Tag: Israel/Palestine
Hagel needs Hegel
I don’t often write about Israel/Palestine issues. There are many other well-informed and intelligent people devoting their professional lives to what is euphemistically known as the Middle East “peace process.” It hasn’t gone anywhere for years, and expert opinion generally suggests it is not going anywhere anytime soon.
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t interesting developments. Neither facts nor opinion stand still just because negotiations are going no place. There is a growing inclination among right-wing Jews (Israelis and Americans) to think that they can annex the West Bank without incurring the risk that Arabs will outnumber Jews in this Greater Israel. Either the Arabs will be governed separately and won’t have political rights within Israel, or the Israelis will pay them to leave and go to Jordan, where the Hashemite monarchy is looking shaky anyway.
Let me be clear: either of these solutions is a heinous proposition, the first for an apartheid regime and the second for ethnic cleansing, even if accomplished by financial incentives rather than force. But there are apparently substantial numbers of Israeli Jews (nowhere near a majority yet) willing to consider these propositions rather than the now more commonly accepted two-state solution, which would maintain the Jewish majority in Israel by allowing a Palestinian state to govern the West Bank and (in the traditional proposition) also Gaza. Prime Minister Netanyahu is arguably among those who appear to find a one-state proposition attractive.
A Palestinian Linked-in colleague asked these questions the other day:
1- if Israel have Any intention of an honest and fruitful dialogue to negotiate for a two state solution, why are they still granting new permissions to build hundreds of illegal units in the illegal settlements built on Palestine occupied land?
2- The withholding of the Palestinian Tax funds by the Israeli government which is leaving over 116 thousand Palestinian employees without salaries
Is that a collective punishment? How long Israel think that the Palestinian will remain cross handed ?
These are perfectly good questions, but I fear the answer is all too obvious: the Israelis building in the settlements and withholding tax revenue from the Palestinian Authority are not interested in the two-state solution. They are pursuing their BATNA: best alternative to a negotiated solution, which is one state without Palestinian votes (or possibly without Palestinians).
The question is how Americans and Palestinians should react to this situation.
As for the Americans, President Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense seems to me a correct response, though it is presumably being done for many other reasons as well. Hagel is a determined two-stater. I hope this will be backed up by a substantial portion of the American Jewish community, most of which understands perfectly well that holding on to the West Bank would some day end Israel’s identity as a Jewish state. The big problem in the United States is not the Jews, who voted overwhelmingly for President Obama, but rather evangelical Christians, who appear to have convinced a lot of Republican members of Congress that Hagel ‘s two-state approach betrays inadequate support for Israel.
I cannot speak for Palestinians, but their choices are clear: a re-opened negotiation, a new intifada or a non-violent uprising of a sort that has not been seen so far. A re-opened negotiation is unlikely, since Palestinian President Abbas has, understandably but unfruitfully, insisted on an end to settlement activity as a pre-condition.
It is hard for me to imagine in the wake of the violence that has prevailed recently in the Arab spring that the next rebellion in the Palestinian territories will be nonviolent, much as I believe that would be more effective. It is far more likely that Israel’s growing interest in holding on to the West Bank will generate another violent uprising. But that won’t help the Palestinians to make the case that their state already exists, as they and the UN General Assembly would like to claim. Nor will it convince the Israelis to go back to the bargaining table.
Is there an alternative? Avner Cohen proposes an unlikely one: Asma Aghbarieh-Zahalka, the Arab leader of a non-sectarian, non-ethnic Jewish and Arab political party. Would that life were like that. The sad fact is that Israeli politics will be driven for the foreseeable future by Prime Minister Netanyahu and his increasingly nationalist allies.
I’m afraid the bottom line is that things aren’t likely to go anywhere anytime soon, but Hagel will have a rough time in his confirmation hearing on Israel/Palestine issue. He is going to need some of Hegel’s ability to reconcile the irreconcilable.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
War with Iran in 2013?
Reuters published this piece today, under what I regard as the misleading title “Will this be the year that Israel goes to war with Iran?”
Israel did not bomb Iran last year. Why should it happen this year?
Because it did not happen last year. The Iranians are proceeding apace with their nuclear program. The Americans are determined to stop them. Sanctions are biting, but the diplomatic process produced nothing visible in 2012. Knowledgeable observers believe there is no “zone of possible agreement.” Both the United States and Iran may believe that they have viable alternatives to a negotiated agreement.
While Israel has signaled that its “red line” (no nuclear weapons capability) won’t be reached before mid-2013, it seems likely it will be reached before the end of the year. President Barack Obama has refused to specify his red line, but he has made it amply clear that he prefers intensified sanctions and eventual military action to a nuclear Iran that needs to be contained and provides incentives for other countries to go nuclear. If and when he takes the decision for war, there is little doubt about a bipartisan majority in Congress supporting the effort.
Still, attitudes on the subject have shifted in the past year. Some have concluded that the consequences of war with Iran are so bad and uncertain that every attempt should be made to avoid it. Most have also concluded that Israel could do relatively little damage to the Iranian nuclear program. It might even be counter-productive, as the Iranians would redouble their efforts. The military responsibility lies with President Obama.
There has been a recent flurry of hope that the Iranians are preparing to come clean on their past nuclear weapons activities, which could be a prelude to progress on the diplomatic track. The issue is allegedly one of timing and sequencing: the Iranians want sanctions relief up front. The Americans want to see enrichment to 20 percent stopped and the enriched material shipped out of the country, as well as a full accounting for past activities, before considering any but minor sanctions relief. Some would also like to see dismantling of the hardened enrichment plant at Fordow.
But the fundamental issue is whether Iran is prepared to give up its nuclear weapon ambitions, or whether it is determined to forge ahead. Iranian behavior in the last year suggests no let-up in the country’s regional (and wider) pretensions. It has supported Bashar al-Assad to the hilt in Syria, armed Hamas for its confrontation with Israel, continued to support Hezbollah in Lebanon, assisted North Korea’s ballistic missile satellite launch and made trouble in Iraq. Why would it not also seek nuclear weapons, which would make it immune (or so many in the Iranian regime seem to think) from American regime change efforts?
There are not a lot of good answers to that question, except this: a reasonable man in Tehran might well conclude that Iranian national security is better served by stopping the nuclear program before it actually produces weapons. Once Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the United States will target it. Israel will launch on warning. This hair trigger situation will be more perilous than the nuclear confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War, when each side assumed the rationality of the other and communications between them were good. Neither Iran nor Israel assumes the other will behave rationally, making deterrence unreliable, and communications between the two governments are virtually non-existent. The distance between Tehran and Jerusalem makes quick decisions necessary.
Two big political uncertainties loom over the nuclear issue next year: Iran is scheduled to hold presidential elections in June and the Supreme Leader is thought to be ill. The identity of neither Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s successor as president nor Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s as Supreme Leader is clear. While it may be too much to hope that the successors will be any better than the incumbents, any transition introduces diplomatic delays and uncertainties, even though the nuclear program should be expected to proceed. But will the transitions be orderly, or will the Greens who roiled Iran’s political sphere last time around revive? Iran’s regime has deep roots in revolutionary fervor, which has made it more resilient than Egypt’s. But that does not mean it will last forever.
There is still a slim hope for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. The prospects are not good, but the consequences of failure are dreadful. The Obama Administration has managed to avoid overt commentary on Iran in the last couple of months. Candidate Romney was cautious during the campaign. The door is clearly open to the Iranians, if they want to come in from the cold of sanctions and isolation. If they fail to do so, and continue to buck the international community, war in 2013 is likely. Not because it is a good solution, but because President Obama might regard it as the only solution, albeit a temporary and highly uncertain one.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Prevent what?
Most of us who work on international affairs think it would be much better to use diplomacy to prevent bad things from happening rather than waiting until the aftermath and then cleaning up after the elephants, which all too often involves expensive military action. But what precisely would that mean? What do we need to prevent?
The Council on Foreign Relations survey of prevention priorities for 2013 was published last week, just in time to be forgotten in the Christmas rush and New Year’s lull. It deserves notice, as it is one of the few nonpartisan attempts to define American national security priorities. This year’s edition was in part crowd-sourced and categorizes contingencies on two dimensions: impact on U.S. interests (high, medium, low) and likelihood (likely, plausible, unlikely).
Syria comes out on top in both dimensions. That’s a no-brainer for likelihood, as the civil war has already reached catastrophic dimensions and is affecting the broader region. Judging from Paul Stares’ video introduction to the survey, U.S. interests are ranked high in part because of the risk of use or loss of chemical weapons stocks. I’d have ranked them high because of the importance of depriving Iran of its one truly reliable ally and bridge to Hizbollah, but that’s a quibble.
CFR ranks another six contingencies as high impact on U.S. interests and only plausible rather than likely. This isn’t so useful, but Paul’s video comes to the rescue: an Israeli military strike on Iran that would “embroil” the U.S. and conflict with China in the East or South China seas are his picks to talk about. I find it peculiar that CFR does not treat what I would regard as certainly a plausible if not a likely contingency: a U.S. attack on Iran. There are few more important decisions President Obama will need to make than whether to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Certainly it is a far more challenging decision than whether to go to war against China in the territorial disputes it is generating with U.S. allies in Pacific. I don’t know any foreign policy experts who would advise him to go in that direction.
It is striking that few of the other “plausible” and high-impact contingencies are amenable to purely military responses:
- a highly disruptive cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure
- a mass casualty attack on the U.S. homeland or on a treaty ally
- severe internal instability in Pakistan, triggered by a civil-military crisis or terror attack
It is not easy to determine the origin of cyberattacks, and not clear that a military response would be appropriate or effective. The same is also sometimes true of mass casualty attacks; our military response to 9/11 in Afghanistan has enmired the United States in its longest war to date, one where force is proving inadequate as a solution. It is hard to imagine any military response to internal instability in Pakistan, though CFR offers as an additional low probability contingency a possible U.S. military confrontation with Islamabad “triggered by a terror attack or U.S. counterterror operations.”
In the “moderate” impact on U.S. interests, CFR ranks as highly likely “a major erosion of security in Afghanistan resulting from coalition drawdown.” I’d certainly have put that in high impact category, as we’ve still got 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and a significant portion of them will still be there at the end of 2013. In the “moderate” impact but merely plausible category CFR ranks:
- a severe Indo-Pakistan crisis that carries risk of military escalation, triggered by a major terror attack
- a severe North Korean crisis caused by another military provocation, internal political instability, or threatening nuclear weapons/ICBM-related activities
- a significant increase in drug trafficking violence in Mexico that spills over into the United States
- continuing political instability and emergence of a terrorist safe haven in Libya
Again there are limits to what we can do about most of these contingencies by conventional military means. Only a North Korea crisis caused by military provocation or threats would rank be susceptible to a primarily military response. The others call for diplomatic and civilian responses in at least a measure equal to the possible military ones.
CFR lets two “moderate” impact contingencies languish in the low probability category that I don’t think belong there:
- political instability in Saudi Arabia that endangers global oil supplies
- renewed unrest in the Kurdish dominated regions of Turkey and the Middle East
There is a very real possibility in Riyadh of a succession crisis, as the monarchy on the death of the king will likely move to a next generation of contenders. Kurdish irredentist aspirations are already a big issue in Iraq and Syria. It is hard to imagine this will not affect Iran and Turkey before the year is out. Neither is amenable to a purely military response.
Most of the contingencies with “low” impact on U.S. interests are in Africa:
- a deepening of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo that involves military intervention from its neighbors
- growing popular unrest and political instability in Sudan
- military conflict between Sudan and South Sudan
- renewed ethnic violence in Kenya surrounding March 2013 presidential election
- widespread unrest in Zimbabwe surrounding the electoral process and/or the death of Robert Mugabe
- failure of a multilateral intervention to push out Islamist groups from Mali’s north
This may tell us more about CFR and the United States than about the world. Africa has little purchase on American sentiments, despite our half-Kenyan president. All of these contingencies merit diplomatic attention, but none is likely to excite U.S. military responses of more than a purely emergency character, except for Mali. If you’ve got a few Islamist terrorists, you can get some attention even if you are in Africa.
What’s missing from this list? CFR mentions
…a third Palestinian intifada, a widespread popular unrest in China, escalation of a U.S.-Iran naval clash in the Persian Gulf, a Sino-Indian border crisis, onset of elections-related instability and violence in Ethiopia, unrest in Cuba following the death of Fidel Castro and/or incapacitation of Raul Castro, and widespread political unrest in Venezuela triggered by the death or incapacitation of Hugo Chavez.
I’d add intensification of the global economic slowdown (high probability, high impact), failure to do more about global warming (also high probability, delayed impact), demographic or financial implosion in Europe or Japan (and possibly even the U.S.), Russian crackdown on dissent, and resurgent Islamist extremism in Somalia. But the first three of these are not one-year “contingencies,” which shows one limit of the CFR exercise.
I would also note that the world is arguably in better shape at the end of 2012 than ever before in history. As The Spectator puts it:
Never has there been less hunger, less disease or more prosperity. The West remains in the economic doldrums, but most developing countries are charging ahead, and people are being lifted out of poverty at the fastest rate ever recorded. The death toll inflicted by war and natural disasters is also mercifully low. We are living in a golden age.
May it last.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
Slowing for the holidays, but still some interesting events.
1. The World in 2013 – Admiral Mike Mullen and Jessica Matthews, Monday December 17, 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM, U.S. Carnegie Endowment
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Mike Mullen and Jessica Matthews
How will President Obama use American power in 2013? Will the United States ever restore its fiscal health? And how can Obama ensure the U.S. rebalance toward Asia succeeds? Join us for an in-depth conversation between Admiral Mike Mullen and Carnegie’s Jessica T. Mathews as they discuss the foreign policy landscape confronting the president in 2013.
Register for this event here.
2. Book Event: U.S.-China Relations After the Two Leadership Transitions: Change or Continuity?, Monday December 17, 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM, CSIS
Venue: CSIS, 1800 K Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, B1 Conference Room
Speakers: Andrew J. Nathan, Andrew Scobell, David M. Lampton, Randy G. Schriver, Bonnie S. Glaser
Leadership transitions have brought new leaders to office in China while confirming President Obama in a second term: do these events portend change or continuity in U.S.-China relations? In their new book, China’s Search for Security, Andrew J. Nathan and Andrew Scobell argue that the key to understanding China’s foreign policy is to grasp its geostrategic challenges: despite its impressive size and population, economic vitality, and drive to upgrade its military capabilities, China remains a vulnerable nation surrounded by powerful rivals and potential foes. Even as the country grows and comes to dominate its neighbors, challenges remain, foremost among them, in the eyes of China’s leaders, the United States. The Obama administration, for its part, looks set to continue its policy pivot to Asia. The authors will discuss their book, analyzing China’s security concerns and how the U.S. can protect its interests in Asia without triggering a confrontation with China.
Register for this event here.
3. What is in Store for a Post-Asad Syria?, Tuesday December 18, 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM, Center for National Policy
Venue: Center for National Policy, One Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001, Suite 333
Speakers: Gregory Aftandilian, Mona Yacoubian, Joseph Holliday
With the end finally nearing for the Assad regime, the question of what type of government will emerge in Syria looms over the horizon. Will it be inclusive and tolerant of minority groups? Will it prevent retribution killings of Alawites? Will the Syrian state remain whole or will some minority groups like the Kurds and the Alawites try to carve out separate statelets? Join CNP’s Senior Fellow for the Middle East, Gregory Aftandilian, and a panel of experts to discuss these timely issues.
Register for this event here.
4. Is Peace Possible?, Wednesday December 19, 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 400
Speakers: James Zogby, Lara Friedman, Yousef Munayyer, Peter Beinart
The Arab American Institute and the New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force invite you to the launch of a critical public opinion survey on what Palestinians and Israelis want in a peace deal and their thoughts about the prospects for achieving it.
During the month of September, 2012, Zogby Research Services conducted a comprehensive, unprecedented survey of Israeli Jews and Arabs; Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem; Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan; and the American Jewish community. The poll was conducted for the Sir Bani Yas Forum in the UAE. Join us for the survey’s public release and a discussion of what Palestinians and Israelis really think about peace.
Register for this event here.
5. Strengthening the Global Partnership Against the Spread of WMD, Thursday December 20, 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM, Hudson Institute
Venue: Hudson Institute, 1015 15th Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, 6th Floor
Speakers: Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins, Andrew Semmel, Richard Weitz
Recent years have seen several nuclear smuggling incidents and revelations regarding the extensive scope of past illicit WMD proliferation activities. An effective international nuclear security strategy requires a broad network of stakeholders to gather knowledge and secure nuclear weapons-related materials and technologies; prevent their misuse; and reduce the risks caused by their availability.
What steps can the United States and other countries take to strengthen nuclear material security in coming years? Please join us to discuss the lessons learned, critical challenges, and the path forward for the G8 Global Partnership in the 21st century.
Register for this event here.
6. The Future of U.S.-Taiwan Relations: Impressions from CNP’s 2012 Scholars Delegation, Thursday December 20, 12:00 PM – 1:15 PM, Center for National Policy
Venue: Center for National Policy, One Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001, Suite 333
Speakers: Malou Innocent, Jacqueline N. Deal, Michael Breen, Scott Bates, Anthony Woods, John Garafano, Michael Auslin, Andrew Lavigne
Less than a month after the November reelection of President Obama, CNP sent a U.S. Scholars Delegation comprised of current and next generation policy experts and decision makers to meet with Taiwanese officials, trade experts and academics, to examine the future of U.S.-Taiwan relations. Join CNP President Scott Bates and members of the delegation as they offer views on their recent visit to Taipei.
Register for this event here.
7. Benghazi Attack, Part II: The Report of the Accountability Review Board, Thursday December 20, 1:00 PM, House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Venue: House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 2170 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Speaker: Hillary Rodham Clinton
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Downward spiral
That’s where the Israel/Palestine negotiations are headed, at least for the moment. BATNA is your “best alternative to a negotiated agreement.” The Palestinians resorted to their BATNA with their successful effort last month at the UN General Assembly to get recognized as a non-member state. Israel is now resorting to its BATNA: freezing of tax revenues it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority and plans to build apartments for Jews in politically sensitive areas of the West Bank. This may not look like negotiation, but it is negotiation of sorts. Just not at a negotiating table.
Israel seems to have a lot better BATNAs than Palestine, at least for the moment. Palestine won a symbolic victory at the UN. Israel can really block the formation of a viable, contiguous Palestinian state on the West Bank by constructing settlements. It can wreck havoc on Palestinian finances, weakening the already feeble Palestinian Authority. Prime Minister Netanyahu is also intent on getting Egypt to take more responsibility for Gaza, thus further reducing the possibility that Fatah and Hamas will get together and confront him with a unified Palestinian polity.
There is a good deal of moaning and groaning among Middle East experts about the inactivity of the Americans. President Obama seems intent on not doing the kind of heavy lifting on the Middle East peace process he attempted at the beginning of his first term. This too is BATNA: if Israelis and Palestinians are going to resort to theirs, he figures he can resort to his, which is not to do much. His minions say we can’t want a solution more than they do.
The irony here is that Israelis are not comfortable going to their BATNA. A (declining) majority of Israeli Jews thinks the Israeli government should accept the Arab Peace Initiative, which is based on Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace agreements with Arab governments. At the same time, it looks very much as if the Israelis will re-elect Netanyahu, with an even more nationalist coalition than in the past. So things are not headed in the direction most people would like, but they are voting as if they don’t care.
Palestinians are more evenly split on the two-state solution. Their enthusiasm for Hamas, however, is already beginning to fade. as I had predicted. They are exceedingly unhappy with Israel’s construction plans but have no way of responding without making things worse. The best they have been able to do is get the Europeans to make unhappy noises, which is not something likely to affect Israeli behavior.
Meanwhile the Americans are waiting for the parties to come to the table. As Hillary Clinton said last week:
if and when the parties are ready to enter into direct negotiations to solve the conflict, President Obama will be a full partner.
But he seems unwilling or unable to block either the Israeli or the Palestinian resort resort to BATNA. We are not yet in a tailspin in the Middle East, but this is certainly a down spiral.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
December starts with a busy week.
1. Working in Fragile States: Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding with Impact, Monday December 3, 9:30 AM – 12:30 PM, Care International
Venue: 1825 I street NW, Washington, DC 20006, 12th Floor
Speakers: Rachel Goldwyn, Jonathan White, Marshall Wallace, John Filson
Violent Conflict and ‘situations of fragility’ represent significant challenges for aid effectiveness. Applying traditional development approaches in an unchanged fashion in such contexts simply does not work. As is now often pointed out, no low income fragile or conflict-affected country has yet to achieve a single Millennium Development Goal. CARE invites you to a morning to discuss how NGOs and donors could be working more effectively in their peacebuilding, development and humanitarian responses in fragile states. First looking at conflict sensitivity and second examining how using theories of change in project design, monitoring and evaluation can improve the results of peacebuilding and other social mobilization programming. Two sessions will offer a platform for discussion, inter-agency learning, and the distribution of two new guides to the topics launched this year. Please feel free to come to one or boths essions, or to follow online via WebEx (for the URL, please email Betsy Deas bdeas@care.org). Refreshments will be served in the interval.
Session 1 – 9:30am-10:30am: ‘How to Guide’ to Conflict Sensitivity
Session 2 – 11:00am – 12:30pm: Defining Theories of Change Towards Peace; Peacebuilding with Impact
RSVP for this even to Betsy Deas at bdeas@care.org.
2. Counterterrorism in Africa, Monday December 3, 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM, George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute
Venue: The George Washington University, Duques Hall, School of Business, 2201 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, First Floor, Room 151
Speakers: Carter H. Ham, W. Russell Ramsey, Frank J. Cilluffo
On Monday, December 3rd, 2012, HSPI will host an event featuring General Carter F. Ham, Commander, U.S. Africa Command. General Ham will share his perspectives on the security challenges and opportunities facing the United States in Africa. He will address a range of issues affecting the regional security and stability of Africa, and will speak to developments in the region, including the terrorism threat in the Maghreb, the Sahel, and in the Horn of Africa.
Register for this event here.
3. US Policy in the Middle East in Obama’s Second Term, Tuesday December 4, 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM, SETA Foundation at Washington DC
Venue: SETA Foundation at Washington DC, 1025 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 1106
Speakers: Rob Malley, Leila Hilal, Trita Parsi, Erol Cebeci, Kadir Ustun
There is a broad range of expectations from President Obama’s second term. Those who expect a dramatically different Middle East policy in his second term cite the unsustainability of the cautious involvement of the first term. Others argue that the US involvement will continue to be highly risk-averse. While the US sorely wants to avoid the high price of missteps and misadventures, the regional turmoil and uncertainty continue unabated, as the regional order is shaken to its core. How will the American position in the region look like over the next four years? What are the vital American interests that may trigger a stronger involvement? How can the US work with regional actors to address stability and legitimate governments simultaneously? What are the prospects of a more robust US role in the Middle East?
Join us for a discussion on the US policy in the Middle East during the second Obama administration.
Register for this event here.
4. China and the Middle East: Rising Power and a Region in Turmoil, Tuesday December 4, 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM, Middle East Institute
Venue: Middle East Institute, 1761 N Street NW, Washington DC, 20036, Boardman Room
Speakers: Yitzhak Shichor, Dawn Murphy, Sam Chester
This program features three experts on China’s relations with the Middle East. The speakers will address two central questions: What challenges has China faced as a result of the political upheaval in the Arab World and the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program? In light of these challenges, how, and how well has China managed to protect and promote its interests in the region? Join us for a discussion on this important and under-examined topic.
Register for this event here.
5. The Future of Humanitarian Action, Tuesday December 4, 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM, CSIS
Venue: CSIS, 1800 K Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, B1 Conference Room
Speakers: Pierre Krähenbühl, William J. Garvelink
Please join ICRC’s Pierre Krähenbühl and CSIS’s Ambassador William J. Garvelink for a discussion of the ‘The Future of Humanitarian Action’, the latest edition of the International Review of the Red Cross, a quarterly publication published by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
The international community is experiencing serious challenges to the humanitarian aid system. These include the direct targeting of humanitarian personnel, the rise of new actors, new ‘megatrends’ of disasters related to climate change and migration, advances in internet and communication technology and the militarization of aid. ICRC Director of Operations Pierre Krähenbühl will launch this latest edition of the Review, which explores these and other related themes, and complement it with his own global operational perspective. Ambassador Garvelink will then guide this important discussion about the future of humanitarianism
RSVP for this event to Farha Tahir at ftahir@csis.org.
6. Negotiating the Arab Spring: Policy Options, Tuesday December 4, 4:30 PM – 6:30 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Rome Building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Rome Auditorium
Speakers: Fen Osler Hampson, Ellen Laipson, William Zartman, Regina Joseph, Floor Janssen
Fen Osler Hampson, distinguished fellow and director of the Global Security Centre for International Governance Innovation; Ellen Laipson, president of the Stimson Center; I. William Zartman, professor emeritus at SAIS; and Instituut Clingendael research fellows Regina Joseph and Floor Janssen will discuss this topic
RSVP for this event to itlong@jhu.edu.
7. Comparative Instability in the Balkans and the Middle East, Tuesday December 4, 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Rome Building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Rome Auditorium
Speaker: David Kanin
David Kanin, professorial lecturer in the SAIS European Studies Program and former senior analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency, will discuss this topic. Note: The speaker’s comments will be off the record. A reception will follow the event in Room 812, Rome Building.
For more information contact ntobin@jhu.edu.
8. The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Conflict in the 21st Century, Wednesday December 5, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Rome Building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Rome Auditorium
Speaker: Brian Grim
Brian Grim, senior researcher and director of cross-national data at the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life, will discuss this topic.
RSVP for this event to slee255@jhu.edu.
9. The Last Refuge: Yemen, Al-Qaeda, and America’s War in Arabia, Wednesday December 5, 12:15 PM – 1:45 PM, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 400
Speakers: Gregory Johnsen, Peter Bergen
Over the past few years, U.S. counterterrorism officials have frequently highlighted the blows America has dealt to al-Qaeda, especially those to its central command in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But officials also continue to warn about the persistent threat posed by al-Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers that have flourished in places such as Yemen and North Africa. Gregory Johnsen, a Ph.D. candidate at Princeton and one of the preeminent scholars of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, examines the organization’s last strongholds in his new book The Last Refuge: Yemen, Al-Qaeda, and America’s War in Arabia. In a recent piece for the New York Review of Books, Robert Worth called Johnsen’s book, “an authoritative and deftly written account of al-Qaeda’s Yemeni incarnation.”
Please join the New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program for a conversation with Gregory Johnsen about The Last Refuge and the future of U.S. efforts to counter the violent ideology espoused by al-Qaeda supporters in Yemen
Register for this event here.
10. Annual Energy Outlook 2013, Wednesday December 5, 1:00 PM – 2:30 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Nitze Building, 1740 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Kenny-Herter Auditorium
Speaker: Adam Sieminski
Adam Sieminski, administrator at the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), will present the agency’s projections of U.S. energy supply, demand and prices to 2040 with the early release of the reference case projections from the “Annual Energy Outlook 2013.”
Members of the media who want to cover this event should contact Felisa Neuringer Klubes in the SAIS Communications Office at 202.663.5626 or fklubes@jhu.edu.
RSVP for this event to saisereglobal@jhu.edu.
11. U.S.-Israeli Missile Defense Cooperative Programs: What Is Next?, Wednesday December 5, 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM, Heritage Foundation
Venue: Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20002, Lehrman Auditorium
Speakers: Gabriel Scheinmann, Baker Spring, Randy Jennings
This past July President Obama signed the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, which has been designed to give Israeli forces a qualitative edge over their current and future adversaries. The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $948 million for all cooperative missile defense efforts between the United States and Israel. Specifically, the House version of the NDAA provides $680 million to fund Israel’s Iron Dome System through the fiscal years of 2012 through 2015. There is strong bipartisan congressional support for missile defense cooperation with Israel, which would enhance the overall defense posture for both countries.
Join us as our panel discusses the U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense efforts, the role of U.S. experience in cooperating on these issues, and the future of the Iron Dome system. Additionally, the panel will discuss the broader missile defense implications that the U.S. should consider given the success of Iron Dome operations.
Register for this event here.
12. Iranian Influence in the South Caucasus and the Surrounding Region, Wednesday December 5, 2:00 PM, The House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Venue: The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 2170 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Speakers: Dan Burton, Ariel Cohen
13. An Evening with the Palestinian Ambassador, Wednesday December 5, 7:30 PM – 9:00 PM, George Mason University
Venue: George Mason University, Arlington Campus, 3301 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 2201, Truland Building, Room 555
Speakers: Marc Gopin, Aziz Abu Sarah, Scott Cooper, Alex Cromwell
Please join the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution as we welcome Palestinian Ambassador Areikat to come and speak to the S-CAR and Mason Community at the Arlington Campus. CRDC’s Co-Executive Director, Aziz Abu Sarah, will introduce the Ambassador, and Dr. Jamil Shami, President for the Middle East in Higher Education, Inc., will moderate the event.
RSVP for this event to crdc@gmu.edu.
14. Weighing Benefits and Costs of International Sanctions on Iran, Thursday December 6, 8:30 AM – 10:00 AM, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Gregory Newbold, Thomas Pickering, William Reinsch, George Perkovich
The Iran Project will launch their new report “Weighing Benefits and Costs of International Sanctions Against Iran.” The Iran Project’s first report, “Weighing Benefits and Costs of Military Action against Iran,” was released in September 2012. It presented a balanced, non-partisan view of the pros and cons of using force to forestall Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon. This new paper takes the same balanced approach to assessing the benefits and costs of U.S. and U.S.-led international sanctions against Iran.
The paper does not advocate for or against sanctions; nor does it make specific policy recommendations. The writers and signers of this paper, who are senior experts from the national security and foreign policy communities, aim to provide an objective analysis that will contribute to informed debate about a key strategy for addressing one of the most critical security challenges facing the United States.
Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, Carnegie’s George Perkovich, and William A. Reinsch will discuss the report’s findings. Ambassador Thomas Pickering will moderate.
Register for this event here.
15. FDD’s Washington Forum 2012: “Dictators & Dissidents: Should the West Choose Sides?”, Thursday December 6, 8:15 AM – 5:00 PM, Newseum
Venue: Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001, please use the Freedom Forum entrance on 6th Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and C Street
Speakers: Joseph Lieberman, Jon Kyl, Daniel Glaser, Robert Ford, Bret Stephens
We invite you to join us at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ (FDD) annual Washington Forum, taking place on Thursday, December 6 at the Newseum in Washington D.C. Speakers discussing this year’s theme, “Dictators and Dissidents: Should the West choose sides?” include Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Daniel Glaser, Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Terrorist Financing, Ambassador Robert Ford, U.S. Ambassador to Syria, and Bret Stephens, Deputy Editor of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, along with a who’s who of experts from Congress, the intelligence and foreign policy communities and the diplomatic corps
Register for this event here.
16. New Authoritarians and the Challenge to Democracy, Thursday December 6, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM, The International Forum for Democratic Studies at the National Endowment for Democracy
Venue: 1025 F Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004
Speakers: William Dobson, Joshua Stacher, Christopher Walker
The world has changed and today’s autocrats are changing with it. Demonstrating resilience and a keen ability to adapt, leading authoritarian regimes are developing more subtle and sophisticated methods to retain power. To suppress dissent, mass brutality has been replaced by selective safety inspections and tax investigations, as well as arbitrarily applied regulations designed to undercut the activities of independent civil society and opposition groups. New economic resources at the disposal of regimes in Beijing, Moscow, and Caracas have enabled them to bolster their authoritarianism. Meanwhile, the democratic world has been slow to acknowledge and respond to the emergence of these new, more nimble regimes.
Please join us for a discussion featuring William J. Dobson, author of The Dictator’s Learning Curve: Inside the Global Battle for Democracy, and Joshua Stacher, author of Adaptable Autocrats: Regime Power in Egypt and Syria, as they discuss how leaders in China, Egypt, Russia, Venezuela, and other countries have adapted to suppress democratic movements in their countries. Despite the initial excitement surrounding the recent upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa in particular, continuity—not wide-ranging political change—remains the hallmark of many of the world’s autocracies.
Register for this event here.
17. Untangling Maritime Disputes in Asia, Thursday December 6, 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Yann-huei Song, Edward Chen, James L. Schoff, Peter Dutton
Over the past six months, tensions have escalated in the South and East China Seas. Japan and China have grabbed headlines in a spat over China’s claims to the Japanese administered Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, while Taiwan has asserted its own claim in the region and proposed talks to settle the disputes. Yet these are only the latest in a long list of territorial disputes involving many countries and many competing claims. As events progress, what was already a complex and complicated issue over minuscule territories has drawn big power attention.
Two eminent Taiwanese scholars, Yann-huei Song and Edward I-hsin Chen, will join Carnegie’s James L. Schoff to discuss maritime disputes in the region, and prospects for their peaceful resolution. Peter Dutton, a noted expert on Chinese territorial claims at the U.S. Naval War College, will moderate.
Register for this event here.
18. Has the Arab Spring Come to Jordan?, Friday December 7, 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins SAIS, Rome Building, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Marwan Muasher, Randa Habib, Naseer Alomari, Yassin Sabha
Marwan Muasher, director of the Carnegie Endowment Middle East program and former Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister; Naseer Alomari, Jordanian blogger; Randa Habib (participating through Skype), director of the Agence France Presse Foundation and journalist; Yassin Sabha (President of MENA Club and Jordanian political analyst).
Note: SAIS will also host a live webcast of the event at www.sais-jhu.edu/pressroom/live.html
RSVP for this event to menaclub.sais@gmail.com.
RSS - Posts
