~e; navigating nuclear negotiations

[brian carroll <human@electronetwork.org>]

  this is a post that further explores the current
  situation of nuclear negotiations and is, in effect,
  a 'speak now or forever hold your peace' moment...
  if this topic is not of interest or if it is a bother
  please delete this e-mail and more general news urls
  will be sent under the EM observations later on...
  thank you. brian
  ---

  a few things about why i am writing about this, and
  why i think it fits the nature of the list to share
  these thoughts here in terms of EM and culture...
  the current news cycle if rife with what i consider
  to be absolutely critical texts regarding several
  major situations that regard issues of war and peace.
  they are all tied together by issues that have been
  on the list previously, and yet this is a longer and
  larger pattern than any that have preceded it, such
  as the Iraq war and its reasoning being preparations
  for what is now emerging as conflict coming to a head.
  or for that matter, the issues of North Korea and the
  diplomatic nature of events with regard to Ambassador
  John Bolton, who left the State Dept. to only now be-
  come the main diplomat to the United Nations, and the
  still ongoing face-off that will likely be following
  a similar tone (nickname by the North Korean leader
  for the new .US, .UN Ambassador: Human Scum.) Okay.
  Also, issues with Taiwan could largely be examined
  in relation to choices made by the Bush administration
  to get its way with Iraq, making diplomatic trade-offs
  which are now beginning to materialize in ways counter
  to the political spin - with weapons issues also part
  of that dynamic, in addition to various facts about
  Iraq government supporting such policies (ephemera)
  to the role of Taiwan in supplying most electronics
  goods to the West, -- so should anything get worse
  there, including war, it would be likely to be felt
  all over the world and have disastrous consequences.
  So too, in Iran (if memory serves) OPEC, the global
  oil cartel, is meeting, which also relates to trends
  in the newly burgeoning field of nuclear diplomacy.

  All of this can be encapsulated in any one story yet
  all start to weave in and out of eachother and, even
  if there are many perspectives, there could also be
  a common one, a common sense that is in some sense
  open to views, critique, criticism, but is in some
  way approximate given news accounts, of what is now
  happening so as to get a sense of these critical and
  rapidly dynamic and developing situations that will
  effect everyone. Most often the news does not go into
  a wholistic/holistic view of everything put together
  yet it is the only way, in my experience, to make it
  have a bit of sense and order and see dual or cross-
  purposes and to just voice the obvious, if unsaid or
  (self- or other-) silenced 'most basic views' -- as
  it was reiterated by the .US president that people
  should be able to stand in a public square (this list)
  and speak their mind without fear of persecution. i
  am naive, but not that naive. yet, beyond the broken
  car mirrors, scratched vehicles, popped tire, hacked
  website, and other much worse things that can happen,
  (tax audit, etc.) the intention of speaking up may
  have an important function in a democracy in that,
  even if it is largely amateur and even clueless, if
  it gives some feedback to the more expert, secretive,
  internal workings and mechanisms about what is in all
  accounts blatantly obvious to a thinking person who
  is not embedded in the megamachines of world states-
  that this is how it seems, and to square this with
  the realities internal to the processes- for some
  things are scarily obvious which, it is feared, may
  not actually get into decision-making considerations
  simply because things are so intellectually water-
  tight in the .US administration (and others -- it is
  an equal opportunity difficulty, freedom of thought).

  i mean, if the public isn't going to state the obvious
  can it be expected that newspeople or even the highest
  ups are going to bring controversial other-realities
  into play when discussing options (or lack thereof).
  okay-- it may sound absurd, ridiculous and it is. with
  one exception: we are dealing with nuclear bombs, nuclear
  war, nuclear energy, nuclear terrorism, nuclear security,
  nuclear diplomacy, -- 'the nuclear chickens are now coming
  home to roost.' and if things are fairly automatic in the
  sense of programmed reactions of large technocratic/machine
  bureaucracies, and there is only so much internal change,
  and vast amounts of friction to any change in direction
  or momentum, once the global industrial leviathan gets
  moving... well-- it is moving, it is starting to move a
  lot faster (imo) and this is, in essence, a situation in
  a state much like the ramp-up to the Iraq war, only a
  much different, much more complex scenario where the
  rules have changed, the assumptions have changed, and
  yet the moves are proceeding as if nothing else has,
  that is, there are some predictable patterns that are
  forming that would seem to indicate nothing short of
  clashes on all major issues that are currently pending.
  that is, unless, unless other ideas come to the fore,
  new ideas, new thinking, different ideas, perspectives,
  just to voice other hopes, other options, dreams, if
  naive especially so because of their importance in a
  duty to try to change outcomes otherwise predetermined.

  when a newspaper like the New York Times puts the story
  about Bush administration policy in one clear, concise,
  unmistakably authoritative accounting of a policy world-
  view, there is little ambiguity in the state of play of
  issues or the next moves. Of course, there may be others
  and hopefully so, (it is assumed there are backup plans)
  yet to have such information made publicly accessible,
  especially in times like this where such information is
  part of a public trust, really, of a free press and the
  importance of a informed public to lobby representatives
  for policy directions best fitting of a place and state
  of mind, that this represented public can be heard by
  voicing what these views are, in ways that may bring an
  as-of-yet unheard voice to issues that are really not
  beyond the ken of the ordinary citizen, if laid out in
  a way conducive to understanding and appreciating the
  complexity of the situation, yet also the limitations
  and the need to get somewhere that things have yet to.
  that's up to us, citizens, in my opinion, not to be a
  political activist necessarily as much as to advocate
  better positions for the situations that address key
  ambiguities yet also probe, parse, suggest alternative
  options and ideas for development -- to responsibly
  'red team' the policy in some general public way that
  may allow for those who do have the expertise to take
  imagined solutions and find in their pragmatisms some
  alternative paths and routes within existing contexts.
  maybe it is this feedback within an information society
  that is the idea of democracy, more than just the mass
  media being representative and voicing such views, but
  that voices may effect in ways small and large such a
  view that it reverbs and impacts larger patterns into
  changed states - to give a feedback of pending doom,
  let's say, at the current direction of the .US policy...

  (and- importantly- to imagine and offer another set of
  options as part of the public critique, as trade-off...)

--- urls ---

// absolutely critical reading...

Bush Seeks to Ban Some Nations From All Nuclear Technology
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/15/politics/15treaty.html

	'In their public statements and background briefings in recent days,  
Mr. Bush's aides have acknowledged that Iran appears to have the right  
- on paper, at least - to enrich uranium to produce electric power. But  
Mr. Bush has managed to convince his reluctant European allies that the  
only acceptable outcome of their negotiations with Iran is that it must  
give up that right.' .. 'In what amounts to a reinterpretation of the  
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Mr. Bush now argues that there is a  
new class of nations that simply cannot be trusted with the technology  
to produce nuclear material even if the treaty itself makes no such  
distinction.' .... 'At the heart of Mr. Bush's concern is a fundamental  
flaw in the treaty...'

	[and] 'After a visit to Tehran last week for a conference that Iran  
sponsored to explain its nuclear ambitions, George Perkovich, a nuclear  
expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington,  
said he had concluded that Mr. Bush had the right instinct, but might  
not be taking the right approach.'	

[see, e.g.] Rice talks tough  on Iranian nukes --
‘No deadline’ yet, she says, as U.S. officials  seek to oust IAEA chief
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6911810/

US Concerns On India-Iran Pipeline Due To Legal Impediment //viadrudge
http://au.news.yahoo.com/050315/3/ti3m.html

Iran stamp lauds nuclear success -- Iran's post office has issued a
stamp celebrating the country's achievements in nuclear technology.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4350941.stm

// read of Fahrenheit 451 raids to get household video equipment...

How Electronics Are Penetrating North Korea's Isolation
http://nytimes.com/2005/03/15/international/asia/15north.html

	'"He just dials 0082 to get the Korean-speaking Chinese operator, then  
makes a collect call to here," Mr. Kim said of one source.   The  
prepaid cellphones are usually paid for by journalists in  South Korea,  
he said, and the North Koreans go along largely out of curiosity or to  
try to make business deals. He added: "They are getting more and more  
tech savvy. Now they are asking for cellphones with cameras attached."'  
.... 'To counter this, North Korea has reportedly  started border   
patrols using Japanese equipment that can track cellphone calls.  
Reporters tell stories of their contacts who only make calls from their  
private garden plots in the hills, burying the cellphone in the ground  
after each call.' .. 'While Chinese cellphones only work a few miles  
inside North Korea, the videocassette phenomenon has reportedly spread  
throughout the nation, reaching into every area where there is  
electricity.'

// what about getting rid of the 'carrot and stick' analogy ???
// and going into quantum entanglement, virtual particles,
// superposition, etc...

[and] Electricity Is Carrot in North Korea Talks // *** situational  
overview
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-nkorea- 
carrots--sticks,0,6160822.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

	'Nighttime spy satellite photos illustrate the stark contrast between  
the two Koreas: The capitalist South is aglow with shimmering  
constellations of light, while the North disappears into blackness as  
deep as the aura of secrecy surrounding the communist nation.' ..  
'That's about to change for a small corner of the North...' ... 'The  
Bush administration has backed off from calling for regime change in  
Pyongyang, instead saying it hopes for "regime transformation" caused  
by gradual changes in the North. North Korea has introduced elements of  
capitalism in recent years, and outside influences are creeping in  
through smuggled South Korean videos and mobile phones that can make  
international calls.'

[and] North Korea Wants More Nukes
http://7am.com/cgi-bin/wires02.cgi?1000_2005031505.htm

U.S. catches China transferring WMD tech to Iran // via drudgereport.com
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/ 
breaking2453445.0395833333.html


--- end urls ---


  what i feel the need to say is that, from the view
  i am seeing, if one were to 'game' the .US position
  with regard to choosing of diplomatic paths as being
  between paper diplomacy and .UN diplomacy-> sanctions,
  and with the .US position focusing on the latter in a
  time where things appear to be shifting rapidly, is
  that because of the decisions made prior to the Iraq
  war with other countries, cutting deals, that whatever
  leverage may have existed may have changed and it would
  seem even less likely that the .UN security council is
  going to offer sanctions if a unanimous vote is needed
  (.CN or .RU, whose reactor it is being built in Iran),
  real politik i think they call this matter of detail.
  add to this the .US is seeking to politically oust the
  .UN weapons inspector (which also is a minority agenda
  of the .US, due to Iraq war fallout), in addition to
  having appointed the farthest rightmost neoconservative
  representative to the post of .UN ambassador, and to
  imagine consensus to come about through what manner of
  personal charisma? It just does not add up to a solid
  policy, it is a gamble and the gamble already has been
  had with Iraq, and this is the result-- assumptions
  have changed about the .US and its role and power in
  (upon) the world (stage), abilities have transformed
  (often toward greater limitations), and leverage in
  the world has tipped to a multi-polar distribution of
  influence (kind of like geomagnetism, by the way)...

  Now, when newly appointed Secretary of State Rice
  (Mr. Colin Powell retired) then goes into a hard-line
  .UN position in regard to current Iran situations, and
  'threatens' to bring .UN sanctions against Iran, it is
  without a doubt believed that this will indeed happen
  and be entirely possible and assumed will go as planned.
  I very much disbelieve that such an approach is a sure-
  thing, even at this stage, to be able to exert massive
  .UN leverage based on hard-line neoconservative policy
  positions which - also - did not work effectively for
  the Iraq war, and their representative in North Korea,
  being the lead .UN diplomat or .US policy point-person,
  actively embraces this unilaterist authority to say-it-
  like-it-is (like with North Korea) but not for purposes
  of resolving the situation but for upping-the-ante to
  have a showdown at the OK-corral at high-noon, GMT.

  the only problem is that this is a failed strategy, it
  has been proven as such (with a fair account of actual
  costs of such positions) and to rely upon this as the
  best option could not seriously be the guiding light
  of .US public policy but instead a remnant of system
  which is not getting its daily dose of feedback (i.e.
  reality) that is not pre-interpreted to party-lines,
  that is, the neoconservative hard-line that may have
  justified the previous gamble, but used up all of the
  extra chips and now its time to start getting creative
  beyond the ideological status-quo believing its own
  (baloney) and start getting real about the price of
  pursuing such policies, and the inability to continue
  such a path-- it would be a gamble to pursue neocon
  policies-- but it is also, today, an impossibility
  to do something that can no longer be done on the
  terms being described-- it is unrealistic to the
  situation. it is simply unreal. to believe that
  it will play out this way. somebody has to say it.
  and nobody is, of course, going to publicly do that.

  there is no benefit of the doubt to be given either,
  there is no wiggle room, there is a pending nuclear
  situation (more than one, more than two, more than
  three, more than four, even). And then there is an
  industrial robber-barren mindset that if the track
  is just laid down and the engine is worked up hot
  enough, that the frontier is going to unfold before
  the greatness that is the .US ideological position.
  poof! it's disillusion if not delusion to believe it.
  there is no complexity to the .US position, there is
  no subtlety, and there is no compromise to allow a
  little steam to blow off and really get diplomatic
  with the nature of the ongoing nuclear situation.
  it is not a standoff, it is not a gun-fight, it is
  now a show-down, it is about using pens that are,
  in the right hands (and minds, the most astute of
  minds) the greatest weapons for peace ever devised.

  that 'paper' is deemed secondary to another force,
  to deal with such ambiguous situations as Iran's
  potential and it should be said, likely, secrets
  is to disregard the Western Enlightenment and all
  of its evidence that for thousands of years there
  have been treaties that could do what arms, guns,
  and death and destruction could never do- contain
  the situation, shape it, channel it into other-
  more productive relations and to engage situations
  with a range and depth and integrity required of
  the complexity of the situations. There is no .US
  policy regarding the overall nuclear situation as
  it stands-- this is my conclusion. There is no
  comprehensive strategy that takes it all together
  and relates it as one thing. It is obviously so.
  And if it is obvious to someone who knows nothing,
  and it can _easily_ be gamed to traps and mazes,
  what could apparatuses that exist for just such
  reasons do with this confusion and inefficiency
  and ineffectiveness? the last time, the gamble,
  somehow high-jumped the democratic hurdles put
  up to prevent abuses, this is how it was leapt
  beyond. this time that is not an option-- that
  is not going to happen, probably ever, again.
  and the arguments to do so also do not exist.

  Nuclear Diplomacy can directly engage and effect
  the situation in a way that a war footing and
  use of force will never be able to do, that is
  in the 'war of ideas' which is, it seems, a lot
  to do with the war within one's self (a nation)
  about how to balance self-determination within
  a framework of other nations, to respect while
  adapting and finding alternatives to war. that
  is the entire purpose of the .UN, and it may
  even exist as a result of the nuclear situation
  (reincarnated from the League of Nations) for
  it is so vital a tool to reaching a consensus
  locally and globally, it is the reason it is
  there - and it is a diplomatic, not war, tool.

  This simple fact is not evident in the .US policy
  position, and surely the bombs and guns and all
  the rest can fly at any moment, and just might,
  yet the most powerful thing Iran is offering is
  its word in writing -- and that would also be
  the most powerful thing the .US could do, is
  to meet in a policy framework that engages the
  minds of both sides, so that any issues that do
  arise can be resolved peacefully, no matter what.
  that is, "writing" can do something about hidden
  WMD programs, if in a treaty (post N. Korea, in
  that case it was a surprise and unexpected, but
  now it can be anticipated within writing and a
  series of measures can be placed which would be
  instructive on what would be a shared outcome
  if a program materializes, such as dismantling).
  the .UN cannot do this, at least not short-term
  and not positively as could the .US if it would
  also take into account that Iran could be a
  great help in 'mopping up' Saddam's networks,
  and helping Iraq to stabilize and bring a new
  prosperity to the middle-east, through a shared,
  .US co-sponsered (.UN, others) peace initiative,
  based in nuclear security and others (such as
  tech-transer, others) which would be much more
  in line with the 'ideas' of Bush (state of union)
  about freedom and prosperity, than the much more
  dark and foreboding future offered as salvation
  by the dry-drunk neocons who have become the
  institutional roaches of .US public policy who
  do not -do- diplomacy, they decide what is real.

  this is another version of reality, one that is
  being put out in a small internet public square
  with a certain degree of risk for stating what
  is the obvious and the necessary. while it is
  true that the .US intervention in Iraq may have
  been necessary, it may also have been wrong. it
  is not possible to gamble again, and be wrong.
  the current .US policy position is indeed the
  wrong direction, and of course there are options
  other than the current position, but assumptions
  and expectations and abilities also are changed-
  the dynamic is transformed- the reality differs.
  to exploit it would be to take what is powerful
  in the ideas and share them, making them a basis
  for what is a shared reality, to address it by
  engaging it, the nuclear reality, severity, the
  speed with which things are occurring, to slow-
  it-down and smooth-it-out and figure it out in
  a peaceful diplomatic, palatable state of mind,
  of sense, of goals, of possible new opportunities
  allowed- and what may be possible in this new
  world, this new context that may not otherwise
  have been. but to change. to change the .US view
  as the rest of the world is ready to meet half-
  way, the time to break stuff is not now, it is
  the time to build up a 21st century diplomatic
  structure that can address nuclear realities,
  and to do the right thing, the public thing,
  and to search for and achieve a foundation for
  peace, a basis for human community and common-
  sense, a reason to work together toward goals,
  and the time is now to start showing the cards.

  (i expect hell for this, yet i am also a .US
  citizen who believes in the .US constitution,
  and find it remarkable what has been achieved
  by the mass turnouts and vigils, for peace and
  new options, in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere,
  including the leaderships of various countries
  who signal their willingness to make changes.
  this is the real purpose of .US diplomacy, the
  need of .US foreign policy to acknowledge this
  as a critical value (in the war/peace of ideas)
  and to start making massive headway to relate
  and accomplish what has eluded others up until
  today, about this, our complex shared culture--
  the foundation for .US diplomacy is people and
  ideas, not just institutions and mechanisms.
  the .US must start to focus on the people and
  ideas, as they are the best guarantor should
  situations shift (as they will do) about what
  vision is the one worth fighting for, freedom
  of ideas and human potential and a better world
  than one of war, death, destruction, and hell.)

  My hope is that the .US will get innovative in
  its diplomatic negotiations and develop a plan,
  or frameworks that start leveraging shared ideas.

  feedback, criticism, comments welcome.

  brian carroll

  brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
  architecture, education, electromagnetism
  http://www.mnartists.org/brian_carroll
  http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/


  (* PS. I have not commented on John Bolton's
  stanch on North Korea after assigned to the .UN
  because, it is true it is a despicable situation
  that cannot be glossed over - yet this is only
  one of many and is not the standard or norm by
  which to judge everything else. yet it is not
  likely nuance is going to discovered, or is it?)

  the electronetwork-list:  electromagnetism and culture...
  archives: http://archives.openflows.org/electronetwork-l/
  un/subscribe: http://www.electronetwork.org/list/