At Lisbon summit, Medvedev's missile defense proposals went too far for NATO leaders.

$85 billion EU-IMF deal for Ireland likely to be announced Sunday; meanwhile, Germany denies pressuring Portugal to accept a bailout.

East Asian countries create bond guarantee fund.

Report: top UN official will meet Suu Kyi this weekend.

Iran blasts International Atomic Energy Agency report.

Ambitious: New president of UN General Assembly will press for Security Council reform.

China donates $1.3 million to African Union peacekeeping efforts; meanwhile six AU peacekeepers arrested for violence in Somalia.

Charlemagne worries that Americans don't think about the EU enough.

Scott Malcomson, an editor at the New York Times Magazine, has just published Generation's End, a vivid personal and political account of the period between 9/11 and the August 20, 2003 bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad. Malcomson worked briefly for Sergio Vieira de Mello when the Brazilian diplomat was UN high commissioner for human rights, and he recounts a meeting in May 2003 between the charismatic Vieria de Mello and the newly-appointed International Criminal Court prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo. Looking back, it's a poignant moment.

Moreno-Ocampo indeed seemed new to his job; he acknowledged no obstacles yet, just areas of potential cooperation between his office and ours. Soon he would need to look at which cases to take on, a complicated task that we might help with by giving advice. The ICC also had two glaring weaknesses: no fact-gathering capacity and a lack of arrest power. The chance to help address those weaknesses, and the political questions involved in case selection, appealed deeply to Sergio's particular brand of diplomatic athleticism. As the small group in the meeting celebrated with glasses of wine--something we almost never did--Sergio and Luis looked set to accomplish great things together.

Vieira de Mello died a few months later in the Baghdad bombing; Moreno-Ocampo, meanwhile, has struggled mightily as ICC prosecutor. He still has no convictions and most indictees are running free. The obstacles that seemed so superable at that moment now loom very large. 

U.N. warns that cholera in Haiti is spreading faster than expected.

At a crossroads: the IMF explains what Greece still needs to do.

"We are prepared to go as far as NATO is prepared to go," Medvedev reportedly said to NATO leaders in Lisbon.

On eve of climate talks, China boasts about emissions reductions.

ASEAN and China schedule another meeting to talk about proper manners in the South China Sea. 

The Washington Consensus is alive and well, says leading IMF critic.

As Charles Taylor trial continues, Washington funnels needed cash to the Sierra Leone tribunal.

African Union apologizes for civilian casualties in Mogadishu.

Warming? Argentina asks the usually despised IMF for technical advice on inflation.

Michael Levi points out an important dynamic that will likely dominate the next week's climate meetings in Cancun: China's attempt to bind itself to other, smaller developing countries when it comes to the development of international transparency requirements on emissions:

The vast majority of developing countries have trivial emissions. Moreover, the poorest countries don’t have the resources to participate in an international review process. If China can succeed in maintaining solidarity among developing countries while insisting that all of them be subject to the same requirements, the poorer developing countries will object to any burdens, thus doing China’s dirty work for it. [snip]

China will insist on not differentiating among developing countries, which lets it use poorer countries as a shield; the United States will try to sow discord within the broader group, freeing poorer developing countries to put pressure on China and a few others. Last year, the U.S. did that mainly by offering money; this year, that’s less credible. The United States and its partners are in for a tougher time.

As Bill McKibben wrote on the FP main page, "I suspect Obama will not be flying in for this year's conference."

Greece "broadly on track" say EU and IMF; country cleared for next installment of aid.

As Cancun talks begin, UN environmental program warns that Copenhagen pledges are inadequate.

Departing Toronto mayor becomes advisor to the World Bank on urban issues.

America's NATO envoy offers detailed readout on the summit.

ICC indictee Al-Bashir travels to Ethiopia for east African conference.

Former Colombian president Uribe wants a more effective Organization of American States.

"You are not going to be less patriotic if you learn and speak English:" ASEAN's chief calls for more English proficiency in the bloc.

Russian economy minister headed to Brussels to remove last obstacles to WTO membership.

I missed this provocative thought from Simon Johnson last week. Imagine that the Euro crisis becomes systemic and that a bailout-averse United States won't cough up the resources necessary for the IMF to handle the crisis:

As an alternative, Europe could place a call to Beijing to find out if China would like to commit some of its $2.6 trillion in reserves to keep European creditors whole. This would be an enormous opportunity for China to vault to a leading global role...If China offered to recapitalize the IMF, become the largest shareholder, and move the organization to Beijing (according to the Articles of Agreement, the IMF’s headquarters should be in the capital of the largest shareholder), wouldn’t that make for an interesting chess game?

As quota-based organizations, the IMF and World Bank are potentially vulnerable to "hostile takeovers" by countries willing to pour in new capital. All quota changes have to be negotiated, of course, but in extremis you could imagine the United States and other key shareholders acquiescing in exchange for fresh capital. 

It wouldn't be absurd for China to try to capture, or at least get a much greater say in the management of other international organizations, even non-quota based ones, by agreeing to put up more money. China currently pays just over 2 percent of the UN's regular budget. A measly $100 million would vault it into third place, behind only the United States and Japan. At the very least this kind of bidding war for influence in international organizations would give us a sense of how countries value them.

John Hinderaker was admirably clear in response to my query as to whether he really is rooting for the EU to fail. He is!

It is true that the EU consists of "a community of democracies," but the EU itself undermines those democracies and exists in large part because many of Europe's leaders find democracy inconvenient. And I don't think the EU deserves any significant credit for the fact that "centuries of strife" in Europe have come to an end. On the contrary, forcing Europe's inhabitants into a currency and political union that most of them don't want is likely to stimulate, not inhibit, strife.

The clarity about the basis of his ill-will is welcome--I had half expected him to make a realpolitik argument that a fractured, conflict-ridden and weak Europe would be best for America's relative power. But not so: the argument is fundamentally based on values.   

There are a couple of large claims here. Hinderaker (and most of the commenters) fixate on the supposed elitist and anti-democratic nature of the European Union. I'm not sure what to make of the elitism part of the argument. Most political projects, including the American Revolution, have been led by an elite. The democracy part is easier to tackle. Hinderaker himself goes as far as to call the EU project a "coup." I think this is beyond hyperbole. The EU's democratically elected governments have chosen repeatedly to continue with the integration project. Polls show majority support across the union for EU membership, with only about 15 percent opposing. Those opposed have made plenty of noise but they've never been able to prevail at the ballot box. If Hinderaker is right that the European project has been shoved down European throats, it's hard to understand why anti-EU parties haven't done better at the polls.  At a few moments, of course, particular populations have balked at particular steps in the integration process, and their objections have (appropriately) slowed and altered the process. Countries that objected were usually able to win key concessions or opt-outs.

But it shouldn't be forgotten that when integration has been put before populations as a whole, it has usually succeeded, often overwhelmingly. And when referenda haven't been employed, democratically elected national parliaments have backed key treaty changes and reforms. The (narrow) rejections of course make the news, but they aren't anywhere close to the whole picture. Moreover, within the EU system, the democratic arm is gaining strength; each recent treaty reform has given more power to the union's large, fractious, and directly-elected parliament. That's a strange direction for an anti-democratic Union to take.

Moreover, Hinderaker's outrage on behalf of supposedly disenfranchised Europeans is quite selective. He likes the common market and the free trade elements of the Union, but not the political ones. But have the former somehow been democratically enacted and the latter not? He certainly doesn't make the case. And if he can't, his opposition boils down to a personal preference about how far integration should go. As his airplane anecdote indicates, he doesn't cotton to the idea of a European identity trumping a national one. But who cares what Hinderaker likes? This is Europe's project, and so long as it doesn't violate basic norms of consent, the preferences of outsiders are meaningless. 

Hinderaker is also skeptical that the EU has played any significant role in conflict resolution on the continent. It is of course impossible to prove that there would have been renewed conflict in Europe absent the integration process. But the idea of conflict prevention has been at the heart of the project from the very beginning. The original Coal and Steel community was designed to allow Germany to reindustrialize, safely, in the context of an economic partnership. It's hard to dispute that the process of European integration has altered relations between former antagonists. Add to that the role the EU has played in shepherding the fragile post-communist central and eastern Europe toward (mostly) tolerant democracy. Accession was usually conditioned on aspirants resolving outstanding territorial issues, and there were quite a few. The case that the EU has helped reduce conflict on the continent is very strong.

Hinderaker's claim that European integration will make conflict more likely is interesting, but completely unsubstantiated. If he's right, why haven't we seen the strife already?  One would think that at the most egregious moments of this rolling European coup (which, on Hinderaker's view, is pretty far along), populations would have risen up and incited violence and unrest. Perhaps the oppressed Europeans have been cowed by the EU's riot-control goons and are too frightened to take to the streets. The French, I am told, are quite reluctant to air their grievances via street protest and strike in any case.  

Fundamentally, there is something quite unconservative about Hinderaker's casual desire to see the EU fail. This is now a decades-long, incremental project that permeates all aspects of European life. It is part of Europe's DNA. And it builds on a centuries-old view that Europe has something important in common. If it somehow did collapse, who knows how it would do so and what the ramifications would be. But at least we know that from his perch in Minnesota, Hinderaker would be contentedly watching the show.  

Follow me on Twitter @multilateralist

"Too big a problem:" Ireland formally seeks EU and IMF assistance; IMF chief promises "swift discussions."

Among friends: Obama administration highlights support for New START at NATO summit.

Parting shot: Lula calls the Security Council a "closed club." Meanwhile, U.S. congressman introduces bill supporting India's Security Council bid.

It's been 15 years since the Dayton Peace Accords ended fighting in Bosnia.

Assessing Michele Bachelet's prospects at the helm of U.N. Women.

Angolan ambassador worries that the African Union's members aren't putting up the necessary resources.

Expectations range from 'no' to 'low':  a look at next week's Cancun climate change meetings.

New International Criminal Court case will focus on responsibility of military commanders.

The UN's nuclear agency grades a Slovak power plant, and finds room for improvement.