• Print
• E-Mail
• Feedback

03/02/2010

US President Barack Obama's claim in Prague nearly one year ago of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons" was one of the factors that led the Nobel Committee to bestow him with the prestigious peace prize. Obama the Superman, it seemed, could save the world.

Now the Obama administration is putting the finishing touches on its Nuclear Posture Review, the atomic strategy paper produced by each presidency. In a report on Sunday, the New York Times cited sources stating that Obama will move to permanently reduce America's arsenal by thousands of weapons, but that the administration would reject demands by some Washington politicians that it never be the first to hit the button.

According to the report, Washington will stop the development of new nuclear weapons and abandon a program started by Obama's predecessor George W. Bush to build bunker-busting, mini nuclear weapons. The new strategy is also expected to see Washington concentrate its security more on non-nuclear defenses in the future than the nuclear deterrent.

But Washington is deeply divided over how Obama should proceed with his nuclear strategy, and the chapter has provided one of many illustrations of how Obama's message of "Yes, we can," has been met with a "no, you can't" in the past year. Critics in recent months -- both on the right and the left -- have hammered Obama for not moving quickly enough to fulfil his nonproliferation pledges. Those on the right say his aspiration to have a nuclear weapons-free world is naïve in the face of the Iranian and North Korean threat. Meanwhile, those on the left are pushing for him to make a statement that the "sole" purpose of Washington's nuclear deterrent is to prevent a nuclear attack. Others would prefer more flexibile wording -- that deterrence be the "primary" purpose, but not the exclusive one.

Germany Pushes for Removal of Nukes

The New York Times also cited sources close to the White House claiming that the US is currently conducting negotiations with its allies in Europe on the possibility of pulling out politically sensitive atomic weapons currently being stored there. A vocal political debate in Germany in recent months has helped push the issue to the forefront. The coalition agreement between Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats and Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle's liberal Free Democrats (FDP) even includes a provision that negotiations be undertaken with the US for the removal of the up to 20 nuclear warheads believed to be stored in Germany.

Westerwelle, who has spearheaded the issue in an effort to get a bump in public opinion, most recently called for the removal of US nuclear weapons during the prestigious Munich Security Conference in February. And last week Westerwelle and his counterparts from the Benelux countries and Norway drafted a letter to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen calling for the alliance to discuss the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world at its next meeting in Tallin, Estonia, in April. Westerwelle has called the weapons a "relic of the Cold War" and said they "no longer have a military purpose."

Experts believe the US is storing between 10 and 20 nuclear bombs at the Büchel air base in the western state of Rhineland-Palatinate. Büchel is the last location in Germany with nuclear bombs following the withdrawal of as many as 130 nuclear weapons that had been stored at the Ramstein US air base in 2004. In addition to Germany, the US is believed to be storing nuclear weapons in Italy, Belgium, Turkey and the Netherlands. The weapons are a part of NATO's "nuclear sharing" program, and the alliance member countries where they are stored could also be involved in firing the weapons -- including Germany's Bundeswehr armed forces -- if they were ever to be used by the alliance. It is believed that the US is storing as many as 200 nuclear weapons in Europe.

Most German editorialists on Tuesday believe the stakes are high for Obama, who has pledged a nuclear weapons-free world but faces considerable resistance to his plans within his own government. Indeed, the Nuclear Posture Review was due for release on Monday, but Obama delayed it in order to hash out differences within his administration.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"The bitter battle within his government shows just how difficult it is back at home for the president to implement the vision of a nuclear weapons-free world he announced in Prague. The White House is having to work against the Pentagon as well as the departments responsible for Europe and Asia in the State Department. At the core of the issue is the future role atomic bombs will play in the US. Obama wants to send a strong signal that they will only be used as a deterrent against nuclear strikes on the US and its allies. That would be a desirable departure from the Bush Doctrine, which included the threat of nuclear attacks."

"Any softening of the stance that nuclear weapons are purely a deterrent against threats will foster doubt that Obama can really hold to the radical nuclear policy he announced. Of major importance will be whether Obama really gives up the development of new warheads. The previous government, for example, proceeded with plans to develop bunker-busting nuclear weapons. Obama wants to stop this, but if it he fails, it could be more difficult in the future to convince other countries not to continue trying to develop a nuclear weapon."

The conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"The president of the United States cannot afford to appear naive with his vision of a world without nuclear weapons. Obama himself has admitted that this goal may not be achievable within his lifetime. As long nuclear weapons exist and the number of countries that possess them continues to increase, he will have to take that reality into account."

"Currently Washington and Moscow are negotiating a further reduction of their strategic arsenals. Both sides have doubtlessly reviewed in advance precisely how many systems are necessary in order to maintain the nuclear deterrent under today's circumstances. Many bombs and missiles that have already been deactivated could finally be destroyed as the soon-to-be-published Nuclear Posture Review will likely state. The Obama administration has said it doesn't want to develop any new nuclear weapons and that it wants to ratify a treaty banning nuclear tests. But the treaty with Russia requires a two-thirds majority in Senate -- and that alone is reason enough for a realistic view of things."

The conservative daily Die Welt writes:

"A world without nuclear weapons -- that has been the vision that for the past two years strategic masterminds and experienced politicians like Henry Kissinger, Reagan's Secretary of State George Shultz, Democratic Senator Sam Nunn and mathematics professor and Pentagon chief William Perry have tried to make concrete. But before any cheering should erupt, one should remember that from the days of Adam and Eve right up until 1945, people did without nuclear weapons, but not without war and mass destruction."

"Nuclear weapons are the ultimate leveller because no lesser weapon can counterbalance them -- not even chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. Working outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel, India and Pakistan have all risen to become nuclear powers. And Iran and North Korea are also acting in flagrant violation of the treaty. By doing so, they have turned a contained bipolar system into an unregulated, multipolar non-system. Against this backdrop, 'Global Zero' has little chance. The world powers will not forswear the nuclear deterrent and the troublemakers won't agree to nuclear equality."