REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

article

Comment on Secretary Abraham's Remarks to the United Nations

Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham's speech to the United Nations on November 5 was a clear and definitive public statement of the Bush Administration's support for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Speaking in a joint appearance with Russia's Minister of Atomic Energy, Alexander Rumyantsev, Abraham underscored the good working relationship that the two men have cultivated in office: "For two years, we have worked closely together to reduce proliferation threats by personally overseeing the implementation of critical bilateral cooperative nonproliferation programs."

Published on November 24, 2003
Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham's speech to the United Nations on November 5 was a clear and definitive public statement of the Bush Administration's support for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Speaking in a joint appearance with Russia's Minister of Atomic Energy, Alexander Rumyantsev, Abraham underscored the good working relationship that the two men have cultivated in office: "For two years, we have worked closely together to reduce proliferation threats by personally overseeing the implementation of critical bilateral cooperative nonproliferation programs."

Praising the progress made in these joint efforts, Abraham went on to state a clear commitment to the NPT: "If I may speak for Minister Rumyantsev, allow me to say that our nations are committed to this progress because we believe in the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We both take seriously our responsibilities and commitments under Article VI."

Abraham then catalogued the concrete steps that the United States and Russia believe they have accomplished in implementation of Article VI, which commits the nuclear weapons states under the NPT to eventual elimination of their nuclear arsenals. In the Secretary's words, these steps include the following:

· "Our commitment is exemplified by the Moscow Treaty, which will require about a two-thirds decrease in each nation's strategic nuclear warheads-to between 1700 and 2200-by 2012."
· "Working together, we have taken steps to end the production of weapons-usable fissile material; to dispose of excess defense material-including that removed from dismantled nuclear weapons; and to redirect nuclear resources in Russia and elsewhere toward peaceful, commercial applications."
· "In 1997, we entered into the bilateral Plutonium Production Reactor Agreement with Russia that codified the shutdown of 14 U.S. plutonium production reactors, along with 10 such reactors in Russia."
· "We are continuing to take steps to dispose of some 700 tons of fissile material declared in excess of defense needs-including a significant amount of material removed from nuclear weapons."
· "The United States has not produced fissile material for nuclear weapons for more than a decade."

Abraham ended his catalogue with a strong statement of support for the NPT: "I cite these examples because I think it is important that you know the depths of our commitment to nonproliferation, and to the NPT itself. I believe that the NPT and the organization most associated with it, the International Atomic Energy Agency, are properly at the center of the nuclear nonproliferation regime."

This clear and definitive statement of support for the Non-Proliferation Treaty from the Bush Administration is very welcome. However, Secretary Abraham did not comment on certain important trends in the Administration's policies, which seem to contradict the commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In particular, the FY 2004 defense budget recently passed out of Congress removes, at the Administration's request, a budgetary constraint on conducting research into new, small nuclear weapons. The Bush Administration's support for resuming research on new nuclear weapons appears to contradict their commitment, as stated by Secretary Abraham, to Article VI of the NPT.

Additional Resources:

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.