Tag: Pakistan
Peace Picks | August 2-6, 2021
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
- Restoring a federal governance system in Sudan | Aug 2, 2021 | 9:00 AM EST | Chatham House | Register Here
The signing of the Juba Peace Agreement in October 2020, and a constitutional decree issued in March 2021 by the Chairman of the Sovereign Council, are both significant markers towards the restoration of a federal governance system in Sudan. Establishing a decentralized system of governance that bridges the development gap between the centre and the regions is a significant challenge. But it is hoped that the genuine devolution of power will support peace-building, result in more equitable distribution of wealth and resources, and amplify local priorities in Sudan’s regions.
At this event, panellists will discuss the implementation of a new federal governance architecture in Sudan, the establishment of structures that will ensure more equitable development across the country and priorities for local governance.
Speakers:
Hon. Adeeb Yousif
Governor of Central Darfur, Republic of Sudan
Anwar Elhaj
Researcher and Political Analyst
Dr. Mona Mohamed Taha Ayoub
Lecturer, Institute of Public Administration and Federalism, University of Khartoum
Dr. Louise Walker
Chargé d’Affaires, British Embassy in Sudan
Ahmed Soliman (Chair)
Research Fellow at the Africa Programme, Chatham House
- Turkey-Israel relations in a changing geopolitical landscape | Aug 4, 2021 | 8:30 AM EST | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Relations between Turkey and Israel have been historically low since a diplomatic rift in 2010, characterized by an atmosphere of mutual distrust and punctuated by recurring crises. Historically, as the United States’ two closest allies in the region, Turkey and Israel had enjoyed a close strategic relationship. Now, with changing regional dynamics in the form of the Abraham Accords, mutual concerns about the Syrian War and Iran’s role in the region, and the recent change in Israel’s government present new opportunities and environments for the two countries to engage in dialogue.
This panel will discuss the outlook for the relation between these two regional powers.
Speakers:
Jonathan H. Ferziger
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Middle East Programs, Atlantic Council
Former Bloomberg Middle East Correspondent
Amb. Mithat Rende
Former Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Turkey to the OECD
Prof. Brenda Shaffer
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Global Energy Center, Atlantic Council
Amb. Matthew J. Bryza (moderator)
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council IN TURKEY, Global Energy Center & Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Defne Arslan (welcoming remarks)
Director, Atlantic Council IN TURKEY, Atlantic Council
- Enhancing security in the Black Sea: The future of security cooperation | Aug 4, 2021 | 10:00 AM EST | Atlantic Council | Register Here
Since Moscow launched its war on Ukraine in 2014, NATO has taken substantial steps to bolster security for its eastern members, particularly with a stronger presence in the Baltic states, Poland, and Romania. The NATO approach to security in the Baltic Sea has been comprehensive, as all NATO members in the region and other states recognize the dangers posed by a revisionist Kremlin. But NATO efforts along the southern flank, in the Black Sea region, are not as far along.
This panel will discuss NATO’s role in the Black Sea region and what security cooperation among these states will look like in the future.
Speakers:
Leah Scheunemann (welcoming remarks)
Deputy Director, Transatlantic Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Alton Buland
Director, South and Central Europe, US Department of Defense
Dr. Can Kasapoğlu
Director of Security and Defense Research, The Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies (EDAM)
Ambassador Elena Poptodorova
Vice President, Atlantic Club of Bulgaria
Dr. Harlan Ullman
Senior Advisor, Atlantic Council; Chairman, The Killowen Group
Irina Zidaru
Director General for Strategic Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania
Amb. John Herbst (moderator)
Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
- Why Tunisia’s democratic transition still matters? | Aug 4, 2021 | 10:00 AM EST | Chatham House | Register Here
Late on Sunday 25 July 2021, the 64th anniversary of the proclamation of the Tunisian Republic, the Tunisian president, Kais Saied declared he will assume the executive power in country, dismissing the government of the Prime Minster Hichem Mechichi and suspending the parliament. He also declared the suspension of the legal immunity of parliament members and taking control of the general prosecutor’s office.
Struggle over powers and mandates has been characteristic of the Tunisian political system over the past decade. Since the eruption of the Tunisian revolution in 2011, significant political progress towards democracy has been achieved. However, over the past year, Tunisia has witnessed disagreements over cabinet reshuffles and control of the security forces, complicating the efforts to handle a recent fierce COVID-19 wave, structural economic hardship and a looming fiscal crisis. Are the shaky political progress and the sluggish economic progress a threat to the nascent democratic transition in Tunisia? Or are the ongoing developments part of Tunisia’s democratization process?
The webinar will explore the factors that paved the way to the dramatic moment of the evening of 25 July 2021, assess the options for Tunisia’s democratic transition, and why this transition is still relevant in the first place.
Speakers:
Dr Laryssa Chomiak
Associate Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House
Fadil Aliriza
Editor In Chief, Meshkal
Prof Daniel Brumberg
Director of Democracy and Governance Studies, Georgetown University; Non-resident Senior Fellow, Arab Center Washington DC
Aymen Bessalah
Advocacy and Policy Analyst, Al Bawsala
Dr Lina Khatib (moderator)
Director, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House
- A New Transatlantic Policy Approach Towards the Western Balkans | Aug 4, 2021 | 11:30 AM EST | CSIS | Register Here
As the Biden administration pledges to work closely with its European allies, new policy approaches, development tools, and dialogue mechanisms to revitalize transatlantic policy across the region are essential as these countries grapple with weak institutions, endemic corruption, democratic backsliding, and are increasingly influenced by strategic competition.
The panel will engage in an in-depth regional conversation that explores German policy toward the region and how the U.S. and Germany and the EU can achieve better policy outcomes in the Western Balkans.
Speakers:
MdB Peter Beyer
Coordinator of Transatlantic Cooperation, German Federal Foreign Office; Western Balkans Rapporteur, German Parliament
James O’Brien
Vice Chair, Albright Stonebridge Group
Heather A. Conley
Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic & Director of the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program, CSIS
Paul Linnarz (opening remarks)
Director, Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung Office USA
- Tunisia’s Constitutional Crisis and Yearning for Democracy in Northwest Africa | Aug 5, 2021 | 10:00 AM EST | Arab Center Washington DC | Register Here
On July 25, 2021, Tunisian President Kais Saied fired the prime minister and suspended Parliament in what some have called a coup. The move followed nationwide protests demanding the premier’s resignation and the dissolution of the parliament as the coronavirus outbreak pushed the healthcare system to collapse and worsened economic conditions.
In light of these developments in Tunisia, site of the Arab Spring’s only democratic success story, Arab Center Washington DC is organizing a webinar to discuss the status of democratization in Northwest Africa, specifically focusing on Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, and Morocco. Panelists will discuss the implications of President Saied’s move and its constitutionality, the state of democratization in the region and the impact of events in Tunisia, the role and interventions by regional powers like Egypt and Gulf countries, and policy recommendation to support democratic processes and governance reform across Northwest Africa.
Speakers:
Yasmina Abouzzohour
Visiting Fellow, Brookings Doha Center
Khaoula Ben Gayesse
Tunisian Journalist
Dalia Ghanem Yazbeck
Resident Scholar, Carnegie Middle East Center
- Pakistan’s National Security Outlook: A Conversation with Pakistani National Security Advisor Moeed Yusuf | Aug 5, 2021 | 11:00 AM EST | The United States Institute of Peace | Register Here
Since the country’s founding, Pakistan’s national security priorities have been largely defined by the realities of its geopolitical neighborhood. Now, with escalating violence in Afghanistan, intensifying competition between the United States and China, limited hopes for rapprochement with India, and the COVID-19 pandemic, Pakistan’s neighborhood is evolving — and Pakistan’s national security approach will have to evolve with it.
This discussion with Pakistan’s National Security Advisor Moeed Yusuf will look at what these developments mean for Pakistan’s national security outlook towards its neighbors and its relationship with the United States, as well as how the pandemic impacts Pakistan’s security and economic policy.
Speakers:
Dr. Moeed Yusuf
National Security Advisor, Islamic Republic of Pakistan
Hon. Stephen J. Hadley (moderator)
Chair of the Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Reversal of the progress for women and the press in Afghanistan is imminent
Nearly two decades ago, Bernard-Henri Lévy spent a month in Afghanistan shortly after Taliban rule had been removed and wrote an extensive report for the French government. In it he outlined the challenges, but more importantly the opportunities now available for modernizing and improving the lives of Afghans. Now, with the Western presence in Afghanistan drawing to a close, Lévy is publishing a book reflecting on the report and the years that followed. With an introduction by former US General David Petraeus, Lévy assesses the successes and mistakes that occurred in Afghanistan, and reflects on the threats facing it now that renewed Taliban rule seems imminent.
The Middle East Institute organized a seminar July 26 with Lévy, Petraeus and two discussants to discuss the origins of the report and to assess the last twenty years in Afghanistan. The panel agreed that much has been achieved in women’s rights, civil society, and the free press, but that all of these achievements will be reversed as the Taliban returns to power.
The speakers were:
Gen. (ret.) David Petraeus
Former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan;
former director
Central Intelligence Agency
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Philosopher, journalist, filmmaker, and public intellectual
Javid Ahmad
Ambassador of Afghanistan to the United Arab Emirates;
non-resident senior fellow
Atlantic Council
Marvin Weinbaum (moderator)
Director, Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies
MEI
Paul Salem (introduction)
President
MEI
Lévy’s report 20 years on
Lévy gave a behind the scenes insight into the origins of his remarkable 2002 assignment. “Even in France”, he emphasized, it isn’t normal for a philosopher to be tasked with making a report such as this. It came to be because Lévy had met with Afghan guerilla leader and later Minister of Defense Massoud several times since the 1980s, and had arranged for him to meet French president Chirac in 2001. Massoud was defending the Panjshir Valley from the Taliban at the time. At the last moment, Chirac decided not to meet with Massoud, and he instead met with the French Foreign Minister and spoke to the European Parliament. He warned of the ties between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and of their growing plans against the West. Five months later, Massoud was assassinated and two days later the 9/11 attacks on the United States took place. After victory against the Taliban was achieved, Chirac called on Lévy to write his report and outline how France could participate in building of a new Afghanistan. According to Lévy, this was partially due to his disappointment over failing to meet with Massoud before his death.
In the report, Lévy aimed to encourage France to take up an active role. In his introduction, Petraeus summarized the contents of the report. Its core recommendations were two-fold:
- Build a centralized state with institutions such as an army, a police force, and public agencies in order to counter the rule of warlords.
- Circumvent ‘stubborn mullahs’ by forming a sort of ‘Black Hussar’ corps made up of teachers, doctors, civil engineers, and other educated citizens. These should be sent out to the most remote provinces to spread republican values at the grassroots level.
Petraeus reflected that it is difficult to assess to what extent France followed Lévy‘s recommendations because the war effort in Afghanistan became entirely US-led, particularly by the time Petraeus took command in 2010. Nonetheless, his report tells us a great deal about what might have been done by both France and the US.
Missed opportunities and mistakes
All panelists agreed that the occupation of Afghanistan generated many mistakes. Lévy even went so far as to say they’re innumerable and decided to forgo naming them, focusing instead on the now threatened achievements, mentioned below. Ambassador Javid Ahmad did elaborate on two key dependencies established by the US that Afghanistan has been unable to shake to this day.
- A reliance on ‘warlords’. Ahmad emphasized that this is a broad term that today indicates most of the country’s organized crime, kleptocratic governance, and terrorist financing. In the early days, these warlords and power brokers were seen as the only option for effective governance in Afghanistan. This established an entrenched, toxic, kleptocratic power dynamic which is similar to the situation in the 1990s.
- Reliance on Pakistan. Ahmad considers this the core of the failure of the mission in Afghanistan. The US has failed to identify Pakistan as either a ‘fickle friend’ or even a ‘clever enemy’. Pakistani activity in Afghanistan consists of a large military force of which the Taliban are one part. It amounts to an effective invasion. Pakistan today doesn’t seek a political settlement. Instead, it aims for a military settlement that recognizes Taliban gains and then builds a political settlement.
Other minor mistakes include starting the training of Afghan forces late and focusing on quantity rather than quality. Additionally, Afghan forces were loosely modeled after the US forces, which rely heavily on air force. However, Afghanistan barely had an air force, and therefore became even more reliant on the United States for success.
Petraeus recognized several of these issues. The US effort failed in combating the Taliban efficiently. The enemy lacked urgency. It had sanctuary in Pakistan. There is a reason that the Taliban leadership is known as the Quetta Shura, not to mention the Peshawar Shura (named for cities in Pakistan). Petraeus describes this as the most challenging issue in the country. The US effort also lagged in resources because of the drain of Iraq. Only in 2010 did Afghanistan receive the appropriate resources.
Achievements
The panel all agreed that there have been many significant successes in Afghanistan. Petraeus emphasized that the original mission was to eliminate Al Qaeda’s sanctuary in Afghanistan, which succeeded. Afterwards, the continued presence was partially aimed at preventing a return of that sanctuary, which was also successful.
Along with Lévy and Weinbaum, he emphasized the many civil advancements. Women’s rights and education improved massively, as did the spread of modern technology, healthcare, and infrastructure. Lévy is particularly struck by the strength of the Afghan press, particularly TOLOnews. He praised the brave journalists that use a freedom of speech and investigation that would have been unimaginable previously.
Imminent reversal
The key issue that kept returning, however, was that all of these achievements are now likely to be reversed at a rapid pace. The Western withdrawal from Afghanistan has already led to Taliban victories. The panel feared that much worse is to come. Petraeus lamented that America must learn that “endless wars do not end with a withdrawal or drawdown of American involvement.” In Afghanistan the fight is worsening. When fighting Islamic extremism, it is impossible to win in a traditional military sense. Instead, you need to keep pressure on even after the enemy is entirely destroyed. Petraeus therefore argued for a “sustained, sustainable position.” He believes that such a position had been achieved in recent years, and that the U.S. “will come to regret our decision to draw down our forces.” He fears “it will usher back in very violent civil war which will lead to millions of refugees, terrible loss of lives and bloodshed targeting those that helped us during our time in the country, and other challenges.”
Ahmad observed that Afghans tend to be optimistic about the achievements of the last decades. They see Afghanistan as a glass half-full. However, they fear that the glass half-full won’t matter if we’re going to throw the glass away as the Taliban advance. Lévy considers the withdrawal a betrayal by America and the West in general of its allies in Afghanistan. “The progress was considerable. The task well-achieved was huge. We were on the good road. We decided to erase all that and to quit.”
Watch the recording of the event here:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Afghanistan after the Americans: it’s either peace or chaos
Hamid Bayati of Iran’s Mehr news agency asked questions yesterday. I responded:
Q: As you know new round of Afghans talks began in Qatar and CNN reported that US intelligence assessments paint an increasingly bleak picture of the Taliban’s quickening advance across Afghanistan and the potential threat it poses to the capital of Kabul, warning the militant group could soon have a stranglehold on much of the country in the wake of the US withdrawal of troops. So how do you predict Afghanistan’s future with this assessments?
A: I don’t predict Afghanistan’s future, which is a fool’s game. But its security forces are having a hard time with Taliban, there is no doubt about that.
Q: Some experts said that the situation in Afghanistan and Taliban quickening advance in Afghanistan is a result of an unwritten agreement between US and Taliban. In other words, if the US gives green light to take control of the country, what do you think about this issue?
A: The U.S. agreed under President Trump to an unconditional withdrawal that President Biden is implementing. That was not intended as a green light to a military takeover by the Taliban, who however are taking advantage of it. Washington wanted them engaged seriously in negotiations, not conflict.
Q: Experts believe the US does not want peace and stability in Afghanistan, because if there is not any tension in Afghanistan there is no need for the presence of US troops in the region, so is it true or not and why?
A: The experts who think this need to think again. The US wants out of Afghanistan, not in. I see no reason Washington would not be happy with peace and stability in Afghanistan.
Q: Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and the US have different interests in Afghanistan, so how is it possible these countries reach a common goal about it and end the conflict in Afghanistan?
A: The interests are different, but not entirely incompatible. All would be well-served by a more stable, unaligned Afghanistan. The question is whether they will allow that to happen. The US will no longer be a big player. The more immediate neighbors (Russia, China, India, and Pakistan) will need to collaborate to create an Afghanistan that threatens none of them and is threatened by none of them. It won’t be easy, but the alternative is chaos.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
It’s not over until the Afghans decide it is
I thought Laurel Miller of the International Crisis Group got Afghanistan right on Morning Edition today:
Like many decisions that get to the President, withdrawal from Afghanistan is a close call. It could give terrorists a chance to return there and use the country as a safe haven, but more likely post-US Afghanistan will be too unstable and violent to be attractive Al Qaeda or the Islamic State. The Americans can act from outside the country, especially if they manage to preserve at least some of their intelligence capabilities. Certainly, as Eliot Cohen argues, we owe to Afghans wanting to escape Taliban rule an open door to allow them to immigrate to the US, as we managed to do for the South Vietnamese after the North took over there.
The risks of withdrawal are real. The analogy with Iraq is imperfect, but we would do well to remember that withdrawal from there in 2011 led by 2014 to ISIS takeover of about one-third to the country. There is little question but that a consolidated Taliban regime in Kabul like the one that ruled there during the 2001 US invasion would be inimical to US interests and open to hosting international terrorists. It will now be up to Afghans to prevent the Taliban from consolidating power, a task that should be easier than ridding the country of their presence in the countryside, but one that will ensure conflict continues for years if not decades more.
That said, the two-decade US and allied military and civilian effort to build a viable, democratic, and self-sustaining state in Afghanistan has failed. President Ghani literally wrote a book on state-building that I use in my SAIS course. It hasn’t helped in Afghanistan. Two key obstacles, noted by Laurel and Jim Dobbins years ago, were never overcome: the resistance of local elites and the hostility of neighbors, in particular Pakistan but also Iran. The US effort was mainly a military one, but with a pretty strong civilian counterpart from the mid 2000s, when George W realized he wouldn’t be able to get out of Afghanistan without a serious stabilization effort. But Afghanistan was too poor, too illiterate, too fractious, too large, too violent, too religious, too remote, and too traditional to respond to Western formulas.
Two decades of effort–even if at times insincere or ill-conceived–will have to suffice. Afghans may still surprise us with their resourcefulness, either in reaching an agreement that stabilizes the country or in defeating the worst of the extremists. More likely, chaos will prevail for some time, as it did in the 1990s after the successful rebellion against the Communist regime until the Taliban imposed draconian order. The American role may be over, but the conflict is not. Now it is up to the Afghans to decide when the time comes.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 18
– SecState Blinken talks with Europeans today about Iran.
– Joe and Bibi make nice.
– US & Japan agree on base payments.
– Administration considers special envoy for Horn of Africa.
– NYT sees limits on Biden’s China policy.
– Lawfare writer suggests ways to pressure Pakistan on Taliban.
– 1/3 of US troops said to avoid vaccine.
– Autumn of 1983 was dangerous time, closest US & USSR came to nuclear war other than Cuban missile crisis. WaPo reports on new declassifications. National Security Archive has the docs on Able Archer exercise.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Pakistan is about more than Afghanistan and India
The incoming Biden administration faces many challenges in West/South Asia, but also has an opportunity to strengthen relations with Pakistan, which could deepen peace to the region. The Wilson Center January 21 hosted a one-on-one discussion between Michael Kugelman, the Asia Program Deputy Director, and Moeed Yusuf, the current Pakistani National Security Advisor, on the future of US-Pakistan relations.
Breaking through lenses
According to Yusuf, the United States needs to stop categorizing the relationship with Pakistan through different lenses. Previous administrations have approached Pakistan with a focus on Afghanistan and India, letting those relationships guide US-Pakistan relations. This is neither beneficial nor prudent. Pakistan is a primary actor in countering terrorism in Afghanistan, but Pakistan is also a potentially strong ally economically and geopolitically.
Pakistan has been seen mainly through the prism of Afghanistan. The incoming Biden administration should capitalize on a fresh start. While Afghanistan remains a priority for both Pakistan and the United States, Islamabad and Washington also need to build stronger bilateral relations. Pakistan is able to provide counterterrorism support, but the relationship with the US needs to be expanded far beyond that. There needs to be a bilateral relationship that transcends conflict, various regional other partnerships, and geopolitical dynamics.
Pakistan’s troublesome neighbors
The relationship that the United States has with Pakistan’s neighbors can be a building block with Pakistan, but should not be seen as the core of the relationship.
As the United States continues to combat terrorism in Afghanistan, and more broadly throughout the region, Pakistan should be identified as a key facilitator of peace talks in bringing the relevant actors to the negotiating table, in partnership with the US. Similarly, India remains the priority issue in Pakistan’s foreign policy, but Islamabad wants the US to deal with India and Pakistan separately and on their own merits. If the United States wants a stronger relationship with India, to counter a rising China, there could be repercussions for the relationship with Pakistan.
Beyond business as usual
Business as usual, or a continuation of the policies of the Trump administration, is illogical. The tumultuous relations the United States has had with Pakistan over the last four years are no longer pertinent in today’s vastly different geopolitical environment. Islamabad is prioritizing an economic security paradigm that includes combatting terrorism in neighboring countries as well as internally, enabling Pakistan to engage in new economic opportunities within and beyond its borders. The economic partnerships that Pakistan envisages are rooted in cooperation and investment, rather than aid. Creating long-term development within Pakistan would benefit the United States.
There are many opportunities for the Biden administration to build stronger relations with Pakistan, but the new approach should recognize that Pakistan is more than a partner in US Afghanistan policy. The prospects of economic growth, geopolitical strategy, and regional peace are just a few of the many factors that the US must consider when building stronger relations with Pakistan.
To watch the event in full, please click here. And here:
RSS - Posts
