Author Archives: J-Pollack

Obama on Nuclear Diplomacy

Leave a reply

Here are the two relevant excerpts from “tonight’s press conference”:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/us/politics/09text-obama.html?pagewanted=print.

Caren Bohan of Reuters.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. I’d like to shift gears to foreign policy. What is your strategy for engaging Iran, and when will you start to implement it? Will your time table be affected at all by the Iranian elections? And are you getting any indications that Iran is interested in a dialogue with the United States?

MR. OBAMA: I said during the campaign that Iran is a country that has extraordinary people, extraordinary history and traditions, but that its actions over many years now have been unhelpful when it comes to promoting peace and prosperity both in the region and around the world; that their attacks or — or their — their financing of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, the bellicose language that they’ve used towards Israel, their development of a nuclear weapon or their pursuit of a nuclear weapon — that all of those things create the possibility of destabilizing the region and are not only contrary to our interests, but I think are contrary to the interests of international peace.

What I’ve also said is that we should take an approach with Iran that employs all of the resources at the United States’ disposal, and that includes diplomacy. And so my national security team is currently reviewing our existing Iran policy, looking at areas where we can have constructive dialogue, where we can directly engage with them. And my expectation is, in the coming months, we will be looking for openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the table, face to face; of diplomatic overtures that will allow us to move our policy in a new direction.

There’s been a lot of mistrust built up over the years, so it’s not going to happen overnight.

And it’s important that even as we engage in this direct diplomacy, we are very clear about certain deep concerns that we have as a country, that Iran understands that we find the funding of terrorist organizations unacceptable, that we’re clear about the fact that a nuclear Iran could set off a nuclear arms race in the region that would be profoundly destabilizing. So there are going to be a set of objectives that we have in these conversations, but I think that there’s the possibility, at least, of a relationship of mutual respect and progress.

And I think that if you look at how we’ve approached the Middle East, my designation of George Mitchell as a special envoy to help deal with the Arab-Israeli situation, some of the interviews that I’ve given, it indicates the degree to which we want to do things differently in the region. Now it’s time for Iran to send some signals that it wants to act differently as well and recognize that even as it is has some rights as a member of the international community, with those rights come responsibilities.

And:

All right. Helen. This is my inaugural moment here. (Laughter.) I’m really excited.

QUESTION: Mr. President, do you think that Pakistan and — are maintaining the safe havens in Afghanistan for these so-called terrorists? And also, do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?

MR. OBAMA: Well, I think that Pakistan — there is no doubt that in the FATA region of Pakistan, in the mountainous regions along the border of Afghanistan, that there are safe havens where terrorists are operating. And one of the goals of Ambassador Holbrooke as he is traveling throughout the region is to deliver a message to Pakistan that they are endangered as much as we are by the continuation of those operations, and that we’ve got to work in a regional fashion to root out those safe havens.

They’re — it’s not acceptable for Pakistan or for us to have folks who, with impunity, will kill innocent men, women and children.

And you know, I — I believe that the new government of Pakistan and — and Mr. Zardari cares deeply about getting control of this situation, and we want to be effective partners with them on that issue.

QUESTION: Did you get any promise from them?

MR. OBAMA: Well, Mr. Holbrooke is there, and that’s exactly why he’s being sent there, because I think that we have to make sure that Pakistan is a stalwart ally with us in battling this terrorist threat.

With respect to nuclear weapons, you know, I don’t want to speculate. What I know is this: that if we see a nuclear arms race in a region as volatile as the Middle East, everybody will be in danger.

And one of my goals is to prevent nuclear proliferation generally.

I think that it’s important for the United States, in concert with Russia, to lead the way on this. And you know, I’ve mentioned this in conversations with the Russian president, Mr. Medvedev, to let him know that it is important for us to restart the conversation, about how we can start reducing our nuclear arsenals in an effective way, so that —

MR. OBAMA: — so that we then have the standing to go to other countries and start stitching back together the non- proliferation treaties that frankly have been weakened over the last several years.

Khan Walks… Back?

1 Reply

News of the release of AQ Khan from house arrest may have been premature.

Days after the Foreign Ministry “called”:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/world/asia/07khan.html the Khan saga a “closed chapter,” _Dawn_ (of Karachi) “reports”:http://www.dawn.com/2009/02/09/top2.htm that the Pakistani government is weighing an appeal of his release.

The government appears to be backing out of an ill-considered deal with Khan, whose “terms”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/08/AR2009020801964.html have now reached the papers:

Under an agreement reached among Khan’s lawyers, the judge who ordered him released and the government, officials said, the Pakistani Interior Ministry will limit and monitor Khan’s telephone calls, visitors and activities. The ministry will also prohibit his travel outside the country.

Until now, these terms were a “secret”:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/world/asia/07khan.html, which allowed Khan to step before the news cameras to claim total vindication.

It’s hard to know what the good folks in Islamabad were thinking. Just the other week, President Zardari was “openly hitting up the U.S. for a new aid package”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/27/AR2009012702675.html. Fine timing…

Parsing Biden at Wehrkunde

Leave a reply

From the Vice President’s “speech at the annual Munich Security Conference”:http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=en&id=238:

We will continue to develop missile defenses to counter a growing Iranian capability, provided the technology is proven to work and cost effective.

We will do so in consultation with our NATO allies and Russia.

Nothing really new here, except possibly one thing. I’m probably reading too much into this: it appeared in a speech given in Munich, in a section of the speech concerning NATO. But still, did you notice? Joe Biden’s brief discussion of missile defense made no mention whatsoever of North Korea.

Exercising Vigilance

Leave a reply

The “plot”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1837/psi-part-deux-red-sea-regatta thickens. According to “various”:http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/cyprus-ship-violates-un-sanctions-on-iran-cypriot-official/2009/02/08/1233423572271.html “reports”:http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gh2n81Y5aFLUr13PtHzTeJK71luA, the _Monchegorsk,_ the vessel carrying unspecified weapons from Iran, now sitting in the Cypriot port of Limassol, is–as its name suggests–Russian-owned.

This is surely old news to readers more attentive than Yours Truly, but of interest because it raises the (usual) questions about the interest and ability of national authorities to enforce UNSC sanctions resolutions against Iran. According to the “Cyprus Mirror”:http://www.financialmirror.com/News/Cyprus_and_World_News/13865,

According to diplomatic sources, Cyprus requests from the UN Sanctions Committee to assess whether the findings of the inspections lie within the provisions of the Security Council Resolutions on Iran (1696/2006, 1737/2006,1747/2007 and 1803/2008), and seeks its recommendations on how to proceed with the issue.

Without taking the trouble to re-read all of these, I’m pretty sure we can narrow it down to “1747”:http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/unsc_res1747-2007.pdf, which

5. Decides that Iran shall not supply, sell or transfer directly or indirectly from its territory or by its nationals or using its flag vessels or aircraft any arms or related materiel, and that all States shall prohibit the procurement of such items from Iran by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in the territory of Iran;

I haven’t seen any mention of the nationality of the crew. But you get the point. Hey, have you heard the one about a Russian merchant vessel carrying arms from Iran to Gaza in the middle of a war with Israel?

Hmm… maybe not so funny.

Clif Burns calls it the “hot boat-ato”:http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/457. That _is_ funny, unless you happen to be the Cypriot authorities.

On an unrelated note, the arms-laden Ukrainian vessel “MV Faina”:http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1010/42/374314.htm has been ransomed from Somali pirates. Finally.

Here’s your “musical bonus”:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KdHuZXWxGo&feature=related. Enjoy.

PSI Part Deux: Red Sea Regatta

Leave a reply

The AP reports that representatives of ten Western countries have just spent “two days in Copenhagen”:http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/02/05/europe/EU-Mideast-Arms-Smuggling.php to discuss “an international naval force to stem the flow of smuggled arms to Gaza.”

Experts from the U.S., Canada and eight European countries met in Copenhagen to discuss ways to stop arms smuggling to the Hamas-controlled territory. No decision was taken but an international naval force was one of the options on the table, said Michael Zilmer-Johns, a senior diplomat at the Danish Foreign Ministry.

“This is one of the tools that might be considered,” he told reporters after the meeting ended. “There’s a problem and there’s a need to solve it.”

Israel and the European Union sent observers to the workshop, while Egypt declined an invitation. Organizers gave no reason.

This comes on the heels of an attempt by the U.S. Navy to detain a Cypriot-flagged ship sailing from Iran in the Red Sea. “Per Reuters”:http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL4307569:

The Cyprus-flagged Monchegorsk has been docked off the Mediterranean island for almost a week as authorities check its cargo. The United States, which earlier boarded the ship in the Red Sea, said its navy found weapons on board which it could not confiscate for legal reasons.

Without the happenstance of the vessel steaming past the shores of Cyprus while flying its flag, it seems there would have been little ground for further action. According to “David Eshel at AvWeek’s Ares blog”:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a768e59ff-db7f-4090-9e55-d59deae27195&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest, the ship had set out under other colors entirely:

According to unofficial intelligence reports, the _Iran Shahed_ set out from the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas Dec. 29, the second day of the Gaza conflict, changing its identity several times until hoisting a Cypriot flag.

[snip]

On Thursday afternoon, though, as the ship passed 100 km. off the coast of the Cyprus port of Limassol, it was stopped by the Cypriot Navy, which was legally allowed to intercept it since it was flying a Cypriot flag. Cyprus’s decision to intercept the ship, officials said, was made after the United States and several European countries applied pressure on the government in Nicosia. The officials said that the ship was believed to be carrying a number of shipping containers packed with weaponry.

It sounds like dumb luck and fast thinking won the day. Is that the plan for the future?

The Copenhagen meeting seems to represent partial fulfillment of the mid-January “U.S.-Israel MOU whose text popped up in _Ha’aretz_”:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056175.html. The bit in question:

2. The United States will work with regional and NATO partners to address the problem of the supply of arms and related materiel and weapons transfers and shipments to Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza, including through the Mediterranean, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea and eastern Africa, through improvements in existing arrangements or the launching of new initiatives to increase the effectiveness of those arrangements as they relate to the prevention of weapons smuggling to Gaza. Among the tools that will be pursued are:


* Enhanced U.S. security and intelligence cooperation with regional governments on actions to prevent weapons and explosives flows to Gaza that originate in or transit their territories; including through the involvement of relevant components of the U.S. Government, such as U.S. Central Command, U.S. European Command, U.S. Africa Command, and U.S. Special Operations Command.

* Enhanced intelligence fusion with key international and coalition naval forces and other appropriate entities to address weapons supply to Gaza;

* Enhancement of the existing international sanctions and enforcement mechanisms against provision of material support to Hamas and other terrorist organizations, including through an international response to those states, such as Iran, who are determined to be sources of weapons and explosives supply to Gaza.

Now, you might be asking, why does all this sound so familiar? Because it’s “PSI, Part Deux”:http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c10390.htm.

That endeavor, you might recall, also came on the heels of the catch-and-release of a maritime arms shipment, in this case “North Korea’s _So San_”:http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/scudraid/.

A couple of semi-deep thoughts present themselves:

First, in the right (wrong?) geographic and political setting, mundane artillery rockets turn out to be true strategic weapons, the stuff of serious international concern even if they don’t quality as “WMD.”

Second, the failure to create a strong legal architecture for interdiction is still being felt. The entire idea of PSI was to get something (by way of cooperation) for nothing (by way of binding commitments). This false start may explain, in part, why UNSCR 1540 hasn’t really gotten off the ground, as “Aaron Arnold”:http://www.wmdinsights.com/I26/I26_G4_UNSCR1540_1.htm and “Elizabeth Turpen”:http://www.wmdinsights.com/I26/I26_G5_UNSCR1540_2.htm discussed back in August.

It’s early yet, but let’s hope it works out better this time around.

_(Bonus points if you recognized the origins of the phrase “Red Sea Regatta”:http://books.google.com/books?id=mA6R4gJ9YUUC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=red+sea+regatta&source=bl&ots=VjwyAfObr4&sig=04mYHqqoP7St5vLBr-D_u92agYI&hl=en&ei=7r-LSbijJtW5twehnNWcCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA139,M1.)_

Update: Here’s a “musical bonus that seems fitting”:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFkUS1sSoPA.

Bushehr Update

Leave a reply

Rosatom’s Sergei Kiriyenko has “told the Russian media”:http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-02-05-voa37.cfm that the Bushehr reactor will start up in 2009.

This echoes a “statement made a few weeks ago”:http://english.rednet.cn/c/2009/01/15/1690587.htm by Iran’s ambassador to Russia.

Kiriyenko adds that he’ll visit Bushehr at some point this month.

Caveat Linker

1 Reply

The “PONI blog”:http://forums.csis.org/poni/ “points out”:http://forums.csis.org/poni/?p=51 a “story by Tim Reid in the Times of London”:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5654836.ece alleging that the Obama administration is seeking a bilateral treaty with Russia to cut nuclear arsenals to 1,000 warheads per side.

Whoa up there.

British journalism is sort of like British dentistry; the standards aren’t exactly the same as in America, where things aren’t necessarily ideal to start with.

Reid’s entire story hangs on the following anonymous quote:

“We are going to re-engage Russia in a more traditional, legally binding arms reduction process,” an official from the Administration said. “We are prepared to engage in a broader dialogue with the Russians over issues of concern to them. Nobody would be surprised if the number reduced to the 1,000 mark for the post-Start treaty.”

(He couldn’t even find a _senior_ administration official?)

In America, we usually like our anonymous sources in pairs. And we often like to see them called “senior administration officials,” or to come with some other assurance from the reporter that they possibly might know whereof they speak.

So what have we really got? A single, unnamed person who says that “no one would be surprised” if future talks with the Russians — long rumored to have minds of their own, but that’s mere speculation — were someday to reach a particular result. Which is not even stated to be the Administration’s actual objective. After all, it takes time to figure these things out. Key personnel have to be in place, and so forth. And the Administration is all of two weeks old.

OK, this is a lot of keystrokes to waste on a question that’s probably far less weighty than it’s made out to be. Long story short, don’t believe everything you see on the Internets.

Clocking In

Leave a reply

It must be getting a little lonely here since “Anya checked out”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1811/do-svidaniya. It’s just Paul, alone with his “deep”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1813/deep-iran-thought Iran “thoughts”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1815/deeper-iran-thought and his taste in music.

Well, no longer. Paul has scratched up some more company. For those of you who don’t know me, I “guest-blogged at ArmsControlWonk.com”:http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2010/welcome-josh-pollack for “about a week back in August”:http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/author/joshua_pollack/.

There’s no particular time limit here. (Right, Paul?) We’ll just see how it goes.