Tag: Yemen
Lawful but awful
I don’t usually get worked up over the drone wars and killing terrorists. I’d rather see many of them dead before a single innocent victim is killed or maimed. But the Justice Department “white paper” on “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or an Associated Force” has chilled my blood.
I hasten to note that I am not a lawyer. If you want the opinion of one, try Lawfare. But I spent decades as a bureaucrat. I could drive a massacre through the policy loopholes outlined in this memo.
The obvious first: the memo focuses on “imminent” threats, but then it includes in “imminent” an operation that hasn’t even yet been planned. That’s a neat trick. By that standard, Ron Paul’s election as president was imminent before he announced he was running. That’s not what the word means. If you call a horse’s tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?
Capture has to be “infeasible” for the killing to be lawful. But infeasible is in the eye of the beholder. I suspect it is infeasible more often than not because we no longer have anyplace to put such captives. Or is it only infeasible because a military operation with capture as its purpose cannot be mounted without unreasonable risks? And what would unreasonable risks be?
But the problems don’t end there. The decision-maker in the memo is not the president of the United States. It is a well-informed senior official. Presumably he or she gets a delegation of authority from the president. Do we really think killing a U.S. citizen in Yemen by a drone operator in Utah does not require the decision of an elected leader? It should be done by a GS-15? Admittedly we delegate the authority to decide whom to kill on a battlefield to 18-year-old soldiers. But that is the difference between targeted killing at a great distance and conventional warfare requiring split-second decisions to protect our forces.
What is a “senior operational leader?” Here the white paper is more explicit: it is someone known to be “actively engaged in planning operations to kill Americans.” I’ve got no problem with targeting someone who is targeting Americans. But how do we know that a particular person is a senior operational leader? The obvious problem is someone like Anwar al Aulaqi, who certainly encouraged killing Americans but publicly available evidence that he was an operational commander at the time of his killing in 2011 was thin. Did the Administration have more? Or is the definition of “senior operational commander as loose as the definition of imminence? Did some well-informed senior official get worked up over Aulaqi’s explicit incitement of violence against Americans?
Then there’s that “associated force” loophole. Is the Taliban a force associated with Al Qaeda? Their goals are certainly distinct, but they have been associated. Is the Movement for the National Liberation of Azawad (the Tuareg rebel organization in northern Mali) associated with Al Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM)? It certainly was for a while last spring, but right now it seems to be helping the French do in AQIM. Is the Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence directorate “associated” with the Haqqani network? Some days yes, who knows right now?
Let’s not forget the problem of collateral damage: innocent people (including children) who happen to be nearby when a Predator strikes, or targeting errors. That too is a problem on the conventional battlefield, but I might hope that it could be considered more fully when our own soldiers are not at risk. We need to ask the obvious question: are drone strikes creating more enemies than they are killing? Are we raising the risks to ourselves rather than lowering them?
What difference does it make that the person killed is a U.S. citizen? A lot of the problems I see would be just as troubling if the person were not. Nor do I see much in this paper that makes me think it could not also be applied inside the United States. Now that gets a bit paranoid, but would we feel comfortable with drone strikes against terrorists–U.S. citizen or no–holed up in a bunker in Alabama?*
This white paper raises more questions than it answers. It is hard to imagine that no mistakes are made. Judicial review is the method we use to avoid mistakes in the criminal justice system. A soldier’s behavior on the battlefield is subject to military judicial review. But there is no judicial review of drone strikes, before or–if the Administration continues to have its way–after the fact. Nor is it clear that the bureaucratic process envisaged is adequate to minimize error.
I’m convinced: killing terrorists is not unlawful. But for more than legal reasons we need to be careful about who, how, when, where and why we do it. The white paper suggests the system in place is still far from adequate, even after several hundred drone strikes that have killed thousands. That really is awful.
*PS, March 6, 2013: For those who think I was hallucinating about drone strikes inside the US, read what Attorney General Eric Holder has now said on the subject.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Not a foreign policy Inaugural, but…
President Obama said little about foreign affairs in his Inauguration speech, but what he said bears more attention than it is getting. After a tribute America’s armed forces (and mention that we are ending a decade of war), he went on to say:
But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.
We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully — not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe; and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice — not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.
This is extraordinarily general, or maybe tantalizingly vague. I think I know what it means for Iran: continuation of negotiations, at least for a while. But what does it mean for the brave Syrians who are fighting what is proving to be a frighteningly violent regime? It certainly aligns America with support for the Arab awakenings in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya, but what does it mean for Bahrain? Or Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states? Or, even more importantly, for China, where “those who long for freedom” are increasingly speaking out?
What we know from Obama’s first term is that he balances ideals and reality in each case based on specific circumstances. He is lawyerly in approach, treating each contingency on its merits rather than laying out a more generally applicable “Obama” doctrine (other than support for democracy and concern for the disadvantaged). This is very different from his predecessor, who set out general principles and tried to apply them to specific cases without much regard for the particular circumstances, with disastrous results.
My guess is that circumstances will force the President to say and do a great deal more about Iran, Syria, China and other situations in short order. His reference to American alliances and “those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad”–that’s presumably the UN, OSCE, OAS and the rest of the alphabet soup of international organizations, including non-governmental ones–is a clear indication that he will be looking for help from others when he decides to act internationally.
What he did not say–but none of us should forget–is that America’s financial situation and its internal politics will constrain what it can do internationally for at least the next four years. We are broke, as the Republicans like to say. But we’ll have to wait at least for the State of the Union message if not longer to see what the Inaugural message means for resources to support both our military and civilian efforts abroad.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Light where we can, heavy when we must
Today’s New York Times declares victory for those in the Obama Administration who favor a light footprint abroad. The members of the new national security team–Hagel, Kerry and Brennan–each leans in that direction. Though Hagel voted as a senator for the Iraq war, he later became a doubter. His Vietnam experience and Kerry’s make both new cabinet members hesitant about the use of American military force abroad. Brennan, while always talking a good line in favor of a more comprehensive approach to counter-terrorism in Yemen, is the brains behind the canonical light footprint drone war there against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
The light footprint approach is also getting a boost in Afghanistan, where the White House is leaning towards leaving fewer troops after 2014 than some would like. Zero is even a possibility. The leaks to this effect are all too clearly intended to get President Karzai, who is visiting Washington this week, to stop his mouthing off against the American presence and to convince the Taliban that they can get half a loaf if they come to the negotiating table. But feints in diplomacy have a way of becoming reality. America’s parlous fiscal situation will make many members of Congress look benignly on cutting back the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
I need hardly mention that the Administration has already taken a light footprint approach to Syria–maybe more like a no footprint approach. It provides humanitarian assistance through nongovernmental organizations and as well as political support to the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, now recognized as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, and other Syrian opposition organizations. It is also setting up Patriot batteries in Turkey and turning a blind eye to arms flowing from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The results so far have fallen well short of the goal of ending the Asad regime and risk letting Syria fall into the hands of Sunni extremists. But the burden on the United States is mainly diplomacy and foreign assistance, not the far more expensive military.
I find it hard to fault the Administration for trying to limit commitments and save money at a time of serious fiscal strain. But it is a mistake to think we will always want to avoid the heavier footprint: troops and civilians on the ground to establish a safe and secure environment and plant the seeds for governance in states that may fail in ways that endanger vital American interests. The problem I see so far is not so much the President’s preference for the light footprint, but rather the assumption that it will ever be thus. Each and every president since the end of the Cold War has tried to avoid state-building efforts abroad. Each and every one has concluded that they were needed in one place or the other. This includes President Obama, who has quietly and correctly (if not alway successfully) indulged in civilian statebuilding to prevent violence in South Sudan since independence (the troops are cheap since they come from the UN). Obama also tried statebuilding in Afghanistan, where it was not a brilliant success.
We need to maintain the capacity to do heavier footprints, civilian as well as military, even as we try to avoid situations in which they are likely to be needed. This is the equivalent of asking the U.S. government to walk and chew gum at the same time. It has a hard time doing that. It is much more inclined to dismantle the extensive apparatus and experience built up during more than 10 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan than to husband and sustain it. The Civilian Response Corps President George W. Bush established, after declaring as a candidate his disdain for “a nation-building corps,” is already gutted. We’ll be reinventing that wheel if ever there is intervention in Syria, Mali, Iran or half a dozen other places where it might be needed in the next decade. This is not wise or economical.
Our mantra should be: light where we can, heavy where we must.
PS: David Rothkopf hopes what he calls the “disengagers” will redouble diplomatic efforts. Would that it be so.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Hussein Saleh, you are not alone
My journalist (McClatchy) friend and fellow Haverford graduate Roy Gutman tweeted this moving short video about a Yemeni International Committee of the Red Cross worker, Hussein Saleh:
I Know Where I’m Going from Intercross on Vimeo.
It reminded me of what I know: most of the people who work for humanitarian and other organizations, nongovernmental and governmental, in conflict zones are host country nationals. They take enormous risks and get killed at an accelerating rate: they are most of the more than 300 humanitarian workers killed last year worldwide.
My first encounter with what the State Department now calls “Foreign Service nationals,” that is citizens of the country in which a U.S. government facility is located, was with Danilo Bracchetti, who worked in U.S. embassy in Rome from the late 1940s until retirement sometime after I left in 1993. When he started, Rome had no garbage collection, because no one threw anything out. He was the only Italian I ever met who admitted to having been in a fascist youth organization (virtually everyone was of course). By the time I came along in the late 1970s, Italy was still in the throes of the Red Brigades, so working for the Americans was not without risk. He never betrayed the slightest hesitation. So far as Danilo was concerned, working for the Americans was an honor and a privilege, one I’m sure he was proud of to his premature dying day.
I’ve met other “host country” nationals in more dangerous situations. Iraq was particularly challenging. The U.S. Institute of Peace employees there did not always tell their families for whom they were working. In 2006/7 especially, they lived in risky conditions. One of our security contractors–an Iraqi Kurd–was killed then in a militia hit. A number of our employees and collaborators later applied for and got visas to come to the U.S., on grounds that they were in danger if they remained. Others fled to Kurdistan, which is still relatively safe from the sectarian violence that plagues other parts of Iraq.
A number of the key players in Afghanistan’s bureaucratic upper crust these days spent the Taliban years working for international relief organizations, some of which were active even then. It is amazing how well acclimated they are to Western habits, even though they conserve their Afghan roots. It was no small thing to deliver international aid during the years in which the Taliban ruled.
In Syria today virtually all the people distributing substantial amounts of international humanitarian assistance during the civil war are Syrians. The risks they face every day are unimaginable. Or, depending on how you look at it, all too imaginable.
Despite the very real risks they run on behalf of Western governments and organizations, these host country nationals are largely invisible in today’s world. But talk to any journalist, aid worker or diplomat. They will recount tales of their heroism and devotion. The host country (and third country) nationals run risks every day. As the year comes to a close, I hasten to express what so many of us have felt: deep appreciation and respect for the commitment they demonstrate and the sacrifices they make. Hussein Saleh, you are not alone.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The proverbial hammer
Today greeted me with two contradictory headlines. Fareed Zakaria urged a beginning to the end of the war on terror. The Wall Street Journal reports an expansion of U.S. military authority to intervene in Mali and other parts of the Sahel against extremists, using drones and special ops teams, as we do in Yemen and Pakistan.
Fareed does not argue that the threat no longer exists, only that it can be dealt with in the normal legal framework rather than the extraordinary one put in place after 9/11. Nor, I imagine, will the Pentagon ignore completely the non-military aspects of the fight against al Qaeda linked groups in Mali. Our military officers are far too smart, and far too deeply committed to counter-insurgency, to ignore the social, economic and political matrix that is providing safe haven to extremists in northern Mali.
But the fact is that we are still over-emphasizing military responses to terrorism, rather than using preventive and civilian approaches before the emergence of a clear threat. Northern Mali, Tuareg grievances and various extremist groups existed well before this year. Why were we ignoring them when it might have been cheaper and easier to prevent them from emerging in the first place?
We are still playing global whack-a-mole with terrorists rather than developing a strategy that makes them unwelcome in the poverty-stricken, relatively weak and conflict-prone states in which they find safe haven. If we are successful in Mali, they will no doubt find have someplace else. Strengthening the indigenous capacity to resist and repress extremists is much more likely to produce results. It is also likely to be far cheaper. But it requires a more forward-looking, anticipatory and civilian-based strategy.
Instead, we are now deploying an additional Defense Intelligence agents abroad. They will number 1600 in five years time. This makes no sense, unless they will be doing intelligence collection that would be better done by civilians agencies.
If al Qaeda central still exists, someone there is surely calculating today where to move to when Mali gets too hot. Northern Nigeria? Niger? Back to Somalia? There are lots of options. What we need is a comprehensive strategy that enables a preventive approach to strengthening local governance. The military may recognize that as the requirement, but it is not their responsibility to meet it. Our civilians–State Department and USAID as well as Justice and Commerce departments–need the resources and capabilities to undertaken expeditionary activities that today are possible only for the Defense Department.
We are the proverbial hammer that views everything as a nail. Some jobs require a screwdriver.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
December starts with a busy week.
1. Working in Fragile States: Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding with Impact, Monday December 3, 9:30 AM – 12:30 PM, Care International
Venue: 1825 I street NW, Washington, DC 20006, 12th Floor
Speakers: Rachel Goldwyn, Jonathan White, Marshall Wallace, John Filson
Violent Conflict and ‘situations of fragility’ represent significant challenges for aid effectiveness. Applying traditional development approaches in an unchanged fashion in such contexts simply does not work. As is now often pointed out, no low income fragile or conflict-affected country has yet to achieve a single Millennium Development Goal. CARE invites you to a morning to discuss how NGOs and donors could be working more effectively in their peacebuilding, development and humanitarian responses in fragile states. First looking at conflict sensitivity and second examining how using theories of change in project design, monitoring and evaluation can improve the results of peacebuilding and other social mobilization programming. Two sessions will offer a platform for discussion, inter-agency learning, and the distribution of two new guides to the topics launched this year. Please feel free to come to one or boths essions, or to follow online via WebEx (for the URL, please email Betsy Deas bdeas@care.org). Refreshments will be served in the interval.
Session 1 – 9:30am-10:30am: ‘How to Guide’ to Conflict Sensitivity
Session 2 – 11:00am – 12:30pm: Defining Theories of Change Towards Peace; Peacebuilding with Impact
RSVP for this even to Betsy Deas at bdeas@care.org.
2. Counterterrorism in Africa, Monday December 3, 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM, George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute
Venue: The George Washington University, Duques Hall, School of Business, 2201 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, First Floor, Room 151
Speakers: Carter H. Ham, W. Russell Ramsey, Frank J. Cilluffo
On Monday, December 3rd, 2012, HSPI will host an event featuring General Carter F. Ham, Commander, U.S. Africa Command. General Ham will share his perspectives on the security challenges and opportunities facing the United States in Africa. He will address a range of issues affecting the regional security and stability of Africa, and will speak to developments in the region, including the terrorism threat in the Maghreb, the Sahel, and in the Horn of Africa.
Register for this event here.
3. US Policy in the Middle East in Obama’s Second Term, Tuesday December 4, 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM, SETA Foundation at Washington DC
Venue: SETA Foundation at Washington DC, 1025 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 1106
Speakers: Rob Malley, Leila Hilal, Trita Parsi, Erol Cebeci, Kadir Ustun
There is a broad range of expectations from President Obama’s second term. Those who expect a dramatically different Middle East policy in his second term cite the unsustainability of the cautious involvement of the first term. Others argue that the US involvement will continue to be highly risk-averse. While the US sorely wants to avoid the high price of missteps and misadventures, the regional turmoil and uncertainty continue unabated, as the regional order is shaken to its core. How will the American position in the region look like over the next four years? What are the vital American interests that may trigger a stronger involvement? How can the US work with regional actors to address stability and legitimate governments simultaneously? What are the prospects of a more robust US role in the Middle East?
Join us for a discussion on the US policy in the Middle East during the second Obama administration.
Register for this event here.
4. China and the Middle East: Rising Power and a Region in Turmoil, Tuesday December 4, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM, Middle East Institute
Venue: Middle East Institute, 1761 N Street NW, Washington DC, 20036, Boardman Room
Speakers: Yitzhak Shichor, Dawn Murphy, Sam Chester
This program features three experts on China’s relations with the Middle East. The speakers will address two central questions: What challenges has China faced as a result of the political upheaval in the Arab World and the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program? In light of these challenges, how, and how well has China managed to protect and promote its interests in the region? Join us for a discussion on this important and under-examined topic.
Register for this event here.
5. The Future of Humanitarian Action, Tuesday December 4, 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM, CSIS
Venue: CSIS, 1800 K Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, B1 Conference Room
Speakers: Pierre Krähenbühl, William J. Garvelink
Please join ICRC’s Pierre Krähenbühl and CSIS’s Ambassador William J. Garvelink for a discussion of the ‘The Future of Humanitarian Action’, the latest edition of the International Review of the Red Cross, a quarterly publication published by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
The international community is experiencing serious challenges to the humanitarian aid system. These include the direct targeting of humanitarian personnel, the rise of new actors, new ‘megatrends’ of disasters related to climate change and migration, advances in internet and communication technology and the militarization of aid. ICRC Director of Operations Pierre Krähenbühl will launch this latest edition of the Review, which explores these and other related themes, and complement it with his own global operational perspective. Ambassador Garvelink will then guide this important discussion about the future of humanitarianism
RSVP for this event to Farha Tahir at ftahir@csis.org.
6. Negotiating the Arab Spring: Policy Options, Tuesday December 4, 4:30 PM – 6:30 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Rome Building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Rome Auditorium
Speakers: Fen Osler Hampson, Ellen Laipson, William Zartman, Regina Joseph, Floor Janssen
Fen Osler Hampson, distinguished fellow and director of the Global Security Centre for International Governance Innovation; Ellen Laipson, president of the Stimson Center; I. William Zartman, professor emeritus at SAIS; and Instituut Clingendael research fellows Regina Joseph and Floor Janssen will discuss this topic
RSVP for this event to itlong@jhu.edu.
7. Comparative Instability in the Balkans and the Middle East, Tuesday December 4, 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Rome Building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Rome Auditorium
Speaker: David Kanin
David Kanin, professorial lecturer in the SAIS European Studies Program and former senior analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency, will discuss this topic. Note: The speaker’s comments will be off the record. A reception will follow the event in Room 812, Rome Building.
For more information contact ntobin@jhu.edu.
8. The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Conflict in the 21st Century, Wednesday December 5, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Rome Building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Rome Auditorium
Speaker: Brian Grim
Brian Grim, senior researcher and director of cross-national data at the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life, will discuss this topic.
RSVP for this event to slee255@jhu.edu.
9. The Last Refuge: Yemen, Al-Qaeda, and America’s War in Arabia, Wednesday December 5, 12:15 PM – 1:45 PM, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 400
Speakers: Gregory Johnsen, Peter Bergen
Over the past few years, U.S. counterterrorism officials have frequently highlighted the blows America has dealt to al-Qaeda, especially those to its central command in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But officials also continue to warn about the persistent threat posed by al-Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers that have flourished in places such as Yemen and North Africa. Gregory Johnsen, a Ph.D. candidate at Princeton and one of the preeminent scholars of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, examines the organization’s last strongholds in his new book The Last Refuge: Yemen, Al-Qaeda, and America’s War in Arabia. In a recent piece for the New York Review of Books, Robert Worth called Johnsen’s book, “an authoritative and deftly written account of al-Qaeda’s Yemeni incarnation.”
Please join the New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program for a conversation with Gregory Johnsen about The Last Refuge and the future of U.S. efforts to counter the violent ideology espoused by al-Qaeda supporters in Yemen
Register for this event here.
10. Annual Energy Outlook 2013, Wednesday December 5, 1:00 PM – 2:30 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Nitze Building, 1740 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Kenny-Herter Auditorium
Speaker: Adam Sieminski
Adam Sieminski, administrator at the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), will present the agency’s projections of U.S. energy supply, demand and prices to 2040 with the early release of the reference case projections from the “Annual Energy Outlook 2013.”
Members of the media who want to cover this event should contact Felisa Neuringer Klubes in the SAIS Communications Office at 202.663.5626 or fklubes@jhu.edu.
RSVP for this event to saisereglobal@jhu.edu.
11. U.S.-Israeli Missile Defense Cooperative Programs: What Is Next?, Wednesday December 5, 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM, Heritage Foundation
Venue: Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20002, Lehrman Auditorium
Speakers: Gabriel Scheinmann, Baker Spring, Randy Jennings
This past July President Obama signed the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, which has been designed to give Israeli forces a qualitative edge over their current and future adversaries. The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $948 million for all cooperative missile defense efforts between the United States and Israel. Specifically, the House version of the NDAA provides $680 million to fund Israel’s Iron Dome System through the fiscal years of 2012 through 2015. There is strong bipartisan congressional support for missile defense cooperation with Israel, which would enhance the overall defense posture for both countries.
Join us as our panel discusses the U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense efforts, the role of U.S. experience in cooperating on these issues, and the future of the Iron Dome system. Additionally, the panel will discuss the broader missile defense implications that the U.S. should consider given the success of Iron Dome operations.
Register for this event here.
12. Iranian Influence in the South Caucasus and the Surrounding Region, Wednesday December 5, 2:00 PM, The House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Venue: The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 2170 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Speakers: Dan Burton, Ariel Cohen
13. An Evening with the Palestinian Ambassador, Wednesday December 5, 7:30 PM – 9:00 PM, George Mason University
Venue: George Mason University, Arlington Campus, 3301 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 2201, Truland Building, Room 555
Speakers: Marc Gopin, Aziz Abu Sarah, Scott Cooper, Alex Cromwell
Please join the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution as we welcome Palestinian Ambassador Areikat to come and speak to the S-CAR and Mason Community at the Arlington Campus. CRDC’s Co-Executive Director, Aziz Abu Sarah, will introduce the Ambassador, and Dr. Jamil Shami, President for the Middle East in Higher Education, Inc., will moderate the event.
RSVP for this event to crdc@gmu.edu.
14. Weighing Benefits and Costs of International Sanctions on Iran, Thursday December 6, 8:30 AM – 10:00 AM, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Gregory Newbold, Thomas Pickering, William Reinsch, George Perkovich
The Iran Project will launch their new report “Weighing Benefits and Costs of International Sanctions Against Iran.” The Iran Project’s first report, “Weighing Benefits and Costs of Military Action against Iran,” was released in September 2012. It presented a balanced, non-partisan view of the pros and cons of using force to forestall Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon. This new paper takes the same balanced approach to assessing the benefits and costs of U.S. and U.S.-led international sanctions against Iran.
The paper does not advocate for or against sanctions; nor does it make specific policy recommendations. The writers and signers of this paper, who are senior experts from the national security and foreign policy communities, aim to provide an objective analysis that will contribute to informed debate about a key strategy for addressing one of the most critical security challenges facing the United States.
Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, Carnegie’s George Perkovich, and William A. Reinsch will discuss the report’s findings. Ambassador Thomas Pickering will moderate.
Register for this event here.
15. FDD’s Washington Forum 2012: “Dictators & Dissidents: Should the West Choose Sides?”, Thursday December 6, 8:15 AM – 5:00 PM, Newseum
Venue: Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001, please use the Freedom Forum entrance on 6th Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and C Street
Speakers: Joseph Lieberman, Jon Kyl, Daniel Glaser, Robert Ford, Bret Stephens
We invite you to join us at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ (FDD) annual Washington Forum, taking place on Thursday, December 6 at the Newseum in Washington D.C. Speakers discussing this year’s theme, “Dictators and Dissidents: Should the West choose sides?” include Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Daniel Glaser, Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Terrorist Financing, Ambassador Robert Ford, U.S. Ambassador to Syria, and Bret Stephens, Deputy Editor of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, along with a who’s who of experts from Congress, the intelligence and foreign policy communities and the diplomatic corps
Register for this event here.
16. New Authoritarians and the Challenge to Democracy, Thursday December 6, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM, The International Forum for Democratic Studies at the National Endowment for Democracy
Venue: 1025 F Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004
Speakers: William Dobson, Joshua Stacher, Christopher Walker
The world has changed and today’s autocrats are changing with it. Demonstrating resilience and a keen ability to adapt, leading authoritarian regimes are developing more subtle and sophisticated methods to retain power. To suppress dissent, mass brutality has been replaced by selective safety inspections and tax investigations, as well as arbitrarily applied regulations designed to undercut the activities of independent civil society and opposition groups. New economic resources at the disposal of regimes in Beijing, Moscow, and Caracas have enabled them to bolster their authoritarianism. Meanwhile, the democratic world has been slow to acknowledge and respond to the emergence of these new, more nimble regimes.
Please join us for a discussion featuring William J. Dobson, author of The Dictator’s Learning Curve: Inside the Global Battle for Democracy, and Joshua Stacher, author of Adaptable Autocrats: Regime Power in Egypt and Syria, as they discuss how leaders in China, Egypt, Russia, Venezuela, and other countries have adapted to suppress democratic movements in their countries. Despite the initial excitement surrounding the recent upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa in particular, continuity—not wide-ranging political change—remains the hallmark of many of the world’s autocracies.
Register for this event here.
17. Untangling Maritime Disputes in Asia, Thursday December 6, 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Yann-huei Song, Edward Chen, James L. Schoff, Peter Dutton
Over the past six months, tensions have escalated in the South and East China Seas. Japan and China have grabbed headlines in a spat over China’s claims to the Japanese administered Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, while Taiwan has asserted its own claim in the region and proposed talks to settle the disputes. Yet these are only the latest in a long list of territorial disputes involving many countries and many competing claims. As events progress, what was already a complex and complicated issue over minuscule territories has drawn big power attention.
Two eminent Taiwanese scholars, Yann-huei Song and Edward I-hsin Chen, will join Carnegie’s James L. Schoff to discuss maritime disputes in the region, and prospects for their peaceful resolution. Peter Dutton, a noted expert on Chinese territorial claims at the U.S. Naval War College, will moderate.
Register for this event here.
18. Has the Arab Spring Come to Jordan?, Friday December 7, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Rome Building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Marwan Muasher, Randa Habib, Naseer Alomari, Yassin Sabha
Marwan Muasher, director of the Carnegie Endowment Middle East program and former Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister; Naseer Alomari, Jordanian blogger; Randa Habib (participating through Skype), director of the Agence France Presse Foundation and journalist; Yassin Sabha (President of MENA Club and Jordanian political analyst).
Note: SAIS will also host a live webcast of the event at www.sais-jhu.edu/pressroom/live.html
RSVP for this event to menaclub.sais@gmail.com.
RSS - Posts
