Professional Documents
Culture Documents
P EIG
CARNEGIE
O N
he N L ICY
for t
ext Pres
iden
E N D O W M E N T F O R I N T E R N AT I O N A L P E A C E
t
October 2008
S u m mary
n The next American president should emphasize the goal of a world without nuclear weapons and really mean it.
n The verification and enforcement mechanisms that would be required to achieve this would augment U.S. and
global security at a time when the nuclear industry will likely expand globally.
n Without a clearer commitment to the elimination of all nuclear arsenals, non–nuclear-weapon states will not sup-
port strengthened nonproliferation rules, inspections, and controls over fissile materials.
n The accounting and control over nuclear materials that would be necessary to enable nuclear disarmament would
greatly reduce risks that terrorists could acquire these materials.
n If nuclear deterrence would work everywhere and always, we would not worry about proliferation. If nuclear
deterrence is not fail-safe, the long-term answer must be to reduce the number and salience of nuclear weapons
to zero.
Nuclear disarmament is higher on the U.S. nuclear weapons.” Indian Prime Minister
and international agenda than it has been Manmohan Singh has said that “India is fully
since the beginning of the nuclear age. committed to nuclear disarmament that is
George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William global, universal, and nondiscriminatory in
Perry, and Sam Nunn have urged “turning nature.”
the goal of a world without nuclear weapons These are leaders of states that have nuclear
into a practical enterprise among nations.” weapons. People in the vast majority of coun-
Barack Obama has pledged to “renew the tries that don’t have them say, “It’s about time,
goal of a world without nuclear weapons.” but is this talk of nuclear disarmament merely
John McCain has said “the time has come to public relations?”
take further measures to reduce dramatically Of course, not all American leaders agree
the number of nuclear weapons in the world’s that a world without nuclear weapons is de-
arsenals.” British Prime Minister Gordon sirable. Former Democratic cabinet secretaries
Brown has expressed the need “to acceler- Harold Brown and John Deutch argue that
ate disarmament amongst possessor states, “the goal, even the aspirational goal, of elimi-
to prevent proliferation to new states, and to nating all nuclear weapons is counterproduc-
ultimately achieve a world that is free from tive.” Republican Senator John Kyl insists
POLICY BRIEF
that “U.S. national security—and that of our everyone cooperate in enforcing a system that
friends and allies—will not permit a nuclear- looks like it was designed to favor just a few?
weapons-free world in the foreseeable future.”
Thirty-five senators are sufficient to block the Nonproliferation in a World
United States from ratifying a comprehensive With More Nuclear Industry
test ban treaty or treaties for further reduc- The challenge of strengthening protection
tions of nuclear arsenals, necessary steps on a against proliferation is growing just as pros-
road to zero. Therefore, the case needs to be pects are rising for a major global expansion
made for seriously seeking the global aboli- of nuclear industry. These two objectives—
tion of nuclear arsenals. nonproliferation and the secure expansion of
George Perkovich is vice presi- The next American president must decide nuclear industry—are shared by the United
dent for studies and director of whether to emphasize the goal of a world States and many other countries, but there is
the Nonproliferation Program without nuclear weapons and, importantly, tension between these objectives. If the num-
at the Carnegie Endowment whether to really mean it. (False promises ber of nuclear power reactors and states that
for International Peace.
of effort will only weaken U.S. standing and host them grows dramatically, so too will the
His research focuses on
power.) This Policy Brief makes the case for number of facilities for enriching uranium
nuclear strategy and nonprolif-
both. It does so from the perspective of U.S. and, perhaps, for separating plutonium from
eration, with a focus on South
national interests. Russia, China, France, spent reactor fuel. The same technologies
Asia, and he has authored and
Pakistan, and Israel have less confidence than and people that produce fissile materials for
co-authored many articles and
the United States that their security and po- civilian purposes can be employed to produce
books, including India’s Nuclear
litical interests could be preserved without weapons. More broadly, as nuclear know-
nuclear weapons. Their considerations are ex- how, equipment, and materiel spread around
Bomb, and the September 2008
plored in a September 2008 Adelphi Paper, the world, so too does the wherewithal to
Adelphi Paper, Abolishing
Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, by the author develop nuclear weapons. The difficulty of
Nuclear Weapons, with James
and Carnegie Associate, James Acton. detecting weapons proliferation rises as the
Acton.
This Brief summarizes four security inter- overall density of nuclear commerce, train-
He is a member of the Advi-
ests that would be served by making the long- ing, and cooperation increases.
sory Board of the International
term project of abolishing nuclear weapons The United States and other states and
Commission on Nuclear Non-
a central purpose of U.S. policy: preventing entities that care greatly about nonprolifera-
Proliferation and Disarmament,
proliferation; preventing nuclear terrorism; tion, such as the International Atomic Energy
formed by the governments of
reducing toward zero the unique threat of Agency (IAEA), have identified three major
Japan and Australia.
nuclear annihilation; and fostering optimism policy innovations that could reduce prolif-
He was the lead author
regarding U.S. global leadership. eration risks.
of Universal Compliance: A
Each of these objectives can be (and has The IAEA is charged with ensuring that
Strategy for Nuclear Security
been) pursued without the larger purpose of nuclear materials and related activities are used
(Carnegie 2005). In 1989–1990
eliminating nuclear weapons. However, the for exclusively peaceful purposes. The discov-
he served as a speech writer
chances of success will steadily diminish if the ery of Iraq’s clandestine nuclear weapons ef-
and foreign policy adviser to
few nuclear-armed states try to perpetuate a forts in the early 1990s compelled the 40-plus
Senator Joseph Biden.
discriminatory order based on haves and states on the IAEA’s board of governors to ac-
His work has appeared in
have-nots and if they enforce it firmly against knowledge that its safeguards system needed
Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs,
some states and hollowly against others. Such to be strengthened. Years of negotiations re-
Atlantic Monthly, the Weekly
inequity breeds noncooperation and resistance sulted in a new model for safeguards in 1997,
Standard, the Wall Street
when what is needed now is cooperation called the Additional Protocol. It requires
Journal, the Washington Post,
to prevent proliferation, nuclear terrorism, states to notify the IAEA of plans to build
the Washington Times, and
and the failure of deterrence. Why should new nuclear facilities, to provide blueprints in
the New York Times.
Abolishing Nuclear Weapons
2003 North Korea exercised this option—the Key non–nuclear-weapon states resist two
only state to do so thus far. The Security or more of these innovations. The clearest ob-
Council did not weigh in on the matter; this jection is that each of these proposals in some
was partly at the insistence of the Bush admin- way constricts their rights or imposes new
istration, which wanted to avoid precedents burdens on them. Egypt, South Africa, Brazil,
against withdrawal from arms control treaties. and Indonesia lead this resistance. On the vi-
Subsequently, France, Germany, and other tal question of curtailing access to fuel-cycle
states have proposed that NPT parties or the capabilities, Algeria, Canada, Malaysia, South
UN Security Council clarify, at the very least, Korea, Switzerland, and Turkey join them. In
that a state found not in compliance with any some cases, resistance to nonproliferation may
of its obligations may not withdraw from the reflect a desire to keep options open to move
treaty. A noncompliant state attempting to do toward military nuclear programs in the fu-
so should be made to forfeit use of nuclear ture. But one argument is clearly stated: the
nuclear-weapon states have failed to live up
A nuclear order based on a double standard— to their promises to seriously pursue nuclear
disarmament. While U.S. nuclear weapons do
a handful of states determined to keep nuclear
not cause most of the proliferation ambitions
weapons and also trying to prevent 185 from
Americans worry about today, the high value
getting them—is inherently unstable. the United States and other nuclear-armed
states put on these weapons makes others in-
facilities, equipment, and materiel acquired creasingly reluctant to cooperate in action to
through cooperation obtained on the basis of prevent proliferation and punish those caught
its membership in the treaty. cheating.
Measures to limit acquisition of uranium Discussions of the fuel-cycle issue in the
enrichment and plutonium separation have United States indicate that the national se-
received the most high-level attention among curity establishment generally does not yet
all the innovations needed to strengthen pro- comprehend the political realities of the situ-
tection against proliferation and facilitate the ation with the developing countries whose
expansion of nuclear industry. Because a state agreement must be obtained. Former U.S.
that operates enrichment or reprocessing fa- secretary of defense Harold Brown and CIA
cilities could readily produce fissile materi- director John Deutch, both Democrats, wrote
als for weapons—clandestinely and/or after in a November 19, 2007 Wall Street Journal
withdrawing from the NPT—nonprolifera- opinion-editorial that “there are several criti-
tion confidence would grow greatly if states cal nonproliferation objectives that should be
that do not now have these facilities do not pursued, but they do not require any unattain-
acquire them. From the nonproliferation able vision of a nuclear-weapons-free world to
perspective, a binding rule would be opti- justify them.” Among these objectives is the
mal; the next best thing would be for states “urgent need to put into place new means for
to voluntarily forego acquisition of fuel-cycle controlling the aspects of the fuel-cycle—en-
capabilities. In either case, states that need richment and fuel reprocessing—that present
nuclear fuel would have to be guaranteed that the greatest proliferation risk.”
as long as they comply with their safeguards These eminent Americans, along with oth-
obligations, they could purchase the fuel at ers from France and Russia, act as if they are
competitive prices (or better) in return for merely requesting an upgrade of the nuclear
not producing it themselves. order’s software from version 1.0 to 2.0.
Abolishing Nuclear Weapons
issues to the cabinet or head-of-state level, weapons each (less than one percent of the
where its counterparts will not want to look global arsenal and one-half of what India and
indifferent or mercantile in matters of such Pakistan possess) could produce a nuclear
dire consequence. winter with climate change unrecorded in
A clearer commitment to the goal of nu- human history.
clear disarmament would not be decisive Belief in nuclear deterrence provides some
here, but it could help. Terrorists might not comfort. Indeed, it is a primary source of re-
be influenced, but a clearer commitment to sistance to seriously pursuing nuclear disar-
seek conditions for the elimination of nuclear mament. Yet this belief is rational only insofar
arsenals can help motivate other states to sup- as one thinks that nuclear deterrence will not
port strengthened nonproliferation rules, in- fail. If that thought or assumption is valid,
spections, and controls over fissile materials. It then nuclear proliferation should not be such
could also strengthen popular revulsion over a concern. If additional states or terrorists ac-
the use of these weapons, including by terror- quire nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence
will not fail, then why worry?
If, on the other hand, nuclear deterrence
If nuclear deterrence is too uncertain to protect
is too uncertain to protect civilization forever
civilization forever from the dangers of mass
from the dangers of mass destruction, then the
destruction, then the goal of creating the condi- goal of creating the conditions for the secure,
tions for the secure, verifiable, and enforceable verifiable, and enforceable elimination of these
elimination of these weapons must be elevated. weapons must be elevated. As long as nuclear
weapons remain, deterrence will need to be
ists. The stronger the global effort to disavow managed with great care. It is indefensible to
nuclear weapons as a viable tool of statecraft prefer an international order based heavily on
and symbol of power, the greater the leverage threats to use nuclear weapons over an alter-
that can be exerted on states and other actors native in which these weapons are collectively
who might facilitate terrorist acquisition or use reduced to very low numbers and salience.
of nuclear weapons, either by acts of commis-
sion or omission. Terrorists may not be deter- Fostering Optimism in
rable or persuadable, but they can be impeded U.S. Global Leadership
by the denial of sanctuary, technology, and Optimism will be difficult to cultivate in a
materiel they seek from states and vendors. world in which nuclear proliferation appears
likely and progress toward nuclear disarma-
Eliminating the Threat of ment doubtful. Since 1945, nuclear weapons
Nuclear Annihilation have been a central symbol of the international
The end of the Cold War and the threat of order. The unrivalled, speedy, and destructive
U.S.–Russian nuclear war greatly reduced the power of these weapons darkens imagina-
specter of nuclear annihilation. Yet the con- tions. If it were possible to confine nuclear
tinued existence of nuclear weapons and the weapons to states whose stability, peaceful-
possible diffusion of fissile materials mean ness, and judiciousness were widely trusted,
that the risk of mass destruction remains. optimism could flourish nonetheless. But this
Recent studies by atmospheric scientists is an unlikely prospect in the near or medium
using advanced computer models indicate term. Leaders and populations in states that
that a nuclear exchange between India and could acquire nuclear weapons may not agree
Pakistan involving 50 Hiroshima-strength on which other states are trustworthy with
Abolishing Nuclear Weapons
these weapons. This is one reason why a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and universal
nuclear order based on a double standard—a adoption of the Additional Protocol—would
handful of states determined to keep nuclear improve political dynamics and confidence
weapons and also trying to prevent 185 from between nuclear-armed and non–nuclear-
getting them—is inherently unstable. weapon states.
Conversely, if the nuclear-armed states gen- Perhaps most importantly, the United
uinely committed themselves to the project of States, Russia, and China would have to reas-
trying to eliminate these weapons, optimism sure each other of their strategic intentions,
about the direction of the international order constrain certain military capabilities, and
could grow. A hint of this potential emerged reach a mutual understanding on the future
in positive international reactions to the call
by Shultz, Kissinger, Perry, and Nunn for pur- The vision of a world free of nuclear weapons does
suing a world without nuclear weapons. The
not make its attainment feasible, let alone inevitable.
project could fall short of success for myriad
Nuclear disarmament and resolution of political–security
reasons. Russian and Chinese wariness of U.S.
conventional military power and what they conflicts would have to proceed together in a
see as the U.S. proclivity to interfere in what reciprocating, co-evolutionary process.
they regard as their spheres of influence could
make Moscow and Beijing rely even more on of ballistic missile defenses. In South Asia,
nuclear weapons to deter the United States. culmination of India’s and Pakistan’s positive
India and Pakistan could remain unable to re- back-channel diplomacy over Kashmir could
solve their security dilemmas, with the situa- expedite agreement to eliminate short-range
tion exacerbated by Pakistan’s internal turmoil ballistic missiles that both countries recognize
and preoccupations. Israel and its neighbors are unnecessary and not conducive to crisis
are a long way from establishing a stable peace stability. Or, this logic could be reversed with
that would facilitate Israel’s nuclear disarma- an agreement on missiles that improves the
ment. Iran could acquire nuclear weapons and political environment for creating and an-
refuse to join a disarmament process, proving nouncing a formula for ending conflict over
the unreliability of the UN Security Council Kashmir. Other such co-evolutionary devel-
as an enforcement body. opments can be easily imagined throughout
Yet, if the leaders of the major powers es- the global nuclear order.
tablished as an organizing principle of their The elimination of all nuclear arsenals is
diplomacy the goal of creating the conditions not an end in itself. It is a means to global se-
for eliminating nuclear arsenals, it is highly curity. The verification and security conditions
probable that majorities of their citizens and that would be required to enable the abolition
the rest of the world would feel a charge of of nuclear weapons are all conducive to a more The Carnegie Endowment
optimism about the direction in which they secure world. Therefore, the goal of abolishing normally does not take
are seeking to move. nuclear weapons can be a beneficial organiz- institutional positions on public
The vision of a world free of nuclear weap- ing principle of the national security policies policy issues; the views presented
ons does not make its attainment feasible, of major states. The next U.S. administration here do not necessarily reflect the
let alone inevitable. Nuclear disarmament should be one of its champions. n views of the Endowment, its
and resolution of political–security conflicts officers, staff, or trustees.
would have to proceed together in a recipro-
cating, co-evolutionary process. Early steps— © 2008 Carnegie Endowment
nuclear arms reductions, implementation of a for International Peace.
All rights reserved.
www.CarnegieEndowment.org
RESOURCES
The Carnegie Endowment Visit www.CarnegieEndowment.org/pubs for these and other publications.
for International Peace
is a private, nonprofit Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security, George Perkovich, Jessica T.
organization dedicated Mathews, Joseph Cirincione, Rose Gottemoeller, and Jon B. Wolfsthal (Washington, D.C.:
to advancing coopera- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2007) http://www.carnegieendowment.org/
tion between nations and files/univ_comp_rpt07_final1.pdf; http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/univ_comp_
promoting active interna- reportcard_final.pdf.
tional engagement by the
United States. Founded
Toward A Nuclear-Free World, George P. Schultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger,
in 1910, Carnegie is non-
partisan and dedicated
and Sam Nunn, Wall Street Journal (national edition), January 15, 2008, http://online.wsj.
to achieving practical com/public/article_print/SB120036422673589947.html.
results. Building on the
successful establishment A World Free of Nuclear Weapons, George P. Schultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kiss-
of the Carnegie Moscow inger, and Sam Nunn, Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2008 (national edition), A15.
Center, the Endowment
has added operations in Weapons of Terror: Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms,
Beijing, Beirut, and Brus- (Stockholm: Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, 2006) http://www.
sels to its existing offices in
wmdcommission.org/files/Weapons_of_Terror.pdf.
Washington and Moscow.
New Nuclear Realities, Harold Brown, Washington Quarterly 31:1 (Winter 2007–2008):
7–22, http://www.twq.com/08winter/docs/08winter_brown.pdf.
25%
FOREIGN
POLICY
for the Next President