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?

Deter This!

In the final few months of the administration, the Bush team is making a strong stand on strengthening and expanding American nuclear deterrence, mainly in terms of non-state actors and terrorists.  In 2006, right after N. Korea detonated its first successful nuclear test, Bush stated the rogue state would be held “fully accountable” for the transfer of nuclear weapons or materials to any nation or terrorist organization.  And in late October, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (who will be Obama’s Def Sec as well) made a major speech with this emphatic statement:

“[T]he United States will hold any state, terrorist group, or other non-state actor or individual fully accountable for supporting or enabling terrorist efforts to obtain or use weapons of mass destruction – whether by facilitating, financing, or providing expertise or safe haven for such efforts.”

So anyone, I mean anyone, ‘supporting’ or ‘enabling’ terrorist efforts to get and then use WMDs will be held responsible.  The way they will be held responsible is still cloudy, but one can assume Gates and the United States are warning of a cloud that is very clear.  President-elect Obama has stated that he views the detonation of a WMD in US territory as the greatest threat to American national security and I imagine he will be rather supportive of this policy.  

This newly defined deterrence doctrine still has a lot to be worked out.  How will the U.S. expanded deterrence policy work with its NATO or U.S.-Japan alliance commitments?  How will the deterrence policy work in a complicated world of allies, partners, neutrals, great powers, and hostile states?

There are many ways that the US can use such a policy to bring together a multilateral grouping that can tackle this problem, which nearly all can agree is a serious threat to international security.  The Obama administration could lead a charge for first NATO, followed by other allies like Japan and Australia, to wed their deterrent policy to the United States and further the work of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and the Proliferation Security Initiative in curtailing the growth of WMDs.  One can also see Great Powers like Russia and China wanting to work together in making sure that terrorist and other unstable states or groups gain WMD capabilities.  Elbridge Colby of Real Clear Politics also asserts that the initiative would reduce friction and even conflict in the aftermath of a catastrophic strike, given that, currently, there is no clear set of rules of the road for countries either suffering or inadvertently serving as a launch pad for an attack.

What do you think of this ‘expanded deterrence’?  Will Obama augment the policy or follow it forcefully? Will the US be a leader in promoting a similar form of deterrence with its allies and around the globe or are state’s interests too diffuse and protected to join together in such an important security matter?

A few years back, several former US Secretary of States and Defense, including Kissinger, Perry, Nunn, Schultz, wrote an op-ed advocating the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons from our world.  I read the editorial, but was still far from convinced that such a policy was feasible or even desirable.  I have been eager to read more about the ‘end all nukes’ campaign and in this regard just finished reading Ivo Daalder and Jan Lodal’s ‘Logic of Zero: Toward a World Without Nuclear Weapons‘ piece in Foreign Affairs proscribing such a policy.  

Kabloooeeyyy!!!

To get to the point, I found their arguments and logic underwhelming.  They stress that the US needs to lead the way by reducing their nuclear stockpiles to around 1,000 and announce that their use was only for the purpose of stopping the use of nukes by others, slowly gather up key allies and those other states that have already chosen not to attain nukes themselves (Brazil, South Africa), and build up a strong Non-Proliferation Treaty-type organization that would be able to verify all nation’s stockpiles and nuclear enrichment activities.  Daalder and Lodal argue that this needs to and can strategically happen because the greatest strategic threat to the US is a ‘terrorist nuclear bomb.’  With all the aforementioned steps taken and strong leadership and diplomacy by the US, these authors believe a world without nukes is possible.

Unfortunately, I believe Daalder and Lodal’s prescriptions and strategic logic are extremely lacking in several areas, mainly reality.  The idea that Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, India, France and the list goes on would be willing to forfeit their right to their greatest security guarantee is hard to take seriously.  Just as the idea of the irrationality of Iran or Saddam working so hard to get nukes and then handing them off to terrorists, one must assume that the world’s strategic actors operate outside of the real world.  A world where states still fear for their lives.  Surely, Daalder and Lodal have a point that a terrorist with a nuclear device is probably the greatest threat to US national security today, but what about tomorrow, or the day after that?  World politics is near impossible to predict and I would not want to be that one state who gave up its nuclear arsenal only to be confronted by newly formed existential threat years down the road.  

At the same time Daalder and Lodal are advocating the reduction and future elimination of the entire US nuclear arsenal, an arsenal that protects not only the US homeland, but also Europe, Japan, Korea, Israel, Canada, etc, Russia is strengthening and updating their own.  

I want a world without the threat of nuclear annihilation, but I just don’t see our world structure is set up for this to be possible anytime soon.  States and leaders still live in an anarchial world where states cannot fully trust each others actions.  Interesting enough, is the argument that the existence of nuclear weapons actually create a more stable and peaceful world.  IR scholar Kenneth Waltz and many others credit the mutually shared destruction MAD between the Soviets and Americans for a lack of serious or worldwide wars during the Cold War.  There is a famous debate between Waltz and fellow IR scholar Scott Sagan about whether the existence of nuclear weapons is more positive and negative, with Sagan of course in the Daalder and Lodal camp.  Waltz believes, that if spread in a slow, meticulous, nuclear weapons can bring greater stability and end serious hot wars.  I saw a debate between the two once in person and after listening to Sagan express his valid fears of a nuclear accident or war, Waltz just ended his argument in reference to a world with more and more nukes by saying ‘sleep tight, I will.’

So who’s side do you side with?  Do nuclear weapons bring more stability/peace to this world or more danger?  Should states announce an official policy that they will only use their nukes in deterrence?  Or should the nuclear taboo be tossed away?