Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA few years back, when President Bush described Libya's decision to put aside its programs for nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, he applauded the Qaddafi regime for abandoning its quest for "weapons of mass murder."
When it became clear that Iran was seeking to develop its own capacity to enrich uranium the Bush administration engaged in a vigorous campaign of saber-rattling that included military threats in the form of ominous statements that "no options are off the table" in addressing Iran's program.
After years of calling for sanctions and other "tough" measures, the Bush administration engaged in serious negotiations with North Korea about its nuclear weapons programs.
And the administration justified its war with Iraq in large part by scaring the American public about the need to act quickly to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime, before waiting for the "smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
This record of anti-proliferation activity - however uneven in its application - certainly gives the impression that stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is a top administration priority. But a closer look at its policy on this issue suggests that nothing could be further from the truth.
Perhaps the clearest example of President Bush's "do as I say, not as I do" policy is the Department of Energy's "Complex 2030" plan to build a new generation of nuclear weapons. With a potential price tag of $175 billion or more over the next two decades, the initiative calls for the replacement of every deployed warhead in the U.S. arsenal and the construction of a series of new facilities, including a multi-billion dollar plutonium production plant. It's hard to tell other countries that building nuclear weapons is dangerous and unnecessary while the United States proceeds with a plan that will have us in the nuclear weapons business well into the middle of this century.
A second thread in the policy of nuclear hypocrisy involves the myth that there can be "good" nuclear weapons states and "bad" nuclear weapons states, based entirely on which countries happen to be U.S. allies. When India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons in 1998, they received a brief slap on the wrist from the Clinton administration; no outrage, no long-term sanctions, and no serious attempts at negotiations to cap and reverse this dangerous development. In fact, in the past few years these countries have essentially been rewarded with large military packages ($5 billion worth of F-16 combat aircraft for
Pakistan) and proposals to transfer nuclear technology (the provocative U.S.-India nuclear deal).
And of course, Israel's estimated arsenal of 200 nuclear weapons is never spoken of by U.S. officials, and certainly has never figured in any public discussions about how to achieve peace in the Middle East.
Despite acknowledging in the 2004 presidential campaign that the greatest danger to U.S. security could be the acquisition of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons by a terrorist group, President Bush has failed to accelerate programs designed to eliminate or secure loose nuclear weapons or nuclear bomb-making materials in Russia. This is a huge strategic blunder when one considers that the massive Russian stockpiles are the most likely source for terrorists seeking the bomb.
If this administration or the next is serious about stemming the spread of nuclear weapons, it needs to abandon plans to develop new nuclear weapons; pressure its allies to reduce and eventually eliminate their nuclear weapons programs; and invest more resources in putting bombs and bomb-making materials out of terrorist reach. Perhaps most importantly of all, it must get back to the business of radically reducing our own nuclear arsenal, in parallel with efforts to organize a global summit on reducing the nuclear danger. A policy of nuclear hypocrisy is not just unethical - it is also an unacceptable danger to the future of humanity.
William D. Hartung is a Senior Research Fellow at the World Policy Institute at the New School in New York.
5 Comments so far
Show AllThe US need to show substantial and effective leadership in the area of nuclear non-proliferation, and needs to do so in the very near future.
The area surrounding the Iranian Bushehr nuclear power station, as well as the Yongbyon and Taechon reactors in North Korea, at least out to the effective blast radius, are thus far intact and unscathed. Effective leadership would ensure that the sites are either immediately dismantled, or otherwise rendered voluntarily or involuntarily vaporized by actions from within or from without.
Terrorists are holding our world hostage now; nuclear terrorists would be unthinkable. This proliferation must end by choice, or by force.
Yes, Chuck, I remember "duck and cover" too. Amazing that a simple desk can prevent one from being vaporized in a nuclear attack.
And ahro has it right, too. But then, Israel does not have to play by any rules but those it makes up along the way. I think it's called "supremacism."
No need to be so pessimistic!
When I was a youngster, there were stockpiles of these Weapons of Mass Insanity, enough to destroy the planet some 100 times -- but today, we be hard pressed to destroy it even 30-35 times. Don't tell me that isn't progress!
Hypocrisy is the right choice of word. I am all for a nuclear-free ME (and the world BTW). But it starts with Israel disarming their WMDs first before asking Iran, or anyone else for that matter to not pursue it. Israel has, and still practices pre-emptive strikes. And also have threatened Iran. And they expect Iran to cower? hmmm.....
The USA is NOT showing SuperPower leadership on this global issue of nuclear weapon proliferation and on nuclear disarmament. Until the USA lives up to it's OBLIGATION under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to act in a manner that works to disarm the existing nucelar weapons club, I do not see how it can be a surprising development that other nations will do as the USA does versus doing as the USA says.
The lesson of N.Korea and Iraq to other nations is that if you are threatened by the USA militarily a reasonable strategy is to develop nucelar weapsons to avoid the consequences of aggression against your nation by the US military. Is this a surprising conclusion that nations would arm themselves with nucelar weapons to protect themselves in a world wehre nuclear powers are breathing down your neck in various ways? No it is not.
We deserve, the entire world deserves, better leadership from the USA that claims special status as the worlds policeman, example setter(supposedly) and sole remaining SuperPower. We are being let down by the USA on this issue of nucelar proliferation. We ALL deserve better on this important issue than "do as I say not as I do".
Americans need to get their heads out of the sand on the largest TRUE long term security threat to them. The REAL long term threat to the USA is wrapped in mushroom clouds that will result, eventually, if the USA does NOT show leaderhsip to help disarm the nucelar weapons nations. It is a done deal that eventually the worst will come to pass here in the USA. How long can we play with fire and not get burned? Not forever IMO.