Peace for sale
Monday the Wilson Center hosted Calculating the Costs of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, which was a presentation of a RAND Corporation study. Here is a link to the study. Ambassador Charles Ries (Vice President, International, RAND Corporation) and C. Ross Anthony (Senior Economist, RAND Corporation and Director, RAND Israeli-Palestinian Initiative) explained the methodology and key findings of the study. Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen (Director, Arab-Israeli Programs U.S. Institute of Peace) and Aaron David Miller (Vice President for New Initiatives, the Wilson Center) provided their assessments of the significance and potential impact of the study.
The study examined the economic impact of five different trajectories for the conflict over a ten-year period:
- A two-state solution based on the Clinton parameters.
- A unilateral Israeli withdrawal from much of the West Bank coordinated with the Palestinians and the international community.
- An uncoordinated unilateral Israeli withdrawal from part of the West Bank.
- Nonviolent Palestinian resistance, through the internationalization of the conflict and nonviolent demonstrations.
- A violent Palestinian uprising.
The study compared each of these trajectories to the status quo, in which current trends continue for the next 10 years, and considered the impact of each scenario on direct costs to both parties, as well as on missed economic opportunities because of the perpetuation of the conflict. The study did not model a one-state solution because of the uncertainty regarding the character of such a state.
A two-state solution would provide the greatest economic benefit to both sides. Conversely, a violent Palestinian uprising would be most harmful to both sides. Neither unilateral withdrawal scenario would have a significant economic impact on either side. Nonviolent Palestinian resistance would harm both sides economically, though not as much as a violent uprising.
A two-state solution would provide a greater benefit to Israel in absolute terms, but a greater proportional benefit to the Palestinians. Israel’s GDP would be $23 billion larger in 10 years over what it would have been if present trends continued. The GDP of the West Bank and Gaza would be $9.7 billion larger in 10 years over what it would have been if present trends continued. This translates to a 5% increase in Israel’s GDP but a nearly 50% increase in the GDP of the West Bank and Gaza. The study assumed that Israel’s security costs would not change in a two state solution, but that a decrease in uncertainty, an increase in trade with the Arab world and the Palestinians, an influx of Palestinian labor into Israel, and increased tourism would boost the economy. On the Palestinian side, increased tourism, freedom of movement, Palestinian labor in Israel, and trade are among the factors that would boost the economy.
By contrast, a violent uprising would pose heavy costs on Israel through an increase in instability, increased security costs as well as decreased trade, Palestinian labor in Israel, and tourism. Palestinians would suffer from decreased Palestinian labor in Israel, destruction of property, greater restrictions on movement, more prisoners in Israel, more barriers to trade and the dissolution of the Palestinian Authority. Israel’s GDP would be reduced by 10% relative to the baseline scenario and the GDP of the West Bank and Gaza would be reduced by approximately 45% relative to the baseline scenario.
The study’s authors did not recommend a path forward for Israelis and Palestinians and noted that the various intangible factors (conflicting national narratives, lack of leadership, lack of urgency, etc.) that have led to the current impasse in the conflict fall outside the purview of this study.
Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen noted that this study presents the conflict as opportunity-based rather than rights-based, and allows groups advocating for a solution to the conflict to use data to support their case. Nonetheless, the impasse in the peace process is likely to persist because of mutual distrust. The recent election of a right wing, nationalist government in Israeli reinforces the Palestinian perception that the Israelis have not been negotiating in good faith. Operation Protective Edge reinforced the Israeli view that no Palestinian leader can guarantee an end to Palestinian land claims inside pre-1967 Israel.
Aaron David Miller noted that if it were possible to buy a solution to the conflict through economic inducements, this would have happened already. The issues of security, competing narratives, broken trust, and psychological trauma must be addressed before the two parties can look rationally at the opportunity costs. In addition, the leadership, urgency, and effective third-party mediator required to solve the conflict are missing. The good news is that the study got a lot of publicity and interest. The bad news is that nobody knows what to do about it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Droning on at home and abroad
On Thursday, June 11, the Project for the 21st Century hosted The Future of Drones with panelists Erik Lin-Greenberg, former US Air Force Officer and PhD candidate at Columbia University, and Lisa Ellman, Counsel for McKenna Long and Aldridge LLP and member of the firm’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Practice Group and Public Policy and Regulatory Affairs practice. The event was moderated by Ryan Hagemann, Civil Liberties Policy Analyst at the Niskanen Center and adjunct fellow at TechFreedom, specializing in robotics and automation.
Lin-Greenberg clarified the commonly misunderstood concept of drones. These aircraft are otherwise known as remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs) whose pilot undergoes the same training as a pilot flying a manned aircraft. Often, large military aircrews operate a drone, as opposed to one person operating it. Furthermore, drone operations fall under two broad categories—Title 10 missions for military use and Title 50 missions for covert action (not necessarily flown by the military crew).
The use of drones today, however, is moving in a completely uncharted direction. Ellman explained there is a growing field of commercial drone operations in which companies use drones for deliveries, crop dusting, providing internet service and taking aerial photos of properties for sale. Currently, the commercial use of drones is illegal in the US. The only way one can circumvent the law is through special permission from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). However, drones for recreational purposes are legal, i.e. the law permits a hobbyist to fly drones in an open air space.
Other countries are ahead of the US in the commercial use of drones, including pizza delivery in England and crop dusting in Japan. The data on the safety of commercial drones is however still scant, which makes policy formulation difficult. The US has the most complex airspace in the world. Other countries have a lot more free airspace. The FAA must regulate “as if drones might fall from the sky” because its objective is to prevent accidents.
The potential commercial and widespread use of drones also introduces questions on privacy. Companies often want to use drones but don’t want others’ drones to spy on them. The critics’ response to this argument is that other technology, such as satellites and helicopters, can already do what commercial drones will do. This begs the question of whether the US must formulate drone-specific rules or can utilize existing general privacy rules.
Lin-Greenberg noted that drones still do not have the payload of manned aircraft. Nevertheless, drones’ tactical effectiveness in minimizing collateral damage could mean that RPA use will continue to increase. The State Department has also relaxed rules on RPA exports, which will limit the clientele that buys Russian and Chinese drones and will allow the US to leverage more influence on foreign buyers, she suggested.
The future of drones remains uncertain, but in order to sustain progress, it is imperative policymakers maintain pace with technology . Industries should begin moving towards commercial drone use, while safety and privacy issues continue to inform the policymaking process.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks June 15-19
1. Calculating the Costs of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict| Monday, June 15th | 12:00-1:15 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | This event will explore both the economic and the non-economic factors surrounding the conflict that might influence the parties’ decisions and the long-term implications for Israel, the West Bank and Gaza and the international community. Speakers include: C. Ross Anthony, Senior Economist, RAND Corporation and Director, RAND Israeli-Palestinian Initiative; Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, Director, Arab-Israeli, U.S. Institute of Peace; Aaron David Miller, Vice President for New Initiatives, The Wilson Center; Ambassador Charles Ries, Vice President, International, RAND Corporation. Presentation by C. Ross Anthony and Ambassador Charles Ries.
2. Global Cooperation Under Threat: Adapting the U.N. for the 21st Century | Monday, June 15th | 1:30-3:30 | Brookings Institution | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Foreign Policy program at Brookings will host Susana Malcorra, Chief of Staff to the United Nations Secretary-General for a discussion exploring how the U.N. is adapting to new geopolitical, transnational, and sub-state challenges. Speakers include: Susana Malcorra, Chief of Staff to the United Nations Secretary-General; Ambassador Thomas Pickering, Fellow of Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution; Bruce Jones, Acting Vice President and Director, Foreign Policy program, Brookings Institution.
3. The Banyan Tree Leadership Forum with K Shanmugam, Foreign Minister of Singapore | Monday, June 15th | 2:30-3:30 | Center for Strategic and International Studies | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Mr. Shanmugam will discuss Singapore’s bilateral relations with the United States, regional relationships, and the opportunities and challenges facing Singapore. Speakers include: Mr. K Shanmugam, Singapore’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Law.
4. Can Afghanistan Stabilize as U.S. Forces Plan Their Exit? | Tuesday, June 16th | 10:00-12:00 | United States Institute of Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The United States’ current policy in Afghanistan mandates a “responsible withdrawal” of U.S. forces by January 2017, when President Obama leaves office. With 18 months to go, a sense of crisis is mounting in Afghanistan as the economy sags, Taliban attacks increase, and the eight-month-old unity government remains deadlocked. Speakers include: Dr. William Byrd, Senior Expert in Residence, USIP; Ali Jalali, Former Minister of the Interior of Afghanistan, Senior Expert in Residence, USIP; Scott Smith, Director, Afghanistan and Central Asia Programs, USIP; Dr. Moeed Yusuf, Director, South Asia Programs, USIP. Moderated by Dr. Andrew Wilder, Vice President, Center for South and Central Asia, USIP.
5. Making the Case for Peace: 2015 Global Peace Index| Wednesday, June 17th | 9:30-11:00 | Center for Strategic and International Studies | REGISTER TO ATTEND | What is the state of global peace in 2015? What are the main threats to peace and how can we prevent violence in the future? What are the implications of these trends for foreign policy and aid interventions? The 2015 Global Peace Index discussion will explore these questions, detailing recent trends in militarization, safety and security, and ongoing conflict, with a focus on analyzing the factors that underpin peaceful societies. Speakers include: Ambassador Rick Barton, Former Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations; Melanie Greenberg, Executive Director, Alliance for Peacebuilding; Matt Wuerker, Editorial Cartoonist and Illustrator, Politico. Moderated by Aubrey Fox, Executive Director, Unites States, Institute for Economics and Peace. Global Peace Index results presented by Daniel Hyslop, Research Manager, Institute for Economics and Peace.
6. Gulf Youth and the City | Wednesday, June 17th | 12:00-1:30 | The Arab Gulf States Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Gulf cities have followed similar paths of urbanization and architecture shaped by state planning and commercial development. Recent events across the globe, from the Occupy movements to the 2011 Arab uprisings, have brought the role of cities in political life to the forefront. However, with few exceptions, Gulf cities are known more as glittering global consumer capitals than places of civic engagement or political struggle.With a dynamic younger generation rising in the Gulf, what is the public’s role, especially youth, in the remaking of their cities? Speakers include: Farah Al-Nakib, Director, Center for Gulf Studies, American University of Kuwait; Diane Singerman, Associate Professor, Department of Government, American University. Moderated by Kristin Smith Diwan, Senior Resident Scholar, Arab Gulf States Institute.
7. The New Politics of Religion and Gender in Israel | Thursday, June 18th | 2:00-3:30 | Brookings Institution | REGISTER TO ATTEND | This year’s Israeli elections provoked resurgent debates over religion and saw the emergence of powerful female voices in the political debate. Join the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings on June 18 to engage with three of these dynamic Israeli figures, as we launch a new agenda of research and events examining important changes in Israel’s politics and society. Speakers include: Adina Bar Shalom, President and Chairwoman, Haredi College of Jerusalem; Merav Michaeli, Member of Knesset; Rachel Azaria, Member of Knesset, Former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem.
8. Fighting Terrorism in the Age of ISIS | Thursday, June 18th | 5:00-6:30 | Center for Strategic and International Studies | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Please join the Smart Women, Smart Power initiative for a discussion of ‘Fighting Terrorism in the Age of ISIS’ with Fran Townsend, Former Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Adviser to President George W. Bush. Speakers include: Fran Townsend, Former Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Adviser to President George W. Bush. Moderated by Nina Easton, Senior Associate, CSIS, Editor and Columnist, Fortune, Chair, Most Powerful Women International.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Yemen: bleak outlook
Last Thursday, the Wilson Center hosted Youth and Civil Society: The Missing Powers in Yemen with Mohammad Al-Shami, a Yemeni youth activist and advocacy trainer. Haleh Esfandiari, the director of the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center, gave opening remarks and moderated a question and answer session.
Al-Shami presented a bleak picture of Yemen’s predicament. For years prior to the current conflict, Yemen suffered from poverty, water shortages, youth unemployment, inadequate healthcare, divisions along many lines, repeated conflict, and the absence of rule of law. The government was highly centralized, weak and corrupt. Citizens needed to come to Sana’a for basic administrative needs and officials there often required bribes.
The military was seen as only representative of a portion of Northern Yemen. The National Dialogue process that occurred prior to the most recent conflict called for restructuring the military. Soldiers from the North were angered that they could lose their jobs to Southerners as a result.
The current conflict reflects the complex divisions of Yemeni society. The rebels are comprised of disparate elements, some of which are not allied with each other. Al Qaeda has filled the power vacuum in some areas, including the major city of Al Mukalla. Al Qaeda is able to provide stability and services, making those who do not necessarily agree with jihadi ideology turn to them for safety. When the war ends, reconstruction will be long and complicated. The underlying factors that led to the conflict will still be present.
According to Al-Shami, civil society in Yemen is plagued by a lack of expertise and cooperation. International donors provided some training to Yemeni civil society organizations but not crucial capacity building. Civil society organizations did not collaborate on initiatives, and multiple organizations were often inefficiently working on similar projects simultaneously.
These organizations are nevertheless the primary providers of life-saving assistance on the ground. The conflict has forced them to focus on humanitarian rather than development work. They lack supplies and largely depend on Yemen’s weak private sector for materials. Despite these challenges, Yemeni civil society organizations are distributing food and water, finding people shelter, and setting up clinics. They are able to access villages controlled by different forces and serve as the best source of information regarding events on the ground.
In Al-Shami’s view, GCC airstrikes were not the only available solution to the upheaval in Yemen. The GCC does not value civil society and has neglected civil society in its initiatives. The National Dialogue provided an opportunity for a political solution and civil society could have played a role in a peaceful settlement. As the violence drags on, it makes reaching a solution increasingly complicated. The peace talks in Geneva will be more complicated than finding a political solution from the outset would have been.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Future Serbia
I’ve run into some flak for hosting Serbian Prime Minister Vučić at SAIS last week. Some people think providing an opportunity for someone to speak at a university represents a political endorsement of his views, past and present.
Certainly Vučić has said things in the past that I find odious, most notably this from July 1995:
one hundred Muslims would be killed for every dead Serb
I haven’t forgotten. But it is a mistake to harp too hard and too long on the past. My interest in hearing Prime Minister Vučić, and providing him a forum in which he could be heard by others, stemmed from the need to understand his vision of Serbia’s future. I’m not interested in settling scores but in bending the arc of history in a good direction.
What Vučić offered was a glimpse of a possible future Serbia, one that makes a strategic choice for Europe and gives up on the non-aligned balancing act it has performed since the end of World War II. In my book, that would be a welcome development.
Non-alignment lost its real meaning 25 years ago. All the other countries of the Balkans have already opted for Brussels, leaving Serbia surrounded by EU and NATO members and aspirants. Many maintain good bilateral relations with Russia, even while joining in Ukraine-related sanctions. Serbia hasn’t done that, despite its candidacy for EU membership.
The question is what would encourage and enable Serbia to take the necessary steps away from its traditional “non-aligned” stance. Here are some ideas worth consideration.
Internal reform
Serbia has progressed in many respects since the Milosevic era and is now in a position to claim that it is on the road towards democracy and to attracting foreign investment on a commercial basis. But it remains laggard in two key areas: media freedom and rule of law. It needs to up its game in both.
The media issue is not formal censorship but rather informal pressures and even self-censorship, often exercised through politically-appointed editors and fear of losing contracts for valuable government advertizing. In addition, politicians in Serbia frequently attack the medium, not only the message. This cows many outlets into submission–memories of what happened to media moguls who resisted Milosevic’s dominance are still fresh. The media need to be far freer to criticize without fear of retaliation.
Rule of law in Serbia suffers two ailments: slowness and lack of independence. Commercial disputes can drag on for decades. Tycoons and war criminals are too often protected from prosecution. One of the prime suspects in the murder of the Bytyqi brothers, American Kosovars killed in 1999 by Serb security forces, is a member of the prime minister’s political party and serves on its executive board. The courts need to be liberated and encouraged to pursue malfeasance wherever it occurs, provided they follow proper procedures. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No easy answers
Lots of people were asking yesterday about President Obama’s decision to send more trainers and equipment to Iraq, mainly for Sunni fighters. Here is more or less what I’ve been saying:
Q. Why is the US sending troops to Iraq at this time?
A. They are sending more troops because the current effort is not succeeding. The Islamic State has lost some territory in the past year, but it has also gained territory and appears no closer to defeat than it was a year ago. Beefing up the training and equipment, in particular for Sunnis, is a move in the right direction, even if it is not likely the last one.
Q. What does this represents in terms of strategy?
A. In terms of strategy, not much. The objective is the same—to defeat ISIS—and this is a marginal addition of resources with which to try to do it. I don’t see any big shift in strategy with this decision.
Q. How is that going to help, if any, the fight against ISIS?
A. The key here is to try to get more Sunni tribal members into the fight. If and when the Sunni population wants to be rid of ISIS in a serious way, it will happen.
But that also depends on what the Sunni population can expect if they join the fight. Will they gain political and economic weight in Baghdad or in their own provinces? Will they be treated properly by the Iraqi authorities and adequate provision made for stabilizing and reconstructing their communities? There are no clear answers to these questions yet. The military dimension is not the only one that counts.
Q. Do you think the US is doing enough to help the Iraqis in their fight? If not, what more should the US does?
A. Most military experts think an important missing link is people on the ground to “spot,” that is target, the air strikes, which have been relatively few due in part to fear of collateral damage. But putting Americans into that role risks their lives and would raise questions about whether the effort is sustainable. Training Iraqis to perform that function risks its use to settle scores.
Like many other issues in the Middle East these days, there are no easy answers.
RSS - Posts
