Tag: Al Qaeda
This week’s “peace picks”
Very busy calendar the first part of the week. Remember there may be registration and RSVP requirements not cited here. Best to check on the respective web pages.
1. The EU-brokered Negotiations between Kosovo and Serbia: Challenges and Prospects, Woodrow Wilson Center, November 7, 12-1 pm
Nearly three and a half years after Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia, the EU is bringing both sides back to the negotiation table. This meeting will address: why Serbian and Kosovar governments are negotiating now?; what is the nature, format and context of these negotiations, and what are the goals that the EU hopes to achieve?
Jovan Teokarevic, associate professor of political science at the University of Belgrade will compare the current negotiations with those that had been unsuccessfully brokered by the UN and describe the strategies; and tactics used by both sides; and the role of international actors – the EU, the US, NATO, EULEX–in this process. A number of possible outcomes will be presented and discussed, including the types of negotiations that might be developed in the future. Most importantly, Teokarevic will address the need for a sustainable solution for the Serbian enclave in northern Kosovo, which would be part of a general reconciliation between Serbians and Kosovar Albanians.
2. Economic Development in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Absence of Government and Its Consequences, SAIS, Bernstein-Offit 500, November 7, 2-4 pm
We hope you will be able to join us for this timely and informative discussion. Please RSVP to ktimlin@csis.org.
Dr. Mart Laar,
Minister of Defense, Estonia
Mr. William J. Lynn III
Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense
Panel Presentations by:
Dr. Martin Libicki,
Senior Management Scientist, RAND Corporation
Col. Ilmar Tamm,
Director, Collective Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence
Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch,
President, Asymmetric Cyber Operations, LLC
Ms. Michele Markoff,
Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues, U.S. Department of State
Dr. Stephen Flanagan,
Henry A. Kissinger Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Mr. Frank Kramer,
Member of the Board, the Atlantic Council
Closing Remarks:
Dr. James Miller,
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, U.S. Department of Defense
Eric Schmitt
Terrorism Correspondent, The New York Times
and
Thom Shanker
Pentagon Correspondent, The New York Times
Introductory Remarks by
H. Andrew Schwartz
Senior Vice President, CSIS External Relations
Moderated by
Thomas M. Sanderson
Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, CSIS Transnational Threats Project
Tuesday, November 8, 5:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.
1800 K Street, NW, CSIS B1 Conference Center
A reception will begin at 5:00 p.m. with light refreshments and snacks. The event will begin at 5:30 p.m. Books will be available for purchase. RSVP required for admission.
While the death of Muammar Gaddafi and the virtual collapse of his regime forces have freed Libyans from more than four decades of tyranny, it has also complicated the security situation for their neighbors in the Maghreb and Sahel. Fighters loyal to the deposed dictator have taken refuge abroad and, as cross-border attacks they have carried out from Algeria show, still pose a threat, not only to the new government in Tripoli, but to regional stability. Moreover, there is the question of the impact that the arrival of mercenaries and others who fought for Gaddafi as well as copious quantities of arms will have in a region already beset by various armed movements from Taureg tribesmen to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to the Nigerian group Boko Haram to the Polisario Front separatists as well as penetrated by narco-traffickers and other criminals.
Panel Discussion with
Geoffrey D. Porter
President
North Africa Risk Consulting, Inc.
Fadel Lamen
President
American Libyan Council
Roger Peña
Senior Legislative Assistant for Defense and Foreign Affairs
Office of Senator Kay Hagan
Edward M. Gabriel
Former US Ambassador to Morocco
Moderated by
J. Peter Pham
Director, Michael S. Ansari Africa Center
Atlantic Council
| DATE: | Wednesday, November 9, 2011 |
| TIME: | 2:00 PM – 4:30 PM |
| LOCATION: | Atlantic Council 1101 15th Street NW, 11th Floor Washington, DC 20005 |
RSVP with your name and affiliation to ksmith@acus.org.
Religion has been a source of conflict throughout human history, but religion can also be a tremendous force for peacebuilding.
9. Religion and Peacemaking: Reflections on Current Challenges and Future Prospects, USIP, November 9, 9 am-1 pm
For ten years, USIP’s Religion and Peacemaking program has helped lead an evolution of the field. There has been a demonstrated interest in engaging religious leaders in efforts to advance conflict management and peacebuilding. Religious peacebuilding is now integrated into U.S. government policies.
To mark the program’s anniversary, USIP will host a workshop to reflect on what the wider field of religious peacebuilding has achieved and how best to move forward over the next decade. On November 9, a panel of practitioners, policymakers and academics will address the challenges and opportunities of religious peacebuilding and how outside actors, including the U.S. government, can support such opportunities.
Speakers:
- Richard Solomon, Introductory comments
U.S. Institute of Peace - Joshua Dubois
White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
- Suzan Johnson Cook
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom - Scott Appleby
Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies - Rabbi Michael Melchior
Mosaica Center for Inter-Religious Cooperation - Jackie Ogega
Religions for Peace
- Qamar-ul Huda
U.S. Institute of Peace
- Mohammed Abu-Nimer
American University
- David Smock, Moderator
U.S. Institute of Peace
Fall 2011 Rumsfeld Fellows Samiullah Mahdi (Afghanistan); Ramid Namazov (Azerbaijan); Khatuna Mshvidobadze (Georgia); Uluk Kydyrbaev (Kyrgystan); Bayasgalan Naranzul (Mongolia); Kakhorjon Aminov (Tajikistan); Jamshed Rahmonberdiev (Tajikistan); Dadebay Kazakov (Turkmenistan); Hikmat Abdurahmanov (Uzbekistan), and Frederick Starr (moderator), CACI chairman, will discuss this topic. A reception will precede the forum at 5 p.m. For more information and to RSVP, contact saiscaciforums@jhu.edu or 202.663.7721.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Are things going to hell in Libya?
Not yet is the answer.
But you wouldn’t know that from the media coverage. National Transitional Council (NTC) chair Mahmoud Jalil’s comment about allowing polygamy got a lot of ink. So too does every hiccup of the armed militias in Tripoli, not to mention what happens if an Islamist sneezes or a supposed Al Qaeda flag flies. I need hardly mention the disgusting, criminal behavior of the young men who capture Qaddafi and then allegedly sodomized and murdered him.
I wouldn’t want to minimize any of these issues. In fact, I drew attention to the militia and Islamist issues weeks ago. Integrating the militias under NTC control, establishing law and order and ensuring no room for Al Qaeda are vital, as is regaining control of as many surface-to-air missiles (MANPADs) as possible.
But any government that can peacefully switch out its prime minister and begin the process of appointing a new cabinet, in accordance with its constitutional framework, is not yet going to hell in a handbasket. Nor does the relatively chaotic situation outside of Tripoli and Benghazi, and the wasteland that used to be Sirte, prove that things are going in the wrong direction.
What we need to do now is ensure that they continue to go in the right direction. Where are the goals agreed between the Libyans and the international community? Where is the structure for donor coordination? What kind of program is the European Union putting in place? What are the Qataris up to? The internationals quickly lost their focus once the fighting was over.
This is a big mistake. Libya has bigger problems than Tunisia: the lack of a state, the violence of the rebellion, militia competition, some revenge killing and torturing. But it also has resources, good leadership, and some serious planning, including the constitutional framework. Let’s make sure it heads down Tunisia’s path towards good elections and a constitution.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
An orthodox approach to heresy
In today’s news: the Kenyan army is going after El Shabab, the Somali extremist group. The United States is deploying 100 troops to search for Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) leader Joseph Kony. It is a good time to have a look at how to deal with non-state armed groups (NSAGs in governmentese), the subject of a new report from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Of course there are many other examples besides these two most recent ones of armed groups that present big problems in today’s world, even though they belong to no state. Think Taliban, Hizbollah, Al Qaeda in its several franchises, and Hamas (at least before it took over governance in Gaza). Think Mexican drug cartels, Burmese insurgents, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, the Irish Republican Army, Algeria’s Armed Islamic Group, Afghan mujahideen, Maoist insurgents in Nepal, Naxalites in India…
How should states deal with this alphabet soup of armed groups pursuing through violence freedom, justice, dignity, equity, utopia, money, power, God’s kingdom on earth? Those we like we call freedom fighters (Kosovo Liberation Army, Libyan National Transitional Council) and provide weapons and other assistance. The conventional American approach to those we don’t like is to declare them outside the pale, refuse to talk with them (especially if they are labeled terrorist) and go after them with military and police forces. That’s what the Kenyans and Americans are doing today with al Shabab and the LRA. Sometimes this works, at least partially. More often, there is eventually a political settlement.
Political settlements require dialogue, talks, negotiations. That’s where the CFR report comes in. It makes an effort to define why, when and how the United States should “engage” with NSAGs. Let’s be clear: though the report is prepared by an active-duty Foreign Service officer, it is courageously proposing something that has heretofore generally been regarded as heresy, except in specific instances.
That said, Payton Knopf takes an orthodox approach:
- Analyze: leadership, military effectiveness, constituency, territorial control, platform, sponsors, needs.
- Define the U.S. objective: conflict prevention, humanitarian access, intel collection, regime change, reform, weakening the NSAG, encourage moderation, reach a peace agreement, block spoilers.
- Weigh costs and benefits.
The benefits may include preventing, helping an NSAG or a sponsor we like, bolstering the U.S. image, facilitating peace negotiations, gaining intelligence, mitigating violence, empowering more pragmatic factions. Costs can include conferring legitimacy where we prefer not to, undermining a state, taking sides in a conflict, encouraging violence, providing time for an NSAG to prepare for more violence, and triggering domestic U.S. opposition.
This kind of rational, long-term approach to dealing with NSAGs is not, however, what we generally do today, as Knopf points out. Instead we jump on opportunities in the short term when there is no viable alternative, not too much domestic resistance and some reason to hope that things might work out.
Nor are we well-organized or well-staffed for this kind of work. Knopf goes easy on the State Department but makes it clear that its staff is not trained to engage with NSAGs or to do conflict management work in general. He is correct. Nor are the regional bureaus, whose embassies must necessarily regard government officials in the host countries as their primary interlocutors, likely to take up engagement with NSAGs, except in rare instances. The responsibility might appropriately fall to nongovernmental groups, but legal restrictions and a Supreme Court decision have made that problematic.
This leaves us with international organizations–the UN, the International Red Cross, some regional organizations–as vital players in engaging NSAGs. The CFR report does not address this option, but it has done a great service in calmly raising the issues in the American context and placing the heresy of engaging with NSAGs in an orthodox cost/benefit framework.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
With thanks to former student Jeff Jorve (who suggested it), I’ve decided to try to highlight a few Washington, DC events each week as interesting to those who follow peace and war issues. I’ll welcome volunteers to write any of these up for peacefare.net Just let me know (daniel@serwer.org) if you are intending to do a writeup, so that I can avoid duplicates.
Warning: some of these events require invitations, membership and/or RSVPs. I don’t arrange those. I advise checking with the host organization before going. I’ve included links to their web sites when I could figure out how to do it.
Here are this week’s peace picks:
1. The Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict: Perspectives from the Ground, Carnegie Endowment, October 3, 9:15-10:45
Carnegie Endowment’s Russia and Eurasia Program event with Archil Gegeshidze, senior fellow at the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies (GFSIS), and Lira Kozaeva, director of the Association of South Ossetian Women for Democracy and Human Rights, South Ossetia. Susan Allen Nan, assistant professor at the Institute for Conflict Alalysis and Resolution (ICAR), George Mason University, serves as discussant. Carnegie senior associate Thomas de Waal moderates.
2. Egypt After Mubarak, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, October 3, 12-2
Of all the momentous developments in the Middle East this year, none was more riveting than the sight of Egyptian “people power” forcing Hosni Mubarak from the presidential palace. But since those heady days, Egypt has entered a period of uncertainty as military leaders and newly unchained civilian parties alike wrestle with the responsibilities of democratic rule and the enormous problems facing the country.
Abdel Monem Said Aly is president of the al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo and a senior fellow at Brandeis University’s Crown Center for Middle East Studies. His most recent publications include The Paradox of the Egyptian Revolution (PDF).
David Schenker, the Aufzien fellow and director of the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute, is author of Egypt’s Enduring Challenges: Shaping the Post-Mubarak Environment.
3. Share the Water, Build the Peace, World Affairs Council at Lindner Commons, GWU, October 3, 6:30-8:30 pm
The extraordinary Gidon Bromberg of Friends of the Earth Middle East followed by a panel.
4. The Impact of Sanctions on Iran, the U.S., and the Global Economy, Rayburn HOB, October 4, 9-10:30 a.m. 2237
Speakers: Robert Pape – Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago Lucian (Lou) Pugliaresi – President of the Energy Policy Research Foundation Bijan Khajehpour – Iranian Political and Economic Analyst and Chairman of Atieh Group Moderator: Barbara Slavin – Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S. and the Twisted Path to Confrontation
5. Why Al Qaeda Is Winning: The War We’re Fighting, and The War We Think We’re Fighting, Barnes and Noble, 555 12th St NW, October 4, 6:30 pm
Carnegie’s Nathan J. Brown will present his new paper on al-Azhar, Egypt’s leading religious institution, and analyze Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. Georgetown University’s Jonathan AC Brown will discuss his recent research conducted in Egypt on debates over Islam’s role in society, with a focus on Sufi and Salafi groups. The Brookings Institution’s Khaled Elgindy will discuss politics and Islam. Carnegie’s Marina Ottaway will moderate.
8. What Next?: the Palestinian U.N. Bid, Israel and Options for the U.S., U.S. Institute of Peace (also webcast), October 7, 9:30 am
On September 23, President Mahmoud Abbas submitted an application to the U.N. Secretary-General for Palestine’s admission as a full state member of the United Nations. The United States, which sought to prevent this step, has threatened a veto in the Security Council, and there have been calls for a suspension of U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority over the matter, currently worth more than $500 million per year.
The Middle East Quartet has proposed a re-launch of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations with the goal of achieving a final agreement by the end of 2012.
However, the two sides continue to adhere to opposing views on even the conditions for returning to the table. What is needed to move the peace process forward? Is the diplomatic track in sync with the Palestinian state-building effort? What are the options for U.S. policy?
The United States Institute of Peace is pleased to host the below panel of discussants to explore these questions.
- Elliott Abrams, Discussant
Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations - Dr. Ziad Asali, Discussant
President, American Task Force on Palestine - Neil Kritz, Discussant
Senior Scholar in Residence, U.S. Institute of Peace - Congressman Robert Wexler, Discussant
President, S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace - David Sanger, Moderator
Writer-in-Residence, U.S. Institute of Peace
9. Taking Stock of Iran’s Nuclear Program: What Does it Mean, and What are the Implications? Linder Family Commons, rm 602, Elliott School (1957 E Street NW), October 7, 9:30-11 am.
David Albright, Founder and President, Institute for Science and International Security
David Albright, a physicist, is founder and president of the non-profit, Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington, D.C. He directs the project work of ISIS, heads its fundraising efforts, and chairs its board of directors. In addition, he regularly publishes and conducts scientific research. He has written numerous assessments on secret nuclear weapons programs throughout the world. Albright has published assessments in numerous technical and policy journals, including the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Science, Scientific American, Science and Global Security, Washington Quarterly, and Arms Control Today. Research reports by Albright have been published by the Environmental Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. and Princeton University’s Center for Energy and Environmental Studies.
RSVP at: http://bit.ly/odf93s
Sponsored by the Institute for Security and Conflict Studies and the Nuclear Policy Talks
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The truly perfect storm
That’s Nigeria, not Irene, which was a bit of a fizzle in DC.
The bombing Friday of a UN building in Abuja threatens to renew Muslim/Christian conflict in Africa’s most populous country, one that provides substantial amounts of oil to the world market and to the United States. Nigeria matters, even if Washington seems at times ignore it studiously. Go figure: we really do take oil from Nigeria, over one million barrels per day this year, more than twice what we get from Iraq.
The perpetrator of the suicide bombing came from Boko Haram, a radical Muslim organization that not only advocates sharia for the Muslim-dominated states of northern Nigeria but also opposes Western education, dress and culture in general. Clashes between Muslims and Christians are not uncommon in Nigeria, especially Kaduna, Kano and Plateau States, where fatalities often number in the hundreds.
This week’s attack was quantitatively less deadly than previous incidents among Nigerians, but qualitatively a departure, as it targeted internationals and called attention to what are thought to be growing ties between Boko Haram and Al Qaeda. The Boko Haram claim of responsibility is interesting:
“We take full responsibility for the attack on the United Nations building in Abuja, because the Nigerian government is corrupt, insensitive and deceitful.”
The spokesperson accused the government of holding the sect’s members and “treating them very badly.”
“The government does not honour its promises and have (sic) closed all avenues of dialogue. We declared ceasefire because of Ramadan but we have to break it because our members and sympathizers are killed and tortured.
“This is just the tip of the iceberg. Immediately after fasting, we will start full scale offensive against the Nigerian state, including President Jonathan, for ordering extra-judicial killings of our members in Kano and Abuja.”
Not a word about the UN, whose efforts in Nigeria seem focused on conventional (i.e. Western-style) development. So what we’ve got here is an attack on Western culture intended to teach the Nigerian government a lesson.
If you are wondering, there is some reason to think that the charge of extrajudicial killings is not entirely unfounded–excessive police violence is certainly not unthinkable in Nigeria, and Boko Haram suffered a military-style attack on its headquarters two years ago.
Nigeria has now enjoyed a decade of semi-democratic but too often corrupt governance. Current President Goodluck Jonathan seems by far not the worst of Africa’s chiefs of state. A Christian from the Niger Delta, he is going to need a lot of good luck to protect Nigeria from the maelstrom into which it seems headed. Washington would do well to pay more attention, preferably by providing civilian (rather than military) assistance, especially in law enforcement. An umbrella is better protection in a storm than artillery.
PS: For a similar but more literary perspective, see G. Pascal Zachary’s piece on “Nigeria: Too Big to Fail.”
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Afghanistan war’s last casualty
Steve Clemons has noted how the Afghanistan war, once a magnet for the best and the brightest, has been left to Joe Biden’s lonely ingenuity:
Biden is the right guy to help Obama to deliver the political outcome in Afghanistan that we need to get to. Biden has thought through strategies to deal with components of the Taliban, understands the vital role Pakistan must play, gets the strategic gaming that is also part of the package and which would no doubt involve India, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps China and Russia.
Clemons doesn’t even mention the highly competent Marc Grossman, who replaced Richard Holbrooke as special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. I guess he is just chopped liver.
It is easy to see why the power players are abandoning the Afghanistan account. There isn’t much upside left. President Karzai’s closest associates are being assassinated, the warlords are predominant, the drug trade is resurgent, the country’s biggest bank has failed due to blatant fraud and corruption, and the Americans are beginning to withdraw, with a target date of end of 2014 for full withdrawal.
It’s hardly worth mentioning that USAID and the U.S. Embassy of which it is a part are at odds, or that GAO thinks better accountability for assistance money is required. Except those are perennial problems that go unnoticed when things are improving.
With Osama bin Laden dead and Al Qaeda diminished, the only remaining justification for the U.S. to spend over $100 billion per year on the war in Afghanistan is the prospect that it might one day harbor extremists who would destabilize Pakistan, a nuclear weapons state whose dicey political and economic situation is more likely to worsen than improve. That’s a threat worth worrying about, but it’s hypothetical rather than imminent.
So the United States is suing for peace, trying to arrange an end to the Afghanistan war that is short of ignominious: peace with honor, or at least a minimum of dignity. This will mean accepting a Taliban role in Afghanistan’s future governance–that’s what getting them off the UN’s terrorist lists portends. It will also mean continuing to aid Pakistan, even if Islamabad steals a good part of our money and fails to do a lot of what we would like. As Dennis Kux notes in a recent piece for the Real Instituto Elcano, that kind of muddling through with Pakistan has been going on for decades. Why should it stop now? The foreign policy experts are betting it won’t, despite serious bilateral frictions.
I’m not so sure, but the reasons have more to do with the dueling over the debt and deficit than foreign policy. The United States is in no position to continue spending over $100 billion per year in Afghanistan, but so far we’ve done it because that’s what we’ve locked ourselves into. Those few extra billion (it looks like under $5 billion per year) for Pakistan’s military and economy may not seem like much in the scheme of things, but the Tea Party won’t see it that way. Aid to Israel is sacrosanct even in the Tea Party, but aid to a Pakistani government and military that can’t see its way to helping us get Al Qaeda is not.
So either we abandon Pakistan because we get tired of having our money stolen, or we continue the aid but leave Pakistan at the mercy of whatever arrangements we are able to make on the Afghan side of the border before we leave in 2014. One way or the other, Pakistan will be the Afghanistan war’s last casualty.
RSS - Posts
