Commentary
Before the next wave of EU enlargement takes place, the union needs to grapple with thorny questions of how power is distributed among its members.
Emil Sondaj Hansen, Ditte Brasso Sørensen
{
"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 Endowment for International Peace
- The Uncomfortable Truth About EU Enlargement
- What to Watch When Trump and Xi Meet in WashingtonCommentary
The real test may come after the leaders leave the room.
- +1
Sheena Chestnut Greitens, Oriana Skylar Mastro, Yukon Huang, …
- The Impacts of the Houthis’ Advance Could Extend Well Beyond Saudi ArabiaCommentary
The Horn of Africa countries are among those facing a new security calculus.
Andrew Leber, Lesley Anne Warner
- Will the Far Right Change Europe’s Russia Policy?Commentary
The European far right might fail to steer EU policy in the direction Russia wants, but they will create enough chaos inside Europe to benefit the Kremlin.
Dimitar Bechev
- The Denmark-Greenland-U.S. Agreement Needs to Stand the Test of TimeCommentary
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
