Closing Pandora's box

In Prague April 5, U.S. President Barack Obama argued that confronting nuclear proliferation is vital to our survival. Vowing to rid the world of nuclear weapons, he challenged us to choose survival over destruction. Opinion page contributor Mitchell Belfer ("Securing Nukes," April 8-14) describes the initiative set forth in Obama's Prague speech as "short-sighted" and misguided. I disagree. The historic nuclear disarmament agenda Obama set forth in his speech at Prague Castle offers a real opportunity for needed disarmament progress.

The threat of nuclear proliferation is real and profound. Yes, there are many global challenges including climate change, pandemics, piracy and poverty, but to suggest that the existence of other serious international relations challenges discounts the need to act on nukes is illogical. Nuclear proliferation belongs at the top of the list. By reducing the threat of nuclear weapons, we may begin the process of converting swords to ploughshares, freeing up resources to meet pressing needs.

The fact that most nuclear weapons states are stable, as Belfer argues, is beside the point. Firstly, because one nuclear bomb ruins the whole bunch of apples; secondly, because the real threat is not the bogeyman of so-called "rogue states" but rather that nonstate actors bent on violence now have a greater likelihood to get The Bomb as nuclear weapons materials, technology and failed states proliferate.

Asked recently what most worries him, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "It's the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear." That prospect grows daily as black market trade in nuclear weapons material and technology expands. Today, nuclear smuggler A.Q. Khan runs his own Web site from Pakistan. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director and 2005 Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei calls Khan's nuclear distribution network the "Wal-Mart of private-sector proliferation."

So-called "rogue states" (Iran and North Korea), the favored fear-mongering tool of, most notably, former Pentagon Chief Donald Rumsfeld, are used to justify wasteful military expenditures like missile defense. The true danger comes from extremist nonstate actors. Obama noted that "in a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black market trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build the bomb has spread."

Confronting nuclear proliferation is a daunting challenge, yet one we must undertake. There is no denying that nuclear devastation is a wholly man-made threat. We opened this Pandora's Box, and we must close it. Now is a unique historical opportunity that mustn't be squandered. Since 2007, hawk and establishment voices (including Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn from the United States, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Douglas Hurd and Margaret Beckett from Britain, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh) have joined peace activists and progressives in calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

For the first time, a U.S. president was elected on a campaign pledge of nuclear weapons abolition. Obama's Prague speech makes this a centerpiece of his foreign policy, and his atomic agenda has received worldwide praise for providing a roadmap, in more than name, for turning back the doomsday clock.

We must act now. The April 11 Economist notes, "Next year's five-yearly [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] review conference offers a chance to bolster the fraying anti-proliferation regime. … Unless the official nuclear powers take steps to uphold their side of the NPT bargain that obliges them to work towards abolishing their nukes in exchange for keeping others from seeking the bomb, this opportunity could be lost. The treaty could unravel." Failure to make prompt progress may mean nuclear anarchy.

A leading role

Obama's Prague speech showed bold leadership in charting a path toward nuclear disarmament. His affirmation of the basic bargain, noted above, underpinning the NPT, which dates from 1968, is vital. And the pledge to have the United States ratify the CTBT (the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty) is long overdue. Obama is taking a leading role in spelling out an agenda for nuclear disarmament, and this should be welcomed.

Conventional wisdom during the Cold War held that nobody would attempt a nuclear strike since it would prompt a counterstrike - the resulting mutual assured destruction (MAD) providing an effective deterrent to use of nuclear weapons. A small minority argued that, a la Dr. Strangelove, they could survive a nuclear attack and emerge victorious. These nuclear utilization theorists (NUTs) today place faith and resources in shield protection against missiles (SPAM), the progeny of Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, better known as "Star Wars." SPAM, NUTS and MAD offer false security. In 2009, none of these paradigms protect us from potential nuclear annihilation.

The spread of The Bomb inevitably follows from the failure of the nuclear weapons states to disarm. The lesson drawn from India and Pakistan is that getting The Bomb enhances state power, respect and security. The lesson drawn from Israel is that the American approach to nuclear proliferation is geopolitical and hypocritical (Iran has ratified NPT; Israel has not). The only way to dispel these lessons is to take action in concert with all other nuclear weapons states to disarm.

On stopping the spread of nuclear weapons technology, Obama proposed "a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years," a new treaty banning fissile materials and "a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation." He also vowed to host a global summit on nuclear security within a year.

The threat posed by nuclear weapons is grave. ElBaradei reports that there are still 27,000 fully functional nuclear warheads in the world and that technological developments enable nuclear energy for peaceful purposes to be transformed into nuclear weapons capacity within months. He further warns that up to 30 states could possess nuclear weapons capacity by 2016. If Pakistan continues to crumble, al-Qaida or the Taliban could have The Bomb by then.

We are more secure taking steps to get rid of nuclear weapons than trying to defend against them. As Obama noted, the present regime is ineffective. Once again, we are talking about how to get North Korea back to six-party talks. So long as double standards apply, words will ring hollow. Leading by example is the best way to make the world safer. NPT mandates "general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control," which requires IAEA inspectors' ability to verify NPT compliance.

Significantly, Obama's proposed fuel bank, which will be available only to those who renounce nuclear weapons and the production of nuclear fuel, will reportedly be under IAEA control. The IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog, has for years proposed such a nuclear fuel bank. As NPT recognizes the right of states to develop nuclear programs for civilian purposes (including the right to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium, the two technologies that can produce weapons-grade material) and, as such, technologies can be readily shifted to nuclear weapons production, states like North Korea and Iran demand their right to develop their own infrastructure for nuclear fuel production. The proposed fuel bank would undercut such demands and prevent recurring cat-and-mouse games by stripping away ambiguity in the present international arms control regime. Rogue states would lose their pretext for noncooperation.

The rise of failed states and extremist non-state actors, much like the refusal of North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India to ratify NPT, compels us to consider how the international community best prevents radioactive lunacy. The disarmament of nuclear missiles in Europe in the 1980s (the Pershing II and Cruise missiles - the so-called "Euromissiles") provides a precedent for nuclear disarmament. Following Obama's Prague speech, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, "This is not just a long-term goal; President Obama has also proposed practical measures … that could lead to disarmament steps in the short term."

In Prague, Obama set forth a path for global progress - the most comprehensive framework for nuclear disarmament the world has yet seen. We should all heed the call and use our voices to work toward a world without nuclear weapons.

- The author is a member of the California and International Bar Associations and lectures in law, ethics and logic at the University of New York in Prague.

Bill Cohn can be reached at
features@praguepost.com