Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Follow Carnegie
- Search
- Global Resources
Global Centers
Languages
The raging violence between Israelis and Palestinians has raised fears of a wider war in the Middle East. For background on the possible use of weapons of mass destruction in future conflicts, we provide summaries on the nuclear weapon capabilities of Israel, Iraq and Iran from a forthcoming Carnegie study, <a href="http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/w.i.p/DeadlyArsenalsPage.htm">Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction</a> (June 2002). Later analyses will assess regional chemical and biological weapons capabilities and missile arsenals.
The immediate response of President Bush and his administration to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States was a success. But what comes next? A grand vision of the purposes of American power is needed not only to shape strategy, but also to sustain support from the American people and America’s allies.
This new report prepared by Rodney Jones and recently released by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, analyzes India's and Pakistan's nuclear force capabilities, policies, and postures, and their implications for military instability and conflict.
Bush administration officials say that because the United States and Russia are no longer enemies, the size of the Russian nuclear arsenal no longer matters. But that sentiment ignores the main risk from Russia: not from a deliberate nuclear attack but the possible leakage of nuclear weapons or material to would-be nuclear states or terrorist groups.
Traveling through Afghanistan, one is struck by stark contrasts and divisions. With different factions and militias ruling in different regions, the prospects for a prolonged peace seem dim--or at least would require a serious international effort. But the Bush Administration's attention has already passed to its plans for a war in Iraq, and it seems ready to forget Afghanistan once again.
NOT SINCE Secretary of State Warren Christopher returned from Europe with egg on his face in May 1993 has a high-ranking American official had such a bad week abroad as Vice President Dick Cheney just spent in the Middle East. At least that's the way it looks from the outside.
After the September 11 attacks, the global threat of radical Islamist terrorism gave the United States an opportunity to rally much of the world behind it. But by mixing up the struggle against terrorism with a very different effort at preventing nuclear proliferation, and by refusing to take the interests of other states into account, the US risks endangering itself and its closest allies.
In contrast to Kyoto—which tries to construct a comprehensive global architecture all at once—the United States should proceed step by step, starting with domestic action and then moving outward, beginning with like-minded states. It should initially address fewer greenhouse gases and use relatively simple procedures.
A continuation of the current White House policy risks a resumption of hostilities on the Korean Peninsula, but this time with a North Korea that may have the capability to carry war to U.S. territory.
If Mr Tung learns from Mr Carter's successes and failures during his second term, he will likely become an effective and respected leader. He should formulate a clear vision, establish a structure of delegation, appoint talented people as advisers, and safeguard human rights and the rule of law.
In a major, potentially disastrous development, the Bush Administration - according to news reports - intends to stop certifying to Congress that North Korea is in compliance with the agreement reached in 1994, known formally as the Agreed Framework. While the administration intends to continue its implementation of the pact, this failure to certify North Korea's compliance will only increase outside criticism of the Agreed Framework and call its successful and full implementation into doubt.