Humans – the big brained species; so clever, yet so destructive. We can split an atom. And we can blow ourselves into oblivion. Albert Einstein observed, “The splitting of the atom has changed everything except our way of thinking, and hence we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” A Chinese proverb warns, “Unless we change direction, we shall end up where we are headed.” Are we doomed? Does Barack Obama’s ascendancy to global leadership mark a turning point?

Listening amid the adoring crowd at Prague Castle on the 5th of April to United States President Obama as the sun rose behind him, one felt the flutter of our better angels. Yet as Earth, Wind and Fire’s Shining Star played and flags were distributed, as the crowd fell into a docile line for this globally televised event, it felt both historic and a  bit cheesy. Celebrities pass, but our great global challenges will remain (at least the Earth will remain, will humanity?). In his Prague speech, Mr. Obama proclaimed that confronting nuclear proliferation is vital to “our ultimate survival.” In vowing to rid the world of nuclear weapons, President Obama has challenged us to choose survival over destruction. Can we close Pandora’s Box?

“As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a  moral responsibility to act.” Mr. Obama’s direct recognition of simple truths is refreshing, underscoring his message of responsibility. His affirmation of the basic bargain underpinning the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is essential. Under the NPT, countries with nuclear weapons shall disarm, and other countries shall repudiate nuclear weapons. And the pledge to have the US ratify the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is long overdue. While the Russian Duma ratified the CTBT in 2000, the US Republican-dominated Senate voted it down in 1999. Obama’s leadership towards nuclear disarmament is vital.

While we may criticize (Why was there no mention of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty? Why keep alive the US radar system in the Czech Republic? See The Fallacy of Missile Defense, TNP, Fall 2006), Obama’s tactics are reasonably aimed at delivering us from doom. The same might be said of his efforts to confront the US auto, energy, healthcare and financial industries, the Pentagon and its defense contractors, and the very nature of business and politics. Obama’s challenge brings to mind Frank Capra’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, or trying to fight City Hall.

Tenacity, grace and grassroots mobilization are required in fighting those with vested interests in the status quo. The lack of buzz stirred in the mainstream press on this atomic initiative is remarkable. Conspicuous in their absence have been editorials and analysis on Obama’s nuclear framework in major media outlets. Of course they too represent vested interests in the status quo. The status quo, however, is unsustainable with respect to nuclear weapons proliferation.

Nuclear weapons are unlike any other weapons – they cannot be used for any legitimate purpose; any possible use violates international law. And so the notion that nuclear weapons provide security is fundamentally flawed. Prevailing wisdom during the Cold War held that nobody would attempt a nuclear strike because it would prompt a counterstrike; mutual assured destruction (MAD) was thought to provide an effective deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons. A small minority argued that they could survive a nuclear attack and emerge victorious. They were called nuclear utilization theorists (NUTs). The absurdity of denying the prospect of nuclear devastation is reflected in a comment from a top Reagan administration nuclear strategist who said that in the event of a nuclear attack, “If there are enough shovels to go around, everybody’s going to make it. It’s the dirt that does it.” NUTS now place faith and resources in shield protection against missiles (SPAM). SPAM, NUTS and MAD offer false security. In 2009, none of these paradigms protect us from nuclear annihilation.

A US bipartisan commission on the prevention of nuclear proliferation recently concluded, “Our margin of safety is shrinking, not growing.” The greatest danger is not the bogeyman of so-called “rogue states” – the favored fear-mongering tool that former US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld used to justify massive missile expenditures. Rather it is the rising number of failed states and violent extremist non-state actors capable of getting the Bomb. Obama noted that “in a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black market trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build the bomb has spread.”

Harvard political scientist Graham Allison’s recent Newsweek cover story (“Stopping the Ultimate Attack,” March 23, 2009) highlights the danger of nuclear terror and calls for revitalizing the concept of deterrence. Author of Nuclear Terrorism: the Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe and Nuclear Proliferation: Risk and Responsibility, Allison surely recognizes that the best deterrence is the abolition of nuclear weapons. Nuclear theorists and strategists should heed the call of former Pentagon chief Robert McNamara, who in 2003 acknowledged “it was luck that prevented nuclear war” and catastrophe in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Luck may not save us next time.

Nuclear threats now include: Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or other religious extremists acquiring nukes; India and Pakistan possessing the Bomb (in light of their bloody history and territorial dispute over Kashmir); various doomsday scenarios resulting from a nuclear arms race in the Middle East; given the inadequate safeguards, as more states pursue civilian nuclear energy programs to meet their fuel needs, illicit use of nuclear material and technology will spread; accidents scenarios for atomic annihilation are many and growing.

We now have a  window of opportunity to act, for as nuclear threats are spreading, voices of reason are rising. The past two years have seen peace activists joined by hawks like Henry Kissinger and statesmen like the prime ministers of Britain, India and Australia calling to abolish nuclear weapons. And for the first time, a US president has been elected on a  campaign pledge of nuclear weapons abolition. Obama’s Prague speech makes this a centerpiece of his foreign policy, and his atomic agenda has received praise from leaders worldwide in providing a roadmap, in more than name, to disarm nukes. On 16 April, President Reagan’s secretary of state (1982–89) George Schultz called nuclear weapons abolition “an idea whose time has come.”

Cynics suggest that Obama’s ideal of “the peace and security of a world with- out nuclear weapons” is unattainable. But disarmament is best understood as a process, a way of progressing, rather than an event, the magical result of “zero” weapons. The movement to abolish nuclear weapons aims to rapidly reduce the world’s nuclear arsenals so as to make nuclear weapons illegitimate. This movement is growing, but time is not on its side.

The increasing number of states with the Bomb inevitably follows from the failure of nuclear weapon states to disarm. As noted by former chief UN weapons inspector Dr. Hans Blix, “So long as any state has nuclear weapons, others will want them. So long as any such weapons remain, there is a risk that they will one day be used, by design or accident. And any such use would be catastrophic.” The fact is, NPT is in shambles. The 2005 NPT review was impotent; with its five-year review coming next year, failure to make prompt progress may mean atomic anarchy.

We must stop our nuclear hypocrisy. The lesson drawn from India and Pakistan is that possessing the bomb enhances state power. The perceived value of obtaining nuclear weapons increased after these states tested their Bombs just over a decade ago. The lesson drawn from Israel is that the US approaches nuclear proliferation geopolitically and applies double standards. All three of these states have flouted NPT and benefited. All nuclear weapon states must take concerted action to disarm in order to dispel these dangerous lessons and secure our future.

On stopping the spread of nuclear weapons technology, Obama proposed “a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years” and “a  new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation.” The Wall Street Journal reports that according to senior Obama administration officials, the fuel bank is likely to be based in Kazakhstan under IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) control and open only to states that renounce nuclear weapons and the production of nuclear fuel. Obama also vowed to host a global summit on nuclear security within a year which will transform efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism into effective enduring international institutions.

North Korea’s missile launch on the 5th of April underscored the urgency of Obama’s call, made just hours later, for nuclear disarmament and a new treaty banning fissile materials. IAEA Director and Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei reports that there are 27, 000 fully functional nuclear warheads in the world, and that now within a matter of months, nuclear energy for peaceful purposes can be transformed into nuclear weapons capacity. He warns that up to 30 states could possess nuclear weap- ons capacity by 2016. And if Pakistan continues to crumble, Al-Qaeda or the Taliban could have the Bomb by then. Yes, Pandora’s Box is indeed open. ElBa- radei – whose term ends later this year and who on the 20th of April at a Beijing conference on nuclear security endorsed Obama’s approach on Iran – recently observed, “You can’t have nine countries telling the likes of Iran (or North Korea or any other state for that matter) nuclear weapons are dangerous for you but we need to go on refining our arsenals.”

Our international arms control regime is based on the premise that we are more secure taking steps to get rid of nuclear weapons rather than trying to defend against them. NPT mandates “general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” The fulfillment of NPT’s “grand bargain” requires good faith implementation and strict enforcement of NPT’s disarmament protocols. IAEA inspectors must be empowered to verify NPT compliance. As Obama noted, the present regime is ineffective. Once again, we are left talking about how to get North Korea back to six-party talks. So long as atomic hypocrisy exists, words will ring hollow. Leading by example is the best way to make the world safer.

Mistrust of the Russian Bear runs deep in Central Europe. Czechs, mindful of 1938 and fearful that Obama naiveté will lead to further perilous appeasement, are skeptical of the strategic alliance struck between Obama and Russian President Medvedev to reduce their nuclear arsenals and resume the 1991 START I  (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) negotiations. START talks only concern long-range weapons as Russia has refused to negotiate the roughly 4,000 tactical weapons it keeps to defend its borders. In his Prague speech, Mr. Obama felt it necessary to proclaim “I’m not naïve.” Given its history and the dramatic geopolitical shifts of recent years, Russia’s security concerns cannot be dismissed. Reportedly, Mr. Medvedev initiated efforts to strengthen UN Security Council Resolution 1540 establishing legally binding security standards for nuclear facilities.

As holders of 95 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons, cooperation between the US and Russia is essential to nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. Indeed, progress cannot be made in absence of a joint US-Russian commitment to disarm. On 1 April, Obama and Medvedev, who pledged to make deep cuts in their nuclear arsenals within a  year, issued an unprecedented joint statement “commit[ing] our two coun- tries to achieving a nuclear free world.” But getting there is like fighting City Hall.

On 16 April, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev welcomed Obama’s call for a nuclear weapons-free world, but warned that huge military expenditures may prove an “insurmountable obstacle,” as “defense budgets far exceed reasonable security needs.” Obama’s 2009 budget proposal, which allows a 4 percent increase in Pentagon spending to $655 billion, reveals the grip that defense contractors have on Congress. Gorbachev, who calls for slashing conventional weapons as well as nukes, thinks that US-Russian disarmament cooperation will set an example for other states and will remove any excuse for not getting rid of their nukes. He believes that, despite serious obstacles, there is now a real chance for significant nuclear disarmament.

On the Czech radar base, President Obama stated: “As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.” This statement has been widely misinterpreted. In fact, Obama has previously stated that it is neither cost-effective nor proven, and he has now explicitly linked the need for the Central European missile defense to a perceived threat from Iran. As Obama has begun talking with Iran, there is reason to believe that US missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland will soon be obsolete. After leaving Prague, Obama went to Turkey where he extended a hand of friendship to Muslims. In Prague he stated, “When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens. When we fail to pursue peace, then it stays forever beyond our grasp.”

Our nuclear arms control regime is in peril. The rise of instability, failed states, extremist non-state actors, and black market trade in nuclear weapons technology compels us to consider how the international community can best turn back the doomsday clock. Yes, there are many global challenges: climate change, food scarcity, economic collapse, pandemics, narcotics, terrorism, piracy, failed states, depleted fish stocks and other ecological decay, and the list goes on. But nuclear proliferation rightly belongs at the top of the list. We started it (by unleashing and using this force upon humanity), and must end it. As with all these challenges, the solution must be multi-polar and inclusive. Fortunately, President Obama has embraced a markedly different attitude towards international law, organizations and diplomacy than his predecessor.

Despite NPT Article VI requiring nuclear weapon states to pursue negotiations leading to complete nuclear disarmament, the international community has done precious little to rid the world of the scourge of nuclear weapons. As noted in Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, the September 2008 report of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Representatives of nuclear weapons states pay lip service to the principle of nuclear disarmament, but none of these states has an employee, let alone an inter-agency group, tasked full time with figuring out what would be required to verifiably decommission all its nuclear weapons.” The report calls for simultaneous movement on both the disarmament and non-proliferation fronts, which is precisely the framework set forth by Mr. Obama in Prague.

Mr. Obama’s coming to Europe was a moment of grace. With credit due, this good and wise man is using his power and celebrity to lift us up. I recall at one TNP symposium when the publisher lauded candidate Obama, I  responded that he was just a pretty face in the beauty contest that is the nominating process. Well, President Obama is proving to have substance as well as style. Even this skeptic must give praise to Mr. Obama’s pitch-perfect and ambitious use of his extraordinary leadership skills.

“The old Washington Consensus is over,” declared U. K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown on the 3rd of April at the close of his G20 summit meeting.* The world has changed. Change is the only constant. Can humans change in accord with the demands of our age? Leadership – the integrity, ability and moral authority to inspire – has arrived (Mr. Obama, not Mr. Fischer). Can we the people rise to the challenge and opportunity?

William A. Cohn is a member of the California and International Bar Associations and a long-time advocate for demilitarization. He is lecturer at the University of New York in Prague.

Spring 2009 Issue

Sidebar: The Washington Consensus
The Washington Consensus refers to the Washington-based International Monetary Fund, World Bank and US Treasury Dept. and their standardized neoliberal economic policy prescriptions for developing states. The main result of the G-20 summit was a pledge of $1. 1 trillion for the IMF to help the countries hit hardest by the global economic collapse (the UN estimates that the financial crisis will push an additional 100 million people into poverty in 2009). Given the IMF’s 60-year track record of failure in effectively promoting development or democracy, it is tempting to conclude that this is much like former US Treasury Secretary Paulson’s efforts to fix the financial system by throwing money at it. The G-20 summit failed to address how IMF governance and policy will change, although it must – and soon. And so it remains an open question whether the Washington Consensus is truly finished. Also noticeably absent from the G-20 final communiqué were any commitments on climate-change or a green economic recovery plan. And so, amidst much talk of change, it is reasonable to ask: Is this the change we need? Is the G-20 just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? US President Barack Obama’s speech in Prague on the 5th of April 2009.