Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, has said his country must reach out to its “disenchanted brothers” in an effort to stabilise the war ravaged nation.

Addressing a one-day international conference on Afghanistan’s future in London, the British capital, Karzai said that fighters who are “not part of al-Qaeda or other terror groups” must be reconciled with the government.

The specific plan is to establish a reconciliation initiative that focuses on district-by-district Taliban outreach. In the past, the Karzai government’s security ministers have said that they wanted to target mid-level Taliban for reconciliation, while using jobs packages to lure away and reintegrate Taliban foot soldiers.  This new initiative appears more comprehensive. The New York Times:

“We see this program as the main pillar for bringing peace to Afghanistan,” said Shaida Mohammed Abdali, the deputy national security adviser.

“There’s an ideological motive for an insurgency like this, and the trouble will not be resolved unless you reach out to the leadership; they are the food of the foot soldiers and where they are getting ideological and political incentives. If we only concentrate on the foot soldiers it will not be a sustainable program.”

Karzai seeks $1 billion for his initiative from the London conference. But the question remains: why, absent a loss of momentum through military setback, would the Taliban leadership be interested in reconciliation?

Miliband is before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee right now, outlining a few expectations for what the conference will produce. Some of it is vague: “coherence and clarity of the plan for Afghanistan” among the 70-odd foreign ministers expected to attend is the “biggest deliverable of all,” Miliband said. But Miliband set a specific expectation by saying a new mechanisms for persuading Afghan insurgents to come in from the cold were crucial for success, adding that he referred to “structures I hope that President Karzai will announce next Thursday.”

It’ll be interesting to see what Karzai might outline. There is a longstanding political consensus on the need for integrating insurgents and reconciling with those fighters who have no ties to al-Qaeda. But the mechanisms in place to date have yielded only sporadic results.

Another thing to expect from the conference: a new civilian counterpart to Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

I’m hearing from allied diplomats that some nations may be more inclined to contribute additional troops at a scheduled late January summit on Afghanistan in London. Allied governments are still studying the Obama administration’s adjusted strategy. Some of them want to see if they can harmonize troop contribution agreements amongst European countries before pledging anything. One diplomat described this process to me as “fast-moving,” and another issue, inevitably, will be whether there is a sense of internal NATO diplomatic momentum in favor of adding troops in two months. Italy and Britain have already announced troop increases. More may yet come, even after the Brussels ministerial ends.

I made clear that we would increase the number of British personnel in Afghanistan only if we were assured that it would continue to be the case that every soldier and unit deployed is fully equipped for the operations they are asked to undertake. At this morning’s meeting of the Afghanistan and Pakistan national security committee, the Chief of the Defence Staff gave that assurance – that this condition has been met both for the existing force and the additional 500 troops.

A lot is made in the U.S. about NATO’s seemingly paltry contributions in Afghanistan. But very often there’s little perspective provided about the Europeans’ actual military capabilities. The active-duty British Army is nowhere near the size of its U.S. counterpart, numbering only about 98,000 soldiers. The active-duty U.S. Army, by contrast, comprises more than half a million. With Brown’s new deployment, this means over a tenth of the entire British Army will be deployed in Afghanistan.

So: who’s next?

The decision follows months of speculation over whether the president would make the trip. Obama has said for the past few weeks that he would only attend if his presence could be the impetus for a successful climate agreement.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Obama will commit to a greenhouse gas emissions cut by the United States “in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. That’s the target set by the House climate bill passed in June. But without a Senate counterpart in place, Obama’s pledge might not carry much weight in Copenhagen. The Senate is not expected to take up climate legislation until early next year.

Obama will spend Dec. 9 in Copenhagen before flying to Oslo the next day to accept his Nobel Peace Prize. The climate conference is scheduled to run from Dec. 7 to Dec. 18.

Environmentalists have argued for some time that Obama’s presence is critical if the global community is to think that the United States — the world’s biggest carbon emitter, historically — is serious about an international treaty.

But a one-day stop in Copenhagen may not be enough. Obama “must also be willing to return to Copenhagen with the rest of the world’s leaders during the final stages of the negotiations” if necessary, Keya Chatterjee, climate director for the World Wildlife Fund, told The Post.

Other Western leaders, including Britain’s Gordon Brown and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, have already pledged to attend the conference.

Update 10:54 am: Here’s a press release just sent out by the White House:

President to Attend Copenhagen Climate Talks

Administration Announces U.S. Emission Target for Copenhagen

The White House announced today that President Obama will travel to Copenhagen on Dec. 9 to participate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference, where he is eager to work with the international community to drive progress toward a comprehensive and operational Copenhagen accord. The President has worked steadily on behalf of a positive outcome in Copenhagen throughout the year. Based on the President’s work on climate change over the past 10 months – in the Major Economies Forum, the G20, bilateral discussions and multilateral consultations – and based on progress made in recent, constructive discussions with China and India’s Leaders, the President believes it is possible to reach a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen. The President’s decision to go is a sign of his continuing commitment and leadership to find a global solution to the global threat of climate change, and to lay the foundation for a new, sustainable and prosperous clean energy future.

The White House also announced that, in the context of an overall deal in Copenhagen that includes robust mitigation contributions from China and the other emerging economies, the President is prepared to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17% below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final U.S. energy and climate legislation. In light of the President’s goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050, the expected pathway set forth in this pending legislation would entail a 30% reduction below 2005 levels in 2025 and a 42% reduction below 2005 in 2030. This provisional target is in line with current legislation in both chambers of Congress and demonstrates a significant contribution to a problem that the U.S. has neglected for too long. With less than two weeks to go until the beginning of the Copenhagen conference, it is essential that the countries of the world, led by the major economies, do what it takes to produce a strong, operational agreement that will both launch us on a concerted effort to combat climate change and serve as a stepping stone to a legally binding treaty. The President is working closely with Congress to pass energy and climate legislation as soon as possible.

Underscoring President Obama’s commitment to American leadership on clean energy and combating climate change, the White House also announced today that a host of Cabinet secretaries and other top officials from across the Administration will travel to Copenhagen for the conference. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson are all scheduled to attend, along with Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, and Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner.

For the first time, the U.S. delegation will have a U.S. Center at the conference, providing a unique and interactive forum to share our story with the world. In addition to working with other countries to advance American interests, U.S. delegates will keynote a series of events highlighting actions by the Obama Administration to provide domestic and global leadership in the transition to a clean energy economy. Topics will range from energy efficiency investments and global commitments to renewables policy and clean energy jobs. The following keynote events and speakers are currently scheduled:

· Wednesday, December 9th: Taking Action at Home, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson

· Thursday, December 10th: New Energy Future: the role of public lands in clean energy production and carbon capture, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar

· Friday, December 11th: Clean Energy Jobs in a Global Marketplace, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke

· Monday, December 14th: Leading in Energy Efficiency and Renewables, Energy Secretary Steven Chu

· Tuesday, December 15th: Clean Energy Investments: creating opportunities for rural economies, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack

· Thursday, December 17th: Backing Up International Agreement with Domestic Action, CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley and Assistant to the President Carol Browner

Gordon Brown, prime minister, made an impassioned appeal at a private meeting with fellow socialists to back Mr Blair.

“You need to get real – this is a unique opportunity to get a strong progressive politician to be president of the council,” he said. But there was little backing for a man whose support for the Iraq war was divisive.

President Karzai has just made an important statement to the people of Afghanistan.

It is vital that the new Afghan Government has legitimacy in the eyes of its people.

I have consistently said that the election must be allowed to run its course and that all concerned should respect the process. There is no doubt that there have been flaws and we will need to apply the lessons of this process.

President Karzai has today make clear that due constitutional process must be followed, and that if the formal certified results require it, then a second ballot will be held. Let me commend his statesmanlike statement – and the international community too will join me in welcoming the leadership he has shown today.

I also congratulate President Karzai on the strong support he has secured from across his nation and from all ethnic groups. And I congratulate Dr Abdullah on achieving a high level of support.

I would like to congratulate the Afghan people on the patience and resilience that they have shown throughout the long election process. The priority now is for all elements of Afghan society to come together to ensure that the democratic process continues as securely as possible.

I assured President Karzai that he and his country would have the full support of Britain and the international community through this process. The international forces will work with the Afghan national security forces to give all Afghans the opportunity to vote in a second round if that is the next step.

As I made clear last week, Britain remains committed to seeing its obligations through in Afghanistan. Our strategy depends on a strong Afghan Government showing the leadership required to gain the trust of its people. This election is the opportunity for them to choose that leadership.

Our objective is clear and focused; to prevent al Qaeda launching attacks on our streets and threatening legitimate government in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But if we limit ourselves simply to targeting al Qaeda – without building the capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan to deal with terrorism and violent extremism – the security gains will not endure.

He pledged to send an additional 500 troops to Afghanistan, raising the U.K. force component to 9,500, or a bit less than a tenth of current NATO forces.

The disclosure of Iran’s nuclear facility under construction for years in secret near Qom — the second such undisclosed facility operated by Iran — deepens “a growing concern,” President Obama said in Pittsburgh this morning, “that Iran is refusing to live up to those international responsibilities, including specifically revealing all nuclear-related activities.” But notice that neither Obama, French President Nicholas Sarkozy nor British Prime Minister Gordon Brown accused Iran of a specific violation of its international nuclear responsibilities, and pivoted their case instead on Iran’s concealment. That’s because it’s not actually clear whether Iran has committed a specific violation of either the Nuclear Nonprofileration Treaty or its follow-on agreements negotiated separately with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Under the NPT, each state negotiates a safeguards agreement to the IAEA so the atomic watchdog can work out where and how to establish monitoring devices like cameras at declared facilities. “Iran’s specific safeguards agreement doesn’t say anything about the time limits for the provision of design information,” says Ivanka Barzashka, an analyst with the Federation of American Scientists’ Strategic Security Program. Specific time-frames for site or design disclosure typically occur in additional “subsidiary arrangements,” and usually provide for disclosure around 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material into a given facility. But Iran’s subsidiary arrangement with the IAEA “has not been made public as far as I know,” Barzashka says.

That said, in its Aug. 28 report, the IAEA criticizes Iran for not adopt implementing a section of its subsidiary arrangement that dealt with design notificiation. “The absence of such information results in late notification to the Agency of the construction of new facilities and changes to the design of existing facilities,” the IAEA warned. Barzashka translates that such adoption would require Iran to notify the IAEA “of the construction of a new plant, any kind of new facilities, as soon as a decision has been authorized by the government.”

And that clearly hasn’t happened. According to an U.S. intelligence official who would only speak on background, “We’ve known about this facility for years. Over time, a clearer picture evolved of Iran’s intentions and activities at this covert site — one that, it turns out, wasn’t unknown to us.”

That’s still not the same thing as a broken obligation binding under international law. But the lack of a specific broken obligation, in turn, isn’t a reason to dismiss today’s disclosure. “It adds to the fact that Iran’s behavior is ambiguous,” Barzashka says. “The issue for Iran should be to do anything to dissuade this concern, like [implementing] further transparency measures … that should be the issue Iran should address.”

Update: Just in case, maybe this post from Barzashka and her boss, Ivan Oelrich, can clarify the point:

The latest IAEA report (GOV/2009/55) states that Iran has not yet implemented early provisions of design information in accordance with the revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, which would require Iran to notify the agency of the construction of new facilities or modifications to existing ones as soon as such a decision has been authorized by the government or the plant operator.  The original agreement required Iran to submit such information no later than 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material into the facility (GOV/2003/40).

So that looks like an if-then trigger for a violation. If there was some reason to suspect that Iran was going to place nuclear material for enrichment at the Qom facility within the next six months — and I’m not sure what that may have been, to be clear — then that, as well, might explain why this announcement came when it did. Thanks to reader/pal MWH for the tip.

Update 2: Much much more on that here.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Obama: the three countries presented “detailed evidence demonstrating” the covert enrichment facility “near Qom,” which has been under construction “for years.” It “underscores Iran’s continuing unwillingness to meet its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions.” Wants the IAEA to inspect “yet another nuclear facility” as it’s a “direct challenge” to the global nonproliferation regime, which guarantees “peaceful nuclear weapons” and no proliferation, alongside disarmament. “That compact depends on all nations living up to their responsibilities.”

“The size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with” peaceful nuclear energy. Iran must “act immediately” to restore international confidence. Says the U.S. “remains committed” to dialogue and simultaneously showing the international nonproliferation regime is not “a meaningless promise.” Iran must “be prepared to cooperate fully” at next week’s P5+1 meeting with Iran in Geneva. “Iran must comply with U.N. security council resolutions… We have offered Iran a clear path to greater international [cooperation]… or be held accountable to international standards and international law.” Germany associates itself with the remarks.

Sarkozy: Iran is taking the world “on a dangerous path.” Today’s disclosures are “exceptional.” The Qom facility built in “direct violation” of Security Council resolution. Expects an “exhaustive, strict and rigorous investigation” from the IAEA.  At Geneva, “everything, everything must be put on the table.” By December, there must either be full disclosures or “sanctions will have to be taken, this is for the peace and stability.”

Brown: “Serial deception of many years,” prompting the international community to “draw a line in the sand.” Either disclosure or “further isolated” Iran. U.K. is prepared to implement “stringent sanctions.” Iran must “ambition any ambitions for its nuclear program.” And we’re out.