Tag: US
Little by little is too little
On July 8 the United States Institute of Peace hosted a panel discussion titled “The North Korea Sanctions Regime a Year After Singapore.” The panel featured Dan Wertz, Program Manager at the National Committee on North Korea, Joshua Stanton, a DC-based lawyer who played a significant role in North Korea sanctions, Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt, a member of the UN Panel of Experts (Resolution 1874) dealing with North Korea, and Elizabeth Rosenberg, Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Frank Aum, former Senior Advisor for North Korea at the Defense Department, moderated the discussion.
Stanton views the history of US leadership on North Korea issues as many “instant gratification policies” instead of better thought out and more effective long-term policies. North Korea is highly dependent on access to US financial systems because of the status of the dollar. Since many North Korean transactions have to go through US banks, financial sanctions blocking transactions and freezing North Korean accounts can be highly effective.
Stanton believes the conversation on sanctions relief is coming about two years too early. More pressure on the Kim regime is needed so that he has a diplomatic incentive to work with the US. Even small sanctions relief is enough for North Korea to catch a breather and continue the status quo. The argument that North Korea can’t survive without nuclear weapons and therefore won’t give them up is ahistorical, according to Stanton, because North Korea has survived for decades without nuclear weapons and can continue to do so. The threat to North Korea is mainly internal.
On possible sanctions relief, Stanton clarifies that Congress has set strict rules dependent not only on issues such as nuclear disarmament and denuclearization but also contingent on human rights, human trafficking, and other issues. The current direction in congress is towards stricter rules for sanctions relief, with the goal of complete, verifiable and undisputed denuclearization of North Korea. The US has to work together with its allies to set up financial sanctions that pressure Pyongyang while at the same time allowing transactions for non-military purposes that benefit the North Korean people. Humanitarian aid should be given to North Korea regardless of political or military actions since it benefits the poor and starving civilians, a point all the panelists agreed on.
Kleine-Ahlbrandt notes that the goal of the UN sanctions regime is to persuade North Korea to dismantle its nuclear and missile programs and prevent the proliferation of WMDs. Sanctions shouldn’t be the objective, which is to catalyze what she calls “effective dialogue.” At the same time the negative impact of sanctions on the economy and civilian population of North Korea should be limited. The UN sanctions regime is broad, but member states have insufficiently implemented the sanctions and evasion tactics by North Korean entities and individuals have undermined compliance. North Korea currently has full access to the international financial system through complicit foreign nationals, a network of agents, and cyberattacks aimed at financial institutions.
Wertz views the sanctions as having a threefold purpose: signaling to North Korea that provocative actions such as missile tests come at a cost, constraining progress on WMDs and other military capabilities, and coercing North Korea through sanctions pressure to make concessions and abandon the nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Coercion is difficult because translating economic pressure to political actions is difficult. UN sanctions, which are focused on the missile and nuclear programs, can be modified if political consensus is reached within the UNSC on whether North Korea’s behavior warrants relief.
US sanctions are trickier since they are premised on a broad range of topics from WMDs to human rights, cyber-attacks, currency counterfeiting and more. The executive branch has some leeway on how it administers individual sanctions or waives them on a case by case basis, but to lift sanctions as a whole the White House has to certify to Congress that North Korea has made significant progress on several of the issues listed. This divergence of US and UN sanctions could potentially lead to a clash if North Korea abandons its nuclear program but doesn’t improve on human rights or other issues.
Wertz suggests that a program of phased sanctions relief in return for meaningful concessions on the nuclear program could be in the US interest down the road and lists five principles for sanctions relief:
- Any trade of sanctions relief for North Korean nuclear concessions should be premised on the ultimate goal of denuclearization but should also make sense on its own terms.
- The US should start with the sanctions that have the least direct connection to the nuclear program and can be most easily adjusted and snapped back.
- The US shouldn’t ease up on measures intended to deny hard currency to North Korea until it can guarantee the money won’t be funneled to military programs.
- Sanctions relief should be structured in a way that pushes North Korea towards an open economy and minimal respect for labor rights.
- If sanctions relief goes forward the United States and allies should continue to enforce sanctions that haven’t been lifted, but not expand the scope of sanctions.
Rosenberg suggests the lack of compliance with sanctions is in part because many individuals or companies don’t understand or know about the rules. Awareness and compliance protocols in industries other than finance are rare. Before sanctions are removed, Rosenberg says it is valuable to think about what unwinding sanctions could look like. Sanctions shouldn’t be lifted as an incentive; behavioral change has to happen before sanctions are lifted because they are in place for specific concerns. Instead more work should be put into establishing communication and cultural as well as diplomatic exchanges as incentives, none of which require sanctions relief.
Rosenberg also warns that a “little-by-little” approach to removing sanctions in exchange for limited progress doesn’t work. North Korea’s track record of cheating on sanctions means incremental change might create a façade behind which North Korea can do as it pleases. The only politically viable way ahead for the US is major sanctions relief after North Korea makes major and verified progress on denuclearization.
Here is the video of the event:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks April 29-May 3
1. Withdrawal or Realignment? The Future of U.S. Middle East Policy After 2020| Monday, April 29, 2019| 11:45-1:30| Hudson Institute|1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004| Register Here|
Hudson Institute will host a discussion on the future of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Panelists will include Hudson Senior Fellow Michael Pregent; Daily Beast columnist and author Gordon Chang; the Washington Institute’s Anna Borshchevskaya; and Hudson Fellow Blaise Misztal. Al Arabiya’s Nadia Bilbassy-Charters will moderate the discussion.
Iran, Russia, China, and others are closely monitoring U.S. policy in the Middle East ahead of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. As 2020 candidates’ foreign policy platforms come into focus, this election outcome could have significant ramifications across established policies impacting regional fault lines, such as the polarizing Iran Deal. Additionally, recent efforts by the Trump administration to decrease the U.S. presence in Syria and Iraq have raised questions among allies about America’s long-term ambitions for the Middle East, while adversaries eye the moves as an opportunity to fill potential power vacuums left in the region.
Speakers
Nadia Bilbassy-Charters Moderator, Bureau Chief, Washington D.C., Al Arabiya
Gordon G. Chang, Author, Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes on the World; and a columnist at The Daily Beast
Blaise Misztal, Fellow, Hudson Institute
Mike Pregent, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Anna Borshchevskaya, Senior Fellow, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
2. Trump’s Iran escalation| Monday, April 29, 2019| 12:00-1:15| Carnegie Endowment for International Peace|1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103| Register Here|
One year after exiting the Iran nuclear deal, the Trump administration officially designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization and is seeking to strangle Iranian oil exports. What is the likely outcome of the Trump administration’s escalating pressure campaign against Iran? How will Tehran react, and what lessons can be drawn from the last four decades of U.S.-Iran history?
SPEAKERS
GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS, former director of the CIA and is currently the chairman of the KKR Global Institute.
WILLIAM J. BURNS, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and author of The Back Channel: A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for Its Renewal.
SUZANNE MALONEY, senior fellow at the Brookings Center for Middle East Policy and Energy Security and Climate Initiative.
MODERATOR, KARIM SADJADPOUR, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
3. After the caliphate: A global approach to defeating ISIS| Tuesday, April 30, 2019| 2:00-3:30| Brooking Institute|1775 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20036| Register Here|
The Islamic State took the world by surprise in 2014 when it conquered much of Iraq and Syria and declared a caliphate there. Today, the so-called caliphate is no more. Nevertheless, the Islamic State has branches and affiliates in many countries, a large underground presence in Iraq and Syria, and numerous sympathizers around the world. The future of the group, and of the broader movement it claims to champion, are uncertain, and U.S. policy must ensure that it continues to retreat.
On April 30, the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will host a discussion on this topic. Nathan Sales, ambassador-at-large and coordinator for counterterrorism at the U.S. Department of State, will offer a keynote address after which Brookings Senior Fellow Daniel Byman will moderate a discussion with Ambassador Sales. Following the conversation, the speakers will take questions from the audience.
AGENDA
Introduction
Bruce Jones, Vice President and Director – Foreign Policy Senior Fellow
KEYNOTE
Nathan A. Sales, Ambassador-at-Large and Coordinator for Counterterrorism – U.S. Department of State
MODERATOR
Daniel L. Byman, Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy
DISCUSSANT
Nathan A. Sales, Ambassador-at-Large and Coordinator for Counterterrorism – U.S. Department of State
4. Pursuing Effective and Conflict-Aware Stabilization | Tuesday, April 30, 2019| 3:30-5:00| Center for Strategic and International Studies|1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036| Register Here|
Please join the CSIS International Security Program and Project on Prosperity and Development for a discussion on pursuing effective and conflict-aware stabilization in light of the new Stabilization Assistance Review framework, released by the U.S. administration in June 2018.
Agenda
3:30 PM – 4:00 PM: Keynote
Dr. Denise Natali, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, U.S. Department of State
Moderator: Erol Yayboke, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Project on Prosperity and Development, Project on U.S. Leadership in Development, Center for Strategic and International Studies
4:00 PM – 5:00 PM: Panel Discussion
Ambassador Barbara Bodine, Director and Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University
Frances Brown, Fellow, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Robert Jenkins, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, U.S. Agency for International Development
Moderator: Melissa Dalton, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director, International Security Program, and Director, Cooperative Defense Project, Center for Strategic and International Studies
5. The Christian right in the Trump and post-Trump eras| Wednesday, May 1, 2019| 10:30-12:00| Hudson Institute|1789 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036| Register Here|
Donald Trump was not the first choice of many conservative Christian voters for the 2016 Republican nomination. However, they strongly backed Trump in the 2016 presidential election, and they remain among Trump’s most ardent supporters. Are conservative Christians, in backing Trump, wagering that his policies are worth the baggage? Or have their priorities fundamentally changed?
More broadly, the percentage of Republicans who attend church regularly and who identify as Christian traditionalists is dropping, and the issues that animate Trump’s GOP appear different than those of the 1990s and 2000s. At a time of growing secularization, rising religious pluralism, and identity-based political polarization, has the role of Christianity in the Republican Party fundamentally changed?
Agenda
10:15 AM
Registration
10:30 AM
Opening remarks:
Daniel A. Cox, AEI
10:45 AM
Panel Discussion
Panelists
David Barker, Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies; American University
Emily Ekins, Cato Institute
Emma Green, The Atlantic
Joanna Piacenza, Morning Consult
Moderator:
Daniel A. Cox, AEI
11:45 AM
Q&A
12:00 PM
Adjournment
6. Instability and Opportunity in North Africa| Wednesday, May 1, 2019| 2:00-3:30| United States Institute of Peace|2301 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20037| Register Here|
Since 2011, popular protests have forced four of the five governments in North Africa out of power. As these long-standing regimes fall, the resulting political vacuums are creating security challenges that could undermine internal efforts to promote reform. Weak or non-existent government institutions are being exploited by terrorists, human traffickers, and criminals—threatening the stability of immediate neighbors while having a direct impact on Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, and U.S. national security interests. Yet, all this upheaval may also present an opportunity to advance deep, regional security cooperation that has been historically unattainable.
Across North Africa, instability is at its highest level since 2011. In Algeria, President Bouteflika’s resignation was a necessary step to democratization, but it remains to be seen if the political structure can survive protesters’ demands for reform and ensure a peaceful transition of power. In Libya, the hope for a compromise to end the stalemate between the internationally recognized government in Tripoli and armed opposition forces seems to be lost. In Egypt, President el-Sisi’s supporters have proposed constitutional changes that will concentrate executive power, alarming human rights and democracy advocates around the world. And amid all this turmoil, Tunisia is trying to consolidate its own democracy and reform its security institutions following decades of autocratic rule.
Speakers
Abdelkrim Zbidi, Minister of Defense, Republic of Tunisia
Thomas Hill, Senior Program Officer, North Africa, U.S. Institute of Peace
Michael Yaffe, Vice President, Middle East and Africa, U.S. Institute of Peace
7. A new Palestinian Government: Is reconciliation possible| Friday, May 3, 2019| 12:30-2:00| Middle East Institute|1319 18th St NW District of Columbia, Washington 20036| Register Here|
The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a panel discussion to examine the implications of the Palestinian Authority’s recent power shift. On April 14, Mohammed Shtayyeh took office as Prime Minister, a position held by Rami Hamdallah since 2014. Shtayyeh’s appointment comes during a turbulent time in Palestine, amid protests over a new social security law and escalating confrontation with Israeli occupying forces. Unlike his politically-independent predecessor, Shtayyeh is affiliated with Fatah, President Mahmoud Abbas’s party, and Hamas has announced that it will not recognize his authority, saying he was appointed without national consensus.
How might this change in leadership affect Palestine’s political environment? Will Shtayyeh further sideline Hamas in negotiations with the Israeli government? What prospects are there to promote human rights and the rule of law amid heightening tensions between Palestine and Israel?
Speakers
Tamara Kharroub, Assistant executive director and senior Middle East fellow, Arab Center DC
Grace Wermenbol, Non-resident scholar, MEI
Ambassador Gerald Feierstein, moderator, Senior vice president, MEI
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks April 22-26
1.The evolution of U.S. trade strategy: causes and consequences for Asia| Tuesday, April 23, 2019 | 11:45 am – 3:15pm| The Wilson Center | 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20004-3027|Register here|
The Trump administration has taken U.S. foreign economic policy in directions not seen since the establishment of the postwar liberal regime for international trade. The US has been unprecedentedly critical of the WTO, sought to replace NAFTA with a new US-Mexico-Canada agreement, and cast the EU as a foe in trade relations while halting progress on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. But the most significant trade moves have targeted China and focused on the Asia-Pacific: opting out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, criticizing Chinese policies and practices as unfair on issues ranging across market access, currency manipulation, coerced or illicit intellectual property transfers, industrial policy, import duties, government subsidies, and Chinese firms’ violations of US sanctions on third countries. Initial rounds of tariffs from both sides and threats to escalate portended a possible full-blown US-China trade war as negotiations failed to move expeditiously toward a mutually acceptable deal.
The TPP has moved forward without the US, as the CPTPP with Japan in the leading role. The China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership is emerging, with overlapping membership and less demanding rules. China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank may further change the regional economic and institutional landscape. Alongside its more confrontational stance on trade, the US has pressed for a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” What have been, and are likely to be, the regional impacts of recent US policy? What are the prospects for multilateral cooperation in the region? Is the current US approach, associated with President Trump but with some roots in earlier periods, likely to change and, if so, with what effects? Join us for a discussion on the challenges ahead in dealing with the new trade realities and what it means for U.S. relations with Asia in particular.
AGENDA
11:45
Registration and lunch
12:10
Introduction and opening remarks
12:15-1:45
Panel I: Regional impact of the “trade war”
David Dollar, Senior Fellow, John L Thornton China Center, Brookings
Meg Lundsager, Public Policy Fellow, Wilson Center
Michael Pillsbury, Senior Fellow and Director for Chinese Strategy, Hudson Institute
Bradford Ward, Partner, King and Spalding
Jacques DeLisle, Director, Center for East Asian Studies and Stephen A Cozen Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School (moderator)
1:45-2:00
coffee break
2:00-3:15
Panel 2: Trade realities and prospects for cooperation
Taeho Bark, Professor Emeritus, Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University
Jacob Schlesinger, Senior Correspondent, Wall Street Journal Washington Bureau
Wayne Morrison, Specialist in Asian Trade and FInance, Congressional Research Service
Shihoko Goto, Deputy Director for Geoeconomics, Asia Program, Wilson Center (moderator)
2. Ukraine´s post-election landscape| Friday, April 26, 2019| 10:00 am – 11:30pm| Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103|Register here|
Join Carnegie for a timely conversation about the impact of the Ukrainian presidential elections on the country’s politics and society. April 26 also marks the thirty-third anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, an event which played a central role in the formation of Ukrainian national identity, a topic that once again is at the forefront of the country’s extremely dynamic domestic politics.
Serhill Plokhll, Maykhailo S. Hrushevs’kyi, professor of Ukrainian history and director of the Ukrainian Research Institute at Harvard University
Matthew Kaminski, global editor of POLITICO and the founding editor of POLITICO’s European edition.
Balázs Jarábik, nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Andrew S. Weiss, James Family chair and vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
2. A New Approach to Preventing Extremism in Fragile States| Friday, April 26, 2019 | 10:00 am – 11:30pm| United States Institute of Peace | 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037 |Register here|
Congress charged the U.S. Institute of Peace, an independent, bipartisan leader in reducing and preventing conflict, with convening The Task Force on Extremism in Fragile States. The Task Force has developed a proposal for a new cost-effective, evidence-based, and coordinated preventive approach. Modest U.S. investments—if they are strategic, coordinated, well-timed, and sustained—can empower communities over time to better resist extremism on their own and motivate international donors to support this cause. Join us as we wrestle with the challenge of supporting fragile states to build resiliency, sustain progress and prevent future threats and instability.
Agenda
9:30am – 10:30am – Recommendations of the Task Force on Extremism in Fragile States
Secretary Madeleine Albright, Chair, Albright Stonebridge Group
Stephen Hadley, Chair of the Board of Directors, U.S. Institute of Peace
Governor Tom Kean, Co-Chair, Task Force on Extremism in Fragile States
Nancy Lindborg, President, U.S. Institute of Peace
Michael Singh, Lane-Swig Senior Fellow and Managing Director, The Washington Institute
David Ignatius, moderator, Columnist and Author, The Washington Post
10:30am – 11:30am – Prioritizing Prevention Across the United States Government
Chris Milligan, Counselor, The U.S. Agency for International Development
Lieutenant General Michael Nagata, Director for Strategic Operational Planning, National Counterterrorism Center
Alina Romanowski, Principal Deputy Coordinator for Counterterrorism, U.S. Department of State
11:30am – 11:45am – Coffee Break
11:45am – 12:45pm – International Prevention Efforts
Ambassador Diane Corner, Counsellor of Foreign and Security Policy, British Embassy in Washington, D.C.
Ambassador Martin Dahinden, Ambassador of Switzerland to the United States of America
Habib Mayar, Deputy General Secretary of the g7+
Ulrika Modéer, UN Assistant Secretary-General and Director of UNDP’s Bureau for External Relations and Advocacy
Sam Worthington, President and CEO, InterAction
Raj Kumar, moderator, Founding President and Editor-in-Chief, Devex
3. Blind Spots: America and the Palestinians, From Balfour to Trump| Wednesday, April 24, 2019 | 9:30 am – 11:00pm| Brooking Institute | 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037 |Register here|.
In an exciting new book, “Blind Spot: America and the Palestinians, From Balfour to Trump,” Brookings Nonresident Fellow Khaled Elgindy takes a historical view of America’s engagement with the Palestinians and Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. He argues that while the United States has often presented itself as an honest broker and the one power best suited to mediate peace between Israelis and Palestinians, Washington’s ability to serve as an effective peace broker has been hampered by a “blind spot” in two critical areas: Israeli power and Palestinian politics. The Trump administration’s policies, such as moving the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, are only the most extreme manifestations of this age-old, American blind spot, Elgindy writes.
Agenda
Daniel L. Byman, Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy
4. The Future of Afghanistan: Ongoing Negotiations and the Role of Regional Allies| Monday, April 22,2019 | 11:00 am | The Atlantic Council | 1030 15th St NW, Washington, DC 20005|Register here|
The Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center is pleased to invite you to “The Future of Afghanistan: Ongoing Negotiations and the Role of Regional Partners,” a panel discussion on the progress of ongoing negotiations between the United States and the Taliban, and the role of regional partners.
The status of a future peace settlement between the Afghan government and the Taliban remains uncertain, even as negotiations with the United States move forward. The role of US partners, including coalition allies, Pakistan and India will heavily influence the shape and success of any future political resolution in Afghanistan. This panel discussion will explore the contours of these relationships and the potential roles regional partners may play in supporting, or undermining, an eventual Afghan peace process.
Agenda
Moderated by:
Fatemeh Aman, Nonresident Senior Fellow, South Asia Center, Atlantic Council
A conversation with:
Daud Khattak, Senior Editor, Radio Mashaal, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty
Ambassador Omar Samad, Nonresident Senior Fellow, South Asia Center, Atlantic Council
Michael Kugelman, Deputy Director and Senior Associate for South Asia, Wilson Center
5. Turning up the Heat: U.S. Designates Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a Terrorist Organization| Wednesday, April 24, 2019 | 11:45 am – 1:30pm| Hudson Institute | 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004|Register here|
Hudson Institute will host a panel to discuss the implications of the State Department’s recent designation of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as foreign terrorist organization (FTO). Panelists will include FDD Senior Fellow Behnam Ben Taleblu; Atlantic Council nonresident Senior Fellow Nader Uskowi; the New Iran’s Alireza Nader; and Hudson Senior Fellow Michael Pregent. The BBC’s Suzanne Kianpour will moderate the discussion.
On April 15, the U.S. formally designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as an FTO. The designation groups the IRGC with terrorist organizations like ISIS and al Qaeda, and marks the first time a government entity has been added to the list. The U.S. hopes that given the group’s significant political and economic influence, the designation will ratchet up pressure on Iran and blunt the country’s primary instrument of state-sponsored terrorism. Will international allies and partners abide by the U.S. designation? Will Iran fold to this newfound pressure, or will it end up being more resilient than the U.S. perceives?
Speakers
Suzanne Kianpour Moderator, Foreign Affairs and Political Journalist, BBC
Mike Pregent, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute,
Behnam Ben Taleblu, Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Nader Uskowi, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council
Alireza Nader, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, New Iran
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks 15-19
1.Crisis in Yemen: A Strategic Threat to U.S. Interests and Allies?| Thursday, April 18, 2019 | 11:45 am – 1:30 pm | Hudson Institute | 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004| Register Here|
Hudson Institute will host a panel to explore the strategic implications of the conflict in Yemen. In 2014, the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels overthrew the government of Yemen and seized the capital. With U.S. logistical support, Saudi Arabia mustered a coalition to restore the government. In response, the Houthis waged war on Riyadh, firing ballistic missiles at civilian areas, including airports. Though the Houthis have been successful in portraying themselves as defenders of Yemen and Saudi Arabia as the aggressors, they have violated countless internationally brokered ceasefires and the conflict continues today.
In the U.S., Congress has voted to withdraw support from the Saudi-led campaign and the White House has turned up the pressure on Tehran, recently imposing sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—the Houthis’ patron. Can the Trump administration afford to let the Islamic Republic implant a Hezbollah-clone on the border of a key U.S. ally, thereby creating a failed state, and threatening international trade through Bab al-Mandeb?
Speakers
Fatima Abo Alasrar, Senior Analyst, Arabia Foundation
Michael Doran, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Bernard Haykel, Professor, Near Eastern Studies Director, Institute for Transregional Study of the Contemporary Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, Princeton University
Lee Smith Speaker, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
2. Results of the Indonesian Elections: New Directions or More of the Same?| Thursday, April 18, 2019 | 10:00 am – 11:30 pm | The Center for Strategic and International Studies | 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036| Register Here|
The CSIS Southeast Asia Program is pleased to present “Results of the Indonesian Elections: New Directions or More of the Same?” a panel discussion featuring Dr. Ann Marie Murphy (Professor, Seton Hall University) and Adam Schwarz (Founder and CEO, Asia Group Advisors). An estimated 193 million eligible voters in Indonesia will head to the polls on April 17 to cast their vote for president, vice president, and members of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR).The “Results of the Indonesian Elections: New Directions or More of the Same?” event will assess the outcomes of these elections, and what they mean for Indonesian domestic politics, economic policy, foreign policy, and U.S.-Indonesia relations.
Speakers
Dr. Ann Marie Murphy, Professor, Seton Hall University
Adam Schwarz, Founder and CEO, Asia Group Advisors
3. Netanyahu’s Reelection: Implications for Israeli Politics and Palestinian Statehood?| Friday, April 19, 2019 | 12:00 am – 1:30 pm | The Center for Strategic and International Studies | 1319 18th St. NW, Washington D.C. 20036| Register Here|
The reelection of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a fifth term was widely perceived as a blow to the prospects for peace and protection of Palestinian rights.
Netanyahu’s pledge to annex parts of occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank, as well as the ongoing marginalization of Palestinians inside Israel, make Palestinian statehood and the possibility of a peace plan seem ever more distant.
To assess the consequences of this vote, The Middle East Institute (MEI) and The Institute for Palestine Studies (IPS) invite you to a timely conversation with Raef Zreik, a prominent Palestinian lawyer and academic. Zreik will discuss what the elections say about the Israeli body politic, and the implications for Israel’s domestic and foreign policy. Amb. Gerald Feierstein, MEI’s senior vice president, will moderate the conversation.
Speakers
Raef Zreik, Associate professor, Carmel Academic College; Academic co-director, Minerva Centre for the Humanities, Tel Aviv University
Ambassador Gerald Feierstein, moderator, Senior vice president, MEI
4. Inside the Mind of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba| Monday, April 15, 2019 | 12:00 am – 1:30 pm | The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103| Register Here|
This past November marked the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attack in Mumbai that killed more than 160 people, perpetrated by a Pakistan-based jihadist terrorist group called Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. Today the group still operates inside, and outside, of Pakistan’s borders despite mounting international pressure on Pakistan to disrupt its operations. As the group continues to attack India from bases in Pakistan, it further escalates tensions between the two nuclear-armed countries.
C. Christine Fair’s new book, In Their Own Words: Understanding Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, reveals little-known details of how this group functions by translating and commenting upon its sophisticated propagandist literature. The book examines how this canon of texts is the group’s most popular and potent weapon, in particular demonstrating how Lashkar-e-Tayyaba thinks about recruiting families rather than simply fighters. C. Christine Fair, Joshua T. White, and Polly Nayak will discuss the book’s findings and implications for the broader challenges around Pakistan’s nuclear coercion. Carnegie’s Ashley J. Tellis will moderate.
C. Christine Fair, associate professor in the Security Studies Program within Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.
Polly Nayak, fellow with the South Asia program at the Stimson Center
Joshua T. White, associate professor of the practice of South Asia Studies and Fellow at the Edwin O. Reischauer Center for East Asia Studies at Johns Hopkins SAIS
Polly Nayak, fellow with the South Asia Program at the Stimson Center.
5. Ukraine’s Future Leaders on the Frontlines of Change| Thursday, April 18, 2019 | 12:00 am – 1:30 pm | The Atlantic Council| 1030 15th St NW, Washington, DC 20005| Register Here|
The Atlantic Council and Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), are pleased to invite you to a special event on April 18, 2019 at the Atlantic Council Headquarters (1030 15th Street NW, 12th Floor, West Tower Elevators) to celebrate Ukraine’s future.
In the five years since the end of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine continues to ask the important question: How will the country ensure democratic values in its future development? Much of Ukraine’s hope lies in its young leaders who will drive the country forward in the coming years. CDDRL has been fortunate to provide a year-long residency to some of these future leaders as part of the Center’s Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program.
Agenda
Welcome and Introduction:
Ambassador John Herbst, Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council
Keynote Address:
Dr. Francis Fukuyama, Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University
Panel Discussion:
Ms. Nataliya Mykolska, Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program 2018-19, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies;Former Trade Representative of Ukraine, Deputy Minister, Stanford University; Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine
Mr. Ivan Prymachenko, Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program 2018-19, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies; Co-founder, Stanford University; Prometheus
Ms. Oleksandra Ustinova, Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program 2018-19, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies; Head of Communications and Anti-Corruption in HealthCare Projects, Stanford University; Anti-Corruption Action Center (ANTAC)
Moderated By: Ms. Melinda Haring, Editor, UkraineAlert, Atlantic Council
6. Algeria what happened? What’s next?| Monday, April 15, 2019 | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm | Project on Middle East Democracy | 1730 Rhode Island Ave NW #617, Washington, DC 20036| Register Here|
Since February, millions of Algerians have taken to the streets week after week for historic, peaceful mass protests against a fifth term for President Abdelaziz Bouteflika and for democratic change. The popular pressure led to the postponement of the April 24 presidential elections and, on April 2, to Bouteflika’s resignation after 20 years in power. Abdelkader Bensalah, long a key ally of Bouteflika and since 2002 the Speaker of Algeria’s upper house of parliament, has been appointed interim president. This appointment is in line with Algeria’s constitution, but is contrary to protesters’ demand for a genuinely independent figure to oversee this transitional period. The next steps remain unclear and many Algerians worry that the regime will resist a democratic transition. Please join POMED to hear from a panel of Algeria experts who will analyze what led to the protests, what has happened so far, and what might happen next.
Rochdi Alloui, Independent Analyst on North Africa, Georgia State University
Alexis Arieff, Africa Policy Analyst, Congressional Research Service
Amel Boubekeur, (speaking by video from Algiers)
Research Fellow, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales
William Lawrence, Visiting Professor of Political Science and International Affairs,
George Washington University
Moderator: Stephen McInerney, Executive Director, POMED
7. Africa in Transition: Investing in Youth for Economic Prosperity| Tuesday, April 16, 2019 | 9:30 am – 11:30 am | The Wilson Center| 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004-3027| Register Here|
Africa is at a crossroads—and which road its leaders take will shape the lives of billions of people, not only in Africa but also beyond its borders. Often overlooked, population trends play a significant role in Sub-Saharan Africa’s chances for prosperity. Between 15 and 20 million young people are expected to join the African workforce every year for the next three decades. Investing in the health and education of these young people, and providing opportunities for employment, will be essential to ensuring a positive future marked by economic prosperity and stability in the region.
Please join the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program and Maternal Health Initiative, in partnership with Population Institute, for a discussion about impactful investments that country leaders can make to empower their countries’ youth.
Speakers
Moderator, Lauren Herzer Risi, Project Director, Environmental Change and Security Program
Parfait Eloundou-Enyegue, Professor, Department Chair, Department of Development Sociology, Cornell University; Associate Director, Cornell Population Center, Unami Jeremiah, Founder, Mosadi Global Trust
Dr. Gladys Kalema-Zikusoka, Founder and CEO, Conservation Through Public Health
Musimbi Kanyoro, President and Chief Executive Officer, Global Fund for Women
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
No way out
A few weeks ago, the second round of UN-led peace talks between Morocco and the Polisario independence movement ended in Geneva without substantial progress that would bridge the parties’ contradicting positions. Morocco insists on a form of autonomy for the Western Sahara territory under its sovereignty, while the Polisario Front clings to a referendum on self-determination.
A former Spanish colony, Morocco annexed the mineral-rich Western Sahara in 1975. Sixteen years of bloody war between Morocco and Polisario Liberation Front ended with a UN-brokered ceasefire in 1991, enabling a self-determination referendum for the Saharawi people to choose between independence or integration into Morocco. The UN mission for the referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) deployed to supervise the democratic transition. Yet the referendum has not taken place due in large part to the parties’ disagreement over who gets to vote, as well as the “winner takes all” solution.
In March 1997, the then UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, appointed James Baker, former US Secretary of State, as a personal envoy to Western Sahara. Baker put forth two additional proposals: The Baker plan I in 2001(also known as the Framework Agreement) and Baker Plan II in 2003. Although his last plan won Security Council endorsement, neither got both parties’ approval. In 2004, Baker resigned, lacking the full support from the Security Council to enforce a solution. UN mediators who came afterward were doomed to failure, putting the issue in the textbook of frozen conflicts.
In 2007, Morocco offered an autonomy plan that would give the Saharawi people the power to run their executive, legislative and judicial affairs under Moroccan sovereignty. Polisario Front put forth a parallel proposal: a referendum on self-determination giving wide guarantees to Moroccan settlers if it lead to independence. The seemingly irreconcilable proposals stalled negotiations in 2012, undermining the efforts of the then UN mediator, former US ambassador, Christopher Ross. The deadlock continued for over six years. This stagnant situation has prompted recurrent tensions between the parties on the UN-monitored buffer zone between Moroccan- and Polisario-controlled territory. The possibility of war looms.
Last December, in a speech at the Heritage Foundation displaying the Trump administration’s new Africa strategy, National Security Advisor John Bolton made clear the US would like to see a self-determination referendum take place. This new US approach to the conflict was also reflected at the level of the Security Council when the US shortened MINURSO’s periodic one-year mandate to six months, tying its renewal to progress on the ground. The US representative at the UN stated “there is no business as usual” regarding this issue, signaling the US willingness to push towards a final solution to the conflict.
The current active US involvement in the long-standing dispute has generated momentum. After six years of deadlock, the UN Special Envoy to Western Sahara, former German President Horst Kohler, has been able to bring the parties to the table. Yet the parties’ views are fundamentally diverging; Morocco seeks no solution beyond sovereignty over the territory, while the Polisario Front is committed to the principle of self-determination.
Based on the current UN paradigm, a “realistic, practicable and enduring solution based on a compromise which would provide the Saharawi people for self-determination” seems impossible to achieve. Morocco sees autonomy as a practicable and realistic form of self-determination, while Polisario Front considers giving the people the right to decide their future as the most viable and realistic solution. Since 2001, no single plan has so far won the parties agreement.
Shortening MINURSO’s mandate to six months has broken the deadlock, but it is still not enough to yield positive results. Without an existential threat–such as expelling MINURSO, which would trigger a war the parties cannot handle–there is no “zone of possible agreement.”
There are two other possible options:
- Compelling the parties to accept a tailored compromise in which they either both win or both lose.
- A drastic change in the region, bringing new governments seeking regional integration and willing to end this conflict.
Something like the latter is already underway in Algeria. But unless something more serious starts to happen in Morocco, the low -intensity conflict in Western Sahara is likely to remain a frozen conflict.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The US and Iran at loggerheads
Brookings held a panel discussion March 28 about constraining Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, with Richard Nephew, Senior fellow at the Center of Twenty-first century, Vann H. Van Diepen, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, and Suzanne Maloney, Deputy director at the Center for Middle East Policy.
Nephew argues the US current strategy towards Iran won’t work and recommends a renewed diplomatic approach. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was a good agreement and should serve as the basis for future negotiations. Especially important are provisions that deal with transparency, the plutonium path, and controls on uranium enrichment. Renewed talks and economic pressure will enable the US to achieve a more durable agreement with Iran.
Iran however is no longer so keen on the JCPOA, because it has not gotten the sanctions relief it anticipated. This was a problem even before Donald Trump became president. With the passage of time, new issues are emerging, especially the question of when the agreement will end (“sunset”). The existing sunset provisions of the JCPOA might have made sense in the context of more diplomacy and engagement between the US and Iran. But the current confrontation limits the opportunities for diplomacy.
Van gave an overview of the Iranian missile program. Iran can already cause serious disruption of regional targets. The situation will get worse Iranian missile accuracy improves.
Iran is determined to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles able to reach the US. It is developing the necessary ICBM technology, including making intermediate-range ICBMs mobile. It is also developing a large liquid-propellant rocket engine in cooperation with North Korea in addition to a solid rocket motor produced in Iran. Iranian missile forces already pose a threat to the US and its allies in the region. Van believes the US should focus on deterring attacks and intimidation and delaying Iran capability that can reach beyond the immediate region, especially the US.
Maloney stated the sanctions have had a tremendous impact on Iran’s trade and investment. The value of the currency has plummeted and oil exports are half what they were prior to the sanctions. Growth is slowing, with a shortage in key commodities.
This situation has had a political impact, leading to some reshuffling at the top of the government, resignations and impeachment, as well as eroding to some extent the legitimacy of the government. The Islamic Republic depends not only on religion and ideology but also on its capacity to deliver promises of a better life and social justice.
But sanctions alone are not a strategy; they are a means to an end. The Trump administration has left ambiguity about what the end might be: regime change, a bigger and better nuclear deal, or simply leaving Iran stewing in deteriorating economic and international relations.
Maloney thinks Iran can manage this impasse, as it did in the past under even greater economic strain. Tehran has survived a long period of isolation. But it cannot escape economic constraints without a conversation with the US. Iran could restart its nuclear program and provoke more crisis in the region, but that will not solve the economic crisis, which is the high priority for Iranian leaders.
The US also faces a stalemate. There is no evidence the Trump administration is looking at the various contingencies, thinking about how it is going to respond, and finding a way to direct the Iranians toward the most constructive option, which is negotiation. The Americans need a clearer strategy that can garner bipartisan support.
RSS - Posts
