The focus of this blog is not usually international diplomacy, but I lead with another post on the subject this morning – a day after U.S. Sec. of State Hillary Clinton announced the United States would go ahead with its push for a new round of UN sanctions on Iran, despite Monday’s “new” Iran-Brazil-Turkey nuclear fuel deal (the “newness” of which has been the subject of much debate over the last two days).
We begin with New York Times reporting this morning, which says the Obama administration announced Tuesday that it had received the backing of the two most hesitant permanent Security Council members, Russia and China, to move ahead with what would be the fourth round of UN sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. The scene for an “intense tug of war with Tehran” has been set, the paper writes, while Sec. of State Hillary Clinton – who made the announcement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday – called the new US-led sanctions proposal “as convincing an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran over the last few days as any we could provide.” With words like that, it’s hard to imagine the Brazilians (and Turks) won’t see Tuesday as a direct slap-in-the-face. [According to the Wall Street Journal, senior administration officials say Tuesday’s announcement was “a direct response” to Monday’s Brazil-Turkey-Iran agreement].
The proposal would not seem so surprising (the US has been pushing the Security Council on new sanctions for months) if it were not for the timing – just one day after the aforementioned agreement that would have Iran sending nuclear fuel to Turkey for partial enrichment under IAEA supervision. For that reason, UN reporter Evelyn Leopold writes at the Huffington Post that the unspoken message of the sanctions proposal “in effect tell[s] [Brazil and Turkey] they were not going to run the show.” In an interview with Al-Jazeera over the weekend, Brazilian President Lula da Silva said he continues to oppose any new sanctions on the Iranian regime but in the end would be forced to abide by them, as a member of the UN, should the Security Council move in that direction. On Tuesday, however, the message from the Brazilians was still one of resistance. According to Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, Brazil’s ambassador to the United Nations:
“Brazil will not engage in the negotiation at this moment because of the important accord signed in Tehran. This is the moment to continue diplomacy and continue negotiations. We should give a chance to the treaty signed in Tehran to produce results, negotiated results for a peaceful resolution for the Iranian problem. Brazil is going to continue with Turkey, the efforts for negotiations and we hope other countries will join us.”
Ditto from Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim who was involved in the Tehran negotiations over the weekend. He said yesterday that Monday's nuclear fuel deal did not solve all the issues of concern regarding Iran’s nuclear program, but it did lay the groundwork for a peaceful solution. “I am optimistic about the results,” Amorim said after returning to Brasilia – but before getting word of the new sanctions push by the United States and some of its European allies.
For more good opinions on the matter, I recommend Stephen Walt at Foreign Policy and especially Stephen Kinzer at Global Post, just back from Iran.
To other stories:
· Continuing with Latin America in the international arena, leaders from the region were in Madrid Tuesday for the much-anticipated EU-Latin American Summit, hosted by the Spanish government. There, some 60 heads of state and government unanimously supported an agreement calling for what EFE refers to as “new instruments of global governance for a multipolar world.” Coming on the same day as the US’s new Iran sanctions push, Argentine President Cristina Kirchner’s words seem particularly fitting. Kirchner, the report says, argued that the event’s declaration confirms that multilateralism is “the most suitable method to deal with not only financial problems, but also those of the political order.” She continued with a brief history lesson that some will find intriguing: “there was unanimity in understanding that multilateral entities date from the postwar (era) and from a world that today doesn’t exist any more.”
· The EU also announced the creation of $3 billion euro investment fund for Latin America, which will initially focus on supporting major infrastructure, energy, and transportation projects in the region. In a separate meeting with Central American nations, the EU signed a new “Association Agreement” with the countries of that sub-region, opening up new European markets for a variety of Central American goods. AFP calls the accord “an historic event” as it represents the first such agreement between Central America and Europe.
· Meanwhile, the Mexican government turns North today, as President Felipe Calderon addresses the US Congress before appearing with President Barack Obama at the White House’s second formal state dinner of the Obama presidency. Calderon will also be visiting Arlington National Cemetery, according to the Washington Post – a symbolic gesture “signaling the closure of a wound that dates from a 1914 U.S. military occupation -- and the vast improvement in U.S.-Mexico relations in recent years.” [According to Mexican officials, Calderón will be the first Mexican president to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.] Andrew Selee, director of the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Center, says US-Mexico “relations are at their best point ever” – but adds “this is not to say there aren't enormous problems.” Among the issues that are sure to be discussed during the Calderon visit, say experts, are differences on immigration, as well as drug war cooperation.
· On the former issue of immigration, the Post notes that pro-immigration congressman Luis Gutierrez was not given an invite to Wednesday White House dinner [Carlos Slim was invited apparently]. On the latter point, Just the Facts reports that an additional $175 million in US aid has been unexpectedly slipped into a supplemental funding request “marked up” by the Senate Appropriations Committee last week. According to WOLA’s Adam Isacson, the money “would be channeled through the State Department’s International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement program, and would support “judicial reform, institution building, anti-corruption, and rule of law activities.” That, Isacson says, would put total 2010 Mexico aid from the US - both military/police and economic/social aid – at about $935 million: the second-largest one-year amount ever appropriated to a single Latin American country [only behind 2000 US aid to Colombia]. More reporting on the Calderon visit from the Wall Street Journal and Time as well this morning.
· In other Mexico news, the AP reports that the majority of the police force in the small town of La Union, state of Guerrero, quit this week after armed men ambushed and wounded two of the unit’s officers. State police have now been called in to fill the security void. And the LA Times today has more on the on-going search for former PAN presidential candidate, Diego Fernandez de Cevallos – the story which has captured the attention of a nation. Interestingly, the paper notes the following about “el Jefe”: “Fernandez de Cevallos was more feared than beloved, and if he was the victim of kidnapping, as the evidence suggests, the list of suspects is a long one.”
· In Ecuador, BBC Mundo looks at Ecuador, six years after the passage of Transparency and Freedom of Information legislation. According to citizen’s organizations monitoring the legislation’s implementation, success has to this point only been “partial.” In 2004, Ecuador’s legislation was considered trailblazing in the context of Latin America (today 14 other Lat Am countries have passed similar legislation). But according to a report from the group Fundamedios, of the 69 information-access petitions in 2009, only 7 ended with the state handing over the requested information. According to President Rafael Correa, the problem lies not with his central government (which he claims has complied with 93% of freedom of information requests) but rather with local governments and autonomous institutions.
· At AQ, Christopher Sabatini has a piece from Brazil on citizen security in Rio de Janeiro, examining the concept of “pacification” used to describe anti-crime initiatives in the city’s favelas. He also discusses what sorts of social policies must be used to consolidate security gains. His argument: basic infrastructure, education, and credit are the principal elements needed to “secure the peace.”
· The Wall Street Journal reports on new Venezuelan restrictions of previously unregulated currency trading markets, which will now come under Central Bank control in an attempt to halt rising inflation.
· In Nicaragua, EFE says the opposition is again putting a halt to the work of the country’s National Assembly.
· Finally, Mexico opinions fill papers and the web today. Mexico’s ambassador to the US, Arturo Sarukhán in El Universal on why the US and Mexico will “succeed or fail together.” A similar tone from the Miami Herald’s editorial board and a piece by Sidney Weintraub and Johanna Mendelson of CSIS. CFR’s Shannon O’Neil offers her thoughts on the two issues of immigration and the drug war that will occupy most of the discussion with Mr. Calderon this week. And Human Rights Watch offers seven useful questions and answers about how human rights are being neglected in Mexico’s current fight against drug cartels.
· One extra web-gem today: Foreign Policy’s genius photo collage of Lula’s somewhat bizarre affinity for photography. Anyone have an explanation?
No comments:
Post a Comment