Paper
While there are notable demographic, economic, and geographic divides over AI, there is also substantial alignment between Republicans and Democrats.
- +2
Ian Klaus, Mark Baldassare, Rachel George, …
{
"authors": [],
"type": "pressRelease",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"U.S. Nuclear Policy",
"Korean Peninsula"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"United States",
"Israel",
"India",
"Pakistan",
"South Korea",
"China",
"Russia",
"United Kingdom",
"France"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy",
"Nuclear Energy"
]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE
Press Release
One Year After Prague: Assessing Obama’s Nuclear Agenda
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. George Perkovich analyzes, country by country, reactions to Obama’s nuclear agenda.
Published on Apr 5, 2010
WASHINGTON, Apr 5—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 “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.”
###
NOTES
- Perkovich profiles reactions to Obama's nuclear agenda by country
- George Perkovich is vice president for studies and director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His research focuses on nuclear strategy and nonproliferation, with a focus on South Asia and Iran. He is co-editor of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate (Carnegie Endowment, 2009).
- The Carnegie Nuclear Policy Program is an internationally acclaimed source of expertise and policy thinking on nuclear industry, nonproliferation, security, and disarmament. Its multinational staff stays at the forefront of nuclear policy issues in the United States, Russia, China, Northeast Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East.
- Press Contact: David Kampf, 202/939-2233, dkampf@ceip.org
Foreign PolicyNuclear PolicyNuclear EnergyUnited StatesIsraelIndiaPakistanSouth KoreaChinaRussiaUnited KingdomFrance
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
- 2026 Carnegie California AI Survey
- Taking the Pulse: Does the EU Have a Germany Problem?Commentary
Are Germany’s economic, industrial, and political struggles becoming a liability for the EU’s ability to rise to the geopolitical moment?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Putin Has Been a Hindrance, Not a Help, to United Russia’s Election CampaignCommentary
Russia’s ruling party would have benefited from Putin appearing as its distant patron, but as an active frontman imposing his views on the public, he has done nothing but harm both the party’s election campaign and the ruling system overall.
Andrey Pertsev
- China’s Construction of Police Training Facilities in Global South Likely to Expand Global Security LeadershipResearch
China’s police training infrastructure construction projects provide benefits to recipient countries, promote China’s image as a major global security provider, and are likely to reinforce alignment between Beijing’s security priorities and those of countries in the Global South.
- +2
Cameron Waltz, Sheena Chestnut Greitens, Kim Nguyen, …
- What Would Need to Happen to Slow AI Development?Commentary
AI capabilities are moving fast. Most institutions—including governments—can’t keep up.
Anton Leicht, Scott Singer
