Obama vs. McCain on Nuclear Proliferation
Howard Salter
June 10, 2008
By Josh Rovenger
In terms of foreign policy, the Republican Party has generally been known for its pragmatism. Realism was the theory guiding Richard Nixon´s détente with China, Ronald Reagan´s policies that ended the Cold War and George H.W. Bush´s insistence on having an international coalition to ensure victory in the Gulf War. Yet, over the past seven years the label of prudence has become archaic in terms of its application to the G.O.P. It has been President Bush´s unyielding faith in a very specific vision that has led this country down its current path. As a result, the Republican brand has been deeply tainted. For Senator John McCain to be successful in November, he must shed the current label of his party and show that he has an independent, well-developed worldview, alien from the current administration. His recent focus on the issue of nuclear proliferation was his attempt to do just that.
After all, the current administration has paradoxically attempted to reduce the U.S.´s standing nuclear arsenal to 1,700-2,200 nuclear warheads by 2012, while rejecting binding international agreements requiring just that. President Bush refused to renew the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia, and urged congress not to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). More over, the Bush presidency has made diplomacy an afterthought in dealing with potential nuclear states such as Iran. Both McCain and Senator Barack Obama represent a departure from the status quo. However, while some of their proposed policies are similar, their respective outlook on the issue remains remarkably different.
The largest difference between McCain and Obama on this issue comes down to their fundamental goals. McCain wants to "seek to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest number possible consistent with our security requirements and global commitments." He believes there are a minimum number of nuclear weapons that the U.S. must have for fear of losing an important deterrent, although he is ambiguous on what this exact number would be. Obama´s goal is "a world where there are no nuclear weapons." He seems to believe that in the long run total, mutual disarmament is both possible and necessary for the stability of the international community. Obama contends, "America must not rush to produce a new generation of nuclear warheads," whereas McCain has been a little more ambiguous, arguing, "I would only support the development of any new type of nuclear weapon that is absolutely essential for the viability of our deterrent, that results in making possible further decreases in the size of our nuclear arsenal and furthers our global nuclear security goals."
While the difference between the two perspectives may seem minimal, the diversity underpins each candidate´s entire perspective on nuclear issues. The difference manifests the conflict between one view that acknowledges the unacceptable risks nuclear weapons pose merely by their existence versus one steeped in the relics of Cold War deterrence theory.
In his recent speech on the issue, McCain not only discussed his goals, but laid out specific policy proposals to achieve them. In direct contradiction to the current administration, McCain asserts, "we should be prepared to enter into a new arms control agreement with Russia." This includes "binding verification measures based on those currently in effect under the START agreement." To McCain, it´s not enough just to engage Russia, but it is also imperative to "begin a dialogue with China on strategic and nuclear issues." On a more global level, he wants to hold a summit of the world´s leading democracies to modify the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
There are three issues that he believes should be addressed: "First, the notion that non-nuclear-weapons states have a right to nuclear technology must be revisited. Second, the burden of proof for suspected violators of the NPT must be reversed…Finally, the IAEA´s annual budget of $130 million must be substantially increased so that the agency can meet its monitoring and safeguarding tasks." He also supports the US-India nuclear energy deal, and a missile defense system.
Rather than debating these proposals, spokesman for the Obama campaign Bill Burton argued, "By embracing many aspects of Barack Obama´s nonproliferation agenda today, John McCain highlighted Obama´s leadership on nuclear weapons throughout this campaign." Granted, while there are similarities between their plans, they diverge on priorities. On one hand, Obama places a lot of emphasis, like McCain, on fixing the NPT. He says he would give "$50 million to jump-start the creation of an International Atomic Energy Agency-controlled nuclear fuel bank and work to update the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty." On the other hand, he focuses much more on securing loose, unsafe nuclear materials. "There is now highly enriched uranium…sitting in civilian nuclear facilities in over 40 countries around the world…People have already been caught trying to smuggle nuclear materials to sell on the black market…As president, I will work with other nations to secure, destroy and stop the spread of these weapons in order to dramatically reduce the nuclear dangers for our nation and the world." He has pledged to do this by the end of his first term.
The candidates´ respective records on the issue seem to support their rhetoric. Obama sponsored the Lugar-Obama Act that helped, "the U.S. and its allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons, and materials of mass destruction." He has also introduced legislation with Republican Chuck Hegel that would have required a presidential report on vulnerable nuclear material throughout the world.
As for McCain, in 1992 alongside then-Senator Al Gore, he passed the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act which sanctioned those countries that aided either Iran or Iraq in the development of catastrophic weapons. He has also supported START. One place where the two have held separate opinions is on the CTBT. Although McCain has said that, "he would keep an open mind about future developments," he ultimately voted against ratification of the treaty. Conversely, Obama has consistently held that, "we should build bipartisan consensus behind ratification of the CTBT."
However, at the end of the day what really matters is how each one would respond to a crisis situation. By looking at their approach to contemporary problems we are given a peek into their potential administrations. For instance, in dealing with the current situation in Iran, Obama favors the formation of an international coalition to launch diplomatic efforts and an open discussion with Iranian leadership. This illustrates that Obama has prioritized diplomatic measures, and it is likely that in such a situation this is where he would turn first.
McCain´s perspective is best illustrated by his comments on North Korea. In the midst of the 2003 crisis he wrote, "The use of military force to defend vital American security interest must always be a last resort, as it is in this crisis. But if we fail to achieve the international cooperation necessary to end this threat, then the countries in the region should know with certainty that while they may risk their own populations, the U.S. will do whatever it must to guarantee the security of the American people." McCain chastised both the Clinton and Bush administrations for not taking a hard enough stance on North Korea, and for preemptively removing a military option.
Citizens for Global Solutions believes that the mere existence of nuclear weapons poses an existential threat to the entire world. States must work together and enact procedures that will lead them to disarm and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and material. While both candidates appear to take nuclear proliferation seriously, the difference in their worldview is of utmost importance.
As former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara recognized, "on any given day, as we go about our business, the president is prepared to make a decision within 20 minutes that could launch one of the most devastating weapons in the world. To declare war requires an act of Congress, but to launch a nuclear holocaust requires 20 minutes of deliberation by the president and his advisors. But that is what we have lived with for forty years."
Our next president must recognize the importance of prioritizing this issue and analyzing it from this perspective. This is one area in which McCain needs to re-evaluate his outlook. If he fails to do so, not only will Obama seem more pragmatic, but McCain will also have a much harder time shedding the stigma that has been attached to the Republican brand under President Bush.
In terms of foreign policy, the Republican Party has generally been known for its pragmatism. Realism was the theory guiding Richard Nixon´s détente with China, Ronald Reagan´s policies that ended the Cold War and George H.W. Bush´s insistence on having an international coalition to ensure victory in the Gulf War. Yet, over the past seven years the label of prudence has become archaic in terms of its application to the G.O.P. It has been President Bush´s unyielding faith in a very specific vision that has led this country down its current path. As a result, the Republican brand has been deeply tainted. For Senator John McCain to be successful in November, he must shed the current label of his party and show that he has an independent, well-developed worldview, alien from the current administration. His recent focus on the issue of nuclear proliferation was his attempt to do just that.
After all, the current administration has paradoxically attempted to reduce the U.S.´s standing nuclear arsenal to 1,700-2,200 nuclear warheads by 2012, while rejecting binding international agreements requiring just that. President Bush refused to renew the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia, and urged congress not to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). More over, the Bush presidency has made diplomacy an afterthought in dealing with potential nuclear states such as Iran. Both McCain and Senator Barack Obama represent a departure from the status quo. However, while some of their proposed policies are similar, their respective outlook on the issue remains remarkably different.
The largest difference between McCain and Obama on this issue comes down to their fundamental goals. McCain wants to "seek to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest number possible consistent with our security requirements and global commitments." He believes there are a minimum number of nuclear weapons that the U.S. must have for fear of losing an important deterrent, although he is ambiguous on what this exact number would be. Obama´s goal is "a world where there are no nuclear weapons." He seems to believe that in the long run total, mutual disarmament is both possible and necessary for the stability of the international community. Obama contends, "America must not rush to produce a new generation of nuclear warheads," whereas McCain has been a little more ambiguous, arguing, "I would only support the development of any new type of nuclear weapon that is absolutely essential for the viability of our deterrent, that results in making possible further decreases in the size of our nuclear arsenal and furthers our global nuclear security goals."
While the difference between the two perspectives may seem minimal, the diversity underpins each candidate´s entire perspective on nuclear issues. The difference manifests the conflict between one view that acknowledges the unacceptable risks nuclear weapons pose merely by their existence versus one steeped in the relics of Cold War deterrence theory.
In his recent speech on the issue, McCain not only discussed his goals, but laid out specific policy proposals to achieve them. In direct contradiction to the current administration, McCain asserts, "we should be prepared to enter into a new arms control agreement with Russia." This includes "binding verification measures based on those currently in effect under the START agreement." To McCain, it´s not enough just to engage Russia, but it is also imperative to "begin a dialogue with China on strategic and nuclear issues." On a more global level, he wants to hold a summit of the world´s leading democracies to modify the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
There are three issues that he believes should be addressed: "First, the notion that non-nuclear-weapons states have a right to nuclear technology must be revisited. Second, the burden of proof for suspected violators of the NPT must be reversed…Finally, the IAEA´s annual budget of $130 million must be substantially increased so that the agency can meet its monitoring and safeguarding tasks." He also supports the US-India nuclear energy deal, and a missile defense system.
Rather than debating these proposals, spokesman for the Obama campaign Bill Burton argued, "By embracing many aspects of Barack Obama´s nonproliferation agenda today, John McCain highlighted Obama´s leadership on nuclear weapons throughout this campaign." Granted, while there are similarities between their plans, they diverge on priorities. On one hand, Obama places a lot of emphasis, like McCain, on fixing the NPT. He says he would give "$50 million to jump-start the creation of an International Atomic Energy Agency-controlled nuclear fuel bank and work to update the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty." On the other hand, he focuses much more on securing loose, unsafe nuclear materials. "There is now highly enriched uranium…sitting in civilian nuclear facilities in over 40 countries around the world…People have already been caught trying to smuggle nuclear materials to sell on the black market…As president, I will work with other nations to secure, destroy and stop the spread of these weapons in order to dramatically reduce the nuclear dangers for our nation and the world." He has pledged to do this by the end of his first term.
The candidates´ respective records on the issue seem to support their rhetoric. Obama sponsored the Lugar-Obama Act that helped, "the U.S. and its allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons, and materials of mass destruction." He has also introduced legislation with Republican Chuck Hegel that would have required a presidential report on vulnerable nuclear material throughout the world.
As for McCain, in 1992 alongside then-Senator Al Gore, he passed the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act which sanctioned those countries that aided either Iran or Iraq in the development of catastrophic weapons. He has also supported START. One place where the two have held separate opinions is on the CTBT. Although McCain has said that, "he would keep an open mind about future developments," he ultimately voted against ratification of the treaty. Conversely, Obama has consistently held that, "we should build bipartisan consensus behind ratification of the CTBT."
However, at the end of the day what really matters is how each one would respond to a crisis situation. By looking at their approach to contemporary problems we are given a peek into their potential administrations. For instance, in dealing with the current situation in Iran, Obama favors the formation of an international coalition to launch diplomatic efforts and an open discussion with Iranian leadership. This illustrates that Obama has prioritized diplomatic measures, and it is likely that in such a situation this is where he would turn first.
McCain´s perspective is best illustrated by his comments on North Korea. In the midst of the 2003 crisis he wrote, "The use of military force to defend vital American security interest must always be a last resort, as it is in this crisis. But if we fail to achieve the international cooperation necessary to end this threat, then the countries in the region should know with certainty that while they may risk their own populations, the U.S. will do whatever it must to guarantee the security of the American people." McCain chastised both the Clinton and Bush administrations for not taking a hard enough stance on North Korea, and for preemptively removing a military option.
Citizens for Global Solutions believes that the mere existence of nuclear weapons poses an existential threat to the entire world. States must work together and enact procedures that will lead them to disarm and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and material. While both candidates appear to take nuclear proliferation seriously, the difference in their worldview is of utmost importance.
As former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara recognized, "on any given day, as we go about our business, the president is prepared to make a decision within 20 minutes that could launch one of the most devastating weapons in the world. To declare war requires an act of Congress, but to launch a nuclear holocaust requires 20 minutes of deliberation by the president and his advisors. But that is what we have lived with for forty years."
Our next president must recognize the importance of prioritizing this issue and analyzing it from this perspective. This is one area in which McCain needs to re-evaluate his outlook. If he fails to do so, not only will Obama seem more pragmatic, but McCain will also have a much harder time shedding the stigma that has been attached to the Republican brand under President Bush.
Print
Share
Email
