Peace picks, April 16 – 22
- Colombia Peace Forum: Elections & Peace Processes in Colombia | Monday, April 16 | 9:30am – 11:30am | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register here |
While threats of violence marred recent legislative campaigns in Colombia, the March 11 election was Colombia’s most peaceful in decades. Although the FARC’s new political party underperformed, its comprehensive demobilization was palpable and the National Liberation Army (ELN), the country’s second-largest rebel group, respected a temporary unilateral ceasefire. For the first time in 50 years, ballots were cast freely throughout the country and not a single incident of violence was recorded. With the composition of Colombia’s next Congress set, jockeying and coalition-building among the main candidates is fully underway ahead of the May 27 presidential polls. The outcome will have important implications for the precarious implementation of the 2016 FARC peace accord. Join the U.S. Institute of Peace for a discussion on security and protection throughout the electoral process, analysis of the impact the outcome may have on the implementation of the FARC peace agreement, and the implications for the ongoing process with the ELN. Featuring Alejandra Barrios (Director, Electoral Observation Mission), Juanita Goebertus (Colombian Congresswoman and Former Member of the Government Peace Delegation with the FARC), Mark Schneider (Senior Advisor, CSIS), Jonas Claes (Senior Program Officer, Preventing Election Violence, USIP), and Steve Hege (Senior Program Officer, Security & Justice, USIP) as moderator.
This event will be webcast live.
___________________________________________________________
- Hidden Wounds: Trauma and Civilians in the Syrian Conflict | Monday, April 16 | 1:30pm – 3:00pm | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register here |
Seven years of conflict in Syria have exacted an enormous human toll and led to widespread physical destruction. The psychological impact of the war, although less visible, has been just as devastating. The levels of trauma and distress impacting Syrian civilians, especially children have been staggering with nearly 500,000 killed, half the population displaced and more than 13 million Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance. The traumatic impact of the Syrian conflict is less often acknowledged, but could significantly impair the ability of Syrian civilians to recover and build a more peaceful future. Syrian doctors and humanitarian relief experts have increasingly engaged on this issue and are developing new and innovative approaches to help address and heal these invisible wounds. Please join USIP and specialists from the Syrian American Medical Society, the U.S. State Department and Save the Children for a panel discussion, addressing an aspect of the Syrian conflict that often receives less attention than it deserves. Featuring Catherine Bou-Maroun (Foreign Affairs Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, DoS), Dr. Mohamed Khaled Hamza (Mental Health Committee Chair & Foundation Board Member, Syrian American Medical Society), Amy Richmond (Director, Child Protection in Emergencies, Save the Children), and Mona Yacoubian (Senior Advisor, Syria, the Middle East and North Africa, USIP) as moderator. With opening remarks by Nancy Lindborg (President, USIP).
___________________________________________________________
- US-Europe Cooperation and The China Challenge | Tuesday, April 17 | 10:30am – 12:00pm | The Heritage Foundation | Register here |
The U.S. and nations of Europe are allies across a range of issues that have kept much of the world free, secure and growing in prosperity for decades since the end of World War II. Is there a future for greater such cooperation in the Indo-Pacific – particularly in the face of challenges presented by China? In areas like international trade and investment, China presents American and European capitals a dilemma. It brings capital to the table, but capital laden with state ownership and support that distorts the global economic environment, sometimes to the detriment of domestic concerns. Politically, Beijing models a system of governance that runs contrary to centuries of Western political tradition, while its growing clout gives comfort to some of the world’s most repressive regimes. And in some areas, like international maritime law, Beijing threatens to overturn standards that have underpinned not only the region’s peace and prosperity, but its own. How can the U.S. and Europe promote their common values in the face of these challenges? What is the balance between cooperation with China and opposition to the negative byproducts of its rise, and can the U.S. and Europe agree on that balance? Featuring Theresa Fallon (Director, Center for Russia Europe Asia Studies), Philippe Le Corre (Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, HKS), Jamie Fly (Senior Fellow & Director, Future of Geopolitics & Asia Programs, GMF), and Walter Lohman (Director, Asian Studies Center, Heritage Foundation) as moderator.
___________________________________________________________
- Democracies Under Duress: Are We Losing Central Europe? | Tuesday, April 17 | 11:00am – 12:00pm | CSIS | Register here |
Central Europe’s reintegration with the West and its commitment to democracy and the rule of law were signature foreign policy achievements in the post-Cold War era for the United States. Increasingly, European and U.S. policymakers question whether Central Europe is really committed to democratic values and principles. Corruption, nativism, anti-Semitism, and weak institutions and civil society contribute to the drift of some NATO and EU members in Central Europe toward illiberalism. Join CSIS for a timely conversation on what policy tools Washington and Brussels can use to address democratic backsliding in Central Europe. Featuring Dr. Charles Gati (Senior Research Professor of European and Eurasian Studies, Johns Hopkins SAIS), David Frum (Senior Editor, The Atlantic), Radek Sikorski (Distinguished Statesman, CSIS), and Heather A. Conley (Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic & Director, Europe Program, CSIS).
This event will be webcast live.
___________________________________________________________
- Countering Russian Kleptocracy | Tuesday, April 17 | 11:00am – 12:30pm | Hudson Institute | Register here |
Kleptocratic regimes use corruption and as a means of control at home and a weapon of influence abroad. Russian oligarchs and other Kremlin agents have become adept at exploiting the global financial system to launder illicit funds and convert them into new forms of power projection, including attacks on Western democratic institutions. The Kremlin’s attempts to influence elections have exposed a series of systemic vulnerabilities in the United States, whose national security now requires a sustained response. Hudson Institute’s new report, Countering Russian Kleptocracy, outlines policy that, if implemented, would provide a comprehensive and effective strategy to counter Moscow’s aims. Featuring Charles Davidson (Executive Director, Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute), Clay Fuller (Jeane Kirkpatrick Fellow, AEI), Jeffrey Gedmin (Senior Fellow, Georgetown University), Ben Judah (Research Fellow, Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute), and Nate Sibley (Program Manager, Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute).
___________________________________________________________
- Sustaining Growth in Africa: Economic Diversification, Job Creation, and Infrastructure Financing | Tuesday, April 17 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Brookings Institution | Register here |
Improved economic and political governance, together with a favorable global external environment, over the past two decades or so, have set the foundation for Africa’s economic prosperity. Most economies across Africa responded with resilience to the 2014 commodity price shock, and the recovery is gaining momentum. However, obstacles, including jobless growth and increasing debt, loom in the distance. In its 2018 “African Economic Outlook,” the African Development Bank assesses these challenges and provides some policy recommendations, including economic diversification, development of labor-absorbing sectors, as well as investments in human capital, and in industries with high payoffs. It also recommends a focus on smart and catalytic debt management and infrastructure development. In particular, policymakers should consider institutional, regulatory and project-level challenges to infrastructure development and prioritize sectors and access given large infrastructure financing needs of $130-$170 billion, almost double the long-accepted estimate of $93 billion a year. Featuring Bongi Kunene (Executive Director, The World Bank), Alan Gelb (Senior Fellow and Director of Studies, Center for Global Development), Jeffrey Gutman (Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development), Louise Fox (Chief Economist, USAID), and Brahima Sangafowa Coulibaly (Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development & Director, Africa Growth Initiative, Brookings Institution) as moderator. With introductory remarks by Charles O. Boamah (Senior Vice President, AfDB), and a presentation by Abebe Shimeles (Manager, Macroeconomic Division, AfDB).
___________________________________________________________
- Politics and Policy of East Asia’s Economic Future | Thursday, April 19 | 1:90pm – 4:00pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the most recent, and a highly ambitious, step along a familiar road of international economic liberalization and integration through multilateral trade-plus pacts. It promised to deepen and extend openness through commitments on trade in goods and services, investment, harmonization of national regulation on a wide range of economics-related matters labor and the environment, and robust protections for intellectual property and processes for transnational dispute resolution.
Panel 1: After the U.S. TPP “Opt-Out” 1:00 PM to 2:15 PM
Shortly after taking office, President Trump announced that the U.S. would be opting out of the TPP. Although less prominent in the U.S. and elsewhere in the West, domestic political pressures and policies favoring greater protectionism have been on the rise in some East Asian states as well. At the same time, the China-centered alternative to the once-U.S.-led TPP—the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership—persists. And the remaining members of the TPP have determined to go forward without the United States. All of this has been occurring against the backdrop of the WTO’s fading as a force for global economic liberalization. What do these developments portend for economic relations within East Asia and U.S. economic relations with the region? Featuring Inu Manak (Visiting Scholar, Cato Institute), Derek Scissors (Resident Scholar, AEI; Chief Economist, China Beige Book), Bruce Hirsh (Principal and Founder, Tailwind Global Strategies), and Jacques deLisle (Director, Asia Program, FPRI; Professor of Law and Political Science and Deputy Director, Center for the Study of Contemporary China, University of Pennsylvania) as moderator.
Panel 2: Looking to the Future 2:30 PM to 3:45 PM
The politics of international economic policy have created much uncertainty. But this is far from the only, or potentially the most disruptive, force in play. Technological transformation, the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” and kindred developments pose additional challenges and impetuses for change. These shifts are potentially especially significant in East Asia. The region is home to many of the world’s most dynamic economies, has long been a hub of technological innovation, and now faces the consequences of China’s ambitious agenda to create an “innovation economy.” What do these trends and possible future developments portend for economies in East Asia? Featuring Eleonore Pauwels (Director of the Anticipatory Intelligence (AI ) Lab, Science and Technology Innovation Program, Wilson Center), Samm Sacks (Senior Fellow, Technology Policy Program, CSIS), Robert Atkinson (Founder and President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation), and Shihoko Goto (Senior Northeast Asia Associate, Asia Program, Wilson Center) as moderator.
___________________________________________________________
- China’s Growing Influence in the Indian Ocean: Implications for the U.S. and Its Regional Allies | Friday, April 12 | 12:00pm – 1:30pm | Hudson Institute | Register here |
For a long time, the Indian Ocean was considered a secondary concern with less strategic value than other parts of the region. This view is rapidly changing, driven in large part by China’s entry into the Indian Ocean. Recently, China signed an almost century-long lease of Hambantota port in Sri Lanka, demonstrating its interest in establishing a long-term presence in the region. China is already deploying warships in the Indian Ocean and playing a more active role in regional conflicts. The Hudson Institute is delighted to host a panel to discuss the growing strategic relevance of the Indian Ocean and the implications for the U.S. and its regional allies. Featuring Toshi Yoshihara (Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments), Asanga Abeyagoonasekera (Director General, Institute of National Security Studies of Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan Ministry of Defence), Aparna Pande (Research Fellow and Director, Initiative on the Future of India and South Asia, Hudson Institute), Satoru Nagao (Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute), and Jonas Parello-Plesner (Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute) as moderator.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Delay can be good
Yesterday’s bravado has given way to today’s hesitation. President Trump tweeted this morning:
Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all!
This kind of inconsistency creates confusion and uncertainty that can undermine US standing in the world and even contribute to crisis escalation. Flip-flops are no better in diplomacy than they are in domestic politics. In addition, the delay has given the Syrian government time to park its aircraft and other assets close by the Russians, whom the Americans will not want to hit.
But this particular delay could still be a good thing, if it gives Washington time to do three things:
- Assemble unequivocal evidence that Syrian President Assad was responsible for the chemical attack last week on Douma;
- Plan a serious combined military and diplomatic campaign to end at least the use of chemical weapons in Syria, if not the war itself;
- Rally domestic as well as international support for that combined campaign.
I don’t see much sign that the US is working on any of these things, but it should.* This post is about what Washington should be doing now, before any military action.
First is to gather the evidence. Intelligence doesn’t flow instantaneously. Materials often have to be translated and analyzed, not the least for veracity. Many countries may have collected against Syrian targets. To put together an unclassified version of the evidence against the Syrian government, cleared by all those agencies and governments that have contributed something, takes time and concentration.
That material should then be presented publicly, first and foremost to the Congress. Members on both sides of the aisle are nervous about allowing the President to act without at least Congressional consultation, if not approval. They fear another exclusively presidential decision, like last year’s cruise missile attack on the Syrian base that had launched a sarin attack, would set an undesirable precedent for military action against North Korea and Iran. Some in Congress are also loathe to do anything that will get the US more involved in Syria, as the President has also been. Americans are not keen on taking on more responsibility for that devastated country.
Evidence against Bashar al Assad also needs to be presented internationally, both in classified and unclassified formats. France and the UK are thought to be considering participation in military action. Others, like Germany and Saudi Arabia, have good reason to be sympathetic with the US even if they are reluctant to participate. Russia de facto controls Syrian air defenses, which have mostly stood idly by while the US and especially Israel flies at will over and near Syria. If Moscow can be convinced to continue to hold its fire, Assad will be more chastened. It is not only cruise missiles that send a message.
A one-off strike, tightly targeted on those who launched the chemical attack on Douma, will do no more this year than last year. Assad is fighting not only to hold on to power, but also for his life. Only the prospect of a broad, sustained military campaign against his capabilities will affect his calculations about using chemical weapons, which are important to him because he is short of manpower after 7 years of war. The Administration needs to be asking whether targeting the presidential palace (with or without a warning) or the Syrian Air Force intelligence facilities that plan chemical attacks would send a stronger message than targeting just runways and aircraft.
The Administration also needs to consider what happens if Russians or Iranians or their proxies are killed, intentionally or unintentionally. Does the US have the capability to respond to escalation? Would it want to do so? Is it prepared for what Russia might do in Ukraine, the Baltics or the Balkans? Does it have the capability to respond to what Iran and its proxies might do in Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen, or even inside the US?
The Syrian conflict has widened from non-violent protests against autocracy to a civil war and now to a geopolitical contest between some of the most powerful states on earth. It behooves the US to think carefully about the many diplomatic, political, and military consequences that may follow from military action. Once it has carefully chosen a course of action, it needs to assemble as much support as possible and move decisively, not only in Syria but also defensively worldwide.
*Curt Mills at The National Interest attributes the hesitation to domestic, rightwing pressure. I suspect he is correct.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Rattled now, unglued next
Donald Trump this morning tweeted:
Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!
Mara Liasson on NPR nails just how dumb and inconsistent this bravado is: it gives the Russians ample notice (something Trump criticized Obama for doing), it compels Trump to enforce a red line (something he also criticized Obama for doing), and it ensures that the US will not be able to leave Syria anytime soon (as Trump has said he wants to do). If Trump now backs off, he looks weak. If he goes ahead, he gives Putin an opportunity to show the prowess of Russian air defenses.
Yesterday the White House spokesperson made clear that Trump thinks he can get rid of Special Counsel Mueller and is thinking about doing so. Monday’s FBI raid on the President’s personal lawyer/fixer, Michael Cohen, precipitated that forewarning, even though it was not requested by Mueller. Trump called the raid a “break-in,” though the search warrants were approved by Justice Department officials Trump appointed, as well as by a judge, who all had to agree that there was probable cause Cohen had committed a crime.
The President has met opponents who don’t yield to bullying. Putin and Assad are murderers, not schoolyard toughs or New York real estate rivals. It is pitiful to see a president of the United States all but pleading for Moscow’s cooperation, also in a tweet this morning:
Our relationship with Russia is worse now than it has ever been, and that includes the Cold War. There is no reason for this. Russia needs us to help with their economy, something that would be very easy to do, and we need all nations to work together. Stop the arms race?
The guy who was going to make America great again is trying to bribe Putin into submission and offering to back down on US military modernization. Putin isn’t likely to bite. Nor is Trump’s calling Assad an “animal” going to intimidate a man whose name means “lion.” He has already killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians and mauled many more.
The only real question about Trump at this point is when he becomes completely unglued. My guess is that the search of Cohen’s premises is not only related to his admitted payment of $130,000 in hush money to Trump’s porn star fling but that her account of a threat of physical harm has attracted the prosecutor’s attention. A prosecutor might well hope to find evidence of Cohen ordering up that threat in his office, home, or hotel room.
Hard to see where and how this ends, but we haven’t seen the worst of it yet. Trump is rattled now, unglued next.
PS: Here’s an interview I did last night for CGTN on the Syria situation:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The missing ingredient
Syrian President Assad, thumbing his nose at the US, launched another major chemical attack Saturday, this time against Douma on the outskirts of Damascus, a year and a couple of days after the deadly Khan Shaykhun sarin attack last year. Assad has been using chlorine frequently over the past year. It is not yet clear which chemicals were used in Douma, but dozens died.
This attack attracted President Trump’s attention. First he blamed President Obama for not holding to his red line (actually he said for not crossing the red line, but the literate know he meant the opposite). Then he skipped golf after threatening that Assad would pay a BIG PRICE and blaming in part Vladimir Putin, the first time anyone can remember his criticizing Russia’s president by name.
Last year Trump launched 59 cruise missiles against the base from which the Khan Shaykhun sarin gas attack was launched. There was no serious or lasting impact, except for those unlucky enough to be at the base. It got back to operation quickly and chlorine, but not sarin, attacks continued.
Both Russia and Syria have denied Syria used chemicals on this recent occasion. Moscow issued a stern warning of “gravest consequences” if Syria is attacked. That presumably means US military intervention could precipitate Russian escalation. The Americans have already killed dozens if not hundreds of Russian mercenaries who attempted in February to cross the Euphrates to capture oil and gas fields American allies now control in eastern Syria. Moscow downplayed that incident. This time it is likely to retaliate with escalation of its own. Where that cycle would end is dreadful to contemplate.
I suppose the Americans will be tempted. But even if they double or triple the number of cruise missiles, it won’t make much difference. What was lacking last time around, and is likely to be lacking this time as well, is a viable diplomatic strategy for bringing the Syrian war to an end. Using military force without a political game plan is senseless.
The missing ingredient here is not force. It is diplomacy. The Americans should desist from another one-off with cruise missiles unless they have a serious diplomatic initiative in mind that would benefit from it. Assad is only going to yield at this point if the military balance is significantly altered and he fears he may be unable to hold on to power. It is difficult to imagine how the Americans could make that happen, though depriving Assad of his air force might make a difference.
The first step is to demonstrate unequivocally that the attack originated from Assad-friendly forces. That is not as difficult as it sounds, because only those forces fly airplanes. It is in any event not credible that the Syrian opposition–even its most extreme factions–use chemical weapons only against their own and never against Assad’s forces or their Iranian and Russian supporters. Once responsibility for this particular attack is established for all to see and hear, the Americans need to line up their allies and friends for a sustained campaign, with a political game plan Assad’s only way out.
If we are not willing to do that–and I doubt we are–maybe we had best do nothing beyond the usual condemnation. If we are missing the key ingredient to the secret sauce, force isn’t going to work.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, April 9 – 15
- Russia and the European Court of Human Rights after 20 Years | Monday, April 9 | 9:30am – 11:00am | Wilson Center | Register here |
Despite ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights 20 years ago, the Russian government today remains widely criticized for its human rights record. Using the findings of the recent book Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: the Strasbourg Effect, the panel will discuss what socialization has taken place in Russia as a result of its participation in the ECHR system. Featuring Marina Agaltsova (Galina Starovoitova Fellow on Human Rights and Conflict Resolution, Human Rights Center), Maria Issaeva (Threefold Legal Advisers, Moscow), and Lauri Mälksoo (Professor of International Law, University of Tartu, Estonia).
___________________________________________________________
- The Race is On: 2018 Electoral Landscape Starts to Take Shape in Brazil | Monday, April 9 | 10:00am – 12:00pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
Join the Wilson Center for a conversation with leading political analysts, six months out from perhaps the most consequential election since Brazil’s return to democracy and just days after the Brazilian Supreme Court voted to reject former President Lula’s request to remain free while he appeals a corruption conviction, likely ending his bid for the presidency. The looming April 7th deadline for prospective candidates for the presidency of Brazil to affiliate with a political party and resign from their current executive positions will also help to define an electoral landscape that has been unusually difficult to predict. Although opinion polls at this early stage often tell us little about an election’s eventual outcome, the field of contenders is beginning to take shape and will soon provide the first real indications of where this race could be headed. Featuring David Fleischer (Professor Emeritus, University of Brasilia), Christopher Garman (Managing Director for the Americas, Eurasia Group), Mauricio Moura (CEO and Founder, IDEIA Big Data), and Ricardo Sennes (Director and Partner, Prospectiva Consultoria Internacional). With introductory remarks by Paulo Sotero (Director, Brazil Institute, Wilson Center). There will be a live webcast of this event.
___________________________________________________________
- The Russian Way of Warfare | Monday, April 9 | 10:30am – 12:00pm | CSIS | Register here |
After ten years of military modernization and defense reform, Russia’s military is now a reliable instrument of national power that can be used in a limited context to achieve vital national interests. Russian strategists, concerned about instability along the Russian periphery or an aerospace attack on the Russian heartland, are focused on preserving influence in buffer states and on reinforcing defensive bulwarks. Russian military strategy and operations show an increasing degree of coordination, deception, and simultaneity to achieve objectives quickly while minimizing vulnerabilities. What does the evolution of Russia’s armed forces, its strategy, and the way it uses force tell us about the future? Featuring Scott Boston (Defense Analyst, RAND), Dara Massicot (Policy Researcher, RAND), Olga Oliker (Senior Adviser and Director, Russia and Eurasia Program, CSIS), and Michael Kofman (Research Scientist, Russia Studies Program, CNA) as moderator. There will be a live webcast of this event.
___________________________________________________________
- Mexico Elections 2018: A Referendum on Populism? | Monday, April 9 | 6:00pm – 7:30pm | Johns Hopkins SAIS | Register here |
Join the Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) for insights on the state of the Mexican political and economic climate ahead of the country’s upcoming presidential election. Featuring Dr. Monica de Bolle (Practitioner in Residence, Johns Hopkins University SAIS & Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics), Dr. Antonio Ortiz-Mena (Senior Vice President, Albright Stonebridge Group & Former Head of Economic Affairs, Embassy of Mexico in the United States), Mr. Christopher Wilson (Deputy Director, Mexico Institute, Wilson Center), and Dr. Riordan Roett (Professor & Director, Latin American Studies Program, Johns Hopkins University SAIS) as moderator.
___________________________________________________________
- The UN’s New “Sustaining Peace” Agenda | Wednesday, April 11 | 9:30am – 11:00am | Stimson Center | Register here |
From North Africa and the Middle East to South Sudan, Ukraine, and Afghanistan, the past several years have witnessed a marked uptick in political violence within states, reversing the trend recorded since the end of the Cold War. In 2016 alone, more countries experienced violent conflict than at any time in nearly 30 years, including the continued sharp rise in terrorist attacks. Earlier this year, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres released his Report on Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace to inform a related UN General Assembly High-Level Meeting planned for April 24-25, 2018 in New York. This panel discussion will explore whether and how best the UN’s new “Sustaining Peace” Agenda can help to reduce violence substantially in fragile and conflict-affected countries, while building more just, inclusive, and resilient societies. Featuring Ambassador Tariq Al-Ansari (Director of the Department of International Cooperation, Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Charles Call (Associate Professor, American University), Eric Gaudiosi (Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, DOS), Corinne Graff (Senior Policy Scholar, USIP), Elizabeth Hume (Senior Director for Programs and Strategy, Alliance for Peacebuilding), and Richard Ponzio (Director, Just Security 2020 Program, Stimson & Co-Chair, UNA-NCA Peace & Security Committee) as moderator.
___________________________________________________________
- The French-American Alliance in an America-First Era | Thursday, April 12 | 10:30am – 12:00pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
In April 2018, President Donald Trump will host French President Emmanuel Macron for the first state visit of the US president’s term. As these two unlikely partners meet again, the visit will signal a pivotal moment in the bilateral relationship between the United States and France that has matured markedly in the last decade. It could set the stage for continued deep cooperation that has flourished in recent years or preface a return to competitive rivalry in an occasionally tempestuous relationship between Washington and Paris. On the occasion of the launch of Non-Resident Senior Fellow Jeff Lightfoot’s report “The French-American Alliance in an America-First Era,” the Future Europe Initiative will convene a panel of experts to discuss this forthcoming state visit as well as assess the outlook of the US-French relationship more broadly. Featuring H.E. Gérard Araud (Ambassador, Embassy of France in the United States), Ms. Susan Glasser (Staff Writer, The New Yorker), and Mr. Pierre-Andre Imbert (Social Policy Advisor, Office of the President of the Republic of France).
___________________________________________________________
- Palestine in Political Limbo: What the Loss of the Two-State Framework Means for Palestinians | Thursday, April 12 | 1:00pm – 3:00pm | New America | Register here |
The emerging consensus is that the two-state solution is all but dead, largely due to the continuing expansion of Israeli settlement colonies in the occupied Palestinian territory and President Trump’s proclamation recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. How will Israel’s efforts to legalize certain aspects of its occupation under its domestic law impact Palestinians in historic Palestine and in the diaspora? Will Israel’s warming relations with the Arab world complicate or facilitate a just solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict? What role might the international community play as Israel attempts to extend its sovereignty over Palestine? Might recent events have opened up new opportunities for Palestinians to re-imagine Palestine? Featuring Zena Agha (Co-founder and Executive Director, Al-Shabaka), Yara Hawari (US Policy Fellow, Al-Shabaka), Nadia Hijab (Palestine Policy Fellow, Al-Shabaka), and Zaha Hassan (Middle East Fellow, New America).
___________________________________________________________
- The Venezuelan Refugee Crisis: Challenges and Solutions | Friday, April 13 | 10:00am – 11:30am | Brookings Institution | Register here |
The current mass exodus of Venezuelans into neighboring Colombia, Brazil, and other South American countries has the potential to wreak havoc in border communities and budgets. Official figures place the number of Venezuelan residents in Colombia at 600,000 and in Brazil at around 40,000, with observers on the ground estimating the real numbers to be much higher. To manage such an enormous challenge, the international community—including the U.N. system, international institutions, and other private, public, and multilateral stakeholders—will have to work together to mobilize the necessary resources and forge a collective response that provides relief to suffering Venezuelans fleeing their country. Featuring Karen L. Freeman (Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, USAID), Matthew Reynolds (regional representative for the United States and the Caribbean, UN High Commissioner for Refugees), and Dany Bahar (David M. Rubenstein Fellow, Brookings Institution) as moderator. With introductory remarks by Ted Piccone (Senior Fellow, Latin America Initiative and Charles W. Robinson Chair, Brookings).
___________________________________________________________
- Ending Civil Wars: How Can We Succeed with Limited Opportunities? | Friday, April 13 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register here |
As a part of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ ongoing project on Civil Wars, Violence and International Responses, the second volume of a special issue of the journal Dædalus was released in January 2018 to explore trends in civil wars and solutions moving forward. Join us as experts discuss their findings and recommendations on how the United States can better respond to intrastate conflict and promote both development and stability to create lasting peace. Featuring Nancy Lindborg (President, USIP), Dr. Stephen Biddle (Professor, George Washington University), Stephen Krasner (Professor, Stanford University), Barry Posen (Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Clare Lockhart (Director and Co-Founder, Institute for State Effectiveness), and Ambassador Karl Eikenberry (Director, U.S.-Asia Security Initiative, Stanford University) as moderator.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A game of chicken
President Trump thinks a trade war will be easy to win.
When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore-we win big. It’s easy!
Like so much of what he says, that is false.
Let’s consider the warring parties. The US still has the larger economy, but exports much less to China than it imports from China. Trump has tweeted we therefore have less to lose. But that nonsense is based on the notion that imports represent losses and exports represent gains. That just isn’t true: for everything sold by China in the US, there is a willing buyer. Ditto in China: for everything the US sells there, there is also a willing buyer. US imports of Chinese goods and services, and Chinese imports of US goods and services, are a net plus for consumers in both countries, no matter what their impact on producers.
So the question is not who has less to lose, but rather the more canonical one in negotiation theory: who has a better alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA)? It is true that China will run out of US products it can levy tariffs on faster than the US will run out of products it can levy tariffs on, but that really doesn’t matter. China is a highly centralized polity that has lots of levers it can pull to hurt US companies doing business in China, which by the way are also main importers of US products. The US government will have a harder time doing this, because it lacks the same degree of control over American media, business associations, consumer groups, and politicians. Trump is already getting a lot of backlash against the tariffs from the agricultural sector, which the Chinese have targeted with their retaliation.
Centralized control is however also a vulnerability for China. At the national level, there are no “safety valves” to release social and political pressures that build up against the tariffs. Trump may lose big in the November election, in part because he has precipitated a big trade war, but he will remain in power (unless impeached and removed from office for other reasons). Xi Jinping has no election he can lose but still hold on to power, free media that can air grievances, or civil society to pressure his regime. Discontent could go directly to the street, especially if the trade war precipitates China’s first post-Communist recession. An autocracy has one main instrument–the security forces–to use against its people in the street. Tienanmen hinted how risky and deadly its use can be.
So who is more resilient? Is it the liberal democracy with limited presidential control that allows for dissent, protest, and political opposition? Or is it the autocracy that controls the levers of power but leaves no room for dissent, protest, an political opposition? I would prefer not to find out, but I’ll enjoy that luxury only if Xi or Trump backs down.
My bet is on Trump to flinch first. He is all bully and bluster, not to mention the damage that the tariffs will do to China’s willingness to be helpful with North Korea and to the American economy. Xi has consolidated power and can’t flinch without losing face in a way that would put his hold on power at risk. His lack of resiliency means he has reason to be more inflexible, not less. In the short run, he has the advantage in a game of chicken. He’ll do his best, by targeting the tariffs against those states that voted for Trump, to make sure we never get to the long term. The US stock and labor markets are already signaling distress at the consequences, and the Fed will have to consider raising rates to counter the inflationary impact of the tariffs as well as the recent tax cut and budget deal. Trump will need to have more staying power than he has demonstrated on many issues so far to win this game of chicken.
RSS - Posts
