The Deterrent Views of Paris and Washington
“I will not unilaterally give up nuclear arms, the guarantee of the security of my country, in a world as dangerous as today’s,” Nicolas Sarkozy announced on April 12, on American television. In a world full of uncertainty, the French believe in a persistent need for nuclear weapons in the context of global strategy.
Since the American President, Barack Obama, announced his idea of a “world without nuclear weapons” in April 2009, the French appear to be in an awkward position. France is being criticized for its skeptical attitude by militant supporters of the abolition of powerful weapons. Sarkozy repeats that abolition is a “dream;” that it would only happen in a “virtual world”. He doesn’t hesitate to distance himself from Obama’s proclaimed ambition.
France is not devoid of arguments. The country is deemed to be beyond reproach in terms of disarmament and openness on the size of its arsenal, based on the notion of “strict self-importance.”
The difference in vocabulary is noteworthy with the Obama administration. But with respect to content, the divergences are not so profound. Nicolas Sarkozy could justifiably note that the new American nuclear doctrine, while limiting the conditions on the uses of powerful weapons, does not renounce anything. In Washington, like in Paris, each admits that the conditions are far from being met in order to eliminate all the stockpiles of [nuclear] weapons in the world.
In 1963, President John F. Kennedy warned against the possible appearance of numerous nuclear powers in the world. This somber anticipation did not become a reality, but the non-proliferation regime, put in place in 1968 to stop the escalating spread of atomic weapons, was subject to serious opposition. Today, nine countries posses these kinds of weapons, compared to five in 1968. After North Korea’s nuclear tests, the other urgent crisis to deal with is the Iranian nuclear challenge.
The Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that opened May 3 in New York will not be able to leave out this issue. Westerners are the victims of a rebellion of Southern countries and of the non-aligned movement. A movement that asks for new agreements between big powers concerning disarmament, and denounces the Western tolerance of Israeli atomic weapons. The divide of the views on nuclear weapons between the North and the South is one of the elements of this new world order with more than two superpowers.
President Obama can emphasize the nuclear arms reduction pact signed on April 8 with Russia; but Moscow does not desire to go further, aware of its inferiority with the conventional plan. France remembers that other essential steps must be made, such as the complete banning of nuclear tests and of the production of fissionable materials. What stirs us is the question of constant growth, in all secrecy, of China’s arsenal.
Since the American President, Barack Obama, announced his idea of a “world without nuclear weapons” in April 2009, the French appear to be in an awkward position. France is being criticized for its skeptical attitude by militant supporters of the abolition of powerful weapons. Sarkozy repeats that abolition is a “dream;” that it would only happen in a “virtual world”. He doesn’t hesitate to distance himself from Obama’s proclaimed ambition.
France is not devoid of arguments. The country is deemed to be beyond reproach in terms of disarmament and openness on the size of its arsenal, based on the notion of “strict self-importance.”
The difference in vocabulary is noteworthy with the Obama administration. But with respect to content, the divergences are not so profound. Nicolas Sarkozy could justifiably note that the new American nuclear doctrine, while limiting the conditions on the uses of powerful weapons, does not renounce anything. In Washington, like in Paris, each admits that the conditions are far from being met in order to eliminate all the stockpiles of [nuclear] weapons in the world.
In 1963, President John F. Kennedy warned against the possible appearance of numerous nuclear powers in the world. This somber anticipation did not become a reality, but the non-proliferation regime, put in place in 1968 to stop the escalating spread of atomic weapons, was subject to serious opposition. Today, nine countries posses these kinds of weapons, compared to five in 1968. After North Korea’s nuclear tests, the other urgent crisis to deal with is the Iranian nuclear challenge.
The Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that opened May 3 in New York will not be able to leave out this issue. Westerners are the victims of a rebellion of Southern countries and of the non-aligned movement. A movement that asks for new agreements between big powers concerning disarmament, and denounces the Western tolerance of Israeli atomic weapons. The divide of the views on nuclear weapons between the North and the South is one of the elements of this new world order with more than two superpowers.
President Obama can emphasize the nuclear arms reduction pact signed on April 8 with Russia; but Moscow does not desire to go further, aware of its inferiority with the conventional plan. France remembers that other essential steps must be made, such as the complete banning of nuclear tests and of the production of fissionable materials. What stirs us is the question of constant growth, in all secrecy, of China’s arsenal.
Next article![]( "China Does Not Need to Start a “Space Race” with the U.S.")
