|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
The Bush Administration's Self-Made Nuclear Dilemma |
Current rating: 0 |
by Amitabh Pal
(No verified email address) |
02 Mar 2005
|
|
Even some Republicans are recognizing the shortcomings of the Bush Administration's nuclear approach. It has engaged in "very provocative and overly aggressive policies that undermine our moral authority to argue that other nations should forgo nuclear weapons," said Republican Congressman Hobson in November. "We cannot advocate for nuclear nonproliferation around the globe and pursue more useable nuclear weapons options at home." |
The United States is in a dilemma over Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs, but it is a dilemma largely of its own making.
Don't get me wrong. It is terrible for any nation to go nuclear. The apparent move by both these regimes to pursue nuclear weapons will significantly ratchet up tensions in the Middle East and East Asia and greatly increase the chances of a nuclear holocaust. And the more nations that have nuclear weapons, the more the chances that such weapons could fall, inadvertently or otherwise, into the hands of terrorists. The weapons programs are also a significant waste of resources. The Iranian and North Korean governments could utilize those resources to fulfill their citizens' basic needs--if they had the inclination to do so.
But is it that surprising that these nations are going nuclear, especially given the aggressiveness of U.S. nuclear policy under the Bush Administration?
In its Nuclear Posture Review (the major policy statement on the subject of nuclear weapons), the Bush Administration, far from taking steps to get rid of its reliance on nuclear arms, revealed a more aggressive attitude in its willingness to utilize them. The Nuclear Posture Review recommended "greater flexibility" in using nuclear weapons and stated that they can be used to "hold at risk a wide range of target types." It even named seven countries as potential targets, with both Iran and North Korea making the list. (The other five were Russia, China, Syria, Libya and Saddam's Iraq.)
A subsequent presidential directive said that the United States could retaliate with nuclear arms against a chemical or biological weapons attack, and that it could even strike against countries suspected of having nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
What sort of a message does this send to countries like Iran and North Korea?
The Bush Administration's other moves on the nuclear front have been in keeping with this aggressiveness.
It abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in its futile search for a workable national missile defense shield.
The United States has shown few signs of starting global talks on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, which would prohibit the manufacture of new fissile materials for nuclear weapons.
And it has all but abandoned the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which forbids the testing of nuclear weapons.
The U.S. Senate rejected the treaty in 1999, and the Bush administration has taken no steps to resubmit it. In fact, it has been making noises about resuming nuclear testing.
Even though its request for funds to reduce the time needed to get the Nevada test site up and running was killed by Congress last year, this hasn't stopped its drive. Just a few weeks ago, newly appointed Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said that "we will continue our efforts to maintain the ability to conduct underground nuclear testing."
This callous attitude toward international agreements does not serve the United States well when it asks other nations to abide by international law.
The Bush Administration has taken a number of other steps in recent months that haven't been very reassuring.
It has launched another campaign to request funds from Congress to research the development of earth-penetrating nuclear weapons (nicknamed "bunker busters"), arguing that these weapons would help target terrorist cells and infrastructure. The program was halted in November due to a bipartisan effort led by Ohio Republican Congressman David Hobson, but in its recent budget proposal, the Bush Administration submitted a request for $4 million this year and $14 million next year to carry out research on the subject.
It has been wanting to construct a new facility to manufacture plutonium pits, a key component of nuclear weapons, although Congress rebuffed it on that front, too, by reducing funding last year from a requested $30 million to $7 million.
And Bush's recently revealed effort to make some weapons in the American nuclear arsenal more sturdy and compact has been deemed by some analysts as partly a cover for the development of new types of nuclear weapons.
All these moves send a dangerous message: You can't have nuclear weapons, but we can, and we intend to use them. It's no wonder much of the world sees the United States as being hypocritical on the issue.
The U.S. long-term nuclear policy reeks of double standards, too. For years, the United States has been urging nations such as Pakistan and India to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which enjoins non-nuclear countries from developing nuclear bombs.
What few people know, however, is that Article VI of the treaty obliges nuclear powers like the United States to pursue disarmament in good faith. In a historic resolution passed on May 20, 2000 at a treaty review conference, the five established nuclear nations pledged an "unequivocal undertaking . . . to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals."
For all the progress made since then, the resolution might have been asking for a commitment to end global hunger or infectious diseases. Even after full implementation of the proposed cutbacks in their arsenals under the agreement that Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin reached three years ago, the United States and Russia will still have around 2,000 nuclear warheads, far in excess of any other nation. And they will have thousands more in storage, ready to be wheeled out at short notice.
Washington's obvious insincerity with regard to the NPT has fueled nuclear nationalism in North Korea, Iran, India, Pakistan, and Brazil.
Even some Republicans are recognizing the shortcomings of the Bush Administration's nuclear approach. It has engaged in "very provocative and overly aggressive policies that undermine our moral authority to argue that other nations should forgo nuclear weapons," said Republican Congressman Hobson in November. "We cannot advocate for nuclear nonproliferation around the globe and pursue more useable nuclear weapons options at home."
This hypocrisy is further heightened by the attitude the Bush Administration has toward its allies. Israel has a full-fledged nuclear weapons program with dozens of nuclear warheads. Last October it was revealed that South Korea conducted nuclear experimentation some years ago. But the Bush Administration hasn't exactly come down hard on either country.
Bush, for all his bluster, is only encouraging other countries to get nukes of their own.
Amitabh Pal is Managing Editor of The Progressive. His weblog will be posted every Tuesday on the Progressive.
http://www.progressive.org/
© 2005 The Progressive |
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
