Back in January Chris Preble wrote about the need to significantly decrease our nuclear arsenal.  I’d like to pick up from where Chris left off and propose a possible bipartisan compromise that could pave the way for this to happen – linking nuclear disarmament with the establishment of an effective missile defense. 

In early January an op-ed appeared in the Wall Street Journal by foreign policy heavyweights from both sides of the aisle – Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, William Perry, and George Shultz – calling for the refocusing of our attention on the goal of complete elimination of nuclear weapons.  If it were not for the bipartisan wise men that lined up behind this idea, many would have dismissed this proposal as unrealistic and foolhardy considering the dangerous world in which we live.  This idea, however, merits much more attention.  

It’s certainly not a new idea.  In fact the nuclear nonproliferation treaty to which the US is a signatory along with 188 other countries explicitly created a grand bargain between the nuclear and non nuclear states.  Non nuclear states would be able to access technology for peaceful usage of nuclear technology.  Nuclear states would work towards the goal of nuclear disarmament.  Most would agree that the current nuclear states are doing little to significantly progress towards that disarmament goal.  This is regularly used as justification by non nuclear states to pursue the development of nuclear technology on their own terms.  (more…)

The upshot of Wednesday’s open letter from six PSA Advisory Board members and two other distinguished former officials to President Bush and Secretary Rice is to urge them to think hard if they’re going to bet the farm on Middle East peace at Annapolis next month. According to the authors, if the upcoming summit fails, there will be “devastating consequences” for the US and the region. In fact, Annapolis represents a dangerously big gamble on a very long shot for lasting peace.

The pressure on the Administration to call for a new round of top-level Middle East peace talks is substantial. A few of the main drivers are: (1) that the bipartisan Iraq Study Group correctly identified Israeli-Palestinian peace as a potential linchpin of a larger Middle East settlement, which could calm Iraq while effectively containing Iran; (2) that any serious conversation with Arab or Muslim leaders about the US role in the Middle East invariably includes a diatribe against our support for the “Israeli occupation;” (3) that the longer Palestinians live without a single, sovereign, responsible government, the more their political life comes to resemble Iraq’s civil war; and (4) that the Israelis themselves have for the first time put partitioning Jerusalem on the table.

(more…)

Doug’s opposition to the LOS is based on a few myths that are worth addressing:

First, critics of the LOS suggest that it takes away U.S. sovereignty. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing in the LOS makes the U.S. cede sovereignty over any land or maritime territory. In fact, under the treaty, the U.S. gains sovereignty over a large amount of maritime territory and exclusive control over marine resources in a huge area. Under the LOS, the U.S. would attain jurisdiction over an additional 3.36 million square miles – greater than the combined area of the lower 48 states. Furthermore, as the convention’s provisions on land-based pollution are strictly hortatory, nothing in LOS could compel the U.S. to do anything differently on land. (more…)

Once the scourge of reflexive internationalism, the Bush administration is now dressing in multilateralist garb. The president’s latest concession is pushing the Law of the Sea Treaty, appropriately known as LOST.

The treaty declares all seabed resources to be the “common heritage of mankind,” hits Western mining companies and their sponsoring nations with fees and royalties, and creates a new global bureaucracy to divvy up the spoils. There are authorities, enterprises, committees, commissions, tribunals, and rules galore.

Unfortunately, decades ago the so-called Group of 77, the developing nations’ political lobby, appended this money-making scheme to [add] proposals to improve ocean resource exploitation, regularize petroleum exploration, improve environmental protection, and strengthen navigational freedom. Turn over the globe’s unowned resources to us, the Third World states offered, and we’ll recognize some of your rules–many of which already had been accepted as customary international law. (more…)

In a bit of a departure from my regular posts, I want to spend a few minutes writing about the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS). For those of you not really familiar with this treaty – LOS is essentially a set of rules for the use of the world’s oceans. Its primary functions are to define maritime zones, protect the environment, preserve freedom of navigation and establish clear guidelines for businesses that depend on the sea for resources. It came into force in 1994, and to date, 152 countries and the European Commission have joined the treaty. (more…)

On Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and their negotiating teams met in Jerusalem to prepare for the US-sponsored conference to be held next month. The Bush Administration has convened this conference in order to break through the current stalemate of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and to give the President’s (and Condi Rice’s) Middle East legacy a boost. If the President is serious about achieving either of those objectives he must push for a more comprehensive agreement than the vague joint statement that Prime Minister Olmert is seeking.

President Bush should encourage the most detailed, explicit statement possible for the advancement of Palestinian statehood. The negotiations have been stalled for so long that a broad-brush declaration will do nothing to change the status-quo. However, if concrete, achievable goals are the result of this conference, there is a much greater chance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process can be pushed out of its current inertia. With increased prospects for Palestinian statehood comes a boost for moderate Arab governments in the region. This will boost American credibility and standing in the Arab and Islamic world, hopefully improving on the current lack of American moral authority in the region.

(more…)

Just thought I’d highlight today a worthwhile op-ed today by Rosa Brooks in the LA Times on this crazy new foreign policy tool called “Diplomacy”.  Sometimes humor is the best way to get a point across. 

At least once a year attention momentarily turns to arms sales issues. That is when the Congressional Research Service releases its annual report, “Conventional Arms Sales to Developing Nations” by its venerable and meticulous analyst Richard F. Grimmett The most recent edition, covering the years 1996 through 2006 was released last week.

At last, we’re number one; something that at least some people in America can cheer about. USA, USA, USA! Hush while I recite some statistics:

In 2006, the United States led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, making agreements valued at $16.9 billion (41.9% of all such agreements),up from $13.5 billion in 2005. 

…

In 2006, the United States ranked first in the value of all arms deliveries
worldwide, making $14 billion in such deliveries or 51.9%.  This is the eighth year in a row that the United States has led in global arms deliveries.

Lest you think that this is just a one time thing consider this:

Recently, from 2003-2006, the United States and Russia have dominated the arms market in the developing world, with the United States ranking first for 3 out of 4 years in the value of arms transfer agreements, with Russia ranking second for 3 out of these same four years.  From 2003-2006, the United States made $34.1 billion in arms transfer agreements with developing nations, in constant 2006 dollars, 32.4% of all such agreements. 

Of course, these statistics deal only with the legal, big league (tanks, planes, missiles et cetera) relatively open and transparent arms trade; the one where buyers and sellers mingle at tony saloons at prestigious arms shows in London, Paris, United Arab Emirates, Russia and many other parts of the world. Many of these weapons never see service in actual war. They just are part of the continuing “modernization” of militaries worldwide; not much different from buying a new car. (more…)

The leading Republican contenders had a great deal of chutzpah last week skipping out of PBS’ All-American Debate with the minority community at Morgan State University. These Republicans are running on a platform of protecting our national security in turbulent times. And yet their decision to skip this debate shows how shallow they are in their understanding of what national security is about. As we learned after Katrina, poverty and racism are a dangerous combination that leaves Americans vulnerable to unconscionable security breaches. And the candidates are not going to solve these problems and make us safer by skipping the one forum where they may have actually have heard from a community that our country has so obviously failed to protect.

I think what the no-shows underscore is that these Republican candidates really are running on a fear-based sensational understanding of security that has little to do with everyday life. In fact, one of our greatest security threats today is a divided country, where some have access to transportation and money in an emergency situation and others who have no access are left to drown. There’s also the obvious fact that what we need more than ever in a time where we are under attack by terrorists is to have a united front where we feel such closeness as a community that we work together to identify and root out the terrorists. Nothing could divide us more than having the four Republican front-runners say they could care less about a huge part of our country.

Perhaps the most egregious part of their absence is that the candidates specifically explained that they missed the forum because they had to attend fundraisers. There has even been a group recently pushing for people to give Rudy Giuliani $9.11 for his campaign. How’s that for politicizing our national security for personal gain? But it’s also a very telling move. Rudy cares about our security to the extent that it gives him an opportunity to fundraise. But when raising money for his personal campaign is not at issue, he’d rather not have to deal with the most pressing security issues of our time.

 The world has been watching closely the recent demonstrations in Burma and the crackdown by the junta there.  What I’ve found encouraging is the fact that both those on the left and the right seem to be in broad agreement that more must be done to rein in the generals who have maintained their grip on power there for many years.  President Bush used his speech last week at the UN to announce new sanctions against those Burmese leaders responsible for the crackdown.  The UN has sent a special envoy, Ibrahim Gambari to Burma to seek a peaceful resolution to the crisis.  So far, however, the military junta seems to be holding out. 

The conservative National Review published a commentary condemning the Burmese government and urging stronger action.  At the same time, the Democratic presidential candidates are united in calling for stronger action to be taken against the ruling junta.  Here is Biden’s statement.  Here is Obama.  Here is Senator Clinton.  It’s not hard to see why everyone is condemning the actions of the military junta and calling for strong action against them.  It’s hard to be against a group of monks that are peacefully protesting a violent and oppressive regime.  So, if Democrats and Republicans are united in calling for more pressure on the ruling junta, why aren’t we doing more?  Well, the truth of the matter is that the U.S. actually has very little direct leverage with Burma.  The economic ties are minimal.  The pressure points with Burma are its Asean neighbors and major powers such as China, India, Japan, and Russia, as outlined by Michael Schiffer in a recent op-ed in the Des Moines Register. 

China it turns out is the major arms supplier to Burma. Once again, we find ourselves in a situation similar to that of Darfur.  Although the U.S. claims to be putting diplomatic pressure on the Chinese, China is using the justification of noninterference in another country’s internal affairs.  As I wrote in my last post, the U.S. and its allies must step up the pressure on China to play a constructive, positive role in world affairs.  We must make it clear to the Chinese that inaction against a tyrannical regime will be considered the same as support of that regime’s actions.  Nonintereference in domestic affairs will no longer be an acceptable excuse in situations such as Burma.  I’m not proposing military action  against Burma, but I am talking about making the Burmese pay an economic price for their oppressive policies.  There’s no guarantee that it will work and it could very well fail.  But, economic pressure from China would certainly be more likely to succeed that the limited measures the U.S. now has at its disposal.  (more…)