Tag: Georgia
Peace Picks | November 16 – November 20, 2020
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
1. Corruption in Kyrgyzstan: The Path Forward | November 16, 2020 | 9:00-10:00 AM ET | Carnegie Endowment for Peace | Register Here
It has been over a month since political upheaval in Kyrgyzstan resulted in the collapse of the government of now-former President Sooronbay Jeenbekov and the rise of Sadyr Japarov, a former convict, to the position of acting president. With new presidential elections now planned for January, the country’s political landscape is changing fast, with Japarov implausibly promising an anti-corruption campaign—a key concern of those who protested on the streets in October.
This dramatic shift is driven by growing anger over corruption and poor governance—laid particularly bare by the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, despite the public’s demands for stronger government accountability, corrupt organized crime is still flourishing and poised to have increased influence in a plausible Japarov presidency.
Please join us for a discussion on Kyrgyzstan’s legacies of corruption, prospects for better governance, and popular responses to the recent social and political upheaval the country has witnessed, all based on a new, groundbreaking report released by RFE/RL, Kloop, and OCCRP.
Speakers:
Shirin Aitmatova: former member of Kyrgyz Parliament and a leader of Umut 2020 – a people’s movement that focuses on anti-corruption investigations.
Asel Doolotkeldieva: associate research fellow at the OSCE Academy in Bishkek. Her research examines social mobilization, religiosity and gender, democratization and institution-building, rent-seeking from natural resources, and migration in Kyrgyzstan. She holds a PhD from the University of Exeter.
Bruce Pannier: senior Central Asian affairs correspondent, who writes the Qishloq Ovozi blog and appears regularly on the Majlis podcast for RFE/RL.
Carl Schreck: RFE/RL’s enterprise editor. He has covered politics, crime, business, and sports in Russia and the former Soviet Union for nearly 20 years, including nearly a decade while based in Moscow.
Paul Stronski: senior fellow in Carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia Program, where his research focuses on the relationship between Russia and neighboring countries in Central Asia and the South Caucasus.
2. Trans-Atlantic Cooperation and the International Order After the US Election | November 16, 2020 | 9:45 – 11:45 AM ET | Brookings Institute | Register Here
Over the past four years, the United States has often abdicated its traditional leadership role, leaving allies across the Atlantic to fend for themselves. Now, as Americans and Europeans alike process the results of the U.S. election, significant practical and political questions about the future of the trans-Atlantic relationship and the global order abound. With Joe Biden in the White House, will European leaders be willing to once again rely on the U.S. as an ally? While a Biden administration will certainly be more friendly to trans-Atlantic relations and multilateralism, will this shift be lasting or merely a lapse amid an increasingly isolationist era of American foreign policy? With Republicans likely to retain control of the Senate, what impact would a divided government have on the new administration’s foreign policy?
On Monday, November 16, Foreign Policy at Brookings will host a conference to consider these questions and other implications of the next U.S. administration for the future of the international order and trans-Atlantic cooperation. Questions from the audience will follow the discussion.
Schedule and Speakers:
Welcoming Remarks: 9:45 AM – 10:00 AM
Suzanne Maloney: Vice President and Director – Foreign Policy
Henry Alt-Haaker: Senior Vice President, Strategic Partnerships and Robert Bosch Academy – Robert Bosch Stiftung
Panel Discussion: 10:00 AM – 11:00 AM
James Goldgeier: Robert Bosch Senior Visiting Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe
Fiona Hill: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe
Stormy-Annika Mildner: Head of Department, External Economic Policy – Federation of German Industries
Rachel Rizzo: Director of Programs – Truman National Security Project; Adjunct Fellow, Transatlantic Program – Center for a New American Security
Marietje Schaake: International Policy Director – Cyber Policy Center at Stanford University
Constanze Stelzenmüller, moderator: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe
Keynote: 11:00 AM – 11:45 AM
Nathalie Tocci: Director – Istituto Affari Internazionali; Honorary Professor – University of Tübingen
Thomas Wright, moderator: Director – Center on the United States and Europe; Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Project on International Order and Strategy
3. Assessing Perceptions of Affected Communities in Northern Iraq on Peace, Justice and Governance | November 16, 2020 | 11:30 AM ET | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Please join the Atlantic Council’s Iraq Initiative and the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative on Monday, November 16 from 11:30 am – 12:30 pm ET presenting a timely survey which offers a snapshot of the perceptions and attitudes in northern Iraq about peace and justice within communities affected by the conflict with the Islamic State (IS). The discussion will feature Abulrazzaq Al-Saiedi, research manager, Iraq country expert and policy advisor at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Abbas Kadhim, director of the Iraq Initiative at the Atlantic Council, Phuong Pham, director of evaluation and implementation science at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Patrick Vinck, research director at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, and moderated by Kirsten Fontenrose, director of the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council.
The report (available in Arabic) by the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative’s Peace and Human Rights Data Program, details how northern Iraqi communities targeted by the Islamic State (IS) are denied justice. Based on 5,213 interviews conducted in 2019 among a representative sample of internally displaced persons in northern Iraq and residents of the city of Mosul and surrounding areas, the research documents a severe lack of trust in official institutions, particularly in the Government of Iraq itself, stemming in large part from the belief that these institutions do not act in the best interest of the population.
Speakers:
Abulrazzaq Al-Saiedi: Research Manager, Iraq Country Expert, and Policy Advisor, Harvard Humanitarian Initiative
Abbas Kadhim: Director, Iraq Initiative, Atlantic Council
Phuong Pham: Director of Evaluation and Implementation Science, Harvard Humanitarian Initiative
Patrick Vinck: Research Director, Harvard Humanitarian Initiative
Kirsten Fontenrose, moderator: Director, Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, Atlantic Council
4. Moldova’s Presidential Elections | November 16, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:15 PM ET | Wilson Center | Register Here
On November 15, incumbent Moldovan President Igor Dodon will face pro-European opposition candidate Maia Sandu in a national run-off election. Sandu has promised to fight corruption, poverty, and reform the criminal justice system. Dodon is considered the most pro-Russian candidate, advocating to make Russian compulsory in schools and to strengthen Moldova’s strategic partnership with Russia. Amb. William Hill, former Moldovan Minister of Foreign Affairs Nicu Popescu, and DGAP Research Fellow Cristina Gherasimov will consider the results of the runoff election, its implications, and how the next president in Chisinau will manage Moldova-Russian relations.
Speakers:
William H. Hill: Global Fellow; Former Professor of National Security Strategy, National War College, Washington D.C.
Nicu Popescu: Director, Wider Europe Programme, European Council on Foreign Relations
Cristina Gherasimov: Research Fellow, Robert Bosch Center for Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia, DGAP
Matthew Rojansky, moderator: Director, Kennan Institute
5. US and Iranian Strategies for a Biden Administration | November 17, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM ET | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The looming arrival of the Joe Biden administration in January 2021 provides the leadership in Tehran with an opportunity to seek a qualitatively different relationship with the United States. President-elect Biden has already expressed a desire to salvage the 2015 nuclear deal, which the Trump administration abandoned in 2018. While Tehran awaits to see what, if any, conditions the Biden team has for the resumption of the diplomatic track and removal of US-led sanctions, a policy fight is already under way inside the Iranian state about the future of US-Iran relations.
The American question in Tehran is not just a foreign policy file but ultimately linked to the question of whether the Islamic Republic opts to continue a revolutionary and militant foreign policy or settles for a path of de-escalation with Washington and other rivals. How much of this policy competition in Tehran will shape Washington’s next steps vis-à-vis Iran?
To discuss these matters and other key challenges in the path of US-Iran relations in the coming Biden administration, we are delighted to host a panel of experts.
Speakers:
Jon Alterman: Senior vice president, Zbigniew Brzezinski chair in Global Security and Geostrategy, and director, Middle East Program, CSIS
Hannah Kaviani:Staffer, RFE/RL’s Persian language service, Radio Farda
Behnam Ben Taleblu: Senior fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Alex Vatanka (moderator): Senior fellow and director, Iran program, MEI
6. The Future of Palestinian Politics under a Biden Administration | November 17, 2020; November 19, 2020 | 11:30 AM – 12:45 PM ET | Middle East Institute | Register Here
Former Vice President Joe Biden’s election victory over President Donald Trump is likely to produce a major reset in American-Palestinian relations as well as in Washington’s role in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. No U.S. president had done more to isolate Palestinians and delegitimize Palestinian national aspirations than Trump. Meanwhile, Biden has pledged to reverse the most destructive aspects of Trump’s policies and restore U.S.-Palestinian relations in the hope of salvaging what remains of a two-state solution.
Yet even as the Palestinians breathe a collective sigh of relief at Trump’s departure, the Palestinians’ internal house remains in a state of disarray and decline. The Palestinian national movement, now at one of the lowest points in its history, continues to be racked by political division, institutional stagnation, and a lack of strategic clarity.
To shed light on these and other issues, the Middle East Institute (MEI) invites you to join a two-part webinar series on the Future of Palestinian Politics Under a Biden Administration, moderated by MEI’s Khaled Elgindy
Speakers:
Part 1 – Reviving Palestinian Political Life
Tareq Baconi: Senior analyst, International Crisis Group
Sam Bahour: Ramallah-based business consultant
Mustafa Barghouti:General secretary, Palestinian National Initiative
Noura Erakat: Human rights attorney; assistant professor, Rutgers University
Khaled Elgindy, moderator: Senior fellow and director, Program on Palestine and Palestinian-Israeli Affairs, MEI
Part 2 – Toward a Palestinian National Strategy
Dana ElKurd: Researcher, Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies
Mariam Barghouti: Political commentator and writer
Yousef Munayyer: Non-resident fellow, MEI
Nasser AlKidwa: Former Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations and Palestinian Foreign Minister
Khaled Elgindy, moderator: Senior fellow and director, Program on Palestine and Palestinian-Israeli Affairs, MEI
7. Building a Climate Resilient and Just Future for All: Delivering Action and Ambition | November 17, 2020 | 1:00 PM ET | Atlantic Council | Register Here
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought resilience to the fore. It has laid bare the vulnerability of our societies and economies and exposed the lack of risk planning in countries. During this event, speakers will focus on the need to carry out ambitious actions on building resilience and identify what can be done to set up a decade of action.
This high level event will bring together the outcomes of the Regional Resilience Dialogues and Race to Zero resilience-focused dialogues and highlight how to advance the action of non-state actors and initiatives to deliver outcomes at COP26 and beyond. The High Level Champions, Gonzalo Muñoz and Nigel Topping, will also use this event to share their developing plans for a Race for Resilience campaign as a sister to the Race to Zero campaign to deliver a decade of action.
This dialogue will build upon previous Marrakech Partnership for Global Climate Action roundtables held at COP23, COP24 and COP25 events, the Global Commission on Adaptation, and from the UN Climate Action Summit and the Call to Action on Adaptation and Resilience.
Speakers:
Opening Remarks
Nigel Topping: High Level Climate Action Champion, UK, COP26
Gonzalo Muñoz: High Level Climate Action Champion, Chile, COP26
Panel Discussions
Panel 1: The Challenge: Why action on Resilience is a must?
Johan Rockstrom: Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Professor in Earth System Science, University of Potsdam; Chair of the Global Resilience Partnership Advisory Council
Saleemul Huq: Director, International Centre for Climate Change & Development (ICCCAD); Chair of Resilience track for UN Food Systems Summit 2021
Emma Howard-Boyd: UK Commissioner, Global Commission on Adaptation and Chair of the Environment Agency
Wanjira Mathai, moderator: Vice President and Regional Director for Africa, World Resources Institute
Panel 2: Opportunities for Ambitious Action
Kathy Baughman McLeod: Senior Vice President and Director, Adrienne Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center; Atlantic Council, representing the Extreme Heat Resilience Alliance (EHRA)
Zakia Naznin: Programme Manager, Concern Worldwide, representing the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance
Karen Sack: CEO, Ocean Unite, representing Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance
Wanjira Mathai, moderator: Vice President and Regional Director for Africa, World Resources Institute
Panel 3: Delivering Ambition and a Decade of Action
Julio Cordano: Head, Department of Climate Change, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Chile and COP 25 Chilean Presidency Representative
Patrick Verkooijen: Chief Executive Officer, Global Center on Adaptation
Anne-Marie Trevelyan: UK International Champion on Adaptation and Resilience, COP26
Wanjira Mathai, moderator: Vice President and Regional Director for Africa, World Resources Institute
Closing Remarks
Nigel Topping: High Level Climate Action Champion, UK, COP26
Gonzalo Muñoz: High Level Climate Action Champion, Chile, COP26
8. Lebanon: Out with the Old, In with the What? | November 17, 2020 | 16:00 – 17:00 EET | Carnegie Endowment for Peace | Register Here
While Lebanon’s ruling elite continues to delay the formation of a new cabinet under Prime Minister-designate Saad Hariri, French President Emmanuel Macron is growing impatient as he watches his initiative and timeline for reforms crumble. The Trump Administration, meanwhile, is still ramping up sanctions on Hezbollah’s allies in government. Where does the government formation stand today? What remains of the French initiative? How might U.S. foreign policy towards Lebanon shift under President-Elect Joe Biden?
Speakers:
Ishac Diwan: Chaire d’Excellence Monde Arabe at Paris Sciences et Lettres and is a professor at the École Normale Supérieure, Paris
Dorothée Schmid: senior research fellow and heads the Turkey and Middle East Program at the French Institute of International Relations.
Randa Slim: senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and a non-resident fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced and International Studies (SAIS) Foreign Policy Institute.
Maha Yahya: Director of the Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center, where her research focuses on citizenship, pluralism, and social justice in the aftermath of the Arab uprisings.
9. What Does the World Expect of President-elect Joe Biden? | November 17, 2020 | 2:30 – 4:00 PM ET | Wilson Center | Register Here
The next U.S. Administration faces a complicated, volatile world. Please join Wilson Center experts on Russia, China, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and Latin America as they interview colleagues and experts on the ground in their regions to discuss what a Biden Administration means in terms of our relationships around the globe.
Our experts will host a spirited conversation on the foreign policy expectations and challenges confronting the next President of the United States.
Speakers:
Jane Harman: Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center
Cynthia J. Arnson: Director, Latin American Program
Robert Daly: Director, Kissinger Institute on China and the United States
Daniel S. Hamilton: Director, Global Europe Program; Austrian Marshall Plan Foundation Distinguished Fellow
Merissa Khurma: Program Manager, Middle East Program
Monde Muyangwa: Africa Program Director
Matthew Rojansky: Director, Kennan Institute
Duncan Wood: Director, Mexico Institute
John Milewski, moderator: Director of Digital Programming; Moderator, Wilson Center NOW
10. Exceptions to the Rules: Civilian Harm and Accountability in the Shadow Wars | November 19, 2020 | 9:30 – 11:00 AM ET | Stimson Center | Register Here
Nearly two decades after 9/11, the CIA and Special Operations Forces have become increasingly involved in U.S. counterterrorism operations around the world –often operating in the shadows and under a growing set of broad exceptions to the rules that govern the lawful use of lethal force, civilian harm mitigation, transparency, and accountability. Join the Stimson Center and the Center for Civilians in Conflict for a discussion of these programs and the launch of a new report examining the tradeoffs involved with normalizing these exceptions, and offering concrete recommendations for increasing public awareness and strengthening oversight and accountability.
Speakers:
Daniel Mahanty: Director, US Program, Center for Civilians in Conflict
Rita Siemion: Director, National Security Advocacy, Human Rights First
Rachel Stohl, Vice President, Stimson Center
Stephen Tankel: Associate Professor, American University; Adjunct Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security
11. Elections in the Black Sea Region | November 19, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM ET | Middle East Institute | Register Here
Elections are taking place across the Black Sea, including in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. The three countries have Association Agreements with the EU and have benefitted from significant Western support over the last years. All three countries also share the problems of separatist and frozen conflicts on their territories that affect their security and stability. Elections outcomes in all three countries will have important implications for the foreign policy orientation of the countries and their role in the Black Sea region. Elections in the region coincide with the COVID-19 pandemic and an economic crisis with potentially devastating effects for the region. The Middle East Institute (MEI) Frontier Europe Initiative is pleased to host a discussion with the Ambassadors of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine to the United States on the election process, outcomes, and implications for the Black Sea region.
How did the election process and the results fair out for Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine? What are the main challenges around the elections in the context of the pandemic and economic crisis? How will the election results impact their foreign policies in the years to come?
Speakers:
David Bakradze: Georgian Ambassador to the United States
Eugen Caras: Moldovan Ambassador to the United States
Yelchenko Volodymyr: Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States
Iulia Joja, moderator: Senior Fellow, Frontier Europe Initiative
12. RESOLVE Network 2020 Global Forum: Violent Extremism in 2020 and Beyond | November 19, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:15 AM ET | USIP | 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. Alastair Reed, opening remarks: Senior Expert and Executive Director of the RESOLVE Network
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
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | November 2nd – November 6, 2020
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
1. How Will the 2020 Presidential Election Shape U.S. Policy in the Middle East? | November 2, 2020 | 4:00 – 5:15 PM AST | Brookings Institute | Register Here
In the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election, the United States faces unprecedented domestic and international challenges. Domestically, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage unabated, having already caused over 200,000 fatalities and an economic crisis rivalling the Great Depression. The country is also grappling with sharp social and political polarization, as demonstrated by ongoing protests against police brutality and racism, as well as the controversy over who will replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Internationally, great power competition is ramping up, even as the global economy struggles to absorb the double hit of COVID-19 and falling oil prices.
The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region continues to grapple with its own challenges, not only the economic impact of COVID-19 and lower oil prices, but also ongoing conflicts, failure of governance, as well as rising tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean. Amid this turmoil, the Trump administration has pursued inconsistent policies in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, upending long-standing norms to mixed success.
The Brookings Doha Center and Arab Barometer invite you to attend a webinar on the potential impact of the 2020 U.S. elections on the MENA region. The discussion will address the following questions: How will the results of the U.S. election affect the country’s policies in the MENA region, and vice versa? How does the Arab public view the U.S. and what does a continuation of a Trump presidency mean versus a Biden presidency in the eyes of ordinary citizens in the region? How might the Trump administration’s efforts to promote Israeli normalization and sanction Iran impact voter opinions? And in what ways would a Biden administration be likely to build upon or break away from the current U.S. policies in the region?
Speakers:
Adel Abdel Ghafar (moderator): Fellow – Foreign Policy, Brookings Doha Center
Michael Robbins: Project Director – Arab Barometer
Maha Yahya: Director – Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East
Tamara Cofman Wittes: Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy
Samer Shehata: Professor of Middle East Studies – University of Oklahoma
2. Elections in the Time of COVID-19: Brazilian Edition | November 2, 2020 | 2:00 – 2:45 PM ET | Wilson Center | Register Here
In Brazil and the United States, both continental-sized democracies, holding national elections takes significant planning and management—and COVID-19 has only brought new challenges to election authorities in both countries. But unlike in the United States, where more than 3,000 counties are each responsible for their own electoral process, the supervision and administration of elections in Brazil falls largely on the Superior Electoral Court (TSE): the highest body of electoral justice in Brazil. In coordination with the regional electoral courts, the TSE has been tasked with protecting poll workers and voters alike in more than 5,500 cities across Brazil during the upcoming municipal elections.
Join us for a discussion on the preparations for the Nov. 15 municipal elections—when more than 145 million voters go to the polls in 5,500 cities across Brazil—, the twin challenges of COVID-19 and disinformation, and observations on differing electoral processes in Brazil and the United States.
Speakers:
Justice Luís Roberto Barroso: President of the Superior Electoral Court; Justice of the Supreme Federal Court
Ambassador Thomas A. Shannon, Jr: Co-Chair, Brazil Institute Advisory Council; Senior International Policy Advisor at Arnold & Porter
Paulo Sotero: Distinguished Fellow, Brazil Institute
3. Tbilisi Tallies: Georgia’s Post-Election Outlook | November 2, 2020 | 9:30 AM EST | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Georgia’s parliamentary elections on October 31 will be held amid a war on its doorstep, a sharp spike in new coronavirus cases, and ramped-up interference from the Kremlin. The recent escalation of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has challenged the fragile security situation in the South Caucasus. Meanwhile, a rising number of coronavirus infections will prevent international election observers from monitoring the election and may depress voter turnout.
On the bright side, Georgia is also set for what may be its most competitive elections to date, after the legislature passed electoral reforms in June aimed at curbing parliamentary supermajorities. Do all of these developments mean that Georgia is entering a new phase? What can observers expect to see next?
Speakers:
Thomas de Waal: Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Nino Ghvinadze: Non-resident Fellow, Eurasia Center
Laura Linderman: Non-resident Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center
Dr. Lincoln Mitchell: Adjunct Research Scholar, Columbia University
Melinda Haring, moderator: Deputy Director, Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center
4. Election 2020: Results and Implications | November 4, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:15 PM EST | Brookings Institute | Register Here
One of the most significant elections in U.S. history is soon coming to an end. Election officials are expecting a large increase of mail-in ballots and early in-person voting, as well as a big turnout on Election Day. This could mean that the process of counting ballots may take more time than in previous elections. Potential legal challenges could also delay the results of key races. But once the votes are all counted, the results will be confirmed—and the implications are vast.
Newly elected policymakers in federal and state government will be expected to immediately address several ongoing national crises, including the coronavirus pandemic, a cratering economy, climate change, and systemic racism—all while working to unite a deeply divided public. How do the election results relate to what’s happening across the country and what can they tell us about the governing challenges that America will face over the next four years?
On November 4, the day after the election, Governance Studies at Brookings will host a webinar examining the results of the 2020 election. Panelists will review election results, the factors that produced that outcome, policy priorities for the president-elect, and the significance of it all for American democracy.
Speakers:
E.J. Dionne, Jr. moderator: W. Averell Harriman Chair and Senior Fellow – Governance Studies
Camille Busette: Senior Fellow – Economic Studies, Governance Studies, Metropolitan Policy ProgramDirector – Race, Prosperity, and Inclusion Initiative
John Hudak: Deputy Director – Center for Effective Public ManagementSenior Fellow – Governance Studies
Elaine Kamarck: Founding Director – Center for Effective Public ManagementSenior Fellow – Governance Studies
Molly E. Reynolds: Senior Fellow – Governance Studies
5. Local Elections and the Future of Local Self-Governance in Ukraine | November 5, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:30 AM EST | Wilson Center | Register Here
Ukraine began to reform local government in 2015 as one of the demands of Euromaidan. Since then, the key achievement of decentralization policy was the empowerment of local communities through merging local districts. These new local governments broadened the scope of their agenda and budget as they merged. In July 2020, the Rada radically decreased the number of local administrations, or rayons, from 490 to 136. The October 2020 local elections brought new leadership into these administrations. Vita Dumanska, Olena Lennon, and Mykhailo Minakov will discuss the results of the local elections, who now governs these reformed localities, and what the consequences of the elections might be on local reforms in the near future.
Speakers:
Vita Dumanska: CEO, CHESNO Movement
Olena Lennon: Former Title VIII-Supported Short-Term Scholar; Adjunct Professor of Political Science and National Security, University of New Haven
Mykhailo Minakov: Senior Advisor; Editor-in-Chief, Focus Ukraine Blog
William E. Pomeranz, moderator: Deputy Director, Kennan Institute
6. The Korean Peninsula After the U.S. Election | November 5, 2020 | 8:00 – 9:10 AM EST | Wilson Center | Register Here
President Donald Trump’s first four years in the White House sparked dramatic shifts in diplomacy in Northeast Asia, including historic summits with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, protracted military negotiations with South Korea and rising strategic competition with China. What could the next four years look like for Asia if he is re-elected? And what changes and challenges might we anticipate if former Vice President Joseph Biden wins the November election?
As Americans head to the polls, experts from the United States, South Korea and Europe examine how foreign policy in the region will be impacted by the man who takes the White House in January 2021. Whether President Trump wins a second term or former Vice President Biden seizes the presidency, the Nov. 3 presidential election is bound to have a deep impact on the Korean Peninsula, including how to rein in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, navigate a rising China and restore fraying alliances.
Speakers:
Joseph Yun: Senior Adviser to the Asia Program at the U.S. Institute of Peace and Former U.S. Special Representative for North Korea policy
Kim Joonhyung: Chancellor of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy in South Korea
Jean H. Lee: Director, Hyundai Motor-Korea Foundation Center for Korean History and Public Policy; Journalist and former Pyongyang Bureau Chief, Associated Press
Kim Jiyoon: Political Analyst and Host of Jiyoon Kim’s Evening Show on TBS FM
Ramon Pacheco Pardo, moderator: KF-VUB Korea Chair, Institute for European Studies
7. Why is Reform Hard in Ukraine? | November 5, 2020 | 11:30 AM EST | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Reform efforts in Ukraine have faced numerous challenges in 2020. In March, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy fired many of the reform-minded technocrats in his cabinet and replaced them with establishment figures. Anti-corruption efforts are stymied by courts backed by special interests, while oligarchs and Russian agents control blocs of lawmakers in the Verkhovna Rada, rendering legislative reform difficult.
Once again, “business as usual” has prompted skepticism in the Ukrainian people. Local elections in late October delivered a sound rebuke of Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party, which lost seats in regional parliaments across the country and performed poorly in major mayoral races. What explains the complicated reform dynamic in Ukraine? What can Western partners do to help Ukraine get back on track?
Speakers:
Prime Minister Oleksiy Honcharuk: Former Prime Minister of Ukraine; Distinguished Fellow at the Eurasia Center
Dr. Tymofiy Mylovanov: Former Minister of Economic Development, trade, and Agriculture of Ukraine
Serhiy Verlanov: Former Head of the State Tax Service of Ukraine
Melinda Haring: Deputy Director, Eurasia Center
Ambassador John Herbst, moderator: Director, Eurasia Center
8. “New” Saudi Arabia: Social Change, Economic Obstacles, and Western Alliances | November 6, 2020 | 12:00 – 1:00 PM EST | Middle East Institute | Register Here
Saudi Arabia’s socioeconomic reforms and progress toward Vision 2030 has been widely celebrated, at the same time as the autocratic actions and human rights abuses by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman have received international condemnation. A more globally connected Saudi population is paving the way for greater progress and reform as the government pursues economic diversification initiatives and gradual social liberalization reforms. At this crossroads, Saudi Arabia’s economy has been hit by the Covid-19 pandemic and the oil price wars.
Given that the US-Saudi alliance historically has been closely tied with economic relations and energy markets, how might these converging economic challenges impact the bilateral relationship? How might shifting sociopolitical dynamics within the kingdom affect its approach to relations with Western countries? What does the history of US-Saudi relations tell us about the complex interplay of economic, political, and security interests the US has in the Gulf, and how that might impact reform progress in the next decade?
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a conversation between David Rundell and Victor McFarland, two leading scholars who have recently published books detailing different aspects of the Kingdom’s ascent over the past two decades.
Speakers:
Victor McFarland: Associate professor, Department of History, University of Missouri
David Rundell: Career diplomat; author
Kristin Diwan, moderator: Senior resident scholar, The Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks October 15-21
- Defusing the South China Sea Disputes: A Regional Blueprint | Monday, October 15, 2018 | 10 am – 12 pm | Center for Strategic and International Studies | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Please join us for the launch of Defusing the South China Sea Disputes: A Regional Blueprint by the CSIS Expert Working Group on the South China Sea, which brings together prominent experts on maritime law, international relations, and the marine environment from China, Southeast Asia, and beyond. Members of the group gathered three times between July 2017 and July 2018 to discuss issues that they consider necessary for the successful management of the South China Sea disputes, and produced blueprints for a path forward on each. The members believe these three proposed agreements add up to a robust model for managing the South China Sea disputes, one which would be both legally and politically feasible for all parties.
The working group includes a diverse set of 27 experts from claimant states and interested countries, including the United States. It is chaired by Gregory Poling, director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at CSIS. All members take part in their personal capacities, not as representatives of their home institutions. They are invited to join the group based on their subject matter expertise and willingness to reach creative compromises.
Agenda
Summary of Blueprints
Gregory B. Poling, Director, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, CSIS
Panel Discussion with Members
Bonnie S. Glaser, Senior Adviser for Asia and Director, China Power Project, CSIS
Prashanth Parameswaran, Senior Editor, The Diplomat
Amy Searight, Senior Adviser and Director, Southeast Asia Program, CSIS
This report was made possible by general funding to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative.
2. The Evolving Iranian Strategy in Syria: A Looming Conflict with Israel | Wednesday, October 17, 2018 | 9 am – 10:30 am | Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St. NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20005 | Register Here
Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, the Iranian regime has spent considerable energy capitalizing on chaos in Syria to establish transit routes from Iran to the Mediterranean. Israel has followed the movements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its proxies in Syria warily, laying out clear red lines to deter Iranian overreach. The IRGC-Quds Force rocket attack on Israeli military posts in the Golan in May 2018 instigated Israeli retaliation against Iranian-backed ground forces. Although Iran did not respond in kind, tensions along Israel’s northwestern border and in southern Syria persist, and the potential for an Israeli-Iranian conflict looms.
Please join the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft and Rafik Hariri Centers on Wednesday, October 17 from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. for the launch of nonresident senior fellow Nader Uskowi’s issue brief on Iran’s evolving strategy in Syria and the implications for regional security. This discussion will focus on the possibility for future conflict between Iran and Israel as the Syrian conflict enters its next phase, as well as how the United States can adapt its own policies to reflect the altered power structure in the region.
A conversation with:
Nader Uskowi
Nonresident Senior Fellow
Atlantic Council
Assaf Orion
Military Fellow
Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Jennifer Cafarella
Director of Intelligence Planning
Institute for the Study of War
3. Championing the Frontlines of Freedom: Erasing the “Grey Zone” | Thursday, October 18, 2018 | 9 am – 4:30 pm | Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC | Register Here
The countries of Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine stand at a crossroads. Perched between Russia and the West, they have chosen a path of economic and political reform and closer relations with the West. They face substantial challenges dealing with the systemic legacy of the Soviet period as they pursue reform, while also confronting Kremlin interference in their affairs and occupation of their land. Once described as part of a geopolitical “grey zone,” these countries are working to instead be seen as states on the “frontlines of freedom” with futures as free, whole, and secure European states.
At this conference, the Atlantic Council will convene a group of experts to discuss topics such as the historical origins of the so-called “grey zone,” the Kremlin’s use of frozen conflicts, transatlantic policy toward the region, and democratic progress in these states.
This event will include a spotlight address from the Hon. A. Wess Mitchell, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, on US strategy in Central and Eastern Europe.
Agenda
Introduction
Mr. Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President, Atlantic Council
Keynote Remarks
The Hon. Roger Wicker, US Senator for Mississippi, US Senate
Address: The Historical Origins of the Frontlines of Freedom
Dr. Serhii Plokhii, Director, Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University
Address: “Grey Zone” Past and Future
The Hon. Kurt Volker, US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, US Department of State
Fireside Chat
Dr. Serhii Plokhii, Director, Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University
The Hon. Kurt Volker, US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, US Department of State
Moderated by: Mr. Mark Simakovsky, Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Panel I: Frozen Conflicts and the Kremlin’s Agenda
Mr. Denis Cenusa, Researcher, Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Justus-Liebig-Universität
Ambassador John Herbst, Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Minister Tinatin Khidasheli, Former Defense Minister, Republic of Georgia
Ms. Maria Snegovaya, Adjunct Fellow, Center for European Policy and Analysis; Research Associate, Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland
Ambassador James Warlick, Partner and Senior Policy Adviser, Egorov Puginsky Afanasiev & Partners
Moderated by: Dr. Michael Carpenter, Senior Director, Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement; Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Spotlight Address: Strategy in Central and Eastern Europe
The Hon. A. Wess Mitchell, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, US Department of State
Introduced by: Mr. Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President, Atlantic Council
Panel II: Transatlantic Policy Towards the Region
H.E. David Bakradze, Ambassador of Georgia to the United States
Mr. David Kramer, Senior Fellow, Vaclav Havel Program for Human Rights and Diplomacy, Steven J. Green School of International and Public Affairs, Florida International University
Mr. Alex Tiersky, Senior Policy Adviser, US Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Mr. Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President, Atlantic Council
Moderated by: Ms. Melinda Haring, Editor, UkraineAlert, Atlantic Council
Panel III: Democratic Progress in the Frontlines of Freedom
Mr. Carl Gershman, President, National Endowment for Democracy
Dr. Laura Jewett, Senior Associate and Regional Director for Eurasia, National Democratic Institute
Mr. Stephen Nix, Regional Director, Eurasia, International Republican Institute
Moderated by: Ms. Eka Gigauri, Executive Director, Transparency International Georgia
4. Restraining Great Powers: Soft Balancing From Empires to the Global Era | Thursday, October 18, 2018 | 2 pm – 4 pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Countering traditional notions of balance-of-power theory, smaller states have not joined together militarily to oppose the United States’ rising power at the end of the Cold War, Chinese aggression in the South China Sea, or Russian offensives along its Western border. Instead, balance-of-power politics has taken a different form.
In a new book, Restraining Great Powers: Soft Balancing from Empires to the Global Era, T.V. Paul argues that leading powers have engaged in “soft balancing,” which seeks to restrain threatening powers through the use of international institutions, informal alignments, and economic sanctions. Placing the evolution of balancing behavior in historical context, Paul examines how subtler forms of balance-of-power politics can help states achieve their goals against aggressive powers without wars or arms races. Paul will be joined in conversation by Richard Fontaine and Ellen Laipson. Carnegie’s Ashley J. Tellis will moderate. Copies of the book will be available for sale.
T.V. PAUL
T.V. Paul is James McGill Professor of International Relations in the department of Political Science at McGill University.
RICHARD FONTAINE
Richard Fontaine is the president of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).
ELLEN LAIPSON
Ellen Laipson is the director of the Master’s in International Security degree program and the Center for Security Policy Studies at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University.
ASHLEY J. TELLIS
Ashley J. Tellis holds the Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs and is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
5. Breaking Rules to Build Peace: The Role of Leadership and Accountability in Peacebuilding | Thursday, October 18, 2018 | 3 pm – 5 pm | US Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Register Here
Why do peacebuilders sometimes succeed and sometimes fail, even within the same country? Why can organizations not guarantee the same results from the same policies? Peacebuilders struggle to answer these questions and create programs with consistently positive results. Join the U.S. Institute of Peace as we discuss policy recommendations drawn from new research highlighting unexpected solutions to a long-standing challenge.
Organizations that work to build peace in fragile states often fail to meet the stated goals of the programs they design to resolve violent conflict. In her newly published book, Global Governance and Local Peace: Accountability and Performance in International Peacebuilding, Susanna Campbell dives into why peacebuilding organizations often fail and presents one of the keys to success: local actors that force organizations to stay accountable to local peacebuilding goals. Join experts as they discuss Campbell’s findings and how country-based staff can sidestep normal accountability procedures and empower local actors to push for innovative solutions to local problems.
Speakers
Susanna Campbell
Assistant Professor, School of International Service, American University
Michael Barnett
Professor, International Affairs and Political Science, The George Washington University
Mike Jobbins
Senior Director of Partnerships and Engagement, Search for Common Ground
Kate Somvongsiri
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau of Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, U.S. Agency for International Development
Leanne Erdberg, moderator
Director, Countering Violent Extremism, The U.S. Institute of Peace
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Partition has failed, prepare something else
Serbian President Vucic has announced that his efforts to get something in negotiations with Kosovo have failed. What could he mean, and what does the announcement portend? It is hard to tell, but my guess is that Vucic has come to realize that there will be no unilateral partition of Kosovo.
That is what Vucic wanted: the northern majority-Serb municipalities in exchange for some sort of recognition of rump Kosovo. Kosovo President Thaci has made it clear he would only agree to some version of that proposal if Kosovo gets equivalent territory in southern Serbian municipalities that have Albanian majorities as well as UN membership.
The Serbian security services have no doubt told Vucic that is unacceptable. The land/people swap just isn’t going to work out, as it fails to protect vital interests of both Belgrade and Pristina: the former is concerned about its main route to the sea through southern Serbia and the latter with its main water supply in the north. Moreover, Serbia can no longer–if it ever could–commit to UN membership for Kosovo, which is blocked by a Russian veto in the Security Council.
The failure of this proposition is a relief, as it will avoid raising questions about borders in Macedonia, Bosnia, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Vucic and Thaci may regret it, but the rest of the world should rejoice that Putin has not been handed a prize he would use to try to shift borders to accommodate Russians in what he regards as his “near abroad.” We should also be glad that Serbia itself, Spain, China, and other countries with ethnically diverse regions will not find ethnic secessionists re-empowered.
So far so good, but what about Kosovo? What are its prospects if the land/people swap is dead?
Again I’m guessing, but I think there are still deals to be had. They will not involve UN membership, because Russia now has its own interests in blocking that unless it gets satisfaction on South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, Crimea, and Donbas. But Pristina still wants and needs bilateral recognition, or at least de facto acknowledgement of it authority on all the territory of Kosovo, not least so that it can join multilateral organizations as well as settle issues still outstanding with Belgrade: unpaid pensions, state property, border demarcation, Serbian efforts to prevent Serbs from joining its police and security forces, protection of Serbs and Serb religious sites throughout Kosovo, and creation of a Kosovo army.
Belgrade has wanted to use the creation of an Association of Serb Municipalities, something that has already been agreed, to create in Kosovo a de facto self-governing Serb “entity,” analogous to Republika Srpska (RS) in Bosnia, with veto powers in Pristina. Vucic is likely now to double down on that idea, but it is clearly something Thaci cannot deliver. The Kosovo constitutional court has already ruled out anything analogous to the RS, which has rendered governance in Bosnia dysfunctional. The votes for a constitutional amendment to enable creation of a Serb entity in Kosovo simply don’t exist in the Kosovo Assembly.
Nor do the votes exist in the Serbian parliament for changing its constitution, which claims Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia. Those votes are unlikely to emerge before EU accession is imminent. At that point, Serbia can expect to get nothing in return, since all the leverage will be with the EU, which will not accept Serbia until normalization with Kosovo is a done deal.
So whatever emerges now is likely to be messy. That is not unusual. Colleagues in KIPRED have done us all a favor by reviewing some available options that have proved feasible elsewhere. I’d suggest Vucic and Thaci read that fine paper. They’ve both got good thinkers available. Put them in the same room to come up with something viable for both parties. And in the meanwhile focus political efforts on preparing their electorates for the inevitable compromises.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Good enough for me
Those who favor a still ill-defined but all too real “border correction/land swap” between Serbia and Kosovo are justifying it on grounds that it would be legal. I think they are right: I don’t know of anything that prohibits sovereign states from exchanging territory and people, even if it has not been done a lot lately. But let’s be clear about two things:
- The swap would exchange human beings as well as the land they live on. That’s fine for the Serbs in northern Kosovo and the Albanians in southern Serbia. But there are also Albanians who live in the parts of northern Kosovo Serbia wants, and Serbs who live in the parts of southern Serbia that Kosovo wants. Tens of thousands are going to end up moving.
- Mutual recognition of sovereignty and territorial integrity would have to come before the exchange. A state not recognized as sovereign would be crazy to attempt a swap with a non-recognizer.
The arguments against the land swap are not legal. They are practical and realist.
Defenders of the proposition on the Pristina side are saying it would also have to include UN membership. That is something Belgrade cannot guarantee. Only the permanent members of the Security Council could do so. I haven’t heard anything yet that suggests Russia or China is prepared to let Kosovo’s UN membership through the Security Council. Russia will seek a quid pro quo, most likely US recognition of the annexation of Crimea as well as the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Russian puppet states inside Georgia. China will hesitate because of what it perceives as Tibetan independence aspirations. The only thing worse than Kosovo independence for Beijing would be rearranging its territory on an ethnic basis.
There are also good reasons inside Serbia and Kosovo to doubt that this swap is viable. Kosovo’s main water supply is in the Serb-controlled north. Would it be prepared to see that transferred to Serbia? Serbia’s main outlet to the sea is the north/south road through southern Serbia to Thessaloniki. The Serbian army has always wanted to keep not only the road but as much territory surrounding it as possible. Are the generals suddenly willing to give in?
Any land/people swap would also raise questions about the Serb population in Kosovo south of the Ibar river, where the majority live close by the most important Serb religious sites. That population is already aging. A land swap would undermine any confidence the Kosovo Serbs south of the Ibar have in their future. It would also create temptations for radical nationalist Albanians, since they will see any land swap as prelude to union with Albania, which is what the political movement that got the second largest number of votes in the last Kosovo election wants. That movement has split, but a land swap will vastly increase the appeal of its more radical faction.
I hardly need rehearse again all the other arguments against the swap proposition: Russian President Putin would welcome it. The liberal democratic ideals of the EU and US would be weakened. Not to mention that it would put Bosnia and Herzegovina at serious risk: Republika Srpska President Dodik has made it clear he is prepared to declare independence if a land swap occurs. Serbia won’t recognize the RS as independent because that would destroy its EU ambition, but Dodik won’t care. He’ll be happy to rule a Russian-sponsored satrapy like South Ossetia and Abkhazia, so long as Moscow provides the needed rubles.
What is the alternative to a land swap? Kosovo and Serbia need to institute the political and economic reforms required for EU membership. That is far more urgent, and popular in both countries, than a land swap. The closer Serbia gets to EU membership, the greater the pressure it will feel to recognize Kosovo, without a land/people swap. That’s good enough for me.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
You don’t need to know a lot of history
I tweeted to Kosovo President Thaci on Friday:
.
@HashimThaciRKS: do you really want to open for renegotiation the deal with the US and most of the EU that got your state recognition? This could end very badly.
He responded:
Dear
@DanielSerwer, I’m committed deeply to obtain#Kosovo‘s membership in@NATO and EU. Based on values we share. Based on need to ensure safety of our children. We need to close a chapter that brings about reciprocal recognition & good neighborly relations between RKS & SRB.I’m against partition. I’m against swaps. I’m against status quo. I’m against making a Republica Srpska in
#Kosovo. But I’m in favor to peaceful demarcation and settling the 400km long border between Kosovo and Serbia. Balanced agreement is in all our interests, incl US & EU.
I prefer to respond here rather than on Twitter, which doesn’t work well for complex issues. This one is complex.
I share the President’s goals: NATO and EU membership, recognition, and good neighborly relations between Kosovo and Serbia. I am also against partition and land swaps, and a Republika Srpska (RS) in Kosovo (that is part of Kosovo that de facto escapes Pristina’s sovereignty, like the RS in Bosnia). Peaceful demarcation of the border is vital. You can look long and hard for two countries with good relations that have not agreed on and demarcated their border.
So what’s the problem? Just this: President Thaci has responded to Serbian President Vucic’s constant harping on partition of Kosovo with the suggestion that Kosovo would like to absorb at least some of the Albanian-populated communities in southern Serbia. Never mind that Serbia’s main route to the sea is adjacent to those Albanian communities and that Kosovo’s main water supply is the Serb-controlled north. The tit-for-tat presidential speculation on partition opens what diplomats call Pandora’s box: border changes throughout the Balkans that would necessarily involve significant populations and land areas.
Calling it “border correction” and associating it with demarcation does nothing to lessen the broad and dramatic impact an attempt to redraw borders along ethnic lines would entail. Consider this from Father Sava on his Facebook page today:
Acceptance of ethnic partition between Serbs and Albanians in Kosovo by territorial division, forcing 70.000 Serbs south of the partition line to an imminent exodus and leaving their holy sites in peril would mean that EU accepts the idea of an AGREED ETHNIC CLEANSING as a legitimate solution.
This would be a dangerous precedent with unforeseeable consequences which would inevitably encourage replication of such a model throughout the continent. EU member states are before a critical historical responsibility if this scenario is politically supported. This will bring us back to the tragic years of the ex-Yu wars in the 90ies.
Meanwhile, Republika Srpska President Dodik is declaring:
I think that BiH [Bosnia and Herzegovina] will not survive and that it will peacefully dissolve.
He knows that there is no possibility of a peaceful dissolution and has been arming his police with weapons from Russia to ensure that RS is ready to defend its secession when the time comes. That would of course lead to the expulsion of the (relatively few) Croats and Bosniaks who have returned to RS and might imperil the Serbs in the Bosnian Federation as well. The net result would likely be a non-viable Islamic Republic in central Bosnia that could readily become an extremist safe haven.
In Macedonia, there is a real risk that more extreme ethnic nationalists of both the Albanian and Macedonian varieties will benefit from the atmosphere that these partition fantasies are creating. That could lead to defeat of the September 30 referendum on the agreement that would end the more than 25-year dispute with Greece over the country’s name. NATO and EU membership would then become impossible and agitation in favor of an infeasible partition would become inevitable.
The implications for the secessionist regions of Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine are all too obvious. President Putin couldn’t hope for more.
Why is this happening? In part because the US has an ethnic nationalist administration whose erstwhile chief strategist, Steve Bannon, is running around pushing ethnic partition while former Trump campaign officials sign up lobbying clients like Dodik and Vucic. The lobbyists don’t care how much trouble their schemes may cause, but those who are actually governing in Washington, European capitals, and Brussels should. You don’t need to know a lot of history to know how easily conflicting ethnic territorial claims in the Balkans can lead to instability, and instability to much worse.
RSS - Posts
