Abstract
A spate of newly elected national leaders offers an opportunity to rethink nonproliferation strategies.
FOR THE RECORD
BY JOSEPH CIRINCIONE
We are entering a period of dramatic political transition. early 2009, four of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (France, Britain, the United States, and Russia) will have new leaders. Other key states, including Japan, Iran, and Israel, may as well. Several have already made the switch, such as Germany, France, and Italy. International organizations, too, will refresh their leadership, with a new secretary-general now installed at the United Nations and possibly a new head of the International Atomic Energy Agency in two years.
Rarely have the political stars realigned so dramatically. This is a unique opportunity to advance new policies that can dramatically reduce, and even eliminate, many of the nuclear dangers that keep the hands of the Bulletin's Clock poised so precipitously close to midnight.
“With this leadership change,” says former U.N. Undersecretary-General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala, “it is for us in civil society to try to urge new perspectives and new opportunities for them to seize so that we all make the right choices at the right time.” Some are already hard at work. Analysts and advocates at more than a dozen institutes are perfecting proposals to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), establish an international nuclear fuel bank, eliminate tactical nuclear weapons, move to zero deployed nuclear weapons, convene a global nuclear summit in 2009–and, more broadly, reaffirm the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. They are promoting their ideas in conferences, reports, congressional testimony, blogs, interviews, and even films.
These projects, however, should look back before leaping too far forward. What went wrong with prior nuclear-security strategies? The failures are most evident in the current U.S. administration. The premise behind the Iraq War–that military action offered a quick cure for proliferation–proved fatally flawed. Meanwhile, the disparaging and neglect of international threat reduction arrangements has weakened U.S. security and legitimacy. When the United States–the chief architect of the nonproliferation regime–walks away from its own creation, is it any wonder that other nations do as well?
This critique must also look back at the Clinton administration. The 1990s were filled with missed opportunities. The achievement of the CTBT was followed by an anemic effort to secure its ratification. The 1994 Nuclear Posture Review reaffirmed Cold War strategies rather than seizing the moment to reduce and transform both Russian and U.S. arsenals. We cannot afford to repeat these mistakes the next time around.
Changes are already in motion. Former Democratic Defense Secretary William Perry, former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn, and former Republican secretaries of state George Schultz and Henry Kissinger wrote an op-ed in the January 4 Wall Street Journal that endorsed “a world free of nuclear weapons.” In doing so, they opened up new political space and generated heightened momentum. Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois proposes to “lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years.” Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska wants to engage Iran directly as part of a mix of “diplomatic initiatives, United Nations mandates, regional cooperation, security frameworks and economic incentives” that could resolve the Iranian nuclear standoff. In May, Democratic Cong. Ellen Tauscher of California led the House Armed Services Committee into new territory by cutting the bloated budget of the anti-missile program, slowing the drive for a new nuclear warhead, and ordering an independent commission to reevaluate the country's nuclear posture. Both the House and Senate are considering bills to establish an international nuclear fuel bank.
These bipartisan initiatives hold great promise. It is not, of course, just a U.S. effort. But it is the United States that essentially sets the nuclear agenda for the rest of the world, that must take the lead. And it is U.S. analysts and institutions that must step into this breach. There is not a moment to lose–the game's afoot.