Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, backed by factional Labor Party warlords, has made a tilt at Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s leadership. Mr Rudd has told a press conference that earlier this evening Ms Gillard visited him to request a leadership ballot. Mr Rudd says the Labor caucus will vote on the party and Federal Government leadership tomorrow at 9:00am AEST.

Interesting times.

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea called on Friday for an end to “the hostile relationship” with the United States, issuing a New Year’s message that highlighted the reclusive country’s attempt to readjust the focus of six-party nuclear disarmament talks.

In the meantime, an interesting snippet from of the The Mainichi Daily News earlier today …

This year, the Obama administration will continue to take various actions on the nuclear issue. The U.S. and Russia are heading toward an agreement on strategic arms reduction. Meanwhile, the U.S. is working on renewing the country’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) for the first time in eight years, and is expected to incorporate anti-nuclear terrorism measures. The nuclear security summit this April will aim for an international agreement on enhanced protection of nuclear materials, and in May, a review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — held every five years — will take place in New York.

I may be too hopeful, too optimistic, but I don’t care …
Our world *is* moving to a better place.

So if we project out into the future a couple of years from now – we will be seeing the emergence of data coming from out from major industry players. For any one of these players chances are we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in potential liabilities (with or without an ETS). Factor into this equation the emergence of an ETS irrespective of targets (because the target is partially academic if we look at the end-game). What is more important is the putting in place of the mechanisms – because once you have the reporting mechanisms in place then, and only then can you start playing policy with the economic configuration (a.k.a. tweaking taxation dials and whatnot). With those mechanisms in place (and I can’t emphasise enough that the establishment of those reporting mechanisms is what is really important here) you turn a page of the management equation – only then can you actually start to manage the problem – and only then can we start to be responsible – companies (even the big polluters) will start to understand and factor into day to day decisions the economic consequences of operational decisions.

The reduction target does not matter (at least today) – because today – today we are just grappling with the problem of capturing the information about what we are doing. Two years from now and the federal government will start to see numbers that are meaningful (as in the Australian Federal Government will have the initial numbers of the flows of energy and the emissions from individual companies and those constitutional corporations at a level of granularity that will make your head spin). But that time-point is important but it’s not what we need – what we actually need is trend lines. We need a few years to get to the point of understanding the picture of what is happening in Australia. It is from this perspective that I think that less is more – because what Australia does in emissions production is not the issue, what is much more important is what Australia does in establishing the regulatory framework from which we can demonstrate a national comprehension and from that – grounded and concrete actions – based on national facts that are linked to national corporate entities – that implicate national employees – that change union policies – that generate informed local opinion.

Australia is not a global leader on this issue – but the Australian Federal Government is working on fundamentals that are critical for a responsible solution. Targets and levies are just numbers and dials – what is more important is establishing the machinery capable of responding to adjustments, and the machinery capable of returning accurate and reliable feedback on changes.

We are heading in the right direction.

And take a deep breath – because we still have a way to go.

UPDATE: Saturday, 11:00 pm US East Coast – the House Bill passes 220-215.

While the occasional geopolitical manoeuvres in the dark make for a great Bond movie, we have an obligation to dig a little deeper. First step on our adventure is to zoom in on the Afghan/Pakistan border where that orange band in the middle (see illustration below) is Taliban territory.

Things get more interesting when we throw in details of the ethnic, cultural, family, history, loyalty thing – and in the following map we should be cognisant of the fact that geopolitical boundaries don’t take centre stage (after all – the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan was nothing more than an arbitrary 19th century British colonial construct).

Just for reference – that big brown blob in the previous illustration is the Pashtun ethnic population. The following map drills down and identifies the principal regions at ground zero.

But lets zoom out again and factor into this equation that discussion about the relationship (and/or conflict) between Afghanistan and Pakistan that is of direct interest to their neighbour Iran (the big bugger over on the left). After all, Iran has many of the same tribal problems that face the fledgling Afghanistan administration (and an outbreak of secular testosterone in Afghanistan is a potential problem in the making for Iran). Let’s also take into account that big chunks of Afghanistan could be argued to be more properly part and parcel of Pakistan (which would go a long way towards explaining some of the accusations of Pakistan/Taliban loyalty). Equally, when we talk about Pakistan and India (the big bugger over on the right) there is the inevitable engagement of China (the really big bugger over on the far far right) as a player with more than a passing interest. And let’s not even get into the parallel universe of the Kashmir equation.

Thing is, a failed Afghanistan state creates stress for Pakistan and stress for Pakistan creates opportunity for India, an India/Pakistan conflict plays into the hands of China, and at the end of the day a bunch of nation states (US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and Australia) just aren’t ready for that reality just yet. But what ties this all together is that none of the players want to see a united secular solution.

And for better or worse – what if this conflict may be our best hope for peace in our time? Why? Simply because an alignment of common interests between the principal players in this equation. That the simple thing of an alignment just may be a greater good than the atrocities that have and will be committed in the sustainment of this transient moment.

Recommended Reading

Agonizing over Afghanistan
David Shribman, 31 October, 2009

Pakistan is swiftly drifting towards an all out civil war
Abdus Sattar Ghazali, 28 October, 2009

There is the Iran Safeguards Agreement (entered into force 15 May 1974) which contains the following article:

DESIGN INFORMATION
General provisions
Article 42
Pursuant to Article 8, design information in respect of existing facilities shall be provided to the Agency during the discussion of the Subsidiary Arrangements. The time limits for the provision of design information in respect of the new facilities shall be specified in the Subsidiary Arrangements and such information shall be provided as early as possible before nuclear material is introduced into a new facility.

Clearly, this article is subject to the implementation details of the Subsidiary Arrangements. However, for the moment I have not been able to track down an on-line copy of that agreement. If you do some digging around the Internet you will come across references to Code 3.1 which exist in two forms, one from 1976, and a revision established in 1990. The following quote seems to be viral when digging into the subject:

The Subsidiary Arrangements specify when a state must report a new facility to the IAEA. “Code 3.1″ of the 1976 version of the Subsidiary Arrangements requires states to report on new facilities “normally no later than 180 days before the facility is scheduled to receive nuclear material for the first time.”

It became clear that this requirement did not provide the IAEA with sufficient time to plan and prepare for safeguards. So, in the early 1990s the IAEA modified Code 3.1. The new version requires states to report on a new facility as soon as the decision to construct it is taken.

From what I understand, Iran is and remains compliant with the 1976 version of the agreement, and that following the 1990 amendment, Iran undertook a number of reporting actions consistent with that amendment, although, IAEA minutes back to around 2003 claim Iran breaching 1990 criteria. Iran on the other-hand made the distinction between state authorisation (which they point out has never occured) as opposed to their voluntary supply of information consistent with both the 1976 and 1990 criteria. Iran claims that prior voluntary actions do not constitute state endorsement (and on this I’m tempted to side with Iran). According to James M. Acton the IAEA claim that amendments are not subject to unilateral modification.

In accordance with Article 39 of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement, agreed Subsidiary Arrangements cannot be modified unilaterally; nor is there a mechanism in the Safeguards Agreement for the suspension of provisions agreed to in Subsidiary Arrangements.

If the IAEA states that Subsidiary Arrangements cannot be modified unilaterally, how was it possible that the 1990 amendments came into force if not by a unilaterally decision of the IAEA? We should keep in mind that there may be a perfectly plausible legal basis supporting the right of the IAEA to undertake unilateral action, but for now, I have not found any supporting evidence, and frankly, I doubt it exists. It may also be the case the bilateral agreement was established but not formally ratified (a more probably scenario).

An interview on MSNBC with Scott Ritter, former Chief UN Weapons Inspector supports a growing scepticism forming in my mind. In fact I think that perhaps there are grounds to argue that IAEA processes dealing with formal adoption, resolution of amendments, and accountability provisions may not be everything we would hope them to be. But if we turn around and look towards IAEA as an improvement opportunity, one cannot ignore the Israeli issue as reported by Reuters just a few days ago (18 September 2009):

The UN nuclear assembly voted on Friday to urge Israel to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and place all atomic sites under UN inspections, in a surprise victory for Arab states.

The resolution, passed narrowly for the first time in nearly two decades, expresses concern about “Israeli nuclear capabilities” and calls on International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei to work on the issue.

One could argue that the IAEA frameworks and the geopolitical integrity of the UN (vis-a-vis Israel) are the things to watch as this process unfolds. Even more interesting in the short-term will be the approach Iran takes in the negotiations ahead.

/Cat.

Supplementary Information

Recommended Reading

Concrete Steps to Improve the Nonproliferation Regime
Pierre Goldschmidt, April 2009
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Nonproliferation Program

STATEMENTS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA, FRENCH PRESIDENT SARKOZY, AND BRITISH PRIME MINISTER BROWN ON IRANIAN NUCLEAR FACILITY

Pittsburgh Convention Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

8:43 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good morning. We are here to announce that yesterday in Vienna, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France presented detailed evidence to the IAEA demonstrating that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years.

Earlier this week, the Iranian government presented a letter to the IAEA that made reference to a new enrichment facility, years after they had started its construction. The existence of this facility underscores Iran’s continuing unwillingness to meet its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions and IAEA requirements. We expect the IAEA to immediately investigate this disturbing information, and to report to the IAEA Board of Governors.

Now, Iran’s decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the non-proliferation regime. These rules are clear: All nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; those nations with nuclear weapons must move towards disarmament; those nations without nuclear weapons must forsake them. That compact has largely held for decades, keeping the world far safer and more secure. And that compact depends on all nations living up to their responsibilities.

This site deepens a growing concern that Iran is refusing to live up to those international responsibilities, including specifically revealing all nuclear-related activities. As the international community knows, this is not the first time that Iran has concealed information about its nuclear program. Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power that meets the energy needs of its people. But the size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program. Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow — endangering the global non-proliferation regime, denying its own people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world

It is time for Iran to act immediately to restore the confidence of the international community by fulfilling its international obligations. We remain committed to serious, meaningful engagement with Iran to address the nuclear issue through the P5-plus-1 negotiations. Through this dialogue, we are committed to demonstrating that international law is not an empty promise; that obligations must be kept; and that treaties will be enforced.

And that’s why there’s a sense of urgency about the upcoming meeting on October 1st between Iran, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and Germany. At that meeting, Iran must be prepared to cooperate fully and comprehensively with the IAEA to take concrete steps to create confidence and transparency in its nuclear program and to demonstrate that it is committed to establishing its peaceful intentions through meaningful dialogue and concrete actions.

To put it simply: Iran must comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions and make clear it is willing to meet its responsibilities as a member of the community of nations. We have offered Iran a clear path toward greater international integration if it lives up to its obligations, and that offer stands. But the Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law.

I should point out that although the United Kingdom, France, and the United States made the presentation to Vienna, that Germany, a member of the P5-plus-1, and Chancellor Merkel in particular, who could not be here this morning, wished to associate herself with these remarks.

I would now like to turn to President Sarkozy of France for a brief statement.

PRESIDENT SARKOZY: (As translated.) Ladies and gentlemen, we have met yesterday for a meeting — a summit meeting of the Security Council on disarmament and nuclear disarmament. I repeated my conviction that Iran was taking the international community on a dangerous path. I have recalled all the attempts that we have made to offer a negotiated solution to the Iranian leaders without any success, which what has been revealed today is exceptional. Following the enriching plant of Natanz in 2002, it is now the Qom one which is revealed. It was designed and built over the past several years in direct violation of resolutions from the Security Council and from the IAEA. I am expecting from the IAEA an exhaustive, strict, and rigorous investigation, as President Obama just said.

We were already in a very severe confidence crisis. We are now faced with a challenge, a challenge made to the entire international communities. The six will meet with the Iranian representatives in Geneva. Everything — everything must be put on the table now.

We cannot let the Iranian leaders gain time while the motors are running. If by December there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be taken. This is for the peace and stability. Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: America, the United Kingdom, and France are at one. Iran’s nuclear program is the most urgent proliferation challenge that the world faces today.

As President Obama and President Sarkozy have just said, the level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the whole international community, and it will harden our resolve.

Confronted by the serial deception of many years, the international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand. On October the 1st, Iran must now engage with the international community and join the international community as a partner. If it does not do so, it will be further isolated.

And I say on behalf of the United Kingdom today, we will not let this matter rest. And we are prepared to implement further and more stringent sanctions.

Let the message that goes out to the world be absolutely clear: that Iran must abandon any military ambitions for its nuclear program. Thank you.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

The drama over the August break was largely predictable and for the most part has burnt itself out. The death of Ted Kennedy disrupted the news feed and it’s only in the last 24 hours that the talking heads have managed to refocus on the downside to throwing grandma off the train (or a Republican if that’s your preferred option).

In the meantime an article over on Politico has some interesting snippets of information. David Axelrod said in a telephone interview earlier today in response to questions about the healthcare reform agenda:

“We’re entering a new season, it’s time to synthesize and harmonize these strands and get this done. We’re confident that we can do that. But obviously it is a different phase. We’re going to approach it in a different way. The president is going to be very active.”

Politico goes on to suggest …

Obama’s specifics will include many of the principles he has spelled out before, and aides did not want to telegraph make-or-break demands. But Axelrod and others are making plain that Obama will assert himself more aggressively — a clear sign that the president will start dictating terms to Congress.

Thing is, an environment has been created wherein the public and standing members of the Senate have been calling for Obama to step up to the plate – to take the lead. It is difficult at this stage of the game to accuse Obama of ramming his own agenda down the throat of a hostile Senate. One could argue that this is the set piece in the game-set-match scenario. In support of this proposition I place before you a track record of Obama’s effectiveness in playing process, backed by the inside acumen of Rahm Emanuel, in a script penned by one David Axelrod.

Sept. 15 is the deadline that the White House gave Senate negotiators to seek a bipartisan bill. As Chris would say, ‘timing is everything’.

UPDATE: 3 SEP 2009

Obama is scheduled to speak to both houses of Congress on the 9 SEP 2009 during which it is being widely reported that he will spell out his expectations with respect to the shape of a final healthcare bill.

UPDATE: 09 SEP 2009

Barack Obama’s speech to the members of Congress.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32773968#32766830

In the first segment …

Betsy gets into the subject of what folds into the rating of doctors and she raises (a) a criteria to introduce living wills, and (b) the measurement of the follow-through on those directives. In effect, what Betsy is saying is that when your healthy you more likely to say “no – I don’t want to go onto a machine that goes beep beep beep” – and her punch line is that when your staring God in the face things can be different. Thing is both Betsy and Jon stuffed up here because neither party provided any grounded facts. I mean, seriously, I could imagine signing a living will in which I state categorically that if I suggest that I would vote for Sarah Palin then please shoot me – but what if the alternative on the ballot was Carl Rove in drag? This is Betsy’s truth – when you reach the moment of biting the bullet – Sarah or Carl – are you really ready to stand by the living will – and should your doctor be accountable to the federal government on your “Oh no not Sarah” death wish?

In the second segment …

Forgetting about the doctor insensitive thing for a moment – let’s just move on into the second segment we get to the 500 million dollars cut from Medicare. Now – I know Obama has said that this is just eliminating graft in the system – but at the end of the day if you take 500 billion away from the insurance companies – it’s just going to move back on to premiums. Go figure – I don’t need an accountant to do basic maths. As Betsy suggests – the way you adjust things is to play with edge conditions – such as denial of coverage (granny does not get her hip replacement).

In the third segment ..

One item resonated with me – and that was the question concerning the life expectancy in the USA versus the rest of the world. Jon raised the point that the USA is a 46 in the international ranking of life expectancy. Betsy put up what I though was a very salient piece of information – she responded by raising the point that when you remove violent crime and car accidents the USA is no. 1.

Things unfold in the third segment and this gets really interesting because the subject moves to what America wants to spend it’s money on. Disposable income comes into play. According to Betsy, Americans have spent a declining portion of their income of food and energy, a steady level in housing, and this differential has permitted an increased expenditure in healthcare. Betsy goes on to suggest that this is basically a shifting in spending priorities.

At the end of the day – it’s difficult to disagree with the lady.

UPDATE: 28 AUG 2009

Ok, for clarification, while I don’t agree with Betsy’s conclusions, I respect the fact that Betsy has gone digging, I respect that she has constructed a foundation for an argument, I respect the fact that she has identified weaknesses in the opposing argument. I respect the fact that she has been ready to go toe-to-toe based on a written word – and the thing is, you can’t say that about media or the Senate. Before we crucify Betsy McCaughey we have a obligation to listen, a responsibility to evaluate her arguments, and a moral imperative to debate the questions she raises (irrespective of our political or moral alignment).

Tehran and Tegucigalpa are the two cities in question. In Tehran we witnessed a popular uprising against an election result that announced a landslide victory to the incumbent president, a brutal suppression, and the beginning of a political power struggle that will possibly continue for a number of years. Tegucigalpa in contrast was much more a political/industrial action to maintain a status quo, a pre-emptive action to circumvent what was perceived as a move by a rogue president to move the country to the far left.

Rahm Emanuel said [1] …

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.

[1] YouTube: Rahm Emanuel on a serious crisis.

What he meant by that was that in crisis there is opportunity to do things you could not have done before. In Iran this principal translates into an opportunity for structural changes to the Islamic Republic of Iran, it’s relationships with the outside world, it’s position on human and moral rights, and the potential for the change to the ultimate power structure. But to be clear, the role of popular unrest in this scenario is just the trigger enabling a political opportunity. Over in Honduras the events unfolded with a pre-emptive political move, a reactive but unsuccessful counter-strike, the emergence of a mediation process, and a probably conclusion within which the exiled president will be returned to his position but stripped of any effective power, and the ultimate arbitrators will be the people of Honduras in a new election in November.

In the Honduras case, chances are that the people will get to vote in free and fair elections in just a few months from now. For Iran the situation is much less clear and projection much more uncertain.

What is common between Tehran and Tegucigalpa is that …

Crisis is the mother of political opportunity.