On August 10, the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) will officially expire. Before then, the United States and Great Britain want the Security Council to approve a new and expanded mandate that would carve out a greater political role for the UN in Iraq. Says Zalmay Khalilzad:

"In order to reduce the sources of violence, we believe that the United Nations can help Iraqis come to a national compact, come to an agreement on these big issues on which there are differences," Khalilzad told reporters on Thursday.

He said that included provincial boundaries such as those around the disputed oil-rich northern city of Kirkuk. Kurds want Kirkuk included in their autonomous region as its capital, but other ethnic groups object.

Back in the fall of 2006, the Iraq Study Group foresaw a possible political and diplomatic role for the United Nations along these lines. But since organizing the so-called "purple finger elections in 2005," UNAMI's political work has been limited. Now, the UN is being asked to do what no other nation or group has yet to be able to accomplish: bring Iraq's factions and Iraq's neighbors together in an attempt to forge some sort of political compromise. Obviously, given the sorry state of things in Iraq, the UN may not even be able to do this. But at least, finally, member states are recognizing that UN-sponsored mediation could be the last best hope for finding a political solution to Iraq's sectarian war.

The otherwise estimable Barbara Slavin of USA Today writes an entire article about the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), without actually mentioning the treaty by name. Slavin explains how the White House sees "black gold" under the Arctic ice--and references a treaty that would firm up American oil companies' claims to excavate--but she never explicitly states that it is the Law of the Seas Treaty, which sets rules the use of the world's oceans, to which she is referring.

Nevertheless, the article is good. It shows how the Senate's non-ratification of the treaty is undermining American interests. Oil and mineral extraction companies, for example, are wary about the legal firmament of their Arctic claims absent Senate ratification of the treaty. Slavin quotes John Bellinger III, the State Departments' top lawyer, and Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen--both of whom urge the quick ratification of the treaty, which the US signed back in 1982. Though the piece does not mention it (this is a short USA Today article after all) the military also advocates for US ratification because doing so would help it more freely navigate the ocean.

But oil companies and the military are not the only advocates of US ratification of the Law of the Seas. Major environmental groups also see great value in the treaty, which contains provisions for protecting fish stocks and sets marine environmental standards. The treaty has the unanimous support of the Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

So what is stopping its passage? Slavin cites one senator in particular who opposes the treaty on strict ideological grounds. "There's still a little sovereignty left in America," says the Senator. "Let's hold onto it." With the kind of wide ranging support the Law of the Seas Treaty enjoys, however, that kind of atavistic opposition to the treaty cannot hold for too much longer.

US Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad pens an op-ed in the New York Times today outlining a potential role for the UN in Iraq:

In Iraq, the United States supports a larger United Nations role because we believe that with the right envoy and mandate it is the best vehicle to address the two fundamental issues driving the crisis in Iraq.

First, the United Nations has unmatched convening power that can help Iraq's principal communities reach a national compact on the distribution of political and economic power. In the role of mediator, it has inherent legitimacy and the flexibility to talk to all parties, including elements outside the political process.

[snip]

Second, the United Nations is also uniquely suited to work out a regional framework to stabilize Iraq. Several of Iraq's neighbors -- not only Syria and Iran but also some friends of the United States -- are pursuing destabilizing policies. The United States supports a new mandate that creates a United Nations-led multilateral diplomatic process to contain the regional competition that is adding fuel to the fire of Iraq's internal conflict.

Read the whole thing.

Late last night, Russia rejected the final draft of a Security Council resolution on Kosovo. The resolution, sponsored by the US and EU, would essential replace United Nations authority in Kosovo with that of the European Union. While the United States and European Union stress that this is not an automatic road to independence, Russian seems unconvinced. Should the resolution pass, it would mean that Russia would effectively loose its ability to veto any future moves toward Kosovo's independence.

The measure was supposed to come to a vote today, but the threat of a Russian veto may prevent that from happening. Meanwhile, Condoleezza Rice told reporters today that Kosovo will have its independence "one way or another" suggesting that the US and EU might move the debate on Kosovo's future status out of the Security Council.

The first, big step towards North Korean disarmament was confirmed by IAEA inspectors today. The plutonium producing facility in Yongbyon is now closed—the result of a diplomatic breakthrough acheived through the Six Party talks in February.

So what does this mean? For one, it shows just how impractical refusing to negotiate with one's enemies can be. From December 2002 to February 2007 -- when direct diplomacy was shunned -- the North Korean government is estimated to have produced enough plutonium for ten nuclear weapons (and of course, actually detonated a nuclear weapon last October.) But more to the point, the recent progress shows that Security Council unanimity, combined with focused regional diplomacy and direct bilateral engagement with the United States can achieve desirable non-proliferation outcomes.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has announced that it's reached an agreement with Iranian authorities to allow new inspections and safeguards.

...[I]nspectors will visit the heavy water research reactor at Arak by the end of this month and will also finalize the safeguards approach at the fuel enrichment plant in Natanz early next month, the IAEA said in a press statement issued at its headquarters in Vienna.

More

Without much fanfare, there has been a recent flury of progress toward actual, verifiable North Korean nuclear disarmament. In the latest development, the IAEA announced this morning that a team should be on the ground by Saturday, July 14 to oversee the shutdown of the plutonium producing Yongbyon facility.

So what does this mean for the wider non-proliferation debate? It would seem that Security Council sanctions, backed by regional diplomacy and direct bi-lateral engagement with the United States can coax a country away from its nuclear ambitions.

In February, the six party talks yielded its first breakthrough since North Korea withdrew from the nonproliferation treaty in January 2003. North Korea, incidentally, agreed to return to the six party process only one month after the the Security Council slapped sanctions on North Korea in October 2006. Per the February arrangement, DPRK promised to dismantle the facility at Yongbyon in exchange for a package of food and fuel subsidies. But as the deadline approached in May, Pyonyang balked, demanding that the United States release $25 million in frozen North Korean assets. Then, on June 22 Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill made a surprise visit to Pyongyang to shore up the deal.

This was the first face-to-face meeting with a high level American official in five years. It seems to have helped move things along. Six days later June 28, an IAEA assessment team traveled to the Yongbyon facility to hammer out a technical agreement that would allow the IAEA to oversee its shutdown. This, I should note, was the first time that an IAEA team set foot in North Korea since 2002. Now, by the end of the week, an IAEA North Korean mission will be on hand to verify the closure of Yongbyon. This is progress.

Writing in the Washington Post, Column Lynch exposes the conundrum raised by Abdul Hakim Monib, an Afghan provincial governor who is at once a key American ally and on a UN list of suspected international terrorists. Monib, you see, was a former Taliban leader who broke ranks in 2002 and joined the government of Hamid Kharzai. But the sanctions list hasn't been updated to reflect Monib's reconciliation with Kharzai, so dealing with him can be somewhat legally troubling.

"This is a perfect case where time has passed, things have changed, but the committee hasn't and the list hasn't," [Eric Rosand of the Center on Global Counter-Terrorism Cooperation said.] "The list is so poorly managed that no one has confidence in it anymore, and nobody puts forward names."

The committee to which Rosand refers is the U.N. Security Council's Al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctions panel, which was formed in 1999. In last month's installment of UNF Insights, Rosand explains why, exactly, the Al Qaeda sanctions list is stale, and what can be done to enhance the UN's counter-terrorism work.

The International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors met two weeks ago for budget negotiations, but could not agree to a funding increase for the agency. To make matters worse, donors have not yet delivered over $35 million dollars in promised contributions. That may not seem like a tremendous amount, but the IAEA's total budget is only $379 million.

In a rare move, IAEA Director Mohammed elBaredei appealed directly to the Board of Governors, which is composed of thirty-five IAEA member states, to urge them to consider the consequences of an IAEA budget that provides for zero-growth. A summary of his remarks (which were only made public last week) is below the jump -- and is well worth reading in full.

elBaredei's plea makes me wonder if we are living on borrowed time. Accidents are bound to happen, particularly as more and more countries seek nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuel. But, as he points out, the agency's ability to respond to a Chernobyl style incident is severely diminished by an overstretched budget. Also, some of the important verification work the agency does in places like North Korea and Iran may be called into question by the ageing environmental sampling technology the agency is forced to use. elBaredei even says that the IAEA must outsource some of its lab work, calling into question the whole principal of neutrality that gives the IAEA its credibility.

The board has until September to finalize the budget, so there is a chance that they may reconsider. The alternative -- an IAEA without the resources to counter, say, nuclear smuggling -- is truly frightening.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I do not usually get engaged directly in the discussion of the budget. I would like, however, to share some concerns with you. Needless to say, I am distressed that it has not been possible to reach agreement. This does not augur well for the Agency, in terms of either our function or our credibility.

The budget is essentially a political statement. The basic question is: What kind of Agency do you want to have? You can easily have a mediocre Agency. Or you can have an effective and efficient Agency capable of carrying out the functions assigned to it: functions that are crucial to development and security — indeed to survival.

There is no personal gratification involved in the way that my colleagues and I continue to advocate an increase in the budget. Not a single cent of the increase will go to the staff. We get the same remuneration whether we have a zero growth budget, a 5% increase or a 10% increase. But my colleagues and I cannot sit here and tell you that the Agency is able to fulfil its functions if in fact it cannot.

We can do only what you are able to finance. You could finance a less effective Agency and we will tell you what that would mean — less than credible verification assurance, less than the best safety advice, a less than perfect security function, and less than adequate development assistance.

The External Auditor gave us an absolutely clean bill of health. The high level panel of the former United Nations Secretary-General Annan singled out the Agency as "an extraordinary bargain". The United States Office of Management and Budget, which regularly looks at broader aspects of the UN system from a US perspective, has singled out the Agency as providing 100% value for money. But with all this our ability to carry out our essential functions is being chipped away.

The safeguards function is being eroded over time. Today we cannot consistently do environmental sampling analysis ourselves due in part to the unreliability of an instrument that is 28 years old. We have to rely on a very small number of external laboratories. And this puts into question the whole independence of the Agency's verification system. This is a reality.

In the case of safety, our Emergency Response Centre is far from being adequate for what we are supposed to do in fulfilment of the Notification and Assistance Conventions. If an accident were to happen tomorrow, we would be hard pressed to carry out core functions. This is a reality.

In the nuclear security area where every world leader is saying that it is a number one priority, the External Auditor — your External Auditor--has mentioned that we continue to rely for 90% of our security funding on extrabudgetary contributions that are heavily conditioned and highly unpredictable.

In the Department of Nuclear Safety, which we created after Chernobyl, we continue to have 45% of the staff financed by extrabudgetary funds simply because we don’t have sufficient regular budget funds. This means that we have not much say in their selection. The result naturally undermines the concept of geographical distribution embedded in our Statute.

Both the External Auditor and the Internal Auditor have come to the conclusion that we will not be able to continue to be efficient or effective without integrating our information systems and introducing an Agency-wide system for programme support.

You have therefore to make a fundamental choice: is the Agency going to be demand driven or are we going to work on the basis of so-called zero growth? If you tell us in advance that you have a ceiling, and no matter what the priorities are there will not be more money, then so be it. But then we will tell you that we can do programme items one, two and three but not four or five; and that items one, two and three also will be at best reduced. The concept of zero growth runs counter to the whole concept of an Agency that has been increasingly asked to do more, increasingly asked to carry out activities that are critical to development and international peace and security.

We also have the issue of balance: we have to give equal priority to all activities. There is so much humanitarian work that is needed in developing countries. You have to go and visit to understand what is being done in the area of cancer control or food production. We can continue to do as much as we are doing, or we could choose to do much more. In the verification area, however, we have no option at all. If a country comes and asks us for verification, that is an obligation under our Statute; we have to do it and we can’t do it half-heartedly or cut corners. The problem is that verification is very expensive. If a facility is going to cost $17 million in terms of safeguards equipment, I can't find that money through so-called efficiency gains.

Balance does not of course mean dollar for dollar. Balance to me means that we have to give equal priority to all the activities of the Agency, but it does not mean that we have to have exactly the same budget for verification and for development activities because the cost for each one is quite different. If, for example, the Agency moved in the future to verifying new arms control agreements, we might have a very large verification budget. Whether you want to have another system for financing verification, this is something for you to decide. Whether you want to have a look at the whole funding of the Agency, again this is something for you to consider. But what I fear right now is an increasing erosion of the Agency’s ability to perform its functions.

The present discussion is not about half a million dollars, or a million dollars, it's about what kind of Agency you want to have. What kind of programme do you want us to deliver? I understand and appreciate that many of you have financial constraints back home. But every Member State has to determine priorities. You have to differentiate between spending on health, on culture, or on defence. Equally, you have to decide on priorities about how much you want to spend on which international organizations.

Every Member State is asked to contribute to our budget. There are major donors and there are so-called small donors. But all States contribute according to their capacity to pay and therefore assume the same pain.

I have to tell you that the proposed budget is one that does not by any stretch of the imagination meet our basic, essential requirements. It is your decision to make but I need to make the implications clear for you because I do not want in the future to see a clandestine nuclear weapon programme in some place, or a safety ccident in another, that we have failed to pre-empt because we did not take the measures that were needed as we have seen in the case of the weapons programme in Iraq and the case of Chernobyl.

Thank you very much.

Some welcome non-proliferation news: IAEA inspectors are on the ground in North Korea. Five years ago, you may recall, the DPRK booted all inspectors from their country following allegations by the United States that DPRK had a secret uranium enrichment program in violation of the Agreed Framework. Since then, North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon.

According to news reports, the IAEA team is currently in Pyongyang and will visit the country's main nuclear facility in Yongbyon tomorrow.

The International Atomic Energy Agency released a new report detailing Iranian non-compliance with Security Council demands that it suspend its uranium enrichment program. American officials are not pleased. From the Washington Post:

Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns called the IAEA report "disturbing, because it shows that Iran is effectively thumbing its nose at the U.N. and the entire international community. If Iran does not agree to sit down and negotiate, which we would prefer they do, then I'm quite sure there will be united and strong international pressure for a third resolution."

"The purpose would be to demonstrate to Iran that it is isolated and will pay an increasingly heavy cost for this outrageous behavior," Burns said.

In today's press conference, President Bush responded to the report by expressing his desire to pursue a tougher set of sanctions against Iran in the Security Council. Given the low expectations for a planned meeting next week between Iranian negotiator Ali Larjani and Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, we may soon see new action at the Security Council to step up the pressure on Iran.

The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has announced an investigation into alleged crimes, most notably widespread rape, committed in the Central African Republic (CAR) in 2002 and 2003.

"My Office has carefully reviewed information from a range of sources. We believe that grave crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the Court were committed in the Central African Republic," said ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo.

Moreno-Ocampo continued, "We will conduct our own independent investigation, gather evidence, and prosecute the individuals who are most responsible."

More

Remember back to summer 2006. Hezbollah rockets rained down in northern Israel and Israeli retaliatory air strikes left hundreds of thousands internally displaced in Lebanon. For weeks, the situation remained hopelessly stuck. The Security Council had discussed ways to stop the fighting, and on August 14 authorized a peacekeeping force. But until the peacekeeping force actually asserted itself in northern Lebanon, Israel would not withdraw its forces and neither would Israel lift its sea and air blockade until other parts of the resolution were implemented.

In late summer Kofi Annan traveled to the region to address these outstanding issues and shore up the Security Council resolution. During a frantic bout of shuttle diplomacy that took the then Secretary General to 12 countries in 11 days, Annan was able to win the right set of concessions from both parties and convince member states to rapidly deploy peacekeepers to southern Lebanon.

Now, six months later, the new Secretary General has set foot in southern Lebanon where the ceasefire is holding.

From The New York Times:

"We are enjoying a situation in which we have no major incidents and no open display of weapons by anyone," said Maj. Gen. Claudio Graziano of Italy, the commander of the force, known as Unifil. "We call this Unifil 2," said General Graziano as he showed Mr. Ban around the new base here, built on what six months ago was a barren rock-strewn hillside.

While it's true that the now 14,000 strong UNIFIL peacekeeping force has been able to prevent an outbreak of fighting, there are still some outstanding issues that challenge the region. For one, unexploded ordinances are wreaking havoc on the internally displaced who have returned home to rebuild. (Here the United Nations demining teams are taking the lead.) Also, although the resolution called for the disarmament of Hezbollah, there has been little indication that any actual disarmament has taken place. The August 14th ceasefire resolution did not grant Unifil the mandate to disarm Hezbollah, leaving that job to Lebanese authorities. But at this point, without a political settlement between Hezbollah and state authorities, any moves to disarm Hezbollah could spark a civil war. Still, despite these unresolved issues, the ceasefire in Southern Lebanon and Israel is holding strong.

The aphorism, "America cooks, Europe does the dishes," became a popular way to describe the transatlantic relations in the late 1990s. At the time, the saying referred to Europe's lead role in Balkan reconstruction efforts. It was not used pejoratively, but reflected the honest division of labor between allies following the American led humanitarian interventions in southeast Europe.

If the saying were updated today and applied to the Afghan war perhaps "Europe" would be replaced by "The United Nations." To be sure, this is not to diminish Europe's important contributions in Afghanistan. Rather, it speaks to the outsized role that the United Nations has played in reconstruction efforts there.

Yesterday, the Security Council acknowledged the centrality of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and extended its mandate by one year. Since inception in 2002, UNAMA has taken the lead in critical rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts, ranging from the repatriation of refugees to election assistance and life saving of humanitarian work. When Afghanistan becomes a self-sustaining government, it will be due in large part to the availability and expertise of UNAMA workers.

As expected, the Security Council approved on Saturday a tougher set of sanctions against Iran. The council unanimously agreed to an asset freeze and travel ban on 28 government and military officials, a ban on arm exports from Iran, and sanctions on the state owned bank, Sepah. The resolution also makes clear that if Iran complies, and suspends its uranium enrichment program, sanctions will be lifted and a previous offer of economic incentives will be made available.

Nicholas Burns, a firm international relations pragmatist in the US government, spoke to the press following the Security Council vote:

"It's a significant international rebuke to Iran and it's a significant tightening of international pressure on Iran," said Nicholas Burns, undersecretary for political affairs at the State Department. If Iran does not comply, "there's no question" that the United States will seek a third and tougher resolution, he added.

[snip]

Burns said that because of a "tumultuous political environment" in Iran "we believe there is a faction inside that government that wishes to accept this offer to negotiate."

And from the Washington Post:

"We got more than we thought we were going to get" in this resolution, said Nicholas Burns...He also said that it criminalizes Iran's military support for Middle East extremists and exposes its political isolation. "If Iran has Qatar, a gulf Arab state, and Indonesia, a Muslim state, and South Africa, a leading member of the nonaligned movement, voting for these sanctions, Iran is in trouble internationally."

Security Council votes have consequences. The Iranian government has long been considered a pariah-state in the West. But now, by defying the Security Council, it risks gaining an ignominious reputation in other parts of the world. The council vote also made some of Iran's larger trading partners key stakeholders in the successful implementation of last summer's Security Council resolution 1696, which calls for the suspension of Iran's nuclear enrichment activities. Prior to the vote last week, Russia even suspended construction of a nuclear plant in Bushehr in southern Iran.

The previous set of sanctions, approved in December, exposed fissures inside Iran. The government now must choose between cooperating with the demands of the international community or enduring isolation. The Security Council has raised the cost of Iran going nuclear. This is the way that diplomacy is supposed to work.

The United Nations Security Council has unanimously decided to tighten sanctions on Iran in response to the country's uranium-enrichment activities.

Following the adoption of resolution 1747, Iran's Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, immediately rejected it as illegitimate, maintaining Teheran's longstanding claim that the country's nuclear programme is entirely peaceful and therefore outside of the Council's brief.

He also charged that the sanctions were not being imposed in response to the nuclear programme but were rather "schemes of the co-sponsors" carried out "for narrow national considerations aimed at depriving the Iranian people of their inalienable rights."

More

Following up on Cordell's post below, the scarcity of water in western Sudan is often cited as a catalyst of the conflict there. Over the past twenty years, desertification in western Sudan had increasingly pitted historically nomadic Arab tribes in competition for water and arable land with the so-called "black African" tribes of Dafur. The ruling elite in Khartoum used this underlying tension to its advantage when it hired militias from the ethnic Arab tribes to crush rebellious "black African" militias in Darfur.

Even today, as the UN plans for a possible peacekeeping force in Darfur, the scarcity of water sources in western Sudan presents a huge logistical problem. If the force ever gets off the ground, water must either be imported, or else a number of water bores must be drilled to sustain the peacekeepers.

Jane Holl Lute, UN Assistant Secretary-General of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, recently gave a short, but compelling, view of the logistical difficulties inherent in peacekeeping and the difficult mandates given to UN peacekeepers. (Earlier we posted video from the same address on the role of women in post-conflict environments.) Having fought in the U.S. Army during the First Gulf War and lectured at West Point, Lute is thoroughly familiar with the security benefits that UN peacekeeping imparts to the American public and the rest of the world.

Although Lute doesn't make the connection in these videos, Mark Leon Goldberg, in a recent UNF Insights piece, discussed how growing U.S. arrears to UN peacekeeping are making the already difficult jobs of UN peacekeepers even harder and how "if this trend is sustained, ongoing missions will suffer, and some of the newly proposed missions, such as Darfur, could starve before they ever get off the ground." As the U.S. continues to face significant global security threats, it would be wise for Congressional appropriators, as they tackle the supplemental and look toward FY08 appropriations, to consider UN peacekeeping's benefits to U.S. security, the difficulties inherent in maintaining the peace in 18 conflict zones around the world, and the debilitating effects of denying proper funding. For those of you who are interested, the Better World Campaign has created tailor-made letters that you can send to your member of Congress.

On Wednesday, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns testified before House Committee on Foreign Affairs on US policy toward Iran. His submitted testimony essentially reiterates the administration's commitment to confronting Iran's nuclear ambitions through diplomacy at the Security Council. But according to an eyewitness to the hearings, some members of Congress expressed skepticism about this route, particularly when it came to the utility of the Security Council sanctions imposed on Iran last December.

To this, the eyewitness reports that Burns responded:

"Iran is in a position where it is one now of only 11 countries in the entire United Nations -- out of 192 -- that are under sanction. And it's been that spotlight -- and here I would just have to disagree, very respectfully, with some of the comments made -- it's those sanctions that have worried the Iranian government...

So I would argue to you that this diplomatic process of trying to use the United Nations and trying to use a multilateral framework for negotiations is the right path for the United States...When the Security Council resolution passed on December 23rd, I will tell you that I felt perhaps it wasn't strong enough too...And we have been pleasantly surprised to see the impact it's had inside Iran. I think the Iranians are less concerned with the specific aspects of those sanctions than they are with the isolation that it's brought them and the international condemnation that it's brought them. And I think they were surprised that Russia and China joined us."

With this comment, Burns adds himself to the growing, but under acknowledged, number of commentators and policy makers who believe that the UN sanctions regime is starting to show its intended effect inside Iran.

True, the sanctions are not as tough as they could be. Just this week the Security Council began a new round of negotiations discussing how to strengthen the sanctions package, including expanding the number of individuals slapped with a travel ban and asset freeze. Still, as Burns, and others like the Hoover Institution's Abbas Milani have argued, it's not the actual sanctions package so much as the prospect of further international isolation that has Tehran worried.

Among the many difficult issues the UN is managing, the situation in Kosovo has been one of the most intractable. The Security Council has slated the much anticipated March session on Kosovo for the 19th, at which time it is expected that Secretary-General Ban’s Special Envoy for Kosovo's Future Status, Martti Ahtisaari, will deliver the final draft of his proposal on the status of Kosovo. On March 2, Mr. Ahtisaari issued a statement saying that the two parties, Serbia and the ethnic Albanian government of Kosovo, remain “diametrically opposed” on the UN’s February proposal for the province, which would grant Kosovo the right to govern itself and conclude international agreements, including membership in international bodies, but would stop short of full independence. Mr. Ahtisaari continues to meet with the parties and has invited them, along with the so-called "Contact Group" of the US, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, and Russia, to a high-level meeting on March 10.

The UN, through its Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and along with NATO forces, has worked tirelessly to maintain peace and security in Kosovo since the world body began running the province in 1999 after Western forces drove out Yugoslav troops amid ethnic fighting. Mr. Ahtisaari, working in parallel with UNMIK, has gone to extraordinary lengths to bring the parties to agreement on Kosovo's future. All indications are that this will not happen, not now and probably not anytime in the near future. Without an agreement it will be up to the Security Council to develop a workable strategy, likely leaving one or both sides unsatisfied. However if the Security Council doesn’t act and retains the status quo under Resolution 1244 enacted in 1999 (which, unlike nearly all other Security Council Resolutions authorizing UN Missions, remains in force until the Council "decides otherwise"), the impatient Albanian Kosovars will likely declare independence, threatening renewed upheaval and bloodshed. This was foreshadowed during street demonstrations protesting the current UN plan.

The UN has always been in a difficult position in Kosovo, caught between two parties that refuse to budge, with a Security Council divided as to how and when to divert from the status quo, and with critics on all sides. Facing two seemingly intractable positions, the Security Council must send a strong message supporting the UN's work in Kosovo, along with delivering a stern warning that violence will not be tolerated. While UN efforts in Kosovo have not been perfect, the organization has done very well under the circumstances. The parties, members of the Security Council, and all other nations and interests, need to support its long-standing work and ensure that the region moves forward in peace.

The second Annual Review of Global Peace Operations (executive summary pdf) was released last week at the United Nations and highlighted a year of unprecedented growth in UN peacekeeping operations. A project of the Center on International Cooperation at New York University, the report says that despite the immense challenges of starting several new large-scale missions "2006 was not a catastrophic year for peacekeeping. In some ways, it was a surprisingly successful one." It goes on to elaborate on the details of deployments by the UN and other organizations, looking at specific regional and country contributions.

Congress should keep this information in mind as it starts its deliberations on the utility of UN peacekeeping and makes budgetary decisions about the U.S. contributions. Right now, the President's budget is about $500 million short of what will be needed for the U.S. to pay its peacekeeping dues even though the U.S. has voted for all of the new missions in the Security Council. Considering the benefit of peacekeeping to U.S. interests, the U.S. should pay these bills in full.

In the Indianapolis Star, David Ignatius connects recent turnabouts in North Korean behavior to the application of US Treasury Department sanctions on financial institutions that do business with DPRK. While I have no doubt that these sanctions helped coax North Korea back to the international fold, I wonder if a better connection might be drawn between October's Security Council sanctions and the apparent breakthrough in North Korea?

According to Ignatius, the Treasury Department action forced a number of Asian banks to freeze North Korean assets. But that was back in September 2005. One year before North Korea tested its weapon. On the other hand, the Security Council unanimously authorized sanctions this past October. Three weeks later, North Korea agreed to resume the six party talks. And now it would seem that as a result of these renewed talks, North Korea is closer than ever to suspending its weapons.

In the first few months of 2005, the Security Council considered granting the International Criminal Court the jurisdiction to investigate alleged war crimes in Darfur. The debate was tough at the time. The United States is not a signatory to the treaty that created court and it was unclear whether or not it would support the referral in the Security Council. The crisis in Darfur, however, seemed to inspire a brief détente between the United States and the ICC. When the resolution came to a vote, the United States abstained and let the measure pass.

Nearly 20 months later, we are seeing the first results of that decision. On Tuesday, the ICC's top prosecutor released the names of two individuals against whom his office has built a case. According to the recently released court documents, Ahmad Harun, a Sudanese government official, is alleged to have hired a janjaweed militia commander named Ali Kushyb to clear out villages and towns in West Darfur.

Though these are two relatively mid-level players, the investigation in Darfur is still open. The prosecutor has pledged to follow the evidence where it leads. Presumably, this means up the chain of command to more senior officials of the Sudanese government.

So now that the ICC has opened the prosecutorial floodgates in Sudan, what does that mean for the long suffering people of Darfur? Specifically, how can the ICC help break Khartoum's opposition to the already authorized peacekeeping force for Darfur? The answers here depend on how key players of the international community choose to respond to these new developments. The ICC has just given the international community a point of political leverage over the Khartoum. If key international players back the ICC's work in Darfur, the investigations can help press Khartoum to break its opposition to peacekeepers.

With yesterday's announcement, the ICC showed the world that it can build a serious case against alleged war criminals in Darfur. This is precisely the right moment for all responsible nations to show Khartoum that they are unified behind the Court's work. With the threat of indictments hanging over the heads of the leadership in Khartoum, perhaps then they will come to realize that letting peacekeepers into Darfur is really an offer they cannot refuse.

Diplomats from the U.S., Britain, China, Russia, Germany and France have agreed to start working on new resolution in order to pressure Iran to rein in its nuclear program.

The State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, said the United States was willing to join in talks between the Europeans and Iran over the nuclear program, provided that Iran suspended its uranium enrichment activity.

More

In The New York Times op-ed page, Abbas Milani, director of Iranian studies at Stanford and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, writes that the week-old UN sanctions on Iran are beginning to have its intended effect.

"Top leaders of the Islamic Republic, from Ayatollah Khamenei to Mr. Rafsanjani, have made it clear that they consider sanctions a serious threat -- more serious, according to Mr. Rafsanjani, than the possibility of an invasion.

"In other words, what the unilateral and increasingly quixotic American embargo could not do in more than a decade, a limited United Nations resolution has accomplished in less than a month. And the resolution succeeded because few things frighten the mullahs more than the prospect of confronting a united front made up of the European Union, Russia, China and the United States. The resolution was a manifestation of just such a united front."

Milani also states that the powerful insiders like Ali Larjani, the top Iranian nuclear negotiator, are in damage-control mode right now. Incidentally, this includes a series of high-level repudiations of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad confrontational rhetoric about the Holocaust. But more to the point, the sanctions seem to have inspired the Iranian regime to contemplate what previously they had not. As Milani writes, the Ayatollah's foreign policy advisor stated forthrightly "that suspending Uranium enrichment is not a red line for the regime." So despite President Ahmadinejad's blustery proclamations to the contrary, the real power players behind Iranian foreign policy are willing to agree to some sort of compromise that includes suspension.

It should be noted that the current sanctions regime is actually rather limited in scope. Still, though the Security Council only agreed to a "light" sanctions package, the Council's unified front seems to be having a demonstrable effect on the debate within Iran. The sanctions, though not terribly robust, are beginning show its outsized political utility.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says that he is "deeply concerned" that Iran has not met the Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment.

"I urge again that the Iranian Government fully comply with the Security Council as soon as possible" to engage in continued negotiation "with the international community so that we will be able to address and peacefully resolve this issue," he told reporters in Vienna, Austria, where he is on an official visit.

More

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged Iran's government to full comply with the SG and answer to the international community concerning their pursuit for nuclear technology.

Last December the 15-member Council imposed sanctions on Tehran, maintaining that Iran's nuclear programme was aimed at weapons production, a claim the Government consistently denies.

"Again, taking this opportunity, I would strongly urge the Iranian authorities to comply, first of all fully with the Security Council resolution, and continue to negotiate with the international community."

But Iran's leaders say they plan to press ahead:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today that Iran had a right to pursue nuclear technology and "will continue our work to reach our right in the shortest possible time," according to the ISNA news agency. Speaking in Siahkal in northern Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad said,

"Obtaining this technology is very important for our country's development and honour."

More

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged Iran's government to full comply with the SG and answer to the international community concerning their pursuit for nuclear technology.

Last December the 15-member Council imposed sanctions on Tehran, maintaining that Iran's nuclear programme was aimed at weapons production, a claim the Government consistently denies.

"Again, taking this opportunity, I would strongly urge the Iranian authorities to comply, first of all fully with the Security Council resolution, and continue to negotiate with the international community."

But Iran's leaders say they plan to press ahead:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today that Iran had a right to pursue nuclear technology and "will continue our work to reach our right in the shortest possible time," according to the ISNA news agency. Speaking in Siahkal in northern Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad said,

"Obtaining this technology is very important for our country's development and honour."

More

As mentioned yesterday, Special Envoys of the United Nations and African Union will travel to Sudan next week to meet with Government officials and Darfur rebels. Today, acting United States ambassador to the United Nations Alejandro Wolff helped ramp up the pressure on Sudan by announcing that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will address the Council based on the envoys' recommendations.

In this State Department release, Wolff conveys a "general sense of frustration" from the Security Council.

"'We have been dealing with this for many, many months,' Wolff said after the closed-door Security Council meeting. 'We continue to find ourselves stymied by questions and stalling tactics on the part of Sudan government.'"

Wolff seems to be sounding the right notes by chastising Khartoum for using delaying tactics to stymie the expressed will of the Security Council. Still, the central dynamic that is preventing the deployment of peacekeepers remains. So far, Khartoum has yet to be convinced that a robust peacekeeping force in its western region is something to which it cannot afford not to accede. The kind of political pressure from key member states that could help overcome Khartoum's defiance is apparently lacking. Only when member states are willing to expend real diplomatic capitol commensurate with their current rhetorical admonishments will peacekeepers have a chance to set foot in Darfur.

Ban Ki-moon finished his trip to Washington yesterday with a capstone speech on UN priorities and US-UN relations delivered to a distinguished audience of government, media, and civil society leaders at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Notably, resolving the crisis in Darfur and building consensus for the deployment of a joint African Union-United Nations peacekeeping force ranked as his very first priority. Ban then cited several other items of concern and ticked off a laundry list of challenges before the world body. He called Iraq "the whole world's problem" and pledged to continue reconstruction support through the International Compact. And in a statement sure to upset some, Ban stated his intention to make the "Quartet" a more central actor in helping to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. On non-proliferation, Ban gave a nod to the punitive Security Council resolutions against North Korea and Iran and called on member states to boost their overall commitment to non-proliferation and disarmament on a global level.

Though most of his speech centered on security issues, Ban also pledged to work with member states on the Millennium Development Goals. He further reiterated pledges to pursue management and oversight reforms and to "operationalize" the 2005 Responsibility to Protect agreement.

Ban then turned to US-UN relations. And in words that echoed Kofi Annan's valedictory address at the Harry S. Truman Library, Ban affirmed America's indispensable role at the United Nations. "With the US actively and constructively engaged, the potential of the UN is unlimited. And with the UN's potential fulfilled, the US can better advance its aspirations for a peaceful, healthy, prosperous world." Indeed, Ban called for the United States to run for a seat in the new Human Rights Council, which it decided against pursuing last spring.

Also, in unusually explicit terms, Ban called on the United States to make good on its financial pledges to the United Nations. "If I am to succeed as Secretary-General, I will need our partnership to be strong, deep, and broad -- politically, morally, operationally and, not least, financially. With demands exploding on virtually every front, from peacekeeping to humanitarian assistance to health, a sound financial base is not only a matter of survival for the Organization; it is a matter of life and death for millions of people around the world. Such a financial base requires the timely and full engagement of the United States Government -- Administration and Congress alike."

Finally, during the question and answer session, Ban showed an American audience precisely how he earned his peculiar nickname among the South Korean press corps. After taking a tough question from ABC's Sam Donaldson about the legitimacy of pre-emptive military strikes, Ban feigned to being star-struck by a man he's "seen so many times on TV, but never in person." This brought the room to an uproar, and let Ban slip away from answering the question head-on.

Click here for a video of Ban's speech.

Three separate events this week provide a good case study of the international community's struggling non-proliferation strategy.

In Washington today, President Bush signed into law the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Act. The bill, passed by Congress before it adjourned for the year, rescinds American prohibitions against civilian nuclear technology exchanges with India. These sanctions had been in place since 1974, when India first detonated a nuclear weapons and officially became an atomic weapons wielding nation.

Meanwhile in Beijing, a North Korean delegation met with representatives of the United States, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia. The meeting was the first time that six parties met since North Korea detonated a nuclear device earlier this fall, which earned the North minimally deterrent Security Council sanctions.

Finally, at the United Nations, diplomats may be closer than ever to imposing long-threatened sanctions against Iran. According to the Security Council Report, final touches are being worked out on a resolution that will likely place a travel ban on Iranian officials and embargo of "proliferation sensitive" items. The Security Council Report hints that these sanctions may be imposed before Christmas.

The number of countries with nuclear ambitions seems to be ever-expanding. But instead of aggressively protecting international non-proliferation standards and building up tough multi-lateral mechanisms to deal with violators, the trend is quite clearly toward ad-hoc responses to proliferation crises as they arise. And so far, it seems that the world is worse off for it.

1968's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty provides the international community with a reasonable framework to combat the spread of nuclear weapons. But the fact that a growing number of countries seem to calculate that their national interests would be better served by violating the treaty underscores NPT's vulnerability. (And to be sure, the NPT is further threatened each time a signatory carves out exemptions for itself or its allies.)

It is well past the time that the major powers entrusted with enforcing the treaty re-affirm their commitment to strong and consistent frameworks to deal with violations as they occur. Given his background as South Korea's Foreign Minister, Ban Ki-moon is well positioned to make a priority of strengthening multi-lateral non-proliferation standards. The UN, after all, is the most logical conduit through which to establish a new international bulwark against proliferation. The alternative--a haphazard, ad-hoc response to each new crisis--simply does not work.

New York Times: "In a speech delivered at the Truman Presidential Museum and Library in Independence, Mo., billed as his last address to an American audience as secretary general, Mr. Annan said, "You Americans did so much, in the last century, to build an effective multilateral system, with the United Nations at its heart. Do you need it less today, and does it need you less than 60 years ago?"

EXCERPT:

"Although increasingly interdependent, our world continues to be divided - not only by economic differences, but also by religion and culture. That is not in itself a problem. Throughout history human life has been enriched by diversity, and different communities have learnt from each other. But if our different communities are to live together in peace we must stress also what unites us: our common humanity, and our shared belief that human dignity and rights should be protected by law."

READ FULL TRANSCRIPT

"United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Tuesday during a speech at Princeton University that there is an urgent need to confront the danger of nuclear weapons, and both disarmament and nonproliferation must be pursued simultaneously to achieve progress on either front.

"We are asleep at the controls of a fast-moving aircraft. Unless we wake up and take control, the outcome is all too predictable," Annan said. "We cannot choose between nonproliferation and disarmament. We must tackle both tasks with the urgency they demand." More

"Stressing that "the horror of biological weapons is shared by all," United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today called for a comprehensive strategy that will tackle the possibility of such arms falling into the hands of terrorists....

Mr. Annan noted that he had already proposed the convening of a forum that would bring together the various stakeholders - industry, science, public health, governments, and the public - to ensure that biotechnology's advances continue to be used for the benefit of humanity while the risks are managed." More

"North Korea said Wednesday that it was returning to nuclear disarmament talks to get access to its frozen overseas bank accounts, a vital source of hard currency.... In Washington, Bush cautiously welcomed Tuesday's deal and thanked the Chinese for brokering it. But he said the agreement would not sidetrack U.S. efforts to enforce sanctions adopted by the U.N. Security Council to punish Pyongyang for the nuclear test. Those measures ban the North's weapons trade and other items such as luxury goods." More

The Washington Post's Colum Lynch is reporting that China has indicated that it is willing to consider an economic sanctions regime for North Korea that references Article 41, Chapter 7 of the UN charter. This is big news.

During Security Council negotiations following North Korea's missile launch in July, China steadfastly refused to consider sanctioning North Korea under Chapter 7. The Council did pass a resolution in July calling for targeted sanctions on North Korea's weapons programs, but because the resolution did not fall under Chapter 7, it was largely unenforceable by the international community.

It now seems that China's UN ambassador, Wang Guangya, is making good on his threat to take "punitive actions" against North Korea. This would mark a significant shift in China's North Korea policy; the question now before China (and the rest of the Council) is over how wide-ranging these sanctions will be. How (not if) to sanction North Korea will be the topic of discussion at the Security Council.

Meanwhile, President Bush's repeated assurances during Wednesday's press conference that the United States has no plans to pursue the military option with North Korea may indicate that the United States is willing to forswear reference to other provisions of Chapter Seven (on the use of force) in Security Council negotiations. I suspect that with these two developments, the Security Council may be on the fast track to reaching an enforceable, punitive sanctions regime for North Korea.

BBC: China has called for "appropriate" UN action over North Korea's claim to have carried out a nuclear test on Monday. Beijing - traditionally Pyongyang's closest ally - said it had not ruled out UN sanctions but that military action was "unimaginable". The UN Security Council is considering a draft resolution that proposes strict financial and trade sanctions.

Following North Korea's nuclear test, world leaders are looking to the United Nations Security Council to issue a forceful response. "We expect the UN Security Council to take immediate actions to respond to this unprovoked act," said White House Spokesman Tony Snow. These sentiments are echoed in condemnatory statements from leaders across the globe, including the Chinese government, which is North Korea's only ally on the Security Council.

So what options are available to the Security Council?

Back in July, the Council imposed limited sanctions on North Korea following a series of missile tests. One option that the Security Council may consider as it meets today would be to extend those sanctions to include more punitive measures available under Chapter Seven. (At China's urging, July's resolution was not explicitly under Chapter Seven, but judging by Beijing's response, all veto-wielding members of the Council may be on the same page this time around.)

Chapter Seven opens up a host of possibilities for coercive international actions, including wider sanctions, asset freezes, and even a military response. It's clear that North Korea intended to provoke a response from the international community - and judging by their immediate reaction to the nuclear tests, world leaders seem united in their opposition to North Korea's flouting of international law. And in this time of need, nations that feel threatened by North Korea's missile test are looking to the United Nations.

BBC: North Korea says it has carried out its first test of a nuclear weapon. It said the underground test, carried out in defiance of international warnings, was a success and had not resulted in any leak of radiation....

Pyongyang pulled out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 and has refused for a year to attend talks aimed at ending its nuclear ambitions. The UN Security Council imposed an embargo on the import and export of missile-related materials in July after North Korea test-fired several missiles.

NYT: "North Korea announced today that it plans to conduct a nuclear test, in a sharp escalation of its standoff with the United States that set off ripples of alarm in Japan and South Korea.... American officials have said that if North Korea were to conduct nuclear tests, the United States would seek Security Council sanctions through a procedure that carries the threat of military action to enforce the council's vote."

The night before last I was privy to a sneak preview of an ambitious foreign policy manifesto that is being rolled out on Capitol Hill today. The plan, Forging a World of Liberty Under Law: U.S. National Security in the 21st Century, is the product of a two-year long series of meetings of a bi-partisan brain trust of foreign policy and national security experts convened at the Woodrow Wilson school. Under the steering of Anne-Marie Slaughter and G. John Ickenberry, the Princeton Project on National Security has attempted to comprehensively outline a sustainable 21st Century American foreign policy. As Dr. Slaughter put it last night, the group's inspiration was to create the intellectual equivalent to George Kennan's famous X Article in Foreign Affairs, but updated for our time.

They may have come close.

The report is wide-ranging. And in terms of United States engagement with the world, the group recognizes the centrality of multilateral institutions to promoting American security interests. To that end, it calls for a widespread reform of the security and peace apparatus of