Memo to the UN: A Little Disarmament Diplomacy, Please
In the last month, two very different speeches on nuclear weapons and disarmament were given by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The two speeches took place days apart in different cities, but when read together they sound like a particularly unsatisfying conversation.
Secretary-General Ban essentially took the nuclear weapons states to task for not working harder to achieve complete disarmament. Meanwhile, Secretary Gates used the old standby that the U.S. cannot disarm while other countries maintain a nuclear arsenal. Both men were on message – not a lot new here.
For true champions of disarmament, this is a problem. But it is not necessarily the U.S. talking points that need to change. In order to accomplish any real progress on disarmament, it is the UN that needs to develop a new strategy. Dare I say, it is time for the UN to become more diplomatic on this issue.
Disarmament has long been used by countries as an easy opportunity to take shots at the U.S. It is really a no-win situation for the U.S. to respond since no reductions in overall numbers or changes in force structure seem to have been acknowledged by the disarmament proponents as acceptable. Instead, it sometimes seems that disarmament is used more as an irritant than a true goal.
Ban should read over Gates’ speech carefully (particularly if you believe the rumors that he might be sticking around for a while). I think he would find opportunity there. This is the Defense Secretary for a very conservative Administration lamenting the fact that we are saddled with nuclear weapons. True, I am reading between the lines a bit, but it does not take too creative an interpretation of Gates’ arguments to imagine a wistfulness there about a nuclear free world.
There will be opportunities to discuss disarmament with the Obama Administration, no doubt. During the campaign, he made statements about moving in that direction, and, in a time of tight fiscal realities, a leaner, meaner nuclear arsenal might be considered a tempting way to find some extra savings in a strapped budget.
But the Secretary-General and other leaders who see an opportunity to start pounding the disarmament drum should be very careful about how they proceed. Secretary Gates is very clear in his speech that the U.S. strategic reasons for maintaining a nuclear arsenal are not in the past. Disarmament advocates need to find a way to work with the reticence, and even ambivalence, evident in Gates’ speech. At the same time, they need to recognize that reductions in our nuclear arsenal are a huge political gamble for any U.S. President.
I understand that it has been a long eight years for the folks at the UN. The 2005 NPT RevCon was an angry and bitter event. No one likes to see a country, particularly one as critical to the process as the U.S., treat the global nonproliferation regime with such disdain. But the easiest way to close the door on the opportunity to get some real work done at the 2010 NPT RevCon is to pitch a full disarmament or bust message. That just won’t be taken seriously. Worse, it will be seen by the U.S. officials, as sympathetic as they may be, as nothing more than the same old useless blather.
Ban’s speech was touted as a bold new strategy for disarmament. It wasn’t. It merely amounts to the same old trope — Hey, United States, get rid of your nukes. But as Gates pointed out, Russia and China are modernizing their arsenals. Where was the mention of that in Ban’s speech? Instead we get a suggestion that the U.S. look at a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention penned by Costa Rica and Malaysia.
Really? Costa Rica and Malaysia? I’ve visited both countries. Nice places, surely. And I do understand that the UN is a place where every country has an equal voice. But, to be honest, I’m not sure how you expect any progress on the disarmament front with those two countries taking the lead. They just aren’t particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.
So, here’s my suggestion to Ban and the UN. If you want a nuclear free world, the countries that care about disarmament — and particularly the delegations and leadership at the UN — are going to have to move beyond their traditional tendencies to target the U.S. Stop making speeches. Start making appointments. Private appointments – not media opportunities. Tell Russia they can’t base their security on their nuclear weapons anymore. Drop the façade that China is a member of the non-aligned movement and start pounding on them about their nukes as well. Sit India and Pakistan down in a room and convince them to create a different method of deterrence. Stop giving lip service to opposing Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs and start actually taking umbrage that they have thumbed their noses at the IAEA and the NPT. And if you really want a Middle East nuclear free zone, lean heavily on every Arab nation in the region until they each propose a bilateral peace agreement and non-aggression pact with Israel.
Then, if you make any progress with any of those countries – and I’m really talking about even a bare minimum here – come talk to the U.S. Trust me – if you can help solve some of these truly intractable problems, I think you’ll find a very willing partner on disarmament.
But if you want to have the 2010 NPT RevCon turn out the same way that the 2005 RevCon did, keep giving speeches like that one. There isn’t a single politician in the White House or Congress who is going to expend any political capital on disarmament if that is the best you can do.
Related posts: