Opinion: START Won't Stop Nuclear Proliferation

(Dec. 10) -- Immediately following last month's election, President Barack Obama renewed his call on the Senate to ratify the New START treaty with Russia in order to "send a signal to the world that we're serious about nonproliferation."

The claim that progress in U.S.-Russian arms control will help stop countries like Iran from getting nuclear weapons isn't just an argument offered in support of New START. It's also one of the key premises underlying President Obama's embrace of global nuclear disarmament.

There's just one problem: The notion that faster disarmament will lead to greater progress against nuclear proliferation has never added up.

Here's why:

No one believes that countries like Iran will be inspired to abandon their nuclear ambitions just because of the disarmament example set by the U.S. and Russia. So the idea must be that other countries would be inspired to do more to combat proliferation.

But for this to be true, there would have to be countries out there willing and able to do more, but holding back out of frustration over the slow pace nuclear disarmament. Which countries could these be?

Certainly not nuclear-armed Russia and China. They consistently have been the biggest obstacles to firmer action against Iran and North Korea at the United Nations, but not because they're frustrated by the slow pace of nuclear disarmament. Rather, their motivations have been economic and strategic.

How about America's allies, such as Germany and Japan? Or, better yet, passionately anti-nuclear nonallies like Sweden and New Zealand? It defies credulity to suggest that these countries are so tactical in their approach that even though they could do more to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, they have been holding back until countries with such weapons move faster to get rid of them.

This leaves the nonaligned movement, or NAM, led on nuclear issues by such countries as Brazil, Egypt and South Africa. These countries are certainly outspoken about nuclear disarmament, so if anyone is going to be motivated to do more by faster U.S. disarmament, they would be the ones.

The Obama administration has amply demonstrated to these NAM countries the sincerity of its commitment to nuclear disarmament.

• In April it issued a Nuclear Posture Review disavowing the development of new types of nuclear weapons.
• Then it signed the New START agreement, mandating a further one-third reduction in the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals.
• This was followed by a 47-nation Nuclear Security Summit hosted by President Obama.
• Then in May it went to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference, where it promised U.S. participation in regional nuclear-weapons-free zones.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton explained to the conference that "as we work to uphold our end of the basic bargain of the NPT, we are asking all signatories to do the same, to work with us to strengthen global nonproliferation rules and hold accountable those who violate them."

So how has the world responded?

The Obama administration left the review conference with no meaningful progress on any of the ideas it suggested for strengthening the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nor was Iran criticized in any way -- unlike Israel, which was.

The administration was rebuffed again in June, when NAM member Brazil, along with Turkey, voted against the U.N. Security Council decision to impose a fourth round of sanctions on Iran. On the three previous sanctions votes, the council acted unanimously once agreement was reached with Russia and China.

Not only that, Brazil and Turkey brokered a deal with Iran with the express purpose of scuttling additional U.N. sanctions, and declared their flat-out opposition to the goal -- embraced by the U.N. four years ago -- of getting Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.

If this is the NAM's reward to Obama for picking up the pace of nuclear disarmament, it's time to reverse course.

The time has come for an honest discussion about nuclear disarmament.

There may be reasons to move forward with Obama's disarmament agenda, but the notion that it will strengthen America's hand against nuclear proliferation is not one of them.

Stephen G. Rademaker is senior counsel at BGR Group, a Washington-based consultancy. From 2002 to 2006 he was the U.S. assistant secretary of state responsible for arms control and nonproliferation.