
In an age of pressing global challenges, none threatens our nation or our world as urgently as the possible spread of nuclear weapons. The United States has a special responsibility to meet this challenge, and under President Obama, we seek to lead the international community in minimizing these dangers and reinvigorating the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
Recent developments underscore the threat. The international community failed to prevent North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. Iran continues to ignore resolutions from the U.N. Security Council demanding that it suspend its enrichment activities and live up to its international obligations. Too much of the world's nuclear material remains vulnerable to theft or diversion, even as illicit state and nonstate networks engage in sensitive nuclear trade. And as we saw with the failure to detect Iran's covert enrichment plant and Syria's reactor project, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) doesn't have the tools to carry out its verification mission effectively.
If we do not reverse this trend and strengthen the international nonproliferation regime, we will find ourselves in a world with a steadily growing number of nuclear-armed states, and an increasing likelihood of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons.
No nation is safe from the threat of nuclear proliferation, and no nation can meet this challenge alone. In the early days of the atomic age, a handful of powerful countries could effectively set nonproliferation strategy. But in today's changing world, with information and technology leaping across borders, industrial capacity more widely distributed, and nonstate actors wielding increasing influence, it will require unprecedented international cooperation.
That is why the United States has launched a major diplomatic effort to forge a renewed international consensus on nonproliferation that is based on the shared interest of meeting a common threat and on the requirement that all nations understand and abide by their rights and responsibilities.
Last month, President Obama chaired a historic U.N. Security Council session that unanimously adopted a resolution outlining a framework for action in the years ahead. This resolution should serve as a guide for the international community as we work to strengthen the nonproliferation regime, including through the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference next spring. As we have done for four decades, we must build on the NPT's solid foundation with measures designed to tackle evolving challenges.
We seek to strengthen each of the three mutually reinforcing pillars of global nonproliferation -- preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, promoting disarmament, and facilitating the peaceful use of nuclear energy. And to those three pillars, we should add a fourth: preventing nuclear terrorism.
The most effective way to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism is to ensure that nuclear materials that can be used to build weapons are well protected against theft or seizure. That is why the United States has proposed a plan to secure all vulnerable nuclear material worldwide within four years -- a plan that has now won the endorsement of the U.N. Security Council.
We will use financial and legal tools to better disrupt illicit proliferation networks, including by tightening controls on transshipment, a key source of illicit trade. We will seek to strengthen Nuclear Suppliers Group restrictions on transfers of enrichment and reprocessing technology. And we will also promote multilateral nuclear fuel supply and spent fuel arrangements so that states embarking on or expanding nuclear power programs can pursue their civil nuclear plans without going to the great expense and difficulty of building their own enrichment or reprocessing plants.
To be effective, the international nonproliferation regime must have teeth. The United States supports enhancing the IAEA's verification authorities and resources so it can perform its mission effectively. And we should consider automatic penalties for violations of safeguards agreements, such as suspending all IAEA technical cooperation until compliance has been restored. Potential violators must know full well that they will be caught and that they will pay a high price for failing to live up to their obligations.
To improve our standing to build broad international support for pursuing these means of strengthening the nonproliferation regime, the United States and the other nuclear-armed powers should fulfill their own obligation to reduce their nuclear stockpiles.
We are negotiating an agreement with the Russians to succeed the soon-to-expire START Treaty, significantly reducing the nuclear forces of both sides, paving the way for deeper cuts in the future, and providing for inspections and other confidence-boosting mechanisms. Step by step, we are transforming a relationship that was once defined by the shadow of mutually assured destruction into one that is based on mutual respect.
We are also seeking ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and negotiation of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. These steps will strengthen our national security and global credibility, while moving us closer to President Obama's goal of a world without nuclear weapons.
In the meantime, we will maintain a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent. We are undertaking an important review of the role of nuclear weapons in the United States' defense posture -- and will sustain our nation's nuclear arsenal and supporting infrastructure with the necessary resources.
This is an ambitious agenda. As the president has acknowledged, we might not achieve the dream of a world without nuclear weapons in our lifetime. But by making the reduction of nuclear threats one of our highest national priorities and by reaching out to a diverse group of international partners, we can help build and lead a unified international effort that will make us safer and stronger.
As President Obama said in Prague, the United States "cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it." Today, we have started, we are leading, and we remain committed to meeting this gravest of challenges.
Hiroko Masuike/Getty Images
Hillary Rodham Clinton is the U.S. secretary of state.
The Next Steps on Nonproliferation
One of the greatest virtues of enlightenment is the realization to correct the course of events either in one's life or in a nation's history. In Barack Obama we have a President who is deeply interested in improving the future of the entire mankind.
Secretary Clinton's piece stating the efforts made by the Obama Administration and its plans to manage and thereby control nuclear proliferation is music to the ears of one who has always considered this menace as a brutal weapon to wipe of millions from the face of the planet.
I feel lucky to live in a time to see this great President trying to turn the tide, changing peoples’ minds and the attitudes of nations around the globe, working for peace and ensuring a solid future for the generations to come.
By the same token, rogue states that either possess nuclear capability or those that already have nuclear weapons must be carefully monitored. North Korea is one state that can make a mockery of world stability.
Iran is another country run by the crazy mullahs that can pull the trigger anytime and bring about death and destruction on a massive scale.
Another appalling case is that of Pakistan. With people like AQ Khan on the loose, and the Taliban threatening the very integrity of the country itself, the US policy makers and nuclear managers need to pay special attention. Our age-old doubts and fears about the nukes being in safe hands remain valid. Pakistan is a treacherous territory and nuclear safeguards are a must. A good start may be the signing of IAEA by Pakistan.
In Secretary Clinton we have a reliable spokesperson of the US foreign policy objectives and propagation of the future plans.
How about "another country run by crazy" rabbis and/or sikhs with hands on hundreds of nukes.
Or how about the fact that the US turns a blind eye to certain countries such as Isreal on their production of many many nuclear warheads? It's no secret that Isreal is engaged in nuclear arms production, no matter how much they deny it.
You can read some comments about the issue from this website.
http://ideviate.org/us-iran-conflict-on-nuclear-weapons/
Avocado, it would be helpful if you learned how to spell "Israel."
Thanks.
As for Israel having nukes, good-o on them. It's Iran that's sworn to destroy Israel. It's Iran that says Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. It's Iran that denies the Holocaust. It's Iran that thinks the only good Jew is a dead Jew. It's Iran whose proxy Hezbollah attacks Israel every chance it gets AROUND THE WORLD.
No more marching to the ovens this time, Avocado. One bomb on Israel will equal 100 bombs on Iran. I'm sure even you can do the math on that one.
By making generalizations only creates separation. Sure there are those, and many in power, in Iran that don't recognize the holocaust. There are some that are anti-semitic as well. However, this should not be the forefront of the conversation. The focal interest is not if a country has the right to defend itself, because an aggressive Israel is justified. The point is that no country should use nuclear weapons as a form of defense. Avacado was simply stating this point.
I agree we should play no favorites, and nonproliferation starts with the country that created it. But also in the greater issue of regional peace, it is imperative that Iran, and Israel, cease the risk of employing nuclear weapons.
Very disappointing Sec. of State
My regret with President Obama's choice in Administration Officials has only grown.
Mrs. Clinton was once a co-partner of an Administration which made it policy to lie about the genocide in Rwanda.
So far, her presence as Sec. of State has been truly embarrassing, especially when she announced to the World "human rights will not be an Obama Administration priority. (The President's refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama is even more troubling).
Now we see this vapid offering above, and the very juvenile presence while visiting Pakistan. Mrs. Clinton is making a mess, as expected.
1. Sec. Hillary Clinton is being utterly dishonest by saying, "I spent my entire eight years in the Senate opposing him (GW Bush)". No, in fact she voted for the use of force in Iraq, authorizing the mission, in full support of the Bush Administration, using some of the most aggressive language in the Senate to justify this Military Operation.
2. Sec. Hillary Clinton again provides stunning hypocrisy, as evidence has revealed the Clinton Administration - President Bill Clinton, refused to take custody of Osama Bin Laden on at least two known separate occasions. How dare Mrs. Clinton be critical of the Pakistani Government in this sophomoric manner, complaining about their failures to capture or kill Al Qaeda terrorists?
3. Sec. Hillary Clinton reveals a bizarre sense of ignorance regarding the current state of the GWOT. It could be another a poor attempt to distort the record of the prior Administration's efforts in capturing and killing Al Qaeda, implying falsely no one who was behind 9-11 has been brought to justice. In some estimates, the Bush Administration is believed to have eliminated some 75% of Al Qaeda after 9-11. But maybe this self described "Smart Power" player, simply does not know who is currently being held in Guantanamo Bay. Perhaps Hillary Clinton doesn't even know who Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is? The self-described mastermind of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?
Either way, the lack of class, maturity, stature is vivid.
Mrs. Clinton is a terrible Sec. of State, and it is regretful to see this embarrassment.
(7)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE