Tag: China
Indonesia has a plan
On Monday, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) hosted its annual Fullerton Forum in Singapore. The keynote address was delivered by Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan, Indonesia’s Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs and a retired general in the anti-terror squad of the Indonesian special forces. Pandjaitan was introduced by both Tim Huxley, Executive Director, IISS-Asia and by Ng Eng Hen, the Defense Minister of Singapore.
Pandjaitan stated that the goal of terror groups is always to destabilize countries and demoralize their populations. ISIS has not succeeded in doing this so far in Indonesia because the Indonesian government is clear that it does not negotiate with terrorists and will respond immediately to any attacks. ISIS recruitment is a global problem; the number of foreign fighters joining ISIS doubled between 2014 and 2015. Brookings estimates there are 46,000 Twitter accounts that support ISIS. In Indonesia, even some middle-class people have joined ISIS, including a policeman who died in Syria.
Indonesia is a huge country with many poorly-educated people; ISIS’s propaganda concerning the caliphate is powerful among lower-class people. Syria and Iraq are included in Islamic “end times” prophecies, and ISIS convinces people to fight the West and all countries that lack Sharia. ISIS wants to see the caliphate expand to Southeast Asia. Its fighters are hard to deal with because they have what Pandjaitan refers to as a “one-way ticket”: they are prepared to die.
In the January 14 attacks in Jakarta, Indonesian security forces responded rapidly, eliminating the terrorists in less than 12 minutes. They killed four terrorists, and using one of their cell phones, were able to track down and arrest others. This sets an example for terrorists. The attackers were previously linked with Jemaah Islamiyah, a Southeast Asian affiliate of Al Qaeda. Even though ISIS and AQ are fighting each other in Syria, their affiliates are capable of cooperation; Indonesia believes the local ISIS and AQ leaders have merged their work.
Terrorists in Indonesia operate in cells to maintain secrecy; cells do not have contact with other cells, making it difficult for the police to crack down on networks. So far, the authorities have had success in mapping terror networks, but Pandjaitan cannot promise that Indonesia is immune from attacks. Terror groups also communicate their final decisions to stage attacks via couriers, which are hard to intercept.
Fighting terror effectively involves three components:
- A soft approach.
- International intelligence cooperation.
- A hard approach.
The soft approach to fighting terror is Indonesia’s strategy of first resort. This includes counter-radicalization and deradicalization campaigns that are holistic in nature and will partially be conducted using the media. They are working with Indonesia’s two largest Muslim organizations, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah to spread the message, including on television, that ISIS is not Islam and Islam is not ISIS. Indonesia has freedom of religion, so people have the freedom to follow sharia law.
The government is also campaigning against religious intolerance. Indonesia is the largest archipelago country in the world, which makes it difficult to manage. The government is working on categorizing terrorists as ideologues, militants and sympathizers. Ideologues will be imprisoned separately to help stop radicalization in prisons. The government is also cracking down on social media content supporting terror, including videos that provide instructions on how to build bombs.
The ASEAN countries already have a platform for intelligence sharing regarding threats, attacks, and terror financing. Intelligence cooperation in the region is already very good.
The hard approach is a secondary approach, but is one that Indonesia is prepared to use. Indonesia has prepared its special forces to conduct operations anytime and anywhere within the country. If terrorists take hostages, the special forces will free them immediately. The Indonesian government is also altering counterterrorism legislation so that the authorities will be able to detain those suspected of plotting terror attacks for 7-30 days. Those found to have no terror links will be released. New legislation also allows the government to revoke the citizenship of Indonesians who join groups of foreign fighters.
Another key to stopping terror in Indonesia is economic improvement. Economic growth has stopped slowing. The economy grew by about 5.5% this year. Consumer confidence and confidence in the government have increased. The government has been trying to distribute economic growth more evenly between Indonesia’s regions and improve the country’s infrastructure. There has historically been a large gap between the haves and the have-nots. Many terrorists come from poor backgrounds. This year, Indonesia will spend $70 billion or 36% of the national budget on outlying regions. Funding for villages has increased from $2 billion to $4.5 billion in 2016. This will give each village around $100,000 to spend, which will help reduce rural poverty and boost economic growth. Poverty reduction is crucial. Indonesia has 230 million Muslims. If 2% live in extreme poverty and are brainwashed by ISIS, one can imagine how many will become terrorists and stage domestic and regional attacks.
An audience member asked Pandjaitan about links that had been discovered between the terrorists in the recent Jakarta attacks and terrorists from Mindanao in the Philippines. Pandjaitan stated that radicals in Mindanao are supporting radicals in Indonesia, including through the smuggling of weapons and explosives. Indonesian authorities are working to crack down on weapons smuggling.
Another audience member asked about Indonesia’s position regarding China’s actions in the South China Sea. Because of Indonesia’s territory in the Natuna Islands, Indonesia has declared that its Special Economic Zone extends into the South China Sea. There were reports that Indonesia was considering pursuing international arbitration against China. Pandjaitan replied that China acknowledges the Natuna Islands are part of Indonesia, so China and Indonesia are not in conflict regarding this matter. However, Indonesia views the South China Sea as an important area for global shipping. Indonesia does not wish to see power projection in this area and views freedom of navigation as very important.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Hagel uncontrollable and unpredictable
On Wednesday, the Atlantic Council hosted a conversation with former Secretary of Defense Hagel. He detailed the policy issues and challenges that arose during his tenure as Secretary of Defense, discussed his relationship with the Obama Administration, and provided advice to US policymakers going forward. Fred Kempe, President and CEO, Atlantic Council, interviewed the Secretary and moderated the discussion.
Kempe began with some background about Hagel’s tenure as Secretary of Defense. He was the first Secretary of Defense in decades to face shrinking budgets at a time of increased demand for US military force. Sequester began on his third day in office. He also faced the Russian invasion of Crimea, the fight against ISIS, a difficult US-Egypt relationship, and the Iran negotiations.
Kempe asked Secretary Hagel to provide his thoughts on Iran’s capture and subsequent release of US sailors this week. Secretary Hagel said he doesn’t have the intelligence information he once had, but that the US is pleased with the sailors’ release. There will be an investigation of what happened and why. He strongly supported the nuclear negotiations with Iran. This incident put the deal in jeopardy, especially since the removal of sanctions commences this weekend. If the Iranians hadn’t released the sailors, they would have put sanctions relief in jeopardy.
Hagel described what he saw as a new world order developing now. We are witnessing the greatest diffusion of economic power in history combined with rapid demographic changes. The world order that the US and its allies built post-Word War II has done well; there has been no World War III or nuclear exchange. These alliances will become even more important in this century. As the world has progressed, more people have greater expectations regarding what their rights are.
The world is unpredictable. Leaders need to build margins into their planning. While the US is the most powerful nation on earth, we shouldn’t dictate or impose. Most Americans were born after World War II and expect an America that dominates in every way. But we’ve made big mistakes stemming from not paying attention to other cultures. American leadership is indispensable, but Americans must be humble about this. We can’t fix every problem, but countries do rely on American leadership to bring them together.
American leadership is essential for global stability. We should remain engaged, but not be afraid of other countries becoming successful. We need to adapt to the world’s shifting demographics without abandoning our values. We shouldn’t impose our specific brand of Western democracy on all countries. As Kissinger has said, we need to help countries develop their own democracies for their own contexts. The common threads of all democracies are dignity for all, freedom of initiative, and incentives for hard work and responsibility.
Kempe wanted Hagel to review his recent article in Foreign Policy in which he criticized the way he was treated by the Obama Administration. Hagel did not want to rehash everything he said in the article, but stated that all administrations try to dominate their cabinets. In this sense, the Obama Administration is no different from previous administrations, but each successive administration in recent years has tried to dominate more.
This is unhealthy because it undercuts governing. Governing is not the same as domination. Every institution requires the support of good people and those in charge need to trust these people and rely on them to govern with them. The two most important jobs in every administration are the National Security Advisor and the Chief of Staff because all decision making flows through them. The Secretary of Defense doesn’t make policy but is the implementer and operator of the policies that the President wants. When the President dominates those whom he/she is supposed to rely on it impedes his/her ability to govern. In addition, there were too many meetings with too many people in the room; this creates chaos because everyone wants to talk and show how smart they are. Every President faces challenges, uncontrollables, and unknowables.
Every President also has his/her own style. But it’s hard to bring in the best people if they think they will be overloaded with meetings, micromanaged and second-guessed.
Given the fact that sequester began on day three of Hagel’s tenure, Kempe wanted to know how much time he spent on budgets and if the military has enough funding to ensure American security. Hagel reminded the audience that sequester remains in effect, though cuts to military spending have been adjusted. The Pentagon requires the certainty of long-term budgets on the order of 20 years to plan the purchase of weapons systems. Sequester meant an immediate $50 billion of budget cuts, so Secretary Hagel commissioned a review to understand what was most important in the budget, both from Pentagon officials as well as from field commanders. Secretary Hagel originally though he would have to furlough his employees for 21 days, but managed to cut this down to 3-5 days. He had to halt maintenance and training for a few months.
That was followed by a 16-day government shutdown, which was irresponsible on the part of politicians. Hagel refused to comply with the shutdown, though some employees were absent for 16 days. It is terrible to damage the security of the US to make a political point. It hurt the Department of Defense. The employees ultimately got paid anyway by virtue of the unions.
Budgets took up a lot of his time. We are perilously close to not having enough funds to defend our national security interests. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have to testify in front of Congress to give their opinion on whether the current budget is sufficient to guarantee American national security interests; they are getting close to having to say no. We can do with fewer submarines, for instance, but that will come with a long-term price. Once we have two presidential candidates, they must be clear about what they think the US role in the world is and what our national security interests are. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Sound and fury
Josh Rogin has pretty much nailed the North Korea nuclear issue with his inspired application of the stages of grief. Bottom line: we’ll end up accepting what we can’t change. Sound and fury will signify nothing.
Does it matter?
Yes. Allowing the North Korean dictatorship to persist in thumbing its nose at the UN Security Council and the international community breaches important international norms. The Security Council, which has mandated that North Korea not conduct nuclear or missile tests, is supposed to be authoritative. Non-nuclear states once signatories to the Nonproliferation Treaty (as North Korea was) are supposed to stay non-nuclear. Pyongyang’s defiance will be an inspiration to others and risks confirming a new international norm: once a state acquires nuclear weapons it is virtually immune to pressure, because it can unleash devastating destruction on its neighbors and other adversaries, provided it has the required delivery vehicles.
But that doesn’t mean there is a lot the United States, or anyone else, can do about it. Barack Obama is thought to be holding his tongue because he doesn’t want to give Kim Jong-un the satisfaction of getting a rise out of the US president. That seems to me wise, especially given the difficulty the President has had making his other red lines stick. A lot of noise about North Korea now would only encourage more misbehavior. What would the President do then? Any parent knows the risks of escalation with an unruly teenager.
No doubt it has been made clear to the North Koreans that US nuclear weapons may now target their homeland. It is even said that was a motive for the latest test. Few Americans realize it, but the US does not have a doctrine of no first use against nuclear states, only against non-nuclear states. The North Koreans certainly know that and are ready to run the risk, which they will presume low given the consequences for Washington if it were to use its nuclear capabilities.
There are of course other options. We could re-tighten financial sanctions, which in the past seemed to be having a serious impact. We could destroy North Korean nuclear facilities or any nuclear-capable missiles Pyongyang seeks to test, as former Sectary of Defense Bill Perry urged years ago. We could undertake a much more concerted effort to undermine the North Korean regime and its iron grip on its people. I imagine there are officials within the US government working on all these options, which could be undertaken either overtly or covertly.
But the sad fact is that these well-known options have downsides and none are guaranteed to work. Tightening sanctions and undermining the North Korean regime run the risk of causing collapse, which from the Chinese and South Korean perspectives is almost as frightening as Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal. Beijing and Seoul don’t like the North Korean regime, but they don’t want millions of North Koreans fleeing uncontrollably. Destroying nuclear facilities can cause serious radioactive contamination. Missiles are a better target, but we’d have to be pretty sure the response would not be a nuclear strike on one of North Korea’s neighbors (its missiles cannot yet hit the US, so far as I am aware).
I’m afraid the only serious option at the moment, other than ignoring the bastards, is to talk with the North Koreans and try to get them to back down from their current defiance of the Security Council and other international pressures. Yes, that will unavoidably give them some of the international acknowledgment and recognition they crave. Nuclear weapons confer privileges. One of them is not being ignored completely.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The end is nigh, once again
Two years ago I published a post with this title. Remarkably little has changed since then in many conflicts:
- South Sudan is suffering even more bloodletting.
- The Central African Republic is still imploding.
- North Korea is no longer risking internal strife but continues its belligerence on the international stage.
- China is still challenging its neighbors in the East and South China Seas.
- Syria is even more chaotic, with catastrophic consequences for its population and strains for its neighbors.
- Egypt continues its repression of the Muslim Brotherhood and secular human rights advocates.
- Israel and Palestine are no closer to agreement on a two-state solution.
- Afghanistan has a new president but the Taliban are stronger in the countryside and the Islamic State is gaining adherents; money and people are still expatriating.
- Al Qaeda is less potent in many places, but that is little comfort since the Islamic State has risen to take the leading role in Salafist jihadism.
- Ukraine has lost control of Crimea, which has been annexed by Russia, and risks losing control of much of the southeastern Donbas region.
The only issue I listed then that is palpably improved is the Iranian nuclear question, which is now the subject of a deal that should postpone Tehran’s access to the nuclear materials required to build a bomb for 10 to 15 years.
Danielle Pletka of AEI topped off the gloom this year with a piece suggesting there are reasons to fear Putin’s recklessness could trigger World War III.
Without going that far, it is easy to add to the doom and gloom list:
- Europe is suffering a bout of right-wing xenophobia (the US has a milder case), triggered by migrants from the Middle East and North Africa.
- Mali and Nigeria are suffering serious extremist challenges.
- The Houthi takeover in Yemen, and intervention there by a Saudi-led coalition, is causing vast suffering in one of the world’s poorest countries and allowing Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to expand its operations.
- Civil war in Libya is far from resolution, despite some signatures on a UN-sponsored agreement to end it.
- Turkey has re-initiated a war against Kurdish forces that had been in abeyance.
- Even Brazil, once a rising power, is suffering scandals that may bring down its president, even as its economy tanks.
I’m still not ready to throw in the towel. Some successes of two years ago continue and others have begun: Colombia‘s civil war is nearing its end, Burma/Myanmar continues its transition in a more open direction (even though it has failed to settle conflicts with several important minorities), Kenya is still improving, ditto Liberia, which along with Sierra Leone and maybe Guinea seems to have beaten the Ebola epidemic, and much of the Balkans, even if Kosovo and Bosnia are going through rough patches.
I still think, as I said two years ago:
If there is a continuous thread running through the challenges we face it is this: getting other people to govern themselves in ways that meet the needs of their own populations (including minorities) and don’t threaten others. That was what we did in Europe with the Marshall Plan. It is also what we contributed to in East Asia, as democracy established itself in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia and elsewhere. We have also had considerable success in recent decades in Latin America and Africa, where democracy and economic development have grown roots in Brazil, Argentina, Ghana, South Africa, and other important countries. I may not like the people South Africans have elected, but I find it hard to complain about the way they have organized themselves to do it.
This is what we have failed to do in the Middle East: American military support for autocracies there has stunted democratic evolution, even as our emphasis on economic reform has encouraged crony capitalism that generates resentment and support for Islamist alternatives. Mubarak, Asad, Saleh, Qaddafi, and Ben Ali were not the most oppressive dictators the world has ever known, even though they murdered and imprisoned thousands, then raised those numbers by an order of magnitude as they tried to meet the challenge of revolution with brute force. But their departures have left the countries they led with little means of governing themselves. The states they claim to have built have proven a mirage in the desert.
If there is reason for doom and gloom, it is our failure to meet this governance challenge cleverly and effectively. We continue to favor our military instruments, even though they are inappropriate to dealing with most of the problems we face (the important exceptions being Iran and China). We have allowed our civilian instruments of foreign policy to atrophy, even as we ask them to meet enormous challenges. What I wish for the new year is recognition–in the Congress, in the Administration and in the country–that we need still to help enable others to govern themselves. Investment in the capacity to do it will return dividends for many decades into the future.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks December 7-11
- Conflict Prevention and Resolution Forum: The Future Of Goal 16: Peace and Inclusion In the Sustainable Development Goals | Tuesday, December 8 | 9:30-11:00am | SAIS | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) make a clear link between conflict and development, thanks to the powerful language about peace in the preamble to the along with the inclusion of Goal 16 on “peaceful and inclusive societies.” This emphasis recognizes that protracted conflict undermined the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in many countries, and it creates a new international focus on peacebuilding as one of the solutions to development challenges.How did the international community shift its thinking toward peace and inclusion in the SDGs, and where do we go from here? The inclusion of peace as a goal in the SDGs was not a foregone conclusion, and panelists will discuss both how advocacy helped ensure a role for peacebuilding in the SDGs and what that means for the next 15 years. They will also discuss the challenge that remains for governments, organizations, and individuals to implement and evaluate these global goals.
- Implementing Camp David: US-GCC Security Cooperation Since The Summit | Tuesday, December 8 | 12:30-2:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | President Obama convened leaders from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states in May 2015 to discuss reassurance and security cooperation in light of the P5+1 nuclear agreement with Iran. The United States and Gulf Arab monarchies agreed to improve future cooperation on ballistic missile defense, counter-proliferation, counterterrorist financing, cybersecurity, and a range of other issues. Six months after the summit, with the Iran deal secured and amidst the Middle East’s continuing crises, US-GCC security cooperation remains critically important. What have been the notable successes and challenges since Camp David? To what extent has progress been made in key areas? Has the region’s security situation benefitted from US-Gulf cooperation in light of the continuing fight against ISIS and other crises? Speakers include: James L. Jones, President, Jones Group International, Nawaf Obaid
Visiting Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Barry Pavel
Vice President, Arnold Kanter Chair, and Director, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security Atlantic Council, Frederick Kempe President and CEO
Atlantic Council, and moderated by Karen DeYoung, Senior National Security Correspondent, Washington Post. - Syria: Steps Toward Peace Or Deepening Intractability? | Tuesday, December 8 | 5:30pm | Brookings Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Soon to be in its sixth year, the conflict in Syria remains as deadly as ever. The consequences of an increasingly complex and seemingly intractable civil war are now also being felt internationally to an alarming degree. Recent attacks in Beirut and Paris warn of the danger of Syria’s continued breakdown. With nearly 300,000 people recorded killed, 12 million others displaced, and vast refugee flows overwhelming Syria’s neighbors and now Europe, finding a solution is nothing short of urgent. Recent multilateral meetings in Vienna demonstrated renewed diplomatic determination to negotiate peace for Syria, but significant differences remain between the conflict’s principal power-brokers.This Brookings Doha Center policy discussion aims to explore the current status of the Syrian conflict and the roles being played by an ever expanding list of actors. Does a moderate opposition still exist in Syria, and if so, what does that mean? Does the Vienna process provide hope for a durable political solution? How can the armed opposition play a role in shaping a political solution in Syria? What is the future of Salafi-jihadi militancy in Syria and what are the local, regional, and global ramifications? Speakers include, Mouaz Al Khatib, Former President, National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, Noah Bonsey, Senior Analyst Syria, International Crisis Group, Charles Lister, Visiting Fellow, Foreign Policy, Brookings Doha Center.
- Manning the Future Fleet | Wednesday, December 9 | 10:00-11:00am | CSIS | REGISTER TO ATTEND| The Maritime Security Dialogue brings together CSIS and U.S. Naval Institute, two of the nation’s most respected non-partisan institutions. The series is intended to highlight the particular challenges facing the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, from national level maritime policy to naval concept development and program design. Given budgetary challenges, technological opportunities, and ongoing strategic adjustments, the nature and employment of U.S. maritime forces are likely to undergo significant change over the next ten to fifteen years. The Maritime Security Dialogue provides an unmatched forum for discussion of these issues with the nation’s maritime leaders.
- Breaking the Silence: Societal Attitudes Toward SGBV In Syria | Wednesday, December 9 | 2:00- 3:30pm | Syria Justice and Accountability Centre | REGISTER TO ATTEND | As the Syrian conflict continues with increasing levels of violence, reports have emerged indicating that government forces and extremist groups are using sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) as a tool of war. However reliable information on SGBV remains scarce due to social stigma and survivors’ fears that they may be ostracized from their communities if they come forward with their stories. As part of its efforts to ethically and comprehensively document all violations of the conflict, including SGBV, SJAC commissioned a report from the Syria Research and Evaluation Organization (SREO) to assess Syrians’ attitudes towards survivors and perpetrators of SGBV. The results were surprising. Speakers include: Ambassador Steven E. Steiner, Gender Advisor USIP, Shabnam Mojtahidi, Legal and Strategy Analyst, Syria Justice and Accountability Center, Cindy Dyer, Vice President of Human Rights, Vital Voices, and Sussan Tahmasebi, Director of MENA, ICAN.
- Cyber Risk Wednesday: 2016 Threat Landscape | Wednesday, December 9 | 4:00-5:30 pm | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | On the cyber front, 2015 paints a dark picture. The year has been filled with massive data breaches, disruptive cyberattacks, and espionage. Neither government agencies nor private companies were safe. Nations have become increasingly comfortable with fighting their battles online, using covert cyberattacks to accompany traditional warfare in on-going conflicts in Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Will 2016 be any different? While data breaches and hybrid warfare are likely to continue, Internet users’ awareness of cybersecurity issues has reached an all-time high, companies are pouring investments into strengthening their cyber defenses, the United States and China were able to reach a deal banning commercial cyber espionage despite the countries’ otherwise lukewarm relations, and the privacy issues are getting prime time attention. Speakers include: Luke Dembosky
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for National Security
US Department of Justice, Jason Healey Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Atlantic Council, Ellen Nakashima National Security Reporter The Washington Post, and Mark O’Hare
Director, President, and CEO, Security First Corp. - Implementing Counterinsurgency In Afghanistan: Lessons From Village Stability Operations And Afghan Local Police (VSO/ALP) | Thursday, December 10 | 11:00 am | Institute of World Politics | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In 2010, towards the end of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan, US Special Operations Forces (SOF) and their international partners experimented with a new way of implementing counterinsurgency, Village Stability Operations (VSO) and Afghan Local Police (ALP). VSO/ALP is based on a “bottom-up” rather than “top-down” approach that focused on soldiers interacting with local Afghan populations, supporting traditional local tribal governance, and training local security forces. In this discussion, Dr. Lofdahl will review lessons which can be drawn from the VSO/ALP experience in Afghanistan. Speaker: Dr. Corey Lofdahl, Senior Scientist at Charles River Analytics.
- Planning for Korean Unification: What Is Seoul Doing? | Thursday, December 10 | 12:00-1:30 pm | The Heritage Foundation | REGISTER TO ATTEND | South Korean President Park Geun-hye has made Korean unification a central tenet of her foreign policy strategy. More so than her predecessors, she has made reunification a tangible objective. Despite repeated attempts at reconciliation, North Korea has rejected dialogue and criticizes President Park’s unification outreach as unrealistic, seeing it as a threat to regime stability. Issues to be addressed would include the blueprints of Korean unification, how to overcome North Korean resistance, and how to achieve or pay for it. To learn more about South Korea’s plans for achieving unification, join us for a discussion with three distinguished members of South Korea’s bipartisan Presidential Committee for Unification Preparation. Speakers include: Dr. Chung Chong-wook, Vice-Chairman of the Presidential Committee for Unification Preparation, Dr. Moon Chung-in, Professor of Political Science, Yonsei University, and Dr. Kim Byung-yeon Professor Economics, Seoul National University.
- Hope, Innovation, Activism: The Critical Role Of Millennials In Afghanistan | Thursday, December 10 | 12:00 – 1:30pm | Rumi Forum | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Ambassador Dr. Hamdullah Mohib will explore why this demographic matters — the role of millennials in Afghan society today, and the important role they have to play in the country’s future on December 10, 2015. A young man builds an aircraft from scratch; a teenage boy builds an internet connection out of trash scraps; a young woman uses her savings to found a coding school for girls and a women-run IT company; a group of students initiate a recycling campaign to clean up their city; young people rally on social media and in the streets to protest the unjust killing of a young woman. These are stories from Afghanistan that you don’t hear about. Roughly 75% of the population in Afghanistan is under the age of 35. While much of the media focuses on the challenges of the new government and the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan today, the country’s hopeful, innovative, educated and active millennial population is defining and building the country’s future.
- Climate Security and Migration | Friday, December 11 | 10:00am – 12:00 pm | Center for New American Security | REGISTER TO ATTEND | On December 11, please join CNAS for a public event on climate security and migration. We will explore questions of how the United States, in collaboration with foreign partners, multilateral institutions, and civil society, should tackle future climate migration. What are the key initiatives, institutions and challenges involved in successfully addressing climate migration? Does the issue of climate migration fit our current framework and processes for dealing with migration? What should the international community be doing now? The events over the summer and fall in Europe, albeit not due to climate change, were illustrative of the scale of the challenges involved for policymakers and security leaders. Climatic change will add another layer to the challenges the global community will face in addressing migration, including explicitly climate change-driven migration, in the years ahead. Speakers include: Hon. Sharon E. Burke, Senior Advisor, New America, Dr. Daniel Chiu, Deputy Director, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Atlantic Council, Sherri Goodman, CEO and President, Consortium for Ocean Leadership, and CDR Jim Moran, Senior Strategist, Emerging Policy, Deputy Commandant for Operations U.S. Coast Guard
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Real with consequences
This week’s Paris meeting on climate change will move a lot of electrons heralding action on climate change. But the outcome is guaranteed to be disappointing if you are worried about the consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels. The national pledges (known in the trade as “intended nationally determined contributions” or INDCs) will fail to stop global warming short of the 2 degrees (centigrade) that would be required to avoid a substantial increase in sea levels and worsening of the storms and heat extremes that have already become all too common. Some will say this is a good start, as it will stop global warming at perhaps 3 degrees.
I’m less patient. I was a United Nations young staffer in 1972 at the first UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. The “greenhouse effect” and global warming were already well-known then. So too were the difficulties of coming to grips with an issue that threatens global economic growth and pits already wealthy fossil fuel burning countries against aspirants from what we then termed the Third World. Who would bear the burden of cutting back on greenhouse gases? Would it be those who have already benefited from fossil fuels, or those who would like to do so in the future? And how will efforts to cut back on emissions affect prospects for economic growth worldwide?
The issue has gotten worse since then: China, not a “rich” country, has become a major contributor to the global load of carbon dioxide, overtaking the US in 2005. Its pledge in Paris will entail peaking emissions by 2030, or perhaps few years earlier. Still very poor India’s will continue rising to 2030, possibly making it a bigger contributor to global emissions than either China or the US. While the US has contributed a great deal to the problem to date, its emissions are already declining. Washington aims for a 28% reduction from 2005 levels by 2025.
But none of this will enable the world to escape the consequences of global warming. They are not all bad. Nor are they necessarily all induced by human activity. But a lot of them will require major adjustments, especially for land areas lying close to sea level. I won’t be investing in beach-front property for my grandson. It could well be submerged, or the beach carried off by storms, well before he inherits. More seriously: Bangladesh, Mauritius and other poor, vulnerable countries may well find themselves without the land they cherish, or suffering far worse consequences from tsunamis than they did in the past.
Nor are rich countries immune: remember Hurricane Sandy’s impact on New York City? Not necessarily caused by global warming, but still a clear harbinger of what is becoming more likely in the future, including in China’s prosperous coastal cities. Climate change is already costing the US Federal government over $20 billion per year. States and local governments are spending billions more to prevent the worst consequences.
No doubt the White House staff is busily working on making the Paris meeting a successful one for President Obama, who is wisely attending for two days at the opening (as invited by President Hollande). The main diplomatic drama will occur behind the scenes at the end of the 12-day affair. No one there will have forgotten the clamorous failure of negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009, where the President was personally embarrassed. The obvious answer to the equity issues global warming raises is money. The President has pledged $3 billion to a Green Climate Fund for developing countries that has already topped $10 billion. That’s not small change, but it barely scratches the surface of the total financial requirements, as the Indians are quick to point out.
A key issue in Paris will be whether the voluntary national commitments already made will be legally binding. That’s what the French, and I imagine the Europeans more generally, want. It’s hard to picture, at least with respect to the emissions targets or financial commitments. Making them legally binding would virtually guarantee non-approval of any international legal instrument in the US Senate, where there is still a lot of skepticism about global warming. Some marginal, procedural changes to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, negotiated parallel to the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), may still be possible. The big procedural issue is when the next review of INDCs will take place: the US wants it in five years, to keep the pressure on, while developing countries prefer ten.
Somehow the White House will make the President’s two days in Paris sound like a resounding success. But no one should be fooled: global warming is not only real, it will also continue far beyond the point at which most reputable scientists believe it will cause catastrophic effects.
PS: a SAIS climate change guru read this critically, which inspired me to make some changes in the original. The changes are in bold.
RSS - Posts
