Tag: United States
Peace Picks | August 17 – August 21, 2020
Notice: Due to recent public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
- A Conversation With Former US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton | August 17, 2020 | 12:00 – 12:45 PM EST | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Please join the Atlantic Council on Monday, August 17, 2020, from 12 p.m. to 12:45 p.m. EDT for a conversation featuring former US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Secretary Clinton’s experience from the Department of State, Senate, and the campaign trail makes her ideally suited to ponder the top foreign policy priorities in the next four years for the next presidential administration. The discussion will focus on America’s role in the world in the new decade and the future of US leadership, at an inflection point in history.
This special edition of the #ACFrontPage event series, launches the Atlantic Council’s Elections 2020: America’s Role in the World, a series of conversations on the top foreign policy priorities for the next four years, featuring the most prominent voices shaping the national dialogue. From the Conventions to the Elections, the series will explore key questions concerning America’s role and interests in the world, bringing a foreign policy perspective to the conversation and addressing the most critical issues at the intersection between the domestic and international spheres.
Speakers:
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton: Former Secretary of State, United States of America
Fredrick Kempe: President & CEO, Atlantic Council - Afghanistan’s Future: Regional Perspectives on the Road Ahead | August 18, 2020 | 8:30 – 10:00 AM EST | Stimson Center | Register Here
Future outcomes in Afghanistan will be shaped for years to come by two key milestones: the withdrawal of U.S. troops and negotiations between the Afghan government and Taliban representatives. In this virtual panel discussion, contributors to a recent series on the future of Afghanistan in South Asian Voices, Stimson’s online magazine, will come together to share perspectives from across the region and explore how Afghanistan, the United States, Pakistan, India, and Iran might respond to a range of future scenarios.
Speakers:
Bismellah Alizada: Co-Founder, Rahila Foundation; Deputy Director, Organization for Policy Research & Development Studies (DROPS)
Fizza Batool: Doctoral Candidate, International Relations, University of Karachi
Neha Dwivedi: Research Analyst, Janes
Jumakhan Rahyab: Fulbright Graduate Fellow, University of Massachusetts
Saurav Sarkar: Research Associate, Center for Air Power Studies (New Delhi); South Asian Voices Visiting Fellow, Stimson Center
Elizabeth Threlkeld: Senior Fellow & Deputy Director of the South Asia Program, Stimson Center - Has Belarus Reached a Point of No Return? | August 18, 2020 | 11:00 – 11:45 AM EST | Center for Strategic & International Studies | Register Here
Following a stolen election which allowed 26-year strongman ruler Alexander Lukashenko to claim a landslide victory, tens of thousands of Belarusians have taken to the streets across more than 30 towns and cities to demand his resignation and new elections. Met with shocking brutality, armed police and interior ministry troops have been deployed by the thousands, indiscriminately attacking protestors and journalists with live and rubber bullets as well as flash grenades. Despite the violence, massive protests have continued into the week even as authorities disabled internet connections in the evenings and, as of August 12, detained more than 6,000 protestors.
The situation remains dynamic. Opposition challenger Svetlana Tikhanovskaya has fled to neighboring Lithuania under duress after conceding defeat in what appeared to be a forced televised address. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin, one of the first leaders to congratulate Lukashenko for his victory, hinted in his message that Moscow’s support for the embattled president may be contingent on Belarus’ further integration with Russia. The United States and European Union have condemned the crackdown, and EU foreign ministers are set to meet on August 14 to discuss targeted sanctions.
Has Belarus passed the point of no return where Lukashenko’s leadership is no longer tenable? Can the opposition movement inside the country continue without a leader? How might Russia respond in the event of an escalation in protests and Lukashenko’s departure? What are the implications for European security? How should the United States and European Union respond to these developments?
Speakers:
Valery Tsepkalo: Former Ambassador to the United States, Belarus; Candidate for President (2020), Belarus
Vladislav Inozemtsev: Non-Resident Senior Associate, CSIS
Heather A. Conley: Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, & the Arctic, CSIS - The Status of the Fight Against ISIS | August 18, 2020 | 12:00 PM EST | Atlantic Council | Register Here
ISIS has lost its territory in Syria and is no longer able to conduct large-scale internal or external attacks. Nonetheless, the organization has been able to regroup, continues to generate funds through its illicit activities, and has resumed low-level operations.
The United States and its partners must solidify gains against ISIS, particularly as the possibility looms of a further drawdown of US troops in Syria. Active combat against the group is winding down. It is now necessary to prevent a future ISIS resurgence by finding ways to keep up the pressure while also tackling the root causes of the wider unrest. What challenges remain for US and European policymakers in order to eliminate an ISIS revival? What support is still needed for local partners and communities to ensure they are not at risk from ISIS again?
Speakers:
Jomana Qaddour (Moderator): Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, Atlantic Council
Jasmine El-Gamal: Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, Atlantic Council
Christopher Maier: Director, Defeat ISIS Task Force, Office of the Secretary of Defense, US Department of Defense
Robert Rhode: Ambassador for Negotiations on Syria & Head of Division for Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, & Anti-ISIS Strategy, German Federal Foreign Office - How the United States Can Use Force Short of War | August 19, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM EST | Brookings Institution | Register Here
In their new book “Military Coercion and US Foreign Policy,” co-authors and Stimson Center experts Barry Blechman, James Siebens, and Melanie Sisson argue that during the Cold War, U.S. efforts to coerce other states using non-violent methods short of war failed as often as they succeeded. But unlike the Soviet Union, whose economy was stagnant and technology behind the West, in the coming years, the United States must contend with far more capable competitor powers. The book generates insight into how the U.S. military can be used to achieve policy goals. Specifically, it provides guidance about the ways in which, and the conditions under which, U.S. armed forces can work in concert with economic and diplomatic elements of U.S. power to create effective coercive strategies.
Speakers:
Michael E. O’Hanlon (Moderator): Director of Research, Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution
Barry Blechman: Distinguished Fellow, Stimson Center
Melanie Sisson: Non-Resident Fellow, Stimson Center - The Kashmir Conflict: A Year of Tumult | August 20, 2020 | 9:00 – 10:00 AM EST | Stimson Center | Register Here
Join USIP and the Stimson Center for a conversation, featuring Stimson South Asia Program Director Sameer Lalwani, focused on the tensions between India and Pakistan and prospects for resolving the bilateral dispute, as well as the domestic Kashmiri resistance and both the violent and non-violent movements within Kashmir that may challenge Indian attempts to reshape Kashmir’s status.
Speakers:
Happymon Jacob: Associate Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Sameer Lalwani: Director, South Asia Program, Stimson Center
Tamanna Salikuddin: Director, South Asia Program, U.S. Institute of Peace - Protest Movements & Refugee Inclusion in Civil Society | August 21, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM EST | Middle East Institute | Register Here
Protests in Iraq and Lebanon have drawn global attention as protestors advocate for political and economic reform and an end to corruption, especially in the wake of the Beirut blast and Lebanon’s disaster response. These countries also face economic crisis and socio-political challenges relating to the millions of refugees and IDPs within their borders and the lack of sustainable policies to address displaced people’s needs. In Lebanon and Iraq, refugees and IDPs face discrimination and lack of access to educational and public health resources in addition to the widespread economic pain and disenfranchisement that these countries protest movements aim to confront.
How have refugees in these countries been active in or left out of these movements? How can access gaps and discrimination be overcome to integrate refugee rights into these protest movements? How do protest movements reflect a desire to integrate refugees and IDPs into the social fabric of these countries?
Speakers:
Joyce Karam (Moderator): Washington Correspondent, The National
Sawsan Abdulrahmin: Associate Professor of Public Health, American University of Beirut
Noof Assi: Women’s Protection & Empowerment Coordinator, Emergency Response Team, International Rescue Committee; Co-Founder, IQ Peace
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Serbia’s turn East
The indicators are multiple:
- A financial crackdown on civil society and media organizations, not including the nationalist ones
- Control over conventional print and electronic media as well as abusive use of social media
- Purchase of major military equipment from Moscow and China
- Signature of a free trade agreement with Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union and refusal to align with EU Ukraine-related sanctions on Moscow
- Courting of Chinese investment and inordinate praise for Beijing’s help in response to coronavirus
- Refusal to prosecute known war criminals
- Failure to make substantial progress on independence of the judiciary
- Growing capture of the state for purposes of grand corruption
Aleksandar Vucic, one-time Information Minister to Slobodan Milosevic and now in his second term as President of Serbia, was always an unlikely vehicle of democratization and Europeanization. But some of us (that means me too) thought it possible he would do the right thing, if only because nothing else really makes sense and his credibility with Serbia’s nationalists was high. Serbia’s road to prosperity and security, we thought, lies in Brussels, not Moscow. Nixon to China and all that.
We had it wrong. Prosperity and security are not Vucic’s real concerns. His own hold on power is. Vucic has been centralizing power, aided by an inept and divided political opposition. Like his Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic, he is far more comfortable with the Russian and Chinese autocracies than with Washington and Brussels. He has undermined independent media and slow-rolled judicial reform. Separation of powers is a joke–Vucic holds all of them. He allies himself with the Belgrade Church and its right-wing supporters. He has become palsy with Milorad Dodik, despite his understandable distaste for Dodik’s ambition to secede from Bosnia and Herzegovina, since that would put Serbia in a dicey situation.
Vucic is no longer “sitting on two stools.” It is amusing to see that some people imagine that they can still convince him to opt for the West. He has chosen the East, but we are not in the midst of the Cold War. The Balkans is no longer a major arena for great power competition. It barely rates as a minor one. Tito’s nonaligned fence-sitting served Western purposes. There is no fence now. The EU and the US shouldn’t care if Vucic goes East, and we shouldn’t try to buy him off. We need to be patient for the day when there is a Serbian leader who truly believes in liberal democracy and is prepared to sacrifice to take his country in that direction.
What does this mean for Kosovo? It means patience. Prime Minister Hoti is in no position to make territorial or other major concessions, as he faces real opposition in parliament. At least some Serbs are drifting in the right direction. Vucic, given his strong political position inside Serbia, could recognize Kosovo now with little impact on his re-election prospects in 2022. But if he doesn’t I can hope someone will emerge to challenge him precisely on this point: do you want a friendly southern neighbor, or a hostile one? Do you want Serbs to be safe in Kosovo or in danger? Do you want to qualify for EU membership faster or slower?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Nuclear irresponsibility
Former IAEA nuclear inspector Pantelis Ikonomou writes, on a date between the 75th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and the bombing of Nagasaki (in an excerpt from his Global Nuclear Developments, which Springer published in May 2020):
Nuclear powers regard their weapons as the most effective lever to achieve strategic goals and the status of a world power or a regional leader. The geopolitical backdrop from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombing simply could not be ignored. There are already a number of “nuclear suitors” or would-be proliferators who are ready to play the same card in the on-going geopolitical game. This fact cannot and should not be ignored….
In 50 years of implementation the NPT has had significant successes to show as far as consolidating the non-proliferation regime is concerned. But when it comes to the goal of nuclear disarmament, it has so far been a great failure. The five superpowers, the NPT Nuclear Weapons States, keep evading, in essence ignoring their relevant obligation to nuclear disarmament under Article VI of the NPT. Their behavior creates global frustration, awkwardness and anger, and consequently great distrust of the vast majority of “nuclear have nots” to the few “nuclear haves.” This reality could be a powerful catalyst for negative developments leading to the collapse of the NPT regime.….
Having served for over 32 years the world’s nuclear watchdog IAEA, consciously espousing its declared goals, I would like to address a few rhetorical questions to the two major nuclear powers: the US and Russia, depositaries and steady supporters of the NPT regime and the IAEA:
• Why do they revive, in full consciousness, a nuclear race 30 years after the end of the Cold War?
• Are they not aware of their actions being contrary to their undertaking under Article VI of the NPT? That is “…to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”.
• Do they not realize that they severely endanger the non-proliferation regime?
• Do they not see the imminent risk of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation by aspiring suitors, “would-be proliferators,” in the Middle East and in north-east Asia?
• Isn’t North Korea enough?
• Why do they risk their displacement from, or initially the decreased relevance of, their global geostrategic primacy?
• Is it possible that they underestimate the growing nuclear threat to mankind?
• Is the behavior of the two UNSC superpowers responsible as patrons of world peace and security? Why do they disrespect the international community’s expectations and disregard its exasperation, anger, and fear?
The risks of the nuclear threat span around the globe and affect every country’s sovereignty and security. The universal nature of the existing nuclear threat is indisputable. It is within the powers and abilities of the leaders of Russia and the US to fulfill their utmost obligation towards their citizens and the peoples of our really small, yet so beautiful and still very young planet Earth. This is to initiate and achieve a political climate of understanding and moderation,a global nuclear “calm down” atmosphere. …
What are these leaders waiting for? What are their intentions? Nuclear crises are becoming more complex and unpredictable, more dynamic and erratic in nature. The tipping point for uncontrollable and irreversible derailment may be nearer than we think. The probability of nuclear weapons be used at any time, intentionally or by accident, is on the rise again, after decades of receding following the end of the Cold War era.
Have we not yet learned the lesson from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Serbian civil society under attack
Civil society and media organizations in Serbia are facing a government crackdown by means of financial investigations designed for preventing terrorism. Two hundred and thirty (230!) of them have issued the following protest against this government effort to squelch the remnants of Serbia’s post-Milosevic democracy. The US Embassy has protested, politely but firmly. Some EU parliamentarians have also spoken up. Much louder and more persistent protests will be required to get President Vucic and Prime Minister Brnabic to block and reverse this abuse. How about a statement from Foggy Bottom and from the European Council or the Commission?
Civil society and media will not give up the fight for a democratic and free Serbia
The media and civil society organizations demand from the Ministry of Finance and the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering to immediately present the grounds for suspicion due to which they ordered the extraordinary collection of information about organizations, media, and individuals from the commercial banks. The article of the law, referred to by the director of the Administration for the Prevention of Money Laundering, states that such inspection should be performed exclusively for organizations for which there are grounds for suspicion of their involvement in the financing of terrorism. Since the list includes numerous organizations and individuals dealing with investigative journalism, protection of human rights, transparency, film production, development of democracy, rule of law and philanthropy, the conclusion is that this is a political abuse of institutions and a dangerous attempt to further collapse the rule of law in Serbia.
The abuse of legal mechanisms and institutions to unlawfully put pressure on the media and civil society organizations is a drastic attack on freedom of association and freedom of information. For years, the government in Serbia has been facing serious criticism from both international and domestic organizations regarding the threat to these two important freedoms. Such an attack on organizations that advocate for establishing Serbia as a state governed by the rule of law with respect for the law and a genuine fight against corruption, is an additional argument that these values are seriously endangered in Serbia. Organizations, media and citizens will not give up the fight for a free and democratic state, regardless of threats and pressures. Such and similar moves by the authorities only further motivate us as citizens to persevere in the defense of our own country.
The media and organizations will take all appropriate legal actions against those involved in this abuse, including the prosecution of those responsible, but above all they will insist on complete and clear answers on how this could have happened. We remind the public that the organizations and media from the list are subject to various types of regular state control, including inspections and rigorous checks of financial operations by the Tax Administration and the National Bank of Serbia, as well as by their own donors. Any legal inspection of the work of organizations is welcome and we will always support it. On the other hand, we will fiercely oppose the abuse of institutions and procedures, because that is our mission – the fight for a democratic and legal state.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Real presidents
And this is the parting message from the worthy man to whom they gave tribute.
I can’t say I knew John Lewis, but I did meet him one evening at the Corcoran Museum when my wife was Chief Curator there. I don’t remember our conversation about whatever political issue was then roiling Washington, but I do remember the impression he left. He was precisely as described by these real presidents: modest and genuine, with time to listen, absorb, and appreciate what people were saying to him.
I was also present for his March on Washington speech in 1963. His was a radical voice, but a radical voice in favor of a reasonable goal to be reached with nonviolent means: he wanted the equality promised in America’s founding documents, no more but no less. His was not the voice of separation or threats of violence, but rather of integration and reason.
No, President Trump was not at the funeral. He would not have been welcomed, and he would not have been at ease. His is an America where suburbs resist integration, real estate moguls discriminate against minorities, police are licensed to mistreat citizens, tax cuts are for the rich, pardons are for people the president likes, and the election is over before all the votes are counted.
Real presidents don’t think that way. And John Lewis brought out the best in them.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
High level ho hum
The Atlantic Council today unveiled at a Western Balkans Partnership Summit its latest product. Some readers may remember that I panned a previous “Balkans Forward” report. This new one suffers none of the faults I cited then. It is a high-level step in a good direction: a statement signed by presidents and prime ministers in favor of economic integration among the Western Balkans 6 (or WB6: that’s North Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Serbia) and integration of that region with the European Union. Too bad–and symptomatic of underlying political problems–that they did not sign it, but instead put it out as “the chair’s” conclusions. Not clear to me who the chair was.
The dissolution of Yugoslavia in the 1990s produced five of the WB6, three of which had to fight for independence. It was only natural that newly independent states, and new states in a conflicted neighborhood, would put up border fences and controls where there had been none previously. Albania, an adversary of Socialist Yugoslavia and one of the most isolated countries in the world during the Cold War, already had tough border controls. The result was economic fragmentation in the former Yugoslav space and beyond that has persisted far beyond any serious security threats.
Jim O’Brien at the Partnership Summit cited a figure of 10% of WB6 GDP lost to long waiting times, documentation issues, infrastructure bottlenecks, and other barriers to integration. The Covid-19 pandemic makes these particularly unfortunate, he argued, as the WB6 have an opportunity to gain more investment as the EU seeks to shorten its supply lines and improve its economic resilience. The WB6, located between the main body of the EU and Greece, could benefit as a result.
Presidents and Prime Ministers of the WB6 have now committed to reduce delays at their borders, cut red tape that increases trade friction, and build much-needed infrastructure to improve connectivity. Favorable bilateral arrangements are supposed to be automatically available to all 6, a kind of “most-favored nation” provision. Donors–including the EU, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the US Development Finance Corporation–have committed to finance the effort. Money, as the EBRD representative at the meeting suggested, should be no object, not least because the EU has already committed 13.5 billion euros to the region to counter the Covid-19 impact. The President of Serbia and the Prime Minister of Albania propose monthly meetings at their level to monitor implementation. Progress will also be checked at the Berlin Process Summit planned for Sofia in the fall.
All of this is good, if rather mundane. As Albanian Prime Minister Rama put it, small steps can add up to big things. “Green lanes,” which by EU definition delay shipments less than 15 minutes at a border, are to be instituted among the WB6 and several of the leaders want them instituted between the WB6 and the EU. Infrastructure projects are to be made “shovel ready.” Operations of the Central European Free Trade Agreement, to which the WB6 are all parties, are to be improved and expanded to intellectual property and environment. Phytosanitary certificates are to be harmonized. Chambers of commerce are to be involved in monitoring implementation. The existing Regional Coordination Council will ride herd to keep things moving.
The barriers to achieving these and bigger steps toward integration are real. As Serbian President Vucic noted, it has taken 7 or 8 years to even get ready to begin work on the Nis/Pristina part of a highway that has been finished between Pristina and Durres (in Albania) for that entire time. He was not sanguine about removing existing barriers to trade between Kosovo and Serbia, which exist mainly on his own side of the border for political rather than economic reasons. Transportation agreements between Serbia and Kosovo supposedly negotiated by US envoy Grenell went unmentioned (or at least I didn’t hear them mentioned), I suppose because they are not implemented. I heard no commitment by Bosnia and Herzegovina Prime Minister Tegeltija to accepting Kosovo passports for visa-free travel.
The fact is that the barriers to economic integration are not all bureaucratic. Almost any trade issue can be seen through the lense of national sovereignty and political convenience. Domestic politicians will seek to gain advantage from battering the powers that be for perceived softness toward a disliked state or ethnicity. Serbia has lots of non-tariff barriers that block imports and travel from Kosovo. Bosnia does as well. For both, the reasons are political, not economic. Until the 2018 agreement (Prespa) between North Macedonia and Greece, the road to Thessaloniki was not freely available to North Macedonian trade and talks are still ongoing to remove barriers. Not to mention the EU’s refusal so far to implement the visa-free travel for Kosovo that Pristina earned by implementing more than 100 technical requirements. But the political stars have not yet aligned.
I might add: sometimes political stars don’t align because someone who benefits from trade barriers doesn’t want them to. The barriers among the WB6 present enormous opportunities for corruption: I doubt the smugglers have much trouble getting through, because they are ready and willing to pay. There might even be one or two leaders among the WB6 who benefit from the payoffs.
So yes, regional economic integration presents enormous opportunities. But it is yet to be shown that the WB6 are prepared to look past the political barriers and get the job done. That is why participation of the leaders is needed for ho-hum problems: only they can waive the political obstacles and go for the economic benefits. I won’t be surprised if they hesitate, so the EU and US will need to be ready to intervene with political muscle as well as hard cash from time to time. Let’s hope it works.
RSS - Posts
