Tag: Ukraine
Peace Picks April 8-12
1. From war to peace: the Balkans, Middle East and Ukraine| Wednesday, April 10, 2019 | 12:30am- 2:30| The Middle East Institute | 1319 18th St. NW, Washington D.C. 20036| Register Here |
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a book talk with MEI Scholar Daniel Serwer, the director of John Hopkins SAIS’s conflict management and American foreign policy programs and the author ofFrom War to Peace: the Balkans, the Middle East and Ukraine.
In his book, Serwer explores how lessons learned from peacebuilding initiatives in the Balkans in the 1990s can be applied to conflicts in the Middle East. Serwer draws comparisons between the sectarian, ethnic, and religious divides of the Balkans in the 1990s and similar tensions in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. He also explores the impact of policies such as conflict prevention, engagement of neighbors, the establishment of safe zones, partition, decentralization, and power sharing arrangements, and how they can be effectively utilized, or not, in the Middle East.
Speakers
Daniel Serwer, , author
Scholar, MEI; director, Conflict Management and American Foreign Policy program, John Hopkins SAIS
Randa Slim, discussant
Senior fellow and director of Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues program, MEI
Paul Salem, moderator, President, MEI
2. Youth: the missing peace | Tursday, April 11, 2019 | 10:00am – 12:00pm | United States Institute for Peacr | 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037| Register Here|
Join USIP and the Global Coalition on Youth, Peace and Security for an interactive, intergenerational conversation with the study’s lead author, Graeme Simpson, as well as youth and peacebuilding experts and young peacebuilders from around the world.
The event will look at the two-year evidence gathering process—which engaged more than 4,000 young people around the world and has been heralded as “possibly the most participatory process ever undertaken by the U.N.”—to draw out key lessons and recommendations regarding what works in the field of youth, peace and security, and what prevents youth’s meaningful inclusion in peace and security efforts. The conversation will also look forward, with an eye toward sustaining UNSCR 2250’s momentum and cementing our commitment to the role of youth people in preventing conflict and contributing to sustainable peace.
Speakers
Nancy Lindborg, welcoming remarks,
President, U.S. Institute of Peace
Aubrey Cox, Program Officer, Youth, U.S. Institute of Peace
Giannina Raffo, Youth Peace Leader, Venezuela
Graeme Simpson, Lead Author of the Progress Study and Director, Interpeace USA
Noella Richard, moderator, Youth Team Leader, United Nations Development Program
Saji Prelis, closing remarks
Director of Children & Youth Programs, Search for Common Ground
3. Will Sisi be Egypt president for life | Monday, April 8, 2019 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace| 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103| Register Here|
The Egyptian parliament is in the process of finalizing amendments to the 2014 constitution that would allow President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to stay in office for twenty years, increase military control of politics, and end judicial independence. U.S. President Donald Trump has invited Sisi to Washington for a visit prior to a public referendum on the proposed amendments.
Please join the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Project on Middle East Democracy for a discussion of the ramifications of the amendments and Sisi’s visit for the future of Egypt, the U.S.-Egypt relationship, and for regional peace.
Speakers:
MOATAZ EL FEGIERY, general coordinator for the Egyptian Human Rights Forum.
MAI EL-SADANY, legal and judicial director for the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy.
MICHELE DUNNE, Director and senior fellow of the Carnegie Middle East Program.
SUSAN B. GLASSER, staff writer at the New Yorker.
4. The Taiwan Relations Act at Forty and U.S.-Taiwan Relations| Tuesday, April 9, 2019 | 8:30 am – 5:00pm | Center for Strategic and International Study | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036| Register Here|
The Taiwan Relations Act, enacted by the United States Congress in April 1979, authorized continued “commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan” in the wake of the U.S. decision to establish diplomatic ties with the People’s Republic of China. By authorizing the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and other provisions, the TRA created a framework for relations between the U.S. and Taiwan which has enabled their partnership and friendship to thrive in the absence of diplomatic relations.
In observance of the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, this daylong public conference will feature analysis of the creation and implementation of the TRA, and how it continues to guide U.S.-Taiwan relations and interaction among Taiwan, China, and the United States.
This conference is co-hosted by CSIS, the Brookings Institution, and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
8:35am Opening Remarks
John Hamre (President and CEO, CSIS)
8:45am Welcome Speech
Stanley Kao (Representative, Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States) (Introduced by Bonnie Glaser)
8:55am Speaker Introduction
Richard Armitage (President, Armitage International and CSIS Trustee)
9:00am VTC Speech and Q&A
Her Excellency President Tsai Ing-wen of the Republic of China (Taiwan)
Q&A Moderator: Michael Green (Senior Vice President for Asia and Japan Chair, CSIS / Director of Asian Studies, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service)
9:45am Coffee Break
10:00am Panel One: Looking Back on U.S.-Taiwan Relations Since 1979
Moderator: Richard Bush (Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution)
Panelist 1: The TRA and the U.S. One-China Policy
Stephen Young (Former Director, American Institute in Taiwan)
Panelist 2: Cross-Strait Relations and U.S.-Taiwan Relations
Steven Goldstein (Associate, Harvard Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies)
Panelist 3: The Evolution of the U.S.-Taiwan Security Partnership
Shirley Kan (Former Specialist in Asian Security Affairs, Congressional Research Service)
11:15am Coffee Break
11:30am Speech and Q&A
Legislator Bi-khim Hsiao (Legislative Yuan)
(Introduced by Bonnie Glaser)
12:15pm Keynote Remarks
Representative Gerald Connolly (D-Virginia)
(Introduced by Richard Bush)
1:00pm Lunch
1:30pm Panel Two: Taiwan’s Strategic Environment Today
Moderator: Bonnie Glaser (Senior Adviser for Asia and Director of the China Power Project, CSIS)
Panelist 1: Taiwan’s Changing Security Environment
Michael Chase (Senior Political Scientist, RAND Corporation)
Panelist 2: How Taiwan Should Ensure Economic Competitiveness
Eric Altbach (Senior Vice President, Albright Stonebridge Group)
Panelist 3: Taiwan’s Options Regarding China
Susan Thornton (Former Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs)
Panelist 4: U.S.-Taiwan Economic Ties
Da-nien Daniel Liu (Director of the Regional Development Study Center, Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research)
2:45pm Panel Three: The Next Forty Years
Moderator: Abraham Denmark (Director of the Asia Program, Wilson Center)
Panelist 1: The TRA’s Continuing Relevance to U.S. Policy
Robert Sutter (Professor of Practice of International Affairs, George Washington University)
Panelist 2: China’s Strategies Toward Taiwan and Taiwan/U.S. Responses
Ryan Hass (David M. Rubenstein Fellow – Foreign Policy, Brookings Institution)
Panelist 3: Taiwan’s Future Sources of Strength and Weakness
Jacques deLisle (Professor of Law & Political Science, University of Pennsylvania)
4:00pm Coffee Break
4:15pm Speech and Q&A
W. Patrick Murphy (Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of State Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs)
(Introduced by Abraham Denmark)
5:00pm Conference End
5. China’s Influence Activities: Implications for the US-Taiwan Relationship| Monday, April 8, 2019 | 4:00pm-5:15| The Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St NW, Washington, DC 20005| Register Here |
Last week, a bipartisan group of senators introduced the Taiwan Assurance Act, which reaffirms the US commitment to Taiwan forty years after the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act. As China exerts increasing pressure against Taiwan’s position in the region, Taiwan’s leaders have sought greater support from the United States. Given US interests in the Indo-Pacific, what diplomatic, economic, and security steps should the United States take to signal support for Taiwan as a democratic partner in the region? What opportunities and challenges do the United States and Taiwan face moving forward? Where do US-Taiwan relations fit into the broader strategic picture?
KEYNOTE REMARKS BY
H.E. Bi-khim Hsiao, Legislator, Legislative Yuan, Taiwan
FEATURING
Mr. Ian Easton, Research Fellow Project 2049 Institute
Mr. Michael Mazza, Visiting Fellow, Foreign & Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Mr. Barry Pavel, Senior Vice President, Arnold Kanter Chair, and Director, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
6. SSANSE Project: Symposium on Russia and China’s Political Interference Activities in NATO Small States| Monday, April 8, 2019 | 8:45 am – 12:15pm | The Wilson Center | 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004-3027| Register Here |
For both Russia and China, foreign political interference activities are a useful and cost-effective method of foreign policy. In Russia it is theorized as “smart power”, while China still uses the Soviet-era term “united front work”. The activities of Russia and China go well beyond accepted norms of public diplomacy and are having a corrupting and corrosive effect on many societies. This half-day symposium focuses on Russia and China’s Political Interference Activities in NATO Small States. The world is seeing a return of both “might is right” politics and spheres of influence. As history has shown, the weakness of small states in a time of rising security threats can undermine the security of larger powers. The Symposium examines case studies of some representative small NATO states experiencing Russia and China’s political interference activities, the patterns of interference to look for, and discusses what is to be done.
Speakers:
Neringa Bladaitė, University of Vilnius
Anne-Marie Brady, Wilson Center/University of Canterbury
Donald J. Jensen, Center for European Policy Analysis
Ryan Knight, Georgetown University
Martin Hála, Charles University
Margarita Šešelgytė, University of Vilnius
Khamza Sharifzoda, Georgetown University
Mark Stokes, 2049 Project
Alan Tidwell, Georgetown University
Baldur Thorhallson, University of Iceland
Moderator: Abe Denmark, Asia Program, Wilson Center
AGENDA:
8:45am – Panel One
Donald J. Jensen: Assessing Contemporary Russian Interference Activities
Anne-Marie Brady: Magic Weapons? An Overview of CCP Interference Activities
Mark Stokes: Huawei and One Thousand Talents: China’s military links and technology transfer activities
Ryan Knight: Russia’s use of the Orthodox Church in Small NATO states
Alan Tidwell: Active Measures: Lessons Learned from the Past
10:10am – Morning tea
10:30am – Panel Two
Martin Hála: The CCP’s Magic Weapons at work in the Czech Republic
Khamza Sharifzoda: Armenia’s Struggle: Escaping the Kremlin
Baldur Thorhallson: Iceland’s engagements with Russia and China
Neringa Bladaite: Russia’s Political Interference Activities in Latvia
Margarita Šešelgytė: Russia and China’s Political Interference Activities and Lithuania
The Small States and the New Security Environment (SSANSE) Project is funded by NATO-SPS
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks 1-5
1. What´s Next for the Rohingya?| Tuesday, April 2, 2019 | 3:00 am – 4:30pm | The Wilson Center | 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004-3027| Register Here |
In August 2017, security forces in Burma’s Rakhine state staged a harsh and extended crackdown on the Rohingya—a deeply marginalized and persecuted Muslim minority community. Thousands are estimated to have died, while more than half a million fled to neighboring Bangladesh. United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres described the tragedy as ethnic cleansing. At this event, Dr. Nehginpao Kipgen, a top expert on Burma, will discuss developments involving the Rohingya since the 2017 crackdown, including key recent events, and what might be in store next for the troubled community. Does the political will exist in Burma to improve conditions for the Rohingya and to address the underlying issues that fuel their persecution? What will become of the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh? Dr. Kipgen will address these questions and more.
Speakers
Nehginpao Kipgen, Associate Professor and Executive Director at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies
Michael C. Davis, Fellow Professor of Law and International Affairs, Jindal Global University, Delhi, India
2. Ukraine’s Presidential Election| Tuesday, April 2, 2019 | 12:00pm| The Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St NW, Washington, DC 20005| Register Here |
The March 2019 presidential election is a pivotal event in Ukraine’s history. Outside attempts to influence the elections have been documented, particularly by the Kremlin, which has employed a full-range of hybrid tactics in Ukraine in an effort to destabilize the country.
Recognizing the high stakes, the Atlantic Council, the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, and the Transatlantic Commission on Election Integrity have established the Ukrainian Election Task Force. Working with other Ukrainian institutions and analysts–StopFake, Razumkov Centre, and Detector Media–the Task Force is a rapid-response team with the ability to monitor, evaluate, and disclose the full range of foreign subversive activities in Ukraine and to propose suitable responses.
Agenda
Panel One Discussion:
Dr. Anders Aslund, Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Mr. Carl Gershman, President, National Endowment for Democracy
Ms. Nataliya Bugayova, Director of Development and Research Fellow, Russia Team
Institute for the Study of War
Ambassador John Herbst, Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Moderated by:
Ms. Melinda Haring, Editor for Ukraine Alert, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Panel Two Discussion:
Mr. David J. Kramer, Senior Fellow Vaclav Havel Program for Human Rights and Diplomacy,
Ms. Laura Galante, Cyber Lead; Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Ukrainian Election Task Force; Atlantic Council
Mr. Jakub Kalenský, Disinformation Lead; Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Ukrainian Election Task Force; Atlantic Council
Mr. Oleksiy Melnyk, Kinetic Lead; Co-Director, Foreign Relations and International Security Programs
Moderated by:
Ms. Geysha Gonzalez, Deputy Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
3. Reform, Challenges and Adaptation: Egypt’s Evolving Economic Outlook| Tuesday, April 5, 2019 | 9:00pm- 10:30| The Middle East Institute | 1319 18th St. NW, Washington D.C. 20036| Register Here |
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a panel discussion on the future of Egypt’s economy. While Egypt’s recent economic reforms have made good inroads into improving the macroeconomic outlook, the pace of global development means that Egyptian businesses must work twice as hard to keep pace, and even harder if they want to pull ahead of the pack. Egypt’s state economy is huge, particularly in comparison with that of other emerging markets, but new reforms may give the private sector the opportunity to become Egypt’s growth engine.
Speakers
Sarah El-Battouty, Chairman and founder, ECOnsult
Girgis Abd El-Shahid, Managing partner, Shahid Law Firm
Tarek Tawfik, Chairman, Cairo Poultry Group; President, American Chamber of Commerce
Dalia Wahba, Chairman, CID Consulting
Mirette F. Mabrouk, moderator, Senior fellow and director of the Egypt program, MEI
4. Redefining U.S. national security: interlinkages with American society and foreign policy| Tuesday, April 5, 2019 | 9:00am- 19:00pm| Brookings Institution | 1775 Massachusetts Avenue N.W.Washington, DC 20036| Register Here |
President Donald Trump won the 2016 election largely by carrying Rust Belt states and doing especially well with a demographic skeptical of America’s role in the world regarding trade, investment, diplomacy, alliances, and immigration policy. His election has had consequences for U.S. foreign policy, from reducing foreign aid and pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, to imposing highly restrictive immigration policies and questioning numerous alliances.
Yet, U.S. foreign policy remains in flux as President Trump’s approach evolves, with the 2018 midterm elections demonstrating that many voters are not satisfied with the direction of the country. This situation provides a rich backdrop for debate, now and in the run-up to the 2020 political season, about how to best advance America’s interests at home and abroad.
Introduction
9:00 AM- 9:05 AM
Bonnie Jenkins, Executive Director – Nonresident Senior Fellow -The Brookings Institution
Discussion
9:05 AM – 9:30 AM
DISCUSSANT
Bonnie Jenkins, Executive Director, Nonresident Senior Fellow -The Brookings Institution
Jenkinsbd
Arsalan Suleman, Chair – America Indivisible
Panel I
US voting and US foreign policy: Regional focus
9:35 AM – 10:45 AM
MODERATOR
Michael E. O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow – The Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
Panelists
Jeannine Scott, Board President – Constituency for Africa
Sylvia Mishra, India-US Fellow in Public Interest Technology – New America
Asha Castleberry, Adjunct Professor – George Washington University
Jung H. Pak, SK-Korea Foundation Chair in Korea Studies, Senior Fellow – Center for East Asia Policy Studies
Laura Kupe, Counsel – Committee on Homeland Security, US House of Representatives
Emily Mendrala, Executive Director – Center for Democracy in the Americas
Panel II
US voting and new national security issues
10:45 AM – 11:55 AM
MODERATOR
Liza Arias, Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow – Center for Strategic & International Studies
PANELISTs
Uzra Zeya, President and CEO – Alliance for Peacebuilding
Daniel Lucey, Senior Scholar – O’Neill Institute, Georgetown University
Sean Shank, Vice President – BNY Mellon
Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, Member – Third Way Cyber Enforcement Initiative Advisory Board
Dr. Muhammad Fraser-Rahim, Executive Director – North America for Quilliam International
Closing
11:55 AM – 12:00 PM
Michael E. O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow -Director of Research, The Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair
5. The Future of Statecraft | Tuesday, April 2, 2019 | 9:00 am – 4:45pm | Center for Strategic and International Study | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036| Register Here|
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) are pleased to host another conference as part of the Future Strategy Forum, an initiative to connect scholars who research national security with its leading practitioners.
The 2019 focus is “The Future of Statecraft” and will examine the future of great power cooperation, international institutions, and economic statecraft. The conference will feature a keynote conversation with former National Security Advisor Ambassador Susan Rice.
Conference Schedule
8:30 AM – 9:00 AM Registration and Breakfast
9:00 AM – 9:15 AM Welcome Remarks
Dr. Kathleen Hicks, Senior Vice President; Henry A. Kissinger Chair
Dr. Francis J. Gavin, Giovanni Agnelli Distinguished Professor and Director Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs Johns Hopkins SAIS
Ms. Sara Plana and Ms. Rachel Tecott , PhD Candidates, Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
9:15 AM – 10:45 AM Panel 1: “Great Power Cooperation”
Ms. Lindsey Ford, Director of Political-Security Affairs, Richard Holbrooke Fellow, and
Deputy Director of the Washington D.C. Office, Asia Society Policy Institute
Dr. Angela Stent, Director of the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies and Professor of Government and Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Distinguished Resident Fellow in African Studies, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University
Dr. Irene Wu, Former Fellow, Wilson Center and Georgetown University
Ms. Meg Guliford (Moderator), PhD Candidate, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University
10:45 AM – 11:00 AM Coffee Break
11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Panel 2: “International Institutions”
Dr. Esther Brimmer, Executive Director and CEO, NAFSA: Association of International Educators
Ms. Heather Conley, Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic; and Director, Europe Program, CSIS
Ms. Naima Green, PhD Candidate, Harvard University
Dr. Kristina Spohr, Helmut Schmidt Distinguished Professor, Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Dr. Mischa Thompson (Moderator), Director of Global Partnership, Policy, and Innovaiton, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
12:30 PM – 1:45 PM Lunch and Talk
1:45 PM – 3:15 PM Panel 3: “Economic Statecraft”
Ms. Elizabeth Rosenberg, Senior Fellow and Director, Energy Economics and Security Program, Center for a New American Security
Dr. Sarah Sewall, Speyer Family Foundation Distinguished Scholar, Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Ms. Camille Stewart, Esq., Cybersecurity Policy Fellow, New America
Ms. Tori K. Whiting, Jay Van Andel Trade Economist, Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Dr. Radha Iyengar Plumb (Moderator), Adjunct Economist, RAND Corporation
3:15 PM – 3:30 PM Coffee Break
3:30 PM – 4:45 PM Keynote Discussion with Ambassador Susan Rice
Ambassador Susan Rice, Former National Security Advisor and U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Dr. Kathleen Hicks (Moderator), Senior Vice President; Henry A. Kissinger Chair; Director, International Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
4:45 PM – 5:30 PM Closing Reception
6. State capture: how Conservatives Claimed Power and How to Restore Balance| Tuesday, April 5, 2019 | 12:30pm- 2:00pm| New America| 740 15th St NW #900 Washington, D.C. 20005| Register Here |
Over the past forty years, conservatives have mastered the art of pursuing policy change at the state level, while similar liberal efforts have floundered. Today, conservatives fully control 26 state legislatures and governorships — one of the largest advantages either party has had since the New Deal.
What did the party do right? How have conservatives learned from their mistakes over the years? And why have liberals struggled to build similar cross-state organizing clout?
In State Capture: How Conservative Activists, Big Businesses, and Wealthy Donors Reshaped the American States — and the Nation, Alex Hertel-Fernandez provides the first in-depth and accessible history of the rise of cross-state conservative lobbying groups, including the American Legislative Exchange Council, the State Policy Network, and Americans for Prosperity, documenting both their victories and their missteps over time. In his book, Hertel-Fernandez also spells out the specific policy consequences of conservative cross-state organizing, including its effects on labor market standards, unions, and the Affordable Care Act. The book also tracks liberal efforts to counter-balance the right and why they have frequently failed to match conservative scale and clout.
Presenters
Alex Hertel-Fernandez, Assistant Professor of Public Affairs, Columbia SIPA
Lydia Bean, Fellow, Political Reform Program at New America
Mark Schmitt, Director, Political Reform Program at New America
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Remote war
New America hosted a panel discussion March 21 about twenty-first century proxy warfare with Candace Rondeaux, Senior Fellow at New America’s International Security Program and C. Anthony Pfaff, Research Professor, Strategic Studies Institute at Army War College.
Rondeaux gave an overview of the strategic and tactical changes in twenty-first century proxy war. Proxy warfare is moving away from both Cold War bipolarity and also uni-polarity. The reason for this shift is the proliferation of standoff, remote targeting capabilities, mainly in the Middle East region. Iran and other states in the region have standoff capacity, which means limited war has expanded beyond the great powers. States can limit their direct engagement. There is also the rise of transnational movements and the weakening of nation-states. The decay of multilateral institutions and their power to exert influence over conflict, such as the UN and increasingly NATO, has also become quite remarkable. The situation in Syria would be different without the log jam among the permanent members of the Security Council, with Russia always objecting to resolutions that seek to contain conflict.
At the tactical level, Rondeaux argues the nation-states that are struggling internally with their own domestic order often look to conflict beyond their borders as a means to signal cohesion at the national level. That is quite apparent in Iranian support to Hizballah, which helps to contain domestic challenges. Also, there is an increasing appetite within autocracies, particularly Russia, for a “military sugar rush” of instant victory on the battlefield, even if it causes big diplomatic trouble. It has been hard to make the Minsk agreement for Ukraine work so far. The last tactical concern is the way in which communication technology has connected social networks in ways never seen before. The rapid transit of ideas and national, ethnic and political identities in Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen has been a big factor in the availability of proxies.
Pfaff stated that proxies not only are not well understood but also under-regulated. The world is becoming multi-polar with state actors who can serve as benefactors and proxies and also a proliferation of non-state actors who can do the same thing. This comes with increasingly fragmented and contested sovereignty, which changes the security calculations of all actors as well as the options they have for pursuing their security goals. According to Pfaff, the inclusion of benefactors won’t make an unjust cause just, or illegitimate authority legitimate, but their involvement can make the disproportionate proportionate, and alternatives to fighting less appealing. Work still needs to be done in terms of international law to hold benefactors responsible for the illegal actions of their proxies .
Pfaff argues that international law does not address proxies. There are no norms in this situation. There isn’t any problem with having a proxy relationship, but the question is whether this relationship is stabilizing or destabilizing. States should be held responsible for the acts they sponsor remotely.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Balkans in perspective
I did this interview for Al Jazeera Balkan March 1. How and why they waited until March 19 to publish it I don’t know, but it means I have little recall of what I said. I hope it is still current:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The state of State
President Trump’s FY2020 budget cuts the foreign affairs budget by 23%, while significantly boosting the Pentagon. The cut is mostly from Overseas Contingency Operations (wars and post-war stabilization and transition), which is zeroed out. Trump expects America’s future wars to be fought entirely without the civilian component that helps to fix the damage after the military is done. Yemenis, Libyans, Syrians, Somalis, South Sudanese, Ukrainians and others can expect little or no civilian assistance once their wars are over, if Trump gets his way.
The Administration also anticipates no need for international disaster assistance and a small fraction of what was spent in the past on refugees and migration. Big percentage cuts also hit the already very small National Endowment for Democracy (almost 2/3, to $67 million and change) and United States Institute of Peace (almost 50% to $19 million), which both engage in trying to prevent wars and in post-war efforts stabilization, the former by promoting democracy and the latter by promoting conflict resolution.
This presidential budget has little practical significance, since it will be dead on arrival in Congress, but it signals the Administration’s priorities all too clearly: it intends to continue to overuse the military instrument and to forget about civilian contributions to the projection of American power. Conventional diplomacy of the embassy/cocktail party type is not cut. In fact, the “representation” budget for that activity is increased. You wouldn’t want your big campaign contributors not to get reimbursed for entertaining foreigners. Trump is saying he doesn’t need state/nationbuilding, conflict prevention, post-war stabilization and reconstruction, countering violent extremism, refugee protection and repatriation, and response to emergencies abroad. In short, all the most pressing needs of the past two decades and more.
He is not alone in thinking we can ignore civilian commitments to national security. A good part of America believes Washington spends more than one-quarter of the national budget on foreign aid, apparently because they think it includes military spending abroad. If I thought that, I’d want to cut the foreign affairs budget too. In fact the non-military figure is around 1%, counting not only foreign aid but also all operations of State, AID and related agencies, including international organizations. I’ve had people tell me the reason we have a big national debt is foreign aid, which in fact accounts for an infinitesmal portion of it.
Congress fortunately has been fairly supportive of foreign affairs in recent years. The one virtue of this presidential proposal is that it is guaranteed to arouse opposition. Most members travel abroad and know what embassies, consulates, aid workers, and other civilians do. Most Americans do not, despite my efforts. At least 64% of Americans do not have a passport and therefore do not travel abroad or care much about what happens there, though they believe the U.S. should play a strong international leadership role. I imagine the Congress will save the day, as it did last year, and restore a lot of the funding the President would like to cut. Leadership depends as much on civilians as on the military.
Restoring the foreign affairs budget will depend however on a broader budget agreement, since sequestration will come back for 2020 if there is none. Trump will not want that, since sequestration would cut Defense back 13%, instead of the increase he is proposing. So yes, there is likely to be a compromise. But getting there will not be easy.
The state of State is weak, and getting weaker.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
From War to Peace
Here are the notes I used for my presentation of From War to Peace in the Balkans, Middle East, and Ukraine yesterday at Johns Hopkins/SAIS, which has made it available free world-wide at that link. I am grateful to colleagues David Kanin and Majda Ruge for commenting and critiquing.
- It is a pleasure to present at this Faculty Research Forum, which will I think be a bit different from others. I’ll be concerned not only with analyzing what happened and is happening now in the Balkans but also with what should happen. I will try to fill the academic/practitioner gap.
- I am particularly pleased as the event includes two of the best-informed people I know on the Balkans: David Kanin, whom I first met when he worked in the 1990s at the CIA Balkans Task Force, teaches the Balkans course here at SAIS; and Majda Ruge, who is both a native of the Balkans and a colleague at the Foreign Policy Institute.
- Some of you will remember the Balkans in the 1990s: the US and Europe fumbling for years in search of peaceful solutions in Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, and Kosovo only to find themselves conducting two air wars against Serb forces.
- But most Americans have forgotten this history. Europeans often believe there were no positive results. In the Balkans, many are convinced things were better under Tito.
- I beg to differ: the successes as well as the failures of international intervention in the Balkans should not be forgotten or go unappreciated.
- That’s why I wrote my short book, which treats the origins, consequences, and aftermath of the 1995, 1999 and 2001 interventions that led to the end of the most recent Balkan wars.
- As for the causes of the Balkan wars of the 1990s, my view is that there were three fundamental ingredients: the breakup of former Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milošević’s political ambitions and military capability, and ethnic nationalism, particularly in its territorial form.
- Where all three were present in good measure, as in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, war was inevitable. Where Milosevic’s political ambitions were limited, as in Slovenia, war was short. Where his political ambitions and others’ ethnic nationalism were attenuated, as in Macedonia and Montenegro, war was mostly avoided.
- The breakup of Yugoslavia is now a done deal, even if Serbia continues to resist acknowledging it. So too are Milosevic’s political ambition AND military capability. No one has inherited them. The third factor—ethnoterritorial nationalism—is still very much alive. All the Balkans peace agreements left it unscathed.
- Conflict prevention and state-building efforts since the 1990s have been partly successful, though challenging problems remain in Bosnia, Macedonia, Kosovo, and Serbia. My former SAIS colleague Michael Mandelbaum is wrong: the transformation mission in the Balkans is not a failed mission, but rather an incomplete one.
- He thinks it failed because his explicit point of comparison is an ideal: the U.S. he says did not “succeed in installing well-run, widely accepted governments in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, or Kosovo.” I think Bosnia and Kosovo are works in progress because they are so obviously improved from their genocidal and homicidal wars. State capture is better than mass atrocity.
- The book examines each of the Balkan countries on its own merits, as well as their prospects for entry into NATO and the EU, whose doors are in theory open to all the Balkan states.
- {slide} Bottom line: all the states that emerged from Yugoslavia as well as Albania are closer to fulfilling their Euroatlantic ambitions than they are to the wars and collapse of the 1990s.
- All can hope to be EU members, and NATO allies if they want, by 2030, if they focus their efforts.
- {Slide} They were making decent progress when the financial crisis struck in 2007/8. The decade since then has been disappointing in many different respects:
- Growth slowed and even halted in some places.
- The Greek financial crisis cast a storm cloud over the EU and the euro.
- The flow of refugees, partly through the Balkans, from the Syrian and Afghanistan wars as well as from Africa soured the mood further.
- Brexit, a symptom of the much wider rise of mostly right-wing, anti-European populism, has made enlargement look extraordinarily difficult.
- {Slide} The repercussions in the Balkans have been dire:
- Bosnia’s progress halted as it slid back into ethnic nationalist infighting.
- Macedonia’s reformist prime minister became a defiant would-be autocrat.
- Kosovo and Serbia are stalled in their difficult normalization process.
- Russia has taken advantage of the situation to slow progress towards NATO and the EU.
- Moscow tried to murder Montenegro’s President to block NATO membership, finances Bosnia’s Serb secessionist entity, campaigned against resolving the Macedonia name issue, and undermines free media throughout the Balkans.
- Now the question is whether the West, demoralized and divided by Donald Trump and other populists, can still muster the courage to resolve the remaining problems in the Balkans and complete the process of EU and, for those who want it, NATO accession.
- Plan A is still viable. I also don’t see a Plan B that comes even close to the benefits of completing Plan A.
- When I wrote the book, three big obstacles remained. Now there are only two.
- The first obstacle was the Macedonia “name” issue. For those who may not follow the Balkans, the Greeks claim the name “Macedonia” belongs exclusively to the Hellenic tradition and would like the modern, majority Slavic country that uses that name to stop using it.
- Skopje and Athens have now resolved this issue. New leadership was key to making it happen.
- For those who claim the West is prepared to tolerate corruption and state capture in order to ensure stability in the Balkans, I suggest a chat with Nikola Gruevski.
- Washington and Brussels helped chase him from office in 2017, once his malfeasance was well-publicized and a popular alternative appeared on the horizon. If there is a viable liberal democratic option, the West has been willing to support it.
- The solution to the name issue is deceptively simple: now ratified in both parliaments, the Republic of Macedonia will become the Republic of North Macedonia, which most of its inhabitants and most of us will continue to call just Macedonia.
- The Republic of North Macedonia can now hope to join NATO, perhaps by the end of this year, and become a candidate for EU accession.
- There is a lot more to it, but that is all that will matter to you and me. The rest is for the Greeks and Macedonians.
- The second big obstacle is normalization between Belgrade and Pristina, which will require mutual recognition and exchange of diplomatic representatives at the ambassadorial level.
- This is closer than most think. Serbia has already abandoned its claim to sovereignty over all of Kosovo, in an April 2013 Brussels agreement that established the validity of the Kosovo constitution on its whole territory and foresaw Kosovo and Serbia entering the EU separately and without hindering each other. Only sovereign states can enter the EU.
- {Slide} Belgrade has also implicitly acknowledged Kosovo’s sovereignty in opening the question of partition along ethnic lines. Serbia would like to absorb the 3.5 or 4 (depending on how you count) municipalities in northern Kosovo, three of which were majority Serb before the war.
RSS - Posts
