Diplomacy & Crisis News

In a milestone exercise that “transited the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP) from weapons to politics,” last month’s congressional elections drew millions of Colombians to the polls amid a trend towards a reduction of electoral violence, the senior-most United Nations official in the country said on Thursday

Were it not for the sacrifices of United Nations peacekeepers, humanitarians and other personnel, the people who needed urgent support in the most difficult and dangerous environments would have experienced greater suffering, the top UN official said Thursday in an annual memorial service for fallen colleagues. 

Robotics may soon be a critical ally in the fight against disease-spreading bugs, a United Nations agency said Thursday after a successful test releasing sterile mosquitos from aerial drones as part of efforts to suppress the insect that spreads Zika and other diseases.  

En 1971, l'UNESCO définissait l'information scientifique et technique comme une « ressource mondiale », c'est-à-dire collective, et proposait la constitution d'un système mondial d'information scientifique UNISIST . Un certain nombre d'institutions internationales oeuvraient déjà dans le même sens : (...) / États-Unis, France, Inégalités, Information, Informatique, Relations internationales, Technologies de l'information - 1979/11

The United Nations needs to accept that it's possible to fight and broker peace agreements at the same time.

Paru dans The Conversation

Les frappes militaires occidentales en Syrie, dans la nuit du 12 ou 13 avril 2008, ont été justifiées par leurs auteurs au nom du franchissement par le régime de Damas d’une ligne rouge intolérable. En l’occurrence, l’usage réitéré d’armes chimiques sur des populations civiles. Cette initiative, qui a conduit à la destruction de plusieurs sites militaires syriens liés aux armements chimiques près de Damas et dans la région de Homs, ouvre plusieurs questions.Quelles en sont les conséquences sur la situation au Proche-Orient, sur les équilibres globaux, et enfin quel sera l’avenir du concept de ligne rouge dans les usages stratégiques internationaux ?Les frappes occidentales : quel impact ?Selon toute vraisemblance, les frappes opérées n’avaient pas pour objectif d’ouvrir la voie à un affrontement plus global, ni de préparer un changement de régime en Syrie. Les trois chancelleries concernées – États-Unis, France, Royaume-Uni – ont pris soin de modérer leur propos au lendemain des opérations, de souhaiter la reprise du dialogue diplomatique, et même de proposer (comme la France) de nouvelles résolutions aux Nations unies. Elles ont pris soin, surtout, de ne pas frapper de cibles russes.Sur le front militaire syrien proprement dit, ces frappes ne devraient donc pas bouleverser les équilibres. Leurs conséquences politiques pourraient néanmoins être importantes. En premier lieu, elles ont pour vocation de corriger l’épisode de 2013, lorsque les États-Unis de Barack Obama refusèrent de suivre la France dans sa volonté de frapper le régime de Damas après, déjà, l’utilisation très probable par ce dernier d’armes chimiques contre des populations civiles.Cette séquence avait symbolisé les hésitations et sans doute la faiblesse de l’Occident face à un régime sans scrupule. L’entrée spectaculaire sur la scène syrienne de la Russie quelques mois plus tard, puis le processus d’Astana co-piloté par Moscou, Ankara et Téhéran, avaient illustré avec force le recul des trois Alliés qui s’étaient jusqu’alors situés au premier plan des drames du « Grand Moyen-Orient », de l’Irak à l’Afghanistan, en passant par la Libye.Par la suite, la lutte contre l’État islamique avait pris le pas sur l’objectif de punir Bachar Al-Assad, la Turquie s’était rapprochée de Moscou, et le gouvernement syrien avait repris le contrôle de l’essentiel du territoire. Il apparaissait donc en quelque sorte vainqueur, même s’il se trouvait affaibli et dépendant de ses sauveurs, l’Iran et le Hezbollah d’une part, la Russie de l’autre. Vainqueur, même, au point de se permettre de persévérer dans l’utilisation des armes chimiques, après avoir annoncé un accord russe sur leur démantèlement.Les Alliés à nouveau réunisL’un des points importants de ces frappes réside peut-être dans l’affichage d’un front (ré)uni des trois Alliés. L’Amérique, en dépit de son Président fantasque, a agi de concert avec son homologue français qui avait pourtant annoncé « la fin d’une forme de néoconservatisme importée en France depuis dix ans », et une première ministre britannique affaiblie par le Brexit et par les élections générales de juin 2017.Le trio habituel de l’intervention extérieure s’est donc reconstitué, de surcroît sur un dossier où on le disait définitivement relégué au second plan. Cela change naturellement la donne, même si cela ne réglera pas tous les désaccords annoncés entre les partenaires. On pense, notamment, à l’accord sur le nucléaire iranien, auquel l’Élysée tient tandis que la Maison Blanche veut le remettre en cause.
Lire la suite dans The Conversation

Donald Trump and Kim Jong-in plan to meet somewhere, maybe in June.

As you have probably heard. President Donald J. Trump has accepted an invitation to visit North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.* People who were genuinely worried that Trump was going to start a needless war with North Korea now seem to be nearly as worried that he is going to talk to them and inadvertently trigger a calamity. In normal circumstances, of course, as Winston Churchill reportedly said in 1954, “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.” (It rhymes when Churchill says it.) Still, there is room for concern.

An Incentive to Break Coalitions

Although Trump apparently regarded the invitation itself as a major breakthrough, North Korean leaders have actually been trying to negotiate with Americans for generations. It’s the Americans who refused. Once upon a time, the North Koreans refused to talk to South Korea’s leaders at all, insisting that they must deal directly with the “puppet masters,” not the “puppets.” Over the years, they have adapted to changing circumstances and developed new ways to try to split the U.S.-South Korean alliance. Countries facing a hostile coalition will always have an incentive to try to break it up.

Thus, in giving this year’s New Year’s Day speech—in the face of a new administration in Seoul that was eager to improve relations and an administration in Washington that was intensely hostile—Kim Jong-un gave different messages geared to the primary interests of the different audiences. To Seoul he offered to begin a dialogue, ease military tensions, and create a peaceful environment; to Washington he highlighted that “the mainland of the United States is within range of our nuclear strike” and promised to accelerate the production of nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles. This, to say the least, appears to be a combination designed to elicit a differentiated response. Given this background, it seems reasonable to expect that when Kim offered to negotiate denuclearization with the United States—an offer he made to a South Korean delegation—he may well have assumed Trump would reject the offer, further aggravating relations between Washington and Seoul. Trump’s quick and unexpected acceptance might then explain the fact that it took three weeks, a side trip to Beijing, and a secret visit by the CIA director for Kim to acknowledge that he had actually made the offer. But acknowledge it he eventually did.

Given the nature of the story so far, the summit itself may not prove very productive and could even be quite counterproductive if excessive hopes are dashed. Cause for concern can be found in the likely clash between the two sides’ expectations. What, for instance, do Trump and Kim expect to get out of the summit? And what strengths do they believe they have going into it?

Goals

In terms of goals, of course, we do not know what either man, Trump or Kim, is thinking at the moment, but we do know what each side’s expressed fundamental goals have been up to now. Those goals suggest trouble if neither side changes. North Korea’s immediate goal is to solicit acknowledgment of its status as a nuclear power and the sort of treatment that is accorded to that status, certainly to include an end to all sanctions. Kim has reportedly agreed to discuss the “denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” but that oft-repeated refrain is normally conditioned on guarantees of North Korean security (e.g., the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea and perhaps Japan, the renunciation of the U.S.-South Korean alliance, the end of U.S. extended deterrence—the so-called nuclear umbrella—with regard to South Korea) that amount to guarantees of South Korean insecurity. No doubt, Kim has taken notice of Trump’s stated willingness to bring U.S. troops home from South Korea.

The United States’ immediate goal is the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and production facilities. This has become such a standard demand that it has its own abbreviation, CVID. As generally understood, it does not include the sort of security guarantees that Pyongyang finds necessary.

Clearly the U.S. goal clashes with the North Korean goal. It will be even harder to achieve now that North Korea actually has nuclear weapons and the missiles to carry them (even if some technical finishing touches may still be required). Even in far more mundane matters than potential nuclear annihilation, psychologists tell us that people will willingly pay a higher price to avoid losing something that they already have than they will pay to acquire something new that is objectively comparable in value. To be sure, the stakes in the current situation are not mundane, and the North Koreans will not trust the Americans simply to keep their word. To Pyongyang’s way of thinking—as surprising as it will be to many Americans—the history of U.S.-North Korean negotiations has been one of unfulfilled U.S. promises, and North Koreans are quick to point out that both Saddam Hussein and Mu’ammar Qadhafi gave up their nuclear programs (in return for express guarantees from the United States in the latter case) only to be hunted down and killed by their enemies afterward, whereas the North Koreans have kept theirs and are still around to tell about it.

Leverage

If the two sides’ goals clash, what expectations do they bring to the table in terms of their relative bargaining strength? Listen to virtually any pundit on U.S. television and the impression you will get is that North Korea is coming to this summit because the United States compelled it to, be it a consequence of economic sanctions, bellicose threats, or the force of Donald Trump’s personality. This seems to be the general American perception, and it is likely one that the president shares (especially the part about the effect of Donald Trump’s personality). Having forced North Korea to the table, President Trump may well believe that he has the leverage to force Kim to accept the terms that he offers with little or no bargaining. If Trump’s view of the Iran deal is indicative, he may believe that bargaining itself is inappropriate in any case.

Kim Jong-un, however, may see it differently. Even if sanctions have played a major role in his recent actions, and it is hard to believe that they haven’t, other factors may be pushing in the same general direction and influencing his thinking. For example, China may be pressing him simply to lay off the provocations until the threat of war blows over. Or he may believe that North Korea’s success in developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles has increased his own leverage and forced the United States to negotiate. After all, the United States, not North Korea, changed its position on direct negotiations. If this is the case, it makes it all the less likely that Kim will respond positively to a demand for complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement.

Regarding the tactics of bargaining, Trump, referring to his experience as a deal-maker in business, has suggested that the secret to winning a negotiation is for him to threaten to take his money and walk away from the table. That may be a feasible tactic when the objective is to arrange some mutually profitable business deal, when many business entities are eager or at least willing to make that deal, and when any of them would be a viable partner. When the objective is to avoid war on the Korean Peninsula, however, there are a limited number of potential partners who can affect the outcome, and North Korea must certainly be counted among them. One cannot simply walk away and declare victory.

Finally, Trump has also suggested that his ability to withhold the recently renegotiated U.S.-South Korean trade agreement strengthens his position vis-à-vis North Korea. This assertion has confused many trade experts since it implies leverage over South Korea rather than North Korea. If the president thinks he can coerce South Korea into bringing North Korea into a deal, he has yet to explain why he thinks South Korea has such leverage but has not used it itself. Some have suggested that he just confused the two Koreas.

China: The Weak and Vital Link in the Sanctions Chain

Sitting as we do at the center of the world, Americans tend to assume that other countries are focused primarily, if not entirely, on us. With regard to North Korea’s current, troubled situation, the Americans will present demands and wait for North Korea to satisfy those demands in order to ease its circumstances. Even if sanctions are what forced North Korea to negotiate, however, the United States is not the central player; China is. The United States, to be sure, was central to crafting the sanctions regime, but it never had any trade with North Korea to curtail. Fifteen years ago, China, South Korea, and Japan each accounted for about 20 percent of North Korea’s trade, but as other countries began imposing sanctions, trade shifted to China until that country accounted for 90 percent by itself. China’s decision last year to begin enforcing sanctions seriously is what has changed the situation. Thus, China is the country that North Korea must satisfy. China is the key to breaking the sanctions coalition.

At the same time, we do not really know what demands Chinese leaders have made behind the scenes, or perhaps more importantly, what Kim believes it will take to satisfy them. In addition to being the vital link in the chain that is the sanctions regime, China is also the weak link. It was always reluctant to impose sanctions on North Korea, and a collapse of the North Korean regime is the last thing that Chinese leaders want to see, which puts natural limits on how far they are willing to press sanctions. China’s resolve may be weakened further if its leaders see Trump’s demands as unreasonable. Thus, Kim may well believe that all he has to do is convince the Chinese that he tried to negotiate with Trump but that accommodation with him proved impossible (and perhaps promise to lay off the provocations for a while). If Trump tries to take his assets and walk away from the table, deal-maker style, the result could well be to convince China that he is not serious and thus hand a diplomatic victory to Kim.

Breakthrough, Fizzle, or Calamity?

We cannot completely rule out the possibility that the Trump-Kim summit will produce a major breakthrough in U.S.-North Korean relations, or that Trump will simply accept any offer that strikes him as positive sounding at the moment, but it is not likely. Both leaders are inexperienced in such negotiations, and both seem prone to impetuous behavior (although, to be fair, Trump has never executed any of his relatives). The meeting will lack the months, sometimes years, of preliminary lower-level negotiations that usually precede a summit of this sort. The best that one could hope for might be a joint declaration of goals and perhaps an outline of how to work toward achieving them. To be honest, given the foregoing discussion, that does not seem likely either.

That leaves two possibilities. The meeting could be a fizzle, something that produces little but disappointment and perhaps a few tweets crowing about imaginary achievements, moral victories, or the deceitfulness of the other side. In that case, North Korea and China could be the most likely winners. Or, as some have feared, the meeting could result in calamity. One or both leaders could be so shocked and enraged by the other’s seemingly outlandish expectations that he, or they, resort to resolving the politics by other means. This is not a necessary outcome, but it cannot be excluded either.

*Technically, he is not President Kim Jong-un. That title is still held by his grandfather, Kim Il-sung, who died in 1994. (Evidently, president-for-life was just not good enough.) The current leader has several titles, including Chairman of the Commission on State Affairs (formerly the National Defense Commission), which is the actual leadership position in the state, and Chairman of the Korean Workers’ Party. (His late father, Kim Jong-il, is of course the Eternal General Secretary of the Workers’ Party.)

The post Trump, Kim, and the Breaking of Coalitions appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

La transmission des données est encore un vaste champ libre où s'affrontent les technologies et les stratégies commerciales en pleine mutation. Ni les administrations nationales responsables ni les juristes n'ont les moyens de contrôler la guerre qui se livre ainsi dans le brouillard. Le (...) / États-Unis, France, Information, Informatique, Technologies de l'information, Technologie, Télécommunications - 1979/11

A group of United Nations human rights experts have called on Iran to annul the death sentence against a prisoner citing serious concerns that he was tortured in detention and did not receive a fair trial.

>> Retrouvez l’article dont est extraite cette citation : « Le Venezuela peut-il sortir de l’impasse ? », écrit par Thomas Posado dans le numéro de printemps 2018 de Politique étrangère. < <

A technical team sent by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to the site of an alleged chemical weapons attack in the United Kingdom has identified toxic agents consistent with the UK’s initial investigation, the top United Nations disarmament official told the Security Council on Wednesday.

Tehran and Moscow are becoming the arbiters of the Middle East — and Israel’s relationship with both is growing increasingly tense.

A senior United Nations humanitarian official on Wednesday called on Israeli authorities to halt plans to demolish Palestinian-owned structures and cease plans for the relocation of Palestinian Bedouin communities in the West Bank.

The behind-the-scenes effort to rally enough senators to confirm Pompeo just got tougher.

The EU’s defense forces are struggling to recruit, and immigrants are often eager to serve.

Two hundred and seven child soldiers have been released by armed groups in South Sudan, part of a series of planned discharges that should see nearly 1,000 children return home over the coming months.

Those who committed the most serious crimes in Syria must be identified, and criminal case files must be built as the basis for prosecutions, the head of a United Nations body assisting these efforts said Wednesday.

With an estimated $220 billion of the global harvest lost to plant pests each year, the agency charged with fighting this scourge has adopted new standards and measures to safeguard  internationally traded  agricultural and forestry products.

The Trump Administration’s lack of engagement has made the terrorist threat worse.

Leftists want to celebrate revolutionary idealism; conservatives, the triumph of traditional authority. And Emmanuel Macron is trying to split the difference.