The Dean of Birzeit University, Ali Jarbani, came to Columbia on Monday April 3rd and gave us his very interesting perspective on what he considers are the best solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. For him, there are three possible alternatives:

1.- The “2 state solution” where you have an Israeli State and a Palestinian State based on the 1967 borders. Israel should leave Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinians should organize their state and, at a second stage, bridges could be built between both states.

2.- The “1 State solution”. Different people would call it different things, but the concept would be the same: A country where both Israeli and Palestinians live in peace together under a secular and democratic nation. For a while, this would create an “apartheid” regime where you have to classes of citizens, but in the long run, the new state would follow the steps of South Africa.

3.- The State of Israel plus a “State of Leftovers”; which entails squeezing the Palestinians as much as possible by building the infamous wall outside of the UN recognized Israeli borders, keeping the checkpoints in place, building settlements, etc. Ali Jarbani made it clear that this is what the Israeli government is intending and, at the same time, what Palestinians will never accept while only provoking resentment and hatred.

The prime obsession for the Israeli government is now, rightly, the demographic issue. Palestinian reproduction rates are much higher than those of their Israeli neighbors. Therefore, they will never accept the 1 state solution, -Ali Jarbani’s favourite option- since this would lead to, in the long run, having an Israeli state with a muslim majority. On the other hand, one could argue that this would not be the case, since higher standards of living and education would lower the Palestinians reproduction rates to those similar to the Israelis.

The reason Palestinians should work towards option number one, Ali Jardani insists, is because the current situation favors Israel and its “state of leftovers” policy. By allowing the existence of the National Palestinian Authority (the NPA) they can blame the entire fault on an “authority” which is completely bankrupt and is therefore economically and politically squeezed to accepting the third option. That is, the NPA is an authority which is everything but an authority.

The creation of the NPA was a beautiful way of permitting Israel to savie face vis-à-vis the international community while building more settlements. Ali Jardani is in favor of dismembering the NPA. Israel would then be forced towards option number one, which in turn would slowly but surely end up creating a 2 state solution: “Israel should be alarmed with the demographic issue and therefore will not accept Palestinians as Israeli citizens. Palestinians will never accept the current apartheid situation therefore the only alternative is the 2 State solution”. It is nevertheless important to note that other Palestinian scholars and leaders, such as Arafat, are completely against such a policy.

As Ali Jarbani interestingly noted, the “left-over Palestinian region is the only area in the world where you live in an autonomous region, outside of a state, where its inhabitants do not have the citizenship of the state”. Also interesting, was his definition of occupation as a “situation where you loose control over your destiny”. Food for thought.

On March 5th, American Ambassador Thomas Pickering gave a most interesting lecture on Russian-American relations.

During the course of the year, Russian President Putin has frequently vocalized a number of issues that have been troubling him. He is worried, as we Europeans have always been, about American unilateralism. He sees America as a man with a hammer and every problem as a nail. But there are also other issues that make him itch. Putin is neither satisfied with NATO expanding in his backyard nor with the fact that American military bases are now surrounding Russia as an aftermath of the war in Afghanistan. After all, he was hoping that the moment the Talibans would be defeated, the bases would be dismantled.

It is true that Russia is in a stronger position than just a few years ago. After all, the US desperately needs Russian support to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue and Europe is highly dependant on Russian gas. Also, Russia has finally managed to repay all its international loans going from being a creditor country to finding themselves in a comfortable debtor situation. Year after year, foreign investment has been souring and a 5.7% 2007 budget surplus is expected. This, combined with Putin’s high internal popularity and its veto in the Security Council allows Russia to, from time to time, punch above her weight.

Nevertheless, there is a huge demographic crisis going on in Russia; population is decreasing by 700.000 a year, rural migration to cities is unstoppable, war in Chechnya has been incredibly draining and has raised international criticism. All of this, combined with incredibly high rates of alcoholism, ramping aids infections and a bad health system –which is thank God slowly improving- is lowering the health expectancy. Therefore, Russia does not really have the means to create this counterbalance they so badly want this there are a number of internal affairs they need to first solve.

Ambassador Pickering made a call to have Russia and the US work closer together in order to surmount their differences. First and most importantly, Russia is currently negotiating its adherence to the WTO. This would be a very positive aspect for world trade and the US should back her up. Secondly, the Iranian nuclear issue represents a terrific opportunity for both sides to resolve their differences. Although both countries agree that Iran should not have nukes, their approaches differ. While Russia thinks that the US should use more diplomacy to resolve the issue, the US is longing for much stronger and tougher Russian involvement. This is starting to happen as can be read in this Tuesday’s New York Times where Russia has threatened Iran not provide the necessary fuel for their nuclear reactor at Brushehr. The third window of opportunity is to intermediate in the Arab-Israeli situation and to find a peaceful solution to what has become an unsustainable situation.

We will see if this happens, all that is clear is what Churchill wisely once said: “Russia is a riddle wrapped inside an enigma”.

Biological WMD

I came upon a very interesting read last night. While some of my friends were falling into the traps of one of America's top consumerism traps -St. Valentine-, I snobbed the evening away by hidding at the SIPA library: Ken Alibek's Biohazard: A first hand Cold War account of a top scientist responsible for a large chunk of the Soviet Union's secret biological weapon's program. The book, an easy read that will keep you awake all night -and not because it is minus 10c outside-, explains in laymen's terms how easy it is to develop such a program and the risks we are currently facing.

Biological weapons have always been considered the poor man's nuclear bomb. Believe it or not, you can nowadays create a facility for as little as $10 million, making them easily available to rogue states and terrorists. Alibek, in an interview given in 1999, said that there are probably former Soviet scientists familiar with bio-weapon technology working in the so-called rogue states.

Even though the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) bans the production, stockpiling and transfer of Biological and Toxin Weapons, the treaty was weakened from the beginning by the absence of formal and systematic ways of verification or enforcement. This was tragically evidenced by the 1979 Soviet Union's accident in their top secret plant at Sverdlosk. More than a hundred people died because a filter was not replaced by a technician who left for home in a rush! As the scientifical community likes to say, human nature always triumphs over the best designs.

Biological weapons have the unfortunate advantage of dual use. That is, how can you know that laboratories are being used for pharmaceutical purposes or to make weapons? Enforcement measures of the BWC should be immediately implemented. Talks have been going on for the last 15 years. The Clinton administration tried to reach an agreement, but the moment Bush took over, everything was halted again. The pressure from pharmaceutical lobbies was just too great for this president. They were afraid their secrets would be revealed if an international commission of experts visited their facilities. I guess some prefer to be dead than to run the risk of sharing a vaccine...

Anyway, the one question experts have not yet been able to answer is tragic: Why, if everything is so simple about them, have biological weapons not been used more? A question I should not make; self-fulfilling prophecies are dangerous things...

Nuclear proliferation is a big thing and all diplomatic efforts to halt it should be vigoriously pursued, but beware of biological weapons.

Eugene Onegin at the Met

Last Friday, the Lincoln Center seemed to be the Red Square. The premiere of Eugene Onegin occurred at the Met, after an absence of almost ten years. The Russians were everywhere: Valery Gergiev conducted his first Russian role at the Met; Hvorostovsky proved what we all knew, namely that his charisma was born for the role of Onegin. Elena Zaremba performed wonderfully well as Tatiana's lively sister and other roles, such as Olga's mother and her nanny were also played by Russian singers. Even Netrebko was attending the event, probably to enjoy Renée Fleming's skillful performance.

Nevertheless, the surprise came from the the Mexican tenor Ramón Vargas, who performed his first role in Russian -Ouch! Not only was the singing splendid, one could clearly identify Pushkin's Lenski in his improvised insecure gestures. I was also deeply moved by the love aria powerfully sang by Sergei Alekshashkin. His voice melted the cold reluctant wall we unconsciously build up after repeatedly experiencing the dispair of rejection. He succesfully brought us back to that good feeling of falling in love again.

The Israeli Lobby

In March 2006, Professors Mearsheimer (Harvard University) and Walt (University of Chicago) published a controversial paper on the Israeli lobby in the prestigious Harvard Faculty Research Working Papers. They defend that American Foreign Policy is highly influenced by the Israeli Lobby by efficiently convincing the American People that Israeli and American interests are perfectly aligned, if not identical.

Israel is the largest recipient of American foreign aid since the end of World War II receiving "total direct U.S. aid amounting to well over $140 billion in 2003 dollars. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one‐fifth of America’s foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year, apart from consistent diplomatic support". The article, a must read for anybody trying to understand American Foreign Policy, then moved on to explain the reasons why neither American strategic nor moral values go hand in hand with Israel's.

Both Professors were inmediately accused of anti-Semitism and there were questions surrounding Walt's stepping down as Academic Dean at the Kennedy School (which Walt defended as being coincidential). To understand the extent of such criticism, it is totally worth reading the article published by the Jewish Paper Forward.

We discussed this paper at Columbia, during our "Conceptual Foundations of International Relations". I found it to be a positive sign that this reading was presented under the "American Foreign Policy" class. Nevertheless, I was shocked to see that during the associated discussion session, not a single American student was willing to make a comment on what has become one of the most controversial articles since Huntington's "Clash of Civilisations". Even after recklessly pointing out outloud my confusion for such silence and reminding my classmates that their OWN taxes were paying for this support, none of them dared make a comment. Our Professor, Hisham Aidi, tried to, for at least ten good minutes, get a discussion going; without success.

I was therefore very excited when I found out last week that the authors were coming to Columbia to discuss the related book they are currently working on. In a closed-doors debate, a controversial discussion with famous scholars such as Richard Betts, Jack Snyder, Mahmood Mamdani, Kenneth Waltz, Scott Sagan, John Mearsheimer, Rasheed Khalidi and Robert Jervis took place and I was lucky enough to be in the room.

The discussion was not as heated as I was hoping for and unfortunately many comments on methodology (content unrelated) were made. Nevertheless some argued that the criticism should be rephrased under other titles as "strategic consideration" (Israel as a democracy and close ally) or "moral grounds" (from victim to victimizer) but not in terms of the "all-powerful lobby" or "domestic pressure".

Overall I was glad to see, as a European who favours a more balanced aproach in America's Middle Eastern foreign policy, that the debate is on and that once the book is out, discussion will slowly make its way to the 2008 American Presidential Elections and hopefully, to our discussion sessions!

Please read the article on the Israeli Lobby, you will start hearing a lot about it.

The Waltz - Sagan debate or optimism vs pessimism

Netrebko, please forgive me yet again, but my Professor Waltz deserves this publication asap!

Columbia attracts the biggest geopolitical thinkers. Yesterday we were treated with a debate on Iranian nuclear proliferation between Stanford Professor Robert Sagan and Columbia’s Kenneth Waltz. These men are geniuses.

Waltz basically reflected Chirac’s -unofficial- position. Namely, if Iran gets the nuclear bomb, what is the big deal? We will be able to cope with such a threat. After all, we coped with much bigger risks during the Cold War. You might argue that the nukes are now in hands of a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists, but, if we make an effort to remember, I do not recall we considered Khrushchev and Mao “enfants de coeur”. Plus, in almost 60 years, only 9 countries have nukes, “this is not proliferation, this is glacial spread”.

After all, if you were Iran, would you not do the same if you were under the American threat? If the President of the United States had named you as part of the Axis of Evil and had already taken down one of those countries carrying the same honorific distinction, would you not do all you can to protect yourself? History has proven that the only way to deter the US, if they are really going after you is by getting nukes. Look at South Korea, they got the bomb and the United States has not been able to do anything about it, the risk is too great.

Waltz’s overtly optimistic conclusion was to “sleep well”.

Sagan, famous among other publications for his “Why do States Build Nuclear Weapons” article had a very different point of view. No optimism here.

View the famous article under: http://www.jstor.org/view/01622889/di008157/00p0004z/0

Sagan accuses Waltz of still living in the Cold War and not understanding the current situation. Risks are high but diplomatic intervention can still work. He mentioned three reasons why Iran should not go nuclear:

1.- If Iran has the bomb it will feel safer thus becoming more aggressive. How would we now prevent them from selling nuclear material to terrorist groups and being more provocative in Irak? They might even feel safer to attack American bases!

2.- Ambiguous control of the nukes: In Iran’s case the keys would be kept by the Revolutionary Guards which support Ahmadinejad. Trouble!

3.- Theft: A possible risk of attack by the US would force Iran to spread its weapons along the countryside, thus increasing the risk of theft by terrorist groups

He also made an interesting point, many scholars consider that Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear energy under Article 4 of the NPA (Non Proliferation Agreement). But, as he correctly pointed out, Article 4 clearly states that only "states in good stading" are allowed to make use of such energy. Cleary, Iran sacrificed this option when trying to hide a nuclear program and not allowing inspectors to their cites. This could hopefully change overtime, under a new Governement that would accept these rules.

Two different points of view, the only agreement being that we need to leave the table to the diplomats. Military intervention is not the solution and the next elections, both in Iran and the US might help us all out. Food for thought…

Death in Venice

My dearest Bernat gave me a call while I was in the library revising my Weapons of Mass Destruction class. Eduardo, “how about rememorizing your German times, my dear friend? Ouch, Germany... Nevertheless, it turned out to be the best evening of the week. I truly hope Anna Netrebko does not yet check my blog since her Monday performance as Elvira in Il Puritani was sublime. Details to come in one of my next posts…

It was my first ballet, my first time at BAM (The Brooklyn Academy of Art) and the first time we break the golden rule and a third person, Ashley, becomes a part of our “discovery nights”. Death in Venice, a novel from Thomas Mann, was about to be brilliantly choreographed and staged by John Neumann and interpreted for us by the Hamburg Ballet.

You can view the full review online, it has been such a success there are hundreds of reviews made by more suited persons than myself (such as my friend Bernat’s). I just wanted to leave you with a question that has been haunting me ever since I have seen this Ballet:

What is it about human nature that constantly makes us rebel against our preset comfortable lives? What is it that makes Dionysus so attractive and makes us run away from Apollo’s safety? For Aschenbach it is a young boy, a young Dorian Gray, portrayed as a feminine Polish boy wearing a tailored navy blue suit.

The whole ballet had been danced under heartrending bits of music by Bach and Wagner, when suddenly, while we were preparing ourselves for the next scene, strident harsh rock music made us take a deep breath of air as we impotently watched Aschenbach’s fascination for the boy turn into love and provoking an accelerated spiral of folly which lead to death in Venice.

If you are in NYC, you are in for a treat, but make sure you have this question answered before you go. As a last piece of advice, watch out for the possible frustration that will arise after the show: While you walk to the subway and think about these men who dance like angels, you will have the oppressing feeling that you barely manage to walk like a duck.

Watch a video preview.

Experimental Opera

This Sunday I attended, along with my good friend Bernat, the experimental opera "Concret" by Robert Ashley, at the Mama Theater. "The Wire" has credited Ashley for “taking opera into the multimedia age”. While the singers are logically on stage, the conductor sits behind the public where he is most comfortable working on the live music he produces with his Mac. The singers are entirely free of any obligation to bars and beats during the internal “discussions” they have among themselves. His computer program is mainly used by DJs. Quite a lesson for the rest of us who can't copy-paste a text taking when you think that Ashley is 76!

The work revolves around five internal "discussions" where the singers, through a heated debate, discuss curious issues such as why people keep secrets or why games are played counterclockwise. Interjected are five solo arias where each performer tells a story of a particular ordinary man. Therefore, the libretto is of the outmust importance: We were glued to our seats listening to the stories. The music seemed to be just a support for a wonderful experience of story telling.

This leads us to an interesting discussion. Paul Robinson, in his book "Opera, Sex and Other Vital Matters", postures that what is sung during an opera has no importance whatsoever. What matters is how it is sung; the operistic experience will result from it. To justify the non-importance of the libretto, he gives four specific reasons. The first one is that opera is song in a foreign language. Therefore, slime are the chances you will be understanding Wagner's German. As late as in the 1960s performances were song in the language of the singer. You could perfectly have a performance of Othello with Renata Tebaldi in which the soprano sang in Italian while the rest of the cast and chorus sang in German. Second, since opera is sung, it is very difficult to understand, specially the female voice. Third, ensemble singing makes the whole literary experience an impossible mess and fourth the orchestra is so powerful it is difficult to make out the voices.

Therefore, are words the necessary path to understanding the grandeur of opera? Beats me.

A wonderful week. How better can it get?

This week has been terrific. As the americans call them, my "homeboys" have been here for a few days. No matter how many new things one discovers, learns or messes up, there is nothing better than having a beer with these guys. Thanks for coming amigos!

The USS Roosevelt
The chat with the A10 Thunderbolt pilot

The second part of the week was of a completely different nature. Professor Betts, who teaches War, Peace and Strategy and is the director of my concentration (International Security Policy) took us on a field trip. We spent a total of three days at Fort Bragg and the Norfolk Naval Base where we had a chance to hear briefings from the 82nd airborn, the Rangers Special Forces, an A10 Thunderbolt pilot, submarine personnel and NATO officials among other. The best part was, of course, to visit the USS Roosevelt, the USS Oklahoma (a sub) and the chat with the A10 pilot. As always, there is always a downside to things: A European NATO officer (you might be able to guess what country he is from) blatantly stated that the EU should not have a military force and should rely on NATO. How are we going to build a strong Europe if we mantain our dependance on US Military Forces? A rapid intervention military force is a must for Europe if we want to have a voice in the international community.

Eduardo, what are you really studying in NYC?

I have lately been talking a lot with some of you -¡Long live skype!- and most of you, after a while, end up asking me something along the lines of:

"Eduardo, I have just wanted to ask you something for quite a while. I know you are in New York, good; I know you are in Columbia, cool; but not an MBA, mmmh; ... So what in Heavens name are you really studying?"

Step by step:
I am studying a Masters in International Affairs. This is not an MBA. It is not business related. It is a two year Masters where you study anything that has international implications, but I am mostly focusing on, international security, interstate relations and so on. More at:
http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/academics/degree_programs/mia/index.html

There are mainly two blocks:
1.- The core curriculum where you take International Relations Theory courses
2.- A specialization: a few examples are: International Security Policy (my choice!), Human Rights, Economic Development, etc.

To give you some insight, some of the classes I am taking are:
- Conceptual Foundations: International Relations Theory
- Economics. (I had to take this one)
- Contemporary Diplomacy: Analysis of conflicts where diplomats have played a major role
- War, peace and strategy:

For the next semester I have the possibility of taking different courses such as history of WWII strategy, Geopolitics of Energy, European history through the prism of literature, Nationalism, EU security, counterterrorism, Middle East history, the Roman Empire, arabic, etc. The good thing about Columbia is that I can also attend courses in other schools: french literature, art history, etc.

I hope this helps!

A man in short

I have never known much about fashion. In fact, the little I know is largely due to my wonderful ex-girlfriends who would not, under any circumstance, let me buy my own clothes. When I turn fashion TV on, it is very rarely that I remember what the girls were wearing!

This fresh new look has caught my eye. Believe it or not Thom Browne is hitting hard and naked ankles are starting to be seen in the NYC streets. Of course, this is the designer version and what you see in the streets is not as overplayed, but still... beware: Thom Browne has been awarded the Council of Fashion Designers of America award as men's wear designer of the year. His line is only sold in 22 stores worldwide but the fact that the NY Times has given him a full two pages means he will be hitting hard. His suits, -basic model- start at $3.500.

His clothes are catching fast with an underserved customer segment: Businessmen who want to look both conservative and cool. I always thought fashion should come from Italy or France but I guess I will have to ask "La Caixa" for an extra money wire to help me renew my whole wardrobe!

Oh my God, oh my God!!

Culture shock,

Algunos de mis amigo yankees se están subiendo por las paredes. "¡¡¡Tenemos un paper y examen el viernes, en siete días!!!". Me los quedo mirando, perplejo, al verlos subirse por las paredes. ¨Oh my God, oh my God, we don't have time, I am going to fail, oh my God¨. Flipado, les dejo y me voy a leer el blog de mi amigo David, el cineasta y futuro Pedro Almodóvar, -tal y como le comentamos a Juan Carlos (¿Te acuerdas David?)-. Encuentro el siguiente pasaje con el que me siento bien identificado:

"Empiezo a echar de menos los tiempos muertos, mientras la obsesión por aprovechar hasta el último segundo de mi vida empieza a devorarme. Los remordimientos de culpa me alcanzan hasta escribiendo este fotolog y siento que voy a estallar. Salimos del cine de la facultad y siento que la creciente oscuridad invita a una cerveza en algún bar perdido. Pero miro a mi alrededor y veo a mis compañeros correr hacia sus coches para llegar cuanto antes a casa y escribir un análisis, reescribir su último guión, preparar la presentación de una nueva idea, responder e-mails de productores, dibujar el plano de la localización" (http://www.fotolog.com/loquenosqueda).

Decidido. Me tomaré el día libre tras enviarle un mail a David diciéndole que ya toca llamarme, y me iré a dar un paseo por Central Park. El parque está precioso, los colores están cambiando y los pintores van locos por capturar esos primeros dorados. Los pintores de Central Park vienen en todos los colores. Desde las abuelitas retiradas, pasando por ricachones de la quinta avenida a jóvenes promesas que te intentan convencer que sus cuadros valen mil dólares ya que "the colours flow". ¿Mande? Yo es que no lo veo, tendré que llamar a Juan, el pintor de "La Caixa" para que me explique eso de los colores. Tras una hora deambulando acabo llegando al Metropolitan y me provoca una de esos momentos "gasping in awe" a lo Paco Fernández de Soria que todos los españolitos, por muchas tablas que creamos tener, sentimos de vez en cuando al pasear por la big apple.

En el metropolitan hay visitas guidas cada media hora. El museo es tan grande que si uno se pasase un minuto delante de cada pieza expuesta, estaría más de 5 años en patearlo todo, nos comenta nuestro guía, uno de los más de mil voluntarios, la mayoría jubilados con ganas de compartir su "knowledge".

Justo al salir me llama una amiga, inglesa, prototipo posh de "public school" y con un maravilloso acento británico que te deja hechizado: "I reckon we could meet up for coffee". Tras afirmar dicho reckoneamiento me propone que quedemos en el boathouse del parque; parece ser que la chica se conoce la ciudad. Nos sentamos con vistas al lago y los rascacielos de fondo. Ni cortos ni perezosos, pedimos dos martinis "a los fruits rouges", especialidad de la casa, mientras aprovecho para explicarle que no consigo entender ni el porqué de las cuatrocientas páginas que tenemos que leer cada semana, ni las colas de las discotecas donde uno sólo entra si al portero le gustan tus zapatos o tu amiga, ni, sobretodo, el "Oh my God". Me escucha y pide otro martini. Podría ser española. Es una gran conocedora del estudiar último minuto y de la famosa quiniela que muchos nos hemos acostumbrado a hacer en España, la noche antes del examan. Es decir, el tema que nos tendremos que dejar por falta de tiempo mientras cruzamos los dedos esperando que no salga.

El sistema americano no funciona así. Aquí hay que estudiar desde el primer día y mucho. Luego toca ir a clase, ir a clases de discusiones y finalmente quedar con un grupito de amigos para discutir las clases. ¡Papá, estarías orgulloso! ¡Por fin, con casi 30 años, tu hijo se pone a estudiar como un cabrón! Lo celebramos con otro martini.

Al salir del boathouse, medio dando tumbos, me llama Bernat. Bernat es todo un personaje. Conocedor de los mejores garitos nocturnos, corresponsal de la SER, crítico de ópera, filósofo ex-becario de la Caixa y músico no deja de sorprenderme con sus deliciosos y pérfidos análisis de la sociedad americana. "Fill meu, que anem a la òpera". Pues anem, anem. Una hora más tarde estoy en la platea del Metropolitan Opera House, escuchando "La Gioconda". Su análisis, tomando un brooklyn lager, en el garito de enfrente del Met, es una buena manera de acabar el día sabiendo que mañana empieza el calvario de los exámenes, por suerte, esta vez sin quiniela...

Corea del Norte: entendiendo el "otro" punto de vista

El tema de las "nukes" no es nuevo. Corea es de los pocos países que ha sido amenazado con armas nucleares. El secretario de defensa de los EE.UU Douglas McArthur amenazó con utilizarlas durante la Guerra de Corea en 1950. En 1958 fueron establecidas en Corea del Sur baterías de misiles con cargas nucleares que estuvieron operativas hasta 1991. Fue cuando cayó el muro de Berlín, y por lo tanto desapareció la protección rusa ante la temida amenaza americana, que el régimen norcoreano decidió llevar a cabo su programa nuclear.

Para un país como Corea del Norte, el tener armas nucleares conlleva grandes ventajas. Permite al régimen mantener a EE.UU a raya, convertir a Corea del Norte en un importante actor en la región al ser alterada la balance de poder y, sobre todo, permitir el uso del arma como moneda de cambio para conseguir mejoras económicas, posicionándose muy fuertemente ante el pueblo norcoreano y asegurando la supervivencia del régimen. ¿Alguien da más?

¿Cómo puede ser que el régimen tenga la "cara dura" de plantarle cara a EE.UU? El régimen de Bush no está desarrollando una estrategia clara y definida. Primera página del NY Times esta semana: "Condi Rice amenaza a Corea del Norte con sanciones como hasta ahora nunca han visto". Fantástico. ¡Esto no sólo es reiterativo sinó que el régimen lleva sufriendo este tipo de represión desde hace más de quince años! Parece mentira que una profesora de relaciones internacionales del calibre de Rice no aplique la lógica aplastante del Premio Nobel Thomas Schelling: Para que una amenaza sea efectiva, el enemigo tiene que saber en que forma está siendo amenazado. Gran libro que recomiendo, por cierto: "Arms and influence" que, aunque escrito hace más de treinta años, sigo siendo una referencia en cuanto a estrategias de amenaza y cohersión en conflictos armados, tanto con o sin armas nucleares en el menú del día.

Es importante tener en cuenta, además, el rol de China, y más concretamente el miedo a una desestabilización en su región. Por supuesto que no quieren que los norcoreanos disongan de armas nucleares, pero una intervención militar americana conllevaría una riada de refugiados provocando una situación desesperante y desestabilizadora en su patio trasero.

Se rumorea por los pasillos de la Universidad de Columbia que China está preparando a una nueva generación de norcoreanos que podrían llevar el cambio de régimen cuando fuese necesario. Para ello sería importante mantener todas las estructuras del país y sólo decapitar la cúpula del régimen. El ejemplo de EE.UU de expulsar a todos los sunís de la burocracia iraquí llevó a un nivel de desestabilidad tal que los americanos tuvieron que volver a incorporarlos en el gobierno unos meses más tarde. ¿Funcionaría esto en Corea del Norte? La incertidumbre es grande. Kim Jong-il tiene a su leal máquina burocrática realmente atada y para demostrarlo, al ser invitado por V. Putin a una reunión -¡de un día!- en Moscú, decidió viajar en tren y tardar casi veinte días en volver a casa. ¿Hay mejor manera de demostrar que no se le tiene miedo a un golpe de estado que pudiese derrocarle a él o su régimen?

En fin, que la situación es altamente complicada. Es una pena ver como los esfuerzos de Jimmy Carter (¡lo que le ayudó a recibir un Nobel!) por lograr un acuerdo se han esfumado tras la llegada de Bush. Tachar a Corea del Norte como parte del "axis of evil" y hacerla sentirse militarmente amenazada no ha ayudado a encontrar una solución diplomática. Tampoco ayuda que las demás potencias geopolíticas sean incapaces de ponerse de acuerdo sobre las medidas que hay que tomar ante la supuesta prueba nuclear de Corea del Norte . . .

En fin, que así están las cosas.... ¡mientras tanto yo sigo disfrutando de la vida en NYC!

Hezbollah e Israel

Las teorías de Relaciones Internacionales dan cada vez más importancia a los actores no gubernamentales. ONGs, multinacionales, organismos religiosos, Cruz Roja y un largo etcétera son sólo un corto ejemplo de una larga lista. Esto, hasta ahora no es noticia. Lo es que se ponga en duda el futuro del concepto del estado-nación debido al crecimiento de dichos actores tal y como se está empezando a comentar en las universidades americanas.

Desde la paz de Westphalia estamos acostumbrados a vivir bajo una estructura social determinada comunmente denominada el estado nación. Pero, ¿qué nos indica que ésta es la manera óptima de organización internacional? Podría ser que otras formas de gobierno estén empezando a aparecer sobre el tablero mundial y que ya exista fricciones militares entre ambos sistemas?

Podría ser el caso de la contienda libanesa. Un Estado bien definido, Israel, con una burocracia weberiana asentada, unas fronteras territoriales bien delimitadas y un ejército regular enfrascado en una lucha militar contra Hezbollah, un actor no gubernamental que se reparte cómodamente por varios países del Oriente Medio y que dispone de un ejército camaleónico indivisible de la población local.

Éstos actores no gubernamentales han estado presentes durante milenios. Sin ir más lejos, en Europa, los cátaros y la Órden del Temple tuvieron una importancia capital en el desarrollo de nuestras sociedades hasta que los monarcas franceses, aterrorizados por su creciente poder, se lo agradecieron con sus respectivas aniquilaciones en el año 1244 (Capitulación de la fortaleza cátara de Montsegur) y 1344 (ejecución del Gran Maestre Jacques de Molay).

Al contrario que Francia, Israel no ha conseguido acabar con Hezbollah. Las causas son varias y variadas y las comentaremos en algún futuro post, pero si este tipo de conflicto y resultados se reproducen, es bien posible que algún día los estados nación tengan que compartir el mundo con estos nuevos actores.

De colonias

El sistema educativo americano es otra cosa. ¿Os podéis creer que nos llevaron de colonias? Sí sí, el director del Programa de Estrategias de Guerra y Paz nos llevó a un parque natural a pasar dos días. Todo sea por las hamburguesas, las cervezas Budweiser y el hacer networking entre columbianos. Decimos los europeos que las cervezas americanas son demasiado suaves. Los resultados demostraron lo contrario (¿o será el hecho de mezclarlas con vodka?). Total que entre el grupo de futuros embajadores americanos surgieron un par de perlas que se dedicaron a montar una guerra de extintores. Muy apropriado teniendo en cuenta la naturaleza de la clase que nos da el profesor: "War, peace and strategy".

¿El resultado? Pues lo que siempre nos pasaba en colonias: Les pillaron y el pater semidios de las relaciones internacionales gran profesor emérito de Columbia tuvo que disculparse por sus futuros embajadores. Nos han comunicado que no podremos volver al campamento. Y luego os preguntáis por los descalabros de la política internacional americana. Yo no sé si el ser humano es un lobo por naturaleza -como sostenía Hobbes- o si era Locke quien llevaba la razón. Lo que sí ha quedado demostrado es que al ser humano, ni dándole la mejor educación, consigue comportarse de forma civilizada. A tener en cuenta en mis clases del lunes sobre los orígines de los conflictos bélicos. ¿Tendrá la imbecilidad algo que ver?

11 de Septiembre - Nacimiento del blog

Curioso,

11 de Septiembre, tras deleitarnos con las últimas creaciones japonesas en la barra del Blue Ribbon de la calle Sullivan, mi amiga Christine y yo decidimos darnos un paseo por el Ground 0. Gran paseo -acompañado por los primeros saludos del invierno- donde hemos podido adentrarnos en las mentes americanas al vislumbrar boquiabiertos como una flota de camiones de bomberos decorados con banderas yankees para la ocasión se dejaba berzar por un mar de globos de colores rojiblancos. Los camiones parecían sonreirnos encantados mientras nuestros conciudadanos les aclamaban.

Total, esto para deciros que voy a escribir un blog.

El objetivo de este blog será contaros mis aventuras en NYC. Por supuesto os pegaré rollos sobre los nuevos modelos geopolíticos así como las más vigentes teorías sobre las relaciones internacionales. También procuraré dedicar un tiempo a mi vida cotidiana así como a los fenómenos que iré descubriendo por aquí.....

Un fuerte abrazo.