It ain’t over until Kim Jong-un sings
North Korea has agreed to talks on denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula as well as suspension of its nuclear and missile tests while the talks proceed. US/South Korean military exercises will continue as scheduled.
So what does Kim Jong-un get? He gets a big prize: a meeting with the US President, by May. For a brutal regime under tight sanctions that fears for its continued existence, that’s a big prize. Once upon a time, the US used to refuse to meet at all with North Korea, except in the context of the “six party talks” (that’s North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia, and the US). Kim can’t take a meeting literally to the bank, but it is not surprising he values a North Korean leader’s first encounter with the US President, especially as the sanctions are biting. The Trump Administration merits credit for that.
Of course we’ve been to talks with North Korea on nuclear issues many times in the past. It’s a history that does not inspire confidence. There have been lots of failures, and even the negotiating successes haven’t lasted. North Korea has notoriously cheated on its obligations, including by selling sensitive technology to other countries. Not to mention that it is a brutal and oppressive dictatorship that treats its own people badly. And we haven’t always been sterling at maintaining our part of the bargains in a timely way. So good as the news is, it would be a mistake to get too excited, as Michael O’Hanlon reminded us just this morning.
That said, blocking or rolling back the North Korean missile and nuclear programs is a worthy goal. The threat to the continental US is still hypothetical, but the threat to US forces and our allies in South Korea, Japan, and Guam is all too real already. So too is the risk that North Korea’s successful nuclear and missile programs will inspire similar programs by South Korea or Japan, thus blowing a big hole in the global nuclear nonproliferation regime, which has helped to contain the spread of nuclear weapons to a relatively few countries (in addition to the Perm 5, India and Pakistan, Israel, and South Africa, which gave them up after apartheid ended, as did Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union).
Even a freeze in the North Korean nuclear and missile testing is worth something. Its programs were making far more rapid than intelligence agencies anticipated if we believe what is said in the press. Of course Pyongyang can always restart its testing, whereas we can’t undo a meeting with the President. We can however keep the sanctions in place. We’d best do so. It ain’t over until Kim Jong-un sings a far better tune than temporary suspension of testing.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Inclusion prevents conflict
I spent part of the morning listening to presentations on the new UN/World Bank study Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict, which at 341 pages will take me and you a while to digest. Gary Milante of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ably moderated. Here are some of the salient points made at today’s session. I take notes on my phone, so no doubt I’ve missed some nuances and may well have made mistakes, for which I apologize in advance to both readers and presenters in advance.
Chuck Call, American University professor:
- Violent conflict has been worsening since 2010, largely due to the Middle East and terrorism.
- Vertical inequality (of income presumably) does not unequivocally correlate with violence, but horizontal inequality (between groups) does.
- Actors, leaders, and narratives are critical, institutions less so in this report than in the prior one.
- States are however key actors, but so too are sub-national and regional actors.
- Main sectors of contestation include land, political power, and services, with the main issue being exclusion.
- The costs of responding to violence are prohibitive; prevention is a good investment.
Chuck added some thoughts about future research directions that I won’t try to reproduce, except to say that they included the dynamics of exclusion as well as how and when it leads to violence. Here are his powerpoint slides.
Sara Batmanglich, peace and conflict adviser, OECD:
She underlined that the report is a unique joint effort of the UN and World Bank that puts people at the focus and suggests that we need far more attention to their feelings of hope, entitlement, dignity, shame, exclusion, empowerment and frustration, as well as their modes of coping. The report also suggests we need to reexamine how the $181 billion per year in aid from OSCE countries is spent, $74 billion in fragile states but only 1/3 of that on key arenas of conflict. There is an unfortunate bias towards very small (<$10k) and large projects (>$10 million), which is unfortunate since most conflict-relevant projects lie somewhere in that gap. We need to learn to build social cohesion and trust as well as develop economies.
Victoria Walker, assistant director at the Geneva Centre for Democratic Control of Armed Forces:
The report emphasizes governance issues, especially for the security sector, where too much of our effort is still devoted to “train and equip” and too little to governance issues like accountability and transparency. We need better indicators for these issues, as well as more focus on gender. Decentralization, which is emphasized in the report, is not only something good but also presents serious challenges from a governance perspective.
Seth Kaplan, who teaches here at SAIS:
- Leadership is key: it is needed to build trust across divides, promote dialogue and build inclusive institutions.
- Change depends on forming a coalition of actors committed to moving in a positive (peacebuilding) direction.
- Incentives are important, but they are not absolutes or unchangeable: they depend on framing and ideas.
- Group dynamics are important, especially how groups form, evolve and sometimes move towards polarization and mobilization.
- No state can be successful without national identity, so nationalism is an important force that we need to support.
- Redistribution of resources/services may be important to reducing conflict, but we need to be careful about backlash from those who lose privileges or resources.
- Commerce and entrepreneurialism have greater potential than we are currently exploiting for bridging divides.
- The state is not necessarily the central actor, so we sometimes need to work at the subnational level, to build peace by piece in countries like Somalia and Democratic Republic of the Congo as well as others.
Here are Seth’s slides.
There was only one clear point of contention. Chuck dissented on nationalism: he thought international institutions have no business in the nation-building business, only in state-building.
I was with Seth on that one: in places like Kosovo and Afghanistan, there is no way of avoiding implicit if not explicit support for the central government in its efforts to establish legitimacy with its entire population. And if it is not trying to do that, maybe you shouldn’t be supporting it with international assistance. Of course a country’s citizens and government are primarily responsible for their own identities, but I don’t see how we avoid putting a thumb on that scale.
I look forward to reading the report, which based on these notes sounds pretty interesting.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The growing nuclear threat
Pantelis Ikonomou, a former IAEA nuclear inspector, writes:
The United States and Russia are building up their nuclear capabilities in an actio – reactio mode. The other seven nuclear weapon states are following quietly. A globe without nukes is becoming utopian. The spiral of fear moves steadily faster and higher. The risk of a catastrophic derailing of global peace grows. Accident or miscalculation will not ultimately matter. We all know it is going to be tragic. The two big powers know it much best. Yet, the spiral continues. Moscow and Washington think that the opponent will give up first. As in the 1980s, when Reagan with his gigantic and extremely expensive Star Wars plans drove the Soviet Union to collapse.
No-one should be surprised. The nuclear escalation game started some time ago. In October 2016, a month before President Trump’s election, Russian President Putin suspended two nuclear agreements with the US and terminated a third one, all related to nuclear disarmament and bilateral cooperation in nuclear science and technology. The agreements had been valid since 2000 and were considered exemplars of the effort by the two strongest opponents of the Cold War towards a peaceful rapprochement.
What happened and why the change? Despite Putin’s explanation, ‘‘a consequence of the Crimea sanctions,’’ many saw his nuclear decisions as an attempt to strengthen his position in anticipation of Donald Trump winning the US presidential elections. Since Trump had already expressed surprisingly irrational nuclear positions, Putin wanted to take the initiative. Shortly after Trump’s election, both presidents announced in December 2016, as if in pre-agreement, that their countries would pursue expansion and modernization of their nuclear arsenals.
The US president has continued his aggressive pro-nuclear policy, encouraging friendly States to develop nuclear weapons, showing disrespect to the UN’s responsible global watchdog (the International Atomic Energy Agency), and degrading the Iran deal (JCPOA). In December 2017 president Trump announced the National Security Strategy and in the beginning of February 2018 the Pentagon presented the Nuclear Posture Review. Both documents stated that in upcoming years US nuclear capability will be strengthened and its nuclear arsenal modernized. Reason given: deterrence of Russia.
It did not take long for Moscow to reply. Russia cancelled talks with the ‘’unfriendly’’ US on strategic stability, set for March 6 and 7 in Vienna. A few days earlier the US ‘’snubbed’’ a meeting with Russia in Geneva on cybersecurity. Then last Thursday Putin in a highly impressive and nuclear-heavy State of the Nation Address announced an array of new Russian nuclear weapon systems ‘‘ready for operation.’’ They included difficult to detect ICBMs carrying multidirectional nuclear warheads capable of reaching the US over the South Pole, underwater long distance torpedoes loaded with the strongest ever nuclear warhead, and ultrasonic missiles. Furthermore, nuclear mini reactors would power Mars satellites ‘‘under development’’ aimed to outsmart enemy defense systems.
As a nuclear Safeguards inspector, I carried out stringent inspections to prevent nuclear proliferation for many years in states like Libya, South Africa, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina and many others. These missions were performed in accordance with the countries’ Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) commitments, including their binding obligation to undergo rigorous international inspections.
How can I understand your rationale for what the speechless world is now witnessing? You are the world leaders and main initiators of the NPT regime and are now consciously revitalizing a nuclear race, 28 years after the end of the Cold War!This is contrary to your international undertaking under the NPT (Article VI) “… to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament …”.
Can you not recognize the high risk of jeopardizing the integrity of the non-proliferation architecture? Do you not see the imminent risk of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation by aspiring candidates in the Middle East and in North East Asia? Is North Korea not enough? Can you not assess the growing nuclear threat to humanity?
PS: Here is the video that accompanied Putin’s claims of new nuclear weapons systems:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Two states
I’m just going to leave this full-page NY Times ad from J Street here for your perusal:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks, March 5 – March 11
- Oil in Iraq: Pathways to Enabling Better Governance | Monday, March 5 | 2:00pm – 3:30pm | Middle East Institute | Register here |
Despite setbacks from the war against ISIS, Iraq remains the world’s fourth largest producer of oil, second only to Saudi Arabia among OPEC states. However, the administration of this vital natural resource has been plagued by corruption and disputes over how revenues should be allocated to promote equitable economic growth. How can Iraq harness oil revenue to strengthen institutions, grow the economy, and empower Iraqis to rebuild their society? How are relations between Baghdad and Erbil and other sectarian tensions complicated by the “resource curse,” and what can be done to overcome it? The Middle East Institute is pleased to host a panel discussion examining options and priorities for improving governance in Iraq, featuring Erin Banco (investigative reporter for the Star-Ledger and NJ.com), Alan Eyre (US Department of State), Omar Al-Nidawi (Gryphon Partners), and Jean Francois Seznec (Scholar, MEI). The panel will be moderated by Randa Slim (Director of Program on Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues, MEI). ___________________________________________________________
- Preventing Conflict to Create Pathways for Peace | Tuesday, March 6 | 9:00am – 10:30am | United States Institute of Peace | Register here |
Violent conflict today is surging after decades of relative decline. Direct deaths in war, refugee numbers, military spending, and terrorist incidents have all reached historic highs in recent years. Today, the consequences of failing to act together are alarmingly evident, and the call for urgent action has perhaps never been clearer. To answer this call, the United Nations and the World Bank Group are launching their joint study, “Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict” to share how defense, diplomacy, and development should work together to successfully keep conflict from becoming violent. Join the U.S. Institute of Peace to hear from experts on how the international community can promote better policies and programs to pave the way forward to peace. Featuring Oscar Fernandez-Taranco (Assistant Secretary-General for Peacebuilding Support, United Nations), Franck Bousquet (Senior Director, Fragility, Conflict & Violence, World Bank), Deqa Hagi Yusuf (Minister of Women and Human Rights Development, Somalia), and Nancy Lindborg (President, U.S. Institute of Peace), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- Performance and Prospects for Russia’s Economy | Tuesday, March 6 | 2:00pm – 3:30pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
After a difficult transition to a market-based system in the 1990s, the Russian economy experienced rapid growth into the 2000s. However, in the last few years, falling gas prices, Western sanctions and diminishing foreign investments, and a continued lack of effective structural reforms have taken a toll on the economy and the citizens of the Russian Federation. The Russian economy has been buffeted by increasing re-nationalization of enterprises and international sanctions. It remains energy-focused, and highly oligarchical. Although recovering slightly, the trajectory and sustainability of the Russian economic model is under intense scrutiny. The possibility of additional sanctions just adds to the uncertainty. This panel, entitled “Performance and Prospects for Russia’s Economy,” will explore the development of Russia’s economy, including its place in the international economic system, and its prospects for the next decade. Featuring Dr. Sergey Aleksashenko (senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Brookings Institution), Dr. Anders Åslund (Senior Fellow, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council), Elizaveta Osetinskaya (Fellow, University of California, Berkeley). Ambassador Clifford Bond (Former Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Coordinator for Assistance to Europe and Eurasia, US Department of State) will moderate the discussion.
___________________________________________________________
- Governor Geraldo Alckmin of São Paulo on Brazil’s Economic and Political Outlook in an Unpredictable Election Year | Wednesday, March 7 | 9:30am – 12:00pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
Elected four times to lead São Paulo, Brazil’s richest and most influential state, Governor Geraldo Alckmin is widely expected to run in October’s presidential election. This will be a second attempt to reach the Palácio do Planalto for Alckmin, who lost to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2006. Despite his low polling numbers—and widespread rejection of establishment politicians—seasoned political analysts believe the governor could emerge as a strong centrist candidate backed by the middle class and the business community, and someone who—if he wins—could build the alliances needed to govern in Brazil’s coalitional political system. However, the race is highly unpredictable and will likely remain so for months. Join the Wilson Center for a conversation with Governor Geraldo Alckmin; speakers and panelists include Paulo Sotero (Director, Brazil Institute), Cassia Carvalho (Executive Director, Brazil-U.S. Business Council), and Roberto Simon (Director, FTI Consulting), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- The Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership: Implications for Global Trade | Wednesday, March 7 | 2:00pm – 5:00pm | Wilson Center | Register here |
On March 8, representatives of eleven countries will meet in Chile to sign the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), creating a massive free trade bloc connecting 500 million people and economies with a combined GDP of over $10 trillion. Signatories include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The current agreement includes several major economies that will have a profound influence on the future of global trade and investment. The United States withdrew from negotiations in January 2017. Join the Wilson Center to discuss the economic impact of the agreement for member and non-member countries and the future of integration of the Asia-Pacific region and the Western Hemisphere. Featuring the Honorable Carlos Pareja (Ambassador to the United States, Peru), the Honorable Ashok Kumar Mirpuri (Ambassador to the United States, Singapore), and Jeffrey J. Schott (Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- Regional Cooperation in the Middle East: The Baghdad Declaration | Wednesday, March 7 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | Middle East Institute | Register here |
Since 2014, the Middle East Institute has convened the Middle East Dialogue, a Track 1.5 initiative involving current and former officials and senior experts from across the Middle East as well as from China, Europe, Russia and the United States. These meetings focus on the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, and on the principles and architecture of a new regional cooperation framework in the Middle East. At the Dialogue’s most recent meeting in Baghdad, the group issued a consensus document outlining Good Neighborhood Principles for the Middle East. Is a new regional cooperation framework possible in today’s Middle East? What are the principles and institutional architecture that would underpin this framework? What are the obstacles? What are realistic interim confidence-building measures? How can the international community assist in moving this process forward? MEI is pleased to host a panel discussion involving participants from the Middle East Dialogue. Featuring Naufel Alhassan (Deputy Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister of Iraq), Abdallah Al-Dardari (Senior Advisor on Reconstruction in the MENA, World Bank), and Paul Salem (Senior Vice President for Policy Research and Programs, MEI). Randa Slim (Director of Program on Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues, MEI) will moderate.
___________________________________________________________
- How Film Captures the Roles of Women in War and Peace | Thursday, March 8 | 9:30am – 12:00pm | United States Institute of Peace | Register here |
Ten years ago, the film Pray the Devil Back to Hell premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival, where it won the award for Best Documentary for its powerful depiction of the nonviolent women’s movement that helped bring an end to Liberia’s bloody civil war. Since its release, producers and directors have taken up the challenge to tell the stories of the often-invisible lives of women in conflict. These films have brought forward women’s critical voices to the stories of war and peace, and amplified the global agenda of Women, Peace and Security. Join USIP on International Women’s Day to discuss how film has been an innovative tool for translating policy frameworks into social change. This event will bring together the worlds of film and policy to celebrate the progress that has been made in advancing women’s roles in peace and security, and spreading their stories. Featuring Abigail Disney (Filmmaker & President and CEO, Fork Films), Michelle Bekkering (Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, USAID), and Suhad Babaa (Executive Director, Just Vision), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- Japan-Korea Relations 20 Years After the Kim-Obuchi Summit | Thursday, March 8 | 2:00pm – 7:00pm | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | Register here |
Nearly twenty years ago, the leaders of Japan and South Korea raised hopes for “a new Japan-Korea partnership for the twenty-first century,” backed by an action plan to foster broader cooperation and closer people-to-people ties. Although progress has been made, disagreements over history have stymied the desired transformation in their relationship, even as North Korean nuclear threats grow. This half-day conference—featuring scholars and former officials of that time from Japan, South Korea, and the United States—combines a look back with a look ahead, reflecting on what types of polices and initiatives have succeeded or failed since 1998 and why. Speakers and panelists include Douglas H. Paal (Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Carol Gluck (George Sansom Professor of History, Columbia University), and James Zumwalt (CEO, Sasakawa Peace Foundation USA), among others.
___________________________________________________________
- US-Sudan Relations: What’s Next? | Thursday, March 8 | 2:30pm – 4:00pm | Atlantic Council | Register here |
Following the Trump administration’s October 2017 decision to lift most economic sanctions against Sudan, the Atlantic Council sent task force members to Sudan in January 2018—the third delegation in two years—to conduct research in three critical, related areas: governance and political reform; economic reform and impediments to investment; and prospects for greater cultural engagement. The resulting issue briefs put forward recommendations for the United States and Sudan to continue their positive engagement in a way that serves US interests but also supports peace, security, and inclusive governance for the Sudanese people. Featuring Dr. J. Peter Pham (Vice President for Research and Regional Initiatives, Atlantic Council), Ambassador Tim Carney (Former US Ambassador to Sudan), and Dr. Jeffrey Herbst (Co-Author, Making Africa Work & former CEO of the Newseum), among others. Kelsey Lilley (Associate Director, Africa Center, Atlantic Council) will moderate the discussion.
___________________________________________________________
- Anti-Corruption and the Fight for Democracy in Russia | Friday, March 9 | 10:00am – 11:30am | Wilson Center (co-organized with Freedom House) | Register here |
Russian activists Nikita Kulachenkov and Mikhail Maglov will talk about their work exposing corruption in Russia from abroad and the impact that these investigations have on the Kremlin’s legitimacy. They will also discuss how illicit financial flows from Russia, including real state and luxury goods, reach the West and what can be done to stop them. Featuring Charles Davidson (Executive Director of the Kleptocracy Initiative, Hudson Institute), Nikita Kulachenkov (Forensic Investigator, Anti-Corruption Foundation), and Mikhail Maglov (Former Activist of “Solidarnost”).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
More empty promises
In a fit of pique caused by other things, President Trump is ordering tariffs on steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) imports. What difference does that make?
Probably little if you are looking for the impact of those specific measures. They might raise prices a bit, and the inevitable retaliation will hit US exports. The EU has already announced it will target bourbon, blue jeans and Harley Davidson motorcycles, products not coincidentally manufactured in the districts of important members of Congress. Other countries will choose their own targets. If that is where things stop, it isn’t catastrophic. It just hurts American exports and worsens the trade deficit, which has already climbed since Trump took office after leveling off under Obama:
The retaliation, however, may provoke more US tariffs and a cycle of escalation abroad. This is how a trade war starts and spreads, from steel and aluminum to many other products. That’s why US markets sold off right after the announcement, and why international markets are sharply down today. They understand that increased tariffs will accelerate inflation and reduce growth. The first coordinated worldwide recovery since the financial crisis ten years ago could be brought to a premature end.
Trump is a mercantilist. He thinks protection for US industries can strengthen the US economy. This is the opposite of what American conservatives, in particular Republicans, have heretofore believed. While the President was tweeting that trade wars are easy to win, Governor Walker of Wisconsin tweeted:
I respectfully ask@POTUS to reconsider his position on steel and aluminum tariffs. They will lead to the exact opposite outcome of the administration’s stated objective, which is to protect American jobs.
Conservatives since World War II have usually advocated for free trade, albeit in accordance with rules that guarantee a level playing field. But Trump is not a conservative. His tariffs are to be levied not on the basis that the playing field is uneven, but rather on the basis of national security. This is a specious claim, as American national security has not been demonstrably affected by importing for decades both steel and aluminum, which are available from many suppliers worldwide.
The President has opened Pandora’s tariff box. There is no telling where new tariffs will be imposed by others or how long the trade war will last. All this will be litigated at the the World Trade Organization, but there is no guarantee Trump will respect its decisions, as he opposes it and other norm-setting institutions that help to regulate the liberal world order that has been the foundation of unprecedented US prosperity for more than 70 years:
What is certain, however, is that Trump’s tariffs will not be good for the United States. They may well enrich some industries, and they may bring desperately needed revenue to the US Treasury. But economic growth and US exports will decline, consumer inflation will increase, and relations with other countries will worsen. Protectionism promises what it cannot deliver. That makes it perfectly suited to Trump, whose promises have repeatedly and consistently proved empty.
RSS - Posts
