Obama's nuclear dream: Yes, he can?

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.