Nuclear rules must reflect changes in balance of power

Harsh Pant
August 23. 2010
The National
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100824/OPINION/708239952/1080%C2%A0

When the then US president George W Bush helped to end India’s status as a nuclear pariah, allowing the country to sell civilian nuclear technology, the long-term implications were obscure.

With Japan, a long-time critic of India’s bid for a nuclear weapon, lining up for deals with India, and China proposing to offer similar technology to Pakistan, the geopolitical import of the 2008 Indo-US agreement is becoming clear. More...

Optimism for President Obama’s Policy in the Middle East Declines

Amanda Boettcher
Foreign Policy Fellow, Peace Economy Project
August 24, 2010

Perceptions of the Obama administration’s Middle East policy have dropped drastically from 2009 to 2010 according to the 2010 Arab Public Opinion poll conducted by the Bookings Institution. The poll surveyed 3,976 people in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates. The group was asked, “How would you describe your attitudes toward the Obama Administration policy in the Middle East?” In 2009, 51% responded with “hopeful” as their answer. In the same poll in 2010, the respondents that answered “hopeful” dropped to 16%.

The same polling group was asked the question “If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, which of the following is the likely outcome for the Middle East region?” In 2009, 29% said it would be “more positive.” In 2010, 57% said it would be “more positive.”

Why is this significant to U.S. foreign policy? More...

New Start stalling in congress?

Amanda Boettcher
Foreign Policy Fellow, Peace Economy Project
August 20, 2010


Five months have past since President Obama declared the New START Treaty “an important milestone for nuclear security and nonproliferation.” Unfortunately, America is waiting for the Senate to realize that this is a critical not only to American-Russian interests, but to maintain U.S. power in nonproliferation on the international stage.

The idea of nuclear arms reduction is not a new concept. Article VI of the Treaty of Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT, ratified 1970) states “Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on the effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.” The U.S. ratified the NPT and proceeded to take steps to live up to the obligation set fort in Article VI with START I Treaty signed in July of 1991.

Yet in the American political climate of today, national government officials are resistant to live up to international obligation because they fear being labeled “soft on defense” while others fear alienating their ultra conservative base. Former National Security Advisor to George H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft said of the issue that "much of the debate is not about the issue but other issues we might have only dimly related to what is before us.” More...

Current Issues: A Second Look at China and America

August 6, 2010
This article follows another PEP piece: China-US relations: Cold War Part Deux?
Jess Mitchell is an International Affairs Intern with the Peace Economy Project


Tensions between the US and China seem to have increased since my last article on the subject. Some of the issues are not defense related, such as disputes over climate change policy, energy consumption, and a meeting between President Obama and the Dalai Lama. Other recent events involve military provocations and armament exercises in a situation where both the US and China are beginning to test how far they can push their individual power. Here are some news updates as to the US-China conflicts in relation to defense.


QDR Lists China as one of “Greatest Challenges to the US”
The Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review was released with comments in it that concerned China. The review says that China’s military development raises legitimate questions about its future military conduct and intentions. Beijing immediately announced its dissatisfaction with the comment, not long before the US Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said “Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea pose the greatest challenges to the United States’ national interests.” More...

China and US Relations – Cold War Part Deux?

By Jess Mitchell, International Affairs Intern
July 8, 2010

It seems that the sour relations between the US and China have been escalating through support of puppet countries and diplomatic tensions. There have been a number of reports in the news lately that involve Sino-US relations in a roundabout way, all of them appearing to complicate ties and heighten tensions between the two military giants.

The first US-China incident of interest is the sinking of a South Korean ship, resulting in the deaths of 46 people. An international investigation shows North Korea as the culprit of the sinking, and as North Korea’s strongest ally, China neither confirms nor denies the North’s involvement in the controversy. More...

Why Should Americans Pay for Israel's "Iron Dome" Missile Defense?

PEP generally treads lightly when it comes to the Israel-Palestine conflict. We acknowledge that there is a wide variety of opinions on the subject and seek to address issues within the conflict that we can, indeed, affect. This article addresses one such issue, the massive amounts of US military aid to Israel. -PEP-

From Monthly Review Magazine
by the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
May 19, 2010

Last week, the Obama Administration notified Israel that it would support the authorization and appropriation of $205 million of U.S. taxpayer money to Israel to purchase ten batteries of the "Iron Dome" missile defense system.

If authorized and appropriated by Congress, this money would be above and beyond the Obama Administration's record-breaking FY2011 budget request for $3 billion in military aid to Israel. To see how much military aid to Israel your community provides, and what else that money could fund in your community, please click here. More...

The Wrong Tool for the Wrong Job

We can’t let the security imbalance get any worse.
5/7/2010
by Andy Heaslet


In 2005 and 2006, I proudly served as a Peace Corps Volunteer. The Peace Corps sends qualified volunteers to integrate themselves into communities, share American culture, learn the culture of the host-country nationals, and provide technical advice in order to gradually and sustainably help people in impoverished places pick themselves out of their various destitute situations.

The Peace Corps is a small, but potent force housed within the State Department. This department’s mission is to

“advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within the international system.”

And the Peace Corps performs a remarkable amount of work to that end, but not without difficulty.

A common problem I encountered during my service in Paraguay was facing assumptions that I was a member of the US military or the CIA. It took me a year of living in a small community, sharing meals, playing soccer, organizing meetings, and working in the fields before my neighbors trusted that I was there free of sinister intentions. This hurdle was finally and happily resolved in sleepy little Paraguay, but imagine if I had been in central Asia or even Ecuador, whose proximity to US military adventures are more prominent in locals’ minds. More...

America’s Global Weapons Monopoly Don’t Call It “the Global Arms Trade”

Tomgram: Frida Berrigan, Pimping Weapons to the World
By Frida Berrigan
Posted on February 16, 2010, Printed on March 5, 2010
From TomDispatch.com


On the relatively rare occasions when the media turns its attention to U.S. weapons sales abroad and shines its not-so-bright spotlight on the latest set of facts and figures, it invariably speaks of “the global arms trade.”

Let’s consider that label for a moment, word by word:

*It is global, since there are few places on the planet that lie beyond the reach of the weapons industry.

*Arms sounds so old-fashioned and anodyne when what we’re talking about is advanced technology designed to kill and maim.

*And trade suggests a give and take among many parties when, if we’re looking at the figures for that “trade” in a clear-eyed way, there is really just one seller and so many buyers.

How about updating it this way: “the global weapons monopoly.”

In 2008, according to an authoritative report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), $55.2 billion in weapons deals were concluded worldwide. Of that total, the United States was responsible for $37.8 billion in weapons sales agreements, or 68.4% of the total “trade.” Some of these agreements were long-term ones and did not result in 2008 deliveries of weapons systems, but these latest figures are a good gauge of the global appetite for weapons. It doesn’t take a PhD in economics to recognize that, when one nation accounts for nearly 70% of weapons sales, the term “global arms trade” doesn’t quite cut it. More...

Why Foreign Policy?

A vital element in the road to the creation of a Peace Economy is the development of levelheaded and Peace-Oriented foreign policy. Indeed, at the Peace Economy Project, we define peace as such: “Peace is not simply the absence of violence, but an environment free of the very factors that inspire violence.” Whereas all citizens seek to be free from violence (which is not exclusive to military action), we must understand what motivates violence and seek to find appropriate policies to solve these problems before they escalate into unnecessary violence.

The 700 Military Bases of Afghanistan
Black Sites in the Empire of Bases

Received as Tomgram: Nick Turse, America's Shadowy Base World
By Nick Turse
Posted on February 9, 2010, Printed on February 22, 2010

In the nineteenth century, it was a fort used by British forces. In the twentieth century, Soviet troops moved into the crumbling facilities. In December 2009, at this site in the Shinwar district of Afghanistan’s Nangarhar Province, U.S. troops joined members of the Afghan National Army in preparing the way for the next round of foreign occupation. On its grounds, a new military base is expected to rise, one of hundreds of camps and outposts scattered across the country.

Nearly a decade after the Bush administration launched its invasion of Afghanistan, TomDispatch offers the first actual count of American, NATO, and other coalition bases there, as well as facilities used by the Afghan security forces. Such bases range from relatively small sites like Shinwar to mega-bases that resemble small American towns. Today, according to official sources, approximately 700 bases of every size dot the Afghan countryside, and more, like the one in Shinwar, are under construction or soon will be as part of a base-building boom that began last year.

Existing in the shadows, rarely reported on and little talked about, this base-building program is nonetheless staggering in size and scope, and heavily dependent on supplies imported from abroad, which means that it is also extraordinarily expensive. It has added significantly to the already long secret list of Pentagon property overseas and raises questions about just how long, after the planned beginning of a drawdown of American forces in 2011, the U.S. will still be garrisoning Afghanistan. More...