by Cheryl Rofer
Now that I’ve found both the Bush administration and the arms controllers wanting in analysis and strategy, how would I propose going forward on nonproliferation?
There are others with big ideas out there, like the Fab Four who proposed, in the Wall Street Journal of all places, that we make nuclear abolition a goal. They also provided some strategy, although they left a great deal to be filled in. I’m also impressed with Ivo Daalder and Jan Lodal’s attempt to build on the Fab Four's ideas. And I have some ideas of my own. So let’s go.
The Goal
The goal should be nuclear abolition. No more nuclear weapons anywhere on earth.
There is a traditional argument that you can’t do that and you shouldn’t even talk about it.
Some people fear that if you push hard for abolition as an end in itself, the effect could be destabilising…You can just hear the little chuckle that accompanies this, as it has so many times in so many faculty clubs. It of course makes a couple of assumptions (“end in itself”) that aren’t present in any of these articles and is best left in the faculty club.
No nuclear weapons mean no danger of nuclear terrorism. No nuclear weapons mean no danger of a regional dispute inflicting nuclear winter on the world. No nuclear weapons mean no accidental missile launches. No nuclear weapons mean no pollution and occupational disabilities from their manufacture.
We have outlawed chemical and biological weapons. That doesn’t mean that they (or thoughts of them) are totally gone, but it does mean that those who want them have a lot more hurdles to get them.
President-elect Obama has endorsed the goal of nuclear abolition:
Obama Will Set Goal of Nuclear-Free World: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will set a new direction and show the world that America believes in the commitment made under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to work to ultimately eliminate nuclear stockpiles.True, he’s got that weasel word ultimately in there, but he also sponsored Senate Bill 1700 with Richard Lugar to address some of the issues raised in those Wall Street Journal op-eds.
Nobody sees the path all the way zero. We can, however, see several possible routes from here to small numbers. Daalder and Lodal suggest that the small number be 1000 nuclear weapons each for the United States and Russia. Total, including deployed, reserve, being refurbished. I would suggest a smaller number, 500 or less, as a number of studies have suggested. A few hundred nuclear weapons should be enough to deter any country that wants to get frisky.
The actions that will be required to get the numbers into the three-digit range will change the international order enough that it should be possible to see to zero from there.
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was developed during the 1960s and came into force in 1970. Its Article VI looked ahead to nuclear abolition.
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.Article VI was a necessary part of the bargain, at the time cynically entered into by the nuclear powers to persuade others not to follow them. But at that time, our world, the one that no longer includes the nuclear arms race, seemed as unlikely as abolition seems today.
We can do it.
How To Get There
The Fab Four propose a number of steps that should be taken right away. They are very much like the “Thirteen Practical Steps on Nonproliferation and Disarmament” agreed to at the 1995 NPT Review Conference. These steps are obvious but have not been taken for reasons that have had little to do with the nuclear threat. For example, ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty failed in the US because of Bill Clinton’s political difficulties with a Republican Congress. Ratifying it now would signal America’s good faith to the world. But a bigger gesture is needed.
The United States to declare that the only purpose of nuclear weapons should be “to prevent the use of nuclear weapons by others,” that it will reduce its stockpile to a total of 1000 nuclear weapons, and then do it, say Daalder and Lodal.
The big gesture has to come from the United States or Russia, each of which holds thousands of nuclear weapons while other nations hold, at most, a few hundred each. Daalder and Lodal argue that the US’s announcement should be unilateral. A joint announcement with Russia would be stronger in some respects, but it also would tend to shut out other potential participants.
After the Big Gesture
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty may be one of the most successful treaties ever. Every nation but three has signed on to it; only one has withdrawn. The number of nations possessing nuclear weapons has remained in the single digits, contrary to expectations when the treaty was proposed in the 1960s. It has done what it promised very well, even though there are some problems with it. It is a great jumping-off place for the next moves.
A new treaty will take time to develop and be ratified, but it will be able to move past entrenched difficulties. Amending the NPT is likely to flame out in old and nonproductive arguments.
Ireland, a country without nuclear weapons and with no reason to want them, circulated the original draft of the NPT. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon says that Costa Rica and Malaysia are circulating a draft convention on limiting nuclear weapons and strengthening verification, which must be the central points of the new treaty.
Daalder and Lodal propose that the US should commit to the limitations in numbers and the increased verification, effectively the new treaty, as part of its grand gesture.
What the NPT Follow-on Treaty Might Contain
Commitments to downsize nuclear arsenals. It is essential that the numbers be defined as the totals held by countries. Counting deployed weapons has been easier and therefore has been the basis of previous arms control treaties. But a serious move to lower numbers requires that all weapons and fissionable materials be verified. The treaty must also state that the fissionable materials from weapons removed from stockpiles will be put under the supervision of the new verification agency, which is likely to be a much-expanded (and appropriately funded) International Atomic Energy Agency.
The new verification agency. The IAEA is charged with safeguards and verification for sources and fissionable material used "in all peaceful nuclear activities." Safeguards and verification must be extended to all such material in the treaty. This will have to be quite explicit, because nations will be much balkier and perhaps evasive with regard to nuclear weapons and the materials in and from them. The IAEA’s Additional Protocol, allowing for enhanced inspections, is a starting point, but more is needed.
Non nuclear weapons nations recommit to their status.
Aid for peaceful nuclear energy uses should continue for non nuclear weapons nations. The full capability of the nuclear fuel cycle allows a nation to come to the edge of producing nuclear weapons. The enhanced verification capability that will be a central feature of this treaty will make clandestine production of nuclear weapons by nations impossible. Thought needs to be given to whether an additional treaty would be necessary on possession of a full nuclear fuel cycle. Prohibition or internationalization probably cannot be addressed in this treaty.
How To Develop Support for the Treaty
Daalder and Lodal propose an intensive diplomatic effort to convince the world to decrease nuclear weapons. I suggest that having a treaty, with requirements of numbers and perhaps dates for entry into force will focus minds in a way that an effort without a treaty will not.
Public opinion in the United States and Russia strongly favors reducing the numbers of nuclear weapons. In fact, the percentages are similar to those favoring cessation of atmospheric testing back in the late 1950s, just before the Limited Test Ban Treaty was negotiated, outlawing atmospheric testing.
The Fab Four have enlisted former governmental officials, but that is just the beginning. A true governmental movement toward nuclear abolition would encourage many of the general public who feel that changes are needed but are put off by the fanaticism of the remnants of the nuclear freeze movement and by an isolated arms control community that is often contemptuous of public opinion. The internet provides a way for those citizens to interact with each other and with policy makers.
So that’s the short version. In my search for public involvement, I’ll be delighted to hear from commenters, including those who have participated in my previous blog-tanks and others.