The real America
I take as proven and irrefutable that President Trump is a racist (call it white nationalist or white supremacist if you prefer), so I won’t offer evidence. It is pointless to argue the case both with his supporters and with his opponents, since the former aren’t interested in evidence and the latter are already convinced. Even National Public Radio, usually shy of controversy, is referring this morning to Trump’s tweets about black politicians as racist. A racist is as a racist says and does.
The question is whether racism is politically advantageous or not. The best numbers I’ve seen on this subject say not. Even among white males, who constitute his core support, Trump is not breaking 50% approval. His overall approval rating has never broken 50%, and in fact he got only 46% of the votes in the 2016 election.
That is possible for a winner because:
- third party candidates in 2016 arguably deprived Hillary Clinton of some key states;
- the electoral college, where states have votes equal to their number of representatives plus their number of senators, favors less populous, more rural states that are predominantly Trump supporters.
The United States does not have a one-person, one-vote system for presidential elections. Someone living in Wyoming has about three times of the weight of someone living in California in electing the President. Odds are Trump will get an even smaller percentage of the popular vote in 2020 than he did in 2016, because populous Democratic-leaning states like California and New York will vote overwhelmingly against him, whereas Texas and Florida (both of which went for Trump in 2016) will continue to be fairly close, whoever wins.
If Trump wins without a majority of popular votes in 2020 it will be the third time since 2000 that has happened, with increasingly wide popular vote margins for the Democratic loser. That is a formula for minority, racist rule even before we take into account racist efforts to suppress voting by non-whites. Let’s ignore for the moment the racist drawing of Congressional districts by Republican-dominated state legislatures, which doesn’t directly affect the electoral votes, and the effort to undercount non-whites in the 2020 census, which does.
America is a young country. But it is an old governing system. No other written constitution has been in effect for more than 230 years. The electoral college is a feature of the original. It cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment, which is unthinkable, since the states that gain political weight in the electoral college would not agree to surrender their privilege. Its anti-democratic feature can be defeated by a compact among states to give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. Such a compact is in process of adoption, but it seems unlikely to be in effect by 2020.
So the 2020 election will be an unfair referendum not only on Trump but on racism, as well as the misogyny and xenophobia that accompany it. I’d like to think that the outcome is predictable, even if the playing field is not even. Any American who believes people are born with inalienable rights should have no problem voting against Trump. Anyone who doesn’t believe that–who believes instead that a white skin, male genitalia, or birth to an American parent conveys entitlement beyond that of other citizens–should vote for Trump. The 2020 election will reveal the real America.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Don’t blame Mueller
Yesterday’s appearance confirmed what we already knew about Special Counsel Mueller and his report: yes on President Trump’s obstruction of justice, no exoneration on either obstruction or conspiracy with the Russians, whose help the Trump campaign openly welcomed.
Some are disappointed. I’m not. No one should have expected this taciturn and self-controlled lawyer, a life-long Republican, to eviscerate the President.
But what he did is more than enough to begin an impeachment inquiry. Speaker Pelosi is holding back until she is certain of bipartisan support in the House and perceives an inkling that some Republican Senators might be amenable. That will only happen if public sentiment turns against Trump, which it manifestly has not yet. He is at the peak of his popularity, even if the peak is low. Pelosi is as savvy a political operator as exists on The Hill today. She is more interested in beating Trump in the 2020 election than in helping him turn out his base with an impeachment inquiry.
Mueller was interesting on the question of the President’s credibility. He hinted that lack of credibility was among the reasons he did not subpoena Trump–what light could a committed liar shed on the facts?–along with pressure to complete the investigation. We all know where that pressure was coming from. I might have preferred that Mueller force testimony from the President and catch him perjuring himself. That is what got President Clinton impeached. But to expect that of the super-cautious Mueller would be wrong. Unlike Ken Starr, he is not a perjury trap kind of guy. He stuck to his mandate.
The action now will shift in two directions: counterintelligence and financial investigations, the latter also in New York State. Mueller was unequivocal in calling out the Russians not only for interfering in 2016 but for continuing to do so up to the present, and intending to do so through 2020. His message was clear: you haven’t done enough to prevent it. Senator Majority Leader McConnell claims that a few hundred million dollars in grants to the states is a sufficient response. That amounts to less than $10 million per state. It’ll surely go far.
The President’s financial shenanigans are both obvious and obscure. Deutsche Bank, the only one prepared to loan Trump money after his bankruptcies, is under investigation for multiple malfeasances. It’s hard not to imagine that Trump’s real estate business was recycling Russian oligarchs’ ill-gotten gains, with the help of Deutsche Bank. We don’t yet have the outcome of a serious investigation, but there must be good reasons why Trump has gone into Federal court to block New York State from getting his tax returns.
Mueller did his job: he gathered incontrovertible evidence of Donald Trump’s unfitness for office. The problem is the country, which Trump has succeeded in dividing so profoundly that close to half of voters would let him shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, as he claimed in 2016:
America needs to set this right, either by impeachment and conviction or by electoral defeat. Neither course of action is Mueller’s responsibility.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
One more time: prevention
The Keough School of Global Affairs July 18 hosted a multi-panel event titled “Unity on Global Fragility: Can Today’s Momentum in Washington Stop Tomorrow’s Violent Conflicts?” The event was headlined by Senator Chris Coons (Delaware) and Senator Todd Young (Indiana) who sponsored the Global Fragility Act of 2019. After remarks by Denise Natali, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations at the State Department, a panel discussion was held featuring Pete Marocco, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, Patrick Antonietti, Director of Stabilization and Peace Operations in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability and Humanitarian Affairs, Department of Defense, Shamil Idriss, CEO, Search for Common Ground, and Dafna Rand, Vice President for Policy & Research, Mercy Corps. Uzra Zeya, President and CEO, Alliance for Peacebuilding, moderated.
A second panel followed immediately with Rear Admiral Tim Ziemer (US Navy, Ret.), Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance at USAID, Anne A. Witkowsky, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability and Humanitarian Affairs, Nancy Lindborg, President and CEO, US Institute of Peace, Jake Harriman, Founder ad CEO ofNuru,and Anselme Wimye, Director of Program Quality, DRC Bukavu Office, Search for Common Ground. The second panel was moderated by George A. Lopez, Rev Theodore M. Hesburgh, Professor Emeritus of Peace Studies, Keough School of Global Affairs. Dean Scott Appleby, Marilyn Keough Dean, Keough School of Global Affairs, University of Notre Dame provided the opening and closing remarks.
Here are 5 takeaways from the event:
1. Prevention is better than reactive response:
Senator Young shared a UN statistic that there are currently more than 400 violent conflicts worldwide and half of the conflicts that ended since 2000 restarted within 7 years. Senator Coons added that the US counter-terrorism strategy since 9/11 has been ineffective and costly, listing Libya and Syria as examples of failure. If the US doesn’t invest in prevention it will end up paying more on the back end. The deployment pace for US troops is too high and often times they are ill equipped to deal with the challenges they face, which don’t require direct application of force. Young quoted Benjamin Franklin’s “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Ziemer said many USAID operations running now are because of prior ineffectiveness in prevention.
2. Prevention needs more funding, better spending and updated success metrics:
Current spending on preventive measures is inadequate and wastes the limited funds available. Coons stated it costs $1,000,000 for every soldier deployed abroad per year, much more than it would cost to send humanitarian and development workers to stabilize weak countries. Admiral Ziemer added that the $1.2 billion over the next 5 years provided by the Global Fragility Act is a drop in the bucket of the budget. One issue is the difficulty in measuring a non-event, making it harder to justify spending to constituents. How do you value avoided cost and pain? To address this the Senators propose new metrics for success rather than money spent, which isn’t tied to any actual results. Both agree that spending should be monitored and if proven to be ineffective should be reevaluated. Witkoswky mentioned much of the funding comes with constraints hampering progress, highlighting the need for more flexible funding.
3. The problem of risk-aversion:
All the panelists agreed that the State Department is too risk averse. Without taking risks and accepting failures it can’t be effective in the crisis areas that most need its help. Harriman said adopting a “fail fast, learn fast” mentality will allow State to work in crisis areas and build off prior experience to formulate better strategy.
4. The need for inter-Agency cooperation and cohesive strategy:
Both the Senators and panelists agree a more cohesive strategy is needed to effectively address global fragility. Currently different departments within the US government and its allies work in many places to fight global fragility but their efforts are fragmented. Defense, Diplomacy and Development need to work together. The State Department needs to work better alongside the Department of Defense to formulate a joint strategy. Coons said “We need to retrain everybody to play the same game.”
Marocco finds State needs to deploy more with the Defense Department to understand the situation on the ground instead of dictating policy from Washington. Antonietti believes stabilization can be planned during all stages of conflict and shouldn’t be left to wait until the initial fighting is over. Harriman added the military needs to find better ways to work with nongovernmental organizations in conflict areas to win hearts and minds. He also emphasized the tendency to promote humanitarian assistance when sustainable development is needed to solve root issues. Anselme Wimye affirmed all the above points, saying that often policies are well-intended but ignore the situation on the ground and the needs of the people who live in crisis areas. If the US. can create a cohesive strategy including military, State Department, allies, and NGOs real progress can be made.
5. Understanding the long-term
Global fragility is a long-term issue. The US can’t spend for 5 years and expect large-scale results. The timeframe is at least a decade, so there is a need for continued support and funding. Ziemer pointed to the President’s Malaria Initiative (2005), which had roughly the same cost, bridged 3 administrations and resulted in a 60% reduction of mortality from malaria. The framework to deal with global fragility is in place, now the hard work of improving it, funding it, and working with allies has to be stepped up to have a significant impact.
A full video of the event is available here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The waiting game should end
Since February 2019, millions of Algerians throughout the country have assembled en masse to demonstrate frustration and dissatisfaction with the political system of former president Abdel-Aziz Bouteflika, who had announced his candidacy for a fifth mandate. The combination of rampant corruption within the ranks of the senior officials alongside Bouteflika’s physical and mental impairment led Algerians to say enough. As the popular movement (Hirak) expanded and demonstrations grew larger and more consistent with each passing Friday, Bouteflika’s long-standing reign over Algeria came to an end in April with news of his resignation. Hirak now is in its 22nd week, maintaining its peaceful nature despite arrests and imprisonment of protesters and opposition figures.
Realizing the importance of Algeria, the Brookings Institution hosted an event on “Algeria’s Uprising: Protesters and the Military” on July 17. While the event was introduced by Vice President and Director Bruce Jones, the panel was composed of Africa Policy Analyst Alexis Arieff, Visiting Fellow Sharan Grewal, former Ambassador to Algeria Robert Ford. Brookings Senior Fellow Tamara Cofman Wittes moderated.
The event revolved around the findings of a survey Grewal conducted of over 9,000 Algerians via Facebook advertisements that targeted Algerians above the age of 18 and living in Algeria. In order to perform a comparative study between civilians and military personnel, the program used targeted individuals who showed an interest in or stated that they are part of the military in any way.
Of the 9,000 Algerians surveyed, over 7,000 were civilian, while just under 2,000 were military. Grewal presented the data through a series of graphs that covered topics such as support for protest goals, the scheduled July 4th Presidential elections, and potential civil-military frictions. Results showed a divide between junior and senior officers in the military, as soldiers and junior officers tended to side with the protest movement and the civilian population at large.
Following the presentation of the findings, Grewal was joined by Arieff, Cofman-Wittes, and Ford to discuss the numbers as well as the political climate in Algeria. What makes the Algerian movement so unique is that it has remained peaceful 5 months on—a feat that contrasts with the country’s brutal “Black Decade” civil war in the 1990s.
Arieff, comparing the two events, remarked that Algerians learned from the experiences of Syria and Libya as well as their own: they are reluctant to undergo a repetition of the civil war that traumatized a generation. Additionally, Arieff noted that the senior leadership in the military has observed that repression can backfire, as in Tunisia.
Although the Hirak has endured, it is not clear what will happen next. According to Grewal, the regime is unable to build a roadmap without the people’s consent since doing so will be rejected during the Friday protests. The next step should be a dialogue between the people and the current leadership; however, as Grewal pointed out, without the removal of the 2Bs (Bensalah and Bedoui)—both represent the old regime—such negotiations and talks will most likely not come about.
Ford noted that the next step should the emergence of a candidate or political group that represents Hirak; however, many have been reluctant to do so for fear of being discredited or targeted. Military pressure has not
As Ford remarked, “if you are in the game you can achieve gradual, but real change.” While the tens of millions of Algerians participating in the democratic protests for over 20 weeks is an achievement, setting the gears in motion for a governmental transition should be the next step.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks July 22-July 28
1. Ground Truth Briefing: Ukraine’s Parliamentary Elections|July 22, 2019|10:00am-11:00am|Wilson Center|1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004|Register Here
Ukraine will hold its parliamentary elections to the Supreme Rada on Sunday July 21. These elections will shape the course of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s policies and whether he will have a majority in the parliament to fulfill his ambitious agenda.
In this Ground Truth Briefing, experts will analyze the results of the parliamentary elections and discuss what they will mean for Ukraine and the Zelenskyy administration.
Speakers
Introduction:
Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center
Moderator:
William E. Pomeranz, Deputy Director, Kennan Institute
Speakers:
Mykhailo Minakov, Senior Advisor; Editor-in-Chief, Focus Ukraine Blog
Victor Andrusiv, Executive Director, Ukrainian Institute for the Future
Olena Lennon, Title VIII-Supported Short-Term Scholar, Adjunct Professor of Political Science and National Security, University of New Haven
2. Beyond Control: Iran and its Opponents Locked in a Lopsided Confrontation|July 22, 2019|12:00pm|Atlantic Council|1030 15thSt NW, 12thFloor, Washington, DC|Register Here
At a time of rising tensions between the United States and Iran, various active opposition groups among Iran’s exiled communities, each with their own unique ideology, continue to bid for the position of powerful alternative to the Islamic Republic. Largely fragmented, these opposition groups and their figures have had limited success in posing a real challenge to Tehran’s establishment. The Islamic Republic, however, has continued to view them as an existential threat. To discuss the realities, perceptions, and impact of these groups, please join us for a panel discussion that will also mark the release of a new issue brief, “Beyond Control: Iran and its Opponents Locked in a Lopsided Confrontation.” The issue brief, written by Atlantic Council nonresident senior fellow Borzou Daragahi, sketches out the landscape of the various major political opposition groups in Iran and addresses the question of why Iran perceives them as such a challenge.
The discussion will be held July 22, 2019 from 12:00 to 1:30 pm at the Atlantic Council. The event is open to press and on the record.
Introductory Remarks:
General James L. Jones, USMC (Ret.), Executive Chairman Emeritus, Chairman, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
A conversation with:
Borzou Daragahi, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Nader Uskowi, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Jonathan Winer, Scholar, Middle East Institute
Moderated by:
Suzanne Kianpour, Foreign Affairs & Political Journalist, BBC News
3. Employment and Reintegration for Returnees & At-Risk Populations in Afghanistan|July 23, 2019|9:00am-10:30am|Center for Strategic and International Studies|1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
A negotiated settlement may be the only solution to end the 18 years of war in Afghanistan. Though peace is possible, it feels like a distant hope. Afghans and others are cautiously talking about life after armed conflict, but a much-desired peace brings its own challenges. Chiefly among them is to address the livelihood needs of former fighters, some 2 million returned refugees, more than 2.5 million internally displaced persons, and many other vulnerable people.
The panel of distinguished experts will discuss challenges, options, and opportunities as Afghanistan attempts to address employment for these at-risk segments of the population. During the panel session, Dean Piedmont of Creative Associates will present a white paper on disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) of former fighters in the country.
FEATURING
H.E. Roya Rahmani, Ambassador of Afghanistan to the United States
Dean Piedmont, Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration Expert, Creative Associates International
Earl Anthony Wayne, Former Deputy U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan
Rohullah Osmani, Visiting Scholar, Johns Hopkins University SAIS & ADB North America
Yesim Oruc, Deputy Director, UNDP Washington Office
Nitin Madhav, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, USAID Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs
4. America’s Highly Skilled Workforce, the Talent Pipeline, and H-1B Visas|July 23, 2019|10:00am-12:00pm|Wilson Center|1300 Pennsylvania NW, Washington, DC 20004|Register Here
Shortages of highly skilled professionals are one of the most significant challenges for industries across the United States. Many observers believe that government and industry-led training initiatives, access to high-skilled foreign nationals, and robust STEM education programs can and should be part of the solution.
Please join the Wilson Center’s Asia Program and NASSCOM, along with the Wilson Center’s Science and Technology Innovation Program, for a discussion on current talent challenges and how best to address them. The event will launch new reports produced by IHS Markit on H-1B visas and the global IT services industry; include expert analysis of the issues that companies are experiencing with the visa program; and feature exploration of industry and government workforce and STEM education initiatives.
Agenda
Welcome/Introductory Comments
Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO, The Wilson Center
Opening Remarks
Ambassador Harsh Shringla, Indian Ambassador to the United States
Session 1: Presentation of IHS research findings
Karen Campbell, Associate Director—Economics & Country Risk, IHS Markit
Michael Kugelman, Asia Program Deputy Director and Senior Associate for South Asia, The Wilson Center (moderator)
Session 2: The H-1B Visa Program and Implications for the U.S. Economy
Stuart Anderson, Executive Director, National Foundation for American Policy
Jon Baselice, Executive Director, Immigration Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Spencer Abraham, Former U.S. Energy Secretary and Senator (moderator)
Session 3: Industry and Government Training and STEM Education
Robin Fernkas, Acting Deputy Administrator, Office of Workforce Investment, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor
Robin Wright, Director, Division of Undergraduate Education, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation
Kapil Sharma, Vice President for Government and Public Affairs North America, Wipro
Elizabeth Newbury, Director, Serious Games Initiative, Science and Technology Innovation Program, The Wilson Center (moderator)
Closing Remarks
Debjani Ghosh, President, NASSCOM
5. Security and Foreign Policy in 2020: A Conversation with Washington Journalists|July 23, 2019|5:30pm-6:30pm|Center for Strategic and International Studies|1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
Join the Center for Strategic and International Studies for a Smart Women, Smart Power conversation with four Washington-based journalists to discuss foreign policy and security issues in the 2020 campaign.
Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Venezuela, global migration, and immigration are just a few of the international issues that have dominated the headlines this year, but just how much of a factor will they be in next year’s presidential election remains to be seen. The panel will also explore the potential impact of disinformation and malign influence efforts on media coverage of all campaign 2020 issues.
FEATURING
Helene Cooper, The New York Times
Susan B. Glasser, The New Yorker
Jennifer Griffin, FOX News Channel
Lara Seligman, Foreign Policy
6. 9thAnnual South China Sea Conference|July 24, 2019|9:00am-4:45pm|Center for Strategic and International Studies|1616 Rhode Island Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
The CSIS Southeast Asia Program and Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative are pleased to present the Ninth Annual South China Sea Conference on Wednesday, July 24, 2019. This full-day conference will provide opportunities for in-depth discussion and analysis of developments in the South China Sea over the past year and potential paths forward. Panels will address the state of play in the South China Sea, the history and historiography of disputes in the South China Sea, pathways for dispute management, and the global stakes related to the South China Sea.
9:00 a.m. Morning Keynote
9:45 a.m. State of Play in the South China Sea
Evan Laksmana, Senior Researcher, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta
Huong Le Thu, Senior Analyst, Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
Gregory B. Poling, Director, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative; Fellow, Southeast Asia Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Liu Xiaobo, Associate Research Fellow; Director, World Navy Research Center, National Institute for South China Sea Studies
Moderator
Bonnie Glaser, Senior Adviser for Asia and Director, China Power Project, Center for Strategic and International Studies
11:00 a.m. Coffee Break
11:15 a.m. How Did We Get Here? History and Historiography
Kavi Chongkittavorn, Senior Fellow,Institute of Security and International Studies, Chulalongkorn University
Bill Hayton, Associate Fellow, Asia-Pacific Programme, Chatham House
Stein Tønnesson, Research Professor,Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)
Marites Vitug, Editor-at-Large, Rappler
Moderator
Amy Searight, Senior Adviser and Director, Southeast Asia Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
12:30 p.m. Lunch Served
1:15 p.m. Lunch Keynote
Admiral Scott H. Swift, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet
2:00 p.m. Pathways for Dispute Management
Jay Batongbacal, Associate Professor; Director, Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea, University of the Philippines
Lan Nguyen, Assistant Professor, Utrecht University School of Law
Prashanth Parameswara, Senior Editor,The Diplomat
Ian Storey, Senior Fellow, ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute
Moderator
Gregory Poling, Director, Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative and Fellow, Southeast Asia Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
3:15 p.m. Coffee Break
3:30 p.m. Global Stakes
Pooja Bhatt, PhD Candidate, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Sarah Kirchberger, Researcher, Center for Asia-Pacific Strategy and Security, Institute for Security Policy at Kiel University (ISPK)
Toshihiro Nakayama, Professor, Faculty of Policy Management, Keio University
Bec Strating
Senior Lecturer, Politics, La Trobe University; Asia Studies Visiting Fellow, East-West Center in Washington
Moderator
Michael J. Green
Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan Chair, CSIS; Director of Asian Studies, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
4:45 p.m. Adjourn
7. US-Japan-Australia Infrastructure Collaboration in the Indo-Pacific: Opportunities and Obstacles|July 25, 2019|10:30am-12:00pm|Stimson Center|1211 Connecticut Ave NW 8thFloor, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
Infrastructure needs in developing Asia are vast: the Asian Development Bank estimates that $26 trillion is needed through 2030. Bridging this infrastructure gap will require significantly increased engagement and public spending from governments, assistance from donor governments and international financial institutions, and—most importantly—unlocking investment from the private sector. The Free and Open Indo-Pacific has a focus on supporting high-quality infrastructure as a sustainable and economical alternative to China’s Belt and Road state-driven investments, but FOIP goals and approaches differ significantly between the United States and its allies Japan and Australia.
How can these allies coordinate effectively to ensure a sustainable infrastructure future for the Indo-Pacific region? Deputy Head of Mission Katrina Cooper from the Australian Embassy will kick off the conversation with opening remarks. Emerging experts Dr. Huong Le, Courtney Weatherby, and Hiroshi Yasui will explore the context of FOIP infrastructure engagements from each country and discuss specific obstacles and opportunities to collaborate moving forward. The panel discussion will be moderated by Vice President for Policy Marc Mealy of the US – ASEAN Business Council and the discussion will be followed by a Q&A session. This event is part of the Building the Indo-Pacific series, which convenes thought-leaders from the US, ASEAN, and other Indo-Pacific countries to promote messaging around key FOIP infrastructure and development programs.
These experts include:
Marc Mealy, Senior Vice-President for Policy at the US-ASEAN Business Council (MODERATOR)
Katrina Cooper, Deputy Head of Mission from the Australian Embassy
Dr. Huong Le Thu, Senior Analyst, Australia Strategic Policy Institute
Courtney Weatherby, Research Analyst, Stimson Center Southeast Asia Program
Hiroshi Yasui, Infrastructure Finance Expert and Summer Intern Researcher at the Stimson Center
8. The Value of Our Veterans: A Conversation with Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA) and Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) on Reforming the VA|July 26, 2019|8:15am-10:00am|American Enterprise Institute|1789 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036|Register Here
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) is at the heart of the nation’s care for veterans. Yet despite its best intentions, the VA struggles to adequately equip veterans with resources that enable them to flourish after service. How can the VA better assist veterans reentering the workforce while also combating the damaging “broken veteran” narrative?
Please join AEI for a discussion with House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Chairman Mike Levin (D-CA) and Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), sponsors of the VET OPP Act, as they tackle this question. Following their remarks, an expert panel will explore how the VA can modernize its approach to veterans’ transition programs.
Agenda
8:00 AM Registration
8:15 AM Introduction:
Gary J. Schmitt, AEI
8:20 AM Remarks:
Mike Levin, Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity (D-CA)
8:30 AM Remarks:
Brad Wenstrup, US House of Representatives (R-OH)
8:40 AM Discussion:
Mike Levin, Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity (D-CA)
Leo Shane, Military Times
Brad Wenstrup, US House of Representatives (R-OH)
8:55 AM Q&A
9:00 AM Panel discussion
Participants:
Rebecca Burgess, AEI
Cynthia L. Gilman, Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine
Mike Hutchings, Combined Arms
Rory Riley-Topping, Riley-Topping Consulting
Moderator:
Leo Shane, Military Times
9:45 AM Q&A
10:00 AM Adjournment
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Calm in Pristina
I’ve been in Pristina all week, where yesterday Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj resigned. A Special Tribunal concerned with crimes committed after its 1998-99 war has summoned him to The Hague. It is not yet known whether he is an indictee or a witness. He has been tried twice before at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and found not guilty.
I talked with the Prime Minister Wednesday. He gave no hint of what was coming and likely didn’t know.
It’s a fraught time here. Tariffs Ramush levied on Serbian imports have stalled a European Union dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina that aimed to resolve the many issues remaining a generation after Slobodan Milosevic expelled half of Kosovo’s Albanian population but yielded after a 78-day NATO bombing campaign to UN administration of the Serbian-ruled province. Kosovo is now a parliamentary democracy–not yet recognized as sovereign by some–that requires elections within 45 days of resignation of the prime minister. The opposition, which had aimed for elections in October, is unlikely to be ready for them by the beginning of September.
Some will wonder whether the United States is behind the judicial maneuver that caused Ramush to resign. The Special Court is constituted under Kosovo law, but manned by mostly Europeans with an American chief prosecutor, one appointed by the Trump Administration. You don’t even have to be a practiced conspiracy theorist to imagine that the Americans, who were upset with Ramush’s tariffs and opposition to an ethnically based land swap deal with Belgrade, decided to get rid of him.
If so, they’ve made a big mistake. Ramush’s previous two court battles in The Hague did nothing but increase his popularity here. The tariffs and opposition to the land swap deal are popular here. Ramush’s summons to The Hague is far more likely to strengthen his political support than diminish it.
But it may well be that the court, acting on its own volition, thinks it has reason to question Ramush or even indict him. We just don’t know. Certainly Serbs and Albanians were murdered after the war; most people here think the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) of which Ramush was then a regional commander was in part responsible. I would favor holding the guilty accountable for those crimes. But it would be entirely premature to judge who.
So far, the popular reaction to Ramush’s resignation is calm. We attended the ongoing Pristina Film Festival last night, across from the Prime Minister’s office. A street basketball tournament occupied the space between the two. Families strolled happily in Mother Teresa Boulevard. Of course all that could change, but for the moment people seem more interested in enjoying the relatively cool, clear weather than worrying about what has happened to their prime minister.
Kosovo President Thaci, also a former KLA cadre, will need now to oversee the formation of some sort of caretaker government. That itself will be difficult as Ramush had a narrow margin in parliament. The election outcome is unpredictable. That’s the good news: despite political party abuses both in the campaigns and at the polling places, the press here is free by Balkan standards and elections are serious political contests. Coalition formation before and after leaves a lot uncertain about their outcome.
Elections are inherently divisive. Before it goes back to talks with Belgrade, Pristina will need more unity than it has had during Ramush’s tenure. My advice to whoever the powers will be: the only way to get a good deal is to be willing to walk away from a bad one. And the only way to make a good deal stick is to ensure that most of the citizens are convinced it is good.
RSS - Posts
