Tag: North Korea
Peace Picks | September 8 – 11, 2020
- Election 2020: Challenges & Opportunities for U.S. Policy in the Middle East | September 8, 2020 | 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM EDT | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The Middle East is going through one of the most unstable periods in its recent history. Each country in the region faces its own unique challenges, but there are also cross-cutting issues ranging from proxy conflict and terrorism to climate change and water security that permeates throughout the region. The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to launch Election 2020: Challenges and Opportunities for US Policy in the Middle East. The briefs in this book offer policy insights from MEI scholars on key issues in the Middle East and serve as a contribution to the broader discussion about the challenges and opportunities for US policy in the region.
What are the key issues the next administration must prioritize? In what ways can the US pursue and achieve its policy goals in the Middle East through diplomacy, conflict resolution, and military engagement? How can a concerted regional strategy address region-wide issues and their global impacts?
Speakers:
Amb. Gerald Feierstein (Moderator): Senior Vice President, Middle East Institute
Paul Salem: President, Middle East Institute
Randa Slim: Senior Fellow & Director, Conflict Resolution & Track II Dialogues Program, Middle East Institute
Gen. Joseph Votel: Distinguished Senior Fellow on National Security, Middle East Institute - U.S. Policy in the Middle East: A Conversation With Assistant Secretary of State David Schenker | September 9, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:15 AM EDT | Brookings Institution | Register Here
The United States has been very active diplomatically in the Middle East as of late, despite public focus elsewhere, on issues ranging from the crisis in Lebanon, to maritime tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean, to U.A.E.-Israeli normalization of relations.
On September 9, the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will host a discussion with David Schenker, assistant secretary of Near Eastern affairs at the U.S. Department of State to examine the current state of U.S policy and diplomacy in the region and its future trajectory. Assistant Secretary Schenker will be returning from a mission to the region, which includes stops in Kuwait, Qatar, and Lebanon and will offer thoughts on his recent meetings. Natan Sachs, director of the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, will moderate the conversation.
Speakers:
Suzanne Maloney (Introduction): Vice President & Director, Foreign Policy, Brookings
David Schenker: Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Natan Sachs: Director, Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings - Rising Political Polarization in Southeast Asia | September 9, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:30 AM CEST | Carnegie Endowment | Register Here
Rising levels of political polarization are hurting democracy in many Southeast Asian countries. Drawing on a recent Carnegie Endowment report on the topic, this event will examine three critical cases—Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand—to gain a regional understanding of why polarization is increasing, its political effects, and how political and civic actors can take steps to address it.
This event is being held in collaboration with the Institute of Asian Studies.
Speakers:
Thomas Carothers: Senior Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment
Janjira Sombatpoonsiri: Associate Fellow, German Institute for Global & Area Studies
Naruemon Thabchumpon: Deputy Director for Research Affairs, Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University
Eve Warburton: Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Asia Research Institute, National Research University of Singapore
Bridget Welsh: Honorary Research Associate, Asia Research Institute, University of Nottingham Malaysia - A New Direction for U.S. Policy on North Korea | September 9, 2020 | 5:00 – 6:30 PM EDT | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register Here
Since the February 2019 Hanoi Summit failed to reach an agreement, the United States and North Korea have been mired in a diplomatic stalemate with minimal negotiations. At the same time, Pyongyang has continued to advance its nuclear and ballistic missile programs while reversing many of the inter-Korean tension reduction measures achieved in 2018. The next U.S. administration, whether Republican or Democratic, will have the opportunity to break this deadlock with a North Korean regime that is increasingly confident in its nuclear capabilities but still insecure about its longevity.
The next U.S. administration will encounter a North Korean regime that has promised to demonstrate a “new strategic weapon” in its nuclear weapons program and vowed to withstand the international sanctions campaign. The policy approach taken by the next administration will help determine whether Pyongyang will cling to its nuclear weapons or if the two countries will set a new course for building peace and reducing tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
Speakers:
Frank Aum (Moderator): Senior Expert, North Korea, U.S. Institute of Peace
Christine Ahn: Founder & Executive Director, Women Cross DMZ; Co-Founder, Korea Peace Network
Suzanne Dimaggio: Chair, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft; Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment
Markus Garlauskas: Nonresident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council; Former National Intelligence Officer for North Korea, Office of the Director for National Intelligence
Van Jackson: Senior Lecturer in International Relations, Victoria University of Wellington; Former Senior Defense Strategist, U.S. Department of Defense
Ankit Panda: Stanton Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment - Ecological Threats to Peace | September 10, 2020 | 1:00 – 2:00 PM EDT | U.S. Institute of Peace | Register Here
Global warming, extreme weather events, and rising sea levels are already adversely affecting food and water security throughout the world—leaving the least resilient countries with an increased risk of political instability, social fragmentation, and economic collapse. A more accurate measurement of levels of exposure to tomorrow’s ecological threats is key to helping these countries maintain peace today and can enable others to better prepare and adapt for the future.
The new Ecological Threat Register (ETR), produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, synthesizes and visualizes data on environmental indicators to estimate which countries, regions, and areas are most vulnerable to environment-induced conflict. In particular, the ETR underscores that 141 countries are vulnerable to ecological threats, and that approximately 1.2 billion people could be displaced globally by ecological disasters in the next 30 years.
Speakers:
Tyler Beckelman (Moderator): Director, International Partnerships, U.S. Institute of Peace
Sagal Abshir: Nonresident Fellow, Center on International Cooperation, New York University
Michael Collins: Executive Director, Institute for Economics & Peace
Dr. Joseph Hewitt: Vice President for Policy, Learning, & Strategy, U.S. Institute of Peace - Jihadism at a Crossroads | September 11, 2020 | 9:00 – 10:00 PM EDT | Brookings Institution | Register Here
Almost 20 years after 9/11, jihadi groups are no longer in the spotlight. However, ISIS, al-Qaida, and al-Shabab remain active, and new groups have emerged. The movement as a whole is evolving, as is the threat it poses.
On September 11, the Center for Middle East Policy will host a virtual panel event to discuss the current status of jihadi groups. The panel will feature Thomas Hegghammer, senior research fellow at the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment and author of the new book, “The Caravan: Abdallah Azzam and the Rise of Global Jihad.”Other panelists will include Tricia Bacon, assistant professor at American University, and Bruce Riedel, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Brookings Senior Fellow Daniel Byman will moderate the discussion.
Speakers:
Daniel L Byman: Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Brookings
Tricia Bacon: Professional Lecturer, School of Public Affairs, American University
Thomas Hegghammer: Senior Research Fellow, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment
Bruce Riedel: Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Brookings
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Nuclear irresponsibility
Former IAEA nuclear inspector Pantelis Ikonomou writes, on a date between the 75th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and the bombing of Nagasaki (in an excerpt from his Global Nuclear Developments, which Springer published in May 2020):
Nuclear powers regard their weapons as the most effective lever to achieve strategic goals and the status of a world power or a regional leader. The geopolitical backdrop from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombing simply could not be ignored. There are already a number of “nuclear suitors” or would-be proliferators who are ready to play the same card in the on-going geopolitical game. This fact cannot and should not be ignored….
In 50 years of implementation the NPT has had significant successes to show as far as consolidating the non-proliferation regime is concerned. But when it comes to the goal of nuclear disarmament, it has so far been a great failure. The five superpowers, the NPT Nuclear Weapons States, keep evading, in essence ignoring their relevant obligation to nuclear disarmament under Article VI of the NPT. Their behavior creates global frustration, awkwardness and anger, and consequently great distrust of the vast majority of “nuclear have nots” to the few “nuclear haves.” This reality could be a powerful catalyst for negative developments leading to the collapse of the NPT regime.….
Having served for over 32 years the world’s nuclear watchdog IAEA, consciously espousing its declared goals, I would like to address a few rhetorical questions to the two major nuclear powers: the US and Russia, depositaries and steady supporters of the NPT regime and the IAEA:
• Why do they revive, in full consciousness, a nuclear race 30 years after the end of the Cold War?
• Are they not aware of their actions being contrary to their undertaking under Article VI of the NPT? That is “…to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”.
• Do they not realize that they severely endanger the non-proliferation regime?
• Do they not see the imminent risk of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation by aspiring suitors, “would-be proliferators,” in the Middle East and in north-east Asia?
• Isn’t North Korea enough?
• Why do they risk their displacement from, or initially the decreased relevance of, their global geostrategic primacy?
• Is it possible that they underestimate the growing nuclear threat to mankind?
• Is the behavior of the two UNSC superpowers responsible as patrons of world peace and security? Why do they disrespect the international community’s expectations and disregard its exasperation, anger, and fear?
The risks of the nuclear threat span around the globe and affect every country’s sovereignty and security. The universal nature of the existing nuclear threat is indisputable. It is within the powers and abilities of the leaders of Russia and the US to fulfill their utmost obligation towards their citizens and the peoples of our really small, yet so beautiful and still very young planet Earth. This is to initiate and achieve a political climate of understanding and moderation,a global nuclear “calm down” atmosphere. …
What are these leaders waiting for? What are their intentions? Nuclear crises are becoming more complex and unpredictable, more dynamic and erratic in nature. The tipping point for uncontrollable and irreversible derailment may be nearer than we think. The probability of nuclear weapons be used at any time, intentionally or by accident, is on the rise again, after decades of receding following the end of the Cold War era.
Have we not yet learned the lesson from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Biden will have his hands full
Time for a summer update on President Trump’s diplomatic initiatives, more or less in his priority order:
- Trade with China: importing less than half of what is called for in the “first phase” agreement.
- Re-initiating nuclear talks with Iran: Trump said more than a year ago he would talk with no pre-conditions. Tehran won’t, despite “maximum pressure.” Iran wants sanctions eased first.
- Getting rid of North Korea’s nuclear weapons: Kim Jong-un has in effect said “no.”
- Ending the war in Afghanistan: The withdrawal is proceeding, but progress in intra-Afghan talks is minimal.
- Removal of Venezuelan President Maduro: He has weathered the challenge and remains firmly in power.
- South China Sea: The US has rejected China’s sovereignty claim but is doing nothing about its military outposts.
- Helping Ukraine force the Russians out of Donbas: The Administration has provided lethal weapons to no avail.
- Reducing Saudi oil production to jack up world prices: Saudi production is down, but world prices are still in a trough.
- Initiating a democratic transition in Syria: Congress has beefed up sanctions, but Trump can’t even begin to get Assad out.
- “Deal of the century”: Not going anywhere but into the shredder. Even Israeli annexation of part of the West Bank is blocked.
This skips a lot. For example:
- the President telling Chinese President Xi that it was fine to put (Muslim) Uighurs into concentration camps,
- withdrawing from the Paris Climate accord, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and several favorable arms control agreements with Russia,
- moving US troops out of Germany to the delight of Moscow,
- failing to counter Russian bounties for Taliban who kill US soldiers in Afghanistan,
- saying the right things about Hong Kong and withdrawing its trade preferences, but with not discernible impact,
- not responding to foreign initiatives to undermine the US elections, and
- withdrawing from the World Health Organization in the midst of a pandemic.
American foreign policy has rarely been so ineffectual, never mind whether the priorities are right. The Administration doesn’t think past its own next move. The President is incapable of it and won’t let others do it for him. He behaves as if the adversary has no options. Much of what the Administration does is for show, without considering however how most of the rest of the world sees the situation. The only customers for this foreign policy are the domestic audience of China hawks, Russia doves, oil and coal producers, and evangelical Christians, along with President Putin, Prime Minister Netanyahu and a few other would-be autocrats around the world.
Getting out of the foreign policy hole Trump has dug will be a big challenge. President Biden, if there ever is one, will have his hands full even if he pays attention only to the first three of the items above. Let’s hope he can somehow save us from the consequences of four dreadful years.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, July 14
– WSJ first reported US rejection of Chinese claims in South China Sea. Here’s Pompeo statement
–North Korea rejects more talks with US.
– Britain bans Huawei from 5G.
-Gun lobbyist delivers.
Here’s summary of biggest House-Senate differences in NDAA.
– US has closed 5 more bases in Afghanistan.
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:
Stevenson’s army, July 6
– “Middle East intelligence” sources tell the NYT that Israel was responsible for the explosion at Iran’s nuclear enrichment facility.
-Both US and China have major naval operations now in South China Sea.
– FP says WH personnel will conduct loyalty interviews with DOD political appointees.
– AP says Trump-connected lobbyists captured billions in pandemic funds,
– Defector details weakness and corruption in North Korean military.
-LA Times says WH has agreed to keep 4000 US troops in Afghanistan after US elections.
-And for this week of 90+ degree weather, New Yorker has a 1998 article on life before air conditioners. [I remember]
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
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.
RSS - Posts
