Tag: Israel/Palestine
Peace Picks: March 4 to March 8
Quite a busy week:
1. Understanding the Behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Monday March 4, 9:00 AM- 11: 00 AM, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Mohsen Milani, Bijan Khajehpour, Geneive Abdo, Ellen Laipson, Sebastian Gräfe
You are invited to a discussion of a new paper by two Iranian scholars that examines the behavior of Iran’s government in a broad range of areas, including nuclear negotiations. The paper is based on discussions during the meeting of the Iran Advisory Group that the Stimson Center and the Heinrich Böll Foundation hosted last November in Berlin, Germany.
Panelists will review critical negotiations that begin Feb. 26 in Kazakhstan between the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and Iran designed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The panelists will shed light on the constellation of political power in Iran, discuss the behavioral patterns of the Iranian government, and suggest steps that can be taken to affect Iran’s behavior.
Website: http://www.boell.org/calendar/VA-viewe…
2. Unwilling to Wait: Why Activists are Taking the Initiative on the Peace Process, Monday 4, 12:00 PM-1:00 PM, Woodrow Wilson Center
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004
Speakers: Wasim Almasri, Tom Bar-Gal
This event is co-sponsored with OneVoice.
Two youth activists from OneVoice Palestine and OneVoice Israel will speak about their motivations to take personal responsibility to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through grassroots activism. In speaking about the ongoing challenges to resolving the conflict, they will discuss civil society efforts to overcome these obstacles. Given the many transitions taking place in the region, and OneVoices experience in the past ten years, Almasri and Bar-Gal will speak about their vision of where future opportunities for Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution lie and about the important role of the American foreign policy community in moving the peace process forward.
Website: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/unwi…
3. Can We Call Iraq a Success?, New America Foundation, 1899 L St., NW, Washington, DC 20036, Monday, March 4, 1:00 PM- 2:30 PM
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St, NW, Suite 400, Washington DC 20036
Speakers: Lt. Col. Joel Rayburn, U.S. Army Military Fellow, New America Foundation; Peter Bergen Director, National Security Studies Program, New America Foundation; Douglas A. Ollivant, Senior National Security Fellow, New America Foundation
As we approach the 10-year anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003, news of that country has largely faded from American headlines. But a myriad of questions remain to be answered about the eight-year American involvement in the Iraq War. Specifically, what were the major decision points for the United States, and what directions did the conflict take after those decisions were made? What was gained from the deaths of many of tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans, and hundreds of billions of dollars the war also consumed? And where is Iraq now in terms of security, economic strength, political stability, and alignment with U.S. regional interests?
Please join the New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program for a debate over these questions and more between Douglas A. Ollivant, who was Director for Iraq at the National Security Council during both the Bush and Obama administrations, and Lt. Col. Joel Rayburn, who served on the staff of General David Petraeus in Baghdad in 2007 and 2008, where he focused on political-military issues.
Website: http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/…
4. Constitutionalism and Human Rights in Tunisia: The Islamist-Led Democratic Transition Post-Arab Spring, Johns Hopkins SAIS, Tuesday March 5, 9:00 AM- 4:00 PM
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS- NItze Building, 1740 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington DC, 20036, Kenney Auditorium
Speakers: Nejib Ayachi, Mohamed Mattar, Issam Saliba, William Zartman, Alexis Arieff, Alaya Allani and more
Experts and policymakers will discuss post-revolution political and constitutional transitions, the future of minority rights and freedom of expression in Tunisia, and the relationship between Islamists in power and democratic transition in the context of the Arab Spring. For a complete conference agenda, visitbit.ly/YzShnG.
Website: http://sais-jhu.edu/events/2013-03-05-…
5. Understanding Conflict and Ethnic Violence in Kyrgyzstan, Elliot School of International Affairs, Tuesday March 5, 12:00 PM- 2:00 PM
Venue: Voesar Conference Room, Elliot School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052
Speaker: Neil Melvin
Neil Melvin, Director, Program Armed Conflict and Conflict Management, SIPRI
Over the last two decades, Kyrgyzstan has experienced two major outbreaks of violence involving the main ethnic communities in the country: the Kyrgyz and the Uzbeks. These violent incidents have generally been viewed as ethnic conflicts and much of the response to the violence from the government, local communities, and the international community has been framed within this understanding. At the same time, Kyrgyzstan has also experienced other, less significant violent events and political crises that have often been linked temporally to the ethnic conflicts. This suggests that a full understanding of the nature of armed conflict in Kyrgyzstan and the involvement of ethnic communities in violence at a minimum requires a broader examination of the context of the violence.
RSVP: tinyurl.com/March5-Melvin
Sponsored by the Central Asia Program
Website: http://www.elliottschool.org/events/ca…
6. Palestinian Refugees in a Changing Middle East, Foundation for Middle East Peace, Tuesday March 5, 12:00 PM- 1:00 PM
Venue: Middle East Institute, 1761 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speaker: Filippo Grandi
While profound changes sweep across many parts of the Middle East today, the plight and status of the Palestine refugees—a present day reminder of one of the very first Middle East crises in 1948—remain left behind, unresolved and in the shadows of these uncertain times. The dynamism of change for others in the region contrasts with the growing sense of stagnation, marginalization and new dangers faced by Palestine refugees. Since its creation in 1949, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has been at the forefront providing essential humanitarian and human development services to the now approximately 5 million registered Palestine refugees in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. The challenges to the Agency and its beneficiaries are many—from continuing to operate in some of the most dangerous parts of Syria, to addressing the aftermath of the recent war in Gaza, to providing care and protection to now 2nd and 3rd time Palestine refugees from Syria seeking safety and shelter in Lebanon and Jordan. UNRWA Commissioner-General Grandi will offer an update on the rising tensions in the region, the international community’s response and new dangers that lie ahead from the perspective of the Palestine refugee.
Filippo Grandi was appointed Commissioner-General of UNRWA on January 20, 2010 having previously served as Deputy Commissioner-General since October 2005. Prior to joining UNRWA, he distinguished himself in a variety of headquarters and field functions around the globe for the United Nations encompassing refugee assistance, protection, emergency management, donor relations, and humanitarian and political affairs.
Website: http://www.eventbrite.com/event/564758…
7. The Rise & Fall of Iran in Arab and Muslim Eyes- A New Poll, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Tuesday March 5, 12:30 PM- 2:00 PM
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington DC, 20004
Speakers: Jane Harman
Zogby Research Services will release their latest poll of views on Iran and its policies from 20 Arab and Muslim nations including the Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula States, the Maghreb, Egypt and Sudan and non-Arab Muslim neighbors of Turkey, Pakistan and Azerbaijan.
Website: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-…
8. Obama and the Middle East Peace Process: Déjà Vû?, New America Foundation, Washington DC 20036 Wednesday March 6, 9:15 AM-10:45 AM.
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20036
Speakers: Daniel Levy, Husam Zomlot, Hisham Melham, Matt Duss
On the heels of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reelection and in anticipation of President Obama’s forthcoming trip to Israel, the West Bank, and Jordanthe New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force will host a discussion on expectations for the visit and for the president’s second term.
We’ll examine the likely motivations for and possible outcomes of the President’s upcoming trip. Is the visit an attempt to reinvigorate his administration’s relationship with Netanyahu, restart peace talks, or an equal effort to achieve both objectives? Is the newly reelected Obama serious about an Israeli-Palestinian settlement? Does the new Israeli government (and a weakened Netanyahu) present a fresh opportunity for dialogue on a settlement? Or, will other regional conflicts take precedence on the agenda.
Join us for an in-depth analysis of these issues and more on March 6.
On Twitter? Follow @MideastChannel to join the conversation online.?
Website: http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/…
9. The Rise of Islamism: Its Impact on Religious Minorities, Hudson Institute, Washington DC 20005, Wednesday March 6, 12:00 PM-1:30 PM.
Venue: Hudson Institute, 1015 15th Street, NW, 6th Floor
Speakers: Nina Shea, Farahnaz Ispahani, Jamsheed K. Choksy, Anthony Vance, Stephen Schwartz
Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom invites you to attend
The Rise of Islamism: Its Impact on Religious Minorities
Wednesday, March 612:00 1:30 PM
Lunch will be served.
This event will be streamed live here: www.hudson.org/WatchLive.
Submit questions via Twitter: @HudsonInstitute
With the rise of Islamism in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa, religious minorities have come increasingly under siege. Already this year, nearly two hundred Hazara Shiite Muslims in Baluchistan, Pakistan have been killed in bombings launched by the Sunni extremist group Lashkar-e-Jangvi. In Egypt, the nation’s new constitution denies Baha’is the right to houses of worship, while Iran’s denies Baha’is any rights at all. In Mali, Islamists have destroyed historic Sufi shrines, and in Iraq, a campaign of terrorist violence has driven almost the entire Mandean community from its ancient homeland. Across a broad geographic area and in once culturally diverse societies, Christians, Jews, Baha’is, Ahmadi Muslims, Zoroastrians, Sufis, Shiites, Mandeans, Yizidis, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious minorities face a range of threats from ascendant Islamists.
Please join moderator Nina Shea, Hudson Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Religious Freedom, and our expert panel to discuss Islamism’s impact on religious minorities and recommendations to strengthen the cause of religious freedom and cultural pluralism.
Panelists will include former Pakistani Parliamentarian (2008-12) Farahnaz Ispahani; Professor of Iranian, Central Eurasian, and Islamic Studies at Indiana University Jamsheed K. Choksy; Director of the Office of Public Affairs for the Baha’is of the United States Anthony Vance; and Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism and author Stephen Schwartz.
Website: http://hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction…
10. What should Obama do on North Korea?, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Thursday March 7, 9:00 AM
Venue: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, NW, Washington
Speakers: Victor D. Cha, Walter L. Sharp
A Korea Chair Platform event with
Dr. Victor D. Cha
Senior Advisor and Korea Chair, CSIS
General (Ret) Walter L. Sharp
Former Commander of U.S. Combined Forces Command & USFK and
Amb. Joseph R. DeTrani Special Envoy for Six Party Talks with North Korea
Please join us for a Korea Chair Platform event with Victor Cha, Walter L. Sharp, and Joseph R. DeTrani. In the wake of the December 2012 missile launch and the February 2013 nuclear test, our distinguished panelists will share their views on the road ahead and what President Obama should do on North Korea. We hope you can join us!
To RSVP for this event, please email KoreaChair@csis.org.
The Korea Chair Platform is made possible by the generous support of Samsung Electronics America.
Website: http://csis.org/event/what-should-obam…
11. Reporting on Conflict in Burma: Challenges and Opportunities, US Institute of Peace, Thursday March 7, 10:00 AM- 11:30 AM
Venue: US Institute of Peace 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
Speakers: Stephen Gray, Thiha Saw, Kyaw Zen Thar, Theo Dolan, John Knaus
This event will be webcast live beginning at 10:00am ET on March 7, 2013 at www.usip.org/webcast. Join the conversation on Twitter with #BurmaMedia.
The opening of media freedoms in Burma by the government of Thein Sein has been gradual, but encouraging. The phasing out of formal censorship and the reinstitution of private daily newspapers are positive steps toward informing a public which is increasingly seeking out news and information. However, reliable coverage of ongoing conflicts in Burma, such as in Kachin and Arakan states, has been difficult to obtain. With information on these conflicts still largely controlled by the government, local journalists struggle to present a holistic picture of the violence.
This event will explore the steps that can be taken by the Burmese media, government and other key stakeholders to advance existing media freedoms in order to report more effectively on conflict. Experts will present an overview of the present conflicts in ethnic states and prospects for peace an analysis of media sector reforms, including current challenges and opportunities; and perspectives on conflict reporting from a journalist from Arakan state.
Website: http://www.usip.org/events/reporting-c…
12. Yemen’s Political Transition and Public Attitudes Toward the National Dialogue, National Democratic Institute, Thursday March 7 12:00 PM- 1:30 PM
Venue: National Democratic Institute455 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC
Speakers: Barbara Bodine, Les Campbell, John Moreira, Brian Katulis
The agreement brokered by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) for political transition in Yemen calls for a National Dialogue Conference to help the country’s leaders develop consensus for draft constitutional reforms and prepare for elections in 2014.During the past year, the transition has faced considerable challenges from wrangling among competing political factions to violent activity by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, tribal disputes, and a southern secessionist movement. Later this month, the country’s leaders will finally join together for the start of the National Dialogue Conference in an effort to end gridlock on the country’s stalled political reform process and address worsening economic conditions.
As the country heads into this important dialogue, how does the Yemeni public view the future of the nation and the priorities they want their leaders to address? What are the key points of consensus and disagreement we can expect during the dialogue? How can the United States government support Yemen’s political transition as it seeks to advance other national security interests?
Please join the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the Center for American Progress for a joint panel discussion featuring Barbara Bodine, Lecturer and Director of Scholars in the Nation’s Service at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School for Public and International Affairs and former U.S. Ambassador to Yemen; Les Campbell, NDI Senior Associate and Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa who has recently returned from pre-Dialogue discussions in Yemen; and John Moreira, lead consultant for Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research who oversaw recent polling in Yemen.
In conjunction with this event, the National Democratic Institute will release the results of a new public opinion poll conducted in Yemen.
Website: http://www.ndi.org/node/20111
13. Peacekeeping and Protection of Civilians in South Sudan: Rhetoric and Reality, US Institute of Peace, Friday, March 8, 10:00 AM- 11:30 AM
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, D.C.
Speakers: Hilde Johnson, Jon Temin
This event will be webcast live beginning at 10:00am ET at www.usip.org/webcast.
The United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS) maintains civilian protection as one of its core responsibilities. However, ethnic tensions and a weak national security architecture across South Sudan, coupled with UNMISS’s own limited resources, have made this objective of protecting civilians from physical violence difficult to achieve. There have been sporadic, violent tribal clashes in several South Sudanese states, most notably inter-communal violence in Jonglei state that has claimed hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.
USIP is pleased to host Ms. Hilde Johnson, special representative of the U.N. secretary-general and head of UNMISS, to discuss some of the challenges that UNMISS has faced and lessons learned in striving to protect civilians.
Website: http://www.usip.org/events/peacekeepin…
14.The Arab Awakening: Lessons Learned and Challenges Ahead, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Friday March 8, 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington DC, 20004
Speakers: Rami Khouri, Robin Wright
Rami Khouri, Former Public Policy Scholar, Woodrow Wilson Center; Director, Islam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs, American University of Beirut, Lebanon; Editor-at-large, The Daily Star
Robin Wright, Journalist and Author/Editor of eight books, most recently editor of ‘The Islamists Are Coming: Who They Really Are’
Website: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-…
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Textbook cases
Nathalie al Zyoud, a master’s student at SAIS, reports on Tuesday’s presentation here by Bruce Wexler, Yale professor emeritus of psychiatry and principal investigator for the Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land study “Victims and Our Narratives,” a study of portrayal of the “other” in Israeli and Palestinian school books.
School books shape attitudes about others and a sense of one’s own community, identity and homeland. These views are often reflected in the public statements of community leaders and are reformulated as accusations by each side in public debates. Textbook narratives can also promote rather than obstruct peace.
While Palestinian authorities were very receptive to the project, Israeli authorities refused to engage in the research.
The multi-confessional research team created a standardized method to rate the content of State-run secular and religious institutions using a curriculum approved by the Israeli Ministry of Education, as well as independent ultra-orthodox Israeli schools that used their own school books, the latter attended by 25% of Israeli children.
Between 1948 and 1994, Palestinians were restricted from creating their own educational material and used Jordanian and Egyptian textbooks under the supervision of the Israeli Ministry of Education. After the Oslo accords, Palestinians were given the authority to create their own school books. So the study looked at the Palestinian curriculum in public schools, attended by 76% of Palestinian children, private schools, and schools run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which all used the same textbooks. Islamic institutions, attended by about 800 students all together, were omitted from the sample because they used Jordanian school books. The study did not examine religious books. Scientific and mathematics books were also omitted.
The Team had a 93% agreement rate between examiners and very high inter-rater reliability.
The study found that, as to “characterization of the others,” Israeli state schools in general had more literary descriptions about the other then Palestinian school books. When characterizations did occur; Palestinian and Ultra-orthodox Israeli school books had more pronounced negative and very negative depictions of the other. Israeli state school had more positive references about the other.
|
Negative |
Very Negative |
Positive |
|
| Israeli State school |
23% |
26% |
11% |
| Israeli Ultra-Orthodox Schools |
39% |
34% |
7% |
| Palestinian Schools |
23% |
50% |
0% |
When raters examined the content of very negative language for terms that dehumanize, or demonize the other, they found that most textbooks primarily characterized the other as the enemy when they used very negative language.
|
Dehumanizing traits |
Demonizing traits |
Zoological traits |
Characterized as the enemy |
|
| Israeli State school |
6% |
1% |
0% |
75% |
| Israeli Ultra-Orthodox Schools |
12% |
0% |
0% |
56% |
| Palestinian Schools |
0% |
0% |
0% |
81% |
Looking at the characterizations about the actions of the other, the same pattern occurred: there was less negativity in Israeli state books.
While narratives depicting events about the other were not necessarily deemed false, schoolbooks opted to depict the negative truths about the other rather than highlight the positive truths. This has the potential of creating expectations about the behavior of others. When positive acts were mentioned, they referred to individual actions of the other, rather than group actions.
When textbooks portrayed the self-community, the opposite trend was noted, although in the Israeli state curriculum there was also a fair amount of self-criticism that was absent in the other school systems.
Few references were seen to Christianity in Israeli state schools, almost no references about Christians in Ultra-conservative Israeli schools and slightly more positive characterizations in Palestinian texts. Both Israeli and Palestinian school books depicted each other’s religion in neutral terms.
Photographs in Palestinian school books completely ignored Israel and focused on pictures with meaning to Palestinians. Maps in school books were indicative of the current territorial conflict: 95% of Palestinian maps did not mention Israel. In Ultra-conservative schools 95% of maps had no borders and 65% of Israeli state schools also used maps without borders. The only Palestinian schools to have maps with borders and labels were UNRWA schools.
Once completed, the research team sought to promote the study’s findings and disseminated the results broadly within both communities. The results triggered a lot of criticism, particularly from the Israeli Ministry of Education (MOE), despite the results depicting Israeli textbooks in a slightly more positive light. The Israeli MOE felt that hatred was incited elsewhere in Palestine and deemed the study biased, unprofessional, and significantly lacking in objectivity. The Palestinian Prime Minister, in his public statement, expressed satisfaction that the study confirmed that Palestinian textbooks did not contain blatant provocations, but committed to a full review of the state’s textbooks.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A new map
Professor Ian Lustick of the University of Pennsylvania thinks Israel needs a new map, as the old Zionist one is unsuited to its current circumstances, but he gave only general indications of the contours it might trace at a discussion today sponsored by the Foundation for Middle East Peace and the Middle East Policy Council.
Israel’s Zionist pillars no longer bear weight. Zionism assumed international sympathy for a democratic Jewish state, justified by the Holocaust. That has turned into international sympathy for a Palestinian state. Israel is no longer viewed as the vanguard of democracy, since it inequitably favors its Jewish population. The Holocaust has declined in relevance.
Israel is lost. Even on the left it sees no possibility of the two-state solution, or any other possible and satisfactory outcome. Its citizens live in existential dread, questioning whether the state will survive. It is no accident that the newest political party on the horizon is Yesh Atid: “There is a future.”
The main issue is the West Bank, where the settlements, a big increase in Palestinian population and stalemate in the peace process since before the second intifada has left Israel without a sense of purpose and without viable solutions. Democracy for the Palestinians is inimical to Israel. The tenets of Zionism provide no answer.
Is there a way out of the impasse? There are certainly catastrophic outcomes that are possible and even probable in a highly and artificially constrained situation. But there are also other serious options: a two-state solution that includes a viable Palestinian state with part of Jerusalem, a shareable narrative, generous compensation of refugees, abandonment of nuclear weapons throughout the region, an end to the use of force and removal of settlements, which are bad for Israeli security.
How could the situation be made to evolve in this direction? There is no visible political force within Israel pushing for it right now. Only in the universities is thinking of this sort evident. President Obama cannot do much, due to his own domestic constraints. But on his upcoming trip he might be able to nudge Israel in the right direction. A prisoner release would be a positive step. But it would not be useful to restart the Middle East peace process unless the President is prepared to put serious pressure on Israel by stopping aid.
Palestinian strategy at the moment is separation, boycott and delegitimization (including use of the International Criminal Court). It is a long-term strategy that does not preclude practical cooperation in the meanwhile. It does not require the peace process.
Israel is watching Syria attentively, especially the possible use of chemical weapons and transfers to Hizbollah, but it is not helping Bashar al Asad to hold on or hoping that whatever succeeds him will be an improvement. This is a realistic and moderate posture appropriate to the circumstances.
That was about the only glimmer of light in an otherwise dark picture.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks: February 25 to March 1
A relatively quiet but high quality week:
1. Al Qaeda in the United States
Date and Time: February 26 2013, 10-11 am
Address: Center for Strategic and International Studies
1800 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006
B1 Conference Center
Speakers: Michael Hayden, Robin Simcox, Stephanie Sanok
Description: In recent years, several individuals from a wide variety of backgrounds have attempted to attack the United States on behalf of al-Qaeda. These individuals have defied easy categorization, creating challenges for intelligence, law enforcement, and other agencies tasked with countering their activities. However, with the publication of ‘Al-Qaeda in the United States’, the Henry Jackson Society seeks to provide new insights into the al-Qaeda movement and its U.S. operations by rigorously analyzing those involved or affiliated with the organization. Please join CSIS and the Henry Jackson Society on February 26 for an on-the-record discussion of this new report and the nature of al-Qaeda-related terrorism in the United States.
Register for this event here: http://csis.org/event/al-qaeda-united-states
2. The United States, India and Pakistan: To the Brink and Back
Date and Time: February 26, 2013, 2-3 pm
Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
Speaker: Bruce Riedel
Description: India and Pakistan are among the most important countries in the 21st century. The two nations share a common heritage, but their relationship remains tenuous. The nuclear rivals have waged four wars against each other and have gone to the brink of war several times. While India is already the world’s largest democracy and will soon become the planet’s most populous nation, Pakistan has a troubled history of military coups and dictators, and has harbored terrorists such as Osama bin Laden. In his new book, Avoiding Armageddon: America, India and Pakistan to the Brink and Back (Brookings, 2013), Brookings Senior Fellow Bruce Riedel, director of Brookings Intelligence Project, clearly explains the challenge and importance of successfully managing America’s affairs with these two emerging powers while navigating their toxic relationship.
Based on extensive research and his experience advising four U.S. presidents on the region, Riedel reviews the history of American diplomacy in South Asia, the conflicts that have flared in recent years and the prospects for future crisis. Riedel provides an in-depth look at the Mumbai terrorist attack in 2008—the worst terrorist outrage since 9/11—and concludes with authoritative analysis on what the future is likely to hold for the United States and South Asia, offering concrete recommendations for Washington’s policymakers.
On February 26, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will host an event marking the release of Avoiding Armageddon. Bruce Riedel will discuss the history and future of U.S. relations with India and Pakistan and options for avoiding future conflagration in the region. Senior Fellow Tamara Wittes, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, will provide introductory remarks, and Tina Brown, editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast and Newsweek, will lead the discussion.
3. Democrats, Liberals, the Left and the Arab-Israeli Conflict
Date and Time: February 27 2013, 12 pm.
Address: Georgetown University
37 St NW and O St NW, Washington, DC
Edward B. Bunn, S.J. Intercultural Center CCAS Boardroom, 241
Speaker: Jonathan Rynhold
Description: Prof. Jonathan Rynhold (George Washington University) will present his analysis of the various grand strategies of Democrats, Liberals, and the Left towards the Middle East, as well as elite discourse and public attitudes towards the conflict. He explains the trend towards increasing criticism of Israel and increasing preference for a neutral approach to the conflict. Prof. Rynhold argues this is not simply to do with changes in Israeli policy but deeper changes within the Democratic Party and among liberals in their attitudes to foreign policy and politics in general.
Register for this event here: http://events.georgetown.edu/events/index.cfm?Action=View&CalendarID=349&EventID=101111
4. The Resistible Rise of Islamists?
Date and Time: February 27 2013, 12-1:30 pm
Address: Woodrow Wilson Center
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20004
Speakers: Moushira Khattab and Marina Ottaway
Description: Some call it the Islamist winter while others talk of revolution betrayed. Neither claim portrays accurately what is happening in Arab countries in the throes of popular uprisings and rapid political change. The rise of Islamist parties in the aftermath of the Arab uprisings took most by surprise, including in some cases the Islamist parties themselves, which were more successful than they dared to hope. Coupled with the disarray of the secular opposition, the success of Islamist parties augurs poorly for democracy, because a strong, competitive opposition is the only guarantee against the emergence of a new authoritarianism.
Register for this event here: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-resistible-rise-the-islamists
5. Economic Effects of the Arab Spring: Policy Failures and Mounting Challenges
Date and Time: February 28 2013, 12-1 pm.
Address: Middle East Institute
1761 N Street
Speakers: Dr. Zubair Iqbal and Dr. Lorenzo L. Perez
Description: The Middle East Institute is proud to host economists Dr. Zubair Iqbal and Dr. LorenzoPérez for an examination of the economic impact of the upheavals affecting Arab Spring countries, including Egypt and Tunisia. Since the 2011 uprisings, growth in the MENA region has slowed, inequality worsened, and unemployment increased, thus weakening the popular support needed for new governments to introduce difficult, but necessary, economic reforms. The speakers will address the reasons for the inadequate reforms taken by these new governments and the economic consequences of an unchanged policy environment. By focusing on developments in Egypt, they will highlight the economic challenges posed by recent events, strategies to address them and what role the international community can play in helping stabilize Arab economies.
Register for this event here: https://www.mei.edu/civicrm/event/register?id=300&reset=1
6. No One Saw It Coming: Civil Resistance, the Arab Spring and the Conflicts That Will Shape the Future
Date and Time: February 28, 5:30 pm
Address: Johns Hopkins/SAIS, 1740 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
Speaker: Peter Ackerman, Founding Chair, International Center for Nonviolent Conflict
Register here.
7. The 2013 Annual Kuwait Chair Lecture: US Military Intervention in Iraq: Cost and Consequences
Date and Time: February 28 2013, 6:30-7:45 pm
Address: Elliott School of International Affairs
1957 E Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20052
Harry Harding Auditorium
Speaker: Ambassador Edward W. (Skip) Gnehm Jr.
Description: Ambassador Edward W. (Skip) Gnehm, Jr., Kuwait Professor of Gulf and Arabian Peninsula Affairs, GW
The final convoy of U.S. combat forces withdrew from Iraq in December 2011, but the U.S. military intervention produced transformative effects that continue to reverberate in Iraq and throughout the region. On the 10 year anniversary of the U.S. intervention, Ambassador Gnehm will reflect on the costs and consequences of that action on the U.S., Iraq, specifically, and the Middle East, more broadly.
Register for this event here: https://docs.google.com/a/aucegypt.edu/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dEJIbXNYazRvODZyakN2aGJTNEFkUFE6MQ
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Doing little and doing a lot
Iran and North Korea are the two big nuclear non-proliferation challenges of our day. Iran is moving to acquire a capability that will allow it to move quickly to nuclear weapons, should the Supreme Leader decide his country needs weapons he has declared immoral. North Korea has exited the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and conducted its third nuclear test, with implicit and explicit resentment and threats against the United States.* So what can be done?
Non-proliferation experts at the Carnegie Endowment have published a series of three short pieces saying “not much”: we should focus on preventing North Korea from proliferating nuclear technology to others, on understanding and defining deterrence in Asia and missile defense, and on strategic consultations with the Chinese.
That seems close to the Obama Administration’s conclusions. It has said the necessary minimum in response to the latest North Korean test, but it has done nothing to rouse American public concerns and seems content to let the echoes fade. President Obama himself has made it clear he will also do nothing to offer further carrots to Pyongyang, which in his view is a mistake previous administrations have made in hopes of moderating the North’s behavior.
The hermit kingdom will continue to be isolated, poor and belligerent. We can hope that the prospect of American retaliation will make it reluctant to use its nuclear weapons against anyone. Both South Korea and Japan are likely to continue to refrain from going nuclear, as doing so would cause them big problems (especially with China and the US).
So the hope is we may be able to adjust to North Korea’s nuclear status without too much difficulty. That is much less likely with respect to Iran. There are two big problems arising from Iran’s push for nuclear technology: proliferation in the region and Israel.
The Center for a New American Security thinks Saudi Arabia will not go for nuclear weapons if Iran does. The American experts on Saudi Arabia I talk to are split on this issue. Some think Riyadh will definitely go nuclear, likely buying weapons from Pakistan rather than establishing their own program. Others doubt that. The uncertainty itself is enough to make me think we need to worry more about the consequences of Iranian nuclear weapons than we do about North Korea’s.
More important: Israel. The Israelis view the Iranian theocracy as irrational. The Iranians view the Jewish state as irrational. There is minimal communication between Tehran and Jerusalem. Deterrence depends on rationality and good communications. If Iran were to make and deploy nuclear weapons, the Israelis would need to decide on a nuclear posture in response. They have a second strike capability (on submarines), but they cannot wait to launch on launch. A very few nuclear weapons would deal a devastating blow to tiny Israel. It would have to launch on warning.
This is inherently destabilizing and highly dangerous for Iran. My guess is the Israelis would not just launch against whatever they could see being prepared for launch, but against every nuclear weapons site they know about in Iran, and perhaps not only those. We are talking here about a massive Israeli nuclear strike, not the surgical strikes conducted against the reactors in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007. So Iran getting a nuclear weapons decreases Iranian security as much as it decreases Israel’s.
That ironically gives me some hope that Tehran will stop short of making and deploying nuclear weapons. But it has to do so in a thoroughly transparent and verifiable way. If the P5+1 negotiations with Tehran at the end of the month in Almaty do not take a big step in this direction (but some are optimistic), we could well be on the way to an American strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, one with dramatic consequences not only for the US and Iran but for the rest of the world as well.
*Have doubts about the threats to the US part? Watch this North Korean propaganda film (with gratitude to the Washington Post and North Korea News:
Transcript:
North Korea has succeeded in proceeding with this nuclear test despite the United States’ increasingly unfair bully activities against North Korea. That United States that has no respect to others nor appreciation to equality…
It is not incorrect to state that the United States strong hostility policy and endless violence toward North Korea in the past 70 years has helped North Korea become one of the world’s strongest military power states.
Words spoken by the United States, a country that uses the law of jungle as the law of survival for fitness, is meaningless. As a result, North Korea’s high level nuclear test conducted against American imperialist invaders is a nuclear deterrent that protects our sovereignty.
Thus, the United States has practically guided North Korea towards nuclear testing and therefore needs to be considered as an American virtue.
North Korea’s third underground nuclear test! Let it be known once more that this is strictly our practical counter-measure for North’s safety and to protect its sovereignty from the aggressors. It is also a solemn warning that time is no longer on the side of the United States.
The people are watching. America should answer.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Talk is cheap
Calls for negotiated solutions are all the rage. Secretary of State Kerry wants one in Syria. The Washington Post thinks one is possible in Bahrain. Everyone wants one for Iran. Despite several years of failure, many are still hoping for negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Ditto Israel/Palestine. Asia needs them for its maritime issues.
It is a good time to remember the classic requirement for successful negotiations: “ripeness,” defined as a mutually hurting stalemate in which both parties come to the conclusion that they cannot gain without negotiations and may well lose. I might hope this condition is close to being met in Syria and Bahrain, but neither President Asad nor the Al Khalifa monarchy seems fully convinced, partly because Iran and Saudi Arabia are respectively providing unqualified support to the regimes under fire. Ripeness may well require greater external pressure: from Russia in the case of Syria and from the United States in the case of Bahrain, which hosts the US Fifth Fleet.
It is difficult to tell where things stand in the Afghanistan negotiations. While the Taliban seem uninterested, Pakistan appears readier than at times in the past. The Americans are committed to getting out of the fight by the end of 2014. President Karzai is anxious for his security forces to take over primary responsibility sooner rather than later. But are they capable of doing so, and what kind of deal are the Afghans likely to cut as the Americans leave?
Israel and Palestine have one way or another been negotiating and fighting on and off since before 1948. Objectively, there would appear to be a mutually hurting stalemate, but neither side sees it that way. Israel has the advantage of vast military superiority, which it has repeatedly used as an alternative to negotiation to get its way in the West Bank and Gaza. A settlement might end that option. The Palestinians have used asymmetric means (terrorism, rocket fire, acceptance at the UN as a non-member state, boycott) to counter and gain they regard as a viable state.
The Iran nuclear negotiations are critical, as their failure could lead not just to an American strike but also to Iranian retaliation around the world and a requirement to continue military action as Tehran rebuilds its nuclear program. The United States is trying to bring about ripeness by ratcheting up sanctions pressure on Tehran, which fears that giving up its nuclear program will put the regime at risk. It is not clear that the US is prepared to strike a bargain that ensures regime survival in exchange for limits on the nuclear program. We may know more after the P5+1 (US, UK, France, Russia, China + Germany) meet with Iran February 26 in Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Asia’s conflicts have only rarely come to actual violence. China, Korea (North and South), Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines and India are sparring over trade routes, islands, resources and ultimately hegemony. This risks arousing nationalist sentiments that will be hard to control, driving countries that have a good deal to gain from keeping the peace in some of the world’s fastest growing economies into wars that the regimes involved will find it difficult to back away from. Asia lacks an over-arching security structure like those in Europe (NATO, OSCE, G8, Council of Europe, etc) and has long depended on the US as a balancing force to preserve the peace. This has been a successful approach since the 1980s, but the economic rise of China has put its future in doubt, even with the Obama Administration’s much-vaunted pivot to Asia.
This is a world that really does need diplomacy. None of the current negotiations seem destined for success, though all have some at least small probability of positive outcomes. Talk really is cheap. I don’t remember anyone complaining that we had spent too much money on it, though some would argue that delay associated with negotiations has sometimes been costly. The French would say that about their recent adventure in Mali.
But war is extraordinarily expensive. Hastening to it is more often than not unwise. That is part of what put the United States into deep economic difficulty since 2003. If we want to conserve our strength for an uncertain future, we need to give talk its due.
RSS - Posts
