Tag: Europe
The cacophony is deafening but unnecessary
It is hard to make good sense of the varying perspectives on the Gaza war. Let me try to suggest they need not be so cacophonous.
Israel and the United States are diverging
The dissonance between Israel and the United States is get louder. They agree on the war objective of destroying Hamas in Gaza, whatever that means. But President Biden is pressing Israel to allow more humanitarian aid, protect civilians, ease the crackdown on the West Bank, and agree to turn over Gaza eventually to a renewed Palestinian Authority. Biden is also worrying out loud about declining international support for Israel and about the extreme nationalists in Israel’s right-wing government.
Prime Minister Netanyahu will have none of it. He wants Israel to be responsible for Gaza security after the war and to conduct a deradicalization operation, whatever that is. The Prime Minister claims Israel is already doing everything reasonable to allow humanitarian assistance and to protect civilians. He is uninterested in bringing the Palestinian Authority into Gaza and is continuing the crackdown in the West Bank. He hopes to stay in power, at least so long as the war lasts. That will make it last longer.
Arab disharmony
This is not the only disharmony evident around Gaza issues. Arab countries are anxious to signal support for a ceasefire in particular and Palestinians in general. But they in fact have done little to pressure Israel or Hamas for one. The Abrahamic accords remain in place and the Arab signatories (and possible future signatories) are not doing anything to limit Israeli economic and military capabilities. Nor is there any sign they are helping to block Hamas from resupplying.
Gaza has split the Arab world. Syria, Hizbollah-conditioned Lebanon, and Houthi-ruled parts of Yemen are trying to aggravate Israel’s challenges. Iran is supplying and cheering them on, thus prolonging the agony of the Gazas the “resistance axis” claims to support.
Others would be happy to see the destruction of Hamas, which is especially non grata in Egypt and the UAE. Those two countries loathe Islamist politics, especially the Muslim Brotherhood version from which Hamas descends. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and even Qatar don’t want to see Hamas win and thereby seize the banner of Palestinian liberation.
Even within Israel and in the West Bank, there are conflicting Arab views. Some Palestinians within Israel came to the aid of Jews on October 7. In the West Bank, however, Hamas has gained support.
American Muslims, Christians, and Jews
Inside the United States, there is growing discomfort among the majority of Jews, who lean heavily Democratic, with Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza. That contrasts with the Christian right solid support for Israel. Liberal American Jews largely agree with American Muslims on a ceasefire and on a two-state solution. The vast majority of American Jews differ from more radical Muslims and supporters who are pro-Hamas or oppose the idea of a Jewish state.
Harmonizing
The cacophony is unnecessary. Here are a few propositions that many would support:
- Hamas has proven itself devoted to mass murder of civilians. Disempowering it is vital, though its Islamist ideology will survive.
- The current conduct of the war is not the only way to disempower Hamas and does not appear to be succeeding. It is killing a disproportionate number of civilians relative to modest military accomplishments.
- Israel should end the military attacks and hunt Hamasees responsible for the October 7 murder and mayhem individually. Many Arab states would be prepared to cooperate, quietly, in that effort.
- A massive relief operation is already needed for Gaza. The requirements will increase once the war stops. The US, Europe, the Gulf, and Israel need to prepare to meet those requirements.
- American and Israeli Muslims, Christians, and Jews should unite in supporting humanitarian assistance and reconstruction.
- Governance of Gaza after the war will be an enormous challenge. If it is not met, guys with guns, many of them former Hamas, will run local protection rackets, trade in drugs and other contraband, and continue to attack Israel when the opportunity arises.
- Chaos of that sort on Israel’s border is in no one’s interest, especially Egypt and Jordan (because of the likely infection of the West Bank) but also the Gulf.
- A clear roadmap to a two-state solution would offer a political outcome most Palestinians would find attractive and most countries, other than Iran’s proxies, could support.
- This would need to start with renewal of the Palestinian Authority, through presidential and parliamentary elections as well as convening the Palestinian Legislative Council.
- It will also require replacement of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his extreme right-wing coalition in Israel with politicians prepared to deal with the Palestinian Authority once renewed.
Not everyone will agree with these propositions. But they are a start in building a consensus among today’s dissonant voices.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 17
– Munich Security Conference begins today. Here’s their background report.
– NYT has more on Chinese civil-military fusion.
– Belarus president sets Ukraine conditions.
– WSJ reports impact on eastern Europe.
– AP review US military adjustments because of Ukraine.
– Commerce & Justice collaborate on security.
– Stimson has a review of Ukraine issues.
– Another debunking of Hersh article on Nordstream2.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. 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:
Happy birthday Vladimir Vladimirovich!
Beginning of the end?
This could be the beginning of the end for Putin, but not necessarily the end of the war he began. The main complaint against him in regime circles in Moscow is his failure to prosecute the war successfully. Most in the regime don’t fault him for invading Ukraine. But Russia’s resources are limited. The Ukrainians have seized or interrupted many supply lines. Ammunition and supplies for the Russian Army in Ukraine are short. The military mobilization Putin declared won’t produce many soldiers for months. Even then, they will be poorly equipped, trained, and motivated.
Putin’s desperation has already led him to imply he might use tactical nuclear weapons, which Moscow has in abundance. The Americans however will have made it clear that their response would be massive, even if conventional. There likely wouldn’t be much left of the Russian Army in Ukraine if Moscow resorts to nukes. The better bet is long-range missile fire, but it is not clear how many cruise missiles Russia has left. Ukrainian President Zelensky claimed in July that Russia had already used 3000. There are indications since then that the Russians are using older missiles as well as anti-aircraft batteries against ground targets.
The center of gravity is now in Moscow
Ukrainian advances both in Donbas and in the south near Kherson are important and likely to continue, but the center of gravity of this conflict is now moving to Moscow. Putin is in trouble, albeit primarily from his ultra-nationalist right wing. There is little the West can or should do about that. Anyone coming to power in Moscow tomorrow will want to save the Russian Army from its impending defeat in Ukraine. Whether or not Putin remains in power, we should expect soon a ceasefire proposal from Moscow.
Kyiv will reject it if it doesn’t include at least withdrawal to at least the February 23 lines. Even that might not be attractive to Zelensky, whose war objective is to chase Russia from every inch of Ukrainian territory, including Donbas and Crimea. Nothing less will end Moscow’s monkeying in Ukraine and its politics. Even an outright Ukrainian victory will leave the country with a neighbor that does not recognize its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Reversal of Putin’s fake annexations of Ukrainian provinces is unlikely even if Moscow is defeated.
The West needs to steel itself
As it becomes apparent that the Ukrainians have won, the temptation in Europe and the United States will be to restrain Ukraine and accommodate Russia. The Europeans will want Russia to ease its restrictions on selling natural gas. The coming winter will otherwise be a cold one. The Americans will not want to make Putin more desperate. Some will even argue that driving him from power would hurt the chances to make peace.
We should resist these temptations. Europe made a huge mistake to become so dependent on Russian gas. The Americans made a huge mistake not to react more vigorously to the 2014 Russian invasion of Donbas and Crimea. We need now to steel ourselves for the consequences of those mistakes. Ultimately, Russian defeat will be the best basis possible for future relations with Moscow.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, March 13
– WaPo says US likely to delay Afghan pullout
– David Ignatius explains bureaucratic maneuvering on Afghanistan.
– FP says administration has big debates on ending wars.
– Background on the Quad, which met Friday and agreed to get more vaccines to SE Asia.
– Europe angry over US secondary sanctions.
– US plans new sanctions on NordStream2
-Senate filibuster may be changed.
-Mark Bowden, author of Black Hawk Down, summarizes history of US special forces.
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:
Turkey ascendant, Europe at odds, Libyans need to be heard
Ten years after the 2011 revolution that overthrew Muammar al-Qaddafi, the Biden administration is facing renewed challenges in Libya. Buffeted by the other powers’ diverging geopolitical interests, including those of the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Russia, Libya will face enormous political, economic and security challenges in the foreseeable future. US diplomatic absence has left the country in turmoil and allowed the intervention of foreign powers.
On February 18, the Atlantic Council hosted a panel exploring the role of international actors in the post 2011 Libyan political landscape. Speakers and their affiliations are listed below:
Karim Mezran (Moderator): Director, North Africa Initiative, Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East Programs, Atlantic Council
Steven A. Cook: Eni Enrico Mattei Senior Fellow, Middle East and Africa Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
Anas El Gomati: Founder and Director, Sadeq Institute
Deborah K. Jones: Former United States Ambassador to Libya
Roberto Menotti: Co-Executive Director, Aspen Economic Strategy Group
The US Role in Libya
Jones predicted that Libya will ultimately take a backseat in the Biden administration’s foreign policy agenda. Instead, she expects Biden to focus on rebuilding alliances, handling the COVID-19 pandemic, and addressing climate change. To the extent that Biden’s foreign policy will intersect with the situation in Libya, it will likely be through a multilateral framework, such as NATO. Jones expressed optimism that the US will play a more assertive role in preventing destabilizing actions in Libya by external actors and will continue to play a role in counterterrorism. Ultimately, however, she cautioned that the US is no longer in a position to deliver decisive fiats through unilateral action in any arena in the world, including Libya.
European Tension Over Libya
Menotti argued that there is a “fundamental incoherence” in European policy vis-a-vis Libya. Despite the fact that European interests have always been most effectively pursued through collaboration, European action in Libya has remained fractured by national interests. These divisions are most clearly expressed through the competitive relationship between France and Italy in Libya, which has largely centered around strategic positioning over natural resources. However, Italy’s intervention in Libya can be characterized as tentative at best. Besides, there are sufficient resources in Libya for European countries to find room for mutual cooperation.
Regional Actors in Libya
Turkey’s intervention and stabilization efforts continue to be one of the defining regional elements of the conflict in Libya. However, the panelists disagreed about the prospects for these efforts. Jones remained confident that Turkey can remain a critical ally for the US in the Libyan arena, particularly given America’s diminished global standing and Turkey’s interest in reasserting itself internationally.
Other panelists acknowledged that Turkey’s military intervention has been surprisingly effective at stabilizing the situation in Libya. However, they were less optimistic about Turkey’s potential to act cooperatively with other international powers. Menotti noted that Turkey’s neo-Ottoman strategy has met the most success to date in Libya, suggesting that it will seek to further consolidate its position and influence there. Cook went further, arguing that Turkey and the US have increasingly diverged with respect to their goals and values. As a result, he expects that the US will struggle to find points of synergy with Turkey in Libya. Instead, America must expect to either oppose Turkey or get out of the way.
The UAE and the Gulf countries more broadly have also intervened in Libya in recent years. However, Jones, Cook, and Menotti agreed that the GCC has been an ineffective and destabilizing force in Libya, and they predicted that the Gulf countries will likely disengage from Libya in the near-term.
A Libyan Voice for Libya’s Future
While much of the discussion centered around the international forces at work in Libya, Gomati underlined the fact that the Libyan conflict is fundamentally about Libyans, no matter how many countries have sought to exert themselves in the power vacuum. The fundamental Libyan nature of this conflict has two important implications:
- The conflict will not be resolved until Libyans resolve the disputes over the country’s political direction, national character, and ideological tone. This debate revolves around the role of the military in political and civil society.
- European, American, and regional machinations cannot resolve these differences without the explicit buy-in of Libyans themselves.
While much of the ongoing discussions about Libya concern its international dynamics, we must not forget the voices of Libyans themselves.
To watch the event in full, please click here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | July 27 – July 31
Notice: Due to recent public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
- From Peoples Into Nations: A History of Eastern Europe | July 27, 2020 | 4:00 – 5:30 PM EST | Wilson Center | Register Here
Eastern Europe has produced more history than any region on earth, for bad and for good. But where is it? And how does a critical historian write its history? Nationalists argue that nations are eternal, Connelly argues that they formed recently: in the 1780s, when the Habsburgs attempted to make their subjects German, thereby causing a panic among Hungarians and Czechs that they might disappear from history. The region’s boundaries are the boundaries of a certain painful knowledge: that nations come and go, and urgently require protection.
Speakers:
John Connelly: Sidney Hellman Ehrman Professor of History and Director of Institute for East European, Eurasian, & Slavic Studies at University of California (Berkeley)
Christian F. Ostermann: Director, History & Public Policy Program, Cold War International History Project, North Korea Documentation Project, Nuclear Proliferation International History Project, Wilson Center
Eric Arnesen: Fellow, the George Washington University - Crisis in Northern Mozambique | July 28, 2020 | 10:00 – 10:45 AM EST | Center for Strategic & International Studies | Register Here
The recent escalation of violence in the Cabo Delgado province threatens the overall security of the region and has caused a substantial increase in humanitarian needs. Since 2017, the conflict in northern Mozambique has displaced nearly 250,000 people and killed 1,000 others, with violence escalating rapidly in 2020. The Islamic State has tried to capitalize on the chaos, and the Government of Mozambique has struggled to combat armed actors while also navigating climate shocks and the response to Covid-19.
Please join us for a discussion on the conflict in Mozambique’s northern provinces, the implications for regional security, and steps the international community can take to respond to the humanitarian needs.
Speakers:
Mamadou Sou: Head of Delegation, Southern Africa, International Committee of the Red Cross
Emilia Columbo: Non-Resident Senior Associate, Africa Program, CSIS
Jacob Kurzter: Interim Director & Senior Fellow, Humanitarian Agenda, CSIS - Western Balkans Partnership Summit | July 29, 2020 | 10:15 – 11:30 AM EST | Atlantic Council | Register Here
The Atlantic Council will host a Summit of leaders from the Western Balkans Six—Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia—as they agree on bold, practical actions to advance regional economic cooperation. These significant steps will help the region emerge from the devastating impact of COVID-19 with greater economic development opportunities.
The expected economic and social impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Balkans demand urgent regional action to avoid sustained economic stagnation and the potential instability that comes with it. This agreement will demonstrate leaders’ commitment to foster economic growth by pursuing the free movement of goods, persons, and services across the region’s borders. The measure will also set in motion a significant plan for attracting foreign investment and accelerating the effective deployment of COVID-19 recovery funds.
Building on its efforts and extensive networks in Southeastern Europe, the Atlantic Council convenes this Western Balkans Partnership Summit to facilitate and promote concrete steps among the leaders toward regional economic integration that can stimulate post-COVID-19 economic recovery, boost the region’s long-term competitiveness, and strengthen its attractiveness for investors. Tangible measures agreed at the Summit—linked to and embedded in existing regional initiatives and dialogues—will send an important political message about the Western Balkans’ Euro-Atlantic future at a time of heightened uncertainty.
Speakers:
Damon M. Wilson (Moderator): Vice President, Atlantic Council
H.E. Stevo Pendarovski: President of the Republic of North Macedonia
H.E. Aleksandar Vučić: President of the Republic of Serbia
H.E. Avdullah Hoti: Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosovo
H.E. Edi Rama: Prime Minister of the Republic of Albania
H.E. Zoran Tegeltija: Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina
H.E. Dragica Sekulić: Minister of Economy of Montenegro - Re-Orienting National Security for the AI Era | July 29, 2020 | 2:30 – 3:30 PM EST | Brookings Institution | Register Here
Artificial intelligence technology has already begun and will continue to transform the economy, education, people’s daily lives, and national security. The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) is an independent federal commission established to examine the state of the AI-national security landscape and determine what policies will maintain U.S. leadership in AI research, improve international cooperation, and advance shared principles for ethical and responsible use of AI. On July 22, NSCAI submitted their second quarter recommendations to Congress and the executive branch.
On July 29, Brookings will host a conversation with NSCAI Chair Dr. Eric Schmidt and Vice Chair Mr. Robert Work on the current state of artificial intelligence in the national security environment, and the commission’s latest recommendations to spur progress on the responsible development and deployment of AI technologies.
Speakers:
John R. Allen (Moderator): President, Brookings Institution
Eric Schmidt: Chair, National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence
Robert O. Work: Vice Chair, National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence - The Future of Trust & Sense-Making | July 30, 2020 | 12:30 PM EST | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Trust – between people, between populations, and between human and machine – is an increasingly challenging convention as we navigate the “post-truth” era and the unprecedentedly complex information age. The concept of trust is arguably humanity’s most empowering trait, enabling cooperation between people on a grand scale and in pursuit of our most complicated endeavors. Our ability to build trust with machines has accelerated our exploration and will push the bounds of human cognition as we learn to augment our thinking with computers. In an unfathomably vast information environment, humans will be repeatedly forced to preserve trust in our observations against a deluge of data. We will have to learn to trust computers to make sense of it all.
How will we negotiate these situations given the challenges posed by misinformation, disinformation, and technically enabled deceptions like deep fake images, video, and audio? Will our predilection for conflict, power, and force projection disrupt this journey? Will we successfully graduate from our present trials by nurturing the concept of trust as we develop new methods to preserve ideals of objectivity, truth, and cooperation?
What might we witness in the coming years with respect to trust in devices, people, and institutions? What is the future of trust, and what are its implications for sense-making? What do all these things imply about our future digital lives?
Speakers:
Dr. David Bray (Moderator): Director, GeoTech Center, Atlantic Council
John Marx: Liaison Officer, Air Force Research Laboratory
Stephen Rodriguez: Non-Resident Senior Fellow & Senior Adviser, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security
Alex Ruiz: Founder, Phaedrus Engineering
Dr. Tara Kirk Sell: Senior Scholar, Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security
Sara-Jayne Terp: Co-Founder, CogSec Collaboration - From Dissent to Democracy: The Promise & Perils of Civil Resistance Traditions | July 31, 2020 | 9:30 – 10:45 AM EST | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
Nonviolent protest has proven to be a strong driver for democratization, and recent years have shown a rise in protest movements globally—from Hong Kong to Algeria to Sudan. Yet, popular uprisings don’t always lead to democratic transitions, as seen in the Arab Spring revolutions in Egypt or Yemen. Why do some transitions driven by movements end in democracy while others do not?
In his new book, “From Dissent to Democracy,” Jonathan Pinckney systematically examines transitions initiated by nonviolent resistance campaigns and argues that two key factors explain whether or not democracy will follow such efforts. First, a movement must sustain high levels of social mobilization. Second, it must direct that mobilization away from revolutionary “maximalist” goals and tactics and towards support for new institutions.
Join USIP as we host activists and scholars of nonviolent resistance for a discussion of the book’s broader lessons on how to support democratization efforts around the world. The conversation will explore new insights into the intersection of democratization and nonviolent resistance, as well as actionable recommendations for activists and policymakers working toward democratic transitions.
Speakers:
Maria Stephan (Moderator): Director, Nonviolent Action, U.S. Institute of Peace
Erica Chenoweth: Berthold Beitz Professor in Human Rights & International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Zachariah Mampilly: Marxe Chair of International Affairs, City University of New York
Hardy Merriman: President & CEO, International Center on Nonviolent Conflict
Jonathan Pinckney: Program Officer, Nonviolent Action, U.S. Institute of Peace
Huda Shafig: Program Director, Karama
RSS - Posts
