Month: February 2012
From rebellion to revolution
The Irmgard Coninx Stiftung at the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung is circulating this notice for scholars, activists and journalists:
16th Berlin Roundtables on Transnationality, October 17 – 20, 2012
From Rebellion to Revolution: Dynamics of Political Change Submission deadline is June 30, 2012.
Based on an international essay competition, we will invite approximately 45 applicants to discuss their research, concerns and agendas with peers and prominent scholars in Berlin. The competition is open to students and scholars (max. up to 5 years after Ph.D.), journalists and activists interested in revolutionary processes (e.g. government agencies, NGOs).
The Irmgard Coninx Foundation will cover travel to and accommodation in Berlin.
Conference papers can address but are not limited to the following topics:
– dynamics of political/system change
– democratization and human rights in revolutionary processes
– violence
– mass mobilization
– (new) media and revolution today
– role of elites and elite competition/coalitions
– role of military and police forces
– economic and political reasons for rebellion and their course
– cultural and religious factors influencing revolutions
– demographic and social background of revolutions
– foreign military and humanitarian intervention
– revolution/rebellion as analytical and normative concept
Discussions will take place in three workshops chaired by Wolfgang Merkel (Humbold-Universität zu Berlin/WZB), Christoph Stefes (University of Colorado Denver/WZB), Jeff Goodwin (New York University) and Sonja Hegasy (Zentrum Moderner Orient).
The conference will be accompanied by evening lectures by Nancy Fraser (The New School for Social Research) and Amr Hamzawy (requested, University of Cairo/Freedom Egypt Party).
Conference participants are eligible to apply for one of up to three three-month fellowships to be used for research in Berlin at the WZB.
For further information on the conference and the background paper:
http://www.irmgard-coninx-stiftung.de/revolutions.html
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A year on in North Africa
I enjoyed a fine event yesterday at an undisclosed location discussing north Africa from the Mediterranean littoral to northern Nigeria. Arab Spring was the overall theme, but with very explicit recognition that it has manifested itself differently in different national contexts. The event was not for attribution, so I can’t offer you the names of the distinguished folks involved, but here is a quick summary:
Tunisia: Still looking like the best of the lot, with a glass half full and continuing to fill. The mostly conscript army refused to fire on civilians, the old order has been willing to yield its positions and there have been Islamist moderates (Ennahda) on the rebel side. There could still be splits that would endanger moderation and the elections may not be held before October 23, as planned. Big issues include whether to have a presidential or a parliamentary constitutional system and whether Islamists will insist on implementing legislation for sharia. This was a political rather a social revolution, but so far a successful one. The U.S. should encourage trade and investment with Tunisia and leave ownership of the revolution with the Tunisians.
Libya: The National Transitional Council has had the advantages of uniting the opposition under reasonably good leadership and with decent planning, but it now faces serious challenges from people who are feeling excluded:
- Youth, who are particularly resentful of demobilization, disarmament and reintegration (DDR) plans on which they were not consulted;
- Tribes: some of them resent the failure to investigate the assassination of General Younis;
- Women: they get only lip service;
- Those seeking redress for mistreatment by revolutionary forces, especially the population of Tuarga, a town whose population the Misratans have vengefully displaced.
Power post-war is increasingly coming to depend on weapons, capture of high-value regime personalities, and a claimed role in the fighting, rather than on programmatic proposals for the future. Islam could become a source of division in Libya, but so far there is little debate because most Libyans agree it has a central role in their society. Still, there is a risk that Salafist elements, who have attacked Sufi shrines, may ignite tribal and sectarian tensions.
The NTC has been in a hurry, more concerned with speed than the quality of the transition process. The U.S. should focus not on the constitutional framework per se but on broad principles: participation of women, protection of minorities, and a broadly representative system of governance.
Egypt: Islamists of one sort or another have captured about 75% of the parliament. In Egyptian eyes, they stand for rule of law, an end to corruption, cultural authenticity and an end to foreign interference. For virtually all Egyptians, sharia simply means justice.
The economy is in free fall, with tourism hit hard, currency reserves plummeting, government bonds selling only at high interest rates and credit to business drying up.
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) wants immunity from prosecution and continued control over large portions of the economy. It is cracking down hard on protests.
So far as U.S. interests are concerned, the picture is mixed. Egypt does not appear to be breeding violent extremists. Anti-Americanism is more overt, but military to military cooperation is so far not much affected. Egypt will not support U.S. military action as readily as it did at times in the past, but a U.S. aid cutoff seems unlikely.
On Israel, Egyptians are concerned with the below market sale of their natural gas but they are unlikely to support abrogation of the Camp David peace. They will be more vocal and critical of U.S. support for Israeli settlements, attacks on Gaza and a possible attack on Iran.
The U.S. will do well to accept the election results, not ask the Egyptians to like Israelis, and practice strategic patience. The responsibilities of power will moderate Islamist forces in Egypt and restore balance to its relationship with Israel.
Morocco: The King has successfully taken the initiative and coopted the push for a constitutional monarchy, preserving his absolute powers behind the smokescreen of the new constitution he proposed. Social protests are continuing, but there is no serious political challenge to the monarchy. The legislature is weak. Security is a problem, one the relatively weak state may not be able to manage effectively. An uprising is not impossible but unlikely due the regime’s skillful maneuvers and the lack of an effective political opposition.
Algeria: There are lots of reasons why there should be a revolution: mass discontent, especially among the young and more educated, deep and wide corruption, lack of transparency and the state’s contempt for its citizens, widespread disillusion with the political system, social inequities, dependence on oil and gas, the demonstration effect of other north African rebellions, wide availability of social media.
But it isn’t happening. Algeria in many respects already has a democratic political culture, with frequent strikes and relative media freedom. It has used its oil and gas revenue effectively to appease the population, which disdains the state but shows little sign of despising the political leadership, in particular President Bouteflika. The military coup and civil war of the early 1990s have left many Algerians unwilling to risk a challenge to the established order.
Still, something might happen. A presidential succession looms, as do legislative elections (May 10). The political leadership is aging and it is not clear who will inherit.
The Sahel: The presentations focused on particular issues. First was Al Qaeda in the Maghreb, the Algerian terrorist group that has been largely defeated inside Algeria and has now turned to crime: smuggling, human trafficking, drug trade, kidnapping. It is making lots of money. The second was northern Nigeria, where Boko Haram is tying down the Nigerian security forces. That, the situation in the Delta and contestation between Christians and Muslims in central Nigeria are making it difficult for the Nigerians to play a major role in meeting the Sahelian challenge.
I focused on possible approaches to security in the Sahel, based on experience elsewhere. My personal conclusion is that the Sahel today does not today present a serious security challenge to the United States, but some preventive effort there–especially regional cooperation on community-level development, tracking terrorist financing and border controls–would be appropriate.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Bear apparent
The Russian role in the Balkans has long been of great concern to some of my Western-oriented friends there, even though it arouses little interest in Washington, DC. Milan Marinković tries to explain why it is important:
Russian Ambassador to Serbia Aleksandr Konuzin is chiefly known for incidents he occasionally makes. His public warnings to Belgrade as to the consequences Serbia will face should it dare to join NATO no longer raise eyebrows.
The more aggressive stance Konuzin takes, the more popularity he wins among Serbs. At a recent pre-election convention of the Serbian progressive party (SNS), Konuzin was a guest together with several Western diplomats. Even though SNS declares itself pro-EU, the party stalwarts booed the Westerners in attendance but greeted Konuzin with a standing ovation.
According to opinion polls, SNS is the most popular party in Serbia and the main rival to the currently ruling Democratic party (DS) of President Boris Tadic in the forthcoming elections. SNS’s possible rise to power could afford the Kremlin an opportunity to further increase its influence in Serbian politics.
Serbia hopes to benefit from the risky tactic of balancing between Moscow and Brussels. In 2008 Belgrade sold its oil monopoly NIS to Russian state-owned behemoth GAZPROM – many believe in return for Russia’s support on Kosovo. Whatever was behind the decision, the transaction has allowed Moscow to pursue its interests in Serbia more assertively.
The monopoly in energy supplies is one of several levers Russia has at its disposal. Others include various historical ties between the two nations, most notably religious and cultural ones. Serbia is dubbed “little Russia” in the Balkans. Russophilia is widespread among Serbs, which facilitates lobbying for Russia’s interests. The most active pro-Kremlin lobbyists in Serbia are senior officials of conservative nationalist parties along with several prominent members of the dominant faction within Serbian Orthodox Church – by far the most influential (nominally) non-governmental institution in the country.
At this point, Serbia is not counted among top priorities of Russian foreign policy. Russia plans to expand its sphere of influence in concentric circles. Moscow is currently looking to consolidate its power in the former Soviet Union’s periphery in order to set the stage for a prospective “Eurasian union.”
The second phase of Russia’s geopolitical expansion would involve ex-member states of the Warsaw Pact from Central and Eastern European. Serbia – and Balkans in general – most likely are scheduled for the third round. Until then, the Kremlin will seek to maintain the level of influence it already has in Serbia and will not hesitate to augment it whenever an opportunity presents itself. Keeping Serbia out of NATO is a vital part of this strategy.
The natural counterbalance to Russian power in the Balkans is Turkey. The two countries already compete in Bosnia. Belgrade and Ankara have significantly strengthened bilateral relations in recent years, as Serbia wants to attract Turkish investment. Pro-Russian circles in Serbia vehemently oppose Turco-Serbian rapprochement as harmful to Serbia’s national interests.
Russia’s Balkan aspirations could be undermined by the country’s internal constraints. Moscow is already facing serious challenges, such as growing discontent over corruption and social inequalities, as well as seething Islamist militancy in the Caucasus region. Whether Russia will manage to regain its old glory and continue to expand its influence in the Balkans largely depends on how it deals with its own domestic issues.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A bridge too far
Marc Lynch, in an otherwise convincing report advocating vigorous diplomatic rather than military means in dealing with Syria, goes a bridge to far:
The time has come to demand a clear choice from Syrian regime officials. They should be clearly warned that their names are about to be referred to the ICC [International Criminal Court] on charges of war crimes. It should be made clear that failure to participate in the political transition process will lead to an institutionalized legal straightjacket that would make it impossible for them to return to the international community. This should be feasible, even without Security Council agreement. [my bolding] Top regime officials should be left with no doubt that the window is rapidly closing on their ability to defect from the regime and avoid international prosecution.
Unfortunately, it isn’t feasible without Security Council agreement. Though it was a signatory, Syria is not state party to the ICC statute, so its citizens can’t be referred to the ICC without UNSC approval. If anyone tries such a referral anyway, I imagine Syria would “unsign,” as the U.S. did when Washington grew concerned that signing might undermine protections for U.S. soldiers.
This is a flaw, but not a fatal one for the report as a whole. Marc reviews the military options that have been discussed most commonly and concludes that they are cures worse than the disease. Likewise arming the opposition will make the civil war worse and likely fail to enable the opposition to win.
Unfortunately, that throws us back to strengthening sanctions, deepening diplomatic isolation, trying to unify the opposition and that last resort of the desperate, improving strategic communications about the regime’s misbehavior. I don’t think Anderson Cooper can do much more on CNN in this last category than he is already doing.
This menu of policy options will be totally unsatisfactory to Syrians, and frankly also to me. There is no question but that the use of force against the Syrian regime would be justified. But reality is what it is. There are no good military options and few good non-military ones. I have some hope Beijing at least will come around on Syria, but that would still leave Russia as a veto in the Security Council.
If ever there were a clear illustration of why diplomacy matters, this is it. Let’s hope the Syrian protesters, who are showing lots of courage, can continue to surprise and dismay the regime with nonviolent demonstrations. The more they can make it relatively safe to show support for the rebellion, the more people will show up to herald the end of Bashar al Assad.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Pyramid scheme
I am indebted for this post to a Facebook note from Tamara Wittes pointing out her optimistic testimony on Egypt, in contrast to the pessimistic testimony of Eric Trager that I had tweeted previously. Both spoke at the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia on February 15. Rarely have I seen sharper, or more intelligently framed, contrasting views on an issue of major importance to the United States.
Trager argues that Egypt is headed definitively in an anti-Western direction, due to the strong showing by Islamists in its parliamentary elections and the unreliability of the Egyptian army. He thinks the Muslim Brotherhood will remain uncompromising, citing the way it selects its candidates, its earlier performance in parliament, and its unwillingness to be outflanked by more extreme Islamists, who also did well in the elections. He argues for a tightened focus of U.S. policy on top priorities, including maintaining the peace treaty with Israel, protection of religious minorities and fighting terrorism. He also argues for being prepared to use the $1.3 million in annual military funding and U.S. support for Egypt in international organizations as leverage.
Wittes, less certain of the direction Egypt is heading and hopeful the ideals and youth of the revolution will not be betrayed , argues for the opposite: a broad partnership with the Egyptian people as well as the government they elect. She wants to focus on the long-term and not over-react to the current Egyptian crackdown on foreign, including American, democratization programs. Egyptians, she points out, reject terrorist violence, treasure regional stability, oppose nuclear proliferation and need a thriving economy. These factors align their interests with the U.S., which can be helpful on all these fronts. She sees particular promise in the economic pragmatism of the Muslim Brotherhood, which will be under pressure to deliver improved conditions sooner rather than later. Implicitly at least, she would oppose use of our leverage, at least for now.
Who is right? It seems to me Trager has the advantage when it comes to analyzing the Muslim Brotherhood’s likely inclinations. He has studied the organization with care and knows of what he speaks.
But that does not mean he is entirely correct in his policy choice, which runs the risk of pushing the Muslim Brotherhood in the very direction we don’t want to see it go. Already some in the Muslim Brotherhood, in response to noises from the Congress about the U.S. assistance, are promising abrogation of the peace treaty with Israel if the assistance is cut off. Use of leverage can be self-defeating, especially if the antagonist has an alternative. At current oil prices well over $100/barrel, it would not be difficult for Saudi Arabia or another Gulf country to take out a checkbook and replace U.S. assistance. A billion and change just isn’t what it used to be.
It seems to me our best bet is to combine Trager’s realism about the Muslim Brotherhood’s inclinations with some of Wittes’ perceptiveness about common interests. John McCain and other Congresspeople who were in Cairo yesterday will have already tested our $1.3 billion in bilateral military leverage to try to spring the Americans involved in democratization efforts there. The Supreme Council for the Armed Forces as well as the Muslim Brotherhood will have told them how unproductive it would be for Washington to cut off the assistance. It will take some time before we can reload that musket and use it again.
If the Muslim Brotherhood is going in a more pragmatic direction, which more than one report reaching my ears suggests is true, it is largely because of the Egyptian economic situation, which is going off a cliff. The key there is not the bilateral American assistance but rather the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, which have vastly greater resources at their disposal. Trager is right to suggest that U.S. leverage in those organizations can be mobilized in support of top priority objectives. The IMF and World Bank would be foolish to put money on the line for Egypt if the peace treaty is in doubt.
The fundamental problem in Egypt is that there is still no social consensus on where the revolution to go. The military takeover cut short the conversation and diverted it into debates over how and when the constitution should be written and the president should be elected. But those are means towards broader ends. The country still needs a broad national dialogue on the kind of society and government its citizens want to see.
The parliament will now choose a committee to write the constitution. This should not be done behind closed doors, as just about everything else has been done since the army took over. A broad public consultation would serve Egypt’s interests, and ours, much better. In the meanwhile, the United States would be wise to heed Trager’s warnings, but try to move patiently and cautiously towards the realization of Wittes’ goals. Call it an American-style pyramid scheme.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
I somehow managed to commit myself to three events this week, one off-the-record and two public: on Syria with Mona Yacoubian at the Center for National Policy (1 MA Ave), February 23, 12-1:15 and on Algeria (the same day!) 3-4:30 pm in BOB (1717 MA) 500 at SAIS. The week is a short one and therefore crowded with other interesting events:
1. Campaign 2012 Series – Election Cycle Foreign Policy with Heather Hurlburt, February 21, 6-7:30 PM
Campaign 2012 Series:
Election Cycle Foreign Policy with Heather Hurlburt
While the upcoming presidential election this year may be dominated by domestic issues, foreign policy remains a critical factor in any election season. Every aspiring foreign policy leader needs to have the skills and savvy to navigate electoral politics. As we gear up for Election 2012, YPFP is reviving the popular Campaign Series from 2008 to give members the opportunity for spirited bi-partisan debate on both the role of foreign policy on the upcoming election, and the impact of the presidential contest on foreign policy.
In this election, Iran, Syria, and the new “Pacific Pivot” strategy have emerged front and center, while the endgame of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have begun to recede. Yet, nothing carries more influence than the economy, with most foreign policy questions being viewed through the lens of job creation or possible budget cuts for defense, diplomacy, and development.
Please join YPFP and our co-sponsor, America’s Impact, for the first installment of YPFP’s Campaign 2012 Series: a discussion about foreign policy in an election cycle with Heather Hurlburt, Executive Director of the National Security Network. Ms. Hurlburt, a veteran politico and frequent news commentator, will lead a discussion of these questions:
• How is the foreign policy landscape changing from 2008 to 2012?
• What do aspiring foreign policy leaders need to know about
presidential election cycles?
• What can we expect in this election and in the future?
• What role does U.S. politics play in the formation of U.S. foreign policy?
• How are other countries viewing the 2012 presidential election?
This will be the first event in a bi-partisan series that focuses on the foreign policy questions and challenges during the 2012 campaign cycle. Please join us for our next event in partnership with the Foreign Policy Initiative. Stay tuned for more details!
Before joining NSN, Hurlburt ran her own communications and strategy practice, working on global and political issues with political, entertainment, and educational leaders. From 1995-2001, Hurlburt served in the Clinton Administration as Special Assistant and Speechwriter to the President, speechwriter for Secretaries of State Albright and Christopher, and member of the State Department’s Policy Planning staff. She has also worked for the International Crisis Group, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the Congressional Helsinki Commission. At the Helsinki Commission, she was a negotiating member of the US Delegation to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and participated extensively in election monitoring, democracy-building and post-conflict missions in Central and Eastern Europe. She appears frequently as a commentator in new and traditional media and is a regular guest on Robert Wright’s Blogging Heads TV. Her work has been published by the New York Times, Washington Post, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, Guardian, POLITICO, New Republic and other outlets. Hurlburt holds a BA from Brown University, magna cum laude, and an MA from the George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs.
About America’s Impact
America’s Impact is a nonprofit community of professionals dedicated to making U.S. foreign policy a domestic priority. By supporting Congressional candidates who embrace pragmatic U.S. engagement with the world, we hope to build a more prosperous and secure America. For
more information, visit www.americasimpact.org.
2. The Iranian Nuclear Dilemma: Risk of an Iraq Sequel? Rayburn B339, February 21, 10:45 am-noon
A panel discussion featuring:
Hans Blix
Former Director General of the IAEA
Colin Kahl
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East
Robert Kelley
Former Chief Inspector for the IAEA in Iraq
Moderator: Trita Parsi
President, National Iranian American Council
Tuesday, February 21st, 2012
Rayburn House Office Building B-339
10:45 AM-12:00 PM
Light lunch will be provided
Seating is limited, RSVP required: rsvp@niacouncil.org or (202) 386-6325
Less than a decade after allegations of Iraqi weapons programs pitted the Bush Administration, the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the international community in a high stakes drama that ended in a devastating conflict and occupation, war again appears on the horizon—this time with Iran. But while fears of an Iranian aspiration for nuclear weapons have heightened the threat of another disastrous war, the Iranian nuclear dilemma is far from unresolvable.
Dr. Hans Blix served as Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997. He was appointed to lead the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission from 2000 to 2003 and was at the center of IAEA inspection efforts in Iraq prior to the Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Dr. Colin Kahl served as U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East from 2009 to 2011, developing and implementing the U.S. Defense Department’s strategy regarding Iran. He recently published “Not Time to Attack Iran” in Foreign Affairs.
Robert Kelley served as a member of the IAEA Iraq Action Team in 2003 and was Chief Inspector for the IAEA in Iraq, South Africa, and Libya. He questioned the evidence presented in the November 2011 IAEA report on Iran, in a Bloomberg piece, “Nuclear Arms Charge Against Iran Is No Slam Dunk”.
Sponsored by the Ploughshares Fund
The views of the speakers are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Iranian American Council.
3. Inside Egypt — The Path Forward, Gallup 901 F Street NW, February 22, 9-10 am
Over the past year, Egyptians have experienced a historic revolution, a surge in optimism, and a series of political and economic successes and challenges. Gallup scientifically measured Egyptians’ attitudes and hopes about the country’s politics and economics multiple times throughout this crucial year in the country’s history.
Gallup will share the key findings from these surveys at an in-depth briefing on February 22, 2012, in Washington, D.C. Gallup Senior Analyst Mohamed Younis will present the latest research on Egyptians’ views on the following topics:
- the coming presidential election
- Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel
- the Arab Spring and events in Syria and Libya
- the Egyptian military’s involvement in national politics
- Egyptians’ preferred path to civilian rule
Inside Egypt: The Path Forward will take place Wednesday, February 22, 2012 from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. at The Gallup Building at 901 F Street, NW, Washington, D.C. Please note that the entrance to The Gallup Building is on 9th Street. Gallup will provide light refreshments. While there is no cost to attend, registration is required. For more information, please contact Krista Volzke at 402.938.6001.
Event Registration
| Date | Location | Price | Register By | Status |
| February 22, 2012 | Washington, D.C. | Free | February 17, 2012 | Open |
3. The Changing Relationship between Civil Society and the Military, February 22, 12-1:30 pm
Where: Creative Associates, 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. (nearest metro: Friendship Heights)
Civil society organizations are taking on more active and crucial roles in both conflict and post-conflict environments to allow for local stakeholders to quickly build capacity for social services in the absence of civilian government authority, create the infrastructure needed to expedite economic activity, and serve as an important voice of local populace to military authorities.
How should our changing understanding of civil society influence how the U.S. military should interact with local CSOs? Can the military and civil society work together without blurring the lines between military and civilian operations? Some have argued that well-intended efforts by the military-civil society partnerships to rebuild schools and playgrounds or provide medical assistance risks militarizing civilian activities in the eyes of hostile forces.
How does the military currently determine which organizations are reliable social partners? How should these partnerships be funded? And how much assistance, guidance, or support should military authorities provide without undermining CSOs’ independence and credibility?
On February 22, SID-Washington’s Civil Society and Crisis, Conflict and Transition workgroups will cosponsor a brown bag lunch featuring Dr. Evelyn Farkas, Senior Advisor for Public-Private Partnerships to SACEUR, J.Randall Tift, Senior Advisor for World Vision, and Paul Miller, Foreign Aid Advisor, Catholic Relief Services, who will lead an open discussion of relationship building between military and civil society leaders in conflict environments. This is not intended to be a presentation of military policy but a collaborative exchange on how to improve conflict environment management methods by both sides.
Speakers:
J. Randall Tift, Senior Advisor, World Vision
Evelyn N. Farkas, Ph.D., Senior Advisor for Public-Private Relationships to the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR)
Paul Miller, Foreign Aid Advisor, Catholic Relief Services
Beverages and light snacks will be provided.
Take-out lunch options near Creative Associates:
Friendship Heights Metro, south exit: Booeymonger, Cosi’s.
Friendship Heights Metro, north exit (one block from Creative Associates): McDonalds and Subway in Mazza Galarie, Cheesecake Factory on Wisconsin Ave.
Location: Creative Associates, 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C.
For more information:
Moderated byBob Schieffer
Chief Washington Correspondent, CBS News;
Anchor, CBS News’ “Face the Nation”
Panelists:General James E. Cartwright, USMC (Ret.)
Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;
Harold Brown Chair in Defense Policy Studies, CSISAdmiral William J. Fallon, USN (Ret.)
Former Commander, U.S. Central Command
David Sanger
Chief Washington Correspondent, New York Times;
Author, The InheritanceThursday, February 23rd, 2012,
5:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.CSIS
1800 K St. NW,
Washington, DC 20006
Seating is limited. RSVP is required. Please RSVP (acceptances only) with your name and affiliation to schiefferseries@csis.org.
The TCU Schieffer School of Journalism and CSIS cosponsor a monthly series of dialogues hosted by award-winning journalist Bob Schieffer to discuss the most pressing foreign and domestic issues of the day.
5. The Arab Spring and International Law, February 23, GWU Law School, 12 noon
Event Information
Thursday, February 23, 2012, 12:00 PM
Jacob Burns Moot Courtroom, George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C.
Event Link
The ABA Section of International Law, in co-sponsorship with the American Society of International Law and the George Washington University School of Law, presents the 2nd Annual “Live from the L”: The Office of the Legal Adviser,U.S. Department of State. This year”s discussion will focus on “The Arab Spring and International Law” and will be webcast. Speakers Include: Harold Hongju Koh Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State Linda Jacobson Assistant Legal Adviser for African and Near Eastern Affairs Please Save the Date for this incredible event, Registration will follow in the near future.
Contact Information
Curry Wilson, Meeting Planner/Committee Programs
curry.wilson@americanbar.org
(202) 662-1672
6. The Battle for Power in Iran: Revolutionary Guard Corps vs. Clerics, Carnegie Endowment, February 24, 12:15-2 pm
| ContactJessica Bouletjboulet@ceip.org 202 939 2212 |
EVENT DETAILS
|
DATE |
Friday, February 24, 2012 |
|
TIME |
12:15 to 2:00 p.m. |
|
LOCATION |
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace |
|
SPEAKERS |
Mehrzad Boroujerdi, Mehdi Khalaji, Ali Alfoneh, and Karim Sadjadpour |
Is the Islamic Republic of Iran a theocratic regime led by clerics, or a military dictatorship ruled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? Ahead of the country’s March 2012 parliamentary elections, noted experts Mehrzad Boroujerdi of Syracuse University, Mehdi Khalaji of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Ali Alfoneh of the American Enterprise Institute will examine the evolving architecture of power in Tehran. Carnegie’s Karim Sadjadpour will moderate the discussion.
|
Speakers
Mehrzad Boroujerdi is associate professor of political science at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, where he also serves as the founding director of the Middle Eastern Studies Program. He is also the editor of the forthcoming Mirror for the Muslim Prince: Islam and Theory of Statecraft (Syracuse University Press) and is a nonresident scholar at the Middle East Institute.
Mehdi Khalaji is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, focusing on the politics of Iran and Shiite groups in the Middle East. Previously, Khalaji served on the editorial boards of two prominent Iranian periodicals, and he also worked for BBC Persian as a political analyst on Iranian affairs, later becoming a broadcaster for Radio Farda, the Persian-language service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Ali Alfoneh is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where his research focuses on civil-military relations in Iran with a special focus on the role of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in the Islamic Republic. He was previously a research fellow at the Institute for Strategy at the Royal Danish Defence College.
Moderator
Karim Sadjadpour is an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He was previously an analyst with the International Crisis Group based in Tehran and Washington. He is the author of Reading Khamenei: The World View of Iran’s Most Powerful Leader.
RSS - Posts
