-

* Please note all CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

 

Seminar Recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olaPuZ0L4fg

 

About the Event: The creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998, hailed in a triumphant language, was to finally usher in an era of accountability for atrocity crimes and an end to impunity of such crimes of concern to the international community. Two decades later, that optimism is waning and even the supporters of the ICC have publicly aired their frustration. Amidst a string of high-profile acquittals of defendants, flawed investigations, dismissed charges, lengthy proceedings, and controversial rulings, it has become clear that the Court has not lived up to its promise. Why is it that the ICC seems able to deliver justice only on behalf of states rather than for victims and communities affected by atrocity crimes? International courts operate in a world made primarily of states, which try to leverage the legal institutions and processes, in pursuit of their political and security interests. Even states that do not wield global power are able to use international courts in pursuit of those interests, while the international justice project reframes its mission as delivering “justice for victims”. Moreover, as calls to “fix” the Court gain ground, the broader question of the imperial and the liberal world order that sustain the international justice project remain at the margin of the deliberations.

Book Purchase: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1108488773?pf_rd_r=KSYYMSPN9JJKSS2GTW0Y&pf_rd_p=a712d25e-094e-4a8b-b495-0be41c4dbcc9

 

About the Speaker: Oumar Ba is an assistant professor of political science at Morehouse College. His primary research agenda focuses on international criminal justice norms and regimes, and the global governance of atrocity crimes. He also studies worldmaking and visions for and alternatives to the current international order, from Global South perspectives. He is the author of States of Justice: The Politics of the International Criminal Court (Cambridge University Press, 2020). His publications have appeared in scholarly journals such as Human Rights Quarterly, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, African Studies Review, Journal of Narrative Politics, Africa Today, and African Journal of International Criminal Justice.

Virtual Seminar

Oumar Ba Assistant Professor of International Relations Morehouse College
Seminars
-

* Please note all CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

 

Seminar Recording: https://youtu.be/0Vs_njo0TcA

 

About the Event: The U.S. Department of Defense has been ahead of the curve on climate change.  They worry that the military’s likely use in responding to natural disasters is a potential distraction and strain on their resources and primary missions, and they are concerned that sea level rise and flooding put many of its installations at risk. Further, they see climate change increasing the competition for natural resources such as fresh water and arable land, in already volatile regions, and as “threat multiplier,” potentially leading to increased armed conflict.  What they haven’t addressed, even as they green the services, is the enormous scale of their own greenhouse gas emissions — larger than the annual emissions of most of the world’s countries.

Click to view draft paper

 

About the Speaker: Neta C. Crawford is Professor and Chair of Political Science at Boston University.  She is the author of more than two dozen peer reviewed articles on issues of war and peace and the author of three books, Soviet Military Aircraft (1987); Argument and Change in World Politics (2002), named Best Book in International History and Politics by the American Political Science Association, and Accountability for Killing: Moral Responsibility for America’s Post-9/11 Wars (2013).  Crawford has served on the governing boards of American Political Science Association and of the Academic Council of the United Nations System, and is a co-director of the Costs of War Project based at Brown and Boston Universities.  In 2018, the International Ethics Section of the International Studies Association gave her a Distinguished Scholar Award.

Virtual Seminar

Neta C. Crawford Professor and Chair of the Department Political Science Boston University
Seminars
-

* Please note all CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

 

Seminar Recording:  https://youtu.be/cU07s81-X8E

 

About the Event: President-Elect Biden was the person who announced the Obama administration’s Reset policy at the Munich Security Conference in 2009. U.S-Russian relations have deteriorated considerably since 2014, and in 2021 there will be no Reset.  Nevertheless, the incoming administration realizes the need to refocus the relationship on issues that represent core interests for the United States. My talk will review the legacy of the Trump administration’s policy toward Russia, its successes and failures and the unfinished business it has bequeathed to the incoming Biden-Harris team. It will focus on priorities going forward and areas where the U.S. and Russia may find common ground—and areas where they will not.

 

About the Speaker: Angela Stent is director of the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies and a professor of government and foreign service at Georgetown University. She is also a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and co-chairs its Hewett Forum on post-Soviet affairs. During the 2015 to 2016 academic year, she was a fellow at the Transatlantic Academy of the German Marshall Fund. From 2004 to 2006, she served as national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council.  From 1999 to 2001, she served in the Office of Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State.

Virtual Seminar

Angela Stent Professor of Government and Foreign Service Georgetown University
Seminars
-

* Please note all CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

 

Seminar Recording:  https://youtu.be/F60rYpY5agw

 

About the Event: Russia is a country in economic and demographic decline, but it is still able to cause considerable disruption on the international stage. It compensates for its relative weakness with a willingness to act decisively, often breaking international norms, while its competitors are still debating what to do. The UK has got some things right in its response to hostile Russian actions, but it has failed to address some important vulnerabilities.

 

About the Speaker: Ian Bond joined the Centre for European Reform in 2013 after 28 years as a British diplomat.

He served in the British Embassy, Washington (2007-12), focusing on US foreign policy. He was Ambassador to Latvia from 2005-07. As deputy head of the UK delegation to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna (2000-04), he worked on the Balkans and the former Soviet Union. He was also posted in Moscow (1993-96) and at NATO HQ (1987-90), and worked in London on the former Soviet Union, on the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy and on NATO issues.

Virtual Seminar

Ian Bond Director of Foreign Policy The Centre for European Reform
Seminars
-

* Please note all CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

 

Seminar Recording: https://youtu.be/bphwqcK97zY

 

About the Event: A struggle is currently being waged for the soul of the West: to determine whether America and Europe can recover instincts for joint action or if they are doomed to pursue divergent paths. Much damage has been inflicted during the past four years, but the election of Joe Biden as president augurs well for the prospect of potentially the most trans-Atlanticist administration in decades. Yet, reinvigorating and reimagining the trans-Atlantic relationship will be an uphill battle. Success in that will affect, among other things, the West's ability to deal with Russia.

Based on their book, Partners of First Resort: America, Europe, and the Future of the West, David McKean and Bart M. J. Szewczyk will lay out a path for a trans-Atlantic renaissance to restore a community based on the same liberal objectives that animated the West and built a more peaceful, prosperous, and politically inclusive world order. America and Europe still need each other as partners of first resort, out of strategic necessity and commonality of interests. Moreover, the world needs a vibrant and energetic West to protect its fundamental values from illiberal forces. Modernizing the institutional links will help better address common challenges.

 

About the Speakers: 

David McKean served as Director of Policy Planning at the U.S. Department of State, and U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. He is currently a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He is the author of four acclaimed political histories and biographies, and a forthcoming book: Watching Darkness Fall: Franklin Roosevelt and His Ambassadors in Europe (St. Martin’s Press, 2021)  

Bart M.J. Szewczyk (SHEF-chick) served as Member of the Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. Department of State and Senior Policy Advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, as well as Adviser on Global Affairs at the European Commission’s think-tank. He is adjunct professor at Sciences Po in Paris and author of two forthcoming books: Europe’s Grand Strategy (Palgrave Macmillan 2020) and European Sovereignty and Legitimacy(Routledge 2020).

Virtual Seminar

David McKean and Bart M. J. Szewczyk
Seminars
Authors
Steven Pifer
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

The New Europe Center, a Ukraine-based think tank, asked six American experts to comment on the implications of the U.S. presidential election for Ukraine.  The following is Steven Pifer's contribution.

For Americans, the November 3 presidential election will be the most significant vote in many decades.  The election also will have consequences for Ukraine:  Whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden sits in the White House at the end of the day on January 20, 2021 will matter greatly for U.S. policy toward Ukraine and Europe.

Since Ukraine regained its independence in 1991, the United States has proven a strong and supportive partner.  Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama each saw a stable, independent, democratic Ukrainian state with a robust market economy as in the U.S. interest, including in contributing to a more stable and secure Europe.  Washington thus has provided substantial political, economic and—particularly since 2014—military support to Kyiv.  It has sanctioned Russia for its aggression in Crimea and Donbas and sought to bolster NATO in the face of a growing Kremlin challenge to Western security.

The Trump administration has largely continued these policies.  It has provided Kyiv reform and military aid, including lethal military assistance.  It has applied additional sanctions on Russia, albeit under pressure from Congress.  And it has taken steps to strengthen the U.S. military presence in NATO, at least until recently.

However, it has never been clear that Mr. Trump himself supports these policies.  His principal engagement on Ukraine was his attempted extortion of Kyiv to advance his personal political prospects, an effort that led to his impeachment.  While his administration has taken a tough line on Russia, Mr. Trump seems incapable of criticizing Vladimir Putin or Russian misdeeds.  He apparently thinks that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, ignoring the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community, the Mueller investigation and the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Trump’s disdain for NATO has long been clear, going back to the 1980s.  In June, he decided to withdraw 10,000 U.S. troops from Germany, apparently out of pique at Chancellor Merkel’s refusal to attend a G7 summit at Camp David.  Senior Pentagon officials scrambled for weeks to offer military justifications for the drawdown, but those that they provided did not survive serious scrutiny.

If Mr. Trump is re-elected, he will not have to worry about facing the voters in another election campaign.  He will cement his control of the Republican Party, leaving Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives less able to block his bad instincts.  What accommodations would he make with Mr. Putin?  Would he be inclined, as he suggested in 2016, to recognize Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and lift economic sanctions?   Would he withdraw the United States from NATO, as many former U.S. officials fear?  The Alliance’s collapse would be a huge gift to Mr. Putin and leave Ukraine in a precarious geopolitical position.

It will be different if Mr. Biden is elected (full transparency:  the author fervently hopes for this).  The United States would have a president who understands the U.S. interest in a successful Ukraine and who knows the country well from his time as vice president.  He would be the kind of friend that Ukraine needs, supportive but also ready to press the Ukrainian leadership to take necessary reform steps.  He recognizes the security challenge that Russia presents to Ukraine and the West, and he realizes the importance of a strong trans-Atlantic relationship with a robust NATO at its core.  And Mr. Biden might prove a president who could bind some of the differences that so badly divide Americans today.  An America more unified at home would be a stronger international actor.

Whether Mr. Trump or Mr. Biden wins the elections will mean very different things for U.S. policies affecting Ukraine.  That said, the American electorate will decide the next president largely on domestic issues, such as the Trump administration’s handling of COVID19 and the economy.  Ukraine has no role to play in this, and Ukrainian officials should continue to do all that they can to avoid their country becoming a political football in the U.S. campaign.

* * * * *

Steven Pifer is a William Perry Research Fellow at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation and a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

Hero Image
Man smiling
All News button
1
Subtitle

For Americans, the November 3 presidential election will be the most significant vote in many decades. The election also will have consequences for Ukraine: Whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden sits in the White House at the end of the day on January 20, 2021 will matter greatly for U.S. policy toward Ukraine and Europe.

-

* Please note all CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

Seminar Recording: https://youtu.be/Q6-ErAxGmQ0

 

About the Event: While research into why repression varies has thrived, essentially no effort has been made to examine stopping large-scale applications once underway. We put forward a new theoretical framework that conceptualizes repressive behavior as a rare/slow-changing process that is unlikely to terminate unless it is perturbed by a significant cost. As such, we maintain that repression is more likely ended by democratization than from diverse factors commonly espoused in the literature and policy community (e.g., military intervention, naming/shaming, international law and economic sanctions). Investigating a new database regarding 239 high-level repression spells for the period 1976-2007, we find that democratization is associated with spell-termination, while there is little systematic pacifying influence for other factors. Additionally, we find that non-violent movements for change largely drive democratization but that these movements have little direct impact on state repression themselves.

Draft Paper

 

About the Speaker: Christian Davenport is a Professor of Political Science and Faculty Associate at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, Research Professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo and Elected Fellow at the American Association for the Arts and Sciences. Primary research interests include political conflict, measurement, racism and popular culture. He is the author of seven books and author of numerous articles appearing in the American Political Science Review, the American Journal of Political Science and the Annual Review of Political Science (among others). He is the recipient of numerous grants (e.g., 12 from the National Science Foundation) and awards.

Virtual Seminar

Christian Davenport Professor University of Michigan
Seminars
-

* Please note all CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

 

Seminar Recording: https://youtu.be/5-om1-NWqv0

 

About the Event: Traditional international law is not sufficient for the oversight of emerging uses of the space environment, such as in situ resource utilization and increased militarization and weaponization. The US is pushing the boundaries through innovative contracting, governance instruments such as the Artemis Accords and new institutions such as the Space Force to test the space governance system. This presentation outlines a framework for organizing the system as a whole, including international agreements, national space policy and stakeholder interactions and interrelations.

 

About the Speaker: Aganaba is an assistant professor for the School for the Future in Innovation in Society with a courtesy appointment at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University.

She is most known in her industry for promoting the regulation of technologies to be utilized against climate change. This has expanded to the use of satellites to measure greenhouse gas emissions.

She has received the Young Space Leaders Award from the International Astronautical Federation. She has served as the executive director of the World Space Week Association and trainee legal officer for the Nigerian Space Research and Development Agency.

Virtual Seminar

Timiebi Aganaba Assistant Professor School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University
Seminars
-

* Please note all CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

 

Seminar Recording: https://youtu.be/xUgzxG7MQa0

 

About the Event: The development and adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies by the US military, and the ramifications of their adoption, has been the subject of many recent articles in both the popular as well as academic literature. Much of what has been said about them is speculative and even sensationalist, especially in regards to AI-enabled weapons. While at one time the US Department of Defense (DoD) was the driving force behind American science and technology research, and perhaps it still is in the case of certain niche technologies, there is no question that university and private sector research are advancing the state-of-the-art in AI, and the DoD is following behind. To that end, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of DoD AI technologies are sourced from industry using a combination of traditional acquisition vehicles, as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulations, as well as non-traditional engagements, for example via the Defense Innovation Unit in Silicon Valley. In this talk I will summarize a number of recent public Requests for Information (RFIs) and Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to industry coming out of the DoD. I will use these RFIs and RFPs as a means to gauge the ‘state’ of AI in the DoD. My goal is to gain insight into what the DoD is actually trying to do with AI from amidst the public’s imagination and fear of what is possible, in order to better inform the public debate over AI ethics, governance, and other ramifications.

 

About the Speaker: Dr. David Blum is the Principal Data Scientist at Next Tier Concepts, where he supports the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the US Intelligence Community as a principal investigator, as well as a Lecturer at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Economics Program, where he teaches a course titled "Real Risk" covering the tools of probabilistic risk analysis and warning. He has more than 14 years of experience performing operations research and risk analysis for the US national security community. He previously served as Technical Director of the Operations Research and Systems Analysis Division for the Department of Defense's Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Office (JIDO), where he oversaw the production of operations research analysis to support current military operations, and as an operations research scientist for several Defense Department and Intelligence Community offices. His assignments ranged from strategic assessments of future military force mixes, to tactical analyses to inform counter-terrorism operations, to development of automated processors for technical data exploitation at the national scale. He held a predoctoral fellowship at the Center for International Security and Cooperation, a Global Security graduate scholarship at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and was a member of Stanford's Engineering Risk Research Group. He received his doctorate from Stanford University in management science and engineering, his Master's degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in political science, and his Bachelor's degree from Columbia University in history and physics, and has co-edited a book titled Counterterrorism and Threat Finance Analysis during Wartime. His research interests include crisis early warning and predictive analytics. 

Virtual Seminar

David Blum Principle Data Scientist Next Tier Concepts, Inc.
Seminars
-

* Please note all CISAC events are scheduled using the Pacific Time Zone.

 

Seminar Recording: https://youtu.be/tcWqulaKXy0

 

About the Event: Since the end of World War II, the United States has set out to oust governments in the Middle East on an average of once per decade—in places such as Iran, Afghanistan (twice), Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and Syria. Though pursued for a wide range of reasons, these operations all failed to achieve their ultimate goals, produced a range of unintended and even catastrophic consequences, carried heavy financial and human costs, and often left the countries in question worse off than they were before. Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East gives readers a look at the U.S. experience with regime change over the past seventy years, and an insider’s view on U.S. policymaking in the region at the highest levels.

Book Purchase:  https://www.amazon.com/Losing-Long-Game-Promise-Regime/dp/1250217032

 

About the Speaker: Dr. Philip Gordon is the Mary and David Boies Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations.  From 2013-15, he served as Special Assistant to the President and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Gulf Region.  As the most senior White House official focused on the greater Middle East, he worked closely with the President, Secretary of State, and National Security Adviser on the full range of geopolitical, economic, and security issues facing the region.  From 2009-13, Dr. Gordon served as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  In that position he was responsible for 50 countries in Europe and Eurasia as well as for NATO and the European Union (EU).  He is the author of Losing the Long Game: The False Promise of Regime Change in the Middle East, published October 6, 2020.    

Virtual Seminar

Philip Gordon Mary and David Boies Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy Council on Foreign Relations
Seminars
Subscribe to The Americas