French Doubts about White House Visions
Published in Le Figaro
(France) on 11 April 2010
by Isabelle Lasserre (link to original)
While France officially applauds the nuclear disarmament initiatives of Barack Obama, it feels “out of competition” as far as disarmament strategy is concerned.
Officially, Paris applauds the nuclear disarmament initiatives of Barack Obama. At the Élysée Palace, the French consider the American president “correct to want to advance on all fronts."
"For this tremendous undertaking, we are at his side,” they emphasized.
Seemingly, the “undertaking” launched in Prague a year ago by the new American president, who dreams of a nuclear-free world, is taking a giant step forward. The Russians and the Americans have finally agreed to renew the strategic disarmament treaty, START, thus launching a normalization of their relations; the American Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) has reduced the role of deterrence; communication experts at the White House have managed to make the Washington summit a success before it even begins . . . In short, all is well in the best of worlds.
The reality is, in fact, a bit different. First, there are the visions. Obama's vision, even if he signs on to a project for the very long term, sometimes generates controversy on both sides of the Atlantic. In a general context of proliferation, fueled daily by Iran and North Korea, many feel that it is dangerous for the nuclear superpowers to lower their guard too quickly. France, which has already greatly reduced the size of its deterrent force to maintain it at a strict level of adequacy, believes that it is the ultimate guarantee of its security and independence and also feels “out of competition” as far as strategic disarmament is concerned.
Proliferation is Spreading
Next, there are concrete advances. The new START “is not an agreement to reduce nuclear weapons and is only the illusion of disarmament. It’s in fact simply a matter of an agreement to control weapons, in the sense in which it was carried out during the time of the cold war,” said Bruno Tertrais, researcher at the Foundation for Strategic Research (FSR). Between Russians and Americans, despite appearances, everything is not settled. Certain appendices could still be subject to negotiation. The disagreement over the American antimissile defense plan in Europe is not settled. The day of the signing, the Russian government insisted that it could withdraw from the treaty if it wanted.
Finally, the ratification of the new treaty by the American Senate cannot be taken for granted. Now, a failure in Congress would have immediate consequences on the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) that Obama would also like to establish.
A result of a compromise in the United States, the American Nuclear Posture Review is supposed to convince less well-off countries to reinforce the nonproliferation regime, or even, eventually, help certain countries renounce their programs. But this is doubtful, specialists comment. From Pyongyang to Teheran to Islamabad, proliferation is spreading like never before. As for the Review Conference on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which is to begin in May, it is not taking place under the best auspices, as many countries feel that the nuclear superpowers have not kept their commitments as far as disarmament is concerned.
Will the Americans follow through on their initiatives? Nothing is less certain. “Some think that the American nuclear sequence is closed for 2010. Considering the American system, a president has nothing to gain with the nuclear issue in political terms, but everything to lose vis-à-vis Congress,” commented Bruno Tertrais. In Paris, specialists go further and definitively announce the death of Global Zero, the international initiative launched in 2008, aiming for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Officially, Paris applauds the nuclear disarmament initiatives of Barack Obama. At the Élysée Palace, the French consider the American president “correct to want to advance on all fronts."
"For this tremendous undertaking, we are at his side,” they emphasized.
Seemingly, the “undertaking” launched in Prague a year ago by the new American president, who dreams of a nuclear-free world, is taking a giant step forward. The Russians and the Americans have finally agreed to renew the strategic disarmament treaty, START, thus launching a normalization of their relations; the American Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) has reduced the role of deterrence; communication experts at the White House have managed to make the Washington summit a success before it even begins . . . In short, all is well in the best of worlds.
The reality is, in fact, a bit different. First, there are the visions. Obama's vision, even if he signs on to a project for the very long term, sometimes generates controversy on both sides of the Atlantic. In a general context of proliferation, fueled daily by Iran and North Korea, many feel that it is dangerous for the nuclear superpowers to lower their guard too quickly. France, which has already greatly reduced the size of its deterrent force to maintain it at a strict level of adequacy, believes that it is the ultimate guarantee of its security and independence and also feels “out of competition” as far as strategic disarmament is concerned.
Proliferation is Spreading
Next, there are concrete advances. The new START “is not an agreement to reduce nuclear weapons and is only the illusion of disarmament. It’s in fact simply a matter of an agreement to control weapons, in the sense in which it was carried out during the time of the cold war,” said Bruno Tertrais, researcher at the Foundation for Strategic Research (FSR). Between Russians and Americans, despite appearances, everything is not settled. Certain appendices could still be subject to negotiation. The disagreement over the American antimissile defense plan in Europe is not settled. The day of the signing, the Russian government insisted that it could withdraw from the treaty if it wanted.
Finally, the ratification of the new treaty by the American Senate cannot be taken for granted. Now, a failure in Congress would have immediate consequences on the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) that Obama would also like to establish.
A result of a compromise in the United States, the American Nuclear Posture Review is supposed to convince less well-off countries to reinforce the nonproliferation regime, or even, eventually, help certain countries renounce their programs. But this is doubtful, specialists comment. From Pyongyang to Teheran to Islamabad, proliferation is spreading like never before. As for the Review Conference on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which is to begin in May, it is not taking place under the best auspices, as many countries feel that the nuclear superpowers have not kept their commitments as far as disarmament is concerned.
Will the Americans follow through on their initiatives? Nothing is less certain. “Some think that the American nuclear sequence is closed for 2010. Considering the American system, a president has nothing to gain with the nuclear issue in political terms, but everything to lose vis-à-vis Congress,” commented Bruno Tertrais. In Paris, specialists go further and definitively announce the death of Global Zero, the international initiative launched in 2008, aiming for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Previous article![]( "IPad Expected to Be a Huge Seller, According to Experts")
Next article![]( "Nuclear Terror!")
