Tag: Nuclear weapons
Peace picks, October 21-25
With a sense of normalcy returned to the city after the reopening of the government, some timely events coming up this week:
1. Will India’s Economics be a Victim of its Politics?
Monday, October 21 | 2:00pm – 3:30pm
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW
The Indian economy has entered a difficult period over the past eighteen months with the rate of GDP growth having halved, inflation still stubbornly high, and deficits remaining substantial. Economists are asking whether India’s rapid growth of the last decade was more a credit-fueled aberration than a result of structural reforms. To complicate matters, economic concerns are increasingly secondary to political debate as India prepares for critical state elections this winter and parliamentary elections in spring 2014.
Jahangir Aziz and Ila Patnaik will assess the state of India’s economy in the context of India’s growing election fervor. Edward Luce will moderate.
JAHANGIR AZIZ
Jahangir Aziz is senior Asia economist and India chief economist at JP Morgan. He was previously principal economic adviser to the Indian Ministry of Finance and head of the China Division at the International Monetary Fund.
ILA PATNAIK
Ila Patnaik is a nonresident senior associate in Carnegie’s South Asia Program and a professor at the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy in New Delhi. She writes regular columns in the Indian Express and the Financial Express and recently co-led the research team for India’s Ministry of Finance Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission.
EDWARD LUCE
Edward Luce is the Washington columnist and former Washington bureau chief of the Financial Times. Earlier he was their South Asia bureau chief based in New Delhi. He is the author of In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India (2006) and Time to Start Thinking: America and the Spectre of Decline (2012).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Wise words from an elder statesman
For 48 years, UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson has been a key player in global diplomacy, with previous stints as Swedish ambassador to the United States and Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs. On Wednesday, Eliasson spoke about the current state of global diplomacy and the UN’s post-2015 development strategy, to a large crowd at Brookings.
Eliasson described this year’s meeting of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) as unusually productive. In the current age of “a la carte multilateralism,” there is always a new pressing issue that confronts the international community. Today, such issues as the Syrian refugee crisis, Iran’s nuclear program, and the immigration disaster off the coast of Italy are all part of a day’s work for the UN.
The major discussion at the UNGA this year revolved around Syria. The Assad regime has taken a positive step towards dismantling its chemical weapons arsenal, but “action against chemical weapons is just one step on the road to peace in Syria.” The next step to resolving the conflict lies in increased aid to the millions of people displaced inside and outside the country. In order to tackle this issue, the regime must give the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations access to the people inside Syria’s borders. With 1 million children displaced by the crisis and the cold winter months fast approaching, the time to act is now. Without a ceasefire, the international community can only do so much to help the Syrian people.
The UNGA also saw positive developments with the newly elected Iranian leadership and its nuclear program. Iranian President Rouhani has opened up to the international community since his election, making clear his willingness to negotiate with the P5+1 on the future of the nuclear program. But Eliasson hopes Rouhani’s opening to the West is tested and verified. The sanctions placed on Iran have been successful at crippling the country’s economy, and it will be vital to the negotiations to lift those sanctions only when a significant deal is reached.
Eliasson also discussed the UN Millennium Development goals, which were established in 2000 with the objective of achieving objectives in global health, poverty eradication, education, gender equality, sustainability, and development funding by 2015. With the deadline approaching, the United Nations has made significant progress—global poverty has been cut in half, education for girls in Africa has become more available, and malaria deaths have decreased substantially. But there are also areas that require more attention, such as maternal health, sanitation, and clean drinking water.
As the UN continues to make progress toward the Millennium Development goals, a new set of objectives will look to address sustainability, human rights and rule of law, climate change, and the eradication of extreme poverty. Looking ahead, prevention is going to be key to the success of the UN development agenda. Eliasson said that human rights violations are a major sign that a crisis is imminent. The UN needs to have a way to react quickly to prevent major conflicts.
Reaching into his back pocket to pull out his mini version of the UN Charter, Eliasson said he is convinced that there is unharnessed potential in chapter six of the document, “The Pacific Settlement of Disputes.” It highlights the use of diplomacy, in contrast to chapter seven’s possible use of military force. The military actions of the last decade have caused people to become numb to the effects of the use of force. We have forgotten about the benefits of diplomatic negotiations. Eliasson ended by sharing his four reasons why diplomacy succeeds or fails:
- The careful use of words can make or break diplomatic talks. Words are the diplomat’s most important tool.
- Timing is key. We most often do things too late.
- Everyone involved in negotiations must be culturally sensitive, by respecting the culture, history, and traditions of the groups involved.
- Personal relations are the most important aspect to diplomacy.
Trust is vital. It is crucial to create and build upon personal relationships in order to succeed. Eliasson has practiced what he preaches.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
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:
Speech diplomacy
Many will be disappointed that President Obama and Iran’s President Rouhani did not meet yesterday. Even their presence in the same room would have made headlines, never mind a handshake or a few words in the corner.
But they both gave speeches. What can we learn from what they said?
It is clear enough from Rouhani’s speech why he ducked any meeting with the President Obama. While not naming its target, he took aim at the United States: militarism, coercion, hegemony, Cold War mentality, universalization of Western values, “violent discourses, practices and actions,” arming of Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons (for use against Iran), supporting Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The speech lists particulars against what the Iranian regime used to call “the Great Satan.”
Failing to name it should not make us deaf to what Rouhani is saying. He is saying the United States is responsible for most of the bad things that happen in the world, from Palestine to Afghanistan, to Syria and many other places. He is worried that the Americans will seek to topple the Islamic Republic. Iran is America’s enemy and determined to reshape the region, perhaps even the world, to its own preferences. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Op/ed diplomacy
Iranian President Rouhani’s appeal for constructive dialogue, published by the Washington Post last night, is a good deal more interesting, both for what it says and what it doesn’t say, than President Putin’s drivel, published by the New York Times a week ago. Rouhani ends with an appeal:
I urge [my counterparts] to look beyond the pines and be brave enough to tell me what they see — if not for their national interests, then for the sake of their legacies, and our children and future generations.
This seemingly anodyne appeal is very much to the point in this context. What Americans see “beyond the pines” is a serious threat that Iran might become a nuclear weapons state. They don’t like that, because it would encourage further proliferation and render the balance of power in the region unstable, with possibly catastrophic consequences. While Ken Pollack thinks we could manage the risks, there is overwhelming support in the United States for a preventive approach. Iran, most Americans think, should not be permitted to build a nuclear weapon, or get so close to being able to build one that it could not be stopped.
On nuclear technology, Rouhani is admirably frank about Iran’s interest : Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Heartbreak and loveless marriages
Wedenesday morning’s event at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was yet another panel focused on Syria, focused on the interests and perspectives of the domestic and international parties currently involved in the crisis. Moderated by Marwan Muasher of the Carnegie Endowment, the discussion included Ambassador Nasser al-Kidwa, deputy to Arab League Envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi, Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment, Paul Salem of the Carnegie Middle East Center, and Andrew Weiss also of the Carnegie Endowment.
Ambassador al-Kidwa focused his remarks on the future of negotiations in Syria. He believes the Geneva Communiqué drafted last June is still relevant today and provides practical solutions for Syria. The US decision not to strike on Syria but rather focus on placing Syria’s chemical weapons under international control shows its commitment to the Geneva Communiqué. The framework agreement on chemical weapons between the US and Russia is a positive development.
The UN is currently working on a resolution that will mostly likely incorporate much of the strong language used in the US-Russia agreement. Al-Kidwa believes that it will be adopted under Chapter 7 with some language regarding using necessary force if there is no compliance from the Assad regime. He sees a real possibility for negotiations between the opposition and the Assad government. He argues that regional players and the international community have an unusually important role. Read more
RSS - Posts
