Tag: India
Nuclear reminders
Former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Pantelis Ikonomou writes occasionally for peacefare.net. We have never met in person, or even spoken on the phone, but his unequivocal commitment to containing and reducing nuclear risks, combined with his technical expertise, has been more than enough reason for me to open the blog to his always welcome contributions.
He has now written and published with Springer a wonderful comprehensive volume modestly titled Global Nuclear Developments: Insights from a Former IAEA Inspector. It is a first-rate primer on:
- the technology required to make a nuclear weapon,
- how the current international regime to control nuclear weapons evolved and how it functions,
- how major nonproliferation crises have been handled in North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, Romania, and the former Soviet Union,
- possible future proliferators, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Japan, and South Korea,
- nuclear incidents/accidents, and
- the nuclear weapons states, both within the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty–US, Russia, China, UK, and France–and outside it–India, Pakistan, Israel, and South Africa.
Throughout, Pantelis demonstrates his excellent and dispassionate command of the details while also offering practical and well-founded guidance for the future. North Korea, he thinks, will not be giving up nuclear weapons but its program might be frozen, given the right incentives. The US, he thinks, made a colossal error in withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal (the JCPOA) and thereby shortening the time required for Tehran to obtain the material needed to build a nuclear weapon. He understands that the deal in which Libya gave up its military nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief was a good one, but Qadaffi’s ultimate end will have strengthened North Korean resolve not to do likewise. I found his discussion of the South African and Israeli pursuit of nuclear weapons particularly interesting.
Pantelis is proud of the work of the IAEA, but blunt about the shortcomings of the regime it administers. He regards its Additional Protocol as adequate to limiting the possibility of hiding a military nuclear program within a civilian one, but he also notes that it is not universally and unconditionally accepted, most notably by Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran (which accepts it only within the context of JCPOA) as well as Israel, which remains outside the NPT. He also underlines the tensions between nuclear weapons and non-nuclear weapons states over the reluctance of the former to deliver on nuclear disarmament, which contributed to the failure of the 2015 review conference and what he feared would be the likely failure of the 2020 edition before it was postponed this spring.
In the end, Pantelis speculates on the emergence of a new “tetra”-polar equilibrium among nuclear weapons states:
- US and UK;
- Russia and India;
- China, Pakistan, and North Korea;
- Israel and France.
I am not sure how he comes to this conclusion. Even if 1. and 3. are historically well-rooted, I’m not convinced that India will ally with Russia or that today’s France is interested in allying with Israel, even if Pantelis is correct that France helped Israel develop its nuclear weapons in the past. Nor do I see why this configuration should be stable. It seems to me that two-party nuclear standoffs (US/USSR, India/Pakistan, US/China) are far more likely to be stable than anything with four corners to it.
Pantelis reserves his final enthusiasm for an epilogue in which he pleads with the world’s scientific community to convince the nuclear weapons states, especially the US and Russia, to engage seriously in nuclear disarmament rather than their current race to modernize and proliferate nuclear weapons, which is intensifying. I wouldn’t fault him there at all. The craziness of pursuing weapons that can never be used without sealing your own country’s destruction has not been lost on most of the world’s states. Lowering the level of mutual assured destruction could free up a lot of resources for more useful things. It is fortunate we have well-informed observer/participants like Pantelis to remind us of what we should be doing.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, June 17
– WSJ says Trump administration is still working with WHO despite announced US withdrawal.[ Teaching point: throughout Trump’s presidency, he and the WH staff have made announcements that were not followed up with action. They seemed to think that a press release was sufficient. Or a so-called executive order that really only called for an action to be studied. Process matters.]
– Britain is merging its development office with the Foreign Office. [Teaching point: the US has the same longtime tension between USAID, which wants to give aid for developmental goals, and State, which usually wants to add political goals. No easy answers. As JFK said, “To govern is to choose.”]
– CIA hackers got hacked, with enormous damage. [Teaching Point: Hubris is a powerful force in elite organizations. We also have prioritized cyber attack over cyber defense and resilience.]
– Here’s good background on the China-India clash and on the Line of Actual Control. BTW, the deadly fighting was with barbed wire clubs, since firearms aren’t authorized by either side.
– Speaker Pelosi mandates masks in committees.
– My local library system, PG County in Maryland, sent a message yesterday saying that major newspapers and many magazines are now freely accessible online via the library. Your local library might do the same. Check it out.
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).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Covid crackdowns and mobilization
“Government responses to the new coronavirus are disrupting civil society all over the world. But while government measures are dramatically restricting civic space, the global crisis is also catalyzing new forms of mobilization.” On May 20, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hosted a discussion on “Global Civil Society and the Pandemic.” The discussion was moderated by Thomas Carothers and featured three other guest speakers:
Thomas Carothers (Moderator): Senior Vice President for studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Yousseff Cherif: Deputy Director of Columbia Global Centers, Tunis
Maureen Kademaunga: Doctoral Researcher at the Human Economy Research Program, University of Pretoria, South Africa
Janjira Sombatpoonsiri: Associate Fellow at the German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA)
Vijayan MJ: Independent researcher and writer, Research Collective, New Delhi, India
Current context
In his opening remarks, Carothers touched on the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s current research on the state of civil activism throughout the world. There are conflicting narratives. On one hand, there has been a trend toward governmental restriction on the role and function of civil society. On the other hand, a new generation of dynamic, fluid, and tech-savvy civil activists has emerged despite increasing state restrictions.
Carothers believes that the COVID-19 pandemic intensifies this dualism within civil society. Many governments throughout the world have implemented state lockdowns and have increased restrictions on freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. Carothers views the current period as “the most restrictive period in living memory for civic activism.” Despite this fact, Carothers highlights that the COVID-19 pandemic creates an enormous need for citizens to engage, respond, and find ways to improve governmental responses to the virus.
Changing roles
Cherif highlights new roles the COVID-19 pandemic has created for civil society groups in Tunisia. Many organizations have shifted their work from democracy promotion and governance to combating COVID-19. This includes aiding hospitals, distributing masks, and cleaning public spaces. In places where the government has proven to be inefficient or too weak to act, civil society groups have continued the work of government and have led COVID-19 relief initiatives. Although the Tunisian government has shown interest in working with these groups during the pandemic, Cherif believes that future cooperation remains unlikely.
Kademaunga believes that the government of Zimbabwe has utilized the COVID-19 crisis to justify further restrictions on civil society groups. Government human rights abuses against civil society groups in Zimbabwe are increasing. Simultaneously, these groups continue to increase their efforts in assisting the government of Zimbabwe in the provision of essential services during the current lockdown.
Vijayan states that civil society groups in India quickly changed their agendas at the start of the COVID-19 crisis. During the initial stages of the pandemic, civil society groups took charge when the Indian government remained absent. Indian civil society groups have been more efficient than the Indian government in devising a plan of action.
Transformation of activist means
Cherif observes that the COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically increased the online presence of civil society groups on various digital platforms throughout the Arab world. Civil society groups have utilized webinars as spaces for new online discussions. Notably, some have started to increase their educational initiatives online.
Kademaunga predicts that the shift towards online platforms post-COVID-19 will harm those in rural areas who do not possess widespread digital access. Previously, in Zimbabwe they accounted for the majority of civil society participation. Kademaunga stressed that this changing dynamic will foster heightened inequality between rural and urban areas. Ultimately, those within urban centers will dominate the agenda making processes for civil society groups.
A pivotal moment for legitimacy
Cherif regards the COVID-19 pandemic as pivotal to how ordinary citizens view the legitimacy of civil society groups. Previously, the majority of Tunisians viewed civil society groups as unfavorable and distant from the rest of society. Due to their integral role in providing support during the current crisis, these groups have gained legitimacy and favorability.
Kademaunga believes that the COVID-19 pandemic will bring about a major change in the perception of civil society society groups in Zimbabwe. Traditionally, the government of Zimbabwe has fueled negative discourse against civil society groups. However, the role of civil society groups in providing aid amid the COVID-19 pandemic disproves negative stereotypes that portray these groups as being in opposition to the interests of general citizens.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, May 11
– WaPo’s Davie Weigel details the Trump campaign’s China ploy.
– Evan Osnos of the New Yorker argues that it’s dangerous.
– Industrial policy on chips? Looks like it.
– India leery of Chinese investment.
– CoS in training: Mark Meadows in the WH.
– Drezner reviews scholarly thinking about the pandemic and world politics.
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).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Pakistan rollercoaster
Pakistan is in a period of neither high promise nor crisis. An expert group of independent academics, policy analysts, and retired government has taken the opportunity to lay out a range of concrete proposals for US policymakers to shape the bilateral relations. On March 3, the Middle East Institute hosted a panel discussion with some of the participants on “Pathways to a Stable and Sustainable Relationship between Pakistan and the United States.” The discussion featured eight speakers:
Syed Mohammed Ali: Adjunct professor, Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities
Ambassador (ret.) Gerald M. Feierstein: Senior Vice President, MEI
Ambassador Ali Jehangir Siddiqui: Pakistani Ambassador at Large for Foreign Investment
Marvin G. Weinbaum: Director of Afghanistan and Pakistan studies, MEI
William Milam: Former US Ambassador to Pakistan
Touqir Hussain: Visiting professor at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities
Dana Marshall: President, Transnational Strategy Group
Polly Nayak: Distinguished Fellow at the Stimson Institute
Pakistan-US relations
Feierstein described US-Pakistan relations as a mistrust-driven roller coaster while Siddiqui emphasized economic cooperation, culture exchange, and regional development, following a period of security focus in the 2000s. Weinbaum thinks relations have been unstable, waxing and waning, climbing to heights of interdependence and sinking to mutual recrimination. Hussain attributed the unsustainability to contradictions in strategic interests, which led to the 1998-2001 US sanctions on Pakistan.
Why now?
Weinbaum noted that today is a period of calm without major crises in the region. It’s an opportune moment to improve cooperation and put the relationship on a solid footing. We should seek better understanding as well as awareness of differences. Pakistan is critical to US regional interests in terms of eradicating ISIS and Al-Qaeda affiliates, achieving a stable Afghanistan, and alleviating the threat of nuclear proliferation. Hussain added that while the US is withdrawing from Afghanistan, it should continue its proactive engagement with South Asia, maintaining good relations with both India and Pakistan in the long run. Both Nayak and Milam believe the period before the upcoming election is an opportunity to address key issues in specific areas.
What the proposals are about?
Ali said the proposals focusing on Pakistan-US strategic interests, including recommendations on intelligence sharing between US and Pakistan, counterterrorism cooperation, peace between Pakistan and India, the US role in crisis management, China’s investments in Pakistan, clean energy, US investments, etc. The proposals aim to balance security with civil society and human rights, which can increase US diplomatic status in the region.
Nayak believes nuclear weapons should not be the heart of rebuilding relations. Normalization should rely on strategic economic cooperation because Pakistan faces deficits and underemployment. The proposals attempt to expand business and navigate differences in corporate and social culture.
Marshall stated that Pakistan needs more commercial and economic opportunities. Establishing a reconstruction zone could incentivize investment on border zone between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US can leverage its strategic relations with Pakistan by tying trade to security.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 26
– WSJ notes the return and buildup of US forces in Saudi Arabia.
– Some anti-JCPOA Senators are discussing a new deal with Iran.
– NYT explains why US & India failed to reach a trade deal this week.
– Australia warns of foreign spy threat.
– Graham Allison says US should prune some of its alliances.
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. If you want to get it directly, 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).
RSS - Posts
