Politics and Governance

Iran After Parliamentary Elections

EWI's inaugural “Brussels MENA Briefing” focuses on Iran's parliamentary elections and the resulting domestic implications and consequences for Iranian foreign relations.

On March 3, the EastWest Institute (EWI) and the Center for Applied Research in Partnership with the Orient (CARPO), launched its “Brussels MENA Briefing” series with the topic of the recent parliamentary elections in Iran. Dr. Azadeh Zamirirad from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) and Adnan Tabatabai from CARPO led the discussion, with EWI’s Wael Abdul-Shafi serving as moderator.

The briefing focused on the domestic and regional implications of the elections held on February 21. Iran’s conservative political camp, the Principlists, claimed victory despite a voter turnout of 42 percent—the lowest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Although the Iranian Parliament does not decisively shape Iran’s foreign policy, the timing of the election results is significant, especially as U.S. sanctions and regional tensions—as well as the recent outbreak of the Coronavirus—negatively impact global perceptions of Iran.

These parliamentary elections may foreshadow the presidential elections of 2021, considering the effect the parliament has on the public-political discourse. This is especially important given the sensitive timing of the elections, in which the looming succession of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is an increasing topic of discussion. Furthermore, the election results may be a manifestation of the more confrontational foreign policy approach Iran has been taking since last summer.

The discussion also touched upon the assassination of Major General Qasem Soleimani, who’s death mostly impacted not Iran but Iraq, where Soleimani was able to unite different Iraqi-Shia factions. Soleimani’s image in Iran has become institutionalized, as illustrated by the strategic placement of a billboard overlooking Tehran’s Valiasr Square on the eve of elections, showing a diverse Iranian population standing united behind Soleimani. The image symbolizes a shift of emphasis from Islamic sentiments to national unity.

Other topics raised during the briefing include a need for the European Union (EU) to open communication channels with conservative camps in Iran, the importance of recognizing differences within the conservative factions and a greater consideration of how social issues influence the political sphere. For the EU, the political shift in Iran might be a source of opportunity, confirming the saying that “hawks may be the best peacemakers.”

About the Brussels MENA Briefings:

The Brussels MENA Briefings are bimonthly, in-depth roundtable discussions on topics of current significance in the MENA region, co-hosted by EWI and CARPO in EWI’s Brussels office on the first week of every second month. Please note that attendance is by invitation only.

Should you be interested in being considered for the invitation list, kindly send an email to Desirée Custers with your name, affiliation and geographical or thematic area of interest and expertise in the Middle East.

2018 Annual Report

The EastWest Institute is pleased to release its 2018 Annual Report, chronicling the programmatic activities, achievements and new initiatives in the past year and reflecting key geopolitical trends around the world.

The institute remains focused on tackling these evolving issues, as well as on forecasting challenges in other topics and regions.

To access the complete report, please click below:

Why the West Should Not Underestimate China-Russia Military Ties

While China and Russia are not formal allies, the deepening of military relations between the two countries is real.

Conventional wisdom among Western policy makers and analysts holds that burgeoning China-Russia military ties are a shallow partnership of convenience, primarily fueled by shortsighted U.S. policies, yet bound to be undermined by diverging national interests and ongoing mutual distrust. As U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis noted during a press conference in September of this year: “I see little in the long term that aligns Russia and China.”

There is ample evidence to support the U.S. defense secretary’s assertion. For example, Russia maintains close military ties with India and Vietnam that includes selling advanced military hardware such as long-range air defense systems and attack submarines to New Delhi and Hanoi. At the same time, both countries are locked in territorial disputes with China. Both also see Beijing as their principal long-term military threat.

Additionally, Russia has remained conspicuously neutral in ongoing maritime disputes involving China in the East and South China Seas. In turn, China did not publicly support Russia’s annexation of Ukraine. Furthermore, Russia feels threatened by China’s incursions into Central Asia with its "Belt and Road Initiative," which undermines Russian preeminence in the region including the Russian-led “Eurasian Economic Union.” Furthermore, there is a corresponding fear in Moscow that Beijing could undermine Russia’s traditional role as the region’s main security provider.

Moving to the military dimension of the relationship, at a first glance, it appears to be a continuation of an uneasy bilateral relationship.

Notably, China and Russia are not committed to collective defense. The two nations do not have a formal security pact that commits them to defend one another in the event of a military conflict and bilateral military agreements between China and Russia do not contain a casus foederis clause obligating one side to come to the defense of the other. Indeed, both sides continue to see one another as an improbable, yet nonetheless real military threat. For example, Russia has repeatedly expressed concern over China’s large arsenal of conventional and nuclear-tipped land-based intermediate range cruise and ballistic missiles, while China is eying with suspicion the re-strengthening of the Russian Navy’s Pacific Fleet.

However, a closer examination reveals that China and Russia could indeed incrementally forge a stronger military strategic partnership.

The basis for military relations between China and Russia is the 2001 bilateral Treaty of Good- Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation. Article 9 of that treaty notes that “when a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.” This could be construed as an implicit commitment to mutual defense.

In a similar vein, a 2018 joint Sino-Russian statement reads that the two countries will "build up cooperation in all areas, and further build up strategic contacts and coordination between their armed forces, improve the existing mechanisms of military cooperation, expand interaction in the field of practical military and military-technical cooperation and jointly resist challenges to global and regional security.” While it is true that neither of these agreements outlines a de jure or de facto defensive alliance, the language clearly leaves open the possibility for closer military cooperation between the two countries and possibly joint military operations in the future.

For over a decade China and Russia have been conducting bilateral military exercises, the so-called “Peace Mission,” large-scale joint military exercise primarily involving air and ground forces of both countries, and the so-called “Joint Seas” naval exercises. Including smaller exercises such as ballistic missile defense simulation exercises and internal security forces drills, the total number of Sino-Russian military drills held annually has shot up to four or five and increasingly more complex and weighty. In September 2018 3,500 Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) personnel, 900 pieces of heavy weaponry and 30 aircraft from the PLA’s Northern Theater Command marked China’s first participation in Russia’s largest military exercise in almost four decades in Siberia and the country’s Far East.

While in a previous analysis I noted that the Chinese and Russian militaries are not in the process of achieving NATO-like interoperability any time soon, China’s participation in the Vostok (Eastern) 2018 exercise has yielded tangible practical benefits for the PLA beyond political symbolism. For example, the military exercise provided valuable insights for the PLA for deploying brigade-sized forces that integrate air and ground elements, along with special operations forces, abroad. Especially in the area of expeditionary logistics the exercise offered a useful practical experience to the PLA.

Notably, Sino-Russian military exercises for the past decade have been conducted in the Russian language using joint command codes of the Russian command system. This is partially the result of a large number of PLA officers studying at Russian military academic institutions with potentially wide-reaching consequences. “Together with narrowly specialized technical knowledge, the PLA’s officers absorb the knowledge of Russian military traditions, strategies, and tactics, which is likely to exert a significant impact on China’s military build-up and army organization and make the two countries’ overall thinking about modern threats and warfare more compatible,” Alexander Korolev emphasized in an April 2018 journal article in Asian Security.

China and Russia also continue to deepen cooperation in the military-technical field. Following a fallout over Chinese unlicensed reverse engineering practices in 2006 and 2007, military-technical cooperation has gradually increased over the years with China retaining the status of a “special” or “privileged partner.” The largest bilateral defense programs pertain to air defense systems and aircraft engines, with China no longer seen as merely an export market by Russia, but a genuine defense industry partner. Russian and Chinese officials have repeatedly stressed that military-technical cooperation constitutes the backbone of the China-Russia strategic partnership.

According to an internal Kremlin study cited by Alexander Gabuev in Foreign Affairs, in less than ten years China will have little use for Russian-made military hardware given the country’s massive indigenous R&D investments. It is thus less surprising that Russia has been selling China some of its most advanced military hardware including Sukhoi Su-35S (NATO reporting name: Flanker-E) fighter jets and S-400 Triumf interceptor-based long-range air defense systems (NATO reporting name: SA-21 Growler) given that the Chinese market, it is assumed, will soon dry up for Russian imports. At the same time, the study also explains why both countries are moving toward a military technological partnership as equals increasingly focusing on R&D and the joint production of arms.

Joint concerns over U.S. actions and policies—the U.S. National Security Strategy notes that China and Russia are “attempting to erode American security and prosperity” -- are likely to further strengthen Sino-Russian ties. For example, last year’s anti-ballistic missile defense computer-simulated command post exercise, the second ever such exercise by the two countries, was a direct result of Sino-Russian concerns over the deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems by the United States on the Korean Peninsula. Both countries have called the deployment “reckless” and likely to destroy “the strategic balance” on the Korean Peninsula and in the region. Apprehensions over U.S. actions could be further cemented by the likely termination of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019.

In the decade ahead, we should not only expect to see an increase in the size and scope of Sino-Russian military exercises, but also anticipate increased cooperation at the military technical level between the two countries. The recent deliveries of Su-35s and S-400 air defense systems alone will necessitate military personnel exchanges and joint trainings, as well as the sharing of operational experiences between the countries’ militaries. Closer Sino-Russian military ties should nonetheless not be confounded with a genuine military alliance. China historically has eschewed any type of formal alliance and will likely continue to do so. At the same time, dismissing burgeoning Sino-Russian military ties due to divergent Chinese and Russian national interests and a lack of NATO-type force interoperability risks glossing over the already deepening level of military cooperation between the two countries. 

The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EastWest Institute

U.S.-China Sanya Initiative Dialogue: Report from the 10th Anniversary Meeting

The EastWest Institute (EWI) convened the 10th anniversary of the U.S.-China Sanya Initiative from October 27 to 29, 2018. The dialogue was made possible through the generous support of the China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF) and other private donors and was organized in close partnership with the China Association for International Friendly Contact (CAIFC). Retired American and Chinese senior flag officers and executives of the hosting organizations met in Beijing to discuss critical issues of mutual concern and interest impacting the U.S.-China military-to-military relationship, including North Korea, Taiwan, the South China Sea, emerging technologies, as well as other regional security challenges.

The dialogue afforded timely opportunities for substantive exchanges prior to the November 9th meeting between U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Chinese Minister of Defense Wei Fenghe and State Councilor Yang Jiechi. Planned activities included two days of off-the-record discussions at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing with the participation of observers from both China and the United States, as well as official meetings with Admiral Miao Hua, Director of the Political Department of the Chinese Central Military Commission, and Ambassador Terry Branstad, the U.S. Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China.

Brexit: Uncertainty the only Certainty

After a truly tumultuous couple of weeks in British politics, following the publication of Theresa May’s 585-page EU withdrawal agreement, it is finally apparent that the wheels of reality are slow starting to crush the Brexit dream

Now that some of the dust has settled surrounding the media frenzy around No. 10, it is clear that this agreement has little purchase among anyone in parliament. Brexiteers are appalled at the prospect of the UK relinquishing its ability to shape future EU policy decisions whilst still subject to them under the transition period. Remainers see very little reason to think this deal addresses their concerns regarding jobs and Britain’s economic future. Elsewhere, in Northern Ireland, the Democratic Union Party (DUP), for whom May relies upon for a majority, are dismayed at the idea of the territory remaining in a deeper relationship with the EU to the rest of the UK. Whilst Scotland is unhappy for the exact opposite.  Thus it seems the only thing currently uniting the commons is the feeling of disdain, disenchantment and derision towards May’s deal. As the Washington Post reported, the deal “gives everyone something to hate.”

And yet, it is painfully clear that May could never have achieved anything much better than what has been agreed. A sentiment encapsulated by European Commission President Jean Claude Juncker following the Brexit summit in Brussels last Sunday when he stated to reporters that “Those who think…they will get a better deal will be disappointed in seconds.” May’s negotiating position has been compromised from the outset, primarily because the promises made by the most ardent and ferocious supporters of Brexit in 2016 were built on fantasy.  During the campaign, Brexiteers vowed Brits can and should have their cake and eat it; pledging to end free movement, withdraw from the customs union and avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, all whilst simultaneously retaining the economic benefits of regular membership. Promises which are inherently contradictory.

To this day, it remains difficult to fathom how Brexiteers came to internalize and justify such logic when it could never be in the EU’s interests to allow a member state to leave the union with a better trade deal than its remaining members. Nevertheless, the true irony in this whole sorry state of affairs is that the UK was already treating itself to a healthy piece of cake with regards to the terms of its membership: It was able to retain the pound instead of the Euro and was exempted from the borderless Schengen Zone.

The Contents

The proposal itself sets out the legal conditions of the UK’s formal withdrawal and centers around three pillars: the financial settlement, the rights of EU and UK citizens in either territory, and the border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland (the EU’s only physical border with the UK). However, when delving into the nitty gritty of the proposal, it is not difficult to see why it has garnered such an abhorrent reaction.

Firstly, the proposal seemingly locks the UK into a permanent state of purgatory. Neither in the EU nor completely out. “The worst of all worlds,” as opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn put it. The scheduled transition period for the UK leaving the EU is set to last until December 2020 once it formally leaves in March 2019. Under the transition, the UK would remain subject to all current and potentially new EU laws despite having no formal input. Fundamentally, the transition period is supposed to allow businesses and governments enough time to prepare and adapt to the new state of affairs in the relationship.  Furthermore, it will provide both the UK and the EU time to flesh out a viable trade agreement, with the possibility of an extension if an agreement is not reached. However, for Brexiteers this is where the alarm bells begin to ring, since the agreement itself does not set a specific time for how long this transition may be extended. Hard-Brexiteers, particularly, have denounced this as a betrayal of Brexit; relegating the UK to a form of vassalage. Far from the Brexit dream of “Taking back control.”

These fears are also linked to the backstop proposal for Northern Ireland which would kick in if a trade agreement is not found after an extended transition period. The backstop is the proposed mechanism to prevent a hard border between the North and the Republic amidst fears the installation of security checks could reignite previous troubles on the island. It would temporarily see the entirety of the UK, including Northern Ireland treated as a single customs area, which in practical terms would mean more checks on goods entering and leaving Norther Ireland and the rest of the UK. Although Theresa May has repeatedly stressed that the backstop mechanism is a last resort and that both London and Brussels do not wish to see its implementation, it has raised concerns within the DUP that it potentially paves the way for Northern Ireland to be reintegrated into the EU since under the proposed terms, it would remain in a deeper customs relationship with the EU than the rest of the UK; a red line for DUP leader Arlene Foster.

There is a backstop review mechanism, though this has been one of the most highly contentious facets of the agreement; for it prevents the UK from unilaterally exiting the backstop if it found it no longer necessary. Instead, a joint EU-UK Joint Committee would have to agree to terminate these customs arrangements, essentially granting the EU veto power over the UK. This particular caveat was primarily behind former Brexit Secretary, Dominic Raab’s shock resignation, just hours after the announcement of the agreement two weeks ago. In a Sunday morning interview, Raab expressed his fears that this arrangement threatens to impinge upon UK sovereignty, by potentially signing the country up to a customized union “no democratic country in history has ever signed up to.’”

Where do we go from here?

The result is we are in a situation whereby May’s deal will likely be voted down in the house of commons, which will precipitate even more uncertainty. As mentioned previously, May resides over a minority government which is dependent on the 10 DUP MPs for a majority. In addition to the fervent Brexiteers and remainers in her own party, May is very unlikely to find any support in the opposition who are either remainers or see little reason to support her own government.

A rejection of her agreement will therefore increase the likelihood of a whole host of possibilities including a no-deal Brexit, a second referendum, a potential leadership contest within the Conservative party, or a general election. There are pros and cons for each of these scenarios but the harsh fact remains that none of them provide any clarity as to what will happen after they come into fruition. Unfortunately it seems, uncertainty, is the only certainty surrounding Brexit for the time being.

The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EastWest Institute

EastWest Institute Honors Dr. Armen Sarkissian, President of the Republic of Armenia

On October 3, the EastWest Institute (EWI) honored Dr. Armen Sarkissian, President of the Republic of Armenia, with its John Edwin Mroz Global Statesman Award in recognition of his distinguished career and achievements as a statesman representing the interests of Armenia, and for his contributions to the field of global development.

The award presentation took place at EWI’s Annual Gala, held at the New York Athletic Club, New York City. The evening’s program featured a keynote presentation by noted entrepreneur and philanthropist, Aso Tavitian. Also in attendance were Grigor Hovhannissian, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Armenia to the United States; Mher Margaryan, Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations; Erzan Kazykhanov, Ambassador of Kazakhstan to the United States; Vassily Nebenzia, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations; Kaha Imnadze, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Georgia to the United Nations; Berge Setrakian, President of the Armenian General Benevolent Union; and Vartan Gregorian, President of Carnegie Corporation of New York, among other dignitaries. CBS News Anchor, Reena Ninan, served as Master of Ceremonies.

“At a time when Armenia is undergoing a profound period of transition, Dr. Sarkissian has been entrusted with bringing about stability and offering a new vision for his country’s path towards a more democratic and prosperous future,” stated Ross Perot, Jr., Chairman of the EastWest Institute. “Capably navigating his country through this spring’s Velvet Revolution, Dr. Sarkissian once again demonstrated the true value of statesmanship for the greater good.”

Dr. Armen Sarkissian was elected President of the Republic of Armenia in 2018. He formerly served as the Prime Minister of Armenia (1996-1997), Ambassador of Armenia (1991-1999) to the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and The Vatican, as well as Head of Mission of the Republic of Armenia to the EU and NATO (1995-96).

He is the founding president of Eurasia House International. Since 1999 he has been Director of the Eurasia Programme at the Judge Institute of Management, Cambridge University’s Business School, with expertise in state-building structures and free market transition processes in CIS countries.

“Dr. Sarkissian continued efforts to foster a spirit of cooperation and collectiveness is emblematic of his public service to his native Armenia, and instrumental to his work on economic development,” added Ambassador Cameron Munter, CEO & President of the EastWest Institute. “He is both a diplomat and an innovator, which allows him to earn the trust of stakeholders and develop creative solutions to address today’s pressing political and economic issues.”

Dr. Sarkissian has been actively associated with the EastWest Institute since 2005, and retains the title of Vice-Chairman, Emeritus.

The EastWest Institute (EWI) established the John Edwin Mroz Global Statesman Award in memory of its late founder. This award recognizes people who share John’s vision of a peaceful world, who work passionately to achieve it and who embody his values as a trust-builder.

Thank you to our sponsors:

Chairman Sponsor
Sarah and Ross Perot, Jr.

President Sponsors
Mary and David Boies 
Addison and Olivia Fischer, Planet Heritage Foundation
Bob and Tamar Manoukian
Aso O. Tavitian
Anonymous Donor

Inspiration Sponsors
Haig and Elza Didizian
Ralph and Ala Isham
Johnson and Johnson

Peacekeeper Sponsors
Catsimatidis Family Foundation
David and Laura McKenzie
Medical Transcription Billing, Corp.
Nu Skin Enterprises 
Henry and Myrna Sarkissian
Unisys Corporation

Insider Sponsors
Alterra Worldwide 
M. Joseph Bild
Covington & Burling
John Hurley and Kevin Taweel
Gunjan and Anurag Jain
Hagop and Ica Kouyoumdjian
Toros and Gacia Mangassarian
Nazar and Artemis Nazarian Family Foundation
Pivotal Foundation
Berge and Vera Setrakian

 

 

Afghanistan: Endless War?

Ambassador Cameron Munter joined other thought leaders on April 12 in a conversation about America's longest war and to examine strategies for how to bring it to an end. 

"Without some sort of better understanding of Pakistan, you’re not going to get past the impasse—which, I suppose, might be bearable for a long time—that we have in Afghanistan," said Munter starting his remarks in the discussion, organized by Council on Foreign Relations as part of its "The Future of the Middle East" symposium.

Munter also shared his insight on China's present engagement with Afghanistan as well as other South Asian countries. "And I hope that the Americans can be supportive. And Americans and other friends of Afghanistan and Pakistan can be supportive," he said.

Click here to watch and read the full transcript.

 

Photo: "Operation Enduring Freedom/Village Medic" (CC BY 2.0) by DVIDSHUB

Is the Merkel Approach Still Viable?

In RealClearWorld, Dr. Wolfgang Klapper argues that Germany's Angela Merkel’s no-thrills, strong and steady approach to politics may be sound during times of stability but its viability remains to be seen given the overriding sense of unpredictability in global affairs today.

On March 12th, the Christian Democrats, Bavaria’s Christian Social Union, and the Social Democrats signed a Grand Coalition agreement, forming Germany’s next government. On March 14, the Bundestag elected Chancellor Angela Merkel to a fourth consecutive term, set to run through 2021.

The highly anticipated coalition has a new look.

Only five ministers from the departing Cabinet have taken up posts in the new government. The new administration is much younger, and women hold almost half of the available posts. The CDU and SPD hold six ministries each, and the CSU holds three. The flurry of moves ends a prolonged period of uncertainty, as Germany once again has formed a stable government with a 57 percent majority in the Bundestag. Merkel’s re-election illustrates she still retains the trust of a large number of voters, yet a shrinking support base shows that a growing number of citizens is disillusioned with her policies, particularly with regards to security and migration. The new coalition is a welcome opportunity for Germany to show that it can shoulder more responsibility on the European and global stages.

Read the full commentary.

 

Photo: "Angela Merkel" (CC BY 2.0) by More pictures and videos: connect@epp.eu

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Politics and Governance