Strategic Trust-Building

Verifying Warhead Dismantlement is the center’s independent account of the UK-Norway Initiative, a three-year project to investigate the challenges of verifying the dismantlement of a nuclear warhead.  VERTIC’s report seeks to place the UK-Norway Initiative in the wider historical context of past dismantlement exercises and studies in order to identify the commonalities and differences between those exercises and the achievements of the Initiative.  

At the discussion, Andreas Persbo outlined the major conclusions and recommendations of the report, including:

• Verified warhead dismantlement is not only technically feasible, but also a necessary confidence building measure.
• Dismantlement is of limited value unless it is done in a transparent and verifiable process.
• A primary concern in verifying warhead dismantlement is balancing the delicate relationship between inspector confidence and the host country’s priorities to protect classified information.
• The possibility of building a dedicated dismantlement facility should be further explored.
• Authentication of warheads and their components remains a significant challenge in future verification regimes.
• Technical collaboration and practical exercises are key steps in designing a verifiable dismantlement program.

Discussion participants noted the valuable contributions of both the report and the UK-Norway Initiative and discussed which recommendations could be applicable in other scenarios. 

Although the experiment involved a nuclear weapon state and a non-nuclear weapon state, participants did not feel it was clear that this model could be replicated.  Before including non-nuclear weapon states in verification exercises, nuclear weapon states must overcome political obstacles and confidence deficits. Some participants argued that the likelihood of including non-nuclear weapon states will only increase if nuclear states significantly lower their arsenals and nuclear weapon states are more likely to initially involve international organizations, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, in verification exercises.

On the issue of verification in a nuclear weapons-free world, it was argued that when “global zero” is achieved then verification will operate similarly to the verification of non-nuclear weapon states today. This end state will only exist when all states are under safeguard agreements. Mr. Persbo maintained that verifying baseline declarations is the most difficult obstacle in verification, arguing that the easiest cheating method is to simply lie about the number of existing weapons in an arsenal. However, as nuclear weapon states decrease the size of their arsenals then it will be easier to envision verification in a nuclear weapons-free world. 

Referring to the UK-Norway Initiative and future verification models, participants also recognized that it is not likely that one model would be accepted by all nuclear weapon states.  Nuclear weapon states have different internal security concerns, priorities, and sensitivities surrounding their nuclear arsenals.  Given the necessity to maintain a degree of confidentiality around classified information, nuclear weapon states will likely favor different models of verifying warhead dismantlement.

Referring to the North Korea nuclear program, another participant raised the question of the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and complete verification.  Participants noted the difficulties of verification exercises in North Korea, and the unlikelihood that the any such exercises would be allowed by Pyongyang. Participants largely agreed that no verification model currently exists that could be successfully applied to North Korea.

EWI Vice President Andrew Nagorski, joined NPR's Talk of the Nation to discuss the German and European sentiment towards immigration, after German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that the efforts to build a multicultural society have "utterly failed" in her country.

In military strategy, the idea of “indirect approach” gained prominence in Europe only after the First World War in a book published in 1929. Many would say that it has been an enduring feature of the military strategies of Asian countries for much longer. What can we learn from this idea for transforming the Iran-Israel confrontation?

As the British strategist rightly observed in the preface to a later edition of his work, the principle of indirect approach has an application outside of military combat. It is, he said, a “key to practical achievement” where a “conflict of wills tends to spring from an underlying concern for interests”. He wrote that in such cases, the “direct assault of new ideas provokes a stubborn resistance”. Change, he suggested, is possible, and can happen rapidly, only “by unsuspected infiltration of a different idea or by an argument that turns the flank of instinctive opposition”.

If the Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, accepts the reality of Israel’s existence as a state, and he does, then why can’t we start to think about a treaty between Iran and Israel. We know there are obstacles, the first being the need for Israel and Palestine to have recognized each other as states.  The second is President Ahmedinejad’s reliance on anti-Israel rhetoric for political purposes. There is an even chance that within five years, both obstacles will have disappeared.

One interesting question is whether promotion now of the idea of regional peace and prosperity underpinned by an Iran-Israel treaty could actually hasten the elimination of both obstacles.

It has to happen. States use treaties to end wars and promote mutual economic security. There will be a treaty, either in fifteen years or five years. Why not aim for the five year milestone?

The treaty will be important for the obvious benefits it can bring in terms of peace and military security. Its enduring importance will be its potential to serve as an engine for regional economic development, including the development of transport links, educational advance and technology transfer. While both Israel and Iran ban bilateral trade, it does occur at relatively low levels, sometimes unwittingly through third parties.
It might be convenient to dismiss the robust (if unofficial) relationship between Iran and Israel before 1978 as a weird outcome of another time, but there were some basic economic and human realities at play in that, including Iran’s (small) Jewish community and Israel’s community of Iranian Jews.

Once Iran and Israel have normalized political relations, the trade floodgates will open. Although little remarked, Iran is – according to the IMF and World Bank – among the top 20 economies in the world in terms of GDP (purchasing power parity estimates). Iran ranks higher than Saudi Arabia, which is a member of the G20 while Iran is not.

Iran’s re-integration into the global economy in a post-sanctions world will be a productive process (once Israel and Palestine are at peace and the disputes over Iran’s nuclear program are eliminated).

A little known fact is that Israel, Iran and Palestine are currently all parties to a 2002 treaty on regional economic and security cooperation. This is the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA). It has ambitious frameworks for building trust between its members. There is not much agreement between Iran and Israel in this forum, but their common membership in it – where Palestine is, it seems, treated as a state – is certainly worth noting. A Turkish diplomat referred to CICA as a “unique group of dis-similars”, and the forum is inevitably a politicized one. For now, it is the only regional organization bridging Israel, Palestine and Iran. Based on this precedent, a bilateral treaty between Iran and Israel within five years is not impossible – once the two obstacles are removed.  

Listen to Andrew Nagorski’s analysis on National Public Radio’s morning show, “The Takeaway.”

Listen to Andrew Nagorski's interview on NPR's "Talk of the Nation", or read the full transcript of the program.

EWI Vice President Andrew Nagorski writes for Newsweek international November 1 issue after German Chancellor Angela Merkel said multiculturalism in Germany has “utterly failed”.

Sehgal, who found the last round of talks “pragmatic and even-handed,” highlights current areas of concern. In particular, he calls for a reevaluation of the aid that the United States has directed to Pakistan, asserting that “comparatively Afghanistan gets far more for doing far less.” According to Sehgal, the United States should bolster Pakistan’s economy through policies, like permitting market access for Pakistani cotton textiles, and with financial support for infrastructural projects (like dams and power plants) and job creation.

Turning to the military aspect of the bilateral relationship, Sehgal applauds Pakistan’s successful counterinsurgency operations and encourages the creation of a full-fledged counter terrorist force.

He calls upon the United States to replace its criticism of Pakistan’s military efforts with a substantive show of support, chiefly through a long-denied nuclear energy deal. And the United States must demonstrate real, disinterested concern for the Pakistani people: “The people of Pakistan must gain confidence that the U.S. is genuine about sustaining a meaningful long-term relationship.”

Click here to read this piece online

Sidhu discusses India’s difficult periods of turmoil and transition leading up to its current economic prominence and status as a world leader.  Following the Cold War, India hit a period of economic downturn and also lost its political ally, the Soviet Union: “In this period of transition, India was weak internationally and had little or no influence beyond its neighborhood, let alone in the powerful UNSC.”

Evaluating India’s status today versus in the past, Sidhu explains its significant progress: “Nineteen years later, the world and India are remarkably different.  Today, India is recognized as one of the economic engines that might alleviate the current global economic crisis.  A successful UNSC tenure will allow India to prove its global leadership credentials and also further its national interests.”

According to Sidhu, India’s success in the UNSC is contingent upon two factors: “First, whether it can restore the council’s legitimacy by supporting resolutions that are effective and implementable.  Second, India will have to prove that it can play with the big boys – the five permanent members of the UNSC.” In other words, India will have to demonstrate why its membership in the UNSC should be permanent.

For Sidhu, the real challenge may not turn out to be India’s election into the UNSC, but whether or not it can stay there.

Click here to read Sidhu's piece on livemint.com

According to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, multiculturalism has failed in Germany. Why? Listen to Andrew Nagorski’s analysis on National Public Radio’s morning show, “The Takeaway.”

 Obama’s forthcoming visit to India is awaited with muted expectations.  Both sides need a ‘successful’ visit so that the substantial political investment already made in the bilateral relationship is protected.”

Despite Obama’s consistent praise of India’s prime minister, Sibal maintains that there is a disconnect between his actions and his words, specifically in reference to American outsourcing to India: “[Obama] has personally led the charge against American companies practicing outsourcing despite the substantive Indian business links this has created.” Sibal discusses the intricacies of the IT industry explaining that Obama’s criticism has the potential to hinder the bilateral relationship.

“Even if one construes such talk as playing to the domestic gallery at a time of huge unemployment, projecting India as a competitor stealing U.S. jobs advances no core U.S. interest vis a vis India, besides overlooking sizeable job creation by Indian investors in the U.S.” states Sibal.

Another complex aspect of the U.S.-India relationship is the United States’ relationships to China.  Sibal argues that the U.S. needs to acknowledge China’s increasing aggression in the South China Sea and the combined China-Pakistan threat to India.

Sibal concludes: “President Obama’s visit should be genuinely ‘successful’ in mutual interest, but how to ensure this in real substance, not in soaring rhetoric, given the complexities involved, presents a challenge.”

Click here to read Sibal's article in Mail Today (page 12).