Wilson Center holds forum on prospects for an Iranian nuclear deal

The Woodrow Wilson Center held a forum on January 11 entitled, “Prospects for an Iranian Nuclear Deal,” with an expert on the subject, Gary Samore, Director of Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, serving as the main speaker

Iran is still a few years away from being able to produce nuclear weapons, Samore said. He doesn’t expect that it could happen until somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

Regarding the political dimension of the situation, Samore, said this comes down to a clash of international interests rather than simply good versus evil is not about good or evil. Balance of power is usually how such a clash is solved, he maintained. Samore said that when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Iran became fearful, but now the balance of power has shifted and Iran realizes that it holds a good position in the region. Now, with oil at such a high price, Tehran has the ability to absorb its domestic support.

Nether Russia or China wants Iran to build nuclear weapons, Samore said, but he argues that since they have come to terms with the fact that Pakistan has nuclear capabilities they can do the same with Iran. However, Samore argued that the Western powers have another view, and do not trust Iran. As the situation stands now, though, China and Russia will continue to buy oil and trade with Iran, he stated.

On the topic of resolving the predicament with Iran, Samore stressed the importance of correctly packaging the deal. All suggestions are going to be read in Tehran, which will make it more difficult and weaken the U.S. position, he said. Furthermore, any talks with Tehran, will be viewed by American allies as weakening the US position, and indicating an acceptance of Iran. In addition, Samore maintained that it is not even certain that a deal is possible, saying that Iran will not settle for less then what they started with. Given these potential outcomes, there are different ways of approaching the deal, with the removal of sanctions one option. However, if the U.S. chooses to move in the other direction, anti-American hostility could increase.

Samore stressed that the U.S. must collaborate with other nations to apply pressure on Tehran, but added that this will be difficult as Iran is privy to this strategy. He also cautioned that with negotiations going forward, Iran will make promises that it will not keep. According to Samore, a large burden rests on the administration of the next American president, with the Bush administration now in its “lame duck” period.

Explaining Iran’s view of the situation, Samore said that Tehran asserts that it needs nuclear power programs for regional security. However, he stated that the country must not be allowed to develop these programs. “We can not trust their intentions,” Samore cautioned. Additionally, if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons, other countries in the region such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt would want to do the same. This sentiment might even extend to countries such as South Korea and Taiwan, Samore added.

Samore also explained that Israel feels the most threatened by Iran’s nuclear programs and are in favor of U.S. intervention. As of today, an Israeli attack on Iran is more likely than an U.S. one, he said.

Hudson Institute holds symposium on ‘Post CPA Sudan: Ongoing violence and violations and the effect on civil society”

The Hudson Institute held a symposium on January 11 to discuss “Post CPA [Comprehensive Peace Agreement] Sudan: Ongoing violence and violations and the effect on civil society.” The assembled panel included knowledgeable experts from different fields.

The Rt. Reverend Alapayo Manyang Kuctiel, Bishop of Rumbek, Episcopal Church of Sudan, began his speech by thanking the Institute for spotlighting the subject and the audience for attending. Then, he said, “We need the United States to come, we need to put our hands together America, Sudan and the international organizations.” He continued by saying that the Sudanese government is now just buying time.

Alapayo also said that the first 6 months of the next American president’s term will be very important. He sought to convey the message that post-Bush administration policy will be very critical for Sudan. In reference to the run-up to the last presidential election, he said that Sudan did not feel the threat of forthcoming pressure as they did not think that President Bush was going to be reelected. In light of this, Alapayo maintained that it is critical that the next president take the right stance on Sudan from the outset.

Roger Winter, former Special Representative of the Deputy Secretary of State for Sudan, also talked about the importance of the next administration. Winter raised the issue of Abyei, a small place with a small population, but a locale of great importance to the CPA. Winter said that the question of Abyei was rejected. The region, considered a bridge between northern and southern Sudan, has been a flashpoint since the end of colonial rule. For several years now, there have been attempts to give Abyei the right to a referendum that would determine whether the region would fall under the administrative control of the North or the South. However, a referendum provision has never been implemented.

“Abyei is at its maximum vulnerability and the U.S. has paid no attention to it,” Winter said.

Jimmy Mulla, President, Southern Sudanese Voice for Freedom, said that “the post CPA has dampened hopes and the effects on the civil society in terms of, security, political stability, peace and provision of services is huge.” He added that, in this context it is important to take a close look at the situation in Sudan, analyzing the drawbacks and making necessary adjustments in order to help avert a return to war. Mulla said that even since the signing of the CPA, Khartoum’s actions have proven that there is serious lack of political will on the part of the country’s National Congress Party (NCP) to consider a new political dispensation. With its newfound economic wealth from oil revenues, the NCP-dominated government in Sudan is more like a private enterprise under the monopoly of the powerful few, Mulla said, adding that the NCP controls the economy and makes all kinds of deals to retain power. “There is therefore no incentive to change the status quo any time soon,” he added.

Many nations have interests in Sudan and Mulla referred to some as “bad actors,” including China, Russia, the Arab League countries and other African Union countries. “Due to its economic interests and huge demand for oil, China continues to provide political and diplomatic cover to Sudan,” Mulla stated. On the Arab League, he said that these countries have put their interests first and have not been forthcoming in terms of stronger international action to ensure Sudan’s compliance to United Nations Security Council resolutions. Mulla stressed that applying pressure on both the Sudanese government and other actors as China, Russia and the Arab League is critical to the advancement of the peace process to move peace forward. He closed his presentation by saying that there is still a window to change the situation in Sudan.

USIP holds roundtable on internally displaced persons and peacebuilding

The U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) hosted a roundtable event on December 14 to discuss the integration of the internal displacement issue within the peace process. USIP’s Deborah Isser moderated. The featured speakers were Khalid Koser, the deputy director of the Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement at the Brookings Institution and Donald Steinberg, the vice president for multilateral affairs at the International Crisis Group.

Koser began by discussing the importance role that that internally displaced persons (IDPs) issue plays in the peace process. Every human being, Koser said, “has rights grounded in international human rights law and international humanitarian law and states in post-conflict situations have an obligation to protect those rights.” He also argued that it is impossible to plan for peace if IDPs are not taken in consideration in the process. “They could be the ones to end the conflict,” Koser said. If they become political active, he added, IDPs can make decisions for the country’s future and prevent future conflict.

Koser identified to three main obstacles to IDPs’ direct participation in the peace process. First: it can be difficult for civilians to take part in the high-level talks that are often held in a peace process. Second: many IDPs are at a disadvantage because of their social identity and background – many are illiterate and belong to an ethnic or religious minority for example – and they are often seen as second-class citizens. Third: international assistance is often lacking and obtaining an accurate picture of the IDP situation is very difficult given data collection impediments.

Despite the obstacles, Koser maintained that there are many good examples for how IDPs can meaningfully contribute in the peace process, citing as one the fact that womens groups are often strong and vocal participants.

Koser also called attention to complementary strategies for facilitating IDP involvement such as “substitution,” where NGOs bring to the table the information that they gather from IDPs.

Steinberg echoed Koser on the point that IDPs have an important role in the peace process. “They are the ones that know what is needed,” he said. “They are aware of the social factors that often are forgotten.”

Steinberg also said that few people realize that many things change during a conflict situation. He cited as an example, the fact that when the men go to war women often take on enhanced roles. When the men return, it is often difficult for them to adjust to these new roles. This sometimes leads to divorce and problems such as alcoholism and violence against women, Steinberg said. Because of the reality of circumstances like this, he argued that it is important that international mediators receive trainings on gender issues.

Steinberg stressed that international mediators need more power in the beginning of the peace process, adding that having the “men with the guns” “sit down” is the first step in the process.

Both of the speakers noted that it is important to work with the local people and teach them how they themselves can change their situation through participation in civil society and the political process.

Wilson Center event addresses Afghanistan six years after Taliban’s fall

The Woodrow Wilson Center held a public event on December 6 entitled, “Appraising Afghanistan: Measuring Success and Failure, Six Years Later.” Speakers from four different fields presented their viewpoints on the situation in the war-torn nation.

According to William C. Martel, an associate professor of international security studies at Tufts University, there are three levels of victory: tactical victory, political military victory and grand strategic victory. He explained the meanings of the different levels, saying that tactical victory is short-term victory, for example, victory in a battle. He described political military victory as a larger institutional transformation. Grand strategic victory was explained as the reordering of the international system, and Martel cited World War II and the Cold War as examples.

In Afghanistan, in late 2001, the Taliban regime started to crack; this could be referred to as tactical victory, Martel said. When the al-Qaeda members were first chased out of government positions, this was a political military victory. The U.S. objective in Afghanistan was to chase out the Taliban regime, before the Taliban would become a threat to U.S. interests, and then rebuild Afghanistan. This reflects a grand strategic victory, Martel said.

Seth G. Jones, a political scientist with the RAND Corporation and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University, followed Martel on the panel. According to Jones, domestic governance and external support are two of the most critical issues for Afghanistan. With regards to domestic institutions, Jones pointed to the fact that in the country’s rural areas, the police are often poorly trained, which means that villages are not being protected. Jones adds: “In these areas they have no chance but to provide the Taliban what they ask for, otherwise they will be shot in the head and dragged behind a car.” ON the subject of governmental problems, he also noted that access to water and electricity is still nonexistent for many Afghans. Jones also said that one of the major problems facing Afghanistan today is meager public support. While support for the Taliban is not high, he said, support for the government is very low.

On the matter of external support, Jones said that in the past several years, international attention to Afghanistan has waned considerably. He added that there has been insufficient emphasis on a regional approach to the situation.

William Byrd, an economist in the World Bank’s South Asia division, began his presentation by focusing on the counternarcotics effort. “Counternarcotics have failed,” he said, noting that while there have been some indications of progress, the circumstances at present are dire.

“If we do not deal with the drugs it will be hard to solve anything else,” Byrd said. He added: “We need a smart strategy because the drug industry is not static.” Byrd said that a key step in such a strategy is confronting large trafficking rings and their sponsors and also ensuring that complicit Afghan officials are fired from their posts. Still, he cautioned that the problem will not be solved quickly. “It will take a long time before we get rid of drugs in Afghanistan,” Byrd said.

Malaly Pikar Volpi, the executive director of the U.S.-Afghanistan Reconstruction Council, a nonprofit organization founded by Afghan-Americans and Americans, spoke last on the panel. Volpi presented some signs of progress, noting that the number of healthcare workers has increased in Afghanistan. However, she also presented a striking anecdote: “I met a woman who was a nurse and she was one of those women who are counted as educated in the Afghan community. But she told me that she was illiterate, and I asked her how she knew what kind of medicine to give to her patient. Then she told me that she had colored the bottles so she would know which one went for which disease.”

After discussing healthcare, Volpi addressed violence against women in Afghanistan – a problem that she said is increasing. However, Volpi noted that underreporting is widespread because of infrastructural deficiencies and the fact that many do not regard it as a crime. Statistics are available though. Volpi called attention to recent United Nations figures that indicate that 64 percent of the women who report being abused were married. Violence from a family member is the most common type of abuse, she said. Volpi also noted that 60 to 80 percent of the marriages in Afghanistan are forced. These types of marriages can be enmeshed within a cycle of extreme violence. “If one person kills another person, the family members get the daughter of the killer’s family and than they can do whatever they want to this woman,” Volpi said.