Obama's double talk at nuclear summit: US preserves and extends its nuclear domination
By the International Socialist Organization, United States
April 14, 2010 – Socialist Worker – The US has repackaged its strategy – but the terrible threat of nuclear war remains. The administration of US President Barack Obama is out to upgrade the US nuclear arsenal and pressure world leaders into imposing sanctions against countries – like Iran – that allegedly harbour ambitions to develop nukes of their own.
That's the agenda behind the April 12-13 Washington summit on nuclear security, which followed the announcement of a supposedly less belligerent US nuclear strategy and the signing in Prague of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia.
The START treaty was billed as a first step towards fulfilling Obama's call a year ago to rid the world of nuclear weapons. In fact, START would leave the US and Russia with the means to blow up the world many times over.
If Washington is willing to make a deal with Moscow to cut the number of nukes today, it's because politicians in both countries – especially Russia – want to minimise the prohibitive cost of building such weapons. So the total number of warheads will be limited under the treaty to 1550 apiece.
Or maybe not. As Ivan Oelrich of the Federation of American Scientists noted:
In fact, the treaty contains a peculiar counting rule that increases the importance of bombers: each bomber counts only as one nuclear bomb, although the B-52 can carry 20 nuclear-armed cruise missiles and the Russian bombers, for example, the Backfire and Blackjack, have similar payloads.
If we define corn as a type of tree, then suddenly Iowa would be covered in forests. If we define a bomber with 20 bombs as a single bomb, then suddenly we get a substantial reduction in the number of nuclear weapons.
In any case, the deal does nothing to reduce the risk of accidental nuclear war. Aircraft are still flying, armed with nukes, and missiles remain minutes away from launch.
And the US is pressing ahead with its "Reliable Replacement Warhead" program, in which scientists will use existing materials to modernise the weapons. So while the US won't be able to build new nukes if START is ratified, it can still create a more technologically advanced nuclear arsenal.
Moreover, the new START agreement won't revive the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty scrapped by George W. Bush in 2002. During the Cold War between the US and the old USSR, the ABM treaty was seen as an important part of arms control. The theory was that if neither country possessed the technology to shoot down incoming nuclear missiles, neither would be tempted into making a nuclear first strike.
Thus, the Russians were infuriated – not only by Bush's decision to scrap the ABM, but his moves to install a US missile defence system in Eastern Europe. Although ostensibly designed to protect Europe from Iranian missiles, everyone beyond kindergarten understood that Russia was the real target.
To ease relations with Moscow, Obama did cancel plans for such a system to be placed in Eastern Europe. But the US, no longer constrained by the ABM, has a free hand to develop other, much more sophisticated missile defences elsewhere. In fact, the US defence department's Nuclear Posture Review explicitly calls for "avoiding limitations on missile defenses".
Russia's leaders, President Dmitri Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, have no choice but to accept the end of the ABM treaty. And Russia, hard hit by the economic crisis, is unlikely to be able to match US nuclear weapons modernisation efforts – therefore, START appears as a reasonable deal to them. While Russia's weapons systems may be aging, they still confer superpower status on the country.
Less than meets the eye
There's also than meets the eye in Obama's Nuclear Posture Review, which was released days before Obama went to Europe to sign the START.
Certainly the US pledge not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states sounds different from George W. Bush's crude doctrine of pre-emptive war. And the Republican Party right is screaming that Obama has gone soft on rogue states.
But the Nuclear Posture Review is, in fact, a threat to use nuclear weapons on countries that fail to comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Since that's exactly what the US accuses Iran of doing, Obama is essentially putting Tehran on notice that it could find itself in the US nuclear crosshairs.
Liberal defence specialist William Hartung, who is actually sympathetic to Obama's policies, pointed out in the Huffington Post that "going forward, the two nations cited as the greatest potential nuclear threats to the United States – Iran and North Korea – would also be liable to nuclear threats from the United States under the Obama policy".
Meanwhile, Israel, which has an estimated 200 nuclear weapons – the country's government will neither confirm nor deny their existence – was discretely allowed to opt out of the summit on nuclear security in order to avoid the kind of scrutiny reserved for Iran.
Scaremongering
At the summit, Obama and other world leaders trumpeted agreements about limiting the spread of "loose nukes" and the material to create them.
To sell the effort, Obama resorted to Bush-style scaremongering: "Two decades after the end of the Cold War, we face a cruel irony of history--the risk of a nuclear confrontation between nations has gone down, but the risk of [a] nuclear attack has gone up", he said. In fact, there's no evidence whatsoever that al Qaeda or any other group has attempted to obtain nuclear materials, much less figure out how to make a bomb.
Certainly anyone opposed to the horrors of nuclear war wants to see the use of such weapons banned. But what the Pentagon has in mind is something fundamentally different: the preservation and extension of the nuclear domination by the US and its allies.
So while the US threatens sanctions – and worse – against Iran, it is helping India, which is not a signatory to the NPT, expand its civilian nuclear program. The US-India effort will include the production of separated plutonium, something that will directly benefit India's military.
Even John Brennan, Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser, admitted the contradictions in US policy: "I think one of the concerns is that, by definition, as you have expansion of nuclear programs, peaceful programs, there is going to be an increase in the nuclear byproducts that come out of those facilities, as well as the expertise that is available to run them."
In other words, the US is using nuclear weapons to bribe India and bully Iran and North Korea. Essentially, Obama is trying to reorganise what Bush called the "coalition of the willing" to isolate Iran and other "rogue states" and bend them to Washington's will.
By organising a summit outside the parameters of the United Nations, the US hoped to use its many allies and clients to maneuver Russia and China into accepting tougher restrictions on the spread of nuclear technology. That, in turn, will be used by the US to press for sanctions on Iran or any other country that stands up to US dictates.
Obama said as much to reporters when he described his conversation with China's President Hu Jintao about the need for sanctions against Iran. Obama said he told Hu, "Words have to mean something. There have to be some consequences" for any country – meaning Iran – that flouts the NNP.
Double standards
These US double standards about nuclear weapons shouldn't be surprising. It was Obama, in his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, who basically declared that war actually means peace – as long as the right people are pulling the triggers and dropping the bombs. The US is out to ensure that it will continue to have the most guns and biggest bombs.
Obama's nuclear policy fits in with that of his predecessors in the White House, going back to the days when Democratic Party's President Harry Truman ordered the military to drop two atomic bombs on Japan in the closing weeks of the Second World War. As authors and activists Joseph Gerson and Walden Bello wrote in their book Empire and the Bomb: How the US Uses Nuclear Weapons to Dominate the World:
Without an understanding of U.S. history, especially the growth and development of its empire, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Washington's subsequent practice of nuclear terrorism are incomprehensible. In fact, the U.S. nuclear arsenal has been the "big stick" used by three generations of leaders to enforce U.S. global dominance.
Whatever Barack Obama's promises about ridding the world of nuclear weapons, the threat of nuclear war will remain a lynchpin of US military power.
Rather than add to the applause that has greeted the White House new nuclear policies, antiwar activists should step up their efforts against the US military machine – from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the Pentagon's latest repackaging of nuclear war threats.
[Reposted under a Creative Commons licence: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0]
Terrorists with Nuclear Weapons Are Not the Real Problem
Terrorists with Nuclear Weapons Are Not the Real Problem
on 2010/4/14
By William Pfaff
Paris, April 13, 2010 -- The meeting on nuclear security
convoked by Barack Obama this week was meant to prevent nuclear
proliferation. This is a worthy cause but while I am writing before
the meeting closes, I would assume that it will at best produce empty
promises, as the meeting itself is fatally flawed. Its conceptual
basis is that the United States is a disinterested world leader,
calling on others to do what is self-evidently in the general
interest. This is not true.
The underlying incitement to nuclear proliferation is the
nuclear weapons monopoly of the Security Council Five permanent
members -- a result of the second world war -- now widely considered
unfair or outdated. It nonetheless is unlikely to change because
each of the five has a veto and a fundamental national interest in
remaining a nuclear power.
The specific inspiration for weapons proliferation (or for
countries to achieve “last-stage” status, which is to say a complete
technological capacity to produce nuclear weapons, able to be
activated if needed) is deterrence. Japan is thought to possess last-
stage status, and many think that this is the status Iran seeks.
Israel is an (undeclared) major nuclear power and is determined to
remain one. North Korea presents itself as a nuclear weapons power,
and may be one.
The most important force at work among vulnerable third world
states is the desire to have a nuclear deterrent against invasion or
attack by the United States (or in the Iran case, Israel), or by some
other nation in the future. Iran seeks to protect itself while
reestablishing its regional influence. The claim that if it
possessed nuclear weapons, it would aggressively attack Israel (or
the U.S., or Europe) is mendacious propaganda, since nations,
intelligent ones, such as Iran, are not given to committing suicide.
This threat is put about because Israel wishes the United States
preemptively to demolish Iran as it already has demolished Iraq. One
assumes that Barack Obama, also intelligent, will not do so, and his
administration has already gone to great lengths to convince Israel
not to attack Iran on its own, the Israelis unwisely expecting to profit from the
ensuing regional catastrophe.
At the very least, candidates for proliferation wish to create
uncertainty about possession of a nuclear deterrent, even if it
consists of a single weapon. (This is one interpretation of the
situation of North Korea. Combined with the demonstrated
recklessness of the North Korean leadership, it has placed North
Korea in a strong enough position vis-à-vis its enemies that it has
been able to blackmail them on certain issues.)
As for the threat that President Obama described in calling
this meeting, that terrorists would obtain nuclear weapons, this
seems to me extremely unlikely, if only because no government
possessing these weapons would imagine giving such power to
terrorists, or allowing weapons to be stolen. The world would hold
them, not the terrorists, responsible for what followed, and they
would themselves become the victim of retaliation.
A different problem, complicated by the U.S. itself, might have
found a solution at this meeting. Pakistan and India were convoked
by Mr. Obama to a meeting on Sunday, a day earlier than the plenary
meeting. This was because the United States, during the George W.
Bush administration, seemed to reward India’s secret introduction of
nuclear weapons into South Asia. Pakistan had already followed
India’s example, to have a deterrent ready to set against India’s new
weapons. There was then, and remains, a Cold-War style balance of
terror between the two countries.
Washington, under George W, Bush, granted a special nuclear
relationship to India, promising to supply it with technology and
fuel to build power plants, in this way ending a long moratorium on
relations imposed when India – with a “neutralist” policy during the
Cold War – was viewed with hostility by the United States.
During this same period Pakistan was a Cold War ally of the United
States, as it today remains an ally in the Afghanistan war, but
certain members of the Pakistani elite were also, as subsequently was
discovered, providing other countries with the means for nuclear
proliferation.
Now American ally Pakistan is adding to its nuclear facilities so as
to be in a position to construct second-generation weapons. When
challenged, it replies that since the United States is giving
civilian nuclear help to India, it is allowing India to use its
existing facilities to build new weapons, which Pakistan must
counter. Mr. Bush seems not to have thought about this when making
India a new American ally.
It is not only dangerous but grotesque that India and Pakistan, two
of the poorest countries on earth, should be wasting their resources
to enlarge the nuclear dimension in their lethal rivalry of more than
sixty years, going back to Partition.
It is not only an unreasonable and quite unnecessary conflict, which
steadily has generated wars and hatred, focusing upon the status of
Kashmir, whose Hindu prince adhered to India at the time of
Partition, despite the fact that Kashmir’s population is Muslim.
India sent troops to reinstall the prince and suppress the revolt of
the Muslim population, subsequently refusing plebiscite and
negotiation initiatives. Solving the Kashmir problem could be more of
a benefit to peace than anything else coming out of Mr. Obama’s
conference.
(Visit William Pfaff's Web site at http://www.williampfaff.com.)