Month: November 2021

Stevenson’s army, November 10

– WSJ says democracy is losing in Latin America.

– WSJ says Saudis have strategic partnership with China.

– WSJ says Facebook has lots of stolen content.

– NYT says Belarus uses migrants against Poland.

– Fred Kaplan says DOD report on China minimizes threat of invasion of Taiwan.

– WOTR article says OFAC needs changes to do sanctions well.

– New Pew study analyzes factions within GOP & Democrats.

My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).

Tags : , , , , , , , , ,

Stevenson’s army, November 9

-Michael Krepon explains the value and necessity of arms control.

– Journalist Jim Fallows, now on Substack, criticizes news coverage of politics.

– Politico reports on the many problems the Senate faces in December.

– Reuters says US to announce first projects to counter BRI.

My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).

Tags : , , , ,

Deterrence is absurd and risky, disarmament difficult but necessary

Pantelis Ikonomou, a former IAEA nuclear inspector, writes:

The use of nuclear weapons is at the core of NATO security policy. At the same time, their role continues to increase in the national strategy of all nine nuclear-armed states, both the five Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) (USA, Russia, China, UK and France), as well as the four non-NPT de facto  nuclear weapon possessors (India, Pakistan, North Korea), and allegedly Israel. They all appear committed to retaining  nuclear capacity for the indefinite future by adding new nuclear weapon systems or modernizing the existing ones, pledging at any opportunity that they retain a strong nuclear deterrence.

The rationality of nuclear deterrence is based on two fundamental characteristics of today’s advanced nuclear weapon systems: a) the capability of instantaneous counterattack and b) the immense destruction power they possess.

Thus, an intentional nuclear first strike should not be launched as a pre-emptive surprise attack to destroy the adversary’s nuclear weapon arsenal because the attacker would not survive either. The logical consequence of this reality is that the nuclear capacity of each nuclear weapon possessor establishes the definite deterrence to an adversarial nuclear first strike.

However, as in mathematics so in the nuclear world, there is no second without a first. The No-First-Use nuclear postures of the five NWS plus India include a critical footnote: the right to a pre-emptive nuclear first strike against any armed attack that would threaten their vital security interests, whether nuclear or conventional.

Additionally, two more nuclear first-strike possibilities arise from:

  1. The First-Use doctrines of North Korea (DPRK), Pakistan, and Israel. For DPRK, to pre-empt a regime decapitation. For Pakistan, as a desperate necessity against India’s Kashmir policy, and for Israel, as the strategic national survival choice.
  2. The probability of launching a nuclear weapon by accident, miscalculation, or a malicious/terrorist act. This probability is steadily increasing, as the nuclear arsenals are maintained, modernized, and eventually growing.

The continuously existing possibility of a nuclear first strike, for whatever  cause, will instantaneously trigger a counter response. This makes the possession of nuclear weapons for deterrence only, i.e. for a forced second strike, a dangerous absurdity.

This situation fully reflects a dead-end reality, described in the game theory as the Nash equilibrium. Solving the Nash equilibrium in the nuclear deterrence analogy would require cooperation of the antagonists (an oxymoron condition) yet the only solution: lowering all armed-raised-hands before shooting at each other. In other words, abstaining from the absurdity of being the first attacker, the necessity of being the responder, or the danger of either side committing an error.

Moreover, maintaining weapons for strengthening states’ geopolitical objectives inspires would-be proliferators. While the NPT was in force since 1970, proliferation took place successfully in four non-NPT states: India, Pakistan, DPRK, and allegedly in Israel. Additionally, four more NPT states attempted proliferation: Romania (by 1989), Iraq (by 1991), Libya (by 2003), and “very likely” Syria (by 2011) [re: “Global Nuclear Developments”, by P. F. Ikonomou, Springer 2020, 4.4 Syria 2011-2020, page 55].

History also suggests that nuclear deterrence was again and again ineffective. Common irony: nuclear weapon holders after World War II lost several wars they entered; the UK at Suez (Egypt), France in Algeria, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the US in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Likewise, the UK and France could not hold on to their colonial possessions despite having nuclear weapons, and the Soviet Union collapsed while sitting on the world’s largest ever nuclear arsenal.

In conclusion:

Nuclear deterrence is dangerous. It does not establish strategic stability, but rather prolongs global uncertainty, maintaining the possibility of two-party nuclear standoffs, single acts of despair and survival, or an accident, error, or terror. Pursuing weapons that  can never be used without destroying your own country is irrational, dangerous, wasteful, and pointless.

Maintaining nuclear weapons for attaining geopolitical objectives inspires would-be proliferators.

Nuclear deterrence without attempting global and complete nuclear disarmament is nothing but a nebulous political stalemate. Global nuclear disarmament is not an easy  process. It cannot be quick, quiet nor cheap. It is an extremely complex task, but it must be pursued before the last human error occurs.

Tags : , , , , , ,

Stevenson’s army, November 11

– Politico foresees GOP control of House and probably Senate after 2022 elections.

– NYT reports on the busy CBO as it does cost estimates.

– Harvard law prof says Lincoln really made the Constitution after breaking the 1787 model.

– Another writer suggests Havana syndrome maybe psychogenic [he uses “sociogenic”]

My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).

Tags : ,

Here is what Bosnia needs

I don’t think I know any of the signatories of this paper, but what they say makes sense to me (I’ve made a few minor editorial amendments to the English):

Changes to the highest legal act of a state – the Constitution, represent the most complex social political endeavor. In BiH, this process is even more complicated because it is an integral part of our constitutional legal order and the OHR, that is the “international community”, made up of representatives of the world’s most influential forces united in PIC, which do not have the same political views towards Bosnia and Herzegovina.

It is undeniable that the BiH Constitution must be changed. Amendments to the BiH Constitution are no longer a matter of will, desire or compromise of domestic political parties, but an international legal obligation of Bosnia and Herzegovina resulting from the final judgments of international courts adopted from 2007-2020., as well as judgmenta of the Constitutional Court and the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

For more than two decades, our NGOs have held the position that all citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is, all nations and minorities must have equal rights and obligations on the territory of all of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This principle is contained in the Dayton Constitution of BiH, which also contains as its integral part the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which is directly applicable and takes precedence over any other law in BiH.

The existing ethno-national concept in BiH, which is particularly exemplified through the role of the houses of peoples at the level of BiH and the entities, is unsustainable because the institutution of vital national interest is abused in most cases. This institution is mainly not used for the vital national interest of a people but for the “vital interests” of nationalist political parties. It also completely suppresses civil rights guaranteed by BiH’s existing Constitution, leading to complete ethnic segregation.

On the other hand, the practice showed that entity voting had a much more disastrous effect on BiH’s (non)development than protecting vital national interest. The main problem lies in the fact that Annex VII, that is, the return of expelled and displaced persons has not been complited and, therefore, we have a situation that the entity voting has simultaneously become the ethnic voting.

In February 2007, a verdict was delivered by the UN International Court of Justice in The Hague in the case of BiH vs. Serbia and Montenegro, which found Serbia responsible for not preventing genocide against Bosniaks in Srebrenica, and then a series of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights is in five separate judgments (2009 in favour of Sejdic-Finci vs. BiH, 2014 judgment in favour of Azra Zornic vs. BiH, 2016 judgment in favour of Ilias Pilav vs. BiH, Samir Slaku vs. BiH, and 2020 judgment in favour of Svetozar Pudaric vs. BiH) found the BiH Constitution discriminatory, practically towards all BiH citizens, from all peoples and the Others , despite the guarantee of all the rights under the United Nations General Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is important to point out that since 1st January 2009, the European Court of Human Rights has adopted 395 judgments against Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), with the lawsuits being brought by both individuals and groups. The ruling parties, even after more than a decade, have not implemented the verdicts.

The adopted judgments, which are obligatory for the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, represent the international legal basis for amending the BiH Constitution. The ethnic principle has been imposed by the flagrant violations of all human rights, aggression, ethnic cleansing and genocide.

We have no ambition or pretension to propose concrete solutions or texts of constitutional amendments, however, we want to offer principles that should be the starting basis for drafting a proposal for amendments to the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The principles should be minimal common denominator for all progressive political forces of BiH, which can be presented as a common interest to friendly states and signatories of the Dayton Agreement who are  jointly responsible for BiH’s state-of-affairs and the future. This primarily concerns the U.S. administration, which played a decisive role in establishing peace in our country 25 years ago. It is important to emphasise that in December 1995 we did not have judgments of the international courts.

In the context of what has been stated above, we propose the following principles for the changes to the BiH’s Constitution:

  1. The elimination of systemic discrimination that is widespread throughout the constitutional regulation. The enumerated judgments of the European Court of Justice oblige the state to remove existing constitutional provisions because of which all citizens who do not declare themselves members of constituent peoples are denied elementary civil and political rights. Those rights are also denied to members of the constituent peoples if they do not live in the “appropriate” entity. Discrimination is widespread also on other bases, such as gender, religious affiliation, social status, level of education received  and so on.
  2. The entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as administrative forms, were established on the basis of the “facts on the ground” caused by the international armed conflicts and as such are overcome today, as stated by the Venice Commission in 2005, while the biggest problem in practice has been, it has been shown, the entity voting in the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In its 2005 opinion, the Venice Commission states, at point 34: “.:. This veto, which in practice seems potentially relevant only for the RS, appears redundant having regard to the existence of the vital interest veto.”.
  3. Failure to implement final court judgments by international and domestic courts clearly shows that in BiH there is a suspension of the rule of law, and in this regard it is necessary to insert all needed amendments in the Constitution to establish the rule of law and ensure the full political independence of BiH’s judicial institutions. Four separate atunomous legal and judicial systems operate in Bosnia and Herzegovina – at the level of BiH, in both entities and in Brcko District of BiH. This leads to uneven and even conflicting legal solutions and uneven case-law, and thus to inequality of citizens. Therefore, constitutional solutions must be created so that this does not happen.
  4. Define the principle of sanctioning the denial of holocaust, genocide and crimes against humanity by the Constitution.
  5. It is necessary to precisely determine the rights protected by the institution of Vital National Interest/National Veto in the legislative bodies of the State and lower levels of government.
  6. The amendments to the Constitution must specify the disabling of the paralysis of its institutions and affirm the civic character of society and the strengthening of a democratic state modelled on all democratic states in Europe and the world.

The decisions on constitutional changes must be brought back into the institutions of the system, into the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH which will include the NGO sector in the debate, academia, the media and the widest circles of citizens.

Bosnia and Herzegovina has been a multiconfessional and multinational country for hundreds of years, where the riches of diversity have been an advantage. Unity of diversity is still in the most part the way of life in it today. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s constitution must contain it, promote it and enable it.

Stipe Prlić president Croatian People’s Council of BiH  Zoran Jovanović president Serb Citizens’ Council – Movement for Equality in BiH  Miro Lazović president Forum of 1992-1996 Parliamentarians  Nedžad Mulabegović president Council of the Congress of Bosniak Intellectuals  
Tags : , ,

Stevenson’s army, November 7

Failed assassination attempt by drone against Iraqi PM.

– Central Asian countries crack down on social media.

– New bills change legal issues for war powers.

– CRS report explains what’s in Continuing Resolution law.

My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).

Tags : , , ,
Tweet