US President Barack Obama’s dream of a nuclear-free world, enunciated on Sunday to cheering crowds in Prague, is one that all sane people will agree with. A world in which no one has nuclear weapons and cannot make them because supplies of plutonium are rigorously controlled would be much safer than the one we presently live in.
Realistically, however, global nuclear disarmament is not going to happen in the near future. Obama himself admitted as much. None of the nuclear powers is going to fully disarm if it thinks the others are lying or fears that someone else could go nuclear.
But half a loaf is far better than none and the vision Obama unveiled — in particular his call for arsenals to be reduced — can and should be pursued. This should not be left as mere fine sentiments. The US president has it in his power to set the ball rolling by offering fresh cuts in the US arsenal. If he does (and he has already had exploratory talks on the subject with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev), it would be difficult for other nuclear powers to do nothing. That means not only Russia, China, France and the UK, it would also include India and Pakistan as well. The idea that only the US and Russia pose a nuclear threat or that there would never be nuclear confrontation in the subcontinent is blind folly. On a scale of probabilities, conflict between India and Pakistan is much more likely than conflict between the US and Russia.
There is, though, another nuclear power that has to be brought into the picture. If Obama is serious about nuclear arms reduction, he has to look to the Israelis. The US has conveniently ignored Israel’s nuclear arsenal ever since it was developed (with American help). The US has pretended Tel Aviv’s denials about having nuclear weapons were true. The dishonesty has to stop.
Obama worries, perhaps rightly, about Iran’s intentions. But he has to see that the Middle East is a nuclear danger zone as it is — without any new regional nuclear powers. The Israelis developed their nuclear arsenal not to protect themselves from Arab nuclear states (there are none) but to give themselves the ultimate weapon in the region. It is dangerously destabilizing. It encourages others to develop nuclear arsenals of their own as a counter threat — and it will be the least reliable and the least stable, who are the most interested in doing so.
President Obama’s call was in fact made with North Korea and Iran in mind. North Korea has just launched a rocket that Pyongyang says is part of its space research program but which everyone else believes was a long-range nuclear missile test. Meanwhile, Washington is attempting a more conciliatory path with Iran over its nuclear plans, although Obama clearly does not believe that Iran’s weapons are for peaceful energy purposes.
With his acceptance that all countries have a right to nuclear power but tied to his proposal that fuel be provided by rigorously controlled international fuel bank and that all non-nuclear-armed countries pledge not to acquire such weapons, he is trying to look balanced and gain the upper hand. But if he is not equally serious about Israel, he will look hypocritical. He will lose the moral high ground he has gained with his declaration.
US president’s move risks some reaction
As US President Barack Obama tries to seek broad engagement with the Muslim world holding out assurances that his country is not and will never be at war with Islam, The Guardian in its editorial yesterday highlighted the risks the US president faces at home for his overtures. Excerpts:
It is an inconvenient truth that the two most influential countries in the Middle East are both Iran and Turkey. But some hope must lie in the fact that Obama chose to make Turkey the focus of an attempt to bridge the gulf between Islam and the West. Alighting on Turkey as an example of the deal that can be struck between the US and the Muslim world is as bold in foreign policy terms as it is risky in domestic ones. There are plenty on the right who would seize on Obama’s self-identification as an American who has Muslims in his family. But to choose the Turkish Parliament as the venue to say that his country is not and never will be at war with Islam is the mark of a man who is showing increasing confidence on the world stage.
The French president and the German chancellor, who have bolted the door to Europe, have dropped the ball on Turkey. They have yet to see what Obama has already understood. Turkey’s biggest asset is its geopolitical role, and it is using it intelligently. Turkish President Abdullah Gul has gone to Armenia on the first visit by a Turkish leader in the two nations’ bitter history. Ankara is also trying to transform its relationship with Iraqi Kurds. Turkey mediated indirect talks between Syria and Israel, and when Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stormed off the stage at the World Economic Forum in Davos, telling the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, that he was killing people in Gaza, Turkish flags went up all over Palestine.
At a time when Washington is reviewing its policy on the stalled Israeli-Arab peace process, Erdogan’s message that Hamas must be represented at the peace table carries weight. Not least it gives Israel, which maintains close ties with Ankara, cause for concern. If any country can reinforce the message to Obama that the current status quo is untenable it is Turkey.
