ANALYSIS:Obama faced many political constraints in fashioning a new nuclear policy, writes MARY BETH SHERIDAN
IN A landmark speech in Prague last year, US president Barack Obama pledged to “put an end to Cold War thinking” and move towards a world without nuclear weapons. This week, that soaring vision came down to Earth with the issuance of a new policy reflecting the limits the president faces.
Obama’s nuclear policy breaks with the past by narrowing the circumstances under which the US government says it will use the devastating weapons. But on one point after another, the changes are gradual rather than transformational.
Although a senior White House official had predicted, for example, that the policy would “point to dramatic reductions in the stockpile”, the document mentions only the modest cuts included in a new treaty which the president is scheduled to sign with Russia today.
Officials said further shrinkage of the nuclear arsenal will come through a second round of negotiations with Russia that are expected to be drawn out and difficult.
The new document is less ambiguous about the purposes of nuclear weapons than in the past, saying their “fundamental role” is to deter a nuclear attack. But it shies away from declaring that their “sole purpose” is deterrence, as some Democratic lawmakers and arms-control activists had wanted. That leaves open the possibility that the weapons can be used in some other scenarios, such as in response to a conventional attack.
Further, while Obama in his presidential campaign had called for taking US nuclear weapons off “hair-trigger alert”, the military had baulked at this. The document instead adopts compromise measures aimed at giving leaders more time to decide whether to launch nuclear weapons in a crisis.
Analysts said Obama’s policy reflects the hard reality of advancing an agenda that has not attracted enthusiastic support among the American public or lawmakers, and has raised some opposition in the US military.
Obama needs support for his nuclear policies in Congress, starting with ratification of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) with Russia.
The new document “is clearly thought through and written in a way to be the best posture review that President Obama could do that would attract 67 votes to ratify the new Start treaty”, said George Perkovich, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
The policy document, known as the Nuclear Posture Review and mandated by Congress, drives nuclear investments and war planning for five to 10 years.
It does break with some policies of George W Bush’s administration, most notably in putting unprecedented emphasis on the nuclear threat from terrorists and rogue states, as opposed to nuclear powers such as Russia and China. “There’s more realisation that our nuclear competitors that are states already are basically deterred,” Perkovich said. The emphasis on post-Cold War threats will change priorities at the Pentagon and in budgeting for non-proliferation activities, he said.
Obama faced not only domestic political constraints in fashioning a new nuclear policy, but international ones as well. Some countries expressed nervousness about any changes that would appear to weaken the US nuclear “umbrella” protecting them, officials said.
Defence secretary Robert Gates said officials had wrestled in inter-agency meetings with how much they could change US policy, and had even considered a US commitment not to use nuclear arms first in a conflict.
However, he said at a news conference: “We didn’t think we were far enough along the road of getting control of nuclear weapons around the world to limit ourselves so explicitly . . . We recognise we need to make progress moving in the direction the president has set. But we also recognise the real world we continue to live in.”
In the end, the policy settled for saying that the “fundamental role” of the US arsenal is deterrence. It also clears up the ambiguity about whether the US would use its arsenal to attack a non-nuclear country. Unlike the Clinton and Bush administrations, the Obama team says it would not authorise a nuclear strike against a non-nuclear country in retaliation for a chemical or biological attack.
But it attaches important caveats: the non-nuclear country must be in compliance with its non-proliferation obligations under international treaties, which leaves Iran on the list of potential targets. The US also reserves the right to change its mind if biological weapons become more powerful.
Officials said nuclear arms reductions continue to be driven by the need to maintain “approximate parity” with Russia, the other nuclear giant.
It might lead to “misperceptions, misunderstandings” if one side sharply reduced its arsenal, said James Miller, a senior defence department official. – (Washington Post service)
NEW START TREATY ON STRATEGIC ARMS MAIN POINTS
RESETTING RELATIONS
The new treaty is a successor to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start), which expired in December. It is seen as a major step to improving Russia-US relations after years of tension that peaked following Russia’s war with US-supported Georgia in 2008.
CUTTING DEPLOYED WARHEADS
The treaty reduces the numbers of deployed warheads from previously agreed levels, but still leaves Russia and the US with enough nuclear weapons to easily assure their mutual annihilation.
WARHEADS
The pact limits the number of operationally deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550, down nearly two-thirds from the original Start treaty, and 30 per cent lower than the limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty.
LAUNCHERS
The pact limits to 800 the number of deployed and non-deployed intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers, submarine- launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.
MISSILES
The pact limits the number of ICBMs, SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments to 700.
RATIFICATION
The treaty must be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the US Senate. The US says it does not expect opposition, because the treaty does not put limits on US missile defence plans. Analysts believe opposition Republicans could seize upon the treaty’s ratification process as a chance to brand Obama as soft on defence.– (Reuters)