The New Realism of Arms Control

This article was co-authored with Ploughshares Fund research assistant Benjamin Loehrke.

This week, UK Foreign Minister David Miliband told a small gathering at the New America Foundation that Britain was serious about nuclear disarmament. So are a lot of people. Arms control is back, big time.

It is not just liberals and progressives. Arms control is the new realism. Conservatives who just a few years ago condemned treaties as "the illusion of security" are now embracing agreements to reduce nuclear arms.

James Schelsinger, former Republican secretary of defense and energy, just endorsed a new treaty with Russia, "The moment appears ripe for a renewal of arms control with Russia, and this bodes well for a continued reductions in the nuclear arsenal," said the US Strategic Commission he co-chairs. Meanwhile, former Republican national security advisor Brent Scowcroft, who once opposed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, is now "cautiously optimistic" that the administration can get it ratified.

What's Going On?

Schlesinger once led the charge against further nuclear reductions and helped frame the Bush administration's alternative approach. "The necessary target for arms control is to constrain those who desire to acquire nuclear weapons," he said in his 2000 article, "The Demise of Arms Control?" In this view, the threat comes from other states, and a large, robust US nuclear arsenal was needed to counter proliferation. But last week Schlesinger retreated. The commission whose leadership he shares with former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry reported to Congress "the United States must seek additional cooperative measures of a political kind, including for example arms control and nonproliferation."

Brent Scowcroft is a perennial realist and represents a different wing of the Republican Party. He was never ideologically opposed to negotiated reductions with the Russians. However, in 1999 he opposed the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty. Last week, Scowcroft also shifted. The Council on Foreign Relations Task Force he co-chaired with the incredibly busy Bill Perry recommended the Senate ratify the nuclear test ban he once questioned. They also agreed that "U.S.-Russia relationship is ripe for a new formal arms control agreement," one "that would reflect current defense needs and realities and would result in deeper arms reductions."

Behind the Shift

Over the last eight years, nuclear threats grew and the Bush policies failed. As the threats increased from Iran, Pakistan and nuclear terrorism, these issues moved to the forefront of national security debates. The strategic landscape shifted beneath conservatives' feet, and they are trying to regain their footing. Many are now rejecting the ideological rigidity that led directly to the policy failures and are moving towards a new realism, a balance of deterrence and diplomacy.

President Barack Obama is forcing the change. He transformed US nuclear policy with his speech in Prague April 5. Turning campaign promises into government policy, he stated "clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." He detailed practical steps towards that goal, including "immediately and aggressively pursuing US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty."

His officials are fanning out like icebreakers on frozen seas, opening up new passages to Europe, Russia and Asia. Some routes, like those to North Korea, are still blocked. But others show signs of rapid progress. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is hopeful of quick agreement on joint reductions, "The U.S. approach seems very constructive to me."

Schlesinger is still a nuclear hawk opposed to even attempting nuclear disarmament. Scowcroft still favors a large US nuclear arsenal. But both (and many of their conservative colleagues) have shifted. While not endorsing Obama's ultimate goal, they support several of his preliminary steps. That is enough for now. The key is to forge broad agreement on the immediate policies whose fulfillment can build confidence in the efficacy of following moves.

The New York Times, editorializing on the US shift, underscored the realism of Obama's policies:

Two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia and the United States together still have more than 20,000 nuclear weapons. It is time to focus on the 21st-century threats: states like Iran building nuclear weapons and terrorists plotting to acquire their own. Until this country convincingly redraws its own nuclear strategy and reduces its arsenal, it will not have the credibility and political weight to confront those threats.

If Obama holds firmly to his ultimate goal, it seems that prospect are improving for building a bipartisan consensus on the treaties and diplomacy that can help realize his vision.

Comments

[arvay]

Happily, the Obama administration has taken the first step toward reining in that nuclear force that no one so far has been "allowed" to name -- Israel's 200 nuclear weapons.

If any other nuclear-armed state was threatening to attack another nations the way Israel is threatening Iran, the world would -- and should -- be in an uproar.

The world needs to know that Israel thinks it can do with so many nukes, more than Pakistan's arsenal. They are useless against what actually threatens Israel's existence -- a restive and growing Palestinian population in the West Bank, Lebanon and Gaza.

Are any of these weapons aimed at Europe? There are enough wacky Israeli parties and politicians to make us think of some insane Masada-Got­terdammeru­ng scenario.

It's clear that the world needs to compel Israel to open its nuclear facilities for inspection and clearly state its intentions. For openers, reporters need to ask Netenyahu to clarify these points when he visits the US.

Israel's nuclear arsenal is a prime destabilizing factor in the Mideast and a logical reason for Iran and others to develop their own. They represent one of the two most dangerous fuses leading to a nuclear disaster. India-Pakistan would create a human tragedy on an unparalleled scale, nuclear war in the Mideast would do the same, plus possibly irradiate 50 percent of the world's oil producing areas.

This item needs to go to the top of the agenda.

[AirForceBlue]

"It's clear that the world needs to compel Israel....­..........­.......cle­arly state its intentions­."

Israel has repeatedly stated clearly its intentions within the two words, 'Never Again.' Anyone endorsing Israel's surrendering their nukes is naive, at best. Jews have been persecuted throughout history partly through their own willingness to negotiate, only to be betrayed. The Holocaust changed that.

Go to Israel and witness a wondrous nation's modernity achieved from a single-minded goal to allow Jews survival without persecution. Then visit any Arab/Persian country unwilling to exist with Israel's existence. You'll see the stifling presence of police on every corner, ominous gazes from religious mullahs, and the absence of 'intermingling,' (except in the case of Iran's rigid form).

No, Israel is not foolish enough to surrender again, this time in the giving up of their nukes. Instead, the accent should be on pressuring the other MidEast contries to adopt a civilized approach to life on this planet.

[research]

Since nuke power is the same tech as nuke bombs,

We must also wind down nuke power.

WIth waste BioChar and 3 cents Rooftop solar ,

we can get all the energy we need,

Without increasing the risk of

Global Thermonuclear War.

[bayside]

Obama walk the talk..

[Bladernr1001]

"Over the last eight years, nuclear threats grew and the Bush policies failed."

What policies are you referring to?