By PVG viagra

which may be Payday loans should not get
9
Apr

Nukes On and Under the Table

   Posted by: Pat   in Russia

Regarding some of President Obama’s recent foreign policy moves, I have on several occasions thought and written here on GPP, ‘what’s in it for us?’, or ‘How does this concretely help either side?’ Most of this comes from soft power moves of Obama apologizing or distancing himself from American ‘arrogance’ or mistakes. I know state leaders need to play a bit to their foreign audience, but I don’t quite buy the theory that this type of ‘rapprochement’ brings either truly better strategic relationships between allies or makes enemies into partners ready to deal. If the US president was going to disparage the country and let others agenda’s trump our own at times, I would at least like to see some hard results, such as Russia denouncing North Korea’s missile launch (they did the opposite) or truly help out on Iran or maybe some stronger NATO commitment in Afghanistan. Alas, after stating all of this I am willing to give President Obama time. Time to show that all of this is part of larger strategic plan that will pay off dividends for the US and international security.

It is on that positive note that I turn to another topic, where I’m afraid I think Obama’s long-term plan is unfortunately not attainable and therefore his current moves might hurt more than help. I am talking about Obama’s Czech speech, where he laid out his policy towards nuclear weapons. He stated that the US would reduce their nuclear weapon collection, deemphasize their use in military affairs, and lastly that because the US was the only nation to use the weapon, we bare a ‘moral’ responsibility to work toward their elimination.

First off, about the ‘moral’ responsibility part. As horrible as the US use of nuclear weapons against Japan in WWII, I would disagree that it was immoral, in terms of state actions. The US and Japan were losing thousands of soldiers in the fighting around Japan, with Japan also losing thousands of civilians by Allied bombing of their cities on a daily basis, and the US calculated that they needed to end the war as soon as possible and utilized their most effective/destructive weapon to do so. This move caused untold human destruction, but it also saved thousands of other Japanese and American lives and ended the bloodiest war known to mankind. Since the wars end, the US and Japan have also had a strategic, friendly, and prosperous relationship. The US does indeed carry with it a burden of the weapons’ use, but I would argue against America still having any ‘moral responsibility’ for it use during what was an extraordinary moment in world history.

Alright, back to the speeches main points: A world without nukes sounds wonderful, but it is not realistic nor I think an area where Obama should be spending his global political capital. In his speech, Obama alluded that if the US showed it was willing to lessen its support of nuclear weapons, all other states, especially rogue ones, would feel less threatened and it would help the global norm against the weapon as a choice for states. In other words, if the US stopped being nuclear hypocrites other states and regimes would give up their nuclear ambitions. Unfortunately, history tells us otherwise. Did India, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, South Africa, France, Great Britain, Al Qaeda all pursue nuclear weapons because the US had them? No, they pursued them for their own national strategic interests and defense.

What about the idea of a nuclear free-world? Though it would be very difficult to reach, wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing? Not really. As I have discussed before on GPP, I feel that states would still not trust that the others did not have nuclear weapons and this would create a security dilemma, where states would inevitably try to circumvent or protect themselves from another by obtaining them again! Except we would have to relive the dangerous early part of ‘who has the weapon?’, ‘will they use it?’ This sounds like a scary, unpredictable world to me. I would rather have our current situation where only a few, mostly stable states, hold nuclear weapons and it is well-known who. To have a world with no nukes would require some form of strong world government to verify this outcome and that does not appear on the horizon.

'I thought your speech was very inspirational Mr. Obama'

So once again, I ask about a new US foreign policy stance or maneuver, what does the US or world get out of this policy? Will it cause Iran to come to the negotiating table and actually negotiate instead of buy time? Will it stop North Korea from launching another missile, which may one day carry a nuclear weapon, in six months? Will it end nukes forever in 30 years? How does this policy make the US and world safer?

Tags: , , , , ,

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 9th, 2009 at 8:18 am and is filed under Russia. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

7 comments so far

micraig
 1 

Obama stated that we have a “moral responsibility” to work toward elimination of nuclear weapons. He did not say that its use in the context of WWII was “immoral.” Those are your words. Looking at the history of that war, it is apparent that while the use of the two atomic bombs was certainly not a high point in human history, that use probably saved millions of lives of both Japanese civilians and American soldiers. It is regrettable that the U.S. was put in the position of having to make a horrendous decision of that magnitude, but that was not our choice. We did what was best at the time. The problem is that you equate having moral responsibility with having acted immorally. I don’t see those as corollaries.

I also don’t believe that those politicians working toward nuclear disarmament really believe that we will have a nuclear free world. I suspect that their motive really is to try and get a handle on the number and the further proliferation of those weapons. By setting the goal to get rid of them, we hopefully can at least make a dent in the proliferation issue. You seem to view these things as black and white, when the goals may be far more subtle.

What do we get out of it? By at least talking about winding down we get the other governments to the table. Maybe they will cooperate, maybe they won’t, but we are at least trying. To do otherwise is to consign us back to the unlimited arms race mentality and that certainly isn’t good for anyone except arms manufacturers and dealers. And it would further exacerbate our economic problems. By getting some limits we allow ourselves and other countries to reapportion significant capital to other pressing problems, like health care, education, quality of life issues not only for the U.S. but also for the global south.

And lastly, Obama has been in office a little less than 3 months and you are already decrying his efforts to solve extraordinarily complex problems. These problems don’t have quick fixes, if fixes are possible at all. Don’t you think that he should be given some time to see just how things will turn out? As I remember, Bush had eight years, and while I certainly wouldn’t want to cut Obama slack for eight years, I believe that the courses he will set can only be judged after at least a couple of years, or maybe a little less, but certainly not 3 months.

April 9th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
micraig
 2 

As I was rereading your April 9th blog I am struck by your question, “What’s in it for us?” Maybe your question is the problem. Instead of taking that limited insular view, wouldn’t it be just as valid to say “What’s in it for humankind?”

April 9th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
UNRR
 3 

This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 4/10/2009, at The Unreligious Right

April 10th, 2009 at 3:49 am
UNRR
 4 

“Instead of taking that limited insular view, wouldn’t it be just as valid to say “What’s in it for humankind?””

Yes — if you are a utopian dreamer. Personally I prefer that those who guide U.S. foreign policy worry about protecting the U.S. and its interests. They aren’t running humankind, they are part of the U.S. government.

April 10th, 2009 at 3:51 am
Hubbel Relat
 5 

I agree with UNRR. I voted for an American president, not a world president. Despite Obama’s immense popularity, he remains the defender of US interests.

April 10th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Pat Frost
 6 

In my criticism of Obama’s anti-nuclear weapon stance I wasn’t bringing up a black and white position. I was just trying to highlight how little the US gets out of this policy and rhetoric. It doesn’t really substantially improve US-Russian relations, it doesn’t stop NK from launching missiles, and I have serious doubts it will effect Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons a bit.

About the ‘moral responsibility’ part, in Obama’s speech he stated that ‘because’ the US used these weapons in Japan, ‘we’ have a ‘moral responsibility’. So though I don’t want to focus on this small aspect of the issue, Obama did in fact connect our past use with our current ‘moral responsibility’.

April 10th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
micraig
 7 

Yes Professor Frost, he did connect our past with “moral responsibility,” but that still doesn’t equate to us being immoral in our World War II use of the weapons. Your statement that, “I was just trying to highlight how little the US gets out of this policy and rhetoric. It doesn’t really substantially improve US-Russian relations, it doesn’t stop NK from launching missiles, and I have serious doubts it will effect Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons a bit…” ignores the possibility that policies such as these can have an incremental effect on US-Russian relations. And maybe that would also have an incremental effect on Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Because you don’t see your desired effect in one statement or policy does not mean that over the long haul progress won’t be made. I understand the fear that some people have that Obama will “give away the store” while trying to have an effect on world politics and end up being another Neville Chamberlain, but I just don’t see that in him. Remember, as you have pointed out, he is quite the pragmatist.

Also, having a little “utopian dreamer” in us does not mean that we don’t care about protecting U.S. interests. Again it is not an either/or position. Just maybe a little more concern about all of humankind will result in a somewhat better world. It doesn’t mean that we abandon our own interests. My fear is that if all a country (any country) can see is its own limited interests then no country has any reason to lend a helping hand to others. If those nations who are rich and powerful continually ignore the needs of the “lesser countries” then those “lesser countries” may just rise up and attack the rich and powerful with any tool at hand. Say with terrorism maybe? And doesn’t this sort of thinking lead to a kind of global anarchy?

To Hubbel’s vote for president (which I somehow think means McCain) the majority of Americans selected the candidate with a more global view in the hope that that philosophy would yield more positive results than the results of the previous administration.

What you all seem to be advocating is a form of isolationism so that strictly “American interests” are the only factors in the decision making equation. How well has isolationism worked in the past for powerful countries?

I’m probably not scholarly enough to answer these questions, so maybe you international relations experts can enlighten me. (And just so you know, this is said without any irony or sarcasm; it is truly an observation.)

April 10th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Back to top

Array