Tag: South Korea
Peace picks, October 7-11
A wide array of interesting events this week (be aware of possible event cancellations due to the government shutdown):
1. A New Look at American Foreign Policy: The Third in a Series of Discussions
Monday October 7 | 12:00pm – 1:00pm
The Heritage Foundation, Lehrman Auditorium, 214 Massachusetts Avenue NW
For decades, libertarians and conservatives have been at odds over American foreign policy. But perhaps a conversation is possible today between classical liberals and conservatives on the nature of American foreign policy. Some are trying to find a “middle way” that is less doctrinaire. At the same time the “neo” conservative phase of hyper military interventionism is a spent force in conservative circles. Therefore, the time may be ripe for an open and honest conversation among some libertarians and conservatives about the future of American foreign policy. It may be possible a new consensus could be found between Americans who consider themselves classical liberals and traditional conservatives on the purposes of American foreign policy.
Join us as Heritage continues the discussion regarding this question, what the dangers and opportunities are and whether they afford an opportunity to take a “new look” at American foreign policy.
For decades, libertarians and conservatives have been at odds over American foreign policy. But perhaps a conversation is possible today between classical liberals and conservatives on the nature of American foreign policy. Some are trying to find a “middle way” that is less doctrinaire. At the same time the “neo” conservative phase of hyper military interventionism is a spent force in conservative circles. Therefore, the time may be ripe for an open and honest conversation among some libertarians and conservatives about the future of American foreign policy. It may be possible a new consensus could be found between Americans who consider themselves classical liberals and traditional conservatives on the purposes of American foreign policy.
Join us as Heritage continues the discussion regarding this question, what the dangers and opportunities are and whether they afford an opportunity to take a “new look” at American foreign policy.
More About the Speakers
Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D.
Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Randy E. Barnett
Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law Center
Marion Smith
Visiting Fellow, B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics, The Heritage Foundation
Hosted By
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Hobson’s nuclear choices
No one seems overwrought that the latest nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1 (that’s US, UK, France, Russia, China + Germany) ended inconclusively yesterday in Almaty, Kazakhstan. An agreement on the eve of Iran’s presidential election campaign (voting is scheduled for June 14) was not likely. Iran is looking for acknowledgement of its “right” to enrich uranium, even if it limits the extent of enrichment and the amount of enriched material. The P5+1, led by European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, are looking for strict limits on enrichment (to 5% or below, with most more highly enriched materials shipped out of the country) and tight international inspections without acknowledging Iran’s right to enrich. They are also looking for suspension of enrichment at Iran’s underground facility at Fordo and a strict accounting for past activities, which appear to have included some nuclear weapons development.
There are related non-nuclear issues on which the gaps may be greater. Iran wants sanctions relief up front as well as cooperation on Syria and Bahrain. The Western members of the P5+1 want to maintain sanctions until they have satisfactory commitments and implementation that prevent Iran from ever having a nuclear weapons program. They are not willing to soften their support for the revolution in Syria against Iran’s ally Bashar al Asad or for the Sunni minority monarchy in Bahrain, which faces a Shia protest movement that Iran supports.
The Israelis are the only ones who seem seriously perturbed:
“This failure was predictable,” Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s minister of strategic affairs, said in a statement. “Israel has already warned that the Iranians are exploiting the talks in order to play for time while making additional progress in enriching uranium for an atomic bomb.” He added, “The time has come for the world to take a more assertive stand and make it unequivocally clear to the Iranians that the negotiations games have run their course.”
But there is precious little they can do about the situation. An Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities will do relatively little damage but will end the prospect of a negotiated solution and make Tehran redouble its efforts to get nuclear weapons. President Obama is in no hurry to do the more thorough job the Americans are capable of. He seems satisfied that there is still time. The Iranians have in fact been slowing their accumulation of 20% enriched uranium by converting some of it to fuel plates for their isotope production reactor, which makes the material difficult to enrich further. The Israelis may not like it, but it looks as if everyone will hold their breath until after the Iranian election, when the question of further meetings and a possible agreement will arise again.
In the meanwhile, the Iranians will be watching North Korea closely. It has tested several nuclear weapons and presumably made more. Pyongyang is sounding committed not just to keeping them but to acquiring the missile capability to deliver them. While the press makes a great deal of Kim Jong-un’s threats against the United States, he represents a much more immediate threat to South Korea and Japan. If he manages to hold on to his nuclear weapons and thereby stabilizes his totalitarian regime, the Iranian theocrats will read it as encouragement to continue their own nuclear quest.
With the “sequester” budget cuts forcing retrenchment on many fronts, Washington is trying for negotiated solutions and hesitating to enforce its will that neither Iran nor North Korea acquire serious nuclear capabilities. It is hoping the Chinese will help with Pyongyang, which nevertheless seems increasingly committed to maintaining and expanding its nuclear capabilities. Tehran has slowed its accumulation of nuclear material but is expanding its technological capability to move rapidly if a decision is made to move ahead. President Obama could soon face a Hobson’s choice in both cases: either act militarily, despite the costs and consequences, or accept two new nuclear powers, despite the costs and consequences.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Doing little and doing a lot
Iran and North Korea are the two big nuclear non-proliferation challenges of our day. Iran is moving to acquire a capability that will allow it to move quickly to nuclear weapons, should the Supreme Leader decide his country needs weapons he has declared immoral. North Korea has exited the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and conducted its third nuclear test, with implicit and explicit resentment and threats against the United States.* So what can be done?
Non-proliferation experts at the Carnegie Endowment have published a series of three short pieces saying “not much”: we should focus on preventing North Korea from proliferating nuclear technology to others, on understanding and defining deterrence in Asia and missile defense, and on strategic consultations with the Chinese.
That seems close to the Obama Administration’s conclusions. It has said the necessary minimum in response to the latest North Korean test, but it has done nothing to rouse American public concerns and seems content to let the echoes fade. President Obama himself has made it clear he will also do nothing to offer further carrots to Pyongyang, which in his view is a mistake previous administrations have made in hopes of moderating the North’s behavior.
The hermit kingdom will continue to be isolated, poor and belligerent. We can hope that the prospect of American retaliation will make it reluctant to use its nuclear weapons against anyone. Both South Korea and Japan are likely to continue to refrain from going nuclear, as doing so would cause them big problems (especially with China and the US).
So the hope is we may be able to adjust to North Korea’s nuclear status without too much difficulty. That is much less likely with respect to Iran. There are two big problems arising from Iran’s push for nuclear technology: proliferation in the region and Israel.
The Center for a New American Security thinks Saudi Arabia will not go for nuclear weapons if Iran does. The American experts on Saudi Arabia I talk to are split on this issue. Some think Riyadh will definitely go nuclear, likely buying weapons from Pakistan rather than establishing their own program. Others doubt that. The uncertainty itself is enough to make me think we need to worry more about the consequences of Iranian nuclear weapons than we do about North Korea’s.
More important: Israel. The Israelis view the Iranian theocracy as irrational. The Iranians view the Jewish state as irrational. There is minimal communication between Tehran and Jerusalem. Deterrence depends on rationality and good communications. If Iran were to make and deploy nuclear weapons, the Israelis would need to decide on a nuclear posture in response. They have a second strike capability (on submarines), but they cannot wait to launch on launch. A very few nuclear weapons would deal a devastating blow to tiny Israel. It would have to launch on warning.
This is inherently destabilizing and highly dangerous for Iran. My guess is the Israelis would not just launch against whatever they could see being prepared for launch, but against every nuclear weapons site they know about in Iran, and perhaps not only those. We are talking here about a massive Israeli nuclear strike, not the surgical strikes conducted against the reactors in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007. So Iran getting a nuclear weapons decreases Iranian security as much as it decreases Israel’s.
That ironically gives me some hope that Tehran will stop short of making and deploying nuclear weapons. But it has to do so in a thoroughly transparent and verifiable way. If the P5+1 negotiations with Tehran at the end of the month in Almaty do not take a big step in this direction (but some are optimistic), we could well be on the way to an American strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, one with dramatic consequences not only for the US and Iran but for the rest of the world as well.
*Have doubts about the threats to the US part? Watch this North Korean propaganda film (with gratitude to the Washington Post and North Korea News:
Transcript:
North Korea has succeeded in proceeding with this nuclear test despite the United States’ increasingly unfair bully activities against North Korea. That United States that has no respect to others nor appreciation to equality…
It is not incorrect to state that the United States strong hostility policy and endless violence toward North Korea in the past 70 years has helped North Korea become one of the world’s strongest military power states.
Words spoken by the United States, a country that uses the law of jungle as the law of survival for fitness, is meaningless. As a result, North Korea’s high level nuclear test conducted against American imperialist invaders is a nuclear deterrent that protects our sovereignty.
Thus, the United States has practically guided North Korea towards nuclear testing and therefore needs to be considered as an American virtue.
North Korea’s third underground nuclear test! Let it be known once more that this is strictly our practical counter-measure for North’s safety and to protect its sovereignty from the aggressors. It is also a solemn warning that time is no longer on the side of the United States.
The people are watching. America should answer.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Keeping an eye on Asia
Trying to catch up on my Asia reading, as things are heating up there:
- The Japanese scrambled jets last week in response to a Russian violation of airspace over the Kuril Islands.
- China has been pressuring North Korea not to conduct an announced nuclear test.
- Tokyo is complaining that Chinese radar “locked on” to Japanese ships, a step generally associated with initiating an attack, in the East China Sea (where the two countries dispute sovereignty over the Senkaku/Daioyu islands).
The smart money is still betting that China and Japan won’t go to war over uninhabited islands that Japan administers but China claims. There have been recent rumblings of a possible accord between Russia and Japan on the Kurils. It is of course welcome that China should restrain its North Korean friends from defying the UN Security Council again with another nuclear test. It is unclear whether Beijing will succeed.
The US Navy, facing budget and reducing its presence in the Middle East, has found a useful “hegemon” and bully in China. In the mist of preparations for the Quadrennial Defense Review, naval advocates would like to regain at least some of the budget momentum they lost when Mitt Romney–a strong naval advocate–was defeated for the presidency.
But that doesn’t mean the needs are not real. America’s ships are vulnerable, even to Iranian never mind Chinese cruise and other missiles. Washington has a lot of obligations in Asia: to Japan, to Taiwan, the Philippines, to South Korea. It also has some relatively new friends to oblige: Vietnam and Burma in particular. It is not going to be easy to meet all the needs in a severely constrained budget environment.
Those who complain about US inattention to Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and even the Balkans need to remember how many other commitments need to be fulfilled. Asia represents an important slice of the future of world economic growth. It also represents a serious risk of armed conflict on a scale that would have global consequences. We may not all be able to pivot to Asia, but we should keep an eye on it.
And I just realized: I am in Asia today, in Antalya, Turkey. Maybe that’s why my eyes have turned east, though the East I am writing about here lies thousands of miles away. Here’s the scenery from my hotel room:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Wisdom, not resolve
I’m in Atlanta this week for Thanksgiving, which Americans will mark tomorrow with parades, running races, a giant meal, lots of football (watching and playing) and much debate on the issues of our day, from cranberry sauce recipes to the state of world affairs. Some will go to church, but most will mark the day entirely at home–or in a relative’s home–with marathon culinary preparations, a lengthy and leisurely afternoon meal and a long denouement of talk, napping and TV, in my family followed in the late evening by a giant turkey sandwich, on white toast.
I mention these things because close to 50% of my readers are non-Americans, only some of whom will have enjoyed the Thanksgiving experience first hand. To my knowledge, the holiday is entirely a New World phenomenon. Canada has its own version, celebrated last month. Of course lots of cultures express thanks in both religious and non-religious ways, but I wonder if any have made it quite the major event that the North Americans have. Readers should feel free to enlighten me.
Americans certainly have a great deal to be thankful for. We are slowly climbing out of a lingering recession, we’ve gotten through the difficult quadrennial drama of presidential elections without the uncertainties that have sometimes plagued the process, our troops are out of Iraq and moving out of Afghanistan, and there is no existential threat on the horizon, even if there are many less dramatic challenges. We are the solution to our own worst problems, which focus on the relatively mundane questions of what the government should spend money on and where it should find the revenue needed.
The world is not in such good shape. While statistics show that the overall frequency of war is down, the catalogue is full of long lasting conflicts and their devastating impacts on people: the revolution and civil war in Syria are getting on to marking two years, Israel and Palestine have been in conflict one way or another for 65 years, the Afghanistan/Pakistan war is dragging into its 12th year, and I don’t know how to determine when the war against al Qaeda in Yemen, the war against its affiliates in Somalia or the war in Eastern Congo began. Then there are the more recent conflicts: northern Mali and the all but defeated revolution in Bahrain. And there are the wars that might come: perhaps against Iran, in the South or East China Seas, on the Korean peninsula or between South Sudan and Sudan.
I can’t claim that most Americans will be thinking about these disasters as they give thanks for their own blessings. They are more likely to be thinking about Breezy Point and Hoboken, two communities that hurricane Sandy devastated early this month. We’ve still got tens of thousands homeless and some without power weeks later. Those who turn to America for help–and many do–are going to find us preoccupied these days with our own needs. I suspect this will not be just a short-term phenomenon, but a longer-term effort to put our own house in order, limiting commitments abroad and prioritizing them in accordance with America’s own interests.
This will sound ungenerous to non-Americans, who may bemoan American interference but also look to the U.S. to step in to help stop the Gaza fighting and turn to Washington when other disasters strike. We will continue to do what we can where vital American interests are at stake, but it will be healthy if we are a bit less committed and rely on others rather more than we have in the past. Our withdrawal–retrenchment is what some call it–will not be absolute. It has to be calculated and calibrated. Good judgment, not ideology, should be its guide.
That is one of the many reasons I am grateful to the American people for re-electing President Obama. I don’t always agree with his judgment–I’d rather he did more on Syria, for example–but he is thoughtful and cautious in ways that fit our current circumstances. Managing the relative decline in American power and constructing a global architecture that will limit conflict and provide space for those who choose to live in free societies to prosper are the great challenges of the coming generations. Wisdom, not resolve, is the essential ingredient to meet them.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
Not a slow week, but one with a bit longer term focus than some:
1. Persian subversion: Can America withstand an Iranian oil shock? AEI 10-11:30 June 12.
1150 Seventeenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036
(Two blocks from Farragut North Metro)
In recent months, Iranian saber rattling has shaken energy markets. Although sanctions targeting Iran may raise the price at the pump, inaction is also costly: allowing Tehran to pass its nuclear threshold will endanger security in the Persian Gulf and may lead to even greater oil price hikes.
Against the backdrop of the Iranian nuclear crisis, American policymakers are increasingly considering ramping up domestic oil production and alternative energy. How much can shale oil, new pipelines and offshore oil production shield the U.S. economy from instability in the Persian Gulf and Iran’s leverage over world oil prices? How do the recent bankruptcies of U.S. solar energy firms affect American alternate energy strategy? Join a panel of foreign policy, national security, energy and transportation experts for an open discussion.
If you cannot attend, we welcome you to watch the event live on this page.
9:45 AM
Registration
10:00 AM
Panelists:
Elliott Abrams, Council on Foreign Relations
Gen. (ret.) James T. Conway, 34th Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps
Sam Gilliland, Sabre Holdings
Daniel Yergin, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates
Moderator:
Michael Rubin, AEI
11:30 AM
Adjournment
2. Japan-Korea-China Economic Relations, 9-10:30 June 12
Washington 20006
As Korea strives to be a global leader, the country has concluded several bilateral and multilateral Free Trade Agreements since 2003 and is currently negotiating additional agreements while laying the groundwork for a Korea-Japan-China FTA and considering the resumption of negotiations with Japan. Japan’s trade strategy also continues to evolve as it develops a new growth strategy after the natural disasters of 2011. Both Korea and Japan are carefully watching the developments around TPP. In the meantime, China has become the largest trading partner of Korea and Japan and the three countries recently signed a trilateral investment agreement as a potential first step toward a trilateral trade accord.
The seminar will assess the current status of the Korean and Japanese trade policies in light of the implementation of the KORUS FTA and the continued discussion of the TPP, Korea-China FTA and Korea-Japan-China FTA.
3. 2012 GPI Launch: How Can Global Peace Metrics Inform Foreign Policy? CSIS, 9-10:30 June 12
Please join us for the results of the sixth annual Global Peace Index and inaugural Positive Peace Index:Tuesday, June 12, 2012
9:00 AM – 10:30 AM
B1 Conference Center, CSIS
1800 K St. NW, Washington, DC 20006
A Panel Discussion With
Amb. William Garvelink, Senior Adviser, U.S. Leadership in Development, Center for Strategic and International Studies (Moderator)
Anne-Marie Slaughter, Bert G. Kerstetter ’66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University (Opening Remarks)
Lawrence Wilkerson, Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy, William and Mary College
Josh Rogin, Staff Writer, Foreign Policy
Emily Cadei, Foreign Policy Reporter, Congressional Quarterly
Michael Shank, U.S. Vice President, Institute for Economics and Peace (GPI Results Presentation)
In a world often described by crisis and conflict, which countries are the most peaceful? How do we measure peace and its economic value? How can peace metrics inform U.S. foreign policy?
The Global Peace Index (GPI) is the first-ever analysis to methodically rank countries on their peacefulness and identify potential determinants of peace. Comprised of a range of indicators measuring the absence of violence in society, the GPI takes into consideration both internal and external factors, and measures 99% of the world’s population.
For the first time, this year’s report includes a Positive Peace Index (PPI), highlighting the key institutional factors associated with creating peaceful and resilient societies. The PPI ranks countries by their institutional capacity to move away from violence and towards peace.
The GPI is produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), guided by an international panel of independent experts and supported by the Economist Intelligence Unit, which collates the data and calculates the rankings in conjunction with the IEP.
Please RSVP to achang@csis.org
4. Culturally-Based Approaches to Peacebuilding in Pakistan, SAIS (Kenney) 9:30-11:30 June 12
With Libya’s first nationwide democratic election quickly approaching, serious progress on political and institutional development is essential as the country proceeds with its transition. While re-establishing security remains vital in the short term, many long-term development challenges also require immediate attention, including building effective, accountable institutions at the national and local levels; developing an independent and diverse civil society; establishing and protecting a free, professional press; and reforming the military, police, and other security forces. Meanwhile, Libyans must engage in a national dialogue on how to ensure adequate representation in government for women, youth, and and various tribal and ethnic groups. By smartly leveraging domestic resources and international assistance, the Libyan people could be well-positioned to build a prosperous and free country.
What will the assembly elections – originally slated for June 19th but now expected to be delayed until July – look like? What are the major political forces emerging in the country and how are they preparing for the elections? How will the election of a national assembly affect the role of the National Transitional Council (NTC)? What are the top priorities for the Libyan government, particularly regarding institutional reform? How can Libyans develop a robust civil society and ensure freedom of opinion, press, and assembly? Which best practices from other state-building efforts would be most appropriate for the Libyan case? In particular, how might various models of federalism and decentralization be useful? And what is the most constructive role for international actors to play in supporting capacity-building, among other needs?
Director of Iraq, Iran, and North Africa Programs, Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations, U.S. Institute of Peace
Executive Director, POMED
President, American-Libyan Council
Associate Director, Sustainable Security and Peacebuilding Initiative, Center for American Progress
Click here to RSVP for the event.
We’ll also be live-tweeting from the event, so follow the conversation at #POMEDLib. If you’d like us to ask one of your questions, we’ll try to include a few from our virtual audience.
Please contact Anna Newby at anna.newby@pomed.org with any questions, or call (202) 828-9660, ext 23.
6. The State of Health in Afghanistan: Implications for Economic Stability, Security and Women, USIP, 3:30-4:30 June 12
Despite the number of negative trends in Afghanistan, tremendous achievements have been gained in the health sector. Most notable is the programming on maternal health, which has contributed to a significant decline in infant and child mortality rates. The percentage of female healthcare worker has risen dramatically in USAID-funded healthcare facilities.
How has the health sector improved the overall health of a country? What can we learn from the Ministry of Health that might be applied to other sectors? How has the sector supported economic stability and security? What are the country’s health goals as Afghanistan prepares for its security and political transitions in 2014?
Please join USIP’s Center for Gender and Peacebuilding, in collaboration with the Afghan Embassy, the Department of State and USAID, for a panel discussion on the health sector’s contribution to economic stability and security in Afghanistan leading to 2014. The minister of Public Health of Afghanistan, Honorable Dr. Soraya Dalil, will discuss the “state of health” in Afghanistan. She will be joined by U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer and Michele Schimpp, deputy director for USAID’s Afghanistan and Pakistan Task Force.
Panelists
- The Honorable Dr. Soraya Dalil
Minister of Public Health - Ambassador Melanne Verveer
Ambassador at Large for Global Women’s Issues, U.S. Department of State - Michele Schimpp
Deputy Director for Afghanistan and Pakistan Task Force, USAID - William Byrd, Discussant
Senior Expert in Residence, U.S. Institute of Peace - Kathleen Kuehnast, Moderator
Director, Center for Gender and Peacebuilding, U.S. Institute of Peace
7. The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR): Complementarity or Cooperation between State, USAID and the NGO Community, USIP, 9-4:30 June 15
After Secretary of State Hillary Clinton introduced the QDDR as a major step in elevating development alongside diplomacy as a key pillar of American foreign policy, many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) welcomed the QDDR as the beginning of a better coordinated and more effective approach to global development. USIP and Webster University will host a day of discussion about how the QDDR complements NGO efforts in development, humanitarian relief and conflict management as well as the current challenges and opportunities that result from the QDDR.
This discussion will be built around presentations from senior United States government officials from the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development and from leaders in the NGO community. These will be followed by panel discussions that combine the perspectives of policymakers and NGOs on the topics of economic development, public health, education, human security, and human rights.
USIP was among the organizations that contributed ideas to the development of the QDDR, particularly in the areas of stabilization and conflict prevention. Discussion of the QDDR and its goals will enhance the effectiveness of both NGOs and the U.S. Government in global development and conflict prevention efforts, particularly in building local capacity and promoting innovation.
-
What in the QDDR is relevant to the work of NGOs and private voluntary organizations (PVOs)?
-
How will the objectives of the QDDR affect NGOs and PVOs?
-
Where is there complementarity in the following areas?
- Conflict Prevention
- Capacity building
- Development of effective civil society
- Humanitarian aid
- Contributions of new technology
Download Conference Agenda
Speakers
-
Nancy Lindborg
Assistant Administrator, USAID -
Melanie Greenberg
President and CEO, Alliance for Peacebuilding -
Lindsay Coates
Executive Vice President, Interaction -
Ambassador Robert Loftis
Former Acting Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, the Department of State -
David Wilson
Dean of Humanities, Webster University -
Jeff Helsing
Dean of Curriculum, U.S. Institute of Peace
RSS - Posts
