April, 2009

In a recent interview with former Soviet Union president Mikhail Gorbachev, he gave some thoughts about the possibility for a new arms race and the need for the U.S. and Russia to make steps towards a world without nuclear weapons.  A notable passage from the article:

Gorbachev speculated on "whether it could be considered realistic that ultimately one country might remain with an amount of conventional weapons nearly surpassing the arsenals of all other countries together, that is, that this country might have absolute military dominance in the world." "I would like to be sincere: Such a situation would be an insurmountable obstacle to ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Therefore, if we do not bring up the issue of demilitarization of global politics, the reduction of nuclear budgets, the termination of the development of new types of weapons, and the prevention of the militarization of outer space, all the talk about a nuclear-free world will remain empty," he said.

Two things seem to be the case: -The nonproliferation regime is at a tipping point -The United States is on a quest to restore its nonproliferation credibility. Ideally, increasing the second can be used to prevent a negative outcome of the first.  Unfortunately, it may not be that easy.   There are a number of factors that complicate that equation: A. The U.S. is just getting back to zero-- While it is likely that the U.S. will try to take steps such as negotiating a START follow-on and ratifying the CTBT in the lead up to the May 2010 RevCon in part to score image points, it begs the question of what we look like right now.  U.S. credibility has eroded to the point were CTBT ratification, for example, will be seen as making good on long overdue debts (the 1995 RevCon indefinite extension deal) rather than leading the charge forward. Countries will also continue to criticize us that we still have not gone far enough to meet Article VI demands.

The central problem facing the nuclear agenda as it moves forward is how to square Obama's Prague declaration that

I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.

with his statement that

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

This past Friday, roughly a dozen PONI members met to discuss U.S. nuclear security and science and technology (S&T) as part of the PONI Nuclear Scholars Initiative (NSI). This initiative is intended to "build and sustain a network of young nuclear professionals by providing a unique venue for interaction, scholarly research, and policy-relevant analysis." Each NSI class meets one a month over a six month period to discuss major nuclear issues with senior officials and experts. As one of the NSI class of 2009 participants fortunate enough to participate in Friday's session, I thought I'd share a brief synopsis of what was discussed. Of course, as with most things PONI, all NSI sessions are subject to the Chatham House Rule in order to encourage open and candid discussions, thus my comments below won't associate any specific remarks to any one individual nor will our chair or guest speakers be identified.Our nuclear S&T-focused session was broken into four segments: Leveraging Science for Security; National Technical Nuclear Forensics Overview; Sustaining the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile; and Restoring a National Consensus on Nuclear Security.

PONI Debates the Issues is proud to announce the third installment of its live debates serious on May 13 from 5:30-7:30 pm here at CSIS in the B1 Conference Center.  The debate will feature:

Daryl Kimball, Executive Director, Arms Control Association and Stephen Rademaker, Senior Counsel, BGR Group.

The topic for the debate will be:

Resolved: the United States Congress should ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 

If you are interested in the event, please RSVP here.

Doing some unrelated work today, I was reminded of an interesting article: Alexei Arabatov and Rose Gottemoeller's late summer 2008 article that provides an in-depth look at the various options facing the United States as the expiration of the START treaty looms on the horizon.  Given her recent confirmation at State, it will be interesting to monitor how some of the ideas in the article manifest themselves in the negotiations.  It goes without saying that her official capacity drastically limits what she can say not to mention all of the stakeholders that will have to sign off on each step of the negotiations and the final product but perhaps her nonofficial views may matter.

Nuclear issues have been big in Japan over the past week. First, Prime Minister Taro Aso announced to a meeting of lawmakers that he intends to send a letter to President Obama expressing his interest in working with the U.S. towards the President’s goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons. Then, Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone expressed his intent to appeal to China directly to reduce its nuclear arsenal and to ratify the CTBT during a speech scheduled for April 27. Although it is common for Japan to call on nuclear powers to drawdown their numbers – the article on Hirofumi’s intentions notes that they do it every year in a draft resolution sent to the UN – sources for the article note that it “would be unusual for a Cabinet minister to file such a request with China in an unequivocal fashion.” Maybe so, but how many (if any) eyebrows he raises in China, or what difference it makes, remains to be seen.

Last Monday, CSIS hosted its second in a series of live debates as part of the PONI Debates the Issues project.  George Perkovich, Vice President for Studies at CEIP, took the affirmative and argued that the Obama administration should make the Global Zero vision of a world free of nuclear weapons a central focus of their foreign policy. JD Crouch, Senior Scholar at NIPP, took the negative side. CSIS RA Jessica Yeats moderated.  The audience feedback was strong and many people said the debate did an excellent job delving into some of the important issues of the disarmament debate.  If you couldn't make the event, watch it below:

Picking up on a post started last week, one area ripe for thinking is the implication of the threats from Iran and North Korea on extended deterrence.  As countries become increasingly concerned about the threat from these countries, they may turn to the U.S. to help assure their security as a much cheaper option to generating its own nuclear capability.  Recent statements by a UAE official harkening back to Clinton's idea of an umbrella in the Middle East are a case in point. As a caveat it should be noted much of this analysis about extended deterrence should be country and region specific.  That being said, extending U.S. security to additional countries has the advantage of reducing the risk of proliferation by countries seeking their own nuclear arsenal.  At the same time, "extended deterrence" requires some serious thinking about what exactly those commitments entail.

Frank Gaffney's recent op-ed draws a number of bold conclusions in a very short space.  The basic premise is that Obama's solutions to deal with the nuclear threat

reflect nostalgia for a world now gone but that risk blowing up the one we now inhabit.

Chalk one up for alarmist rhetoric but the real question is how that conclusion is drawn.  Gaffney argues that current plans are a "throwback" to the bilateral superpower relationship of the Cold War.  From the outset, this premise needs to be questioned.  A START follow-on is currently the top arms control priority of the Administration because it expires in December probably more so than Cold War nostalgia.  Obama has been less than enthusiastic about missile defense which may come into US/Russian agreements at some point but that does not mean they view the world through a Cold Waresque bipolar lens.  It means they will try to deal with Iran and North Korea in other ways.  Truth of the premise aside, Gaffney says:

As the international community focuses on North Korea and Iran, Kazakhstan has quietly continued to play an important and constructive role in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and materials. For a nation critical to yet still largely ignored by the Western world, we thought it wise to highlight a number of developments in Kazakhstan and Central Asia from the last few weeks. 1) New Zealand has pledged $350,000 to prevent nuclear smuggling by setting up radiation monitors on Kazakhstan’s borders under an agreement with the United States. This is the latest in a series of steps the Kazakhstan government has agreed to, including hosting CTBTO/ISS and IAEA exercises, to contribute to nuclear security. To be sure, $350,000 is a relatively small amount but it is definitely a step in the right direction. 2) As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Kazakhstan recently approached the White House to volunteer to host an international “nuclear fuel bank” where nations that renounce nuclear weapons can purchase fissile fuel for nuclear energy reactors. This is a bold proposal that has potential to help overcome several perceived weaknesses of the NPT Treaty and current international regulations. Obviously this proposal is in an infant stage, yet the Obama administration should give it proper attention and deliberation. 3) A Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone entered into force on March 21, 2009. The agreement, which includes Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, forbids the development, manufacture, stockpiling, acquisition or possession of any nuclear explosive device within the zone. Peaceful uses of nuclear energy are permitted if placed under enhanced IAEA safeguards. With Kazakhstan playing a major role in the Zone’s creation, the agreement makes tremendous progress in making a critical region with global power competition more stable. Kazakhstan’s role in the developments listed reemphasizes its critical role in global non-proliferation efforts. The United States and international community need to continue to encourage Kazakhstan’s proactive approach to nuclear security and maintaining a nuclear weapons free zone in Central Asia.

As a reminder to everyone, PONI is hosting the second installment of the "PONI Debates the Issues" series featuring JD Crouch and George Perkovich.   The topic will be on the desiriability of the vision of a world without nuclear weapons.  The event will take place from 5:30-7:30 pm at CSIS in the B1 Conference Center.  We still have a few seats available.  If you are interested in coming, please RSVP here.

North Korea and Iran remain the talk of the town in the wake of the recent launch and centrifuge declaration, respectively.  In both cases, the U.S. has been careful not to emphasize the threat, for better and worse.

North Korea

While Obama inititally told the North Koreans, "the United States would "take appropriate steps to let North Korea know that it can't threaten the safety and security of other countries with impunity,"" it is perhaps more instructive that Gates announced that the United States would not shoot down the North Korean launch unless it was headed for the United States.  The benefit of the ignore strategy is that it takes the wind out of the North Korean's sails as they try to emphasize the greatness of the DPRK by pining for control of the music in space.  Daniel Sneider's op-ed in the NYT does a good job outlining the prospect that Kim Jong-Il may in fact be on his last leg and is trying to go out with a bang.  In this sense, brushing off the North Koreans makes perfect sense.  The ineffective test will fade into the distance, or the Pacific, while the regime fights an increasingly uphill battle to maintain control.  At the same time, pretending that nothing happened when rules are broken is not a strategy like to suddenly foster compliance. Krauthammer's takes the issue to an extreme but nonetheless has a point worth keeping in mind.  The Obama administration has initiatied a diplomatic surge around the globe that will be valuable to rebuild bridges burned over the past 8 years but there does have to be more than empty threats of condemnation from the Security Council that rarely come to fruition thanks to veto power when it is viewed that international rules have been broken.