Academics often cite “security dilemma” explanations to demonstrate how nuclear proliferation spreads. When one country has it, others will follow suit in case the country decides to attack. Many proponents of nuclear weapons believe that the world is safer precisely because of nuclear weapons and the threat of mutually assured destruction if any country uses such violence against its enemies. The biggest flaw in this logic is that assumes that states with nuclear weapons have full control over them. The alternative is truly frightening to consider, but sometimes we need to remind ourselves about the threat of nuclear technology going into the wrong hands.

A much talked about threat of “loose nukes” comes from the former Soviet Union. Before its collapse, it had over 27,000 nuclear weapons. Though former Soviet Republics turned in their nuclear warheads to Russia in the 1990s, few countries still have stockpiles of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium. Even within Russia, authorities have admitted that they have had to break up hundreds of nuclear-material smuggling operations. Wherever nuclear materials exist, governments have to continually fight off hostile actors.

Pakistan has also provoked much concern, especially considering the powerful role of its military in the government. The acquisition of nuclear technology in Pakistan itself demonstrates how nuclear secrets cannot remain safe. It was disgraced scientist, A.Q. Khan, who introduced the country’s nuclear program. He has been accused of stealing this technology through spies in other countries. Khan also confessed to contributing to the transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea. Pakistan’s own stock of nuclear weapons is also under serious threat, particularly now as it is waging a violent war against the Taliban. Unfortunately, the threat to Pakistan’s stockpile could come not only from extremists within the country, but also from the government’s lack of control over its weaponry. A book called “Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Secret Trade of Nuclear Arms” claimed that, during the Kargil war against India, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons had been deployed to launch sites without the President’s knowledge or approval.

Closer to home, the U.S. has demonstrated that even a powerful government cannot secure a full-proof grip over its weapons.  For instance, in 2006 the U.S. military accidentally shipped nuclear material to Taiwan. In 2008, it was revealed that the U.S. Air Force did not know the locations of several nuclear missile components and other nuclear parts. One official said that more than 1,000 components were missing.

We have all heard enough stories and seen enough pictures from Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to imagine the kind of damage that nuclear material in the wrong hands can cause. Can this ever be worth the risk?

Nuclear proliferation equates to regional instability and insecurity. We have seen destabilizing situations. Pakistan- India, Iran-Middle East, and the fear of loose fissile material. It’s about time the U.S. change its rhetoric in regard to nuclear proliferation. Unlike the past administration, this administration does not shun the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA has just arrived in Iran to conduct inspections, and the U.S. is finally holding high level talks with Iran on their nuclear program. These talks are being conducted through a multilateral approach --with the support of the Permanent-Five members of the United Nations.  

It is not surprising that Iran and North Korea’s attempts to process nuclear material have led to regional uncertainty and tension. States in those regions feel threatened and often feel the need to counter any shifts in regional power. During the Bush administration, Israel drew up plans to attack a few of Iran’s nuclear sites. Iran has also threatened Israel should it attack any Iranian territory. China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and other powers around the Korean Peninsula feel uneasy. These tensions only fuel our stance that nuclear proliferation is of no benefit to anyone. We still have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over.

It is time for the U.S. to set an example. We have taken some steps with Russia to reduce our stockpile, but it is time to do more. We must ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, fulfill our obligations under the Non-proliferation Treaty, and must strengthen the IAEA.

Following statements calling for nuclear non-proliferation by President Obama and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, the Obama administration seems to be keeping its word by putting non-proliferation on the U.N.'s agenda. On September 11, the United States circulated a draft resolution aimed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, which it hopes will be adopted by the U.N. Security Council's special session that will be presided by Obama on September 24.

Among other measures, the draft resolution calls for signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to negotiate nuclear arms reduction, deplores aggressive proliferation that threatens international security (implying North Korea and Iran), encourages other countries to join the NPT, welcomes steps taken to create nuclear-weapon-free zones as those championed by some Arab states (which would require Israel to dispose of all the nuclear weapons they may possess- Israel neither confirms nor denies having a nuclear stockpile), urges countries to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and supports the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)- the nuclear watchdog in Vienna.

The democratic platform for the 2008 presidential election comprised a strong agenda for nuclear arms control including U.S. ratification of the CTBT, strengthening the IAEA, and adhering to the NPT. It is encouraging that the Obama adminstration is acting on these promises. The onus is now on U.N. Security Council members to adopt this resolution, thereby taking concrete steps to make our world peaceful and more secure.

Read more here

Act NOW to support nuclear non-proliferation treaties

Yesterday the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Susan Rice, delivered a strong and promising speech on the U.S.’s position towards the United Nations and global cooperation. Many of her statements reflected progress on issues that we at Citizens for Global Solutions have been working hard to further.

Rice commended U.N. operations that have helped to rebuild shattered societies, including missions in Haiti where deadly gangs have been defeated and local police have been trained, and missions in Congo that have allowed the first democratic elections in the country to be held. Promising to improve U.S. support to U.N. peacekeeping, Rice pledged more U.S. military staff officers, military observers, civilian police, and other civilian personnel.

Working towards nuclear non-proliferation, Rice recalled U.S. work to have the Security Council condemn North Korea’s nuclear weapons tests, and ongoing efforts to constructively engage Iran in the non-proliferation process. She also said that the U.S. is aiming to achieve a successful NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] Review Conference next year.

Referring to the U.S.’s new seat on the Human Rights Council- another action we have championed-  Rice acknowledged the need for the U.S. to be involved with such institutions to increase their effectiveness and scope, and to help address their shortcomings.

Elaborating on other causes that we support, Rice said, “We no longer oppose mentions of… the International Criminal Court. We no longer balk at… the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women [CEDAW]. And we’re forging a new path on climate change commensurate with our global responsibilities.” She also mentioned the importance of the U.S. paying its dues to the U.N., and noted that the U.S. cleared its accumulated debt to the U.N. earlier this year through Congress- a goal that we pushed hard to achieve.

Rice neatly summarized our philosophy here at Citizens for Global Solutions: “We face an extraordinary array of global challenges: poorly guarded nuclear weapons and material, a global financial meltdown, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran and North Korea building their nuclear weapons capabilities, al-Qaeda and its affiliates, genocide and mass atrocities, cyber attacks on our digital infrastructure, international crime and drug trafficking, pandemics, and a climate that is warming by the day. These are transnational security threats that cross national borders as freely as a storm. By definition, they cannot be tackled by any one country alone.”

Read the speech here

The Hudson Institute hosted a panel on June 24th to discuss the stakes of Obama's planned visit to Russia in July. The panelists- David Kramer, David Satter, and Andrei Piontkovsky- warned of a different Russian culture that did not place human rights in the same light as the U.S did. In a perverse way, Russia seems to need to maintain enmity with the U.S. in order to justify the state's iron grip and suppressive policies. This is unfortunate, as the U.S. and Russia have coinciding strategic interests, including preventing Islamic extremism, promoting nuclear non-proliferation, and balancing China's growing power.

So, when Obama travels to Russia, the first aim should be to foster respectful dialogue between the countries. Even now, Russian leaders denounce the U.S. as an enemy on prime time television, accusing the U.S. of sponsoring terrorism in the Caucasus. Given the aggressive steps taken by Russia in the past, it is also important to pose a firm and deterring stance before them. The panelists commended Obama for signaling a rejection of a "Russia first" policy, by including Ukraine and Georgia on his list of visits. The Russian visit assumes added significance, as talks have already begun to renew the START treaty. With nuclear non-proliferation high on the agenda, artfully dealing with Russia is a challenge and necessity.

Striking the appropriate balance by promoting dialogue without showing any sign of weakness is going to be a difficult job for Obama. His predecessor did not set an ideal example- Bush may have gone overboard after meeting Putin in 2001 when he said, "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very... trustworthy... I was able to get a sense of his soul." Such lofty ideas about Russia have not paid off in the past.

For more information, click here

On June 17, 2009, the Committee on Foreign Affairs hosted a hearing on North Korea's nuclear missile tests and the 6-Party Talks, along with an expert panel of witnesses to advise on the issue. North Korea's aggressive actions with regard to ignoring international calls for denuclearization and the arrest of two American journalists earlier this month have caused much stir in the political field. The chief concerns were the development of an arms race in Asia in response to Pyongyang's moves, and the transfer of nuclear technology and weaponry to hostile groups. The country already has a record of transferring such equipment to Iran and Syria. In no mood to compromise, Kim Jong Il has declared his commitment to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons.

Congressman Royce raised a convincing case for blocking North Korea's financial access. Exploiting its notoriety for producing counterfeit money, Congressman Royce noted that North Korea was dependant on hard cash and had a poor domestic currency. Blocking the country out of the international financial system proved effective in the past, when banks refused to do business with Kim Jong Il and he was unable to pay his generals. It was this effect that pressured Kim Jon Il to enter the last round of the 6-Party talks.

The members were divided on the effectiveness of pursuing the 6-Party talks, which North Korea has effectively trashed. They also disagreed on the suitability of sending an envoy to the region, and weather the issue of the arrested American journalists should be treated as a separate humanitarian matter, or as part of the main discourse.

The role of Russia and China was thought of as crucial, as they both have acted as North Korea's benefactors. Besides having trade links, the two countries would not want to provoke North Korea to destabilize the region, and a fall in Kim Jong Il's regime would mean an influx of unwanted refugees for China. A weakened North Korea and an empowered South Korea would mean effectively strengthening a U.S. ally. China and Russia's support for the U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the nuclear tests and calling for sanctions against North Korea are an encouraging development.

At a time when Kim Jong Il's health and mental capacity are uncertain, regime change is at the forefront and we must prepare for the possibility of a regime collapse or the accession of inexperienced and nationalistic generals and heirs. The country is plagued by extreme poverty and malnutrition, and even aid provision is complicated by the diversion of provisions to the military. As Congressman Scott said, "There are no limits to what a government will do when it ceases to care about its people." The belligerent and self-isolating acts of North Korea are hard to understand and provoke varied responses, but failing to cap the threat would go far in empowering anti-democratic forces around the world, and perhaps even provoke other parties, such as Iran, to develop their own programs.

The White House released its list of treaty priorities for the 111th Congress last week. Here is the complete list of treaties that the administration supports immediate action on:

Comprehensive Nuclear- Test-Ban Treaty, done at New York September 10, 1996 and signed by the United States on September 24, 1996 (Treaty Doc. 105-28); submitted to the Senate on September 23, 1997.

Treaty with Australia Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation, done at Sydney September 5,2007 (Treaty Doc. 110-10); submitted to the Senate on December 3, 2007.

Treaty with the United Kingdom Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation, done at Washington and London on June 21 and 26, 2007 (Treaty Doc. 110-7); submitted to the Senate on September 20,2007.

Annex VI on Liability Arising From Environmental Emergencies to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, adopted on June 14, 2005 (Treaty Doc. 111-2); submitted to the Senate on April 2, 2009.

Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, done at Canberra on June 19,2001 (Treaty Doc. 110-22); submitted to the Senate on September 26,2008.

International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, adopted on November 3,2001 and signed by the United States on November 3, 2002 (Treaty Doc. 110-19); submitted to the Senate on July 7, 2008.

1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972. Done at London November 7, 1996; signed by the United States on March 31, 1998 (Treaty Doc. 110-5); submitted to the Senate on September 4, 2007.

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, done at Stockholm May 22, 2001 and signed by the United States on May 23, 2001 (Treaty Doc. 107-5); submitted to the Senate on May 7, 2002.

Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, done at Rotterdam September 10, 1998 and signed by the United States on September 11,1998 (Treaty Doc. 106-21); submitted to the Senate on February 9, 2000.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, done at New York December 18, 1979 and signed by the United States on July 17, 1980 (Treaty Doc. Ex. R, 96th Cong., 2nd Sess.); submitted to the Senate on November 12, 1980.

Treaty between the United States and Rwanda Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, signed at Kigali on February 19,2008 (Treaty Doc. 110-23); submitted to the Senate on November 20,2008.

Convention between the United States and Malta for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, done at Valletta August 8, 2008 (Treaty Doc. 1I I-I); submitted to the Senate on January 15,2009.

International Labor Organization Convention No. 111 Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation, adopted by the International Labor Conference at its 42nd Session held at Geneva on June 25, 1958 (Treaty Doc. 105-45); submitted to the Senate on May 18, 1998.

Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and other Related Materials, done at Washington November 13, 1997 and signed by the United States on November 14, 1997 (Treaty Doc. 105-49); submitted to the Senate on June 9, 1998.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, done at Montego Bay December 10, 1982 (the "Convention") and the Agreement relating to Implementation of Part XI of the Convention, done at New York July 28, 1994 (the "Agreement"); Agreement signed by the United States on July 29, 1994 (Treaty Doc. 103-39); submitted to the Senate on October 7, 1994.

Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, done at New York December 9, 1994 and signed by the United States on December 19, 1994 (Treaty Doc. 107-1); submitted to the Senate on January 3, 2001.

Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, adopted at The Hague on November 23, 2007, and signed by the United States on that same date (Treaty Doc. 110-21); submitted to the Senate on September 8, 2008

Citizens for Global Solutions was excited to see that three treaties that we have been lobbying for are included in this list. Ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) would be a huge step forward for America's leadership internationally.

To read the entire priority list, click here.

Yesterday President Obama met with Former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sam Nunn, and former Defense Secretary William Perry to discuss how to rid the world of nuclear weapons. It's great to see this incredibly important subject moving from a visionary goal to a real world challenge.  In his remarks Obama said:

"I don't think anybody would accuse these four gentlemen of being dreamers. They're hard-headed, tough defenders of American interests and American security. But what they have come together to help galvanize is a recognition that we do not want a world of continued nuclear proliferation, and that in order for us to meet the security challenges of the future, America has to take leadership in this area."

The group agreed on prioritizing the revitalization of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, working with Russia to reduce nuclear stockpiles, moving forward on ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and securing nuclear material that could "fall into the hands of terrorists."

Obama's vision and sense of priority are on target and should be applauded. The fact that the four senior statesmen "support enthusiastically what the President is doing" is significant as well. This is how consensus is built and the world changes.

But the one point of disagreement between Obama and the four is probably the most encouraging part of the conversation. Obama noted that the Shultz, Kissinger, Perry and Nunn working together and with him is "a reminder of the long tradition of bipartisan foreign policy that has been the hallmark of America at moments of greatest need, and that's the kind of spirit that we hope will be reflected in our administration."

However Shultz upped the ante saying to Obama that,

"I would only have one word of slight disagreement. You said that you welcome the fact that this is bipartisan. And, well, it is. At the same time, I think all of us have said, when people have told that to us, that it's really nonpartisan. This is a subject that ought to somehow get up above trying to get a partisan advantage. And it's of such importance that we need to take it on its own merits. And that's the way we've proceeded. And that's the way, at least it seems to us, you've proceeded."

For too long partisan politics have gotten in the way of responsible global policy that's good for America and good for the world. This change of tone is important and has implications far beyond the nuclear debate.

Thank you Mr. President. I hope Congress is paying attention to how this is done.

Don Kraus