The Peace and Security of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons

Remarks to the World Affairs Council of Houston

Ambassador Glyn Davies

November 18, 2010
(as prepared)

Good afternoon, thank you, Linda, for that introduction, and thank you all very much for coming to hear me speak today.  I am grateful to the Houston World Affairs Council for hosting me.

I live and work in Vienna, and travel to Washington regularly, but I rarely have the chance to talk about what I do in other parts of the country. I am honored to be here with you today.

As Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, I have the privilege of working to support President Obama’s strategy to reduce the threats posed by nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation.  President Obama laid out his strategy in April of 2009 in Prague, and it has since become known as the “Prague Agenda.”  There he made a strong, straightforward commitment.  “I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,” he said.  I’d like to speak with you today about the United States’ policy to reduce the global nuclear threat.

A picture of that threat is clearly painted by “Nuclear Tipping Point”, whose central questions describe the profound problem we’re trying to prevent: has the world reached the tipping point where we can no longer control the proliferation of nuclear technology and materials, the point where the risk of that technology falling into the wrong hands and causing nuclear catastrophe is certain? 

My answer is no.  But we are dangerously close, and we are right to be gravely concerned. 

Let me tell you why I believe that.

From the Nuclear Dilemma to the Nuclear Bargain

The questions that former Senator Nunn is asking about the dangers of nuclear proliferation are as old as nuclear technology itself.  I am sure you are aware of the early legends in the field – Einstein, Fermi, Oppenheimer, Szilard.  These men were asking the same questions even before the atom bomb was invented.

In 1939 Albert Einstein wrote a remarkable letter to President Roosevelt . . . remarkable because while it is a relatively short and calm statement, it conveys the gravity of the dangers posed by nuclear technology.  “[R]ecent work,” he wrote, “. . . leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the immediate future.  Certain aspects of the situation which has arisen seem to call for watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action . . .”  He went on to describe how nuclear energy could be used not only for power, but for a new, immensely powerful bomb.  And in his final paragraph, he described the world’s first proliferation concern – that Germany was repeating America’s work on uranium.

So, if men from scientific greats like Albert Einstein to political leaders like Senator Nunn are rightly concerned by nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation, why should we support the development of nuclear technologies at all, you might ask? 

It’s a good question, and I imagine you already know the answer.  The benefits of nuclear power and nuclear technology are many and significant.  Nuclear applications have improved and will continue to improve the quality of life for us all.  Nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and produces no air pollution.  Nuclear technology is used in many civilian applications, from medical diagnostics and imaging to radiation therapy to industrial applications like road construction to gauge the density of soil.  Food irradiation destroys bacteria and insects.  Irradiation is used to a much greater extent, unnoticed by most of us, in the production of things like medical hardware, plastics, even hoses for floor-heating, shrink-foils for food packaging, car parts and much more.  Isotope hydrology has mapped water sources throughout the world, finding untapped reserves of safe drinking water in drought-ridden countries, and helping countries establish water conservation plans and determine sources of water pollution.

The many benefits have proven so significant to us that pursuing the peaceful applications of nuclear technology is a very worth-while endeavor.  I’d point out that even though Einstein was very concerned about the use of nuclear technology in weapons, he was not opposed to the development of that technology.  “The discovery of nuclear chain reactions need not bring about the destruction of mankind any more than did the discovery of matches,” he said.  “We only must do everything in our power to safeguard against its abuse.” 

So the dilemma – the “nuclear dilemma”, as it has been called - was and remains how to promote the peaceful applications of nuclear technology while preventing the spread of weapons technology.

In 1953 President Eisenhower gave his famous “Atoms for Peace” speech, in which he advocated the worldwide pursuit of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in tandem with the reduction of nuclear weapons stockpiles.  To manage the nuclear dilemma, he called for the establishment of an international agency to promote the peaceful applications of nuclear technology and to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. 

Following the establishment of the IAEA in 1957, countries also negotiated the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – the NPT – that came into force in 1970.  That treaty strikes a bargain, the “nuclear bargain”: countries can access peaceful nuclear technology if they give up the development of nuclear weapons.

The Bargain is Sound: International Efforts to Counter the Nuclear Threat

So, 40 years after the conception of the NPT, does the nuclear bargain still have merit?

When laying out his Prague Agenda, President Obama asserted that “The basic bargain is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy.” 
His commitment in Prague intensified U.S. efforts to counter the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce the threat posed by those weapons that still exist.  These efforts include seeking ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, supporting the creation of an international fuel bank so that countries can access peaceful power, and ensuring that the International Atomic Energy Agency has the resources, authorities, and support it needs.

President Obama has convened two of the most significant meetings of world leaders in the past 50 years in support of reducing the threats posed by nuclear proliferation.  First, he chaired the UN Security Council Summit in September 2009.  That Summit unanimously adopted a resolution committing to working toward a world without nuclear weapons and endorsing a broad framework of actions to reduce global nuclear dangers.  That session was only the fifth Summit-level meeting of the Council in its 63 years of existence and the first time a U.S. President chaired a meeting of the Security Council.

Second, he hosted the Nuclear Security Summit in April 2010, which was the largest gathering of heads of state in the United States since the United Nations was founded in 1945.  This Nuclear Security Summit was the first ever of its scale and level devoted exclusively to the unprecedented threat that nuclear materials could reach the hands of terrorists or criminals.

In addition to the two summits President Obama convened, the United States has continued to work in established international settings to counter nuclear proliferation.  In May 2010, at the NPT Review Conference, the U.S. reaffirmed the NPT with 189 other nations.

What the U.S. is Doing: Domestic Efforts to Counter Nuclear Threats

At the same time that the U.S. Government has been working multilaterally through the IAEA and in settings like the two international summits and the NPT Review Conference, we have also been working at home to do our part to reduce the threats posed by nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation.  President Obama pledged that the U.S. will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our own national security strategy.  The United States has taken several significant steps to do so. 

•  First, the U.S. is substantially reducing our warheads and stockpiles.  In May 2010, for the first time, President Obama declassified the numbers of our nuclear stockpiles.  As of September 2009, the U.S. had 5113 nuclear warheads in stockpile.  That represents an 84% reduction from 1967, when the stockpile was at its largest.  Several thousand more warheads are currently retired and awaiting dismantlement. 

•  Second, in April 2010, the U.S. released the Nuclear Posture Review, in which the U.S. changed previous policy by declaring that we will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapons states that belong to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and are in compliance with their obligations to the treaty.   We said again we will no longer conduct nuclear testing and we will not develop new nuclear warheads.

•  Third, President Obama signed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, and we are working to ratify it.  New START will require the United States and Russia to reduce by 30 percent the number of nuclear warheads deployed on missiles, submarines, and bombers.

Now, the goal of creating a world free of nuclear weapons is idealistic, and we have no illusions it will be easy to achieve.  But the agenda that our President has outlined is not abstract – the U.S. is taking concrete steps to achieve that end.  It is also not one-sided -- demanding of other countries what the U.S. is not doing itself.  Finally, it does not target specific countries or regions – it creates the same responsibilities and benefits for all nations and peoples.

Current Threat to Global Nuclear Security: Iran

But the world remains a dangerous place.  And a few countries reject our call to move toward a world without nuclear bombs.  North Korea, Syria and Iran are the states of greatest concern.  And at a time when the overwhelming majority of nations is working together to reduce the threats posed by nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation, the biggest current threat to global nuclear security is Iran. 

Why is that so?  Iran is a threat because it is not upholding its commitments under the NPT and refuses to show that its nuclear program is peaceful.  At the most recent IAEA Board of Governors meeting in September in Vienna, the IAEA Director General issued his latest report on Iran.  The report shows Iran is not only refusing to comply with its international obligations, but it continues to expand its nuclear program and strengthen its ability to develop nuclear weapons. 

Iran refuses to answer the IAEA’s questions or allow the Agency to talk to key scientists.  Iran’s refusal to provide clear responses to the IAEA’s questions has left the Agency unable to confirm that all aspects of Iran’s nuclear program are peaceful.   

Now, I submit to you that we cannot live with an Iran that is moving closer and closer to a nuclear weapons capability.  We must do everything diplomatically possible to prevent Iran from developing such weapons.  That is true because Iran is dangerously challenging the United Nations, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, its own neighbors and indeed the entire world with its nuclear provocation.  Recall that Tehran has threatened to wipe out at least one other member of the United Nations, the state of Israel.  The lengthening list of Iran's violations of its obligations under its safeguards agreement and UN Security Council resolutions, its heated rhetoric, and its refusal to address international concerns – all these factors undermine Iran's claim that there is nothing to worry about with Iran's nuclear program. Its actions are undercutting the nuclear non-proliferation regime at precisely the moment we and many others are seeking to strengthen it. 

So this is a challenge we cannot afford to ignore.

And it’s a challenge we have been trying to resolve peacefully for almost two years.  Last year, the United States tried in earnest to engage Iran diplomatically.  We sought out opportunities to discuss its nuclear program with Iran and worked to bring about international consensus on the dangers posed by a nuclear-armed Iran and how to address those dangers.  The foreign ministers of the permanent five members of the UN Security Council – the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China – plus Germany (known as “the P5+1”) have led the efforts to engage with Iran, and to convince Tehran to meet its international obligations and demonstrate that its program is peaceful. 

For almost a year Tehran refused to continue discussions with the P5+1 about its nuclear program.  Only in recent weeks have the Iranians agreed to meet, though a date and place have not yet been set.  Instead, Iran has continued to develop a nuclear enrichment facility near Qom, and has announced plans for ten new enrichment facilities.  It is expanding some of its most proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, such as increasing uranium enrichment from 3.5% to 20% strength.  While Iran claims to be producing this material for use as fuel in a research reactor, Iran has no demonstrated capability to produce fuel assemblies and use them safely in any reactor.  Enrichment to 20%, however, would make it much easier to take the small additional step of producing weapons-grade uranium.

So where does that leave us?  Iran refused to meet its international obligations.  It rejected offers of engagement.  And it continued expansion of its nuclear program.  All of that led us to conclude we had to employ economic and political pressure.  We coordinated at the UN in New York to pass UN Security Council Resolution 1929, which established the most comprehensive international sanctions Iran has ever faced.  The United States complemented multilateral sanctions with our own bilateral sanctions, and with our support for other countries’ sanctions, such as Australia, Canada, and the EU. 

Now, we know sanctions and pressure are a means to an end, and not a substitute for a diplomatic solution.  We continue to acknowledge Iran’s right to pursue civilian nuclear power, but also continue to point out that with that right is the responsibility to reassure the international community about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activities.  

At the UN General Assembly in New York in September, President Obama said the U.S. wants to find a diplomatic solution.  Also in New York during the General Assembly, Secretary Clinton met with her P5+1 counterparts to discuss Iran’s nuclear program.  EU High Representative Catherine Ashton delivered a statement on behalf of the P5+1, once again expressing the desire of the P5+1 to meet with Iran.  In October, Lady Ashton issued yet another invitation, proposing that the P5+1 meet with Iran in Vienna in mid-November. 

In response to those efforts, Iran has finally said it is willing to meet, but it is unclear whether the Iranians will be willing to talk about their nuclear program.  We hope nonetheless to hold a meeting before the year is out.
 
So that’s where we are with Iran.  As President Obama said, the door remains open to engagement.  We continue to apply our two-pronged approach of engagement and pressure.  Iran can prove that its intentions are peaceful.  It can meet its Security Council, IAEA, and NPT obligations.  It can reassure the world that it does not pose a nuclear threat to its region, and it can join us in eliminating the threats posed by nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation around the world.

Other Threats

While Iran may present the biggest threat to global nuclear security, it is not the only one.  The IAEA Secretariat’s most recent report on Syria - and its previous seven reports - contain credible information indicating that Syria, with assistance from North Korea, was developing a secret nuclear program with no evident civilian purpose.  The Agency’s efforts to investigate Syria’s nuclear program have been hindered for too long by Syria's refusal to allow the Agency to conduct its investigations.

We believe it is urgent and essential that Syria provide access without further delay to all requested sites and information so the IAEA can make progress in its efforts to verify that all nuclear material and activities in Syria are peaceful. 

North Korea’s nuclear program is also a major concern.  That country has gone from being a nuclear scofflaw to a nuclear outlaw.  North Korea has renounced the Nonproliferation Treaty, quit the IAEA, and tested nuclear devices.  Its actions have not brought it any benefit, however, and the country’s only hope for the future is to reengage with the international community.

The Other Side of the Bargain: Supporting Peaceful Uses

So, the risks posed by nuclear weapons and the proliferation of nuclear technology are evident.  I’ve tried to show what the U.S. is doing both domestically and in cooperation with international partners to mitigate those risks. But I don’t want to ignore the other side of the nuclear bargain.  What is the United States doing to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear technology?

The IAEA has a strong technical cooperation program to help transfer nuclear technologies for peaceful uses to countries throughout the world.  The United States is an enthusiastic supporter of these technical cooperation projects.  We recently made a significant effort to energize the promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  At the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, Secretary Clinton announced that the U.S. will make a contribution of $50 million over the next five years for a new Peaceful Uses Initiative.  The U.S. contribution will be applied to IAEA projects supporting nuclear power infrastructure development, food security, water resources management, and human health in a broad selection of countries.  In fact, I will be travelling to Indonesia and Vietnam in a few weeks to visit some Technical Cooperation projects there and witness firsthand how Agency peaceful uses activities are making a difference in people’s lives.

As we move forward in funding projects through the Peaceful Uses Initiative, we hope that other countries will join us in supporting this effort to expand the IAEA’s ability to provide countries with access to the peaceful applications of nuclear energy.  President Obama has challenged nations to raise an additional $50 million by 2015 for the Peaceful Uses Initiative.  In September the Japanese Ambassador announced a sizable contribution.

The United States has also been working to help countries that want to develop nuclear technologies to access nuclear fuel.  Many countries don’t have the resources to enrich nuclear fuel, and it would be a significant proliferation concern should more countries do so. 
One solution the U.S. supports is the creation of an international fuel bank. To help prevent the spread of uranium enrichment technology, the Nuclear Threat Initiative – the NGO which produced “Nuclear Tipping Point” - pledged $50 million to the IAEA to help create a low-enriched uranium stockpile to support nations that make the choice not to build their own nuclear fuel cycle capabilities. The United States has pledged $50 million to support such a bank, and has been joined by other countries, including the European Union, Norway, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait.  We are working with other IAEA Members to formally propose the fuel bank at the next Board of Governors meeting in December. 

Conclusion: The Peace and Security of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons

I told you at the beginning of my remarks that I don’t think that we have reached the nuclear tipping point, the point where nuclear catastrophe is imminent.  As Secretary Clinton said earlier this year at the NPT Review Conference, “The last 40 years have proved that nuclear proliferation is not inevitable.”

Thanks to the prescience of great minds like Einstein, the actions of leaders like Presidents Roosevelt and Eisenhower, and the dedication of governments and individuals to support the IAEA and the NPT, we have created an international framework that has successfully carried out the nuclear bargain. 

But many dangers remain.  The growing desire for increased access to peaceful nuclear technology is accompanied by increased proliferation concerns.  We face nations which are less transparent than they should be, whose nuclear ambitions are not clear, and who threaten the world with their rhetoric and behavior.

We also live in a globalized world where terrorists seek nuclear weapons or material, and it is far from out of the question that they could acquire them.

So we cannot be complacent.  President Obama has developed a plan to continue to reduce the threats of nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation.  The United States is doing its part to reduce those threats, and we must demand that other countries do the same.  We must continue to work toward the peace and security of a world free of nuclear weapons.

That groups such as the Houston World Affairs Council are sharing an interest in this topic gives me a great deal of hope.  By better informing ourselves about the promise and perils of nuclear technology, we can act decisively as citizens to support efforts to use these technologies wisely and well.

Thank you very much.  I look forward to your questions and comments.


Pictures from Ambassador Davies' visit to Houston