So, it appears like North Korea finally did it: N. Korea Reports 1st Nuclear Arms Test - New York Times. Seems like a good time to post an analysis I wrote two years ago on the subject: Six-party negotiations on North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

This last Thursday some friends and I (part of a newly formed student organization called C.A.R.E: Children's Aid & Relief Enterprise) ran a benefit concert, raising money for UNICEF's tsunami relief fund. It was a fantastic concert, really the best one of the year. We brought together the top campus singing and dance groups, in addition to some less-known individuals (who were very talented). However, in the end what resulted is that there were fewer people in the audience than performers! Of course, some of this may have to do with bad publicity. However, I myself advertised at the International House (a big dorm in Berkeley with >500 residents from all around the world) for over a week before the concert. I posted flyers, I handed out notices, I told people about it repeatedly. Not one person from the I-House came to see the performance (although 3 persons donated money)! What's up with that? Sure, some of the people felt that their studying was more important. Sure, some people had prior committments. But, overall, what it boils down to is that this kind of effort ranks low on people's priority list. We were asking for $5 to $7 for an amazing perfomance (I was so thrilled with it that I gave $25), with a superb speaker who had just come back from Sri Lanka, and all the money was going to help children. Shouldn't people be falling all over themselves to come to such events??

Tonight I attended a panel discussion, at the International House (where I'm currently living) in Berkeley, titled "Foreign Policy in a New Global Era". Various experts on US foreign policy were present, and the discussion was lively and interesting. All of the panelists seemed to be in agreement that in some number of years (20?) the US will no longer be the world's only great power. Much of the discussion was focused on China, which showing significant strength both economically and politically. One interesting comment was that political influence and "public face" is zero-sum, and that the US's loss of influence in world affairs -- caused by the Iraq war and bad foreign policy -- is being taken by China, which -- especially with regards to North Korea -- has been gaining prominence and strength in Asia (and around the world).



One of the panelists was Leon Fuerth, former National Security Advisor to Vice-President Gore. After the event finished, I managed to grab his attention for a couple of minutes, and I asked him for his opinion of how future US administrations should proceed with regards to the Kyoto Protocol. He responded that it doesn't make sense to consider future administrations, because by the time President Bush leaves office, the foundations of that agreement will be non-existent. I had remembered reading in one of my books on diplomacy that, at the time of Gore's departure to Japan for the last-minute attempt to save the Kyoto talks, no one expected the US Senate to ratify an agreement. I asked Fuerth about why Gore went, if he had known that there was no chance of Senate ratification. Fuerth responded (a bit indignantly) that he had been on Air Force Two with Gore, as they went to Japan, and that Gore did *not* know that the Senate wouldn't ratify. Furthermore, he said, something is better than nothing, and Gore wanted to keep the negotiations going (and look at the result: the US didn't ratify, but the Protocol is now in effect).



Overall, an interesting night. I definitely need to study more international relations (and history). I am, however, currently taking a seminar called "Issues in U.S. Foreign Policy."

So who's been to Freedom Square in the Ukraine recently? A New York Times article today talked about the leadership provided by youth in the current Ukraine political crisis. I'm amazed to see that the Yushchenko supporters are so well organized. You can find up to the minute updates at one of the organizer's sites, PORA. Can someone give a ring to Mariana Savytska and interview her for TakingITGlobal?

I don't have any hope that John Kerry would win the election if there were a vote re-count. However, given the election difficulties of four years ago, and the introduction of new voting technology, I feel that it is important for an in-depth investigation to take place, immediately, and resolve the issues raised about miscounted votes.

(This is for my American friends)

Dear friend,

Questions are swirling around whether the election was conducted honestly or not. We need to know -- was it or wasn't it?

If people were wrongly prevented from voting, or if legitimate votes were mis-counted or not counted at all, we need to know so the wrongdoers can be held accountable, and to help prevent this from happening again.

Members of Congress are demanding an investigation to answer this question. Join me in supporting their call, at:

http://www.moveon.org/investigatethevote/

Thanks!

Today I read the following New York Times's article: Iran Jails More Journalists and Blocks Web Sites. I've been concerned about this issue for a few years now, in regards to China's similar actions. I think that there is a technical solution here. What we need to do is to set up a global distributed network of secure proxies, both within and outside of Iran/China. It'd work like this. Let's say that person A is within Iran/China, and B is a computer outside of Iran. When person A wants to see a web page (let's say of Amnesty International, which would surely be blocked), B would receive the web page and encrypt it, then send the encrypted version to A. Anyone listening to A's internet connection would be unable to see what web page this person is viewing. There are some important details here. First, the Chinese government could easily just block access to the proxies. Thus, we need a very large and dispersed network of proxies, which would make it impossible to block. Second, it is important that there be proxies *within* the country (China or Iran), storing cached versions of the data. This way, if the government decides to block all Internet access going outside of the country, some of the data will still be available. Third, individual users need to be instructed to turn off their browser's caching mechanism, so that it is more difficult for the government to see what they were looking at if they were to come knocking at their door. Fourth, this needs to be implemented simultaneously on tens of thousands of computers. The government would then have to choose between prosecuting everyone or letting the practice continue. Especially for China, which is becoming a global trade power, total enforcement would result in a significant blow to their economy, which would be a good deterrant.

Today I read the following New York Times's article: Iran Jails More Journalists and Blocks Web Sites. I've been concerned about this issue for a few years now, in regards to China's similar actions. I think that there is a technical solution here. What we need to do is to set up a global distributed network of secure proxies, both within and outside of Iran/China. It'd work like this. Let's say that person A is within Iran/China, and B is a computer outside of Iran. When person A wants to see a web page (let's say of Amnesty International, which would surely be blocked), B would receive the web page and encrypt it, then send the encrypted version to A. Anyone listening to A's internet connection would be unable to see what web page this person is viewing. There are some important details here. First, the Chinese government could easily just block access to the proxies. Thus, we need a very large and dispersed network of proxies, which would make it impossible to block. Second, it is important that there be proxies *within* the country (China or Iran), storing cached versions of the data. This way, if the government decides to block all Internet access going outside of the country, some of the data will still be available. Third, individual users need to be instructed to turn off their browser's caching mechanism, so that it is more difficult for the government to see what they were looking at if they were to come knocking at their door. Fourth, this needs to be implemented simultaneously on tens of thousands of computers. The government would then have to choose between prosecuting everyone or letting the practice continue. Especially for China, which is becoming a global trade power, total enforcement would result in a significant blow to their economy, which would be a good deterrant.

I've been reading about the Kyoto Protocol on global warming recently. A class I'm taking, Diplomacy & International Negotiation, has looked a bit into the negotiations surrounding the Kyoto Protocol. Some significant and relatively new aspects of the negotiations: the involvement of and pressure from non-governmental organizations, a tight deadline for negotiations to be completed (which ended up being delayed one day), and the effect of public attention (significantly increased by Vice-President Gore's last-minite trip to save the negotiations from failing).



Here is some background information: Primer on the Kyoto Protocol - The Climate is Changing Now What?, and the Wikipedia listing.



Russia just finished ratifying the Protocol. The Protocol will become active 90 days after they submit the ratification to the United Nations. The United States has not ratified the protocol, and will not be subject to its . Gore came to my University last month, and stressed that global warming is the single most important issue facing the world today. So why hasn't the US signed? My first thought would have been to blame it on the Bush administration, but a bit more reading seems to show that the Senate has been the real blocker (President Clinton never submitted the treaty for ratification). President Bush said of the treaty:

"The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."

The issue is important, and the US does need to act to "save the environment." However, I'm not sure whether the United States should ratify the agreement. The Senate wants binding targets and timetables for developing countries as well as industrialized countries. Differential treatment for developing countries may indeed be necessary. Still, China and many of the other developing countries are advancing very rapidly. If and when they become economic superpowers, should they not be subject to the same emissions quotas as today's industrialized nations? By choosing not to sign a possibly ineffective treaty, the US keeps its bargaining chips, leaving the door open for future negotiations.



--
Posted by David to David's commentary at 11/6/2004 03:09:55 AM