By Eli Clifton and Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Nov 10 2016 (IPS)

Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton threatens to mainstream the Islamophobia, misogyny, racism, and anti-Semitism that swirled around his candidacy and supporters. On the foreign policy front his comments were no less shocking. But the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump hasn’t discussed in any depth beyond his promise at AIPAC’s March conference that his “number-one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran,” may stand as an early litmus test for his relationship with NATO allies.

Although Republican opponents of the deal frequently talked about unilaterally reneging on the agreement, they were never faced with the real likelihood of a president who might go along with the proposal or, possibly, even take the lead in such an action.

A key argument for the deal, which will no doubt be made to Trump’s foreign policy team as well as members of the House and Senate, is that reneging on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will do far greater damage than just a deterioration in relations with Iran, a possible resumption of Iran’s production and buildup of medium-enriched uranium, and a setback in potential areas of cooperation with Iran particularly with respect to the war on the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq as well as efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.

Breaking the deal could also be a fundamental breach of trust between the U.S. and the other P5+1 countries—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Iran signed the agreement with these countries to curtail its enrichment activity in exchange for sanctions relief that largely came in the form of trade deals with European countries and access to European banking systems.

He has questioned whether the U.S. should continue to offer security guarantees for countries that had not “fulfilled their obligation to U.S.” and threatened to withdraw U.S. military forces from European and Asian NATO partners if those allies fail to pay more for Washington’s protection
Maintaining good relations and pursuing confidence-building measures with NATO allies have been bipartisan policies since NATO’s founding in 1949. But Trump has already hinted that he’s not averse to shoving historical allies in Europe and Asia to the curb.

He has questioned whether the U.S. should continue to offer security guarantees for countries that had not “fulfilled their obligation to U.S.” and threatened to withdraw U.S. military forces from European and Asian NATO partners if those allies fail to pay more for Washington’s protection.

Those comments, and his questioning of whether the U.S. should seek better relations with Russia, have already given NATO’s leadership reason for concern. Following Trump’s victory, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg offered congratulations but also a reminder of U.S. treaty obligations. “NATO’s security guarantee is a treaty commitment,” said Stoltenberg. “All allies have made a solemn commitment to defend each other. This is something absolutely unconditioned.”

Indeed, if Trump is seeking to extricate the U.S. from NATO, much of that discussion might occur behind closed doors during negotiations over how much each NATO member contributes in financial and military resources.

But the JCPOA offers an early, very public test of where the Trump administration’s intentions may lie vis-à-vis Washington’s transatlantic allies.

There is, no doubt, pressure on Trump to consider a unilateral breaching of the nuclear agreement. His largest single campaign donor, casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, is adamantly opposed to the deal. Adelson funded many of the groups and politicians who sought to derail negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran and proposed launching a nuclear attack on Iran as a negotiating tactic. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is touted as a leading candidate for secretary of state and whose candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination during the 2012 primary campaign was sustained virtually singlehandedly by Adelson’s $15 million in contributions, has called for the JCPOA to be torn up on inauguration day. Another possible pick for the job, John Bolton, has repeatedly called for the agreement to be scrapped.

And the Republican Party, which has benefited greatly from Adelson’s largesse, has repeatedly sought to introduce unilateral sanctions against the Islamic Republic since it was reached in 2015. Although Trump may not himself be inclined to immediately abrogate (or “renegotiate”) the six-party accord, there will certainly be a move by Republican lawmakers to do so in which case he will have to decide whether to go along or push back.

On January 20, foreign policy analysts in the U.S. and NATO allies in Europe and Asia will be watching closely to see how a newly inaugurated President Trump approaches his predecessor’s signature foreign policy achievement, a deal brokered with the closest U.S. allies and biggest trading partners.

It will be a key test for how the Trump administration plans to work alongside or against members of the treaty organization, the most important and successful pillar of U.S. foreign policy in the post-World War II era. And, of course, if a Trump administration tears up the deal, other key Washington allies such as Japan and South Korea—as well as potential allies that have developed renewed commercial ties with Iran, notably India—are sure to take note.

Jim Lobe served for some 30 years as the Washington DC bureau chief for Inter Press Service and is best known for his coverage of U.S. foreign policy and the influence of the neoconservative movement.

This piece was originally published in Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy Lobelog.com

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Mar 1 2011 (IPS)

J Street, the Washington-based “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace” advocacy group, drew a large crowd to its annual conference this year despite criticism over its controversial calls for the Barack Obama administration not to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank.

In the end, the administration vetoed the resolution, but the controversy appeared to have had no negative effect on the organisation’s turnout for the just-ended conference, which had 2,400 participants – 900 more than last year – and over 500 students participating.

Over 50 members of Congress were in attendance and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a surprise appearance to honour Kathleen Peratis, vice chair of the J Street Education Fund and the recipient of the group’s Tzedek V’Shalom award.

With pro-democracy revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya dominating the headlines over the past week, uncertainty about the shifting geopolitics in the region was a recurring theme in the remarks delivered by J Street leadership, panelists and an Obama administration senior Middle East adviser.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s president, told attendees, “We know in our hearts that it’s not just the status quo in the Arab world that is bound to change, it is the status quo between Israel and the Palestinian people that has to change as well,” at the conference’s kickoff on Saturday night.

“And the events of recent weeks only convince us more deeply that the time is now for a serious and sustained effort to secure an agreement that provides for a democratic homeland for the Jewish people living side by side in peace and security with a democratic homeland for the Palestinian people,” he continued.

Indeed the emphasis on taking immediate steps, with the leadership of the United States, to bring about a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian is central to J Street’s mission as Washington’s “political home for pro-Israel, pro- peace Americans”.

J Street has gained attention for its willingness to press harder than other pro-Israel organisations in Washington – particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – to pressure Israel to halt settlement construction and for its efforts to create a political space for American Jews who are increasingly critical of the Israeli government’s occupation of the West Bank and its siege on Gaza.

The organisation’s founding and the appearance, for the second year in a row, of a senior Obama administration official at the conference has found a mixed reception from other “pro-Israel” groups in Washington.

This year, senior White House Middle East adviser Dennis Ross was dispatched to address the conference, leading the right-wing Emergency Committee for Israel to call on Ross to take a critical tone in his remarks to the J Street audience.

“There are few moments when someone with your experience and credibility is invited into the anti-Israel echo chamber and provided an opportunity to dispel myths, combat falsehoods, deliver much-needed moral clarity – and state clearly that the United States stands with Israel,” said a Feb. 24 letter from the ECI’s Executive Director Noah Pollak.

“I trust that you will seize this moment to explain why the Jewish State is not just one of our closest allies, but a country that fully deserves the admiration and moral support of all Americans,” Pollak wrote.

Ross spoke on Sunday and delivered remarks which, while avoiding the harsh criticisms which Pollak called on him to make, fell short of the recurring call from J Street panelists for the Obama administration to take a more aggressive approach to bridging issues on which both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government have been unable to find common ground.

“We will continue to press both sides to engage seriously in negotiations – the only forum and the only mechanism that can resolve this historic conflict,” said Ross.

Ross deflected a question about the possibility for a new U.S. initiative to kickstart the peace process and repeated the administration’s position on Iran, stating, “While the door will always remain open for diplomacy, we remain determined to prevent Iran from acquiring the nuclear weapons and we won’t be deflected from this goal.”

The panel following Ross’s address was critical of the White House official’s position, leading New York Times columnist Roger Cohen to quip after Ross had left the room, “[Ross] sat in five administrations but couldn’t sit after the speech for the debate,” and, “When I hear the word process, I am dying inside, there is no process and there is no peace.”

The conference concluded with a keynote address from Naomi Chazan, president of the New Israel Fund and former deputy speaker of the Knesset, who told the audience, “The democratic wave spreading through the Middle East includes a free Palestine as an integral part of what is going on. And therefore, Israel as an occupying state cannot remain democratic while it rules over another people. It is antithetical to the winds of the time.”

Her speech repeated the calls heard throughout the three days of panels and discussions for the Obama administration to urgently assume greater leadership in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Neither Israel nor Palestine can [make peace] alone. Therefore, action requires that the U.S. and Europe and the international community take steps as well. The present administration in Washington must step forward now,” said Chazan.

Excerpt:

By Jim Lobe and Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Dec 8 2010 (IPS)

Gleeful Israeli leaders and their neo-conservative supporters here have spent much of the past week insisting that the State Department cables published by Wikileaks prove that Sunni Arab leaders in the Middle East are far more preoccupied with the threat posed by an ascendant and possibly nuclear Iran than with a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But a closer look at the relevant cables shows a far more consistent message to Washington coming from its Arab allies: that curbing Iran and resolving the Israeli- Palestinian conflict are inextricably linked and that the most effective way of achieving the former is make tangible progress on the latter.

Indeed endorsements of “linkage” – the notion, accepted at the highest levels of the U.S. military, that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will help promote U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East – emerges as a recurring theme in previously confidential discussions with Arab leaders and U.S. diplomats on how best to counter Iran’s growing regional power and deter Tehran’s nuclear programme.

That’s not the message, of course, that Israel and its backers have been touting since the first batch of 220 documents was released Nov. 29 by Wikileaks.

Indeed, none other than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately seized on purported anti-Iranian comments by the Arab leaders quoted prominently in the New York Times as vindication of Israel’s position.

“[T]here is a gap between what is said by leaders in private and what they say in public, especially in our region, because our region is hostage to a narrative, and that narrative is the result of nearly 60 years of propaganda,” he told a media conference in Tel Aviv immediately after the initial Wikileaks release. “In this narrative, the single greatest threat to regional peace and to the region’s future is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israel’s alleged aggression.”

“However, the reality is that leaders understand that this narrative is bankrupt. The reality is that there is a new understanding that there is a new threat here,” he declared, suggesting the existence of a de facto consensus between Israel and Sunni Arab states that Tehran must be prevented from achieving a nuclear-weapons capacity by any means necessary.

That message was immediately echoed by neo-conservative backers of Netanyahu’s Likud Party here for much of the past week.

“Obama has taken his eye off the real ball, placed friendly Arab states in a precarious situation, and misrepresented to the American people and the world that the non-peace talks are necessary to curb the Iranian threat,” asserted Jennifer Rubin in Commentary magazine’s Contentions blog.

“Governments in the region do not in fact care very much about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. They are transfixed by Iran.” wrote David Frum, a former George W. Bush speechwriter on his FrumForum blog and in Canada’s National Post. “If the Palestinian issue is so unimportant to the Middle East, why is it so important to us?”

While that line has since been repeated continuously by neo- conservative bloggers, columnists, and publications, they find little echo in the cables themselves.

“[T]he key to containing Iran revolves around progress in the Israel/Palestine issue,” Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan told visiting U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner during a Jul. 15, 2009 meeting, according to one cable dated five days later.

“To win [over Arab public opinion], the U.S. should quickly bring about a two-state solution over the objections of the Netanyahu government,” added bin Nayef, whose bristling hostility toward Iran was made plain by his comparison – highlighted by the Times – of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler.

Five months later, in a Dec. 9, 2009 meeting with Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman, bin Zayed returned to that theme. He “emphasized the strategic importance of creating a Palestinian State (i.e., resolving the Israeli- Palestinian conflict) as the way to create genuine Middle Eastern unity on the question of Iran’s nuclear program and regional ambitions,” the cable’s author reported.

A May 27, 2008 cable describes a conversation between Rep. Jeff Fortenberry with Gamal Mubarak, son and heir apparent of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Asked by the congressman how best to counter Iran’s nuclear programme, Mubarak replied, “Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as Jordan, are the ‘heavyweights’ that can counter Iran.”

The cable goes on to describe Mubarak as “advocat[ing] movement on the Israeli/Palestinian track to remove a prime issue that Iran can use as a pretext.”

“Speaking to PolOffs [political officers] in early February 2009, immediately after the Gaza War, Director of the Jordanian Prime Minister’s Political Office Khaled Al-Qadi noted that the Gaza crisis had allowed Iranian interference in inter-Arab relations to reach unprecedented levels,” according to a cable from the U.S. Embassy in Amman shortly after the three-week Gaza War between Israel and Hamas ended in January 2009.

Jordan’s government also depicted the ongoing Israeli- Palestinian conflict as a key factor in the expansion of Iran’s regional influence, according to the Apr. 2, 2009 cable.

“Jordanian leaders have argued that the only way to pull the rug out from under Hizballah – and by extension their Iranian patrons – would be for Israel to hand over the disputed Sheba’a Farms to Lebanon,” it went on. “With Hizballah lacking the ‘resistance to occupation’ rationale for continued confrontation with Israel, it would lose its raison d’etre and probably domestic support.”

During a Feb. 14, 2010 meeting with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, Qatar Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani suggested that Israel’s efforts to rally U.S. and Arab support for a more confrontational policy toward Iran was really related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. “[T]he Israelis,” he is reported as telling his guest, are “…using Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons as a diversion from settling matters with the Palestinians.”

Three days later, according to a cable sent Feb. 22, 2010, UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nayan warned another Congressional delegation led by Nita Lowey, a strong Israel supporter in the House of Representatives, against a military attack on Iran. According to the cable, the minister ended the meeting with a “soliloquy on the importance of a successful peace process between Israel and its neighbors as perhaps the best way of reducing Iran’s regional influence.”

The fact that the Arab leaders placed so much emphasis on the importance of making progress in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli dispute clearly did not come as any surprise to U.S. regional experts; nor would it be surprising to them if Israeli leaders and their neo- conservative backers have worked hard – as they have for the past week — to ignore or obscure that message.

Already in a January 2007 cable released by Wikileaks, the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv was warning Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the Israeli government was “deeply concerned that Israeli-Palestinian issues not become linked in American minds to creating a more propitious regional environment for whatever steps we decide to take to address the deteriorating situation in Iraq” which at the time appeared to be disintegrating into sectarian civil war.

That concern was prompted by the publication the previous November of a report by the Iraq Study Group headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton which, among other findings, bluntly concluded that “the United States will not be able to achieve its goals in the Middle East unless the United States deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

*Additional reporting by Ali Gharib.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Aug 11 2010 (IPS)

Several powerful members of Congress have worked to suspend U.S. military aid to Lebanon’s military after a deadly skirmish on the Lebanese-Israeli border last week which left two Lebanese soldiers, a Lebanese journalist and one Israeli officer dead.

Howard Berman, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced Monday that he had suspended U.S. military aid for Lebanon out of concern that weapons purchased with U.S. military aid might be used against Israel.

Berman put a hold on 100 million dollars of appropriations designated for the Lebanese Army.

“Until we know more about this incident and the nature of Hizbullah influence on the (Lebanese military) – and can assure that the (Lebanese military) is a responsible actor – I cannot in good conscience allow the United States to continue sending weapons to Lebanon,” Berman said in statement.

Concerns have often been expressed that U.S. military aid might be used to provide support to Hezbollah, a militant Shiite group which fought a war with Israel in 2006 and is reported to have accumulated a sizable missile arsenal – much of it alleged to have come from Iran and Syria.

Berman was joined by at least three other representatives – Nita M. Lowey, Howard P. McKeon, and Eric Cantor – in placing a hold on the military aid or calling for a review of the conditions under which military aid is provided to Lebanon.

While some members of Congress are taking issue with the Lebanese Army’s attack on Israeli soldiers who were pruning a tree on the border, the White House and various experts Middle East experts have expressed concerns that cutting aid to the Lebanese Army will only serve to strengthen Hezbollah and weaken the Lebanese government’s ability to control Hezbollah militants.

“[W]e continue to believe that supporting the Lebanese government and the Lebanese army or military is in our national interest to contribute to stability in the region,” State Department spokesman PJ Crowley told reporters on Tuesday.

Crowley justified U.S. military aid to Lebanon as helping to limit Iranian influence in Lebanon and enforcing Lebanese government sovereignty.

“That’s expressly why we think that the solution for Lebanon in terms of dealing with an armed element like Hezbollah is, in fact, to improve its own capabilities and professionalize its military so that it can extend its writ to areas that might not be fully under government control,” said Crowley.

Lebanon responded on Wednesday by rejecting Berman’s demand that conditions be put on military aid to restrict it from being used against Israel. “If someone would like to help the army without restrictions or conditions, he is welcome. But those who want to help the army on condition that it doesn’t protect its territory, people and border from Israel, should keep their money – or give it to Israel instead,” Lebanese Defence Minister Elias Murr told the Associated Press on Wednesday. Indeed Congressional pressure to cut military aid to Lebanon has given an opportunity to Iran, which has primarily sought influence in Lebanon by providing support for Hezbollah, to expand its relationship with the Lebanese government.

On Wednesday, Iran offered support to Lebanon’s army and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is scheduled to visit Beirut in September.

Juan Cole, a Middle East expert and University of Michigan professor, wrote on his blog that ending U.S. military aid to Lebanon will result in a weaker Lebanese army, a stronger Hezbollah, weaker government control over the Shiite dominated south, and an increased Lebanese government dependency on Tehran.

“In contrast, if the US helps quietly build up the Lebanese armed forces, at some point they will naturally overshadow Hizbullah. It is not desirable that the army be positioned as anti-Hizbullah nor that it take on the militia militarily. But in the medium term, a strong army would just be able better to assert its prerogatives. And it is better if that army is close to NATO powers, not to Iran,” concluded Cole.

Lebanon has complained in the past that U.S. military aid has come too slowly, most recently after a three-month struggle to push Sunni militants out of a Palestinian refugee camp in 2007 severely tested the capabilities of the Lebanese army.

Since 2006, the U.S. has provided over 720 million dollars in military aid, including Humvees, light weapons, night vision goggles and training.

The State Department was eager to dispel concerns that U.S. military aid or training had any role in last week’s deadly skirmish on the Israel-Lebanon border.

“We do understand the questions that the incident has raised about the nature of our assistance to Lebanon, and whether any of our assistance was in some way implicated in this incident,” Crowley told reporters on Tuesday.

“As we have stressed, we have no indications that our training programs were in any way implicated in what happened, and we will continue to discuss our assistance, our programs, with Lebanon with congressional leaders.”

*Eli Clifton blogs on U.S. foreign policy at ww.LobeLog.com.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Jul 29 2010 (IPS)

The recent Wikileaks dump of war-related documents has brought little new to the debate over Washington’s ongoing military involvement in Afghanistan, but allegations that Pakistan’s intelligence services are aiding the Taliban has brought renewed attention to U.S. concerns over its reliance on Islamabad in battling Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan.

New polling data released Thursday appeared to confirm that Pakistanis share the U.S.’s uncertainty about their country’s relationship with Washington, while, at the same time, holding unfavourable views of the Taliban and al Qaeda.

The poll, conducted in the spring of this year by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, confirms that the U.S.’s overall image in Pakistan remains negative with only 17 percent of respondents having a favourable view of the U.S., 59 percent describing the U.S. as an enemy and only 11 percent viewing the U.S. as a partner.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban also received low marks from Pakistanis.

Eighteen percent of Pakistanis viewed al Qaeda favourably, up from nine percent in 2009, and 15 percent view the Taliban favourably, up from 10 percent in 2009.

Despite the small increases in public support for al Qaeda and the Taliban, large numbers of Pakistanis continue to express concern over the possibility of extremist groups taking control of their country.

Fifty-one percent of respondents were worried about an extremist takeover, but that number has dipped from 69 percent when the same poll was conducted in 2009.

The survey’s results appear to suggest that Pakistanis are overwhelmingly negative about the U.S., al Qaeda, the Taliban and their own government.

“Pakistanis remain in a grim mood about the state of their country. Overwhelming majorities are dissatisfied with national conditions, unhappy with the nation’s economy, and concerned about political corruption and crime,” read the report.

“Only one-in-five express a positive view of President Asif Ali Zardari, down from 64 percent just two years ago,” it continued.

Very few Pakistanis are happy with the economy, with 78 percent describing the current economic situation as somewhat or very bad. Eighty-four percent were dissatisfied with the current national situation.

Of the extremist organisations respondents were asked about, Lashkar-e-Taiba – the group most active in Kashmir and widely blamed for the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks – garnered the most mixed response from the Pakistani public.

Only 35 percent of respondents expressed a negative view of Lashkar-e-Taiba, 25 percent expressed a favourable view and 40 percent had no opinion.

Despite widespread negative view towards extremist groups, Pakistanis were in support of many of the harsh laws and punishments with which the Taliban is often associated.

Eighty-five percent supported segregation of men and women in the workplace; 82 percent were in favour of stoning adulterers; 82 percent were in favour of whipping or cutting off hands as punishment for theft; and 76 percent supported the death penalty for people who leave Islam.

While the Pew poll’s results suggest that few Pakistanis have positive views towards extremist groups such as al Qaeda and the Taliban, support for U.S. involvement in the fight against extremists has declined over the past year.

The U.S.-led war in Afghanistan is widely unpopular, with 65 percent of Pakistanis wanting the U.S. and its NATO allies to withdraw as soon as possible. Relatively few respondents were concerned that a U.S. withdrawal could lead to instability in Pakistan if it resulted in a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.

“The U.S., on the one hand, very much wants to have Pakistan on its side and wants it to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan and sees Pakistan as a very strategic country,” said Pakistani political analyst Pervez Hoodbhoy on Wednesday at the Institute for Policy Studies.

“Because of the historical way the U.S. has dealt with Pakistan, there’s a deep resentment within the people and the establishment. Over these years, as the Islamisation of Pakistan has become more pronounced, anti-Americanism has grown,” he continued.

Only 25 percent of respondents expressed concern that a Taliban victory in Afghanistan would be bad for Pakistan, 18 percent thought a Taliban takeover in Afghanistan would be good, 27 percent said it wouldn’t matter, and 30 percent had no opinion.

“The U.S. will not leave Afghanistan. It will move to the north. The skies over south Afghanistan will be filled with drones. They U.S. is not going to let al Qaeda once again become what it was earlier on. Now, of course, this will result in a deterioration of U.S.-Pakistan relations. There are people in my country who are calling for open war against the United States,” said Hoodbhoy.

Interestingly, Pakistanis are widely in favour of improving relations with the U.S., with 64 percent wanting to improve the relationship. However, only 17 percent view the U.S. favourably and eight percent have confidence in President Barack Obama.

While the dissatisfaction with the U.S. involvement in the fight against extremists has grown over the years, the poll found that Pakistanis still consider their longtime historical rival, India, to be the greatest source of worry.

Fifty-three percent of Pakistanis identify India as the greatest threat to Pakistan while only 23 percent picked the Taliban and three percent chose al Qaeda.

*Eli Clifton blogs on U.S. foreign policy at www.LobeLog.com.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Jul 26 2010 (IPS)

The Barack Obama administration has found success in passing healthcare reform and legislation touted as an “overhaul” of the U.S. financial system, but last week it became clear that the Democrats wouldn’t advance a climate change bill until after the August recess and, more likely, until next year.

On Jul. 22, Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid announced that Senate Democrats would not take up the climate bill before the August recess.

Reid told reporters that Democrats simply did not have the votes to move forward on the legislation, which would have reduced carbon emissions but encountered wide opposition among Republican lawmakers and some Democrats.

When Obama took office in January 2009, hopes were high for those who wanted to see the U.S. pass legislation to limit carbon emissions.

With Democrats in control of the House and the Copenhagen climate conference coming up, it seemed liked the pieces were in place for a climate bill which would put the U.S. in a leadership position in reducing global carbon emissions.

But a brutal partisan battle over healthcare reform, a financial reform package that was only passed this month, and the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico – and the ensuing legislation to guarantee payments from BP – have all pushed the climate bill further down the road.

House and Senate Democrats are expected to suffer significant losses in the upcoming November elections which will add to the White House’s difficulty in passing a climate bill in 2011.

Fred Krupp, the president of the Environmental Defense Fund, expressed disappointment with Reid’s announcement and emphasised that the Senate’s failure to address climate change could mean that those seeking an effective climate bill will be fighting an uphill battle next year.

“To pass legislation, you need to move bills through both houses of Congress. The House of Representatives has already cast a clear, solid vote on this. If the Senate fails to act now, all that hard work will have been wasted and we’ll have to start from scratch next year with a new Congress likely to be less inclined to act responsibly,” wrote Krupp on his blog.

“Senate inaction will have very serious consequences for our environment, our economy, and, ultimately, our entire civilization,” he warned.

The inability of Democrats in Washington to pass a climate bill will likely have broad implications for the international momentum to pass climate change legislation.

Already, the upcoming meeting of international negotiators in Cancun, in November, is being described as an increasingly unlikely venue for the signing of an international climate agreement.

“Cap-and-trade legislation aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions appears to be dead in this Congress. Even a moderately ambitious alternative has been shelved until later this year at the earliest,” wrote Michael A. Levi, director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“The biggest implication is that the United States has once again failed to confront its climate problems. But there is another: the United States is in for a rocky time in international climate diplomacy,” he continued.

Representatives from developing nations, which included ministers from Brazil, South Africa, India and China, currently meeting in Rio de Janeiro said on Monday that developed countries haven’t done enough to battle climate change.

In the past the group – which had joined the U.S. in forming the Copenhagen Accord -had said that developed nations should submit emissions reduction targets for 2020 and participate in national emission curbing legislation.

If, as seems to be the case, a climate change bill is not brought up in the Senate before the August recess, it is unlikely that developing countries can expect a definitive climate agreement in Cancun in November.

Environmental NGOs here in Washington have been loudly claiming that the opportunity is not yet gone for a climate bill this year and that the costs of inaction are too high to accept.

“It’s time for all of U.S. – politicians, business leaders and environmentalists – to put wishful thinking aside, establish realistic goals and develop a consensus for legislation that can be passed this year,” wrote president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change Eileen Claussen and Duke Energy chair Jim Rogers in an op-ed for Politico on Friday.

“Current clean energy and climate legislation is not an all- or-nothing proposition. It’s a work in progress that can begin our transition to a clean energy future. We need to look past our differences and act where there is agreement,” they concluded.

But on Monday, warnings from developing countries coming from Rio de Janeiro suggested that the rest of the world was beginning to seriously doubt the Obama administration’s ability to pass a climate bill by November.

“If by the time we get to Cancun (U.S. senators) still have not completed the legislation then clearly we will get less than a legally binding outcome,” Buyelwa Sonjica, South Africa’s Water and Environment Affairs minister, said in an interview with Reuters.

“For us that is a concern, and we’re very realistic about the fact that we may not” complete a legally binding accord, she said.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Jul 22 2010 (IPS)

The United States and South Korea will impose new sanctions on North Korea in an effort to crackdown on the North’s participation in arms proliferation and increase pressure on Pyongyang after the sinking of a South Korean warship.

The new sanctions – which were introduced Wednesday during U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s two-day visit to Seoul – were announced ahead of next week’s large-scale war games in which 8,000 U.S. and South Korean troops are scheduled to participate.

North Korea has denied responsibility for the sinking but a South Korean investigation concluded that a North Korean torpedo was responsible for the attack – which resulted in the deaths of 46 South Korean sailors and the sinking of the Cheonan.

While the upcoming war games appear to be sending a message to the North that further naval aggression will not go unanswered, the newly announced sanctions are designed to target Pyongyang’s role in the proliferation of weapons and those individuals and company’s which have directly benefited from the trade.

Clinton told reporters on Wednesday that the new sanctions would include, “…additional State and Treasury designations of entities and individuals supporting proliferation, subjecting them to an asset freeze, new efforts with key governments to stop the DPRK trading companies engaged in illicit activities from operating in countries, and prevent the banks of other countries from facilitating these illicit transactions; expanded cooperation globally to prevent the travel of individuals designated under Security Council resolutions, as well as other key North Korean proliferators; [and] greater emphasis on North Korea’s repeated abuse of its diplomatic privileges, in order to engage in activities banned by the Security Council.”

She also added that the U.S. would push for other countries to refrain from buying banned items from North Korea or exporting proliferation-related goods to North Korea.

While details remain scarce about the actual extent of the sanctions, supporters of further sanctions against North Korea are hoping that the new restrictions will put greater pressure on both the reclusive nation’s leadership as well as its trading partners.

“The sanctions must not only target a more extensive listing of North Korean entities but also other foreign countries, businesses, and banks that are violating UN Resolution 1874. The most notable examples would be Iran, Syria, and Burma. To be truly effective, Washington must also ensure compliance by other UN member nations as well as more vigorous enforcement of sanctions,” wrote Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Bruce Klinger in the insider newsletter The Nelson Report.

Pyongyang responded to the new sanctions and the upcoming war games with a warning that the new efforts would be interpreted as hostile actions directed at North Korea.

“If the U.S. is really interested in the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, it should halt the military exercises and sanctions that destroy the mood for dialogue,” North Korean spokesman Ri Tong Il told reporters on the sidelines of the ASEAN Regional Forum in Hanoi on Thursday. “Sanctions mean ‘escalation of the [U.S.] hostile policy toward North Korea.’”

Exact details of the new sanctions remain to be seen but experts here in Washington are describing the sanctions and war games as responses to both the Cheonan sinking and the North’s refusal to give up its nuclear programme.

“The exercises are more pointed at the Cheonan incident and the sanctions are as well, but are also directed at the nuclear programme,” Alan D. Romberg, director of the East Asia programme at the Henry L. Stimson Centre, told IPS.

China has expressed its concern over the upcoming war games which are to serve as a display of U.S. force in the region and to strengthen the U.S.-South Korea military alliance after the sinking of the Cheonan in March.

“China’s position on the ROK-U.S. joint military exercises is clear. We urge relevant parties to exercise calmness and restraint and refrain from activities that would escalate tension in the region,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Qin Gang on Wednesday. “We resolutely oppose any foreign military vessel and planes conducting activities in the Yellow Sea and China’s coastal waters that undermine China’s security interests.”

The new sanctions, which appear designed to penalise North Korea for its ongoing nuclear programme and participation in arms proliferation, will be added to the existing sanctions regime against Pyongyang.

“It’s obvious that sanctions have not had the entire desired effect since the North, although it says it might, has not shown any indication that it will do the things that the Six Party Talks say they should, such as backing off from their nuclear programme,” said Romberg.

Some in Washington have expressed dismay that the U.N. resolution condemning the attack on the Cheonan fell short of placing blame on North Korea.

“I don’t think the announcement is some sort of a negative reaction to the UN response,” said Romberg. “It was always assumed that whatever would have teeth would need to come from the individual countries.”

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Jul 21 2010 (IPS)

British Prime Minister David Cameron’s visit to Washington, DC on Tuesday was supposed to be an opportunity for the Conservative Party leader to build a rapport with U.S. President Barack Obama.

But allegations that BP, one of the world’s largest petroleum companies, exerted influence over the Scottish and British government to free Libyan prisoners including Abdel Baset al-Megrahi – the man convicted of bombing a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie Scotland in 1988 which killed 270 people, including 189 U.S. citizens – is overshadowing what would be an otherwise upbeat set of meetings in Washington.

The circumstances around the release received widespread attention after Megrahi returned to Libya in Aug. 2009.

Cameron has been adamant that the decision to free Megrahi was made by the Scottish government and that there is no evidence to suggest that the government was “in any way swayed by BP”. But he did acknowledge that a review of government documents about the release would be necessary.

“We’re going to go back over this information and see if more needs to be published,” Cameron said Tuesday.

Last week, four U.S. Senators expressed concern that the release of Megrahi may have been tied to BP’s pursuit of an oil exploration contract with the Libyan government.

“Both the British and United States have vowed to fight a war on terror, and if one of the worst terrorists in history, responsible for more deaths than all but a handful of people, can be released for a few coins, or pounds, what does it say to other terrorists?” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY).

Schumer, along with Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D- NY) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), are calling on BP to suspend drilling plans in Libya until it has been determined whether the company played a role in Meghrahi’s release.

“There is clear reason to believe that this terrorist was released based on false information about his health,” Schumer said in a written statement. “This is especially galling to those of us who believed he shouldn’t have been released, even if it had been true that his death was imminent.”

Doctor’s had estimated that Megrahi, who suffering from prostate cancer had as little as three-months left to live before his release last year, but recent reports from Libya have suggested that he may live for as many as ten years.

On Thursday, State Department spokesperson PJ Crowley told reporters that, “We accepted at face value what Scottish authorities told us, that this was a humanitarian decision that they made based on the medical information that was available to them.”

“We said categorically that this was a mistake, and that is still our view today…. We understand the outrage that the families of Pan Am 103 and their elected officials feel about this,” Crowley continued.

The Scottish government has maintained that the release was conducted on “compassionate grounds” and that BP had no involvement in the decision. But BP has admitted lobbying the British government in 2007 over a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Libya and acknowledged that a delay in the transfer might have “negative consequences” for UK businesses seeking to do business in Libya.

While BP has admitted that it lobbied for the prisoner transfer in 2007, it has adamantly denied that it lobbied for Megrahi’s transfer in 2009.

British ambassador to the U.S., Nigel Sheinwald, issued a statement last week saying, “The new British Government is clear that Megrahi’s release was a mistake.”

Sheinwald went on to reiterate the government’s position – that the decision to release Megrahi was a decision made solely by the Scottish government.

“Under UK law, where Scottish justice issues are devolved to Scotland, it fell solely to the Scottish Executive to consider Megrahi’s case,” said Sheinwald. “Under Scottish law, Megrahi was entitled to be considered for release on compassionate grounds.”

While allegations that BP lobbied for Megrahi’s release are overshadowing Cameron’s visit – his first since he took office in May – other issues of importance to both London and Washington were discussed in meetings with Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and House and Senate leadership.

Obama and Cameron discussed Afghanistan – where both countries’ troops are fighting – and Obama hailed today’s international conference in Kabul today as “another major step forward” in the Afghan government’s efforts to improve security, accelerate economic growth and expand basic government services.

Cameron faces tough questions from the media and, presumably, U.S. politicians, about the role of BP in securing Megrahi’s release but at a White House news conference Obama was quick to emphasise the partnership between the two leaders.

“I appreciate David’s steady leadership and his pragmatic approach,” Obama said. “And just as he’s off to an energetic start at home, I think we’ve had a brilliant start as partners who see eye to eye on virtually every challenge before us.”

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Jul 20 2010 (IPS)

With less than six months before the residents of southern Sudan vote on a reform which is expected to result in the cessation of South Sudan from the north, a new report implicates Sudan’s security services in “carrying out a brutal campaign of arbitrary detentions, torture, and mental and physical intimidation” against opponents of the government.

The report, released on Monday by Amnesty International, says that the “The Sudanese National Intelligence and Security Service” (NISS) has participated in rampant human rights violations including arbitrary arrests, incommunicado detentions, unlawful killings and enforced disappearances.

“The NISS rules Sudan by fear. The extensive, multi-pronged assault on the Sudanese people by the security services has left the critics of the government in constant fear of arrest, harassment or worse,” said Erwin van der Borght, Africa programme director for Amnesty International.

“The Sudanese authorities are brutally silencing political opposition and human rights defenders in Sudan through violence and intimidation. NISS agents benefit from total impunity for the human rights violations they continue to commit,” van der Borght continued.

The report, titled ‘Agents of Fear: The National Security Service in Sudan’, documents the arrest of at least 34 journalists, students and human rights activists by the NISS.

Sudan’s general election in April – which was marked by reports of fraud, voter intimidation and logistical difficulties – has given way to continued violence in the Darfur region in western Sudan.

Some reports have indicated that as many as 300,000 people have been killed since 2003 as anti-government forces continue to clash with the Sudanese military.

As January’s referendum draws closer, many here in Washington are concerned that if the south votes to secede from the north – as they are expected to do – more widespread violence may ensue.

“Without substantive changes in Sudan’s national security laws and practices, the situation of human rights in Sudan will not improve. As long as the powers and immunities of the NISS are maintained, there is no hope of seeing an end to arbitrary arrests, prolonged incommunicado detentions, torture and other ill-treatment, and deaths in custody,” said the report.

“The escalating human rights violations by the NISS since the April elections and the clamp down on freedom of expression raise grave concerns, particularly in light of the coming 2011 referendum and the risks of increased human rights violations around the referendum,” it continued.

Amnesty charges that the government of Sudan is directly responsible for the “…culture within the NISS that allows the use of torture and other serious human rights violations” and warns that unless the Sudanese government cracks down on human rights abuses “Sudan will continue to be ruled by fear, and members of the NISS will remain Sudan’s agents of fear”.

Listing similar concerns, Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported today that increased fighting between the Sudanese military and rebel forces this year have caused hundreds of deaths and displacements in Darfur.

HRW called for the U.N. to ensure that international peacekeepers strengthen their protection for civilians and renew the mandate of the Darfur peacekeeping mission.

“While international attention has focused on the Sudanese elections and the referendum on Southern Sudan, Darfur remains in shambles,” said Rona Peligal, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The new fighting and rights abuses across Darfur show clearly that the war is far from over and that the U.N. needs to do more to protect civilians.”

The United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) mandate includes creating and maintaining security conditions for humanitarian groups to access all of Darfur and to protect the civilian populations from “[the] imminent threat of physical violence and [to] prevent attacks against civilians, within its capability and areas of deployment, without prejudice to the responsibility of the Government of Sudan”.

HRW says that peacekeepers have been prevented from conducting frequent, long-range patrols by both the Sudanese government and rebel forces.

“For example, U.N. sources reported at the end of May on the failure of 18 out of 24 attempts to reach locations in Jebel Mara. A UNAMID and interagency team reached some displaced communities from Jebel Mun at Aro Shorou and Hijllija villages on May 20, but the Sudanese army prevented the team from visiting Kalgo, Falako, and Alona villages, stating that unexploded ordnance made the area unsafe to visit,” said HRW.

Amnesty reports that cases of human rights abuse by the NISS have spiked during period of political tension, as occurred after a major attack by a Darfur armed group on Khartoum in May 2008, and after the International Criminal Court’s issuance of an arrest warrant against Sudanese President Omar al- Bashir in July 2008, as well as after the April elections.

Freedom of the press has also deteriorated significantly since the April elections largely due to an NISS crackdown which has led to the closure of several opposition newspapers and the arrest and detainment of journalists.

“The National Security Act must be reformed so that agents are no longer provided with extensive powers of arrest and detention. All immunities should be removed,” said van der Borght.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Jul 12 2010 (IPS)

Depending on whom you asked, Friday’s statement from the U.N. condemning the “attack” on a South Korean warship was either a victory for those countries seeking to publicly shame North Korea or a failure of the international community to sufficiently assign blame to Pyongyang for the incident.

But the announcement Monday that military officials from North Korea and the U.S.-led U.N. Command will meet in the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) on Tuesday would seem to suggest that Pyongyang is pursuing a more conciliatory strategy in its diplomacy.

The U.N. statement did not explicitly charge North Korea with the Mar. 26 sinking of the Cheonan that killed 46 South Korean sailors, but it did cite the South Korean investigation which claimed that North Korea was responsible, while noting that Pyongyang had denied any involvement.

The statement “[took] note of the responses from other relevant parties, including from the DPRK, which has stated that it had nothing to do with the incident.”

“Therefore, the Security Council condemns the attack which led to the sinking of the Cheonan,” the statement went on to say.

“This Security Council presidential statement demonstrates a strong international consensus condemning this attack and is the result of close cooperation among Council members and with South Korea. It underscores the Security Council’s strong commitment to maintain peace and security on the Korean peninsula,” said Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Friday.

“The message to North Korean leadership is crystal clear: the Security Council condemns and deplores this attack, it warns against any further attacks, and insists on full adherence to the Korean Armistice Agreement,” she continued.

Following the Security Council’s statement on Friday, a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesperson called the presidential statement “devoid of any proper judgment”, according to the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

Response to the declaration was mixed among U.S. foreign policy experts.

Josh Rogin, a writer at Foreign Policy Magazine, blogged that the statement “not only does not specify any consequences for the Kim Jong Il regime, but doesn’t even conclude that North Korea was responsible for the attack in the first place.”

But other observers saw the U.N.’s statement as a case of the glass being half full.

“Here’s why it was a win, not a loss: China and Russia both agreed to support a UNSC presidential statement condemning the ‘attack’ on the Cheonan, despite the personal assurance of Kim Jong-Il to Hu Jintao that N. Korea didn’t attack the ship,” wrote Chris Nelson of the insider newsletter The Nelson Report.

China has been slow to join in international condemnations of North Korea and, along with serving as North Korea’s biggest source of food and fuel aid, is also widely perceived in Washington as shielding Pyongyang from international criticism.

“[Both] China and Russia agreed to a statement which referred uncritically to the ROK-led investigation and its conclusion that the DPRK fired the torpedo which sank the Cheonan…with the price of also noting the DPRK denial,” said Nelson.

But Monday’s announcement by the U.N. Command that military officials from North Korea would participate in talks to discuss the sinking of the Cheonan brings hope that relations across the DMZ, which have been tense since March, might be moving towards a thaw.

“Seoul, Korea – Representatives of the Korean People’s Army Panmunjom Mission on Friday agreed to conduct Colonel-level meetings with United Nations Command Military Armistice Commission representatives at Panmunjom, Tuesday at 10 a.m,” read a statement from the U.N. Command on Monday.

U.S. colonels will represent the U.N. since the U.S. is responsible for U.N. forces in South Korea. The meetings are to be held in advance of higher level general officer talks to be held at a later date.

Pyongyang’s decision to participate in talks is a u-turn from its previous refusal to engage in discussions about the sinking of the Cheonan.

As recently as last month, the North had declined a U.N. Command invitation to discuss the sinking and had demanded access to the South’s investigators and to inspect their methods and conclusions.

While direct discussions about the sinking of the Cheonan would be the first step in addressing a crisis that has put relations between the two Koreas in a deep freeze since March, the likelihood of Pyongyang returning to the Six- Party Talks to discuss the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula – and presumably the dismantling of its own nuclear weapons programme – remains an open question.

Since its departure from the Six-Party Talks last year, North Korea has indicated that it would seek bilateral negotiations with the U.S. with the end goal being a U.S.- North Korea peace treaty, but Washington has been consistent in insisting that such steps can only be taken after the Six-Party Talks are resumed and Pyongyang takes irreversible steps towards denuclearisation.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Jul 8 2010 (IPS)

CNN’s firing of Octavia Nasr, the editor responsible for the network’s Middle East coverage, over a Twitter post in which she expressed her sadness over the death of a Lebanese cleric has set off a firestorm of debate about what the decision says about CNN’s fairness in reporting on the region.

On Sunday, Nasr wrote, “Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah… One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot,” on her Twitter account, which is followed by over 7,000 readers.

Fadlallah was an inspirational figure for Lebanese Shiites and an early supporter of Hezbollah.

Fadlallah, who initially supported the use of suicide bombings as a means of resistance against the occupation of Lebanon and Palestine, later criticised Hezbollah for its close ties to Iran, as well as Ayatollah Khomeini’s velayet- e faqih “rule of the clerics”, which Khomeini imposed in Iran in 1979.

Critics of Fadlallah have charged that he was staunchly anti-U.S., and had been linked to bombings that killed more than 260 U.S. citizens, but others have pointed to the cleric’s support for women’s rights and fatwas against female circumcision and honour killings as evidence of his comparatively progressive position.

After the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and a number of right-wing news outlets and blogs took issue with her expression of regret over Fadlallah’s death, on Tuesday, Nasr wrote another Twitter post in which she attempted to clarify her earlier comment and emphasised her admiration of Fadlallah’s defence of women’s rights.

“Fadlallah, designated by the U.S. Department of Treasury as a specially designated terrorist, disseminated numerous fatawa’ supporting terrorist operations and was a vocal supporter of terrorism against Israeli targets,” read a statement from the ADL on Tuesday.

“It is clearly an impropriety for a CNN journalist/editor to express such a partisan viewpoint as Ms. Nasr did in her tweet,” the statement continued.

“How did CNN senior editor of Middle East affairs Octavia Nasr celebrate July 4? By mourning the passing of Hezbollah’s Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah,” blogged Daniel Halper at the neoconservative Weekly Standard.

But other journalists and watchdog groups expressed concern over the speed with which CNN fired Nasr and the emergence of a double-standard when reporting on Middle Eastern affairs.

“The network – which has employed a former AIPAC official, Wolf Blitzer, as its primary news anchor for the last 15 years – justified its actions by claiming that Nasr’s ‘credibility’ had been ‘compromised,'” wrote Salon’s Glenn Greenwald in an article in which he went on to argue that Nasr was fired for offending the “neocon Right” by expressing regret over the death of a “profoundly complex figure, with some legitimate grievances, some entrenched hatreds and ugly viewpoints, and a substantial capacity for good.”

Peter Hart, activism director at Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a media watchdog group, told IPS that, “If there was some suggestion that she had been producing questionable journalism over all these years you’d think this would have been an issue before this, but it doesn’t seem to be the case. So it’s a decision which is disconnected from any sensible policy. The real problem is that she said something which offended very powerful people and that was her mistake.”

Nasr had worked for the Atlanta-based CNN for 20 years and rarely appeared on-air except for occasional appearances as an analyst in discussions on Middle East news. She had no history of an anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian bias and, according to Greenwald, “blended perfectly into the American corporate media woodwork”.

“Octavia Nasr got fired for the one smart thing she ever said,” quipped journalist Nir Rosen, a fellow at the New York University Center on Law and Security, in a Twitter post.

“[P]lenty of American journalists and politicians have shown ‘respect’ (and in some cases, fawning admiration) for various world figures with hands far bloodier than Ayatollah Fadlallah – including Mao Zedong, Ariel Sharon, the Shah of Iran, or even Kim il Sung – but it didn’t cost them their jobs,” wrote Stephen Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Questions have been raised over why Nasr, known as an uncontroversial reporter of Middle East affairs, was fired so quickly for an off-the-cuff Twitter post.

According to some observers, her unwillingness to conform to the narrative depicted by a number of right-wing news outlets and U.S. Jewish groups that Fadlallah was a terrorist, anti-US and anti-Semitic resulted in CNN receiving pressure to fire her.

“Nasr’s comment was enough to spark fierce outrage from the various precincts of the neocon blog/twittersphere, who went after Nasr for her egregious failure to reduce Fadlallah to an anti-Israel, anti-American terrorist bogeyman,” blogged Matt Duss, a National Security Researcher at the liberal Center For American Progress.

While right-wing news outlets, such as the Weekly Standard and the conservative WorldNetDaily gleefully reported on Nasr’s departure from CNN, others expressed concern for the double standard which has emerged when discussing Middle East affairs in the US mainstream media.

“The standard here is based on nothing that Nasr reported for CNN. [Her Twitter post] was barely a one sentence expression of sympathy. Firing her was a decision that was completely disconnected from her work so it’s a decision that’s very troubling. Lou Dobbs’s thoughts about immigrants were on CNN every night and CNN stood by him as the criticism mounted and the factual inaccuracies piled up,” said Hart.

“In this case, a stray comment is enough to terminate someone’s role at CNN almost overnight,” he said. “The discrepancy is rather revealing and CNN would have a very hard time revealing precisely what their policy is on this. It’s hard to find precedent for this. She has a history of covering the region and that is not easily replaced.”

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Jul 1 2010 (IPS)

U.S. President Barack Obama criticised “ill conceived” immigration laws in Arizona and called on Republicans to end their opposition to immigration reform and pass bipartisan immigration reform in speech delivered Thursday morning.

Immigration reform has become a pressing issue in Washington as individual states, such as Arizona, have passed their own immigration related laws.

Obama blasted the Arizona law, saying “states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands. Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable. But it is also ill-conceived,” at a speech delivered at American University in Washington DC.

In April, Arizona announced strict new laws allowing police officers to stop and question anyone who they believe might be in the U.S. illegally – a law that many critics say would encourage racial profiling.

“These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound,” said Obama.

Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an Ecuadorean television station that the U.S. government would be “bringing a lawsuit” to challenge the Arizona law but the administration has not made any further announcements about a lawsuit.

Obama’s denunciation of the Arizona law was welcomed by groups which have expressed concern over the civil rights implications for Latinos in Arizona.

“The president’s speech comes at a crucial moment – we have a civil rights crisis in our hands due to federal inaction on immigration. He understands that the solution to our broken immigration system lies in Washington, not in Phoenix,” said Janet Murguía, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino civil rights and advocacy organisation.

“But a speech alone is not enough, and it will not make a difference if the president does not follow through and push both parties in Congress to move a bill forward. It is time to see who stands for solutions and who wants to continue playing politics with people’s lives and America’s interests,” Murguía continued.

Obama has spoken out against the new law in the past but with midterm elections coming up in the fall, the White House has been eager to curb criticisms that the Democratic Party is lax on national security and immigration.

In May, the White House announced it would be sending 1,200 National Guard troops to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border after pressure from both Republicans and Democrats to tighten border security and increase funding to combat the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S.

In his speech Thursday, Obama warned that the lack of immigration reform at the federal level is resulting in inconsistent policies, as individual states pass their own immigration enforcement legislation.

“[A]s other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country – a patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed,” said Obama.

Obama called on Republicans to join Democrats in Congress to pass immigration reform.

Immigration reform, he said, “cannot pass without Republican votes. That is the political and mathematical reality.”

Obama endorsed the attempts by Sen. Charles Schumer and Sen. Lindsey Graham to form a bipartisan framework to address immigration reform but noted that some Republicans who had supported immigration reform under President George W. Bush were now opposing Democratic-led reform for partisan reasons.

Obama committed himself to immigration reform which improves border security but preserves the U.S.’s history as, “a nation of immigrants… who believed that there was a place that they could be, at long last, free to work and worship and live their lives in peace.”

At the heart of the contentious issue of immigration reform is the question of what to do with the 11 million undocumented workers currently in the U.S.

Obama was adamant that neither mass deportation nor mass amnesty are acceptable solutions, saying that “if the majority of Americans are sceptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also sceptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people. They know it’s not possible. Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive.”

“Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation, because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric,” he added.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton told reporters on Wednesday that, “[Obama] thinks this debate is about accountability – accountability for securing the border, accountability for employers who are hiring illegal immigrants, and accountability for those who are in this country illegally.”

When campaigning for president, Obama promised to pass immigration reform early in his first term but it appears increasingly unlikely that he will make much substantive progress before midterm elections in the fall.

But with immigration emerging as a hot-button issue during the lead up to midterm elections, Obama’s speech places immigration reform high on the Democrat’s domestic policy agenda.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Jun 30 2010 (IPS)

Last week’s meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in New Zealand brought statements of concern over China’s planned nuclear deal with Pakistan, but U.S. State Department officials avoided taking a strong position on the deal when pressed by reporters this week.

China’s proposed sale of two nuclear reactors to Pakistan would, in theory, stand in violation of the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – of which China is a signatory – but the Barack Obama administration’s finalisation in March of an agreement to reprocess spent nuclear fuel from India could face similar criticism.

Critics charge that both the China-Pakistan and U.S.-India deals violate the NPT by facilitating nuclear programmes in states which are not parties to the NPT.

U.S. State Department officials avoided questions from reporters about the China-Pakistan deal during the NSG meeting. When questioned on Monday, State Department spokesperson PJ Crowley said that issues surrounding China’s nuclear deal had been brought up at last week’s meeting but that the U.S. “[continues] to seek information from China regarding its future plans”.

On Monday, Crowley told reporters, “We’re looking for more information from China as to what it is potentially proposing. We have a view that this initiative, as it goes forward, would need the agreement of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.”

Other members of the NSG were not as restrained in their response to the possible transfer of nuclear technology to Pakistan.

The British government expressed the opinion that “the time is not yet right for a civil nuclear deal with Pakistan”.

The Obama administration has numerous reasons to abstain from joining the condemnation of the Chinese plan to sell nuclear reactors to Pakistan.

The White House has worked hard in recent months to improve relations after a difficult winter in which pressures grew on the administration to declare China a currency manipulator and the announcement of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan provoked angry statements from Beijing.

The ongoing war against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan necessitates good U.S. relations with Pakistan in order to maintain supply routes into Afghanistan and assure cooperation in facilitating operations against Taliban havens in Pakistan.

Experts in Washington have concluded it to be unlikely that the White House will offer any public opposition to the China-Pakistan nuclear deal.

“The United States and other NSG states may object to the pending transaction but they cannot prevent China from exporting the reactors,” Mark Hibbs, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment’s Nuclear Policy Programme, wrote in April.

“Senior officials in NSG states friendly to the United States said this month they expect that President Barack Obama will not openly criticise the Chinese export because Washington, in the context of a bilateral security dialogue with Islamabad, may be sensitive to Pakistan’s desire for civilian nuclear cooperation in the wake of the sweeping U.S.-India nuclear deal which entered into force in 2008 after considerable arm-twisting of NSG states by the United States, France, and Russia,” he wrote.

When the U.S. announced in 2008 its intention to push through an exemption in the NPT to permit the sale of civilian nuclear technology to India, arms control advocates widely condemned the agreement as weakening the NPT, while others charged that the NPT maintained a double-standard for close allies of the U.S.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has complained of the hypocrisy in the restrictions put on the export of civilian nuclear technology while the U.S. pushed for a loophole for India, a country which has not signed the NPT and has developed nuclear weapons.

The Obama administration has repeatedly made clear that the challenges surrounding nuclear non-proliferation and the reduction of nuclear weapons stockpiles are one of the top international initiatives that the White House is seeking to address.

Obama has spoken about his goal of a world “without nuclear weapons” and has emphasised the three pillars – disarmament, nonproliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear technology – which form the framework for a global reduction in the threat from nuclear weapons.

The NPT has been seen as the most effective avenue to channel U.S. efforts to reduce the risk of proliferation but some experts are concerned that the U.S. and China’s attempts to sidestep the NPT and engage in nuclear deals with non-NPT signing countries will weaken the treaty.

While the Chinese attempts to seek an exemption for their nuclear deal with Pakistan may garner some criticism, it seems unlikely that the White House will risk a public spat with China over the proposed sale.

Earlier this month, experts warned that the China-Pakistan nuclear deal could be a difficult issue at the NSG meeting but that a pre-2004 Sino-Pakistan nuclear cooperation agreement, signed before China joined the NSG, could be used by Beijing to allow the nuclear reactors sale to be “grandfathered” in.

“In the aftermath of the U.S.-India deal and the group’s decision to accommodate it, the NSG will have to perform a delicate balancing act to find the least unsatisfactory solution to China’s challenge,” Hibbs said on Jun. 17.

“In the view of some NSG states, an agreement permitting China to grandfather the exports under the 2004 nuclear cooperation agreement with Pakistan would be the least damaging outcome, but it may not be credible,” he said. “”If China seeks an exemption, NSG countries could urge Beijing to provide nuclear security and non-proliferation benefits in exchange for limited commerce with Pakistan.”

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Jun 28 2010 (IPS)

Monday’s Supreme Court decision on the extent to which the Second Amendment of the U.S. constitution guarantees the universal right to own a gun is being welcomed by organisations on both sides of the debate, even as some warn that the ruling could open a floodgate of legislation challenging gun laws in different states.

“It is clear that the Framers [of the constitution]…counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The Supreme Court decided in the case of McDonald v. Chicago that Chicago’s 28-year-old ban on handguns was unconstitutional.

“We’re pleasantly surprised with how restrained the decision is,” Ladd Everitt, director of communications at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, told IPS. “This decision is talking specifically about laws which would prohibit someone from owning handguns in the home. I don’t know of many jurisdictions which have this type of law on the books.”

“The McDonald ruling does not imperil every gun law in America,” he said.

The Supreme Court’s five-to-four decision, which came on the last day of its term, ruled that the Second Amendment provides all citizens a right to bear arms but leaves the door open for certain local and state laws which restrict who can possess handguns and where handguns can be taken.

“We repeat those assurances here,” Alito wrote. “Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, [the decision] does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”

Also voting in the majority were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Justices Stephen G. Breyer, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor cast the four dissenting votes.

“Given the empirical and local value-laden nature of the questions that lie at the heart of the issue, why, in a nation whose constitution foresees democratic decision- making, is it so fundamental a matter as to require taking that power from the people?” Breyer wrote. “What is it here that the people did not know? What is it that a judge knows better?”

Stevens read his own dissent from the bench, in which he took issue with the majority’s decision that gun ownership is a fundamental right.

The decision does not explicitly strike down Chicago’s handgun ban but it does move the ban’s opponents one step closer to overturning the law.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), the biggest pro-gun rights organisation in the U.S., and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, an organisation which has called for stricter legislation to prevent gun violence, both celebrated the ruling.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre welcomed the decision, saying, “The Supreme Court said what a majority of the American public believes. The people who wrote the Second Amendment said it was an individual right, and the Court has now confirmed what our founding fathers wrote and intended. The Second Amendment – as every citizen’s constitutional right – is now a real part of American Constitutional law.”

But LaPierre also warned that the court’s decision could result in a “practical defeat by activist judges, defiant city councils, or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse, or nullify the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision through Byzantine labyrinths of restrictions and regulations that render the Second Amendment inaccessible, unaffordable, or otherwise impossible to experience in a practical, reasonable way.”

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, also responded favourably to the decision.

“We are pleased that the Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self- defence does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence,” wrote Helmke.

He continued, “We are reassured that the Court has rejected, once again, the gun lobby argument that its ‘any gun, for anybody, anywhere’ agenda is protected by the Constitution. The Court again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available.”

Helmke also emphasised that the ruling would not prevent the city of Chicago from amending its gun laws to comply with the ruling and continue “to have strong, comprehensive and Constitutional gun laws”.

While the Brady Campaign downplayed the effects of the court’s ruling on gun regulation, the Violence Policy Center (VPC), a group which addresses gun violence as a public health issue, saw the Supreme Court’s decision as a major blow to their attempts to curb handgun violence.

“People will die because of this decision. It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America’s fading firearms industry. The inevitable tide of frivolous pro-gun litigation destined to follow will force cities, counties, and states to expend scarce resources to defend longstanding, effective public safety laws,” said a statement from the VPC.

The statement continued, “The gun lobby and gunmakers are seeking nothing less than the complete dismantling of our nation’s gun laws in a cynical effort to try and stem the long-term drop in gun ownership and save the dwindling gun industry. The 30,000 lives claimed annually by gun violence and the families destroyed in the wake of mass shootings and murder-suicides mean little to the gun lobby and the firearm manufacturers it protects.”

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Jun 21 2010 (IPS)

China’s central bank announced Saturday that it would give the Chinese Yuan (RMB) flexibility to gradually rise in value against the U.S. dollar in a move that was welcomed by Washington and designed to appease global leaders at this weekend’s G20 meeting in Toronto.

“In view of the recent economic situation and financial market developments at home and abroad, and the balance of payments (BOP) situation in China, the People’s Bank of China has decided to proceed further with reform of the RMB exchange rate regime and to enhance the RMB exchange rate flexibility,” read a statement released on Saturday on the People’s Bank of China website.

In recent weeks, the Barack Obama administration has been under increasing pressure from Congress to list China as a currency manipulator.

“We welcome China’s decision to increase the flexibility of its exchange rate,” said U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in a response to the announcement by the People’s Bank of China. “Vigorous implementation would make a positive contribution to strong and balanced global growth.”

Leaders of other major economies also welcomed the announcement which serves to defuse a potential source of tension before the G20 summit.

“I hope this will contribute to stability and balanced growth in the Chinese, Asian and therefore global economies,” said Japanese Finance Minister Yoshihiko Noda.

The European Commission responded with a statement reading, “The decision will help achieve more sustainable growth in the global economy, contribute to reduce external imbalances and strengthen the stability of the international monetary and financial system.”

A day before Beijing announced its intention to give new flexibility to the RMB, the World Bank, in its quarterly report on China’s economy, had suggested that a more flexible exchange rate could give the Chinese economy more independence from the U.S. economy’s cyclical conditions.

The RMB has been held to a de facto peg since 2008 when Beijing stopped the gradual appreciation which the currency had been undergoing since 2005.

Reactions on Capitol Hill were mixed as lawmakers remained unsure about what Saturday’s announcement will mean for the RMB and the U.S. economy.

Charles Schumer, an outspoken critic of China’s exchange rate policies, expressed doubts that the recent announcement would bring meaningful reform.

“Until there is more specific information about how quickly it will let its currency appreciate and by how much, we can have no good feeling that the Chinese will start playing by the rules,” said Schumer.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sander M. Levin welcomed the announcement but warned that previous promises of reform had been followed by sufficient appreciation of the RMB.

“This is a positive first step, but it remains to be seen whether this move will be more symbolic than significant. The significance of this policy will depend on how much the government of China allows the renminbi to appreciate over time. We have seen actions like this before and it is clear that China did not allow enough appreciation the last time it adopted a policy like this one, from 2005-2008,” said Levin.

The sentiment was mirrored by Rep. Mike Michaud, chair of the House Trade Working Group, who said, “It must be accompanied by a true appreciation of China’s currency for it to represent meaningful progress for American workers and businesses. Whether or not this is an actual success to be celebrated will be measured by the extent to which China allows the yuan to increase in value and how that affects our economy.”

Indeed, Michaud’s concern about the effects of the RMB’s value on the U.S. economy has been the cause of a growing rift between Beijing and Washington as lawmakers, facing a contentious summer of campaigning amidst a flagging U.S. economy, seek to pursue the populist agenda of attacking China’s valuation of the RMB.

High unemployment numbers and a U.S. business community which is increasingly critical of China’s valuation of its currency and its failure to adequately enforce intellectual property rights protection has pushed lawmakers to take a critical stance towards China’s economic policies.

Beijing, for its part, has contributed to the downturn in relations by cutting military exchange programmes between the U.S. and China for 2010 to protest U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and to express its concerns over a pending decision by the White House to authorise the sale of new F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan.

Today’s announcement would seem to lighten the pressure on the White House, which was finding itself under increasing attack for failing to condemn China’s pegging of the RMB and offer greater room for both U.S. and Chinese leadership to find common ground on the host of issues to be discussed at the summit.

“Overall, you have to see Beijing’s announcement as showing President Hu grasps the importance of the political battle here, and helping China and President Obama, both at the same time, when possible,” wrote Chris Nelson in the insider newsletter The Nelson Report.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Jun 18 2010 (IPS)

Israel’s announcement Thursday that it would ease the restrictions on goods entering Gaza has been received by NGOs and the international community as a move in the right direction, but as not going far enough in lifting the Israeli siege on the Gaza Strip.

Details of the plan have not been fully disclosed but Israeli media has reported that restrictions on items such as jam, pasta and milk would be lifted.

The Israeli announcement comes as international condemnation of the blockade of Gaza received renewed attention after an Israeli raid on ships attempting to bring relief supplies through the blockade resulted in the death of nine of the ships’ passengers.

Earlier this month, U.S. President Barack Obama had remarked that the siege of Gaza was “unsustainable” and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also called it “unsustainable and unacceptable”.

The Obama administration responded favourably to the Israeli decision to ease the blockade but reiterated Obama’s criticisms.

“[W]e welcome the general principles announced earlier today by the Israeli government. They reflect the type of changes we’ve been significant with our Israeli friends,” said State Department spokesperson Mark Toner.

“As the president has said, the situation in Gaza is unsustainable. And as these principles get further developed and implemented, we’re hopeful that the situation in Gaza will improve,” Toner continued.

According to the World Health Organisation, mortality rates are 30 percent higher in Gaza than in Palestinian populations in the West Bank and chronic malnutrition is now over 10 percent.

The renewed focus on the humanitarian situation in Gaza led to a new 400-million-dollar commitment for development aid from the U.S.

The conditions of the Israeli embargo on Gaza were modified in an Israeli security cabinet vote which specified that the government will “expand the inflow of materials for civilian projects that are under international supervision” but “continue existing security procedures to prevent the inflow of weapons and war material”, according to a statement released by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office.

The new policies will have no impact on the maritime blockade, which will remain in place.

Media reports say that the modifications to the embargo were reached as a result of negotiations between the Middle East Quartet envoy Tony Blair and Netanyahu.

Modifications to the blockade will include a list of prohibited goods replacing a current system which just lists approved goods; approval for the import of construction supplies for U.N.-sponsored projects; and a consideration that Israel might allow EU observers at border crossings.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was “encouraged” by Israel’s decision but that the U.N. “continues to seek a fundamental change in policy”.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat responded even more critically to the Israeli announcement, saying, “With this decision, Israel attempts to make it appear that it has eased its four-year blockade and its even longer-standing access and movement restrictions imposed on the population of Gaza. In reality, the siege of the Gaza Strip, illegally imposed on Palestinians, continues unabated.”

International NGOs also expressed reservations over the continued restrictions on the import of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

“Oxfam recognises the Israeli security cabinet’s announcement as a welcome step in the right direction. However, it is a far cry from the full lifting of the blockade that is urgently needed,” said the aid group’s head Jeremy Hobbes.

“Only a full opening of all crossings to people and goods, including exports, can be the breakthrough that will enable Gazan civilians to restore their economy and escape the poverty the blockade has entrenched. The international community must press for the blockade to be fully lifted, rather than only eased,” he continued.

“This announcement makes it clear that Israel is not intending to end its collective punishment of Gaza’s civilian population, but only ease it. This is not enough,” said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s director for the Middle East and North Africa.

“Any step that will help reduce the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza is to be welcomed, but Israel must now comply with its obligations as the occupying power under international law and immediately lift the blockade,” he said.

Sami Abu Zuhri, spokesperson for Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, said in a statement that the Israeli announcement was “media propaganda” and “the Israeli decision to increase varieties and quantities of goods to Gaza is aimed at decorating the blockade and ensuring its continuation … in addition to misleading the international public opinion by giving the impression of easing the blockade.”

The Gaza Strip has been blockaded by Israel and Egypt since 2007 when Hamas, which Israel and the U.S. classify as a terrorist organisation, won Palestinian legislative elections and, in the Battle of Gaza, took complete control of the territory.

In 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council called for Israel to lift the siege on Gaza.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Jun 15 2010 (IPS)

On a day when North Korea’s World Cup team played its first match in South Africa – ending in a respectable two-one loss against powerhouse Brazil – a new report is suggesting that the White House engage in more active diplomacy to address the deterioration of regional attempts to persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons programme.

The report, released Tuesday by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), called on the White House to back up its rhetoric of denouncing North Korea’s weapons programme with actions to change Pyongyang’s behaviour and ensure stability in the region.

At the top of the authors’ recommendations is a strong endorsement of the Six-Party Talks – which include the U.S., Japan, South Korea, Russia, China and North Korea – and a call for the administration to create a better understanding between the U.S. and China about their shared interests in creating a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.

The report acknowledges that fundamental issues of distrust between the U.S. and China, particularly China’s suspicion about U.S. strategic interests in the region, must be overcome in order for the two countries to cooperate more effectively in preventing North Korea from continuing its nuclear weapons programme.

Distrust between Beijing and Washington emerged as a stumbling block after North Korea’s suspected involvement in the sinking of the Cheonan, a South Korean warship, at the end of March.

While most countries accepted the findings of a South Korean investigation which had concluded that North Korea was responsible for the attack, Beijing was careful to avoid an explicit denunciation of its ally.

Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, however, did make a public statement that China “will not protect” the perpetrators of the attack.

But some experts here in Washington have warned that China’s influence over North Korea might be overestimated.

“[China’s influence over North Korea] has been an illusionary creature we’ve manufactured here in Washington. [We’re told] it has simultaneously an enormous amount of influence in North Korea and is willing to follow up on that influence at our suggestion,” John Feffer, co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, told IPS.

“Such a creature doesn’t exist,” he said. “It would be nice from the point of view of the Pentagon and the State Department, but it isn’t true. China doesn’t have that degree of influence and where it does have influence it is reluctant to use it to achieve U.S. ends.”

The CFR report emphasised that greater U.S.-led, regional cooperation would be necessary in order to deal with any host of scenarios which could occur on the Korean peninsula.

“To best address North Korea’s continuing nuclear challenge, the United States needs to provide political leadership in cooperation with regional counterparts to roll back North Korea’s nuclear development, coordinate actions designed to contain the spillover effects of possible North Korean instability while insisting that North Korea give up its destabilising course of action, and affirm that one prerequisite to a normal U.S.-DPRK relationship is a denuclearised North Korea,” according to the report.

The task force that authored the report, chaired by Charles “Jack” Pritchard, former ambassador and special envoy for negotiations with North Korea, and retired four-star general John H. Tilelli, put the highest priority on the ongoing U.S. role in limiting the proliferation of North Korean weapons.

Reports have suggested that North Korea has exported technology to Syria and Libya but regime instability – a growing concern as Kim Jong-Il’s health remains uncertain – could lead to a situation where the leadership loses control of its weapon technology or chooses to sell technology to the highest bidder.

Working toward denuclearisation on the Korean peninsula and curbing Pyongyang’s development of further weapons should also be at the top of the U.S. agenda, according to the authors.

Following these policy challenges, the CFR listed planning for contingencies of regime instability, and promoting engagement and improving the situation for North Korean people as important policy objectives.

“The Task Force finds that the efforts taken thus far by the United States and its partners are insufficient to fully prevent North Korea’s onward or vertical proliferation or to roll back its nuclear programme. The United States must seek to resolve rather than simply manage the challenge posed by a nuclear North Korea. Resolving these issues would also allow the implementation of an effective U.S. humanitarian and human rights policy toward North Korea,” the report’s authors concluded.

But an attempt by the Obama administration to engage North Korea on a wider range of issues than denuclearisation or the sinking of the Cheonan would have to be carefully orchestrated to protect the White House from attacks by its Republican opponents.

“Obama doesn’t want to expose himself to the ridicule of Republicans. But that aside, if it is difficult for the administration to engage in direct interactions with North Korea, then it can at least encourage other actors to move forward,” said Feffer.

“We have some humanitarian organisations involved in North Korea and we have some other initiatives that could go forward at the cultural level. The Obama administration could greenlight those. It’s at times like these that we need these kinds of connections,” he continued.

*The story moved on Jun 15, 2010 was missing the first paragraph.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Jun 14 2010 (IPS)

Earlier this spring, many here in Washington were hopeful that Chinese president Hu Jintao’s attendance at the Nuclear Security Summit, the U.S. Treasury Department’s decision to hold off on naming China as a “currency manipulator”, and China’s support of U.N. sanctions against Iran all pointed to a thaw in the cool relationship between the Barack Obama White House and Beijing.

But the spring thaw has segued into a summer squall as U.S. politicians, in anticipation of mid-term elections in the fall, are making renewed calls for the Treasury Department to list China for manipulating the Renminbi (RMB) exchange rate.

Beijing, for its part, has contributed to the downturn in relations by cutting military exchange programmes between the U.S. and China for 2010 to protest U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and express its concerns over a pending decision by the White House to authorise the sale of new F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan.

Chinese frustration with the U.S. military support of Taiwan became particularly evident on Jun. 4 when Maj. Gen. Zhu Chengdu, director of China’s National Defence University, made a pointed public attack against the U.S.

“I believe this sort of arms sale sends to the Chinese the wrong signal: that is, the Chinese are taking the Americans as partners as well as friends, while you Americans take the Chinese as the enemy,” he warned at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, an annual meeting of defence ministers.

The freeze in military exchanges is just the latest in Beijing’s protests over arms sales, but the suspension of military ties would suggest a growing confidence from China in both its military capabilities and its ability to impose real costs on Washington for policies which Beijing interprets as designed to prevent the unification of Taiwan with the mainland.

U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates responded to the Chinese decision with his hope that U.S.-China military relations would move beyond the issue of Taiwan arms sales.

“But we will maintain our obligations and, frankly, I would very much like to…see the military-to-military relationship cease being the sole focus of the response to these sales because I think that there is great opportunity and great benefit in a greater dialogue between us,” said Gates.

While Gates may have been focusing on the deterioration in the military relationship, the growing row over China’s currency is gaining momentum in Washington as lawmakers, facing a contentious summer of campaigning amidst a flagging U.S. economy, seek to pursue the populist agenda of attacking China’s valuation of the RMB.

High unemployment numbers and a U.S. business community which is increasingly critical of China’s valuation of its currency and its failure to adequately enforce intellectual property rights protection has pushed lawmakers to take a critical stance towards China’s economic policies.

Last week, Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus demanded that the Obama administration stop overlooking the growing economic issues in the China-U.S. relationship in favour of the broader strategic issues of the relationship.

During last week’s Senate finance panel hearing on U.S.- China trade relations, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner found himself on the receiving end of Congress’s frustration with the widening trade deficit with China and continuing high unemployment numbers at home.

“Billions and billions of dollars, millions and millions of jobs flow to China simply because their currency is manipulated,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer.

Adding to the tensions on Capitol Hill is the fact that the Treasury is two months overdue in issuing its annual report on currency misalignment.

Last Wednesday, Senate Republicans succeeded in introducing an amendment to a pending tax bill which would require the administration to make a quarterly report of the dangers posed by China’s holdings of U.S. debt.

Indeed the tone of U.S.-China relations over the summer months might be determined more by the outcome of the disagreement between lawmakers on Capitol Hill who are seeking a tougher stance toward China’s growing trade surplus with the U.S. and a White House which seeks to maintain good diplomatic relations and, among other policy goals, might be looking to improve military ties and various other bilateral relationships after the combative meetings in Singapore earlier this month.

The U.S. Treasury has, so far, avoided listing China as a currency manipulator, a move which many lawmakers perceive as an attempt by the administration to slow-dance one of the more challenging issues in U.S.-China economic relations.

During his Senate testimony last week Geithner sought to defuse Congressional anger with China’s currency and the Treasury’s foot-dragging in confronting the problem.

“The distortions caused by China’s exchange rate spread far beyond China’s borders and are an impediment to the global rebalancing we need,” he said. Reform, he added, is “critically important to the U.S. and the global economy”.

Geithner has found himself in the middle of a difficult balancing act between an increasingly impatient Congress and sensitive diplomatic exchanges with leadership in Beijing who do not want to be seen as bending to U.S. pressure.

At the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue last month Hu indicated that Beijing was still committed to the reform of its currency and, publically, U.S. Treasury officials had said that Beijing should be allowed to make adjustments to its currency at its own pace.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a rebuttal to the combative language coming from Washington during a press conference on Tuesday in Beijing.

“RMB appreciation will neither resolve the trade imbalance between China and the U.S., nor address other domestic issues in the U.S. such as low savings, credit spending and unemployment. We hope the relevant U.S. political figures could think seriously about how to resolve the structural problems in U.S. economy instead of blaming others all along,” said Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Qin Gang.

Qin continued, “When and how the reform [of the RMB’s exchange rate] will take place depends on our overall consideration based on the changes in world economic situation and the performance of China’s economy.”

As congressional midterm elections draw closer the White House will face the tough challenge of maintaining positive diplomatic relations with leaders in Beijing who are exhibiting new levels of assertiveness on military and economic issues while, at the same time, facing down lawmakers who are feeling pressure from their constituents to take action against Chinese policies perceived, wrongly or rightly, to be contributing to the trade imbalance and high unemployment.

The White House, no doubt, sees that maintaining good relations with Beijing can help in controlling North Korea, imposing an enforceable multilateral sanctions regime on Iran and easing the inherent tensions as China aspires to take on great power status. But domestic political pressures this summer will test the White House’s ability to follow through on its foreign policy agenda.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, May 27 2010 (IPS)

President Barack Obama will be sending 1,200 National Guard troops to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border after pressure from both Republicans and Democrats to tighten border security and increase funding to combat the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S.

The announcement made Tuesday comes after Arizona announced strict new laws allowing police officers to stop and question anyone who they believe might be in the U.S. illegally – a law that many critics say would encourage racial profiling.

Obama has spoken out against the new law but with midterm elections coming up in the fall, the White House has been eager to curb criticisms that the Democratic Party is lax on national security and immigration.

Critics of the deployment of National Guard personnel to the U.S.-Mexico border charge that the new policy is one more step in the wrong direction in an unwinnable war on drugs and further evidence of an immigration system in need of reform.

“This is no substitute for genuine reform to our broken immigration system or to our insufficient civilian law enforcement capacity in border zones,” said George Withers, senior fellow for security policy at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA).

“It is ironic that the administration is turning to the military on our side of the border at a time when Mexico’s government has actually begun pulling troops out of cities like Ciudad Juarez, after realising that militarisation doesn’t work,” Withers concluded.

WOLA has also called for clarification on whether the National Guard troops will be deployed under the authority of ‘Title 10’ or ‘Title 32’ of the U.S. Code, the law that governs the U.S.

“This distinction is important. Under Title 10, the deployment would constitute the use of a federalised military force in a contravention of the important legal concept of Posse Comitatus, a law which prohibits a U.S. military role in domestic law enforcement activities. Alternatively, under Title 32, state governors have the prerogative to use the National Guard for state requirements,” read a statement from WOLA.

The Immigration Policy Centre blasted the National Guard deployment as fiscally irresponsible.

“For more than two decades, the U.S. government has tried without success to stamp out unauthorised immigration through enforcement efforts at the border and in the interior of the country without fundamentally reforming the broken immigration system that spurs unauthorised immigration in the first place,” said a statement from the group.

“Ironically, while billions upon billions of dollars have been poured into enforcement, the number of unauthorised immigrants in the United States has increased dramatically,” it noted.

The announcement of the National Guard deployment was accompanied by news that the White House would request 500 million dollars to fund additional resources to strengthen the U.S.-Mexico border. Some senators have requested as much as two billion dollars.

The decision to deploy the National Guard to the U.S.’s southern border came after Obama met on Tuesday with Republican senators who asked for troops to be deployed to the four states – California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas – which share borders with Mexico.

The National Guard will be deployed to the border states for one year but their arrival date has not been announced.

Their mission will include supporting law enforcement officers by monitoring activity between border crossing checkpoints and analysing trafficking patterns.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who is facing a competitive election in the fall, made the announcement on Tuesday that National Guard would be deployed to the border.

“The White House is doing the right thing,” said Giffords in a press release on Tuesday. “Arizonans know that more boots on the ground means a safer and more secure border. Washington heard our message.”

“The fulfillment of my request is a clear sign that this administration is beginning to take border security seriously,” she said.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, who has been attacked by his Republican primary opponent for being soft on immigration, welcomed the announcement but said that at least 6,000 troops were needed.

“”The fact that President Obama announced today that he will only be sending one-fifth of the troops we believe are required is a weak start and does not demonstrate an understanding of the current situation in the region,” said McCain and colleague Sen. Jon Kyl in a joint statement.

“This morning, we proposed an amendment to fully fund 6,000 National Guard troops to be immediately deployed to the southwest border and call on the president to support our amendment,” they continued.

The murder of an Arizona rancher in March, which law enforcement officials have suggested was committed by someone involved in smuggling, led to calls for the National Guard to be deployed on the border and the passage of a new immigration law in Arizona giving police the power to detain anybody suspected of being in the U.S. illegally.

The governors of New Mexico, Arizona and Texas requested the presence of National Guard troops on their southern borders.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, May 24 2010 (IPS)

Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama announced on Monday that he would renege on his campaign promise to renegotiate the move of a controversial U.S. airbase off the island of Okinawa.

Hatoyama’s announcement was greeted with outrage on Okinawa, as residents met his arrival on the island on Sunday with angry protests and signs denouncing the decision to go through with the rebasing plan which he had promised to renegotiate.

Prior to taking office in September 2009, Hatoyama’s election platform included a call for reexamining Japan’s ties with the U.S. with a particular focus on the 50,000 U.S. military personnel based in Japan.

After taking office, Hatoyama was faced with the difficult task of negotiating a mutually agreeable basing arrangement with Washington while maintaining the support of a constituency who threw their backing behind his promises to renegotiate the relocation of the Marine base.

“I want to commend Prime Minister Hatoyama for making the difficult, but nevertheless correct, decision to relocate the Futenma facility inside Okinawa. We are working with the Japanese government to ensure that our agreement adopts Japanese proposals that will lighten the impact on the people of Okinawa,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters in Beijing on Monday.

“We are confident that the relocation plan that Japan and the United States are working to conclude will help establish the basis for future alliance cooperation,” she continued.

The disagreement over where or how to move the Marine Corps Air Station at Futenma to a less populated area had become a major point of disagreement between the Barack Obama White House and Hatoyama’s Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) government.

With Monday’s announcement, Hatoyama brought a steady stream of criticism from members of his own governing coalition and an angry reception in Okinawa as residents heard reports that Hatoyama was likely to concede on the rebasing negotiations.

“[The announcement is] pretty distressing. It seems as though [Hatoyama’s] own personal feelings about the matter, reflected by the campaign pledge and after being elected, have given way to pressure from both within Japan and outside of Japan,” John Feffer, co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, told IPS.

“He clearly felt the need to come to a decision by the end of the month with elections coming up. The Okinawans represent almost one-percent of the Japanese population. Political calculations would suggest that they’re dispensable,” Feffer said.

The negotiations over Futenma had become the sticking point in relations with the Obama administration as Hatoyama sought to form a “more equal” relationship with the U.S. while the White House pushed Hatoyama to honour the rebasing agreement from 2006.

The plan will move the existing helicopter base from the centre of Ginowan city in the south to the Henoko area in the north.

Okinawa residents have raised concerns over the environmental impact of the rebasing and the size of the U.S. military’s footprint on the island.

The U.S. military presence on Okinawa holds a strategic interest for Washington since the island’s southern location offers the U.S. military easy access to the Taiwan Strait.

Recent security concerns in northeast Asia after the sinking of the Cheonan – a South Korean warship which appears to have been sunk by a North Korean torpedo – have put new pressures on the Hatoyama government to reaffirm the Japan-U.S. alliance.

“I decided that it is of utmost importance that we place the Japan-U.S. relationship on a solid relationship of mutual trust, considering the current situation in the Korean peninsula and in Asia,” Hatoyama told reporters on Monday.

Hatoyama was quick to point to the sinking of the Cheonan as a reason for patching up relations with Washington but some experts have argued that that the relatively small size of the base at Futenma – it hosts 4,000 Marines out of the nearly 50,000 U.S. military personnel based on Okinawa – should make the rebasing negotiation a less important component of the U.S.-Japan alliance.

“I would say [concerns over stability on the Korean peninsula] are real in the sense that the Japanese government and the U.S. government believe that the Cheonan incident suggests that the neighbourhood of northeast Asia is dangerous and require military vigilance,” said Feffer.

“The perception is real, however, I think it’s unconnected to Futenma in that such a small number of Marines aren’t going to do much in a war between North and South Korea,” Feffer continued.

Hatoyama’s political future in Japan remains uncertain after his decision to concede the basing issue – one of, if not the most important, component of his foreign policy platform during last year’s election.

With Upper House elections scheduled for Jul. 11, some observers have speculated that Hatoyama may have no choice but to step down if the DPJ performs poorly on election day.

Hatoyama’s political career may be in question but local politicians on Okinawa have vowed to prevent the construction of the new base.

“My guess is that we may see a different sort of alignment of forces after the Japanese election so this issue is far from settled. It took 15 years for [U.S. and Japanese officials] to plan the closure of Futenma. I don’t think we’re going to see base construction any time soon,” said Feffer.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, May 20 2010 (IPS)

Thursday’s formal accusation by South Korea that a North Korean torpedo sunk the warship Cheonan, killing 46 South Korean sailors, has set off a flurry of activity in Washington as politicians and foreign policy experts try to identify an appropriate U.S. response while balancing the need to maintain a stable relationship with China – the North’s biggest sponsor.

At the heart of the controversy is not whether North Korea was indeed responsible for the attack – most reports from Seoul and Washington had indicated that it was the only real suspect in the incident – but how South Korea and the U.S. should respond.

Complicating the issue further, both Seoul and Washington have made significant improvements in relations with China in recent months. Any attempt to impose sanctions on North Korea would almost certainly come at the expense of the growing Chinese investment in the North.

Lawmakers in Washington responded to the findings of the South Korean investigation with condemnations of North Korea’s aggression and, in some cases, calls for North Korea to be put back on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism.

“Seoul and Washington will continue to consult closely on the appropriate next steps, including the referral of this matter to the U.N. Security Council and the imposition of additional multilateral or unilateral sanctions on North Korea based on the objective and scientific review of evidence conducted by international investigators,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Sen. John Kerry.

Rep. Gary Ackerman, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to put North Korea back on the list of terror sponsoring countries as a consequence for both the attack on the Cheonan and the alleged transfer of weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah.

The White House has asserted that it will make the decision on whether to relist North Korea based on the legal requirements for labeling countries as sponsors of terrorism.

The attack on the Cheonan, while in violation of the 1953 armistice which brought the end of fighting in the Korean War, would not qualify as an act of terrorism since the target of the attack was a military vessel.

Such a relisting would require, as Ackerman pointed out, an examination of whether North Korea has supplied arms to terrorist groups.

Last year, 35 tonnes of weapons were seized by Thai authorities after a cargo plane from North Korea stopped in Bangkok en route to Tehran. Israeli government officials have alleged that the weapons were ultimately bound for Hamas and Hezbollah but no conclusive evidence has been produced.

“Further complicating Obama’s decision [about whether to put North Korea back on the state sponsors of terrorism list]… experts say the law requires the U.S. be able to show that N. Korea knew that the arms shipment being alleged by Israel was going to a terrorist organisation, and not a ‘legal’ (however unpopular) recipient like Iran,” wrote Chris Nelson in the insider newsletter The Nelson Report.

Regardless of how the Obama administration chooses to respond unilaterally, it is likely South Korea will take the report on the sinking of the Cheonan to the United Nations and request a statement or resolution denouncing North Korea’s actions.

The question many analysts are left asking is how China, a veto-wielding member of the Security Council and North Korea’s biggest investor and ally, will respond to the international pressure to condemn Pyongyang.

Pressuring China to go along with a censure of North Korea will be difficult after an announcement just this week that the U.S. had gained the support of both Russia and China in bringing new U.N. sanctions against Iran.

China had resisted, explicitly saying that it would not support sanctions against Iran but, it was widely believed, had been put under pressure by the U.S. not to veto the sanctions in the Security Council.

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has requested that South Korean companies refrain from starting any new deals with the North and has suspended government financing for cross-border projects.

The withdrawal of South Korean investment in the North will mean that Lee’s government will lose what little economic leverage it held over the North and increase Kim Jong-Il’s dependence on China for investment.

In a possible anticipation of this very situation, Kim Jong-Il made one of his rare trips outside of North Korea earlier this month to visit China, presumably to secure food and economic aid from the country’s most important patron.

Since its departure from the Six-Party Talks last year, North Korea has indicated that it would seek bilateral negotiations with the U.S. with the end goal being a U.S.-North Korea peace treaty, but Washington has been consistent in insisting that such steps can only be taken after the Six-Party Talks are resumed and Pyongyang takes irreversible steps towards denuclearisation.

Foreign policy experts in Washington are debating whether the current situation is best handled through increased diplomatic outreach to Pyongyang – under the logic that increased communication with North Korean leadership will help prevent future confrontations – or imposing new unilateral or multilateral sanctions on the North.

“Negotiations with North Korea can be frustrating, but dialogue can work. It worked in 1994, when intelligence suggested than an unconstrained North could have bomb-making material for almost 100 nuclear weapons by 2000,” wrote Joel S. Wit, a former State Department official and North Korea expert, in a New York Times op-ed on Wednesday.

“The agreement reached months later prevented that. By the time that accord collapsed, in 2002, the North had enough material for only six weapons. Even limited success is better than none at all,” Wit concluded.

Since the April 2009 announcement by North Korea that it would quit the Six-Party Talks and the May 2009 test of a nuclear weapon, there has been little positive headway in creating a denuclearised Korean peninsula.

With the calls for sanctions and censure from Seoul and Washington, it appears that Kim Jong-Il is more isolated than ever and, as indicated by his recent trip to China, increasingly dependent on Beijing for aid.

Lee and a South Koran delegation’s state visit to Beijing last month didn’t receive as much attention as Kim Jong-Il’s secretive trip earlier this month, but it did offer some insights into where the future of China’s foreign policy might lie.

Trade between South Korea and China is booming and Beijing will be weighing its options when it chooses between standing behind a historic ally who is becoming an ever greater liability and a trading partner who seeks to expand its relationship with Beijing.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, May 17 2010 (IPS)

The U.S. Senate is moving forward with a 59-billion-dollar spending bill, of which 33.5 billion dollars would be allocated for the war in Afghanistan.

However, some experts here in Washington are raising concerns that the war may be unwinnable and that the money being spent on military operations in Afghanistan could be better spent.

“We’re making all of the same mistakes the Soviets made during their time in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, and they left in defeat having accomplished none of their purposes,” Michael Intriligator, a senior fellow at the Milken Institute, said Monday at a half-day conference hosted by the New America Foundation and Economists for Peace and Security.

“I think we’re repeating that and it’s a history we’re condemned to repeat,” he said.

Intriligator also argued that the real, long-term cost of the war in Afghanistan may completely overshadow the current spending bill.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda Bilmes estimated that the long-term costs – taking into account the costs of taking care of wounded soldiers and rebuilding the military – of the war in Iraq will ultimately cost three trillion dollars.

Intriligator suggested that a similar calculation for the costs of the war in Afghanistan would indicate a long-term cost of 1.5 to 2.0 trillion dollars.

“Why are we putting money into Afghanistan to fight a losing war and following the Soviet example rather than putting money into [our] local communities?” he asked.

The Senate has been under pressure to approve the spending bill before the Memorial Day recess at the end of the month.

On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the 59-billion-dollar bill drafted by the committee’s Chairman Daniel Inouye and Sen. Thad Cochran.

Gaining the approval of the Senate Appropriations committee may be the easy part in the push to get the bill to Obama’s desk by the end of the month.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already indicated that the spending bill will face more intense opposition in the House as congressional Democrats are predicted to offer put up some resistance to the funding for Obama’s 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan.

Experts at the event today expressed their concern with both the physical cost of the war as well as the tradeoffs in spending required by the ongoing costs of fighting the Taliban insurgency.

“The climate bill, for all its defects, if it has a prayer of passing, might provide some of the money we need to keep the momentum on building a green economy going. But so could the savings from an Afghan drawdown,” said Miriam Pemberton, a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Intriligator emphasised the human cost of fighting a counterinsurgency campaign not just for U.S. soldiers but for Afghan civilians.

“We can’t distinguish the insurgents or Taliban from the rest of population so we kill a lot of innocent civilians,” he said.

A number of think tank events this week and the Obama administration’s push to gain support in Congress for the supplemental appropriations bill coincided with a high-profile visit last week by Afghan President Hamid Karzai who spent four days in meetings with Obama and members of his cabinet as well as with lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Karzai’s trip to Washington and the warm reception afforded to him by the White House and lawmakers appeared to be part of a public relations offensive to build support in Washington for Karzai’s government and Obama’s troop surge.

Karzai’s visit came as polls have shown a major downturn in U.S. support for the war in Afghanistan and support amongst NATO allies has been dwindling.

In early April, news emerged that Karzai, in a closed door meeting, threatened to drop out of politics and join the Taliban.

A senior Obama administration official retorted that Karzai might be sampling “Afghanistan’s biggest export” – a reference to the widespread opium cultivation in Afghanistan.

The publicity campaign is facing an uphill battle this month but the administration has much to gain by putting a good face on the U.S. relationship with Karzai.

Indeed, the White House will need Karzai’s cooperation if it is to get Congressional support for passing the spending bill and will require Karzai’s assistance if Obama is to meet his goal of beginning U.S. troop withdrawals by mid-2011.

Karzai’s trip appears to have made some progress in showing off a “reset” relationship between the Obama White House and the Karzai government but a number of voices here in Washington are raising concerns over whether a U.S. victory in Afghanistan is possible by mid-2011 or at any time in the near future.

“The fear was that if we withdraw from Afghanistan there will be civil war and external great powers will take sides. Is that worse than losing American soldiers day after day? So there’s a civil war. So the regional great partners take sides. Why wouldn’t they? It’s their neighbours. It’s their borders.” said Michael Lind, policy director of the Economic Growth Programme at the New America Foundation, at Monday’s conference.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, May 12 2010 (IPS)

The upcoming review conference of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has restarted the debate here in Washington about how the U.S. should engage with the ICC despite ongoing concerns about the prosecutorial authority and jurisdiction afforded to the court.

According to a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) report released earlier this week, the U.S. should become a “non-party partner” to the ICC and assist in investigations, apprehending suspects and prosecuting cases.

Vijay Padmanabhan, a visiting assistant professor of law at Yeshiva University and the author of the report, suggests that the ICC’s failure to define the “crime of aggression” – unprovoked military action by one state against another – is overly vague and could threaten U.S. interests.

But Padmanabhan calls on the U.S. to constructively contribute to the review conference and, if the conference is productive, increase its cooperation with the court.

Human Rights Watch issued a report on Monday calling on countries which are attending the review conference May 31 to Jun. 11 in Kampala, Uganda to increase the court’s ability to prosecute the most serious human rights violators.

“This is a moment for ICC members meeting in Kampala to send a message to perpetrators and would-be perpetrators that they will face justice,” said Richard Dicker, international justice director at Human Rights Watch. “Serious debate at the conference can make real progress for the victims of mass slaughter and use of rape as a weapon of war.”

The conference will focus on four themes of the court’s work: peace and justice, strengthening national courts, the ICC’s impact on affected communities, and state cooperation.

The conference is expected to address an expansion of ICC jurisdiction to include drug trafficking and terrorism.

Both “crimes of aggression” and a controversial member opt-out clause from statutes relating to war crimes may be examined at the conference and would represent some of the more challenging issues facing the ICC.

The administration of U.S. president Bill Clinton signed the treaty that established the ICC on Dec. 31, 2000, but the George W. Bush administration renounced the signature.

The Barack Obama administration has signalled that it would like to more actively cooperate with and support the ICC but has, so far, shown few indications of returning to the treaty.

HRW released a document in March which detailed eight initiatives the Obama administration should take on international justice.

They include “develop a constructive relationship with the ICC”; “assist investigations and prosecutions by the ICC”; and “signal opposition to the remaining provisions of the American Servicemembers Protection Act”.

The Servicemembers Protection Act was one of the more hostile policies taken by the Bush administration towards the ICC. It authorised the president to use all means necessary to free U.S. personnel detained by the ICC and banned U.S. participation in peacekeeping mission unless U.S. personnel were granted immunity from the ICC.

Unlike its predecessor, the Obama administration has taken steps to show that it supports the ICC’s mission.

The White House reversed the U.S.’s eight-year boycott of meetings of the ICC member states when it sent an observer to the member states meeting in November. It plans to send Harold Koh, legal advisor to the State Department, and Stephen Rapp, ambassador at large for war crimes issues, to the upcoming review conference in Kampala.

Still, the administration hasn’t gone as far as indicating that it will rejoin the ICC and neither CFR nor HRW called for an immediate U.S. rejoining of the ICC in their reports.

“I think it’s recognised that that’s not immediately in the cards,” Elise Keppler, International Justice Programme senior counsel at HRW, told IPS.

“What we have promoted in work we’ve issued to the administration is a call for increased cooperation with the court that would eventually lead to ratification. [This would include] cooperating on cases where appropriate, attending ICC meetings, attending the review conference and involving the U.S. in constructive discussions at those meetings along with disassociating itself with the purported unsigning of the Rome statute during the Bush administration,” she continued.

HRW called on the ICC to promote joint efforts to improve national-level prosecutions and trials of ICC crimes.

The ICC only acts when national courts are unable to hold credible trials and greater involvement of national courts could help in the prosecution of international criminals without increasing the jurisdiction of the ICC.

“The ICC is meant to be a court of last resort,” said Dicker. “Advancing the fight against impunity means not only strengthening the ICC, but also bringing justice to the national level according to internationally agreed standards.”

Padmanabhan, in his report for CFR, detailed the numerous obstacles to the U.S. returning to the ICC, but acknowledged the importance of U.S. cooperation with the court and support of its mission.

“The United States has security and moral interests in ensuring that those responsible for atrocity crimes be held accountable, and the ICC can be an important tool to achieve these goals. With so many states now party to the ICC, the reality is that the ICC will be the presumptive forum for future international trials,” he wrote.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton and Matthew O. Berger
WASHINGTON, May 10 2010 (IPS)

The majority of youth in U.S. cities are no longer white, but there is also a growing disparity in the educational background and incomes of those cities’ populations, says a new report from the Washington-based Brookings Institution.

The report details what it calls the “new realities” of who the U.S. is and who it is becoming. Among those realities, the U.S. – as had long been anticipated – crossed a major threshold at some point prior to 2008 when the under-18 population of its major metropolitan areas became majority non-white. Brookings’ analysis predicts the majority of the general U.S. population will be non-white a little over 30 years from now.

But that growth in diversity – non-white groups accounted for 83 percent of population growth from 2000 to 2008 – was concurrent with a growing gap in education and incomes among groups of city inhabitants.

While the number of U.S. adults with a post-secondary degree had increased by 2008, African-Americans and Hispanics now lag behind whites and Asian-Americans in attaining bachelor’s degrees by more than 20 percentage points.

The report also points out that by 2008, high-wage workers in cities were out-earning low-wage workers by more than five-to-one. While high-wage workers’ earnings went up, the number of residents living in poverty rose by 15 percent from 2000 to 2008.

The 168-page report was released Monday in Washington.

It looks at U.S. cities, but the findings could say a lot about the future of the whole country.

“What we’re proposing in this report is that the trends we’re seeing at the national level are further along in the metropolitan areas than elsewhere. These areas are bellwethers,” said Alan Berube, a co-author on the report and a senior fellow and research director with Brookings’ Metropolitan Policy Programme.

Berube pointed to the speed and volatility of population shifts in the U.S., a country of over 300 million people.

“Across a number of different dimensions this is a country undergoing a dramatic population transformation. Over the last decade our population has grown by 28 million – that’s half the population of the United Kingdom. Our Western European peers would be astounded with our size and growth,” he told IPS in an interview.

The report also says that large metro areas are generally aging faster than the rest of the country, but that this is a complex phenomenon that does not necessarily mean an older U.S. population.

“The difference between the U.S. and Japan and Germany is that they’re aging but they aren’t replenishing their younger ranks. We are, thanks to immigration and past immigration which is now creating new families with children in the U.S,” said Berube.

A recession-caused retrenchment

The data for the report comes mainly from U.S. Census Bureau survey data between 2000 and 2008. Its authors describe their results as previewing “what we will learn from the results of the 2010 Census”.

The brunt of the impact of the economic recession came in 2009, however, so future data will likely be able to better illustrate its impact on many of the aspects discussed in the report.

“But most of these things are locked in. Aging is structural. Increased diversity and educational attainment is largely structural. These aren’t affected by the prevailing economic winds,” notes Berube.

Still, some aspects are.

“I think there are couple trends which we identified, like the growth of outer suburbs and to some extent the income trends, that may turn in one direction or another because of the recession,” he said.

He pointed to a “retrenchment” toward cities and older suburban areas as a result of slowed migration to the suburbs as the economic situation got worse from 2006 to 2009. This was particularly clear in Phoenix, Las Vegas and Tampa.

A ticket out of the recession’s curse: education

“The highest educated places in the U.S. have rebounded more quickly and have been affected less by the recession,” said Berube. “The less educated areas coincide with these Sunbelt cities which built economies around housing. They’ve been hit by reduced migration, some of them are losing residents to other parts of the country and it’s a slow transition and recovery for them as they don’t have the same highly skilled workers as in other parts of the U.S.”

The report paints a picture of a country on the precipice of major changes, changes that will take places in cities first and that will be experienced by today’s youth.

“The pace of change and complexity of U.S. society only seems to multiply with each passing decade,” it concludes. It cautions about responding to that change in ways that will not “sow the seeds of intergenerational, interracial, and inter-ethnic conflict. Understanding – from the ground up – who Americans are, and who they are becoming, is a critical step toward building constructive bridges before they become impassable divides.”

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, May 7 2010 (IPS)

The U.S. Congress is moving forward with a bill to sanction companies that do business in Iran despite the White House’s efforts to build international support for U.N. sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

U.S. business organisations and a number of experts here in Washington have expressed concern about the speed with which the Senate Banking and House Foreign Affairs Committee are working to reconcile the House and Senate Iran sanctions bills, and what impact this may have on the Barack Obama administration’s efforts to organise multilateral sanctions through the U.N. or negotiate a diplomatic solution with Tehran.

The administration wants Congress to hold off on the Iran sanctions legislation until a deal is reached at the U.N.

News emerged today from the U.N. that an agreement might be reached on sanctions by mid-June, but the Senate and House have indicated that they are pushing for a reconciliation of the two bills before the end of May.

“I think it’s likely to be around the end of the month or after the Memorial Day recess. All of the statements have indicated action before the recess but I wouldn’t be surprised if it goes into June,” Jim Fine, legislative secretary for foreign policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), a Quaker lobby group, told IPS.

“The thing that disturbs me most is that I have seen very little evidence that the U.S. is still working the engagement track. The Iranian counterproposal to the original IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] proposal is worth serious consideration by the U.S. and ought to be, in its main points, accepted by the U.S.,” he said.

“The Iranian proposal would let the U.S. and the other members of the U.N. Security Council and the IAEA realise all the advantages from the nuclear exchange with some small changes in how the low enriched uranium is stored until the nuclear fuel rods are delivered,” Fine continued.

Tehran has indicated that it could accept, in large part, the IAEA’s proposal for exchanging Iranian low-enriched uranium for foreign made fuel rods, but wants to keep the low-enriched uranium in Iran, under IAEA safeguards, until the fuel rods are delivered.

The U.S., France and Russia had proposed that Iranian low-enriched uranium be shipped out of Iran immediately and held until the fuel rods are ready.

Some Iran specialists fault the administration for not making more generous offers to Iran during its “engagement” phase last year before moving to a containment strategy that includes additional sanctions, as well as other forms of pressure.

In their view, the “pressure track” – whether unilateral or multilateral – will not only prove ineffective, but will also strengthen Tehran’s hardliners and ultimately make war more, rather than less, likely.

Cheered on by the so-called “Israel Lobby” centred around the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its Christian Zionist allies, the House of Representatives voted 412-12 last December to approve a far-reaching sanctions bill that, among other measures, would penalise foreign companies that export gasoline and other refined petroleum products to Iran.

The Senate followed with an even more sweeping bill aimed at third-country companies the following month.

Largely at the administration’s behest, however, the Democratic leadership of both the House and the Senate held off selecting delegates to a House-Senate conference committee charged with reconciling the two bills until last month.

Business leaders have expressed their concern that the rush to penalise companies doing business in Iran could have negative impacts on the U.S. economy and hurt the competitiveness of companies affected by the sanctions.

In a May 6 letter to Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Howard Berman, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called attention to the business community’s concerns with the House and Senate versions of the sanctions legislation.

“Most problematic are the specific provisions in both bills that could prohibit any U.S. company from transacting routine business with critical partners from around the globe even if these transactions have no bearing on business with Iran,” read the letter.

Particularly of concern to the Chamber of Commerce is the possibility that U.S. firms would be subjected to sanctions which could penalise them for partnering with firms outside the U.S. which do business with Iran.

“In short, these extraterritorial sanctions could deliver significant harm to U.S. companies operating globally while doing little or nothing to inconvenience Iran,” said the Chamber.

It has been a hot-button issue this week as the White House’s calls for a “cooperating country status” in the legislation – a designation that would allow exemptions for companies from partner countries which are working with the U.S. on multilateral sanctions in the U.N. – was rejected by both Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

Berman, the House Foreign Affairs chair, acknowledged that the White House’s suggestion had “a certain logic” but said he was under pressure from his own party and House Republicans.

A May 3 letter by a bipartisan group of 10 senators to Berman and Dodd urged the influential legislators to make sure the final Iran sanctions bill “requires implementation of the strongest possible sanctions”.

“Specifically, we would find it difficult to support any conference report that would weaken…sanctions by providing exemptions to companies or countries engaged in the refined petroleum trade with Iran,” said the letter.

The senators explicitly rejected revisions that “would exempt companies engaged in otherwise sanctionable activities because they are incorporated in so-called ‘cooperating countries.”‘

Some in Washington see the threat of unilateral sanctions as a tool to persuade U.N. Security Council members to support multilateral sanctions and bring Iran back to the negotiating table.

“It’s a double-edged sword. It’s quite possible that the threat of unilateral sanctions may help push multilateral sanctions forward, which may help push the Iranians forward. But once you have the fact of unilateral sanctions it cuts in the opposite direction and makes it much harder to do multilateral work or convince the Iranians to move forward,” said Fine.

“The threat of unilateral sanctions could conceivably help but the fact of unilateral sanctions will be a serious impediment to any progress,” he said.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Apr 28 2010 (IPS)

A protest of more than 90,000 Okinawans Sunday over the proposed relocation of a U.S. Marine Corps airbase in the southern Japanese prefecture has fueled speculation in Washington that the U.S.-Japanese alliance may be facing a serious test with the election of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), and that such strains might have serious implications for the U.S.’s ability to balance Chinese naval power in East Asia.

Prior to taking office in September 2009, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama’s election platform included a call for reexamining Japan’s ties with the U.S., with a particular focus on the 50,000 U.S. military personnel based in Japan.

Now Hatoyama is facing the difficult task of negotiating a mutually agreeable basing arrangement with Washington while maintaining the support of a constituency who threw their backing behind his promises to renegotiate the relocation of the Marine base at Futenma.

The rally, which received media attention in both the U.S. and Japan, comes after the Japanese government indicated last Friday that it would accept a plan to move the Marine base on Okinawa – an announcement well received by those on both sides of the Pacific who have worried about Washington and Tokyo’s protracted impasse on the issue.

“I think that the Japanese government is in a difficult position. They want to abide by their campaign promise but they’ve received such an enormous amount of pressure from the [Barack] Obama administration. It’s made them schizophrenic,” John Feffer, co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, told IPS.

“My hope is that the Obama administration will say ‘look, this base has little strategic utility. If we can get an agreement where the Pentagon gets what it wants, which is a contingency force that can deal with the nuclear weapons in North Korea if the North Korean regime collapses, then let’s talk about that and how the contingency can be met’,” he said.

Analysts are torn over whether the recent difficulties between the DPJ government and Washington are simply an overblown disagreement over the details of long-planned relocation of the Marine base at Futenma or a symptom of a weakening U.S.-Japan alliance.

“Even if Mr. Hatoyama eventually gives in on the base plan, we need a more patient and strategic approach to Japan. We are allowing a second-order issue to threaten our long-term strategy for East Asia,” wrote Harvard University professor and Asia expert Joseph Nye in a Jan. 7 New York Times op-ed.

“Futenma, it is worth noting, is not the only matter that the new government has raised. It also speaks of wanting a more equal alliance and better relations with China, and of creating an East Asian community – though it is far from clear what any of this means,” Nye said.

Indeed Hatoyama and the DPJ ran on a platform of creating a more equal alliance in its relations with the U.S. and have already participated in some high-profile diplomatic exchanges with China.

Nye’s argument that Futenma, while perhaps a challenging component of the U.S.-Japan alliance, is not the biggest issue at hand has been reflected this week by a spur of interest – most notably in articles in the New York Times and Washington Post – in China’s rapid buildup of naval power.

While concerns over Futenma are worth addressing, much attention here in Washington has been focused on the shifting geopolitical forces in East Asia – changes which are hardly exemplified by the spat over the rebasing of a Marine base on Okinawa.

The growing influence of Chinese naval power was on display last March when two Chinese warships docked in Abu Dhabi, the first time the modern Chinese navy has made a port visit in the Middle East.

Expansion of Chinese naval power is an inevitable component of China’s increasing economic power as the U.S. sphere of influence in East Asia and the Middle East faces its first serious challenge since the end of World War II.

China’s rise as a regional military power has been long predicted but the navy’s new strategy of “far sea defence” goes well beyond the previous, relatively narrow doctrine of responding to an attack on the Chinese coast or going to war over Taiwan.

Instead, the new strategy would task the navy to patrol sea lanes and escort commercial vessels along China’s coast, the Strait of Malacca and the Persian Gulf.

The expansion of the Chinese navy’s mission, according to some observers, brings Beijing closer to a confrontation with the U.S. as China, the region’s economic powerhouse, begins to take a wider view of its economic and security interests in East and Southeast Asia.

Others assert that neither the disagreement over Futenma nor the rising Chinese regional influence amount to a seismic shift in Asia-Pacific geopolitics.

Recent reports from the Washington Post’s John Pomfret would suggest that Washington and Tokyo have come to an understanding on a broad outline of the rebasing of the Futenma airbase.

Hatoyama and the DPJ were quick to deny that such an agreement existed, an understandable response when facing down 90,000 of their constituents in Okinawa who object to any hint that the DPJ may back down from its position of renegotiating the basing agreement.

“…[We’d] argue that on balance, the trend in recent weeks from the DPJ government has been to try to find a way to make a deal with the U.S., rather [than] spend its time trying to explain why it can’t make a deal,” wrote Chris Nelson in the insider newsletter The Nelson Report.

Nelson’s summary of the recent news of an agreement, of some sort, and the domestic political challenges facing Hatoyama in Okinawa are the real story beneath the surface.

U.S. strategic interests are, indisputably, a component of the disagreement over Futenma but the real challenge lies in whether Hatoyama can present a plan for rebasing the Futenma airbase to his constituents without losing their support.

Understandably, any sign that U.S. interests in East Asia are threatened brings concern in Washington, but the challenge of negotiating a rebasing in Okinawa is a footnote in the bigger question facing Washington over what a growing Chinese regional influence will mean for the U.S. naval presence in East Asia.

Harvard International Relations Professor Stephen Walt argues on his blog that a rising China does not, inherently, pose an immediate threat or seismic shift in East Asian geopolitics. He predicts that Chinese economic growth will slow as its population ages and that while China’s military strength is growing, it has a long way to go before it becomes a true “peer competitor” of the U.S.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Apr 23 2010 (IPS)

The global economic crisis is projected to hamper progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and will directly impact MDGs related to hunger, child and maternal health, gender equality, access to clean water and disease control, according to a report released Friday by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

According to the “Global Monitoring Report 2010: MDGs after the Crisis”, the economic crisis will result in 53 million more people remaining in extreme poverty by 2015 than otherwise would have.

“These findings by the IMF and World Bank are a shocking portrait of just how badly the crisis has hit poor countries. This is a wake-up call for the international community,” said Oxfam spokesperson Elizabeth Stuart.

Despite the setbacks in development initiatives, the number of people living in extreme poverty by 2015 is predicted to total around 920 million, a significant reduction from the 1.8 billion people living in extreme poverty in 1990.

The food prices and financial crises in 2008 did serious damage to efforts to combat hunger in the developing world and the report acknowledged that the MDG target of halving the number of people suffering from hunger from 1990 to 2015 seemed increasingly unlikely to succeed.

“The financial crisis was a severe external shock that hit poor countries hard. Its effects could have been far worse were it not for better policies and institutions in developing countries over the past 15 years,” said Murilo Portugal, IMF deputy managing director. “The crisis in the developing world has a potentially serious impact in everyday life since the margin of safety for so many people is so slim in even the best of times.”

The World Bank predicts that 1.2 million children under five may die from crisis-related causes from 2009 to 2015.

Still, the MDG report emphasises that strong growth in emerging market economies and the relatively quick recovery in global trade have boosted GDP growth in developing countries to an estimated 6.3 percent in 2010, a noticeable improvement from the 2.4 percent growth experienced by developing economies in 2009 during the worst parts of the financial crisis.

According to IMF and World Bank data the global population was making good progress in working towards the MDGs before the economic crisis.

“When the crisis hit, many countries had already made considerable progress in reducing extreme poverty. Globally, poverty had fallen 40 percent since 1990, and the developing world was well on track to reach the global target of cutting income poverty in half by 2015,” read the report.

The IMF and World Bank offered estimates for how the crisis may impact measurable MDG indicators.

An additional 55,000 infants may die in 2015 and 260,000 more children under five could have been prevented from dying in 2015 in the absence of the crisis.

Approximately 350,000 more students might not be able to complete primary school in 2015 and 100 million people might not be able to gain access to safe water sources.

The report also emphasised that necessary responses to the crisis, taken by developing countries, will raise policy challenges going forward.

Several developing countries maintained spending levels and expanded fiscal deficits during the crisis in order to support social programmes and maintain domestic demand during the crisis.

This spending has resulted in increased debt ratios for a number of developing countries.

Responding to the necessary steps taken by these developing countries will require donors to follow through on their commitments to increase aid, say the World Bank and the IMF.

“Strong external funding is needed to ensure fiscal sustainability while maintaining key investments in infrastructure and social sectors. Developing countries also need to continue to match external support with domestic reforms to make government spending and service delivery more efficient,” read a World Bank/IMF press release.

More than 150 billion dollars has been committed by multilateral development banks since the beginning of the crisis and the IMF has committed 175 billion dollars to crisis-related needs as of February.

Donors have, so far, fallen short of their earlier commitments.

The OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) rose by 0.7 percent in 2009 to 119.6 billion dollars but that falls well short of earlier commitments, especially for Sub-Saharan Africa, says the report.

A communiqué from the G20 finance ministers acknowledged the aid commitments which had been made and committed to replenishing both the Inter-American Development Bank, the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development and the African Development Bank.

The G20 also agreed to support full relief of Haiti’s debt by all international financial institutions (IFIs).

The G20’s decision to forgive Haiti’s was widely endorsed by NGOs and aid groups but the group’s unwillingness to commit to a bank tax, as suggested by the IMF and World Bank, to pay for the financial system’s bailout and any future crises received a less enthusiastic response.

“The IMF has made it clear that the burden of this tax should fall on banks in wealthy countries. They were the ones who created the crisis because their regulation is so lax. The IMF has also spelled out that the rates should be lower in emerging markets. Their banks weren’t responsible for the crisis. Rich banks are the culprits here,” said Stuart.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Apr 22 2010 (IPS)

Representatives of the governments of the United States, Canada, Spain and South Korea, along with Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, joined together Thursday to launch a 900-million-dollar global trust fund to fight global food insecurity.

The Global Agriculture and Food Security Programme (GAFSP) will target poor farmers and assist them in improving the efficiency of their farming techniques.

“Investing in small farmers is an incredibly effective way to combat hunger and extreme poverty – history has proved it many times,” said Gates.

Gates, whose foundation committed 30 million dollars to the new programme, called on additional countries to join the fund.

“The launch of this fund is an important step forward but only a first step,” he said. “Other countries meeting at the European, G8 and G20 summits in June, and at the U.N. Summit in September should join the four founding partners and make good on their pledges. If we all sustain focus until the job is done, hundreds of million of people will lead better lives.”

The programme to support small farmers was proposed by the G20 last year to respond to growing concerns about food insecurity during the global financial crisis. The fund is described by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a “concrete step” to translate 22 billion dollars in food security pledges into implementable programmes.

Food security has become a hot button issue and the World Bank estimates that three-quarters of the one billion people who live in poverty are dependent on agriculture.

Improving the efficiency of farming techniques and ensuring the reliability of markets where small farmers sell their products has been identified as important for guaranteeing stability of global food security.

“As the world’s population increases in the coming years and as changes in the climate create water shortages that destroy crops, the number of people without adequate access to food is likely to increase. As that happens, small farmers and people living in poverty will need the most help,” wrote Gates and Timothy Geithner, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday.

Geithner and Gates argued that the focus on agricultural development which brought technological breakthroughs in the 1960s and 1970s has waned over the past three decades, with the percentage of worldwide development assistance dedicated to agriculture going from 18 percent in 1979 to a mere five percent in 2008.

The new programme is hosted by the World Bank and is being rolled out during this week’s annual spring meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.

“With a sixth of the world’s people going hungry every day, the crisis in food remains very real, posing a severe economic burden on developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa,” said World Bank President Robert Zoellick. “Cooperation and coordination are vital to boost agricultural productivity and connect farmers to markets, as agriculture is the main lifeline today for about 75 percent of the world’s poor.”

The GAFSP will offer financing to boost crop production for low-income countries which are experiencing high-levels of food insecurity and will offer assistance to connect farmers to markets and reduce risks and vulnerability to economic shocks and weather events.

The World Bank says the programme will improve the off-farm livelihoods for people in rural areas and provide technical assistance to help countries battle food insecurity.

While one part of the programme will focus on helping countries deal with food security challenges, another portion will aim to increase private investment in agriculture.

“What poor people need most is jobs and agriculture is the fastest way to create private sector jobs and raise people’s incomes.” said World Bank Managing Director Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. “This is particularly true for women and girls. But for this to be sustainable, we also need to help link farmers to global supply chains.”

Gates and Geithner also emphasised the private sector component of the programme.

“But aid alone cannot unleash the potential of agriculture. Small farms need greater private-sector investments than they get now. That is why this fund will have a private-sector account that provides financing to increase the commercial potential of small and medium size farms and other agribusinesses,” they wrote.

An additional 14 billion dollars in agricultural investment per year will be needed if developing countries will meet the Millennium Development Goal of halving poverty and hunger by 2015, according to the International Food Policy Research Institute.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Apr 21 2010 (IPS)

Political momentum for a levy against the world’s largest banks to repay governments for the cost of bank rescue packages during the global financial crisis has gained momentum with the leak of an International Monetary Fund (IMF) report which calls for a set of taxes against the financial industry.

Under the IMF’s model, a “Financial Stability Contribution” (FSC) would be imposed on financial firms and would be based on the potential damage that a firm’s collapse would impose on the economy.

The FSC could “either accumulate in a fund to facilitate the resolution of weak institutions or be paid into general revenue. The FSC would be paid by all financial institutions, with the levy rate initially flat, but refined over time to reflect institutions’ riskiness and contributions to systemic risk…,” said the IMF.

The report, “A Fair and Substantial Contribution by the Financial Sector”, also endorses a “Financial Activities Tax” (FAT) on bank profits and salaries.

The IMF’s endorsement of a bank tax was welcomed by many observers, but advocates of a Financial Transactions Tax (FTT), which would aim to curb speculative behaviours, were disappointed by the IMF’s assertion that such a tax “does not appear well suited to the specific purposes set out in the mandate from G20 leaders”.

“We think that the benefit of a financial transactions tax is that it would curb financial speculation. We don’t think that a financial transactions tax and a bank levy are mutually exclusive. You can have both. We would like to find ways to reduce the systemic risk and get the banks to repay a fair share of the costs they imposed during the financial crisis,” Sarah Anderson, director of the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, told IPS.

Oxfam International welcomed the IMF’s endorsement of a FAT but took issue with the Fund’s arguments against imposing a transaction tax.

“The IMF’s proposed taxes are a major step forward, but the report falls short on two counts,” wrote the analysis.

“Firstly, amounts of money that the IMF suggest this tax would raise are not sufficiently ambitious – 11 billion dollars (₤7bn) a year – not nearly enough compared to the pain the crisis has caused and will barely dent the profits of the banks. Secondly, the report makes no commitment to ensuring money raised would be used to help poor countries and fight climate change.”

The IMF report will be reviewed by the finance ministers from the G20 who are in Washington this week for the annual spring meeting of the World Bank and IMF.

The BBC leaked the report, which was intended to be confidential advice for the finance ministers.

Discussions about the implementation of a FAT, FSC or FTT comes after the Pittsburgh G20 last fall where the G20 asked the IMF for recommendations on how to recover the massive public funds spent to bailout the financial sector and pay for future crises.

Opinions on how to recoup public funds have differed on each side of the Atlantic.

Support for a FTT had been growing in Europe with advocates of such a tax arguing that it would recover funds used to prop up the financial sector while deterring the type of speculative investments which are seen to play a destabilising role in the world economy.

The recently leaked IMF paper would suggest that European support for the FTT may be flagging, with the European Commission (EC) asserting that a FTT “would affect the price finding mechanism and could have negative effects on the allocative efficiency of financial markets.”

But proponents of such a tax strongly disagree with the EC and the IMF’s findings.

“What a financial transactions tax would target is high flying speculators, not the ordinary, middle class investor. They would hardly feel this tax,” said Anderson.

U.S. President Barack Obama has not championed a transactions tax but has advocated for a flat tax on banks, such as the ones endorsed in the IMF report.

In January, Obama proposed a 10-year, 90-billion-dollar levy on banks – the Troubled Asset Relief Programme – to recoup the cost to taxpayers of the financial sector bailouts.

The White House has been lobbying on Capitol Hill this week for legislation to reform the financial sector. The report from the IMF will boost those lawmakers who are calling for a “bank tax” to be included in the legislation designed to reform the financial industry.

The leaked report reflects the IMF’s push for an internationally standardised set of bank taxes and a system of taxation which is not only applied to banks but also to a broader set of firms which participate in the financial sector.

“International cooperation would be beneficial, particularly in the context of cross-border financial institutions,” read the report.

“Cooperative actions would promote a level playing field, especially for closely integrated markets, and greatly facilitate the resolution of cross-border institutions when needed,” the report went on to say.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Apr 19 2010 (IPS)

Global perceptions of the U.S. have improved over the past year but ratings of many other countries, including Britain, Japan, Canada and the European Union, have declined over the same period, according to a poll released Sunday.

The BBC survey, conducted by GlobeScan/PIPA across 28 countries, found that the U.S. is viewed positively in 20 of 28 countries, with an average of 46 percent of respondents holding a positive view of the influence of the U.S. in the world. Thirty-four percent say the U.S. has a negative influence.

“People certainly perceive a changed posture and a changed tone coming out of the U.S. [Former president] George W. Bush was negatively perceived. [Pres. Barack] Obama is overwhelmingly positively perceived. America has gone from negatively perceived to mildly positively perceived,” Steven Kull, director of PIPA, told IPS.

“The U.S. has not moved to the top tier of countries but it has gone from being in a low tier to a middle tier,” added Kull.

Negative ratings of the U.S. have dropped nine percent from last year and positive ratings have gone up four percent.

The strong drop in negative perceptions but less of a sizable jump in positive ratings suggests that global opinion of the U.S. is neutral, or mildly positive – an improvement over the negative sentiments expressed during the previous presidential administration but still not overwhelmingly positive.

Positive views of the U.S. were expressed in most of the countries polled but the most significant increases were seen in Germany, where 39 percent saw the U.S.’s influence on the world favourably, up from 18 percent one year ago and Russia which exhibited an increase from seven percent to 25 percent.

Only Turkey and India exhibited perceptions of the U.S. which became more negative over the past year.

The only two countries to have majorities of respondents with negative views of the U.S. were Turkey, 70 percent, and Pakistan, 52 percent.

Germany is the most favourably viewed nation, averaging a 59-percent rating; followed by Japan, 53 percent; Britain, 52 percent; Canada, 51 percent and France, 49 percent.

Surprisingly, a number of countries experienced sizable decreases in their popularity ratings.

Britain and Japan both lost three points from their favourability rating. Canada lost six points and the European Union was down four points.

The least favourably viewed countries were Iran, 15 percent; Pakistan, 16 percent; North Korea, 17 percent; Israel, 19 percent and Russia, 30 percent.

Surprisingly, China has failed to make much headway on its international favourability rating from previous years, with 41 percent of survey respondents feeling it has a positive influence on the world and 38 percent viewing it negatively.

China’s favourability ratings stayed roughly the same since the poll was conducted last year.

“I think the fact that China is stuck in neutral is quite interesting. Between two years ago and last year China went down in public approval which is surprising with the Beijing Olympics and all that. This year they were basically flat,” said Kull.

“They do put effort into improving their image around the world but they don’t seem to be getting much traction. It’s quite significant that the U.S. has superseded China,” Kull concluded.

Iran exhibited the highest negative ratings with 56 percent viewing the country negatively.

Most significantly, views of Iran in Russia and China have taken a noticeable decline.

As permanent veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council, China and Russia will have to make difficult decisions if a vote on sanctions is brought to the floor of the Council.

Positive views of Iran amongst the Chinese public have dropped 11 percent, bringing their favourability rating of Iran down to 30 percent, and negative views of Iran have taken a 13 percent jump among the Russian public, bringing their negative rating of Iran up to 45 percent.

“The Chinese and Russian publics are quite negative about Iran which suggests that politically those governments would be in a good position if they decided to apply sanctions. But what we don’t see is a picture of the governments being constrained by public opinion,” said Kull.

The poll was conducted among more than 29,000 adults.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Apr 14 2010 (IPS)

The past two weeks have been marked by major foreign policy accomplishments for U.S. President Barack Obama, including the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the signing of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, and what appear to be improvements in the increasingly tense Washington-Beijing relationship.

The administration’s emphasis on multilateral diplomacy and multilateral institutions – especially in the arms control and sanctions arenas – is giving experts here in Washington an idea of how this White House might frame its foreign policy agenda moving forward.

Strikingly, the administration’s foreign policy agenda appears to be coming into focus 15 months into Obama’s first term, with the past year largely devoted on the domestic side to a brutal legislative battle over the White House’s healthcare reform bill and, on the international side, an inherited war in Afghanistan and the decision to “surge” troop levels.

The flurry of activity to aggressively push the administration’s agenda on reducing nuclear stockpiles around the world has given an intriguing look at both what issues this president will prioritise as well as what strategy the administration will pursue to engage other countries in its foreign policy initiatives.

Nuclear non-proliferation and the goal of a “nuclear weapons-free world”, as Obama committed in Prague one year ago and again Tuesday, is an issue which is clearly of personal significance to Obama, who has been calling for the reduction, if not complete eradication, of nuclear weapons since his senior year at Columbia University.

Obama’s consistency on the issue of nuclear weapons has been evidenced in his administration’s NPR, which committed the U.S. to never using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states, the new START arms reduction agreement with Russia, the hosting of the nuclear summit earlier this week, the upcoming NPT review conference in May and the administration’s anticipated push to convince the Senate to ratify both the new START agreement and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

For a president who been outspoken about his views on nuclear weapons, it should come as no surprise that this has been his first major policy initiative and one which has been handled with a high degree of nuance and planning.

Perhaps more telling is the administration’s emphasis on multilateral diplomacy, international institutions and a foreign policy vision which seeks to strengthen these institutions while accepting a realist worldview.

“If you are asking, ‘Do we have an international, one-world law enforcement,’ we don’t, and we never have,” Obama said at a press conference Tuesday, in response to a question about how the agreements inked at the nuclear security summit would be enforced.

Harvard international affairs professor Stephen Walt wrote that, “Obama recognises that there are no binding legal mechanisms or coercive power to impose greater nuclear security measures on other states, and the only way to make serious progress is to a) convince other governments that this is in their interest, b) use various carrots and sticks to persuade them to make a serious effort, and c) provide resources and technical expertise where needed.”

Also divergent from previous administrations has been the Obama White House’s eagerness to engage with the so called “non-aligned” countries who have traditionally avoided positioning themselves for or against any major power bloc.

Highlighting this new emphasis in U.S. multilateral diplomacy with the non-aligned states was a lunch hosted by Vice President Joe Biden at his residence Monday. The list included representatives from 12 non-aligned countries, including Algeria, Chile, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand and Vietnam.

Reasserting U.S. leadership to help form an international consensus on non-proliferation issues is, undoubtedly, a worthy effort, but few here in Washington thought that Obama would find much resistance to an initiative to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists.

The hidden message of the summit’s success may be that it was a test run for a president who has spent the past 15 months working on a domestic policy agenda and inherited foreign policy challenges and must now test whether his international popularity can be translated into real consensus-building on international diplomacy.

There are no shortages of future tests for Obama’s charisma, diplomacy and realist worldview.

Securing Chinese support for U.N. sanctions against Iran’s nuclear programme; rebuilding a relationship with Beijing that has been battered after U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and a White House meeting with the Dalai Lama; and an increasingly critical policy towards Israel’s settlement construction in East Jerusalem will all require far more nuance and tact than aligning the world’s most powerful countries against nuclear-armed terrorists.

Coming out of the summit, it seems that U.S.-China relations are experiencing a long awaited improvement with Chinese Premier Hu Jintao having agreed to discuss the issue of U.N. sanctions against Iran.

Perhaps the greatest foreign policy challenge, and one which U.S. presidents have historically found little success, will be in forging a peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In response to a question at his Tuesday press conference, Obama repeated General David Petraeus’s position that the ongoing tensions in the Middle East hurt U.S. national security interests.

“It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower,” he said.

“And when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure,” he went on to say.

As relations with Benjamin Netanyahu’s government continue to hit new lows after Biden’s visit to Israel last month – on the eve of his meeting with Netanyahu, the Israeli government announced the construction of a new apartment block in East Jerusalem – many see the Obama administration as leaning towards imposing a peace plan on the Israelis and Palestinians.

On Friday, the White House tried to tamp down rumours of an imposed peace process warning that they would not “surprise anybody at any time”.

The promise is probably sincere but an analysis of the past two weeks would conclude that the Obama White House, when it chooses, can leverage international institutions and multilateral diplomacy to effectively promote U.S. interests in the international arena.

Obama and Petraeus’s characterisation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as harmful to U.S. interests would suggest that resolving the conflict might be high on the White House’s “to-do” list.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton and Matthew O. Berger
WASHINGTON, Apr 13 2010 (IPS)

On the second and last day of the largest gathering of world leaders ever in Washington, U.S. President Barack Obama connected the commitments made here on securing vulnerable nuclear materials to the broader goal of a “nuclear-free world”.

U.S. President Barack Obama addresses the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington. Credit: Eli Clifton/IPS

Obama, speaking at the conclusion of the summit, said the U.S. would be working with other countries to help them secure their nuclear materials and prevent the smuggling of such materials – a goal he said all the 47 countries in attendance at the summit shared.

The summit was the best example yet of the U.S.’s shift to a more multilateral approach to foreign policy issues under the Obama administration, say experts – and an important follow-through on ambitious goals laid out by the president a year ago.

“I think there’s huge momentum here. One of the things I’ve been impressed by is them saying they’d achieve this hard thing and then doing it,” Steve Clemons, director of the American Strategy Programme at the New America Foundation, told IPS.

While the summit was meant specifically to address the threat of nuclear materials getting into the hands of terrorists, recent weeks have seen a spike in the White House’s efforts and successes in the broader movement to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Obama and Russian counterpart Dmitri Medvedev signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in Prague on Thursday, a day after the White House released the new Nuclear Posture Review, which forbids the use of nuclear weapons against signatories in good standing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), forswears the testing of nuclear weapons and development of new nuclear warheads, and commits the administration to seeking Senate ratification and the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Up next is the review conference for the NPT, to be held at U.N. headquarters in New York in May.

The summit that concluded Tuesday may be one more important step toward further actions on the reduction and nonproliferation of nuclear stockpiles at the NPT and future meetings.

“We got the shift in the Nuclear Posture Review, which was productive, and then the START treaty, which wasn’t a sure thing a few weeks ago. Now you have the Nuclear Security Summit and I think it all leads to the NPT review conference in May. It’s an extraordinary few weeks where there’s significant public attention on nonproliferation issues,” said Clemons.

“The president is a man who is very serious both personally and as leader of the U.S. about the obligations assumed under the NPT. Under the [Obama administration] the U.S. is doing our part,” Bruce Blair, co-founder and co-coordinator of Global Zero, told IPS.

“We’re negotiating further cuts and even reaching out to other countries like China to have a dialogue on nuclear weapons and bring them into the fold. It gives momentum to the international obligation under the NPT for the nuclear weapons countries to negotiate in good faith to reduce their arsenals of nuclear weapons,” he said.

The two-day Nuclear Security Summit ended with several key commitments by some of the 47 countries represented here.

Prominent among those are efforts to strengthen international institutions like the U.N. and International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as raft of bilateral agreements between countries. The most prominent bilateral accord was the U.S.-Russia agreement to dispose of at least 34 metric tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium each – enough for nearly 17,000 nuclear weapons, according to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Monday, Obama and Chinese Premier Hu Jintao met and reportedly discussed the possibility of sanctions on Iran, which is thought to have a nuclear programme and which has trade ties with China.

In other commitments made as part of the summit, Kazakhstan agreed to convert a highly enriched uranium research reactor and eliminate its remaining highly enriched uranium and Ukraine committed to removing all such uranium by the next summit, to be held in South Korea in 2012.

It was also notable how much the U.S. engaged with the so-called non-aligned, those states that are not formally for or against any major power bloc. Highlighting this new emphasis in U.S. multilateral diplomacy was a lunch hosted by Vice President Joe Biden at his residence Monday. The list included representatives from 12 non-aligned countries, including Algeria, Chile, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand and Vietnam.

The question now, say experts, is whether the commitments resulting from the summit will be fulfilled and will have the cascading effect toward further action on nuclear weapons many are hoping for.

“We think that the summit marks concrete progress towards the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons. Now that countries have made commitments we’ll be looking for the follow-through. In the U.S. we look to the Senate to ratify the new START treaty as well as ensure there is increased funding for programs that will secure loose nuclear materials worldwide,” Cara Bautista, coordinator of the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World, told IPS.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton and Matthew O. Berger
WASHINGTON, Apr 12 2010 (IPS)

One of the largest gatherings of world leaders ever on U.S. soil began Monday with representatives of 47 countries gathering here for the Nuclear Security Summit.

The two-day event is organised around the goal of keeping nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists. Representatives of NGOs, along with experts from academia, held a parallel summit on the same topic several blocks away.

Most NGOs have traditionally focused on the much broader goal of nuclear nonproliferation and reduction of nuclear stockpiles – topics that have been addressed by U.S. President Barack Obama and other leaders in recent weeks but which are not directly being addressed at this week’s talks.

But many of the NGO and academic experts meeting at the parallel summit felt there was a connection to be made between securing vulnerable nuclear materials and reducing the existence of those materials.

They may have a case. The first concrete accomplishment to come out of the 47-country summit came when Ukraine agreed Monday morning to give up its bomb-grade uranium and have its civil nuclear programme operate instead on low-enriched uranium. Ukraine is reported as having enough such nuclear material for several weapons.

Obama laid out the goal of the summit – and parallel summit – in a speech in Prague one year ago: “To secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years.”

In that speech, he also laid out a strategy for meeting that goal. The U.S., he said, would “set new standards, expand our cooperation with Russia, [and] pursue new partnerships to lock down these sensitive materials.” These past two weeks have seen a flurry of progress toward those actions.

Returning to Prague a year later last Thursday, Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitri Medvedev signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). The treaty commits the U.S. and Russia to reduce their nuclear stockpiles by one-third – bringing the total number of warheads possessed by each country down to 1,550.

The day before, the White House released the new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which forbids the use of nuclear weapons against signatories in good standing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), forswears the testing of nuclear weapons and development of new nuclear warheads, and commits the administration to seeking Senate ratification and the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

“Securing ‘loose nukes’ is one part of a nuclear security agenda,” said Alexandra Toma, co-chair of the Fissile Materials Working Group, told IPS. “The second part is the strengthening the nonproliferation regime and that’s going to be happening next month. The third part is disarmament which is what we’re seeing in the new START treaty and hopefully the CTBT if that happens next year.”

“It’s a very, very heavy agenda. When you look at the Obama administration four years from now, changing the debate on nuclear nonproliferation will be one of its major accomplishments,” contended Nancy Soderberg, president of the Connect U.S. Fund.

She said the Obama administration’s approach has been welcome. “It’s a huge shift from the Bush administration which pretty much objected to these types of international efforts and felt they could go their own way,” she told IPS. “There’s a growing recognition that you need American leadership to drive the debate and that it’s hard and so it’s not going to happen overnight and it’s all linked in together.”

On the first day of the summit Monday, Obama held one-on-one meetings with many of the world leaders gathered in downtown Washington. The most significant of these meetings was likely with Chinese Premier Hu Jintao, in which the two leaders reportedly discussed the possibility of sanctions on Iran, which is thought to have a nuclear programme and which has important economic ties with China.

In May, the 2010 review conference for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will be held at U.N. headquarters in New York. Monday, NGO leaders were not afraid to set expectations high for both that and the current conference, particularly in light of Obama apparent commitment to nuclear issues.

“Obama has really breathed a breath of fresh air into multilateral participation and he’s raised the bar for all countries. By having a summit here in Washington DC he’s forcing many countries all over the world to really focus on this issue and make a personal commitment on behalf of their country to follow through,” Paul F. Walker, director of Global Green USA’s security & sustainability programme, told IPS.

“This will be a big feather in Obama’s cap and a big feather in other countries’ caps as they begin to renew their commitment to article six [of the NPT], in which all the nuclear countries commit to full nuclear disarmament,” he said.

“In the nuclear posture review last week we saw not a huge shift but a good solid step in changing U.S. nuclear policy towards the rest of the world. We saw the START signing and this week we’re seeing the nuclear security summit. So I think this is all part of the momentum going into the NPT review conference,” said Toma.

Excerpt:

By Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Apr 9 2010 (IPS)

On Apr. 12 and 13, U.S. President Barack Obama will host over 40 world leaders in Washington to develop a strategy to secure nuclear materials and prevent nuclear terrorism, following up on his announcements this week that that the U.S. would significantly modify its nuclear strategy and reduce the number of nuclear warheads in its stockpile by one-third.

On Wednesday, the White House released the new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which forbids the use of nuclear weapons against signatories in good standing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), forswears the testing of nuclear weapons and development of new nuclear warheads, and commits the administration to seeking Senate ratification and the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Obama followed up on the NPR’s release with the signing of a new a Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) on Thursday in Prague. The treaty commits the U.S. and Russia to reduce their nuclear stockpiles by one-third – bringing the total number of warheads possessed by each country down to 1,550.

The White House’s push to strengthen the NPT and reduce the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal began a year ago. In a speech delivered in Prague, Obama announced his administration’s intention to lead a global effort to secure nuclear materials, create international institutions to combat proliferation and nuclear terrorism and build on efforts to break up black markets and disrupt trade in nuclear materials.

While the NPT review conference will take place next month, next week’s nuclear security summit will focus on the prevention of nuclear terrorism, an issue which the NPT was not designed to address.

“There is no international framework agreement on fissile material security and, as a result, no organising force to drive the agenda. One important objective that should be under consideration for the summit is the creation of a framework agreement that identifies the threats to humankind from vulnerable fissile materials, especially the threats posed by terrorists, and lists actions required to mitigate them,” wrote Kenneth N. Luongo of the Arms Control Association.

The emphasis on nuclear security is partly a response to concerns that North Korea might transfer nuclear technology to al Qaeda and that Iran might be pursuing a clandestine nuclear programme. However, the Obama administration’s focus on nuclear policy appears to reflect a broader commitment to bring about a “world free of nuclear weapons”, as Obama pledged last year in Prague.

“There’s a whole web of institutions and agreements which touch on nuclear security policy – the NPT, IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), U.N. Security Council resolutions, etc. – which make binding commitments on countries to take action on nuclear terrorism,” government affairs representative Rob Leonard at the Ploughshares Fund, a major nuclear disarmament group, told IPS.

“You won’t see a piece of paper that addresses all of these issues but we will see a combination of conventions and treaties that form an interconnected web that makes up this new nuclear security agenda,” Leonard continued.

The nuclear security summit next week – the largest gathering of world leaders in the U.S. since the signing of the U.N. charter in 1945 in San Francisco – will call attention to the issue of securing nuclear materials as well as the White House’s unprecedented push for strengthening the NPT and reducing nuclear arsenals.

The White House’s high-profile commitments to the NPT, START, and the upcoming nuclear security summit emphasise the administration’s comprehensive strategy to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in existence and highlights the importance which the administration places on the issue.

Notably absent from the summit will be Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who announced Thursday that he would not attend, citing concerns that the summit might be a venue for Arab states to declare their criticism of Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

Netanyahu’s decision not to attend the summit highlights the difficult position faced by Israel, a state which has not acknowledged its nuclear weapons programme but is believed to have as many as 200 warheads.

At the same time, Israel, which will send a delegation to the summit, has expressed its strong interest in preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and ensuring that nuclear weapons don’t fall into the hands of terrorists.

Last week’s announcement that Chinese President Hu Jintao would attend the summit put to rest rumours that Beijing would boycott the meet to register its anger with the Obama administration’s decisions to move forward with an arms sale to Taiwan and to meet with the Dalai Lama at the White House.

The Chinese presence at the event is particularly important in light of the international efforts to combat proliferation and concerns that North Korea might export its nuclear technologies.

China is widely seen as the country with the greatest influence over North Korea.

“[The summit] provides an unprecedented opportunity for Obama to talk candidly with Chinese President Hu Jintao about convincing Kim Jong Il that selling a nuclear weapon to al Qaeda could have the same consequences as attacking the United States with a nuclear missile,” wrote Graham Allison, director of the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School, in Friday’s Washington Post.

Excerpt:

By Jim Lobe and Eli Clifton
WASHINGTON, Apr 6 2010 (IPS)

U.S. President Barack Obama Tuesday unveiled a new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that will significantly limit the circumstances under which Washington would use nuclear weapons as part of a strategy to bolster the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and other efforts to halt and reverse the spread of nuclear arms.

Among other changes, the new strategy forbids the use of nuclear weapons against signatories in good standing of the NPT, forswears the testing of nuclear weapons and development of new nuclear warheads, and commits the administration to seek Senate ratification and the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Disarmament groups generally hailed the new document, although some expressed concern that the new strategy falls short of a comprehensive “no first-use policy” and doesn’t go far enough toward achieving Obama’s commitment to “a world free of nuclear weapons”, as he promised in a major policy address in Prague one year ago.

“These changes are the most far-reaching since the end of the Cold War nearly 20 years ago, and reflect the reality that nuclear weapons have become a liability in today’s world,” said Lisbeth Gronlund of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“But given today’s realities, we hope that this is just the beginning and the president will go even further to strengthen national and international security before the end of his term,” she added.

Obama, who will join Russian President Dmitri Medvedev to sign a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in Prague Thursday, issued his own statement on the NPR Tuesday.

“The United States is declaring that we will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations,” Obama said.

“This enables us to sustain our nuclear deterrent for the narrower range of contingencies in which these weapons may still play a role, while providing an additional incentive for nations to meet their NPT obligations,” he added.

The new NPR made a notable exception in its policy of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states for countries, such as Iran and North Korea, which fail to comply with the treaty’s provisions.

“Those nations that fail to meet their obligations will therefore find themselves more isolated, and will recognise that the pursuit of nuclear weapons will not make them more secure,” Obama said.

The new NPR, which was cleared by the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, marks a major turnaround for Defence Secretary Robert Gates who, while serving in the same position under former President George W. Bush, warned in October 2008 that the U.S. would either have to develop new nuclear warheads or test existing weapons in order to ensure the reliability and safety of Washington’s aging nuclear arsenal.

“This NPR determined that the United States will not develop new nuclear warheads. Programmes to extend the lives of warheads will use only nuclear components based on previous tested designs and will not support new military missions or provide for new military capability,” he said Tuesday.

“…(P)rincipally no new testing, no new warheads …no new missions or capabilities,” added Gen. James Cartwright, the Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman and a former head of the U.S. Strategic Command in summarising the essence of the new U.S. position.

“No one in the previous administration could have said that,” noted Joe Cirincione, the president of the Ploughshares Fund, a major nuclear disarmament group.

“If you compare the reduction in roles and missions (of nuclear weapons) of this Posture with the expansion of roles and mission in the (2002) Bush NPR, it’s like night and day,” he noted, adding that in Bush’s proposal for new nuclear weapons, such as those that could specifically target bunkers and trucks, “he treated them like they were very large conventional weapons, while Obama is saying, ‘No, they’re not. We would only use nuclear weapons in extremis.'”

The NPR’s release helps set the stage for the signing of the new START accord, which commits the U.S. and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals by one-third, bringing their total number of warheads down to 1,550 each.

Next week, Obama will host a nuclear security summit that will bring 47 heads of state or government here – the largest such gathering in Washington in history – to discuss ways to better safeguard nuclear materials from terrorists and disrupt illicit nuclear trade.

Next month, representatives of the world’s governments will convene at U.N. headquarters for the latest five-year review of the NPT, including ways to strengthen adherence to its provisions.

“Whether by accident or design, the Obama administration is staging this beautifully. These pieces all fit together and are mutually supporting,” said Cirincione.

The new NPR provoked a variety of reactions across the political spectrum, with pro-nuclear hawks, such as Frank Gaffney of the Centre for Security Policy (CSP), calling its renunciation of new U.S. nuclear weapons as “most alarming”.

“Even if there were no new START treaty, no further movement on the (CTBT), and no new wooly-headed declaratory policies, the mere fact that the United States will fail to reverse the steady obsolescence of its (nuclear) deterrent …will ineluctably achieve what is transparently President Obama’s ultimate goal: a world without AMERICAN nuclear weapons,” Gaffney, who was responsible for nuclear policy under Ronald Reagan, wrote on the National Review Online.

Others complained that the NPR did not go far enough. While calling it a “significant improvement” over its post-Cold War predecessors, the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation expressed disappointment that it did not make deterring a nuclear attack on the U.S. and its allies the “sole” – the NPR used the word “fundamental” – purpose of Washington’s arsenal and that it did not include a “no first-use” policy.

Both “would have further strengthened the credibility of the U.S. conventional deterrent and reduced the incentives that other states might have to acquire nuclear weapons to protect themselves from a U.S. first strike,” the group said in a statement.

The London-based British American Security Information Council (BASIC) called the document a “step in the right direction” but noted that it “stops far short of a transformational policy”.

BASIC’s Paul Ingram said its maintenance for now of the estimated 200 U.S. tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe was “disappointing”, although he noted that their fate was still to be worked out with NATO.

*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.

Excerpt: