Showing posts with label UN Security Coucil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN Security Coucil. Show all posts

Monday, August 11, 2008

A 3 A.M. Phone Call From Georgia



Russia has now captured Gori and is within 35 miles of Georgia’s capital, Tiblisi. The 3 a.m. phone is ringing.

This is John McCain forecasting Russian aggression against Georgia. This video is from 1999.



John McCain, who has visited both Georgia and South Ossetia in the past, has been, as David Broder says, "prescient"



As Powerline points out, there is a tremendous amount at stake in Georgia. Georgia is a pro-Western democracy and it is home to an oil pipeline that allows former Soviet Republics surrounding the Caspian Sea to pump oil outside of Russian control. If we allow Georgia to fall, this will of necessity effect all of the other former Soviet nations, moving them out of sheer survival instinct back into the Moscow sphere. It will be a message that the West cannot be counted upon as an ally. And control of the oil pipeline from the Caspian sea would give Russia ever more total control over the West’s lifeline. To reiterate, this is a 3 true A.M. event.

In the wake of Russia’s naked aggression into Georgia proper with the intent of forcing the ouster of the democratic government, John McCain issued the following statement, setting out a plan to respond to Russia’s aggression:

. . . Russian aggression against Georgia is both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States of America.

"Georgia is an ancient country, at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion. After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises.

"Following fraudulent parliamentary elections in 2003, a peaceful, democratic revolution took place, led by the U.S.-educated lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili. The Rose Revolution changed things dramatically and, following his election, President Saakashvili embarked on a series of wide-ranging and successful reforms. I've met with President Saakashvili many times, including during several trips to Georgia.

"What the people of Georgia have accomplished in terms of democratic governance, a Western orientation, and domestic reform is nothing short of remarkable. That makes Russia's recent actions against the Georgians all the more alarming. In the face of Russian aggression, the very existence of independent Georgia and the survival of its democratically-elected government are at stake.

"In recent days Moscow has sent its tanks and troops across the internationally recognized border into the Georgian region of South Ossetia. Statements by Moscow that it was merely aiding the Ossetians are belied by reports of Russian troops in the region of Abkhazia, repeated Russian bombing raids across Georgia, and reports of a de facto Russian naval blockade of the Georgian coast. Whatever tensions and hostilities might have existed between Georgians and Ossetians, they in no way justify Moscow's path of violent aggression. Russian actions, in clear violation of international law, have no place in 21st century Europe.

"The implications of Russian actions go beyond their threat to the territorial integrity and independence of a democratic Georgia. Russia is using violence against Georgia, in part, to intimidate other neighbors such as Ukraine for choosing to associate with the West and adhering to Western political and economic values. As such, the fate of Georgia should be of grave concern to Americans and all people who welcomed the end of a divided of Europe, and the independence of former Soviet republics. The international response to this crisis will determine how Russia manages its relationships with other neighbors. We have other important strategic interests at stake in Georgia, especially the continued flow of oil through the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which Russia attempted to bomb in recent days; the operation of a critical communication and trade route from Georgia through Azerbaijan and Central Asia; and the integrity an d influence of NATO, whose members reaffirmed last April the territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Georgia.

"Yesterday Georgia withdrew its troops from South Ossetia and offered a ceasefire. The Russians responded by bombing the civilian airport in Georgia's capital, Tblisi, and by stepping up its offensive in Abkhazia. This pattern of attack appears aimed not at restoring any status quo ante in South Ossetia, but rather at toppling the democratically elected government of Georgia. This should be unacceptable to all the democratic countries of the world, and should draw us together in universal condemnation of Russian aggression.

"Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin must understand the severe, long-term negative consequences that their government's actions will have for Russia's relationship with the U.S. and Europe. It is time we moved forward with a number of steps.

"The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning Russian aggression, noting the withdrawal of Georgian troops from South Ossetia, and calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory. We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion.

"NATO's North Atlantic Council should convene in emergency session to demand a ceasefire and begin discussions on both the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia and the implications for NATO's future relationship with Russia, a Partnership for Peace nation. NATO's decision to withhold a Membership Action Plan for Georgia might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks on Georgia, and I urge the NATO allies to revisit the decision.

"The Secretary of State should begin high-level diplomacy, including visiting Europe, to establish a common Euro-Atlantic position aimed at ending the war and supporting the independence of Georgia. With the same aim, the U.S. should coordinate with our partners in Germany, France, and Britain, to seek an emergency meeting of the G-7 foreign ministers to discuss the current crisis. The visit of French President Sarkozy to Moscow this week is a welcome expression of transatlantic activism.

"Working with allied partners, the U.S. should immediately consult with the Ukrainian government and other concerned countries on steps to secure their continued independence. This is particularly important as a number of Russian Black Sea fleet vessels currently in Georgian territorial waters are stationed at Russia's base in the Ukrainian Crimea.

"The U.S. should work with Azerbaijan and Turkey, and other interested friends, to develop plans to strengthen the security of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline.
"The U.S. should send immediate economic and humanitarian assistance to help mitigate the impact the invasion has had on the people of Georgia.

"Our united purpose should be to persuade the Russian government to cease its attacks, withdraw its troops, and enter into negotiations with Georgia. We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world. World history is often made in remote, obscure countries. It is being made in Georgia today. It is the responsibility of the leading nations of the world to ensure that history continues to be a record of humanity's progress toward respecting the values and security of free people

In contrast, Mr. Obama's initial reaction showed that he clearly lacked any sort of basic grasp into what was occurring and its ramificaitons. He issued a call for both the invaded country, and the invader, to "show restraint." This was his statement on August 8, answering the 3 A.M. phone call:

"I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis."

And here is George Will, comparing the reactions of both Obama and McCain:



Russia’s aggression is an indictment of soft power politics in a world where brute force is always an option. There is little doubt in my mind that the EU nation’s refusal to allow Georgia entry into NATO acted as a green light for Moscow’s aggression, not much different than the message by Sec. of State Dean Acheson’s remarks on our unwillingness to defend Korea over 60 years ago was the precursor to the Korean War. For those bent on domination, soft power standing alone - without both the will and ability to respond with force - is meaningless. As Stalin asked in 1935, "how many divisions does the Pope have?"

Powerline, commenting on the statement of John McCain quoted above, notes the need for a Western response to be backed up by threat of force:

All such measures--not to mention the usual diplomatic steps--are useful only to the extent that they involve the actual or potential use of force or meaningful economic sanction. Russia will not be deterred from trying to reassert control over the lost provinces of its empire by condemnations and resolutions. Frankly, I'd feel more confident that such measures would be undertaken or credibly threatened if McCain were President. President Bush once had the fortitude to deal with this sort of crisis, but seems to have lost it. As for Barack Obama, the less said the better.

For my money, we should have planes flying over Tiblisi at this moment. They would have to be U.S. planes. NATO is utterly useless at this point and needs either to be reformed or concluded to be replaced by individual agreements between the U.S. and those European nations still willing to fight for their survival. Only a handful come to mind.


Read More...

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

The IAEA and Iran's March Towards A Nuclear Weapon


The IAEA has issued yet another report on Iran's march towards a nuclear weapon, apparently now frustrated with Iran's continuing prevarication and stonewalling. The report lays out the evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program, yet refuses to say so definitively.
________________________________________________________

This today from the NYT on the latest report from the IAEA on Iran's nuclear weapons program:

The International Atomic Energy Agency, in an unusually blunt and detailed report, said Monday that Iran’s suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons remained “a matter of serious concern” and that Iran continued to owe the agency “substantial explanations.”

The nine-page report accused the Iranians of a willful lack of cooperation, particularly in answering allegations that its nuclear program may be intended more for military use than for energy generation.

Part of the agency’s case hinges on 18 documents listed in the report and presented to Iran that, according to Western intelligence agencies, indicate the Iranians have ventured into explosives, uranium processing and a missile warhead design — activities that could be associated with constructing nuclear weapons.

. . . Iran’s nuclear program has long been a flashpoint, with critics fearing that suggestions that Iran is developing weapons could embolden factions within the administration who have been pushing for a confrontation with Iran.

Right. Apparently, we have more to fear from our current government that might hold Iran to account than a nuclear armed Iran and nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East. As I wrote below in Cowbama Diplomacy and Iran, only the far left with no understanding of Iran's theocracy and the danger of its program could possibly hold such an insane and suicidal opinion.

Iran has dismissed the documents as “forged” or “fabricated,” claimed that its experiments and projects had nothing to do with a nuclear weapons program and refused to provide documentation and access to its scientists to support its claims.

The report also makes the allegation that Iran is learning to make more powerful centrifuges that are operating faster and more efficiently, the product of robust research and development that have not been fully disclosed to the agency.

That means that the country may be producing enriched uranium — which can be used to make electricity or to produce bombs — faster than expected at the same time as it a replaces its older generation of less reliable centrifuges. Some of the centrifuge components have been produced by Iran’s military, said the report, prepared by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the agency, which is the United Nations nuclear monitor.

The report makes no effort to disguise the agency’s frustration with Iran’s lack of openness. It describes, for example, Iran’s installation of new centrifuges, known as the IR-2 and IR-3 (for Iranian second and third generations) and other modifications at its site at Natanz, as “significant, and as such should have been communicated to the agency.”

The NYT - and the IAEA - seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room. Not only is Iran working ever more feverishly to enrich uranium, ostensibly for fuel for a nuclear reactor, it has no use for the fuel. The same is true of their heavy water plant. To pretend that Iran's uranium enrichment program is for anything other than the development of a nuclear arsenal is suicidal leftist fantasy that ignores all of the inconvienient facts and the obvious inferences therefrom.

The agency also said that during a visit in April, it was denied access to sites where centrifuge components were being manufactured and where research of uranium enrichment was being conducted.

The report does not say how much enriched uranium the Iranians are now producing, but the official connected to the agency said that since December, it was slightly less than 150 kilograms, or 330 pounds, about double the amount they were producing during the same period about 18 months ago.

“The Iranians are certainly being confronted with some pretty strong evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and they are being petulant and defensive,” said David Albright, a former weapons inspector who now runs the Institute for Science and International Security. “The report lays out what the agency knows, and it is very damning. I’ve never seen it laid out quite like this.”

The IAEA Report has not yet been released to the public.

. . . A National Intelligence Estimate published in December by American intelligence agencies concluded that Iran suspended its work on a weapons design in late 2003, apparently in response to mounting international pressure. That report added that it was uncertain whether the weapons work had resumed. It concluded that work continued on Iran’s missiles and uranium enrichment, the two other steps that would be necessary for Iran either to build and launch a weapon or to announce that it is able to construct one quickly.

. . . Still, Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, announced in Brussels on Monday that he would go to Iran soon — possibly “within the month” — to present a new offer of political, technological, security and trade rewards for Iran if it halts its uranium enrichment program.

Mr. Solana will travel with senior foreign ministry officials from five of the six countries involved in the initiative — Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — but not the United States, which has refused to hold talks with Iran. The incentives, agreed on by the six countries in London this month but still not made public, repackaged and clarified an incentives package presented to Iran in 2006.

Iran rejected it at the time, saying that relinquishing its uranium enrichment program was non-negotiable. After the London meeting this month, the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said the new package should not cross Iran’s “red line” — shorthand for its uranium-enrichment program.

On May 13, Iran responded with its own package of proposals, calling for new international talks on political, economic and security issues, including its nuclear program and the Arab-Israeli peace process.

The proposal, made in a letter from Mr. Mottaki to the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, includes the creation of international fuel production facilities in Iran and other countries — a longstanding goal of Iran — as well as improved supervision of Iran’s nuclear program by the atomic energy agency, which is based in Vienna.

Over the years, the United States and France have led the way in opposing the idea of a fuel-production facility in Iran, contending that it would allow Iranian experts to master the complex process of enriching uranium and to use that knowledge in a secret bomb-making project.

Read the entire article.


Read More...

Monday, December 3, 2007

Iran - The Good, the Bad, and the NIE

The U.S. has released an unclassified version of the November, 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities. The document assesses with moderate confidence that Iran’s nuclear weapons program, previously thought to be active, has actually been on hold since 2003. This NIE was initiated last year by request of Senator Harry Reid. He also requested that an unclassified version be released when the NIE was completed.

The highlights of the NIE are:

  • It is highly likely Iran had a covert nuclear weapons program until 2003

  • It is highly likely Iran called a temporary halt to that program in 2003

  • It is more likely than not that Iran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program.

  • It is probable that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon.

  • It is possible but highly unlikely that Iran will be able to process and enrich sufficient HEU (highly enriched uranium) for a nuclear weapon by 2009.

  • It is possible that Iran will be able to process and enrich sufficient HEU for a nuclear weapon by 2013, but it is more likely that this will not occur until after 2015.

  • Iran continues to develop the technical capabilities that may be applicable to a nuclear weapons program.

  • It is highly likely that Iran's suspension of its covert nuclear weapon’s program was "primarily in response" to international pressure. "This suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously."


  • The good news is that a major military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program is off the table for the foreseeable future. Beyond that, there are some questions raised by the NIE:

    1. The usefulness of sanctions and why Iran suspended their covert nuclear weapons program in 2003

    The NIE credits international pressure for Iran’s decision to stop its covert nuclear weapons program. If the NIE is correct, than Iran’s leadership is making decisions on a cost-benefit model. The NIE ignores what would seem to be critical related issues. Specifically, what role, if any, did our invasion of Iraq have to do with Iran’s contemporaneous decision to suspend its covert program, and what effect does our continued presence in Iraq have on Iran’s decision not to restart the program? These "elephants in the room" have significant ramifications for whether we maintain a long term military presence in Iraq. Further, if the theocracy’s decision to suspend the covert program was indeed predicated wholly on sanctions, why hasn’t the theocracy been more cooperative with IAEA inspections and EU negotiations, thus eliminating the need for current sanctions and forestalling future ones?

    2. Whether real sanctions will be achievable in the short run?

    China and Russia have refused to allow significant sanctions to be imposed by the U.N. Security Council. There is some indication that Russia may be changing their position, but China surely won’t and will cite to this latest NIE for justification. Outside of the Security Council, nations with major trade relations with Iran are Germany, France and Italy. Those nations have adamantly resisted significant sanctions, though it appeared that Germany and France, at least prior to the release of this NIE, were willing to go much further in the next round of sanctions. Charles Krauthammer, on Fox News, stated his belief that will still be the case. I have my doubts. The sword of Damocles has just been removed by this NIE and likely with it the strong motivation needed to forgo trade and impose sanctions. It was just a few months ago that the EU refused to forgo even a single euro in trade with Iran to assist the UK in its effort to free its kidnapped servicemembers.

    3. What will be the impact of this report on other Middle East nations that have initiated nuclear programs in response to Iran?

    The NIE seems likely to push back resolution of the Iran issue by years. That is problematic in as much as resolution of the issue would be a major factor in convincing other Middle East nations to forgo their own nuclear programs. The creation of nuclear programs in both Egypt and Saudi Arabia will likely remain on track, and with it, all of the attendant ramifications for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and the significant increase in the likelihood of terrorists gaining control of nuclear weapons or nuclear material for a dirty bomb. While we may have gained breathing space in regards to Iran's nuclear program, the larger ramifications appear likely only to grow until the issue of Iran's program is resovled.

    4. Are we seeing Iraq in reverse?

    This NIE is from intelligence sources, not from open inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities. According to last weeks IAEA report, Iran is progressively becoming less cooperative with IAEA inspections. The NIE does not address the issue of Iran’s increasing non-compliance with the IAEA. Likewise, the NIE does not address Iran’s operational heavy water plant nor its continued enrichment of fuel for which it has no nuclear reactors to use. I am not saying that the NIE is incorrect or that we should not act in accordance with it. It falls far short, however, of giving me a warm fuzzy feeling that all is right at Natanz. Without any other information, I will assume that this report is not the result of politicized intelligence from agencies that seem to have had their own agenda during the Bush Presidency.

    Predictably as the sun rises each day, the left and the MSM, led by Reuters, has seized on the NIE to imply that President Bush has been less than truthful in his prior assertions, most recently in October, that Iran had an ongoing nuclear weapons program. Moreover, according to the NY Times:

    Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, portrayed the assessment as "directly challenging some of this administration’s alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran." He said he hoped the administration "appropriately adjusts its rhetoric and policy," and called for a "a diplomatic surge necessary to effectively address the challenges posed by Iran."

    I assume this is just typical bombast from Reid and that he is not suggesting that we either forgo more sanctions or negotiate directly with Iran. Years of negotiations and the offer of numerous carrots from the EU have proven entirely fruitless. We have more breathing space, but the threat posed by Iran to the West and the mere existence of their nuclear program in the Middle East continues to be a potentially existential problem.

    The White House response to this new NIE, issued by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, seems to be measured and correct:

    Today’s National Intelligence Estimate offers some positive news. It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen.

    But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem. The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically — without the use of force — as the Administration has been trying to do. And it suggests that the President has the right strategy: intensified international pressure along with a willingness to negotiate a solution that serves Iranian interests while ensuring that the world will never have to face a nuclear armed Iran.

    The bottom line is this: for that strategy to succeed, the international community has to turn up the pressure on Iran — with diplomatic isolation, United Nations sanctions, and with other financial pressure — and Iran has to decide it wants to negotiate a solution.

    Read More...