Friday, June 27, 2003

[2:59 AM] Oh yeah; Fields Report is on holiday until next Tuesday. The team thought we'd get lots of work done but NYC is keeping us occupied.

# posted 12:05 AM

Saturday, June 21, 2003

[1:10 PM] Don't understand the IAEA report on Iran? Click here.

# posted 1:13 PM

[10:28 AM] Fields Report finds the brewing situation over Iran’s nuclear program fascinating. As I’ve written before, technically Iran hasn’t done anything wrong. They submit to IAEA inspections and aren’t required to submit to them for their uranium enrichment facility yet. They can go right up to the nuclear weapons brink without violating any of their commitments as a signatory of the Nonproliferation Treaty. So this is a difficult situation—the type that this administration has a very hard time grasping. It requires more than standard, blunt rhetoric. But that’s what continues to emanate from the White House, perhaps reaching an apex last week with George W. Bush uttering “Iran would be dangerous if they have a nuclear weapon.” The IAEA made public its report on NPT safeguards in Iran. Read it here.

# posted 10:31 AM

Wednesday, June 18, 2003

[3:27 PM] Did the Bush administration exaggerate the evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction? Here’s another of those Council on Foreign Relations Q&A pieces. In this piece is a listing of the WMD that Iraq was believed to have possessed (although the many of the accusations were of the "capacity to produce" type) before UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors returned last November. So for the next Q&A, Fields Report would like to see answered the question: “Could Iraq have clandestinely destroyed all of its WMD without Western intelligence detecting it?” I still think this is the more fundamental question to be considering right now. The Q&A quotes Donald Rumsfeld reminding us the Iraq is the huge—the size of Fields Report’s home state of California. So why were you guys so impatient with the inspectors, who weren’t in control of the entire country as the Coalition is now?

# posted 3:30 PM

Tuesday, June 17, 2003

[10:00 PM] Saddam just doesn’t get the press here that Osama Bin Laden does. I had to go across the Pond to find the translated full text of his alleged latest call to the “mujahideen everywhere.” Not too much interest here in whether he lives or not.

# posted 10:03 PM

[9:41 PM] Last Friday, Nicholas Krisof stopped just short of calling George W. Bush a liar over the Iraq war rationale. He wrote “I don't believe that the president deliberately lied to the public in an attempt to scare Americans into supporting his war. But it does look as if ideologues in the administration deceived themselves about Iraq's nuclear programs — and then deceived the American public as well.” Kristof then heard it from readers writing in to “Kristof Responds.” Several said that he wimped out and was just scared to say what he really thought. Kristof responded with his reasons for giving certain administration officials the benefit of the doubt.

I don’t put it past this administration to cherry pick intelligence to build its case against Iraq; but there are multiple issues being conflated in rightly criticizing the administration. First was there inconclusive evidence that Iraq still possessed WMD and did administration officials simply choose to present the information that supported its case? The second scenario incorporates the first – there was inconclusive intelligence reporting, but Saddam did in fact have chemical and biological weapons as late as summer 2002, but destroyed them before the war (and as I believe, before UNMOVIC inspectors entered Iraq last November). Whether the administration was deceitful or not is a separate issue from the under-explored proposition that Saddam ordered the weapons destroyed to (unsuccessfully) avert war.

# posted 9:43 PM

[4:26 PM] This morning, CNN repeatedly aired a story touting new information about the ordeal of Pvt. Jessica Lynch. Only the story didn’t really reveal any new information. Mechanics from the 507th maintenece compay took a wrong term, subsequently came under fire, and serveral were killed while Lynch was wounded and taken briefly into “custody,” and then wound up in hospital. Two new details (I think they’re new not having followed this case closely) were the name of the Master Sgt. in charge of the group and the fact that Jessica’s friend Lori Piestewa likely survived the crash that injured Lynch but died of her wounds soon after. But that’s about it. Still a mystery was how and why the convoy took a wrong turn—“Sources emphasize it is not clear why that wrong turn was made on March 23 and why the unit did not proceed with the rest of the convoy.” Not a mystery though to the Washington Post who ran a long article with new details on this very subject (the CNN story online makes no mention of the Post article). The Post wanted to set straight some of the mythology that had been initially reported about the Lynch capture (she was shot and stabbed and emptied her weapon fighting off and killing several Iraqis—none of which turns out to be true). It’s a great article. The CNN story is baffling.

Incidentally, according the WP the 507th had fallen far behind the rest of the convoy and did not receive word of a change in route. By this time they were out of radio range and were improvising. Is CNN not reading the Post these days? Doesn’t Aaron Brown take a look at the next day’s papers each night?

# posted 4:29 PM

Monday, June 16, 2003

[9:49 PM] Does Iran have a nuclear weapons program? Here’s a Q&A discussing the issue written by the Council on Foreign Relations and accessible from the NYT. It’s not a simple issue to consider as I’ve mentioned before. One needs a little understanding of the Nonproliferation Treaty and at least a basic understanding of how nuclear weapons are made and the dual-use nature of nuclear power plants and research reactors. This Q&A is surprisingly a bit simplistic. The Council though produces a bunch of these Q&A pieces on various international topics, and they are all generally quite good background reading.

# posted 9:52 PM

Sunday, June 15, 2003

[10:24 AM] On Monday, the International Criminal Court will inaugurate its first chief prosecutor. He is Argentine Luis Moreno Ocampo, a former deputy prosecutor in Argentina’s trial of its former military junta. Human Rights Watch has a nice page featuring everything you ever wanted to know about the ICC. The U.S. is still working feverishly to sign bilateral impunity agreements (and by doing so undermine the ICC) with countries to exempt U.S. citizens from prosecution by the ICC. Last Friday the U.N. Security Council gave the U.S. peacekeepers another year of immunity from ICC prosecution. France, Germany, and Syria abstained from the vote (Syria is not a signatory to the ICC; Jordan is the only Arab nation to ratify the ICC). This NPR story quotes sources alleging that the U.S. is attempting to strong-arm countries to sign to bilateral agreements and the American Servicemembers Protection Act will cut of U.S. military aid to signatories who do not sign agreements with the U.S. Section 2007 of the Act prohibits military assistance to “the government of a country that is a party to the International Criminal Court.”

# posted 10:26 AM

Thursday, June 12, 2003

[8:38 PM] Today on the NPR program “The Connection,” Dauod Kuttab, the director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al Quds University makes an excellent point about the current Israeli-Palestinian “Peace Process.” Kuttab says that moving along the Roadmap in public is a mistake. It gives parties opposed the to process too many opportunities to object to individual developments and respond with actions to derail the process—i.e. today’s horrendous developments. Kuttab advocated a more secret Oslo-like process that works out contentious issues before they are presented publicly. Take a listen to the show here. Kuttab joins the show at about the 39 minute mark.

# posted 8:42 PM

Wednesday, June 11, 2003

[7:04 PM] Whoops. Fields Report stands corrected. George W. Bush will visit Africa next month.

# posted 7:05 PM

[12:10 PM] In other Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists news, here’s a humorous chronogical look at the hunt for WMD in Iraq: “Just for the record, (and in case in a few years no one can believe what happened, or the story becomes confused with the plot of a Marx Brothers movie…”

# posted 12:11 PM

[11:54 AM] Another nice article on Iran’s nuclear progam appears here in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. It’s very readable and presents a stark picture with regards to dealing with Iran’s nuclear intentions. The article is however, much more grounded in the realities of Iran’s NPT obligations and techinical aspects that indicate Iran has intentions other than peaceful for its nuclear infrastructure—much more so than the New Repulic article I mentioned a few days ago. Here’s the last paragraph

But Iran will not accept far greater transparency, or abandon its sensitive fuel cycle facilities, in response to economic or military threats. The United States, Russia, and other concerned states need to develop a strategy of incentives and disincentives aimed at bringing Iran into the international community while simultaneously reducing the risk that Iran will build nuclear weapons. The current melange of policies being pursued by the United States, Russia, and others seems certain to increase the risk that Iran will emerge in a few years with a nuclear arsenal.

# posted 11:55 AM

Monday, June 09, 2003

[10:56 AM] President Bush postponed a trip to Africa earlier this year to focus on going to war with Iraq. It is doubtful that he will ever make that trip except in the last year of second term. There are some violent, compelling stories happening, especially and west and central Africa. And as usual, there’s not much coverage from U.S. media to be found. As Westerners were evacuated from the capital of Liberia today, more French troops are headed to the Democratic Republic of Congo to help contain violence in the northeast. The BBC has a very nice background page on the current conflict in Bunia, Democratic Republic of Congo.

# posted 11:03 AM

[10:17 AM] The Bush administration is in a bad spot over these “missing” weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. While it is under some justifiable fire, the administration could do a much better job defending itself. When confronted with evidence contrary what it stated in the run up to the war, there tactic has been more or less to ignore new evidence or reports coming from intelligence officials refuting that there was strong evidence of WMD in Iraq. Here’s the latest, and from Mr. Bush no less.

Q Sir, is U.S. credibility on the line over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not exactly sure what that means. I mean, Iraq had a weapons program. Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program. The credibility of this country is based upon our strong desire to make the world more peaceful and the world is now more peaceful after our decision; the strong desire to make sure free nations are more secure -- our free nations are now more secure; and the strong desire to spread freedom. And the Iraqi people are now free and are learning the habits of freedom and the responsibilities that come with freedom.

”Iraq had a weapons program.”? Duh! That’s not in dispute. That doesn’t address the question. And let us not forget that “intelligence” throughout that decade had no idea that Iraq’s nuclear and biological programs were so advanced. It’s amazing. Two different conversations about Iraq are occuring simultaneously. It’s not enough to continue to say Saddam is bad, when confronted with lack of evidence. This is an issue of communication, not finding the weapons. Whether weapons are found or not, the public should get a better idea of why intelligence was selectively used to bolster the case for war.

Today, this article in the NYT sees the same dynamic with regards to the Saddam-Al Qaida link. Reportedly, both Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed have separately told their interrogators that there was no cooperation between al-Qaida and Saddam. A CIA report circulated about these revelations. However, this intelligence according to an insider was dubious. “A senior intelligence official played down the significance of their debriefings, explaining that everything Qaeda detainees say must be regarded with great skepticism.” Regarded with great skepticism? Aren’t all those movements in the terror alert status from yellow to orange based in large part on information gleaned from al-Qaida suspects in custody? When we can’t even get answers that make sense, whether we like what here or not, something is amiss.

# posted 10:24 AM

Wednesday, June 04, 2003

[1:47 PM] According to Lawrence Kaplan, Iran’s nuclear program “could reach fruition within months.” I’m not sure where he gets this information, which seems wildly speculative and inaccurate. Kaplan doesn’t say and the larger point of his essay is about policy options. But his outline is based on some faulty assumptions. In the final analysis they really wouldn’t make much difference in the eyes of the Bush administration, but they are important.

Kaplan writes later in his essay that China has supplied some 1,000 gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment that will likely be operational in the next 18 months (what happened to fruition within months, not a year and a half). Because the centrifuges are online does not bomb quantities of highly enriched uranium make. It’s not that easy. Ask the Iraqis. The significance is that Iran will not have a bomb in the next year or two. We have time.

A second point, which hawks generally are loath to admit, is that Iran has done nothing wrong. It has not violated its NPT commitments. It’s permitted to enrich its own uranium. Ah, the dual-use problem. And it is a problem. But a military strike on Iran because we think they might have bad intentions wouldn’t go over too well. Kaplan glosses over this point.

Unfortunately, neither the IAEA strategy nor the democratic revolution strategy is likely to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. To begin with, chances are slim that ElBaradei, who only months ago was exchanging insults with the Bush administration, will supply Washington with any evidence that supports its position. "It will be very tricky to get the IAEA to do anything," says David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, "particularly since the U.S. and ElBaradei are at war with one another" over Iraq. And, in the unlikely event that ElBaradei does present a damning case, this hardly guarantees the acquiescence of the IAEA board, whose members include countries actively involved in building up Iran's nuclear capabilities, such as Russia and China.

Kaplan writes as if it is a fact that Iran has violated NPT obligations and has moved on to the upcoming conspiracy to ignore this “fact.” This is a good strategy for the Iran hawks because refuting it requires more than average knowledge about the NPT and Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—something that Kaplan demonstrates is easy to gloss over without it being obvious.

Does Iran have nuclear weapons ambitions? Sure. But those ambitions thus far have stopped short of violating any international agreements. Should we be vigilant considering scenarios and responses? Of course. But let’s keep the facts in perspective. Remember the hysteria surround last November’s seizure of North Korean missiles bound for Yemen? The missiles were eventually allowed on to Yemen. North Korea hadn’t violated any laws and to the contrary of what many pundits claimed, did not violate any treaties on missiles—there aren’t any as I’ve mentioned here before. The Missile Technology Control Regime is not a binding treaty. It’s a gentleman’s agreement, to which North Korea is not a party to.

Same principle with Iran. So let’s move past using NPT violations as a backdrop for policy options until there are actually IAEA violations.

A better, if longer (but very readable), article on dealing with the Iran challenge can be found here at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

# posted 1:53 PM