A bad barometer reading
On June 26 the Atlantic Council held a panel to discuss the release of opinion poll data collected by the Arab Barometer about the state of the economy, migration, governmental performance, corruption, and other topics in the Middle East. Survey data was collected in Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordan. Presentation of data was followed by a panel discussion that included Mark Tessler, professor of political science at University of Michigan, Kathrin Thomas, Research Associate at the Arab Barometer, Abbas Khadim, director of the Iraq Initiative at the Atlantic Council, and Faysal Itani, Senior Fellow at Atlantic Council. Vivian Salam, reporter at the Wall Street Journal, moderated.
There is little optimism about the economy improving in the Levant. In Jordan, 70% of respondents cite the economy as a primary concern. In all three countries, (Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon) more than 85% percent of respondents perceived the governments of their respective states to be corrupt.
Survey data also noted a slight upwards trend in desire to emigrate from the Levant region. An uptick in a desire to emigrate can be explained by the “brain drain” phenomenon in which highly educated youths seek to leave their home countries due to lack of high-level employment opportunity. Respondents indicated that “economic reasons”, “political reasons” and “security reasons” were the primary drivers for the choice to emigrate.
The survey catalogued a slight increase in support for women’s rights and prominence in politics and business. 60% of respondents would support a female head of state, with Lebanon the most supportive of the notion at a rate of 77%. Despite this, 66% of respondents in the Levant said that men inherently make better political leaders than women.
Since 2016 there has been a decline in the belief that the Middle East and North Africa would benefit from stronger relations with the United States. Survey data revealed that people in the Levant widely believe that Iraq is a proxy of Iran, despite the fact that the Shia in Iraq have not sided with Iran.
Itani notes that the economic anxiety present in the region, specifically in Lebanon, is a reminder to Western policy makers that issues of chief importance to the West (Hezbollah, etc), do not necessarily take precedence in the region. The expectation of poor economic performance will have implications for future investment and growth. Itani attributes Lebanese decrease in willingness to strengthen ties with Washington to US policy in region, specifically US dealings with Israel and the change in American leadership in 2016.
Khadim spoke more specifically to the Iraqi data. Surveys confirm sentiments Iraqis usually express only through social media or encrypted messengers. There is a divergence of opinions held regarding the United States government and US citizens. Iraqis view American citizens more favorably than the American government, which Khadim says can open avenues in the realm of public diplomacy and good faith action between the two countries. On the Iraq-Iran relationship, he says GCC media have ascribed an affinity between Iraq and Iran that does not necessarily exist. Iran does have influence over certain discrete groups in Iraq, but that influence is not as widespread as many believe.
Tessler and Thomas, the administrators of the data collection, focused on the ways in which the data can be used to determine if there are links between different variables. Specifically, they expect a link between corruption perceptions and education levels as well as support of Iran depending on religion. While they had not yet conducted the analysis on these variables, they expect to confirm Khadim’s assertion that support for Iran in Iraq is contained to certain demographics and is not a widespread sentiment. Tessler further notes that the trend of declining support for strengthening relations with a United States dates to 2006.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The US needs a green-water navy
On June 26 the Hudson Institute hosted two author presentations followed by a panel discussion on maritime irregular warfare. The panel consisted of Benjamin Armstrong, author of Small Boats and Daring Men: Maritime Raiding, Irregular Warfare, and the Early American Navy, Joshua Tallis, author of The War for Muddy Waters: Pirates, Terrorists, Traffickers and Maritime Insecurity, Peter Haynes, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and former Deputy Director, Strategy, Plans, and Policy (J5) of the U.S. Special Operations Command, Martin N. Murphy, Visiting Fellow of the Corbett Centre for Maritime Policy Studies, and Linda Robinson, Senior International/Defense Researcher at the RAND Corporation. Patrick Cronin, the Hudson Institute’s Asia-Pacific Security Chair, moderated.
Armstrong gave an overview of the two prevalent schools of naval thought, guerre de course (commerce raiding) and guerre d’escadre (fleet to fleet battle). These, however, leave out large parts of US naval tradition, in particular guerre de razzia, or “war by raiding.” In this school of thought the focus lies on raiding coasts and colonies using a “green water” navy. Armstrong believes that strategies of guerre de razzia are important for naval operations today.
Tallis pointed to the 2007 Cooperative Strategy for Maritime Seapower serves as a guide for the US Navy, Marines and Coast Guard. With Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 NATO’s focus shifted back to great power competition. The 2015 review of the 2007 strategy and the 2018 National Defense Strategy echo this shift. Tallis warns that there can be more than one trend at a time, and a full shift towards great power competition would ignore important issues.
Population growth and urbanization all put stresses on the Global South and poor governments, which leads to other actors, such as the Houthis in Yemen, cropping up. The issues caused by these groups don’t stay local and matter to global powers too. Tallis argues that maritime insecurities are more like crime than war. Coast guards and navies recognize issues but are equipped for war and lack the proper tools to respond. He warns against militarization of a criminal problem. It often leads to an us vs. them or fortress mentality in which the people the coast guard is supposed to protect resist it.
Using the broken windows theory, Tallis says crime is context-dependent and multidimensional, which extends to maritime security. By addressing the eco-system of maritime criminality, links between illegal fishing and piracy or human trafficking can be found and progress can be made. Maritime security needs to be treated as a cohesive discipline instead of individual issues like piracy or illegal fishing. The US needs to become better at following the local lead and listening to local communities in areas where it provides maritime security.
Haynes views the return to maritime great power competition with China as the first since the Empire of Japan in WWII. The difference is China competes across many different fields (economically, socially, militarily), in part due to globalization. The US Navy has defined competition too narrowly. It sees itself as a blue-water navy and focuses almost exclusively on war and anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD). It lacks the small boats, such as the river boats used in Vietnam, needed for green- and brown-water operations.
Maritime control is important. 65% of goods and 90% of internet traffic go by sea. Complementing Armstrong’s argument, Haynes says the US does a poor job of using history to analyze and develop strategies to counter irregular maritime threats. Part of the issue stems from the Cold War hyper-rational thinking, which is harder to apply to irregular maritime warfare.
Murphy thinks the US is not prepared to deal with irregular maritime challenges because it lacks of maritime political intention and policy cohesion, while China sees economic opportunities in the sea and devotes funding to maritime projects such as a network of ports. The US is a naval power without maritime power, because it sees the sea as a medium to project US power onto land. US naval operations have shifted away from the sea to supporting ground and air forces.
Robinson agreed and and pointed towards opponents using irregular warfare as a centerpiece to their global strategy: China expanding its exclusive economic zone, and Russia through the Wagner mercenary group as well as Iran through its famous use of proxies in both the military and political realm. The US needs to establish a cohesive response. Armstrong added that irregular warfare and great power competition are intermixed. States use irregular warfare when they don’t want to go to full war. Treating them as separate would be fatal.
The US is stuck in a WWII view of war, Robinson argued. Once more modern circumstances are appreciated, a shift in spending will follow. Haynes supported her argument: under no circumstances would he trade a singe F-18 for several smaller boats, which would be useful for green-water navy strategies. The incapability for the US to see the gray zone between war and peace and adjust both strategy and spending could be very costly.
A full video of the event is available here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Two can play
President Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran is generating a “smart pressure” campaign in return. Tehran can’t limit American ability to export oil and gas or pay for imports, but it can threaten Gulf shipping, move towards enriching uranium to levels required for nuclear weapons, and convince at least some trading partners to pay for Iranian exports in ways that circumvent US sanctions. Both Europe and Iraq are planning to use “special purpose vehicles” to do just that, the latter likely with the implicit approval of the US since it desperately needs Iranian electricity this summer.
Trump is feeling the impact. He has dropped the insistence on talking about missiles and Iran’s regional behavior, but Tehran is still not yielding to his begging to re-open nuclear talks. Nor is it inclined to give Trump the kind of photo-op flattery that North Korea’s Kim Jong-un has learned gets the President to soften his stance. Maximum pressure has unified Iran’s fractious ruling elite behind a policy of defiance and disdain, tempered however with caution. While prepared to endure an American strike, and return the blow by more or less surreptitious means, Tehran knows it cannot sustain a real war against the US.
Trump can’t sustain a long war either. Another lengthy Middle Eastern war would end his chances for re-election, as Fox star Tucker Carlson has advised. Trump has done nothing to prepare popular opinion for it and would face substantial opposition in Congress, where quite a few Republicans as well as most Democrats are prepared to claim he lacks the legislative authority needed to go to war. The existing authorization to use military force (AUMF) covers only Al Qaeda and its affiliates. That has been stretched to cover the Islamic State, which did in fact emerge out of Al Qaeda’s erstwhile Iraqi affiliate. But no one serious reasonable thinks it can cover war with Iran. Trump will have to use an implicit “self-defense” authorization if he decides to strike Iran.
So the shadow-boxing continues, with the unavoidable risk of escalation. But there are serious possibilities for negotiation as well. It should be clear by now to all but the most hawkish in both Tehran and Washington that the alternative is a war from which neither capital can reasonably hope to emerge victorious. Trump may still hope for some spectacular photo-op: a visit to Tehran perhaps? But Supreme Leader Khamenei seems incapable of the kind of political acrobatics that Kim has successfully pursued to get the President of the United States to confirm his otherwise doubtful legitimacy.
A quieter, perhaps clandestine diplomacy is required: talks about talks, perhaps in Oman or Qatar. A few confidence-building measures like release of prisoners. A humanitarian gesture or two. A more or less explicit understanding about the limits of what each side is prepared to tolerate, both in political rhetoric and the use of military force. Iran will try to make it to November 2020 without going farther than that, knowing that if Trump loses a Democratic administration would want to reenter the nuclear agreement of its own free will.
That is what Trump should do as well. But he can’t without Iranian cooperation in hiding the concession under a photo-op or some sort of fig leaf revision of the agreement. So we’re stuck with a pressure campaign, which two can play.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Americans get desperate
I did this interview for Turkey’s TRT World yesterday, on Trump and Iran:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Silly and sad
Jared Kushner’s much-hyped Peace to Prosperity economic proposal for Palestine, published over the weekend by the White House, is like a three-legged stool that is missing two legs. It can serve little purpose without two others: a Palestinian state with the sovereign authority required to implement the plan and an Israeli state ready to cooperate with its Palestinian neighbors in that process.
Both are absent from Kushner’s $50-billion proposition. He manages to discuss empowering Palestinians and Palestinian governance without mentioning Israeli checkpoints and other security controls, the split between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, and Israeli settlements and territorial control in the West Bank as well as Israel’s continuing embargo of Gaza. Kushner wishes away all the driving forces of the conflict in order to wave a shiny future that has no practical means of implementation. This is the real estate prospectus version of international politics: show them what it might look like and investors will flock.
Only they won’t, because Arabs and Jews are not dumb. Both know this is silly. No money will flow until the other two legs of the stool are put in place. Palestine needs a secure, unified, and democratic political future before it will get the public and private investment and enhanced trade of the sort Kushner imagines. I’ve been to Rawabi, the truly magnificent Palestinian showcase town built with Qatari funding. It will remain a showcase, not a prototype, so long as the Palestinian state remains weak and Israeli cooperation weaker.
Many peace negotiators try Kushner’s gimmick: a fat economic proposal to sweeten the bitter political and security pills that have to be swallowed. As a State Department official in 1995, I wrote the one-page, three-year, $3 billion proposal that Dick Holbrooke carried into Sarajevo to sweeten the pot. Admittedly it wasn’t as glossy as Kushner’s. It got precious little attention, because it didn’t address the issues that caused Bosnia and Herzegovina’s 3.5-year war. I hasten to add that it is about how much we spent, but to little avail, because the underlying causes of the conflict were not resolved in the Dayton peace agreement.
Erratic though he is, Trump is a one-trick pony. He maximizes pressure, flashes an attractive but entirely imaginary future, and then either caves himself or moves on to his next self-generated crisis. Cases in point: North Korea, Venezuela, Israel/Palestine, and now Iran. The Palestinians are not going to buy a one-legged stool. Imagining they will is silly. But it is also sad. It reduces America to the international equivalent of a real estate huckster.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks: June 24-28
Closing the Gender Gap in Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament | June 24,
Nearly twenty years after the UN Security Council called for the increased participation of women in peace and security decision-making, how much progress has been made in the arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament field? After surveying four decades of multilateral meetings and conducting interviews with diplomats, a new United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research report, Still Behind the Curve, finds that women remain underrepresented in key forums and sheds light on the obstacles hindering their full and equal participation.
Join us for a presentation of this new report and an interactive discussion on how to close the gender gap.
Speakers:
- Renata Dwan, Director of the United Nations for Disarmament Research (which published the report Still Behind the Curve)
- Laura Holgate, Vice President for Materials Risk Management at NTI (Nuclear Threat Initiative). She led the design and launch of Gender Champions in Nuclear Policy.
- James Acton, Carnegie Endowment of International Peace – Jessica T. Mathews Chair and Co-Director of the Nuclear Policy Program
Bringing Americans Home, How is U.S. Hostage Policy Working? | June 24th, 2019 | 12:15 PM – 1:45 PM | New America | 740 15th St NW #900 Washington, DC 20005 | Register Here
Having a son or daughter, husband or mother taken hostage or detained in a foreign land is one of the most frightening experiences imaginable. On the fourth anniversary of the implementation of reforms to U.S. hostage policy, The James W. Foley Legacy Foundation in partnership with New America
To discuss the report and efforts to bring Americans held abroad home, New America welcomes Diane Foley, President and Founder of the James W. Foley Legacy Foundation; Cynthia Loertscher, the report’s author and primary researcher; Luke Hartig, a New America Fellow and former Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the National Security Council; and Rob Saale, former Director of the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell and founder and CEO of Star Consulting and Investigations LLC.
Lunch will be provided.
Participants:
- Diane Foley, President and Founder, James W. Foley Legacy Foundation
- Cynthia Loertscher, Author and Primary Researcher, Bringing Americans Home
- Luke Hartig, Fellow, New America International Security Program, Former Senior Director for Counterterrorism, National Security Council
- Rob Saale, Former Director, Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell, Founder and CEO of Star Consulting and Investigations LLC
Moderator:
Peter Bergen, Vice President, New America
ROK-U.S. Strategic Forum 2019, The Pursuit of Peace Amidst Changing Regional Dynamics | June 24, 2019 | 11:00 AM – 5:00 PM | CSIS Headquarters, 2nd Floor | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
Please join us for our annual ROK-U.S. Strategic Forum 2019. A timely discussion with current and former government officials, scholars, experts, and opinion leaders from the United States and Korea who will participate in a series of panel discussions to address the state of the U.S.-ROK alliance, the prospects for the peace building process on the Korean Peninsula, and the changing regional dynamics in East Asia and beyond.
This event will be co-hosted with the Korea Foundation, a leading organization of Korea’s international exchange and public policy initiative.
You are also invited to join us after the ROK-U.S. Strategic Forum 2019 for a special
Speakers:
- Victor Cha, Senior Adviser and Korea Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Mark Lippert, Senior Advisor (Non-resident), Korea Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Sue Mi Terry, Senior Fellow, Korea Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Progress at Risk? First Annual Conference on Security, Migration, and the Rule of Law in the Northern Triangle of Central America | June 25, 2019 | 8:30 PM – 4:30 PM | 6th Floor, Woodrow Wilson Center | Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, One Woodrow Wilson Plaza, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20004 | Register Here
Record numbers of Central Americans have fled the countries of the Northern Triangle during the first half of 2019, giving rise to abundant questions about how to address the drivers of migration. Central to addressing the challenge of migration is the ability of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, together with the United States, to effectively reduce violence and homicides; fight corruption and strengthen the rule of law; reform the police; and reintegrate returning or deported migrants.
Please join the Latin American Program and the Seattle International Foundation for a conference on Central American Security and Migration, featuring researchers from throughout the region who will present new findings on the complex issues driving migration and insecurity and discuss options for addressing these challenges.
Panel 1: Understanding Violence and Homicides in Central America
- Mario Herrera, Estado de la Región, Lead Author: “Homicides in Central America: Toward a Better Understanding of the Trends, Causes, and Territorial Dynamics”
- Laura Chioda, Senior Economist, The Chief Economist Office of the Latin American and Caribbean Region, World Bank
- Erik Alda, Creative Associates
- Eric L. Olson (Moderator), Director of Policy, Seattle International Foundation, Consultant, Latin American Program, Wilson Center
Panel 2: Promoting the Rule of Law and Fighting Corruption
- Gabriela Castellanos, Director, National Anti-corruption Commission of Honduras
- Alvaro Montenegro, Guatemalan Journalist, Columnist, and Coordinator of the Alliance for Reforms of the Justice and Electoral Systems
- Arturo Aguilar (Moderator), Executive Director, Seattle International Foundation
Panel 3: Police Professionalization: Honduras’ Special Commission to Purge and Reform the Police
- David Dye, Lead Author of “Police Reform in Honduras: The Role of the Special Purge and Transformation Commission”
- Omar Rivera, Member, Special Commission for the Purging and Reform of the National Police, Honduras
Panel 4: Temporary Protected Status – What If They Return?
- Mauricio Diaz, General Coordinator, FOSDEH
- Maria Elena Rivera, Program Coordinator, Program on Public Policy Studies, FUNDAUNGO
- Julia Gelatt, Senior Policy Analyst, US Immigration Program, Migration Policy Institute
- Eric L. Olson (Moderator), Director of Policy, Seattle International Foundation, Consultant, Latin American Program, Wilson Center
What Does New Opinion Survey Data from Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordan Tell Us? | June 26, 2019 | 10:00 AM | The Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20005 | Register Here
The Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East and the Arab Barometer invite you to join us for a panel discussion to mark the release of new public opinion survey data on the state of the economy, institutional trust, migration, government performance, media consumption, corruption, and foreign relations in Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordan. The survey data was collected by the Arab Barometer, a nonpartisan research network that provides insight into the social, political, and economic attitudes and values of ordinary citizens across the Arab world.
A presentation of the survey data will be followed by a moderated panel discussion to discuss the implications for US policy and the region.
Panelists:
- Dr Mark Tessler, Samuel J. Eldersveld Collegiate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Michigan
- Dr Kathrin Thomas, Research Associate, Arab Barometer
- Dr Abbas Kadhim, Director of the Iraqi Initiative, Atlantic Council
- Mr Faysal Itani, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, Atlantic Council
Moderated by:
- Ms Vivian Salama, Reporter, The Wall Street Journal
Fifth Annual Central and Eastern European Energy Security Conference | June 26,
For the fifth rendition of the CEE conference, esteemed
Join us on Wednesday, June 26, 2019 from 12:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at the Atlantic Council headquarters (1030 15th Street NW, West Tower Elevators, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20005) for what is certain to be a rich and interesting conversation. This event is on-the-record and open to the media. Lunch will be served.
Speakers:
- Dr Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, Deputy Director-General (Energy), European Commission
- Mr András Bácsi-Nagy, Head of International Public Affairs, MOL Group
- H.E. Václav Bartuška, Ambassador-at-Large for Energy Security, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic
- Dr Artur Bobovnický, Director, Innovations and International Cooperation, Slovak Innovation and Energy Agency
- Dr Barbara Dorić, Managing Director, LNG Croatia
- Mr Amos Hochstein, Senior Vice President, Marketing, Tellurian Inc.
- Mr Patrik Križanský, Managing Partner, Danubia NanoTech
- Ms Emily Meredith, Deputy Bureau Chief, Energy Intelligence
- Amb. Richard Morningstar, Founding Chairman, Global Energy Center, Atlantic Council
- H.E. Pál Ságvári, Ambassador-at-Large for Energy Security, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary
- H.E. Juraj Siváček, Ambassador-at-Large for Energy Security, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs of the Slovak Republic
- Amb. András Simonyi, Senior Fellow, Global Energy Center, Atlantic Council
- Mr Christopher Smith, Senior Vice President for Policy, Government, and Public Affairs, Cheniere Energy, Inc.
Maritime Irregular Warfare: Preparing to Meet Hybrid Maritime Threats | June 26,
Maritime irregular warfare represents an enduring and mounting challenge for the United States. Examples of related actions abound: Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea; possible Iranian attacks on Gulf shipping; China’s illegal fishing, dangerous maneuvers and alleged use of lasers, and other violations of international law in and beyond the South China Sea; North Korea’s illicit smuggling on the high seas; and maritime terrorism, piracy, and transnational trafficking.
To sharpen our understanding of these threats and initiate a discussion on what might be done, Hudson Institute will host the authors of two new books that address historical and current challenges of maritime irregular warfare. Their remarks will be followed by an expert panel on the implications for the Navy and U.S. national security, especially given the rise of what might be called an era of resurgent political warfare and hybrid threats. Hudson Institute Chair for Asia-Pacific Security and Senior Fellow Dr Patrick M. Cronin will moderate the discussion.
Speakers:
- Benjamin Armstrong, Author, Small Boats and Daring Men: Maritime Raiding, Irregular Warfare, and the Early American Navy
- Patrick Cronin, Asia-Pacific Security Chair, Hudson Institute
- Dr Peter Haynes, Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; former Deputy Director, Strategy, Plans, and Policy (J5), U.S. Special Operations Command
- Dr Martin N. Murphy, Visiting Fellow, Corbett Centre for Maritime Policy Studies and author, Small Boats, Weak States, Dirty Money: Piracy and Maritime Terrorism in the Modern World; Former Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
- Linda Robinson, Senior International/Defense Researcher, RAND Corporation
- Joshua Tallis, Author, The War for Muddy Waters: Pirates, Terrorists, Traffickers and Maritime Insecurity
A Different Kind of Prison: Mass Surveillance in Xinjiang and Its Global Implications | June 27,
The Human Rights Initiative at CSIS invites you to a public event on the mass detention and surveillance of Muslims in Xinjiang, China and the risks such technologies may pose as they are implemented in other areas of China and globally.
Over one million Uyghurs and Muslims from other ethnic minority groups have been detained by the Chinese government and sent to “re-education” internment camps. Sources indicate that detainees are psychologically and physically abused. Uyghurs outside the camps in Xinjiang are also not free, as they are kept under constant surveillance, often using advanced technology. The Chinese government is increasingly testing this technology in Xinjiang and exporting it nationally and globally, with concerning implications for democracy and human rights.
This event will focus on how this surveillance technology is being used and disseminated across the globe, which poses a risk of great harm to human rights and democracy, particularly if deployed without adequate safeguards.
Featuring keynote remarks and a moderated discussion with:
Representative Mike Gallagher (R-WI), Member, House Armed Services Committee
Followed by a panel discussion among:
- Sophie Richardson, China Director, Human Rights Watch
- Sarah Cook, Senior Research Analyst, East Asia at Freedom House
Additional Panelists to be Announced
Moderator:
- Amy Lehr, Director of Human Rights Initiative, CSIS
NATO at 70: Refocusing for Change? | June 27,
Please join the Atlantic Council and NATO Defense College Foundation, in cooperation with the NATO Defense College and National Defense University, for a public panel discussion on “NATO at 70: Refocusing for Change?” on Thursday, June 27, 2019 from 2:00 p.m. to 6:10 p.m. at the Atlantic Council’s headquarters (1030 15th Street NW, 12th Floor, West Tower Elevators, Washington, DC 20005.)
The 70th anniversary of the Washington Treaty, the founding document of NATO, represents more than just a historical moment to commemorate NATO’s past, but also an opportunity to address the challenges facing the Alliance today and its mission going forward.
At this critical juncture, the Alliance faces an era of renewed great power competition, with the European security environment increasingly contested by both traditional and nontraditional actors. Challenges such as Russia’s aggression towards
To inform and contribute to the discussion surrounding these issues, this high-level seminar will convene experts from both sides of the Atlantic. The seminar will feature
Speakers to be announced.
The Impact Of Militias On Governance And Geopolitics In The Middle East And North Africa | June 28,
Militia groups have become an increasing feature of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Often sponsored by rival outside powers, they have
On June 28, the Brookings Institution will host a panel conversation on the impact of militias in MENA and ways to address the paramilitary groups with Brookings Senior Fellows Shadi Hamid and Vanda Felbab-Brown; Richard E. Behrman Professor of Child Health and Society at Stanford University Paul Wise; Brookings John C. Whitehead Visiting Fellow in International Diplomacy Jeffrey Feltman; and Senior Fellow Suzanne Maloney, who will moderate the event.
After the introductory comments, panelists will take questions from the audience.
Speakers:
- Shadi Hamid, Brookings Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy, U.S. Relations with the Islamic World
- Vanda Felbab-Brown, Brookings Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence
- Paul Wise, Richard E. Behrman Professor of Child Health and Society at Stanford University Paul Wise
- Jeffrey Feltman, Brookings John C. Whitehead Visiting Fellow in International Diplomacy
- Suzanne Maloney, Senior Fellow, Center for Middle East Policy, Energy Security and Climate Initiative
RSS - Posts
