Wall Street Journal
January 4, 2007
Pg. 15
By George P.
Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn
"Nuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic
opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next
stage -- to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally
as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially
dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.
Nuclear weapons were essential to maintaining international security
during the Cold War because they were a means of deterrence. The end of the Cold
War made the doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence obsolete. Deterrence
continues to be a relevant consideration for many states with regard to threats
from other states. But reliance on nuclear weapons for this purpose is becoming
increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.
North Korea's recent nuclear test and Iran's refusal to stop its
program to enrich uranium -- potentially to weapons grade -- highlight the fact
that the world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era. Most
alarmingly, the likelihood that non-state terrorists will get their hands on
nuclear weaponry is increasing. In today's war waged on world order by
terrorists, nuclear weapons are the ultimate means of mass devastation. And
non-state terrorist groups with nuclear weapons are conceptually outside the
bounds of a deterrent strategy and present difficult new security
challenges.
Apart from the terrorist threat, unless urgent new actions are taken,
the U.S. soon will be compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be more
precarious, psychologically disorienting, and economically even more costly than
was Cold War deterrence. It is far from certain that we can successfully
replicate the old Soviet-American "mutually assured destruction" with an
increasing number of potential nuclear enemies world-wide without dramatically
increasing the risk that nuclear weapons will be used. New nuclear states do not
have the benefit of years of step-by-step safeguards put in effect during the
Cold War to prevent nuclear accidents, misjudgments or unauthorized launches.
The United States and the Soviet Union learned from mistakes that were less than
fatal. Both countries were diligent to ensure that no nuclear weapon was used
during the Cold War by design or by accident. Will new nuclear nations and the
world be as fortunate in the next 50 years as we were during the Cold War?
Leaders addressed this issue in earlier times. In his "Atoms for Peace"
address to the United Nations in 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower pledged America's
"determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma -- to devote its entire
heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man
shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life." John F.
Kennedy, seeking to break the logjam on nuclear disarmament, said, "The world
was not meant to be a prison in which man awaits his execution."
Rajiv Gandhi, addressing the U.N. General Assembly on June 9, 1988,
appealed, "Nuclear war will not mean the death of a hundred million people. Or
even a thousand million. It will mean the extinction of four thousand million:
the end of life as we know it on our planet earth. We come to the United Nations
to seek your support. We seek your support to put a stop to this madness."
Ronald Reagan called for the abolishment of "all nuclear weapons,"
which he considered to be "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for
nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization."
Mikhail Gorbachev shared this vision, which had also been expressed by previous
American presidents.
Although Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev failed at Reykjavik to achieve the
goal of an agreement to get rid of all nuclear weapons, they did succeed in
turning the arms race on its head. They initiated steps leading to significant
reductions in deployed long- and intermediate-range nuclear forces, including
the elimination of an entire class of threatening missiles.
What will it take
to rekindle the vision shared by Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev? Can a world-wide
consensus be forged that defines a series of practical steps leading to major
reductions in the nuclear danger? There is an urgent need to address the
challenge posed by these two questions.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) envisioned the end of all nuclear
weapons. It provides (a) that states that did not possess nuclear weapons as of
1967 agree not to obtain them, and (b) that states that do possess them agree to
divest themselves of these weapons over time. Every president of both parties
since Richard Nixon has reaffirmed these treaty obligations, but non-nuclear
weapon states have grown increasingly skeptical of the sincerity of the nuclear
powers.
Strong non-proliferation efforts are under way. The Cooperative Threat
Reduction program, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, the Proliferation
Security Initiative and the Additional Protocols are innovative approaches that
provide powerful new tools for detecting activities that violate the NPT and
endanger world security. They deserve full implementation. The negotiations on
proliferation of nuclear weapons by North Korea and Iran, involving all the
permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany and Japan, are crucially
important. They must be energetically pursued.
But by themselves, none of these steps are adequate to the danger.
Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev aspired to accomplish more at their
meeting in Reykjavik 20 years ago -- the elimination of nuclear weapons
altogether. Their vision shocked experts in the doctrine of nuclear deterrence,
but galvanized the hopes of people around the world. The leaders of the two
countries with the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons discussed the abolition
of their most powerful weapons.
What should be done? Can the promise of the NPT and the possibilities
envisioned at Reykjavik be brought to fruition? We believe that a major effort
should be launched by the United States to produce a positive answer through
concrete stages.
First and foremost is intensive work with leaders of the countries in
possession of nuclear weapons to turn the goal of a world without nuclear
weapons into a joint enterprise. Such a joint enterprise, by involving changes
in the disposition of the states possessing nuclear weapons, would lend
additional weight to efforts already under way to avoid the emergence of a
nuclear-armed North Korea and Iran.
The program on which agreements should be sought would constitute a
series of agreed and urgent steps that would lay the groundwork for a world free
of the nuclear threat. Steps would include:
• Changing the Cold War posture of deployed nuclear weapons to increase
warning time and thereby reduce the danger of an accidental or unauthorized use
of a nuclear weapon.
• Continuing to reduce substantially the size of nuclear forces in all
states that possess them.
• Eliminating short-range nuclear weapons designed to be
forward-deployed.
• Initiating a bipartisan process with the Senate, including
understandings to increase confidence and provide for periodic review, to
achieve ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, taking advantage of
recent technical advances, and working to secure ratification by other key
states.
• Providing the highest possible standards of security for all stocks
of weapons, weapons-usable plutonium, and highly enriched uranium everywhere in
the world.
• Getting control of the uranium enrichment process, combined with the
guarantee that uranium for nuclear power reactors could be obtained at a
reasonable price, first from the Nuclear Suppliers Group and then from the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or other controlled international
reserves. It will also be necessary to deal with proliferation issues presented
by spent fuel from reactors producing electricity.
• Halting the production of fissile material for weapons globally;
phasing out the use of highly enriched uranium in civil commerce and removing
weapons-usable uranium from research facilities around the world and rendering
the materials safe.
• Redoubling our efforts to resolve regional confrontations and
conflicts that give rise to new nuclear powers.
Achieving the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons will also require
effective measures to impede or counter any nuclear-related conduct that is
potentially threatening to the security of any state or peoples.
Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and
practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived
as, a bold initiative consistent with America's moral heritage. The effort could
have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations. Without
the bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as fair or urgent. Without
the actions, the vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible.
We endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and
working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal, beginning
with the measures outlined above."
Reproduced for educational puposes only
Positive commentary by David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age
Peace Foundation, is also circulating.
((
http://www.wagingpeace.org/). -
not posted on website at 6 January 07)