Real Intention of Obama’s “Nuclear-free World”---Qian Wenrong

Qian Wenrong   Researcher of Research Center for International Issue Studies of Xinhua News Agency

In recent years, former Secretary of State Kissinger and Schultz, former defense minister Perry and former President of Military Commission of State Senate Nunn issued an article on Wall Street Journal and proposed to establish a “nuclear weapon-free world”. They were the initiators of nuclear deterrence theory and firm impeller but they unanimously hold the end of Cold War makes nuclear deterrent theory an outfit and achieving the goal with nuclear weapons is with growingly little availability but increasingly great danger. During the U.S. general election in 2008, Democratic Party availed itself of this occasion to include the proposal of establishing a “nuclear weapon-free world” into the election program. In April, 2009, Obama proposed the concept of “nuclear weapon-free world” in Prague. Later, in September, at the UN Security Council Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament Summit, Obama reaffirmed that the United States intended to lead a “nuclear weapon-free world” and called on the international community to make efforts to build such a world. The United States’ intention to build a “nuclear weapon-free world” was also added into the latest US Nuclear Posture Review Report. It was of profound realistic and strategic significance for Obama administration to put forward the proposal of “nuclear weapon-free world”.

I. Real Intention of Obama’s “Nuclear-free World”

The above-mentioned four former personages put forward three main reasons for their proposal of abandoning nuclear weapons and building a “nuclear weapon-free world”. First, the current nuclear nonproliferation mechanism is constantly destroyed and fails to stop the increase of “nuclear weapon states”. Meanwhile, it is nobody but the United States that plays the leading role in damaging the nonproliferation mechanism. The United States either abolishes or flatly violates many agreements on arms control and disarmament initiated or signed by itself. Second, the number of potential nuclear weapon states is on the rise. In October, 2008, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace issued the report Abolish Nuclear Weapon and said currently, in the world there are 12 countries owning nuclear weapons developing programs and 28 countries owning ballistic missiles. However, Japan, biggest potential nuclear weapon state besides “atomic clubs”, is not included in the report. Third, the skills in manufacturing nuclear weapons and related knowledge are increasingly publicized, and in particular, the nuclear materials are more available. After dissolution of the Soviet Union, the smuggling of nuclear materials becomes more serious. “It is more possible for the non-state terrorists to involve in the issue of nuclear weapons.”

The three reasons mentioned above are facts but not all the grounds for Obama’s proposal of “nuclear weapon-free world”. In fact, besides these reasons, Obama and his brain trusters make the decision from the point of the following views.

First, hitting the ethical commanding height. the nuclear policy of Bush administration was fiercely opposed by the people all over the world including those from the allied countries of the United States. The addition of unsatisfactory Iraq War nearly lost up the international reputation of the United States. Under such circumstance, Obama proposed to build a “nuclear weapons-free world” in order to revive the international prestige of the United States, meet the expectations and demand of the people in the world and put strong pressure from public opinions on checking nuclear weapons, especially on North Korea and Iran.

Second, reducing “redundant” nuclear weapons does not mean to weaken the US nuclear advantages and nuclear deterrence. It is a big leap made by Obama to achieve “nuclear weapons-free world” by reducing the number of nuclear weapons instead of Bush’s firm refusal to nuclear disarmament. However, it will be found that no big progress has been made when we compare the new Treaty between the United States of America and the Soviet Union on the Reduction of Offensive Strategic Arms signed by the United States and Russia on April 8th, 2010 with Treaty between the United States of America and the Soviet Union on Reduction and Limitation of Offensive Strategic Arms in 1991 and Treaty on the Reduction of Offensive Strategic Arms between the United States and Russia in 2002. First, in 1991 treaty, it was regulated that the number of nuclear warheads deployed by the United States and Soviet Unions should be cut down to no more than 6,000; in 2002 treaty, it was stipulated that the number of the deployed operational nuclear warheads was reduced to that between 2,200 and 1,700. In these two treaties, the reduced nuclear warhead refers to the deployed ones and those restored in the nuclear arsenal were excluded. Second, in the new treaty, the number of nuclear warheads deployed in the actual combat is reduced to 1,500, only 150 less than the minimum number of 1700 regulated in 2002 treaty. Thus, no impairment has been made to the America advantages in nuclear given its huge nuclear arsenal. Moreover, the United States has developed and made “Reliable Replacement Warhead” (RRW), capable of offsetting the reduction of the number of nuclear warheads. Additionally, in recent years, the United States rapidly developed long-range regular strategic weapons, with no less power than the general nuclear weapons. In February, 2010, Vice President of the United States Biden made the speech in National Defense University and said that “for a long period, the United States deters its enemies with nuclear weapons. But with the development of technology and science, it can achieve the same goal without nuclear weapons.”

Third, weakening the strength of Russia and China, and China in particular; After the Cold War, the regular strength of Russia was dramatically crippled so in recent years, it was repeatedly stressed that the nuclear force should be strengthened to be the cornerstone for safeguarding the national security. It developed a number of new strategic nuclear weapons. In National Security Strategy before 2020 issued by Russia in May, 2009, though elimination of the global nuclear weapons was listed in it, in its formulated National Equipment Plan between 2011 and 2020, it proposed to update the “Nuclear Shield” and completely updated the strategic nuclear force before 2020. The United States was quite anxious about that. In addition, the United States keeps much closer attention to China’s military modernization and releases Military Power of People’s Republic of China. Military and political personages like defense minister keep exaggerating China’s military strength and embroidering “China Threat Theory”. Officer of US Pacific Command Willard even testified in the Congress that China owned “nuclear force with the range nearly covered the whole world”. Therefore, Obama’s proposal of “nuclear weapons-free world” was formulated to exert pressure on Russia and force Russia to make any compromise as well as sign the new treaty on whittling down strategic weapons on the one hand; and to urge China to join in the nuclear disarmament and establish such mechanism for reporting and monitoring the strategic nuclear weapons as that established between the United States and Soviet Union (Russia), checking the nuclear strength of China, on the other hand.

II. Main Obstacles in Building “Nuclear Weapons-free World”

People all over the world strongly desire and require to completely destroy all nuclear weapons and to build a nuclear weapons-free world. China takes the lead in proposing to build a nuclear weapons-free world. President of US Institute of Foreign Affairs Haas wrote the preface for the US Policy on Nuclear Weapons released in April, 2009 and said Obama’s proposal for building a “nuclear weapons-free world” is “nothing but a conception”. In the research report themed Why the United States Takes the Lead in Abolishing Nuclear Weapons released by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in October 2008, it is held that the conception of “nuclear weapons-free world” could not be realized at all.

First, hegemony and power politics are the largest obstacles for completely destroying nuclear weapons and establishing nuclear weapons-free world. As long as these two obstacles remain, security of each country will continue to be threatened and the proposal of nuclear weapons-free world could not be materialized.

Second, the United States proposes to build a “nuclear weapons-free world” on one hand, but continues to keep its nuclear strategic advantages and nuclear deterrence on the other hand. In latest US Quadrennial Defense Review Report, the United States declared that “nuclear strike capability is still the core task of Ministry of National Defense before achieving the ‘nuclear weapons-free world’”. We need to keep a safe and effective nuclear arsenal to defense any attack on the USA and its allied countries”. In the “OPLAN8010” Operation Plan of US Strategic Nuclear Command revised by Obama, China and Russia are still listed among the 6 targets of nuclear attack. In 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report, it is clearly proposed that the United States would “maintain safe, reliable and effective nuclear arsenal” and not give up its position of “giving up the first no use of nuclear weapons.

Third, in the United States, the idea of nuclear disarmament is strongly opposed. Obama administration’ proposal of “nuclear weapons-free world” suffered successive oppositions. Perry, advocator of “nuclear weapons-free world” and Scowcroft, former US National Security Advisor jointly undertook the position of presidents in a panel specially set up for researching how to realize the nuclear weapons-free world. In the US Policy on Nuclear Weapons proposed by the concerned panel, the proposal for building a “nuclear weapons-free world” was cancelled and some policies and suggestions were put forward for nuclear disarmament.

Fourth, there is still a long way to go to destroy the nuclear weapons. The party of Perry expressed that the United States spent several decades in building the nuclear arsenal after the Cold War and the abolishment of this arsenal would took at least several decades. It reveals that though the US political leaders put forward the idea of “nuclear weapons-free world” orally, they are reluctant to abolish the nuclear arsenal they set up with several-decade efforts. 

III. The United States Should Take Concrete Actions

When Obama announced his proposal for “nuclear weapons-free world”, he said “the United States can not accomplish this task by itself but it can lead it.” If Obama sincerely desires to play the leading role, he could take the concrete actions in the following aspects to show his determination and sincerity:

First, the foreign policies like hegemony and power politics should be ended.

Second, it should be announced unconditionally that no first use of nuclear weapons to nuclear states and no use of nuclear weapons to nuclear weapons-free states. Stop researching and developing new nuclear weapons promptly and destroy any nuclear weapon and concerned equipments and materials under research with the supervision of the United Nations; stop implementing “OPLAN8010” Nuclear Strike Operation.

Third, the Congress should be urged to approve Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty as soon as possible.

Fourth, stop researching and developing other weapons of mass destruction (including land, marine and outer space antimissile systems and laser weapons); stop and withdraw the deployed antimissile systems in any state or region outside the United States.

Fifth, withdraw all nuclear weapons deployed overseas. Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway and Holland have required the United States to withdraw over 200 tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe. But no response is received from the United States until now. The United States should annul its commitment to provide “nuclear umbrella” for Japan, South Korea and Turkey.

Sixth, stop researching and developing long-range non-nuclear strategic weapons. The United States speeds up researching and developing “Prompt Global Strike System”(C-PGS) at the speed of 3,600 miles per hour which can strike any place in the world in the United States, surely exerting far-reaching negative influence on the progress of global nuclear disarmament.

  Seventh, stop double standards for preventing nuclear proliferation. For such a long period, the United States has never stopped researching and developing more powerful and advancer nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and, moreover, has adopted the double standards all through the way for preventing nuclear proliferation. Former Secretary-general of International Atomic Energy Agency ElBaradei pointed out “as long as such double standards continue to be adopted, such weapons of mass destruction will never be stopped”.