Tag: India
Peace picks next week
Too much this week, and too many things at the same time on the same days, but here are my best bets:
1. The Arab Spring, a Year On: How’s America Faring? WWC, 9:30-11 am April 23
Nathan Brown
Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, George Washington University and Former Fellow, Woodrow Wilson Center
Ellen Laipson
President and CEO, Stimson Center
Michael Singh
Managing Director, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Moderator
Aaron David Miller
Distinguished Scholar, Woodrow Wilson Center
Political changes in the Arab world have created a new landscape for the United States. Join us as four experts on the region and its politics examine the impact of these changes on hopes for democratization and Arab-Israeli peace, as well as the future of American influence and interests.
Last fall, the Pakistan government announced its intention to grant Most Favored Nation (MFN) status to India, replicating a decision made earlier in New Delhi and potentially laying the groundwork for greatly expanded trade between the two South Asian neighbors. While fundamental disagreements in the relationship remain unresolved, Islamabad’s MFN decision suggests that it is prepared to deepen trade ties even while progress on core political and security issues continues to lag. Optimists assert that increased trade can build constituencies in both countries for more cooperative bilateral relations between the two long-time rivals.
Recognizing the potential significance of trade in the Pakistan-India relationship, the Woodrow Wilson Center will host a one-day conference on April 23, 2012, that focuses on MFN as an important step toward expanding Pakistan-India commercial linkages. What further steps on both sides need to be taken to establish a fully operational MFN regime? What are the economic and businesses cases for and against expanding bilateral trade? What are the primary domestic obstacles in each country to increased Pakistan-India trade? What are the socio-economic arguments for enhanced bilateral trade ties, and who will most benefit?
RSVPs are required. Please RSVP by sending an email to asia@wilsoncenter.org
CONFERENCE AGENDA
9:45 Registration and coffee
10:00 Welcoming Remarks
Robert M. Hathaway, director, Asia Program, Woodrow Wilson Center
Munawar Z. Noorani, chairman, Fellowship Fund for Pakistan
10:15 Panel I: Moving forward on MFN
Ijaz Nabi, visiting professor, Lahore University of Management Sciences, and Pakistan country director, International Growth Center
A view from Pakistan
Arvind Virmani, executive director, International Monetary Fund, and affiliate professor and distinguished senior fellow, George Mason University
Perspectives from India
Ishrat Hussain, dean and director, Institute of Business Administration (Karachi)
Dissenting views
Chair: Robert M. Hathaway, director, Asia Program, Woodrow Wilson Center
12:30 Luncheon
1:00 Luncheon keynote address
Zafar Mahmood, commerce secretary, government of Pakistan
Chair: William B. Milam, senior scholar, Woodrow Wilson Center
2:00 Panel II: Broadening the debate
Amin Hashwani, founder, Pakistan-India CEOs Business Forum
Social issues, civil society, and security
Nisha Taneja, professor, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER)
Non-tariff barriers, infrastructure deficiencies, and high transaction costs
Kalpana Kochhar, chief economist for South Asia, World Bank
Regional implications
Chair: Michael Kugelman, South Asia associate, Woodrow Wilson Center
4:15 Adjournment
RSVPs are required. Please RSVP by sending an email to asia@wilsoncenter.org
This conference has been organized by the Wilson Center’s Asia Program and Program on America and the Global Economy, along with the Fellowship Fund for Pakistan.
This conference has been made possible through the generosity of the Fellowship Fund for Pakistan.
the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution
Present:The Implications of Democracy and Dynasty:
The Foreign Policy Futures of the Two Koreas
April 24, 2012
2pm – 3:30pm
Kenney Auditorium
1740 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036
Featuring:
Dr. Sang Yoon Ma
History and Public Policy Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center
Associate Professor, School of International Studies at the Catholic University of Korea
Dr. Alexandre Mansourov
Visiting Scholar, US-Korea Institute at SAIS
With Introduction by:
Dr. Richard C. Bush
Director and Senior Fellow
Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, The Brookings Institution
Moderated by:
Dr. Jae H. Ku
Director, US-Korea Institute at SAIS
On April 11, 2012, South Korea’s ruling conservative party scored an unexpected victory in the 2012 National Assembly elections while a series of political events in North Korea worked to solidify the succession of Kim Jong Un. Please join Dr. Sang Yoon Ma and Dr. Alexandre Mansourov in discussing the results of these events and their policy implications for US-ROK relations, and North Korea’s foreign policy strategies.
5. A Conversation with Turkey’s Kurdish Leadership, Brookings, 3-4:30 pm April 24
When
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
3:00 PM to 4:30 PM
Where
Saul/Zilkha Rooms
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC
Map
Participants
Introduction and Moderator
Ömer Taşpınar
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe
Featured Speakers
Selahattin Demirtaş
Co-Chairman
Peace and Democracy Party (BDP)
Ahmet Türk
Member of Turkish Parliament
Co-chair of the Democratic Society Congress (DTK)
6. (Re)Building an Effective Central Government in Afghanistan and Iraq, RTI International, 12 noon April 25
When: Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 12:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.
Where: RTI International, 701 13th Street, NW, Suite 750, Washington, D.C.
Please join the SID-Washington Governance, Corruption & Rule of Law Workgroup for a panel discussion examining state-building in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The sustainability of governance reforms in Afghanistan and Iraq is a key concern for both the US and its partners, and for citizens of those countries. What has been learned about what works to build, or rebuild, effective government? What challenges remain to be addressed? SID-Washington’s Governance, Corruption, and Rule of Law Workgroup will host a discussion with Larry Cooley, President, Management Systems International, to explore answers to these questions.
Speakers:
Larry Cooley, President, Management Systems International (MSI)
Workgroup Co-Chairs
Derick Brinkerhoff, Distinguished Fellow, International Public Management, RTI International
Tomas Bridle, Technical Area Manager, Responsive Government Institutions, Economic and Democratic Governance, DAI
Please bring your lunch to enjoy during the event.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This is called retrenchment
We all anticipated this State of the Union speech would not focus on international issues, but here is my short list of more important things not mentioned or glossed over:
- West Bank settlements (or Palestinians)
- North Korea
- Euro crisis
- Africa or Latin America (not even Cuba),
- Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, virtually no Egypt, Tunisia or Yemen
- China (except as an unfair competitor)
- Turkey, Mexico, Brazil, India or even Russia (except as an emerging market)
- Pakistan (except as an Al Qaeda haven)
- Strait of Hormuz
That’s a pretty spectacular list, even without noting the absence of NATO, Japan, allies, Europe, the UN…
A few notable items that were mentioned:
- Strong on regime change in Syria (putting Assad in the same sentence with Qaddafi could have implications) and on exporting democracy and free markets in general
- Positive about peaceful resolution of the dispute with Iran over nuclear weapons, while keeping all options on the table
- Trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia
- Burma as the hope of the Pacific!
Of course the President also mentioned withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, security cooperation with Israel, blows delivered against Al Qaeda, and the troops (no mention of civilians serving abroad this time around I’m afraid).
If this is a prelude to the campaign, as rightly it should be, it presages an ever more economically focused foreign policy, with security issues narrowed to a few top priorities and little focus on diplomacy except on a few specific issues. This is a vision for restoring American economic strength at home, not increasing–or perhaps even maintaining–its commitments abroad. This is called retrenchment.
PS: I should have mentioned that Richard Haas calls it “restoration.” That’s a more positive word, but the substance is the same.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
OK Santa Claus, here’s what I want
I’m hoping it’s true Yemen’s President Saleh is coming to the U.S. As that eagle-eyed young journalist Adam Serwer tweeted: “not to prosecute him…would be, u know, awkward.” That set me thinking about other good fortune that might come our way this Christmas eve:
1. Syria’s president Bashar al Assad decides he really wants to practice opthamology in London.
2. North Korea’s “supreme commander” Kim Jong Un wants to see professional American basketball so much he decides to give up the nuclear nonsense and buy an NBA team for Pyongyang instead. Lots more prestige and very lucrative.
3. Iran follows suit, abandoning its pan-Islamist pretensions, separating mosque and state and restoring close relations with Israel. It also buys an NBA team for Tehran.
4. Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki declares peace on earth and good will towards Sunnis and Kurds, steps down from power and invites Iraqiyya to name a replacement.
5. The new Islamist-run governments in Tunisia, Egypt (and yes, eventually) Libya follow the Iranian example, which convinces them separation of mosque and state are the best protection for religious freedom and will encourage religious devotion, as it seems to do in the U.S.
6. The Saudis rise to the occasion and do likewise, making the king a constitutional monarch to boot.
7. Bahrain does the same. Yemen gets not only a democratic government but lots of water.
8. Without implacable enemies, Prime Minister Netanyahu reaches a quick agreement with the Palestinians, whose state is admitted to the UN with no opposition.
9. The Taliban see that their Islamist counterparts in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are on to a good thing and reach a power sharing agreement with the Northern Alliance, jettisoning President Karzai and precipitating an early American withdrawal.
10. Pakistan follows up American withdrawal and the new government in Kabul by reaching a broad-ranging agreement with India, including self-determination for Kashmir.
11. Al Qaeda opens a resort on the Somali coast called “The Caliphate.”
12. I retire to observe the peaceful competition between China and the United States, who compete in ping pong but do everything else collaboratively.
If Santa Claus really does exist, children, he’ll bring me those things for the 12 days of Christmas. If he doesn’t, then…
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What threatens the United States?
The Council on Foreign Relations published its Preventive Priorities Survey for 2012 last week. What does it tell us about the threats the United States faces in this second decade of the 21st century?
Looking at the ten Tier 1 contingencies “that directly threaten the U.S. homeland, are likely to trigger U.S. military involvement because of treaty commitments, or threaten the supplies of critical U.S. strategic resources,” only three are defined as military threats:
- a major military incident with China involving U.S. or allied forces
- an Iranian nuclear crisis (e.g., surprise advances in nuclear weapons/delivery capability, Israeli response)
- a U.S.-Pakistan military confrontation, triggered by a terror attack or U.S. counterterror operations
Two others might also involve a military threat, though the first is more likely from a terrorist source:
- a mass casualty attack on the U.S. homeland or on a treaty ally
- a severe North Korean crisis (e.g., armed provocations, internal political instability, advances in nuclear weapons/ICBM capability)
The remaining five involve mainly non-military contingencies:
- a highly disruptive cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure (e.g., telecommunications, electrical power, gas and oil, water supply, banking and finance, transportation, and emergency services)
- a significant increase in drug trafficking violence in Mexico that spills over into the United States
- severe internal instability in Pakistan, triggered by a civil-military crisis or terror attacks
- political instability in Saudi Arabia that endangers global oil supplies
- intensification of the European sovereign debt crisis that leads to the collapse of the euro, triggering a double-dip U.S. recession and further limiting budgetary resources
Five of the Tier 2 contingencies “that affect countries of strategic importance to the United States but that do not involve a mutual-defense treaty commitment” are also at least partly military in character, though they don’t necessarily involve U.S. forces:
- a severe Indo-Pak crisis that carries risk of military escalation, triggered by major terror attack
- rising tension/naval incident in the eastern Mediterranean Sea between Turkey and Israel
- a major erosion of security and governance gains in Afghanistan with intensification of insurgency or terror attacks
- a South China Sea armed confrontation over competing territorial claims
- a mass casualty attack on Israel
But Tier 2 also involves predominantly non-military threats to U.S. interests, albeit with potential for military consequences:
- political instability in Egypt with wider regional implications
- an outbreak of widespread civil violence in Syria, with potential outside intervention
- an outbreak of widespread civil violence in Yemen
- rising sectarian tensions and renewed violence in Iraq
- growing instability in Bahrain that spurs further Saudi and/or Iranian military action
Likewise Tier 3 contingencies “that could have severe/widespread humanitarian consequences but in countries of limited strategic importance to the United States” include military threats to U.S. interests:
- military conflict between Sudan and South Sudan
- increased conflict in Somalia, with continued outside intervention
- renewed military conflict between Russia and Georgia
- an outbreak of military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, possibly over Nagorno Karabakh
And some non-military threats:
- heightened political instability and sectarian violence in Nigeria
- political instability in Venezuela surrounding the October 2012 elections or post-Chavez succession
- political instability in Kenya surrounding the August 2012 elections
- an intensification of political instability and violence in Libya
- violent election-related instability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
- political instability/resurgent ethnic violence in Kyrgyzstan
I don’t mean to suggest in any way that the military is irrelevant to these “non-military” threats. But it is not the only tool needed to meet these contingencies, or even to meet the military ones. And if you begin thinking about preventive action, which is what the CFR unit that publishes this material does, there are clearly major non-military dimensions to what is needed to meet even the threats that take primarily military form.
And for those who read this blog because it publishes sometimes on the Balkans, please note: the region are nowhere to be seen on this list of 30 priorities for the United States.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Getting ready for post-Assad Syria
While my enthusiasm for nonviolent revolution in Syria has not waned, some of the best pieces of the past week have focused on the risks involved.
International Crisis Group (ICG) weighed in with an analysis of where things might go wrong:
- the fate of the Alawite community;
- the connection between Syria and Lebanon;
- the nature and implications of heightened international
involvement;- the long-term impact of the protest movement’s growing
militarisation; and- the legacy of creeping social, economic and institutional
decay.
Patrick Seale offered a more generic warning of civil war and a far-fetched (or is it imaginative?) proposal for BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) mediation to avoid it (with thanks to Carne Ross for tweeting it).
Meanwhile, back at the Arab League they imposed in principle serious sanctions on Syria, including a ban on transactions with its central bank as well as travel by regime big shots and a halt to Arab development projects in Syria. As usual, some of the important stuff is not mentioned. Commercial air transportation with Syria will continue, assets in the Gulf have not been frozen, and neighbors Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan have not committed to complying with the sanctions, which will probably be implemented slowly and incompletely. Even if all were willing, the regime would find ways of taking advantage of sanctions to enrich its least savory characters.
One other thing is also certain: the longer it takes to get rid of Assad, the more difficult the transition to a democratic regime will be. No one can pretend that the Syrian National Council (SNC) is yet ready to govern, even if Libya and France have recognized it (the latter as a partner for dialogue and not a government). It needs to hasten its preparations, which so far seem rudimentary. The SNC (and other elements of the opposition?) will reportedly meet in Cairo within a week to elaborate its vision and plans for the transition. The Syrians could do worse than take that ICG list of issues and work on serious plans to resolve them.
PS: The UN Human Rights Commission “Report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic,” published this morning, makes grim reading. Here are a couple of randomly chosen paragraphs:
48. Several defectors witnessed the killing of their comrades who refused to execute orders to fire at civilians. A number of conscripts were allegedly killed by security forces on 25 April in Dar’a during a large-scale military operation. The soldiers in the first row were given orders to aim directly at residential areas, but chose to fire in the air to avoid civilian casualties. Security forces posted behind shot them for refusing orders, thus killing dozens of conscripts.
49. Civilians bore the brunt of the violence as cities were blockaded and curfews imposed. The commission heard many testimonies describing how those who ventured outside their homes were shot by snipers. Many of the reported cases occurred in Dar’a, Jisr Al Shughour and Homs. A lawyer told how security forces took positions in old Dar’a during the operation in April. Snipers were deployed on the hospital rooftop and other buildings. “They targeted anyone who moved”, he said. Two of his cousins were killed on the street by snipers.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
There are worse fates
The annual EU Forum, a confab sponsored by the Paris-based European Union Institute for Strategic Studies and SAIS’s Center for Transatlantic Relations, convened Thursday and Friday in Washington to focus American and European luminaries on the thing we all call the Arab Spring, even though we know it started last winter, varies from country to country and may not have results as upbeat as the appellation implies. Almost entirely missing from the day and a half conference were Arab voices. This was an opportunity for the “the West” to put its heads together, not for the revolutionaries or the oppressive regimes to offer their narrative.
They were nevertheless much present in the minds of the participants, who leaned towards enthusiasm for the values of the protesters, as well as their energy and determination, while worrying about the impact on Western interests. The three big areas of worry arise from
- the Islamists: what do they really mean by sharia law? will they really play fair in democracy?
- increased Arab support for the Palestinians: will it make the Israel/Palestine equation even more difficult to solve?
- sectarianism (will it lead to civil wars and possible spillover to other countries, especially in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen?
Underlying all was a sense that the West has precious few resources with which to respond effectively to the revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, to the continuing repression in Syria and Yemen, or to the reforms in Jordan and Morocco, never mind the still solid autocratic regimes in the Gulf or the fragmented polity in Palestine. No one seemed to feel Western credibility or influence was strong, especially in light of the long-standing support (and arms) both Europe and the U.S. had given to Arab autocracies in the past (and continue to provide to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and others even now). And everyone was aware that the Chinese, Turks, Brazilians, Indians and other emerging powers will play increasing roles in the Middle East, offering contracts and aid on terms far less complex and burdensome than those of the West.
The Europeans nevertheless came with a strong sense that the Middle East is their “southern neighborhood” and they need to up their game in response to changes that will affect their interests directly, whether through immigration, economic interdependence, oil and gas supplies, contracts, investment and myriad other ties. Precisely what they are going to do about it was not clear, and there was a strong sense that European policy on the Arab Spring has been re-nationalized. The British and French in particular are carving out their own distinct approaches, taking advantage of their forward role in the NATO military action against Qaddafi, while other countries are lagging and the EU itself is still contemplating the interior walls of the Berlaymont.
The Americans would like to focus more on Asia, not only Afghanistan/Pakistan but also China and North Korea as threats to national security. It was clear to all that Europe would not share this Asian interest to the same degree, but yesterday’s talk of Chinese financing to back the euro might change a few minds on that score. The problem for the Americans is that the Asian challenge requires a very different set of policy instruments from the Arab Spring, which apart from Egypt and Yemen Washington might rather leave primarily to the Europeans (no one of course says this quite so bluntly, but if you follow the money that is what they mean). Everyone expects, though, that NATO will remain somehow important and in the end the only real military instrument capable of effective power projection available to the Europeans.
There were lots of other points made. Trade and investment are far more important than aid. We need to be talking not only with secular women but also with Islamist women. Liberal economic reform, associated in Egypt and other countries with the old regimes, is in trouble, at least for the moment. Civil society in the Arab Spring countries needs Western support, but it should not be done through governmental channels but rather by nongovernmental organizations like the American National Endowment for Democracy (and the talked about European Endowment for Democracy). Western conditionality should focus on transparency and accountability rather than specific policy prescriptions.
I could go on, but I trust the sponsors will be doing a far better job of writing up in due course, and tweets are available from EUISS for those really interested. Bottom line: the West is fading even as its values spread. There are worse fates.
RSS - Posts
