In a little over two weeks, on April 9, East Timor will conduct its first presidential election since becoming an independent state in May 2002, following 24 years of Indonesian occupation and hundreds of years as a Portuguese colony.

Among the eight presidential candidates, current Prime Minister—and former Nobel Peace Prize winner—Jose Ramos Horta is considered the frontrunner.

Of concern is that rebel leader Major Alfredo Reinado will make good on his threats to disrupt the election. Reinado has been involved in past unrest in East Timor, such as the violence almost a year ago that resulted in 37 deaths, the displacement of 150,000 Timorese and the deployment of an international peacekeeping force. Reinado is currently being tracked by Australian troops in East Timor at the request of current President Xanana Gusmao. The elusive rebel leader escaped from jail after these protests and went into hiding.

Steve Coll--the award-winning author of Ghost Wars--has a piece in The New Yorker on nuclear terrorism that is an eye-opening must read. Coll explores the evolution of  US government efforts at ringing the US with radiation detectors and nicely lays out the benefits and limitations of such efforts. In addition, he raises the difficult issue of priority. Given limited time and resources, where should the US (or any nation for that matter) concentrate its efforts to protect itself from the threat of a nuclear, chemical or biological bomb from entering the country?

I’d like to follow up on Anirudh’s post yesterday about the recent diplomatic developments in the Middle East. I would also like to second his advice to read Seymour Hersh’s recent article “The Redirection” in The New Yorker (which of course includes Hersh’s signature barrage of juicy comments from “former senior intelligence officials”).

Indeed the upcoming talks, both between Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as the regional conference that Iraq has called for are significant. In the former meeting, the parties will no doubt be pragmatic. Iran manages a delicate balancing act as it tries to increase its influence without alienating itself from others in the region. Saudi Arabia appears concerned about the development of a Shiite crescent across the region, but is also concerned about Sunni-Shiite tensions within the Kingdom that could be exacerbated by strengthening Shiite power in Iraq and Lebanon. In addition, Saudi Arabia’s Shiite population is largely based in the country’s oil-rich eastern province and unrest could potentially be very costly.

There is a new contributor to the flux in oil prices. Over the past year, rebels in Nigeria’s oil-rich Niger Delta have proven repeatedly that they can affect global prices. The US administration has continually deemed oil in West Africa—whose largest producer is Nigeria—to be a “strategic national interest.” It is time to match policy with rhetoric. The US needs to protect oil infrastructure in the Niger Delta.

Critics argue that such efforts ignore the greater solution to US energy concerns: reduce consumption. This is true, but it will take time. For now, the US is dependent on oil. However, the US can take steps to limit exposure to import disruptions, and the Niger Delta is a good place to start. 

Negotiations continue in Beijing as the Six Party talks on North Korea’s nuclear program have resumed. Cautious optimism seems to be in the air. It is not expected that full denuclearization will be achieved, but instead that positive, incremental steps will be taken toward a resolution. Are negotiators on the verge of a long-awaited “breakthrough” in the talks? Or are they involved in negotiations similar to those of the past, with one large exception: North Korea has now successfully developed and tested a nuclear weapon.

I’d recommend a provocative article that does not share such optimism. Dan Blumenthal and Aaron Friedberg write in the Weekly Standard about the possible deal (no details are available yet) that “in return for a relaxation of financial sanctions imposed in September 2005, Pyongyang will freeze further reprocessing of plutonium at its Yongbyon nuclear facility and return to the negotiating table.”  However, they do not necessarily view this as a positive development.

As recent poll of global attitudes conducted for the BBC World Service by GlobeScan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) reveals that the United States, not surprisingly, has much to do in its efforts to win the hearts and minds of pretty much anyone who will listen worldwide. 

The foreign policy issues included in the survey were how the US has dealt with the war in Iraq, the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran’s nuclear program, North Korea’s nuclear capability, and global warming/climate change. Other noteworthy questions asked about whether the US has a mainly positive or negative influence in the world, and whether the presence of the US military in the Middle East helps to prevent or create conflict.

In order to get my initial thoughts posted—fresh and untainted by the professional pundits—I’ll type much of my reaction while the State of the Union (SOTU) address is in progress. There has been much talk today about the prominent role that domestic issues such as health care, tax reform, and energy dependence (which of course is intertwined with foreign policy) will play in this evening’s speech. The president already spoke to the nation last week about US policy and strategy in Iraq, but it’s too important of an issue not to merit significant attention in tonight’s remarks.

China recently conducted an anti-satellite missile test, successfully destroying an old Chinese weather satellite launched in 1999. This was the third such attempt, but the first success, which has provoked concerned responses from the Australia, Canada, Japan and the US, with others expected to join in questioning Beijing’s decision.

This was reportedly the first such test conducted by any country since the US shot down one of its own satellites in 1985. Some in the current US administration consider this a giant step backwards, reminiscent of Cold War politics. Are we witnessing the beginning of a new arms race, this time in space?

In the midst of all of the discussion about Iraq and the debate over the newly-announced US strategy to send more troops to the region, the nations of Southeast Asia have taken steps to make their region more secure from terrorist threats at the 12th ASEAN summit hosted by the Philippines. Delegates of the ten member states are working toward an anti-terrorism agreement for the region that will be considered by state leaders tomorrow.

ASEAN has become an important player beyond the region as well. Membership has doubled since it was originally founded 40 years ago by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. In addition, ASEAN has expanded its engagement to invite in the larger East Asian powers of China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea into the ASEAN+3 process.

Saddam Hussein was found guilty of committing crimes against humanity and sentenced to death for the killings of 148 Shiites in the city of Dujail. A flawed trial ended with a flawed execution. Nevertheless, this event marks the beginning of a true post-Saddam period in Iraq.

At the time of his death, Saddam was also facing charges—this time for genocide—in a second trial focusing on the al-Anfal campaign, in which tens of thousands of Kurds were mercilessly killed. While the trial will continue for Saddam’s co-defendants, the former dictator’s absence will be a disappointment to the Kurds—seeking justice for their own victimization—as well as proponents of international law—hoping that Iraq may perhaps improve on the flaws of the Dujail case and convict a former head of state for the crime of genocide. This is no longer an option.