|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Response: New Bush WMD Strategy Marks a Significant Departure, Experts Say By Bryan Bender The document is considered a step forward by those who believe a revised policy, coupled with a strong declaration about the potential consequences of attacking the United States with weapons of mass destruction, is urgently needed to deter potential adversaries in an era in which traditional deterrence might not be sufficient. The new policy was quickly criticized from several quarters, however, as unnecessarily eroding international arms control. These critics also contend that the Bush administration is being far too public about its intentions at the expense of U.S. credibility in future debates about stemming the spread of nuclear weapons. The six-page strategy, sent to the U.S. Congress on Wednesday, threatens overwhelming retaliation — implying the use of nuclear weapons — in response to a WMD attack, in an effort to persuade potential adversaries to refrain from unleashing chemical or biological weapons against the United States or its allies. “The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force — including through resort to all of our options — to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies,” the document says. It also calls for the development of new military and civilian capabilities to defeat WMD-armed adversaries, the strengthening of nonproliferation treaties and arms control regimes, and preparations to reduce the potentially catastrophic consequences of a successful WMD attack against the United States or its allies. Breaking with the Past Some expert observers contend, however, that although the United States has always reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear threat, it has never said so explicitly and has refrained from applying the policy to chemical or biological weapons. A 1978 executive order said the United States would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. Following a renouncement of that policy by U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton in February (see GSN, Feb. 22), the Bush administration quickly reaffirmed it (see GSN, Feb. 27). The new strategy may also contradict international agreements, according to one interpretation. “Until now we have not been explicit about” responding to a WMD attack with nuclear weapons, said Robert Einhorn, former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation. “This statement takes one additional layer of ambiguity away by saying we would use any option. They are clearly saying nuclear weapons without saying so.” “It essentially nullifies the last 50 years,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) in a Wednesday speech. Experts said the policy comes in response to the growing threat from chemical and biological weapons, which, in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, are considered an imminent threat to U.S. national security — even more so in light of a possible war with Iraq to disarm its suspected WMD stockpile. Yet the new policy also raises international legal questions. According to Corey Hinderstein, an arms control expert at the Institute for Science and International Security, the new policy may conflict with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in particular. “It is some sensitive ground for international law,” she said. “It doesn’t jibe with some of the interpretations of our legal right to [use nuclear weapons]” under the NPT, she said. “The first thing that strikes me is what appears to be completely unrealistic references to the NPT, the essential mechanism for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons,” Morten Maerli, nuclear security expert at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, told GSN today. “The U.S. is neglecting the 13 steps to implement article VI from the 2000 Review Conference that can only hurt the future of the treaty,” Maerli said, referring to the treaty commitment undertaken by nuclear powers to move “in good faith” toward nuclear disarmament. Too Assertive? Any policy departures or legal questions aside, critics charge that if such a new deterrent strategy is required to address the threats posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the White House would be better to remain silent, continuing its long-standing policy of nuclear ambiguity, rather than advertise its possible responses. “It is very dangerous to be talking too much about these kinds of responses that the United States would take or actions in anticipation of another nation’s actions,” Hagel said. Overasserting the U.S. right to use nuclear weapons, he said, brings a “mucky schizophrenia” to the long-standing U.S. policy of nuclear restraint. “What the administration chose to do was to put forward a very muscular version of this, unnecessarily muscular in my view because it alarmed the hell out of a lot of the people we need most to forge the kind of coalition we have to put together against Saddam Hussein,” former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke said Wednesday in a television interview. The strategy “reflects the changing reality,” prospective Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) told Global Security Newswire earlier today. The administration “could have maybe been more artful in saying it,” he said. Holbrooke, while critical of the Bush language, said he believes the policy itself is not very different from the past. In the past, however, it was not part of the political rhetoric. “This is just the more muscular form of a long-standing policy. At least four times in the last half-century, [former U.S. Presidents Dwight] Eisenhower in Korea, [Richard] Nixon in Vietnam, [George H.W.] Bush against [Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] in ’91, and [John] Kennedy in the missile crisis in ’62, we have said the same sort of thing,” he said. “We reserve the right to use any means we have, including nuclear weapons,” Holbrooke said. Possible International Consequences Yet, experts worry that it may be too late to offset the potential harmful consequences of such an assertive policy. “I think its effect will be profound in some states,” Hinderstein said. “Pakistan is very fearful that the U.S. is intent on destroying its nuclear capability. If the U.S. establishes a pattern of taking excessive military action, they feel like they might be on that list.” Added Hagel, “It sets in motion a series of uncontrollable actions that could be taken by China, by Russia, by Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea.” According to John Isaacs of the Council for a Livable World, the new strategy to combat weapons of mass destruction only adds to a series of Bush administration actions in the nuclear arena that he believes will prove destabilizing in coming years. “Dr. Strangelove is alive and well in the Bush administration,” Isaacs said in a statement Thursday. “The administration’s new strategy, its quest to explore building new nuclear weapons such as a ‘nuclear bunker buster,’ and its refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty signal to the world that the U.S. has extensive plans to build and use nuclear weapons in the future,” he said. Supporters Applaud Comprehensive Strategy Despite concerns about some of the language in the new strategy and its possible consequences, the Bush policy was applauded by experts who believe a new deterrent policy was long overdue and describe the plan as the kind of comprehensive strategy required to combat the growing threat of weapons of mass destruction. “It really is a step forward,” said Jack Spencer, a Heritage Foundation defense analyst. “If we are going to have a chance, albeit a slim one, to address the proliferation problem, we are going to have to take a comprehensive approach to this widespread danger. We can’t rely solely on arms control. Arms control is important, but so is deterrence and persuasion.” The document is “a nonproliferation tool box,” he added. “It gives us the tools to address this very complex problem.” As for whether it may contradict previous arms control regimes, he said the new threats might require the international community to revisit past treaties to ensure they remain relevant. The White House will need to continue to explain the new strategy to ensure international support for nonproliferation efforts, experts say. “They are walking a fine line between an assertive policy they need to commit to but at the same time recognizing that we can’t be a nuclear cowboy in the world,” Hinderstein said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
