Since the year 2000, critical trends on peace operations and crisis-response missions by both UN and non-UN organizations have shifted. Given the importance of these changes, the US Institute for Peace hosted the launching of “Peace Operations” written by Don C.F. Daniel, with Patricia Taft, and Sharon Wiharta as presenters as well the Special Report: Whither Peace Operations? The book is a much needed summary of the different trends, important progress, and future prospects of Peace Operations. Crisis-responses have taken an incremental path becoming the essential instrument to quell conflicts around the world.
The panel explained the past, present and future of Peace-Operation efforts by each region. Afterwards, a discussion on the different trends took place, touching upon donor country profiles, troop contributions, UN peacekeeping missions focusing on Africa and complex missions, and the rising trends on the use of non-UN peace operations by regional, bilateral and multilateral organizations. They compared both donor and troop contributors, usually developed and emerging countries versus non-contributors, which is often developing countries with the exception of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh who ranked as some of the top contributors. In terms of UN peacekeeping, the panel explained how the organization has become a general instrument to deal with very hazardous peace operations, or, in plain terms, where nobody wants to go or there is no particular interest to interfere, and finally, the UN’s almost permanent presence in African conflicts. The issue of non-UN missions overshadowing UN peacekeeping was brought up as well, and how these non-UN organizations are increasingly willing to participate in the operations.
The current Eastern Congo conflict was inevitably evoked at the Q&A session after the panel concluded the exposition. Attendees at the launch questioned the future and solutions of this complex situation. The panel was very willing to pin-point the different issues present in the Congo: the limited funding, limited quantity of UN blue helmets, and a lack of diplomatic will and political interference from other nations. A representative of the IRC shared her experience in the North Kivu area of the Congo and gave some insight in the situation. She expressed how the UN blue helmets are very much needed and how their presence is essential and helpful. Date: November 6, 2008
Location: U.S. Institute of Peace
Attended by: Cristina Lopez
Showing posts with label Democratic Governance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic Governance. Show all posts
Monday, November 17, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Can the Middle East Reform?
Hind Aboud Kabawat spoke at the Woodrow Center for Scholars on Friday, October 10 on the subject of Middle East Reform. She opened by questioning why, in the Middle East, autocratic governments have remained the norm rather than the exception. Despite the unprecedented transfer of wealth to these governments, they have not matured; they still exercise complete and arbitrary power over their people. There is a direct connection between the immature government and the lack of social development evidenced by an inferior education system, inferior health care, and the lack of economy outside of the oil sector. Despite the accumulating wealth, most people remain stuck in ignorance and poverty.
Ms. Aboud Kabawat then moved on to discuss how to change this problem. The change she would like to see take place is the creation of an environment in which dissent is tolerated, there is political accountability, an independent judiciary, free press, and a government that serves the interest of all the people and is free from systemic corruption. She explained the problem of crediting the lack of current democracy to the absence of historical democracy. There is nothing in Arab societies, she argues, that inhibits democratic maturation. Another argument she discounts is that the presence of Israel in the region is some kind of external hindrance to democratic development. There has been too much time and energy, she stated, devoted to fighting when efforts could have been directed towards creating a fair and just society.
Then, what are the real causes of governmental immaturity? One, there is a lack of secular, Westernized elites who are not members of the ruling elite standing at the vanguard of society, creating a new pillar in the Arab world. Two, everyone is worried that fanatic Islam would be what the masses want. Both of these hindrances to democracy stem from the culture of fear that political elites foster through jailing and exiling advocates for change.
The signs that the government is immature are evidenced by the lack of infrastructure, and a lack of accountability to the people. There is no independent judiciary, free press or other checks on the government. There are no open elections, no transferring of power, no transparency. The shortage of transparency allows corruption to become systemic and further inhibit economic growth. The entire world is willing to pay for oil wealth, she stated, and these countries need to use this money transfer to develop other technologies and future wealth opportunities. This change will not happen effortlessly. The government is reluctant to embrace change because their absolute power gives them security and stability. However, change will happen. The Middle East is plagued by poverty, corruption, discrimination and unemployment.
So, what can be done? We can get a better future if we create a society where all can work together. There are four pillars Ms. Aboud Kabawat stated are important for maturing democracy in the Middle East. First, the rule of law must be established. There must be independent judges. Currently, the government does not want to share power, and results in suppressed civil institutions. However, the government should work with civil society and work on engaging everyone. She also asserts that secular government must be the norm; there must be a separation of state and religion because the state must be for all. The rule of law must stand free from religion.
The second pillar is the empowerment of women. This, she argues, is an essential part of modernization. In the Middle East, women have very few rights and the empowerment of women would lead of liberalization of the entire political system. Women are capable of doing great things, she states, we must let them do it. The third pillar is education. The current education is substandard. There must be quality education for all. This would result in more discussions and more ideas. Poverty, ignorance, and terrorism go well together. Fighting ignorance defeats poverty and the next generation of terrorists.
The fourth pillar is peace. Countries in the Middle East are spending money killing each other, while this money is spent on a fruitless war, it cannot benefit society. The U.S. is also guilty of this; money is being spent on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of building institutions. The poor are the ones suffering for this misappropriation of resources. There must be peaceful coexistence with Israel and the rest of the world. While fighting increases, there is a decrease in money spent on reform and chances for the country to improve.
She quotes Gandhi who says, “There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.” There is a need for an environment of change, a need to get everyone working together. The Middle East intellectuals must play a primary role in change. Even in jail, or oppressed, they can never give up. They must keep trying to improve society. This will help convince leaders that change should happen. These four pillars must become the norm, and there must be engagement with the Middle East in order to see reform.
Date: October 10, 2008
Location: Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars
Attended by: Emily Riff
Ms. Aboud Kabawat then moved on to discuss how to change this problem. The change she would like to see take place is the creation of an environment in which dissent is tolerated, there is political accountability, an independent judiciary, free press, and a government that serves the interest of all the people and is free from systemic corruption. She explained the problem of crediting the lack of current democracy to the absence of historical democracy. There is nothing in Arab societies, she argues, that inhibits democratic maturation. Another argument she discounts is that the presence of Israel in the region is some kind of external hindrance to democratic development. There has been too much time and energy, she stated, devoted to fighting when efforts could have been directed towards creating a fair and just society.
Then, what are the real causes of governmental immaturity? One, there is a lack of secular, Westernized elites who are not members of the ruling elite standing at the vanguard of society, creating a new pillar in the Arab world. Two, everyone is worried that fanatic Islam would be what the masses want. Both of these hindrances to democracy stem from the culture of fear that political elites foster through jailing and exiling advocates for change.
The signs that the government is immature are evidenced by the lack of infrastructure, and a lack of accountability to the people. There is no independent judiciary, free press or other checks on the government. There are no open elections, no transferring of power, no transparency. The shortage of transparency allows corruption to become systemic and further inhibit economic growth. The entire world is willing to pay for oil wealth, she stated, and these countries need to use this money transfer to develop other technologies and future wealth opportunities. This change will not happen effortlessly. The government is reluctant to embrace change because their absolute power gives them security and stability. However, change will happen. The Middle East is plagued by poverty, corruption, discrimination and unemployment.
So, what can be done? We can get a better future if we create a society where all can work together. There are four pillars Ms. Aboud Kabawat stated are important for maturing democracy in the Middle East. First, the rule of law must be established. There must be independent judges. Currently, the government does not want to share power, and results in suppressed civil institutions. However, the government should work with civil society and work on engaging everyone. She also asserts that secular government must be the norm; there must be a separation of state and religion because the state must be for all. The rule of law must stand free from religion.
The second pillar is the empowerment of women. This, she argues, is an essential part of modernization. In the Middle East, women have very few rights and the empowerment of women would lead of liberalization of the entire political system. Women are capable of doing great things, she states, we must let them do it. The third pillar is education. The current education is substandard. There must be quality education for all. This would result in more discussions and more ideas. Poverty, ignorance, and terrorism go well together. Fighting ignorance defeats poverty and the next generation of terrorists.
The fourth pillar is peace. Countries in the Middle East are spending money killing each other, while this money is spent on a fruitless war, it cannot benefit society. The U.S. is also guilty of this; money is being spent on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of building institutions. The poor are the ones suffering for this misappropriation of resources. There must be peaceful coexistence with Israel and the rest of the world. While fighting increases, there is a decrease in money spent on reform and chances for the country to improve.
She quotes Gandhi who says, “There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.” There is a need for an environment of change, a need to get everyone working together. The Middle East intellectuals must play a primary role in change. Even in jail, or oppressed, they can never give up. They must keep trying to improve society. This will help convince leaders that change should happen. These four pillars must become the norm, and there must be engagement with the Middle East in order to see reform.
Date: October 10, 2008
Location: Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars
Attended by: Emily Riff
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Philip J. Rutledge Seminar: Leadership and Governance in Africa
The National Academy for Public Administration (NAPA) created the African Working Group (AWG), whose mission is to “enhance public administration in Africa through strategic collaboration with African partners.” In order to achieve this mission, the AWG holds meetings and symposia to foster an environment of collaboration and learning. This event was focused on Leadership and Governance in Africa: Developing High Performing Public Administrators to Manage Economic Growth and Social Prosperity.
The keynote speaker, Dr. John-Mary Kauzya focused on governance, economic growth and prosperity in post-conflict countries. He explained that the post-conflict environment is a unique atmosphere because it has different challenges and opportunities than other political situations. He further elucidated that post-conflict issues are of special importance in Africa due to the high number of African nations in a post-conflict state. Dr. Kauzya first clarified that for the purpose of his speech, governance meant accountability. Governance is crucial in post-conflict situations because even pouring money into a problem will not fix things without a disciplined public administration.
Dr. Kauzya then moved on to talk about the issues confronting post-conflict governments. The first challenge of the government is to restore trust in the government, or establish trust in a new government. Post-conflict political leadership must reconstruct capacities in public administration, as it is the public administrators who carry out the daily tasks of governing the country. The second challenge is to assess the reality of the situation, and ensure a shared understanding of challenges facing the country. Through this challenge there is an opening for the third critical function of government: design and create a national vision and strategy.
The fourth critical function of the government is to sustain development oriented leadership and nurture future leaders for the country. The fifth critical function is to provide a framework for managing diversity and inclusivity in public administration. It is essential that all sectors of society are represented and have a voice in the public administration sector so that the new situation is free of the tensions that came before. Finally, the government must maintain and promote self-reliance. This is tied to promoting a message of hope: “we have been through so much and made it through, we have been poor for a long time, if no one will help us in the way that we want, on our terms, we will not be forced to submit, we will endure.”
Because post-conflict situations are highly tenuous, there are four political capacities required in a post-conflict world. The first is integrative leadership: one cannot govern a society that is fragmented and must work to integrate all facets of society. The second is entrepreneurial leadership: the leader must look at the country and establish a goal for how the country should be and map a path to get there. The third capacity required is administrative leadership: post-conflict everyone is used to an environment where the law is suspended, the leader needs to establish administerial procedure that is known to everyone. The fourth is operative leadership: the government needs to take action. In order for a post-conflict government to be successful these capacities must be integrated into one system.
Dr. Kauzya closed by defining two post-conflict faults that need to be corrected in order to create an effective government. In the process of public service reform and modernization issues related to the undeveloped professional status of human resource managers in the public sector is often neglected and there is often inadequate attention given to the strengthening of institutions responsible for building and sustaining public administration capacities.
Following Dr. Kauzya, a panel spoke about their lessons learned and experiences working in public administration in Africa. The first was Dr. Bernham Mengistu, who has worked in Addis Abba, Ethiopia. In order to promote public administration and managerial standards while in Ethiopia, he held book drives, provided technical support to universities and NGO’s, provided technical training to government, trained in comprehensive post-conflict parliamentary analysis, trained government officials for national and regional level offices, and graduated 35 people in public administration from the University in Addis Abba.
The second panelist was Dr. Jeanne-Marie Col who worked in Uganda. She explained that she has learned three important lessons while working in public administration. The first is that training in teams and organizations is more important than training individuals. The second is that sensitivity to cultures and neighborhoods is more important than theories and skills. The third is that data driven results that are tracked over time is more important than management fads. She concluded by explaining that with an increase in public administration there is more possibility for success.
Sponsor: National Academy of Public Administration
Date: September 23, 2008
Time: 1:00pm – 5:30pm
Representative Attending: Emily Riff
The keynote speaker, Dr. John-Mary Kauzya focused on governance, economic growth and prosperity in post-conflict countries. He explained that the post-conflict environment is a unique atmosphere because it has different challenges and opportunities than other political situations. He further elucidated that post-conflict issues are of special importance in Africa due to the high number of African nations in a post-conflict state. Dr. Kauzya first clarified that for the purpose of his speech, governance meant accountability. Governance is crucial in post-conflict situations because even pouring money into a problem will not fix things without a disciplined public administration.
Dr. Kauzya then moved on to talk about the issues confronting post-conflict governments. The first challenge of the government is to restore trust in the government, or establish trust in a new government. Post-conflict political leadership must reconstruct capacities in public administration, as it is the public administrators who carry out the daily tasks of governing the country. The second challenge is to assess the reality of the situation, and ensure a shared understanding of challenges facing the country. Through this challenge there is an opening for the third critical function of government: design and create a national vision and strategy.
The fourth critical function of the government is to sustain development oriented leadership and nurture future leaders for the country. The fifth critical function is to provide a framework for managing diversity and inclusivity in public administration. It is essential that all sectors of society are represented and have a voice in the public administration sector so that the new situation is free of the tensions that came before. Finally, the government must maintain and promote self-reliance. This is tied to promoting a message of hope: “we have been through so much and made it through, we have been poor for a long time, if no one will help us in the way that we want, on our terms, we will not be forced to submit, we will endure.”
Because post-conflict situations are highly tenuous, there are four political capacities required in a post-conflict world. The first is integrative leadership: one cannot govern a society that is fragmented and must work to integrate all facets of society. The second is entrepreneurial leadership: the leader must look at the country and establish a goal for how the country should be and map a path to get there. The third capacity required is administrative leadership: post-conflict everyone is used to an environment where the law is suspended, the leader needs to establish administerial procedure that is known to everyone. The fourth is operative leadership: the government needs to take action. In order for a post-conflict government to be successful these capacities must be integrated into one system.
Dr. Kauzya closed by defining two post-conflict faults that need to be corrected in order to create an effective government. In the process of public service reform and modernization issues related to the undeveloped professional status of human resource managers in the public sector is often neglected and there is often inadequate attention given to the strengthening of institutions responsible for building and sustaining public administration capacities.
Following Dr. Kauzya, a panel spoke about their lessons learned and experiences working in public administration in Africa. The first was Dr. Bernham Mengistu, who has worked in Addis Abba, Ethiopia. In order to promote public administration and managerial standards while in Ethiopia, he held book drives, provided technical support to universities and NGO’s, provided technical training to government, trained in comprehensive post-conflict parliamentary analysis, trained government officials for national and regional level offices, and graduated 35 people in public administration from the University in Addis Abba.
The second panelist was Dr. Jeanne-Marie Col who worked in Uganda. She explained that she has learned three important lessons while working in public administration. The first is that training in teams and organizations is more important than training individuals. The second is that sensitivity to cultures and neighborhoods is more important than theories and skills. The third is that data driven results that are tracked over time is more important than management fads. She concluded by explaining that with an increase in public administration there is more possibility for success.
Sponsor: National Academy of Public Administration
Date: September 23, 2008
Time: 1:00pm – 5:30pm
Representative Attending: Emily Riff
Friday, September 19, 2008
NGO briefing on Reconstruction Activities in North East Afghanistan
On September 11th, 2008, the Department of State invited representatives of Non-Government Organizations to participate in a briefing regarding the current situation in North East Afghanistan. The presenter, Matthew Asada, has been a member of the Foreign Service since 2003, and spent the past year working with a German-led Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kunduz, Afghanistan.
Asada opened the briefing by stressing that Kunduz and the surrounding regions provide a strategic transit link to Kabul, as well as other North and Central Asia trading regions. According to Asada, the current security issues facing the region prevent it from reaching its maximum capacity or trading, and functionality. However, during the year he was stationed there, he witnessed an increase in security, trade, and overall community morale. This is due to counter-insurgency efforts, as well as foreign aid and investment, and training programs for local officers.
The German PRT launched a multifaceted counter-insurgency effort that focused on immediate security. Their main objectives included patrolling around known troubled regions to ensure orderly conduct, as well as extensively training local police officers. They would retrain them to prevent corruption, and then mentors would follow the police officers back to their regions for two additional months, in order to help them re-acclimate to their posts. The local police officers also received a pay increase in order to help combat bribery. These tactics allowed for the German PRT to patrol in expanding rings, with Kunduz in the center. And they did not have to continue patrolling the same areas, as the local police were able to Patrol relatively stable regions. This specific program not only improved safety, but also improved relations between the German PRT and the local Afghani National Security Forces and Intelligence offices.
In addition to the German PRT programs, Asada attributes Kunduz’s improvements to international developments such as the Tajik Bridge, which was part of a $49 million dollar project sponsored by the United States. This bridge links Afghanistan to Tajikistan for the first time ever. It is a major trade point, and prior to the bridge, the transportation of goods was conducted through a ferry system that could only transport 30 trucks per day. The new bridge currently holds a record of 600 trucks per day (including delays caused by border checks between the two countries). Since the bridge opened in October 2007, trade has been increased sevenfold, and customs profits have multiplied by ten.
While these are all great feats for Kunduz and Afghanistan as a whole, Asada stresses that the battle is far from won. There is still turmoil in the country over the legitimacy of the government, and its levels of corruption, specifically in the judiciary system. There is also much more development to be done, and a lot of help needed. Asada remarks that although the current development sponsored by the US is fantastic, the organizations that know development the best are in fact NGOs. Essentially, he believes Afghanistan could benefit from an increase in NGO participation in the region. Currently USAID is working on building schools in the region, along with the help of UNHCR. However, there are many more projects that need to be taken up. Among the challenges faced include a lack of power during the winter, and while donor countries can do a lot of help, they face many more bureaucratic limitations as well.
Sponsor: Department of State
Date: September 11th, 2008
Representative: Daria Willis
Asada opened the briefing by stressing that Kunduz and the surrounding regions provide a strategic transit link to Kabul, as well as other North and Central Asia trading regions. According to Asada, the current security issues facing the region prevent it from reaching its maximum capacity or trading, and functionality. However, during the year he was stationed there, he witnessed an increase in security, trade, and overall community morale. This is due to counter-insurgency efforts, as well as foreign aid and investment, and training programs for local officers.
The German PRT launched a multifaceted counter-insurgency effort that focused on immediate security. Their main objectives included patrolling around known troubled regions to ensure orderly conduct, as well as extensively training local police officers. They would retrain them to prevent corruption, and then mentors would follow the police officers back to their regions for two additional months, in order to help them re-acclimate to their posts. The local police officers also received a pay increase in order to help combat bribery. These tactics allowed for the German PRT to patrol in expanding rings, with Kunduz in the center. And they did not have to continue patrolling the same areas, as the local police were able to Patrol relatively stable regions. This specific program not only improved safety, but also improved relations between the German PRT and the local Afghani National Security Forces and Intelligence offices.
In addition to the German PRT programs, Asada attributes Kunduz’s improvements to international developments such as the Tajik Bridge, which was part of a $49 million dollar project sponsored by the United States. This bridge links Afghanistan to Tajikistan for the first time ever. It is a major trade point, and prior to the bridge, the transportation of goods was conducted through a ferry system that could only transport 30 trucks per day. The new bridge currently holds a record of 600 trucks per day (including delays caused by border checks between the two countries). Since the bridge opened in October 2007, trade has been increased sevenfold, and customs profits have multiplied by ten.
While these are all great feats for Kunduz and Afghanistan as a whole, Asada stresses that the battle is far from won. There is still turmoil in the country over the legitimacy of the government, and its levels of corruption, specifically in the judiciary system. There is also much more development to be done, and a lot of help needed. Asada remarks that although the current development sponsored by the US is fantastic, the organizations that know development the best are in fact NGOs. Essentially, he believes Afghanistan could benefit from an increase in NGO participation in the region. Currently USAID is working on building schools in the region, along with the help of UNHCR. However, there are many more projects that need to be taken up. Among the challenges faced include a lack of power during the winter, and while donor countries can do a lot of help, they face many more bureaucratic limitations as well.
Sponsor: Department of State
Date: September 11th, 2008
Representative: Daria Willis
Monday, September 15, 2008
Inter-Korean and US-DPRK Relations
In light of recent events, Park Jae Kyu, former ROK Minister of Unification, offered a unique perspective and various explanations for the change in relations between North and South Korea. In major diplomatic arenas, such as the Olympics, the world has witnessed their outward behavior change from arriving together at the 2004 Olympics, to arriving separately at this years Beijing Olympics. Even more recently, the world received news of a Northern Korean officer who killed a South Korean tourist. While these are all outward facts, Park Jae Kyu provided a more insightful analysis of the ever changing relationship between the two countries.
According to Park, previous presidents Kim Dae Jung and Roh Moo Hyun, both engaged in inter-Korean relations with Northern Korea through initiatives such as the “Engagement (Sunshine)” and “Peace and Prosperity” policies (respectively). This cooperation fostered stronger relationships, tourism and trade growth, as well as the first and second inter-Korean summits (on June 15, 2000 and October 4th 2007, respectively). These summits marked an outward acknowledgment of the two countries mutual cooperation, and a landmark in North and South Korean history.
Unfortunately, this cooperation reached a road block in early 2008, when Lee Myung Bak was elected as President of the Republic of Korea. He is the first conservative president to lead the country in over ten years, and his policy reform reflected this standpoint. According to Park, Lee attempted to maintain similar policies as Kim and Rho, however Lee also wanted to build upon them and update many aspects he deemed faulty. One of his changes included a closer relationship with US policy, and thus the adaptation to denuclearize North Korea. Lee also released a joint statement with President Bush denouncing North Korea’s human rights violations. Lee attempted to soften his statements, claiming that inter-cooperation would promptly re-emerge with the denuclearization of the North. Lee titled his new policy towards the north as “Mutual Benefit and Common Prosperity’. Throughout all of the new commotion, North Korea still expected the ROK government to carry out policies based on the June 15, 2000 North-South joint declaration. However, when the Lee administration failed to do so, and seemingly ignored both the 2000 and 2007 joint-declarations, Pyongyang and his administration vehemently denounced Lee’s policies, reducing his presidency to a mere “messenger boy for American’s nuclear war (Park, 9.8.08).” This marked the absolute collapse of cooperation.
Shortly following the collapse, On March 27th Pyongyang’s administration expelled high level South Korean officials. Park notes that due to this collapse, the economic headway achieved through the joint-policies are at risk. The food shortage is at full swing in the North, and projects to repair the Kaesong-Shinuiju and Kaesong-Pyongyang expressways and railroads are at a stand still.
Recently there has been limited progress as the Six-Party talks were resumed shortly before the Beijing Olympics. However, North Korea has ceased any denuclearization efforts, and thus the current situation is at a stand still, much like before the Olympics. Yet Park remains optimistic, believing a solution to the current stall will be found as both economies somewhat depend upon each other.
Sponsor: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Date: September 8, 2008
Time: 10:00am
Representative: Daria Willis
According to Park, previous presidents Kim Dae Jung and Roh Moo Hyun, both engaged in inter-Korean relations with Northern Korea through initiatives such as the “Engagement (Sunshine)” and “Peace and Prosperity” policies (respectively). This cooperation fostered stronger relationships, tourism and trade growth, as well as the first and second inter-Korean summits (on June 15, 2000 and October 4th 2007, respectively). These summits marked an outward acknowledgment of the two countries mutual cooperation, and a landmark in North and South Korean history.
Unfortunately, this cooperation reached a road block in early 2008, when Lee Myung Bak was elected as President of the Republic of Korea. He is the first conservative president to lead the country in over ten years, and his policy reform reflected this standpoint. According to Park, Lee attempted to maintain similar policies as Kim and Rho, however Lee also wanted to build upon them and update many aspects he deemed faulty. One of his changes included a closer relationship with US policy, and thus the adaptation to denuclearize North Korea. Lee also released a joint statement with President Bush denouncing North Korea’s human rights violations. Lee attempted to soften his statements, claiming that inter-cooperation would promptly re-emerge with the denuclearization of the North. Lee titled his new policy towards the north as “Mutual Benefit and Common Prosperity’. Throughout all of the new commotion, North Korea still expected the ROK government to carry out policies based on the June 15, 2000 North-South joint declaration. However, when the Lee administration failed to do so, and seemingly ignored both the 2000 and 2007 joint-declarations, Pyongyang and his administration vehemently denounced Lee’s policies, reducing his presidency to a mere “messenger boy for American’s nuclear war (Park, 9.8.08).” This marked the absolute collapse of cooperation.
Shortly following the collapse, On March 27th Pyongyang’s administration expelled high level South Korean officials. Park notes that due to this collapse, the economic headway achieved through the joint-policies are at risk. The food shortage is at full swing in the North, and projects to repair the Kaesong-Shinuiju and Kaesong-Pyongyang expressways and railroads are at a stand still.
Recently there has been limited progress as the Six-Party talks were resumed shortly before the Beijing Olympics. However, North Korea has ceased any denuclearization efforts, and thus the current situation is at a stand still, much like before the Olympics. Yet Park remains optimistic, believing a solution to the current stall will be found as both economies somewhat depend upon each other.
Sponsor: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Date: September 8, 2008
Time: 10:00am
Representative: Daria Willis
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Good News From Kosovo
In their historic visit to the United States, Kosovo’s President Fatmir Sejdiu and Prime Minister Hashim Thaci proudly detailed the benchmarks achieved by the new republic since declaring independence in February 2008. The former Yugoslav entity and UN transitional protectorate can now usher in with dignity a peaceful and prosperous century following conflict throughout the 1990’s. Although there are many challenges affronting the young nation in achieving universal recognition both leaders remain optimistic for the bright future of Kosovo. On July 22, the couple met with some of Washington’s brightest at CSIS to present their triumphs, setbacks and concerns.
President Sejdiu began the event by stressing the importance of crafting a “peaceful definition” of Kosovo to help garner international support and respect for the new nation. Its new constitution, Sejdiu insists, will push Kosovo in this direction. Just approved in June, this charter is strongly based on both the principles guiding other democratic constitutions and Athisaari’s comprehensive proposal to create a decentralized and multi-ethnic society. The new constitution strikes a balance between offering Kosovo Albanians independence and granting Bosnian Serbs extensive rights, a compromise which will further the nation’s agenda of fostering privileged relations with Serbia. Although Sejdiu speaks sanguinely of Kosovo’s progress, he is quick to list road blocks from Russian and Serb forces.
Even though many opportunities await the new nation, its future as a democratic and peaceful republic will be hugely dependent on coordinated international efforts and investments. To ensure the success of collaborations, Prime Minister Thaci stressed the importance of combating the perception that Kosovo’s government is corrupt. His proposal: accounting for all internationally pledged money to rebuild the nation, and strengthening the position of the Serb minority both in government and civil society. Only then will Kosovo receive the aide and guidance it needs to strengthen its economy and make a smoother transition into self-dependence.
There are serious obstacles facing new leaders, such as the looming fear of dissent in Northern Kosovo; but President Sejdiu assures that his presidency has the determination to settle them both peacefully and diplomatically. With heightened support from individual nations as well as membership in international bodies like the World Bank on the horizon, both Sejdiu and Thaci believe that Kosovo’s progress will surpass all initial expectations.
Sponsor: CSIS
Date: July 22, 2008
Time: 10-11 am
Representative Attending: Elizabeth Caniano
President Sejdiu began the event by stressing the importance of crafting a “peaceful definition” of Kosovo to help garner international support and respect for the new nation. Its new constitution, Sejdiu insists, will push Kosovo in this direction. Just approved in June, this charter is strongly based on both the principles guiding other democratic constitutions and Athisaari’s comprehensive proposal to create a decentralized and multi-ethnic society. The new constitution strikes a balance between offering Kosovo Albanians independence and granting Bosnian Serbs extensive rights, a compromise which will further the nation’s agenda of fostering privileged relations with Serbia. Although Sejdiu speaks sanguinely of Kosovo’s progress, he is quick to list road blocks from Russian and Serb forces.
Even though many opportunities await the new nation, its future as a democratic and peaceful republic will be hugely dependent on coordinated international efforts and investments. To ensure the success of collaborations, Prime Minister Thaci stressed the importance of combating the perception that Kosovo’s government is corrupt. His proposal: accounting for all internationally pledged money to rebuild the nation, and strengthening the position of the Serb minority both in government and civil society. Only then will Kosovo receive the aide and guidance it needs to strengthen its economy and make a smoother transition into self-dependence.
There are serious obstacles facing new leaders, such as the looming fear of dissent in Northern Kosovo; but President Sejdiu assures that his presidency has the determination to settle them both peacefully and diplomatically. With heightened support from individual nations as well as membership in international bodies like the World Bank on the horizon, both Sejdiu and Thaci believe that Kosovo’s progress will surpass all initial expectations.
Sponsor: CSIS
Date: July 22, 2008
Time: 10-11 am
Representative Attending: Elizabeth Caniano
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
The Future of the U.S. Military Presence in Iraq
With the political atmosphere in Washington DC charged for the upcoming election, there are few issues debated more that the future of US military presence in Iraq? On Friday, July 25th the United States Institute of Peace, USIP, decided to engage those on all sides of this debate for a panel discussion concerning this very subject: The Future of the U.S. Military Presence in Iraq. The speakers included Ms. Kimberly Kagan, Mr. Charles Knight, Mr. Colin Kahl, and Ms. Rend al-Rahim.
Ms. Kimberly Kagan, the President of the Institute for the Study of War, detailed that the surges contributed to political process although political advances lag behind those of increased security. Our objectives in Iraq are to help Iraq establish peace with neighbors, become an ally in the War on Terror, and to generate a stable, legitimate, democratic government. She suggests we retain US military presence to prevent ‘malign’ influences on the upcoming elections and any resurgence of violence. It is wise to avoid considering the upcoming election as a culmination of efforts but instead to look at them as the beginning of a political process that will continue to need social, economic, and political assistance. She believes the US should maintain ‘peacekeeping activities’ because a withdrawal would give Iranian-backed enemies a timetable to regroup and jeopardize the political process. The presence of US forces allows the Iraqi government to focus on governance, reconstruction, and reintegration of previous extremist into government to begin negotiations.
Quite contrary to Ms. Kagan’s speech, Mr. Charles Knight, Co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives at the Commonwealth Institute, strongly expressed that the US military occupation is the central feature of “our strategic failure” in Iraq. He discussed the miscalculation of what could be accomplished by arms, the failure of the US to understand identity politics, and the failure to consider international cooperation and legitimacy of actions. He expressed that the US military presence in Iraq has “tarnished the meaning and promise of democracy.” Mr. Knight advocates for unconditional withdrawal accompanied by internationally supported reconciliation efforts under a code of non-interference. While he acknowledges that the surges have increased security, he believes it is far from sufficient and that the US- Iraqi alliance is a “shaky marriage of convenience.”
Mr. Colin Kahl, a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, believes that our future presence in Iraqi is “all about balance,” between eradicating terrorism, generating stability, and providing leadership and credibility for governance. To contend with ongoing problems of ethno-sectarian conflicts, Mr. Kahl advocates that Iraq bring extremists into the political process, improve governance and increase employment. Additionally, the US needs to help professionalize the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) to ensure that they will act as a neutral body accountable to the state. The best option for future US military involvement is that of conditional engagement to pursue withdrawal and also provide residual support. The idea of a timeline with ‘conditions’ attached is paramount because the fundamental flaw in our strategy has been US politics not involving conditionality according to Mr. Kahl.
USIP’s Iraqi Fellow, Ms. Rend al-Rahim strongly echoed Mr. Kahl’s sentiments stating that he has a good understanding on things on the ground and the failure of US policy strategy. She furthered Mr. Kahl’s argument that the surges have been successful in increasing security but their original intent to improve the political process has seen little gain. Furthermore, she cited four mistakes the U.S. made in structuring the ISF: focusing on quantity and not quality, focusing on combat instead of command or control, ignoring integration of those serving in the ISF, and ignoring issues of loyalty of the army to the state. Ms. al-Rahim supports conditional engagement in Iraq and believes that the United States’ lack of declaratory statements and sanctions against Iraq have actually hindered the development of good governance. Iraq remains fragmented and faces problems with amnesty which prevent sustainable security. She comments that is a great sense of apprehension in Iraq that the increased security can break down at any moment; therefore, the US military should continue to stress the importance of integrating the ISF. If Sunnis do not feel as though they are equal partners in the state then Iraq may face another insurgency and relapse in violence. Sunnis must see the benefits of participating in society and they must be integrated into the leadership of the country. Above all else, Ms. al-Rahim emphasized that the US has not yet used the whole range of carrots and sticks in the last 5 years in Iraq and the military should change our strategy to one of conditional engagement while we strengthen the ISF.
This idea of conditional withdrawal supported by both Mr. Kahl and Ms. al-Rahim and opposed by both Ms. Kagan and Mr. Knight adequately illustrated the strong differences in opinion presented at the panel. For example at the conclusion of the panel, while Colin was of the mindset that 2009 will be spent “managing our increasing irrelevance,” Ms. Kagan strongly believed that 2009 will be a crucial year demanding strong US military support for the upcoming Iraqi elections.
Sponsor: United States Institute of Peace
Date: July 25, 2009
Time: 10 am -12 pm
Representative Attending: Jessica Walker
Ms. Kimberly Kagan, the President of the Institute for the Study of War, detailed that the surges contributed to political process although political advances lag behind those of increased security. Our objectives in Iraq are to help Iraq establish peace with neighbors, become an ally in the War on Terror, and to generate a stable, legitimate, democratic government. She suggests we retain US military presence to prevent ‘malign’ influences on the upcoming elections and any resurgence of violence. It is wise to avoid considering the upcoming election as a culmination of efforts but instead to look at them as the beginning of a political process that will continue to need social, economic, and political assistance. She believes the US should maintain ‘peacekeeping activities’ because a withdrawal would give Iranian-backed enemies a timetable to regroup and jeopardize the political process. The presence of US forces allows the Iraqi government to focus on governance, reconstruction, and reintegration of previous extremist into government to begin negotiations.
Quite contrary to Ms. Kagan’s speech, Mr. Charles Knight, Co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives at the Commonwealth Institute, strongly expressed that the US military occupation is the central feature of “our strategic failure” in Iraq. He discussed the miscalculation of what could be accomplished by arms, the failure of the US to understand identity politics, and the failure to consider international cooperation and legitimacy of actions. He expressed that the US military presence in Iraq has “tarnished the meaning and promise of democracy.” Mr. Knight advocates for unconditional withdrawal accompanied by internationally supported reconciliation efforts under a code of non-interference. While he acknowledges that the surges have increased security, he believes it is far from sufficient and that the US- Iraqi alliance is a “shaky marriage of convenience.”
Mr. Colin Kahl, a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, believes that our future presence in Iraqi is “all about balance,” between eradicating terrorism, generating stability, and providing leadership and credibility for governance. To contend with ongoing problems of ethno-sectarian conflicts, Mr. Kahl advocates that Iraq bring extremists into the political process, improve governance and increase employment. Additionally, the US needs to help professionalize the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) to ensure that they will act as a neutral body accountable to the state. The best option for future US military involvement is that of conditional engagement to pursue withdrawal and also provide residual support. The idea of a timeline with ‘conditions’ attached is paramount because the fundamental flaw in our strategy has been US politics not involving conditionality according to Mr. Kahl.
USIP’s Iraqi Fellow, Ms. Rend al-Rahim strongly echoed Mr. Kahl’s sentiments stating that he has a good understanding on things on the ground and the failure of US policy strategy. She furthered Mr. Kahl’s argument that the surges have been successful in increasing security but their original intent to improve the political process has seen little gain. Furthermore, she cited four mistakes the U.S. made in structuring the ISF: focusing on quantity and not quality, focusing on combat instead of command or control, ignoring integration of those serving in the ISF, and ignoring issues of loyalty of the army to the state. Ms. al-Rahim supports conditional engagement in Iraq and believes that the United States’ lack of declaratory statements and sanctions against Iraq have actually hindered the development of good governance. Iraq remains fragmented and faces problems with amnesty which prevent sustainable security. She comments that is a great sense of apprehension in Iraq that the increased security can break down at any moment; therefore, the US military should continue to stress the importance of integrating the ISF. If Sunnis do not feel as though they are equal partners in the state then Iraq may face another insurgency and relapse in violence. Sunnis must see the benefits of participating in society and they must be integrated into the leadership of the country. Above all else, Ms. al-Rahim emphasized that the US has not yet used the whole range of carrots and sticks in the last 5 years in Iraq and the military should change our strategy to one of conditional engagement while we strengthen the ISF.
This idea of conditional withdrawal supported by both Mr. Kahl and Ms. al-Rahim and opposed by both Ms. Kagan and Mr. Knight adequately illustrated the strong differences in opinion presented at the panel. For example at the conclusion of the panel, while Colin was of the mindset that 2009 will be spent “managing our increasing irrelevance,” Ms. Kagan strongly believed that 2009 will be a crucial year demanding strong US military support for the upcoming Iraqi elections.
Sponsor: United States Institute of Peace
Date: July 25, 2009
Time: 10 am -12 pm
Representative Attending: Jessica Walker
Friday, August 01, 2008
Youth Recommendations for a better U.S. - Middle East Relationship
In one of the world’s most dynamic regions, young people make up relatively 2/3rds of the population and are becoming “an increasingly powerful demographic force” engaged in the political arena. Middle Eastern and American youth met at the Young Global Leaders Forum to promote US-Middle East Relations to foster democratic development in the Middle East and North Africa. This remarkable forum was comprised of three conferences this past spring hosting 138 youth leaders throughout the region in Morocco, Egypt, and Jordan to develop and ratify policy recommendations for their respective governments as well as international media and civil society organizations concerning Middle East reform and America’s role. The conferences were hosted by Americans for Informed Democracy (AID) and the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED). On Tuesday, July 29th these two organizations partnered with the Middle East Institute (MEI) to bring representatives from the conferences to present their policy recommendations here in Washington DC.
In anticipation of the upcoming presidential election, this summer has seen a myriad of policy recommendations for the next administration, especially concerning foreign policy in the Middle East. Ambassador Wendy J. Chamberlin, President of MEI, stated that this “refreshing” report is particularly compelling and thought provoking as these young people represent the next generation of global leaders. The policy recommendations emanating from the three conferences addressed the following questions:
- How can U.S. development assistance better foster sustainable economic and political reform in the Middle East?
- What impact have other U.S. policies had on political reform in the region?
- How can the U.S. best support independent media sources and freedom of expression?
- How can the U.S. and the Middle East cooperate to give youth a meaningful voice in social, economic, educational, cultural and political debates?
As Tuesday’s presentation was directed to an American audience, the youth emphasized that the ‘War on Terror’ is not simply an American concern but that the Arab World feels the threat just as much within its own countries. Accordingly, a panelist expressed that the U.S. should “not be a demanding power [but] rather a willing partner.” All three conferences had a unanimous desire for greater promotion of understanding Arab culture in the U.S. as well as a desire for increased face-to-face dialogue via video conferencing. The young people hope to express to Americans that an equal, mutually respected partnership between the U.S. and the Arab World is in the best interest of global security and democratic development in the Middle East and North Africa.
Sponsor: The Middle East Institute, The Project on Middle East Democracy, and Americans for Informed Democracy
Date: July 29, 2008
Time: 12-1 p.m.
Representative Attending: Jessica Walker
In anticipation of the upcoming presidential election, this summer has seen a myriad of policy recommendations for the next administration, especially concerning foreign policy in the Middle East. Ambassador Wendy J. Chamberlin, President of MEI, stated that this “refreshing” report is particularly compelling and thought provoking as these young people represent the next generation of global leaders. The policy recommendations emanating from the three conferences addressed the following questions:
- How can U.S. development assistance better foster sustainable economic and political reform in the Middle East?
- What impact have other U.S. policies had on political reform in the region?
- How can the U.S. best support independent media sources and freedom of expression?
- How can the U.S. and the Middle East cooperate to give youth a meaningful voice in social, economic, educational, cultural and political debates?
As Tuesday’s presentation was directed to an American audience, the youth emphasized that the ‘War on Terror’ is not simply an American concern but that the Arab World feels the threat just as much within its own countries. Accordingly, a panelist expressed that the U.S. should “not be a demanding power [but] rather a willing partner.” All three conferences had a unanimous desire for greater promotion of understanding Arab culture in the U.S. as well as a desire for increased face-to-face dialogue via video conferencing. The young people hope to express to Americans that an equal, mutually respected partnership between the U.S. and the Arab World is in the best interest of global security and democratic development in the Middle East and North Africa.
Sponsor: The Middle East Institute, The Project on Middle East Democracy, and Americans for Informed Democracy
Date: July 29, 2008
Time: 12-1 p.m.
Representative Attending: Jessica Walker
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Islamist Parties and Democracy
The rise of Islamist Parties throughout the globe has restructured the historical debate regarding Islam and democracy not only as a theoretical issue but now as a policy concern. The July 2008 issue of the Journal of Democracy presents various essays containing experts’ opinions on this issue to “highlight the key points of controversy in assessing the implications of the rise of Islamist parties for the future of democracy in the region.” On July 21st, The National Endowment for Democracy and the Journal of Democracy held a panel featuring four of the essayists from the symposium including Tamara Cofman Wittes, Hillel Fradkin, Laith Kubba, and Amr Hamzawy.
Tamara Cofman Wittes, from Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, dates the beginning of this discussion back to the 1992 coup in Algeria which established a “prism through which many actors” in the western world view Islam and Democracy. She enlist as examples of the lack of Islamic democracies resulting partially from the western (i.e. American) insincerity regarding their commitment to democratic transportation as seen in Algeria and Gaza with the election of legitimate, illiberal, anti-American Islamic governments. Further, the American failure throughout the 1990s to differentiate between Islamic groups has contributed to a backlash against democracy promotion. Ms. Wittes explained that it is the militarism and not the religion on many Islamist political groups that dooms their democratic process as well as their environment of operating in failed states.
Hudson Institute’s Hillel Fradkin approached the discussion of Islamic parties and Democracy as one of paradox and caution. He believes it to be a paradox seeing as most Islamic parties have an origin in the Muslim Brotherhood which was a movement and not a party; furthermore, the Brotherhood was against liberal democracy and even the very idea of nation-state governance. Secondly, he believes that conversation of Islam and Democracy should be accompanied by a word of caution. In light of past failures he poses the question: is it in our security interest to encourage Islamic democratic experiments? Although he cites Turkey, Jordan, Morocco (PJD), and Iraq as examples of Islamic parties moving in the right direction towards democracy he explains that each attempt will be country specific and that the “crucial thing is the question of environment.”
NED’s own Laith Kubba cautioned against automatically associating Islamist politics with authoritarian governments because both secular and religious governments can be authoritarian. It is disastrous for American polity to assume that there is only one Islamic approach to political thinking although Islamic politics can be authoritarian and that “the minute religion is pushed on politics it is too powerful” and becomes so counterproductive and destructive instead of unifying; therefore, all political parties should guard against the abuse of religion according to Mr. Kubba. He insists that the focus should be on the CONTEXT in which Islamists come to power. Weak state and civic institutions can often lead to authoritarian politics. If the state is in better shape then political Islam is less autocratic; therefore, we should focus on strengthening civil institutions and culture to allow the democratic process to take place.
The last presenter, Amr Hamzawy of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, conveyed his essay’s explanation of the wide spectrum of Islamic movements, highlighting three patterns. The most successful attempts of Islamist parties pursuing democracy are seen in Morocco, Algeria, Bahrain, and Kuwait. These countries exhibit relatively stable and integrated legal politics with checks and balances in the government. No one party in these countries has a monopoly over Islam itself allowing for internal debates and differences to be managed institutionally. Furthermore, these countries successfully shift the debates from ideology concerns to public policy and the needs of the people. However, these Islamists still face the challenges of keeping their constituencies convinced as many came to power out of reform oriented movements and they now have limited outcome of participation.
Secondly, Egypt and Jordan are examples of less stable developments of Islamist parties and democracy as the cycles of repression and intimidation have generated a polarized political scene creating a challenge for organized political participation of Islamists. Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood holds a monopoly over Islamic politics and has been unable to move away from ideological debates. The lack of institutions to manage differences has lead to factionalism and resulted in instability; therefore facing a challenge of managing debates over participation in politics and the role of Islam. Sudan and Yemen have been the most unsuccessful in fostering democracy and their Islamic parties have shifted position to become opposition movements when they were once members of governing coalitions. They have been unable to fashion convincing messages to their audiences and their debates are increasingly out of touch. Saudi Arabia and Syria do not currently have modern, organized movements of Islamist Political Parties engaging in democracy.
All four panelists emphasized the political environment in which Islamic political parties come to power as a major influence in determining the success of democracy. Ms. Wiites summarizes this in saying that the “quality of overall political environment determines the quality of political participants.” Therefore, improving the scope of political freedom in the Middle East will allow the relationship between Islamist parties and democracy to progress.
Sponsor: The National Endowment for Democracy and the Journal of Democracy
Date: July 21, 2008
Time: 4:30-6 p.m.
Representative Attending: Jessica Walker
Tamara Cofman Wittes, from Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, dates the beginning of this discussion back to the 1992 coup in Algeria which established a “prism through which many actors” in the western world view Islam and Democracy. She enlist as examples of the lack of Islamic democracies resulting partially from the western (i.e. American) insincerity regarding their commitment to democratic transportation as seen in Algeria and Gaza with the election of legitimate, illiberal, anti-American Islamic governments. Further, the American failure throughout the 1990s to differentiate between Islamic groups has contributed to a backlash against democracy promotion. Ms. Wittes explained that it is the militarism and not the religion on many Islamist political groups that dooms their democratic process as well as their environment of operating in failed states.
Hudson Institute’s Hillel Fradkin approached the discussion of Islamic parties and Democracy as one of paradox and caution. He believes it to be a paradox seeing as most Islamic parties have an origin in the Muslim Brotherhood which was a movement and not a party; furthermore, the Brotherhood was against liberal democracy and even the very idea of nation-state governance. Secondly, he believes that conversation of Islam and Democracy should be accompanied by a word of caution. In light of past failures he poses the question: is it in our security interest to encourage Islamic democratic experiments? Although he cites Turkey, Jordan, Morocco (PJD), and Iraq as examples of Islamic parties moving in the right direction towards democracy he explains that each attempt will be country specific and that the “crucial thing is the question of environment.”
NED’s own Laith Kubba cautioned against automatically associating Islamist politics with authoritarian governments because both secular and religious governments can be authoritarian. It is disastrous for American polity to assume that there is only one Islamic approach to political thinking although Islamic politics can be authoritarian and that “the minute religion is pushed on politics it is too powerful” and becomes so counterproductive and destructive instead of unifying; therefore, all political parties should guard against the abuse of religion according to Mr. Kubba. He insists that the focus should be on the CONTEXT in which Islamists come to power. Weak state and civic institutions can often lead to authoritarian politics. If the state is in better shape then political Islam is less autocratic; therefore, we should focus on strengthening civil institutions and culture to allow the democratic process to take place.
The last presenter, Amr Hamzawy of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, conveyed his essay’s explanation of the wide spectrum of Islamic movements, highlighting three patterns. The most successful attempts of Islamist parties pursuing democracy are seen in Morocco, Algeria, Bahrain, and Kuwait. These countries exhibit relatively stable and integrated legal politics with checks and balances in the government. No one party in these countries has a monopoly over Islam itself allowing for internal debates and differences to be managed institutionally. Furthermore, these countries successfully shift the debates from ideology concerns to public policy and the needs of the people. However, these Islamists still face the challenges of keeping their constituencies convinced as many came to power out of reform oriented movements and they now have limited outcome of participation.
Secondly, Egypt and Jordan are examples of less stable developments of Islamist parties and democracy as the cycles of repression and intimidation have generated a polarized political scene creating a challenge for organized political participation of Islamists. Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood holds a monopoly over Islamic politics and has been unable to move away from ideological debates. The lack of institutions to manage differences has lead to factionalism and resulted in instability; therefore facing a challenge of managing debates over participation in politics and the role of Islam. Sudan and Yemen have been the most unsuccessful in fostering democracy and their Islamic parties have shifted position to become opposition movements when they were once members of governing coalitions. They have been unable to fashion convincing messages to their audiences and their debates are increasingly out of touch. Saudi Arabia and Syria do not currently have modern, organized movements of Islamist Political Parties engaging in democracy.
All four panelists emphasized the political environment in which Islamic political parties come to power as a major influence in determining the success of democracy. Ms. Wiites summarizes this in saying that the “quality of overall political environment determines the quality of political participants.” Therefore, improving the scope of political freedom in the Middle East will allow the relationship between Islamist parties and democracy to progress.
Sponsor: The National Endowment for Democracy and the Journal of Democracy
Date: July 21, 2008
Time: 4:30-6 p.m.
Representative Attending: Jessica Walker
Friday, July 25, 2008
The Critical Link Between Development Aid and National Security
The Millennium Challenge Corporation along with the Center for Strategic and International Studies sponsored three diverse panelists to convey their opinions regarding "the critical link between development aid and national security.” These panelists included Dr. Stephen Brent, chair of the Department of Economics at the National Defense University, Jennifer Cooke, co-director of the Africa Program at CSIS, and Sherri Kraham, Deputy Vice President at MCC.
All three panelists agreed that development is the future of national security. However, each had their own opinions on ways to pursue development. According to Dr. Brent, the best option the US has is to increase United States Agency for International Development employees. Brent reminded us that at the time of the Vietnam war, and at its creation, USAID had more than 11,000 employees,7,000 of which were placed in Vietnam. Currently the USAID has a little over 1,000 employees spread out in dozens of countries. An ideal outcome, according to Dr. Brent, would be for Congress to fund the restoration of USAID. Moreover, Dr. Brent stressed the need for the development and military departments to re-unite their efforts, rather than work against each other (a phenomenon that began following the Cold War).
CSIS representative Jennifer Cooke agreed with Dr. Brent, stating that the government needs to be a united front. Yet, Cooke believes it will take more than the restoration of USAID to achieve national security. Cooke is a strong believer in the 3 legged approach to national security, stressing the need for defense, diplomacy, and development in order to reach an acceptable level of national security. Cooke also stressed that many of the current failed states, specifically in Africa, are due to lack of governance, not lack of diplomacy or defense. From her view, the next step should be peacekeeping training in Africa, so that regions become self-sustaining.
Sherri Kraham, Deputy VP of MCC, offered a completely different perspective. MCC, as an organization, financially supports the development of democratic governments who meet criteria that categorizes them as "on the brink of security". MCC does not address the issues of failed or fragile states. According to Kraham, they feel they support the defense, diplomacy and development through multiplying and encouraging democratic states. Thus completely avoiding the issue of military training.
While all three representatives provided key aspects of national security, they are incomplete without each other. This is a fundamental point that all three panelists failed to mention. In the end, if MCC continues on its path, and the key points that Dr. Brent and Cooke stressed, then achieving national security is in fact, just around the corner.
Sponsors: Millennium Challenge Corporation
Center For Strategic and International Studies
Date: 7/21/08
Representative: Daria Willis
All three panelists agreed that development is the future of national security. However, each had their own opinions on ways to pursue development. According to Dr. Brent, the best option the US has is to increase United States Agency for International Development employees. Brent reminded us that at the time of the Vietnam war, and at its creation, USAID had more than 11,000 employees,7,000 of which were placed in Vietnam. Currently the USAID has a little over 1,000 employees spread out in dozens of countries. An ideal outcome, according to Dr. Brent, would be for Congress to fund the restoration of USAID. Moreover, Dr. Brent stressed the need for the development and military departments to re-unite their efforts, rather than work against each other (a phenomenon that began following the Cold War).
CSIS representative Jennifer Cooke agreed with Dr. Brent, stating that the government needs to be a united front. Yet, Cooke believes it will take more than the restoration of USAID to achieve national security. Cooke is a strong believer in the 3 legged approach to national security, stressing the need for defense, diplomacy, and development in order to reach an acceptable level of national security. Cooke also stressed that many of the current failed states, specifically in Africa, are due to lack of governance, not lack of diplomacy or defense. From her view, the next step should be peacekeeping training in Africa, so that regions become self-sustaining.
Sherri Kraham, Deputy VP of MCC, offered a completely different perspective. MCC, as an organization, financially supports the development of democratic governments who meet criteria that categorizes them as "on the brink of security". MCC does not address the issues of failed or fragile states. According to Kraham, they feel they support the defense, diplomacy and development through multiplying and encouraging democratic states. Thus completely avoiding the issue of military training.
While all three representatives provided key aspects of national security, they are incomplete without each other. This is a fundamental point that all three panelists failed to mention. In the end, if MCC continues on its path, and the key points that Dr. Brent and Cooke stressed, then achieving national security is in fact, just around the corner.
Sponsors: Millennium Challenge Corporation
Center For Strategic and International Studies
Date: 7/21/08
Representative: Daria Willis
Monday, July 14, 2008
Security and Development Workgroup
The Society for International Development put together a panel of experts to host an informal conversation regarding security issues in international development. Panelists included Jeff Abramson, the Managing Editor of Arms Control Today at Arms Control Association; Richard Hill, the Senior Director of Transition States at International Development Group-RTI International; and James D. Schmitt, Vice president of Center for Stabilization and Development at Creative Associates International. Each addressed their companies’ goals and initiatives towards increasing security in developing nations: arms treaties, legitimized security forces, and post conflict resolution.
According to Abramson, over the past few years the international community, along with reluctant cooperation from the US, has worked on drafting a collaborative Arms Trade Treaty. While it is unrealistic to expect countries to relinquish their independent rights to accept Arms Trade from other countries, the ultimate goal is to make the process much more transparent. That is to say, provide adequate documentation of which countries are receiving what arms.
Richard Hill applied Abramson’s briefing to the situation in Darfur. Hill stressed that as there is a need for a legitimate UN mandate regarding weapon’s trading, there is also a need for legitimate security in Darfur. However, since this is not currently a feasible option, RTI has focused on “Practical Security Solutions” addressing the health issues and violence directed towards the Internally Displaced Persons in Sudan. For example, in order to facilitate faster mobility and adaptability, RTI has provided chickens and stoves in the place of large farm animals and firewood so that Sudanese refugees are not required to leave the safety of the camps. In addition, RTI has provided donkeys for expedited transportation.
In addition to RTI’s initiatives, James D Schmitt discussed organization’s efforts to regulate post-conflict territories. Schmitt stressed that while the actions of non government organizations and for profit organizations such as RTI are crucial to the stabilization of a region, all efforts would be more effective if NGOs, for-profit organizations, and the military could collaborate their efforts. Schmitt refers to this theory as “clustering,” and brings up a valid argument that pooling the large variety of resources and funding could prove more beneficial in these post-conflict development efforts.
All three organizations are currently working for a better level of security in both developed and undeveloped regions around the globe. However, Abramson, Hill and Schmitt all recognize that, at the moment, these initiatives are very optimistic, and it may be an uphill battle.
Sponsor: Society for International Development
Date: 7/9/08
Time: 12pm-1:15pm
Representative: Daria Willis
According to Abramson, over the past few years the international community, along with reluctant cooperation from the US, has worked on drafting a collaborative Arms Trade Treaty. While it is unrealistic to expect countries to relinquish their independent rights to accept Arms Trade from other countries, the ultimate goal is to make the process much more transparent. That is to say, provide adequate documentation of which countries are receiving what arms.
Richard Hill applied Abramson’s briefing to the situation in Darfur. Hill stressed that as there is a need for a legitimate UN mandate regarding weapon’s trading, there is also a need for legitimate security in Darfur. However, since this is not currently a feasible option, RTI has focused on “Practical Security Solutions” addressing the health issues and violence directed towards the Internally Displaced Persons in Sudan. For example, in order to facilitate faster mobility and adaptability, RTI has provided chickens and stoves in the place of large farm animals and firewood so that Sudanese refugees are not required to leave the safety of the camps. In addition, RTI has provided donkeys for expedited transportation.
In addition to RTI’s initiatives, James D Schmitt discussed organization’s efforts to regulate post-conflict territories. Schmitt stressed that while the actions of non government organizations and for profit organizations such as RTI are crucial to the stabilization of a region, all efforts would be more effective if NGOs, for-profit organizations, and the military could collaborate their efforts. Schmitt refers to this theory as “clustering,” and brings up a valid argument that pooling the large variety of resources and funding could prove more beneficial in these post-conflict development efforts.
All three organizations are currently working for a better level of security in both developed and undeveloped regions around the globe. However, Abramson, Hill and Schmitt all recognize that, at the moment, these initiatives are very optimistic, and it may be an uphill battle.
Sponsor: Society for International Development
Date: 7/9/08
Time: 12pm-1:15pm
Representative: Daria Willis
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Broadcasting, Voice and Accountability
Media plays an important political role by publicizing government actions, providing checks and balances to those actions and giving citizens an outlet for expression. These functions are particularly important in developing countries, where fledgling governments struggle to find a balance between maintaining control and improving quality of life for their citizens. To facilitate the role of the radio and television in development, the World Bank published “Broadcasting, Voice and Accountability: A Public Interest Approach to Policy, Law and Regulation.” Steve Buckley, Kreszentia Duer, Toby Mendel and Seán Ó Siochrú, authors of the book, explained its purpose and importance to development efforts at a recent launch event.
The book outlines the key elements of effective broadcasting regulations, and provides examples of best practices from a wide range of countries. It is intended to help governments increase the amount of unrestricted, community-based broadcasting that promotes public interest.
Broadcast media is critical to development because it increases social engagement. Through news reports, citizens can be more informed about both their country and their government’s actions. At the same time, they can fight back against government actions that they oppose. Eric Chinje, one of the evaluators of the book, shared his experiences of the power of media at a television station in Cameroon in the 1980’s. After just one year of widespread television programming, the citizens of Cameroon knew much more about the different regions of their country and developed a stronger sense of national identity. Later, his TV crew broadcasted footage of numerous government and military officials disobeying traffic laws. Soon after this story aired, the previous traffic safety problems became almost nonexistent.
The public must have the opportunity to create independent radio and television stations that broadcast freely in order to hold their governments accountable. This book, with its combination of recommendations and case study examples, offers guidance for developing countries to create a media that is organized under law but still offers an atmosphere of free expression.
Date: June 17, 2008
Time: 10:00am – 12:00pm
Representative Attending: Kate Lonergan
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
A New Season of Law and Order in Nigeria
Today’s presenter Okechukwu Nwanguma, project head for campaign operations and periodic reports at the Civil Liberties Organization (CLO) in
Nwanguma began with a detailed and heart wrenching account of police brutality, from colonization (1966) to today. Regional and national police forces replaced the earlier community-rooted enforcers who maintained law and order without the use of excessive physical force. Their replacements were militarized and adopted the mantra of violence, corruption and partisanship they had so strongly abhorred. The Nigerian Police Mobile Force quickly assumed the fitting moniker ‘Kill and Go’.
Initial police reforms began in 1999, and in 2000 the Ministry of Public Affairs designed a reform plan detailing benchmarks to be achieved over the following five years. These efforts aimed to increase the confidence of Nigerians in the police as well as the morale of officers by:
- Improving resources for officers and stations
- Recruiting 200,000 new officers over five years
- Providing better screening and training for its leadership
While such aspirations are novel, the institution still lies beneath a dark cloud of corruption. The Human Rights Watch estimates over 10,000 civilian deaths in police hands after 1999, when reforms were to have been already in motion. Deficiencies within the justice system remain abominable, as there is still only one police lab and one ballistics specialist in a country slightly smaller than
Both Nwanguma and today’s commenter Oge Okoye, Assistant Program Director for the
Learn More About HRW findings
Image Souce
Sponsor: The National Endowment for Democracy
Date: June 18, 2008
Time: 12-2 p.m.
Representative Attending: Elizabeth Caniano
Friday, June 20, 2008
‘More than Just Numbers: Using the Media Sustainability Index to Fuel Development’
After years of analyzing the freedom of media systems in Europe and Eurasia, the International Researches and Exchanges Board has extended its Media Sustainability Index (MSI) to Sub-Saharan Africa. Since 1999 the MSI has become an important benchmark for measuring the changes of media systems over time and across borders. The media plays an important role in the development of impoverished nations, as it is a telling assessor of governmental control, business management, the availability of jobs and the free flow of information. The study of media systems provides much broader social implications, particularly regarding good governance and censorship. Assessments like the MSI allow countries to see their development over time and in relation to other nations.
The 2006-2007 MSI for Africa examines the media systems of 37 sub-Saharan African nations. It identifies five main objectives judged to be the most pertinent in shaping a free and prosperous media system:
1. Legal and social norms protect and promote free speech and access to
public information.
2. Journalism meets professional standards of quality.
3. Multiple news sources provide citizens with reliable and objective news.
4. Independent media are well-managed businesses, allowing editorial
independence.
5. Supporting institutions function in the professional interests of
independent media.
Within each nation a panel of experts was formed to evaluate these criterion. While the makeup of each body slightly varied by countries, representatives included NGO leaders, members of professional associations, media-development implementers, international donors and local journalists. They qualitatively and quantitatively assessed these benchmarks.
Members of the panel individually evaluated each objective. They used a scale of 0-4 to numerically judge these criterion. The high score of 4 was assigned when media systems completely met these standards. These five independent scores for each country were then averaged together, creating a composite result. This index noted both the highest score to date (South Africa with 3.1) as well as the lowest (0.27 in Eritrea). Sudan, Zimbabwe and Equatorial Guinea recorded similarly low scores. Objectives 2 and 4, professionalism and sovereignty of media sources, consistently received lower marks than the other indicators.
But why all the numbers? Collecting and measuring data over a course of time is instrumental to understanding measuring development. The first collection serves as a starting point to determine priorities and set benchmarks to usher a more fruitful future. By intermittently analyzing data sets, the true effectiveness of new legislative initiatives can be gauged. The publishing of data allows people to become more critically aware of the institutions representing them. Data holds institutions accountable for their actions and is particularly essential in developing nations to assure the integrity of new-founded governments. Statistics encourage people to react intelligently to their surroundings and make them less vulnerable to manipulation. In developing countries which have been overpowered by exploitative governments, the ability to understand, compare and analyze data is a catalyst for positive change. The 2006-2007 MSI for Africa laid the foundation for offering a more critical, holistic and comparative examination of democratic governance and will surely prove constructive in African development, one nation at a time.
Image Source
Sponsor: The National Endowment for Democracy
Date: June 12, 2008
Time: 12-2 pm
Representative Attending: Elizabeth Caniano
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Indonesia Today and its US Relations
Featured Speakers: Former President Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie
On January 29, the US-Indonesia Society hosted many distinguished members of the international community for a breakfast with former President B.J Habibie of Indonesia. President Habibie is the President credited with bringing democracy to the country by opening the media, increasing human liberties, and introducing the largest decentralization initiative in history. Indonesia is now the third largest democracy in the world and the largest Muslim country.
Habibie’s speech emphasized the need for a stronger relationship between Indonesia and the United States. He began by citing the commonalities between the preambles to both constitutions. Using the preambles as a template he discussed how the common values that the countries possess (including pluralism, democracy and maintaining peace throughout the world) provide capital for future cooperation between the two countries.
Later in his speech, he discussed why Indonesia is important to US interest. He referred to Indonesia as “a cornerstone of regional security” and an economic role model for other developing nations. He also pointed out his country’s strategic importance on the Malacca Strait, which is the main shipping channel between the Indian and the Pacific Ocean.
Because Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world, Habibie explained how it proves that democracy is compatible with Islam, contrary to some political theory, and how it serves as a good partner in the US’s war on terror. He said that Indonesia’s success as a modern, prosperous and democratic nation will benefit the image of Islam and in pursuit of democracy worldwide.
Location: Cosmos Club
Date: January 29, 2008
Time: 8:30 am-10:00
Approximate Number of Attendees: 50
Intern Attending: Micaela Klein
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Kenya: Assessing the Political and Humanitarian Crisis
January 16, 2008
Featured Speakers: Bukard Oberle (World Food Program Country Director,
Moderated by: Jennifer Cooke (Co-Director, CSIS
The political and humanitarian crisis in
Bukard Oberle and Sam Kona spoke on the humanitarian efforts going on currently in
Read the transcript or listen to a recording of this event
For more information:
"Breaking the Stalemate in Kenya"
By Joel D. Barkan, Senior Associate (Non-resident), CSIS Africa Program
The United Nations Development Program Website also has more information on development issues in Africa including democratic governance and crisis prevention and recovery.
http://www.undp.org/africa/
Here is the website for the Kenya UNDP office:
http://www.ke.undp.org/
Friday, July 06, 2007
Illicit Financial Flows: The Missing Link in Development
Featured Speakers: Raymond Baker, Global Financial Integrity; Daniel Kauffman, World Bank; Lord Daniel Brennan, Matrix Chambers; John Christensen, Tax Justice Network; Eva Joly, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation; Simon Pak, Penn State; Herman Wijffels, World Bank; Althea Lawson, Global Witness; Sanjay Reddy, Columbia University; Nancy Boswell, Transparency International
The goal of this conference was to examine the ways in which illicit financial flows inhibit development. Recognizing that “development” encompasses more than just foreign aid, presenters at the conference stressed a myriad of ways in which illicit financial flows are detrimental to the third world, and called for a variety of solutions on how to curb the ongoing illicit capital flight which unduly transfers wealth from developing countries to financial centers in developed nations.
Raymond Baker, author of Capitalism: Achilles’ Heel, argued that the “West” has been complicit in illicit financial flows by creating institutions, such as tax shelters and open financial centers, which have redirected 70-90% of the global income to the top 20% of the population since the 1960s. Baker estimated that 50 billion dollars goes into developing countries as foreign aid every year, yet 500 billion leaves these developing countries every year and enters developed countries through loopholes in the economic structures, thus making illicit financial flows one of the biggest obstacles the development community must face.
Participants each brought a specific interest or concern to the table. Daniel Kaufmann of the World Bank, called for a concerted effort towards the recovery and repatriation of stolen assets. Lord Daniel Brennan focused on a “global citizenry” which must react to these illicit flows with more prevention and deterrence. John Christensen discussed the lax regulations and constant secrecy within tax laws and the community of tax professionals. Additionally, Eva Joly argued that the development community would be better served by shutting down tax evasion centers located in developed nations rather than fight corruption abroad. Althea Lawson highlighted the specific issue of klepto-crats, who steal from their developing nations’ aid budget in order to invest in materials and funds in Western nations.
Overall, the conference provided detailed insight into the problem of illicit financial flows which are illegally utilized or created from bribery, theft, criminal proceeds, fraud, and tax havens. The event stressed the need for developed nations to create laws and structures that prevent the inflow of illicit capital. Equally important to combating this problem is the evolving role that banks can play in developing countries to monitor the status of financial resources in their own nations.
Sponsor: Global Financial Integrity, a program of the Center for International Policy
Location: Center for Strategic and International Studies
Date: Thursday June 28, 2007
Time: 8:00 am – 1:15 pm
Approximate Number of Attendees: 150
Intern Attending: Megan Niedermeyer
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Supporting Parliamentary Leaders to Improve Global Health: Lessons From the Field
Featured Speakers: Hon. Elma Dienda,
Hon. Dienda began the presentation with a discussion about her work in
Ms. Dawson discussed the National Democratic Institute’s efforts to work with local governments in order to increase parliamentarian commitment to creating HIV/AIDS laws.
Sponsor: ICRW in Collaboration with Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative
Location: The Aspen Institute
Date:
Time:
Approximate Number of Attendees: 24
Intern Attending: Meredith Blair
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Enhancing the Parliamentary Response to the HIV/AIDS Crisis
Featured Speakers: Hon. Pier Ferdinando Casini (Italy), Inter-Parliamentary Union; Hon. Elioda Tumwesigye, Uganda; Hon. Henrietta Bogopane-Zulu, South African National AIDS Council; Rep. Donald Payne, House Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health; Rep. Betty McCollum, Congressional Global Health Caucus; Dr. Pauline Muchina, UNAIDS.
Honorable Pier Ferdinando Casini of Italy, President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, opened the panel discussion by thanking participants and stressing the continued need for parliamentary leadership in addressing the HIV/AIDs endemic. The panelists emphasized the importance of the parliamentary and congressional roles in creating effective HIV/AIDs response strategies. Panelists also highlighted previous parliamentary accomplishments, such as Uganda’s success in decreasing HIV/AIDs prevalence. Panel participants also discussed the importance of protecting women’s rights as a means of decreasing the spread of HIV/AIDs. Specifically, they suggested parliaments focus on increasing laws that protect and enhance women’s access to education and health care.
Dr. Pauline Muchina, Senior Partnership Advisor of UNAIDS, closed the presentation, echoing fellow panelists with a call for increased parliamentary leadership. Dr. Muchina urged leaders to focus their efforts on attaining greater financial resources so that they may offer more comprehensive response strategies in their countries. Specifically, Dr. Muchina suggested that these response strategies include nutrition programs that will improve the effectiveness for HIV/AIDs treatments.
Sponsor: Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Joint United Programme on HIV/AIDS, in cooperation with the Congressional Human Rights Caucus and the Congressional Global Health Caucus
Location: 2255 Rayburn House Office Building
Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 Time: 4:00-6:00PM
Approximate Number of Attendees: 30
Intern Attending: Meredith Blair
Honorable Pier Ferdinando Casini of Italy, President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, opened the panel discussion by thanking participants and stressing the continued need for parliamentary leadership in addressing the HIV/AIDs endemic. The panelists emphasized the importance of the parliamentary and congressional roles in creating effective HIV/AIDs response strategies. Panelists also highlighted previous parliamentary accomplishments, such as Uganda’s success in decreasing HIV/AIDs prevalence. Panel participants also discussed the importance of protecting women’s rights as a means of decreasing the spread of HIV/AIDs. Specifically, they suggested parliaments focus on increasing laws that protect and enhance women’s access to education and health care.
Dr. Pauline Muchina, Senior Partnership Advisor of UNAIDS, closed the presentation, echoing fellow panelists with a call for increased parliamentary leadership. Dr. Muchina urged leaders to focus their efforts on attaining greater financial resources so that they may offer more comprehensive response strategies in their countries. Specifically, Dr. Muchina suggested that these response strategies include nutrition programs that will improve the effectiveness for HIV/AIDs treatments.
Sponsor: Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Joint United Programme on HIV/AIDS, in cooperation with the Congressional Human Rights Caucus and the Congressional Global Health Caucus
Location: 2255 Rayburn House Office Building
Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 Time: 4:00-6:00PM
Approximate Number of Attendees: 30
Intern Attending: Meredith Blair
Monday, May 14, 2007
Making Multilateralism Effective
Featured Speakers: Mark Malloch Brown
Date: May 7, 2007
Time: 4:00-5:00pm
Approximate Number of Attendees: 50
Intern Attending: Elysa Severinghaus
Malloch Brown began his presentation with the comment that “our world is more integrated…but less governed than it’s ever been before. That paradox is at the heart of international problems.” The issue that we run into now with increasing integration is that institutions are less fit do address the problems that arise. We are in need of global capacity and institutions are often not up to the task. While single organizations seem capable of targeting specific problems, when collaborating they appear reluctant to string patterns together and create solutions.
One of the most important inquiries in the effectiveness of multilateral operations has been into limits on sovereignty around the world. Unequivocally, human rights are too important to leave alone a nation’s sovereignty. In the aftermath and current situations of
In terms of peacekeeping, probably the most important move we can make is to get the
Date: May 7, 2007
Time: 4:00-5:00pm
Approximate Number of Attendees: 50
Intern Attending: Elysa Severinghaus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
