“There is no development without security. There is no security without development.” Kofi Anan
In the international arena, development and security have not been two of the closest friends. For many, security equals militarization, weapons, and border protection. On the other hand, development is almost always related to poverty reduction, agriculture, and microfinance. Yesterday at the Henry L. Stimson Center, the Cooperative Non-Proliferation Program led by Elizabeth “Libby” Turben blended these
issues in a revolutionary model explained in detailed by the following three panelist speakers on the event.
Johanna Mendelson Forman, representing the Americas Program of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was the first speaker who explained a little about the “Third Border” situation, its threats to the US, and the need for development in the Caribbean region. Drug and human trafficking should be viewed as a type of terrorism for both the US and Latin America to embrace counterterrorism measures in the region. At the same time, we have seen the recent events of climate change and its destructive effects on Cuba, the rise in food prices and its destabilizing effects on Haiti erupting in the violent riots, and the decreasing of remittances as a result of the US economic crisis; all of these development needs as well must be addressed.
Allistair Miller, Director of the Center on Global Counterterrorism Cooperation, presented the recently launched report on “Implementing the UN Counter-Terrorism Strategy in the Latin America Caribbean Region” explained the troubles for many developing countries to implement the 2004 UN Security Council Resolution 1540, which addresses the growing threat of terrorism and WMDs. These countries, where development is a priority, have problems meeting the standards of the resolution because of lack of resources, which then drives them to divert resources from education and health to security to meet the standards. This turn makes efforts for security more challenging, all spiraling into a vicious ineffective cycle of no development and no security.
Finally, Brian Finlay, from the Cooperative Nonproliferation Program compared the example of success in Dubai to some countries in the Caribbean. Finlay’s points tied the success of Dubai to the increase in foreign and national investment in the ports and transit areas in the country and how has that also increased the effectiveness of the UN mandate and other security efforts.
If we think about Anan’s words we realize that these issues are very interconnected, in fact, they depend on each other to survive and to be sustainable.
Sponsor: Society for International Development
Date: September 17, 2008
Time: 12:00pm – 1:30pm
Representative Attending: Cristina Lopez
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
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Closing the Innovation Gap
At the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Judy Estrin, launched the publication of her new book, Closing the Innovation Gap. In a presentation on her views on innovation, the author expressed concerns about the present innovation deficit in our society and explained that without innovation there is no progress.
“Our society takes innovation for granted”, she said, and further explained that what we consider innovation, especially in the technological and scientific field, is just an incremental type of innovation, without any roots or seeds. The “Innovation Ecosystem” as the author called it, is the cycle where the innovative process, much like a natural ecosystem, takes place. There should be a seed and enough nutrients for innovation to grow and mature. Both in academia and business world, as well as the non-profit areas, this ecosystem is fundamental. A sustainable Innovation Ecosystem has 3 elemental stages which include research, development, and application. The author stressed the need to place sufficient emphasis on funding, leadership, culture and policy in our society, since they are the nutrients of this system.
At the same time, there are key factors that engage innovation into a cycle and keep it sustainable. These factors are the existence of Needs and Questions, Talent, and a Dynamic Society. She blamed much of the deterioration of innovation on our school systems, the need for measurements of one’s creativity, standardized tests, lack of trust and insecurity in all fields.
The book concludes with a set of core values which foster the right environment for innovation to flow and are actually essential in current issues like the energy crisis, climate change, healthcare, and the standing of the U.S. in the world. Judy Estrin finished the presentation with solutions to this innovation crisis, which included the change in leadership in both public and private sectors, increased funding for research by the government, corporations and non-profit organizations, the importance of investment for growth, and finally the ability to take risks both individually and collectively.
Sponsor: CSIS
Date: September 9, 2008
Time: 10am
Representative Attending: Cristina Lopez
“Our society takes innovation for granted”, she said, and further explained that what we consider innovation, especially in the technological and scientific field, is just an incremental type of innovation, without any roots or seeds. The “Innovation Ecosystem” as the author called it, is the cycle where the innovative process, much like a natural ecosystem, takes place. There should be a seed and enough nutrients for innovation to grow and mature. Both in academia and business world, as well as the non-profit areas, this ecosystem is fundamental. A sustainable Innovation Ecosystem has 3 elemental stages which include research, development, and application. The author stressed the need to place sufficient emphasis on funding, leadership, culture and policy in our society, since they are the nutrients of this system.
At the same time, there are key factors that engage innovation into a cycle and keep it sustainable. These factors are the existence of Needs and Questions, Talent, and a Dynamic Society. She blamed much of the deterioration of innovation on our school systems, the need for measurements of one’s creativity, standardized tests, lack of trust and insecurity in all fields.
The book concludes with a set of core values which foster the right environment for innovation to flow and are actually essential in current issues like the energy crisis, climate change, healthcare, and the standing of the U.S. in the world. Judy Estrin finished the presentation with solutions to this innovation crisis, which included the change in leadership in both public and private sectors, increased funding for research by the government, corporations and non-profit organizations, the importance of investment for growth, and finally the ability to take risks both individually and collectively.
Sponsor: CSIS
Date: September 9, 2008
Time: 10am
Representative Attending: Cristina Lopez
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Smart Development Methods Discussed on Capitol Hill
Yesterday, on Capitol Hill, in an event sponsored by Oxfam America, Jeremy Konyndyk of Mercy Corps, Carla Levine of Care International, and Dr. Michael Carter of the University of Wisconsin discussed successful approaches “smart development.” Each speaker shared a unique perspective on past experiences and projects in international development that proved tremendously successful.
Dr. Carter discussed a program called “HSNP+”, used in the arid and semi-arid regions of Northern Kenya. This program aims to keep people above the key threshold which requires them to receive cash payouts for survival by insuring livestock. Asset protection is possible because of technologies that are able to predict 80% of livestock mortality. Dr Carter referred to this technique of smart development as “preemptive food aid.”
Jeremy Konyndyk focused on a successful method used on a project in Kosovo, entitled the MISI Project. The MISI operated over a five year period in sixteen municipalities in Kosovo with a total budget of $7.8 million. The project aimed to foster engagement between minority communities and the government and between majority and minority communities, also called “vertical and horizontal engagement.” The MISI project also sought to engage the sizeable youth population in community development initiatives. Results from Mercy Corp’s work in the area included improved “inter-ethnic relations and cooperation”, infrastructure planning, and efforts to address “minority return issues.”
Finally, Carla Levine described the efforts of her organization, Care International, along with Catholic Relief Services, to institute savings-led financial services as a mechanism for good development. The goals of the projects described were to “improve short and long-term household food security in vulnerable areas, replenish vulnerable households’ productive assets, and improve vulnerable households’ resiliency to future shocks.” Local participants in these efforts thought they fostered “improved social cohesion”, increased status of women, better household food security, “replenished productive assets.”
All participants on the panel agreed that a lack of extended, committed funding to projects was a major, concrete hindrance on the application of smart development methods in general.
Sponsor: Oxfam America
Date: September 8, 2008
Time: 2-3pm
Representative Attending: Sarah Shebby
Dr. Carter discussed a program called “HSNP+”, used in the arid and semi-arid regions of Northern Kenya. This program aims to keep people above the key threshold which requires them to receive cash payouts for survival by insuring livestock. Asset protection is possible because of technologies that are able to predict 80% of livestock mortality. Dr Carter referred to this technique of smart development as “preemptive food aid.”
Jeremy Konyndyk focused on a successful method used on a project in Kosovo, entitled the MISI Project. The MISI operated over a five year period in sixteen municipalities in Kosovo with a total budget of $7.8 million. The project aimed to foster engagement between minority communities and the government and between majority and minority communities, also called “vertical and horizontal engagement.” The MISI project also sought to engage the sizeable youth population in community development initiatives. Results from Mercy Corp’s work in the area included improved “inter-ethnic relations and cooperation”, infrastructure planning, and efforts to address “minority return issues.”
Finally, Carla Levine described the efforts of her organization, Care International, along with Catholic Relief Services, to institute savings-led financial services as a mechanism for good development. The goals of the projects described were to “improve short and long-term household food security in vulnerable areas, replenish vulnerable households’ productive assets, and improve vulnerable households’ resiliency to future shocks.” Local participants in these efforts thought they fostered “improved social cohesion”, increased status of women, better household food security, “replenished productive assets.”
All participants on the panel agreed that a lack of extended, committed funding to projects was a major, concrete hindrance on the application of smart development methods in general.
Sponsor: Oxfam America
Date: September 8, 2008
Time: 2-3pm
Representative Attending: Sarah Shebby
Thursday, September 04, 2008
The Situation in Somalia
The grave situation in Somalia was discussed today at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars by Ken Menkhaus, professor at Davidson College, Chris Albin-Lackey, Senior Researcher in the Africa Division of Human Rights Watch, and Harun M. Hassan, a distinguished Somali journalist. While all parties involved generally agreed on the severity and urgency of immediate action to quell the violence and minimize deterioration into further anarchy and unrest, each brought distinctive expertise and unique experience to this highly informative panel.
The panel’s remarks served to “ring the alarm”, so to speak, about the necessity of drastic overhaul regarding policy towards the Somali situation. The humanitarian crisis is severe across the country, but it is especially poor in and around Mogadishu, the capital city, where nearly two thirds of the residents have fled. Somalis are faced with indiscriminate artillery bombardment on almost a daily basis, tremendous unmet demand for humanitarian assistance, drought, decimation of the market economy, piracy, assassinations, suicide bombings, and complete lack of rule of law.
The panel also described a growing resentment and dislike of the United States, and, more broadly, the West. Clearly, this is an unintended, undesirable result of failed policy in the region, giving additional weight to the argument that a change in course regarding policy towards Somalia is beneficial and necessary.
Sponsor: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Date: September 3, 2008
Time: 10-11:30 am
Representative Attending: Sarah Shebby
The panel’s remarks served to “ring the alarm”, so to speak, about the necessity of drastic overhaul regarding policy towards the Somali situation. The humanitarian crisis is severe across the country, but it is especially poor in and around Mogadishu, the capital city, where nearly two thirds of the residents have fled. Somalis are faced with indiscriminate artillery bombardment on almost a daily basis, tremendous unmet demand for humanitarian assistance, drought, decimation of the market economy, piracy, assassinations, suicide bombings, and complete lack of rule of law.
The panel also described a growing resentment and dislike of the United States, and, more broadly, the West. Clearly, this is an unintended, undesirable result of failed policy in the region, giving additional weight to the argument that a change in course regarding policy towards Somalia is beneficial and necessary.
Sponsor: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Date: September 3, 2008
Time: 10-11:30 am
Representative Attending: Sarah Shebby
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 13, 2008
The Future of Foreign Assistance
As many in the Washington, DC policy community look ahead to the reforms and changes that accompany a presidential election, a major point of contention is the future of U.S. foreign assistance. A recent Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee hearing investigated the current state of foreign assistance, and heard expert opinions on the path that foreign assistance should follow in the future. Senator Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii and Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio presided over the hearing.
The first witness to testify at the hearing was Mr. Richard L. Greene, Deputy Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance at the U.S. Department of State. He offered candid answers to Senator Voinovich and Senator Akaka’s inquiries into the convoluted foreign aid system. Mr. Greene spoke of current efforts for reform within the State Department, citing improvements such as the new Director of Foreign Assistance position. He clarified that reforms have focused mainly on actions that do not require legislation, especially improving communication and cooperation between State and USAID. Congress and the State Department are also often at odds over funding. Uncertainty over Congress's appropriations can delay projects overseas and prevent the State department from distributing much-needed foreign aid. Greene also answered questions about USAID's practice of contracting outside groups, and suggested that increased staffing at USAID would remedy this situation.
The second panel of expert witnesses consisted of Mr. Leo Hindery, Vice Chairman of the Commission on Helping to Enhance the Livelihood of People Around the Globe; Dr. Gordon Adams, Distinguished Fellow at the Henry L. Stimson Center; Ms. Anne C .Richards, Vice President for Government Relations and Advocacy of the International Rescue Committee; Mr. Samuel A. Worthington, President & CEO of InterAction; and Dr. Gerald Hyman, Senior Advisor and President of the Hills Program on Governance at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. These experts took a range of positions on the direction that U.S. foreign assistance should follow in the future. Worthington, a staunch advocate of creating a separate cabinet-level Department of Development Assistance, feels that such action is the only way to increase coordination of foreign assistance on the ground. Mr. Hindery also championed this plan as a way to decrease bureaucracy in the American foreign aid system. Conversely, Dr. Hyman and Dr. Adams argued that separating development from defense and diplomacy is not only impossible but would not significantly streamline operations. Ann Richardson proposed what she referred to as a "hybrid model", calling for a new directorate for foreign operations at the National Security Center, and a stronger USAID that still falls under the State Department.
Senator Voinovich promised that the Subcommittee will continue to investigate foreign assistance reform, and compile their information by the time the next President takes office. During the pivotal first months of the new presidency, America's new leader will use these investigations to guide his policy on foreign assistance.
Read the Member Statements and Witnesses Testimony
Sponsor: Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Affairs
Date: July 31, 2008
Time: 2-4:30 pm
Representative Attending: Kate Lonergan
The first witness to testify at the hearing was Mr. Richard L. Greene, Deputy Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance at the U.S. Department of State. He offered candid answers to Senator Voinovich and Senator Akaka’s inquiries into the convoluted foreign aid system. Mr. Greene spoke of current efforts for reform within the State Department, citing improvements such as the new Director of Foreign Assistance position. He clarified that reforms have focused mainly on actions that do not require legislation, especially improving communication and cooperation between State and USAID. Congress and the State Department are also often at odds over funding. Uncertainty over Congress's appropriations can delay projects overseas and prevent the State department from distributing much-needed foreign aid. Greene also answered questions about USAID's practice of contracting outside groups, and suggested that increased staffing at USAID would remedy this situation.
The second panel of expert witnesses consisted of Mr. Leo Hindery, Vice Chairman of the Commission on Helping to Enhance the Livelihood of People Around the Globe; Dr. Gordon Adams, Distinguished Fellow at the Henry L. Stimson Center; Ms. Anne C .Richards, Vice President for Government Relations and Advocacy of the International Rescue Committee; Mr. Samuel A. Worthington, President & CEO of InterAction; and Dr. Gerald Hyman, Senior Advisor and President of the Hills Program on Governance at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. These experts took a range of positions on the direction that U.S. foreign assistance should follow in the future. Worthington, a staunch advocate of creating a separate cabinet-level Department of Development Assistance, feels that such action is the only way to increase coordination of foreign assistance on the ground. Mr. Hindery also championed this plan as a way to decrease bureaucracy in the American foreign aid system. Conversely, Dr. Hyman and Dr. Adams argued that separating development from defense and diplomacy is not only impossible but would not significantly streamline operations. Ann Richardson proposed what she referred to as a "hybrid model", calling for a new directorate for foreign operations at the National Security Center, and a stronger USAID that still falls under the State Department.
Senator Voinovich promised that the Subcommittee will continue to investigate foreign assistance reform, and compile their information by the time the next President takes office. During the pivotal first months of the new presidency, America's new leader will use these investigations to guide his policy on foreign assistance.
Read the Member Statements and Witnesses Testimony
Sponsor: Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Affairs
Date: July 31, 2008
Time: 2-4:30 pm
Representative Attending: Kate Lonergan
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Peace In Zimbabwe?
Since its March 2008 elections, Zimbabwe has been a state of political turmoil and unrest. When opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai of MDC garnered enough votes to require a run-off election, incumbent Robert Mugabe and his Zanu PF party employed a campaign of organized violence to intimidate his opponents into submission. On July 21, the two parties finally signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that established guidelines for power-sharing talks. At a recent Congressional Human Rights Caucus briefing, Primrose Matambanadzo of the Zimbabwe Association of Doctors of Human Rights and Jacob Mafume of USAID offered insight into the current situation in Zimbabwe as well as the future of peace talks.
While the violence rates have decreased since the June 27th run-off election, supporters of Tsvangirai's MDC opposition party remain in danger. Mr. Mafume specified that the most persecuted are lower level, "rank and file" members of MDC. Mugabe and Zanu-PF are trying to intimidate ordinary voters with brutal physical torture and tactics, such as "community killings" that seek to make an example of opposition supporters to their entire village. Furthermore, many victims of election-related violence can not access proper medical care because there is virtually no freedom of movement within the country.
One potentially bright spot amongst the chaos in Zimbabwe is the newly-signed Memorandum of Understanding.This will eventually lead to peace talks between Zanu-PF and MDC parties. Mr. Mafume stressed that outside groups, including civil society and foreign governments must place pressure on both parties to ensure that the outcome of the talks reflects the will of the people. He also stressed that reconciliation will not be effective until those who carried out violence face retribution. Although the MOU specifically excludes this issue from the negotiations, it must be addressed in the near future.
Another important element to the peace talks is the relationship between Zimbabwean civil society and MDC. Civil society groups are pessimistic about the outcome of negotiations because previous opposition parties have conceded important demands to Mugabe. In an effort to maintain their support, MDC has drawn up an agreement of important values to uphold in the negotiations. Although the groups recognize that their cooperation is necessary to craft an agreement that reflects the will of the people, such a task will require continued effort and communication.
Although some audience members hinted that Mugabe may take a deal and flee the country, both panelists insisted that Mugabe is still very powerful and in control of his party. Despite the deep-rooted differences between Mugabe and his challenger Tsvangirai, the Memorandum of Understanding still represents hope and possibility for reconciliation.
Sponsor: Congressional Human Rights Caucus (CHRC)
Date: July 24, 2008
Time: 2:30-3:30 pm
Representative Attending: Kate Lonergan
While the violence rates have decreased since the June 27th run-off election, supporters of Tsvangirai's MDC opposition party remain in danger. Mr. Mafume specified that the most persecuted are lower level, "rank and file" members of MDC. Mugabe and Zanu-PF are trying to intimidate ordinary voters with brutal physical torture and tactics, such as "community killings" that seek to make an example of opposition supporters to their entire village. Furthermore, many victims of election-related violence can not access proper medical care because there is virtually no freedom of movement within the country.
One potentially bright spot amongst the chaos in Zimbabwe is the newly-signed Memorandum of Understanding.This will eventually lead to peace talks between Zanu-PF and MDC parties. Mr. Mafume stressed that outside groups, including civil society and foreign governments must place pressure on both parties to ensure that the outcome of the talks reflects the will of the people. He also stressed that reconciliation will not be effective until those who carried out violence face retribution. Although the MOU specifically excludes this issue from the negotiations, it must be addressed in the near future.
Another important element to the peace talks is the relationship between Zimbabwean civil society and MDC. Civil society groups are pessimistic about the outcome of negotiations because previous opposition parties have conceded important demands to Mugabe. In an effort to maintain their support, MDC has drawn up an agreement of important values to uphold in the negotiations. Although the groups recognize that their cooperation is necessary to craft an agreement that reflects the will of the people, such a task will require continued effort and communication.
Although some audience members hinted that Mugabe may take a deal and flee the country, both panelists insisted that Mugabe is still very powerful and in control of his party. Despite the deep-rooted differences between Mugabe and his challenger Tsvangirai, the Memorandum of Understanding still represents hope and possibility for reconciliation.
Sponsor: Congressional Human Rights Caucus (CHRC)
Date: July 24, 2008
Time: 2:30-3:30 pm
Representative Attending: Kate Lonergan
Thursday, August 07, 2008
OCHA and InterAction Collaborate to Ensure Success of UN Missions
Creating the most talented and diversified pool of potential UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinators (RCs and HCs) is the task ahead for Mr. Mark Prasopa-Plaizier, Manager of the Humanitarian Coordinators Pool for OCHA. On July 28 he met with members of InterAction’s Humanitarian Partnership working group to identify the reasons fueling OCHA’s inability to attract the best potential candidates and to brainstorm solutions to ensure to ensure the success of all UN humanitarian missions.
Mr. Prasopa-Plaizier began by identifying setbacks in recruiting the most qualified candidates for HC and RC positions. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of both UN agencies and NGOs to release their best personnel go, as they invest heavily in staff retention and management programs. Consequently, those entering the pool are neither the brightest nor most experienced. Past and current recruitment programs have found much difficulty in creating a diverse pool of applicants, as nearly all are middle-aged Scandinavian men.. He also notes obstacles rooted in the subjective evaluation process that grants much sway to the personal biases of reviewers.
So how can we ensure that the most qualified people are holding these extremely important and influential positions? And how can we assure that they are well trained before assuming them? Mr. Prasopa-Plaizier suggests the following changes:
-Increasing recruitment from NGOs.
-Heightening advertisement of HC and RC positions in UN agencies other than UNDP and UNHCR.
-Designing an inclusive application giving a full appraisal of candidates.
-Recruiting and utilizing a large, diversified candidate database.
-Making a detailed career development track for HC/ RC positions.
-Detailing the career and personal benefits of HC/ RC positions.
-Regionalizing staff to encourage local sustainability and involvement.
-Developing a program to ease the transition of former HC/RCs back into the UN and NGO systems.
-Providing hopeful applicants with mentorship and shadowing with HC/RCs.
-Structuring an inter-exchange with UN and NGOs.
HCs and RCs are key drivers in international development. If talented, they can set conflict and post-conflict areas on a sustainable path to recovery and growth; however, if only satisfactory, they can stagnate and even obstruct progress in anguished nations. To ensure that those holding these positions are among the world’s most elite leaders and negotiators, we must enforce Mr. Prasopa-Plazier’s changes.
Sponsor: InterAction
Date: July 28, 2009
Time: 9-10.30 am
Representative Attending: Elizabeth Caniano
Mr. Prasopa-Plaizier began by identifying setbacks in recruiting the most qualified candidates for HC and RC positions. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of both UN agencies and NGOs to release their best personnel go, as they invest heavily in staff retention and management programs. Consequently, those entering the pool are neither the brightest nor most experienced. Past and current recruitment programs have found much difficulty in creating a diverse pool of applicants, as nearly all are middle-aged Scandinavian men.. He also notes obstacles rooted in the subjective evaluation process that grants much sway to the personal biases of reviewers.
So how can we ensure that the most qualified people are holding these extremely important and influential positions? And how can we assure that they are well trained before assuming them? Mr. Prasopa-Plaizier suggests the following changes:
-Increasing recruitment from NGOs.
-Heightening advertisement of HC and RC positions in UN agencies other than UNDP and UNHCR.
-Designing an inclusive application giving a full appraisal of candidates.
-Recruiting and utilizing a large, diversified candidate database.
-Making a detailed career development track for HC/ RC positions.
-Detailing the career and personal benefits of HC/ RC positions.
-Regionalizing staff to encourage local sustainability and involvement.
-Developing a program to ease the transition of former HC/RCs back into the UN and NGO systems.
-Providing hopeful applicants with mentorship and shadowing with HC/RCs.
-Structuring an inter-exchange with UN and NGOs.
HCs and RCs are key drivers in international development. If talented, they can set conflict and post-conflict areas on a sustainable path to recovery and growth; however, if only satisfactory, they can stagnate and even obstruct progress in anguished nations. To ensure that those holding these positions are among the world’s most elite leaders and negotiators, we must enforce Mr. Prasopa-Plazier’s changes.
Sponsor: InterAction
Date: July 28, 2009
Time: 9-10.30 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
Peace and Stability Operations: What the Experts Think
The Better World Campaign and the Henry L. Stimson Center sponsored three expert panelists including William Durch, Gayle Smith and Gordon Adams who each provided insightful commentary on their views regarding peace and stability operation overseas.
William Durch, who is the Senior Associate and co-Director of the Future of Peace Operations at the Stimson Center and has an extensive career in Disarmament and International Affairs, stressed the need for peace to be self regulated. Durch claimed that it is possible for countries currently in conflict (such as the Democratic Republic of Congo) to provide self-regulated peace, however the constant barrier is a lack of peace enforcers. In the eyes of the international community, this is a role UN Peacekeepers should play. However, without the full support of the Security Council and local government, the Peace Keepers are not even able to defend themselves. Such is the case in Darfur, which Durch labeled as a “dangerous place for United States and United Nations Peace Keeping Forces” mainly due to under-staffing and lack of support from the local government. While we can not control the support of the local government, Durch does point out that a large part of the under-staffing is due to lack of funding. The consistently late payments made to the UN have a detrimental affect on its operations. Although some may argue that independent governments (such as the US) can fill in where the UN falls short, the UN has “a broader political legitimacy and greater reach into the private sector” making it the most likely to succeed in peace keeping operations (Durch).
Gordon Adams, Director of the Budgeting for Foreign Affairs and Defense Project at Stimson, agreed with Durch, providing a series of suggestions that he feels the US should implement in order to assist in the international goals to sustain peace. Adams pointed out that the majority of the issues require more than just the US government’s input, and that there is a large network of institutions, both public and private, that the US should be working with. Adams also pointed out that while Darfur and the DRC are current “hot spots” the world should not lose sight of other situations for fear that the US will fall into fighting the “last-post-war” and rely on ad hoc responses, when in reality we need to fight preventatively. Adams also stressed the need for cooperation within the US government, suggesting that the responsibilities of international peace need to be carefully divided between the Department of Defense, USAID, and other governmental departments.
Finally, Gayle Smith, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Co-Chair of the ENOUGH Project, provided eye-witness analysis of current and past peace issues in Africa based on her extensive journalism experience in the area. Smith stressed that in situations such as the DRC, peace keeping operations are not sufficient, and in Darfur, peace keeping operations are set up to do things and provide support beyond their capacity. Smith criticized the government of being short-sighted, and lacking comprehension regarding the necessities to provide international security. Smith also said that the peace keeping operations need to re-focus on preventing crisis, rather than reacting, managing trends that give rise to crisis, and transitional periods that extend past two years. Finally, Smith offered her theory that security needs to be addressed in three lenses: physical, economic, and human dignity.
Adams and Smith seemed to agree with Durch’s recommendations for the next administration. Durch proclaimed that in order for the US to achieve the kind of security it needs, the incoming administration needs to cooperate with the UN by affirming common goals, offering financial and technological support, military assistance, and peace keeping contributions. Until this is accomplished, the US will continue to fall behind in security, as it is no longer unilaterally achievable.
Sponsor: Better World Campaign and the Henry L. Stimson Center
Date: 7/29/08
Representative: Daria Willis
William Durch, who is the Senior Associate and co-Director of the Future of Peace Operations at the Stimson Center and has an extensive career in Disarmament and International Affairs, stressed the need for peace to be self regulated. Durch claimed that it is possible for countries currently in conflict (such as the Democratic Republic of Congo) to provide self-regulated peace, however the constant barrier is a lack of peace enforcers. In the eyes of the international community, this is a role UN Peacekeepers should play. However, without the full support of the Security Council and local government, the Peace Keepers are not even able to defend themselves. Such is the case in Darfur, which Durch labeled as a “dangerous place for United States and United Nations Peace Keeping Forces” mainly due to under-staffing and lack of support from the local government. While we can not control the support of the local government, Durch does point out that a large part of the under-staffing is due to lack of funding. The consistently late payments made to the UN have a detrimental affect on its operations. Although some may argue that independent governments (such as the US) can fill in where the UN falls short, the UN has “a broader political legitimacy and greater reach into the private sector” making it the most likely to succeed in peace keeping operations (Durch).
Gordon Adams, Director of the Budgeting for Foreign Affairs and Defense Project at Stimson, agreed with Durch, providing a series of suggestions that he feels the US should implement in order to assist in the international goals to sustain peace. Adams pointed out that the majority of the issues require more than just the US government’s input, and that there is a large network of institutions, both public and private, that the US should be working with. Adams also pointed out that while Darfur and the DRC are current “hot spots” the world should not lose sight of other situations for fear that the US will fall into fighting the “last-post-war” and rely on ad hoc responses, when in reality we need to fight preventatively. Adams also stressed the need for cooperation within the US government, suggesting that the responsibilities of international peace need to be carefully divided between the Department of Defense, USAID, and other governmental departments.
Finally, Gayle Smith, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Co-Chair of the ENOUGH Project, provided eye-witness analysis of current and past peace issues in Africa based on her extensive journalism experience in the area. Smith stressed that in situations such as the DRC, peace keeping operations are not sufficient, and in Darfur, peace keeping operations are set up to do things and provide support beyond their capacity. Smith criticized the government of being short-sighted, and lacking comprehension regarding the necessities to provide international security. Smith also said that the peace keeping operations need to re-focus on preventing crisis, rather than reacting, managing trends that give rise to crisis, and transitional periods that extend past two years. Finally, Smith offered her theory that security needs to be addressed in three lenses: physical, economic, and human dignity.
Adams and Smith seemed to agree with Durch’s recommendations for the next administration. Durch proclaimed that in order for the US to achieve the kind of security it needs, the incoming administration needs to cooperate with the UN by affirming common goals, offering financial and technological support, military assistance, and peace keeping contributions. Until this is accomplished, the US will continue to fall behind in security, as it is no longer unilaterally achievable.
Sponsor: Better World Campaign and the Henry L. Stimson Center
Date: 7/29/08
Representative: Daria Willis
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
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Family Planning-A Basic Human Right for Women Everywhere
The Feminist Majority Foundation Intern Hill Briefing on July 24th effectively stressed the importance of saving and improving women’s lives through global family planning.
Craig Lasher, Senior Policy Analyst at Population Action International, began the briefing by reporting a 40% decline in global family planning funding since George W. Bush took office. The year 2008 also marked the seventh straight year Bush has refused to allocate money to the United Nations Population Fund. These actions are part of the so-called “global gag rule” which the president re-instated on his first day in office in January 2001. This heatedly debated and contentious act does not fund foreign NGOs who use any type of funding (US or non-US), to provide safe abortions, abortion counseling, refer women to abortion clinics, or lobby to make abortion legal in their countries. It drastically limits the scope of services provided by international NGOs to women in need, stipulating what they can and cannot do and forcing them to either go without US funding or abide by a strict US controlled agenda. Organizations that do not sign the global gag rule also lose access to heavily relied upon US-donated contraceptive supplies. Crystal Lander, Senior Advocacy Advisor at the Centre for Development and Population Activities, followed up on the global gag rule, commenting that it would be deemed a violation of free speech if applied here in the United States to national NGOs. Lander also made the important clarification that family planning encompasses not only birth control, but HIV/AIDS testing, pap smears, pre and post-natal care, and infant care-all of which are crucial for women’s health.
Ellie Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation, and Publisher of Ms. Magazine, highlighted the correlation of national and international trends in US family planning policies. Organizations in the US, such as Planned Parenthood, have had to cut back on staff and services provided, and the price of birth control pills has been steadily rising. Smeal appealed to the young age and energy of the audience members by entreating them to realize the equality of all women, everywhere in the world. “There is no difference in the rights of a woman in a developing country and a woman in the United States,” she said. Access to family planning services is a basic health right and should not be denied to anyone. She stressed urgency of action in achieving necessary funding for global family planning, as hundreds of thousands of women every year are dying from maternally related causes, and tens of thousands from unsafe illegal abortions. Smeal also expressed concern over her opinion that the greatest tragedy in this situation, following these un-necessary deaths, is the fact that the US has the resources, knowledge, and sway in the global community to affect positive change on women’s lives both here and abroad, but is not using them. The struggle for equalized family planning must continue until no woman lacks access to a safe birth, contraceptives, infant care, and disease prevention mechanisms.
Date: July 24, 2008
Sponsor: The Feminist Majority Foundation and the Dirksen Senate Office Building
Representative Attending: Emma Gring
Craig Lasher, Senior Policy Analyst at Population Action International, began the briefing by reporting a 40% decline in global family planning funding since George W. Bush took office. The year 2008 also marked the seventh straight year Bush has refused to allocate money to the United Nations Population Fund. These actions are part of the so-called “global gag rule” which the president re-instated on his first day in office in January 2001. This heatedly debated and contentious act does not fund foreign NGOs who use any type of funding (US or non-US), to provide safe abortions, abortion counseling, refer women to abortion clinics, or lobby to make abortion legal in their countries. It drastically limits the scope of services provided by international NGOs to women in need, stipulating what they can and cannot do and forcing them to either go without US funding or abide by a strict US controlled agenda. Organizations that do not sign the global gag rule also lose access to heavily relied upon US-donated contraceptive supplies. Crystal Lander, Senior Advocacy Advisor at the Centre for Development and Population Activities, followed up on the global gag rule, commenting that it would be deemed a violation of free speech if applied here in the United States to national NGOs. Lander also made the important clarification that family planning encompasses not only birth control, but HIV/AIDS testing, pap smears, pre and post-natal care, and infant care-all of which are crucial for women’s health.
Ellie Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation, and Publisher of Ms. Magazine, highlighted the correlation of national and international trends in US family planning policies. Organizations in the US, such as Planned Parenthood, have had to cut back on staff and services provided, and the price of birth control pills has been steadily rising. Smeal appealed to the young age and energy of the audience members by entreating them to realize the equality of all women, everywhere in the world. “There is no difference in the rights of a woman in a developing country and a woman in the United States,” she said. Access to family planning services is a basic health right and should not be denied to anyone. She stressed urgency of action in achieving necessary funding for global family planning, as hundreds of thousands of women every year are dying from maternally related causes, and tens of thousands from unsafe illegal abortions. Smeal also expressed concern over her opinion that the greatest tragedy in this situation, following these un-necessary deaths, is the fact that the US has the resources, knowledge, and sway in the global community to affect positive change on women’s lives both here and abroad, but is not using them. The struggle for equalized family planning must continue until no woman lacks access to a safe birth, contraceptives, infant care, and disease prevention mechanisms.
Date: July 24, 2008
Sponsor: The Feminist Majority Foundation and the Dirksen Senate Office Building
Representative Attending: Emma Gring
"Fighting Terrorism in the 21st Century"
In the fight against terrorism, the United States has relied heavily on military solutions. Considering the ideological basis of most violent extremists, strategic communications and public diplomacy seem to be more effective deterrents. The Honorable Adam Smith (D-WA) and The Honorable Mac Thornberry (R-TX), both members of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, recently addressed the need for a deliberate outreach campaign in order to discourage extremists from joining terrorist groups.
Strategic communication, as explained by Representative Thornberry, “unifies and focuses the right message to the right audience with the intent to shape their perceptions”. In order to combat terrorism, the United States must craft culturally sensitive messages designed to decrease animosity toward the Western world. Furthermore, the United States must recognize opportune moments for strategic communications campaigns. Representative Thornberry explained that many violent extremists are now starting to question their ideological beliefs, creating an invaluable opportunity for the United States to use strategic communications to promote pro-Western, democratic values.
In order to create an effective strategic communications strategy, Smith and Thornberry emphasized the need for comprehensive cooperation between all the government agencies involved in counter-terrorism work. To address this, Smith and Thornberry have introduced a strategic communications amendment to the 2009 Defense Authorization Bill. The amendment first outlines the need for a more concrete communications and diplomacy strategy. It also stipulates that both the State Department and Department of Defense must meet to clearly define their individual counter-terrorism responsibilities. Additionally, the bill calls for further investigation into creating a new agency to coordinate counter-terrorism strategic communications. The Representatives pointed out that creating a new agency would be a faster way to organize public diplomacy than restructuring within existing organizations or appointing one person to coordinate the activities of the different departments.
In addition to improving the communications strategy, providing development assistance is a major element to Thornberry and Smith’s view of public diplomacy. Efforts such as building schools, digging wells, and providing medical help will create positive sentiment toward Western society, and demonstrate that the United States supports the international community. While the military’s responsibility for these projects should not diminish, the United States needs to focus on increasing its overall international development efforts. These changes, coupled with a well-coordinated communications and public diplomacy strategy, will make the United States a much more effective force in the war on terror.
Sponsor: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Date: July 17, 2008
Time: 9:30 – 11:00 am
Representative Attending: Kate Lonergan
Strategic communication, as explained by Representative Thornberry, “unifies and focuses the right message to the right audience with the intent to shape their perceptions”. In order to combat terrorism, the United States must craft culturally sensitive messages designed to decrease animosity toward the Western world. Furthermore, the United States must recognize opportune moments for strategic communications campaigns. Representative Thornberry explained that many violent extremists are now starting to question their ideological beliefs, creating an invaluable opportunity for the United States to use strategic communications to promote pro-Western, democratic values.
In order to create an effective strategic communications strategy, Smith and Thornberry emphasized the need for comprehensive cooperation between all the government agencies involved in counter-terrorism work. To address this, Smith and Thornberry have introduced a strategic communications amendment to the 2009 Defense Authorization Bill. The amendment first outlines the need for a more concrete communications and diplomacy strategy. It also stipulates that both the State Department and Department of Defense must meet to clearly define their individual counter-terrorism responsibilities. Additionally, the bill calls for further investigation into creating a new agency to coordinate counter-terrorism strategic communications. The Representatives pointed out that creating a new agency would be a faster way to organize public diplomacy than restructuring within existing organizations or appointing one person to coordinate the activities of the different departments.
In addition to improving the communications strategy, providing development assistance is a major element to Thornberry and Smith’s view of public diplomacy. Efforts such as building schools, digging wells, and providing medical help will create positive sentiment toward Western society, and demonstrate that the United States supports the international community. While the military’s responsibility for these projects should not diminish, the United States needs to focus on increasing its overall international development efforts. These changes, coupled with a well-coordinated communications and public diplomacy strategy, will make the United States a much more effective force in the war on terror.
Sponsor: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Date: July 17, 2008
Time: 9:30 – 11:00 am
Representative Attending: Kate Lonergan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
