Blog

President Obama recently roped in the Nobel Peace Prize, in part because the committee "attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons." Whether Obama should have received the Nobel Peace Prize and the implications of receiving the award is beyond the PONI purview but it raises an interesting question of how Obama's "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples" plays out in nuclear nonproliferation land. James Kitfield at GSN had a good read about some of the obstacles the Obama administration will face on its nuclear agenda. His analysis of the domestic political scene was pretty spot on but I differ a bit with some of the international section of the piece. On Iran he argues,

The administration's first gambit was last month's decision to scrap a proposed missile defense system in Eastern Europe, a major irritant in U.S.-Russian relations. Resetting that relationship was important not only in paving the way for a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in December but also in persuading veto-wielding Moscow to accept tougher U.N. sanctions on Iran for its clandestine nuclear weapons program. If Iran is able to shake off weak sanctions and thumb its nose at the Security Council by acquiring and eventually testing a nuclear weapon, it could lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and scuttle any chances for Senate ratification of the test-ban treaty, dooming the administration's nonproliferation agenda.

FISSILE MATERIAL
U.S., Russia must lead on arms control
Politico by Brent Scowcroft, Joseph Nye, Nicholas Burns, and Strobe Talbott

Iran will enrich uranium further if talks fail
AP by Ali Akbar Dareini

Amid Missile Tests, North Korea Agrees to Talks
NYT by Choe Sang-hun

Russian FM: 'considerable' progress on arms treaty
AP

Despite the proclamations that the nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva last week represented a "positive step" - the talk of enacting new sanctions on Iran continues. Yesterday, Stuart Levey, the Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence stated that a comprehensive and sweeping set of sanctions was being prepared if Iran fails to demonstrate the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. This rhetoric is far from new though. Sanctions were passed against Iran in 2006, 2007, and 2008 - to no avail - and this year both the Obama administration and Congress have been loudly threatening Iran with a new line of sanctions if it does not cooperate. And, with Obama's September deadline to Iran apparently punted in light of an "agreement in principle" at Geneva - despite the revelation of the Qom nuclear facility - expect the sanctions talk to continue.

Is a sanctions regime the right course of action to take though? The case against sanctions generally revolves around three main points:

EAST ASIA

1. French envoy calls for substantial nuclear talks
Associated Press
October 7, 2009
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iURO8fOyWVOA0ytFlaAGuC9F7R9wD9B680L80
 

I stumbled across this rather interesting opinion by novelist (no idea what kind) Bok Koh-ill in the Joongang Daily:

If North Korea strikes us with nuclear arms, would the umbrella over our heads really work as planned? It is a question none can answer as the umbrella has never been tested.  But whether the American president would actually order the firing of ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads against North Korea remains unknown. The U.S. chief executive may hesitate to chance nuclear apocalypse over a relatively small North Korean nuclear provocation if it doesn’t pose immediate danger to Americans. Washington may close the affair with sanctions or similar action if the North gives an explanation and apologizes for its attack. There is no guarantee that North Koreans won’t exploit this weakness in the American nuclear umbrella. They have gotten away with atrocious terrorist attacks before. Even if they don’t actually launch a strike, they could use the threat to achieve other ends. Whatever the case, we cannot tolerate North Korea as a nuclear power . . . If North Korea becomes a nuclear weapons state, we too have to develop a doomsday machine, or nuclear weapons.  We must speak up. The weakness in the American umbrella is too risky and perilous and the North Koreans are too belligerent.  We must pronounce that if North Korea is recognized as a nuclear power, we cannot do anything but develop weapons ourselves. That is the only deterrence against North Korea becoming a nuclear arms state. [Emphasis Mine]

EAST ASIA

1. S.Korea raises concern over China-N. Korea economic deals

Yonhap News by Lee Chi-dong

EAST ASIA
1. N. Korea calls for increased exchange, cooperation with South
Korea Herald
October 3, 2009
http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/html_dir/2009/10/03/200910030005.asp