Conflict Prevention

“Whether by design or accident, the nuclear deal struck in Geneva this past weekend is about far more than centrifuges, enrichment and breakout times.

Ultimately, the success of the nuclear negotiations will help determine who and what will define Iran for the next few decades.

Will Iran be defined by the confrontational and bombastic approach of its former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the conservatives around him? Or will it be defined by the more open and moderate approach of its current President Hassan Rouhani and his energetic and respected Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif.”

-“Nuclear Deal will Define Future Iran,” Reuters, November 25, 2013.   

“The Obama administration moved quickly to sell the agreement to nervous U.S. allies, particularly Israel, and to persuade lawmakers not to push ahead with new economic sanctions that could prompt Iran to abandon the six-month freeze on its nuclear program set under the accord. In interviews, Secretary of State John F. Kerry defended the deal, saying that the United States and its allies believe that the agreement ensures Iran will either abide by the terms or face the reinstatement of measures that have crippled the country’s economy.”

-“After Iran nuclear deal, tough challenges ahead,” Washington Post, November 24, 2013.

“The White House has to persuade skeptical lawmakers to hold off on imposing new sanctions on Iran during the next six months. That may be a hard sell given the number of lawmakers from both parties who want to increase the sanctions on Iran rather than softening or relieving any of the existing measures. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, a close White House ally, has said he's prepared to take up a tough new sanctions bill when the Senate comes back into session next month. The bill would almost certainly pass if it was put to a full vote. Secretary of State John Kerry said Obama was prepared to veto new sanctions legislation, but that's a battle the White House would dearly love to avoid.”

-“Deal Reached to Halt Iran's Nuclear Program,” Foreign Policy, November 24, 2013.

“The U.S. readiness to talk with Tehran, after decades of mistrust, has angered some people in Israel, who said it was a form of appeasement. But supporters of the deal say it will encourage Iran to be more open about its true nuclear aims, which it says are peaceful.

Israel's parliamentary opposition leader Isaac Herzog said Netanyahu should minimize confrontation with the Obama administration "and restore the intimate dialogue with the leaders of the big powers."”

 -“Netanyahu sending security aide to U.S. for talks on Iran,” Reuters, November 25, 2013.

“The Iranian foreign minister pointed to Israel’s animosity with Iran and fury of the Israeli leader over the victory of Iran’s diplomacy in Geneva talks, and said, “In these negotiations we want to build the trust of the world in the fact that we are not after nuclear weapons; so why have the enemies been terrified in such a way and why are they crying out?”

-“AEOI Chief: Structure of Iran’s N. Program Unaffected by Geneva Deal,” Fars News Agency, November 25, 2013.

“Gary Sick, a former National Security Council Iran expert who now teaches at Columbia University, said the bilateral U.S.-Iran communication was about ‘laying the groundwork’ for the interim deal concluded in Geneva. ‘The real negotiations, of course, took place with the P5+1’ he said, but the secret U.S.-Iran talks were a way ‘to break the ice a little bit.’ There has been more direct communication between Washington and Tehran in the last few months, he suggested, than in the 34 years since the Iranian revolution.”’

-“Nuclear deal raises prospects (and fears) of broader US-Iran thaw,” Al Jazeera America, November 24, 2013.

“…The interim nuclear agreement signed in Geneva on Sunday by Iran and the six big powers has many of the flaws of Munich and Paris. But it has none of their redeeming or exculpating aspects.

After Geneva there will come a new, chaotic Mideast reality in which the United States will lose leverage over enemies and friends alike.”

-“Stephens: Worse Than Munich,” The Wall Street Journal, November 25, 2013. 

Just as the United States has had to adapt to a world where its power is unmatched but no longer will determinant, Israel have to do the same. With enlightened leadership this adaptation could strengthen the Jewish state, securing the nation through integration in its region rather than domination of it. For now Israel is some way from this mind-set. Its overriding prism is military. It was important that President Obama set down a marker, as he has through this deal, one that may spur new strategic reflection in Israel.

-“Israel's Iran Dilemma, “The New York Times, November 25, 2013. 

“This is a sham from beginning to end. It’s the worst deal since Munich…It’s really hard to watch the president and the secretary of state and not think how they cannot be embarrassed by this deal.”

-“Charles Krauthammer: Worst since Munich,” Politico, November 26, 2013.

In her editorial, Taylor explains: “During the conference, we talked about a number of pressing issues; we identified the issue of violence against women worldwide as one of our greatest concerns. Collectively, we agreed on the importance of continuing effort to pass The International Violence Against Women Act, a proposed piece of legislation that would for the first time place gender-based violence at the center of the U.S. foreign policy and international aid agenda. Thankfully, the Coalition to End Violence Against Women and Girls Globally is pushing Congress to reintroduce and pass this vital legislation in 2013.” 

Taylor goes on to describe the global importance of the legislation, should it pass. “From Afghanistan and Mexico to India and the United States, violence against women destabilizes families and communities, blocks economic progress, and undermines women’s efforts to create better lives for themselves and their families…If passed, the International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA) would establish gender-based violence prevention programs and create a response lens through which the U.S. government’s foreign aid could be redistributed to better respond to and ultimately reduce levels of violence against women internationally.”

To read State Senator Taylor’s editorial, click here.

Click here for full statement.

Moderated by EWI’s Andrew Nagorski, the event, which was attended by experts and diplomats, featured a conversation with William Tobey of the Belfer Center and Pavel Zolotarev of the Institute for U.S. and Canada Studies. They introduced the report and outlined specific policy recommendations for the U.S. and Russia aimed at reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism. Building upon a previous study released in 2011, this new report identifies the legal and political frameworks for cooperation, current gaps and weaknesses, and proposals to improve U.S. and Russian efforts to prevent and respond to nuclear terrorism.

“The threat of nuclear terrorism is both urgent and real,” Tobey declared, citing a number of cases over the past decade where fissile material was seized outside of regulatory control. These incidents warrant deep concern not only because they highlight the inadequacy of current security measures, but also because the interdicted materials represented only a sample of much larger quantities for sale. 

As it stands today, Tobey noted, “The U.S. and Russian governments are not well organized to cooperate in suppressing illegal trafficking of nuclear materials to combat nuclear terrorism.”

One of the obstacles that continue to frustrate U.S. and Russian efforts to prevent and manage the threat of nuclear terrorism are the divergent responses the two countries apply to nuclear crises. Though both parties acknowledge that the acquisition of fissile materials by terrorists pose a grave threat, the U.S. and Russia differ in policy responses, eschew information sharing, and have very different public notification strategies. 

Zolotarev added that the amount of attention paid to the cooperation procedures between the U.S. and Russia are inadequate or nonexistent. “We cannot remain complacent when considering preventing nuclear terrorism,” he warned. 

In order to more effectively combat the threat of nuclear terrorism, the report’s authors recommend three sets of actions for U.S. and Russian authorities. The U.S. and Russia should pursue joint actions in working groups composed of high-ranking officials; introduce parallel measures including improvements in nuclear security practices and regulatory enforcement; and take the lead in pursuing cooperative activities in concert with other countries.

As possessors of the world’s largest nuclear inventories, the U.S. and Russia share a special responsibility for leading international efforts to reduce the threat posed by nuclear terrorism, the speakers pointed out. Although the U.S. and Russia often find themselves at odds on a host of other issues, nuclear security is a critical area in which U.S. and Russian national interests coincide, particularly when it comes to the threat of terrorism. The recommendations put forth in this report and expounded upon by Tobey and Zolotarev are meant to serve as a catalyst for more vigorous actions by both countries, acting in concert, which should benefit everyone. 

Click here for the full Joint Threat Assessment. 

Following the first meeting in Ankara with women U.S. state legislators and parliamentarians from the wider MENA region, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, this gathering included capacity building sessions and participation in WAND’s biannual conference “Women at the Tables of Power.”Former United States Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues,Melanne Verveer was a keynote speaker.

The conference featured the Parliamentarians Network's critical role in advocating for the successful implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security.

The partnership allowed the international participants to attend WAND’s biannual conference, “Women at the Tables of Power,” giving these women parliamentarians the opportunity to communicate with other women leaders from different backgrounds and experiences. This partnership began two years ago, with its first full-scale meeting in Ankara, Turkey, in April 2013.

Ana Sol Gutiérrez, House of Delegates, Maryland, U.S., said, “For me, our meeting in Turkey was a life-changing opportunity. By speaking directly with women parliamentarians from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Morocco and Tunisia, I came to understand what they are living with every day. I was educated about these critical international issues and this exchange got me out of my box. I saw that we have similar challenges and our common human needs really struck me.”

In Washington, the group also took part in a variety of panel discussions and trainings: a seminar on the UN Security Resolution 1325 and International Law led by Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, senior fellow at the MIT Center for International Studies; a debate on the Cost of War vs. The Cost of Living moderated by PN member Wisconsin State Senator Lena Taylor; and a Strategic and Capacity Building training led by Jamila Raqib, Executive Director of the Albert Einstein Institution.

The women legislators involved in the partnership also participated in a Q-and-A session with former Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer, which allowed for more detailed discussions on many of the topics addressed over the weekend. 

In addition, a teleconference with NATO Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy Ambassador Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic gave the legislators the chance to discuss the Women, Peace and Security agenda at large as well as the role of NATO in Afghanistan. A major concern that was raised by legislators from all sides was the lack of conditionality of aid given to Afghanistan and the difficulty in holding their governments accountable.

In response, MIT’s Anderlini underscored why this group of women has to continue their efforts: “A network of women legislators globally working on these issues we are discussing is really important. The women need to know what is coming. These discussions [on foreign aid] are happening all the time. If we can make our own connections better we can hold governments more accountable.”

Many of the women felt that despite the government shutdown this week their meetings on Capitol Hill had a positive impact, as they were able to garner more interest in the Women, Peace and Security agenda in talking to their representatives from all parts of the country, both Democrats and Republicans.

For more information about the 2013 WAND Conference, please contact Agnes Venema. 

The three members of The Elders also called for a more “comprehensive resolution” to Myanmar’s “ethnic conflicts” that would include increased political dialogue.

“It’s the beginning of a peace process … It doesn’t come overnight. [But] it is very difficult to address [the concerns of ethnic groups] if they can’t actually stop the fighting,” says Ahtisaari.

Click here to read the article in the Myanmar Times.