Peace Picks March 11-15
1. A city-based strategy for rebuilding Libya | Tuesday, March 12 | 9:00 am – 11:00 am | Brookings Institute | Register Here | The overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 unleashed a long period of instability in Libya. Although elements of governance and a functional economy remain, Libya’s central institutions are weak, with militias and other non-state actors competing for state spoils, such as oil. This internal crisis has significant security ramifications for Libya and beyond: Besides presenting a potential source of terrorism, Libya’s ungoverned spaces have contributed to the unregulated flows of people from the Middle East and Africa to Europe. However, in recent years, the United States has been largely absent from international–including U.N.-led–efforts to restore governance in Libya. In their new report outlining recommendations for the United States and other outside actors on a new policy in Lybia, it focuses on the country’s economic, political, and security activity on its major cities, with the United States reinstating its embassy and ambassador. John R. Allen, the president of the Brooking Institute, will provide opening remarks, and Karim Mezran, Federica Saini Fasanotti and Frederic Wehrey will join Jeffrey Feltman and Alice Hunt Friend in a discussion moderated by Michael E. O’Hanlon.
2. How Pakistan Navigates the Saudi Arabia-Iran Rivalry Libya | Tuesday, March 11 | 1:00 am –2:30am |United States Institute of Peace |Register Here | The deepening relationship between Pakistan and the Gulf states comes at a period of high tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran, whose border with Pakistan has also been the site of periodic clashes and whose past efforts to launch a gas pipeline project linking the two countries remains stalled. A February 13th terrorist attacked, which killed 27 members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and was linked to Pakistani-based militants, only further escalated tensions between the two countries. While Prime Minister Khan has professed a desire to serve as a mediator between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Pakistan faces an increasingly challenging diplomatic balancing act. A discussion analyzing the current Pakistani government’s relations with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Gulf States, and implications for regional security in South Asia and the greater Middle East, with Ankit Panda for the Diplomat, Karen Young for American Enterprise Institute and Alex Vatanka for Middle East Institute. Ambassador Richard Olson will moderate the discussion.
3. How Russia is surviving Western Sanctions | Monday, March 11 | 2:00 – 3:00 pm | Wilson Center | Register here | Despite uncertainty in the world economy and sanctions, Russia’s economy is set for a broad-based economic recovery. Policies to boost public spending, notably investment, should contribute. Martin Gilman will explore why the Russian authorities have been able to marginalize the impact of the US-instigated sanctions. Gilman will underscore how the most recent legal case involving Baring Vostok could have a much more chilling effect on economic prospects. The panel will be one-one discussion with Martin Gilman of Higher School of Economics in Moscow.
4. Plan País: Building the New Venezuela – A Roadmap for Reconstruction | Monday, March 14 | 5:00pm -6:30pm | Atlantic Council | Register Here | Venezuela is at a turning point. Interim President Juan Guaidó has received the backing of both the Venezuelan people and more than sixty countries. Looking ahead to the democratic transition, the interim government is focused on the reconstruction of Venezuela’s economy and public sector. Here, the Venezuelan National Assembly has proposed Plan País as the most promising opportunity yet to steer Venezuela out of its crisis. Beyond domestic support, Plan País will require the help of the international community and multilateral cooperation for successful implementation. “How would Plan País rebuild Venezuela, and what would be the role of the Inter-American Development Bank and other multilateral development banks,” will feature panelists Ángel Alvarado of Miranda State National Assembly of Venezuela, Alejandro Grisanti of Ecoanalítica, Paula García Tufro of Atlantic Council, Diego Area of Atlantic Council.
5. Dialogues on American Foreign Policy and World Affairs: A Conversation with Jake Sullivan| Friday, March 15 | 11:30am – 12:45 pm | Hudson Institute | Register Here | Hudson Institute will host Jake Sullivan, former national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, for a one-on-one discussion with Hudson Institute Distinguished Fellow Walter Russell Mead on U.S. national security threats and opportunities. Mead will explore Mr. Sullivan’s perspective on the future of the Middle East; Russia and Transatlantic relations; the challenge of a rising China; and other concerns facing American policymakers today and in the years ahead. Speakers include Jake Sullivan of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Walter Russell Mead of Hudson Institute.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Your Saturday video
I’ve written many screeds against partition schemes, but none more effective than this from Yes Prime Minister:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Criminal whitewash
Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort got off easy. Convicted in Federal court of five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failure to disclose a foreign bank account, the judge gave him less than four years in prison, claiming Manafort had lived an “otherwise blameless life.” That’s rich, as he was a political adviser to a corrupt Ukrainian prime minister and worked hard to fulfill Vladimir Putin’s political ambitions, both in Ukraine and in the US. He also violated his cooperation agreement with prosecutors and sought to influence witnesses during the trial. Before sentencing, he expressed no remorse for his crimes but claimed to have suffered greatly.
There really is only one way of understanding this travesty of justice: Manafort is rich and white. A poor or black defendant convicted of such charges would be looking at twice the time in prison, if not three or four times. Appointed by President Reagan, Judge Ellis had often expressed sympathy for Manafort and distaste for the prosecutors, who work for Special Counsel Mueller. Ellis seems to have decided early on that Manafort was “one of us” caught by overzealous prosecutors in what the judge considered victimless white collar crimes.
Manafort still faces serious problems, as a different Federal judge in a different court will sentence him next week on conspiracy convictions. She has shown no sympathy for Manafort and is expected to throw the book at him, which likely means an additional ten years in prison for the 69-year-old felon. Manafort may yet end his life in prison, though early release is common for good behavior. Surely there are parole boards who, like Judge Ellis, have sympathy with “one of us.” And the President could still pardon Manafort.
This sentencing has international import. President Trump has already enormously weakened America’s stance on democracy and the rule of law, which he regards as demands to make of Washington’s adversaries and not its friends. Judge Ellis’ sentencing has now added insult to injury. Who would believe that the US really stands for equality before the law, when a pal of the President gets such kid glove treatment? This criminal whitewash may obscure Manafort’s malfeasance, but it is a stain on America’s reputation. It will encourage autocrats worldwide to continue to resist the rule of law. That is precisely what Donald Trump wants to do, so long as the autocrats are his friends.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Why the rush?
I spoke this morning via Skype to a conference in Pristina on the Kosovo-Serbia Dialogue: Nomalization or an Aggravated Status Quo. These were my speaking notes, which I did not follow religiously:
1. Thank you all for accommodating me by Skype. I’ll miss the pleasure of your company but appreciate the opportunity for my views to be heard.
2. As I hope you all know, I am an opponent of land and people swaps in the Balkans, for many reasons:
- They would be an admission that neither Belgrade nor Pristina is able to treat all their citizens properly and equally under the law, which is the main requirement of NATO and EU membership.
- They would lead, sooner or later, to massive displacement of Serbs from south of the Ibar River and Albanians from Serbia proper.
- Germany, the Netherlands, and other EU members will not approve accession for partitioned countries.
- I don’t believe any of the deals I’ve seen could be welcomed by Presidents Vucic and Thaci or approved in parliament in either Belgrade or Pristina, and certainly not in a referendum in Kosovo.
- A land swap would destabilize Bosnia and Herzegovina, where Milorad Dodik has been clear about his intention to lead Republika Srpska to secession if Kosovo is partitioned.
- A land swap in the Balkans would strengthen Russian claims to the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the secession of Transnistria, Donetsk and Luhansk as well as the annexation of Crimea.
- UN membership for Kosovo would only be possible if Washington were to concede on those issues, which it has no interest in doing.
3. Land and people swaps are a zombie idea: it wanders the earth looking for its next victim and is difficult to kill because it is dead already.
4. So why so much attention to a zombie idea and so much urgency about concluding an agreement?
5.Presidents Thaci and Vucic are both ethnic nationalists, not liberal democrats. Ethnic nationalists have a hard time dealing with numerical minorities. If they are equal, what use is being part of the supposedly privileged minority?
6. But President Thaci long resisted the idea of partitioning Kosovo. Why did he change his mind?
7. Best to ask him of course, but my explanation is this: he saw that Belgrade was making progress with the idea in Washington, where there is also an ethnic nationalist administration.
8. John Bolton was opposed to Kosovo independence and would be pleased to wreck a Clinton protégé, which Kosovo certainly is.
9. So when Bolton said he would entertain partition ideas if Vucic and Thaci could agree, President Thaci became concerned that he would be outflanked and end up with a one-sided proposition: northern Kosovo would go to Serbia without any gain for the Albanians.
10. So he invited the Presevo Albanians to Pristina and made it clear that no one-sided proposition would pass muster. It would have to be reciprocal.
11. That was a reasonable thing to do, but it does not mean that there really is an acceptable proposition, even a reciprocal one.
12. How can Vucic give up the territory in southern Serbia that Thaci wants, in defiance of concerns about the security of Serbia’s main route to the sea? How can he survive abandonment of Serb communities and religious sites south of the Ibar?
13. How can Thaci give up North Mitrovica, which was majority Albanian before the war, as well as Trepca and Gazivoda, his country’s main natural resources and water supply respectively?
14. So people come up with fantasies about 99 year leases, foreign management, and extra-territorial status that are simply too elaborate and risky to convince a serious person that they would last. The zombie emperor is wearing no clothes.
15. I’d like to finish with a question: why the urgency? I understand why Belgrade might feel some pressure for an early solution, as its EU accession is fewer years in the future than Kosovo’s.
16. But Kosovo should know that once Serbia enters the final stages of accession it will have to do whatever the EU member states ask. And one of the things they are certain to ask is complete normalization of relations with Pristina.
17. I fear, however, that some people in Belgrade and Pristina may feel some urgency because of President Trump’s promise of a Rose Garden ceremony.
18. They are unquestionably a nice occasion but let me be clear: a Rose Garden ceremony does not ensure impunity.
19. I’d be happy to see Presidents Vucic and Thaci cut a deal sooner rather than later. Kosovo might even want to offer concessions on payment of World Bank debts and the planned roles of the Kosovo army, as well as protection for the Serbs south of the Ibar.
20. But to sell your sovereignty for a bowl of porridge, or a Rose Garden ceremony, would be a historic and unforgivable mistake.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Similar interests, opposing views
The Middle East Institute (MEI) held a panel discussion on February 26 about potential future geopolitical scenarios in the Middle East with Ambassador Gerald Feierstein, Senior Vice President at MEI and Rolf Mützenich, Member of German Bundestag and Deputy Parliamentary Leader for Foreign Policy, Defense, and Human Rights.
Feierstein gave an overview of Trump priorities in the Middle East: defeating the Islamic state and violent extremism around the world, containing Iran’s ballistic missile program and interference in internal affairs of its neighbors, and advancing an Israel/Palestine “deal of the century.” According to Feierstein, the US and EU allies hold similar views on challenges Iran poses to regional security and stability.
But there are different views on the way to address those challenges, and in particular whether to reimpose sanctions on Iran. On the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the US and Germany agree on the importance of resolving it but disagree on whether the Administration was correct in its decision to formalize the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. While the US has cut off fund for UNRWA, Germany made a big move by stepping in to replace it.
Regarding the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, Feierstein dwelt on the long history of cooperation between the US and Saudi Arabia in establishing peace and security in the region. During the 1960s, Washington and Riyadh worked together to contain the expansion of the Soviet communism. In the 1980s, they stood up against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Today, they still share fundamental interests on global economy security, the energy market, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and concern over Iran. Despite these shared interests, the US and Saudi Arabia hold different values, especially in attitudes towards their citizens, reflected in their views of the Khashoggi affair.
Mützenich emphasized that solving the current crisis in the Middle East requires that people participate in socio-economic progress, not the conclusion of big arms deals. It is imperative to encourage the governments of the region to respect human rights and invest in their people, particularly young people. The killing of Khashoggi aroused a dispute in the EU over arms exports to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. While Chancellor Merkel decided to no longer export arms to Saudi Arabia, France and Britain did not.
Mützenich expressed concern about ran’s behavior in the region, stressing the importance of international community pressure on Iran’s elite.
The deal with Iran was a great success because it limited Iran’s nuclear capabilities. There is no viable alternative.
While agreeing that the response to ISIS needs to be military, Mützenich argues that ISIS can only be defeated by social and economical inclusion. In Europe, there is a wide debate on whether human rights are a core value or just rhetoric. It was not only Merkel’s position to stop providing arms to Saudi Arabia; the issue was even raised during the negotiations over the coalition government. Ironically, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has allowed women to drive, but women who fought for this right are still behind bars. Mützenich welcomed discussions in the US Congress to try to make the Administration change its position on exporting arms to Saudi Arabia.
There are no grandiose solutions for the big problems facing our world, but humanitarian aid for internally displaced people and refugees can make a difference. The German BundeStag allocates every year €2 billion to humanitarian aid.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Dim future
The Wilson Center held a panel discussion on February 26 exploring the future of the US-Iran relationship . The panel included Robin Wright, journalist and USIP-Wilson Center Distinguished Fellow, Michael Singh, Managing Director and Senior Fellow at Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Robert Malley, President and CEO of the International Crisis Group.
Wright claims that Iranian Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif wanted to resign for several reasons. Internally, jealous rivals surround him and sought to impeach him in the parliament (but the issue never came to a vote). He is realist but does not represent the majority; the Supreme Leader and the hardliners are on top of him. Zarif was upset for not being invited when Bashar Assad turned up in Tehran for a meeting with the Supreme Leader. Externally, he failed to sustain the nuclear deal and prevent the Trump administration re-imposition of sanctions. He was also unable to respond to the pressure of Western governments to release a dual national American detainee in Iran or get Iranian banks to comply with international banking standards that were imposed post 9/11.
Singh pointed out that US administrations from Jimmy Carter until now had some engagement with Iran, but it was President Obama who took relations in a different direction with the nuclear agreement. At odds with US policy and interests, Iran does not operate according to conventional norms. It resorts to proxy wars in Lebanon, Yemen, and Bahrain. These destabilizing actions in the region seek to keep Israel and Saudi Arabia focused on border problems and not Iran itself. Iran has wanted the US out of the region. Obama sought a balance of power in the Middle East between US friends and Iran. That did not happen, and more chaos is coming . While there are shared interests between the US and Iran on counter-narcotics in Afghanistan and ensuring a stable government in Iraq, the ways they pursue those interests tend to be diametrically opposed.
Malley asserted that Democrats and Republicans have engaged with Iran using a mix of coercion and engagement. Both have failed to establish normal relations with Tehran. Even Trump tried to meet Rouhani at the UN. Historically, the US relationship with Iran was not built on a strong basis: take for instance the hostage crisis, the ousting of Mosaddegh, and US support for the Shah.
Most importantly, the Iran-Iraq war, in which almost every country including the US backed Iraq, had a psychological impact on Iran’s attitude toward the US and the region, which is not only polarized between Iran and Saudi Arabia but also between Iran and Israel. Iran wants to play a key major role, but the US has deep strategic interests in oil, support for Israel, and counter-terrorism. Iran believes US backing for Tehran’s foes is an obstacle to its natural weight in the region: Iraq in the past or Saudi Arabia and Israel today.
According to Malley, the one agreement that could have sustainably changed Iranian behavior is the JCPOA. It was better to have that agreement, defuse the nuclear crisis, and prevent a catastrophic war. The JCPOA succeeded because there was pressure and a realistic outcome that Iran and the US with difficulty could accept. Without it, the future is dim.
RSS - Posts
