A Step Forward, Excuse Me, for Obama

Published in ABC Journal
(Spain ) on 6 January 2011
by Dario Valcarcel (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Robin Salomon . Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
Signing the START 2 Treaty proves that the president, in the midst of his greatest difficulties, is able to make progress.

Let’s NOT try to provoke angry critics of the extreme right. Rather, let’s return to reality. For two months, Barack Obama has suffered a tough electoral warning. The results from Nov. 2 demolished a good part of his program. However, one part still remains, and perhaps it will be here to stay — maybe for a while. If we consider just two of Obama’s greatest advances, the health care reform and his nuclear arms reduction treaty, then his election in November 2008, by far, was worth every bit of it. America is how it is. It is full of opinions and is part aggressively conservative. But just a part of it is: We will see what happens in the November 2012 elections. Nothing, nor much less than that, has been decided upon. The nuclear arms treaty was approved in the Senate, by a vote of 71 to 26.

In the new treaty between Russia and the United States, Obama and Putin-Medvedev have taken it another step. In figures, it is a modest advance: But the process to denuclearize is continuous, whether or not the American administration is Republican or Democrat, and whether or not they were ex-Soviets in Russia. Two permanent cycles have been at work since the time of Mikhail Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush. In those 20 years, [the number of] weapons of the two most powerful states in nuclear armament has decreased from the United States’ 10,563 and Russia’s 10,271 to its current maximum of 1,550 atomic warheads per country. Russians and Americans can deploy a maximum of 700 launch systems: submarines, bombers, launch pads. And even more important, since December 2010, the date when START I expired, START II establishes a new system of inspections.

Let’s leave the costs aside: Just to modernize the maintenance systems, President Obama could commit to $8.5 million each year in the next 10 years on just this one issue (Spain’s military budget comes to a total of $13 million per year). It has been said that nuclear force was the only way in which Russian leaders could talk one-to-one with their similarly minded Americans. This is not just any kind of merchandise: We’re not talking here about the cotton industry in Alabama or of Russian samovar exportation to Paris. Speaking of Paris: What will future French leaders do if the United States, China, Russia or India unleash a sharp demand against atomic weapons? It is easy to defend force de frappe, but it is impossible, or almost impossible, to resist the threat of four great powers on the technological, financial and commercial forefronts.

Wouldn’t the confrontations born around 1950 seem impractical if those four powers forced the elimination of arsenals, current or future, from Israel, Pakistan or Iran?

Nuclear deterrence has weighed upon peoples’ consciousness like a brutal coercion, in which technological refinement has mixed with the worst savagery. That raised torch has left people out of breath, leaving them unable to think. Hiroshima’s shadow was there. A world without nuclear weapons is difficult: American superiority with conventional weapons is so overwhelming that it acts as a brake. But crisis serves to open doors that have knocked down gigantic walls: universal health care, common currency, an AIDS vaccine … achievable hopes. Some have knocked down the walls more than others. And Barack Obama has knocked them down — he sure has.


La firma del tratado Start 2 prueba que el presidente, en medio de sus enormes dificultades, consigue avanzar

NO tratamos de provocar a los críticos airados de la derecha-derecha sino de volver a la realidad. Barack Obama ha sufrido, hace dos meses, una dura advertencia electoral. Los resultados del 2 de noviembre echaron por tierra buena parte de su programa. Pero otra queda en pie y posiblemente se mantendrá, quizá durante mucho tiempo. Si consideráramos tan solo dos grandes avances de Obama, la Reforma Sanitaria y el Tratado sobre Reducción de Armas Nucleares, hubiera valido la pena, con mucho, su elección en noviembre de 2008. América es como es, varia y en parte agresivamente conservadora. Pero solo en parte: veremos qué ocurre en la elección de noviembre de 2012. Nada, ni mucho menos, está decidido. El tratado sobre armas nucleares, ratificado en el Senado por 71 votos contra 26.

En el nuevo tratado entre Rusia y Estados Unidos, Obama y Putin-Medvedev han dado otro paso. En cifras, es un avance modesto: pero el proceso desnuclearizador es continuo, sean republicanas o demócratas las administraciones americanas, sean lo que fueren las ex soviéticas. Dos círculos permanentes trabajan desde tiempos de Mijail Gorbachov y George H. W. Bush. En esos 20 años se han logrado reducir las armas de los dos Estados más poderosos en armamento nuclear: desde 10.563, Estados Unidos, y 10.271, Rusia, hasta su máximo actual, de 1.550 cabezas atómicas cada uno. Rusos y americanos podrán desplegar un máximo de 700 sistemas de lanzamiento: submarinos, bombarderos, rampas. Y lo que es más importante, desde diciembre de 2010, fecha en que expiraba el Start 1, el Start 2 establece un nuevo sistema de inspecciones.

Dejemos aparte los costes: solo para modernizar los sistemas de mantenimiento, el presidente Obama podrá comprometer 8.500 millones de dólares anuales durante los próximos 10 años en este solo capítulo (el presupuesto español de Defensa asciende en su totalidad a 13.000 millones de dólares año). Se ha dicho que la fuerza nuclear era el único medio con que los dirigentes rusos podían hablar de tú a tú a sus iguales americanos. Pero no es una mercancía cualquiera: no se trata de los aranceles del algodón de Alabama ni de la exportación de samovares rusos a París. Y a propósito de París: cómo harán los futuros líderes franceses si Estados Unidos, China, Rusia, India desencadenaran una presión sostenida contra el arma atómica? Es fácil defender a la force de frappe, pero imposible, o casi imposible, resistir la amenaza de cuatro grandes potencias los frentes tecnológico, financiero o comercial.

¿No se harían inviables los enfrentamientos nacidos en torno a 1950 si esos cuatro grandes forzaran la liquidación de los arsenales, actuales o futuros, de Israel, Paquistán o Irán?

La disuasión nuclear ha pesado sobre la conciencia de los pueblos como una brutal coacción, en la que se ha mezclado el refinamiento tecnológico con el peor salvajismo. Esa hacha levantada cortaba la respiración de las gentes en cuanto se paraban a pensar. La sombra de Hiroshima estaba ahí. Un mundo sin armas nucleares es difícil: la superioridad americana en armas convencionales es tan abrumadora que actúa como un freno. Pero las crisis sirven para abrir caminos que derriban gigantescos muros: sanidad universal, moneda común, vacuna anti sida… Esperanzas alcanzables. Unos han tirado del carro más que otros. Y Barack Obama ha tirado, vaya si ha tirado.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Australia: Donald Trump Is Not the Only Moving Part When It Comes to Global Trade

Palestine: Ceasefire Not Peace: How Netanyahu and AIPAC Outsourced Israel’s War to Trump

Austria: Trump, the Bulldozer of NATO

     

Australia: Donald Trump Just Won the Fight To Remake America in 3 Big Ways

Malta: The Arrogance of Power

Topics

Canada: Canada Must Match the Tax Incentives in Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

Germany: Big Tech Wants a Say in EU Law: More Might for the Mighty

Germany: Trump’s Disappointment Will Have No Adverse Consequences for Putin*

             

Spain: Global Aid without the US

Spain: Not a Good Time for Solidarity

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Related Articles

Spain: Spain’s Defense against Trump’s Tariffs

Spain: Shooting Yourself in the Foot

Spain: King Trump: ‘America Is Back’

Spain: Trump Changes Sides

Spain: Narcissists Trump and Musk: 2 Sides of the Same Coin?