President Barack Obama has decided to personally lead a meeting of heads of state at the U.N. Security Council. The subject: nuclear weapons.

This week, the U.S. Ambassador the the United Nations, Susan Rice, announced the unusual move:

"The Security Council has an essential role in preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons and is also the world's principal multilateral instrument for global security cooperation. The session will be focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly and not on any specific countries."

And there lies the rub.

I welcome President Obama's leadership on the nuclear weapons issue. But I worry about the mixed signals he sends. He supports both the elimination of nuclear weapons and their use as a deterrent. For even a nimble politician like Obama, that is quite a balancing act. This Security Council meeting sounds like it could be more of the same.

The September 24th meeting will focus on both nonproliferation and disarmament. Though these goals are often lumped together, they are separate concepts.

Disarmament clearly implies the elimination of all nuclear weapons from the planet. Most experts believe that this would be achieved in stages under an internationally-agreed plan. The president himself has espoused the concept, most notably in Prague this April, promising "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."

Nonproliferation deals with stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. It is often interpreted to mean that the nuclear-armed nations of the world get to keep their WMD but other nations can't develop new weapons. In other words, some nations are more equal than others. Even the Non-Proliferation Treaty separates signatories as "nuclear-weapon " or "non-nuclear-weapon " states.

These non-nuclear-weapon states sometimes decide that they need to develop nuclear weapons to gain power, respect, influence or because they want to have a deterrent of their own -- Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea are just some examples. In this way, "nonproliferation" as we have practiced it so far, has only increased the number of nuclear weapons and the number of countries that possess them.

So how can nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation be linked? This is a key question for Obama's mini-Summit.

On July 30, Ellen Tauscher, the U.S. Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security and former Congresswoman from San Francisco, had this to say:

"I believe the New START Treaty [the new arms control treaty being negotiated now between Russia and the United States] is the beginning of a new narrative for the post-Cold War generation that need not be paralyzed by the threat of nuclear war and it is a down payment for deeper reductions in the future."

This sounds promising. But in the same speech, Tauscher made this statement:

"We need to ensure that there is a safe and effective deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist without nuclear testing. I strongly support the critical role that extended deterrence has played in our national security policy. It must remain a central element of our national security policy. We must be able to tell our allies, 'We've got your back.'"

The Obama administration has proven at ease with apparent contradictions in policy. Here, we are asked to believe that though the U.S. is "committed" to a world without nuclear weapons, it will keep the policy of deterrence "as long as nuclear weapons exist."

If the world is expected to find that strategy credible, President Obama needs to first state that nuclear disarmament is the top priority and that deterrence will be de-emphasized as the world's nations agree to dismantle their nuclear weapons. He must also show how nonproliferation will be re-defined so it is not an excuse for the status quo and instead points to greater nuclear security on the way to the elimination of nuclear weapons.

Perhaps he will present a roadmap for disarmament at the September Security Council meeting.

Meanwhile, Dr. David Krieger, President of the non partisan nonprofit Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, has four suggestions for the president :

-- First, visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just as he visited concentration camps in Europe. Be the first U.S. president to take this step. Make the threat of nuclear war, nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation vivid to people everywhere.


-- Second, direct our negotiators to be bold in agreeing to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Russian arsenals, to de-alert these arsenals and to declare policies of No First Use of nuclear weapons.

-- Third, assure that the new U.S. Nuclear Posture Review gives an accurate assessment of the risks of continuing to rely upon nuclear deterrence and the benefits of moving rapidly to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.

-- Fourth, convene the leaders of the world to negotiate a new treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

This week marks the 64th anniversaries of the nuclear attacks by the United States on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. More than 140,000 people died in those attacks. The hibakusha are the people who witnessed the horror in Japan and managed to survive. They have made their views plain on the subject:

Nuclear weapons should never be used again. So we must eliminate nuclear weapons -- before they eliminate us.

President Obama has done more than anyone to change the dialogue over nuclear weapons. Now he needs to change the policy baggage we carry from Cold War days.

On the contrary, we should focus on the hundreds of thousands lives that can be safeguarded with the dismantling of each and every nuclear weapon. We should focus on building public support for a phased, verifiable and internationally-agreed plan to eliminate the weapons.

Best of luck in September at the Security Council, Mr. President. Thanks for having the courage to address this diffcult issue. The children of the world and many future generations are relying on your work for nuclear disarmament to be successful. Please remember them.

Source

President Obama on Sunday launched an effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons, calling them "the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War" and saying the U.S. has a moral responsibility to lead as the only nation ever to have used one.

In a speech driven with new urgency by North Korea's rocket launch just hours earlier, Obama said the U.S. would "immediately and aggressively" seek ratification of a comprehensive ban on testing nuclear weapons. He said the U.S. would host a summit within the next year on reducing and eventually eliminating nuclear weapons, and he called for a global effort to secure nuclear material.

"Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be checked — that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction," Obama said to a huge crowd in a square outside the Prague Castle gates.

"This fatalism is a deadly adversary," he said. "For if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable."

Obama at one point targeted his comments directly at North Korea, which launched a rocket late Saturday night in defiance of the international community. The president was awakened by an aide and told of the news, which occurred in the early morning hours in Prague.

"North Korea broke the rules once more by testing a rocket that could be used for a long range missile," Obama said. "This provocation underscores the need for action — not just this afternoon at the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons."

Addressing another longtime foe on the nuclear front, Obama said the U.S. will present Iran with "a clear choice," to join the community of nations by ceasing its nuclear and ballistic missile activity or face increased isolation and a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

He said the U.S. also will proceed with development of a missile defense system in Europe as long as there is an Iranian threat of developing nuclear weapons. If that threat is removed, he said, "The driving force for missile defense in Europe will be removed. "

Source

Visitors look at replicas of North and South Korean missiles at the Korea War Memorial

North Korea might stage a second atomic test to raise the stakes in nuclear disarmament negotiations next year but the new US administration is unlikely to yield, a South Korean think-tank said Monday.

It warned it could not rule out the possibility the North may threaten to suspend denuclearisation, boycott six-party disarmament talks and fire missiles or even a nuclear weapon "to tame the new Obama administration or increase its leverage in the nuclear negotiations."

"North Korea may become less reasonable in the face of growing challenges from instability of its regime and rumours of leader Kim Jong-Il 's ill health," said the report from the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security, which is under the foreign ministry.

But incoming President Barack Obama, it forecast, would be tougher than his predecessor in dealing with what it called Pyongyang's brinkmanship.

The communist state staged its first nuclear test in October 2006 while the six-party negotiations were at a stalemate.

The latest round of talks this month ended without agreement on the next step -- procedures to verify the North's declaration of nuclear activities.

The institute noted that Obama has expressed willingness in principle to talk to leaders of hostile nations, such as the North's Kim.

But it said his engagement policy, given no results, may also switch to a tougher stance.

"Particularly on the verification issue, the Obama administration is likely to adopt a tougher stance than the Bush administration, which implies the Pyongyang-Washington relations won't be very smooth," Yonhap news agency quoted the report as saying.

North Korea in any case would not be a diplomatic priority for Obama given the economic crisis, the Iraq war and Iran's nuclear drive among other issues, it went on.

Should the nuclear stalemate continue, North Korea could soften its current hostility and turn to South Korea as its last source of assistance.

The institute said the global economic crisis would weigh heavily on the North as mineral export prices fall and outside aid decreases, and Pyongyang may face another food shortage crisis similar to the 1990s.

Source