Edited by Gillian Palmer
The US Strategy for Nuclear Disarmament: Finding the Path to the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
Published in The Ryukyu Shimpo
(Japan) on 21 June 2013
by Editorial (link to original)
Can it truly be said that there exists a strong will to make “a world without nuclear weapons” a reality? In this article, I would like to discuss some observations on how leadership on nuclear disarmament is being demonstrated.
U.S. President Obama has stated that preparations are complete to further reduce the number of deployed nuclear warheads by up to one-third — from 1,550 to 1,000, in accordance with the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia.
About four years ago, President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for proposing this “world without nuclear weapons,” but are his achievements since then really worthy of such a distinguished prize? One likely factor in this lack of progress is the international community’s strict views and policies on the subject.
However, the key to actualizing the additional nuclear weapons reductions is negotiations with Russia. Regarding President Obama's statements, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov expressed the view that Russia would require U.S. concessions on the European missile defense plan — a condition that the U.S. has presently complied with.
Russia is strongly opposed to the missile defense plan, as it would lower its own nuclear deterrent force. On June 17, at a conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Obama, the conflicts surrounding missile defense were not resolved.
Matters on which Russia and the U.S. strongly disagree are not limited to nuclear disarmament and missile defense. There is a wide range of additional issues, such as the Syrian civil war and the Iran nuclear problem, that also cause dissension. All of the issues are urgent; it is necessary to bear in mind that the first step toward solving these problems is building trust between U.S. and Russian leaders.
There is a summit meeting scheduled for September in Moscow. I would like to see proactive diplomatic efforts from the leaders of both countries in making steady progress on current issues.
On the other hand, the limitations on the advancement of nuclear disarmament are indicated within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which recognizes only five countries — France, the U.K., China, the U.S. and Russia — as having a nuclear monopoly.
The Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons organized by the Norwegian government was held in March of this year, and although 127 countries — including Japan — participated, the five nuclear powers which possess over 95 percent of the world's nuclear weapons were not in attendance.
These five countries jointly boycotted the conference with the decidedly absurd reasoning that it would "divert energy from the step-by-step approach currently being taken toward nuclear disarmament.” Given that these are the countries that should be at the forefront in dealing with the nuclear issue, the logic behind this decision is questionable.
To begin with, we cannot possibly hope for a world free of nuclear weapons through only our current nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation policies. Only when Obama makes a clear path toward the elimination of nuclear weapons apparent will he have truly earned his Nobel Peace Prize.
U.S. President Obama has stated that preparations are complete to further reduce the number of deployed nuclear warheads by up to one-third — from 1,550 to 1,000, in accordance with the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia.
About four years ago, President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for proposing this “world without nuclear weapons,” but are his achievements since then really worthy of such a distinguished prize? One likely factor in this lack of progress is the international community’s strict views and policies on the subject.
However, the key to actualizing the additional nuclear weapons reductions is negotiations with Russia. Regarding President Obama's statements, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov expressed the view that Russia would require U.S. concessions on the European missile defense plan — a condition that the U.S. has presently complied with.
Russia is strongly opposed to the missile defense plan, as it would lower its own nuclear deterrent force. On June 17, at a conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Obama, the conflicts surrounding missile defense were not resolved.
Matters on which Russia and the U.S. strongly disagree are not limited to nuclear disarmament and missile defense. There is a wide range of additional issues, such as the Syrian civil war and the Iran nuclear problem, that also cause dissension. All of the issues are urgent; it is necessary to bear in mind that the first step toward solving these problems is building trust between U.S. and Russian leaders.
There is a summit meeting scheduled for September in Moscow. I would like to see proactive diplomatic efforts from the leaders of both countries in making steady progress on current issues.
On the other hand, the limitations on the advancement of nuclear disarmament are indicated within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which recognizes only five countries — France, the U.K., China, the U.S. and Russia — as having a nuclear monopoly.
The Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons organized by the Norwegian government was held in March of this year, and although 127 countries — including Japan — participated, the five nuclear powers which possess over 95 percent of the world's nuclear weapons were not in attendance.
These five countries jointly boycotted the conference with the decidedly absurd reasoning that it would "divert energy from the step-by-step approach currently being taken toward nuclear disarmament.” Given that these are the countries that should be at the forefront in dealing with the nuclear issue, the logic behind this decision is questionable.
To begin with, we cannot possibly hope for a world free of nuclear weapons through only our current nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation policies. Only when Obama makes a clear path toward the elimination of nuclear weapons apparent will he have truly earned his Nobel Peace Prize.
Next article![]( "US Spying Leaves a Bad Taste")