Tag: China
Not the deep state
Yesterday’s testimony in Congress by America’s intelligence elite was dramatic: it contradicted President Trump’s ill-founded opinions on Iran, ISIS, North Korea, Russia, and China. Iran, the intel chiefs said, is still observing the nuclear deal. ISIS is not gone from Syria or Iraq. North Korea will not give up its nuclear weapons, which Kim Jong Un views as vital to regime survival. Russia not only interfered in the 2016 election but is expanding its efforts. China’s economic difficulties are not due to America’s tariffs. It is almost as if they decided, with Ben Franklin, that we all hang together or we all hang separately.
Trump remained unimpressed. He denounced them all for failing to agree with their master. The President thinks he knows better. He is unwilling to entertain even the possibility he might be wrong. This is ignorance compounded with lack of intelligence. Only a profoundly stupid and lazy person would fail to ask himself why so many well-informed and manifestly intelligent people disagree, even at peril of losing their jobs. The notion that they would do it to protect their country from its greatest security risk–the man in the Oval Office–is anathema to Trump. He recognizes only egotism as a motive, since that is the only one he knows.
Fortunately, the Congress is moving for good reason to hem Trump in. You don’t have to think the US should stay in Syria or Afghanistan forever to believe that Trump’s tweeting and leaking of precipitous withdrawals is unwise. American diplomats needed more time than the President gave them to get a decent price for shipping out and making sure that whoever fills the vacuum will not put the US at risk. Pretending that North Korea will exchange its nukes and missiles for Trump-like hotel developments is silly.
Trump’s meeting with President Putin in Buenos Aires last November with no US officials present was revealed today. This is not just a breach of protocol. It is profoundly dangerous, since Moscow knows more about the meeting than Washington. Only a neophyte maverick would allow himself to be trapped into such a meeting, unless of course the purpose was to get instructions from Putin. Which do you prefer, a President who is embarrassingly unsophisticated or a President who qualifies as a Russian dupe or maybe even agent?
There is another explanation: that Trump enjoys defying convention and is happy to see his name in the headlines, no matter the occasion. No publicity is bad publicity for him and Roger Stone, who is blabbering himself into a lifetime in prison. Trump’s eldest son, Don Jr., looks set to follow him soon, as he was also enmeshed with Wikileaks during the campaign and lied to Congress about it. The missing link is evidence that the President was privy to or even ordered the contacts with the Russians that led to the publication of the Democratic National Committee’s emails. But there too doubts are hard to harbor: he appealed to Moscow in public to hack Hillary’s emails. Putin gave Trump the closest approximation within his control, in precisely the time frame Don Jr. favored.
President Trump really is America’s greatest security risk today. The intelligence people I know would find that proposition appalling but incontrovertible. Are they aiming to unseat him before he does much more damage? Their well-founded, professional testimony to lawmakers who have that power is one more step in the right direction: removing a president who is endangering the United States.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Democratic House and foreign policy
The new US House of Representatives that was elected November 6 met for the first time yesterday. The Democratic majority re-installed Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, a job she held 2007-11.
The world asks: what does this mean for us?
The short answer is not much right away. Washington is preoccupied for now with reopening a big slice of the government, which is shut down due to an impasse over funding for border security. President Trump wants $5 billion for his border wall, which he is now sometimes calling a barrier or fence. He has betrayed his promise to get Mexico to pay for it, but still insists on building it to meet what he terms a crisis of unauthorized immigrants. The Democrats think there are better ways to protect the border from unauthorized immigration, which is generally down.
Until that gets resolved, the Congress isn’t going to do much on foreign policy. The President has almost absolute power in dealing with other countries, except when (as on the border wall) the Congress uses the budget, a war powers resolution, or sanctions to shape US relations with other countries. That usually requires legislation, which needs to pass in both Houses. Ambassadors and other presidential appointees need only be approved in the Senate, which confirmed a slew of them last week. The Democratic-controlled House will focus initially on the manifold scandals in the Trump Administration, including the President’s own financial affairs and the malfeasance of multiple cabinet members.
But eventually the House Democrats will get a shot at foreign policy. Using the subpoena power of the majority, they will certainly hold hearings on Russian and other interference in US elections. They will await the results of the Special Counsel investigation before deciding on whether to impeach the President for “high crimes and misdemeanors” related to Russia, but even if they do conviction and removal from office requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate that is nowhere to be seen, yet. Impeaching without convicting is not a winning political maneuver.
Hearings on other foreign policy issues will come as well. The Middle East and China are likely subjects. A lot of Democrats are unhappy with the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and with Trump’s support for Saudi Arabia. Some, including two new Muslim members, are unhappy with unconditional US support for Israel and neglect of relations with the Palestinians. The now global military and economic challenge from China will interest both Democrats and Republicans. The House will scrutinize the continued US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
These hearings and many public pronouncements from House members will attract lots of attention abroad, but it is difficult to parse out of the cacophony of voices in Washington where American policy is headed. For the moment, the best assumption is that there will be no big changes as a result of the Democratic takeover of the House, even if the tone changes: less unequivocal towards Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel, more nuanced with respect to Iran, more friendly towards NATO and the European Union, and more skeptical towards North Korea.
China is another question. Right now, Americans are discovering the obvious: they have more to fear from Chinese economic failure than from its success. The slowdown in Chinese growth, partly caused by American tariffs and Chinese retaliation, is causing major losses in stock markets worldwide, which are anticipating both declining corporate profits and high US interest rates. A lot will depend on the outcome of trade negotiations with Beijing, which are due to reach a conclusion in March. If they don’t, expect slowing growth, also due to the US government shutdown and the Federal Reserve’s concerns about inflation.
President Trump had a halcyon first two years. Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress, the Senate moved rapidly to approve their preferred judges, lessening the burden of environmental and other regulations on business faced no serious opposition in Congress, and the Obama expansion was still powering decent economic growth. The next two years are likely to be far more difficult, with the economy slowing if not declining, the Special Counsel reporting on his findings, and the House Democrats conducting in-depth investigations. The party is over, even if Trump continues to sing the same tunes.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Risk rises
2019 has a particular significance: it is the year Republicans need to decide whether they will go into the 2020 presidential election with Donald Trump as their candidate, or not.
There is no serious possibility of a primary challenge or an internal party coup. Trump has demonstrated complete command of the party apparatus, including its major funders. He has given them enough of what Republicans traditionally want: judges who can be relied upon to protect property, law enforcement, and fetuses as well as tax cuts for the very wealthy and white nationalism (aka supremacy) for the hoi polloi. It’s a powerful combination because it finds support in less populated states and rural areas that are overweight in the Electoral College.
There are two other possibilities:
Amendment 25* of the constitution, which allows the vice president to lead an effort to remove a president for inability to carry out the functions of the office, provided the effort can win support from half the cabinet and a 2/3 vote in each house of Congress. Trump is dottering: unable to walk the 250 yards from the White House to Blair House across Pennsylvania Avenue, inarticulate to the point of incoherence, and obviously overweight and unhealthy.
But Trump’s cabinet is loyalist, especially with the departure of Secretary of Defense Mattis (and the earlier departure of Secretary of State Tillerson). Ben Carson would join a risky rebellion in the cabinet? Matthew Whitaker, the unqualified acting Attorney General who couldn’t tell the truth about his college academic achievements? Mike Pompeo, who has pledged he’ll keep fighting for conservative social issues until the Rapture?
Impeachment and conviction isn’t much more likely. The new House majority will be Democratic and might easily find the votes to impeach (accuse) Trump of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But the Senate, where a 2/3 majority would be required to convict, remains solidly in Republican hands. Impeachment without conviction and removal from office is not a winning wicket. The Republicans tried that with Bill Clinton and found themselves with the short end of the stick.
But there is an added factor in 2019: Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation. We don’t know what it will eventually produce, or when, but we do know what it has produced already: five Trump aides, including his first National Security Adviser, have struck plea deals and a couple of dozen Russian operatives have been indicted, in addition to the conviction of Trump’s campaign chair on non-campaign related financial charges. Some will try to deflect attention from the guilty pleas by saying they are “only” for lying to the FBI. That’s silly. We all know it is a crime to lie to the FBI. If someone does, it means he is willing to risk years in jail to avoid telling the truth. Lying to the FBI suggests an underlying felony.
The role of the president in all this is still unclear, and in any event Justice Department guidance does not permit indictment of a president in office. But that does not mean Mueller can’t recommend indictment in the report he is expected to file. The indictment won’t go forward–Whitaker or his replacement is there to stop it–but the recommendation itself would have a dramatic political impact. Even a strong conclusion could do likewise. New York State’s attorney general has already concluded that the Trump Foundation demonstrated “a shocking pattern of illegality.” What if it turns out his campaign was likewise a criminal enterprise, one that allowed or even encouraged a foreign power to subvert the 2016 election?
So I’m thinking we don’t really know what 2019 will bring. The government shutdown is already scrambling the political scene. Trump is sending distress signals and looking for a deal, by lowering the definition of a border wall as well as how much money he needs for it. The Democrats aren’t biting, yet. Nor are the Chinese, whose retaliation against Trump’s tariff war is devastating soybean and other farmers who supported Trump in 2016. Faced with pressure from Trump not to raise rates, the Fed has asserted its independence and proceeded. The stock market is “in correction” and highly volatile. The economy looks like it is heading for the end of the slow but steady Obama boom.
January will bring the launch of multiple House investigations into the Administration’s malfeasance as well as the 2016 campaign. A quick pullout of US troops from Syria this winter could lead to a major clash there between Turkey and Syria, with Arab and Kurdish paramilitaries allies respectively. The proposed drawdown of troops from Afghanistan could embolden the Taliban and wreck the prospects for a negotiated end to its 17-year war. Continuation of the trade wars will raise prices to American consumers and lower US exports, slowing an economy already towards the end of the business cycle.
I dare not go past that to the spring. While the US remains safer and more prosperous than ever before, the uncertainties Trump generates are also greater than ever before. 2019 looks to be a year of rising risk.
*I originally said “Article.” Apologies for the error. There’s a reason I’m not a lawyer.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The disgrace
A presidency that has known few happy days is at a nadir, though it may well go lower. Russia and Iran are celebrating the American withdrawal from Syria, which President Trump decided to please Turkey. Ankara will now attack the Kurds who allied themselves with the US to fight ISIS successfully. The President has consequently lost a universally respected Defense Secretary as well as a capable lead for the diplomatic campaign against ISIS.
The economy is shaky. The stock market is correcting and the Fed is raising rates. Recession before the 2020 election is increasingly likely. The trade wars with China and Europe continue with no end in sight, devastating American agriculture and some American manufacturing. The budget deficit is exploding due to an ill-conceived tax cut for the very wealthy. Trump hasn’t spent already appropriated funds for border security, but he is demanding more for an unnecessary and extraordinarily expensive wall on the Mexican border, partly closing down the government through Christmas.
This is a record of unparalleled chaos and failure, even without mentioning the new North Korean missile sites and the Iranian refusal to discuss either their missiles or Tehran’s regional power projection until Trump reverses his decision to exit the Iran nuclear deal. Pyongyang and Tehran represent serious threats to US interests that Trump has no strategy to counter.
Nor has he been any more effective in changing Russian behavior, which the Congress and his Administration continue to sanction without any admission by the President of Moscow’s wrongdoing. The “deal of the century” Trump promised on Palestine his negotiators have botched completely. America’s diplomacy and international reputation have rarely known worse, more incoherent and less effective, moments.
What can be done?
Little is the serious answer. Even when the Democrats take control of the House little more than a week from now, they will have no ability to fix 90% of what ails the country. Their main role will be oversight: making clear to the public what the real situation is through hearings and reports. Beyond that, they can refuse to sign on to stupidities like the border wall, but no legislation can pass the Senate without a good bit of Republican support, especially if overriding a veto will be necessary. The Democrats cannot force the US back into the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris climate change agreement, or the Trans Pacific Partnership, all of which held substantial advantages for the US.
Meanwhile, Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation has produced indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of high-ranking Trump campaign and administration officials as well as Russian intelligence operatives. There is no longer even a slight doubt that Moscow campaigned in 2016 in favor of Donald Trump, likely tipping the balance in his favor in key Midwest states and Pennsylvania. Trump is obsessed with legitimacy, as well he should be. He is not a fairly elected president, even if we accept the inequities of the Electoral College. He is the product of blatant, widespread, and illegal foreign assistance. We need barely mention Trump’s own illegal campaign contributions as well as his criminal use of Trump Foundation resources.
I doubt though that we have reached bottom. Still to come are revelations about massive Russian and Saudi financing for Trump real estate, as well as indictments of his co-conspirators in stealing and publishing emails. Trump really hasn’t hidden these things, but a report from Mueller that details them will be more than interesting. It will raise questions about whether a felon should be sleeping and watching TV in the White House, where he does little else except brood. If his former National Security Adviser can go to prison for years, why can’t the President be indicted and tried?
The short answer is that the toadies he picks as Attorney General won’t allow it, claiming that Justice Department regulations they could change prohibit it. Trump can no longer, with a Democratic majority in the House, avoid impeachment, if the Mueller report suggests it. But in the Senate he still has not only a majority, but one that hesitates to criticize, never mind convict. Trump has humiliated Mitch McConnell and his cohort repeatedly, but the Senate Republicans remain steadfastly loyal. It is hard to picture how conviction would gain a 2/3 majority it needs in the upper chamber.
The only remedy for this shambolic and bozotic presidency is likely at the polls, less than two years hence. There are no guarantees, but Trump’s path to re-election is narrowing, especially if recession happens. The disgrace is in the White House, not in the country.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump is right
Donald Trump said earlier this week about the Middle East:
Now, are we going to stay in that part of the world? One reason is Israel. Oil is becoming less and less of a reason because we’re producing more oil now than we’ve ever produced. So, you know, all of a sudden it gets to a point where you don’t have to stay there.
This is more sensible than 99% of what the man says, even if I think Israel can more than take care of itself. But the main reason for US military deployments in the Middle East is oil, which is far less important than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. That is what prompted President Carter’s 1980 pledge to defend the flow of oil from the Gulf:
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
President Carter’s Doctrine was a response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which he feared presaged a thrust towards the Gulf. The Soviet Union is gone, Afghanistan is a mess, and the US economy is now far less dependent on oil imports and energy of all sorts than it was in 1980. The Gulf oil producers, especially Saudi Arabia, are far more dependent on oil exports, which they send predominantly to Asia, especially China, Japan, India, and South Korea.
The US nevertheless spends about 12% of the Pentagon budget on protecting the flow of oil from the Gulf and holds a Strategic Petroleum Reserve of well over 100 days of imports, thus protecting our principal economic competitors from the effects of an oil supply disruption while they free ride on our preparations. It is true of course that an oil supply disruption would also affect the US economy, since oil prices are set in a global market and US consumers would feel the price hike in imports of goods of all sorts. But changed circumstances should affect burden-sharing: we need to do less and other oil consumers need to do more.
There are other ways in which the Middle East merits lower priority for American foreign policy. Middle East terrorism now has little impact on Americans both at home, where right-wing attackers are far more common than Islamic ones, and abroad, where relatively few Americans have suffered harm, most of them either by sheer accident or by travel into known danger zones. Nuclear proliferation is still an issue, but mainly a self-inflicted one due to American withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran, which is far from the giant threat the Administration is portraying it as. Even if that were not true, American deployments in the Gulf are far too close to Iran for war-fighting purposes. We would need to move them farther away in order to use them in an attack.
The problem is that withdrawal from the Middle East is as problematic as intervention there. That is what President Obama demonstrated. His restraint in Libya, Syria, and Yemen left vacuums filled by jihadis, Iranians, and Gulfies. The results have been catastrophic for each of the states in question. Intervention by middling powers without multilateral authorization and on one side or the other in a civil war is known to have little chance of success and to prolong conflicts. Where the US re-committed its forces in Iraq, whose state was in far better shape than those in Libya, Syria, or Yemen, the results were far more salutary, even if not completely satisfactory.
Part of the problem for the US is lack of diplomatic capacity. American diplomacy has become far too dependent, both physically and strategically, on military presence. Military withdrawal requires a diplomatic posture that can be sustained without the troops. Many other countries by necessity have learned the trick of hitting above their military weight with diplomatic capacity. Witness an extreme example like Norway, or a less dramatic one like Germany. These are countries that lead with their diplomatic and economic clout, not with their troops, ships and planes.
There has been to my knowledge no serious discussion of the difficulties of withdrawal and how they can be met. Part of solution lies in beefing up the political, economic, and cultural capacities of American diplomacy. But withdrawal will remain perilous anyplace a legitimate, inclusive, well-functioning state does not exist. Statebuilding has gotten a really bad name from the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it remains a vital component of any effort to reduce US commitments abroad. About that, both Trump and Obama have been wrong.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks November 26 – December 2
- How to Rehabilitate and Reintegrate Violent Extremists | Tuesday, November 27 | 10 am – 12 pm | United States Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Register Here
As the loss of ISIS territory drives thousands of “foreign terrorist fighters” to return home, and hundreds of people convicted of terrorism-related offenses are scheduled for release over the next several years, communities worldwide are faced with rehabilitating and reintegrating people disengaging from violent extremism. Often returning to the same environments and social networks that facilitated violent radicalization initially, significant psychosocial and other support will be key to addressing trauma, reducing stigma, and guarding against recidivism.
The trauma- and stigma-related barriers to help-seeking behavior, prosocial interactions, and social healing are new challenges to preventing and countering violent extremism. While there is increasing consensus on the urgency of systematic rehabilitation and reintegration programs, a realistic or concrete proposition of just what such mechanisms might look like, and how they might operate, has not been put forward. Join USIP for a discussion of how policies and programs can address trauma and reduce stigma to foster cross-cutting affiliations and social learning, enable rehabilitation, and ease reintegration for people disengaging from extremist violence.
Panelists
Jesse Morton
Founder and Co-director, Parallel Networks, and co-author of the forthcoming report, “When Terrorists Come Home: The Need for Rehabilitating and Reintegrating America’s Convicted Jihadists”
Dr. James Gordon
Founder and Executive Director, The Center for Mind-Body Medicine
Dr. Sousan Abadian
Franklin Fellow, Office of International Religious Freedom, Department of State
Stacey Schamber
Senior Program Officer, International Civil Society Action Network
Colette Rausch, moderator
Senior Advisor, U.S. Institute of Peace
2. The Role of the Business Sector in Peacebuilding in Africa | Tuesday, November 27 | 10:30 am – 12 pm | Wilson Center | 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004 | Register Here
Many traditional approaches to peacebuilding in Africa have emphasized the roles of government, civil society organizations, and multilateral international organizations over that of the private sector, specifically business. While the economic power of the business sector can help to reduce unemployment and increase economic opportunity—both key factors in conflict prevention—big business has also contributed to conflict and fragility in parts of the continent. However, there is an increasing awareness that businesses can play an important role in peacebuilding efforts, but the question of what this role is, and what it should be, needs further exploration. This event will examine the landscape of business sector efforts in conflict management and peacebuilding in Africa, including the key challenges and opportunities.
The discussion will explore the role that the business sector might play, including how to better and more effectively integrate the sector into peacebuilding frameworks and post-conflict reconstruction efforts. In addition to assessing the role of international corporations, the event will also discuss the role of the African business sector—including small and medium-sized enterprises and the informal sector—in peacebuilding, address the possibility of reimagining corporate social responsibility initiatives to more effectively contribute to peace, and discuss the potential for effective private-public partnerships. The event will also provide policy-oriented options to the business sector, as well as policymakers and practitioners, to make the business sector a more effective partner for peacebuilding in Africa.
Speakers
Introduction
- Jane Harman Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center
- Mr. Eddie C. Brown, CFA Founder, Chairman and CEO, Brown Capital Management
Moderator
- Dr. Monde Muyangwa Africa Program Director
Speakers
- Dr. Raymond Gilpin Academic Dean at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, National Defense University
- Ms. Mary Porter Peschka Director, Environment, Social and Governance, International Finance Corporation
- Ms. Viola Llewellyn Co-Founder and President, Ovamba Solutions, Inc.
- Mr. Stephen D. Cashin CEO and Founder, Pan African Capital Group, LLC
3. Europe in 2019 | Tuesday, November 27 | 2 pm – 3:30 pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
A multitude of challenges confront the EU in 2019. The Brexit deadline at the end of March, uncertainty over Italy’s economic situation, and the forthcoming European Parliament elections in May are key determinants shaping the direction of the European project. On top of these flashpoints, looming challenges such as the continued spread of populism and illiberalism, fragmentation of European cooperation, and a changing security landscape add further complexity. How European leaders address these developments over the course of the next year will have far-reaching consequences. Join a panel of experts to discuss the future of Europe and its wider implications.
FEDERIGA BINDInonresident scholar in the Europe Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace working on European politics, EU foreign policy, and transatlantic relations.
ERIK BRATTBERG director of the Europe Program and a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. He is an expert on European politics and security and transatlantic relations.
KAREN DONFRIED president of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Before assuming her current role in April 2014, Donfried was the special assistant to the president and senior director for European affairs on the National Security Council at the White House.
PIERRE VIMONTsenior fellow at Carnegie Europe. His research focuses on the European Neighborhood Policy, transatlantic relations, and French foreign policy.
JONATAN VSEVIOV Estonia’s ambassador to the United States since August 2018. This is his third diplomatic posting in Washington, DC.
4. Soft Power in a Sharp Power World: Countering Coercion and Information Warfare | Wednesday, November 28 | 9 am – 10 am | United States Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Register Here
Global adversaries, especially states like Russia, China and Iran, use sharp power tools of coercion, disinformation and proxy campaigns to achieve their geopolitical goals and weaken Western influence. This new way of doing business threatens the post-Cold War stability that fostered peace, freedom and development around the globe.
Former U.S. ambassadors Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) will discuss their views on how soft power tools can and should be used to counter sharp power employed by global adversaries at USIP’s seventh Bipartisan Congressional Dialogue on Wednesday, November 28 from 9:00-10:00 a.m. Rep. Rooney is the vice chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and former U.S. ambassador to the Holy See. Rep. Beyer is the vice ranking member of the Science, Space and Technology Committee and former U.S. ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein.
Speakers
Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL)
19th Congressional District of Florida, U.S. House of Representatives
@RepRooney
Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA)
8th Congressional District of Virginia, U.S. House of Representatives
@RepDonBeyer
Nancy Lindborg, moderator
President, U.S. Institute of Peace
@nancylindborg
5. The Commission on the National Defense Strategy | Wednesday, November 28 | 9 am | Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | 1740 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
The Dean’s Forum has partnered with Strategic Studies to host the Commission on the National Defense Strategy’s presentation of its newly released, congressionally-mandated report. Established by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the NDS Commission, co-chaired by Eric Edelman and Gary Roughead, is a panel of bipartisan national security experts appointed by Congress to review and evaluate the NDS, which Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced in January 2018 at SAIS.
The Commission’s final report offers recommendations for ensuring the U.S. maintains the strong defense the American people deserve and expect, taking into account current and prospective circumstances as well as the broader geopolitical environment. Following opening remarks from Dr. Mara Karlin, Dr. Eliot Cohen will moderate a discussion with the Commission’s co-chairs on the report’s observations and recommendations.
Keynote Speakers
Ambassador Eric Edelman
Roger Hertog Distinguished Practitioner-in-Residence at the Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies, appointed by Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) to the NDS Commission
Admiral Gary Roughead, USN (Ret.)
Robert and Marion Oster Distinguished Military Fellow at the Hoover Institution, appointed by Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) to the NDS Commission
Moderator
Dr. Eliot Cohen
SAIS Vice Dean for Education and Academic Affairs and Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies
Opening Remarks
Dr. Mara Karlin
Acting Director of the Strategic Studies Program and Executive Director of The Merrill Center for Strategic Studies
6. Building Peace from the Bottom Up | Thursday, November 29 | 10 am – 11:30 am | United States Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Register Here
Do postwar peacebuilding interventions work to keep peace? How do we measure the effectiveness of such international interventions? Join former USIP Jennings Randolph Senior Fellow Pamina Firchow as she discusses her findings on how to measure the impact of local-level interventions on communities affected by war.
Firchow shows in her book “Reclaiming Everyday Peace: Local Voices in Measurement and Evaluation after War” that efforts by international organizations to implement peacebuilding interventions are often ineffective, overly focused on reconstruction, governance, and development assistance while paying significantly less attention to rebuilding local community relations.
Firchow presents empirical evidence from villages in Uganda and Colombia on local level peacebuilding effectiveness using community generated indicators that reflect how people measure their own everyday peacefulness. Firchow develops a new way of establishing accountability of international and domestic actors to local populations and opening more effective channels of communication among these groups.
Speakers
Kevin Avruch, Opening Remarks
Dean, The School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University
Kathleen Kuehnast, Introduction
Director, Gender Policy and Strategy, U.S. Institute of Peace
Pamina Firchow
Assistant Professor, The School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University
David Connolly
Director, Learning, Evaluation & Research, U.S. Institute of Peace
Roger MacGinty
Professor, School of Government and International Affairs, Durham University, United Kingdom
Anthony Wanis-St. John
Associate Professor, School of International Service, American University
7. China’s Power: Up for Debate | Thursday, November 29 | 8:15 am – 5 pm | Center for Strategic and International Studies | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Register Here
The challenges and opportunities presented by China’s rise are hotly contested. ChinaPower’s annual conference features leading experts from both China and the U.S. to debate core issues underpinning the nature of Chinese power.
8:15 a.m. Opening/Greeting
Bonnie S. Glaser Director, China Power ProjectSenior Adviser for AsiaCSIS
8:30 a.m. Morning Keynote: TBD
9:15 a.m. Proposition: U.S. engagement policy toward China has failed.
FOR: Ely Ratner Executive Vice President and Director of StudiesCenter for a New American Security (CNAS)
AGAINST: J. Stapleton Roy Former U.S. Ambassador to ChinaFounding Director Emeritus and Distinguished ScholarKissinger Institute on China and the United States, Wilson Center
10:25 a.m. Coffee break
10:40 a.m. Proposition: China is an illiberal state seeking to reshape the international system in its own image.
FOR: Pei Minxin Tom and Margot Pritzker ‘72 Professor of GovernmentGeorge R. Roberts FellowClaremont McKenna College
AGAINST:Wu Xinbo Professor and Dean, Institute of International StudiesDirector, Center for American StudiesFudan University
11:50 a.m. Proposition: Made in China 2025 and China’s broader industrial program pose a threat to global innovation and the world economy.
FOR: Scott Kennedy Deputy Director, Freeman Chair in China StudiesCSIS
AGAINST:Mu Rongping Director-General, Center for Innovation and DevelopmentChinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)
1:00 p.m. Lunch
1:40 p.m. Proposition: China is likely to be the leader of the coming artificial intelligence revolution.
FOR: Edward Tse Founder and CEO
Gao Feng Advisory Company
AGAINST: Samm Sacks
Cybersecurity Policy Fellow
New America
2:50 p.m. Proposition: China has the capability to control the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States.
FOR: Bryan ClarkSenior Fellow
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
AGAINST: Peter Dutton Professor and Director, China Maritime Studies InstituteU.S. Naval War College
4:00 p.m. Coffee break
4:15 p.m. Afternoon Keynote (VTC)
Admiral Philip S. Davidson 25th Commander of United States Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM)
RSS - Posts
