WhirledView

Yet another plea for a sane U.S. Middle East policy

By PHK

I’m not sure that Richard Haass, the director of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, has the Middle East completely right, but his op-ed “a troubling and troubled part of the world” in the October 17 Financial Times which is a condensed version of his article “The New Middle East” in the November/December 2006 Foreign Affairs seems far more on target than what continues to spew out of the W administration like molten lava rolling down the sides of Mt Pinatubo. W’s “review” of U.S. tactics in Iraq in the face of rising casualties, increasing criticism at home and a widening Iraqi insurgency not withstanding.

Here are a four of Haass’ points that resonate with me:

1) The US needs to talk with the Iranians and the Syrians rather than stiff them which seems to be this administration’s visceral response to any foreign regime with which it disagrees. I would also include that attempting to destabilize these –and other - governments through clandestine means will likely backfire. Haass would add that bombing Iran’s nuclear sites is likewise counter productive. (Just as we said here on WV in April.)

2) the Israeli invasion of Lebanon this summer weakened, not strengthened Israel’s position in the Middle East. Israel, according to Haass, will be less of a regional player than before and its weak government will be in no position to negotiate a settlement with the fractious Palestinians. The US will still be an important player in the region but is losing its preeminence to the EU, Russia and China as a result of its misbegotten invasion and post-invasion operations in Iraq, Israel’s mistaken summer invasion of Lebanon and the administration’s refusal to play honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as all previous U.S. administrations have done in the past.

Dems: Consider the Dentista Dimension

By PLS

I’m reading that Congressional Democrats, sensing victory ahead, are “drafting an ambitious health care agenda.” Even assuming they gain control of Congress, it won’t be easy to put such an agenda into effect. President Bush, hitherto so enamored of hiding behind signing statements, is likely to develop a late-blooming taste for vetoes

Meanwhile, the Dems are very much on the right track:

More than 45 million Americans are uninsured.

Once upon a time sick or injured Americans would pay thousands to to be flown out of India rather than be admitted to an Indian hospital. Now they fly to India for surgery. The surgeons are deft, the hospitals are up to sanitary snuff and the cost is super right. Ex-patients can afford a look at the Taj Mahal and Varanasi before heading home.

And many more Americans are going to Mexico for dental care—to Ciudad Juarez, for example, as I reported last year. In fact, there have been more hits on Whirledview’s “Dentistas Galore” than any other post, except “Indian Love Poems.” Unfortunately we haven’t counted all the hits, because at first we didn’t realize what was happening, but it’s clear that the cost of dental care in the US is very worrisome to a lot of Americans. The Democrats need to do something about dental insurance, too.

Crossing State Lines to Protect the Constitution

By PLS

I recently received a second invitation to attend a fund raiser for New Mexico’s Attorney General Patricia Madrid, the Democrat who is pulling ahead (caution: it’s premature to be overconfident) in a race to unseat Republican Congressperson Heather Wilson—and I’m not even a resident of the First (NM) Congressional District. The Madrid-Wilson race is centered on Albuquerque and I live fifty miles north, in Santa Fe, represented by Democrat Tom Udall, who will regain his seat with a very fat majority.

The many Santa Feans with bigger pocketbooks than mine have probably been bombarded by many more opportunities to contribute. And as for me, although I’d maxxed my personal line item budget potential for regime change in Washington at the first reception, I was mightily tempted to dig deeper and support the second, partly because it was being hosted by someone I really knew. Then fiscal clarity returned—along with memories of wasting too much on John Kerry, who allowed himself to founder on the Swift boat calumnies and thus disqualify himself for re-nomination in 2008, whatever his own notion of deserving a guaranteed second chance. (No one deserves a nomination, John; it’s to be earned—or lost.)

Meanwhile, the point I’m trying to make here is that Democrats are not just thinking locally (what’s in it for us in the way of local pork), they are thinking nationally (what’s important for the country). That means issues of war and peace and the US Constitution. The Republican National Committee is so worried about Wilson’s seat that they’ve funded a fatuous TV ad by bait-and-switcher John McCain touting Bush toe-the-liner Wilson as an independent thinker. My fund-raising friend, who was very gracious about my pathetically limited get-out-the-vote budget, told me that he had mailed his “Support Madrid” appeal to friends all around the country—and this is the big point—his non-New Mexican friends had come through very generously.

New Mexico’s Race to Watch: A Turning Tide - Or Not?

By PHK

Brent Scowcroft spoke at a round table Tuesday at the University of New Mexico in support of our illustrious anti-arms control, pro-Iraq War Congresswoman Heather Wilson who is running for reelection to the House. Or at least he supposedly did so according to an article hidden below-the-fold in the October 17 Albuquerque Journal’s Metro section. Since this “independent” Journal has a Republican bias, I searched for a report of the meeting the following day figuring that the newspaper wouldn’t miss an opportunity to spread any good news about a Republican candidate, but nothing appeared. Nothing appeared the day after the day after either. Then I checked the Daily Lobo, the University of New Mexico student newspaper since the event was supposed to have occurred on campus, but came up empty there, too. Did Scowcroft get cold feet at the last minute, was the session off-the-record, was the press uninterested or what happened?

More importantly, would someone please tell me why Scowcroft was here – or supposed to have been here - to help bail out one of W’s most loyal Congressional henchwomen? After all Ms. Wilson was one of this administration’s front row cheerleaders for the US invasion of Iraq as she has been and continues to be for most everything else the W administration has proposed over the past six years. Yuup. This even though our illustrious Congressional representative has portrayed herself as independent and moderate, that is, ever since W’s approval ratings began to falter. Just check out her voting record to see how true her “independent” and moderate credentials really are. The answer, I discovered, is not.

We Don't Need This Right Now

by CKR

Even as China seems to be coaxing North Korea back to the conference table, we hear the mighty pounding of the nuclear drums.

Mark Safranski argued with me last week that the actual possession of a nuclear device (one? several?) by North Korea was more of a danger than US rhetoric and actions to the nonproliferation regime. It's true that increasing the number of nuclear weapon states is a bad thing. But how many more will we have before the US is willing to lead the world out of the nonproliferation box? Charles Krauthammer says yes, or course, a nuclear Japan (or the threat thereof?) will convince China to lean on North Korea to get rid of its nukes. Why does this remind me of a Rube Goldberg machine?

The goal is fewer nuclear weapons. So decreasing the numbers is good, including decreasing US numbers. That's part of the National Nuclear Security Administration's announcement, although they don't make much of it. But why did they choose today to announce they're looking for a new design? To rub North Korea's nose in the fact that the US has oh, so many designs to choose from when North Korea needs a lot more work toward just one? After years of US underground testing, which the North Koreans seem about to repudiate?

I've been told that the banking crackdown on North Korea that may have led to their determination to test was brought about by the Treasury Department, acting without consultation with the State Department. Did the NNSA consult with State about yesterday's announcement? Speaking of governments out of control, is anyone in charge in the US?

North Korea Timeline – From The Agreed Framework to the Underground Test

by CKR

With the accusations that North Korea’s nuke was all the Clinton administration’s fault, I thought I’d check out the timing of events. Selig Harrison claims that the United States undermined North Korea’s finances just as the Six-Party Talks seemed to be coming to agreement. Gary Samore agrees.

In checking out the dates, I found a number of interesting papers on the Agreed Framework and subsequent events, which I link throughout the timeline. Here are two that I don’t link there but are equally worth reading, from the Congressional Research Service and The Nonproliferation Review.

The timeline includes most of the relevant events. Additions and corrections gratefully accepted. I’ll comment later.

October 21, 1994 Ambassador Robert Gallucci and Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sok Ju sign the Agreed Framework.

January 1995 North Korea lifts restrictions on trade and telecommunications services with the US. The US follows suit, permitting telephone calls and credit card use in North Korea.

1996 Interception of a North Korean submarine infiltrating the waters off South Korea delays the ground-breaking at the Kumho light-water reactor site.

May 1997 North Korea tests its AG-1 cruise missile. A Pentagon official downplays the threat, saying that it uses "unimpressive, old technology" from Russian Styx and Chinese Silkworm missiles.

September 1997 A U.S. military satellite detects the deployment of a Nodong-1 missile in possible preparation for a test launch. The missile is believed to be capable of reaching Tokyo. A U.S. State Department official claims that North Korea earned close to $1 billion from missile sales over the past decade, making it the foremost missile exporter in the world.

June 1998 North Korea publicly admits that it exports missiles and demands that the United States "lift the economic embargo [on North Korea] as early as possible and make a compensation for the losses to be caused by discontinued missile export."

August 1998 North Korea tests a nuclear-capable Taepo Dong-1 missile. The missile flies over northern Japan and lands in the Pacific Ocean. They later announce that the test was actually a launch to deploy a satellite. A few weeks later, the U.S. State Department admits that North Korea did attempt to orbit a satellite as it had claimed, but failed. A three-stage Taepo Dong rocket was launched, but the satellite fell into the Pacific still attached to the third stage.

Tuesday Purple Blogging

by CKR

They Say It Was Plutonium

by CKR

A very minimal statement from John Negroponte’s office said that air sampling confirmed that the North Korean test was nuclear. The New York Times quotes anonymous sources as saying that the fuel was plutonium from North Korea’s reactors. They also quote Sig Hecker as speculating that the device was probably fairly sophisticated, and it didn’t work well. I’ll go with Sig’s judgment. (NYT, WaPo)

So how do they know this? Paul at Arms Control Wonk linked to an article in Arms Control Today that says some things about how this is done.

The air samples, as the NYT’s anonymous source pointed out, can identify the source of the plutonium that was tested, as well as the fact it was plutonium. The ACT article is fairly technical, although not as technical as I’d like. Here’s what they say can be determined from “nuclear forensics.”

The radioactive debris can provide far deeper insight. Over a period of several weeks, laboratories throughout the world with access to the debris and the equipment and expertise to conduct the necessary measurements could address questions that would potentially shed light on the identity of the perpetrators. Among these would be whether the weapon was based on highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium. Other questions that could be answered include:

1. If the weapon used HEU, scientists could determine the enrichment or share of the uranium-235 that it contained.

2. If the weapon used plutonium, scientists could determine how much time the fuel had spent in a nuclear reactor to create the appropriate plutonium isotopes, the length of time since this isotope was separated from spent nuclear fuel, and various isotopic signatures that might provide other indications of the production and separation processes.

3. The sophistication, or lack thereof, of the weapon. Scientists could make this judgment based on the efficiency of the plutonium or HEU fission and whether fusion reactions might have been employed to enhance the yield.

If the isotopic data obtained from the debris could be compared with similar data from plutonium or HEU stockpiles or weapons, it might be possible, under some conditions, to conclude that some of the fissile material did or did not come from a specific arsenal. It might even be possible, given enough time and access to actual weapons designs, to conclude whether a particular type of weapon had been employed.

North Korea was motivated to make sure that very little nuclear debris escaped from its test, but not much is needed for the analysis. Once other nations have the isotopic fingerprint, rogue nuclear explosions could be traced to North Korea.