Eliminating Nuclear Threats – A Practical Agenda for Global Policymakers

The International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament’s latest report, Eliminating Nuclear Threats – A Practical Agenda for Global Policymakers, outlines practical policy options designed to:

• make progress on today’s proliferation challenges.


• produce positive outcomes at the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.


• ensure the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.


• move to a world free of nuclear weapons.

Carnegie hosted an event to mark the U.S. launch of the report. Commission Co-Chair Gareth Evans described the report as unique from similar past endeavors because of its pragmatism, comprehensiveness, and the diverse views and backgrounds it represents. Commissioner William Perry, and Advisory Board member Nobuyasu Abe joined Evans to discuss the report’s recommendations. Carnegie’s Jessica Mathews moderated.

The report’s main findings are grouped into short, medium, and long term steps governments should take to abolish nuclear weapons. These steps included:

Short Term

• Unilateral changes in nuclear doctrine to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons in national security strategies.


• Multilateral efforts such as securing the entry-into-force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and negotiation of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT).


• Resolution of the standoffs with Iran and North Korea.

Medium Term

• Deeper reductions in nuclear arsenals.


• Progress on “parallel security issues” such as missile proliferation, conventional and biological weapons, and space policy.

Long Term (post 2025)

• Creating and implementing a satisfactory verification and enforcement regime to detect and penalize violators of the ban.


• Addressing the geopolitics of a world without nuclear weapons.

Evans highlighted three basic themes in the report:

• First, that it is “sheer dumb luck” that the world has not yet suffered a nuclear holocaust.


• Second, that the combined risks posed by extant warheads, nuclear proliferation, and the abuse of nuclear technology are significant enough to merit immediate action.


• Third, that the international community should strive for complete disarmament rather than settle for very small arsenals.

Nuclear India

The panelists discussed the implications of the 2008 U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement and the related decision by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to approve nuclear trade with India, which has not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). Perry and Evans agreed that while it was important to bring India “into the tent” of the global nonproliferation regime, the deal itself had significant flaws. Abe added that individual states may decide the extent of their cooperation with India and exercise “discipline” if they so choose.

U.S. Nuclear Posture Review

Evans said that the Obama administration’s forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review provides the United States with several opportunities:

• to shore up its bargaining position at the NPT Review Conference.


• to build international support for new nonproliferation provisions.


• to make progress toward disarmament.


• to make a clear statement on nuclear doctrine that limits the role of nuclear weapons to the deterrence of nuclear attacks. Such a restriction on the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security planning would pay dividends not just at the Review Conference, Evans said, but at the Conference on Disarmament, in the IAEA Board of Governors, and even in the UN Security Council.

START

The panel also tackled the implications and prospects for ratification of the forthcoming U.S.-Russia Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Evans expressed concern that military and political figures in Europe and Russia might argue against a future bilateral arms reduction agreement with Russia. Other potential barriers to a future agreement include the fate of tactical nuclear weapons. Based on open sources, experts estimate that Russia fields at least 3000 of these short-range nuclear weapons, while the United States is widely believed to maintain 200 to 300 short range bombs on European bases in non-nuclear-armed NATO member states. Evans rejected creating a distinction between strategic and tactical arms. “A nuke is a nuke,” Evans said. The distinction pales in comparison with the destruction these weapons are capable of causing.

Nevertheless, Evans urged the United States and Russia to “keep the momentum going” after the new START agreement is completed, to prepare the ground for future reductions. Perry agreed with Evans’s comments, and added that it is both possible and potentially rewarding for the United States and Russia to collaborate on missile defense and other strategic issues.

The Carnegie Endowment is an Associated Research Center for the Commission. The International Commission is a joint initiative of the Australian and Japanese governments.