FPI Overnight Brief: April 2, 2010

FPI Overnight Brief
April 2, 2010

________________________________________

Iran

U.S. President Barack Obama urged his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao to work together on pressing Iran over its nuclear activities, but Hu did not openly commit to new sanctions on Tehran, according to official reports on Friday. Obama and Hu discussed the growing international push to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions in an hour-long telephone call that followed China's agreement on Wednesday to enter into serious negotiations over possible new U.N.-backed sanctions against Tehran. Western powers say Tehran wants the means to make nuclear weapons, but China -- which buys large amounts of oil from Iran -- has for months fended off calls to back sanctions. Together with China's announcement on Thursday that President Hu will attend a nuclear security summit in Washington this month, the in-depth talk between the two leaders also augured lower tensions between Washington and Beijing after a rash of disputes. "President Obama underscored the importance of working together to ensure that Iran lives up to its international obligations," the White House said in a statement after the telephone call, which took place later on Thursday Washington time, which is Friday morning in Beijing. - Reuters

Kenneth Katzman says: There's an increasing level of specificity that I'm hearing about in terms of specific revisions, specific wording, and usually that signals that it's close to being a "cooked product." That means it's gotten beyond the issue of concepts. Once it gets to specific language, it's been my experience that usually a resolution results fairly soon. That's what I think generated President Obama's comments about "weeks, not months" after he met with President [Nicolas] Sarkozy of France. The U.S. side is feeling increasingly confident after the United States has made some substantial concessions in terms of air cargo operations and searching Iran's shipping lines. There were some early ideas about banning investment in Iranian government bonds, and that's apparently been cast aside…. There is a consensus on a major expansion in the number of Iranian Revolutionary Guard entities whose assets would be frozen. That could harm Iran, because if the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' companies can't do business anywhere then it's much more expensive, and some of these entities could even be put out of business if they can't get parts and financing from abroad. – Council on Foreign Relations

Michael Anton writes: WINPAC—the CIA’s clearinghouse for data on various weapons and delivery systems—sent a new report to Congress this week that amounts to one of the intelligence community’s few sustained public statements on Iran’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons since the widely noticed (and discredited) November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate…The prior WINPAC report, which covered calendar year 2008 and was released in early 2009, repeated the 2007 NIE’s language almost word for word, despite the DNI’s disavowal of a year prior. The latest one, which dropped on Tuesday of this week and covers 2009, makes no mention whatsoever of weaponization. Were transcripts of McConnell’s remarks finally circulated to the drafters? Whatever the reason, the omission is curious. If WINPAC now judges that the 2007 NIE was wrong (an inescapable conclusion, incidentally), why not just say so? Wouldn’t it help restore some of the Intelligence Community’s lost credibility? Allied intelligence services never believed the NIE and were embarrassed by it. Wouldn’t a signal to them that we have regained our senses be useful? – The Weekly Standard

Joshua Murvachik writes: With the countless accusations that Vice President Dick Cheney and other top administration officials “politicized intelligence,” it is amazing that so little has been made of [the] outrageous case [of the 2007 NIE], a far more clear-cut example of pursuing a policy agenda by twisting intelligence than anything Cheney et al. did. Worse, Cheney was elected to his position. Who did [its purported principal author] Van Diepen and friends represent? Worse, still, as Royce put it, “the stakes could [not] be any higher.” I imagine Van Diepen and his collaborators patted themselves on the back for their coup: They succeeded in shielding Iran’s nuclear weapons program from George Bush’s sword. Millions may yet die as a consequence. – World Affairs Journal

________________________________________

Iraq

In a sign of hardening sectarian divisions, the secular, largely Sunni-backed bloc that won the most seats in Iraq's recent parliamentary elections says its victorious candidates are being subjected to a campaign of detention and intimidation by the government of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki…State of Law has appealed the outcome in Iraq's courts and now, Allawi's bloc says, Maliki is using state security forces in a bid to gain enough seats to emerge the winner. This week, at least two winning Iraqiya candidates in the capital were told they are wanted, bloc officials and the candidates said. Two others are on the run in the mixed Sunni-Shiite province of Diyala, and another was detained before the elections…One security forces commander confirmed that orders to carry out such detentions must have approval from the highest level of government and said he worries that he is being used for political ends. The commander, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak freely, said he was told last week to arrest a winning candidate from Allawi's list on charges of terrorism -- charges he said he knew were unfair. – Washington Post

Iran may seem an unlikely place to turn for guidance when it comes to putting together a democratic government, but that is exactly what most of Iraq’s political class did immediately after last month’s parliamentary elections. The ink was hardly dry on the polling results when three of the four major political alliances rushed delegations off to Tehran. Yet none of them sent anyone to the United States Embassy here, let alone to Washington. Nor has Washington tried to intervene. Even Ayad Allawi, the secular candidate whose Iraqiya coalition won the most seats — and renounced Iranian support in seeking a parliamentary majority — has heard nothing from the Americans. “Maybe they don’t like my face, I don’t know,” he joked, then added more seriously, “I think they don’t want to be associated with any visit, so they wouldn’t be seen as siding with one against the other.” The Iranians, however, have shown no such qualms, publicly urging the Shiite religious parties to bury their differences so they can use their superior numbers to choose the next prime minister. Their openness, and Washington’s reticence, is a measure of the changed political dynamic in Iraq. Even though more than 90,000 American troops remain in Iraq, no one seriously doubts they are leaving, taking a slice of America’s political influence with them. – New York Times

A leading Shi'ite Muslim party said on Thursday it will not join any Iraqi government without Iyad Allawi, a move that could boost the chances of the election winner of becoming a prime minister. Ammar Hakim, head of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (ISCI), said his party, with strong ties to Iran, was open to an alliance with Allawi's cross-sectarian Iraqiya list. The close election results have promised weeks or months of difficult and potentially divisive talks to form a government. Iraqis had hoped the vote would stabilise the country after years of war. ISCI is part of the Iraqi National Alliance (INA), which finished third in the March 7 parliamentary election. Anti-U.S. cleric Moqtada al-Sadr heads INA's other major faction. "Putting pressure on Iraqiya is putting pressure on a major part of our (Iraqi) people. We will not take part in any upcoming government without the Iraqiya slate being there," Hakim said in remarks made late on Wednesday and broadcast on Thursday on ISCI's television station. Iraqiya finished first with 91 seats and the State of Law coalition of Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki trailed with 89. Maliki's coalition is locked in merger talks with Sadr's faction. A deal could lead to the combined group forming the largest bloc in parliament and sidelining Allawi. - Reuters

________________________________________

Afghanistan/Pakistan

Officially, the military operation to purge the Taliban from Pakistan's Swat Valley ended last summer. But even as life in the lush region returns to normal, the army's footprint is everywhere. The military is rebuilding roads, schools and libraries. It is buying computers for women's vocational institutes and solar-powered streetlights for villages. It is planting a million trees. The work has made soldiers hugely popular, but some wonder why the civilian government is not doing it…There are competing explanations for why the military remains in the lead. Some U.S. and Pakistani military officials say Pakistan's anemic civilian government is too corrupt and bureaucratic to build on military progress by improving services and quality of life. Others say the military is too accustomed to control and too enthralled with its popularity to cede any power. Pakistani officials say their objective is to prevent the rebels from regaining a foothold. Pakistan's successes over the past year in battling Islamist fighters in Swat and in the remote tribal area of South Waziristan have won the country high praise from U.S. officials. But at the same time, some American and Pakistani experts say the enduring military presence carries worrying implications, because it ties down forces needed to battle militants elsewhere and raises awkward questions about the country's efforts to emerge from a decade of military rule. – Washington Post

The Pakistani government introduced a constitutional bill in parliament Friday, transferring President Asif Ali Zardari's sweeping powers to the prime minister and possibly ending months of political wrangling. The set of reforms, known as the "18th Amendment Bill" is expected to be passed by the two-chambered parliament, effectively turning Zardari into a titular head of state…"I suspect that after the signing of the 18th amendment, it (the unstable political environment) is going to change," said Samina Ahmed, South Asia director for the International Crisis Group. "Part of the problem is structural. Nobody knows where the locus of authority lies." Because of that uncertainty, she said that all branches of government are trying to expand their powers at the expense of the others. "There's a little bit of muscle flexing all around," she said. But if the 18th Amendment goes through smoothly, the center of authority goes to the parliament, "with the judiciary interpreting" -- possibly leading to a less assertive bench. "It will settle down," she predicted. The proposed constitutional amendments transfer a number of the president's powers, including the authority to dissolve the national assembly and appoint military chiefs and the chief election commissioner. The bill also shifts Zardari's powers to appoint judges to a commission comprised of senior judges and government figures. The bill is likely to be passed by far more than the two-thirds super-majority needed in the parliament because it has been drafted by a parliamentary committee made up of all political groups. - Reuters

President Hamid Karzai on Thursday delivered one of his most stinging criticisms to date of the foreign presence in Afghanistan, accusing the West and the United Nations of wanting a "puppet government" and of orchestrating fraud in last year's election. Karzai's comments come just five days after President Obama, in his first visit to Afghanistan as commander in chief, pushed the Afghan president hard in a tense exchange to crack down on his government's pervasive corruption, ensure independently monitored elections and draw up a clear plan for how to reintegrate defecting Taliban foot soldiers into Afghan society. Karzai's criticism provides a new indication of the depth of suspicion and mistrust between the Afghan president and his Western partners, at a time when 30,000 new U.S. troops are flooding into Afghanistan to join the 100,000 foreign troops already there, and the Obama administration is depending on Karzai to help fend off the growing Taliban insurgency. U.S. officials have long been skeptical about his ability to be a reliable partner, and the first four months of his second term have provided little reason for encouragement. – Washington Post

________________________________________

Russia

President Dmitri A. Medvedev, trying to demonstrate the government’s resolve after a spate of terrorist bombings, made a surprise visit on Thursday to one of the most tumultuous areas of Russia and called for “harsher” tactics to combat the insurgency. Mr. Medvedev convened a meeting of regional leaders and senior security advisers in Dagestan, a predominantly Muslim republic near Chechnya that has faced sustained violence in recent years, including a double suicide bombing on Wednesday that killed 12 people. The troubles in the Caucasus have taken on a new urgency with the suicide bombings in the Moscow subway on Monday, which killed 39 people and set off alarms that extremists wanted to revive efforts to strike Russia’s major cities. Funerals were held in the Moscow region for some of the victims of the subway bombings, which were the first major terrorist attacks in the capital in several years…[A]t the meeting on Thursday, the head of the Federal Security Service of Russia said that the authorities believed that they knew who planned the subway attacks and the double suicide bombing on Wednesday in Dagestan, and that they were interrogating suspects and carrying out searches. – New York Times

________________________________________

Strategic Forces

The new START treaty that would cut the number of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons could also prompt the United States to trim the bomber leg of its nuclear force. Limits that reduce the number of deployed "launchers" to 700 could encourage U.S. nuclear policy makers to rely more on land-based and sea-based ballistic missiles and less on B-2 and B-52 bombers, said Tom Collina, research director at the Arms Control Association. "The bomber leg of the triad is not what you think about when you think about survivability and quick response," he said. At present, the United States has 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles based on land and 336 based on submarines. It also has 44 nuclear-capable B-52 bombers and 16 nuclear-capable B-2 bombers. That gives the United States a total of 846 launchers. The treaty permits 800 launchers, but says only 700 may be "deployed." If the number of deployed launchers must be reduced to 700, the U.S. military is likely to want most of them to be its most responsive and survivable, Collina said. That suggests keeping the maximum number of land-based and sea-based ballistic missiles. "The treaty is forcing us to decide where to put our warheads," he said. And bombers are likely to be the losers. "We could be moving to 20 or fewer bombers." – Defense News

Gabriel Schoenfeld writes: Has the rest of the world kept its side of the NPT bargain? The answer is a resounding no. We stand today on the edge of the abyss of a new round of nuclear proliferation. In defiance of the NPT, North Korea has already tested nuclear devices. In defiance of the NPT, Iran is racing forward in the same direction. In permitting this to occur, the signatory states of the NPT have demonstrated a complete and total abdication of their basic responsibilities. But none of this is enough to change minds. What we find instead is continued calls for the U.S. to disarm, as if the only thing driving nuclear proliferation is our failure to set an example… The real “impediment” to nuclear proliferation is not the existence of U.S. forces. And a “successful conference” is not going to block tyrants who seek the most destructive weapons known to man—except, of course, by Humpty Dumpty’s definition of “successful.” Arms control is a looking-glass world in words mean nothing at all, and neither do facts, especially when they are disturbing. – The Weekly Standard

________________________________________

China

China announced Thursday that President Hu Jintao will attend a nuclear security summit this month in Washington, in what analysts described as a sign that the government is trying to put relations with the United States back on track after months of tension. The Beijing government had been conspicuously quiet about its intentions regarding the April 12-13 summit. Many speculated that China would dispatch a lower-level delegation to show its displeasure with Washington over a $6.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan and President Obama's recent meeting with the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader. But China's decision to attend, announced by the Foreign Ministry, could help alleviate at least some tensions. That, in turn, could help the Obama administration win China's support for more sanctions on Iran, which Beijing has long resisted. The decision also would appear to put pressure on the U.S. Treasury Department not to declare China a currency manipulator in a report due April 15. For Hu to visit, Chinese officials would probably have wanted assurances that he would not be embarrassed by the report on the heels of his visit, China experts said. – Washington Post

________________________________________

Middle East

Senator John Kerry met Thursday with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria in Damascus, another indication that the United States is moving to re-engage with Syria as the Obama administration works to resuscitate Middle East peace talks. Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, visited Damascus, Syria’s capital, as the Senate takes up the appointment of a new ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford. The United States has not had an ambassador in Damascus since 2005, shortly after the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. Syria was blamed for the killing, an accusation that it has denied. After his meeting with Mr. Assad, Mr. Kerry said in a statement that the United States and Syria shared “a mutual interest in having a very frank exchange on any differences that may exist, but also on the many, many agreements that we have about the possibilities of peace in this region.” The United States and its Arab allies are hopeful that re-engagement with Syria may encourage its leaders to distance themselves from Iran, an economic and strategic alliance that Syria has fostered for decades. Mr. Kerry has also expressed concern over Syria’s role in providing arms to Hezbollah, a Lebanese militia and a political and social organization deemed a terrorist group by the United States. – New York Times

David Kenner writes: An otherwise predictable Arab League Summit held last weekend in Sirte, Libya, was enlivened by the presence of a special guest. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan took to the podium on the summit's opening day to denounce the "madness" of Israeli designs over Jerusalem, referring to the holy city as "the apple of the eye of each and every Muslim." Such rhetoric has earned Turkey, currently ruled by the mildly Islamist Justice and Development Party, widespread praise in Arab circles. But Ankara's newfound assertiveness in the Middle East has not been limited to fiery speeches. In the past two years, the country has launched mediation efforts between Syria and Israel, encouraged Iraq's Sunni leaders to participate in the political process, and attempted to bridge sectarian divisions in Lebanon. There is little doubt that Turkey's leaders, and particularly its visionary foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, have a new vision for their country's international role. What is less clear is if Turkey can fulfill its more grandiose ambitions. At the moment, skeptics argue that Turkey's regional influence is little more than talk. And a nearing collision on Iran sanctions could prove a crucial test of whether Turkey is ready to back up words with action. – Foreign Policy

________________________________________

North Korea

Squeezed by food shortages and financial sanctions, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il appears to be reaching out to China and Chinese investors in a way that could mark an extraordinary opening in the insular nation's shuttered economy. Kim might soon travel to China, according to the office of South Korea's president and U.S. officials. They cited preparations that appear to be underway in the Chinese border city of Dandong and in Beijing. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said Thursday it does not have information on whether Kim will visit China. Such a trip could help restart six-party talks, hosted by China, aimed at persuading North Korea to denuclearize in return for economic and political benefits. Kim is also attempting to accelerate Chinese investment and has ordered the creation of a State Development Bank. Officials from the new bank told a South Korean professor last week that they intend to allow the construction of foreign-owned factories in major North Korean cities. This would allow Chinese firms, many of which are running short of low-cost factory workers, access to North Korea's pool of low-wage laborers. – Washington Post

North Korea will phase out private markets and rely on state-controlled outlets, a senior economist said in a rare interview broadcast Thursday, amid speculation the country's reclusive leader could soon visit China to secure much-needed investment. Impoverished yet nuclear-armed North Korea has in recent years allowed some free markets for food and consumer items, while others not sanctioned by the state have also sprung up as the public turned to private enterprise to cope with declining living standards and food shortages. The government has had little choice but to tolerate the nascent capitalism, though its patience appears to wearing thin. Ri Ki Song, a professor at the Institute of Economy at North Korea's Academy of Social Sciences, told Associated Press Television News (APTN) in an interview in the North Korean capital that markets are helping improve the lives of the country's citizenry, but their days are numbered. "Markets will be removed in the future, by reducing their numbers step-by-step, while continuously expanding the planned supply through state-run commercial networks," Mr. Ri said. "This is our official position on markets. Now, markets are used as a subsidiary means to offer convenience in peoples' daily lives." – Associated Press

________________________________________

Europe

Josh Rogin interviews Estonian President Toomas Ilves: The one thing that unifies NATO is a common commitment to democracy, rule of law and human rights. And those are not empty phrases because what membership in NATO implies is that you are willing, as a head of government, to send your troops to die and the troops themselves are willing to die for something. Estonian troops are willing to die for democracy and human rights. An alliance that would include undemocratic countries, where there are no free elections and where you don't have freedom of speech, I don't think that would work. – The Cable

Gary Schmitt writes: To be fair, given the state of British public opinion these days about such matters as Afghanistan, Israel, and government budget deficits, one can hardly expect the Tories to come out with a more aggressive set of forward-leaning foreign and defense policies. The first task, after all, is to get elected. That said, there is very little evidence that Cameron and company are chomping at the bit to revive a Thatcher-like approach to national security affairs once in office. In short, should some new foreign policy crisis arise in the months or years ahead, don’t expect a call from Downing Street to the White House with the message, “Mr. President, this is no time to go wobbly.” – The Enterprise

Matthew Czekaj writes: Belarus’ repressive government is neither news nor controversial at this point. However, this latest government assault on independent press unquestionably shatters, for the time being, any delusions that the European Union may have had about its ability to Westernize its autocratic eastern neighbor. – New Atlanticist

________________________________________

Central Asia

Ali Karimli writes: Our platform is simple: We intend to establish a functional democracy in our country. Azerbaijan has a resourceful populace, and we can and must decrease our nation's dependence on oil. We must break the economic monopolies controlled by corrupt officials. Our goal is to establish a free, market-based economy. We want Azerbaijan to integrate into the Euro-Atlantic community of nations, ending its status as a satellite of autocratic Russia. As we continue our struggle for freedom, it is vital that the United States pursue appropriate action with regard to the largest nation in the South Caucasus. Bilateral relations have long been based on cooperation on energy, security and democratic development. Sadly, many Azeris see U.S. policy as driven by energy interests and the global war against terrorism. To us, it seems that democracy gets short shrift. We hope the Obama administration will make clear to Azerbaijan's leader that democratic reforms and human rights are a priority in U.S.-Azeri relations. American policymakers should have learned from countries in the Middle East and other areas that authoritarian, corrupt regimes do not make reliable allies. Nor is their "stability" based on the consent of the governed. The democratic opposition in Azerbaijan does not seek intervention or financial assistance from the United States. What we need is the moral support of an America that stands by its own values. – Washington Post

________________________________________

Africa

Several of Sudan’s biggest opposition parties announced Thursday that they were planning a full boycott of the national elections this month, casting a cloud of uncertainty over Sudan’s first multiparty vote in more than 20 years and complicating the landmark agreement that ended decades of civil war in the country. The warning followed a surprise announcement the night before by the leading opposition candidate, Yasir Arman, that he was dropping out of the presidential race because it was “impossible” to hold an election in the conflict-racked region of Darfur and that the whole electoral process had been “rigged.” However, he said that his party, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, which fought a long and bloody war against Sudan’s government, would continue to participate in the parliamentary and local elections across the country, except for Darfur. On Thursday, more than half a dozen other important opposition parties held a long meeting in which they concluded that the elections would be so flawed that they did not want to participate at all. Still, the parties seemed to allow themselves some wiggle room, with opposition leaders saying that they needed to consult their members before making any final decisions. The elections, billed as the first meaningful vote in Sudan in more than two decades, are supposed to begin in less than two weeks, leaving it unclear what will happen next. The prospect of boycotts may be limited, tactical moves by the opposition to avoid an embarrassing defeat, or a sign that the election is unraveling even before it begins. – New York Times

________________________________________

Defense

Two powerful U.S. House lawmakers have asked a special review group to examine whether the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) was too shortsighted and failed to meet a congressional mandate to describe the forces the Pentagon will need for future missions. In a March 29 letter to the co-chairman of an independent panel that is assessing the QDR, Reps. Ike Skelton and Howard "Buck" McKeon, the Democratic chairman and ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, request the panel to examine several of their concerns. And "foremost is the scope of the QDR," the lawmakers wrote in the letter, obtained by Defense News. The 1997 provision that established the quadrennial strategy studies called for the defense secretary every four years to "conduct a comprehensive examination … of the national defense strategy, force structure, force modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of the defense program and policies of the United States with a view toward determining and expressing the defense strategy of the United States and establishing a defense program for the next 20 years." House lawmakers and aides say the 2010 QDR was too shortsighted, alleging senior Pentagon officials simply chose to ignore the 20-year mandate. – Defense News

________________________________________

Americas

Robert Klitgaard writes: Without putting anti-corruption at the core of Haiti’s reconstruction and development, even a Haitian Marshall Plan could easily become just another “failed beginning.” Haiti and its friends should take a crack at developing a strong, practical strategy against corruption. It won’t be easy. But if successful, this effort would pay off in many ways, including better projects and programs in Haiti’s reconstruction, and a better chance for the medium-term economic strategy. And—shall we dare to wish?—the first step in remaking the way Haiti will be governed in the future. – The American

________________________________________

Obama Administration

Charles Krauthammer writes: Obama visits China and soon Indonesia, skipping India, our natural and rising ally in the region -- common language, common democracy, common jihadist enemy. Indeed, in his enthusiasm for China, Obama suggests a Chinese interest in peace and stability in South Asia, a gratuitous denigration of Indian power and legitimacy in favor of a regional rival with hegemonic ambitions. Poland and the Czech Republic have their legs cut out from under them when Obama unilaterally revokes a missile defense agreement, acquiescing to pressure from Russia with its dreams of regional hegemony over Eastern Europe. The Hondurans still can't figure out why the United States supported a Hugo Chávez ally seeking illegal extension of his presidency against the pillars of civil society -- Honduras's Congress, Supreme Court, church and army -- that had deposed him consistent with Article 239 of their constitution. But the Brits, our most venerable, most reliable ally, are the most disoriented. "We British not only speak the same language. We tend to think in the same way. We are more likely than anyone else to provide tea, sympathy and troops," writes Bruce Anderson in London's Independent, summarizing with admirable concision the fundamental basis of the U.S.-British special relationship…How can you explain a policy toward Britain that makes no strategic or moral sense? And even if you can, how do you explain the gratuitous slaps to the Czechs, Poles, Indians and others? Perhaps when an Obama Doctrine is finally worked out, we shall learn whether it was pique, principle or mere carelessness. – Washington Post

ENDS

© Scoop Media