N. Korea Reports 1st Nuclear Arms Test
So, it appears like North Korea finally did it: N. Korea Reports 1st Nuclear Arms Test - New York Times. Seems like a good time to post an analysis I wrote two years ago on the subject: Six-party negotiations on North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
- posted by David Sontag @ 9:03 AM 0 comments

 
Words with Leon Fuerth
Tonight I attended a panel discussion, at the International House (where I'm currently living) in Berkeley, titled "Foreign Policy in a New Global Era". Various experts on US foreign policy were present, and the discussion was lively and interesting. All of the panelists seemed to be in agreement that in some number of years (20?) the US will no longer be the world's only great power. Much of the discussion was focused on China, which showing significant strength both economically and politically. One interesting comment was that political influence and "public face" is zero-sum, and that the US's loss of influence in world affairs -- caused by the Iraq war and bad foreign policy -- is being taken by China, which -- especially with regards to North Korea -- has been gaining prominence and strength in Asia (and around the world).

One of the panelists was Leon Fuerth, former National Security Advisor to Vice-President Gore. After the event finished, I managed to grab his attention for a couple of minutes, and I asked him for his opinion of how future US administrations should proceed with regards to the Kyoto Protocol. He responded that it doesn't make sense to consider future administrations, because by the time President Bush leaves office, the foundations of that agreement will be non-existent. I had remembered reading in one of my books on diplomacy that, at the time of Gore's departure to Japan for the last-minute attempt to save the Kyoto talks, no one expected the US Senate to ratify an agreement. I asked Fuerth about why Gore went, if he had known that there was no chance of Senate ratification. Fuerth responded (a bit indignantly) that he had been on Air Force Two with Gore, as they went to Japan, and that Gore did *not* know that the Senate wouldn't ratify. Furthermore, he said, something is better than nothing, and Gore wanted to keep the negotiations going (and look at the result: the US didn't ratify, but the Protocol is now in effect).

Overall, an interesting night. I definitely need to study more international relations (and history). I am, however, currently taking a seminar called "Issues in U.S. Foreign Policy."
- posted by David Sontag @ 1:19 AM 2 comments

 
Ukrainian youth movement
So who's been to Freedom Square in the Ukraine recently? A New York Times article today talked about the leadership provided by youth in the current Ukraine political crisis. I'm amazed to see that the Yushchenko supporters are so well organized. You can find up to the minute updates at one of the organizer's sites, PORA. Can someone give a ring to Mariana Savytska and interview her for TakingITGlobal?
- posted by David Sontag @ 10:46 AM 0 comments

 
Iran Jails More Journalists and Blocks Web Sites
Today I read the following New York Times's article: Iran Jails More Journalists and Blocks Web Sites. I've been concerned about this issue for a few years now, in regards to China's similar actions. I think that there is a technical solution here. What we need to do is to set up a global distributed network of secure proxies, both within and outside of Iran/China. It'd work like this. Let's say that person A is within Iran/China, and B is a computer outside of Iran. When person A wants to see a web page (let's say of Amnesty International, which would surely be blocked), B would receive the web page and encrypt it, then send the encrypted version to A. Anyone listening to A's internet connection would be unable to see what web page this person is viewing. There are some important details here. First, the Chinese government could easily just block access to the proxies. Thus, we need a very large and dispersed network of proxies, which would make it impossible to block. Second, it is important that there be proxies *within* the country (China or Iran), storing cached versions of the data. This way, if the government decides to block all Internet access going outside of the country, some of the data will still be available. Third, individual users need to be instructed to turn off their browser's caching mechanism, so that it is more difficult for the government to see what they were looking at if they were to come knocking at their door. Fourth, this needs to be implemented simultaneously on tens of thousands of computers. The government would then have to choose between prosecuting everyone or letting the practice continue. Especially for China, which is becoming a global trade power, total enforcement would result in a significant blow to their economy, which would be a good deterrant.
- posted by David Sontag @ 1:52 AM 1 comments

 
Kyoto Protocol - The Climate is Changing Now What?
I've been reading about the Kyoto Protocol on global warming recently. A class I'm taking, Diplomacy & International Negotiation, has looked a bit into the negotiations surrounding the Kyoto Protocol. Some significant and relatively new aspects of the negotiations: the involvement of and pressure from non-governmental organizations, a tight deadline for negotiations to be completed (which ended up being delayed one day), and the effect of public attention (significantly increased by Vice-President Gore's last-minite trip to save the negotiations from failing).

Here is some background information: Primer on the Kyoto Protocol - The Climate is Changing Now What?, and the Wikipedia listing.

Russia just finished ratifying the Protocol. The Protocol will become active 90 days after they submit the ratification to the United Nations. The United States has not ratified the protocol, and will not be subject to its . Gore came to my University last month, and stressed that global warming is the single most important issue facing the world today. So why hasn't the US signed? My first thought would have been to blame it on the Bush administration, but a bit more reading seems to show that the Senate has been the real blocker (President Clinton never submitted the treaty for ratification). President Bush said of the treaty:

"The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."

The issue is important, and the US does need to act to "save the environment." However, I'm not sure whether the United States should ratify the agreement. The Senate wants binding targets and timetables for developing countries as well as industrialized countries. Differential treatment for developing countries may indeed be necessary. Still, China and many of the other developing countries are advancing very rapidly. If and when they become economic superpowers, should they not be subject to the same emissions quotas as today's industrialized nations? By choosing not to sign a possibly ineffective treaty, the US keeps its bargaining chips, leaving the door open for future negotiations.

- posted by David Sontag @ 3:09 AM 1 comments

 
Democracy is a lot of work
I finally finished (my absentee) voting for the 2004 elections. Deciding the Presidential race took no extra effort, though I did watch 3 of the 4 debates. However, I am a resident of Berkeley, California, and there were 32 state, district, school, and city measures to vote on, in addition to a few other appointments that needed to be decided. Especially because I'm quite young, deciding my view on each of these measures took me hours of work -- reading the unbiased legal commentary, the arguments for, against, and rebuttals of these. I spent over 8 hours on the task, and still I wish I could have spent more time. Annoyingly, only 1/2 of the information I needed to vote on the measures was available in my voter pamphlet (which was already over 1/3 inch thick). I needed to go online to read about the state measures and candidates. Is democracy supposed to be so time consuming? Aren't I supposed to elect representatives to decide on most of these measures for me? Does everyone spend the equivalent of one work day trying to figure out where to place their vote? Will I always spend so much time voting, or will laziness (or wisdom) prevail?
- posted by David Sontag @ 3:30 PM 0 comments

 
The New York Times > International > Middle East > How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence

In this article, they quote a front page New York Times article, from two years ago, that gave "the first detailed account of the alumnimum tubes," yet "gave no hint of a debate over the tubes." Why doesn't this article say anything about why the New York Times article refrained from discussing the debate? I'd like to know, for example, whether the New York Times had spoken to their contacts in the Energy Department, and knew about the debate, or whether they were completely relying on the White House and CIA's skewed intelligence reports.
- posted by David Sontag @ 4:37 AM 0 comments