Paper
George Perkovich
{
"authors": [
"George Perkovich"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [
"U.S. Nuclear Policy"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [
"Eurasia in Transition"
],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States"
],
"topics": [
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
The Obama Nuclear Agenda One Year After Prague
President Obama should assess whether any other leaders of major countries are seriously prepared to pursue a nuclear-weapon-free world. If some are, he should invite them to join him in detailing a ten-year action plan to minimize the dangers posed by fissile materials and maximize the potential of peaceful nuclear energy.
Published on Mar 30, 2010
A year ago in Prague President Obama declared America’s commitment to seeking a world free of nuclear weapons. Obama's vision has been misinterpreted by the right and the left and, more importantly, key countries have not done enough to help achieve progress, concludes a new paper by George Perkovich that analyzes, country by country, reactions to Obama’s nuclear agenda.
The landmark speech presented an agenda for nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation, and counterterrorism. Upcoming events—the results of the Nuclear Posture Review, the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in New York, and the ratification of the new START treaty between the United States and Russia—will show whether other leaders in the United States and around the world are willing to join Obama.
Key Conclusions
- The United States can’t do it alone. America alone cannot change the calculations of Russia, China, France, Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea—countries that balk at many, and in some cases all, of the steps required to begin abolishing nuclear arsenals. And key non–nuclear-weapon states passively resist necessary steps.
- Obama can’t do it alone in the United States. The president lacks sufficient help from his own Cabinet and leading congressional Democrats.
- Eliminating nuclear arsenals requires stronger political and security ties. The elimination of nuclear arsenals must progress in a co-evolutionary process with improvements in political-security relations.
- More realistic defense strategies and capabilities are essential. NATO and Asian allies are uncertain over how to deploy more realistic methods to deter or redress today’s threats.
We have a "a talented president ready to lead a long-term campaign to remove the existential threats posed by nuclear weapons, but as yet lacking sufficient colleagues and followers to make it happen," writes Perkovich. "To get from here to there—from today’s world to one without nuclear weapons—requires a collection of leaders willing to do the unglamorous, complicated work of strengthening cooperation and rules one year at a time."
Read more on International Reactions to Obama's nuclear agenda
About the Author
George Perkovich
Japan Chair for a World Without Nuclear Weapons, Senior Fellow
George Perkovich is the Japan Chair for a World Without Nuclear Weapons and a senior fellow in the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Nuclear Policy Program. He works primarily on nuclear deterrence, nonproliferation, and disarmament issues, and is leading a study on nuclear signaling in the 21st century.
- How to Assess Nuclear ‘Threats’ in the Twenty-First Century
- “A House of Dynamite” Shows Why No Leader Should Have a Nuclear TriggerCommentary
George Perkovich
Recent Work
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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
- The U.S. Risks Much, but Gains Little, with IranCommentary
In an interview, Hassan Mneimneh discusses the ongoing conflict and the myriad miscalculations characterizing it.
Michael Young
- The Greatest Dangers May Lie AheadCommentary
In an interview, Nicole Grajewski discusses the military dimension of the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran.
Michael Young
- Firepower Against WillpowerCommentary
In an interview, Naysan Rafati assesses the first week that followed the U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran.
Michael Young
- What Is Israel’s Plan in Lebanon?Commentary
At heart, to impose unconditional surrender on Hezbollah and uproot the party among its coreligionists.
Yezid Sayigh
- Bombing Campaigns Do Not Bring About Democracy. Nor Does Regime Change Without a Plan.Commentary
Just look at Iraq in 1991.
Marwan Muasher
