Chat Session with prof. Coit Blacker, Director FSI, Stanford University . November 22, 2005

Tkachenko: Hello all!

Kiselev: Good morning and best wishes from Yaroslavl, dear colleagues.

kkuhns: Hello everyone! Welcome to our first chat of fall 2005!

kkuhns: I will be posting orders of universities shortly.

Subochev: Hi from Moscow!

Rudenko: Hi from Yaroslavl

Osiptsova: Hi FROM VLADIKAVKAZ

kkuhns: Hi Vidal, how is Mexico City treating you?

vidal: Hi all! I'm trying to re-adapt; things are ok so far.

Ukhanova: Greatings, dear coalleagues.

kkuhns: Good evening/morning dear colleagues! Glad you could join us...

kkuhns: Professor Blacker will be joining us shortly, and then we can begin....

Blacker: Good morning, students and colleagues. Warm greetings from Stanford.

kkuhns: The order of universities is: Yaroslavl, Moscow, Vladikavkaz, Petrozavodsk, Ekaterinburg, Saratov, CHelyabinsk, and Blagoveschensk Labazina: Good morning,evryone.

Kurganova: Hi from Saratov!

kkuhns: WAIT UNTIL YOUR UNIVERSITY IS CALLED BEFORE POSTING A QUESTION. Only questions from that university will be answered.

kkuhns: So, we only have one hour - let's begin... first question from Yaroslavl.

kkuhns: Yaroslavl, please post the first question.

Rudenko: I want to ask about possible directions in the reconsideration of NPT in the context of nuclear programs of N. Korea and Iran

Blacker: The NPT regime is under severe strain, obviously. How we resolve the situations with the DPRK and Iran will be despositive in nature. I like the Russian proposal vis a vis Iran very much, and believe it holds out the most promise for a successful resolution. . .

Apalkov: Hello from Yaroslavl

Blacker: But I'm not all that hopeful. The will to acquire nuclear weapons among those states not now in possession is strong, especially among regional actors with great power ambitions.

Uadati: Good morning, Vladikavkaz is on-line

Philippova: Hello from Chelyabinsk!

kkuhns: Next question from Moscow.

Subochev: Professor, how would you estimate a probability that Israel will strike Iranian nuclear objects soon? Will the US approve or even tacitly encourage Israel or rather discourage and disapprove such an action?

Uadati: Good morning, Vladikavkaz is on-line

kkuhns: Good morning to the new arrivals. Order of universities is: Yaroslavl, Moscow, Vladikavkaz, Petrozavodsk, Ekaterinburg, Saratov, Chelyabinsk, Blagoveschensk. PLEASE HOLD QUESTIONS UNTIL YOUR UNIVERSITY IS CALLED.

Blacker: I think the odds are quite low that Israel will undertake unilateral action against Iran. The latter's nuclear program still appears relatively immature. ..

Blacker: That could change, of course, depending on developments. But you're right to focus on possible US responses to any threat from Israel vis a vis Iran; that could incline the US to preemptive action, which would be a mistake.

kkuhns: Thank you. Next question from Vladikavkaz.

Glotov: Mr. Blacker, is struggle with transnational terrorism more effective on regional or international level?

Blacker: Good question. The short answer is no one knows. I think the strategy for combatting terrorism has to operate at multiple levels -- starting nationally and then moving through regions to international level considerations. . .

Blacker: The core problem, of course, is that national leaderships around the world define "terrorism" differently. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. We're still a long way off from a common definition.

kkuhns: Thank you. Next question from Petrozavodsk. kkuhns: If someone is in the chat from Ekaterinburg, please let me know.

Komyagina: Do you agree that the UN has lost its powe and it is not any more a regulator of the international situation in the world? How is it possible to retern to this organisation its athority or is it necessary to create another organisation with similar functions

Komyagina: Komyagina is from Ekaterinburg

Glotov: Mr. Blacker, how are states responsible for their citizens who act on behalf of international terrorist organizations and what is your opinion on “extradite or judge” policy?

kkuhns: Thank you Komyagina. We were actually waiting for a question from Petrozavodsk. We'll answer Komyagina's question, and then the next question is from Petrozavodsk.

Blacker: Another good question. The power and authority of the UN was always overestimated by some, with the result that we long for something that never was. The UN can only be as effective as its member states want it to be -- especially the so-called "Perm 5," or the US, Russia, China, UK and France.

kkuhns: Glotov, you already asked a question during the turn from Vladikavkaz. Please wait your turn.

kkuhns: Next question from Petrozavodsk.

kkuhns: Next question from Petrozavodsk.

kkuhns: Okay, no question from Petrozavodsk.... moving on to Saratov. Saratov, please post your question.

Kurganova: Kseniya Gnevsheva, Saratov: Professor Blacker, in the course of lectures there have been two main views upon intervention discussed: one that international intervention is desirable because it saves lives and helps to find a compromise and the other argues that if there is no intervention and negotiations the state will have a more stable peace after a one-side victory and probably there will be more saved lives in the long term. What’s your personal opinion on that? Are you an interventionist or not? Thank you.

Blacker: This is a very complex question. I am generally averse to interventions, as countries and international organizations can devise countless reasons and justifications for intervention . . .

Blacker: But there are times -- Rwanda, for example -- when the crimes against humanity are so blatant, so visible, that I believe the international community has an obligation to act. the tough cases are those that fall along the seam line, or where the case is not so clear cut. . .

Blacker: So, my answer is equivocal. Sometimes yes and sometimes no, depending on the precise circumstances, which have to be adjudged each time.

kkuhns: Thank you. Next question from Chelyabinsk.

Philippova: SUSU, Alexandra Moiseenko: Do You think that term “Atomic diplomacy” by Gar Alperoviz actually after invented modern weapons? Thank you.

Blacker: Sorry, SUSU, your question is less than clear. Please try it again.

Tkachenko: May I? In 5-10 years China will be a superpower. Don’t you think about new age of confrontation between Asia and Europe, namely between China and The USA? How to minimize opportunity of this?

Philippova: Do You think that term “Atomic diplomacy actually today

kkuhns: Tkachenko, what university are you from?

Tkachenko: SUSU

kkuhns: So, the question concerns whether the term "atomic diplomacy" is applicable today, particularly as it relates to relations between the US and China?

Blacker: Assuming the question from SUSU relates to the rise of China . . .

kkuhns: Is someone from Blagoveschenk or Yakutia here in the chat?

Tkachenko: Mrs Kkuns. no they are different

Blacker: I think there is a strong possibility that both Europe and the US will regard China as a threat. This has more to do with China's current political system than anything else. A genuinely democratic China would not pose the same kind of problem -- politically or strategically -- to the US and Europe as does the current regime. Clearly, President Bush is worried about this issue, as his trip this past week suggests.

kkuhns: Thank you. I don't see anyone here from Blago or Yakutia, so we are back to Yaroslavl.

kkuhns: Yaroslavl, please post your next question.

Labazina: I'd like to ask you about the possible changes in the US military doctrine in case the democrats come to power. Will these changes be considerable and what will the democratic government do with the military operations initiated by the republicans like the one in Iraq? Thank you.

Blacker: The range of political choices available to US policymakers -- be they Democrat or Republican -- is limited by public opinion in the US . . .

Blacker: This suggests, among other things, that shifts in foreign policy are likely to be relatively modest without regard for which side comes to power in 2008. Of course, this is the answer I would have given in 2000, when George Bush made it to the White House. And, to be charitable, I think I overstated the case for moderation. . .

Blacker: Sometimes, the changes we see and experience in political life are more far-reaching than any of us could have anticipated.

kkuhns: Thank you. Moscow please post the next question.

Subochev: How would you define current US policy towards Uzbekistan? What is the US attitude towards Russia-Uzbekistan agreement signed recently?

Blacker: The US is quite conflicted about Uzbekistan, and what do about if as a policy matter. . .

Blacker: We thought we were building something with Tashkent for the long term, notwithstanding Karimov's authoritarian tendencies. But no one on the US side anticipated the regime's reaction or response to the demonstrations that resulted in the hundreds of deaths. . .

Blacker: The short answer is we don' t have a policy toward Uzbekistain -- we have several.

kkuhns: Thank you. Vladikavkaz, please post the next question.

Osiptsova: The recent survey results show that Bush’s rating has dropped to a record-breaking point of 34%. It is explained by Iraq campaign. Doesn’t this fact show that it would be wiser to remove the American troops from Iraq and be more circumspect in any further military action? Thank you

Blacker: What it suggests is that the American people have on clear idea about what we're doing in Iraq, and less than complete faith in what the president is telling them. This story is not over, of course, and not one can predict reliably how it will come out. . .

Blacker: But it will induce greater caution on the part of US leaders, the Congress and the American people before committing the US to combat anywhere in the world -- which is a good thing.

kkuhns: Thank you. Petrozavodsk, please post the next question.

kkuhns: Petrozavodsk must be having technical difficulties. Ekaterinburg, please post the next question.

Chelnokova: USU: WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE FACT THAT TERRORISTS LIKE BIN LADEN BECOME POPULAR WITH HELP OF MASS-MEDIA? THANK YOU

Blacker: Clarification: the American people have no clear idea about what we're doing in Iraq. Please excuse the typo.

Blacker: This is one of the consequences of 1) globalization; and 2) what we call "the 24-hour news cycle." . ;

Blacker: The first refers to the almost instantaneous access to information that we all have via the internet, and the tendency to suspend critical judgments when reading the pronouncements of others with whom we agree. The internet only makes this problem worse. . .

Blacker: The second problem is the bottomless appetite for news that characterizes the world in which we live. Even relatively minor issues and episodes make it to the top of the news agenda because of the constant demand for new information. This trivializes the process, and leaves us all open to exploitation. . .

Blacker: How's that for a rant!

kkuhns: Great rant! Next question from Saratov.

Kurganova: Ignatov Anton, Saratov: There is a NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treatment), that countries should reduce their warheads. As we can see, speaking about Anti -missile defense treatment, between U.S. and Russia, U.S. disagree with it and refused to reduce the number of its missiles up to 1700 war-heads, like Russia. Please, your personal point of this matter? Why did U.S. refuse?

Blacker: The US and Russia basically love their nuclear weapons. It was -- and it remains -- their nuclear arsenals that made them "superpowers." Each is reluctant to reduce their missile and warhead holdings because to do so would make them like "other" countries, which they most certainly do not want to be. There is another explanation, of course. . .

Blacker: That has to do with target coverage and "insurance," to cite but two examples. But the more satisfying answer is that both countries enjoy their status as "first among equals" regarding nuclear weapons, and will resist any change in their status.

kkuhns: Thank you. Last question from Chelyabinsk.

Tkachenko: Mr. Blacker I hope by “freedom fighters” you didn’t mean terrorists in Chechnya. Please tell us about your own view to Chechnya problem, briefly, of course. Thanks.

Blacker: As I said, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. My view doesn't really matter. What matters is that there are Chechens prepared to die in service of their cause, as there are Russians willing to do the same. . .

Blacker: I don't mean to be flip about this. I worry a lot about this one. At least some of those who flew the planes into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon believed that they were doing God's work. Obviously, I regard them as terrorists, bent on nothing less than the destruction of the civilized world. . .

Blacker: But the fact that I do not really understand the hatred that motivated them to do what they did worries me quite a bit, and impels me to learn as much as I can about their motivations. . .

Blacker: With that, let me sign off. Thanks to all of you for joining in. And a special thanks to Kate Kuhns for making it all possible. With warm regards . . .

Shipulina: Thank you very much for your answers, this kind of joint activity helps to make clear certain issues and makes us question the aspects of this course evn more carefully. Thanks!

kkuhns: Well, we made it two rounds of questions from each university. Thanks to Professor Blacker for spending a late evening here in California with us.

Tkachenko: Thank you!

Pilugin: Best regards

Subochev: Professor, Kate, thank you very much!

kkuhns: And thanks to all of you for participating. We will post this chat tomorrow for those students who couldn't make it.

Philippova: Thank you, goodbay!!!! Pilugin: yeah, we enjoyed the time given even though it was short!

Kurganova: Saratov: Thank you, Prof. Blaker! It was very interesting chat!

Osiptsova: It was veru interesting, thank you Kiselev: Thank you for the chat.Have a nice evening.

kkuhns: REMEMBER, Next chat with Professor Jeremey Weinstein will take place on Deember 8th, 8:00 am Moscow time.

Labazina: Thank you for detailed answers.

Apalkov: CU on December 8.

Pilugin: See you all there

Glotov: Thank you from Vladikavkaz!

Back to other news