Search

Begin New Search Content Type Policy Brief Publication Year within 25 Years Publication Year within 10 Years

3241. Solutions to Fight Private Prisons’ Power Over Immigration Detention

Author:
Michael Sozan
Publication Date:
07-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
For-profit private prison companies have been showering members of Congress and organizations related to President Donald Trump with campaign cash, while simultaneously lobbying lawmakers on immigration detention matters.1 These companies are set to earn hundreds of millions of dollars from Trump’s inhumane and ineffective policy of locking up asylum-seeking families, including small children and others seeking better lives in the United States.2 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) oversees approximately 200 immigration detention centers nationwide, including facilities run by the federal, state, and local governments, as well as facilities operated by for-profit private prisons. In November 2017, 71 percent of detained immigrants were confined in private detention facilities, at a reported cost of more than $ 2 billion dollars per year.3 With huge amounts of cash and incentives for pay-to-play arrangements flowing between politicians and the industries they regulate, it is little wonder that voters believe their elected representatives are more attuned to the priorities of big-money corporate interests than to everyday Americans. It is time to adopt bold anti-corruption solutions to help rein in the power of wealthy special interests so that the views and priorities of the general public are more fairly represented when their government formulates important policies.
Topic:
Immigration, Prisons/Penal Systems, Border Control, Humanitarian Crisis, and Detention
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

3242. What Turkey’s Political Changes Mean for U.S.-Turkish Relations

Author:
Max Hoffman, Alan Makovsky, and Michael Werz
Publication Date:
07-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
The July 9 swearing-in of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for his second term as Turkey’s president—and his subsequent decree1 thoroughly restructuring the Turkish government—have inaugurated a new phase in the country’s political history. Erdoğan will preside over a new system in which power is even more centralized in the office of the presidency than it was previously. Of course, this structure represents the institutionalization of what had been a de facto reality: Erdoğan was already the unassailable top decision-maker, and he will remain so. This continuity means that there may be little visible change in many areas of government. But the shift is emblematic of Turkey’s transformation over the last decade from an institutional, bureaucratic state into a highly personalized one. This personalization will affect Turkey’s foreign policy management, which may become even more unpredictable than it was before, with ramifications for U.S. and EU policy. As just one element of this change, Western diplomats may find that long-time Turkish diplomatic or military contacts have diminished authority and responsibility as foreign and security policy development is centralized in the presidential palace.2 Given his complete personal control, it is time to take seriously President Erdoğan’s apparent desire for Turkey to chart a more independent course, one that shows less deference to the ties that have long bound Turkey to the Western security architecture. During the swearing-in ceremony in Ankara, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro hailed his Turkish counterpart as the “leader of the new multi-polar world.”3 Erdoğan and his advisers certainly share this view: They believe that the United States is in decline, that the world is fundamentally multipolar, and that Turkey deserves to be a center of gravity in its own right.4 They further feel that the West is hypocritical in its espousal of democratic values and human rights. Therefore, they have concluded that Turkey’s traditional, Western-oriented foreign policy is obsolete.5 This worldview has led Erdoğan to adopt a transactional approach toward the United States and Europe and cultivate ties with Iran, China, and—especially—Russia.6 Alongside this understanding of a changing world, President Erdoğan has built his domestic political legitimacy on an aggressive nationalism that includes at its core deeply anti-Western and anti-American rhetoric.7 This was on full display in Erdoğan’s recent electoral campaign, which relied heavily on anti-Western resentment, conspiratorial thinking, and the cultivation of a sense of national threat—all staples of the Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) politics in recent years. Meanwhile, the election empowered the extreme nationalists of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). This will only reinforce the negative trends in the government’s political orientation, given the MHP’s deep suspicion toward the United States and hostility toward any reopening of dialogue with Kurdish populations in eastern Turkey and northern Syria. This issue brief considers the ramifications of these changes for U.S. policy, providing recommendations for how the U.S. government should approach bilateral relations with Turkey in the months ahead. It is a policy designed to maintain the viability of U.S.-Turkish relations while seeking to restore Turkish respect for U.S. interests.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, Authoritarianism, and Democracy
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, North America, and United States of America

3243. A Snapshot of Turkish Public Opinion Toward the European Union

Author:
Max Hoffman
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
n the wake of Turkey’s June 24 presidential and parliamentary elections, Ankara has undertaken a coordinated campaign aimed at rejuvenating ties with the European Union in the face of a dramatic downturn in the Turkish economy. Turkish-European relations had grown strained in recent years over Turkey’s stalled accession process to join the bloc, as well as the country’s authoritarian drift, sweeping crackdown on dissent, management of the migration crisis, and the cases of EU citizens held in Turkish prison on what European governments considered trumped-up charges.1 Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan took repeated rhetorical shots at European leaders in 2016 and 2017,2 even suggesting German Chancellor Angela Merkel exhibited “Nazism” for saying that Turkey’s EU accession bid could be reconsidered in light of the deteriorating human rights situation.3 While President Erdoğan’s attacks may have reflected his real animus at perceived European abandonment of Turkey in the face of regional crises and a stalled EU accession process, they were also likely aimed at mobilizing and uniting domestic constituencies with deeply anti-Western views.4 But with the end of the election season and a rapid deterioration of the Turkish economy, the focus has now shifted to restoring ties with Europe. Europe is Turkey’s most important trade and investment partner, and the Turkish charm offensive is motivated by the country’s economic crisis and the crash in the value of the Turkish lira, as well as by faltering ties with the United States.5 The lira’s free fall has brought Turkey’s reliance on external financing into stark relief and even raised the possibility of an embarrassing turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for financial assistance. Turning to the IMF would be a bitter pill for Erdoğan, who seeks to project an image of Turkey as strong, economically self-sufficient, and independent from outside influence. The Trump administration’s tough line on Turkey for the ongoing detention of U.S. citizens—including largely symbolic sanctions on two Turkish cabinet ministers in line with the Global Magnitsky Act and new steel and aluminum tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act6—has cast another cloud over the Turkish economy and further underlined the necessity of patching up relations with the Europeans. In light of this situation, CAP thought it useful to offer insights stemming from its recent nationwide polling of Turks, shedding light on public attitudes toward the European Union and the political dynamics shaping the Turkish government’s approach.7 The nationwide survey was conducted by Metropoll from May 24 to June 4, 2018, and is based on 2,534 face-to-face interviews in 28 provinces. The overall results on each question have a margin of error of 1.95 percent. Like all public opinion surveys, the material presented here is only a snapshot. Moreover, it is a snapshot taken prior to the June 24 elections and further economic deterioration, both of which could somewhat alter the results were the questions asked today. Nevertheless, taken together with other data, these results underscore trends that persist to this day and are likely to continue for some time.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Public Opinion, European Union, and Regionalism
Political Geography:
Europe and Turkey

3244. Balkans 360: Southeast Europe Alumni Perspectives on U.S. and German Policy in the Region

Author:
Drew Beck
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies
Abstract:
Over the past twenty-five years, the George C. Marshall Center European Center for Security Studies (GCMC) has provided resident training in security studies to nearly 1,700 officials from Southeast Europe. In addition to providing a host of in-house programs and courses, GCMC experts frequently travel throughout the Balkans, speaking at myriad outreach events with all levels of the academic and professional security community, ranging from junior officers and civil servants to cabinet ministers and parliamentarians. All officials who successfully complete courses at the GCMC become part of an active and multi-faceted alumni network that is formally administered in Garmisch. As part of these alumni programs, a Southeast Europe Regional Alumni Outreach Networking Event (SEE ONE) was held in Garmisch on June 18-22, 2018. Thirty-nine Marshall Center alumni, including senior officials from a variety of professional backgrounds from Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia, attended the three-day event, focusing on internal and external actors and factors for regional security. The GCMC College of International and Security Studies used this gathering to examine the region’s security challenges through the eyes of its regional alumni network within the broader context of U.S. and German engagement in Southeast Europe. This paper summarizes the views of this select group of Marshall Center alumni as well as major takeaways from recent informal and formal talks between GCMC staff and regional actors from teaching trips throughout Southeast Europe.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Leadership
Political Geography:
Europe, Germany, North America, and United States of America

3245. Gang Violence as Armed Conflict: A New Perspective on El Salvador

Author:
Anne Applebaum and Briana Mawby
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security (GIWPS)
Abstract:
Gang violence is usually considered a criminal rather than a conflict issue. This limits the international community’s willingness to mitigate the violence or provide humanitarian aid. In a new GIWPS policy brief, Anna Applebaum and Briana Mawby argue that widespread gang violence, as found in El Salvador, should be considered a new form of armed conflict. The policy brief documents the impact of pervasive gang violence, which is increasingly similar to experiences of war—including high numbers of civilian casualties and significant migration flows. It also makes the case for a focus on gender to strengthen prevention of and responses to gang violence. As in more conventional conflicts, men often hold the most prominent roles in gangs and in the state response. But women frequently serve as care providers for gang members, and they are increasingly involved in tasks related to transporting weapons or drugs. Violence against women is also a specific tactic used by gangs for control over communities. Due to the high levels of gender-based violence, which gangs contribute to, women make up an increasing proportion of those fleeing. Once gang violence is understood as a security issue as well as a criminal phenomenon, it becomes clear that the WPS agenda is relevant.
Topic:
Women, Conflict, Violence, Peace, Gangs, and Gender
Political Geography:
Central America and El Salvador

3246. Connecting Informal and Formal Peace Talks: From Movements To Mediators

Author:
Anjali Dayal
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security (GIWPS)
Abstract:
Women have been historically absent in formal negotiations and peace processes. However, their participation in informal, or Track II processes, is significant and well documented. Increasing women’s representation in formal peace negotiations is imperative to fulfilling United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325’s call for women’s full participation at all levels of peacemaking efforts and to promoting sustainable peace. One way to do so would be a concerted effort to link Track I and Track II efforts. A renewed focus from the UN Secretary General on the role of mediators in peace negotiations motivates this policy brief, which calls on the UN to nominate more women mediators, and to create a 1325 directive for all mediators to strengthen connections with civil society and women’s organizations, in order to increase women’s meaningful involvement at all levels of peace processes. Additionally, it points to the need for mediators to better link Track I and II processes.
Topic:
Women, Negotiation, Peace, and Mediation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3247. Women, Deradicalization, and Rehabilitation: Lessons from an Expert Workshop

Author:
Rebecca Turkington and Agathe Christien
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security (GIWPS)
Abstract:
With the rise of violent extremist groups around the world, questions around how to disengage and reintegrate participants from these groups back into their societies have become urgent. To date, most deradicalization programs have been designed for men, and there have been few efforts to create programs that specifically address the needs of women returnees. The underlying assumption that women lack agency permeates legal and policy responses to extremism and can have serious consequences. Though women remain relatively neglected, their participation in violent extremism is only growing. Women represent up to 20% of Western recruits to the Islamic State, and Boko Haram has used female suicide bombers at unprecedented levels. As greater numbers of women are joining extremist groups, failing to investigate and prosecute them upon their return risks creating a dangerous gap in security processes.
Topic:
Security, Women, Radicalization, Rehabilitation, and Countering Violent Extremism
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3248. Reducing Sexual Abuse and Exploitation in UN Peacekeeping Missions: Reforming Data Collection to Inform Action

Author:
Anjali Dayal and Sophie Huvé
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security (GIWPS)
Abstract:
Sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) by United Nations (UN) peacekeepers is a critical issue. The UN has had a zero-tolerance policy in place since 2003 and has made data on SEA allegations in peace operations publicly available since 2007. This data reveals that peacekeeping missions with civilian protection mandates account for over 95 percent of reported allegations, while missions without such mandates account for under 5 percent. However, gaps and inconsistencies in data collection, reporting, and interpretation make it difficult to draw conclusions from the data alone. We need substantial context and case-specific knowledge to fully interpret the reported numbers. This policy brief makes recommendations to the UN on how to improve data collection and clarify reporting mechanisms, and calls for extensive external investigation to explain the variation in reported cases of SEA.
Topic:
United Nations, Peacekeeping, Reform, Sexual Violence, Data, and Exploitation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3249. Multiethnicity destruction tendencies - Massive resignations of serbian members from the Kosovo Security Force and Serbia's role

Author:
Shpat Balaj and Taulant Boshnjaku
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Kosovar Centre for Security Studies (KCSS)
Abstract:
The Kosovo Security Force (KSF) has become a topic of public debates due to ongoing efforts to upgrade its mandate. Confusion has spread among the public as it remains unclear whether those debates were just political calculations or whether the Kosovo institutions, in cooperation with international partners, are indeed taking concrete steps towards transforming the country. Controversial statements and interpretations of the matter by local and international stakeholders and the diminished debate for a short period of time have all contributed to the complexity of the situation.
Topic:
Security, Bilateral Relations, Armed Forces, Ethnicity, and Institutions
Political Geography:
Eastern Europe, Kosovo, and Serbia

3250. Berlin Process: An additional mile toward EU Membership?

Author:
Donika Emini
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Kosovar Centre for Security Studies (KCSS)
Abstract:
The Berlin Process of the Western Balkans (WB) has brought a new era of cooperation in the region. Launched in 2014 at the initiative of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Berlin Process is conceived as a means for several European Union member states with keen interests in the Western Balkans to engage with the six aspiring Western Balkans countries. The process seeks to keep the EU perspective for the region on the table while putting key EU member states in a mentorship role to steer the region through a transformation that would make it eligible for accession. The process advocates economic growth, increased cooperation and connectivity between the aspirant countries. Since its launch, the Berlin Process has become the only high-level platform of collaboration in the region. In addition, it represents the only high-level political platform that includes diverse stakeholders such as civil society and the business community.
Topic:
Civil Society, Regional Cooperation, European Union, and Economic Growth
Political Geography:
Eastern Europe and Kosovo