood and devotion to America values that can best be described as invented, if not entirely hallucinatory. I’m a political liberal and a Jew, the epitome of the people accused here, but I say Merry Christmas to those I think are Christian and hang an American flag on my house from Memorial Day to July 4.
Why does the right-wing invent this nonsense? Because that is how you justify denunciation of others: it’s really all self-defense. They feel accused, and they know that at least some of the accusations are on the mark, so they try to project back on the accusers all the criticisms, and then some.
Trump is a master of this stratagem. My correspondent cited above is a pale imitator. There is no effort at all in this language to appeal to someone on the other side of the political equation, or even the uncommitted. It is in the first instance intended to rouse the already faithful and get them to the polls. The longer term objective is to justify violence, as that line about bearing arms against the government suggests. There is no reference at all to the constitutionally required “well-ordered militia.” This is a threat of violence against the coming Biden administration and its supporters.
So when I do as Quinta suggests, I find at least part of the world that made Trump possible is one that is armed and regards itself as ready and willing to do violence against “ineffective” government if Trump is not re-elected. It pays no attention whatsoever to the long decline in violent crime in most American cities and pretends it knows far better how to govern them than the people elected to do so. Some of those arms will be used to try to intimidate voters who show up at the polls, which has already happened with early voting in Virginia. Does anyone doubt that they will also be used in the wake of an election defeat for Donald Trump? Trumpworld is preparing for violence.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 18
The respected annual poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs finds sharp partisan divisions among Americans, even though they support engagement abroad. WaPo has a good report.
For Democrats, the five leading threats to US vital interests are, in order, the coronavirus pandemic, climate change, racial inequality in the United States, foreign interference in U.S. elections and economic inequality in this country.
For Republicans, the top five threats to vital US interests are the development of China as a world power, international terrorism, large numbers of immigrants and refugees coming into the country, domestic violent extremism and Iran’s nuclear program. Here’s the survey.
NYT says China is losing friends in Europe.
Senate Democrats have a $350 billion package to counter China.
Politico says China issue won’t determine US elections. Former DHS aide to VP Pence on coronavirus quits, blasts Trump
StratCom head sees no need for nuclear test. [Note: this is an issue in net week’s exercise]
NATO report says Taliban is flush with cash.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | September 14 – September 18, 2020
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
1. Tenth Annual South China Sea Conference, Session Three | September 14, 2020 | 9:00 – 10:00 AM EDT | CSIS | Register Here
The CSIS Southeast Asia Program and Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative are pleased to present the Tenth Annual South China Sea Conference: Session Three on Monday, September 14, 2020. This monthly webinar series will provide opportunities for in-depth discussion and analysis of developments in the South China Sea over the past year and potential paths forward. This session will feature a panel discussion on dispute management in the South China Sea, including coordination mechanisms for law enforcement, fisheries, and other natural resources.
Speakers:
Amanda Hsiao: Project Manager, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue
Ivy Kwek: Research Director, Research for Social Advancement (REFSA), Kuala Lumpur
Greta Nabbs-Keller: Research Fellow, Centre for Policy Futures, University of Queensland
2. Global Democracy and the Coronavirus Fallout | September 14, 2020 | 2:30 – 4:00 PM CEST | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: Europe | Register Here
As the coronavirus pandemic tests governments and societies around the world, it is also stressing the already fragile state of global democracy by undermining critical democratic processes, sidelining human rights, and unfettering authoritarianism.
How can Europe’s response to the crisis address the immediate issues and bolster democracy, protect human rights, and foster longer-term peace and stability around the world?
On the eve of International Democracy Day, join Per Olsson Fridh, Anu Juvonen, and Stefano Sannino for a discussion to explore the state of global democracy, European foreign policy, and democracy support amid the pandemic. Rosa Balfour will moderate.
Speakers:
Per Olsson Fridh: State Secretary to the Minister for International Development Cooperation, Sweden.
Anu Juvonen: Executive Director of Demo Finland, Political Parties of Finland for Democracy.
Stefano Sannino: Deputy Secretary General for economic and global issues of the European External Action Service.
Rosa Balfour: Director of Carnegie Europe.
3. Venezuela on the Brink of Famine: The Impact of Covid-19 | September 15, 2020 | 10:00 – 10:45 AM EDT | CSIS | Register Here
Hospitals in Venezuela are reporting deadly surges in Covid-19, a pandemic the country is utterly unprepared to treat. The Maduro regime has limited testing to a few government-controlled labs, casting doubt on official government tallies. And, while aid and technical assistance have trickled in—facilitated by a humanitarian agreement signed by the opposition and the regime in early June—much more is needed. Gasoline remains scarce despite highly publicized gasoline shipments from Iran, paralyzing food distribution systems. 35% of adults are eating only once per day. Facing economic uncertainty, tens of thousands of vulnerable migrants have chosen to return, and the regime has accused them of being ‘biological weapons’. Now the poorest country in Latin America, Venezuela is on the verge of famine with a third of its population in urgent need of humanitarian assistance.
This virtual event will shed light on the gravity of the situation on the ground and how the Covid-19 pandemic has further deepened the humanitarian crisis. We will hear from representatives of civil society organizations that are monitoring and responding to the humanitarian crisis, including Cáritas Venezuela and Acción Solidaria.
Speakers:
Susana Raffalli: Senior Humanitarian Adviser, Cáritas Venezuela
Feliciano Reyna: President, Acción Solidaria.
4. Inaugural Women Building Peace Award Celebration | September 15, 2020 | 12:00 – 1:00 PM EDT | United States Institute for Peace | Register Here
Every day, women around the world are leading movements to create enduring, peaceful societies. Yet all too often, women’s roles in ending and preventing conflict go unnoticed. The U.S. Institute of Peace is committed to changing that. With the inaugural Women Building Peace Award, USIP will honor the inspiring work of women peacebuilders whose courage, leadership, and commitment to peace stand out as beacons of strength and hope.
From Africa and the Middle East to Southeast Asia and South America, USIP’s 10 Women Building Peace Award finalists have overcome conflict and violence to forge hope for a brighter future. Individually, they have transformed themselves, their communities, and their countries through their relentless and creative approaches to building peace. Together, their stories reveal the resilience of the human spirit in the face of overwhelming odds and the power of women to mold lasting peace from seemingly endless conflict.
Join USIP for the inaugural Women Building Peace Award ceremony and hear from these inspiring women, whose collective work stretches across continents and spans generations, as they share how they made their communities and the world a better, more peaceful place.
The ceremony will also feature peace strategist and consultant to the United Nations Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, Nobel Peace Prize winner Leymah Gbowee, Academy Award winning actor Geena Davis, former USIP President and CEO Nancy Lindborg, and other prominent women in media and peacebuilding who are working across the United States and globally to create an environment that enables girls, women, and all people to realize their potential as peacebuilders, leaders, and agents of change.
The event will conclude with the announcement of the sole 2020 Women Building Peace Award recipient. The awardee, whose substantial and practical contributions to peace serve as an inspiration and guiding light for future women peacebuilders, will receive a $10,000 prize.
Speakers:
Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, MBE: Founder & CEO, International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN); Director, Centre for Women, Peace and Security, London School of Economics and Political Science
Megan C. Beyer: Co-chair, Women Building Peace Council
Marcia Myers Carlucci: Co-chair, Women Building Peace Council
Ambassador Johnnie Carson: Senior Advisor, U.S. Institute of Peace
Ambassador Kelley E. Currie: Ambassador at Large for Global Women’s Issues, U.S. Department of State
Geena Davis: Founder, Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
Leymah Gbowee: 2011 Nobel Peace Laureate; Founder/President, Gbowee Peace Foundation Africa (GPFA)
Michelle J. Howard: Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Nancy Lindborg; Former President and CEO, U.S. Institute of Peace; Honorary Women Building Peace Council Chair
5. Defense Policy and the 2020 Election | September 15, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:00 PM EDT | Brookings Institution | Register Here
The 2020 election takes place at an extraordinarily polarized moment in American history. Having claimed over 180,000 lives and destroyed millions of jobs, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to dominate headlines and will be at the forefront of voters’ minds when they cast their ballots in November. Yet, America also faces a wide array of national security threats beyond the pandemic, threats that require attention, planning, and investment from national leadership. While the National Defense Strategy places a rising China and a revanchist Russia at the heart of defense planning, other threats such as extremist actors, climate change, and transnational criminal organizations challenge the U.S. as well. Moreover, as the nation embraces historically high deficits to tackle the pandemic, Congress and the administration will need to make difficult trade-offs to pay for it all, promising a contentious debate in the coming year about the future of the defense budget.
On September 15, the Foreign Policy program at Brookings, as part of the Policy 2020 event series, will discuss these and other issues as the nation prepares for the upcoming 2020 presidential election.
The Policy 2020 event series aims to empower voters with fact-based, data-driven, non-partisan information so they can better understand the policy matters discussed by candidates running for office in 2020.
Speakers:
Michael E. O’Hanlon: Director of Research – Foreign PolicyCo-Director, Security and StrategySenior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and IntelligenceThe Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
Frank A. Rose: Co-Director, Security and StrategySenior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence
Maya MacGuineas: President – Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Jessica Mathews: Distinguished Fellow – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
6. Is a Plan B Needed to Save Afghanistan? | September 16, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The future of Afghanistan’s constitutionally liberal democratic system is very much at issue. On its survival rests the aspiration of the greatest number of its people, the deep investment of the international community in the country’s stability and wellbeing, and ultimately the security of the region and beyond. Negotiations are beginning in what is certain to be a lengthy process that may in the name of a compromise trade away social and economic gains realized over nearly two decades. Afghanistan has additionally to cope with the disengagement of foreign forces just at a time when their leverage militarily and diplomatically could be critical. In the absence of a verifiable ceasefire, the country confronts a prospect of exploding violence and possible descent into chaos.
Can Afghanistan pull itself together to not only protect its achievements but to overcome past errors? Should Afghans and their international partners think about formulating a Plan B to save the republic while striving for true reconciliation with the insurgency? The Middle East Institute is pleased to host a panel of experts to discuss these questions and more.
Speakers:
Anthony Cordesman: Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Ali Jalali: Distinguished professor, Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies, National Defense University
Saad Mohseni: Chairman and CEO, MOBY Group
David Sedney: President, American University of Afghanistan
Muqaddesa Yourish: Former Afghan deputy minister of commerce; member, MOBY Group Media; political activist
Marvin Weinbaum, moderator: Director, Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies, Middle East Institute
7. American Leadership in Advancing the Sustainable Development Goals | September 16, 2020 | 1:00 – 2:30 PM EDT | Brookings Institution | Register Here
The devastating health and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have exposed and exacerbated stark inequalities and vulnerabilities in the United States. At the same time, protests sparked by the tragic killing of George Floyd have put the spotlight on America’s long history of racial injustice. The commitment to equity, justice, and environmental preservation reflected in the sustainable development goals (SDGs) is more critical today than ever, a foundation to respond to these crises and to build a future that leaves no one behind. Building off a successful first gathering last year on the margins of the UN General Assembly, this event will showcase local innovation, leadership, actions, and commitments from all parts of the American society, including cities, businesses, universities, philanthropy, and youth activists. Their leadership is crucial to a recovery that advances equity and sustainability here at home, and provides a fundamental basis for U.S. credibility and leadership abroad on the defining issues of our day.
On Wednesday, September 16, from 1:00 – 2:30 p.m. EDT, the Brookings Institution and the UN Foundation will co-host a high-level virtual event to showcase the power of the SDGs in the United States.
Speakers and Itinerary:
WELCOME
John R. Allen: President, The Brookings Institution
SPOTLIGHT 1
Fatimata Cham: Youth Poet and Activist
CONTEXT
Anthony F. Pipa: Senior Fellow – Global Economy and Development
KEYNOTE
Hon. Eric Garcetti: Mayor – Los Angeles
PANAL: ENGINES OF ACTION FOR THE SDGS
Penny Abeywardena: Commissioner for International Affairs – Mayor’s Office, City of New York
Majestic Lane: Chief Equity Officer – City of Pittsburgh
Rose Stuckey Kirk: Chief Corporate Social Responsibility Officer – VerizonPresident – Verizon Foundation
Dr. Yvette E. Pearson: Associate Dean for Accreditation, Assessment, and Strategic Initiatives; George R. Brown School of Engineering – Rice University
Kathleen McLaughlin: President – Walmart FoundationExecutive Vice President and Chief Sustainability Officer – Walmart, Inc.
SPOTLIGHT 2: LAUNCH OF CMU’S VOLUNTARY UNIVERSITY REVIEW
James H. Garrett Jr.: Provost and Chief Academic Officer – Carnegie Mellon University
LAUNCH OF HAWAII’S STATEWIDE REVIEW OF THE SDG’S & LOOKING FORWARD
Amb. Elizabeth Cousens: President and CEO – UN Foundation
Sen. Brian Schatz: Senator – Hawaii
Gov. David Y. Ige: Governor – Hawaii
SPOTLIGHT 3
Dustin Liu: UNA-USA Youth Observer to the UN
WRAP UP
Kaysie Brown: Vice President for Policy and Strategic Initiatives – UN Foundation
8. Toward Never Again: U.S. Leadership in Atrocity Prevention | September 16, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:30 AM EDT | United States Institute for Peace | Register Here
The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018 calls upon the United States to pursue a government-wide strategy to identify, prevent, and respond to atrocity risk. Critically, the Act underscores the importance of a White House-led interagency working group charged with monitoring atrocity risk and responding to high-risk or imminent atrocity situations. The Atrocity Early Warning Task Force has refined the U.S. approach to atrocity prevention through enhanced early warning and improved interagency coordination to mitigate atrocity risks.
Join USIP and the State Department’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations for a discussion on institutionalizing “never again,” as well as interagency efforts to prevent, mitigate, and respond to atrocity risks.
Speakers:
Philippe Leroux-Martin: Director of Governance, Justice & Security, U.S. Institute of Peace
Denise Natali: Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, U.S. Department of State
Naomi Kikoler: Director, Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
Robert Destro: Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State
Stephanie Hammond: Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Peacekeeping and Stabilization Operations, U.S. Department of Defense
Kirsten Madison: Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Peter Marocco: Assistant to the Administrator, Bureau of Conflict Prevention and Stabilization, U.S. Agency for International Development
Morse Tan: Ambassador-at-Large, Global Criminal Justice, U.S. Department of State
9. India’s Foreign Policy Outlook: An Inflection Point? | September 17, 2020 | 10:30 – 11:30 AM EDT | United States Institute for Peace | Register Here
How is India responding to rapid changes in the international environment? New Delhi has been managing an unprecedented border crisis with China, warily watching a peace process with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and navigating complex relationships with its neighbors—all amid the global COVID-19 pandemic. How does India define its foreign policy outlook and priorities in a changing global and regional order? Where do continued strong bilateral ties with the United States fit in?
Join USIP as we host one of India’s foremost diplomats and scholars, former Foreign Secretary and former Ambassador to both China and the United States Nirupama Rao, for a candid conversation that explores how Indian leaders are managing challenges in the Indo-Pacific and what we may expect from Indian foreign policy going forward. Ambassador Rao will reflect on her experience and the increasingly relevant lessons from her forthcoming book on India-China relations after World War II.
Speakers:
Andrew Wilder: Vice President, Asia Center, U.S. Institute of Peace
Ambassador Nirupama Rao: Former Foreign Secretary of India; Former Indian Ambassador to China and the United States
Vikram Singh: Senior Advisor, Asia Center, U.S. Institute of Peace
10. Belarus and Democracy in Europe | September 18, 2020 | 9:30 AM EDT | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Authoritarianism is on the rise across the world, and it is posing a serious challenge to democracy and the post-World War II international system. In Central and Eastern Europe, Freedom House states that there are fewer democracies today than at “any point” since 1995. The remarkable events in Belarus over the past month, however, stand as a strong counterpoint to that trend. The democratic impulse remains powerful, and the refusal of Belarusians to accept another fraudulent presidential election has initiated a standoff whose outcome is uncertain. President Alyaksandr Lukashenka, who ruled Belarus for 26 years without a serious challenge to his power, now faces one of the strongest pro-democracy movements in Europe in recent years.
Speakers:
Linas Linkevičius: Lithuanian Foreign Minister
Melinda Haring: deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center
Vladimir Kara-Murza: chairman of the Boris Nemtsov Foundation for Freedom and vice president of the Free Russia Foundation
Hanna Liubakova: journalist at Outriders and fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center
Damon Wilson: executive vice president at the Atlantic Council
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
If you want historic, you’ll be disappointed
Here’s an interview I did last week for Shpat Blakcori of Radio Television Dukagjini:
Q: Prime minister of Kosovo, Avdullah Hoti, has said that within a year we except state recognition from Serbia, how do you comment on this issue?
A: The Prime Minister knows better than I do what will happen, but I see little sign that President Vucic is getting ready to recognize Kosovo. A year from now Vucic will be entering a pre-electoral period, which will make it more difficult. But I certainly hope what the Prime Minister says is true.
Q: Did Kosovo make the right decision, to recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel?
A: I think it is a mistake to pre-judge the outcome of the final status negotiations between Israel and Palestine, even if I am also convinced West Jerusalem and most of the Old City will remain in Israel as its capital.
Q: How you do see the relations between USA and EU, regarding the dialogue, it seems that they are not finding a common ground.
A: The State Department claims they are cooperating well. I’m not seeing it. I’m seeing an American Administration that is doing all it can to help President Trump get re-elected, regardless of the implications for Kosovo, Serbia, and the European Union. The “economic normalization” deal is far from normalizing economic relations, which in any event is a subject more suitable for Europe than the US. Washington has more clout when it comes to political issues, as the recognition of Kosovo by Israel suggests.
I also did this for Fitim Gashi of KOHA:
Q: How do you evaluate the Agreement in Washington, where Kosovo and Serbia pledged before the United States for Economic Normalization, between two countries.
A: The document doesn’t even really begin to normalize economic relations between Kosovo and Serbia. What it does is to call for implementation of some existing transportation agreements and aligns Pristina and Belgrade with US policy on airport screening, Hizbollah, Jerusalem and a few other things.
Q: Is there any point of this agreement that can bring benefits for parties and lead to full normalization?
A: I doubt it. I would look to the EU-sponsored talks for more serious results. The Washington meeting was a campaign gimmick that failed.
Q: In the initial drafts of the agreement there was a point that speaks of the commitment of the parties towards mutual recognition, but after the refusal of Serbia it wast lifted. Could this issue have been pushed forward, since the deal was mediated in the White House?
A: It could have been pressed. It wasn’t. That is one of many signs that this was not a serious effort.
Q: An agreement of this kind, how much can it guarantee peace and the normalization of relations between Kosovo and Serbia?
A: It is a very small step forward, but the harm it did was in the Middle East, not the Balkans. The pledge to move two embassies to Jerusalem hurts the prospects for a peace settlement there.
Q: If we go back to the past, which agreements you consider can be called “Historic” in the context between Kosovo and Serbia?
A: I really haven’t seen any historic agreements between Serbia and Kosovo yet. But the habit of talking to each other is a good one. I am an admirer of the technical agreements and wish they were fully implemented. I also think the 2013 Brussels political agreement is a good one, so long as the Association of Serb Municipalities is established in accordance with the decision of Kosovo’s Constitutional Court.
Q: What elements should the next agreement with Serbia contain, to be so called “Historic?” Recognition and exchange of ambassadorial representatives, as well as membership in international organizations and the United Nations. That would be historic.
RSS - Posts
