Russia

Tanjug: In your opinion, what will be the main issues in Mr. Vučić's agenda during his visit to the United States?

Munter: It all boils down to two words: pay attention! I can't say which specific items President Vučić will raise, but his overall message, I believe, will be that there are important challenges and the countries of the region need the United States to help find solutions. From governance in Bosnia or Macedonia to relations between Serbia and Kosovo, from economic integration among those in the region to accession to western institutions, he will certainly as Washington to engage. The United States sees President Vučić as a key figure in maintaining peace and stability in Serbia's neighborhood.

What can we expect from the U.S. administration when we are talking about protection of Serbian minorities in Kosovo and Serbian interests in the dialogue with Pristina?

You'll have to ask the U.S. administration about its policies, of course. During my time as a diplomat, we always emphasized the importance of democratic institutions, including the protection of the rights of minorities.

The U.S. and EU will do everything to help Western Balkan countries on their paths to EU, but we cannot expect their membership before 2030, said State department official, Mr. Brian Hoyt Yee in Belgrade recently. On the other hand, President Vučić asked in Brussels for acceleration of the EU integration process for Serbia and sort of a “special treatment” for our country. Do you expect that he will repeat that stance in Washington?  

It has long been the policy of the United States to promote integration of Balkan states into western institutions, including the EU. This is certainly something that friends of the countries in the region care about.  I'm currently working on a project with ambassadors Frank Wisner and Rosemary DiCarlo to provide the U.S. government with advice on policies that will contribute to the success of all countries in the region—and promotion of integration into western institutions will be a major piece of this.

What is the U.S. position on Serbia's relations with Russia, the Russian influence in the Balkans, and the Serbian-Russian Humanitarian Center? Is  there any truth in speculations that the U.S. administration is also thinking about opening a humanitarian center in Uzice together with the EU and why?

Russia is a friend of Serbia, just as the United States is a friend of Serbia. I think it's wise for Serbia to work with both countries, since both are on record as supporting the Serbian goal of joining the EU and contributing to peace and stability in the Balkans. As for humanitarian centers, I suggest you speak with U.S. government representatives. Personally, rather than hyping a competition about humanitarian centers, I think the best contribution America can make is by increasing investment, taking advantage of the talent the countries like Serbia offer, and the promising sectors of the economy that have enormous potential for success.

What economic questions will be on the agenda during his meetings with U. S. officials?

I have no doubt President Vučić would like to promote economic opportunities in Serbia while he's in the United States. And I agree with him: economics and business is one the keys to future success. The EastWest Institute in New York, where I'm president and CEO, is also engaging again in Serbia and the region, and exploring opportunities for economic and business growth will be on our agenda too. In fact, I'll visit Serbia later this month and look forward to contributing to discussions on regional security, economic opportunity, and a reinvigoration of western commitment to the success of all countries in Balkans. I look forward to being back among friends in Belgrade.

Click here to read the interview in Serbian.

While mounting tensions in recent years have caused U.S.-Russia relations to deteriorate—and as a matter of course, bilateral channels of communication to freeze—EWI has managed to sustain dialogue on this common threat. As a forum for cooperative engagement, the working group regularly brought together U.S. and Russian technical and policy experts to share knowledge, make consensus assessments and deliver innovative and concrete policy solutions to counter Afghan narcotrafficking that would have traction in both countries, as well as in the larger relevant policy communities.
 
In the course of its implementation, the working group engaged and consulted with a number of experts and officials from key stakeholders, including Afghanistan, Iran and the Central Asian states. The working group also garnered positive feedback and support from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the United States Department of State Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), the United States Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and the Federal Drug Control Service of the Russian Federation (FSKN), in addition to various multilateral organizations/agencies such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). 

Published in April 2013, the working group’s first report, Afghan Narcotrafficking: A Joint Threat Assessment, provided a summary of the experts’ consensus findings on the scope and threat of Afghan narcotrafficking. In subsequent years, the working group also prepared issue-specific reports on the following: (1) an assessment of the post-2014 security, political, and economic situation in Afghanistan and the expected impact on narcotrafficking and counternarcotics efforts; (2) border protection against narcotrafficking around Afghanistan and in Central Asia; (3) alternative poppy-free development strategies for Afghanistan; and (4) flows of Afghan drug money and laundering in the international financial system. A sixth and final report, a joint policy assessment, will comprise a compendium of the group’s key recommendations and updated assessments on the overall narcotics situation in Afghanistan and is expected to be released in July 2017.

PREVIOUS REPORTS

Afghan Narcotrafficking: A Joint Threat Assessment, April 2013

In English

In Russian

Afghan Narcotrafficking: Post-2014 Scenarios, February 2015

In English

In Russian

Afghan Narcotrafficking: The State of Afghanistan’s Borders, April 2015

In English 

In Russian 

Afghan Narcotrafficking: Finding an Alternative to Alternative Development, July 2016

In English 

Afghan Narcotrafficking: Illicit Financial Flows, June 2017

In English

Afghan Narcotrafficking: A Joint Policy Assessment

Anticipated release date: July 2017

Vladimir Ivanov, PhD, Director of the EastWest Institute's (EWI) Moscow office, presented a key report at a round table discussion “Current Security Issues in Information Space” hosted by the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IMEMO). The event took place on June 20 in Moscow.

Ivanov started his speech with adjusted remarks on the modern information space implications for global strategic stability. He also presented the background and current projects of the EWI Cyberspace Cooperation Program, underlining the innovative practices in a trust building process in which both government and business actors take an active part.

In addition, Ivanov introduced participants to the work of the newly launched Global Commission on the Stability of Cyber Space (GCSC), inviting the audience of about 25 Russian top-level political and information science experts to be involved in this initiative.

The EastWest Institute's call for broader and more diversified international cooperation on countering the realities of a growing systemic chaos and instability received a positive reaction.

Photos by: Anna Renard-Koktysh

On May 15, 2017, Perot Fellow and Senior Vice President of Strategic Trust-Building and Track 2 Diplomacy David J. Firestein joined Voice of America's International Edition to discuss claims that President Donald Trump revealed classified information in a meeting last week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the White House.
 
Firestein noted that although the focus of the media has been on whether the alleged breach of classified information is deleterious to U.S. interests, the media has not devoted as much energy in reporting on the source of the allegations and the means by which such information has come to light. As relatively few participants were present in the meeting, the anonymity of the source of this information continues to raise questions.
 
Firestein then commented on the difficulty in assessing the damage of a statement without knowing exactly what was said, and accordingly, more well-informed conclusions will be made with greater authority as further details and context become available.

Listen to his comments below, beginning around the 2:00 minute mark.

“I just don’t think that there’s a serious effort to engage the Russians,” says McConnell, who manages the institute's cyberspace program and a former deputy under secretary for cybersecurity in former President Barack Obama-era Department of Homeland Security. “It’s really a question [if] you want to work on the relationship and improve it, or whether you want to remain in a standoff, which we’re in right now.”

The article laments about how the discussions about Russia's reported cyber interference in the 2016 presidential election have not been accompanied with efforts to resolve the core problem: how to prevent it in the future? The article lists a few avenues to achive that objective.

Read the full article here.

The EastWest Institute is proud to release its 2016 Annual Report, highlighting last year’s programmatic activities, achievements and new initiatives.

The impact of the institute across the globe is a testament to the talented and diverse staff working across five offices, our distinguished Board of Directors and a profound global network of decision makers and experts that help facilitate our mission.

Speaking to Christian Science Monitor, EWI's Bruce McConnell points out that suspected Russian cyber attacks, the decision to leak DNC and Clinton campaign emails to WikiLeaks, could fall into a gray area when it comes to cyber conflict. “If they had just stolen the information and not done anything with it publicly it wouldn't be such a big deal. The big part was not cyber,” said McConnell.

Click here to read the full story,