During the height of the Cold War, the United States and Russia together had over 60,000 nuclear weapons, many of them in the megaton range, up to one hundred times the size of the Hiroshima bomb—more than enough weapons to destroy the planet forever.  These weapons not only placed the entire planet in jeopardy, but they were exponentially more than was necessary to eliminate the nuclear capacity of the other side.  The prevalent deterrence doctrine was called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)—a fitting term.

Today we and the Russians have roughly 1/6 as many weapons, but they are still factorially more than we need for minimal security, even assuming that there would be a nuclear exchange.  Indeed, a recent paper by three U.S. military analysts concludes that we only “need” 311 of the over 5,500 operational nuclear weapons in the U.S. today.  The fact is, however, that relations with the Russian Federation no longer demand nuclear weapons at all, and that these weapons could be eliminated.  Nor do we need these weapons for our security with other countries, as our conventional forces are overwhelming.  Today, the United States spends more on its defense than the rest of the world together, with only a fraction of this budget going for nuclear weapons.  We have come to a time when nuclear weapons are simply not necessary.

Recently, Pres. Obama declared that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states with the possible exception of North Korea and Iran.  As for the nuclear states, only Russia has an arsenal which should be considered in any way threatening to the United States.  China, for example, is content with a very low number of weapons, whose purpose is only to prevent countries like the United States from bullying them with our nuclear arsenal.

With the recently completed new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the United States and Russia have started a process that could result in the denuclearization of the planet.  Although it is an important first step, the time-line for the treaty is seven years for relatively modest cuts. To accelerate the process, the United States could propose moving on to the next round, which would include not only the Russian Federation, but also China, England, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and Iran.  As these agreements are implemented, they will create increasing confidence leading to a greater willingness to sign on to still another treaty that would further reduce the world’s supply of nuclear weapons.  By taking such a pivotal role in global disarmament, the United States will truly respond to claims that the United States is employing a double standard where certain states are allowed to possess nuclear weapons while others are not.

A special case is Israel and the Middle East, including Iran.  For over 50 years, the very existence of Israel has been threatened by its Arab neighbors, and with the possible acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran, the threat seems even worse.  Today, Israel has perhaps up to 200 nuclear weapons, although it has not officially declared itself a nuclear state.  If Israel is to divest itself of nuclear weapons, the answer must be the creation in the Middle East of a nuclear free zone so strongly guaranteed by the major powers that it would be credible to Israel.  The Middle East would then become still another nuclear free zone on this planet, such as Latin America and Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Pacific.

The U.S. must not hold to a double standard, talking about nuclear disarmament, while signing on to tens of billions of dollars to modernize our nuclear arsenal. Hans Blix, the chair of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission writes: “It is not a recipe for success to preach to the rest of the world to stay away from the very weapons that nuclear states claim are indispensable to their own security.”

The challenge confronting the United States is colossal. The United States must not only deal with its own security, but also confront the corporations, such as Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin, which spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress for nuclear contracts.  The recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, giving corporations unlimited power to advertise for political purposes, makes this situation even worse.  With the opposition from these corporations as well as from an influential minority of the American public, the prospect of going much beyond START treaty seems difficult.  The solution may not be clear, but the destination is clearer than ever: nuclear abolition, because, as Pres. Obama says, “it is the right thing to do.”

What should be done?  Only an organized electorate that is well-informed about the dangers of nuclear weapons and willing to act can overcome this challenge.  This is the task of organizations like Physicians for Social Responsibility, Council for a Livable World, and The Project for Nuclear Awareness.  If such organizations can mobilize the public, we have a democratic chance.

The work involves not only the education of Congress and the Executive Branch, but also the education of the public, particularly of youth who will be carrying this fight on into the future.  As these organizations mobilize the public, they work not just against nuclear weapons, but for our survival.

Craig Eisendrath, PhD.

Chairman, Project for Nuclear Awareness

The image is from joyerickson.files.wordpress.com

On Tuesday, May 18, the Project for Nuclear Awareness presented the inaugural Global Stewardship Award to Rev. Dr. Bob Edgar, CEO of Common Cause and life-long advocate for the sustainability, protection, and preservation of the global community. The evening featured an impressive array of speakers who discussed Rev. Edgar’s work as an advocate for peace, social justice, and good government.

.

Rev. Bill Gray, former U.S. Congressman and longtime friend of Rev. Edgar’s, presented the award and discussed the ways in which their careers as ministers and elected representatives have run parallel to each other. Rev. Gray, a highly distinguished public servant and minister who remains the highest ranking African-American Congressman in the history of the House of Representatives, went further to note that his career and inspiration had, in fact, followed Rev. Edgar’s over the course of their long friendship.

.

Rev. Gray was joined by Dr. Matthew Schwartz, John Grant, Craig Eisendrath, John Haas, Thomas Paine Cronin, Patricia Harner, and Rev. Bob Moore in honoring Rev. Edgar’s work. In addition to those community leaders offering remarks, the reception was attended by a diverse group of Rev. Edgar’s friends and colleagues from his time in Congress, at the Claremont School of Theology, at the National Council of Churches, and at Common Cause.

.

The event offered these friends, colleagues, and activists an opportunity to re-connect and reflect on the intersections between environmentalism, peace advocacy, and social justice work. Rev. Edgar offered concerned citizens a list of five simple actions they could take to stand shoulder to shoulder with him:

.

1.  Campaign for the development of a flexible plan for military disengagement from Afghanistan by Congress and the White House. 
.
2.  Insist that your Senators stand up now in support of the New START Treaty, which reduces the number of high alert missiles in Russia and the United States.
.
3.  Urge your Senators to support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which is the next step for US leadership in global nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. 
.
4.  Call attention to the gross distortion of our budget and wasteful military spending. 
.
5.  Work with NGOs like Rev. Bob Edgar’s Common Cause, in passing the Fair Elections Now Act to ensure that the representatives in Congress speak for the people and not corporations and other special interest groups.  To learn more, read Bob Edgar’s recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer about the eletorate’s frustration with the status quo.

.

Please honor Rev. Edgar’s work and join the Project for Nuclear Awareness and Common Cause in these important initiatives.  To find out more about how you can take action, please contact the Project for Nuclear Awareness at infopna@gmail.com.

Check out more pictures from the Global Stewardship Award Reception on our Flickr page!

On May 8th, the Associated Press announced that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had added Israel’s nuclear program to their provisional agenda for an upcoming June 7th meeting. This is the first time that Israel’s nuclear program will be reviewed by the IAEA, if the agenda sticks.

It’s about time.

This addition of Israel to the agenda is a big step, and sends a symbolic message to Israel, its backers, and the international community: Israel is not exempt from scrutiny. It is no coincidence that this comes in the midst of rhetoric by President Obama and other international leaders about the need for a nuclear weapons free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East, and a Middle East peace agreement.

However, there is one big problem: the IAEA has no legal jurisdiction over Israel because Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). The IAEA was created to enforce the NPT, and monitor compliance from its members.

So how can this symbolic gesture by the IAEA serve as a catalyst for real action for a Middle East NWFZ and Middle East peace- with an active, cooperative role by Israel? How could Israel be persuaded to sign on to the NPT?

Based on Israel’s maximalist stance of no Middle East NWZ without a Middle East peace agreement, it is clear that Israel holds its nuclear arsenal as a response to what it perceives as an existential threat. In order to get Israel to disarm and sign the NPT, Israel’s perceived threats must be reduced, in a fair non-biased manner that considers the interests of all Middle East states.

But who to call on? The United States and Egypt are two good places to start. Egypt, an Arab Middle East state that has a successful peace agreement with Israel could serve as a mediator and example of what can be accomplished with Israel, particularly in the cases of the Palestinian conflict and Iran.

The United States has political leverage as a huge economic supporter of Israel, but also has a serious challenge in the form of a powerful Pro-Israel lobby. According to the online watchdog, open secrets.org, Pro-Israel Political Action Committees (PACs) donated a total of over 3 million dollars to both democrat and republican federal candidates in the 2008 election cycle. The U.S. Administration should base its foreign policies, not on any particular lobbies, pro-or-con, but on the best interests of the United States. In this case, it will be in the best interests of the U.S.—and also of both Israel and the Arab states—to come to agreement to end nuclear weapons.

In addition to peace negotiations on the Israel-Palestine conflict, the U.S. and Egypt must work to bring Israel and Iran to the bargaining table. Both Israel and Iran are currently the two main obstacles to a Middle East NWFZ, and avid critics of each other. If both states can come to the table with sincerity and expectation of a real bargain being reached, there just might be one. But how to build trust?

One problem is that the bargain chips, particularly between Israel and Iran are unequal. If Iran agrees to more intrusive inspections by the IAEA, and a commitment to transparency, it is unlikely that Israel will automatically sign the NPT and disarm their arsenal. A more likely agreement would be Israel agreeing to international inspections of their nuclear program, and keeping the NPT a longer-term goal.

What is needed is an amendment to the NPT, or expansion of the IAEA that allows for more negotiating flexibility to ease nuclear weapons states like Israel, and also India and Pakistan into NPT membership and international oversight. Such an amendment or expansion of IAEA powers could offer non-member nuclear weapons states the option to voluntarily accede to international inspections of their arsenals by the IAEA, which could slowly get them on the NPT track, and build faith in the international community.

This is all a tall order, but must be done. Obama is already on the right track as far as championing a Middle East NWFZ and peace agreement and fostering a good relationship with Egypt, but this is just the frosting. Let’s get to the cake! There’s no time like the present, with the NPT Review Conference in full swing.

Resources

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-iaea-to-discuss-israel-s-nuclear-activities-for-first-time-1.288981

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=Q05&cycle=2008

With the opening of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review conference on Monday, it seems like all eyes are focused on Iran, and its controversial nuclear program. While Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that the nation will not pursue nuclear weapons, Iran is still considered a major threat to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime by the U.S. and international community, who want more transparency and absolute proof that Iran is only enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. An article in the Christian Science Monitor, “Iran’s Ahmadinejad at NPT conference: Can Obama cut a nuclear deal with him?” reflects on the challenge that is U.S.-Iran relations and the nuclear weapons free-world Obama said he wants.

The Monitor’s View

Iran’s Ahmadinejad at NPT conference: Can Obama cut a nuclear deal with him?

The Ahmadinejad speech at the United Nations conference on Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) was aimed at Israel and the US. To achieve a world free of nuclear weapons, Obama will first need to deal with Iran and bring peace to the Middle East.

By the Monitor’s Editorial Board / May 3, 2010

The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, gave a belligerent speech Monday at the opening of a United Nations conference aimed at fixing the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As a leader of a nation with a secret nuclear program that threatens to break the NPT apart, Mr. Ahmadinejad would hardly seem to be a reliable partner to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

For one, the United Nations Security Council appears poised to impose tougher sanctions on Iran over its violation of the NPT. And in his speech, Ahmadinejad tried to deflect attention from Iran, focusing instead on Israel’s nuclear arsenal and the slow pace of Western nations toward nuclear disarmament.

And yet, ultimately, if President Obama is to achieve his grand goal of a world without such weapons, he will need eventually to cut a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran and its defiant leaders.

Mr. Obama is taking small steps in that direction. The United States is expected to ask the NPT’s 190 member nations at the month-long conference to endorse a plan to hold a Middle East conference aimed at ensuring a nuclear-free region, starting with the appointment of a special UN envoy.

Such a step is a critical recognition by Obama that his denuclearization effort first requires more active diplomacy toward peace between rivals in the world if the NPT can continue to be a cornerstone for nonproliferation.

Previous attempts to improve the NPT faltered over the issue of Israel’s weapons (highlighted by the 120-member Non-Aligned Movement). This time, Obama and Israel (which is not an NPT member) are more active in seeking to hold the proposed Middle East conference – but only after a peace agreement between Israel and its enemies in the region.

That prospect may be a long way off, but it points to the problems that have eroded the NPT’s effectiveness over the past four decades. The treaty’s basic bargain is this: Nations that pledge not to seek nuclear weapons receive support for peaceful uses of atomic power while NPT members with such weapons must work to get rid of them.

But both Iran and North Korea (the latter left the NPT and claims two nuclear tests) are breaking down that bargain. Their drive for nuclear capability and their rule-breaking of the treaty could touch a dangerous arms race in their regions – the very scenario that the NPT is designed to prevent.

The hard question for President Obama now is this: What is he willing to do to achieve a zero-nuke world?

He is already creating momentum for maintaining the NPT as an anti-arms-race tool.

In addition to the possible Middle East conference, he was able to ink a new START pact with Russia in April that would further lower the number of nuclear warheads between the former cold-war foes – they still command 95 percent of the world’s nukes.

He has changed the conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

He held a conference in March aimed at securing atomic materials around the world.

And he reportedly will add more transparency to the nuclear debate by revealing the number of US warheads.

Such moves by Obama might warm up a majority of nations at the NPT conference to back US proposals aimed at improving the treaty. The US seeks to beef up inspections of the nuclear programs by the International Atomic Energy Agency and to impose penalties on nations that leave or violate the treaty. Those needed reforms should also help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to terrorist groups.

Putting the nuclear genie back into a bottle will require all sorts of deals, trade-offs, and outbreaks of trust between longtime adversaries (India and Pakistan, Russia and China, Israel and Iran, to name a few).

Is Mr. Obama up to the challenge?

So far, he is moving as fast as he can.