A Prague Spring for Nuclear Disarmament?
22 Apr, 2009 · 2851
Arundhati Ghose comments on Barack Obama’s speech in Prague in early April
Within the first hundred days in office, US President Barack Obama has attempted to address a series of problems, both national and global. After trying to set in place a process to deal with the meltdown of the US economy, he announced his ‘Af-Pak’ policy, attempted to shore up US relations with Europe and Russia, and announced his administration’s ‘new’ approach to the challenge of a world without nuclear weapons in the context of the forthcoming Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to be held in 2010. On 5 April, speaking to a large crowd in Prague, Czech Republic, Obama stated, “clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” While emphasizing this commitment, he added, “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.” These commitments are indeed new.
However, almost in the same breath, he made a second commitment, “as long as these weapons exist we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee the defence of our allies.”
This dual commitment could very well be an indicator of the difficulties ahead; rumblings have already been heard from that staunch supporter of nuclear disarmament, Japan, as it faces the uncertain prospect of a world without a nuclear security umbrella. On the other hand, more uncharitably, the dual commitments could very well be the window-dressing on the agreement already reached with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, to reduce bilaterally, the huge weapon arsenals which have begun to be a burden on the economies of both countries. This would dilute the strength of the first commitment, but would be a gesture towards the Review Conference on 2010. It will be recalled that the last Review Conference in 2005 collapsed on the issue of no movement by the NPT nuclear weapon powers towards disarmament. Yet President Obama also referred to “further cuts,” in which process the US will seek to include other nuclear weapon States. It would appear that he is seeking to put a process of actual disarmament in place.
On the whole, however, Obama has been more specific on non-proliferation actions from the ‘old’ agenda: the CTBT, a verifiable ban on the production of fissile materials for weapons purposes and the NPT. Whether he would be able to rally enough support in the US Senate to pass the CTBT remains moot; there is disagreement on an unqualified ratification even within his own administration. The entry into force of the CTBT could, however, put a brake on countries like Iran which might be contemplating weaponization, and might be sold as such to reluctant Republican Senators. Obama is clearly of the view that the NPT needs to be strengthened - by stronger inspections, by “punishment” for non-compliance and a “new framework for civil nuclear cooperation.” Even on nuclear terrorism, which he called “the most immediate and extreme threat to global security,” his concrete proposals relate to Bush-era initiatives, the PSI and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. As an indication of the priority his administration will give to non-proliferation issues, he has proposed a Global Summit on Nuclear Security to be held in the US “within the next year.”
It has been reported that President Obama has set up a task force on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation which is to submit its report by the end of the year. His speech, therefore, only outlines the broad parameters of his administration’s approach; details will only be available perhaps at the 2010 Conference. While the emphasis on nuclear disarmament would be welcomed, the reiteration of the earlier Democratic stands on non-proliferation could presage trouble ahead. The approach is a punitive one, with the US-led Nuclear Weapon States and their followers insisting on action on specific countries which might, in their view, have the intention of developing a nuclear arsenal. Consultation and dialogue are not seen as options. Whether this approach has been successful in the past, can be determined with the record so far, as the NPT itself crumbles. The important element in the speech was the careful balancing of the imperatives of disarmament with those of non-proliferation, and the emphasis on the responsibilities of countries with nuclear weapons, especially the US, to take concrete action to meet their obligations. As a political stand, it is almost impeccable; it remains to be seen whether, given opposition in the US itself, actions will go further than the rhetoric.
However, almost in the same breath, he made a second commitment, “as long as these weapons exist we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee the defence of our allies.”
This dual commitment could very well be an indicator of the difficulties ahead; rumblings have already been heard from that staunch supporter of nuclear disarmament, Japan, as it faces the uncertain prospect of a world without a nuclear security umbrella. On the other hand, more uncharitably, the dual commitments could very well be the window-dressing on the agreement already reached with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, to reduce bilaterally, the huge weapon arsenals which have begun to be a burden on the economies of both countries. This would dilute the strength of the first commitment, but would be a gesture towards the Review Conference on 2010. It will be recalled that the last Review Conference in 2005 collapsed on the issue of no movement by the NPT nuclear weapon powers towards disarmament. Yet President Obama also referred to “further cuts,” in which process the US will seek to include other nuclear weapon States. It would appear that he is seeking to put a process of actual disarmament in place.
On the whole, however, Obama has been more specific on non-proliferation actions from the ‘old’ agenda: the CTBT, a verifiable ban on the production of fissile materials for weapons purposes and the NPT. Whether he would be able to rally enough support in the US Senate to pass the CTBT remains moot; there is disagreement on an unqualified ratification even within his own administration. The entry into force of the CTBT could, however, put a brake on countries like Iran which might be contemplating weaponization, and might be sold as such to reluctant Republican Senators. Obama is clearly of the view that the NPT needs to be strengthened - by stronger inspections, by “punishment” for non-compliance and a “new framework for civil nuclear cooperation.” Even on nuclear terrorism, which he called “the most immediate and extreme threat to global security,” his concrete proposals relate to Bush-era initiatives, the PSI and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. As an indication of the priority his administration will give to non-proliferation issues, he has proposed a Global Summit on Nuclear Security to be held in the US “within the next year.”
It has been reported that President Obama has set up a task force on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation which is to submit its report by the end of the year. His speech, therefore, only outlines the broad parameters of his administration’s approach; details will only be available perhaps at the 2010 Conference. While the emphasis on nuclear disarmament would be welcomed, the reiteration of the earlier Democratic stands on non-proliferation could presage trouble ahead. The approach is a punitive one, with the US-led Nuclear Weapon States and their followers insisting on action on specific countries which might, in their view, have the intention of developing a nuclear arsenal. Consultation and dialogue are not seen as options. Whether this approach has been successful in the past, can be determined with the record so far, as the NPT itself crumbles. The important element in the speech was the careful balancing of the imperatives of disarmament with those of non-proliferation, and the emphasis on the responsibilities of countries with nuclear weapons, especially the US, to take concrete action to meet their obligations. As a political stand, it is almost impeccable; it remains to be seen whether, given opposition in the US itself, actions will go further than the rhetoric.
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
