Not a great deal
The Middle East Institute hosted a panel of four Afghanistan experts September 5 to assess the opportunities and hurdles of a US–Taliban deal. Until President Trump suspended negotiations this weekend, the two delegations were expected to approve a timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. In return, the Taliban leadership was to deny terrorist groups like al Qaeda a presence on Afghan soil. The panel consisted of Javid Ahmad, a senior fellow the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, Lt. General David Barno (ret.) a visiting professor at John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Jarret Blanc, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Laurel Miller the director of the Crisis Group’s Asia Program.
Here are the major takeaways from the event, which may or may not remain valid in the current situation:
- The Taliban are winning
The agreement is a peace agreement between the United States and the Taliban, with hopes that a subsequent peace process will start between the Afghan central government and the Taliban. According to Ahmad, the Taliban are winning on the battlefield and at the negotiation table. They will not sign an agreement unless they can have the basis of victory.
- The negotiations are generating uncertainty
There have been nine rounds of negotiations in Doha between the US and the Taliban. There is a growing sense that a deal will be made, but in the meanwhile uncertainty among Afghans does not help maintain stability. The agreement says little about implementation following US withdrawal. This ambiguity makes the future of Afghanistan uncertain.
- The US has already made a major concession
There is no ceasefire agreement. The US has agreed to negotiate with the Taliban even while they fight against the Afghan government. This reflects American warweariness: President Trump has clearly stated his disapproval of the current extent of America’s overseas commitments. The war in Afghanistan has lasted for 18-years and he is anxious to end it.
- The Taliban has no incentive to negotiate with the Afghan government once the US withdraws
Afghanistan’s forces are not as strong as the insurgents and will struggle to maintain the territory they currently control without US support. Blanc commented, “Why would they negotiate themselves out of power? Without the US present, the Taliban can continue their offensive.” The central government and the Taliban favor different political landscapes in Afghanistan – one democratic and one autocratic. Why would the Taliban share power with a democratic political institution if they can continue to conquer territory?
- The Taliban is not unified in their vision for the future
Afghan government and Taliban negotiators are scheduled to meet in Oslo, Norway later this month to discuss a potential peace process. The Taliban are sending 19 representatives to the negotiation table. However, only 5 of them are actual negotiators and the group is not fully representative of the organization. Miller discussed how neither the Taliban nor the Afghan government have a straight-forward agenda or clear objectives.
- Major US threats converge in Afghanistan
In the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the Trump Administration defined five key threats to US national security: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and global terrorism. North Korea is the only one not involved in Afghanistan in one way or another. How can the United States preserve its national security interests without a foothold in such a geopolitically important country ? Barno said that there are two implications of US disengagement from Afghanistan: it will likely revert to harboring terrorist organizations and US influence on Pakistan and Iran will decrease. Before withdrawal, the US should have a reliable partner in Kabul to continue counter terrorism efforts throughout the region.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks | September 9 – 13
1. Countering Violent Extremism in Libya: A Peacebuilding Perspective | September 10, 2019 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm | The SETA Foundation at Washington D.C. | Register Here
Instability in Libya after the revolution that toppled the 42 years’ authoritarian rule of Muammar Gaddafi has become a golden opportunity for extremist groups, including DAESH, Ansar al-Sharia, and Madkhali Salafis, to gain territory and influence in the country. Concerned about rising radicalism and violent extremism in Libya, external actors have attempted to address as well as exploit this emerging problem. States, international organizations, and regional organizations have strived to play a decisive role in restoring Libyan stability but their efforts have proven insufficient. Libya has been driven into a bloody civil war due to political and social fragility and external interventions. Based on an extended study and field research, Dr. Talha Köse will present a CVE model based on the peacebuilding perspective. This event will feature the initial findings and summary of the SETA Foundation’s latest field research on Libya, “Countering Violent Extremism in Libya: A Peacebuilding Perspective” authored by Dr. Talha Köse, a researcher at SETA Istanbul, and Bilgehan Öztürk, a researcher at SETA Ankara. Please kindly join us for an important discussion on the external players’ perspectives on countering violent extremism in Libya. Speakers: Dr. Talha Köse, Senior Researcher at the Strategy Program of the SETA Foundation in Istanbul and Chair of the Political Science and International Relations Department at Ibn Haldun University Dr. Karim Mezran, Director of the North Africa Initiative and Resident Senior Fellow at Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East Moderator: Kilic B. Kanat, Research Director, The SETA Foundation at Washington D.C.
2. The counter-ISIS coalition: Diplomacy and security in action | September 10, 2019 | 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM | Brookings Institution, Falk Auditorium | Register Here
On September 10, 2014, the United States announced the formation of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. Since then, ISIS has lost nearly all the territory it once claimed authority over, simultaneously losing most of its sources of revenue. Even as the caliphate’s power has significantly waned, the fight continues in an effort rout out the remnants of the group. Today Coalition partners are dealing with the challenges of returning foreign fighters, securing and rebuilding territory formerly held by ISIS, and addressing the humanitarian challenges in communities who experienced ISIS’s brutality. On September 10, the Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace will host an event commemorating the fifth anniversary of the founding of the Coalition, discussing the early days of the diplomatic and military efforts to bring together a diverse coalition of partner nations, how their efforts were organized, and recommendations on where the Coalition can go from here. General John Allen, president of Brookings, will be joined by Brett McGurk, nonresident senior fellow at Carnegie, in a conversation moderated by Susan Glasser. Following the discussion, the participants will take questions from the audience.
3. Qatar Inside and Out: A Close Look at the Gulf State’s Politics, Human Rights, and Foreign Policy | September 10, 2019 | 2:30 PM- 4:00 PM | Project on Middle East Democracy, Suite 617 | Register Here
The tiny Gulf state of Qatar, the world’s largest supplier of liquefied natural gas, is the wealthiest country in the world per capita. A close strategic partner of the United States, Qatar is home to the largest U.S. military base in the region, Al Udeid Airbase, and among the world’s top purchasers of American weapons. Criticism of U.S. policy toward Qatar has largely focused on its foreign policy, with its internal politics and human rights record receiving far less scrutiny. This relative lack of attention is curious, given the well-documented human rights abuses in Qatar, especially toward migrant workers, and the autocratic nature of its political system, an absolute monarchy. Please join us for a special Human Rights Watch-POMED event that will examine these domestic issues in the context of Qatar’s regional role and why they matter to the United States.
Speakers: Marti Flacks Deputy Director & Head of North America Office, Business and Human Rights Resource Centre Andrea Prasow Acting Washington Director, Human Rights Watch Kristian Ulrichsen Fellow for the Middle East, Baker Institute, Rice University David Weinberg Washington Director for International Affairs, Anti-Defamation League
Moderated by: Stephen McInerney Executive Director, Project on Middle East Democracy
4. Weaponizing Justice: Rule of Law and Cuba’s New Constitution | September 11, 2019 | 9:00 AM – 11:00 AM | Inter-American Dialogue, Suite 800 | Register Here
In April 2018, the Cuban National Assembly anointed Miguel Díaz-Canel as the country’s president, the first non-Castro to lead the island nation in almost 60 years. With new leadership came a new Constitution, which ostensibly reflects expanded due process protections for Cuba’s citizens. However, these constitutional rights coexist with a Criminal Code that is routinely employed by judicial authorities to silence dissent and punish political opposition. What kind of constitutionality exists in Cuba’s one-party state? What nominal rights exist, and are they respected? Does the new Constitution—effective as of April 2019—augur hopes for more freedom of expression and respect for the rule of law? To answer these questions and pursue a broader discussion on the administration of justice in Cuba, the Inter-American Dialogue is pleased to partner with the International Institute on Race, Equality and Human Rights to present “Weaponizing Justice: Rule of Law and Cuba’s New Constitution.” The discussion will include a presentation of the Institute’s new report, “Premeditated Convictions: An Analysis of the Situation of the Administration of Justice in Cuba.”
OPENING REMARKS Carlos Quesada Executive Director, International Institute for Race, Equality and Human Rights (@Raceandequality)
SPEAKERS Luis Carlos Battista Cuban-American lawyer and host of the Nuestra América Podcast (@lcbattisa) and Caitlin Kelly Legal Program Officer, International Institute on Race, Equality and Human Rights
MODERATOR Michael Camilleri Director, Peter D. Bell Rule of Law Program, Inter-American Dialogue (@camillerimj)
5. Pathways Out of Crisis: Views from Venezuelan Civil Society | September 12, 2019 | 9:30 AM – 11:30 AM | Woodrow Wilson Center | Register Here
As the political, economic, and social crisis in Venezuela deepens, civil society organizations are playing a vital role in resisting authoritarianism and defending fundamental rights. As Venezuela’s opposition engages in negotiations to achieve a transition, Venezuelan civil society is also advancing meaningful proposals for a democratic, peaceful solution that reflect urgent human rights and humanitarian needs on the ground. Please join us for a discussion of the latest in the country’s crisis, and of the role of the United States and the international community in supporting a peaceful return to democracy. Spanish to English translation will be provided.
Speakers: Feliciano Reyna President Acción Solidaria, Luz Mely Reyes Editor Efecto Cocuyo Marino, Alvarado Coordinator Venezuelan Program of Action Education in Human Rights (PROVEA), Beatriz Borges Executive Director Justice and Peace Center (CEPAZ), Alfredo Romero Executive Director, Foro Penal Venezolano Lowenthal Fellow, Wilson Center
6. Impact of the Arab Muslim Ban on Migration | September 12, 2019 | 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM | Gulf International Forum | Register Here
Nearly four years ago when the possibility of the current Administration was shrugged-off by many pundits and experts amongst the political elite, the already controversial Trump Presidential campaign on December 6, 2015 released a memo calling for, “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” While the response among many to the proclamation was swift and oppositional, in some ways the eventually elected President Trump was able to deliver on parts of this promise when on January 27, 2017 the Trump Administration issued Executive Order No. 13769, effectively banning entry into the United States for those from countries including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Since then there has been a struggle in the courts in which several aspects of the travel ban have been struck down, however many restrictions on travel for individuals from these countries remain in place. In response, in May 2019 legislation colloquially referred to as the “No Ban Act” was introduced in both chambers of Congress, a symbolic yet largely ineffectual means to undo the remaining aspects of the executive order. Meanwhile, the order is not alone in a series of measures enacted under the Administration that limit the ability of individuals from GIF’s region of focus from travelling to the United States, either as immigrants, asylum seekers or refugees. Where do efforts stand to overturn the Arab and Muslim ban? How has the ban affected people from Yemen, Iraq and Iran? What allowed Iraq to eventually be excepted from the ban? Has the ban had consequences for United States Foreign Policy in the Muslim World? In what ways has the grassroots community collaborated in order to challenge the ban? While none of these questions have easy answers, Gulf International Forum and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee are pleased to invite you to this discussion, where our assembled panel of experts will address issues related to the Arab and Muslim ban’s effect on Gulf populations, and the efforts taken to address the mandates of the Trump Administration.
Featured Speakers: Dania Thafer (moderator), Dr. Debbie Almontaser, Abed Ayoub Esq., Dr. Erdoan A. Shipoli, and Wa’el Alzayat
7. The Potential U.S.-Taliban Deal: A Step Forward for Peace in Afghanistan? | September 13, 2019 | 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM | United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
After nearly a year of extensive negotiations in Doha, the United States and the Taliban have reportedly agreed in principle on a deal addressing U.S. troop withdrawal and Taliban anti-terrorism guarantees. This is intended to be just the first step toward a durable peace in Afghanistan. Next, intra-Afghan dialogues are planned to arrive at a political settlement and a permanent cessation of hostilities. Adding further complications is the upcoming presidential election—currently scheduled for September 28—with key actors disagreeing about the sequencing of the polls and the peace process. At this pivotal juncture, USIP is bringing together a panel of distinguished experts to discuss what a U.S.-Taliban agreement means for the possibility of peace in Afghanistan. Recent Taliban attacks have raised questions about whether the group is serious about a political settlement or are simply looking to be rid of foreign troops. Prospects for a sustainable, inclusive peace forged through compromise among Afghan stakeholders hang in the balance.
Nancy Lindborg, welcoming remarks President and CEO, United States Institute of Peace Ambassador
Roya Rahmani, opening remarks Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to the United States
Clare Lockhart, Director and co-founder, Institute for State Effectiveness Barnett Rubin Senior Fellow and Associate Director, Center for International Cooperation, New York University
Michael Semple Visiting Professor, Queen’s University Belfast, Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation and Social Justice
Scott Worden, moderator, Director of Afghanistan and Central Asia Programs, United States Institute of Peace
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Putin’s dream President
Rachel Maddow last night did a particularly good job documenting President Trump’s efforts to comply with President Putin’s fondest dreams:
Trump is not merely mouthing belief in Putin. He is doing things to please him. Odds are that Russian money is part of the reason. Let’s hope the various ongoing investigations, in particular of Deutsche Bank, clarify that in the next few months.
The dismantling of NATO efforts to defend Europe is particularly worrisome, as it won’t generate the same kind of domestic political backlash that canceling construction projects in Virginia will. It will also more directly weaken deterrence of Russian aggression, not only in Ukraine.
Trump may not be a Russian agent, but he is certainly doing as much as the Congress will allow to serve Putin’s (not necessarily Russia’s) interests. But Vladimir’s popularity is waning in Russia like Trump’s in America and Boris Johnson’s in Britain. It will be a happy day when all three are out of power.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 5
– Time magazine says SecState Pompeo opposes the pending US deal with the Taliban.
– Here’s a letter by former US officials critical of the agreement, too.
– The party committees in House and Senate seek contributions from their senior members. Somebody leaked information on the House Democrats’ problems getting payment.
-Karl Rove summarizes the party fights at the state level over redistricting.
– An AEI analyst says DOD is failing to do the right R&D. I think she may be right.
– I also agree with Dan Drezner’s analysis of Trump’s negotiating style.
– Yahoo News says a Dutch mole transferred the Stuxnet virus to Iran.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Redemption
The British parliament yesterday refused to accept a “no deal” Brexit and instead pulled the rug out from under Prime Minister Johnson’s losing game of chicken with the EU by insisting on its prerogative of approving whatever is going to happen. It was only possible because Tory members, horrified by Johnson’s effort to “prorogue” parliament, abandoned their now fractured party, depriving Johnson of his majority.
Something analogous has happened also in Italy, where the (Northern) League’s withdrawal from a government coalition, rather than precipitating new elections and a League victory, stirred the opposition to ally with the League’s erstwhile coalition partner, the Five Star Movement. An unlikely coalition then supported continuation of the relatively “technical” prime minister originally installed with support from the League.
This is what the redemption of good sense and democratic process looks like: people so appalled by the xenophobic ethno-nationalist hogwash that passes today for “conservatism” that at least a few of those associated with it decide to go in a different direction. That was relatively easy for the Five Star Movement, which has no discernible principles other than populist appeal, but hard indeed for individual British Tories, some of whom have become independents and others of whom have joined the Liberal Democrats.
It is apparently also hard for American Republicans, who are announcing their retirements in unprecedented numbers but not joining the pro-impeachment tide that is steadily growing among the Democrats. Only a single Republican member of the House has called for impeachment. Without a few Republican senators willing to buck Donald Trump and their own party, the Democrats are stuck: they can impeach but they can’t win removal from office in the Senate. Speaker Pelosi is therefore holding back, hoping to compile all the evidence needed to win at least the Senate if not the presidency in 2020.
It is sad that Americans can expect nothing better from the Republicans in our time of need. You don’t have to look far for impeachable offenses. Any government employee who suggests that the hotel he happens to own would be a good place for a government delegation to stay would find himself ousted quickly: this is Conflict of Interest 101. But that is precisely what President Trump did for the Vice President’s visit over last weekend to Ireland, and the Vice President accepted the suggestion. This is improper and one of many “high crimes and misdmeanors,” as the Constitution puts it. But accountability will need to await a few good Republicans with the courage to abandon their now thoroughly corrupted party.
In the end though, elections should decide the fate of the Trump’s Republicans, the League, and the Johnson’s Conservatives. The Brits may be headed for the polls as early as next month. The Lib Dems are likely to do well, which won’t displease me. The Italians won’t vote until spring. Who knows what they will do with the League, which represents some of the worst racist sentiments in Italian public life. The Americans have 14 months to wait, but the economy is slowing, Trump’s defects are glaring, and the Democrats are energized. There are no guarantees, but if these three countries begin to turn against their dreadful right wings, the world will be a much safer place.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 4
– NYT has long article on the US-Israeli conflict over attacking Iran.
– Politico has a neat graphic on the trade wars.
-State admits political reprisals.
– Lawmakers angry over mil con funds shifted to border wall and delays in releasing military aid to Ukraine.
My long Labor Day weekend in Atlanta made me miss a couple of other editions of Stevenson’s army, so here they are:
September 3
– NYT says North Korean missile tests show much improved capabilities, which Trump minimizes. Even SecState Pompeo said to believe DPRK is just stringing US along.
– NYT also says sharp disagreement inside administration over future CIA role in Afghanistan.
– Media have more details about US-Taliban agreement.
– Hill has long potential agenda this month.
– Xi tells Duterte that China rejects international court ruling on South China Sea.
– Iraq imposes new ROEs for US air operations.
September 1
Today marks the 80th anniversary of the start of World War II in Europe — Hitler’s attack on Poland.
It also marks a new round of US tariffs on Chinese goods. NYT has a summary of the where the trade war stands.
WaPo has an interesting story of how the Russians tried to interfere in US politics in Maryland, of all places, in 2016. It reveals their divisive playbook, which they and others are likely to use again next year.
The FT has a fascinating article on the East India Company by the author of a new book on that company. With its own private armies and taxes, bolstered by lobbyists and investors in London, the EIC was the first, but certainly not the last, private company that really functioned as a government.
And now for some reading suggestions. I like revisionist histories that force me to re-think my understanding of the past. Here are four from the past couple of years that I found especially persuasive.
World War I: I’m now persuaded that Russia shares much of the blame for the start of the Great War by its policies to dominate Turkey and by mobilization during the July 1914 crisis. After deep dives into long-hidden Russian archives, Sean McMeekin showed that even Barbara Tuchman got the sequence wrong by relying on the falsified memoirs of the Russian Foreign Minister. McMeekin’s books on Russian diplomacy and the July crisis changed my view of German war guilt, though Austria-Hungary still deserves shared blame with Russia.
FDR’s boldness: I had long admired Franklin Roosevelt’s strategic bravery in maneuvering the United States in support of Britain and against Hitler, believing that he was just ahead of public opinion, skillfully pulling it along. Lynne Olson”s Those Angry Days persuaded me that, much of the time, FDR vacillated, doing less than many of his advisors urged and hoped. He still was a great leader, just not quite as bold as I had thought.
Slave Power’s influence on foreign policy: I never thought that slavery and its perpetuation had much impact on American foreign policy until I read Matthew Karp’s eye-opening history. Karp details how the South dominated key foreign policy posts and consciously advocated policies to protect and even extend slavery in the decades before the War of the Rebellion. Defenders of slavery really had a “deep state.”
The Revolutionary War: I used to have a typical American high school student’s view of our war for independence as a story of brave patriots, toughened at Valley Forge and led by George Washington, who finally triumphed at Yorktown. Two books have changed my understanding of that conflict. One was Andrew Jackson O’Shaunessy’s study of British politics during the conflict, The Men Who Lost America. He argues that the British gave up for broader strategic reasons. Add to this Holger Hoock’s Scars of Independence, which describes the local violence on both sides and the mistreatment of Loyalists during and after the war. The good guys won, but they won dirty.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
