Ambassador At Large has added it up and determined that over half the current members of the UN Security Council have active wars or ethno/sectarian secessionist movements within their territory. New members Bosnia, Lebanon and Nigeria tipped the balance, joining Turkey with its Kurdish problem, Mexico with its drug cartel war, Uganda with its war with the Lord's Resistance Army, China with Xinjiang/Tibet, and Russia with Chechnya.
Technically the UK has sovereignty disputes too (Northern Ireland, Falklands), though neither is currently extracting a high death toll, so this list could be higher than it is. Not to exclude any nation from Council membership, but one should probably have one own's house in order before joining. Eg. Because Lebanon's Hezbollah militia has ties to Iran, that country cannot take any action for or against on the question of Iran sanctions. A country like Lebanon has enough issues without the added geopolitical stresses of being on the Council.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Iran sanctions update
So you know all these stories about Iran sanctions? A few things that should be cleared up.
1. Where are we now? It has been reported that the US circulated a draft in New York to the six powers who negotiate on Iran. Actually, the text is still being negotiated in capitals and is not a "draft" at all but rather elements of what the US would like to be in one. We're a long way from new Iran sanctions.
2. Will Russia and China support sanctions? Russia has been much more open about sanctions than China, though both are reluctant. But yes, eventually, diplomats tell me they will both probably sign on to some sort of sanctions resolution. The Chinese even reaffirmed today in the UN Security Council that they favor the "dual-track approach" of both diplomacy and pressure, and one senior UN diplomat told reporters that the Chinese resistance is a "moving target." But Russia and China will see to it that the final resolution will be a lot weaker than what has been proposed... and certainly nothing to convince the Islamic Republic to play ball without a great deal more diplomacy.
3. What about the rest of the Council? even if Russia and China sign on, this will not be a unanimous resolution like some of the previous ones. For starters, there is no way in hell Lebanon will vote in favor, given Iran's ties to Hezbollah. An abstention is almost inevitable from the Lebanese. Not only that, but yes votes cannot be assured out of Turkey, which values its role as regional peacemaker, and Brazil, which has its own reasons. If China signs on, most of the Council's nonpermanent members will likely follow, but the US, UK and France will have to work hard to get the support of these and other nonperms. For starters, they'll have to not piss off the Turks.
4. When will it get passed? Not in May. Lebanon happens to be Council's rotating president that month. Also, the NPT Review Conference will take place in New York that month and it would be "unfortunate," in the words of one UN diplomat, if the Iran resolution overlapped. Ideally, it will be done in April, when Japan is the President. If not, maybe June. But not May.
That's what the Ambassador At Large knows today.
1. Where are we now? It has been reported that the US circulated a draft in New York to the six powers who negotiate on Iran. Actually, the text is still being negotiated in capitals and is not a "draft" at all but rather elements of what the US would like to be in one. We're a long way from new Iran sanctions.
2. Will Russia and China support sanctions? Russia has been much more open about sanctions than China, though both are reluctant. But yes, eventually, diplomats tell me they will both probably sign on to some sort of sanctions resolution. The Chinese even reaffirmed today in the UN Security Council that they favor the "dual-track approach" of both diplomacy and pressure, and one senior UN diplomat told reporters that the Chinese resistance is a "moving target." But Russia and China will see to it that the final resolution will be a lot weaker than what has been proposed... and certainly nothing to convince the Islamic Republic to play ball without a great deal more diplomacy.
3. What about the rest of the Council? even if Russia and China sign on, this will not be a unanimous resolution like some of the previous ones. For starters, there is no way in hell Lebanon will vote in favor, given Iran's ties to Hezbollah. An abstention is almost inevitable from the Lebanese. Not only that, but yes votes cannot be assured out of Turkey, which values its role as regional peacemaker, and Brazil, which has its own reasons. If China signs on, most of the Council's nonpermanent members will likely follow, but the US, UK and France will have to work hard to get the support of these and other nonperms. For starters, they'll have to not piss off the Turks.
4. When will it get passed? Not in May. Lebanon happens to be Council's rotating president that month. Also, the NPT Review Conference will take place in New York that month and it would be "unfortunate," in the words of one UN diplomat, if the Iran resolution overlapped. Ideally, it will be done in April, when Japan is the President. If not, maybe June. But not May.
That's what the Ambassador At Large knows today.
Ambassador At Large Is Back
After computer troubles knocked me out of commission, and sloth and indolence kept me there, I am back to continue blogging about global affairs and the UN!
I am NOT going to blog about football... at least for the next few months. I'm still in a postmortem over the Colts' heartbreaking loss in the Super Bowl.
I would, however, like to recall my last Colts-related post and how prophetic it was. Specifically, I said the team couldn't reach the Super Bowl if it had to play New England, San Diego, or Pittsburgh along the way. Well.... Pittsburgh played its way out of the playoffs, Baltimore took down the Patriots and the New York Jets upset the Chargers, and lo! The Colts merely had to handle two 9-7 clubs at home to make the Big Game... where they promptly lost to the first double-digit win team they hit in the postseason. Gooooo Indy!
I am NOT going to blog about football... at least for the next few months. I'm still in a postmortem over the Colts' heartbreaking loss in the Super Bowl.
I would, however, like to recall my last Colts-related post and how prophetic it was. Specifically, I said the team couldn't reach the Super Bowl if it had to play New England, San Diego, or Pittsburgh along the way. Well.... Pittsburgh played its way out of the playoffs, Baltimore took down the Patriots and the New York Jets upset the Chargers, and lo! The Colts merely had to handle two 9-7 clubs at home to make the Big Game... where they promptly lost to the first double-digit win team they hit in the postseason. Gooooo Indy!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Iran
Now that our arbitrary one-year negotiating deadline with the Iranians has ended, apparently we're not talking to them anymore, so it's back to blowing massive amounts of political capital trying to get China and Russia to sign on to comparatively inconsequential increases in the UN sanctions regime on Iran.
The above-linked article, which pretty accurately describes why the negotiations didn't achieve anything, makes me MAD. And here's why.
1. The sanctions are guaranteed to fail (seriously, anyone want to put $100 on this? I'll be happy to take your money), but they will, kinda like the Cuba embargo, give the regime more nationalist cred and help keep it in power. They would give us better leverage with Iran... if we were bothering to continue talking to them. Without that, they're useless at best.
2. Iran's economy is overwhelmingly oil-based, so all non-oil-related sanctions will have limited effect. The last time we tried an oil embargo on a prominent Middle Eastern country, it was called Oil-For-Food, and that didn't work out so well.
3. Since the sanctions won't work, the next step will be calling for the US or Israel to bomb Iran... which is stupid because Iran has mastered the fuel cycle and can enrich uranium everywhere. It's way too late for aistrikes. Four years ago, maybe. Today? All that would happen is, at most, a delay of a year or so in their program, and that Iran would leave the NPT, which in turn would mean that we would lose virtually all our knowledge and verification capacity about their program. Bombing Iran is the surest way to ensure they develop nuclear weapons.
Note also: If we bomb Iran, the green movement will not greet us as liberators.
4. It wasn't a year we negotiated with Iran. it was less than 4 months, because we (wisely) waited until their election chaos was over and didn't start actual meetings with them until, like, September.
5. The Iranians also deserve heaps of blame for this for missing a golden opportunity. Now, they're stuck on a nuclear track that will probably lead to a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and a handful of other regional countries within the next 20 years. Good job, guys. But that still doesn't excuse the Western powers for demanding too much too quickly of a regime that distrusts the heck out of us.
So basically we gave ourselves four months to try a policy that has the best chance to work and costs nothing before reverting back to a policy that has failed and will continue to fail.
The above-linked article, which pretty accurately describes why the negotiations didn't achieve anything, makes me MAD. And here's why.
1. The sanctions are guaranteed to fail (seriously, anyone want to put $100 on this? I'll be happy to take your money), but they will, kinda like the Cuba embargo, give the regime more nationalist cred and help keep it in power. They would give us better leverage with Iran... if we were bothering to continue talking to them. Without that, they're useless at best.
2. Iran's economy is overwhelmingly oil-based, so all non-oil-related sanctions will have limited effect. The last time we tried an oil embargo on a prominent Middle Eastern country, it was called Oil-For-Food, and that didn't work out so well.
3. Since the sanctions won't work, the next step will be calling for the US or Israel to bomb Iran... which is stupid because Iran has mastered the fuel cycle and can enrich uranium everywhere. It's way too late for aistrikes. Four years ago, maybe. Today? All that would happen is, at most, a delay of a year or so in their program, and that Iran would leave the NPT, which in turn would mean that we would lose virtually all our knowledge and verification capacity about their program. Bombing Iran is the surest way to ensure they develop nuclear weapons.
Note also: If we bomb Iran, the green movement will not greet us as liberators.
4. It wasn't a year we negotiated with Iran. it was less than 4 months, because we (wisely) waited until their election chaos was over and didn't start actual meetings with them until, like, September.
5. The Iranians also deserve heaps of blame for this for missing a golden opportunity. Now, they're stuck on a nuclear track that will probably lead to a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and a handful of other regional countries within the next 20 years. Good job, guys. But that still doesn't excuse the Western powers for demanding too much too quickly of a regime that distrusts the heck out of us.
So basically we gave ourselves four months to try a policy that has the best chance to work and costs nothing before reverting back to a policy that has failed and will continue to fail.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Week 15 picks
Yeah, I totally forgot to do Week 14. Still at it, don't worry.
THURS
JACKSONVILLE over indy
SAT
NEW ORLEANS over dallas
SUN
NY JETS over atlanta
PHILADELPHIA over san francisco
houston over ST LOUIS
new england over BUFFALO
BALTIMORE over chicago
TENNESSEE over miami
KANSAS CITY over cleveland
arizona over DETROIT
DENVER over oakland
SAN DIEGO over cincinnati
PITTSBURGH over green bay
SEATTLE over tampa bay
minnesota over CAROLINA
MON
ny giants over WASHINGTON
THURS
JACKSONVILLE over indy
SAT
NEW ORLEANS over dallas
SUN
NY JETS over atlanta
PHILADELPHIA over san francisco
houston over ST LOUIS
new england over BUFFALO
BALTIMORE over chicago
TENNESSEE over miami
KANSAS CITY over cleveland
arizona over DETROIT
DENVER over oakland
SAN DIEGO over cincinnati
PITTSBURGH over green bay
SEATTLE over tampa bay
minnesota over CAROLINA
MON
ny giants over WASHINGTON
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Week 13 results
correct in bold
SATURDAY
jets over BILLS
SUNDAY
eagles over FALCONS
PANTHERS over buccaneers
BEARS over rams
BENGALS over lions
COLTS over titans
texans over JAGUARS
broncos over CHIEFS
STEELERS over raiders
saints over REDSKINS
chargers over BROWNS
49ers over SEAHAWKS
patriots over DOLPHINS
GIANTS over cowboys
vikings over CARDINALS
MONDAY
ravens over PACKERS*
This week: 10-5
Season: 128-63
vs. ESPN experts
SATURDAY
jets over BILLS
SUNDAY
eagles over FALCONS
PANTHERS over buccaneers
BEARS over rams
BENGALS over lions
COLTS over titans
texans over JAGUARS
broncos over CHIEFS
STEELERS over raiders
saints over REDSKINS
chargers over BROWNS
49ers over SEAHAWKS
patriots over DOLPHINS
GIANTS over cowboys
vikings over CARDINALS
MONDAY
ravens over PACKERS*
This week: 10-5
Season: 128-63
vs. ESPN experts
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Week 13 picks
SATURDAY
jets over BILLS
SUNDAY
eagles over FALCONS
PANTHERS over buccaneers
BEARS over rams
BENGALS over lions
COLTS over titans
texans over JAGUARS
broncos over CHIEFS
STEELERS over raiders
saints over REDSKINS
chargers over BROWNS
vikings over CARDINALS
GIANTS over cowboys
49ers over SEAHAWKS
patriots over DOLPHINS
MONDAY
ravens over PACKERS
Last week: 11-5
Season: 118-58
jets over BILLS
SUNDAY
eagles over FALCONS
PANTHERS over buccaneers
BEARS over rams
BENGALS over lions
COLTS over titans
texans over JAGUARS
broncos over CHIEFS
STEELERS over raiders
saints over REDSKINS
chargers over BROWNS
vikings over CARDINALS
GIANTS over cowboys
49ers over SEAHAWKS
patriots over DOLPHINS
MONDAY
ravens over PACKERS
Last week: 11-5
Season: 118-58
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)