US President Obama calls for the elimination of nuclear weapons

During a much-anticipated speech in Prague on 5 April 2009, US President Obama announced “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” He noted the United States has a moral obligation to lead nuclear disarmament efforts since it has one of the largest arsenals and is the only country to have ever used the weapons—a very interesting and welcome admission. However, his plans for the way forward do not comprise the “radical drive” many had hoped for or that is arguably necessary for success.’

His plan for nuclear disarmament entails:
• Reducing the role of nuclear weapons in US national security strategy doctrines;
• Negotiating a follow-on to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia;
• “Immediately and aggressively” pursue US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;
• Seeking a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in nuclear weapons;
• Strengthening the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation through increased resources and authority to strengthen international inspections and through “real and immediate consequences” for withdrawal from the Treaty; and
• Building a “new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank;”
• Starting a “new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years” in cooperation with Russia;
• Turning the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism into “durable international institutions;” and
• Hosting a Global Summit on Nuclear Security within the next year.

The reduction of nuclear weapons in security doctrines, the talk of working for a verifiable fissile materials treaty, and the negotiation of a START sequel are all welcome endeavours. They are not new or radical ideas as suggested by some media reports—all of been on the arms control and disarmament agenda for years. Many were included in the “thirteen practical steps for nuclear disarmament” agreed upon at the 2000 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which the Bush administration backed away from in 2005. This possible recommitment to some of the steps is worth noting, as is it’s emphasis on international law, highlighted by Obama’s suggestion of institutionalizing Bush-era initiatives like the Proliferation Security Initiatives.

Unfortunately, some of the other points in Obama’s plan for a nuclear weapon free world require thoughtful consideration.

Arsenal reductions
The first point of concern is actually the START negotiations. The current buzz on US-Russian reductions is now focused on the number 1500—close to the 1000 hoped for by many arms control groups, not close enough to the zero hoped for by most abolition groups. Most importantly, the context of the number of 1500 has to be scrutinized. According to Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists and Stan Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council, there are approximately 5200 total warheads and bombs in the active and reserve nuclear stockpiles of the United States today, including approximately 500 so-called “tactical” nuclear warheads and bombs, with some 4200 warheads and bombs awaiting dismantlement, for a total of approximately 9400 warheads. Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group notes,

The stockpile declines being discussed are in the range we might associate with retirement of obsolete systems that nobody much wants. So nobody is giving up much. But even so the effects ramify throughout the management of the enterprise and the talks themselves and the transparency frameworks they will hopefully create are very important.

Strengthening the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
While Obama does mention that the “bargain” of the NPT includes nuclear disarmament, he does not cite compliance with this obligation in his remedy for strengthening the Treaty. His silence on this aspect of the NPT is deafening, especially when the majority of non-nuclear weapon states have repeatedly articulated that they are unwilling to accept additional non-proliferation measures until they see tangible progress from the nuclear weapon states on disarmament. His call for increased authority for the inspections directly relates to European Union’s call for the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol to become mandatory under the NPT (currently only the IAEA’s safeguards are mandatory and the Additional Protocol, which allows more access for UN inspectors, is optional). This will not be acceptable to groups like the Non-Aligned Movement if it is not accompanied by more than rhetoric on disarmament measures.

Further, Obama’s emphasis on inspections and consequences for withdrawal fits in well with the theory of “anti-nuclear nuclearism” or anti-nuclear imperialism expounded by Darwin BondGraham and Will Parrish in their Foreign Policy in Focus article of January 2009. This theory posits that such “strategies” include minor steps toward arsenal reductions, “at least rhetorically recommitting the United States to international treaties” such as the NPT, “a fig leaf that the United States isn’t developing new nuclear weapons,” and that it is slowly “de-emphasizing its nuclear arsenal.” BondGraham and Parrish argue, “By these means the United States has tried to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, even though it has designed and built newly modified weapons with qualitatively new capacities over the last decade and a half.”

Missile “defence” in Europe
Outside of the specific plans for nuclear disarmament laid out above, perhaps the most troubling element of Obama’s speech was his comments on missile “defence” in Europe. He stated
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. 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.

For one thing, the line from the Obama administration used to be, “if it doesn’t work, we won’t deploy it.” Now, the question of deploying missile “defence” in Europe seems to rest on the Bush administration’s justification: the threat of Iran. Further, Obama neglects to note that the Czech government failed to garner ratification for the treaties on the proposed anti-missile base, which was followed by a vote of no-confidence by Czech parliament for the government, or that two-thirds of the Czech public rejects the idea of hosting US missile “defence” technology on their soil.

Nuclear power
Obama’s call to “harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change” is also unfortunate—and misleading. Taking into account the entire nuclear fuel cycle, the CO2 output from nuclear power is much higher from those produced by renewable energy sources—not to mention the problems with nuclear waste and the threat of weapon-material and technology proliferation. It’s unfortunate that Obama did not take the opportunity to commit his administration to working with the new International Renewable Energy Agency as an alternative to promoting the expansion of nuclear power.

Moving forward
While the speech was disappointing, particularly for those of us hoping to hear President Obama call for the removal of nuclear weapons of Europe, a recommitment to Article VI of the NPT, or bigger cuts to the arsenal, it was certainly an improvement from Bush administration foreign policy statements. Further, Obama’s reference to US use of nuclear weapons seems significant. There is still hope.