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
Showing posts with label Europe and CIS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Europe and CIS. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
A New Time and Age for European Diaspora Communites
In a world that is increasingly borderless, the role and sway of Diaspora communities has never been greater. Leaders of three unique Diaspora organizations gathered at the Washington, DC Chapter of the Society for International Development June 27 to speak of immigration trends from their respective nations and to describe the focus and influence of their policies.
Like many Diaspora Communities, The National Albanian American Council promotes peace, democratic values, human rights and economic development. It distinguishes itself from other organizations centered on Balkan reconstruction by serving as the unofficial embassy for Kosovo in Washington and the Albanian voice in the US capital. Executive director Avni Mustafaj highlighted the council’s success in fighting gender inequality by providing leadership training for Balkan women. Diaspora communities, argued Mr. Mustafaj, want to earn respect from all arenas without having to compromise their goals and dominion.
Garnering both American and European support for economic and government reforms in the Republic of Moldova is at the heart of The Moldova Foundation. Thanks in part to its internet-based news service, the foundation tells the Moldovan story in an international arena and consequently further defines the question of Moldovan identity. According to its President Vlad Spanu, the Moldova Foundation differs from other Diaspora Communities because members are mainly US citizens who support civil society in Moldova, not removed patriots.
Like Mr. Spanu, U.S.-Ukraine Foundation President Nadia McConnell insists that her organization is not your typical Diaspora community: many key players are US citizens and its efforts are regionally bipartisan and do not play favorites to specific cities or ethnic groups. Additionally, the US Ukraine Foundation keeps communication lines open between Ukraine and the US to facilitate “[peace building] and prosperity through shared democratic values.”
When asked to assess the future of their “Diaspora communities” in the US, panelists gave very different predictions. Mr. Mustafaj perceives an increased role of Diaspora communities in the coming years; however, he is also a little weary of this heightened presence, as the nostalgia uniting Diaspora members can easily bread extremist practices. Because his organization is quite young, Mr. Spanu explains that the only direction the Moldova Foundation can go is up. Ms. McConnell noted that she is both optimistic and pessimistic for the fate of all Diaspora communities. Despite their distinct forecasts, it is safe to say that all three leaders are making great strides in encouraging both domestic and international collaborations, and perhaps more importantly, translating the voice of the people to an unfamiliar audience.
Hosting Institute: SID-Washington: Europe and Eurasia Workgroup
Date: 27 June 2008
Time: 12-1.30 PM
Representative Attending: Elizabeth Caniano
Like many Diaspora Communities, The National Albanian American Council promotes peace, democratic values, human rights and economic development. It distinguishes itself from other organizations centered on Balkan reconstruction by serving as the unofficial embassy for Kosovo in Washington and the Albanian voice in the US capital. Executive director Avni Mustafaj highlighted the council’s success in fighting gender inequality by providing leadership training for Balkan women. Diaspora communities, argued Mr. Mustafaj, want to earn respect from all arenas without having to compromise their goals and dominion.
Garnering both American and European support for economic and government reforms in the Republic of Moldova is at the heart of The Moldova Foundation. Thanks in part to its internet-based news service, the foundation tells the Moldovan story in an international arena and consequently further defines the question of Moldovan identity. According to its President Vlad Spanu, the Moldova Foundation differs from other Diaspora Communities because members are mainly US citizens who support civil society in Moldova, not removed patriots.
Like Mr. Spanu, U.S.-Ukraine Foundation President Nadia McConnell insists that her organization is not your typical Diaspora community: many key players are US citizens and its efforts are regionally bipartisan and do not play favorites to specific cities or ethnic groups. Additionally, the US Ukraine Foundation keeps communication lines open between Ukraine and the US to facilitate “[peace building] and prosperity through shared democratic values.”
When asked to assess the future of their “Diaspora communities” in the US, panelists gave very different predictions. Mr. Mustafaj perceives an increased role of Diaspora communities in the coming years; however, he is also a little weary of this heightened presence, as the nostalgia uniting Diaspora members can easily bread extremist practices. Because his organization is quite young, Mr. Spanu explains that the only direction the Moldova Foundation can go is up. Ms. McConnell noted that she is both optimistic and pessimistic for the fate of all Diaspora communities. Despite their distinct forecasts, it is safe to say that all three leaders are making great strides in encouraging both domestic and international collaborations, and perhaps more importantly, translating the voice of the people to an unfamiliar audience.
Hosting Institute: SID-Washington: Europe and Eurasia Workgroup
Date: 27 June 2008
Time: 12-1.30 PM
Representative Attending: Elizabeth Caniano
Monday, June 30, 2008
Resettled Refugees Remember Those Left Behind
June 20, 2008 marked the eight annual World Refugee Day, a bittersweet day of remembrance for the over 11 million refugees and 26 million internally displaced people. It is unfortunate, recalled numerous presenters, that this day must be celebrated, but it is fortunate to hear the hopeful and inspiring stories of refugees who have ameliorated their lives and to hear of the countless volunteers who dedicate their efforts to assisting them. Protection for refugees and for those who serve them was the theme of this year’s event led by UNHCR's Deputy High Commissioner L. Craig Johnstone. He stressed the need to respect the human rights of refugees and volunteers.
A diverse myriad of speakers paid homage to the plights of refugees from four countries: Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Burma. NPR correspondent Deborah Amos anecdotally recalled her meetings with Iraq refugees and the challenged which affront them living in urban refugee settlements throughout Syria and Afghanistan. Sad stories of Sudanese refugees were recounted by Daoud Hari, whose memoirs are vividly depicted in his book The Translator. After losing much of her family in Afghanistan, The Other Side of the Sky author Farah Ahmedithanked the UNHCR for resettling her and her mother in the US. Joining her was Thimothy Ju, a young refugee from Myanmar whose recent journey from camps in Thailand to a home in Texas was documented in the MTV show True Life: I’m Coming to America. Although they all endured different experiences, they were united in their gratitude from the good works of the UN and their remembrance of those left behind. Poignantly stoic and blindly hopeful, their stories captivated the thousands in the crowds and depicted the triumph of the human spirit amidst unbelievable adversity.
This sad yet triumphant celebration concluded with the presentation of the Humanitarian of the Year Award, awarded to Chicago Bulls forward Luol Deng. Born in Sudan, he relocated to Egypt and later to Great Britain, where he developed his skill and passion for basketball. He is an instrumental partner in the UNHCR’s Ninemillion Campaign that aims to bring education and sport programs to the world’s nine million child refuges by 2010. Deng donates $50 to Ninemillion for every basket he scores and encourages people around the world to follow his example. Deng delivered a heart-warming speech that placed his basketball career second to his job as a humanitarian and volunteer. The joy and exhilaration from giving a helping hand far succeeds the thrills of any championship ring.
Sponsors: The National Geographic Society and the UNHCR
Date: June 20, 2008
Time: 12-1 p.m.
Representative: Elizabeth Caniano
A diverse myriad of speakers paid homage to the plights of refugees from four countries: Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan and Burma. NPR correspondent Deborah Amos anecdotally recalled her meetings with Iraq refugees and the challenged which affront them living in urban refugee settlements throughout Syria and Afghanistan. Sad stories of Sudanese refugees were recounted by Daoud Hari, whose memoirs are vividly depicted in his book The Translator. After losing much of her family in Afghanistan, The Other Side of the Sky author Farah Ahmedithanked the UNHCR for resettling her and her mother in the US. Joining her was Thimothy Ju, a young refugee from Myanmar whose recent journey from camps in Thailand to a home in Texas was documented in the MTV show True Life: I’m Coming to America. Although they all endured different experiences, they were united in their gratitude from the good works of the UN and their remembrance of those left behind. Poignantly stoic and blindly hopeful, their stories captivated the thousands in the crowds and depicted the triumph of the human spirit amidst unbelievable adversity.
This sad yet triumphant celebration concluded with the presentation of the Humanitarian of the Year Award, awarded to Chicago Bulls forward Luol Deng. Born in Sudan, he relocated to Egypt and later to Great Britain, where he developed his skill and passion for basketball. He is an instrumental partner in the UNHCR’s Ninemillion Campaign that aims to bring education and sport programs to the world’s nine million child refuges by 2010. Deng donates $50 to Ninemillion for every basket he scores and encourages people around the world to follow his example. Deng delivered a heart-warming speech that placed his basketball career second to his job as a humanitarian and volunteer. The joy and exhilaration from giving a helping hand far succeeds the thrills of any championship ring.
Sponsors: The National Geographic Society and the UNHCR
Date: June 20, 2008
Time: 12-1 p.m.
Representative: Elizabeth Caniano
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Education is Vital in the Western Balkans
As membership in the European Union becomes increasingly competitive, post-conflict countries in the Western Balkans must focus on strategies to increase their levels of development. Dr. Arben Hajrullahu, a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, is currently conducting research on strategies to achieve peace and stability in the Western Balkans. His work reveals that shifts in development usually come in three stages: dependence, independence, and interdependence. However, he concludes that countries in the Western Balkans face three main challenges; they lack:
- Functional states
- Regional cooperation
- Sustainable economic and social development.
Remedying these shortfalls will presumably elevate Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro to the standards of other nations in the EU.
According to Dr. Hajrullahu, education is the catalyst that will transform the Western Balkans into functional, cooperative, and developed states. Improving education will supply the younger populations in these countries both with the tools to negotiate peacefully with their neighbors and the ability to focus on economic and social growth. The most beneficial educational reform is to allow young people to travel freely, especially on study abroad programs. This will reduce stereotypes and broaden the worldview of the next generation of Western Balkan leaders. Such exchange will also demonstrate to other European countries that the Western Balkan region is more than just a security threat. This shift in perception will stimulate much-needed investment and interest in these post-conflict countries.
Unfortunately, education is a relatively low priority for most countries in the Western Balkans. The few international groups working on educational initiatives have not created a sense of ownership among local populations. Consequently, their initiatives fade away relatively quickly. Responsibility rests with governments in the Western Balkans to improve their educational systems and reduce travel restrictions. Eventually, leaders will emerge with the knowledge, understanding and tolerance necessary to lay aside age-old differences and focus on economic and social development.
Image Source
Sponsor: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Date: May 28, 2008
Time: 12-1 pm
Representative Attending: Kate Lonergan
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
A FAREWELL TO ALMS
Featured Speaker: George Clark
In a provocative lecture George Clark, professor at the
The lecture was held at the University of California Washington Center and drew a broad audience including researchers, economists, graduate students, former diplomats, ambassadors, and various representatives from think tanks and developmental organizations.
In his talk,
The crowd was stimulated by
Date: Thursday January 10, 2008
Time: 10:00 am - 11:30 am
Location:
UNDP-USA Representative: Saphonia Foster
Monday, April 23, 2007
Afghanistan: A Balanced Approach
Event Title: Afghanistan: A Balanced Approach
Sponsor and Location: CSIS
Date: April 16, 2007
Time: 3:00-4:15pm
Approximate Number of Attendees: 40
Intern Attending: Elysa Severinghaus
Featured Speakers: Bert Koenders, Minister for Development Cooperation
Over the years, the Netherlands has developed a consistent presence in Afghanistan and as their Minister of Development, Bert Koenders, puts it, they have come up with a ‘balanced approach’ to occupying particularly difficult parts of the country. They have integrated diplomatic and development efforts so that one is not lagging behind the other as they attempt to help Afghanistan recover from years under the Taliban.
With the support of the Afghan government, the Afghan people and the international community, citizens are gaining foothold again in the south but despite tremendous progress, security is still very fragile. One of the current risks is interaction with the international drug trade. Statistics show that 90% of drugs in Europe are imported from Afghanistan, making them a ‘poisonous lifeblood’ of the economy. Because of relevant security issues, the forces from the Netherlands has been unable to involve groups outside the Northern Alliance in efforts against the Taliban.
Since the U.S. withdrew its focus from Afghanistan and moved toward Iraq, there has been a distinct power vaccuum, sucking away resources toward rebuilding a nation destroyed by its rebel groups. “What they need,” Koenders said, “is a flexible stabilization force for new visible administration and development.”
Koenders expressed two major concerns with regard to progress in the region. The first was that most of the missions are taken on by ASEF (The Asia-Europe Foundation), which simply does not have the capacity that could be available through the entirety of the U.N. The second major concern is the quantity, quality and visiblity of progress to the Afghan people. While it may be clear to those providing aid that the country is making progress, in order for it to work and gain societal support, evidence of progress must be visible and transparent. To eradicate both these concerns, they must restore public confidence and put Afghan soldiers at the professional level so that citizens can identify with those who are fighting off the ominous ‘bad guy’.
Probably the most crucial point regarding foreign aid is running on an Afghan clock. The Dutch have worked to relate to realities on the ground and not run at an imposed pace. They must continue develop an effective level of commitment, methods of timing and exit strategy because, at least, their development efforts are there for the long haul. In these efforts, the Dutch approach emphasizes the process of reconstruction as a mutually beneficial collaboration between local and international groups. It cannot simply be an imposed international project; they must invest in creating an adequately decentralized government through dialogue and civil assessment. Koenders remarked that the mission would be “As civilian as possible, as military as necessary” and that they would continue to strive to “make the Taliban irrelevant”.
Sponsor and Location: CSIS
Date: April 16, 2007
Time: 3:00-4:15pm
Approximate Number of Attendees: 40
Intern Attending: Elysa Severinghaus
Featured Speakers: Bert Koenders, Minister for Development Cooperation
Over the years, the Netherlands has developed a consistent presence in Afghanistan and as their Minister of Development, Bert Koenders, puts it, they have come up with a ‘balanced approach’ to occupying particularly difficult parts of the country. They have integrated diplomatic and development efforts so that one is not lagging behind the other as they attempt to help Afghanistan recover from years under the Taliban.
With the support of the Afghan government, the Afghan people and the international community, citizens are gaining foothold again in the south but despite tremendous progress, security is still very fragile. One of the current risks is interaction with the international drug trade. Statistics show that 90% of drugs in Europe are imported from Afghanistan, making them a ‘poisonous lifeblood’ of the economy. Because of relevant security issues, the forces from the Netherlands has been unable to involve groups outside the Northern Alliance in efforts against the Taliban.
Since the U.S. withdrew its focus from Afghanistan and moved toward Iraq, there has been a distinct power vaccuum, sucking away resources toward rebuilding a nation destroyed by its rebel groups. “What they need,” Koenders said, “is a flexible stabilization force for new visible administration and development.”
Koenders expressed two major concerns with regard to progress in the region. The first was that most of the missions are taken on by ASEF (The Asia-Europe Foundation), which simply does not have the capacity that could be available through the entirety of the U.N. The second major concern is the quantity, quality and visiblity of progress to the Afghan people. While it may be clear to those providing aid that the country is making progress, in order for it to work and gain societal support, evidence of progress must be visible and transparent. To eradicate both these concerns, they must restore public confidence and put Afghan soldiers at the professional level so that citizens can identify with those who are fighting off the ominous ‘bad guy’.
Probably the most crucial point regarding foreign aid is running on an Afghan clock. The Dutch have worked to relate to realities on the ground and not run at an imposed pace. They must continue develop an effective level of commitment, methods of timing and exit strategy because, at least, their development efforts are there for the long haul. In these efforts, the Dutch approach emphasizes the process of reconstruction as a mutually beneficial collaboration between local and international groups. It cannot simply be an imposed international project; they must invest in creating an adequately decentralized government through dialogue and civil assessment. Koenders remarked that the mission would be “As civilian as possible, as military as necessary” and that they would continue to strive to “make the Taliban irrelevant”.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Keynote Address: Bush Foreign Policy- The Next Stage
Event Title: Bush Foreign Policy: The Next Stage, Keynote Address
Sponsor: Stanley Foundation Conference on National and Global Security
Location: Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
Date: December 7, 2006
Time: 9:00-10:00am
Approximate Number of Attendees: 60
Intern Attending: Ava Jones
Speaker: Stobe Talbott, President of Brookings Institution.
Mr. Talbott believes that US strength is uncertain. It has been diminished because we are held in low regard around the world, seen as a country needing to be contained, and because international institutions are in an advanced state of disrepair due to disillusionment with the US over the war in Iraq. Our disregard for international law, institutions, treaties, and alliances further hurts our standing in the world. We have squandered our strength to topple a totalitarian regime which has turned into a failed state with a civil war and security vacuum. These problems exist not only in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan. Right now our focus should be looking forward to determine what steps we should be taking.
In the best case scenario we can rescue Iraq from complete failure. To do this we will need maximum help, collaboration, trust, and goodwill from the international community. We also need to learn from the failed structure of unilateralism: going in light militarily, dismantling the army and police, excessive reliance on exiles, and the use of Saddam’s prisons to torture.
Mr. Talbott expressed some skepticism about the ability of the US to save Iraq; It may be too far gone and out of our control. He states that our “search for new policy is driven primarily by exigencies of American politics without regard to Iraqi politics.” Finally, in looking at Iraq in a larger context we notice that the problems there are symptomatic of the problems in larger US foreign policy.
He offered four suggestions on how to manage this foreign policy problem. Firstly, he stated that we need a broad overhaul of US foreign policy, including a change of course in Iraq. We need to rely more on diplomacy, repair relations with our allies, strengthen international institutions like the UN, and take a new look at arms control and proliferation treaties such as START, NPT, CTBT. Secondly, we need to endorse international law. The US should sign the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Thirdly, we need to engage with the UN Human Rights Council. It is imperative for us to address the treatment of our prisoners and detainees and that includes developing an exit strategy from Guantanamo Bay. We should also firmly abide by the Geneva Convention; the interpretation of this convention should not be left up to the President. Lastly, we need to address climate change. A new policy for global warming will be evidence of a new foreign policy. A successor to the Kyoto Protocol is needed.
The next year of Bush’s presidency will be key to helping the new administration in 2008. The foreign policy decisions he makes will impact not only US strength in the world, but also the legacy of the war in Iraq.
Sponsor: Stanley Foundation Conference on National and Global Security
Location: Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
Date: December 7, 2006
Time: 9:00-10:00am
Approximate Number of Attendees: 60
Intern Attending: Ava Jones
Speaker: Stobe Talbott, President of Brookings Institution.
Mr. Talbott believes that US strength is uncertain. It has been diminished because we are held in low regard around the world, seen as a country needing to be contained, and because international institutions are in an advanced state of disrepair due to disillusionment with the US over the war in Iraq. Our disregard for international law, institutions, treaties, and alliances further hurts our standing in the world. We have squandered our strength to topple a totalitarian regime which has turned into a failed state with a civil war and security vacuum. These problems exist not only in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan. Right now our focus should be looking forward to determine what steps we should be taking.
In the best case scenario we can rescue Iraq from complete failure. To do this we will need maximum help, collaboration, trust, and goodwill from the international community. We also need to learn from the failed structure of unilateralism: going in light militarily, dismantling the army and police, excessive reliance on exiles, and the use of Saddam’s prisons to torture.
Mr. Talbott expressed some skepticism about the ability of the US to save Iraq; It may be too far gone and out of our control. He states that our “search for new policy is driven primarily by exigencies of American politics without regard to Iraqi politics.” Finally, in looking at Iraq in a larger context we notice that the problems there are symptomatic of the problems in larger US foreign policy.
He offered four suggestions on how to manage this foreign policy problem. Firstly, he stated that we need a broad overhaul of US foreign policy, including a change of course in Iraq. We need to rely more on diplomacy, repair relations with our allies, strengthen international institutions like the UN, and take a new look at arms control and proliferation treaties such as START, NPT, CTBT. Secondly, we need to endorse international law. The US should sign the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Thirdly, we need to engage with the UN Human Rights Council. It is imperative for us to address the treatment of our prisoners and detainees and that includes developing an exit strategy from Guantanamo Bay. We should also firmly abide by the Geneva Convention; the interpretation of this convention should not be left up to the President. Lastly, we need to address climate change. A new policy for global warming will be evidence of a new foreign policy. A successor to the Kyoto Protocol is needed.
The next year of Bush’s presidency will be key to helping the new administration in 2008. The foreign policy decisions he makes will impact not only US strength in the world, but also the legacy of the war in Iraq.
The Ion Ratiu Democracy Lecture: Are There Democracy Lessons Arabs Can Learn From Eastern Europe?
Event Title: Are There Democracy Lessons Arabs Can Learn From Eastern Europe
Sponsor: The Ion Ratiu Democracy Lecture
Location: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Flom Auditorium
Date: November 30, 2006
Time: 4:30pm -6:00pm
Approximate Number of Attendees: 80
Intern Attending: Ava Jones
Speaker: Dr. Saad El-Din Ibrahim, professor of political sociology at the American University in Cairo and director of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies.
Dr. Ibrahim began his speech by reminding us of the key events in the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and how those impacted the region. Poland’s impact cannot be diminished. Rapid secession of independence movements to overthrow the communist government led to instability. According to Huntington, the third wave of democracy started in 1974 with Portugal. Dr. Ibrahim contends that Egypt has yet to be liberated from dictatorship. “No country is immune to democracy and freedom.” Two thirds of Muslims are living under a democratically elected dictatorship.
The Open Society Institute organized trips for Muslim democrats to Eastern Europe. These trips included seminars and workshops which offered advice on tricks to elude secret police, how to use the media and the outside world effectively, and how to manage fear. The seminars and workshops also addressed the mistakes made and lessons learned from the Eastern Europeans.
Dr. Ibrahim argued that there are three lessons that the Arab democrats can take from Eastern Europe. The first lesson is that there will always be a supply and demand for dictatorship because there is nostalgia for authoritarian rule, dictators, and communism. Under those forms of government there was order, a stable food supply, and no class problems, among other things. The second lesson is the importance of getting grassroots education so that you do not end up taking things for granted. The third and final lesson is learning how to deal with outside power, especially the influence of the West.
There are four critical differences that distinguish the Arab experience from the experience of Eastern Europeans. The first problem is dependence on oil. The second problem is Islamophobia. The third problem is the question of sincerity; there is a dearth of criticism on human rights violations with oil producing countries. Lastly, the Israeli-Lebanese conflict in the summer of 2006 damaged the spread of democracy in the Arab world. There were an unprecedented eleven elections in the Arab world in 2005. Elections in Lebanon, Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are just a few examples of what Dr. Ibrahim sees as progress towards a democratic Middle East. He remains optimistic that democracy will prevail in the Arab world and he hopes that lessons learned from other countries previously in the same situation will be applied.
Sponsor: The Ion Ratiu Democracy Lecture
Location: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Flom Auditorium
Date: November 30, 2006
Time: 4:30pm -6:00pm
Approximate Number of Attendees: 80
Intern Attending: Ava Jones
Speaker: Dr. Saad El-Din Ibrahim, professor of political sociology at the American University in Cairo and director of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies.
Dr. Ibrahim began his speech by reminding us of the key events in the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and how those impacted the region. Poland’s impact cannot be diminished. Rapid secession of independence movements to overthrow the communist government led to instability. According to Huntington, the third wave of democracy started in 1974 with Portugal. Dr. Ibrahim contends that Egypt has yet to be liberated from dictatorship. “No country is immune to democracy and freedom.” Two thirds of Muslims are living under a democratically elected dictatorship.
The Open Society Institute organized trips for Muslim democrats to Eastern Europe. These trips included seminars and workshops which offered advice on tricks to elude secret police, how to use the media and the outside world effectively, and how to manage fear. The seminars and workshops also addressed the mistakes made and lessons learned from the Eastern Europeans.
Dr. Ibrahim argued that there are three lessons that the Arab democrats can take from Eastern Europe. The first lesson is that there will always be a supply and demand for dictatorship because there is nostalgia for authoritarian rule, dictators, and communism. Under those forms of government there was order, a stable food supply, and no class problems, among other things. The second lesson is the importance of getting grassroots education so that you do not end up taking things for granted. The third and final lesson is learning how to deal with outside power, especially the influence of the West.
There are four critical differences that distinguish the Arab experience from the experience of Eastern Europeans. The first problem is dependence on oil. The second problem is Islamophobia. The third problem is the question of sincerity; there is a dearth of criticism on human rights violations with oil producing countries. Lastly, the Israeli-Lebanese conflict in the summer of 2006 damaged the spread of democracy in the Arab world. There were an unprecedented eleven elections in the Arab world in 2005. Elections in Lebanon, Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia are just a few examples of what Dr. Ibrahim sees as progress towards a democratic Middle East. He remains optimistic that democracy will prevail in the Arab world and he hopes that lessons learned from other countries previously in the same situation will be applied.
Multilateral Institutions in Eurasia: Competing Security and Economic Interests
Event Title: Multilateral Institutions in Eurasia: Competing Security and Economic Interests; Panel II: Economic Interests in Competitive Multilateral Environment
Sponsor: Professionals in Russian, Easter European and Eurasian Affairs (PREEA)
Location: Copley Hall Formal Lounge, Georgetown University
Date: November 13, 2006
Time: 3:30-5:30 p.m.
Approximate number of attendees: 50
Intern attending: Ava Jones
Speakers: Lisa Kaestner, Senior Economist, Strategy and Coordination Unit, Central and Eastern Europe Department, International Finance Corporation (IFC); Jackie Coolidge, Lead Investment Policy Officer, Foreign Investment Advisory Service (FIAS), the World Bank Group; Randi Levinas, Director of Policy and Programs, US-Russia Business Council; Mamuka Tsereteli, Executive Director, America-Georgia Business Council; Johannes Linn, Executive Director, Wolfensohn Center, the Brookings Institution.
Ms. Kaestner started off the discussion by describing the private sector projects she does with the International Finance Corporation. IFC helps local companies deal with corporate governance. They look at frontier markets in riskier countries such as Georgia and Armenia. Last year they invested 28.1%, or about $8 billion, in Europe and Central Asia. They provide companies with advisory services such as technical assistance. They have created 30, 000 jobs from $915 million in private investment from 160 companies.
Dr. Coolidge stated that her work with Russia involved advising the government on foreign and domestic investment. In 2001 and 2002, Russia saw several economic reforms under President Putin. One big project has been the land code reform, which encourages private ownership of land.
Ms. Levinas said that her organization is an advocacy group that focuses on problem solving and is a forum for discussion and networking. They are working on Russia’s WTO accession which involves integrating Russia into the global economic system. She stated that there is an important commercial relationship between the U.S. and Russia. Her group is focused on educating Congress about economic relations between Russia and the U.S.
According to Dr. Tsereteli, regional development is affected by Russian and Georgian relations. Russia also influences development in Ukraine and Georgia so there is little room for multilateral involvement. In his view, a bright future scenario would be one in which international collaboration would lead to solutions.
Dr. Linn started off by defining Eurasia as the political and economic space of Europe and Asia. According to Dr. Linn, there are four important issues around this region: 1) energy, 2) non-energy trade, 3) drugs, and 4) health epidemics. He concluded with the idea that integration will be one of the most important issues in the region in the next 20-30 years.
The different perspectives that the panelists presented illuminate the many projects going on in the region and the numerous approaches.
Sponsor: Professionals in Russian, Easter European and Eurasian Affairs (PREEA)
Location: Copley Hall Formal Lounge, Georgetown University
Date: November 13, 2006
Time: 3:30-5:30 p.m.
Approximate number of attendees: 50
Intern attending: Ava Jones
Speakers: Lisa Kaestner, Senior Economist, Strategy and Coordination Unit, Central and Eastern Europe Department, International Finance Corporation (IFC); Jackie Coolidge, Lead Investment Policy Officer, Foreign Investment Advisory Service (FIAS), the World Bank Group; Randi Levinas, Director of Policy and Programs, US-Russia Business Council; Mamuka Tsereteli, Executive Director, America-Georgia Business Council; Johannes Linn, Executive Director, Wolfensohn Center, the Brookings Institution.
Ms. Kaestner started off the discussion by describing the private sector projects she does with the International Finance Corporation. IFC helps local companies deal with corporate governance. They look at frontier markets in riskier countries such as Georgia and Armenia. Last year they invested 28.1%, or about $8 billion, in Europe and Central Asia. They provide companies with advisory services such as technical assistance. They have created 30, 000 jobs from $915 million in private investment from 160 companies.
Dr. Coolidge stated that her work with Russia involved advising the government on foreign and domestic investment. In 2001 and 2002, Russia saw several economic reforms under President Putin. One big project has been the land code reform, which encourages private ownership of land.
Ms. Levinas said that her organization is an advocacy group that focuses on problem solving and is a forum for discussion and networking. They are working on Russia’s WTO accession which involves integrating Russia into the global economic system. She stated that there is an important commercial relationship between the U.S. and Russia. Her group is focused on educating Congress about economic relations between Russia and the U.S.
According to Dr. Tsereteli, regional development is affected by Russian and Georgian relations. Russia also influences development in Ukraine and Georgia so there is little room for multilateral involvement. In his view, a bright future scenario would be one in which international collaboration would lead to solutions.
Dr. Linn started off by defining Eurasia as the political and economic space of Europe and Asia. According to Dr. Linn, there are four important issues around this region: 1) energy, 2) non-energy trade, 3) drugs, and 4) health epidemics. He concluded with the idea that integration will be one of the most important issues in the region in the next 20-30 years.
The different perspectives that the panelists presented illuminate the many projects going on in the region and the numerous approaches.
Combating Serious Crimes in Post-conflict Societies: A Handbook for Policymakers and Practitioners
Event Title: Combating Serious Crimes in Post-conflict Societies: A Handbook for Policymakers and Practitioners
Sponsor: United States Institute of Peace (USIP)
Location: USIP, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Date: October 26, 2006
Time: 10:00am-11:30am
Approximate Number of Attendees: 90
Intern Attending: Ava Jones
Speakers: Ambassador Jacques Paul Klein, former chief of United Nations operations in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Liberia; Dr. Govind Prasad Thapa, additional Inspector General of Nepal Police (Retired), and Chairperson, Centre for Security and Justice Studies, Nepal; Major General David C. Ralston, former Chief of Staff for Operations and Intelligence, Kosovo Force (KFOR) and an author of the handbook; Dr. Max Hernández Camarero, Technical Secretary to the Peruvian National Accord; Colette Rausch, moderator, deputy Director, Rule of Law, USIP and Editor of the handbook.
This event marked the book launch for this handbook, which was conceived of in 2002 in response to the difficulties different actors faced in rebuilding Kosovo after the war. The handbook took a multi-dimensional approach with a focus on the criminal justice system. It was written to serve as a guide for policymakers and practitioners in their efforts to rebuild a country that has experienced serious crimes. It uses examples from Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, as well as other countries that have experienced conflict.
Ambassador Klein spoke of his experiences in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Liberia and the UN approaches applied in each country with attention to their unique situation. In Croatia the UN had executive power, which allowed it to have a greater influence over the establishment of a new justice system capable of prosecuting war criminals as well as helping to set up Croatian sovereignty. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, the UN created a flag, national anthem, and currency for the country. It also sought to go after the major players who committed serious atrocities for reconciliation. He noted that “justice was not always served.” In Liberia, more than 200,000 were killed under the rule of Charles Taylor. Often amnesty and immunity were given to those who committed serious crimes. Bribes and corruption were also prevalent. After Taylor’s “resignation”, there was difficulty in deciding whether Liberia or an international court should be responsible for trying him for crimes against humanity. Ambassador Klein reminded us that the lesson learned there is that truth and reconciliation efforts do not always work.
Dr. Thapa explained that the source of the problems in Nepal lay in deeply rooted conflicts. He stated that many mistakes were made because the country was unprepared to deal with these conflicts. He expressed his desire for “sustainable peace” for his country. He praised the handbook for its ability to be instrumental in improving police capability, helping to identify perpetrators, and closing the security gap.
Major General Ralston is a contributor to the handbook. The writing of the handbook began during the transition from military control to civilian rule of law in Kosovo. He gave an example of one problem facing military operations in that country. There were five principal countries charged with coordinating their operations which proved to be very challenging. He believes that there are certain enduring principles that must be used to combat serious crimes regardless of their location.
Finally, Dr. Camarero addressed the psychological impact of serious crimes on a society. He argued that during a conflict divisive attitudes become entrenched in the minds of the citizens. This leads to “conflict syndrome” which describes the state of mind of the whole society. The negative attitudes pitting one group against another threaten the ability of a society to rebuild after serious crimes have been committed.
There was a consensus from the panel that this handbook would be useful to future peacekeepers in their effort to rebuild societies post war. They also agreed that they wished this kind of literature had been available to them when they were involved in peacekeeping activities as it would have helped with the transitions the countries were going through.
Sponsor: United States Institute of Peace (USIP)
Location: USIP, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Date: October 26, 2006
Time: 10:00am-11:30am
Approximate Number of Attendees: 90
Intern Attending: Ava Jones
Speakers: Ambassador Jacques Paul Klein, former chief of United Nations operations in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Liberia; Dr. Govind Prasad Thapa, additional Inspector General of Nepal Police (Retired), and Chairperson, Centre for Security and Justice Studies, Nepal; Major General David C. Ralston, former Chief of Staff for Operations and Intelligence, Kosovo Force (KFOR) and an author of the handbook; Dr. Max Hernández Camarero, Technical Secretary to the Peruvian National Accord; Colette Rausch, moderator, deputy Director, Rule of Law, USIP and Editor of the handbook.
This event marked the book launch for this handbook, which was conceived of in 2002 in response to the difficulties different actors faced in rebuilding Kosovo after the war. The handbook took a multi-dimensional approach with a focus on the criminal justice system. It was written to serve as a guide for policymakers and practitioners in their efforts to rebuild a country that has experienced serious crimes. It uses examples from Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, as well as other countries that have experienced conflict.
Ambassador Klein spoke of his experiences in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Liberia and the UN approaches applied in each country with attention to their unique situation. In Croatia the UN had executive power, which allowed it to have a greater influence over the establishment of a new justice system capable of prosecuting war criminals as well as helping to set up Croatian sovereignty. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, the UN created a flag, national anthem, and currency for the country. It also sought to go after the major players who committed serious atrocities for reconciliation. He noted that “justice was not always served.” In Liberia, more than 200,000 were killed under the rule of Charles Taylor. Often amnesty and immunity were given to those who committed serious crimes. Bribes and corruption were also prevalent. After Taylor’s “resignation”, there was difficulty in deciding whether Liberia or an international court should be responsible for trying him for crimes against humanity. Ambassador Klein reminded us that the lesson learned there is that truth and reconciliation efforts do not always work.
Dr. Thapa explained that the source of the problems in Nepal lay in deeply rooted conflicts. He stated that many mistakes were made because the country was unprepared to deal with these conflicts. He expressed his desire for “sustainable peace” for his country. He praised the handbook for its ability to be instrumental in improving police capability, helping to identify perpetrators, and closing the security gap.
Major General Ralston is a contributor to the handbook. The writing of the handbook began during the transition from military control to civilian rule of law in Kosovo. He gave an example of one problem facing military operations in that country. There were five principal countries charged with coordinating their operations which proved to be very challenging. He believes that there are certain enduring principles that must be used to combat serious crimes regardless of their location.
Finally, Dr. Camarero addressed the psychological impact of serious crimes on a society. He argued that during a conflict divisive attitudes become entrenched in the minds of the citizens. This leads to “conflict syndrome” which describes the state of mind of the whole society. The negative attitudes pitting one group against another threaten the ability of a society to rebuild after serious crimes have been committed.
There was a consensus from the panel that this handbook would be useful to future peacekeepers in their effort to rebuild societies post war. They also agreed that they wished this kind of literature had been available to them when they were involved in peacekeeping activities as it would have helped with the transitions the countries were going through.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Turkish-U.S. Relations: Looking Ahead
July 6, 2006 12:30-2:00pm
Speakers: Abdullah Gul, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Turkey
Minister Gul spoke at the Brooking Institution about current Turkish-US relations. In his speech, Gul described a strong, positive relationship between the United States and Turkey. Turkey shares many of the United States’ foreign policy goals, including peace and stability in the Middle East, solving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and helping to promote stable democracies. Minister Gul emphasized Turkey’s political reform efforts over the past few years, noting the need to couple political reforms with economic reforms. These reforms, Minister Gul claims, have helped deepen democracy to European standards. Also, Turkish political reforms have important implications for the entire Middle East, as Turkey is an example of a successful Islamic democracy. Furthermore, Minister Gul commented on the belief that Turkey’s increasing strength and current foreign policy is creating a rift between Turkey and the United States. In reality, Gul argues, Turkey’s growing power is good for the United States. Turkey is becoming more democratic, leading to a healthier relationship with the United States and the world. Next, Minister Gul answered questions about Turkey’s foreign policy and relationship with the United States. When asked about Turkey’s refusal to recognize the Armenian Genocide, Gul said that, while the EU wants Turkey to accept responsibility for the genocide, what happened to the Armenians was not genocide. Rather, many Armenians were tragically killed as a result of war. Also, Turkey has opened its archives to scholars that want to study the issue, so Turkey is not hiding anything. Next, Minister Gul was asked about the Anti-American and Anti-Semitic Turkish sentiments affecting Turkey’s relationship with the United States. While many Turks criticize U.S. policies, people in Turkey are not Anti-American or Anti-Semitic. Gul also said that Turkey’s entrance into the E.U. may have negative economic consequences for Turkey, but all transitions are bound to have ups and downs. Next, when asked about the PKK, Gul said that the U.S. was the first country to recognize the PKK as a terrorist organization, but Turkey is expecting more from the U.S. and others. Iraq is a safe haven for PKK terrorists, where they are sheltered by the U.S.-supported regime. Finally, Gul was asked about Turkey’s religious contribution to the E.U. He responded that Turkey might become the only Muslim country in the E.U. Turkey, then, can set an example for other Muslims by proving a Muslim country can maintain a stable, modern democracy.
by Adam Perry
Speakers: Abdullah Gul, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Turkey
Minister Gul spoke at the Brooking Institution about current Turkish-US relations. In his speech, Gul described a strong, positive relationship between the United States and Turkey. Turkey shares many of the United States’ foreign policy goals, including peace and stability in the Middle East, solving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and helping to promote stable democracies. Minister Gul emphasized Turkey’s political reform efforts over the past few years, noting the need to couple political reforms with economic reforms. These reforms, Minister Gul claims, have helped deepen democracy to European standards. Also, Turkish political reforms have important implications for the entire Middle East, as Turkey is an example of a successful Islamic democracy. Furthermore, Minister Gul commented on the belief that Turkey’s increasing strength and current foreign policy is creating a rift between Turkey and the United States. In reality, Gul argues, Turkey’s growing power is good for the United States. Turkey is becoming more democratic, leading to a healthier relationship with the United States and the world. Next, Minister Gul answered questions about Turkey’s foreign policy and relationship with the United States. When asked about Turkey’s refusal to recognize the Armenian Genocide, Gul said that, while the EU wants Turkey to accept responsibility for the genocide, what happened to the Armenians was not genocide. Rather, many Armenians were tragically killed as a result of war. Also, Turkey has opened its archives to scholars that want to study the issue, so Turkey is not hiding anything. Next, Minister Gul was asked about the Anti-American and Anti-Semitic Turkish sentiments affecting Turkey’s relationship with the United States. While many Turks criticize U.S. policies, people in Turkey are not Anti-American or Anti-Semitic. Gul also said that Turkey’s entrance into the E.U. may have negative economic consequences for Turkey, but all transitions are bound to have ups and downs. Next, when asked about the PKK, Gul said that the U.S. was the first country to recognize the PKK as a terrorist organization, but Turkey is expecting more from the U.S. and others. Iraq is a safe haven for PKK terrorists, where they are sheltered by the U.S.-supported regime. Finally, Gul was asked about Turkey’s religious contribution to the E.U. He responded that Turkey might become the only Muslim country in the E.U. Turkey, then, can set an example for other Muslims by proving a Muslim country can maintain a stable, modern democracy.
by Adam Perry
Monday, July 10, 2006
Voting for Thugs: Nationalism, Authoritarianism and the Market in Slovakia's Electorial Politics
June 29, 2006 12:30-1:30
Speakers: Kevin Deegan-Krause, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Wayne State University
Kevin Deegan-Krause spoke about his research on Slovakian politics from his recently published book, Elected Affinities: Democracy and Party Competition in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. He spoke specifically about Slovakia’s new Prime Minister, Robert Fico, whose social democratic party won the elections by a substantial margin. Deegan-Krause examined the potential for Fico to assume an authoritarian style of rule similar to the repressive style of Vladimir Mecier from 1994-98.
First, Deegan-Krause spoke about the reasons for Mecier’s and Fico’s popularity. Mecier, Deegan-Krause argues, focused on nationalism, security, stability, and order. People were willing to sacrifice freedoms for these goals. Fico’s supporters like Fico’s pledge to reverse economic reforms that increased inequality in Slovakia. Next, Deegan-Krause questioned why people voted for candidates (Mecier and potentially Fico) that might restrict or eliminate voting rights. Some people voted for Mecier not realizing he was going to limit democracy, while others believed his authoritarianism was the lesser of two evils. Deegan-Krause does not yet know why people were willing to sacrifice democratic rights to vote for Fico. Next, Deegan-Krause explained how both Mecier and Fico quickly built effective coalitions to marginalize opposition. Additionally, both Mecier and Fico’s parties are very centralized and organized, though Fico’s party’s level of organization is still questionable. Finally, Mecier effectively overpowered weak and rival institutions, thereby consolidating power for himself. Fico could potentially try to do the same thing.
However, Deegan-Krause noted important differences between Mecier’s and Fico’s governments. For one, Slovaks recently experienced an authoritarian ruler, and may be less likely to look the other way should Fico start to consolidate power. Also, Fico’s coalition partners are stronger than Mecier’s. These partners may decide to restrain Fico’s power or break away from him if they do not agree with his policies. Also, Fico’s organizational structure is largely untested. Fico’s deputies are mostly new, and may potentially leave should Fico lose popularity. Finally, Slovakia is now a member of the EU, and the EU might take action to restrict Fico’s attempts to consolidate power. While Fico may want consolidated governmental power, he faces more obstacles than Mecier did in 1994.
Speakers: Kevin Deegan-Krause, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Wayne State University
Kevin Deegan-Krause spoke about his research on Slovakian politics from his recently published book, Elected Affinities: Democracy and Party Competition in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. He spoke specifically about Slovakia’s new Prime Minister, Robert Fico, whose social democratic party won the elections by a substantial margin. Deegan-Krause examined the potential for Fico to assume an authoritarian style of rule similar to the repressive style of Vladimir Mecier from 1994-98.
First, Deegan-Krause spoke about the reasons for Mecier’s and Fico’s popularity. Mecier, Deegan-Krause argues, focused on nationalism, security, stability, and order. People were willing to sacrifice freedoms for these goals. Fico’s supporters like Fico’s pledge to reverse economic reforms that increased inequality in Slovakia. Next, Deegan-Krause questioned why people voted for candidates (Mecier and potentially Fico) that might restrict or eliminate voting rights. Some people voted for Mecier not realizing he was going to limit democracy, while others believed his authoritarianism was the lesser of two evils. Deegan-Krause does not yet know why people were willing to sacrifice democratic rights to vote for Fico. Next, Deegan-Krause explained how both Mecier and Fico quickly built effective coalitions to marginalize opposition. Additionally, both Mecier and Fico’s parties are very centralized and organized, though Fico’s party’s level of organization is still questionable. Finally, Mecier effectively overpowered weak and rival institutions, thereby consolidating power for himself. Fico could potentially try to do the same thing.
However, Deegan-Krause noted important differences between Mecier’s and Fico’s governments. For one, Slovaks recently experienced an authoritarian ruler, and may be less likely to look the other way should Fico start to consolidate power. Also, Fico’s coalition partners are stronger than Mecier’s. These partners may decide to restrain Fico’s power or break away from him if they do not agree with his policies. Also, Fico’s organizational structure is largely untested. Fico’s deputies are mostly new, and may potentially leave should Fico lose popularity. Finally, Slovakia is now a member of the EU, and the EU might take action to restrict Fico’s attempts to consolidate power. While Fico may want consolidated governmental power, he faces more obstacles than Mecier did in 1994.
by Adam Perry
HIV/AIDS in Eurasia: Context, Policy, Research
Thursday, June 8, 2006 3:30 PM – 5:30 PM
Speakers:
Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Craig Calhoun, President, Social Science Research Council
Jennifer Cooke, Co-director, Africa Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Robert Heimer, Associate Professor, Division of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale University; Director, Connecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale Office
Senator Bennett’s presentation focused on three core concepts that would alleviate HIV/AIDS in Eurasia. The first step is to facilitate transition to democracy. The second step is to promote the interaction of a free growth economy. The third step is to increase security, including the dismantling of their nuclear capability and decommission of their nuclear weapons.
The second portion of Senator Bennett’s speech focused on the demographic dangers in parts of Eurasia. The trend across Europe is one of a shrinking population, onset by a low birth replacement rate. To sustain a country’s population, the replacement rate must stand at 2.1 births. In Russia and Italy, it is at 1.3, and in Germany it is at 1.7. This danger can be offset by high immigration rates, however there is very little immigrant flow in to the majority of these Eurasian countries, due in large part to a deep ethnic and cultural divide.
Craig Calhoun’s presentation encouraged the exhortation of AIDS statistics to the public in an effort to raise awareness and deepen the sense of urgency in battling this widespread disease. His studies have shown that the AIDS pandemic is less and less a single unified phenomenon as it has spread across the globe. It is not only of a media condition afflicting millions of individuals but a social condition destroying families. The AIDS crisis requires not only urgency and patience but the promotion of a strong relationship between social sciences and public health issues in an effort to mobilize and improve social knowledge and research.
Jennifer Cooke’s presentation focused on her work on the Task Force on HIV/AIDS in Africa. The program was developed before PEPFAR to bring HIV/AIDS to the forefront of political policy. The first phase of the program charted US attitudes to see their willingness in addressing and alleviating AIDS in foreign assistance. The second phase sent senior delegates, influential and well known in foreign affairs, to travel abroad and champion the cause of HIV/AIDS prevention and awareness.
Dr. Robert Heimer’s spoke about his research on HIV transmission among injection users in Russia. The HIV epidemic is up from 1000 to 325,000, in large part because of drug use. He studied the homemade heroin drug chornaya against commercial heroin and found that because of the strong nature chornaya, it actually reduced the spread of HIV in contaminated syringes. His final assessment concluded that homemade drugs are unlikely to have contributed to the spread of HIV in Russia.
by Rebecca Bonardi
Speakers:
Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Craig Calhoun, President, Social Science Research Council
Jennifer Cooke, Co-director, Africa Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Robert Heimer, Associate Professor, Division of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale University; Director, Connecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale Office
Senator Bennett’s presentation focused on three core concepts that would alleviate HIV/AIDS in Eurasia. The first step is to facilitate transition to democracy. The second step is to promote the interaction of a free growth economy. The third step is to increase security, including the dismantling of their nuclear capability and decommission of their nuclear weapons.
The second portion of Senator Bennett’s speech focused on the demographic dangers in parts of Eurasia. The trend across Europe is one of a shrinking population, onset by a low birth replacement rate. To sustain a country’s population, the replacement rate must stand at 2.1 births. In Russia and Italy, it is at 1.3, and in Germany it is at 1.7. This danger can be offset by high immigration rates, however there is very little immigrant flow in to the majority of these Eurasian countries, due in large part to a deep ethnic and cultural divide.
Craig Calhoun’s presentation encouraged the exhortation of AIDS statistics to the public in an effort to raise awareness and deepen the sense of urgency in battling this widespread disease. His studies have shown that the AIDS pandemic is less and less a single unified phenomenon as it has spread across the globe. It is not only of a media condition afflicting millions of individuals but a social condition destroying families. The AIDS crisis requires not only urgency and patience but the promotion of a strong relationship between social sciences and public health issues in an effort to mobilize and improve social knowledge and research.
Jennifer Cooke’s presentation focused on her work on the Task Force on HIV/AIDS in Africa. The program was developed before PEPFAR to bring HIV/AIDS to the forefront of political policy. The first phase of the program charted US attitudes to see their willingness in addressing and alleviating AIDS in foreign assistance. The second phase sent senior delegates, influential and well known in foreign affairs, to travel abroad and champion the cause of HIV/AIDS prevention and awareness.
Dr. Robert Heimer’s spoke about his research on HIV transmission among injection users in Russia. The HIV epidemic is up from 1000 to 325,000, in large part because of drug use. He studied the homemade heroin drug chornaya against commercial heroin and found that because of the strong nature chornaya, it actually reduced the spread of HIV in contaminated syringes. His final assessment concluded that homemade drugs are unlikely to have contributed to the spread of HIV in Russia.
by Rebecca Bonardi
Gearing up to deliver new, better and faster aid: The new European Aid
Thursday, July 6, 2006 10:30 am to 12pm
Speakers: Koos Richelle, Director General, EuropeAid Co-operation Office, European Commission
Todd Moss, Research Fellow, Center for Global Development
Ruth Levine (Moderator)
Mr. Richelle spoke about ‘fairytales in donorland’ or the shortcomings of the current aid policies and how they could be improved. He began his talk by discussing the recent developments in EU aid policy. Mr. Richelle also mentioned the creation of a new development policy statement for member states. This new policy statement is based on increasing official development aid (ODA), aid effectiveness and policy coherence. A new strategy for Africa has also been developed. This strategy is based on eradication of poverty and more modern means of cooperation.
Mr. Richelle also spoke about how four new instruments were replacing earlier EU programs. The four new instruments are the following:
European Neighborhood Instrument
Development Co-operation Instrument
Instrument for Stability
Instrument for Nuclear Safety
Mr. Richelle briefly mentioned some of the EC’s achievements with respect to aid delivery. 2005, he claimed was a record year on key performance indicators. The majority of aid went to Africa. There was also an increase in the amount of aid supplied to Asia because of the tsunami. The aid delivery system improved because of internal reforms and a push for new aid modalities. Mr. Richelle also mentioned that the EU provides 52 % of all development aid in the world.
However, some of the things that the EU needs to work on is better donor coordination especially since the EU is not one donor but includes 25 member states and the Commission. He also mentioned three approaches to prepare member states and the Commission for better donor coordination in the future. The three are the following a) opening up of procedures, b) sector and budget support and c) mapping.In his talk Mr. Todd Moss raised a couple of concerns regarding the EU’s aid policy. For instance, he mentioned that not enough attention was being paid to the development of entrepreneurship and the private sector in developing countries. He also said that the focus of donor nations should be on impact rather than input.
by Tahseen Alam
Speakers: Koos Richelle, Director General, EuropeAid Co-operation Office, European Commission
Todd Moss, Research Fellow, Center for Global Development
Ruth Levine (Moderator)
Mr. Richelle spoke about ‘fairytales in donorland’ or the shortcomings of the current aid policies and how they could be improved. He began his talk by discussing the recent developments in EU aid policy. Mr. Richelle also mentioned the creation of a new development policy statement for member states. This new policy statement is based on increasing official development aid (ODA), aid effectiveness and policy coherence. A new strategy for Africa has also been developed. This strategy is based on eradication of poverty and more modern means of cooperation.
Mr. Richelle also spoke about how four new instruments were replacing earlier EU programs. The four new instruments are the following:
European Neighborhood Instrument
Development Co-operation Instrument
Instrument for Stability
Instrument for Nuclear Safety
Mr. Richelle briefly mentioned some of the EC’s achievements with respect to aid delivery. 2005, he claimed was a record year on key performance indicators. The majority of aid went to Africa. There was also an increase in the amount of aid supplied to Asia because of the tsunami. The aid delivery system improved because of internal reforms and a push for new aid modalities. Mr. Richelle also mentioned that the EU provides 52 % of all development aid in the world.
However, some of the things that the EU needs to work on is better donor coordination especially since the EU is not one donor but includes 25 member states and the Commission. He also mentioned three approaches to prepare member states and the Commission for better donor coordination in the future. The three are the following a) opening up of procedures, b) sector and budget support and c) mapping.In his talk Mr. Todd Moss raised a couple of concerns regarding the EU’s aid policy. For instance, he mentioned that not enough attention was being paid to the development of entrepreneurship and the private sector in developing countries. He also said that the focus of donor nations should be on impact rather than input.
by Tahseen Alam
Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili at AEI
July 6, 2006 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM
Speakers: Introduction by Christopher DeMuth, AEI
Address by Mikhail Saakashvili, president of Georgia
On Thursday, President Mikhail Saakashvili spoke about the current state of Georgia, as well as its past history and outlook for the future. Since the Rose Revolution three years prior and overthrow of their corrupt government, Georgia has made drastic reforms, turning the country into one of the least corrupt in all of Europe. In the past three years, foreign investments and addressing the issue of energy has helped transform Georgia into a thriving country and booming economy. The reconstruction throughout Georgia has led to more roads, hospitals, and schools, as well as increased participation by the public in political affairs. One of the biggest improvements in Georgia is the newfound trust in the police, where rates have jumped from 6% to a public confidence rate of over 70%. Still, the biggest pride in Georgia is their ethnically diverse and tolerant society, a group based on multiculturalism. Georgia is one of the few countries in Europe where there is no anti-Semitism.
However, Georgia still has a long road ahead in its development. Now that it has achieved success, there is a great necessity to keep stability, safety, peace, and democracy. Corruption still is a major concern in the country, and the spread of electricity to rural areas is a current goal of the government. Saakashavili commented that he has seen a shift in the wants of the people. Just a few short years ago, people had very simple desires, and after seeing these changes met, they are all wishing for grander things, a change the president is very proud of.
As for Georgia’s relationship with Russia, Saakashavili wishes the country well. He thinks that they will be strong in the long run, and hopes to continue a friendly relationship with them. Georgia’s international relations have also grown stronger, now many international development agencies and governments have an invested interest in the success of the country.
by Rebecca Bonardi
Speakers: Introduction by Christopher DeMuth, AEI
Address by Mikhail Saakashvili, president of Georgia
On Thursday, President Mikhail Saakashvili spoke about the current state of Georgia, as well as its past history and outlook for the future. Since the Rose Revolution three years prior and overthrow of their corrupt government, Georgia has made drastic reforms, turning the country into one of the least corrupt in all of Europe. In the past three years, foreign investments and addressing the issue of energy has helped transform Georgia into a thriving country and booming economy. The reconstruction throughout Georgia has led to more roads, hospitals, and schools, as well as increased participation by the public in political affairs. One of the biggest improvements in Georgia is the newfound trust in the police, where rates have jumped from 6% to a public confidence rate of over 70%. Still, the biggest pride in Georgia is their ethnically diverse and tolerant society, a group based on multiculturalism. Georgia is one of the few countries in Europe where there is no anti-Semitism.
However, Georgia still has a long road ahead in its development. Now that it has achieved success, there is a great necessity to keep stability, safety, peace, and democracy. Corruption still is a major concern in the country, and the spread of electricity to rural areas is a current goal of the government. Saakashavili commented that he has seen a shift in the wants of the people. Just a few short years ago, people had very simple desires, and after seeing these changes met, they are all wishing for grander things, a change the president is very proud of.
As for Georgia’s relationship with Russia, Saakashavili wishes the country well. He thinks that they will be strong in the long run, and hopes to continue a friendly relationship with them. Georgia’s international relations have also grown stronger, now many international development agencies and governments have an invested interest in the success of the country.
by Rebecca Bonardi
Georgia Problems and Prospects
June 5, 2006 12-1:30 PM
Speakers: Former American Ambassador to Georgia and Current executive director of Open World Leadership Center Richard Miles. The Moderator is Blair Rubble.
The US perspective of Georgia as a failed state. Georgians has very strong family relations that helped people survive hardships.
During the time when Ambassador Miles was in Georgia, the state was facing major problems and it seemed in a helpless situation. The Country infrastructure was falling apart on all levels (roads, hospitals, schools, electricity). Employees were not receiving their salaries for a number of years due to bribery and corruption. Also Georgia was suffering high criminalities rates.
The Major problems in Georgia were summarized into:
Eliminating Corruption and the need to building democracy by developing well organized parliamentary elections. Human Rights lack of religious freedom (widespread anti Evangelical Church sentiment). Health Care is in a dire situation.
What was mentioned about UNDP?
The Execution of Preliminary election was conducted by the help of USA, EU, OSCE … as well as many international organizations including the UNDP, all very active. UNDP donated 1.5 million dollars to the building democracy program in Georgia.
by Youmna Diri
Speakers: Former American Ambassador to Georgia and Current executive director of Open World Leadership Center Richard Miles. The Moderator is Blair Rubble.
The US perspective of Georgia as a failed state. Georgians has very strong family relations that helped people survive hardships.
During the time when Ambassador Miles was in Georgia, the state was facing major problems and it seemed in a helpless situation. The Country infrastructure was falling apart on all levels (roads, hospitals, schools, electricity). Employees were not receiving their salaries for a number of years due to bribery and corruption. Also Georgia was suffering high criminalities rates.
The Major problems in Georgia were summarized into:
Eliminating Corruption and the need to building democracy by developing well organized parliamentary elections. Human Rights lack of religious freedom (widespread anti Evangelical Church sentiment). Health Care is in a dire situation.
What was mentioned about UNDP?
The Execution of Preliminary election was conducted by the help of USA, EU, OSCE … as well as many international organizations including the UNDP, all very active. UNDP donated 1.5 million dollars to the building democracy program in Georgia.
by Youmna Diri
Emerging Challenges: Previewing the G-8 Meeting in Russia
Thursday, July 6, 2006 10:00-11:30am
Speakers:
Carlos Pascual, VP and Director, Foreign Policy Studies at The Brookings Institution,
Kenneth Pollack, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies at The Brookings Institution,
Clifford Gaddy, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies and Global Economy and Development at The Brookings Institution,
Johannes Linn, Executive Director, The Wolfensohn Initiative Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development at The Brookings Institution.
This Brookings Institution Briefing analyzed the upcoming G8 summit in Russia. The panelists discussed Russia’s position in the G8, the potential results of this meeting, as well as the future of the G8 body. The current G8 began as the Group of Major Industrial Democracies (G7), with Russia joining later to form the G8. Russia, however, is not a mature democracy. As a result, Russia’s interests may differ from the interests of the seven major industrial democracies. In fact, Clifford Gaddy argued, the rest of the G8 countries regret inviting Russia into the G8. The summit in Russia, however, will most likely not focus on Russia’s internal issues. Instead, Iranian and North Korean nuclear capabilities, as well as international energy and security issues, will probably take the focus away from Russia. Additionally, Carlos Pascual believes that pushing Russia to an extreme will cause a counter-productive nationalist reaction in Russia.
The panel also discussed the prospects for this year’s G8 summit. The summit will most likely not address Russia’s policies on energy, civil liberties, and its neighbors, despite the importance of Russian internal issues. Instead, the meetings will probably focus on energy security, the recent North Korean missile firings, and the emergence of Iran as a potential nuclear threat. Energy security, however, cannot adequately be addressed by the G8. As Clifford Gaddy noted, most of the world’s energy suppliers are not represented in G8 negotiations. Russia cannot represent the interests of the world’s oil producers. Similarly, many key energy consumers, including China and India, are not represented. Next, China, a key player in negotiations with North Korea and Iran, is not represented in the talks. The G8 cannot effectively act on its concerns with North Korea and Iran without including China. Finally, Russia does not like the idea of sanctioning North Korea or Iran, and the world no longer has strong financial leverage with Russia. Six years ago, Russia had enormous IMF debts. Today, however, Russia has virtually no debt and over $300 billion in assets. As a result, Russia can more effectively resist foreign pressures and may hold up G8 negotiations. According to Carlos Pascual, a successful G8 would recognize an increasing need for international cooporation and give the next G8 summit a mandate to take action on specific international problems. The alternative, pretending to take action on currently unsolvable issues, would hurt the G8 and fail to address important international issues.
Finally, Johannes Linn spoke about potential G8 transformations. The G8, Linn argued, cannot effectively or legitimately deal with many international issues because key players are missing. For example, nonproliferation discussions do not include China, and epidemic threat discussions do not include Africa or India. Also, important topics, including financial imbalances, the World Trade Organization crisis, and environmental issues, are not currently on the table. Linn believes the G8 has two options for reform. First, the G8 could return to its original function as a club of democracies. However, this G8 would not be able to address many important issues because key actors would not be at the table. Alternatively, the G8 could become more inclusive. Linn mentioned a possible G20 including 90% of the world economy that would include key actors for most international issues. While Linn believes the G8 will not reform quickly, the G8 must change in the next five years for it to remain relevant.
by Adam Perry
Speakers:
Carlos Pascual, VP and Director, Foreign Policy Studies at The Brookings Institution,
Kenneth Pollack, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies at The Brookings Institution,
Clifford Gaddy, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies and Global Economy and Development at The Brookings Institution,
Johannes Linn, Executive Director, The Wolfensohn Initiative Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development at The Brookings Institution.
This Brookings Institution Briefing analyzed the upcoming G8 summit in Russia. The panelists discussed Russia’s position in the G8, the potential results of this meeting, as well as the future of the G8 body. The current G8 began as the Group of Major Industrial Democracies (G7), with Russia joining later to form the G8. Russia, however, is not a mature democracy. As a result, Russia’s interests may differ from the interests of the seven major industrial democracies. In fact, Clifford Gaddy argued, the rest of the G8 countries regret inviting Russia into the G8. The summit in Russia, however, will most likely not focus on Russia’s internal issues. Instead, Iranian and North Korean nuclear capabilities, as well as international energy and security issues, will probably take the focus away from Russia. Additionally, Carlos Pascual believes that pushing Russia to an extreme will cause a counter-productive nationalist reaction in Russia.
The panel also discussed the prospects for this year’s G8 summit. The summit will most likely not address Russia’s policies on energy, civil liberties, and its neighbors, despite the importance of Russian internal issues. Instead, the meetings will probably focus on energy security, the recent North Korean missile firings, and the emergence of Iran as a potential nuclear threat. Energy security, however, cannot adequately be addressed by the G8. As Clifford Gaddy noted, most of the world’s energy suppliers are not represented in G8 negotiations. Russia cannot represent the interests of the world’s oil producers. Similarly, many key energy consumers, including China and India, are not represented. Next, China, a key player in negotiations with North Korea and Iran, is not represented in the talks. The G8 cannot effectively act on its concerns with North Korea and Iran without including China. Finally, Russia does not like the idea of sanctioning North Korea or Iran, and the world no longer has strong financial leverage with Russia. Six years ago, Russia had enormous IMF debts. Today, however, Russia has virtually no debt and over $300 billion in assets. As a result, Russia can more effectively resist foreign pressures and may hold up G8 negotiations. According to Carlos Pascual, a successful G8 would recognize an increasing need for international cooporation and give the next G8 summit a mandate to take action on specific international problems. The alternative, pretending to take action on currently unsolvable issues, would hurt the G8 and fail to address important international issues.
Finally, Johannes Linn spoke about potential G8 transformations. The G8, Linn argued, cannot effectively or legitimately deal with many international issues because key players are missing. For example, nonproliferation discussions do not include China, and epidemic threat discussions do not include Africa or India. Also, important topics, including financial imbalances, the World Trade Organization crisis, and environmental issues, are not currently on the table. Linn believes the G8 has two options for reform. First, the G8 could return to its original function as a club of democracies. However, this G8 would not be able to address many important issues because key actors would not be at the table. Alternatively, the G8 could become more inclusive. Linn mentioned a possible G20 including 90% of the world economy that would include key actors for most international issues. While Linn believes the G8 will not reform quickly, the G8 must change in the next five years for it to remain relevant.
by Adam Perry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
