In his whirlwind, debut European tour of summits in Britain, France, Germany and the Czech Republic, US President Barack Obama delivered two speeches, both exactly 26 minutes long.
On Friday in Strasbourg, Obama was rapturously applauded by French and German students when he said he wanted to rid the world of nuclear weapons. In Prague on Sunday, he spelled out his hopes, outlining a host of means to that end and denouncing fatalism in the face of the nuclear threat as a “deadly adversary.”
The world’s estimated arsenal of 24,000 nuclear warheads — all but 1,000 in the US and Russian armories — was the worst legacy of the cold war, Obama said. If the risk of all-out nuclear war had faded, the danger of nuclear attack had increased, he added.
The president pledged a drive on nuclear disarmament, possibly bigger than any ever attempted. He spelled out how he would accelerate arms control agreements with Moscow, following his first summit meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last week. The deal to conclude a new arms reduction treaty with Moscow, which would slash stockpiles by about a third was a beginning, setting the stage for further cuts.
MOMENTUM
Building on the momentum of a new agreement with the Russians, Obama said he wanted to cajole the other nuclear powers into agreeing to international arms cuts.
This would include Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent as well as France’s force de frappe and could run into resistance.
British Secretary of Defence John Hutton said last weekend “there would have to be a very significant breakthrough in international nuclear weapons negotiations” before Britain’s arsenal could be put on the table. “It is time for testing of nuclear weapons to be banned,” Obama said.
He called for a resuscitation of the 1996 comprehensive test ban treaty outlawing all nuclear tests. Obama’s democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton, signed the treaty, but gave up on it after running into resistance from the Republican-controlled Senate, which refused to ratify it a decade ago. Former US president George W. Bush did not pursue the issue.
The US is the most important country that has not ratified the treaty, although other nuclear countries such as China, Israel and Pakistan, as well as Iran have also declined to ratify.
Obama said he would pursue US ratification “immediately and aggressively.”
In addition to supporting the test ban treaty, Obama pledged to strengthen the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), which dates from 1968 and is the cornerstone of the effort to try to curb the spread of nuclear weapons.
He specified two ways of reinforcing the NPT regime — banning the production of fissile material used for nuclear warheads and establishing an “international fuel bank” that would supply and keep tabs on low-enriched uranium for peaceful nuclear purposes in electricity generation for countries that need it.
This is aimed at keeping countries such as Iran from developing their own fuel enrichment programs and at restricting the growth of nuclear know-how.
Low-enriched uranium is used in power plants. High-enriched uranium is used for warheads. The material can be diverted for weapons use and once you have mastered the fuel cycle for power generation, it is relatively easy to produce bomb-grade material.
‘REAL’ CONSEQUENCES
Obama also insisted on greater resources and authority for international inspections — and “real and immediate consequences” for countries that violate the treaty.
Over the past 15 years there have been various efforts, mainly by the US, to secure and store nuclear materials stemming from the collapse of the Soviet Union to offset the dangers of “loose nukes,” nuclear contraband and black-market trading in radioactive materials.
Obama said he wanted to re-energize this campaign to get all “vulnerable” nuclear materials in secure storage within four years.
He also said he would convene a world summit on nuclear security in the US within a year. The agenda and participants for such a conference remain unclear.
But the spread of nuclear know-how and technology had to be stopped, he said, since it would become increasingly easy to “buy, build or steal” a nuclear bomb. The risk of terrorists being able to obtain a nuclear device was “the most immediate and extreme threat to global security.”
Obama also promised to rewrite US military and national security strategy to downgrade the centrality of nuclear weapons, reversing a tendency among some senior former military officials to argue in favor of an increased reliance on nuclear weapons and a commitment to embrace pre-emptive nuclear strikes as an option.
The president conceded the nuclear challenge was daunting, would be a long haul and could fail.
“This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime. It would take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change,” Obama said.
But he said it was time for a new, more robust international regime: “Rules must be binding, violations must be punished, words must mean something.”
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS