Conflict Prevention

The interview focused on a policy recommendation that Hassan presented at a recent policy dialogue panel at European Policy Center about the consequences of the U.S.-Iran conflict in Iraq.

Click here to watch the interview on VOA (in Kurdish).

Read an English summary of Hassan's remarks, below:

Despite repression and intimidation, the protests continue in Iraq. The government and ruling class, particularly the Shiite parties, can't find a reasonable solution for the crisis. The result is a dangerous political stalemate. Day by day, the conflict gets bloodier and more complicated. If the current repression continues, which I am afraid will be the case, the peaceful protest movement—or part of it—might decide to take up arms to defend unarmed demonstrators, causing the situation to spin out of control.

The fragmentation of political forces, especially the Shiite parties, makes it extremely difficult to find a political solution that can be accepted by all parties and the protest movement. To break the deadlock, there is a need to pressure and persuade the most influential Shiite parties and government to accept international mediation.

The idea I suggested at the EPC policy dialogue event is to organize an international conference akin to the recent Berlin Conference on Libya. All the key actors should participate in this conference, including the Iraqi government, representatives of the protest movement, Iran, the U.S. and other relevant regional and international powers and institutions. Through EWI’s engagement with Iraqi and regional actors over the past seven months, we know that to a large extent the EU is considered a neutral player. This neutrality would allow the EU—in partnership with key European countries and the UN—to take the lead in organizing this international conference.

I know this is not an easy task given the internal fragmentation inside Iraq coupled with external intervention. Furthermore, I am mindful of the fact that decision-making within the EU is a slow process, and it takes time for the member states to arrive at a common policy. However, we don't have the luxury of time or chance; we cannot say "let's wait and see." The situation is deteriorating very rapidly. Now is the right time to act and initiate an international mediation process for the Iraqi crisis.   

On January 23, Kawa Hassan, vice president of the Middle East and North Africa program at the EastWest Institute, spoke at the European Policy Centre's (EPC) latest policy dialogue entitled "The U.S.-Iran crisis: impact and implications for the region, Europe and beyond."  

The dialogue addressed the potential consequences for the stability of the Middle East following the death of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani, as well as the future role of the U.S. and Europe in the region. 

Other featured speakers included: Christian Koch, senior advisor at the Bussola Institute; Joost Hilterman, program director at the International Crisis Group; Adnan Tabatabai, CEO at the Center for Applied Research in Partnership with the Orient (CARPO); and moderator Amanda Paul, senior policy analyst at the European Policy Centre.

Click here to read Kawa Hassan’s presentation.

Click here to read the presentation in Arabic.

Blood over Different Shades of Green—based on both published and unpublished memories of the activists of 1971—critically assesses the catastrophic developments leading to the separation of East Pakistan. Through the analysis, the authors uncover critical lessons learned that apply to today's Pakistan. 

"Ikram had a front row seat to this important moment in the history of South Asia and together with co-author, Dr. Robotka, he has provided a candid, honest and factual account of the events, factors and causes that led to the split," says EWI President and CEO Dr. William J. Parker. 

"This book, bringing together both military and civil perspectives, also provides thoughtful guidance for the present and future lessons that can be learned from history and how diplomatic mistakes can be avoided and military action can be contained." 

Click here for coverage from the launch event. 

Click here for more information on Blood over Different Shades of Green.

The dialogue will address the potential consequences to the stability of the Middle East following the death of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani, as well as the future role of the U.S. and Europe in the region. 

Other featured speakers include: Christian Koch, senior advisor at the Bussola Institute; Joost Hilterman, program director at the International Crisis Group; Adnan Tabatabai, CEO at CARPO - Center for Applied Research in Partnership with the Orient; and moderator Amanda Paul, senior policy analyst at the European Policy Centre.

Click here to read more about the event.

In 1962, you could not have found two more diametrically opposed leaders than John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev. And yet, despite their significant differences in politics, economies and culture, they found a way to prevent war on a global scale. History may very well show that the United States and the Iran have shown similar restraint in the past months.

The 13-day tense stand-off between the United States and Soviet Union ended in October 1962 after both sides gave the other a way out—the opportunity to save face without going to war. When Kennedy ordered a naval blockade around Cuba, Khrushchev agreed to remove Soviet missiles from Cuba if Kennedy would secretively remove U.S. missiles from Turkey. If Kennedy had ordered a major strike on the Soviet missiles in Cuba or Khrushchev had not turned his fleet around when it met the American blockade, we may be living in a very different world today. 

The results of the Cuban Missile Crisis included an understanding by the U.S. and Soviet Union that both nations were willing to risk internal political support for the greater good of preventing a war. Additionally, lines of communications—including the development of a hotline between the two leaders—was developed.

Despite the wild rhetoric surrounding decisions made by Iran and the United States in the past months, both sides have shown a degree of restraint that history will likely show to have prevented major conflict and significant loss of life. The United States did not overreact to the temporary capture of U.S. sailors who strayed into Iranian waters, even when they ought to have been simply escorted out of territorial waters by the Iranians. Nor did the U.S. respond aggressively when its drone was shot down, when international tankers were attacked or when the U.S. Embassy was threatened resulting in the death of a civilian contractor. The United States did act by killing a designated terrorist and leader of the force responsible for the deaths of many Americans over the past decades—including the development of explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), which killed many American service personnel in Iraq. In response, instead of escalating tensions directly, Iran fired missiles into the desert minimally damaging one base rather than targeting American soldiers on two remote bases in Iraq. 

Today, there exists a set of opportunities by the United States and Iran to move off the battlefield to the negotiating table. This can start quickly with a signed agreement between the United States and Iran known as the Incidents at Sea Agreement. This agreement was developed by the EastWest Institute and Search for Common Ground two years ago in quiet coordination between American and Iranian experts. It's purpose was to ensure that a tactical mistake on, under or above the seas by either Iran or the United States does not result in a strategic-level misstep that could lead to hostilities. Additionally, there exists now an ideal diplomatic opportunity to re-address the very complicated Iranian nuclear non-proliferation issues. The current American leadership deemed the previous administration's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to be defective and insufficient in addressing ongoing Iranian advances in nuclear material enrichment, ballistic missile capabilities and in fielding nuclear weapons—herein lies another opportunity for diplomatic engagement. An American and Iranian willingness to re-engage with NATO and European parties on moving beyond the previous JCPOA would certainly be a win/win for all parties.

The time to move to the next step of strategic patience and conflict prevention is now. In the meanwhile, let’s give both nations credit for not allowing this potential tragedy to spin out of control.

On June 4-5, 2019, the EastWest Institute (EWI) convened the fourth meeting of the Joint U.S.-Russia Working Group on Counterterrorism in Afghanistan in Vienna, Austria. Against a backdrop of dynamic changes in Afghanistan, American and Russian experts came together to assess major developments in the bilateral relationship, as well as the current security and political situation in Afghanistan, and consider the implications for joint counterterrorism efforts going forward.

Specific topics discussed also included border management concerns; methods of terrorism recruitment and the process by which radicalization takes place; and the role of economic development in contributing to a safe and stable Afghanistan. In the framework of the meeting, Ambassador Thomas Greminger, Secretary General of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), addressed the Working Group, speaking on regional approaches to counterterrorism in Central Asia and Afghanistan. Representatives from the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the International Organizations in Vienna and the National Defence Academy’s Institute for Peace Support and Conflict Management were also present to share their perspectives.

Since 2017, the Working Group has aimed to generate positive momentum in the U.S.-Russia relationship and drive much-needed dialogue, specifically with respect to counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan.

Supported by Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Working Group previously convened in Moscow, Washington, D.C. and Brussels. These deliberations laid the foundation for the Working Group’s forthcoming report, a joint threat assessment, which will provide policymakers with an independent, up-to-date assessment of the terrorist threat in Afghanistan and serve as the basis for future counterterrorism cooperation. The report is expected to be released in Fall 2019.

Click here to read Ambassador Greminger's opening remarks.

Image Credit: Anna Renard-Koktysh

The EastWest Institute’s Middle East and North Africa (MENA) program and CARPO proudly announce the launch of a joint project on “Iraq and Its Neighbors,” which aims to enhance dialogue and regional integration between Iraq and surrounding countries, specifically Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The project will organize a series of bilateral working groups that aim at fostering exchange on topics and issues of common interest and challenges including trade, border control, climate change, reconstruction, security and counterterrorism.

EastWest Institute Vice President for MENA Kawa Hassan and CARPO CEO Adnan Tabatabai signed a Memorandum of Understanding to kick off the partnership launch in Brussels on Tuesday the June 5, 2019.

“Iraq and Its Neighbors” will run for 18 months and is supported financially by the European Union’s Foreign Policy Instrument.

Deterrence theory suggests that a stable deterrence moderates the security dilemma between rival nuclear states. Nearly four decades ago, Kenneth Waltz, a leading nuclear optimist, advocated that the spread of nuclear weapons would guarantee peace and resolve complex security problems between countries. However, twenty years into their respective nuclear programs, India and Pakistan continue to perceive threats from each other—mistrust that has resulted in an intense nuclear arms build-up. With India’s ambition to become a global power and Pakistan’s continuing quest for security, nuclear deterrence remains unstable, and peace fragile, in South Asia. In order to promote peace in the foreseeable future, the two states require less rivalry and more understanding.

Rivalry is enduring due to divergent strategic directions, evolving competitive technologies, a growing power imbalance, the Kashmir conflict, and the transnational activities of non-state actors in the region. Recent events such as the terrorist attack on an Indian military base in Uri, claims of Indian surgical strikes on Pakistan, and Kulbhushan Yadav’s arrest in Baluchistan demonstrate the intolerant patterns of interaction between the two countries that threaten conflict escalation to the nuclear level. To generate harmony, India and Pakistan must allow themselves the ability to make strategic compromises and the flexibility to resume dialogue.

Read the full article here on South Asian Voices.

Image: "Flags Lowered" (CC BY-NC 2.0) by Jack Zalium