By: Meghan Nash  

   Every generation has its cross to bear.  Those born at the turn of the 20th century survived two world wars.  Baby boomers practiced hiding under their school desks in case of a nuclear attack during the peak of the Cold War.  While I consider bad hairstyles and horrendous wardrobes the downfall of the 80s, most would probably point to the emerging popularity and complexity of technological devices.  Our current generation has two vital challenges that now lay before us: ending the proliferation of nuclear weapons and stopping global warming.  In every aforementioned crisis, the government of the United States has stepped up to the plate and made a major contribution, but in these two areas we have been noticeably absent from the field.
   In order for the United States to preserve its self-awarded title as the world’s only superpower, the government must be much more assiduous in taking a leading role in solving these two problems, both of which have grabbed the attention of the general public.  One could point to the recent increase in international tensions or the rising amount of celebrities driving hybrid cars and building “green” houses as explanations for the issues’ intensifying interest among Americans.  Or perhaps the general constituency is simply realizing the perilous results these issues could produce if they are not resolved.  Either way, U.S. citizens are watching with baited breath to see how their government will save them from future calamity. 
   Traditionally, the United States has pursued a course of isolationism proposed by our first president, George Washington: rejecting an opportunity to join the League of Nations, spawned by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson; creating the Monroe Doctrine; and waiting until the final year to enter World War I.  Despite increased international interaction since WWII, when action is required, the U.S. tends to adopt a unilateral strategy, the most obvious example being the current war in Iraq.  To put it plainly, we do not play well with the other children in the sandbox.  But this trend cannot be allowed to continue.  The problems we now face are too large and complex for one nation to take on single-handedly.  They can only be overcome if the United States begins to behave more like a super partner of the world instead of its lone superpower.  While the United Nations is taking valiant strides to end the production of nuclear weapons and global warming, their resources are stretched precariously thin and their efforts prove largely ineffective without the cooperation and support of the world’s leaders, especially the United States.
   Of these two problems, ending nuclear proliferation is the question that has haunted the leaders of the world essentially since the inception of nuclear weapons.  The United States remains the only nation to have used nuclear weapons against another, with the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII.  As the world witnessed the horrific consequences of these attacks, it began to question the practicality and morality of their existence.
   The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was created in 1968 and entered into force in 1970.  All five officially recognized nuclear powers- the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and China- signed the treaty, pledging to gradually disarm their countries of nuclear weapons in exchange for the agreement of other signatories not to build them at all.  The other nations, currently more than 180, that sign the NPT can receive aid in developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes.  Under NPT, the International Atomic Energy Agency carries out inspections to ensure countries are abiding by the rules.  Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor or restrict those countries – such as India or Pakistan- who refuse to sign the NPT.  These countries have steadily been assembling their own nuclear arsenals and, in Pakistan’s case, have been covertly selling parts and information to North Korea and other countries.  Then there is the possibility that Iran’s uranium enrichment is aimed at producing a bomb.  As much as the world may desire to return to simpler times, there is no turning back of the clock; there is no way to erase the nuclear knowledge acquired and expanded on over the past 50 years.  But is it still possible to stop nuclear proliferation and start dismantling bombs where they exist?  And can the U.S. take responsibility to make this happen?
   While the global warming debate is not as old as nuclear proliferation, it is rapidly achieving equal status in the eyes of the public.  Increasing temperatures, anomalous hurricanes and droughts stretching across the African continent have caught the attention of scientists who point to global warming as the crux of these events.  Global warming, which most insist, has been brought about by humans. 
  To combat these charges, the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 and the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNCCC) in 1992.  UNCCC’s current focus is ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, created on December 11, 1997 and entering into force on February 16, 2005.  Under the Kyoto Protocol, 36 industrialized countries must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by five percent over five years.  Even though the U.S., under the advice of former Vice President Al Gore, signed the protocol in 1998, it was never ratified by a Republican Senate.  Today, over 180 countries have ratified the protocol but not the United States.  The current Bush administration cites the large loss of U.S. jobs the Kyoto Protocol could result in as an explanation for its aloofness.  
   The need for a multilateral approach to achieve the elimination of global warming and nuclear weapons is an undeniable fact.  The days of U.S. unilateralism must come to a close in order to solve these issues.  The countries of the world need to unite amidst their differences in the next few crucial years to guarantee the safety of tomorrow’s world.