1. Syria: What Lies Ahead, Woodrow Wilson Center, 12-1 pm July 16
July 16, 2012 // 12:00pm — 1:00pm
What if the Syrian opposition doesn’t unite? Are the Alawites preparing for a separate state? Are the Kurds? What is the likely impact of a Sunni dominated Syrian government on the region? How much U.S. intervention is the right amount? Joshua Landis discusses these questions and the future of Syria.
Location:
6th Floor, Woodrow Wilson Center
Event Speakers List:
-
Associate Professor and Director, Center for Middle East Studies, University of Oklahoma and author of “Syria Comment,” daily newsletter on Syria
2. War and Protest in Sudan, Center for American Progress, 1-2:30 pm July 16
The one-year anniversary of South Sudan’s independence is fast approaching. South Sudan and Sudan have seemingly stepped back from the brink of all-out war, but they have yet to resolve many outstanding issues within the context of the ongoing North-South negotiation process. Meanwhile, conflict is deepening in a number of Sudan’s regions, while the pro-democracy movement – led by youth, civil society organizations, and opposition political parties – is protesting Sudan’s dictatorship. This violence and unrest poses significant implications for South Sudan and the region at large.Join us for a discussion that will address these multiple and interconnected challenges and explore ways to build peace and security within and between the two Sudans.The Enough Project will also debut a short video – shot in South Sudan – highlighting the reflections of South Sudanese and Sudanese on the occasion of South Sudan’s first anniversary of independence.
Featured speakers:
Sarah Cleto Rial, Program Director, My Sister’s Keeper
Francis Deng, Former U.N. Special Advisor for the Prevention of Genocide
Omer Ismail, Senior Advisor, Enough Project
John Prendergast, Co-founder, Enough Project
Moderated by:
John C. Bradshaw, Executive Director, Enough Project
Refreshments will be served at 12:30 p.m.
RSVP
RSVP for this event
For more information, call 202-682-1611
Location
Center for American Progress
1333 H St. NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Map & Directions 
Nearest Metro: Blue/Orange Line to McPherson Square or Red Line to Metro Center
3. The U.S. & the Greater Middle East, Center for a New American Security, 12-2 pm July 17
Event Time and Location
Tuesday, July 17, 2012 – 12:00pm – 2:00pm
Constitution Ballroom-Grand Hyatt Washington
1000 H Street NW Suite 400
Washington, DC 20001
The U.S. and the Greater Middle East
Election 2012: The National Security Agenda
This event has been moved to the Constitution Ballroom Grand Hyatt Washington. Event registration is now closed. You can view the live event webcast on this page.
On Tuesday, July 17, join the New America Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Center for a New American Security for an in-depth discussion of the opportunities and challenges posed to the United States by events in the Greater Middle East. Panelists will discuss electoral transitions following the Arab Spring, the changing role of Turkey, and Iran’s regional and international profile. Ambassador Dennis Ross will provide introductory remarks.
This event continues a unique collaboration among these institutions in the presidential campaign season, “Election 2012: The National Security Agenda.” Past conversations covered the U.S. role in the world, policy in East Asia, and the national security budget.
Schedule:
12:00 p.m. — Registration and Lunch
12:30 p.m.-2:00 p.m. —Panel Discussion and Q&A
Featured Speaker
Ambassador Dennis Ross
Counselor, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Former Special Assistant to President Obama
Former National Security Council senior director for the Central Region
Former Special Advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
Panelists
Dr. Marc Lynch
Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security
Danielle Pletka
Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies
American Enterprise Institute
Former Director for Iraq on the National Security Council under Bush and Obama administrations
Senior National Security Studies Fellow, New America Foundation
Moderator
Director, National Security Studies Program
New America Foundation
CNN will livestream this event on the
Opinion page. On Twitter? Follow
#natsecurity2012 for updates throughout the series.
About the Series:
This fall’s presidential election comes at a critical moment for the United States and the world. The demands for U.S. leadership are substantial–particularly in the dynamic Middle East and Asia-Pacific–yet fiscal challenges are forcing reductions in defense spending, sparking new thinking about American engagement with the world. In this important election season, many Americans will look to the next U.S. president to repair the economy, but he will nonetheless inherit complicated military and diplomatic engagements and govern as commander-in-chief of the globe’s most powerful nation. As a result, the discussion of national security issues must take a central role in the 2012 presidential election.
This event is the fourth in a series of campaign-season seminars on the critical issues of U.S. foreign and defense policy, sponsored by AEI, the Center for a New American Security and the New America Foundation.
4. Electoral Reform in Lebanon: What’s in Store for 2013, Aspen Institute, 12:30 pm July 17
The U.S.-Lebanon Dialogue Program will host “Electoral Reform in Lebanon: What’s in Store for 2013” to launch Dr. Ekmekji’s new policy paper exploring the complexities of Lebanon’s confessional society and avenues for reform in its electoral system. During this conversation, experts will discuss Dr. Ekmekji’s paper in light of the debate on democratic representation and the rights of minorities in Lebanon, Syria, and the region. The panelists will also offer actionable recommendations for lasting reform that reflects Lebanon’s democratic prospects, leading up to the parliamentary elections in 2013.
Dr. Arda Arsenian Ekmekji is the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Haigazian University in Beirut, Lebanon. She is professor of intercultural studies and a member of various non-governmental organization boards in Lebanon, such as World Vision and the Middle East Council of Churches. She was the only female member on the National Commission for a New Electoral Law (2006) and on the Supervisory Commission for the Electoral Campaign (2009).
We hope you will join us for what will be an interesting and informative discussion on:
July 17, 2012 at 12:30PM
The Aspen Institute
One Dupont Circle
Suite 700
Washington, D.C.
Please contact Sarah Harlan at sarah.harlan@aspeninst.org or 202-736-2526 to RSVP. We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Featuring
Dr. Arda Ekmekji, Dean of Arts and Sciences, Haigazian University – Beirut, Lebanon; Author, “Confessionalism and Electoral Reform in Lebanon”
Mr. Hassan Mneimneh, Senior Transatlantic Fellow, German Marshall Fund of the United States
In a moderated discussion with
Mr. Leslie Campbell, Senior Associate and Regional Director, Middle East and North Africa (MENA),
National Democratic Institute
5. Democratization in the Arab World, Carnegie, 12:15-1:45 pm July 18
Wednesday, July 18, 2012 – Washington, D.C.
12:15 PM – 1:45 PM EST
Based on the democratization experiences of other countries, what are the chances that the Arab Spring will lead to a flowering of democracy? In a new book, RAND Corporation experts extensively analyze past democratization examples over nearly four decades and analyze the Arab revolutions that up-ended longstanding authoritarian regimes.
Laurel Miller and Jeffrey Martini of the RAND Corporation will discuss what the successes and setbacks of other transitions from authoritarianism suggest about the problems ahead for Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere, and how they might be overcome. Carnegie’s Thomas Carothers will discuss and Marina Ottaway will moderate.
6. Can Pakistan Grow Again? Atlantic Council, 3:30-5 pm July 18
Please join the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center on July 18 for a public discussion entitled, “Can Pakistan Grow Again?” with deputy chairman of the Planning Commission of Pakistan Nadeem Ul Haque.
In the face of major domestic, regional, and international political and economic difficulties, Pakistan’s growth rate has suffered in recent years, falling well behind the growth of its population. Unemployment is rampant, especially among the burgeoning youth population. Rising urbanization is creating new challenges for policymakers. A low tax-to-GDP ratio is often cited as a major hindrance to growth. Yet, there are many other underlying economic issues behind Pakistan’s problem. Dr. Haque will offer his views on how growth may be regenerated in Pakistan and the potential pitfalls that lie ahead.
A discussion with
Nadeem Ul Haque
Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission
Government of Pakistan
Moderated by
Shuja Nawaz
Director, South Asia Center
Atlantic Council
| DATE: |
Wednesday, July 18, 2012 |
| TIME: |
3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. |
| LOCATION: |
Atlantic Council
1101 15th Street, NW, 11th Floor,
Washington, DC 20005 |
To attend, RSVP with your name and affiliation (acceptances only) to southasia@acus.org.
Nadeem Ul Haque
Dr. Nadeem Ul Haque is the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission of Pakistan, the agency responsible for managing growth and development policies in the country. As a key member of the economic management team of Pakistan, he has led the country-wide research and consultative effort for the development of the “framework for economic growth,” which emphasizes economic reform for sustained long-term productivity. The framework has been approved by all levels of the government of Pakistan and has been implemented into policy.
Dr. Haque has over twenty-four years of wide-ranging operational and research experience from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), including leading technical assistance missions, and policy and research teams. With a strong background in economic analysis and policy development, Dr. Haque has published numerous publications including books and papers in academic and policy journals. Dr. Haque holds a PhD in economics from the University of Chicago.
7. Oslo: Twenty Years Later, IIACF, 9 am-12 pm July 19
Oslo – Twenty Years Later
Capitol Hill – Washington, D.C.
July 19th, 2012
9:00am – 12:00pm
No meaningful negotiations have taken place in almost two years, yet the death of the peace process remains a taboo topic in Washington. Recently, both Palestinian and Israeli voices have bemoaned the lack of progress. Mahmoud Abbas is rumored to be, once again, flirting with the idea of dissolving the Palestinian Authority. Yossi Beilin, considered one of the architects of the Oslo Peace Accords, has said it is time to move on.
After 20 years and little positive progress, the time has come to reevaluate our thinking and try a new approach – it is the only hope of moving towards a lasting peace.
Join the IIACF on Thursday, July 19th from 9:00am to noon as we bring together journalists, policy experts and government officials who are shaping the future of peace in the Middle East.
Download event flyer here.
Event Details
- Date: 07/19/12
- Location: Longworth House Office Building, Room 1539
- Address: 45 Independence Avenue SW, Washington D.C.
8. Diplomacy in Syria: U.S.-Russia Relations and International Intervention, Center for National Policy, 12-1 pm July 19
Please join CNP President Scott Bates and an expert panel for a discussion on the current state of the U.S.-Russia relationship, Russia’s evolving foreign policy posture, and the corresponding implications for the crisis in Syria.
Featuring:
Jeff Mankoff
Adjunct Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program,
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Mark Adomanis
Contributor, The Russia Hand, Forbes Magazine
*A light lunch will be served*
Where
Center for National Policy
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 333
Washington, DC 20001
202-682-1800
Map
Click here
When
Jul 19 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm
9. Can Libya Really Become a Democracy?, SAIS, 2-3:30 pm July 19
“Can Libya Really Become a Democracy?”
Hosted By: Conflict Management Program and the Middle East Institute
Time: 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM
Location: Room 417, The Nitze Building (main building)
Summary: Christopher Blanchard, research manager at the Congressional Research Service, will discuss this topic. For more information and to RSVP, contact
itlong@jhu.edu.
10. Assad’s Coming Downfall?, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 9:30 am July 20
- Foundation for Defense of Democracies
- Middle East & North Africa
| Date / Time |
|
| Location |
1726 M Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036
|
| Speakers |
David Enders, Ammar Abdulhamid, John Hannah, Reuel Marc Gerecht |
Unbeknownst to most Americans, reports suggest that the rebels fighting Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad may have taken control of a growing portion of the country, and may now be closer to wresting it away from him altogether. While some Syrian soldiers have defected to Turkey, many more are deserting, or simply refusing to fight. Is Assad’s central authority breaking down? Are new power brokers emerging? If so, how can the United States and its allies prevent further humanitarian catastrophe?
To assess these questions and others, FDD is pleased to host a breakfast conversation with:
David Enders, a Pulitzer Center grantee on Crisis Reporting, recently returned from a month of reporting alongside the rebels fighting Bashar Assad’s government in Syria. Author of Baghdad Bulletin, a firsthand account of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, he has reported from the Middle East for news outlets ranging from The Nation to The National, Al-Jazeera, Vice, and the Virginia Quarterly Review.
Ammar Abdulhamid, a fellow at FDD, is a leading Syrian human rights and democracy activist, and also director of the Tharwa Foundation, a grassroots organization that works to break the Assad government’s information blockade by enlisting local activists and citizen issues to report on developments inside Syria. Before founding Tharwa, Mr. Abdulhamid served as a fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He has briefed the President of the United States and testified before the U.S. Congress, and has appeared in many media outlets, including the New York Times.
John Hannah is a senior fellow at FDD, before which he served as national security advisor to Vice President Richard B. Cheney. Mr. Hannah has served in a range of senior policy positions in both Democratic and Republican administrations, as a senior member of Secretary of State James A. Baker’s Policy Planning staff during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, and later as a senior advisor to Secretary of State Warren Christopher under President William J. Clinton. Mr. Hannah’s articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal, and he blogs regularly at ForeignPolicy.com and National Review Online.
Reuel Marc Gerecht is a Senior Fellow at FDD and a former Iran analyst at the CIA’s Directorate of Operations. He focuses on the Arab Revolt, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism, and intelligence. Mr. Gerecht is the author of The Wave: Man, God, and the Ballot Box in the Middle East, Know Thine Enemy: A Spy’s Journey into Revolutionary Iran, and The Islamic Paradox: Shiite Clerics, Sunni Fundamentalists, and the Coming of Arab Democracy. He is a contributing editor for The Weekly Standard and a correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, as well as a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and other publications.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
There is something special about celebrating July 4 in Tripoli. This is a country that made a revolution only after 42 years of dictatorship. Watching it prepare for elections July 7 is thrilling, even to an old salt. I’ll miss the reading of the Declaration of Independence on NPR this morning, especially this portion of the stirring preamble:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
These are the founding principles of the American republic. I am not by nature a proselytizer. I think everyone should find their own form of government. But if you start from these principles, it is hard–pretty much impossible–to come to other than democratic conclusions.
All the revolutions of the Arab spring have to some extent been inspired by similar thinking, but the Libyan and Tunisian ones more than others have been able to fulfill the hope of throwing off absolute despotism. Egypt experienced something more like a creeping military coup than a revolution. Yemen is enjoying, if that is the right word, a negotiated transition. Syria is lost in a civil war. Sudan (Khartoum) is seeing only the first stirrings of discontent. Bahrain has put the genie back in the bottle, for the moment. Other Gulf states have bought off and repressed their protest movements.
It is hard to fault those who decide the weight of oppression is too great to claim the dignity inherent in the idea that all men (and women) are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights. But if you believe that the premise is true, it is difficult not to want to support those who do decide to take the risk.
In the Libyan case, support came in military form, in response to a threat the dictator posed to Benghazi. But it is a mistake to believe that this is the only form of support, or even the most effective one. It is hard for me to imagine how military support to the Syrian rebellion, short of full-scale intervention well beyond the level in Libya, will do much more than widen and worsen the violence. Someone may get lucky and kill Bashar al Asad, but even then his Alawite sect and its allies will likely continue to fight a war they believe is “existential.” Thinking that way likely makes it so. It is easy to understand, and impossible to justify, their self-protective abuse of power.
Syrians and others engaged in the fight against tyranny would do well to remember Benjamin Franklin’s injunction at the signing in 1776:
We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.
May we all hang together.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
The conviction of former Liberian president Charles Taylor more than a decade after the war crimes he aided and abetted during the period 1996-2002 answers one important question about his role in the war in Sierra Leone: did he bear some responsibility for rebel atrocities, even if he did not command them directly or conspire to produce them? The court said yes, though an alternate judge held a dissenting view.
Judging from Helene Cooper’s graphic piece in the New York Times about her own family’s experiences, the conviction also provides an important occasion for victims. Even more than ten years after the fact, even though the indictment covered only crimes in Sierra Leone and not in Liberia, they take some satisfaction from knowing that justice has not been denied but only delayed.
But what does it do, and not do, to prevent war crimes and crimes against humanity in the future? When Charles Taylor was indicted, it was widely believed that the court action would disrupt the then ongoing process of beginning the reconstruction of Liberia. Helene Cooper notes that he was tried for crimes in Sierra Leone rather than Liberia to avoid political problems that might have arisen in the country of which he was once president. So far as I can tell, these fears have proven unfounded. Charles Taylor is not today an important political factor in a Liberia that has made substantial progress in becoming a normal, functioning country, even if a frighteningly poor one.
Many diplomats bemoan the International Criminal Court (ICC) indictment of President Omar al Bashir of Sudan, because they say it makes him hold on to power more tightly and interferes with diplomatic efforts to resolve the various conflicts embroiling his country. That view readily prevails in Syria, where President Bashar al Assad’s obvious responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity cannot lead to an ICC indictment because Russia will prevent the necessary referral from passing in the UN Security Council. Ugandan religious leader Joseph Kony, an ICC indictee, is still at large, despite a U.S.-aided manhunt. ICC indictment of Muammar Qaddafi, his son Saif and their security chief in Libya does not appear to have had much impact on their behavior.
So what good is an indictment that won’t produce justice for decades? It is unlikely that the indictees themselves will moderate their behavior in response to an indictment. Their discount rate is high and the results too uncertain and too far in the future to make them behave. But there are other possible benefits. First, an indictment may give pause to some of those below the top leadership, who will want to avoid also being held responsible. Second, an indictment is a concrete expression of international community will to remove a leader from power. It may not help in cutting deals, but it makes the bottom line remarkably clear.
Charles Taylor is the first head of state to be convicted since the Nuremberg trials. He is likely not the last. International justice is agonizingly slow, frustratingly incomplete, and potentially damaging to prospects for negotiated settlements. But even justice delayed can shed light on past events, moderate behavior and provide satisfaction to victims.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
How much time is required to decide if the UN observers in Syria are failing? If you are the New York Times, two weekend days after authorization by the UN Security Council will do. You wouldn’t want to wait until a significant number of them have actually deployed. Even today, only eleven are active. And you would cite Syrian army attacks occurring while they are not present as evidence of their ineffectiveness, whereas the opposite would seem more likely the case: reduced attacks while the observers are present suggest they are having an impact.
The observers admittedly have a thankless task. There is as yet no peace to keep in Syria, where the regime continues to attack its opponents, refuses to withdraw the military from population centers or to allow peaceful demonstrations, blocks journalistic and humanitarian access and is not prepared to discuss a transition away from the Assad regime. The opposition also occasionally resorts to violence against the security forces. If they are going to have an impact, the observers will need to acquire it after full deployment over a period of weeks, working diligently with both protesters and the regime to ensure disengagement and to gain respect for Kofi Annan’s six-point peace plan.
This they can do, but only by being forthright in their assessments of what is going on, determined in their efforts to go where they want when they want and honest in communicating their observations to both the Syrian and the international press.
The regime will do everything it can to intimidate the observers and shield their eyes from the worst of what is going on. It will retaliate against protesters who communicate with the observers. And it will play “cat and mouse,” encouraging the observers to go where nothing is happening and discouraging them from going where something interesting might be observed.
Kofi Annan will not be easily fooled. His long experience with UN peacekeeping and with the Security Council will ensure that Bashar al Assad faces a savvy and determined international civil servant, provided Washington continues to back the UN effort.
The initial deployment is for 90 days. It should have been shorter, so that the Security Council would be forced to review and decide whether to renew the mission earlier than July. Still, reports every 15 days to the Council will keep the issue on its agenda. The number of observers is limited to 300, still too few to monitor a country the size and population of Syria. At the very best, they will be able to make a difference in a relatively few communities, unless their numbers are much increased.
Some of the observers are likely to resign in frustration, as some of the Arab League observers did over the past winter. Others will take the regime’s side, criticizing the protesters for violence against the security forces. There will be confusion, even consternation, as they try to get a grip on a very slippery situation, one that threatens every day to descend into sectarian bloodletting of the worst sort.
Ultimately, Kofi Annan will need to decide whether the observers are serving a useful purpose. The history of such missions suggests that they are greeted initially with a surge of violence, which subsides if the observers gain respect as truly neutral. The difficulty is that “neutrality” is in the eye of the beholder. One of the beholders in Syria, Bashar al Assad, has labelled all the demonstrators terrorists and will try to settle for nothing less from the UN.
As chance would have it, President Obama on Monday announced the creation of an Atrocities Prevention Board, saying
…remembrance without resolve is a hollow gesture.
The first test of those words will be in Syria, Bahrain and the border between what is now Sudan and South Sudan. In all three places, there is a need to stiffen international community and in particular U.S. resolve to prevent atrocities, protect civilians and make oppressors accountable. This does not necessarily mean the military action others are calling for. In fact, none of these situations lends itself to military means. But the full political, diplomatic and economic weight of the United States should be brought to bear. The President needs make sure his words and gestures are not hollow as he weighs U.S. options in these on-going conflicts.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Seyed Hossein Mousavian, who served as Iran’s nuclear spokesman and a member of the Iranian nuclear negotiating team from 2003 to 2005, will discuss his new book providing an insider account of Tehran’s nuclear policy and negotiations with the international community. Mousavian will analyze the West’s current options for dealing with Iran as well as outline what a nuclear agreement needs to include for it to be acceptable to both the West and Tehran.
Less than one year after the formal split between Sudan and South Sudan, the two countries are wrapped in conflict again over border demarcation, oil, and other issues. Both nations are also contending with serious internal turmoil in the form of tribal conflict, weak institutions, and mounting popular dissatisfaction.
Can Sustained GDP Growth in Africa Lead to a New Future? The United Nations Association-National Capital Area Chapter (UNA-NCA) and the Africa Society invites you to a panel discussion on economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa.
RSS - Posts
