Tag: Nuclear weapons
Adagio
There is slow movement, adagio not andante, on two fronts, Syria and the Iran nuclear issue:
- Syrian opposition leader Moaz al Khatib’s proposal for conditional talks with the regime has elicited some interest on the part of Syria, Iran and Russia.
- The P5+1 (that’s the US, UK, France, Russia and China + Germany) have agreed to meet with Iran to discuss nuclear issues February 25 in Kazakhstan. The US and Iran are indicating willingness to meet bilaterally as well.
There is no breakthrough here. These are small steps forward at the glacial pace that often characterizes diplomatic moves. But given how frozen things seemed on both fronts even a few days ago, this is progress.
On Syria, Khatib’s proposal was a personal one, made initially on his Facebook page without approval of his Coalition. It reflects in part the view of the National Coordination Committee, which is an inside Syria opposition group that has long wanted to start a dialogue with the regime. The expatriate opposition was not pleased with the proposition. My guess is that the Americans are okay with it, even though they continue to insist that Bashar al Asad step aside.
Dialogue could lead to a split in the regime between hawks who want to continue the crackdown and doves who see promise in talking with the opposition. Of course it could also lead to a similar split in the opposition, with hardline Islamists opting to continue the fighting and relative moderates interested in talking. The key issue is whether Bashar is prepared to leave power. If not, dialogue with the regime is likely to become a snare and a delusion, wrecking the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces that Khatib leads.
On Iran’s nuclear program, the outline of a deal is increasingly clear:
- limits on uranium enrichment (e.g., an end to Iranian enrichment above 20%, shipment out of the country of stockpile uranium enriched beyond 5%, and likely also something restricting plutonium production, which has not been much of a public issue so far);
- a serious, verifiable and irreversible commitment not to develop nuclear weapons (including “coming clean” on past nuclear weapons-related activities);
- an end to American and multilateral economic and financial sanctions.
It is the sequencing of the many steps that need to be taken to get to this result that has caused so much difficulty. The Americans and Europeans want the nuclear commitments implemented up front. The Iranians want sanctions relief first. Lack of trust makes compromise difficult, but it would not seem completely out of reach, provided Iran is prepared to make a serious and verifiable commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.
What we’ve got here are two instances of coercive diplomacy, where outside powers are bringing pressure to bear in order to end one regime and to curtail fundamentally the options available to another one. The odds of success are not high, since the regimes involved have a good deal at stake (and are allied with each other). Bashar al Asad would have to come to the conclusion that his life is worth more than his position. Tehran would have to come to the conclusion that regime survival is more likely if it accepts limits on its nuclear program than if it rejects them.
On the other side, the key ingredient is credibility.
The Americans and Europeans need to convince Bashar that they are fully committed to end his rule. To do so, they need to back more fully and visibly Khatib’s Coalition, making it a serious governing alternative to the Syrian regime. This is more important now than arms supplies, which seem to be reaching the rebellion in substantial if not overwhelming quantities.
Washington and Brussels also need to convince Tehran that they will tighten sanctions further if there is no nuclear deal. And Washington needs to make the threat of military force more credible than it appeared at former Senator Hagel’s confirmation hearing last week.
Even if talks with the Syrian regime and with the Iranians begin soon, at this pace we still have a long way to go before we can be certain of acceptable outcomes on either front. But slow movement is better than none.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Masterful
Secretary of State-designate John Kerry was masterful today in his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing. It wasn’t so much the details of what he said, but the breadth and depth. This is a guy who really knows international affairs.
His prepared statement was notable for some high points: the emphasis on the importance of American economic health in determining the country’s role abroad, the clarity about preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons and the vigor of his defense of the State Department budget. I would also note that John Kerry regards USAID, whose functions he mentioned but not its name, as an integral part of the State Department.
Then Kerry showed a lot of agility in dealing with not only the questions but also a demonstrator, expressing respect for her cries to be heard. He defended Secretary of Defense-designate Hagel’s views on getting rid of nuclear weapons, which he said was an aspiration for a world different from the one we live in today. He described his own changed view of Syria’s President Asad, whom he now hopes to see go soon.
He showed his clear commitment to maintaining the high priority Secretary Clinton has given to gender issues. He was non-committal on the Keystone pipeline, deferring to the official process under way. He was gentle with the Russians, citing their cooperation on particular issues (other than Syria). He was supportive of American anti-corruption and human rights efforts abroad. He showed he knows what is going on in Sudan’s Blue Nile and South Kordofan provinces. He parried accusations about Benghazi.
Of course part of the reason for this masterful performance is the attitude of the questioners, who showed enormous respect for their long-standing colleague. Gone was the idiot questioning of yesterday’s hearing with Secretary of State Clinton on the Benghazi murders. There was little “gotcha.” Certainly had the President nominated Susan Rice, who is far more combative, the tone if not the substance of the hearing would have been different. In a week’s time the Hagel hearing may be far more contentious, even if Hagel himself comes close to matching Kerry in knowledge and equanimity.
On Syria, Kerry advocated changing Bashar al Asad’s calculations, but he was unclear about the means to achieve that. He wants an orderly transition. The Russians appear willing, but differ on the timing and manner of Bashar’s departure. Kerry fears sectarian strife, implosion of the Syrian state and what they might mean for chemical weapons.
The Syrian opposition has not been ready to talk, Kerry said. In a sentence he struck–one of his few moments of hesitation in this long hearing–he started to say that we need to increase the ability of the opposition to do something unspecified. I’d sure like to know how that sentence was supposed to end: increase their ability to negotiate? increase their ability to strike the regime militarily? There’s a big difference. It sounded to me more like he wanted them to be more flexible on negotiations, but I’m not certain.
Kerry hit a lot of other subjects. On Afghanistan, he put his chips on a good April 2014 presidential election, which has to provide legitimacy to Karzai’s successor. Kerry wants “a metric” for stopping infiltration and attacks on Americans from Pakistani territory. He noted China is “all over” Africa (and America has to get into the game). Al Qaeda has dispersed at the urging of Osama bin Laden and is now a threat in the Arabian Peninsula and the Maghreb, where the solution is not only drone strikes but (unspecified) civilian efforts. We don’t like what Egyptian President Morsi says about Jews, but we need him to maintain the peace treaty with Israel. On Israel/Palestine, Kerry was cagey and refused to be drawn out, except to reiterate commitment to the two-state solution. The solution to climate change is energy policy, which will enable job growth. The “war on drugs” is ill-conceived. We need to do more on the demand side.
Here is the lengthy (four hours?) video of the hearing:
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Frugal superpower puts on airs
With Senate hearings scheduled for January 24 for former Senator John Kerry as Secretary of State and January 31 for former Senator Charles Hagel as Secretary of Defense, the American press is wondering what their nominations portend. Will there be big changes in policy? Or will there be more continuity?
At least one of my colleagues worries that Hagel’s nomination will be seen as undermining President Obama’s commitment to preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but Hagel will also have a great deal of credibility the day he tells the Iranians the deal they’ve been offered is the very best they can expect. Even on Iran, I anticipate more continuity in attitude than abrupt change in direction. That is partly because Obama is still in charge. Hagel will not only conform what he says to the Administration’s policy, he will also want to maximize the chances for success in blocking Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That necessarily means making the military option credible, even if in private life he was inclined against it.
But for other issues circumstances may not remain constant. In particular the budget challenge is likely to be greater than in the past. The government ran on continuing resolutions throughout Obama’s first term, to the dismay of conservatives. That gives government departments relatively decent financing, compared to what they would get if Congress triggers the sequester or if the House Republicans get the dollar cut in expenditures for every dollar increase in the budget ceiling that they are demanding. If instead of continuing current expenditure levels, we head in the direction of big cuts, both Defense and State are likely to get hammered.
Defense, bloated after years of doubling its budget even without counting Iraq and Afghanistan war spending, can afford it better than State, though State (and USAID) are relatively flush as well. The problem is that both institutions have far-flung capital commitments to bases and embassies that are essentially fixed costs. Even if you cut back on personnel presence overseas, you can’t turn off the heat and electricity. It will take time and effort to de-accesssion unneeded facilities. Bureaucrats at both State and Defense will be more inclined to keep the heat and lights on, hoping for budget increases in the future.
Senator Kerry visited Rome once when I was Charge’ d’affaires ad interim there. He wondered why we needed 800 people in the diplomatic mission to Italy. I said we didn’t, but that 36 different agencies of the U.S. government had made separate decisions that put them there. He threatened to cut the Embassy budget. I noted that would leave more than 90% of the staff still screaming for State Department services–their salaries and benefits were paid by the mostly domestic agencies that put people in Rome.
None of this will be discussed in the confirmation hearings, which are conducted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC). It has no budgetary responsibility–that is the purview of the appropriations subcommittees in both House and Senate. SFRC will focus not on budget and overseas presence but rather on “policy” issues. Right now that likely means the Benghazi murder of U.S. diplomatic personnel (Hillary Clinton will appear in Congress a day before Kerry’s hearing to testify on that unforgiving subject), the Al Qaeda push in Mali, the hostage crisis in Algeria, Iran’s nuclear program, maybe a bit of Syria and Egypt and a quick look at Asia (rising China, nuclear North Korea, America’s treaty obligations). My order of priority might be different, but that’s because I’ve got a 3-5 year time frame. The Congress has more like a one week-one year time frame.
There is little doubt that Hagel and Kerry will be confirmed. The question is how far they will have to go to satisfy Congressional critics in committing the United States to military action in Iran, Syria and Mali. The President seems determined to keep his powder dry for Iran, but there is a good deal of agitation for more military support to the Syrian opposition and for assisting the French intervention in Mali. Neither budgets nor domestic politics will warrant much more than that, even if the Senators give eloquent speeches advocating it. We are in the era of the frugal superpower, but you won’t know it from the upcoming hearings.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
The holiday season has ended. Monday is particularly busy:
1. A Bleak Winter: Providing Needed Aid to Those Fleeing Conflict in Syria, Monday January 14, 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM, Migration Policy Institute
Venue: Migration Policy Institute, 1400 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 300 (third floor), MPI Conference Room
Speakers: Mort Abramowitz, George Rupp, Fadi al Khankan, Kathleen Newland
The humanitarian crisis in and around Syria is intensifying as more people are forced to flee their homes in the face of continuing violence. More than half a million Syrians have left the country, at least two million are internally displaced, and many more have seen their normal lives and livelihoods destroyed. As winter sets in, stocks of food and fuel are dwindling. The strain on neighboring countries is testing their ability to keep borders open to Syrian refugees and international assistance is not keeping up with the growing needs. No one seems to expect an early end to the displacement, even if the Assad regime falls in the near future.
A delegation of the International Rescue Committee (IRC) visited Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Iraq in late November to discuss the humanitarian crisis with refugees, officials from host and donor governments, representatives of international humanitarian organizations and local nongovernmental agencies; and to get a firsthand look at the work of IRC partners and staff who are directly involved in providing assistance to the refugees and to Syrians trapped inside the country.
Please join MPI and IRC on January 14 to discuss the delegation’s report, augmented by the perspective of Dr. Al Khankan, representing the Syrian Expatriates Organization, an organization of Syrian professionals who are raising funds, sending critically needed supplies, and providing direct humanitarian assistance within Syria. The discussion will be moderated by MPI’s Kathleen Newland, who is an IRC overseer and was a member of the delegation that produced the report.
Register for this event here.
2. Conference on Israel’s 2013 Election, Monday January 14, 10:00 AM – 3:30 PM, Georgetown University
Venue: Georgetown University, 37th and O Streets NW, Washington, DC 20057, Copley Hall, Copley Formal Lounge
Speakers: Moran Stern, Natan Sachs, Natasha Mozgovaya, Ghaith Al-Omari, Dennis Ross, Dan Schueftan, Robert Lieber, David Makovsky, Robert Wexler
A conference examining the upcoming general election in Israel, scheduled for January 22, 2013. Experts will discuss the issues that will be factors influencing Israelis as they prepare to go cast their ballots.
This all-day conference in Copley Hall’s Formal Lounge will feature three panels examining domestic politics, regional politics, and Israel-US relations.
Domestic Politics, 10:00 am-11:30 am
Moran Stern (Georgetown, moderator); Natan Sachs (Saban Center at the Brookings Institution); Natasha Mozgovaya (Haaretz Daily Newspaper)
Regional Politics, 11:40 am-1:00 pm
Moran Stern (Georgetown, moderator); Ghaith Al-Omari (American Task Force on Palestine); Amb. Dennis Ross (Georgetown); Dan Schueftan (Georgetown); Gunol Tol (Middle East Institute)
Israel-US relations, 2:00 pm-3:30 pm
Robert Lieber (Georgetown, moderator); David Makovsky (Washington Istitute for Near East Policy); The Honorable Robert Wexler (S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace).
Register for this event here.
3. A Kingdom’s Future: Saudi Arabia Through the Eyes of its Twentysomethings, Monday January 14, 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM, Wilson Center
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004, 5th Floor
Speaker: Caryle Murphy
The “Arab Awakening” has focused the world’s attention on young people in the Arab world, where they have been agitating for political reform. But what about young Saudis, who have not taken to the streets like many of their peers? Have they been affected by the “Arab Awakening?” A Kingdom’s Future: Saudi Arabia Through the Eyes of Its Twentysomethings explores the self-image of young Saudis and what they want when it comes to education, marriage, politics, religion, and personal liberties. It is based on research during Murphy’s three-year reporting tour in the kingdom, as well as scores of interviews while a public policy scholar at the Wilson Center.
Register for this event here.
3. Turkey Rising: Challenges and Prospects for the New Administration, Monday January 14, 12:30 PM, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Venue: Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1828 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 1050, Stern Library and Conference Room
Speakers: Ross Wilson, James F. Jeffrey, Soner Cagaptay
With a booming economy and improving ties with the United States and NATO, Turkey now has a real chance to become a regional power. Yet formidable challenges remain, such as resolving the Kurdish issue, competing with Iran, and easing domestic political friction. To assess these issues and their impact on U.S. policy, The Washington Institute invited Ambassador Ross Wilson, Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, and Soner Cagaptay to address a Policy Forum luncheon in Washington, DC, on Monday, January 14, 2013, starting at 12:30 p.m. EST. The speakers will also discuss Dr. Cagaptay’s new report on Turkey.
Register for this event here.
4. What’s Next for Syria: Humanitarian and Political Perspectives, Monday January 14, 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1774 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Falk Auditorium
Speakers: Ross Wilson, James F. Jeffrey, Soner Cagaptay
With a booming economy and improving ties with the United States and NATO, Turkey now has a real chance to become a regional power. Yet formidable challenges remain, such as resolving the Kurdish issue, competing with Iran, and easing domestic political friction. To assess these issues and their impact on U.S. policy, The Washington Institute invited Ambassador Ross Wilson, Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, and Soner Cagaptay to address a Policy Forum luncheon in Washington, DC, on Monday, January 14, 2013, starting at 12:30 p.m. EST. The speakers will also discuss Dr. Cagaptay’s new report on Turkey.
Register for this event here.
5. The International Development Assistance Ecosystem of the U.S.: A Development and Foreign Policy Strategic Asset, Monday January 14, 3:00 PM – 5:00 PM, CSIS
Venue: CSIS, 1800 K Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, B1 Conference Room
Speakers: Carol Lancaster, Paul O’Brien, Tessie San Martin, Susan Reichle, Asif Shaikh, Daniel Runde
Since the end of the Cold War, the method by which the United States delivers foreign aid to the developing world has changed considerably. During this time, as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) saw large-scale staff reductions coupled with an increase in programs, a large base of U.S for-profit and nonprofit organizations grew up to implement projects and programs in the developing world. Although the budgetary situation reversed beginning in 2002, staffing levels at USAID remained low and a need to engage the U.S. implementer community continues. Concurrently, a broader discussion occurred over the effectiveness of development assistance by major donors. This effort, which resulted in the Paris Declaration of 2005 and later agreements at Accra in 2008 and Busan in 2011, enshrined the notion of country ownership—that the developing world must drive its priorities to ensure sustainability. The Obama administration launched its USAID Forward agenda to re-establish USAID as the premier development agency in the world. A central aspect of this agenda are reforms designed to reduce the Agency’s dependence on contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements with U.S. development implementers and shift to a greater use of government to government support and local organizations.
The report argues that the current U.S. ecosystem of international development assistance should be treated as a strategic asset that plays an important role in meeting U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives. As with all systems, it can and should be improved; however, it should be strengthened, not weakened. This system, while imperfect, delivers a level of accountability and transparency for the U.S. government that is vital to continued political support for foreign assistance. The development implementers must do more to evolve to meet the changing nature of how the U.S. government sees development and the broader trends in the field. However, there are significant risks associated with USAID’s proposed reforms, which, if fully implemented, may not achieve the results desired.
Please join us for a panel discussion of this timely report. Copies will be available at the meeting and online the day of the event.
RSVP for this event to ppd@csis.org.
6. Two Years Later: Assessing Tunisia’s Progress since the Jasmine Revolution, Monday January 14, 5:30 PM – 7:30 PM, Johns Hopkins University
Venue: Johns Hopkins University, Bernstein Offit Building, 1717 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Room 500
Speakers: Leila Chennoufi, Eamonn Gearon, Stephen McInerny, Samia Msadek, Mohamed Malouche, Daniele Moro
On January 14, 2011, Ben Ali was forced to leave Tunisia by a popular uprising commonly known as the Jasmine Revolution. This historic event triggered mass protests that would sweep the Arab world, forcing other longstanding authoritarian leaders from power and potentially transforming the region. Since that time, Tunisia has witnessed the country’s first free and fair elections, the emergence of new political parties and coalitions, and the many difficulties of maintaining stability amid an uncertain political transition. On the second anniversary of this historic moment, it is important to assess Tunisia’s progress in its difficult transition to democracy and examine the prospects and challenges that lie ahead.
Register for this event here.
7. U.S. Grand Strategy in the Middle East: Is There One?, Wednesday January 16, 9:30 AM – 12:00 PM, Rayburn House Office Building
Venue: Rayburn House Office Buidling, Washington, DC 20515, Gold Room (2168)
Speakers: Chas W. Freeman Jr., William B. Quandt, Marwan Muasher, John Duke Anthony, Thomas R. Mattair
The Middle East Policy Council invites you and your colleagues to our 71st Capitol Hill Conference. Live streaming of this event will begin at approximately 9:30am EST on Wednesday, January 16th and conclude around noon. A questions and answers session will be held at the end of the proceedings. Refreshments will be served.
RSVP for this event to info@mepc.org.
8. The Iran Nuclear Challenge: Explore Policy Options, Wednesday January 16, 12:30 PM – 1:30 PM, American Security Project
Venue: American Security Project, 1100 New York Ave, NW Washington DC, Suite 710W, Conference Room E
Speakers: William Fallon, Frank Kearney, Lawrence Wilkerson, Stephen Cheney
Join us for a discussion with retired military leaders on U.S. military options towards Iran. The discussion will begin promptly at 12:30 p.m. Please arrive by 12:15 p.m. for registration.
We hope you can join us.
RSVP for this event to events@americansecurityproject.org.
9. Freedom in the World 2013 Launch, Wednesday January 16, 1:30 PM – 3:00 PM, Council on Foreign Relations
Venue: Council on Foreign Relations, 1777 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006
Speakers: David Kramer, Mark Lagon, Arch Puddington, Jill Dougherty, Larry Diamond, Tamara Wittes
Please join us as we release the findings of Freedom in the World 2013, the latest edition of Freedom House’s annual assessment of political and civil rights. This event will feature an in-depth discussion of advances and setbacks in freedom over the past year and the challenges these trends pose for American foreign policy.
Register for this event here.
10. The Way Forward in Afghanistan, Friday January 18, 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM, Heritage Foundation
Venue: Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20002, Lehrman Auditorium
Speakers: Lisa Curtis, Thomas Donnelly, Bill Roggio, Steven Bucci
The United States is moving into a new phase of engagement with Afghanistan as it draws down its combat presence in the country. During last year’s presidential campaign, President Obama declared a goal of bringing American troops home and focusing instead on “nation building” here in the U.S. But a hasty U.S. troop withdrawal and a failure to remain seriously engaged with the Afghans in other ways risks sacrificing everything the U.S. has fought for over the last decade.
What are the best options for the pace and scope of withdrawal over the next two years? What level and type of U.S. troop presence should remain in Afghanistan post-2014 to ensure the country does not revert to its previous status of terrorist safe haven? What are the realistic possibilities for reconciling with the Taliban in a way that preserves democratic and human rights gains?
Join us as a distinguished group of experts addresses these and other questions related to the future of U.S. engagement with Afghanistan.
Register for this event here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
A light week as Washington gets back into the swing of things after the holidays.
1. Crux of Asia Conference, Thursday January 10, 9:30 AM – 4:15 PM, Carnegie Endowment
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Jessica Matthews, Kurt Campbell, David Shambaugh, Frederic Grare, Ashley Tellis, Xia Liping, Srikanth Kondapalli, Daniel Blumenthal, Shen Dingli, Bharath Gopalaswamy, Kevin Pollpeter, Zha Daojiong, Sunjoy Joshi, Sean Mirski
The rise of China and India as major world powers promises to test the established global order in the coming decades. If history is any indication, Beijing, New Delhi, and Washington may all have different visions for this new international system. China and India’s many developmental similarities belie their deep strategic rivalry, which shapes their competing priorities on major global issues. As both states grow, their views on the international system will become increasingly relevant for their relationship, for the United States, and for the world as a whole.
Register for this event here.
2. Discussion with Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction on Challenges Facing the US, Thursday January 10, 2:30 PM – 4:00 PM, Stimson Center
Venue: Stimson Center, 1111 19th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, 12th Floor
Speakers: John Sopko, Ellen Laipson
In light of plans to transfer security responsibility for Afghanistan to its government by the end of 2014, the United States has a two year window of opportunity to overcome challenges presently facing its reconstruction efforts. Many of those challenges have been identified by audits and investigations conducted by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. Most recently its contributions include chronicling “persistent delays in instituting basic anti-money laundering procedures” at the Kabul Airport, detailing the Afghanistan National Security Forces’ difficulties in assuming responsibility for their operations and maintenance costs, and auditing the US’ Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund in response to schedule slips and inadequate sustainability plans.
Afghanistan’s struggles with insecurity and corruption are likely to continue well past the 2014 transition. Meanwhile the US has entered an era of fiscal austerity that will limit resources available to the Pentagon, State Department, and other government agencies involved in reconstruction. Sustainability has become one of the foremost issues for reconstruction investments as a consequence.
Mr. John Sopko’s address at the Stimson Center is his first on-the-record, public speech since taking office in July 2012, and he will use it to comment on the factors that underpin these challenges. Ellen Laipson, Stimson’s President and CEO, will moderate a panel discussion to follow, adding some additional perspectives about reconstruction efforts. We hope this event will provide a useful public forum to consider the US role in Afghanistan’s reconstruction, through 2014 and beyond.
Register for this event here.
3. Overkill: The Case for Reevaluating the U.S. Nuclear Strategy, Thursday January 10, 6:30 PM – 10:00 PM, Cato Institute
Venue: Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Avenue Northwest, Washington, DC 20001
Speaker: Christopher Preble
The United States has far more nuclear weapons and delivery systems than deterrence requires. The triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and bomber aircraft reflects bureaucratic Cold War planning, not strategic vision. Can the United States achieve an effective nuclear program which makes us safer, while adapting to the need for a smaller defense budget? Join us as Christopher Preble, the Vice President of Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, discusses U.S. nuclear strategy, and the need to bring it into the 21st century.
Register for this event here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Prevent what?
Most of us who work on international affairs think it would be much better to use diplomacy to prevent bad things from happening rather than waiting until the aftermath and then cleaning up after the elephants, which all too often involves expensive military action. But what precisely would that mean? What do we need to prevent?
The Council on Foreign Relations survey of prevention priorities for 2013 was published last week, just in time to be forgotten in the Christmas rush and New Year’s lull. It deserves notice, as it is one of the few nonpartisan attempts to define American national security priorities. This year’s edition was in part crowd-sourced and categorizes contingencies on two dimensions: impact on U.S. interests (high, medium, low) and likelihood (likely, plausible, unlikely).
Syria comes out on top in both dimensions. That’s a no-brainer for likelihood, as the civil war has already reached catastrophic dimensions and is affecting the broader region. Judging from Paul Stares’ video introduction to the survey, U.S. interests are ranked high in part because of the risk of use or loss of chemical weapons stocks. I’d have ranked them high because of the importance of depriving Iran of its one truly reliable ally and bridge to Hizbollah, but that’s a quibble.
CFR ranks another six contingencies as high impact on U.S. interests and only plausible rather than likely. This isn’t so useful, but Paul’s video comes to the rescue: an Israeli military strike on Iran that would “embroil” the U.S. and conflict with China in the East or South China seas are his picks to talk about. I find it peculiar that CFR does not treat what I would regard as certainly a plausible if not a likely contingency: a U.S. attack on Iran. There are few more important decisions President Obama will need to make than whether to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Certainly it is a far more challenging decision than whether to go to war against China in the territorial disputes it is generating with U.S. allies in Pacific. I don’t know any foreign policy experts who would advise him to go in that direction.
It is striking that few of the other “plausible” and high-impact contingencies are amenable to purely military responses:
- a highly disruptive cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure
- a mass casualty attack on the U.S. homeland or on a treaty ally
- severe internal instability in Pakistan, triggered by a civil-military crisis or terror attack
It is not easy to determine the origin of cyberattacks, and not clear that a military response would be appropriate or effective. The same is also sometimes true of mass casualty attacks; our military response to 9/11 in Afghanistan has enmired the United States in its longest war to date, one where force is proving inadequate as a solution. It is hard to imagine any military response to internal instability in Pakistan, though CFR offers as an additional low probability contingency a possible U.S. military confrontation with Islamabad “triggered by a terror attack or U.S. counterterror operations.”
In the “moderate” impact on U.S. interests, CFR ranks as highly likely “a major erosion of security in Afghanistan resulting from coalition drawdown.” I’d certainly have put that in high impact category, as we’ve still got 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and a significant portion of them will still be there at the end of 2013. In the “moderate” impact but merely plausible category CFR ranks:
- a severe Indo-Pakistan crisis that carries risk of military escalation, triggered by a major terror attack
- a severe North Korean crisis caused by another military provocation, internal political instability, or threatening nuclear weapons/ICBM-related activities
- a significant increase in drug trafficking violence in Mexico that spills over into the United States
- continuing political instability and emergence of a terrorist safe haven in Libya
Again there are limits to what we can do about most of these contingencies by conventional military means. Only a North Korea crisis caused by military provocation or threats would rank be susceptible to a primarily military response. The others call for diplomatic and civilian responses in at least a measure equal to the possible military ones.
CFR lets two “moderate” impact contingencies languish in the low probability category that I don’t think belong there:
- political instability in Saudi Arabia that endangers global oil supplies
- renewed unrest in the Kurdish dominated regions of Turkey and the Middle East
There is a very real possibility in Riyadh of a succession crisis, as the monarchy on the death of the king will likely move to a next generation of contenders. Kurdish irredentist aspirations are already a big issue in Iraq and Syria. It is hard to imagine this will not affect Iran and Turkey before the year is out. Neither is amenable to a purely military response.
Most of the contingencies with “low” impact on U.S. interests are in Africa:
- a deepening of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo that involves military intervention from its neighbors
- growing popular unrest and political instability in Sudan
- military conflict between Sudan and South Sudan
- renewed ethnic violence in Kenya surrounding March 2013 presidential election
- widespread unrest in Zimbabwe surrounding the electoral process and/or the death of Robert Mugabe
- failure of a multilateral intervention to push out Islamist groups from Mali’s north
This may tell us more about CFR and the United States than about the world. Africa has little purchase on American sentiments, despite our half-Kenyan president. All of these contingencies merit diplomatic attention, but none is likely to excite U.S. military responses of more than a purely emergency character, except for Mali. If you’ve got a few Islamist terrorists, you can get some attention even if you are in Africa.
What’s missing from this list? CFR mentions
…a third Palestinian intifada, a widespread popular unrest in China, escalation of a U.S.-Iran naval clash in the Persian Gulf, a Sino-Indian border crisis, onset of elections-related instability and violence in Ethiopia, unrest in Cuba following the death of Fidel Castro and/or incapacitation of Raul Castro, and widespread political unrest in Venezuela triggered by the death or incapacitation of Hugo Chavez.
I’d add intensification of the global economic slowdown (high probability, high impact), failure to do more about global warming (also high probability, delayed impact), demographic or financial implosion in Europe or Japan (and possibly even the U.S.), Russian crackdown on dissent, and resurgent Islamist extremism in Somalia. But the first three of these are not one-year “contingencies,” which shows one limit of the CFR exercise.
I would also note that the world is arguably in better shape at the end of 2012 than ever before in history. As The Spectator puts it:
Never has there been less hunger, less disease or more prosperity. The West remains in the economic doldrums, but most developing countries are charging ahead, and people are being lifted out of poverty at the fastest rate ever recorded. The death toll inflicted by war and natural disasters is also mercifully low. We are living in a golden age.
May it last.
RSS - Posts
