Source: The Guardian

No Nukes Is Good NewsAt a special meeting chaired by Barack Obama on Thursday, the UN security council will pass a resolution that puts new teeth into the world's nuclear non-proliferation regime. It is the first fruit of the new US strategy on managing nuclear dangers.

The resolution is modest, but it boasts language even George Bush would have endorsed. Indeed, Chris Ford, who served in the Bush administration as the US special representative for non-proliferation, observed that his administration had contributed some of the best ideas in the draft. The resolution goes further than the non-proliferation treaty (NPT). It makes clear, for example, that if a state breaks the rules, it cannot avoid consequences by withdrawing from the treaty. This is a vital signal to send out.

The Bush administration could never have gotten the security council to agree to this draft. Many of the 12 non-nuclear weapon states on the council – including Mexico, Libya and Vietnam – accept it only because it embraces the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and because they believe Obama's commitment to take practical steps toward that end.

For years, non-nuclear weapon states have complained that nuclear states have failed to respect the bargain enshrined in the NPT. In return for renouncing their right to acquire nuclear weapons, non-nuclear states received promises that the existing nuclear powers would work in good faith toward the elimination of those weapons.

The end of the cold war brought high hopes for progress in nuclear disarmament, but results have been modest and sporadic, at best. In response many non-nuclear weapon states have refused to enact further, much-needed non-proliferation measures.

On 7 April, Obama renewed "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world free from nuclear weapons". Even before that various British ministers, including Gordon Brown, frequently emphasised that goal.

Obama and Brown recognise that it will be an unprecedented challenge to create the security conditions that would enable the last nuclear weapons to be dismantled, especially since the United States is committed to ensuring the security of its allies as well as itself. But they also recognise that without setting the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world, preventing nuclear proliferation will be impossible.

Obama and Brown hope to break the logjam. Their critics call them naïve, claiming that non-nuclear weapon states use the lack of progress on disarmament as a convenient excuse for not enacting non-proliferation measures that they dislike for other reasons. The new UN resolution helps to demonstrate that these critics are too pessimistic.

All states, whether they possess nuclear weapons or not, now need to build upon this promising start.

In the short term, the disarmament priority is for the US and Russia to conclude and ratify a follow-on to the 1991 strategic arms reduction treaty, which expires in December. After that, they should begin work on a more ambitious treaty, which would make much deeper cuts to nuclear weapon numbers. Meanwhile, non-nuclear weapon states should be much more willing to pressure Iran if its offer to negotiate turns out to be hollow. Iran has attended nuclear talks since 2005, but has not actually negotiated on concrete steps to build confidence that all of its nuclear activities are, as it claims, for peaceful purposes.

In the best of all possible worlds, the US and China would also ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty, though Obama will have a hard time persuading his domestic critics of its value to the country. Hopefully, Thursday's security council resolution will help convince undecided senators that the quid pro quo of non-proliferation for disarmament can be made to work.

But for now, disarmament measures long-promised and in recent years neglected, are back on the agenda – and it is starting to pay non-proliferation dividends.