Global Security

Sameer Lalwani, live blogging from the NATO summit in Bucharest, sets the scene for a meeting today with Afghan President Hamid Kharzai:

Afghanistan is perhaps the centerpiece of the NATO summit (though expansion rates a close second) as it is the first intensive out-of-theater deployment for NATO in its 59 year history. And it has not been easy. One of the reasons for regress and a resurgent Taliban that has been cited by many during this NATO summit in Bucharest is the lack of a coordinating mechanism or actor to harmonize tactical operations with civilian efforts at reconstruction through the [provincial reconstruction teams] and the morass of development aid that is tethered to different national objectives and time lines. A couple weeks ago, U.S. Ambasador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad wrote an op-ed throwing strong U.S. support behind the United Nations to take on that role of coordination in Afghanistan.

Sameer Lalwani, live blogging from the NATO summit in Bucharest, sets the scene for a meeting today with Afghan President Hamid Kharzai:

Afghanistan is perhaps the centerpiece of the NATO summit (though expansion rates a close second) as it is the first intensive out-of-theater deployment for NATO in its 59 year history. And it has not been easy. One of the reasons for regress and a resurgent Taliban that has been cited by many during this NATO summit in Bucharest is the lack of a coordinating mechanism or actor to harmonize tactical operations with civilian efforts at reconstruction through the [provincial reconstruction teams] and the morass of development aid that is tethered to different national objectives and time lines. A couple weeks ago, U.S. Ambasador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad wrote an op-ed throwing strong U.S. support behind the United Nations to take on that role of coordination in Afghanistan.

The International Atomic Energy Agency released a report (pdf) yesterday on Iran's nuclear program. Nearly all reports about the report called it "mixed," which I tend to think is more of a comment about how various constituencies reacted to the report, than descriptive of the content of the report itself. The big question on everyone's mind at the United Nations is whether or not this report provides justification for pursuing a third round of Security Council sanctions against Iran. And as you can see, the reactions to the "mixed" report are, in fact, mixed. Chinese UN Ambassador Wang Guangya: "I don't like to see this issue being discussed here [in the Security Council]. We already have two resolutions on the sanctions, and what do we have?" American UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad: "For diplomacy to succeed, it needs widely supported, broad and biting sanctions to affect the calculations of the regime in Iran. I don't believe the Chinese would want to take responsibility for the failure of diplomacy by not cooperating with the effort at additional sanctions." UK UN Ambassador John Sawyers: "The IAEA showed that they can't even resolve questions about Iran's past, that knowledge of present activities is diminishing, and they cannot clarify Iran's future intentions because of the lack of cooperation. That is really worrying." Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili: "All the claims that Iran's nuclear activities have a military agenda and are deviant are not true. The report says clearly that most of the ambiguities...have been removed.” Former UN weapons inspector David Albright: "The main issue is that Iran now has 3,000 centrifuges. The report doesn't even judge the quality of the information being offered, but it's clear it is giving minimal answers." Meanwhile, hot off the presses, the Washington Post is reporting that Beijing canceled a Security Council meeting on Iran scheduled for the week after Thanksgiving. So at least for the time being, it looks like there will be no third round of sanctions.

Texas Fred and Rob from Say Anything are up in arms about Libya's new seat on the Security Council. Says Texas Fred: "Classic case of the UN once again allowing the foxes to guard the hen-house. This sort of thing happens over and over again within the UN and the Us [sic] does nothing to prevent it. It's as though the US approves of this sort of insane behavior." Thing is, the United States did approve of -- or at least not oppose -- Libya's run for a Security Council seat. (In contrast, recall the debate over Venezuela's run last year.) This, in part, can be considered a reward for Libya's good behavior. After having renounced terrorism and abandoning its nuclear program Libya is no longer the international pariah it once was. Furthermore, Tripoli is starting to play a more constructive regional role than it has in the past. Later this month, it will host a major Darfur peace conference, where it is hoped Tripoli will exert pressure on certain rebel groups to bring them to the table. Lockerbie families are understandably upset. But if the point of international relations is to change the behavior of a regime, and not necessarily who runs it, then policy vis-a vis Libya is making great strides. Finally, from the perspective of Security Council dynamics, there is no reason to think that Libya will be anymore or anyless accommodating to American interests than Qatar, the country it replaced. (Last summer, the United States vetoed and anti-Israeli resolution sponsored by Qatar, and Qatar routinely voted opposite the United States in measures relating to Sudan.) Frankly, having Libya on the Security Council at a time when Tripoli is assuming the role of regional arbitrator of the Darfur conflict can provide a needed boon to diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict.

Prompted by a presidential candidate's speech, the blogosphere is suddenly buzzing about nuclear abolition. Greg Sargent, Matthew Yglesias, and Joe Klein, among others, weigh in. This seems like an appropriate time to revisit a UNF Insights on strengthening multilateral non-proliferation efforts we ran three months ago. In the essay, we write that affirming American commitments to disarmament would help re-invigorate a flailing Non-proliferation Treaty. So too would supporting other non-proliferation instruments, like the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention.

The 2005 world summit outcome document, signed by virtually every head of state, detailed a number of important reforms for the world body. However, on proliferation issues, the document was shamefully silent. This occurred, in part, because certain key nuclear states would not back language on disarmament. In turn, nuclear states not party to the NPT banded together to block non-proliferation goals from entering the text. This was a great disservice to the cause of arms control. Before it was stricken from the final draft of the outcome document, the section on non-proliferation and disarmament provided a useful blueprint for a long term strategy to reduce the nuclear threat. This included firm commitments to both nuclear arms reduction and a reaffirmation of non-proliferation instruments, including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention... The setbacks at the 2005 world summit...occurred, in part, because a small number of states could not make the mutual concessions necessary to move the debate forward. To help counter this disturbing trend, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has sought to incorporate the UN's disarmament portfolio into the office of the Secretary General. Citing the need to "revitalize the disarmament and non-proliferation agenda through a more focused effort," Ban proposed that the Department of Disarmament Affairs be augmented with a new Office of Disarmament Affairs that answers directly to the Secretary General. In March, the General Assembly approved this move and created a new High Representative for Disarmament Affairs to act as the voice of the Secretary General in disarmament and nonproliferation debates.

Of course, non-proliferation and disarmament are only two of the three pillars underpinning the NPT. The third is access to civilian nuclear power. And here, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, founded by Sam Nunn and Ted Turner, is promoting a cutting-edge proposal that would obviate the need for countries to develop their own uranium enrichment facilities by setting up a "nuclear fuel bank."

According to press reports the Dutch government is putting the final touches on a memorandum of understanding with the United Nations over hosting the Lebanese Special Tribunal. The only thing that needs to be resolved, says the Dutch government, is an agreement by a second country to imprison people convicted by the tribunal, which will try those responsible for a wave of political assassinations in Lebanon, including the 2005 car bombing that killed Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The tribunal's precise location in Holland is still being decided. One option may be the facilities of the International Criminal Court, which are being used by the Special Court for Sierra Leone's trial of former Liberian President Charles Taylor. (Like the Taylor trial, if the Lebanese Tribunal is held at the ICC the tribunal will operate under its own rules, not those of the ICC.) It deserves mentioning that both the Hariri tribunal and the Special Court for Sierra Leone were created by the Security Council with strong American backing. The ICC is an independent institution that does not enjoy American support. But by hosting the Taylor trial--and potentially holding the Hariri Tribunal--the ICC may be tacitly showing skeptics that it can, in fact, be a useful institution to support.

On August 10, the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) will officially expire. Before then, the United States and Great Britain want the Security Council to approve a new and expanded mandate that would carve out a greater political role for the UN in Iraq. Says Zalmay Khalilzad:

"In order to reduce the sources of violence, we believe that the United Nations can help Iraqis come to a national compact, come to an agreement on these big issues on which there are differences," Khalilzad told reporters on Thursday. He said that included provincial boundaries such as those around the disputed oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk. Kurds want Kirkuk included in their autonomous region as its capital, but other ethnic groups object.

Back in the fall of 2006, the Iraq Study Group foresaw a possible political and diplomatic role for the United Nations along these lines. But since organizing the so-called "purple finger elections in 2005," UNAMI's political work has been limited. Now, the UN is being asked to do what no other nation or group has yet to be able to accomplish: bring Iraq's factions and Iraq's neighbors together in an attempt to forge some sort of political compromise. Obviously, given the sorry state of things in Iraq, the UN may not even be able to do this. But at least, finally, member states are recognizing that UN-sponsored mediation could be the last best hope for finding a political solution to Iraq's sectarian war.

The otherwise estimable Barbara Slavin of USA Today writes an entire article about the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), without actually mentioning the treaty by name. Slavin explains how the White House sees "black gold" under the Arctic ice--and references a treaty that would firm up American oil companies' claims to excavate--but she never explicitly states that it is the Law of the Seas Treaty, which sets rules the use of the world's oceans, to which she is referring. Nevertheless, the article is good. It shows how the Senate's non-ratification of the treaty is undermining American interests. Oil and mineral extraction companies, for example, are wary about the legal firmament of their Arctic claims absent Senate ratification of the treaty. Slavin quotes John Bellinger III, the State Departments' top lawyer, and Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen--both of whom urge the quick ratification of the treaty, which the US signed back in 1982. Though the piece does not mention it (this is a short USA Today article after all) the military also advocates for US ratification because doing so would help it more freely navigate the ocean. But oil companies and the military are not the only advocates of US ratification of the Law of the Seas. Major environmental groups also see great value in the treaty, which contains provisions for protecting fish stocks and sets marine environmental standards. The treaty has the unanimous support of the Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. So what is stopping its passage? Slavin cites one senator in particular who opposes the treaty on strict ideological grounds. "There's still a little sovereignty left in America," says the Senator. "Let's hold onto it." With the kind of wide ranging support the Law of the Seas Treaty enjoys, however, that kind of atavistic opposition to the treaty cannot hold for too much longer.

US Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad pens an op-ed in the New York Times today outlining a potential role for the UN in Iraq:

In Iraq, the United States supports a larger United Nations role because we believe that with the right envoy and mandate it is the best vehicle to address the two fundamental issues driving the crisis in Iraq. First, the United Nations has unmatched convening power that can help Iraq's principal communities reach a national compact on the distribution of political and economic power. In the role of mediator, it has inherent legitimacy and the flexibility to talk to all parties, including elements outside the political process. [snip] Second, the United Nations is also uniquely suited to work out a regional framework to stabilize Iraq. Several of Iraq's neighbors -- not only Syria and Iran but also some friends of the United States -- are pursuing destabilizing policies. The United States supports a new mandate that creates a United Nations-led multilateral diplomatic process to contain the regional competition that is adding fuel to the fire of Iraq's internal conflict.

Read the whole thing.