International Crisis Group

For the U.S. and China, a Test of Diplomacy on South Sudan | Somini Sengupta

UNITED NATIONS — The United States may have midwifed the birth of South Sudan, the world’s youngest nation. But China has quickly become among its most important patrons, building its roads and pumping its oil.

Now, more than a year after South Sudan’s leaders plunged their country into a nasty civil war, the nation has become something of a test of diplomacy between the United States and China, raising the question: Can Washington and Beijing turn their mutual interests in South Sudan into a shared strategy to stop the bloodshed?

To pressure the warring sides toward peace, the United States has circulated a draft Security Council resolution, dangling the threat of sanctions and setting up the possibility of an arms embargo somewhere down the road. The measure could come up for a vote as early as Tuesday.

FULL ARTICLE (via the New York Times)

Photo: UN Photo/Paul Banks

Cuba and the U.S.: Turning the Page | Javier Ciurlizza & Mark Schneider

The dramatic improvement this week in U.S.-Cuban relations, and the possibility of an end to the decades-long U.S. embargo of the island, is set to transform political relations in the entire hemisphere. In the three posts below, the director of Crisis Group’s Latin America and Caribbean program, Javier Ciurlizza, and our vice president and special adviser on Latin America, Mark Schneider, look ahead to how the U.S. and Cuban moves could transform the wider region.

Ending the “Hemispheric Anomaly”

The announcements made by presidents Obama and Castro were enthusiastically welcomed across Latin America, from Mexico to Argentina, and in at least some quarters of Venezuela. Although there is a great deal to be done before any true normalisation of relations between the two countries, the announcements do at least represent the end of 60 years of Cuba as a “hemispheric anomaly”.

The U.S. embargo of Cuba, in place since 1961, was only the most explicit of several sanctions and decisions that effectively isolated Cuba from the rest of the continent. Expelled from the Organisation of American States (OAS) and excluded from summits, the Caribbean nation was caught up more than most in the maneuverings of the Cold War’s protagonists. Latin American countries aligned themselves with the United States during the 1960s and ’70s. In the 1980s they started to move toward a growing solidarity with their secluded neighbour.

In the past 20 years, a period marked by both a return to democracy and, in many Latin American countries, a marked shift to the left, the Cuba question was no longer taboo. It was continually pushed onto the regional political agenda even by nations ideologically distant from Havana. In fact, rejection of the embargo was one of the few things on which politicians, from the Rio Grande to Patagonia, could agree.

FULL COMMENTARY (In Pursuit of Peace - Crisis Group Blog)

Photo: Reuters/Kai Pfaffenbach

Meet America’s Next Ambassador to Cuba | Eleanor Clift

Resuming diplomatic relations with Cuba means a promotion for Jeffrey DeLaurentis, the career foreign-service officer currently serving as chief of mission in the U.S. interest section in Havana. He will become charge d’affaires, which confers much the same status as ambassador. Once President Obama’s critics quiet down, and concede however grudgingly that he’s acting in the country’s best interest by taking this great leap forward with Cuba, DeLaurentis could well be the president’s choice for the historic posting of a U.S. ambassador to the island nation after a 54-year hiatus.

The Senate confirmed him once before, in 2011, for a posting to the UN. And he has served in Havana twice before, once in the early ’90s, soon after beginning his career after graduating from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, and again from 1998 to 2002. He’s a highly regarded professional, says Ted Piccone, a senior fellow at Brookings and a Latin scholar, who was in Cuba Wednesday for the simultaneous historic announcements from the presidents in Havana and Washington.

“He is exceptionally well qualified to manage this historic and positive change in relations for the foreseeable future,” Piccone said in an email that praised Obama’s actions and noted that Secretary of State John Kerry’s announcement that he intends to visit Cuba in 2015 is “another very strong sign of the deep commitment to move this agenda forward, with or without congressional support.”

Implementing Obama’s decision to normalize relations is not for the faint-hearted. “This will take a lot of solid negotiating,” says Mark Schneider of the International Crisis Group. He cited among other factors narcotics, environmental issues, and counterterrorism, areas that require the skill of a career foreign-service officer like DeLaurentis. “He’s a smart guy, very committed, always concerned about issues of democracy, and he’s very professional, level-headed. He thinks through issues.” Schneider points out that DeLaurentis has been in his post in Cuba since the summer, so he’s been in on all the pre-planning that’s gone on unbeknownst to much of Washington for some time. “He’s smart, he’s serious, he’ll do an exceptional job,” says Schneider, a former director of the Peace Corps and a veteran of many international aid and development programs.

FULL ARTICLE (The Daily Beast)

Photo: Ed Yourdon/flickr

Iran Nuclear Talks: The Beginning of the Endgame? | Ali Vaez

After a year of negotiations, the parties to the Iran nuclear talks failed to meet their deadline of 24 November. Nonetheless the talks will continue, with the goal of reaching a political agreement by 1 March 2015 and a comprehensive agreement, including an implementation plan, by 1 July 2015 (see Crisis Group’s new report Iran Nuclear Talks: The Fog Recedes). In the following Q and A, Crisis Group Senior Iran Analyst Ali Vaez discusses what the new deadline means and how the talks might move forward.

There’s much disappointment about the failure to agree a deal that would solve Iran’s differences with the international community over its nuclear program. Are we better off than when these intense talks began 12 months ago, or not?

Ali: Yes, of course we’re better off. Going through the 11th hour enabled both sides to gain a better understanding of each other’s real positions. It wasn’t clear until the very end which were real red lines, and which were artificial, maximalist ones. Going forward, they won’t need so much brinksmanship. They can now discern each other’s core requirements, where they really can’t move, and issues where there is a grey area in which they can manoeuvre.

What’s the rationale for having such a long extension of the talks – until 1 July 2015?

Each time you extend the talks you have to pay a political price for it, so they thought it was safer to go with a longer extension with the aim of reaching a deal as soon as possible. Also renewing it soon after the new U.S. Congress comes into office in January will be extremely difficult. Finally, there is the UN’s Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in May 2015; all of the key negotiators and experts will be extremely busy with that, which is held only every five years. Add to it Christmas and Iranian New Year holidays, and you’ll see that it actually is not that long.

FULL INTERVIEW (Crisis Group Blog - In Pursuit of Peace)

Photo: Crisis Group