10/21/09

This morning brought welcome news of progress in multilateral talks with Iran over its nuclear program – and a comprehensive reminder of how US global engagement to reduce and control the threat nuclear weapons pose can pay off in dealing with Iran, North Korea and other key regional concerns.  A diplomatic deal has been struck to send Iran’s uranium to Russia to be processed and sent back to Iran as relatively harmless fuel for civilian nuclear power plants.  The deal, which must still be officially confirmed by Friday by all governments, would push back the prospect of Iran developing a nuclear weapon for a number of years.  This arrangement is the latest demonstration of diplomacy paying dividends to address immediate flashpoints while also advancing the global non-proliferation agenda.  It stands in stark contrast to the Bush administration’s record, which failed to both deal effectively with Iran’s nuclear program and stem the flow of dangerous weapons.  

At the same time that engagement is yielding results, the Administration is moving forward a global agenda to reduce deadly weapons that enjoys broad bipartisan consensus. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a major address today at the U.S. Institute of Peace to “outline key steps Washington will take to fulfill President Barack Obama's vision of a world free of nuclear weapons.” Clinton used the opportunity to send a clear message to Iran; to challenge other nations to step up and do their part, and to lay out for Americans how the START Treaty currently being negotiated with the Russians, the NPT conference next year, and the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, are all crucial steps protecting America from the spread of nuclear weapons. Yet while national security experts extol these efforts, extreme conservatives in Congress, such as Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), continue to take irresponsible positions that make America less safe by opposing these responsible steps to reduce the threat to America from nuclear weapons.

Engagement leads to possible breakthrough over Iran’s nuclear program.  In Vienna, “Iranian negotiators (on Wednesday) expressed support for a deal that - if accepted by their leaders - would delay Tehran's ability to make nuclear weapons by sending most of its existing enriched uranium to Russia for processing, diplomats said,” according to the Associated Press.  The Guardian’s Julian Borger reported on why the deal was not fully finalized in Vienna: “[t]he big decision on Iran's uranium stockpile has still to be made by Tehran, and it now has two days to do it. After more than two days of hard bargaining, it now looks like the Iranian delegation in Vienna did not have final authority to sign away most of the country's stock of enriched uranium (arguably Iran's greatest strategic asset) for processing abroad.”  The AP elaborated on the implications of the deal, explaining that “[i]t would commit Iran to turn over more than 2,600 pounds (1,200 kilograms) of low-enriched uranium. That would significantly ease immediate fears about Iran's nuclear program, since 2,205 pounds (1,000 kilograms) is the commonly accepted amount of low-enriched uranium needed to produce weapons-grade uranium.”  Washington Independent reporter Spencer Ackerman wrote that Iranian acceptance of the plan would mean that the Obama administration’s “diplomatic efforts have, for the first time, resulted in concrete steps that make it harder for the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon, buying time and cooling tensions in the post-Qom diplomatic scene.”  Ploughshares President and non-proliferation expert Joe Cirincione indicated to Ackerman that “any agreement reached in Vienna will bolster the Obama administration against its critics that argue, as probable 2012 GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney did on Monday, that any diplomatic outreach to Iran on the nuclear weapon is doomed to failure, a position embraced by the Bush administration. ‘Under the Bush administration’s watch, [Iran] got closer to bomb than it had ever been,’ he said. ‘The bluster, the threats of regime change — not only didn’t it work, it made things worse.’” [Associated Press, 10/21/09. The Guardian, 10/21/09. Washington Independent, 10/20/09]

Obama administration is systematically advancing a global agenda to reduce and control nuclear weapons. Today at the United States Institute of Peace, Secretary of State Clinton laid out the Administration’s roadmap to move forward on all facets of the danger posed by nuclear weapons.   Already, these steps include:

• Re-committed the U.S. to supporting and strengthening the non-proliferation regime. In his speech before the General Assembly in late September, President Obama renewed his pledge to reduce the threat posed by nuclear weapons:  “We will pursue a new agreement with Russia to substantially reduce our strategic warheads and launchers. We will move forward with ratification of the Test Ban Treaty, and work with others to bring the Treaty into force so that nuclear testing is permanently prohibited. We will complete a Nuclear Posture Review that opens the door to deeper cuts, and reduces the role of nuclear weapons. And we will call upon countries to begin negotiations in January on a treaty to end the production of fissile material for weapons.” [President Obama, 9/23/09]
• Committed the Administration to the passage of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  The Nuclear Threat Initiative writes that “the Obama administration has committed to ‘immediately and aggressively’ pursuing U.S. ratification and working with the other Annex 2 States and the international community to achieve the Treaty's entry into force. There is an emerging bipartisan consensus in the United States, signified most notably by the Wall Street Journal article by George P. Shultz et al. calling for a world free of nuclear weapons, that the CTBT constitutes a core element of the international non-proliferation regime designed to counter the threats posed by the existence of nuclear weapons. [NTI, 10/8/09]
• Reached an agreement with Russia for limiting strategic nuclear warheads, building a framework for a START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) follow-on treaty. As arms control expert Steve Andreasen says, "They agreed that in terms of strategic nuclear warheads to be limited, the two sides would basically work to get to a range of 1,500 to 1,675 warheads on both sides. And they also agreed that on the question of limiting nuclear delivery vehicles, they would agree to limitations in a range between 500 and 1,100. And so by agreeing to set those ranges, they've given their negotiators a sense of direction and also a sense of what the outcome needs to be in terms of acceptable parameters for this new follow-on accord." [Steve Andreasen, via VOA, 7/14/09]
• Obtained international support for a resolution to strengthen the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The Administration gained the support of the Russians and the Chinese for a resolution to “strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in a Security Council session” at the U.N.  The treaty sets the core international standard that discourages countries from seeking nuclear weapons – a norm that has influenced Brazil, South Africa, Ukraine, Japan and other key nations to remain non-nuclear or even renounce existing weapons. [NY Times, 9/24/09]
• US is prioritizing next year’s NPT review conference, with the goal of reinvigorating the NPT.  The Arms Control Association writes, “By making good on past arms control commitments and by working to improve the international inspections system, President Obama hopes to ensure a successful NPT review conference in 2010 and a stronger treaty thereafter. The president also plans to reenergize diplomatic efforts to restrain North Korea and Iran’s nuclear programs.” [ACA, 8/13/09]
• The Obama administration has gotten the international community to “step up” on Iran. As the Washington Post put it, “When President Obama announced efforts to curb Iran's nuclear program through diplomatic engagement, the concern in Israel was that open-ended talks would allow the Islamic republic time to continue toward its suspected goal of developing a nuclear weapon. But as that engagement took its first major step [in] Geneva, the Israelis were tempering their doubts…There is a sense in the past few days that the concern of the international community has gone up a step.” [Washington Post, 10/02/09]
• At historic UN Security Council Summit, Obama achieves “first comprehensive action” since the mid 1990s.  A UN press release reads, “At a historic summit meeting presided over by President Barack Obama of the United States and addressed by 13 other Heads of State and Government, the Security Council pledged its backing this morning for broad progress on long-stalled efforts to staunch the proliferation of nuclear weapons and ensure reductions in existing weapons stockpiles, as well as control of fissile material... Unanimously adopting resolution 1887 (2009) in its first comprehensive action on nuclear issues since the mid-1990s, Council members emphasized that the body had a primary responsibility to address nuclear threats, and that all situations of non-compliance with nuclear treaties should be brought to its attention.” [UN Security council, 9/24/09]
• Replaced a failed missile defense shield with a more functional system- gaining support from Russia for greater nonproliferation efforts.  By ending the failed missile defense program last month, the Administration bolstered relations with Russia, a key partner for addressing nuclear proliferation. The Washington Post reported, “the abrupt reversal of U.S. defense policy immediately brought plaudits from Russian officials, who had viewed the prospect of an American missile shield system on their country's western border as an affront. The shift raised the possibility of greater cooperation between the two powers on containing the Iranian threat and in negotiating an extension of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, which expires in early December.”  [Washington Post, 9/18/09. NY Times, 9/24/09]
• Updating the role of nuclear weapons in US security.  Secretary Clinton made clear today that the upcoming reviews of US strategy will take a hard look at how the role of nuclear weapons should be adjusted or reduced in a 21st century where we face threats like small-scale insurgencies, terrorism, and cyber-warfare, against which nuclear weapons are useless or counter-productive.

Conservative opposition to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons makes America less safe, bucks bipartisan consensus, and is far out of the mainstream. In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Senator Kyl railed against the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty saying that, “Ten years ago this month the U.S. Senate rejected the treaty, and the reasons for doing so are even stronger today.” However, Kyl’s claims are unfounded.  The United States led the effort to negotiate the CTBT and since 1992 and the United States has not tested a nuclear weapon for almost two decades, including during Republican and Democratic administrations (including the Bush administration). Is Kyl really advocating that the U.S. begin testing nuclear weapons?  His opposition to ratifying a treaty that the United States already adheres to – and one that hinders other countries from developing nuclear weapons – not only makes America less safe, but reduces the tools at our disposal to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. [Jon Kyl, WS Journal, 10/20/09]

Additionally, bipartisan national security experts agree that strengthening the non-proliferation regime, including ratifying CTBT, is of vital importance to protecting national and global security:

• A recent report from a Council on Foreign relations task force on non-proliferation chaired by Brent Scowcroft and William Perry recommends that the U.S. “Seek to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), first assembling an expert group to analyze the policy and technical issues related to the CTBT and then presenting the treaty for Senate ratification; if successful in ratifying the treaty, work with other holdout nations to do the same.” [Council on Foreign Relations, 5/09]
• George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn endorsed CTBT ratification among other steps, writing in the Wall Street Journal that, “Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage -- to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world... We believe that a major effort should be launched by the United States to produce a positive answer through concrete stages…” [George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn,  WS Journal, 01/4/07]
• Shultz has said specifically, [Republican Senators] “might have been right voting against it some years ago, but they would be right voting for it now, based on these new facts.” [Shultz via ACA, 4/17/09].
• A 2002 report from the National Academy of Sciences said that: “Some have asserted, in the CTBT debate, that confidence in the enduring stockpile will inevitably degrade over time in the absence of nuclear testing... But we see no reason that the capabilities of those mechanisms—surveillance techniques, diagnostics, analytical and computational tools, science-based understanding, remanufacturing capabilities—cannot grow at least as fast as the challenge they must meet.” It goes on to clearly say, “We do not believe that nuclear testing is essential to maintaining these design and evaluation capabilities...” [Technical Issues Related to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, 2002]

What We’re Reading

Afghan presidential candidate Abdullah Abdullah accepted a runoff election with incumbent Hamid Karzai on November the 7th, but he has not ruled out the possibility of joining a national unity government.

Twin suicide bombings targeting Pakistani universities kill five people and injure 22. As the military’s offensive in South Waziristan continues, fears of a renewed refugee crisis grow. The Pakistani Army tries to reconnect with allied tribes in South Waziristan, and public opinion is mixed on how successful the military’s incursion will be.

A former State Department employee has been charged with corruption for accepting kickbacks for steering reconstruction contracts for projects in Iraq.

American military officials clarify the role of the new missile defense system in Europe.  Vice President Joseph Biden heads to Poland to explain the US’s new role in the revamped missile defense system.

A detained Iranian-American scholar has been sentenced to 12 years in prison for his participation in electoral protests in Iran.

The Supreme Court agrees to hear the case of Uighurs challenging their detention at Guantanamo Bay because they were determined to not be a national security threat yet have not been released.

The Brazilian public is markedly embarrassed by the drug violence that resulted in a downed police helicopter one mile from the future Olympic stadium, with concerns more violence will jeopardized needed foreign investment for Olympic-related infrastructure.

American and Japanese military officials have yet to reach an agreement on the US military base in Okinawa.

The arrest of two senior ETA leaders lead many in Spain to hope that their terrorist campaign for an autonomous Basque region will recede.

Taiwanese officials are concerned about the Chinese military buildup of assets to be used against their island despite growing political and commercial ties between Taiwan and the mainland.

Seeking work and freedom from prosecution, African Muslims are trying to immigrate to Israel through Egypt, and are getting mixed into concerns about weapons and militants smuggling.

Commentary of the Day

The New York Times is heartened by Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s acceptance of a runoff election, but hopes the new election is better resourced and monitored to avoid another round of fraud. Rajan Menon thinks there isn’t enough time to set up a credible election before November 7th.

Jameel Jaffer argues that legislation to prevent the publishing of additional photos of detainee abuse should not be supported, believing such a law will prevent current and future accountability.

The Washington Post believes the Supreme Court’s decision to review the detained Uighurs at Guantanamo Bay shows that they will rule in their favor, and that the White House and the Congress should go ahead and find a legal mechanism to grant them their freedom.