|
When candidates agree, it is not always front-page news. Election coverage hinges on conflict. Effective governance works differently. The next president must work to build consensus to get things done. Nuclear security is an excellent place to start; in fact, a remarkable bipartisan consensus is emerging that can help the 44th president revolutionise America’s policy towards nuclear weapons. In October, Senator Barack Obama said that “America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons”. This month, Senator John McCain gave an important policy address on nuclear non-proliferation, committing America to the same – if less specific – goal. For the first time in history, both main party candidates have agreed to put America on a path towards a world without nuclear weapons and all the risks they bring. The next president can turn this campaign promise into action by doing four things within six months of taking office: First, engage the American people in this cause. Within the first 100 days, the next president should give a policy address demonstrating his commitment to a nuclear-weapons-free world. Generations have grown up never knowing anything but the old order of mutually assured destruction, but the stage is already set for a big policy shift. In fact, 17 of the 24 former secretaries of state and defence and national security advisers support moving towards a nuclear-free world. This bipartisan council of elders includes cold-eyed realists such as Henry Kissinger and George Schultz and defence hawks such as Sam Nunn and Bill Perry. The new president should bring this august group to the White House Rose Garden so Americans can see at first hand the face of a new consensus. Second, create a new position: a deputy national security adviser to the president, whose sole responsibility is to prevent nuclear terrorism. Third, empower this individual to lead an accelerated effort – a Manhattan Project in reverse: instead of racing to assemble a bomb, make sure nobody else can. We should aim to secure all “loose” nuclear material worldwide by the end of the next president’s first term and establish a global gold standard for their safe custody. Fourth, the new president should ensure that our nuclear policy reflects the cold war’s conclusion almost two decades ago. The US and Russia no longer need a combined stockpile of more than 20,000 warheads, many of them on “hair trigger” alert. We can and should work to extend the 1991 strategic arms reduction treaty, reach a new agreement reducing strategic nuclear forces resulting in no greater than 1,000 deployed warheads, and increase warning times prior to launch. A nuclear-free world is not something we can (or should) accomplish quickly, by ourselves, or without close consultations with allies. We will need to maintain our military’s overwhelming non-nuclear edge along the way. A series of incremental steps can build on one another to produce a big change. The next president’s willingness to work closely with Congress will also be crucial. The Senate can signal the US’s commitment by ratifying the treaty banning nuclear weapons testing. In 1999, the Senate failed to approve it largely because sceptics felt countries could cheat with impunity. Today, new verification and monitoring technologies help minimise that risk. We also need to strengthen the international non-proliferation regime. The regime’s bargain is that non-nuclear states forswear nuclear weapons, while nuclear states agree to work towards a nuclear-free world and spread the benefits of nuclear energy. As we put pressure on non-nuclear countries to keep their word, we can strengthen our hand by leading by example. That alone will not persuade rogue states to co-operate – but it does maximise our leverage if they do not. America should lead an international effort to freeze, then verifiably ban, all production of nuclear material for weapons. The president must also lead an effort to provide developing countries with incentives to reject enrichment and reprocessing programmes: establishing a “nuclear fuel bank” that guarantees access to international supplies of reasonably priced nuclear fuel. In the coming months, the presidential candidates will engage in a fierce foreign policy debate, which I welcome. But when it comes time to govern, let us help the next president breathe life into an emerging bipartisan vision of a nuclear-weapons-free world. The author, US senator for Massachusetts, was the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee and is a senior member of the foreign relations committee
|
