How do we cope with this two-pronged danger?  In the past 12 years, Pakistan and North Korea have joined the “club”

Club Member

of states that have nuclear weapons.  Now nine states (the United States, the Russian Federation, China, the United Kingdom, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea) have the capacity to destroy millions of people instantaneously, and millions more via radiation and the destruction of habitat.  Four of these states (India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea) are not even signatories to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

Add to this the several dozen other states that either run nuclear power or research reactors or plan to develop nuclear programs that they say are for peaceful uses.  The capacity of international institutions such as the IAEA to monitor and ensure appropriate safeguards and compliance with control regimes is near its practical limit.    The latest statement by the IAEA’s Director General, Yukiya Amano, welcomes the spread of nuclear power for production of electricity at the same time that it criticizes Iran, North Korea and Syria for not complying with safeguards agreements.

This strikes me as thinking that is fundamentally flawed.  Unless and until the international community can enforce full compliance by states that already have access to nuclear material, it is foolhardy to encourage or welcome the further spread of nuclear technology.  The example of Iran, sitting on some of the world’s largest reserves of oil and natural gas, demanding its “right” to develop nuclear power while only selectively observing its NPT obligations, should be instructive.  China has become so involved in agreements to purchase Iran’s hydrocarbons that it refuses to enforce any meaningful sanctions in response to Iran’s hidden development of enriched uranium.  To add to the mess, the U.S.’ own sanctions against Iran are not being observed very effectively, as the NYT recently reported.

There are a few brave efforts being undertaken by groups such as Ploughshares Fund and the Nuclear Threat Initiative to deal with this existential threat.  I recently attended a Ploughshares event here in San Francisco, featuring two of this initiative’s spokespersons — former Secretary of State George Shultz and former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry.  Shultz and Perry, along with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former Senator Sam Nunn, are strong advocates of Ploughshares’ step-by-step approach to verifiable reduction of nuclear weapons and more effective control of nuclear material.

You can listen to Shultz and Perry here.  Better yet, go to the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s Nuclear Security Project site and ask them to send you their DVD, Nuclear Tipping Point.

It is clear that the U.S. and the Russian Federation are in the final stages of a new strategic arms reduction treaty (START), which will be a substantial sign of commitment by the world’s two largest nuclear powers.  The Obama Administration is also planning reasonable unilateral reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal.  However, this must be only the start of a much more ambitious and comprehensive international effort to reduce and safeguard nuclear material.

There is literally no time to lose.

I also had a chance to sit down with Daryl and you can download and listen to our interview here.

Essentially, Copeland in his book and writings is advocating a kind of public diplomacy — less formal, less bureaucratic, more flexible.  In Copeland’s view, a public diplomat may be a government official, but doesn’t necessarily come from a foreign ministry.  He or she clearly represents a state, but is dispatched to communicate with non-diplomats.  Copeland, for instance, feels that Canada’s diplomacy should have taken more advantage of Canada’s large Haitian community in Montreal as a resource for understanding how to deliver aid following the recent earthquake.  He also likes the way that a Canadian fisheries minister in the mid-Nineties staged a Greenpeace-like demonstration for media on the East River of New York City, showing how a Spanish fishing trawler that the Canadians had seized on the high seas had been netting internationally protected fish.

Whether such activity is really guerrilla-like can be questioned.  Copeland is mainly looking for a way toward “radical reform” of diplomacy that will resolve its “crisis of relevance and effectiveness.”  Perhaps, he muses, the sorts of skills that one develops in “independent world travel — survival skills, resilience, cross cultural communication skills, problem solving skills” — are the ones that foreign ministries of our flat world should encourage.   Such skills should, in any event, help diplomats keep their bearings, regardless of how they view and pursue their work.

Copeland’s message is a timely one for the United States.  Not only are U.S. diplomats increasingly asked to take on non-traditional roles in conflict zones, the State Department is in the final stages of its in-depth review of its practices and strategy, known as the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.  If traditional definitions of diplomacy are ever to be amended, now would seem to be a good time to make the effort.

Independence was declared by Kosovo on February 17, 2008, but recognition is still a work in progress.  While all the other non-Serbian members of what was once Yugoslavia — Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Macedonia — have been independent now for years, the entity of Kosovo continues to struggle — using words, not guns — against what was once the hub of the Yugoslav state.  With 90 per cent of its population ethnic Albanian, and less than ten per cent Serb, Kosovo was rescued ten years ago by the United States and NATO from a military assault from Serbia aimed at ethnic cleansing; now Kosovo is trying to form a state.

Today I interviewed President Sejdiu, 58, a former law professor, during a brief visit by him to the United States.  As we sat down in his hotel suite overlooking the city of San Francisco, word arrived that Mauritania had officially become the 65th country to recognize the Republic of Kosova (Kosovo’s official title), leaving 127 members of the United Nations yet to take this step.

LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW:
[audio http://media.libsyn.com/media/rnolan/Sejdiu_Interview.mp3]

“Recognition and UN membership would settle down all the artificial tensions and cut Serbia’s illusions of impeding

President Sejdiu and Friends

the development of Kosovo,” Sejdiu said.  “We can do our part [to gain more support], but so can the other countries who have already recognized Kosovo do more to influence those who have not yet done so.”

Serbia, of course, heads the list of states opposing independent Kosovo, but there are some states holding back recognition who have little sympathy for Serbia’s behavior during the last decade of the Twentieth Century.  States like Spain, Ukraine, or Romania, who worry that recognizing Kosovo will not only irritate Belgrade but encourage separatists at home.  This is “very unjust,” in Sejdiu’s view, since the former Yugoslavia was a federation that, once dissolved, left all constituent parts free to decide their own destiny.  “The internal issues [of other European states] cannot be compared to Kosovo and its history,” he says.

As a result, the Latin legal phrase sui generis — applied by UN mediator Martti Ahtisaari to describe Kosovo not being a precedent — is a constant part of President Sejdiu’s vocabulary as he makes speeches before groups like the World Affairs Council of Northern California.

There are other, unfortunate, ways in which Kosovo is sui generis — unique, or nearly so.  With a presence of some 12,000 foreign troops from NATO member states, and an EU-appointed administrator, Kosovo exercises control over only 80 per cent of the goods crossing its frontier.  Corruption and crime are serious threats and, says Sejdiu, the country loses 5 million Euros per month from graft and theft.  “This is a lot for a country our size,” he notes, in a remarkable understatement.

Last November, in Kosovo, on Clinton Boulevard, the man and his statue

Moreover, Belgrade has established what Sejdiu calls “parallel structures” — including courts — in the northernmost part of Kosovo in an effort to pressure local Serbs to resist integration into Kosovo.  President Sejdiu told me that Belgrade had spent 235 million Euros in 2008 and again in 2009 to support these parallel institutions.  NATO forces do not interfere.

This tense standoff occasionally gets punctuated by unexpected visits.  Last week, Serbian President Boris Tadić helicoptered in to Kosovo to visit Dečani, a Serbian monastery, on the occasion of Othodox Christmas.  “Tadić planned this visit to Kosovo on this specific date just to destroy the visit of the President of Croatia [Stjepan Mesić] who was on an official visit to Kosovo the same day,” Sejdiu charged.

Sejdiu’s view of his Serbian counterpart is icily critical.  “Although Tadić gained power on the basis of more liberal politics, he has not proved to be such a [liberal] politician,” he said.  “We wanted to believe that he had the power to change the situation, but so far he has not done so.  He has not handed over the war criminals.  He knows where Mladić is hiding and has known for quite some time.”

The Kosovar President reflected on the difference between the view of Croatia toward Croats living in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the way Belgrade views Serbs living in Kosovo.

“I recall something that impressed me a lot when President Mesic visited Pristine [Kosovo's capital],” President Sejdiu says.  “Mesic referred to a statement made by him to Croats when he visited Bosnia, saying ‘Your homeland is Bosnia.’  We have never heard a politician from Serbia say the same thing with respect to Kosovar Serbs.  They should be saying that so local Serbs [in Kosovo] can really love Kosovo.  Because our offer to Serbs is very generous.”

For all its existential problems, Kosovo is not a failed state — not a state like Yemen or worse, Somalia — states that have known an existence and then fallen into disorder.  In its favor:  a unique and cohesive Albanian-language culture that includes strains of Islam and Christianity (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) that co-exist in a secular state.  The Serbian minority in Kosovo, apart from the area near Mitrovica in the north, appears to have accepted Pristine-based institutions.   Under the Kosovar constitution, these Serbs are guaranteed a disproportionately high number of seats in the country’s parliament and use of Serbian as an official language.  No law may be passed without the approval of  two-thirds of the ethnic Serb parliamentarians.

Kosovo has to fully exist before it can be said to have failed.  And for it to fully exist it will require an international community that invites it to participate fully in international organizations such as the United Nations, the OSCE and eventually the EU.

Until then, the world’s youngest state is on the sidelines, counting its supporters and counting on support.  So far, the count is 65.

LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW:
[audio http://media.libsyn.com/media/rnolan/Sejdiu_Interview.mp3]

Contingency plans, which are most often devised by governments and businesses, are “back up plans” devised for situations which have the potential to go awry. They include specific strategies and actions top deal with variances to assumptions resulting in a particular emergency or state of affairs.

Petraeus stressed that in this situation a contingency plan is important, because, as he stated on CNN, “Iran is holding out on a United Nations-backed deal on its nuclear program that includes enriching uranium. The country had until the end of 2009 to accept the deal offered by the “P5 plus one” — permanent U.N. Security Council members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany. Instead, Iran countered, giving the West until the end of January to accept its own proposal.”

Early last week, China urged intensified diplomacy efforts to diffuse the deepening tensions between Ira and the U.N., which rebuked Iran for carrying out its nuclear enrichment plans in secret. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qyin Gang stressed the importance of diplomacy, stating “We support protecting the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, and advocate resolution of the Iran nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiations. We believe that in the present circumstances the parties involved should continue intensifying diplomatic efforts,” he added. “Sanctions are not the goal.”

What does the contingency plan mean for diplomacy measures in Iran? Petraeus stated that he thinks there is still time to engage Iran in diplomacy, and that as of now, there is no deadline on putting the U.S. contingency plans into play. However, he told CNN that “there’s a period of time, certainly, before all this might come to a head, if you will.”

Read the CNN article here and the Chinese perspective here

After three days worth of talks between U.S. special envoy Stephen Bosworth and North Korean officials, the country’s foreign ministry said North Korea would work with the US to “narrow remaining differences”.

The outcome of the talks comes as a surprise, as expectations for positive negotiations were low at the start of the series of meetings. According to the North Korea foreign ministry however, “the two sides were able to deepen mutual understanding, narrow differences in views and find considerable common ground. A series of mutual understandings were also reached on the need to resume the six party talks,” which Kim Jong-il had previously truncated.

Historically, the six party talks aimed to develop a peaceful resolution to concerns about international security which stemmed from the escalation of North Korean nuclear weapons program. The series of meetings took place between six nations: the People’s Republic of China; the Republic of Korea (South Korea); the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea); the United States of America; the Russian Federation; and Japan

Special envoy Stepehen Bosworth is now due to fly to Tokyo, Beijing and Moscow to brief officials from the other nations involved in the six-party talks before heading home, reports the BBC article.

According to the article, “North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong Il has previously declared the six-party talks “dead,” saying only direct negotiation with the U.S. on a range of issues is acceptable. But pressure from China — thought to be the only country with any leverage over Pyongyang — may have produced a change of heart.”

Although expectations for the talks are low, there is optimism that the recent visit by Former President Bill Clinton may have eased ongoing tensions between the two nations, thus creating the opportunity for future discussions.

The full Time article can be read online here

Nicholas Burns, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs (effectively the #3 position in the Department), penned an opinion piece for Newsweek this week titled “We Should Talk to Our Enemies.” In it, he defends Senator Barack Obama's stance on talking with US enemies, such as Iran. Here's an excerpt: “One of the sharpest and most telling differences on foreign policy between Barack Obama and John McCain is whether the United States should talk to difficult and disreputable leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. In each of the three presidential debates, McCain belittled Obama as naive for arguing that America should be willing to negotiate with such adversaries. In the vice presidential debate, Sarah Palin went even further, accusing Obama of “bad judgment that is dangerous,” an ironic charge given her own very modest foreign-policy credentials. Are McCain and Palin correct that America should stonewall its foes? I lived this issue for 27 years as a career diplomat, serving both Republican and Democratic administrations. Maybe that's why I’ve been struggling to find the real wisdom and logic in this Republican assault against Obama. I’ll bet that a poll of senior diplomats who have served presidents from Carter to Bush would reveal an overwhelming majority who agree with the following position: of course we should talk to difficult adversaries‚ when it is in our interest and at a time of our choosing…” He continues: “If we aren't willing to talk to Iran, we may leave ourselves with only one option‚ military action. The next U.S. president will have little chance of securing peace in the Middle East if he doesn't determine Iran's bottom line on the nuclear issue through talks. Similarly, there will be no peace treaty between Syria and Israel if we don't support the talks underway between those countries…” He concludes: “America faces a complex and difficult geopolitical landscape. The next president needs to act more creatively and boldly to defend our interests by revalidating diplomacy as a key weapon in our national arsenal and rebuilding our understaffed and underfunded diplomatic corps. Of course he will need to reserve the right to use force against the most vicious and implacable of our foes. More often than not, however, he will find that dialogue and discussion, talking and listening, are the smarter ways to defend our country, end crises and sometimes even sow the seeds of an ultimate peace.” Burns undoubtedly has the qualifications to come down on this hotly contested issue. I do hope that the next President, whomever he should be, listens to his sage advice. But I can't help but wonder, could it also be an attempt to vie for a certain cabinet-level position in an Obama administration…?

“I-VOTE is an exchange initiative of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs' International Visitor Leadership Program. I-VOTE will immerse participants in national, state and local election processes by introducing them to election officials, political analysts, citizen activists, students, academics, voters and the candidates themselves for an increased understanding of the U.S. political system.

The Election Fellows will gain insights through professional programs in Washington, DC, and in one of five battleground or swing states: Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, or Ohio. On Election Day, they will observe activities in other communities across the nation. They will reunite November 5 in Boston at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government for a symposium to analyze the outcomes and ramifications of the elections, as well as to share their program experiences and insights.

…In Washington, DC (October 26-29), as part of their orientation to the U.S. political process, the Election Fellows will hear from Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs Goli Ameri, former Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf, former Democratic Congressman and governor Jim Blanchard, Politico Managing Editor Bill Nichols, CEO of Burson-Marsteller and advisor and polling analyst Mark Penn, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, and Founder and CEO of Politics-360 Greg Fawcett. At Gallup's World Poll Conference Center, the Fellows will have an insider's view of the world of political polling from Gallup Poll Editor Frank Newport and other experts.”

I look forward to the Nov. 5th symposium, and hearing about their experiences!

The Council on Foreign Relations recently won an Emmy for its video Crisis Guide on Darfur. I’ve gotten through the first two chapters and I can tell you that it is extremely informative. It highlights both the devastation that the civil war has wrought on the Sudanese and also the efforts of the international community to bring peace to the region. The “Historical background” section is narrated by Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs at the State Department.

Have a look.