Spokane7
50°
May 11, 2010 in Opinion
Mona Charen: Obama’s nuclear path naive
When I was a little girl, at the height of the Cold War, I used to wish, deeply and fervently, that nuclear weapons had never been invented. An accompanying fantasy placed me at the center of world events. Just as the two superpowers were preparing to launch a devastating exchange of nuclear weapons, I would step between the two. Seeing an innocent child, the hard-boiled men of the world would soften and reconsider their terrible course.
In other words, at the age of 7 or 8, I was a liberal. As I grew, I came to understand a) that it was not possible to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, and b) that the way to safety lay not in arms control but in strength prudently pursued.
Liberal approaches to foreign policy continue to rely more on wishful thinking than on realism or maturity. But even in the context of liberalism, President Barack Obama’s recent policy declarations on the matter of nuclear weapons are juvenile and disturbing.
Speaking in Prague, the president declared, “I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”
Has the president really thought this through? Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine that all of the existing nuclear powers agreed that their weapons were more of a threat to “peace and security” than they were worth, and voluntarily destroyed them all. Would the world immediately become a safer place? No. It would become far more dangerous. The North Koreans would have lied about destroying their weapons, just as they lied repeatedly about building them for years. So one outcome might be that North Korea would instantly become a superpower. And surely the prospect of becoming nuclear-armed would be all the more enticing to the mullahs of Iran if they would have only North Korea in possession of similar weapons. Who would want to live in that world?
“I’m not naive,” the president continued. “This goal will not be reached quickly. … But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, ‘Yes, we can.’ ” That’s security policy by bumper sticker.
The president followed up by signing a pact with Russia limiting warheads and launchers in April and is now planning to sign a new pact on civilian nuclear cooperation.
At the same time, the administration announced, in its Nuclear Posture Review, that the U.S. will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. “This revised assurance is intended to underscore the security benefits of adhering to and fully complying with the NPT and persuade non-nuclear weapon states party to the Treaty to work with the United States and other interested parties to adopt effective measures to strengthen the non-proliferation regime.”
So as Iran closes in on a nuclear weapon – a result the administration has repeatedly declared to be “unacceptable” – the administration is getting really serious by … setting a good example. That’s right. Last week, the State Department revealed the number of nuclear weapons in our arsenal (it used to be classified). “We think it is in our national security interest to be as transparent as we can be about the nuclear program of the United States,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained. “We think that builds confidence.” Ah, but whose confidence?
Underlying all of these naive gestures is the belief that it is weapons that threaten the peace, not their owners.
But not even naivete can explain the administration’s infatuation with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Last week, Obama agreed to join the other four permanent members of the Security Council in a statement calling for a “nuclear-free Middle East” and urging Israel, Pakistan and India to submit to the treaty’s terms.
This is a fatuous distraction from the main issue: Iran. It is also a transparent attempt to gang up on Israel (whose nuclear weapons, it is well known, serve only a defensive purpose). But above all, it ignores the glaring fact that the treaty has been a total failure. North Korea signed the treaty, flouted it, and then withdrew. India and Pakistan never signed it. Syria did, and Israel destroyed a secret nuclear reactor there in 2007. Iran signed it.
Speaking to the NPT Review Conference in New York on May 3, Obama said, “For four decades, the NPT has been the cornerstone of our collective efforts to prevent the proliferation of these weapons. … I therefore made it a priority of the United States to strengthen each of the treaty’s key pillars.”
In a child, naivete about world peace is understandable. In a leader, it is frightening.
Mona Charen is a columnist for Creators Syndicate.
Trudy Rubin: Egyptians say no to Islamists 
JBlim on May 11 at 6:32 a.m.
” …The North Koreans would have lied about destroying their weapons, just as they lied repeatedly about building them for years… ”
Sure, Mona, as if Obama couldn’t figure that out. For a party that attacked Iraq because of it’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’ it’s ridiculous for Republicans to think they have cornered the market on common sense. This is just more of the same old petty partisan politics the GOP is so good at.
johnclarke on May 11 at 8:49 a.m.
Is this the best you’ve got Mona? I love this line “It is also a transparent attempt to gang up on Israel (whose nuclear weapons, it is well known, serve only a defensive purpose).”
Mona, what world do you live in ? Yes, the President wants to gang up on Israel.
horse_feathers on May 11 at 9:19 a.m.
Good article Mona. When ever Johnny comes out spewing his weak crap you know your on the right track.
johnclarke on May 11 at 9:55 a.m.
Ok Horsey, let’s build more nuclear weapons and increase funding to Israel. You are right and I am wrong. Thanks for setting me straight.
horse_feathers on May 11 at 11:51 a.m.
Okay, sounds good to me.
JBlim on May 11 at 5:04 p.m.
Even if we had to take out NK, you wouldn’t use nukes, Seoul being 30 miles from the border probably wouldn’t appreciate the fallout. Nuclear weapons are fairly useless except for lunatics. Just because lunatic leaders would use them doesn’t mean we need to.
misjustice on May 11 at 8:38 p.m.
Oh, here Moaner goes again…and it’s “Weapons of Mass Deception”, JBlim…lol!
The party that brought us two unnecessary wars is now trying to point fingers at a policy of restraint and non nuclear proliferation…perhaps they prefer Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a way forward (backward)…
johnclarke on May 11 at 8:58 p.m.
http://www.amazon.com/Ronald-Reagan-Abolish-Nuclear-Weapons/dp/1400063078
Here is a little light reading for Horsey and Mona. Seemed to be a super idea a few years back, but now it’s naive ? Here is my thinking, when a white conservative wanted to rid the world of nuclear weapons, all is well. When a black man, who is smarter than Reagan plus Mona times a factor of 10 wants to do the same thing, it’s a horrible idea and we’re all going to die.
I’m so sick of this zionist right wing drum beating from useless columnists like Krauthammer and this bimbo Mona. This is the same type of crap that led up to the invasion of Iraq, and it seems none of these folks will be happy until we invade Iran. Iran is not a threat to us, because they will be turned into a parking lot by the Israelis. Since we have bought and paid for the defense of Israel, let them defend themselves against this “threat” that probably will not exist for 10 years. The Israelis have the best intel on the planet, and if this threat truly existed, they would deal with it. Meanwhile, we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy everything everywhere, so I think reducing these numbers is an ok plan. Meanwhile why don’t you all educate yourself on the great communicator’s views on the subject and get back to me. I’m going to go have a slice of yellow cake.
misjustice on May 13 at 7:14 p.m.
Thanks, John; you said it better than I could have! ; )