UN Dispatch was well represented at Yearly Kos at the end of last week. Three out of four Dispatchers made the trip out to Chicago.

Aside from getting to meet many of the bloggers that I had only known as online personas, I thought the foreign policy discussions were the most interesting part of the convention. For the most part, everyone seemed remarkably well-informed. And, even though as a convention largely dedicated to the progressive movement the discussion too often veered toward a single-minded view of the war in Iraq, international cooperation and improving the U.S. image abroad was the underlying sentiment in the forums on U.S. foreign policy.

Unfortunately, that idea was rarely carried through to a discussion on the U.S. role at the United Nations. The UN is the world's platform for international cooperation, and it is clear that strengthening U.S. engagement at the UN should be the centerpiece of our efforts to bolster both our image and our influence abroad. UN Dispatch intends to continue to foster this conversation in part so that at next year's event it attains its natural position at the center of U.S. foreign policy discussions.

I sat in on a panel discussion today at the Carnegie Non-Proliferation Conference centered on Europe's efforts toward building non-proliferation regimes. During his presentation, Martin Briens from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs mentioned one of those rarely reported efforts--the EU, as a standard practice, has included non-proliferation clauses in their trade agreements since 2003, basically requiring a non-proliferation commitment from trading partners. Annalisa Giannella, the EU chief diplomat's non-proliferation representative, outlined this initiative in an interview with Arms Control Today. Apparently the Europeans have 90 such agreements--which can basically be viewed as hair-trigger sanctions and make clear the EUs commitment to non-proliferation.

As part of the Carnegie Conference on Non-Proliferation, Russian Alexia Arbatov from the Carnegie Moscow Center, Neil Crompton from the British Embassy in Washington, and Bruno Tertrais from the Fondation pour la Recherche Strategique sat down with Barbara Slavin from USA Today and Glenn Gessler from the Washington Post to discuss the efforts to persuade Iran to give up its pursuit of nuclear enrichment. Their main differences centered on whether UN sanctions had been effective and whether anything short of the threat of force or a serious hit to the Iranian oil economy will force Iran to stop its program. More in-depth coverage of their presentations after the jump.

Crompton, offering "London's perspective," began by stressing how critical this issue is to his government, saying that no less than the credibility of the NPT and multilateral institutions in general and the stability of the Middle East rests on solving this problem. He made the point that there are three things that we should keep in mind when setting a strategy for Iran.

• Iran desires international credibility and will go to amazing lengths to get it.
• Iran has a pluralistic government and a relatively open society with different power centers. We have an opportunity to create pressure from beneath. He listed a string of constituencies to consider, including President Ahmadinejad, the broader political spectrum (specifically Rafsanjani), the Revolutionary Guard, the clerics, parliament, the street, and the technocrats.
• Iran needs things we have, like technology and investment dollars.

The general UK assessment is that Iran acts according to political, not security, motivations, and that there have been signs in the last few months that sanctions are making a difference. According to Crompton, Security Council Resolution 1737 was a shock to Iran, who thought veto-wielding members Russia and China would protect them. And, economic pressures are beginning to kick in. President Ahmadenijad, who was elected on "bread and butter" issues, is feeling the pressure most acutely because "the street" is suffering from the rise in inflation and high unemployment. These pressures are coming from three directions--general economic mismanagement by the government, increased nervousness felt by foreign companies who are slowing investment, and the Security Council sanctions.

Arbatov, not representing the Russian government but also saying that they wouldn't him in jail for his statements, took a different line, offering the following points.

• Iranian capacity shouldn't be exaggerated or underestimated. We need to rely fully on the IAEA assessment
• Because there are various groups jockeying for power in the Iranian elite, it is futile to try to guess Iranian intentions, and those intentions are likely to change over time.
• A united front by the Perm 5 is of the utmost importance, and watered down sanctions simply illuminate our differences.
• There are three principal goals in this process: 1) restoring the IAEA safeguards, 2) stopping uranium enrichment, and 3) stopping the plutonium program. There is no way to achieve all three. Iran will continue with its program unless we directly threaten force or shut down their oil industry, neither of which we are willing to do. The Iranians see America negotiating with North Korea even though they have already tested a weapon (a point that Tertrais later seconded). Given those truths, we should focus on strengthening the IAEA safeguards.
• We need to treat the Iranian program as an arms conrol issue and realize that we will need to compromise. We need to decide what level of compliance we will accept under IAEA safeguards.
• Given the third and fourth points, the US needs to do more to come to common ground with Russia. U.S. positions on Ukraine and Georgia and the missile shield are not helpful. He also suggested, somewhat strangely in the view of this blogger, that Iran is bolstered by U.S. work to build a missile shield because they view it as a concession that our non-proliferation efforts might not work.

Tertrais offered a brief statement, saying that France is committed to UN sanctions. He suggested that President Chirac never really believed in the power of sanctions and said so publicly but that President Sarkozy does. The only question now is whether to go "broader or deeper." France seems to want to make the resolutions as broad as possible. He also suggested that Iran was motivated by "political and prestige" considerations, not its security needs.

This WSJ Op-Ed, "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons," has been labeled as visionary at least a half dozen times by a half dozen different speakers at the Carnegie Conference on Non-Proliferation. It's worth checking out if for no other reason than to see what those in the know in non-proliferation find authoritative.

The Carnegie Non-Proliferation Conference, a big deal for proliferation wonks, started this morning in Washington, D.C., with a panel entitled, A World Free of Nuclear Weapons. On the panel, former Senator Sam Nunn, now head of the Nuclear Threat Institute, gave a pessimistic view of our future. He posits that we have to be diligent, effective, and lucky in regard to curbing nuclear proliferation. He says that we were lucky during the Cold War, but, in the future, it will be a much more difficult--with the prospect of many new nuclear powers and even more nuclear enrichers and the increased need for nuclear energy that battling climate change will create.

Nunn suggests that a multilateral approach is absolutely necessary. Given domestic and international political realities, "there are not many unilateral actions we can take." However, the U.S. must also take a "unilateral leadership position on a multilateral response." To Nunn this begins with two immediate actions.

First, ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Second, ask ourselves, why is it necessary, 15 years after the end of the Cold War, for the U.S. and Russia to continue to have thousands of nuclear weapons on a hair trigger? Nunn suggests that we need to look at what we're doing to make that necessary.

Stay tuned for a report on "The Security Council's Iran Challenge." I will be at the Conference and sending back posts today and tomorrow.

The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues opened its two-week session today in New York, where more than 1,000 indigenous representatives will take on issues related to lands, territories and natural resources.

These matters are widely viewed as central to indigenous peoples' efforts to gain recognition for their rights. "With the increasing desire of States for more economic growth, senseless exploitation of indigenous peoples' territories and resources continues unabated," said Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Chairperson of the UN Permanent Forum, which will meet from 14 to 25 May.

More

Yesterday marked the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, commemorating March 21, 1960 when police in apartheid South Africa fired on peaceful demonstrators.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted that while the world has made strides in fighting against racial discrimination, there is still work to be done.

"Racist practices hurt their victims, but they also limit the promise of entire societies where they are tolerated...They prevent individuals from realizing their potential and stop them from contributing fully to national progress. They perpetuate deeply embedded social and economic inequalities. Where unaddressed, they can cause social unrest and conflict, undermining stability and economic growth."

More

John Bolton, former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, will appear on the Daily Show tonight, Comedy Central at 11pm.

Right now, the House Foreign Affairs Committee is holding an open hearing on "The Future of the United Nations under Ban Ki-Moon" with Tim Wirth, former Senator and current President of the UN Foundation, John Bolton, the former U.S. Perm Rep to the UN, and George Mitchell, former Senator Majority Leader.

Watch it live.

Tomorrow the House Committee on Foreign Affairs is holding an open hearing, The Future of the United Nations under Ban Ki-Moon.

Details after the jump.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007
10:00 AM
Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building

The Honorable Timothy E. Wirth
President, United Nations Foundation
Former United States Senator, Colorado

The Honorable George Mitchell
Former United States Senate Majority Leader
Former Co-Chair, United States Institute for Peace Task Force on the United Nations

The Honorable John Bolton
Former United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations

A live webcast of the event will be available here.