Disarmament by example won't work
Betsy's Page
President Obama seems to think that the rest of the world chooses their foreign policy based on what the Americans have done in the past, rather than on the basis of what is in their own national interests. So his nuclear disarmament policy seems to be based on the idea that, if we just lead the way, others will follow. As Anne Applebaum writes in Slate, expecting the world to imitate Obama's worthiness is just not a viable foreign policy plan.
<<< This is all very nice—but as the central plank in an American president's foreign policy, a call for universal nuclear disarmament seems rather beside the point. Apparently, the president's intention is to lead by example: If the United States cuts its own nuclear arsenal and bans testing, others will allegedly follow.
Forgive me for joining the chorus of cynics, but there is no evidence that U.S. nuclear arms reductions have ever inspired others to do the same. All the world's more recent nuclear powers—Israel, India, Pakistan—acquired their weapons well after such talks began more than 40 years ago.
As for the North Koreans, they chose the very day of the Prague speech to launch (unsuccessfully) an experimental missile. In its wake, neither China nor Russia wanted to condemn the launch, since to do so might set a precedent uncomfortable for them. "Every state has the right to the peaceful use of outer space," said a Russian U.N. envoy. His government does want arms-reduction talks, it is true, but only because the Russian nuclear arsenal is rapidly deteriorating. By agreeing to start them, we've unnecessarily handed over a bargaining chip. >>>
But, apparently, President Obama believes that the strength of his moral example paired together with some meaningless words patched together from the lowest common denominator that the UN Security Council will permit are enough to deter future nuclear wannabes such as North Korea and Iran. The Wall Street Journal captures the fecklessness of this approach.
<<< "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something."
So declared President Obama Sunday in Prague regarding North Korea's missile launch, which America's U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice added was a direct violation of U.N. resolutions. At which point, the Security Council spent hours debating its nonresponse, thus proving to nuclear proliferators everywhere that rules aren't binding, violations won't be punished, and words of warning mean nothing.
Rarely has a Presidential speech been so immediately and transparently divorced from reality as Mr. Obama's in Prague. The President delivered a stirring call to banish nuclear weapons at the very moment that North Korea and Iran are bidding to trigger the greatest proliferation breakout in the nuclear age. Mr. Obama also proposed an elaborate new arms-control regime to reduce nuclear weapons, even as both Pyongyang and Tehran are proving that the world's great powers lack the will to enforce current arms-control treaties. >>>
Meanwhile, at this very time when North Korea is tweaking the rest of the world and Iran is proceeding with its own nuclear ambitions, the Obama administration has decided that it is the perfect time to cut back on missile defense. Although Obama told the audience in Prague that he would go forward with a missile defense system, Byron York notes the important qualifications that Obama put on his pledge. He said he would "go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven." Obama has long been against missile defense and his artful phrasing doesn't mean that he's gone back on his earlier campaign pledges to cut back on spending on missile defense. In his mind, it's always been and perhaps always will be unproven. Rather like education vouchers, I guess.
<<< So what does the president's statement mean? I asked Lawrence Korb, the former Reagan Defense Department official who is now a senior fellow at the left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress. Korb, who ran the Obama campaign's military-policy team, recently wrote a report recommending the European missile-defense system be "halted until it has proven itself in realistic operational tests." Korb told me he believed Obama said "basically the same thing" in Prague that Korb and his colleagues wrote in their report. "When it's cost effective and proven, we'll do it," Korb said. "But it's not ready yet."
That's not how the untrained ear would interpret Obama's latest remarks. So here is the lesson. When the president says he will "go forward with a missile defense," don't assume that he will go forward with a missile defense. Don't listen to what he said in Prague. Listen to what he said in Iowa. >>>
So now that we've seen how going to the UN won't do anything to stop North Korea and disarmament by example is not going to work, what is the President's next great idea?
betsyspage.blogspot.com |
