Can We Talk with Iran?

Iran is one of the trouble spots in the Middle East. The theocratic administration sponsors terrorism, violates the non-proliferation regime, and tries to export radical ideology. Despite these problems, the Iraq Study Group, Chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker, suggested that the United States talk with Iran and Syria in order to placate current turmoil in Iraq. Some media quote this to criticize the Bush administration on the Iraq policy. But we have to think again. The Study Group recommendation is not an oracle. It is essential to review carefully whether we can talk with Iran or not, regarding Iraq, nuclear bomb, and terrorism throughout the Middle East.

Iran is expanding its influence in the Shiite area in Iraq, since the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime. Diplomats and experts comment that Iran’s clout in Iraq is much stronger than that of Syria’s. Then, should we make some kind of concessions with Iran in order to settle disputes in Iraq? Things are not so simple. Iran is developing nuclear bombs. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insists on wiping out Israel. Dovish policy to Iran would make things worse.

To talk about this issue further, let me mention comments by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at the confirmation hearing on December 5. Regarding the expected consequences of US attack against Iran, Secretary Gates said they might not be able to retaliate directly, but they could provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction, such as biological and chemical weapons. As for Iran’s leverage on Iraq, he mentioned “They are certainly not being helpful in Iraq and are doing us -- I think doing damage to our interests there, but I think they could do a lot more to hurt our effort in Iraq.” In addition, according to Gates, Ahmadinejad thinks seriously of terminating Israel. Judging from what Secretary Gates said at the hearing, it is not easy to talk with Iran, though he recognize it necessary.

George Perkovich, Vice President at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, insists that the West talk with Iran in his article “Washington’s Dilemma: Why Engaging with Iran Is a Good Idea” to Yale Global Online on December12. In conclusion, Perkovich says “Iran does have weaknesses, and a dialogue can expose them, perhaps intensifying the country’s internal fissures. Refusal to talk cedes the high ground to Iran without any benefit to Washington.” However, leading policymakers, including members of the Iraq Study Group and Henry Kissinger, do not show specific ways to scare or entice Iranian theocrats into accepting America’s vital interest.

Some concerns must be considered to talk with Iran. The Los Angels Times presents interesting analysis in “Iran Looks Like the Winner of the Iraq War” on December 10. According to this article, the Iraq Study Group observes the rise of Iranian influence in the Middle East since the US-led war in Iraq, and insists that the United States needs to seek some help from Iran for resolution. However, Mustafa Alani, Director at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai points out that though Iran’s leverage is growing and the Bush administration has no effective solutions to stop Iran’s nuclear ambition, the price of cooperation is high. Mark Fitzpatrick, Senior Analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, says that Iran would demand recognition of uranium enrichment and lifting sanctions in return. This will ruin non-proliferation efforts by the United States and EU3. Also, Israel and moderate Arabs, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, are dismayed to think of possible deal between Iran and the United States.

Ex-Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi argues that a dialogue will benefit extremist Ahmadinejad without improving current challenges on Iraq, non-proliferation, and terrorism. But should we simply refuse to talk with Iran, and assist political protest in Iran?

Senior Fellows Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, show concrete ideas to deal with Iran in a policy brief, entitled “Forcing Hard Choices on Tehran.” In this essay, both authors point out that economic and diplomatic sanctions by themselves do not inflict sufficiently on theocrats, because they are used to international isolation. These measures must be coupled with other means. Fortunately, unlike North Korea, democracy movements are strong in Iran, and overseas activists provide substantial support for them. Domestic pressure will upset mullahs. In addition authors propose to “Dissuade and deter by checking Iran’s Military potential.” For this objective, the United States must establish security architecture with European and Middle East allies to contain Iran. America and its allies must have sufficient naval power to counter Iranian naval blockade to stop oil route in the Gulf. Also, authors suggest the United States offer air defense system to shoot down Iranian missiles. Authors insist on using offensive ways as well, that is, to threaten conventional military strike to target senior leaders and economic infrastructure. Furthermore, they maintain to “Dissuade and disrupt by preventative military action.” If Iranian theocrats regard the United States as weak and reluctant to fight, they will quest further gains in this power game. Soft policies are nonetheless important. Clawson and Eisenstadt urge the United States to offer inducements to Iran, like assuring no attack if they abandon their nuclear project. Simultaneously, authors claim the West should promote reforms in Iran regardless of nuclear problem.

Consequently, we must not confuse dialogue with appeasement. The West must show strength and unyieldingness against Iran. Just leaving Iraq would make things worse. All the problems associated with Iran --- nuclear weapon, Iraq, and terrorism --- are strongly interconnected. America and EU3 must be united firmly, and help Iranian people’s quest for political reform.

Finally I would like to mention another stakeholder, which is Japan. Current regime in Iran is an ideological enemy to Japan. Westernizing modernization policies under the Pahlavi monarchy were modeled after those of Japan and Turkey. As a result of the Iranian revolution, clerical oppressors took place of enlightened despot. It is a pity that Japanese leaders think light of this fact, and I will mention this further on another occasion.

US-Indian Nuclear Deal after the Senate Approval

Right after the midterm election, political commentators argued that the Bush administration would have difficulty in dealing with the Congress under Democratic majority. However, a controversial bill has passed the Senate on November 16. As I mentioned several times on this blog, the Bush administration decided to offer technological assistance for civilian nuclear use in India, which spurred fierce pro-con debates among American policymakers. Proponents insist the following reasons for the US-Indian nuclear deal: strategic partnership in the war on terror, balance of power in Asia and the Middle East, and access to a prospective market. However, opponents argue that the nuclear deal with a non-NPT member would undermine the current non-proliferation regime, and tougher verifications should be required. Even some Republicans raised these concerns as I mentioned “Kissinger Talks on India.” Despite these hurdles, the Senate approved the nuclear deal with India.

I would like to explore why such a controversial deal has passed the Senate under Democrat majority. The following reasons are important: terrorism, market, China, and the Middle East. US businesses are keen to expand their market in India. According to “US Nuclear Firms Eye on Indian Market” in the Washington Post on December 1, leading American companies like General Electric, Westinghouse Electric, and Bechtel sent delegates for nuclear power plant projects in India. In addition, tougher safeguards were installed at the Senate to assure non-proliferation. The nuclear deal would enable the United States to pursue these objectives. Regarding non-proliferation, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns commented as below at the Senate testimony.

Without such an agreement, India, with its large and sophisticated nuclear capabilities, would continue to remain outside the international export control regimes governing commerce in sensitive nuclear and nuclear-related technologies. With this agreement, given India’s solid record in stemming and preventing the proliferation of its nuclear technology over the past 30 years, the U.S. and the international community will benefit by asking India to open up its system, to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities, and to submit to international inspections and safeguards on its civil facilities, thus allowing it to bring its civil nuclear program into effective conformity with international standards.

Although supportive of the deal with India, leading members of foreign policy panels in both houses --- including Senator Richard Lugar, Senator Joseph Biden, Congressman Henry Hyde, and Congressman Tom Lantos --- raised concerns about nuclear proliferation and India’s relation with Iran (Lawmakers Concerned about US-India Nuclear Deal, Washington Post, November 15). In order to deal with such problems, tougher clauses were installed. The Senate bill bans the transfer to India of technology related to enrichment, reprocessing or heavy water production -- weapons-related technologies the United States says it has no plans to provide -- but Rice wants this out. With regard to the Iran issue, Burns said, “We appreciate India’s belief that Iran should not acquire a nuclear weapons capability, and India’s continuing cooperation with the U.S. and Europe is essential to convince Iran to return to negotiations.” The Senate bill requires that India be "fully and actively participating in U.S. and international efforts to dissuade, sanction and contain Iran for its nuclear program."

For the final legislation, both the Senate and the House must fill the gap in their vote. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insists on softening the bill. In her open letter to the Senate, she says, "It is not appropriate to single out India, which has been a responsible steward of its nuclear technology." Also, she points out “India twice joined Washington in voting against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency and is expected to continue cooperating” (“Democrats: White House seeks to weaken India bill”, Washington Post, December 4).

Among the reasons for the nuclear deal, the most questionable one is to use India as a strategic card against China. Actually, energy hungry India is exploring a similar deal with China. In the economy, both countries agreed to expand mutual trade. The Economist questions the Indo-Chinese relationship as below.

The appealing notion here is that India and China have complementary economies. China, through its burgeoning factories, is the world’s workshop. India, with its fast-growing IT and outsourcing firms, is becoming the world's back office. With Chinese hardware providing the orchestra and Indian software writing the score, surely they can make beautiful music together? (The Myth of Chindia, November 22)

The Boston Globe quotes by policymakers in both countries. Sun Shihai, Deputy director of the Institute for Asia Pacific Studies at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, comments "China feels it needs to engage India more [and] develop some kind of Russia-China-India cooperation" that can balance US hegemony. "So there is some kind of competition happening." Also, an Indian official says "Traditionally, India's always been nonaligned and had an independent foreign policy," and "Recently, India had been moving very close to the US and with this deal India will become equidistant between the US and China." (China and India on Verge of Nuclear Deal, November 20)

As mentioned in “Anatomy of Partnership” in the International Herald Tribune on March 10, Henry Kissinger is right to insist that the United States should not expect India as a diplomatic card against China. The Sino-Indian relationship will not develop rapidly. According to “Still Treading on India’s Toes” in the Economist on November 16, China’ military ties with Pakistan and South East Asian neighbors, and border dispute with India are still hurdles. In any case, India acts on its own as to the relationship with China.

Though Democrats occupy the majority seats in both houses, the Bush administration is winning this landmark deal. It is not adequate to see the current administration lame duck. As to the nuclear deal with India, US policymakers should focus on strengthening non- proliferation and counter-terrorism efforts, and expanding business. Never think of using India in the power game against China. Is this really a practical deal as Mohammed El Baradei says? Under Secretary R. Nicholas Burns is right to say that the United States incorporate India into the international export regime of nuclear technologies. The agreement must be sufficiently binding.

Disappointing Japanese Media: Why Little Attention to NATO Summit?

The Riga summit has finished, and President Bush flew to Jordan to talk with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq. I will write a post on the consequence of NATO summit later on.

To my regret, Japanese politicians and the media pay little attention to this summit. As I mentioned in “NATO summit at Riga, Latvia”, this is an important conference for Japan, because NATO is exploring strategic partnership with liberal democracies out of the Atlantic region. Currently, Japan is assuming global role as witnessed in its quest for the permanent membership at the UN Security Council. NATO is globalizing rapidly. Both Japan and NATO share vital interests.

However, it seems to me that Japanese leaders do not care about this summit. Are Japanese politicians ready to share more burden as a leading member of the Western democracy? Those who read this post will understand why I am disappointed with politicians and opinion leaders in Tokyo.

Despite that, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will visit NATO next January on his trip to Europe. To make Japan really a beautiful country as he says, active involvement in NATO is crucial. Politically speaking, Japan has two core foundations: Meiji westernization and postwar regime change. I hope the whole Japanese nation consider developing relations with Atlantic allies more seriously when Abe visits Europe.

A Pause in NPO Procedure

As I mentioned previously in the post ”At Tokyo Metropolitan Government Office”, I have been trying to establish an officially accredited NPO. However, I had something private in October and November. Therefore, I had to cancel formal consultation with a Metropolitan official in charge of NPO affairs on November 2.

In order to found an accredited NPO, the general assembly for foundation must be held. Currently, many signatories live out of Tokyo. Some are too busy to attend the first general assembly. We shall appreciate contacts from Tokyo residents who are interested in our activities and values.

Thank you.

NATO Summit at Riga, Latvia

As I mentioned in a previous post, “NATO More Active on Global Security: From Brussels to Riga”, NATO summit will be held at Riga, the capital of Latvia on November 28th and 29th. This is a landmark of history from the following aspects. At this summit, leaders of Western democracies meet and talk vital issues on global security at the capital of a former Soviet republic. More importantly, NATO is expanding global commitment to tackle dreadful challenges in the 21st century, such as WMD proliferation, terrorism, and so forth. Despite the rift over the Iraq War, America and Europe are developing further cooperation for world peace and stability. The media talk so much about the impact of US midterm election on transatlantic relations, but it is meaningless.

At the Riga summit, leaders discuss the following issues: Afghanistan, Iraq, Darfur, terrorism, global activities, partnership with non-NATO members, and membership expansion. Nonetheless importantly, missile defense system will be an important agenda at this summit. This system is vital for some non-member states like Japan, as it faces increasing threat by North Korea. Also, NATO assumes increasingly global role. Therefore, NATO summit at Riga is beyond transatlantic security conference.

In order to talk of positive changes of NATO, I mention two articles in Foreign Affairs. One is “From Prague to Baghdad: NATO at Risk” in November/December 2002, by Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State under the Clinton administration and President at the Brookings Institution. The other is “Global NATO” in September/October 2006, by Ivo Daadler, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and James Goldgeier, Professor at George Washington University and Adjunct Senor Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. While Talbott saw the alliance pessimistically, Daadler and Goldgeiger see it more positively and assertively. Let me discuss changes, which reinvigorate the transatlantic alliance.

It was just before the Prague summit and the Iraq War when Talbott contributed his article. He was concerned with antipathy to the United States among European allies. The Cold War was over, and the Iraq War was about to start in a few months. Talbott commented the transatlantic rift in the following way.

But Prague will also highlight a paradox: NATO's long-term potential is virtually limitless, but its cohesion is at imminent risk. That is largely due to another paradox. The strength of the alliance has always derived from American power, which has never been greater, and from American leadership, which has never been more assertive. Yet these days many allies are feeling not so much led by the United States as bossed around; for them, the exercise of American power has become less a source of protection and more a cause of resentment and a problem to be managed.

Also, unlike leading Western policymakers today, he was skeptic to the idea of global NATO. In those days, NATO was expanding partnership with Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. It was beginning to act outside Europe. However, he said “That is largely because of the absence in those other areas of a militarily capable and politically respected defense pact that can create an environment conducive to cooperation and integration.” Furthermore, he said “However, that does not mean there will ever be, or should be, a global NATO that brings together representatives from the nearly 200 countries on earth, ranging from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, arrayed around a table far larger than that in Brussels or anywhere else. If that happened, the alliance might as well merge with the UN General Assembly.”

Things have changed now. NATO has overcome bitter discord between both sides of the Atlantic on the Iraq War, and exploring further global commitment. In “Global NATO”, Daadler and Goldgeiger points out the following changes. In the war on terror, NATO has recognized that it is necessary to defeat remote enemy at their homelands. In addition, as US forces stretch thin in Iraq, European allies are beginning to fill the gap for global commitments. In August 2003, NATO decided to send the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to Afghanistan. Since then, NATO has been operating out of Europe, from Kashmir, Indonesia, to Louisiana. As NATO is evolving global, the alliance has begun to consider strategic partnership with nations sharing common liberal democratic values, like Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Unlike Strobe Talbott, both authors welcome Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer’s suggestion that NATO become an alliance with global partners. Daadler and Goldgeoger insist, “Broadening membership is preferable to creating ad hoc coalitions.” Because “For one thing, European militaries are stretched thin by the many new missions they are called on to perform in Afghanistan and in Sudan, Congo, and other parts of Africa”, and “For another, formal membership would strengthen the ability of countries to work together in joint military operations.”

Finally, I would like to mention an interview with John Colston, Assistant Secretary General for Defence Policy and Planning of NATO. As briefly introduced on the web, he received degrees from Bristol and Oxford University, and worked for British Ministry of Defence for a many years. In the interview, he comments on critical issues for the future of NATO. As to NATO’s partnership beyond the transatlantic region, the following comments are noteworthy.

One of the key aspects of our working together with those countries is cooperation in defense reform. Partner countries are facing exactly the same challenges as NATO allies in terms of the threats of terrorism, the threats of proliferation, the threats of the 21st Century. And they face exactly the same challenges in adapting and modernizing their armed forces to meet those threats.

And as I've said, defense cooperation plays a very key part in that process. We are working with all these countries in terms of how best we can develop the ability of NATO nations and our partner nations to work together to confront terrorism, to confront the challenges of the 21st Century.

Those who are keenly aware of international politics cannot miss the Riga summit on 28th and 29th. Finally, I recommend readers to see Latvia Online Guide. This is a Latvian site, and onsite information will be available.

Help Arrested Bloggers in Bahrain and Egypt

I received the e-mail from Rosemary of “My News’n Ideas” on November 8th. Her blog is linked to this blog. According to her message, HAMSA (Hands Across the Mideast Support Alliance) requests support for their activities to free arrested bloggers in Bahrain and Egypt. Please read the following message.

The freedom to say what you believe is a universal human right. But, as two prominent Middle Eastern bloggers discovered in the last week, freedom of expression is not always guaranteed. One blogger had his site blocked for text he posted. The other is currently in jail – and needs you help.
Mahmood Al-Yousif is known as the godfather of the blogging scene in Bahrain. A Bahraini entrepreneur, he runs a popular blog called Mahmood’s Den and serves as a judge for HAMSA’s Dream Deferred Essay Contest.
Last week, Bahrain’s Ministry of Information issued an order blocking Mahmood’s Den. They objected to his blogging about a recent scandal in Bahraini politics, and so suddenly readers in Bahrain could no longer access Mahmood’s blog. Along with a group of local activists, HAMSA launched a campaign to unblock Mahmood’s blog. Over 200 people sent emails to Bahraini officials.

A few days later – after negotiations with Mahmood – the site was unblocked.
One of the Middle Eastern bloggers who supported the campaign was Abdelkareem Soliman. Kareem, as he is also known, received international attention last year when he was kicked out of Al Azhar University in Egypt for criticizing the school on his blog.

Yesterday, Kareem was called into the prosecutor’s office in Alexandria, Egypt, where he lives. A lawyer from the Arabic Human Rights Network went with him. The Egyptian officials began interrogating Kareem about his blog, as well as his religious beliefs (“Do you fast on Ramadan? Do you pray? What do you think of things in Darfur?”).

Kareem stood firm. He would not retract anything he wrote on his blog. So the prosecutors threw Kareem in jail, where he remains as you read this. He faces several charges including "defaming the President of Egypt" and "highlighting inappropriate aspects that harm the reputation of Egypt." His case is currently on the front page of The Daily Star, one of Egypt’s largest independent English papers.

Kareem is a soft-spoken young man. He entered the HAMSA essay contest and joined a recent human rights seminar we recently organized in Cairo. We will not abandon him. And we hope you will take a moment to speak out on his behalf.

To stay updated on the campaign, read the Free Kareem blog started by his friends. And please take one minute to sign an email/petition to Egyptian and America authorities urging Kareem’s immediate release. In less than 24 hours, over 130 people have signed. Please add your voice. Thank you for your attention and support.


In Freedom,

Jesse SageHAMSA Project Director


You can participate in the campaign. Send them the link to this site:http://ent.groundspring.org/EmailNow/pub.php?module=URLTracker&cmd=track&j=105690869&u=1007093

I shall appreciate your support to this campaign.


Shah Alex

The Midterm Election and US Foreign Policy

In the midterm election on November 7, Democrats have won majority in both the Senate and the House. Just before this election, experts commented prospective impacts of election results on US foreign policy. For two years from now, the Bush administration will have some difficulty in dealing with the Congress. Iraq was the key issue in the election. Will President George W. Bush change his course in Iraq and foreign policy over all? Also, I would like to mention the impact on 2008 presidential election.

At the public forum sponsored by the Department of State on November 1, Thomas Mann, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, said This election is being driven primarily by a very unpopular war in Iraq and secondarily by public perceptions of incompetence in the Bush administration and corruption in the Republican Congress. However, it is noteworthy that he said Given the angry public and narrow majorities in Congress, a failure by the Democrats to gain a majority in at least the House would raise troubling questions about the capacity of the American electoral system for democratic accountability. It would also be deeply dispiriting to congressional Democrats and probably lead to a raft of retirements. But it would not necessarily say much about the 2008 presidential election. There is no relationship between midterm gains and losses and the subsequent presidential election. That will depend on the broad political environment shaped by Iraq and the economy and the candidates nominated by each party. In other words, Democrats must show persuasive alternatives in both foreign and domestic policies. America faces numerous foreign policy issues, like terrorism, nuclear proliferation, Afghanistan, and so forth. Iraq is one of them, and none of other critical issues were discussed seriously in the election. Republican achievents are not necessarily bad.

For better or worse, Republicans must take responsibility for what the federal government has achieved during this period. And despite a buoyant economy, low unemployment and no significant terrorist attacks on American soil since September 11th 2001, most Americans think little has been done. (“Goodbye to the permanent majority?”, Economist, November 2)

Regarding post election foreign policy, Michael O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, talks of hard power Democrats, in his article “What is a Hard Power Progressive?” in the Daily Yomiuri on November 1. It must be more than someone who is a moderate on domestic policy and nothing but a conservative Republican clone on foreign affairs. Like Bush Senior and Bill Clinton, they will be more realist, and less inclined to trumpet American values than the current administration. It does not mean radical changes in US foreign policy. Hard power Democrats and similarly minded moderate Republicans should follow conservative and neoconservative focus on national security. Currently, the United States faces critical issues from Iraq to Iran to North Korea--not to mention a host of other key issues such as energy policy and the rise of China. Also, he argues as follows.

While being willing to criticize Bush for major mistakes in Iraq, such a hard-power Democrat or moderate should--unless absolutely convinced that we have already lost in Iraq--work hard to develop new ideas that give us some hope of salvaging a passable outcome in Iraq.

In conclusion, O’Hanlon insists that hard power Democrats will have a clear sense of how to blend hard and soft power into an effective mix that adds up to smart power for the new era and new challenges that so threaten the United States today.

Finally, I would like to refer to conservative viewpoints on this election and American foreign policy by three policy analysts at the American Enterprise Institute. Resident Scholar Joshua Muravchik criticizes Democrat leaders, Senator Harry Reid and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, as they do not show alternative ideas to the current administration. Another Resident Scholar Norman Ornstein foresees two changes after the election. One is through investigation on Iraq, torture, and intelligence failures. The other is congressional backlash against expansion of executive power. In addition to both comments, Vice President Danielle Pletka warns that rogue states and terrorists may be encouraged if they see America weak and divided. In any case, as long as Republicans hold executive power, they do not expect fundamental changes.

Real foreign policy debates start from now on. The media focus too much on “failure” in Iraq. But immediate withdrawal without sufficient consideration will not be of any help to stabilize Iraq. Moreover, America faces diversified global challenges. Which party can present true resolutions to manage these problems? The test for 2008 election has just begun.