|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
United States I: “Negative Security Assurances” No Longer Supported, Bolton Says The Bush administration no longer supports a U.S. commitment to refrain from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and nonproliferation, said yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 24). “We are just not into theoretical assertions that other administrations have made,” Bolton said in reference to a 1978 pledge by the Carter administration not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states unless they are allied with a nuclear-armed state attacking the United States. In 1995, then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher reaffirmed that position, known as a “negative security assurance.” The U.S. position became part of a resolution adopted by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, all nuclear states, in 1995. Negative security assurances, however, are an unrealistic approach in today’s international security situation, Bolton said. “The idea that fine theories of deterrence work against everybody, which is implicit in the negative security assurances, has just been disproven by Sept. 11,” Bolton said. “What we are attempting to do is create a situation where nobody uses weapons of mass destruction of any kind.” Bolton’s comments, which appeared in a recent interview with the Arms Control Association, angered some arms control analysts, according to the Washington Times. They said that important U.S. statements such as the negative security assurances should not be discarded. “These assurances are important in order to maintain the integrity and credibility of the nonproliferation regime,” said ACA Executive Director Daryl Kimball. “Repudiation can have a negative effect on international security.” Former Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and Nonproliferation John Holum yesterday said the Bush administration’s decision to drop the negative security assurances would have little effect on the international balance of power, but could send a dangerous message. “It doesn’t make the use of weapons of mass destruction more or less likely, but it’s reflective of the administration’s negative view of international treaties,” Holum said (Nicholas Kralev, Washington Times, Feb. 22).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
