Commentary
Malaysia’s chairmanship sought to fend off short-term challenges while laying the groundwork for minimizing ASEAN’s longer-term exposure to external stresses.
Elina Noor
{
"authors": [],
"type": "pressRelease",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Democracy",
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE
Press Release
Press Release: Reassessing the “Democratic Bomb”
Published on Nov 29, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 29, 2006
President Bush’s famous “Axis of Evil” speech heralded a new approach to nonproliferation. Nuclear weapons and materials were no longer a problem per se; what mattered was the character of the actors that sought to possess these weapons. The new strategy sought to eliminate bad actors – the axis of evil and terrorists – and replace them with democracies, inspired by the theory that democracies don’t go to war with each other. The recent U.S.-India nuclear deal extends the “democratic bomb” strategy by changing global nonproliferation rules to accommodate India and its nuclear arsenal because India is a friendly democracy.
In a new Carnegie Policy Brief, “Democratic Bomb: Failed Strategy,” George Perkovich acknowledges the virtues of democracy but argues that a strategy predicated on eliminating “bad” regimes and rewarding “good” ones compounds the risk of nuclear dangers in at least eleven ways, which he succinctly presents. Nuclear weapons and fissile materials are dangerous wherever they exist – because terrorists may seek them anywhere, and today’s good regime can be tomorrow’s bad. Thus, security requires strengthening universal rules, not bending them. And the U.S. does not have the luxury of refusing to deal directly with foreign leaders, however objectionable they might be, if those are the people whose nuclear behavior must be changed.
To read this Policy Brief, go to: www.CarnegieEndowment.org/NPP.
Direct link to PDF:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/PB49_final1.pdf
George Perkovich is vice-president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. An expert on Iran, South Asia, and nuclear weapons, he is the co-author of Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security (Carnegie Endowment, 2005), and the award-winning history, India’s Nuclear Bomb (University of California, 2001).
Press Contact: Trent Perrotto, 202/939-2372, tperrotto@CarnegieEndowment.org
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing cooperation between nations and promoting active international engagement by the United States. www.CarnegieEndowment.org
###
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie China
- Malaysia’s Year as ASEAN Chair: Managing Disorder
- When It Comes to Superpower Geopolitics, Malaysia Is Staunchly NonpartisanCommentary
For Malaysia, the conjunction that works is “and” not “or” when it comes to the United States and China.
Elina Noor
- Neither Comrade nor Ally: Decoding Vietnam’s First Army Drill with ChinaCommentary
In July 2025, Vietnam and China held their first joint army drill, a modest but symbolic move reflecting Hanoi’s strategic hedging amid U.S.–China rivalry.
Nguyễn Khắc Giang
- China’s Mediation Offer in the Thailand-Cambodia Border Dispute Sheds Light on Beijing’s Security Role in Southeast AsiaCommentary
The Thai-Cambodian conflict highlights the limits to China's peacemaker ambition and the significance of this role on Southeast Asia’s balance of power.
Pongphisoot (Paul) Busbarat
- China Is Determined to Hold Firm Against Trump’s PressureCommentary
Beijing believes that Washington is overestimating its own leverage and its ability to handle the trade war’s impacts.
Rick Waters, Sheena Chestnut Greitens
