Johnny B Good

Lots happening in the nuclear world.  Before slogging through another wave of North Korea news, there needs to be some attention drawn to John Bolton’s op-ed in the New York Times.  He runs through a pretty standard set of conservative arguments against various Obama nuclear policies, some of which need to be evaluated, but there are a few statements that are questionable representations of Obama’s policies.  Examples include:

1. The timeframe for getting rid of nuclear weapons.  Bolton claims:

PRESIDENT OBAMA has called for a world without nuclear weapons, not as a distant goal, but as something imminently achievable.

What Obama said in Prague is:

So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I’m not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime. [emphasis added]

2. The relevance of extended deterrence.  Bolton:

Even worse, in his public statements, President Obama’s seeming indifference to the beneficent effects of the United States’ nuclear deterrent has to worry our friends and allies, most notably Japan.

Obama in Prague:

Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies — including the Czech Republic. (PONI Director Clark Murdock has a notable June 2009 piece on Obama’s vision and what he should do to substantiate the “safe, secure, and effective” portion of his claim)

3. The Israel debate.  Bolton draws the statement:

 Unhappily, the administration is pushing Israel to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a “non-nuclear-weapons state,” meaning Israel would have to eliminate its nuclear arsenal.

(at least in part) from the Obama letter that Rose Gottemoeller read at the NPT PrepCom when she said

We must redouble our efforts to update IAEA safeguards technologies and convince those NPT Parties that have not yet done so to bring into force the comprehensive IAEA safeguards agreements required by the Treaty’s Article III. We also must pursue vigorously the universal entry into force of the Additional Protocol to safeguards agreements. Universal adherence to the NPT itself - including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea - also remains a fundamental objective of the United States.

This statement was merely a universal call for application of the NPT, applying to North Korea as much as Israel.  It does not represent a serious diplomatic push to single out Israel and Ha’aretz reports that at the recent meetings:

Obama told Netanyahu at their meeting on Monday that Washington has no plans to change its policy on Israel’s nuclear program, according to an Israeli source.  “At the talks, Obama expressed his deep commitment to Israel’s security and his full adherence to the deep presidential understandings in this area,” the source said.

The short and sweet nature of opinion pieces showing up in major newspapers can be frustrating because they do not have to cite or explain their interpretation of facts.  Maybe they should.  After all, Americans

not only have a toleration but also a hunger for explanation and complexity, and a willingness to acknowledge hard problems