A quick recap for those just joining us: On October 6, 2006 North Korea exploded its first nuclear weapon. This past week, it conducted an underground nuclear test and missile launches provoking international condemnation and raising tensions (and military alert levels) in the region. Satellite surveillance suggests it may have restarted its Yongbyon reactor (and possibly the reprocessing plant) despite the public June 27, 2008 destruction of the reactor cooling tower. Formerly a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, North Korea exercised its right to the three months’ notice of withdrawal allowed under Article X of the Treaty, pulling out in early 2003. Just days ago, North Korea announced that it no longer feels bound by the armistice agreement that ended the Korean War. In this video from the Brookings Institution, Richard Bush, director of the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, examines North Korea’s actions and considers how the United States might respond.

I’ve been trying to catch up on news and events after being away for the Memorial Day holiday weekend, and it appears that North Korea’s provocative nuclear test and subsequent missile launches are high on the agenda. This video from the UK’s Telegraph shows President Obama responding to the recent nuclear test:

President Obama reaffirmed the U.S. pledge to protect South Korea and Japan and resolved to strengthen nonproliferation efforts. Beyond words of condemnation, what can the U.S. really do about the North Korean nuclear program? In this regional summary, experts from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace assess the proliferation risks of North Korea’s nuclear program and the policy options available to the international community.

On this Memorial Day, the U.S. Role blog would like to salute the men and women of the U.S. armed forces who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our country. Because this blog is specifically devoted to the U.S. role in the world, I would like to honor those who are buried far from home. Please join me in remembering the 2,289 American military personnel buried at the American Cemetery at Aisne-Marne, France; the 5,329 buried at the American Cemetery at Ardennes, Belgium; the 4,410 buried at the American Cemetery at Brittany, France; the 468 buried at the Brookwood Cemetery in the UK; the 3,812 buried in Cambridge, England; the 5,525 buried in Epinal, France; the 368 buried in Flanders Field, Belgium; the 4,402 buried in Florence, Italy; the 7,992 buried at Henri-Chapelle, Belgium; the 10,489 buried at Lorraine, France; the 5076 buried in Luxembourg; the 14,246 buried in the Meuse-Argonne American Cemetery and Memorial in France; the 8,301 buried in the Netherlands; the 9,387 buried in Normandy, France; the 6,012 buried in Oise-Aisne, France; the 861 buried in Rhone, France; the 7,861 buried in Sicily, Italy; the 1,844 buried in Somme, France; the 4,153 buried in St. Mihiel, France; and the 1,541 buried in Suresnes, France.

What has been the U.S. role in the world? Their graves provide a solemn answer to that question.

The American Battle Monuments Commission was established by Congress in 1923 to administer the overseas military cemeteries that serve as resting places for the almost 125,000 American war dead. For more information on the Commission and other (non-European) cemeteries and monuments they administer, please visit their website.

Photo: PBS/Hallowed Grounds

It was said during the presidential campaign that closing the Guantanamo detention center was one of the things the new president could do to immediately change the view of the U.S. role in the world for the better. After his election victory, President Obama immediately signed an executive order to do just that (I think it was on his second day in office) and all that remained was to work out the details. While the desire to close a prison that was seen by many to be a stain on the U.S. reputation abroad was no doubt laudable, it’s those details that are now close to derailing the plan. President Obama is running into the “not in my backyard” syndrome as lawmakers from both sides of the aisle announce that they do not want Gitmo prisoners housed in their states. In this MSNBC video, President Obama reassures lawmakers and the public that prisoners will not be a danger to the public, wherever they happen to be sent.

While President Obama appears to be resolute in his desire to close the detention center, the placement of relocated prisoners is still very much in doubt. As I scanned the headlines today I noted that the state of California is suffering an extreme budget crisis. Perhaps the federal government can purchase San Quentin prison (newly on the market) and thereby help out California while also providing a safe and secure home for the Gitmo prisoners. Call it a Gitmo bailout.

The meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is now history, and it appears that both leaders gained something from the meeting. President Obama secured assurances from the Israeli leader that new peace talks will begin soon and Prime Minister Netanyahu won a timetable for progress on dealing with Iran’s nuclear program. Despite the American embrace of the two-state solution, the Israeli prime minister did not use that phrase, and it’s becoming clear that Israel will insist on greater security guarantees before returning to that formulation. In this op-ed appearing in The Washington Times, Tony Blankley considers the two-state solution in light of Arab public opinion and notes that even as the two-state solution is the outcome favored by Arab political leaders, it has been rejected by the Arab public, at least according to public opinion data he cites. Given that, it’s unlikely that a Mideast peace agreement, even if signed, would lead to the kind of peace most expect. If that is true, then how can we see a way forward? In this analysis, Carnegie scholar, Nathan Brown uses a question and answer format to explore the details of the two-state solution favored by the U.S. and the other members of the international Quartet of Mideast peace negotiators. This observer is left to conclude the the two-state solution remains a viable long-term solution for the Middle East conflict, but hopes for short-term progress may well meet with disappointment.

Photo: AP/Charles Dharapak

President Obama will meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today at the White House. The Mideast peace process will be on the agenda, though as this report points out, the two leaders bring two very different agendas to the table:

Israel’s new conservative prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, comes to the White House Monday set on convincing President Obama that dealing with Iran must come before efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For his part, Mr. Obama wants the Israeli leader to see how progress on the Palestinian front can take the wind out of Tehran’s sails and set Israel’s neighborhood on a more stable course. For both leaders, it’s going to be a tough sell.

One of the more interesting linkages that has been raised by U.S. officials is a public acknowledgment of the Israeli nuclear arsenal as part of nonproliferation efforts and perhaps part of an emerging grand bargain with Iran and other regional powers. George Perkovich and Avner Cohen, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, explain why Israel is not willing to tolerate a U.S. deal with Iran that would be linked to Israel’s own nuclear deterrent. They are looking for Obama to agree today to protect Israel from pressure to put any constraints on its strategic deterrent program.

Is a crisis brewing between the U.S. and Israel? On the one had, we have a new American president determined to make headway on the perennial presidential to-do item of forging Mideast peace, and on the other, we have a new Israeli prime minister who sees the divided Palestinians no longer viable as a peace partner and in need of long-term development before statehood can be considered. And then there is Iran, whose threats to attack Israel are combined with a nuclear program that has raised alarm throughout the region, threatening to unleash a regional arms race…or worse. This report from Spiegel Online describes a dramatic change in U.S. policy, noting such recent U.S. actions as: calling on Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; calling for a freeze of settlements; proposing a new engagement with Iran; and, working towards a wider Arab-Israeli peace that would include a 57-state-deal with Israel. For some perspective on U.S. - Israel relations, I recommend the Washington Post blog PostGlobal, where the editors have assembled a team of experts to address the following questions:

Are Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama on a collision course over Iran and the Palestinian problem? What would be the consequences of a breach between the United States and Israel?

The expert panel offers a range of perspectives, from suggesting that reports of rising tensions between the U.S. and Israel are greatly exaggerated to a warning that Obama risks losing any chances at a second term if he confronts Israel. We may learn more about the status of relations between the two countries on Monday, when Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with President Obama at the White House.

Photo: Spiegel Online/DPA

Longtime readers of this blog may remember that my very first post was devoted to a commemoration of the Berlin airlift as an enduring example of U.S. aid and assistance to other countries, even former enemies. As the calendar brings us around again to the anniversary of the airlift I’d like to call your attention to this BBC News report on the 60th anniversary ceremonies in Berlin, noting the historical background:

The Soviet leader ordered all road, rail and river links into West Berlin through Soviet-controlled eastern Germany to be closed. The city, he thought, would rather embrace the Soviet forces than go hungry; the British, American and French troops would surely abandon West Berlin. Instead, the Western Allies launched the biggest airlift in history. Over a period of 11 months, British, American and French pilots flew more than 200,000 missions into West Berlin, bringing food and fuel and machinery. At times the planes were landing every two minutes.

In hindsight, history seems so very certain, yet there was nothing certain at the time about the airlift, it was a daring and dangerous response to the Soviet blockade and lives were saved (and lost) in the operation. The report closes with a quote from a German who makes it clear that the allied assistance forever changed the views of the defeated Germans who went from seeing the allies as occupiers to seeing them as friends.

Thanks to the new relationship between the U.S. and Russia (after hitting the proverbial reset button) it would appear that progress in being made in nuclear non-proliferation talks. According to this report from the Reuters news service:

Delegates meeting on the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty struck their first agreement on the anti-nuclear arms pact in a decade on Wednesday, which diplomats said was largely due to US President Barack Obama. Three days into a two-week meeting on the landmark arms control agreement, delegates from its 189 signatories agreed on an agenda for a major conference next year, where member states hope to adopt an action plan to overhaul the treaty.

Several potential flashpoints remain that could derail talks, including dealing with nuclear countries that never signed the treaty (Israel, India and Pakistan), nuclear countries that have withdrawn from the treaty (North Korea), and countries seeking (or believed to be seeking) a nuclear capability (Iran).

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently hosted a discussion with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in which he noted that:

Russia and the United States, with 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons, bear primary responsibility for reinvigorating the strained nonproliferation regime. They must make deeper cuts in their arsenals, reinforce IAEA safeguards, and encourage universal adoption of the Additional Protocol.

President Obama will visit Moscow in July and nuclear proliferation and the status of nuclear arms control treaties will be at the top of the agenda. If you have an interest in keeping up with the nonproliferation debate, I recommend the Carnegie Nonproliferation website, as well as the Arms Control Wonk blog.

As the U.S.-Afghanistan-Pakistan presidential summit concludes it’s worth noting that we have heard a lot of talk about fighting the Taliban, fighting corruption, increasing aid for development, and promoting trade between the two countries, but there is one important issue that has not been discussed at the summit: the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. The New York Times asks: As the Pakistani military launched a new offensive against the Taliban in the country’s North-West Frontier Province, officials and former officials in Washington continued to discuss what the American response should be to the heightened conflict. How should the United States respond? And how secure are Pakistan’s nuclear weapons? To answer this question they have assembled a team of experts who offer their commentary and analysis. The experts (six in all) come from all sides of the political spectrum, from Michael E. O’Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution, to Danielle Pletka, at the American Enterprise Institute, with solutions ranging from closer collaboration between the U.S. and Pakistan to a preemptive American military response to remove the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

Photo: The New York Times (Inter Services Public Relations/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images)