Obama and Nuclear Disarmament: A New Push?
22 May, 2009 · 2875
Report of the IPCS Panel Discussion held on 8 May 2009
Report of the IPCS Panel Discussion held on 8 May 2009
Chair:
Maj. Gen. (retd.) Dipankar Banerjee, Director, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies
Panelists:
Amb. Arundhati Ghose, Former Permanent Representative of India to the UN Conference on Disarmament
Rear Adm. (retd.) Raja Menon, Chairman, Task Force on Net Assessment and Simulation in the National Security Council
Mr. PR Chari, Research Professor, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies
Dr. G. Balachandran, Visiting Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis
Maj. Gen. Dipankar Banerjee
In preparation for the NPT RevCon in 2010, President Barack Obama made a historic speech on nuclear disarmament on 5 April 2009 in Prague. This was followed by an 11-point approach towards nuclear weapons elimination by the Japanese Foreign Minister. Last year, in June, was the twentieth anniversary of the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan for elimination of nuclear weapons. India’s Prime Minister’s statement supported a global disarmament agenda. A number of steps, therefore, will hopefully be taken to address the issue of nuclear weapons elimination. The IPCS will be following these developments closely and this is the first in a series of meetings that the Institute will be organizing.
Arundhati Ghose
President Barack Obama’s speech on nuclear weapons elimination in Prague is similar to the 1968 Prague uprising in a sense that high expectations have been raised of concrete steps by the US and other nuclear weapon states towards the elimination of nuclear weapons, which in the President’s own words may not be accomplished in his lifetime.
Since Obama’s April speech, the reports of two bipartisan US task forces have been made public. One, a congressionally mandated commission on Strategic Posture of the US chaired by William Perry and co-chaired by James Schlesinger and the other, a task force of the Council for Foreign Relations chaired by Perry and Brent Scowcroft. While both the task forces have agreed on the resumption of negotiations with Russia on START and reduction in the numbers of nuclear weapons, they also agree with Obama’s view that prevailing conditions did not allow the elimination of nuclear weapons. They also agree that a safe and secure nuclear force was needed to reassure America’s allies. To quote a report, this reassurance was necessary, without which protection, those allies might seek nuclear weapons. The reference here is to Japan and the situation it faces in the Korean peninsula. The two task forces, however, do no agree on the CTBT. While the CFR agrees that the CTBT should be ratified by the US, the congressionally mandated task force disagrees on the same. The earlier administration- the Secretaries of Defence and Energy- made a proposal to the US Congress that the CTBT could be ratified provided the Congress approved the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).
Raja Menon
Obama’s speech, which is about 14 points, can be classified into four groups. First, the Obama administration completely agrees with the Quartet. Second, Obama has committed to work with Russia on Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) and civil reactors. Third, he is going to work with Russia on extending the provisions of START to the Moscow treaty. Apart from these, there are three other issues. One is the concessions that the United States is now prepared to make regarding Article VI, because the argument in the NPT PrepCom from the rest of the world is that the US has no right to talk about Article I and IV when it has done nothing with respect to Article VI. Therefore, Obama has proposed steps that the US intends to pursue.
The US will seek verifiable reduction to global stockpile dramatically by the end of his Presidency; strengthen NPT and before that he is going to come with a US nuclear posture review; go down to Moscow treaty levels immediately in agreement with Moscow; expand the INF Treaty so that it becomes global. Second is the issue about global efforts for a verifiable FMCT and ‘global efforts’ means that it is aimed at just two countries – India and Pakistan. Third is the link between China’s objections to no concessions being given on non-weaponiztion of space. So the worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites is one of the 14 points that Obama has come up with. Fourth is the issue of the CTBT, which is also aimed at India and Pakistan.
With regard to India, one should realize that this is a seminal event; something important is happening in the nuclear life of the world and as has happened before, there are two aspects when the country (India) approaches this. One is the country must do certain things; the second is that the negotiators of this country must say certain things.
PR Chari
If one reads Obama’s speech carefully, all he says is that, the threat of nuclear war is down, but the risk of nuclear attack is up, more nations have got nuclear weapons, nuclear tests are continuing, nuclear technology is spreading, nuclear black market trade is increasing and more importantly “the centre cannot hold.” So after sketching the scenario, Obama has presented a gloomy picture to provide the back drop for having a world without nuclear weapons.
Therefore, the steps suggested by him are CTBT ratification, ending fissile material production for military purpose, strengthening the NPT which really involves strengthening inspection regimes and punishing violators, providing access to nuclear powers without compromising the international nuclear regime and that apart he emphasizes on WMD terrorism as an aspect of the terrorism threat. Obama lays emphasis on the WMD terrorism aspect which, according to him, requires that terrorists be denied access to nuclear weapons and fissile material stocks and for that he suggests the instrumentality of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and the global initiative to combat nuclear terrorism to which the United States and Russia have recommitted themselves to. This global initiative and the threat picture that WMD terrorism is extremely important have been confirmed by the State Department’s annual report on Global Terrorism that has been recently made public.
There are two acid tests facing Obama and they come from two aberrant nations in the international system. The first is North Korea and the second is Iran. North Korea flight tested a very long missile on the very day on which the Prague address was made by Obama and by fight testing this long range missile. Obama asserted that violators must be punished and on that basis North Korea needs to be punished, however, Obama has also simultaneously called for global cooperation.
G Balachandran
Obama’s speech in Prague is an effort to start something new so that the 2010 RevCon does not fail and if it does, it will be a major setback to all other efforts that the US is taking towards strengthening the non-proliferation regime. Therefore, his speech sets out certain minimum conditions towards the same; the obvious ones being, CTBT ratification, restart of the START negotiations and the FMCT.
First, as far as the CTBT is concerned, this is the best chance the US has to ratify the treaty; it requires need 67 votes in the Senate and there have 60 votes already. The administration requires 7 votes out of the 40 republicans in Senate; 22 of them voted against and the one republican who voted for the treaty last time is still part of the current Senate. So there are 18 new senators who did not vote the last time, out of 22 who voted against, two (McCain and Lugar) have since then indicated that they will reconsider their decision and both of them are influential. Therefore, they need 5 votes out of the 18 members assuming all the other 20 old guards would still vote against the ratification. Second, the START negotiations will make substantial progress by next year and by the time the NPT 2010 RevCon kick starts, negotiations for START would have gone to a stage when the nuclear weapon states can say that they are working towards Article VI, which they have been saying all the time.
It is pointless and futile to talk about nuclear disarmament. Unless there is an absolute guarantee, to the US and other nuclear weapon states, that the likelihood of any state indulging in nuclear activities in a clandestine manner is completely controlled, there will be no nuclear disarmament.
Note: Excerpts from a presentation at the IPCS on "Obama and Nuclear Disarmament: A New Push?," held on 8 May 2009. Click here for full report.
Chair:
Maj. Gen. (retd.) Dipankar Banerjee, Director, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies
Panelists:
Amb. Arundhati Ghose, Former Permanent Representative of India to the UN Conference on Disarmament
Rear Adm. (retd.) Raja Menon, Chairman, Task Force on Net Assessment and Simulation in the National Security Council
Mr. PR Chari, Research Professor, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies
Dr. G. Balachandran, Visiting Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis
Maj. Gen. Dipankar Banerjee
In preparation for the NPT RevCon in 2010, President Barack Obama made a historic speech on nuclear disarmament on 5 April 2009 in Prague. This was followed by an 11-point approach towards nuclear weapons elimination by the Japanese Foreign Minister. Last year, in June, was the twentieth anniversary of the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan for elimination of nuclear weapons. India’s Prime Minister’s statement supported a global disarmament agenda. A number of steps, therefore, will hopefully be taken to address the issue of nuclear weapons elimination. The IPCS will be following these developments closely and this is the first in a series of meetings that the Institute will be organizing.
Arundhati Ghose
President Barack Obama’s speech on nuclear weapons elimination in Prague is similar to the 1968 Prague uprising in a sense that high expectations have been raised of concrete steps by the US and other nuclear weapon states towards the elimination of nuclear weapons, which in the President’s own words may not be accomplished in his lifetime.
Since Obama’s April speech, the reports of two bipartisan US task forces have been made public. One, a congressionally mandated commission on Strategic Posture of the US chaired by William Perry and co-chaired by James Schlesinger and the other, a task force of the Council for Foreign Relations chaired by Perry and Brent Scowcroft. While both the task forces have agreed on the resumption of negotiations with Russia on START and reduction in the numbers of nuclear weapons, they also agree with Obama’s view that prevailing conditions did not allow the elimination of nuclear weapons. They also agree that a safe and secure nuclear force was needed to reassure America’s allies. To quote a report, this reassurance was necessary, without which protection, those allies might seek nuclear weapons. The reference here is to Japan and the situation it faces in the Korean peninsula. The two task forces, however, do no agree on the CTBT. While the CFR agrees that the CTBT should be ratified by the US, the congressionally mandated task force disagrees on the same. The earlier administration- the Secretaries of Defence and Energy- made a proposal to the US Congress that the CTBT could be ratified provided the Congress approved the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW).
Raja Menon
Obama’s speech, which is about 14 points, can be classified into four groups. First, the Obama administration completely agrees with the Quartet. Second, Obama has committed to work with Russia on Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) and civil reactors. Third, he is going to work with Russia on extending the provisions of START to the Moscow treaty. Apart from these, there are three other issues. One is the concessions that the United States is now prepared to make regarding Article VI, because the argument in the NPT PrepCom from the rest of the world is that the US has no right to talk about Article I and IV when it has done nothing with respect to Article VI. Therefore, Obama has proposed steps that the US intends to pursue.
The US will seek verifiable reduction to global stockpile dramatically by the end of his Presidency; strengthen NPT and before that he is going to come with a US nuclear posture review; go down to Moscow treaty levels immediately in agreement with Moscow; expand the INF Treaty so that it becomes global. Second is the issue about global efforts for a verifiable FMCT and ‘global efforts’ means that it is aimed at just two countries – India and Pakistan. Third is the link between China’s objections to no concessions being given on non-weaponiztion of space. So the worldwide ban on weapons that interfere with military and commercial satellites is one of the 14 points that Obama has come up with. Fourth is the issue of the CTBT, which is also aimed at India and Pakistan.
With regard to India, one should realize that this is a seminal event; something important is happening in the nuclear life of the world and as has happened before, there are two aspects when the country (India) approaches this. One is the country must do certain things; the second is that the negotiators of this country must say certain things.
PR Chari
If one reads Obama’s speech carefully, all he says is that, the threat of nuclear war is down, but the risk of nuclear attack is up, more nations have got nuclear weapons, nuclear tests are continuing, nuclear technology is spreading, nuclear black market trade is increasing and more importantly “the centre cannot hold.” So after sketching the scenario, Obama has presented a gloomy picture to provide the back drop for having a world without nuclear weapons.
Therefore, the steps suggested by him are CTBT ratification, ending fissile material production for military purpose, strengthening the NPT which really involves strengthening inspection regimes and punishing violators, providing access to nuclear powers without compromising the international nuclear regime and that apart he emphasizes on WMD terrorism as an aspect of the terrorism threat. Obama lays emphasis on the WMD terrorism aspect which, according to him, requires that terrorists be denied access to nuclear weapons and fissile material stocks and for that he suggests the instrumentality of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and the global initiative to combat nuclear terrorism to which the United States and Russia have recommitted themselves to. This global initiative and the threat picture that WMD terrorism is extremely important have been confirmed by the State Department’s annual report on Global Terrorism that has been recently made public.
There are two acid tests facing Obama and they come from two aberrant nations in the international system. The first is North Korea and the second is Iran. North Korea flight tested a very long missile on the very day on which the Prague address was made by Obama and by fight testing this long range missile. Obama asserted that violators must be punished and on that basis North Korea needs to be punished, however, Obama has also simultaneously called for global cooperation.
G Balachandran
Obama’s speech in Prague is an effort to start something new so that the 2010 RevCon does not fail and if it does, it will be a major setback to all other efforts that the US is taking towards strengthening the non-proliferation regime. Therefore, his speech sets out certain minimum conditions towards the same; the obvious ones being, CTBT ratification, restart of the START negotiations and the FMCT.
First, as far as the CTBT is concerned, this is the best chance the US has to ratify the treaty; it requires need 67 votes in the Senate and there have 60 votes already. The administration requires 7 votes out of the 40 republicans in Senate; 22 of them voted against and the one republican who voted for the treaty last time is still part of the current Senate. So there are 18 new senators who did not vote the last time, out of 22 who voted against, two (McCain and Lugar) have since then indicated that they will reconsider their decision and both of them are influential. Therefore, they need 5 votes out of the 18 members assuming all the other 20 old guards would still vote against the ratification. Second, the START negotiations will make substantial progress by next year and by the time the NPT 2010 RevCon kick starts, negotiations for START would have gone to a stage when the nuclear weapon states can say that they are working towards Article VI, which they have been saying all the time.
It is pointless and futile to talk about nuclear disarmament. Unless there is an absolute guarantee, to the US and other nuclear weapon states, that the likelihood of any state indulging in nuclear activities in a clandestine manner is completely controlled, there will be no nuclear disarmament.
Note: Excerpts from a presentation at the IPCS on "Obama and Nuclear Disarmament: A New Push?," held on 8 May 2009. Click here for full report.
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
