If you're interested in issues related to nuclear weapons, President Obama delivered a very intriguing speech in Prague this weekend.
Something I find fascinating about the text of the speech is that it covers all the bases. There are a variety of perspectives, and they're all given air time. It's very exciting to have this issue be a focal point of his trip, and that naturally raises questions about just what exactly the Administration plans on doing. In that context, it's also worth asking, what policies should we pursue?
There are texts of the speech in a number of places. I wanted to offer a primer if you're not familiar with the issues and add my personal commentary along the way. The speech is of course broader than just nuclear issues, and so this effort attempts to highlight the particular sections addressing them.
I want to start with a line that captures the essence of our belief that we can make the world a better place.
We are here today because enough people ignored the voices who told them that the world could not change.
Indeed, the world has changed in a lot of ways. It's 70 years ago this fall that President Roosevelt convened the Uranium Committee that ultimately set in motion what we know as the Manhattan Project and the major facilities at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Livermore, and elsewhere. I remember being very excited as a kid the first time my grandfather mentioned that his brother had worked as a scientist at Los Alamos. It was a combination of cutting edge research and service to country on a scale we don't implement so much today.
In one of its first, and most important actions, the Committee recommended that limited funding be authorized for research on uranium isotope separation as well as Enrico Fermi's and Leo Szilard's work on nuclear chain reactions at Columbia University in New York City.
A little tidbit about government projects I find interesting is that this initial effort was alloted the whopping sum of $6,000. Needless to say, that financing expanded somewhat over the following years and decades.
The Manhattan Project was so successful that now, it is a world without nuclear weapons that these voices say can't be had. The parallel strikes me as unavoidable; just as there were doubts about the science of fission and fusion, there are now doubts about the ability of diplomacy and cooperation. The world we seek to change is the world that has accepted as unchangeable the threat of nuclear annihilation. I like this line because it touches upon both where we've been and where we want to be.
Observation 1: Let's work together.
None of these challenges can be solved quickly or easily. But all of them demand that we listen to one another and work together; that we focus on our common interests, not on occasional differences; and that we reaffirm our shared values, which are stronger than any force that could drive us apart. That is the work that we must carry on. That is the work that I have come to Europe to begin.
As the President moves into courses of action, the first point of emphasis is that we benefit most by cooperating. This is of course neither new nor controversial. In other words, the welcome opposite of President Bush. This is precisely what people want, whether we're talking differences between France and the UK, or between America and Europe, or between Israel and Palestine. We should take note when our leaders discount the values and interests of our partners around the globe.
I am here to say that the United States will never turn its back on the people of this nation. (Applause.) We are bound by shared values, shared history -- (applause.) We are bound by shared values and shared history and the enduring promise of our alliance. NATO's Article V states it clearly: An attack on one is an attack on all. That is a promise for our time, and for all time.
This is now a little more specific to the Czech Republic, and it's a good reminder of what exactly our NATO obligations obligate us to do. Article V is very clear. An attack against one is an attack against all. An attack against Prague can lead to nuclear war just the same as an attack against New York or Los Angeles. Article V's nuclear implications become increasingly important as we discuss enlarging NATO farther and farther from the North Atlantic core precisely because conventional air, land, and sea power loses its deterrence. As the talk about Georgia last year demonstrates, these are not just academic concerns.
Now, one of those issues that I'll focus on today is fundamental to the security of our nations and to the peace of the world -- that's the future of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.
This is a fantastic statement to hear from the President of the United States. It also sets the standard very high, for if the Administration is willing to publicly acknowledge the fundamental nature of the question, and indeed, to acknowledge it to foreign audiences, then it's critically important that actions follow to address this future.
Observation 2: The Cold War is over, but nuclear weapons are still a threat.
Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black market trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered on a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold.
Now, understand, this matters to people everywhere. One nuclear weapon exploded in one city -- be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague -- could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences might be -- for our global safety, our security, our society, our economy, to our ultimate survival.
This is a classic example of letting people read into the statement what they want to hear. Some people will hear fear-mongering (think the Cold War was bad? well, the present is even scarier). Some people will hear the repudiation of the Bush Administration that seemed almost purposefully trying to turn Russia into an enemy again. Some people will be glad the non-proliferation regime was acknowledged, while others will be concerned that this sounds like an attempt to blame our problems in flaws in the Treaty rather than flaws in government actions purposefully ignoring the requirements of the Treaty. Some people will hear the implication of countries like Iran and North Korea, while others will think of countries like Israel and India.
Observation 3: The United States has a unique moral obligation to act.
as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.
It's difficult to be taken seriously internationally if we're not willing to acknowledge the obvious truth of our own nuclear aggression. Not a truth of whether the specific bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were appropriate (particularly, any more or less appropriate than other actions of war that cause mass casualties, from conventional bombs to fire bombing to chemical weapons like napalm and white phosphorous), but the more basic truth that the United States used nuclear weapons.
What's not said here is also interesting. It's not just that the US has not been a good leader; we have also been a bad leader. Our policies have directly incentivized the spread of nuclear weapons. It conjures up a striking similarity to statements like those saying the US doesn't torture. The absence of discussion about the culpability of our own policies is itself a statement.
Observation 4: We should have a world without nuclear weapons.
So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly -- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can." (Applause.)
Now, let me describe to you the trajectory we need to be on. First, the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies -- including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.
To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year. (Applause.) President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding and sufficiently bold. And this will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.
To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. (Applause.) After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned.
And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons. If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them. That's the first step.
This section combines some interesting contentions. It's exciting to hear our President committed to seeking a world without nuclear weapons. Clearly, our former president conducted no such seeking.
But, this has technically been US policy for many years. It's hard for an international treaty to be written more clearly and plainly than Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
The United States Senate approved of the NPT framework 40 years ago. Indeed, it's curious that the NPT isn't mentioned until step 2.
As the timeframe, not the end goal, has been the dispute for the last 40 years, those hoping the nuclear weapons industry continues full throttle are thrown important wording, to the extent that one could hear this as a statement that nuclear weapons will exist over the long term. The Administration will negotiate a new START Treaty, but it is committed to seek a world without nuclear weapons. Fortunately for the nuclear weapons industry, seeking can last a long time. How long? Well, perhaps not for our life time.
Finally, it's worth noting that the NPT framework already prohibits the unmonitored spread of weapons-grade materials. Article III in particular spells this out:
- Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this Article.
Observation 5: We should strengthen the NPT framework.
Second, together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation.
The basic bargain is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy. To strengthen the treaty, we should embrace several principles. We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the treaty without cause.
And we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation. That must be the right of every nation that renounces nuclear weapons, especially developing countries embarking on peaceful programs. And no approach will succeed if it's based on the denial of rights to nations that play by the rules. We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change, and to advance peace opportunity for all people.
Everybody gets something in this statement. This recognizes the primacy of the NPT, the most widely approved international framework in existence, with over 180 signatories to date. This addresses the need for resources and consequences. It affirms the right of participants to have civilian nuclear technologies, and the more general necessity of ensuring nations play by the rules. And it leaves out the most important part of strengthening the Treaty: namely, using US influence to make holdouts like Israel and India ratify the Treaty.
Observation 6: Don't talk about Israel and India.
.
What's not said is often times very powerful. When it comes to nuclear non-proliferation, how one deals with 'unofficial' nuclear states like Israel and India is very important. In the entirety of the speech on nuclear weapons in the 21st century, Israel and India are mentioned a combined zero times. One of the most important decisions for us to make in seeking a nuclear weapons free world is whether we are willing to hold everyone to the same standards along the way. Now, we might decide that it's in our best interest not to push countries like Israel and India. But, we have to be ready to accept the consequences, like concern from our European allies and a damper on negotiations with countries like Iran and North Korea.
Observation 7: Do talk about Iran and North Korea.
But we go forward with no illusions. Some countries will break the rules. That's why we need a structure in place that ensures when any nation does, they will face consequences.
Just this morning, we were reminded again of why we need a new and more rigorous approach to address this threat. North Korea broke the rules once again by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles. This provocation underscores the need for action -- not just this afternoon at the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons.
Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response -- (applause) -- now is the time for a strong international response, and North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons. All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. And that's why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course.
Iran has yet to build a nuclear weapon. My administration will seek engagement with Iran based on mutual interests and mutual respect. We believe in dialogue. (Applause.) But in that dialogue we will present a clear choice. We want Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically. We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. That's a path that the Islamic Republic can take. Or the government can choose increased isolation, international pressure, and a potential nuclear arms race in the region that will increase insecurity for all.
Rules must be binding, words must mean something, that evokes a whole range of desires to make our country a leader again in the value of the rule of law. The fact that we talk about things like international treaties is a great testament to the leadership of the United States. But if the audience is more than just Americans, then we have to offer something for more people than just Americans. Do we stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure specific countries to change, or all countries to change? Do mutual interests and mutual respect differ from country to country, or are they shared principles? These are the kinds of questions people around the world have been, and will continue to be, asking.
Observation 8: Make sweeping statements about missile defense.
So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. (Applause.) If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed. (Applause.)
There's not a lot of debate, per se, on missile defense. You're either an advocate, or you mock it. The casualness of this paragraph is very concerning to those of us in the latter category. Cost-effective and proven are not exactly concepts used to describe missile defense efforts, and the notion that bases in Europe are to protect Europe from Iran is hysterically funny. It's certainly worth pondering the meaning of including something like missile defense in a speech about nuclear weapons; that seems to suggest, at the least, the Obama Administration won't stop efforts underway, and could even mean an expansion of programs that are expensive, incapable, and unpopular, not to mention directly encouraging the development of nuclear weapons that can defeat the system.
On a personal note, I had the opportunity to travel overseas for the first time last year. It was a fantastic trip. Our first day in Paris, strolling through the lovely Parc de la Villette, a wonderful little group of French activists snagged my travel companion and me to chat us up about their campagne contre le bouclier spatial americain en europe, their opposition to missile defense in Europe, and specifically, the opposition to the 'courage' of the Czech Republic. (Sidenote, even the literal translation is very interesting; 'bouclier spatial' translates 'space shield'. That linguistic juxtaposition, missile defense vs. space shield, gives some insight into the true nature of the proposition, the notion of militarizing space itself for American purposes.) Aside from reminding me that I wish I had learned better French, it was excellent fun to express that many Americans do care about how our military policies affect Europe, and that indeed we didn't just oppose President Bush in theory but had detailed critiques of specific policies. The woman I spoke with was very excited to get an American tourist to sign the petition they were working on. The website is still up. I would highly encourage checking it out, www.nonviolence.cz.
If you're wanting a critique of missile defense from an American perspective, this is a great place to start. It's tough to name another military project that has spent more money to deliver less capability while simultaneously ignoring the actual threats. Iran isn't going to be lobbing missiles at central Europe. They'll be lobbing them at Israel while shutting down the Strait of Hormuz and unleashing Iraqi militants, endangering supply lines for the hundreds of thousands of American military personnel and contractors in Iraq. More to the point, Iran doesn't want war; they want peace. Just like Russia. And China. Terrorists aren't going to launch a ballistic missile; they're going to sail a boat into a harbor or blow up a dam or an oil refinery (or, what they've already done, use small boats and truck bombs and airplanes and chemical weapons and so forth; it's called asymmetric warfare).
Observation 9: Obligatory reference to terrorists.
So, finally, we must ensure that terrorists never acquire a nuclear weapon. This is the most immediate and extreme threat to global security. One terrorist with one nuclear weapon could unleash massive destruction. Al Qaeda has said it seeks a bomb and that it would have no problem with using it. And we know that there is unsecured nuclear material across the globe. To protect our people, we must act with a sense of purpose without delay.
So today I am announcing a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. We will set new standards, expand our cooperation with Russia, pursue new partnerships to lock down these sensitive materials.
We must also build on our efforts to break up black markets, detect and intercept materials in transit, and use financial tools to disrupt this dangerous trade. Because this threat will be lasting, we should come together to turn efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism into durable international institutions. And we should start by having a Global Summit on Nuclear Security that the United States will host within the next year. (Applause.)
The American government has been addressing issues of terrorism long before terrorism became a commonly discussed issue. Expansion of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act (Nunn-Lugar) was a top foreign policy concern of Congress in the 1990s. You have great stories out of Russia about potatoes being more heavily guarded than fissile material (potatoes, of course, being valuable for their use in making vodka). It's good to see focus on addressing these kinds of issues.
But, those who think GWOT was, is, and will be an important thing, can also read into this what they want, for it extends the primary fallacy of terrorism policy once the Republicans decided to make terrorism a political issue, which is the notion that terrorists are likely to use nuclear weapons. Precisely because the NPT framework has been so successful and nuclear technology is fairly advanced stuff, actually acquiring nuclear weapons is difficult for decentralized, non-state actors. And any way, mass death isn't very hard to do. There are several very conventional methods of causing massive fatalities in the US, and if terrorists made the jump to WMD, it's the BC part of NBC that's likely to be employed, as in the Tokyo subway attacks or the (interestingly, not entirely answered) theft of anthrax from our own government bioweapons laboratory.
My personal take is that it's very encouraging to see a serious issue like nuclear weapons given prime placement on Obama's first European tour as president. He sets a high bar, and does it in front of a foreign audience. But, the speech also carries many of the legacy positions of fear-mongering to support unnecessary programs and delay in bringing about speedy changes in policy that have characterized several decades of the American nuclear experience. Hopefully, this truly is the public pronouncement of a radical transformation from recent American policy. And if actions seem to stray from the Prague principles, let's make sure to take note and refresh our memory of the charge laid out this weekend.
Human destiny will be what we make of it. And here in Prague, let us honor our past by reaching for a better future.