I have a dream...
...that my four little children...
...will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged
by the colour of their skin,
but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today!
What would America be
without a dream?
It was over there that Martin
Luther King articulated his dream.
In a way
the election of Barack Obama
was the realisation of that dream
over forty years later.
President Obama has a new dream.
A dream of a nuclear-free world.
Today I state
clearly and with conviction,
America’s commitment to seek
the peace and security of a world
without nuclear weapons.
How realistic is that
and how long will it take to realize?
We have no precise target date
for getting to zero,
but we have to go on
pursuing that objective.
So long as any country has nuclear
weapons, others will want them.
The southern hemisphere is free
from nuclear weapons.
Not the seas, but the landmasses.
We will never be sure
that we got this one beaten,
but I think that Obama is hugely
to be congratulated
for picking this issue up and
running with it with such intensity.
Whether they will succeed
completely, I don’t know. I hope so.
First they didn’t put
so much money on it.
Now they’re putting
more on it. That’s very wise.
One of the groundbreaking elements
of his approach
has been to highlight as much
the flaws of nuclear weapon states
as of those countries
who are pursuing those weapons.
He has recognised that leading
by example is the only credible
policy.
I think Obama said
something very good in Cairo.
He said that no state has
the right to pick and choose
who has the right
to nuclear weapons.
Obama said: No, in my policy
no one should have nuclear weapons.
When I talk to you, North-Korea,
I say: Nobody should have it.
He's doing away with the double
standard. A great step forward.
Let me be clear...
Another element is that there have
been almost no major advances
for about ten years on these issues.
Obama’s administration brought
this dormant period to an end.
For the past...
...eight years,
during the Bush administration,
it was very easy for a number
of the other nuclear weapon states
to kind of hide behind Washington’s
skirts and let Washington say no
and not have
to confront the dissatisfaction
of the non-nuclear weapon states.
There’s a role reversal today.
We do need to get some
runs on the board now
if we’re to maintain the momentum
for movement towards
a nuclear weapons-free world,
which has been generated
by the advent of President Obama
last year.
After a decade
of international sleepwalking.
Some fear that Global Zero
could become an idealist vision
in the distant future rather than
a realistic set of short-term goals.
We have this movement, Global Zero,
that wants to focus upon the vision.
But it would be unfortunate
if that led the discussion
to focus on a vision
that is decades ahead.
Today it's about the Comprehensive
Test-Ban Treaties, about START.
President Obama has secured
the support of over forty countries
here at the nuclear security summit.
They have pledged to maintain
control over loose nuclear material
and ensure that they don’t fall
into the hands of terrorists.
He’s secured the support
of Russia in previous weeks
for a joint reduction
of their nuclear arsenals.
Another place where he has
to secure support to move forward,
is here, in Capitol Hill.
Without Senate ratification
of either START or other treaties,
such as the Test-Ban Treaty,
there can be no real progress.
You've got a question mark
about whether or not
the hugely important US-Russia
treaty will in fact be ratified.
Last year when Obama had given his
speech in Prague, London and Cairo,
we hoped that there could be
a ratification by the US Senate
of the Comprehensive
Test-Ban Treaty.
Now it’s clear that even START
will not be ratified this year.
And the Test-Ban Treaty,
well, that’s way off.
Obama does not have
the votes he needs.
President Obama spent a large part
of his first year on domestic issues.
Giving an intense focus to areas
such as health care reform.
With that in the bag,
he’s turning to foreign policy issues,
such as Iran,
such as nuclear materials.
But how much does that mean
to American voters?
Do they really care? Is it worth
the money, time and effort?
Obama and his party are about
to find out in the mid-term elections.
And with a vocal opposition
already on his back,
Obama knows that garnering support
and finding room for manoeuvre
may not be easy.
I do realise that for Mr Obama it may
not be so easy to go to Congress
and say: We'll give them
a guarantee of security
and offer diplomatic relations.
He has a big conservative opinion
to cope with, so that’s not easy.
He will held be accountable
if Iran goes wrong,
just like any president.
And all bets that I would make,
are that Iran will do just that
come 20/12.
Some see the moves
that Obama has made,
help to create better conditions
for advances even in other areas.
If you succeed
in doing some arms control,
you may run into a virtuous circle
rather than a vicious circle.
But basically
you need a wish on both sides
to get to calmer waters
and to less weapons.