Ukraine finds itself in a precarious situation these days.
For weeks, there have been protests even bigger than those during the 2004
Orange Revolution, which was actually successful in calling for the ouster of
(fraudulently) newly elected Victor Yanukovych. He came back into power, and
until now enjoyed relative stability and burgeoning Ukrainian pride from people
desperate to escape from the shadow of the former Soviet Union.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Monday, December 16, 2013
North Korea Execution: The Devil We Knew
Gen. Chang is arrested. |
Monday, December 9, 2013
Nelson Mandela - Champion of Equality and Reconciliation
Nelson Mandela passed away at the age of 95 last week,
leaving behind one of the greatest legacies of any human being from our
lifetime. His courage and forward thinking led him from difficult revolutionary
times in the middle of the last century all the way to becoming President of
South Africa and ultimately being credited with the downfall of the Apartheid
era, which ushered in the era of growth and prosperity South Africa has
continued to join. Instead of listing the ways in which Mr. Mandela changed the
world and the achievements he accomplished, one would have a simpler task of
listing the things he did not do.
Mandela had a place in the opposition to Apartheid racism as
early as the 1940s, when he began being active in the African National Congress
Youth League. His law studies at the University of Witwatersrand introduced him
to many liberal-minded students from all over the world, grounding him in a
global perspective that would serve him going forward over the next several
decades.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Human Rights Day 2013
In leading up to Human Rights Day on December
10th, recent news seems to mask any progress: UN-authorized French
troops intervene in CAR in response to the latter’s spiraling bloodshed; the
revelation that the NSA collects 5 billions phone records daily from Americans
and non-Americans alike; and the Libyan parliament passed legislation
recognizing Islamic law as the centerpiece of its country’s laws and
institutions. Not exactly leaps forward in protecting the rights to life, privacy
and personal liberty, respectively.
Because we don’t regularly hear about human
rights triumphs or human rights defenders of celebrity-like status, most of us
miss a crucial progression: human rights situations across the globe have
improved—in some cases dramatically so—over the past several decades, and those
suffering human rights abuses, and their advocates, have never been louder or
better organized.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Giving Thanks for the Iran Nuclear Deal
Every
year around Thanksgiving, it is typical, if not cliché, to sit around the table
and give reasons to be thankful. This year, I’m thankful for the nuclear deal
between the UN and Iran, and said as much at my family dinner, to many groans
and eye rolls. Alternately celebrated as a successful performance of diplomacy
and decried as the harbinger of nuclear war, the deal has already generated
enough controversy to run for New York City mayor. Yet overall, its critics
seem to have concerns that have little to do with nuclear weapons, and
everything to do with local and regional geopolitics. The deal itself can be
hailed as a huge diplomatic success for the United States – which received
nearly every concession that it asked for in the negotiations – and a positive
first step towards a less nuclear world.
While
some are posing the deal as the Iranians pulling one over on the US, in reality
the P5+1 negotiators were very successful at extracting concessions from Iran.
The deal, outlined in this excellent New York Times infographic,
capped enrichment at levels safe for nuclear power only, halted production of
new centrifuges as well as construction of the Arak heavy water reactor,
mandated that uranium already enriched to 20% be diluted or converted, and
overall, extended Iran’s “breakout time” – the time necessary to build a
complete nuclear weapon – from less than two months to three or even four
months. Essentially, the deal delays Iran’s ability to produce a weapon while
still allowing it to have a peaceful nuclear program, which was the entire idea
behind the original (US-approved and supported) nuclear program in the 1960s.
In return, Iran has received about $6 billion in sanctions
relief over the next six months. Many among the anti-Iran lobby have argued
that this will give the government economic breathing room while it continues
to develop its nuclear capabilities. While it is true that the sanctions
relief, largely in the form of unfreezing petroleum revenue stuck in foreign
banks, will provide some breathing room to the Iranian people, in a country
that is losing an estimated $5 billion a month due to sanctions, it is just a
drop in the bucket. To get further and more meaningful sanctions relief, Iran
will need to finalize a permanent deal to come into force after the current
six-month deal expires. That will mean more concessions, more oversight, and
more opportunities for wary partners like Israel and Saudi Arabia to express
their concerns and address them in negotiations. Since the entire point of
sanctions is, in theory, to bring a belligerent actor to the negotiating table,
the current deal appears to be a rare example of when sanctions actually succeed.
There
are still major obstacles to striking a permanent deal with Iran, or even
fulfilling the current deal. First and foremost is that the deal includes an
agreement on no new sanctions against Iran, something that the US Congress may
ignore as they consider passing new sanctions this month.
Republicans and many Democrats for once seem able to come together and pass a
bill; unfortunately it is one that could compromise a once-in-a-generation
opportunity. Another obstacle is the attitudes of two of the United States’
strongest allies in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Israel, who, like the
Congress, are divided on almost every other issue except for Iran’s nuclear
program. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called the deal an
“historic mistake” that has thrown Israel’s entire future into jeopardy. Saudi
officials have also made rare public statements deploring
the secrecy of back-channel talks prior to the public negotiation of the deal.
While
the populations of Israel and Saudi Arabia may certainly fear Iran’s
acquisition of the bomb, the two countries’ governments are more preoccupied
with the threat of an Iran fully integrated into the international economy.
These fears were more than amply laid out by Stephen M. Walt in a recent
Foreign Policy piece,
but in sum, the deal’s opponents have far more to lose from an integrated Iran
than a nuclear bomb (no, really). Saudi Arabia has long vied with Iran for
dominance in the Middle East, and especially fears Iranian influence on its
Shi’ite population, which happens to be located exactly where the largest Saudi
oil reserves are. Israel also fears the economic power that Iran could wield if
sanctions were lifted, foreseeing that its large, well-educated population
could soon overtake Israel as the most developed country in the Middle East An
economically empowered Iran would at least would take a bigger piece of the
economic pie, which would give it opportunities to project power throughout the
region. Detractors (ahem, Ted Cruz) have already held up the example of North
Korea (which signed an agreement aimed at denuclearization in 1994 only to
test its first nuke in 2006) to decry the current deal. Yet Iran is different
for so many reasons,
and the bleak warning signs that existed with North Korea have yet to
materialize within Iran.
Supporters of Rouhani hold up his picture and celebrate |
At
this moment, I remain cautiously optimistic that this deal will delay the
Iranian nuclear project and set the stage for a long-term treaty. While I agree
that Iran has a right to a peaceful nuclear program under the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, I am opposed to a nuclear-armed Iran, not least because this would
likely lead to a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia and a ramped up regional Cold War.
This deal is the first step to ensuring that all sides get the best possible
outcome, and is the first shot that diplomats have had in years to end the
antagonism between Iran and the United States and its allies. A best-case
scenario would be a halt to the Iranian nuclear weapons program, a thawing of
relations between Iran and the US and its allies, reintegration of Iran into
the global economy, and a better standard of living for Iranian citizens. In
international affairs, however, the best-case scenario is rarely the one that
plays out. For now, I’ll settle for a temporary halt to the weapons program,
and a glimmer of a hope that the decades-long culture of dangerous US-Iran
animosity is finally drawing to a close.
Labels:
Geneva,
Iran,
nuclear deal,
P5+1,
Rouhani,
United Nations,
United States
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)