Politics and Governance

The peer-to-peer exchange, which included U.S. legislators and women parliamentarians from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Morocco, Tunisia, and Turkey focused on promoting women as agents of change in political life, conflict prevention and peace-building."

The write-up notes, "the most pressing policy goal identified by leaders from the Middle East region was ensuring the protection of Afghan women’s rights following the withdrawal of U.S. and international security forces in 2014."

To read full published article, click here.

To read EWI’s report on the event, click here.

The High-Level Security Dialogue is an annual dialogue between current and former government and military officials, U.S. and Chinese academics and business leaders. The goal of the dialogue is to generate concrete recommendations to policymakers in both countries on building a common vision for the bilateral relationship; promoting mutual long-term trust and confidence; and fostering cooperation in challenging areas within the relationship.

The key discussions during the week focused on a wide range of geopolitical and military issues, including the forging of “a new type of relationship between major countries,” Taiwan, nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran, maritime disputes in the East and South China Seas, U.S.-China military confidence-building in the Asia-Pacific and cybersecurity.

To read more about the event, click here.  

As part of their “Women, Peace and Security” partnership, EWI’s Parliamentarians Network for Conflict Prevention and Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND) brought together U.S. state legislators and international parliamentarians in Ankara on May 28-30. The purpose of this meeting was to help participants learn from the experiences of Turkish women leaders, and explore ways in which women leaders can better support one another globally. Women in Turkey have successfully gained a place at the highest levels of government.

"We struggle in a different way, but we struggle with the same issues" responded one of the U.S. legislators upon hearing accounts of the difficulties women have in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan. One of the positive outcomes of this meeting was that members of the U.S. delegation committed to take up the issue of the security needs of women with their respective members in Congress.

Ten U.S. state legislators and six participants hailing from Afghanistan, Morocco, Pakistan and Tunisia gathered for a series of dialogues with Deputy Minister for Family and Social Policy Dr. Aşkın Asan as well as with Turkish parliamentary committees. The aim of the partnership is to create better understanding between these female legislators, to forge personal ties and to educate them on various models and tools available to increase the role each of these women can play in their respective security debates.

The delegation was briefed on the developments in Morocco, which largely escaped the massive demonstrations that the MENA region experienced throughout the Arab Awakening. All eyes are now on Tunisia, which will be voting on its new constitution in a few weeks. The outcome of this process will be pivotal in determining the success of the regional revolution.

In debating the barriers to women reaching the higher levels of policy making, the delegation quizzed Deputy Minister Asan. Particularly, they wanted to know what steps the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is taking to promote the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, adopted in 2000. The resolution requires United Nations member states to incorporate women into peace processes and negotiations.

A conference held in Istanbul two years ago entitled “Change in Muslim Societies and the Role of Women” produced an agreement on the establishment of a gender-equality institute, but unfortunately the rhetorical support for the creation of this institute has not been followed up by concrete steps. The partnership will seek to further press governments on the implementation of this agreement and will seek to establish a relationship with the Parliamentary Union of the OIC member States (PUIC) to further engage women in the vital debates on conflict prevention, peace and security.

Click here to read a write-up by one of the event's participants, in the Georgia Senate Press. 

CHINA

“Obama and Xi Try to Avoid a Cold War Mentality.” New York Times, June 10, 2013.

Over the weekend in California, President Obama and President Xi had their first lengthy talk on issues ranging from economy to cybersecurity. Although they tried hard to prevent the disputes from descending into a cold war mentality, forces on both sides pushed Obama and Xi into that same exact trap.

“China's economy stumbles in May, growth may fall in second quarter.” Reuters, June 10, 2013.

Risks are rising that China's economic growth will fall further in the second quarter and that full-year forecasts will be cut further, but Premier Li Keqiang said the economy was generally stable and that growth was within a "relatively high and reasonable range."

“Chinese Media Suggest N.S.A. Disclosure Will Hurt U.S. Ties.” New York Times, June 14, 2013.

Chinese state media highlighted revelations that the U.S. government was engaged in widespread monitoring of Internet and telephone communications, carrying reports suggesting the disclosures could damage relations between the two countries.

RUSSIA

“Rice and the Russians: Will Obama’s new national security advisor play nice and get along with Moscow?” Foreign Policy, June 7, 2013.

The relatively cordial relationship that the Obama administration has built with Russia may be in for a jolt as Susan Rice assumes the role of national security advisor. As a strong proponent of humanitarian intervention, Rice may irk Russia more than her predecessor did. 

“Putin’s Self-Destruction: Russia’s New Anti-Corruption Campaign Will Sink the Regime.” Foreign Affairs, June 9, 2013.

Over the past few months, Vladimir Putin has ousted and prosecuted many state officials under a new law that forbids officials from maintaining foreign bank accounts. By pursuing this aggressive anti-corruption campaign, Putin risks losing the support of elites and stoking public demand for more radical change, potentially dooming his hold on power.

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

“In Iran Race, All 8 Candidates Toe Hard Line on Nuclear Might.” New York Times, June 9, 2013.

All of the candidates running in today’s Iranian presidential election agree that Iran should not make concessions on its nuclear program. Widespread support for this no-compromise position suggests that international sanctions may be counterproductive to the goal of convincing Iran to end its nuclear program. 

“North Korea’s Dialogue With the South Collapses.” New York Times, June 11, 2013.

High-level talks between the governments of North and South Korea have collapsed after the two sides failed to agree on whether their respective delegations were of an equal rank. The failure of the talks, due to a procedural detail, is symptomatic of the growing mistrust between the two governments. 

Follow EWI on Twitter @EWInstitute and Facebook for continuing updates.

Compiled by Haolin Liu and Andi Zhou.

Although cybersecurity has been a central issue in the U.S.-China bilateral relationship, President Xi still has not acknowledged the allegation that PLA military units have been involved in hacking American sites. What is your opinion of the Chinese response?

In general, the Chinese have not been all that transparent in terms of what the PLA does, so I am not surprised by this lack of acknowledgement in terms of PLA involvement in the hacking of U.S. sites. It’s no secret that the PLA is enhancing its cyber-warfare capabilities, but if you look at the Mandiant Report, it states that PLA involvement in hacking goes beyond the military realm and extends into hacking commercial entities and other private organizations. But if the Chinese did acknowledge that the PLA’s hacking activities are state-sponsored actions, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Thus far, the more fundamental problem—which is creating a great deal of frustration for the U.S. and other countries—is that China, more broadly, has been unwilling to acknowledge any involvement in any of these hacking activities and cyber intrusions beyond saying that China is a victim. But according to former National Security Advisor Tom Donilon’s press conference after the summit between Obama and Xi, he did mention that the Chinese have at least acknowledged, in private, that it is a concern. This is a good start for fostering progress in the dialogue on cyber issues between the two countries.

How does China see the U.S. effort to “rebalance” to Asia?

China has been very suspicious about the U.S. rebalancing to Asia, maintaining that it is primarily a way to contain China, particularly in the region. If you look at Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s speech in Singapore, you see that the U.S. is trying to allay those fears. But then you have a prominent military academic saying, “we don’t believe you,” so it is clear that suspicions run very deep.

China is currently advocating a new type of relationship between major powers, and looking at the Asia-Pacific region, this is where the U.S. and China could potentially collide. I think China is trying to avoid the kind of conflict and confrontation in line with a Cold War model akin to the American and Soviet experience. Looking at State Councilor Yang Jiechi’s press briefing that is titled “Transpacific Cooperation,” you can see how China is trying to frame this issue.

There are some positive things that we can glean from the presidential summit in terms of outcomes. One, the Chinese asked for more information on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is something they view as part of the overall U.S. containment strategy in the region. This is a good sign; both sides are looking at this in the spirit of being more transparent about this whole process. Another good step is that China has agreed to participate in the 2014 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises, which is another way for both countries and other countries in the region to reduce tensions, build military confidence, and reduce the potential for miscalculation. I think that both sides are trying to find a way to work directly with each other because at the end of the day, what happens between the U.S. and China affects not just them but also the region as a whole.

Will the slowing growth of the Chinese economy affect U.S.-China economic cooperation—and, if so, how?

It will and it has. If you look at the cyber issue, there is an argument that the key motivating factor for the Chinese allegedly hacking into U.S. systems is that their economy is slowing and that they are trying to find all sorts of ways to jumpstart it, such as trying to gain an advantage in the technological realm. This definitely impacts U.S.-China economic cooperation because it increases the cost of U.S. companies doing business in China. It also affects the level of trust between these top two economies, creating a barrier in terms of effective economic cooperation. Finally, it affects China’s credibility as a trade and investment partner.

Nonetheless, through processes like the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), the two countries should find ways to promote economic cooperation that would help to meet their respective problems and challenges. This is where opportunities for economic cooperation exist. For example, both countries could try to make more headway on the Bilateral Investment Treaty.

Overall, how do you perceive the U.S.-China bilateral relationship under China’s new leadership?

I think that there is going to be continuity. China’s new leadership will be very preoccupied with domestic challenges, including slowed economic growth and struggles to reach economic targets, all of which have an impact on domestic stability. I don’t believe China is going to try to rock the boat, except in some areas where a supposed wave of nationalistic sentiment could be advantageous. This is where the leadership is going to be very careful in how it manages these situations.

In terms of the U.S.-China bilateral relationship, Xi has advocated a new type of relationship between major powers, and the Chinese are really trying to push this notion forward. I think there is a certain level of sincerity on the part of the Chinese leadership and also on the part of the Obama administration in trying and foster cooperation rather than conflict. Xi has become very comfortable in his leadership role; he projects a very statesman-like aura. China will certainly be more assertive and confident now that they know they are being viewed as a major rising power. That might translate into certain actions on issues such as maritime disputes and territorial disputes, so this is something that has to be well-managed. Furthermore, Yang Jiechi’s press briefing mentions that both sides are talking about common interests without avoiding differences. Having the courage and the ability to address those differences is also very important.

Any final thoughts on U.S.-China relations in general?

Some commentators tend to focus on the intractability of the cyber relationship and how that will continue, regardless of the number of summits between the two presidents. Nevertheless, there are a couple of positive takeaways from the recent summit. First, the primary goal was for the two presidents—at a relatively early stage in their terms—to establish face-to-face contact and develop personal chemistry and a relationship. Otherwise, Obama and Xi would have first met on the sidelines of the G-20 summit, in September, which would have been too long a wait. Spending eight hours together in a largely informal and seemingly unscripted format displays a different side of China’s leadership relative to what we have seen in the past. This bodes well. You need that sort of relationship to be able to talk about sensitive issues when the going gets tough.

Second, there has been progress on some substantive issues. For example, the two sides are in greater convergence on how to address the nuclear issue in North Korea. They came to an agreement on common objectives, focusing on what they can both do together and on their own to address the North Korea issue. On climate change, the two countries signed an agreement to curb hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which is a positive sign. This comes on the heels of an announcement that a working group has been set up to deal with climate change.

Even if we talk about cybersecurity—an issue that will not be resolved anytime soon—the fact of the matter is that cybersecurity is now a presidential issue. In his second State of the Union address, Obama speaks about cyber for the first time. Now he has raised it directly with Xi, advancing the issue in the bilateral agenda. As uncomfortable as the elevation of this topic may make the Chinese, their top leadership will have no choice but to address this issue more seriously going forward.

On June 7-8, President Obama will meet with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping at a desert retreat in southern California. In what is touted as a “shirt-sleeves” summit, the informal meeting will dispense with the pomp and circumstance usually reserved for a state visit in favor of relaxed, less scripted discussions. The summit will be Xi’s first visit to the U.S. since assuming the triumvirate of posts at the apogee of China’s leadership: general-secretary of the Communist Party, chairman of the Central Military Commission, and head of state.

By design, the visit will lack a rigid agenda. However, there are several areas of common interest that the two presidents should explore during the visit. First and foremost, Beijing appears to be more inclined to engage in meaningful discussions on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. China recently ratcheted up pressure on North Korea and increasingly acknowledges the harm that North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs present for China’s strategic interests. China has also expressed an interest in participation in negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade agreement that many in China previously felt was designed to exclude Beijing.

A more contentious issue that Obama will likely bring up is that of cybersecurity and the theft of intellectual property. Last month, the U.S. Defense Department released a report that accused Chinese hackers of accessing data from over two dozen weapons systems. The report comes on the heels of an earlier report by a U.S. security firm that exposed a specialized unit within the People’s Liberation Army that had penetrated the networks of over a hundred companies.

President Xi, on the other hand, will undoubtedly focus on the U.S. rebalancing efforts in Asia and the maritime disputes in the South and East China Seas. Competing claims between China and at least six other countries in the region over scattered islands and their resources have created an ominous flashpoint. Although the U.S. has no territorial claims in the region, Beijing likens U.S. defense commitments as a threatening containment strategy directed against China.

Given the informality of the visit, few expect the discussions to yield a joint statement or other major policy announcement. However, both the Obama and Xi administrations view the summit as an opportunity for the two leaders to develop a personal rapport and gain a better understanding of each other’s positions and intentions. The relaxed setting will allow Presidents Obama and Xi to move beyond scripted talking points and exchange views on the difficult strategic issues that challenge the bilateral relationship.

Though it would be imprudent to expect Obama and Xi to become the best of friends, the two leaders would be wise to utilize the visit to assuage some of the doubts and ambiguities that the other may have. President Obama should explain America’s strategy and goals within the context of the Asia-Pacific rebalance. Likewise, President Xi must flesh out the “new-type great-power relationship” that his administration calls for between the U.S. and China. During two days of discussions without suits and ties, Obama and Xi will have the opportunity to accomplish just that.

"On Criticizing China," The Atlantic. May 11. 

"Week In News: Hacking — Made In China," NPR. May 11.

"China Warns Against ‘Dangerous’ Western Value," NYT. May 13.

“U.S. Envoy Talks With Chinese About North Korea,” NYT. May 15. 

“China eyes Arctic options in energy, transport,” CNN. May 16. 

“China warns EU against telecoms probe,” Al Jazeera. May 16. 

“Taiwan says Filipino apology in fisherman's death not enough,” LA Times. May 16. 

"Fearing Afghan Instability, Russia Mulls Border Troops," Reuters. May 17.  

Follow EWI on Twitter @EWInstitute for continuing news updates.

Compiled by Michael McShane, Athina Doutis, Alex Schulman and Haolin Liu.

More than 150 lost their lives in the run-up to the elections and on election day itself, scores were injured. Despite fear and intimidation, by lining up to vote the populace signalled their readiness to be stakeholders in the destiny of the nation and willing to confront the challenges. PTI’s Chairman Imran Khan made an emotional appeal to the people to go out and vote for change. Vote for change it certainly is, the ruling coalition parties that have driven Pakistan literally into the ground are now an “endangered species”, but the voters played safe, favouring the steady experience of Mian Nawaz Sharif instead of the charismatic Imran Khan.

What both military and civil regimes could not do to the PPP founded by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, his son-in-law Asif Ali Zardari and his shadowy Merlin operating from the Presidency have managed to do in the space of five years of misrule. For lining their own pockets, they have sacrificed the great national party, marginalizing it into mostly a regional status. Zardari’s nuisance value will remain, he will keep on playing the “Sindh Card” but the writing is on the wall. The strong second place showing of PML (F) allied with nationalists in interior Sindh ensures that even in the Sindh rural areas politically life will be tough for the party in the future.

It is important to rid the country of the aberration blighting the Presidency. The 18th Amendment was made into a joke, the government was mismanaged from the Presidency over a puppet PM put into place by Zardari, the Constitution now works in Mian Nawaz Sharif’s favour. Mian Nawaz Sharif can let Zardari finish his term in August or impeach him, alongwith PTI he has the necessary numbers to do so. While Mian Sahib is inclined to let him finish his term, why is our future PM being so magnanimous, will justice be served by letting Zardari go without retrieving the billions he has secreted abroad? Or is the Swiss case the symbolic price of our democracy? It gives truth to Imran Khan’s insinuations of PPP and PML (N) being hand in glove! Removed of his Presidential immunity, Zardari and his close associates in white collar crime can be put on the ECL to start with. Zardari’s close aides must not be allowed to exit Pakistan, these people have harmed the country beyond measure. People like former Interior Minister Rahman Malik should be a virtual mine of knowledge. Given the right “incentives” they will talk nineteen to the dozen to save their skins.

A cursory look at the voting figures will show that Imran Khan’s Tsunami touched landfall in KPK but only parts of Punjab. Despite giving PML (N) the nod, the calculations went astray because the visible enthusiasm in the streets indicated a surge for PTI, true in KPK but not in Punjab. Conversely the PML (N)’s measure of popularity in the Punjab was quite wrong, taking 40 more NA seats than projected. Dozens of races were close, PTI was not too far behind in second place in many contests. The “first past the post system” is flawed, winner takes all but is that true representation of the stakeholders in a democracy? After all, more than 100% is a bit thick with indications of ballot stuffing, interference in women polling stations, etc PTI asked for re-counting in 25 NA seats. PML (N) is so far ahead, they can afford voting irregularities to be examined. A few adjustments notwithstanding, Mian Sahib won the elections fair and square. Remember 1977, PPP had clearly won the elections, less than two dozen seats were rigged but the entire electoral exercise became a subject of doubt and controversy. The PML (N) destroyed PPP and PML (Q) in the Punjab and PTI put paid to ANP in KPK. Calculations were that ANP would be left with 4 NA seats in KPK, even stalwarts like Asfandyar Wali Khan and Ghulam Mohammad Bilour suffered stinging defeats.

Bagging a significant number of independents, PML (N) will have a working majority to form a government without other partners. A good sign is that MQM’s Altaf Hussain immediately called to congratulate the PML (N) chief on his victory. While PML (N) does not need MQM according to the seat count, it is always useful to have MQM on board, Karachi being crucial for any Federal Government. PPP has the numbers to align with MQM for the Sindh Provincial Government, MQM may have a vital role to play in political détente.

Visiting Beijing, one was struck by the priorities for China set out by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, “upholding social fairness and justice, improving the policy environment for development and providing high quality public service.” The last can only become true in Pakistan when the blatant discrimination between the District Management Group (DMG) and the Provincial Civil Services (PCS) is removed. Mian Nawaz Sharif has his work cut out, despite our manpower and material resources the country is in an economic mess. Why not imitate the Chinese priorities for economic reforms on an urgent basis i.e. reduce administrative redundancy, empower the private sector and open up more to the world?

Waiting for more than four hours because the ballot boxes did not arrive, once the process started, it was smooth in our polling station in NA-250. The elections were not flawless, no elections in Pakistan ever are. Yet this was the best electoral exercise conducted in Pakistan’s history. Besides knowing clearly for the first time in my life in which location to vote, thanks to NADRA’s electronic message system, my name on the voter list was easily ascertained. Each page had ten voters with their photographs, that is no mean achievement! If the polling staff did not arrive in time, that was not the ECP’s fault, the Caretaker Government was derelict in their administrative responsibility, moreover local law and order is their subject. ECP staff deserve kudos for performing despite our 85 years old media-grandstanding Chief Election Commissioner. While ECP’s nominated members will take all the glory for a job well done, the real kudos must be reserved for Mr Ishtiak, Secretary ECP and the ECP rank and file.

The PML (N) forms the Federal Government, and the government in the Punjab, PPP in Sindh and PTI should be able to do it in KPK. Balochistan will probably have a PML (N) supported government. While PTI will get on-hands experience of governing in KPK, it needs the full support of the Federal Government because the ongoing battle to eliminate terrorism is centered in KPK. It was tremendous to see Mian Nawaz Sharif reach out pragmatically to Imran Khan by visiting him in his hospital bed. It maybe too much to hope for but should PTI become part of the Federal government it would confirm that Pakistan’s interests and Mian Nawaz Sharif’s are one and same.

Having proved himself politically at the polls, Mian Nawaz Sharif has shown, at least initially, that he is well on his way to becoming the political statesman this country badly needs.

Ikram Sehgal is a security analyst and chairman of PATHFINDER GROUP.

To read full published article, click here.

The EastWest Institute hosted “Uranium Extraction in the Arctic: Challenges and Opportunities for Greenland and Denmark,” a  seminar with Dr. Cindy Vestergaard, visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, on May 9 at its New York Center. Vestergaard discussed an underreported but emerging issue with strong implications for the nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament regime: uranium mining in Greenland. Moderated by EWI’s Andrew Nagorski, the seminar featured a discussion on the political and regulatory challenges posed by Greenland’s massive uranium reserves.

Vestergaard’s presentation began by noting that uranium mining in Greenland rests at the intersection of a number of complex issues: climate change, resource extraction, Greenland’s movement towards independence, and nuclear nonproliferation.

One element that significantly complicates the efforts of newcomers to uranium production like Greenland is the lack of international governance of uranium. Although the IAEA requires reporting on the export and import of uranium, many countries are not complete in their reporting.

As Vestergaard stated, “For the rest of the fuel cycle we have a very dedicated aspect of inventory, material accountancy control; for the front end, there is none.”

Greenland has the potential to become one of the world’s top ten suppliers of uranium ore concentrate; the Kvanefled project at the southern tip of Greenland alone is estimated to contain the world’s fifth largest reserve of uranium. However, the exploitation of these vast resources is complicated by Denmark’s resolute non-nuclear stance. Denmark has all but foregone the entire nuclear fuel cycle by banning the mining of radioactive materials, excluding nuclear power as part of its indigenous energy grid, and shuttering all three of its nuclear research reactors. In 1957, Denmark declared itself a nuclear weapons-free-zone, a position that caused a stir following revelations that U.S. nuclear weapons were based on Greenland until 1965.

Despite Denmark’s disdain for all things nuclear, Greenland appears to be edging in the other direction. Denmark is constitutionally responsible for the defense, security, monetary, and foreign policy of the Danish Kingdom, but the 2009 Self-Government Act granted Greenland full authority over its natural resources. Following general elections in March, Greenland’s new government has indicated that it will lift its zero-tolerance policy on uranium mining. But in order for Greenland to proceed with uranium production, Denmark and Greenland will be faced with the challenge of developing an export control and regulatory system with little preexisting experience to build upon. Acknowledging the magnitude of the challenge, Vestergaard noted, “Our experience globally is that if you’re starting from scratch, building a regulatory system, minimum [of] five years … usually upwards of ten.”

Although Greenland is years away from beginning uranium mining, Vestergaard’s presentation outlined the complex and interdependent challenges that Greenland, and other territories like it, will face as they enter the global nuclear market. At the same time, the responsible development of Greenland’s regulatory framework has the opportunity to strengthen the nonproliferation policies of the Danish Kingdom and the international community at large.