In an extraordinary move, President Obama today presided over a meeting of the U.N. Security Council and turned the U.S. into the world’s number-one anti-nuclear crusader. In an unanimous vote, the Security Council issued a call for global nuclear disarmament. President Obama has acknowledged that this will be a very long term effort, but the fact that this effort is being endorsed by the major nuclear powers means that there will be heightened consensus for both upholding and renewing existing non-proliferation and arms control treaties as well as challenging countries, like Iran and North Korea, who are far outside this new mainstream. What struck me most about this was President Obama’s acknowledgment of the U.S. role in nuclear security, as reported by The New York Times:
Mr. Obama accomplished that goal in part by acknowledging that the United States was part of the nuclear problem and would have to accept limits on its own arsenal — steps Mr. Bush always rejected. Mr. Obama committed to winning Senate ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which President Bill Clinton could not get through the Senate, and acknowledged that the United States had an obligation under the treaty to move toward elimination of its own arsenal. The Bush administration had argued that this was dangerous in the extreme. The test ban treaty appears bound for tremendous resistance in the Senate, where it was narrowly defeated during the Clinton administration.
The full text of President Obama’s remarks can be found here. While it’s clear that the road to nuclear disarmament will see challenges along the way, at least a path has been charted and new and emerging nuclear powers have been put on notice that the tide of history is not turning in their favor. There are real security concerns about the mechanisms and speed of nuclear disarmament that will have to be addressed by every nuclear country, but it’s also clear that a world in which more and more countries (and possibly non-state actors) are nuclear capable will not be a safer world. When it comes to nuclear weapons, less really is more.
If you have an interest in keeping up with the nuclear weapons debate, I recommend the Carnegie Nonproliferation website, as well as the Arms Control Wonk blog.
Photo Credit: The LA Times
2 Comments So Far»
Nuclear weapons are here to stay. The global trend is a propensity to obtain nuclear weapons not give them up. I would rather have a president promote the dangers of nuclear weapons than one that advocates their usefulness, but this whole exercise shouts the word ‘Naive’.
“at least a path has been charted and new and emerging nuclear powers have been put on notice that the tide of history is not turning in their favor.”
Do you really think Iran, North Korea, Russia, the US military, etc. believe this? I don’t.
GPP thank you for your comment.
I don’t agree with John Mueller (Foreign Policy - The Rise of Nuclear Alarmism) that nuclear weapons were useless and that the nuclear age is ending. I think nuclear weapons have saved the world from world wars even as the allowed for small-scale proxy wars of the kind we witnessed during the Cold War. I don’t for a minute believe that the U.S., or Russia, or any other established nuclear power will ever willingly give up all of their nuclear weapons but I do think that the effort to reduce nuclear stockpiles is worthwhile because it provides leverage needed to ask nuclear wannabes not to go down that path. We have the luxury of doing this because we know that we have more nuclear missiles than we need, so engaging in talks aimed at reducing our arsenal is something we can afford to do without risking national security.
I don’t think that a nuclear-free world is possible or desirable, but I do think the effort to get there gives the nuclear club the moral high ground to firmly declare that the club is closed and no new members will be admitted.
Leave Comments Below»