The agreement by the US and Russian presidents to renew strategic arms reductions has revived hope for the global abolition of nuclear arms. The urgency can hardly be exaggerated: Nuclear weapons may come into the possession of states that might use them, as well as of stateless terrorists — creating new threats of unimaginable proportions.
A noble dream just several years ago, the elimination of nuclear arms is no longer the preserve only of populists and pacifists; it has now been adopted by professionals — politicians known for their realism and academics known for their sense of responsibility.
The invention of nuclear weapons — which served the goal of deterrence during the Cold War, when the world was divided into two opposing blocs — answered the needs and risks of the time. Security rested on a balance of fear, as reflected in the concept of mutually assured destruction.
In that bipolar world, nuclear weapons were held by only five global powers, all permanent members of the UN Security Council. Today, the global picture is different. Sparked by Poland’s Solidarity movement, the Warsaw Pact dissolved, the Soviet Union disintegrated, and the bipolar world and its East-West divide vanished.
An order based on the dangerous doctrine of mutual deterrence, was not, however, replaced with a system founded on cooperation and interdependence. Destabilization and chaos followed, accompanied by a sense of uncertainty and unpredictability.
Nuclear weapons are now also held by three states engaged in conflicts: India, Pakistan and Israel. Given the development of the nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran, they, too, may become nuclear-weapon states. There is also a real danger that this group may expand further to include states where governments will not always be guided by rational considerations, and the risk that nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of non-state actors, such as terrorist groups.
A non-proliferation regime will not be effective unless the major nuclear powers, especially the US and Russia, take urgent steps toward nuclear disarmament. Together, they hold nearly 25,000 nuclear warheads — 96 percent of the global nuclear arsenal.
It gives us hope that US President Barack Obama recognizes these dangers. We note with satisfaction that the new US administration has not turned a deaf ear to responsible statesmen and scientists who are calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Indeed, the goal of a nuclear-free world was incorporated in the US administration’s arms control and disarmament agenda. We appreciate the proposals from the UK, France and Germany as well, while Russia also signaled recently in Geneva its readiness to embark upon nuclear disarmament.
Opponents of nuclear disarmament used to argue that this goal could not be attained without an effective system of control and verification. But, today, appropriate means of control are available to the international community. Of key importance are the nuclear safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The world must have guarantees that civilian nuclear reactors will not be used for military purposes — a condition for non-nuclear-weapon states’ unrestricted access to nuclear technologies, as proposed recently by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in his initiative on a global nuclear bargain for our times.
This is especially urgent now, with the search for new energy sources and a “renaissance” of nuclear power. The 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference calls for an urgent formulation of priorities. The Preparatory Committee will meet in New York this May, and this is where the necessary decisions should be made.
The main expectations are for a reduction of nuclear armaments, a cutback in the number of launch-ready warheads (de-alerting), negotiations on a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty, ratification of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty and other means of strengthening practical implementation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, especially its universal adoption.
The time has come for a fundamental change in the proceedings of the Geneva-based Disarmament Conference, which for years has failed to meet the international community’s expectations. We share the view expressed by the academics, politicians and experts of the international Warsaw Reflection Group that consideration should be given to the zero option as a basis for a future multilateral nuclear disarmament agreement.
The Group’s report, Arms Control Revisited: Non-proliferation and Denuclearization, elaborated under the chairmanship of Adam Rotfeld of Poland and drafted by the British academic Ian Anthony of SIPRI, was based on contributions by security analysts from nuclear powers and Poland, as well as from countries previously in possession of nuclear weapons (South Africa) and post-Soviet countries where they were once stored (Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine).
The fact that these states were denuclearized as part of the Safe and Secure Disarmament program provides a valuable lesson.
The process of gradual nuclear disarmament must be set in motion. It will not produce results overnight, but will give us a sense of direction, a chance to strengthen non-proliferation mechanisms and an opportunity to establish a global, cooperative non-nuclear security system.
The deadliest threat to global security comes from a qualitatively new wave of nuclear proliferation. The heaviest responsibility is shouldered by the powers that hold the largest arsenals.
We trust that the US and Russian presidents, and leaders of all other nuclear powers, will show statesmanlike wisdom and courage and begin the process of freeing the world from the nuclear menace. But as important as this goal is for international order and security, of equal importance is respect for human rights and the rights of minorities, as well as the establishment, on a global scale, of democracy and the rule of law.
Aleksander Kwasniewski was Poland’s president from 1995 to 2005. Tadeusz Mazowiecki was prime minister in Poland’s first non-communist government from 1989 to 1990. Lech Walesa, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, was Poland’s president from 1990 to 1995.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
RSS