US National Security Strategy 2010: Centrality of Nuclear Proliferation

Obama administration’s maiden National Security Strategy (NSS) document released in May 2010 has chosen to underscore the significant need of a comprehensive non-proliferation and nuclear security agenda for the times ahead given that the perils of nuclear war constantly hover around what the document describes as ‘peaceful democracies.’

The NSS exemplifies Washington’s continuing national interests specifically including security, prosperity and international order among others, further delving into ways so as to achieve these ends especially towards formulating non-proliferation strategies. Nevertheless, what comes across as a dichotomy in argument is that although the Obama administration has chosen to pursue a comprehensive non-proliferation and nuclear security agenda, grounded in the rights and responsibilities of nations, the very fact that it wants to ensure the efficacy and reliability of its own deterrent proves to be a dampener towards efforts at inching towards global disarmament. Would then, the veracity of these reductions be verified after all, is a question that comes up and needs to be addressed expansively.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons has been accorded the status of an advancing top national security priority by the Obama administration—particularly the danger posed by the pursuit of nuclear weapons by radical extremist groups and networks and their supposed proliferation to other states that continue to remain of ‘proliferation concern to the US.’

Even as the debate surrounding global nuclear disarmament takes centre stage, the argument for nuclear disarmament, more specifically, American unilateral disarmament was put forth by none other than Paul Nitze, who garnered the image of a hawk as far as shaping of American nuclear policy during the Cold War years was concerned. Suggesting disarmament as an imperative to security, Nitze asserted, “I see no compelling reason why we should not unilaterally get rid of our nuclear weapons… in view of the fact that we can achieve our objectives with conventional weapons, there is nothing to be gained through the use of our nuclear arsenal.”

There has been much pondering regarding President Barack Obama’s speech delivered at Prague in April 2009—peddled as a commitment towards achieving nuclear disarmament. Nevertheless, it would not be prudent to read too much into the speech which was high on rhetoric since related US policies and actions following thereafter signaled diverse intentions  altogether.
As part of a conceptual discourse, Obama spoke about “the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy,” without any elucidation of how to get rid of them. While President Obama laid emphasis on disarmament, on the contrary, the White House simultaneously went on to request one of the larger increases in warhead spending history. In the eventuality of this request being realised, US warhead spending would rise by nearly 10 percent in a single year. Obama’s assertion towards disarmament came with a rider, “… in the meantime, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary.” Even prior to assuming office as President of the United States , President-elect Obama had made a statement acknowledging, “… as long as nuclear weapons exist, we’ll retain a strong deterrent.” Therefore, not surprisingly, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the biggest target of the Obama largesse, would see a 22 per cent budget increase—the largest since 1944.

The NSS crucially underlines that America should ‘lead’—in what could be described as a continuation of the 2006 NSS propounded by the Bush administration. In the latest NSS, President Obama has claimed, “power, in an interconnected world, is no longer a zero-sum game… Through collective action with other states—not ‘great powers’ but ‘key centers of influence’—we can achieve cooperative solutions.”

Dissection of this thought would lead one to believe that strengthening of the NPT regime as the foundation of non-proliferation is the key to achieve the desirable end and ‘hold’ nations such as Iran and North Korea accountable for the purported failure to meet international obligations. The NSS has reiterated that if Pyongyang eliminated its nuclear weapons programme, and Tehran met its international obligations—it would facilitate their political and economic integration with the international community. However, the document also cites an admonition that in case the two countries continue to ignore the international obligations that need to be met with, ‘multiple means to increase their isolation’ so as to bring them into compliance with international non-proliferation norms shall likely be pursued.

Therefore, even as Iran and North Korea have been denoted as challenges by the latest NSS, there seems to be a lacuna when it comes to undertaking coherent steps and methodology to address the same. The Obama administration needs to carry out a distillation of the geo-political and strategic realities as it readies to deal with the challenges of nuclear proliferation by means of underscoring the significance in strengthening of the NPT—often referred to as a moribund treaty in the present context.
 

Dr Monika Chansoria is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS)

(Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the views either of the Editorial Committee or the Centre for Land Warfare Studies).