Tag: Nuclear weapons
Stevenson’s army, November 30
NYT says Fakhrizadeh killing was done by a dozen people with multiple vehicles in a carefully planned attack.WaPo sorts out Israeli motives.
Lobbyists are working hard to weaken Uighur sanctions.
Neera Tanden, Biden pick for OMB, looks like the prime GOP target since the job requires Senate confirmation.
Axios says Biden is considering retired Army General Lloyd Austin for SecDef. Bad move. The law would have to be waived since he been out of uniform only 3 years. Mattis set troubling example of ignoring civilians.
Politico lists House members vulnerable to redistricting.
SCOTUS hears census citizenship case today.
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, November 29
WaPo’s Paul Kane notes that several Senate committees will be unable to hold hearings on Biden nominees because their chairmen have retired or been term-limited. The Senate can’t organize itself until the Georgia Senate races are settled. If by chance the chamber ends up 50/50, as in 2001, they will likely look to that arrangement as a model. Here’s CRS’s report on that.
Meanwhile, the outgoing 116th Congress has a heavy December workload
David Sanger suggest the Fakhrizadeh killing may have been Israel’s way of preventing a Biden administration from resurrecting the nuclear deal with Iran.
And the NYT has begun investigating economic ties of new nominees.
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:
Peace Picks | November 9 – November 13, 2020
Notice: Due to public health concerns, upcoming events are only available via live stream.
- The Future of Transatlantic Policy Towards Russia | November 9, 2020 | 9:00 – 9:45 AM ET | CSIS | Register Here
Please join CSIS and the Centre for Polish-Russian Dialogue and Understanding (CPRDU) for a conversation with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Stephen E. Biegun and Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Marcin Przydacz on strengthening the transatlantic relationship amid today’s shifting geostrategic landscape of great power competition and a global pandemic in order to counter the foreign and security policy challenges posed by Russia.
This conversation begins a four-part series of discussions as part of the ninth annual Transatlantic Forum on Russia which will discuss the impact of geostrategic competition on the international system, growing domestic unrest in Russia, and the future of European energy security.
Speakers:
Stephen E. Biegun: U.S. Deputy Secretary of State
Marcin Przydacz: Polish Deputy Foreign Minister
Ernest Wyciszkiewicz: Director, Centre for Polish-Russian Dialogue and Understanding
2. Election 2020: State of Play and Implications | November 10, 2020 | 2:00 – 3:00 PM ET | Brookings Institute | Register Here
As many predicted, the 2020 election results were not finalized on Election Day. Voter turnout surged across the country, with record participation numbers that shattered levels from previous years. More than 100 million people voted early nationwide, and the country is on track for the highest turnout in more than a century.
Donald Trump and Joe Biden remain neck and neck in a handful of battleground states that have yet to declare a winner. Some House races across the country remain undecided, and control of the Senate hangs in the balance. Results have been trickling in slowly but mounting legal action and false accusations of voting fraud threaten to further delay the results.
On November 10, Governance Studies at Brookings will host a webinar examining the results of the 2020 election. Panelists will analyze state-by-state outcomes, voter turnout trends, election administration, implications for future policy implementation, and the stakes for American democracy.
Speakers:
Darrell M. West, moderator: Vice President and Director – Governance StudiesSenior Fellow – Center for Technology Innovation
Camille Busette: Senior Fellow – Economic Studies, Governance Studies, Metropolitan Policy ProgramDirector – Race, Prosperity, and Inclusion Initiative
John Hudak: Deputy Director – Center for Effective Public ManagementSenior Fellow – Governance Studies
Elaine Kamarck: Founding Director – Center for Effective Public ManagementSenior Fellow – Governance Studies
Molly E. Reynolds: Senior Fellow – Governance Studies
3. Myanmar’s Post-Election Future: A New Beginning? | November 10, 2020 | 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM ET | Stimson Center | Register Here
In Myanmar’s upcoming general elections, Aung Sang Suu Kyi’s ruling party, the NLD, is widely expected to emerge victorious. Nevertheless, since the party came to power in 2015, it has faced numerous international challenges.
During these pivotal times for Myanmar, join East Asia Program Co-Director Yun Sun, Ambassador U Aung Lynn, Dr. Aung Naing Oo, and Priscilla Clapp in a post-election virtual discussion unpacking the results and what they mean for the future of the peace process, the Rohingya crisis, and Myanmar’s relationship with the world.
Speakers:
U Aung Lynn: Ambassador to the United States from Myanmar
Dr. Aung Naing Oo: Executive Director of Center for Peace and Reconciliation
Priscilla Clapp: Senior Advisor, USIP; former U.S. Chargé d’Affaires in Yangon
4. Election Cycle United States and Brazil: The Impact of the 2020 Elections for Brazil | November 10, 2020 | 4:00 PM ET | Atlantic Council | Register Here
The American and municipal presidential elections in Brazil adapted to the new reality of COVID-19. In addition to voting by mail in the U.S. and changing the election date in Brazil, Brazilian municipal elections are also the first to follow changes established by the 2019 Electoral Reform and following historic presidential elections in Brazil in 2018.
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, economic recession and continuous polarization, what parallels can we establish between the American and Brazilian elections? How can the outcome of the American elections impact the future of bilateral relations with Brazil? How can these elections impact the Brazilian response to coronavirus and low economic growth?
Speakers:
Maurício Moura: President, Idea Big Data
Patrícia Campos Mello: Journalist, Folha de S. Paulo
Bruno Carazza: Professor, Ibmec and Fundação Dom Cabral;Columnist, Valor Econômico
Suelma Rosa: Director of Government Relations, Dow Brasil; President, Irelgov
Roberta Braga: Deputy Director, Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center, Atlantic Council
5. Running to Stand Still? The Impact of the United Nations in the Middle East, 75 Years On | November 11, 2020 | 4:00 – 5:15 PM ET | Brookings Institute | Register Here
In its 75th year, the United Nations (U.N.) faces immense challenges in its mission to promote peace and security around the world. During the September 2020 General Assembly meeting, the U.N. reaffirmed its commitment to multilateralism as a means to address the world’s problems. But is the U.N. Charter as relevant today as it was 75 years ago?
Preventing the illegal use of force and ensuring equality and dignity for all people are the cornerstones of the U.N. Charter. How has this mission fared in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region? What lessons have we learned from the U.N.’s role in conflicts such as those in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Palestine, and Syria? Is it still realistic to discuss Security Council reform? What impact would such reform have on conflicts in the MENA region?
Furthermore, there are a number of U.N. political missions and special envoys working on complex issues in countries including Yemen, Libya, and Syria. Their role has often been controversial. What alternatives must be considered to address conflict mediation in the MENA region? Does the U.N. still serve as an effective multilateral mechanism through which to pursue conflict resolution?
The Brookings Doha Center invites you to attend this webinar that discusses these questions and more. The panelists will critically reflect on the achievements, challenges, and potential trajectories of the U.N. in the MENA region, in light of the organization’s 75th anniversary.
Speakers:
Noha Aboueldahab, moderator: Fellow – Foreign Policy, Brookings Doha Center
Habib Nassar: Director of Policy and Research – Impunity Watch
Jakkie Cilliers: Chairman of the Board and Head of African Futures & Innovation – Institute for Security Studies
Lise Grande: United Nations Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator – Yemen
7. Ramifications of the US Elections for Change in the EU’s Eastern Neighborhood | November 11, 2020 | 8:00 – 9:00 AM ET | Wilson Center | Register Here
We have recently seen a period of US disengagement with Europe and its Eastern neighborhood. In this event, we explore changes in American foreign policy toward this region after the Presidential elections on November 3, the risks of a possible prolonged transition in Washington, and access the broader implications for the region, including those stemming from recent developments in Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, and Moldova as well as the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.
We have recently seen a period of US disengagement with Europe and its Eastern neighborhood. In this event, we explore changes in American foreign policy toward this region after the Presidential elections on November 3, the risks of a possible prolonged transition in Washington, and access the broader implications for the region, including those stemming from recent developments in Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, and Moldova as well as the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.
We will explore how a “more geopolitical Europe” will react to these changes, and whether European leaders can count on a more supportive administration in Washington as they deal with the growing number of crises and challenges to regional security, including an assertive Russia and Turkey.
Speakers:
Daniel S. Hamilton: Director, Global Europe Program; Austrian Marshall Plan Foundation Distinguished Fellow
Cristina Gherasimov: Research Fellow, Robert Bosch Center for Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia, DGAP
Stefan Meister: Head of Tbilisi Office, Heinrich Böll Foundation; Associate Fellow, DGAP
Milan Nič, moderator: Head of Program, Robert Bosch Center for Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, and Central Asia, DGAP
8. What are Pakistan’s Aims in Afghanistan? | November 12, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:15 AM ET | Middle East Institute | Register Here
Pakistan’s aims in Afghanistan are variously described as the chief obstacles to a peace process in that country, or as serving as an active partner with the international community in working for a political solution to the Afghan conflict. However, on one issue, there is ordinarily little dispute: Pakistan looks at the outcome in Afghanistan as critical to its security interests. Arguably, no outside country has more to gain and lose from what happens in Afghanistan. The Middle East Institute (MEI), in co-sponsorship with INDUS, is pleased to host a panel of experts to discuss Pakistani interests and aims in Afghanistan.
How relevant currently is the concept of “strategic depth”? What kind of regime would Pakistan prefer in Kabul? What is the nature of Pakistan’s relationship with the Taliban and how much influence does it exercise over the insurgency’s political wing? How important to the course of the Afghan conflict today are Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan?
Speakers:
Madiha Afzal: David M. Rubenstein fellow, Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution
Asad Durrani: Former chief, military intelligence and inter-services intelligence, Pakistan
Afrasiab Khattak: Former Senator, Pakistan; Pashtun political and human rights activist; analyst, regional affairs
Jawed Ludin: Former deputy foreign minister of Afghanistan; president, Heart of Asia Society
Marvin Weinbaum, moderator: Director, Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies, MEI
9. US-Taiwan Policy in 2021 and Beyond | November 12, 2020 | 9:00 – 11:00 AM ET | Brookings Institute | Register Here
U.S.-Taiwan relations have advanced in recent years. At the same time, tensions have been rising in cross-Strait relations and in U.S.-China relations, raising concerns about Taiwan’s overall security. How will the results of the U.S. presidential election impact these developments? What issues relating to Taiwan should command the greatest attention from U.S. policymakers in 2021 and beyond?
On November 12, the Center for East Asia Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution will host a group of policy experts to examine the future of U.S.-Taiwan policy. Panelists will participate in a cross-cutting discussion analyzing the next administration’s inheritance of U.S.-Taiwan relations and examining a range of issues critical to Taiwan’s future, including cross-Strait dynamics, Taiwan’s international space, economic security, technology issues, and security issues.
Speakers:
Ryan Hass, moderator: The Michael H. Armacost Chair Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, John L. Thornton China CenterInterim Chen-Fu and Cecilia Yen Koo Chair in Taiwan Studies
Richard C. Bush: Nonresident Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, John L. Thornton China Center
Bonnie S. Glaser: Senior Adviser for Asia and Director, China Power Project – Center for Strategic and International Studies
Syaru Shirley Lin: Nonresident Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies
Eric Sayers: Adjunct Senior Fellow, Asia-Pacific Security Program – Center for a New American Security
10. The UN Nuclear Ban Treaty Enters Into Force in January: Then What? | November 13, 2020 | 10:00 – 11:00 AM ET | Carnegie Endowment of Peace | Register Here
Fifty countries recently signed and ratified the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which will take effect in January 2021. This marks a major milestone in international efforts to ban nuclear weapons, but notably, the United States, its allies, and all other nuclear-armed states refused to take part.
So what effect, if any, will the treaty have on international security and nuclear disarmament efforts? And how will treaty promoters attract additional states to sign and ratify it? Join Beatrice Fihn, Togzhan Kassenova, Zia Mian, and George Perkovich for a conversation on the future of the nuclear ban.
Speakers:
Beatrice Fihn: executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize-winning campaign coalition that works to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons.
Togzhan Kassenova: nonresident fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment.
Zia Mian: physicist and co-director of Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security, part of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs.
George Perkovich: works primarily on nuclear strategy and nonproliferation issues; cyberconflict; and new approaches to international public-private management of strategic technologies.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
What use is disarmament of the disarmed?
Pantelis Ikonomou, retired IAEA nuclear inspector, writes:
For decades, international civil society has advocated for a treaty that specifically commits to comprehensive nuclear disarmament and the total abolition of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapon states, based on non-binding provisions of the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and shortcomings in the global disarmament regime, have kept dissociating themselves from this global aspiration for nuclear disarmament. Even worse, all of them keep developing new and more effective nuclear weapons through expensive projects of “nuclear modernization.”
In this gloomy global climate, a new international treaty – the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) – is soon entering into force. After its endorsement by a special UN conference in July 2017, the Treaty reached last Friday the required minimum of 50 ratifications triggering entry into force in 90 days thereafter, about the time of the presidential inauguration in the US. TPNW bans the development, production, testing, stockpiling, stationing, transferring, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.
TPNW would be a catalytic nuclear disarmament advancement if it did not have a critical shortcoming. It is binding only on those states that are party to it. Notably, all nuclear weapon states and NATO allies did not participate at the TPNW conference, saying they remain committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Of 193 UN member states, only 124 participated, of which 122 voted “in favor,” one “against” and one “abstention”.
Ultimately, the realization of nuclear disarmament will still rest on the goodwill of the nuclear weapon holders. If nuclear weapon holders decide to join the TPNW, it provides for a time-bound framework for negotiations leading to the verified and irreversible elimination of their nuclear weapons programs. If not, Article VI of the NPT will continue demarcating their responsibility: “… 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….”
The questions that arise from the current development include:
a) Is the TPNW practically another manifestation of the “disarmament of the disarmed”?
b) What is the practical value of this Treaty?
To which I respond:
- It is undoubtedly a strong political statement, both a protest and an invitation by the international community to the nuclear weapon holders.
- It carries moral weight and opens the way to eliminating double standards linked to geopolitics or moral relativism of the nuclear powers.
- It stigmatizes development and use of nuclear weapons, with potential to influence international public opinion and countries that have not yet signed up to change their stance.
As long as the five nuclear superpowers keep ignoring their nuclear disarmament responsibility under the NPT and evade the TPNW invitation, their behavior will provoke frustration, awkwardness, and anger in the rest of the international community. But that may not continue forever, because use of nuclear weapons can occur at any moment–by accident, mistake, or intentionally.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, October 21
– US & Russia seem close to a deal freezing weapons and extending New START.
– FP says some key issues remain unsettled.
– CNN says Russia is ready to test nuclear cruise missile.
Military Times says 181 veterans are running for Congress this year.
Administration declassifies partial war powers report.
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:
Trouble in the Gulf will require more than arms
Here are the speaking notes I used yesterday at the Third Annual Conference of the Gulf International Forum:
- The Gulf today is engulfed with multiple dimensions of conflict and instability.
- Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are still at odds with Qatar as well as with Turkey and Iran about leadership in the region and the role of political Islam in the Muslim world.
- The US is pursuing a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran that has repercussions throughout the Gulf and the Levant, especially Iran and Iraq.
- Iran is responding with “maximum resistance,” which includes continued support for the wars on their own people by Bashar al Assad and the Houthis as well as shifting Iranian foreign policy in the direction of Beijing and Moscow.
- Global warming, declining oil prices, youth bulges, sectarian resentments, and COVID-19 are challenging the ability of Gulf states to maintain their social contract: authoritarian stability and material prosperity in exchange for political quiescence.
US Interests and Disinterest in the Region - US priorities in the Gulf have shifted. Oil is far less important economically and politically than it once was, and America’s main terrorism threat is domestic, not international.
- Higher priority in Washington now goes to countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction and limiting the influence of rival powers in the Middle East.
- The problem for the United States is that none of its interests in the Gulf are well-served by coercion, but neither are they well-served by withdrawal, which hurts partners and allies, even giving them incentives to develop nuclear weapons, while opening new opportunities for rivals.
- Whoever is elected President next month, the US interest in reducing its commitment to the Gulf will continue, but it needs to be done without endangering friends and encouraging adversaries or unleashing a regional arms race.
- Biden and Trump should be expected to behave differently in pursuing US goals.
- President Trump is impatient and transactional. He will likely pull the plug on US troops in places not prepared to protect or pay for them (Iraq and Syria). The “Abrahamic” agreements are transactional: Israel gets recognition in exchange for its help in sustaining Gulf autocracies.
- Biden did not invent this idea, but he isn’t opposed to it.
- Where the candidates differ is on Palestine and on governance in the Arab world. Biden continues to favor a two-state outcome for Israel and Palestine, whereas Trump and his Israeli partners seek to eliminate any possibility of creating a viable Palestinian state.
- While safeguarding Israel’s security, Biden would push for a better deal for the Palestinians than the one Trump has offered. He would also be less tolerant of Gulf human rights abuses.
- Biden and Trump also differ on the value of the Iran nuclear deal, but it is important to recognize that they share the same goal: to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
- Trump’s approach is “maximum pressure,” mainly through unilateral sanctions but also including the threat of kinetic action. He aims to force Iran back to the negotiating table to negotiate a “better deal” that would include regional issues, missiles, and extending and expanding the nuclear agreement.
- Biden wants to negotiate with Iran on the same issues but is prepared to lift some sanctions to incentivize a return to the status quo ante: Iranian and US compliance with the nuclear deal. Whichever candidate wins, Iran is unlikely to change course before its June election, if then.
A Much-Needed Regional Security Framework
- Neither Trump nor Biden rules out war with Iran, which would be catastrophic for the Gulf states. Doha has the most to lose.
- But war is not an attractive proposition for Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Manama either. Israel and the Gulf states don’t want Iran to get nuclear weapons and will cooperate to prevent it, but the Arabs will not want to risk joining Israel and the US in an overt conventional war with Iran whose winner may be predictable but whose consequences could be catastrophic for the Gulf.
- President Trump has been a welcome figure in the Arab Gulf, especially in Saudi Arabia. He has shielded the Kingdom and its Crown Prince from accountability for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and continued the Obama Administration’s support for the Yemen war, despite growing bipartisan discomfort in the US.
- Because of his human rights commitments, Biden will be less favored in the Gulf. He will not be sword dancing in Riyadh or cheering the war in Yemen.
- But the differences should not obscure the similarities. The two candidates share the desire to reduce US commitments in the Gulf and the interest in preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Several of their predecessors also had these goals and failed to achieve them.
- The reason is all too clear: the Americans have relied too heavily on coercion and too little on diplomacy.
- The United States has enormous destructive military, political, and economic power. But that alone cannot build what is needed: a regional security network that will reduce threat perceptions in all the Gulf states, Iran included, decrease incentives to develop nuclear weapons, and prevent encroachments by rival powers.
- This framework will require a stronger diplomatic nexus of mutual understanding, restraint, and respect. Continued low-intensity and gray zone conflict, or a real war, will make that much more difficult to achieve. The Gulf is not a military challenge, but rather a diplomatic one.
RSS - Posts
