While the EU and European governments are embracing the much-lauded middle-power moment, this entails three difficult conundrums.
Richard Youngs
{
"authors": [],
"type": "pressRelease",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"U.S. Nuclear Policy"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States"
],
"topics": [
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}REQUIRED IMAGE
Leading experts from thirteen countries debate what it would take to achieve the immensely important yet equally difficult goal of reducing the world’s nuclear weapons to zero.
WASHINGTON, Apr 6—President Obama has called for a world free of nuclear weapons. But many influential people in the United States and abroad question whether this objective is desirable or feasible. In a follow-up to George Perkovich and James M. Acton’s groundbreaking paper, Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, leading experts from thirteen countries debate what it would take to achieve the immensely important yet equally difficult goal of reducing the world’s nuclear weapons to zero.
The editors note that none of the nuclear-weapon states "has an employee, let alone an inter-agency group, tasked full time with figuring out what would be required to verifiably decommission all its nuclear weapons." Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate begins the serious discussion of the conditions necessary for total disarmament.
Perkovich and Acton invited a distinguished group of current and former officials and respected defense analysts—from nuclear-armed and non–nuclear-weapon states—to recommend new paths toward disarmament and the best ways to verify and enforce new measures. Their responses are published in this volume, together with the original Adelphi Paper, and a response by Perkovich and Acton.
###
INCLUDED IN THIS VOLUME
EXCERPTS
NOTES
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.
While the EU and European governments are embracing the much-lauded middle-power moment, this entails three difficult conundrums.
Richard Youngs
Europe is facing rising populism internally as well as external pressures from Russia, China, Turkey, and the United States.
Dimitar Bechev
European NATO countries are wrestling with the possibility of U.S. disengagement from the alliance. With the continent’s security increasingly uncertain, governments must restore the credibility of their collective defense.
Hans-Dieter Lucas, Adam Thomson, Pierre Vimont
The new U.S.–Denmark–Greenland agreement will help Washington exert political, economic, and financial dominance under the guise of security. Yet, it acknowledged Copenhagen’s and Nuuk’s sovereignty on the island.
Marc Pierini
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is about to give her annual address on the state of the EU. Here’s what she won’t—but should—say.
Rym Momtaz