Comments 5

重振可不扩散日程

Jun 23, 2016 Javier Solana

马德里—美国总统奥巴马最近对广岛的访问绝非普通的外交停留。这不但是在任美国总统首次访问1945年毁于美国核弹的广岛；也吸引了人们对奥巴马在核不扩散问题上的记录的关注。

在2009年布拉格的演讲中，奥巴马把核武器称为“全球安全最紧迫、最极端的威胁”，因为核武器可能落入恐怖分子或其他流氓之手；他还承诺降低核武器在美国国家安全战略中的作用。在他感人的广岛演说中，奥巴马在其强调追求无核世界的需要。他提出必须以“道德革命”辅助技术进步，社会要抵制促使它们维持核武库“恐惧逻辑”。

但是，尽管两次演讲都表达出类似的想法，它们的政策背景却非常不同。事实上，奥巴马政府的核政策自2009年以来发生了重大转变，2009年之前，遏制核扩散是其核心外交政策关注点之一。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

The Sino-American Cold War’s Collateral Damage

Oct 19, 2018 Minxin Pei
The End of Scandinavian Non-Alignment

Oct 17, 2018 Carl Bildt
Will Italy Sink Europe?

Oct 17, 2018 Jim O'Neill
The Martyrdom of Jamal Khashoggi

Oct 15, 2018 Daoud Kuttab
The Brexit Endgame

Oct 16, 2018 Robert Skidelsky

Javier Solana

Writing for PS since 2004
97 Commentaries

Javier Solana was EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, Secretary-General of NATO, and Foreign Minister of Spain. He is currently President of the ESADE Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics, Distinguished Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Europe.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 6 in all 6 Comments on this article

TRIQUI AHMED Jun 23, 2016

Merci Monsieur Solana de remettre la lutte contre la prolifération nucléaire à l'ordre du jour.
Il s'agit bien d'une question fondamentale en ces temps d’incertitude aussi bien sur le théâtre européen qu’asiatique.
En 2016, nous nous retrouvons au carrefour de questions stratégiques qui ne relèvent plus des montages du début des années 2000 avec les ADM supposées détenues par l'Irak de Saddam Hussein selon les néoconservateurs américains ; ADM inexistantes, ce qui confirment bien les rapports indépendants divers et variés( Blix). La fausseté des arguments et des pièces au dossier n’ont fait que rendre plus problématique la résolution de la question de l’après Saddam Hussein.
Nous ne sommes plus sur la question iranienne et de sa volonté de détenir l’arme atomique. Sur les discussions, nombre de commentateurs ont pu critiqué l’attitude intransigeante de Monsieur Fabius et de sa diplomatie ; il est sûr que cette attitude de fermeté a permis la réussite des discussions diplomatiques. Il s’agissait en effet de poser contrairement les tenants et les aboutissant des choses et de ne pas s’en tenir à une diplomatie de connivence . C’est la précision de l’agenda formalisé qui a permis la réussite des discussions.
J’en viens à mon propos très actuel sur les questions stratégiques aujourd’hui.
Le monde entier remarque bien que les rapports entre les puissances nucléaires se dégradent ; nous percevons même un déni de réalité contenu dans les propos de commentateurs. Or que constatons-nous ? Une forte dégradation des relations entre les USA, l’ U E d’un côté et la Russie, et un rapport de force incertain dans les mers d’Asie entre les force navales chinoises et « alliés ».
Le plus inquiétant aujourd’hui est bien cet obscurantisme stratégique qui méprise la réalité des rapports de force et les nécessaires prises en compte des intérêts de tous. Pouvons-nous entrer en confrontation avec la Russie sans poser que Moscou est une puissance nucléaire ? Or, cette prise en compte doit être fortement formalisée surtout à la lecture de certains rapports US anciens mettant en avant la possible réussite d’une première frappe sur les installations russes.
Enfin, nous devons mettre en oeuvre une véritable diplomatie et imaginer de «nouveaux traités» dans le but d’instaurer un système international de paix et de prospérité. Il s’agira donc d’entrer en pourparlers et de poser véritablement toutes les contraintes et tous les débats qui doivent être tenus. Ceci est un préalable à la paix mondiale ; la résolution des questions mondiales demande une volonté claire et affirmée des puissances.
Il appartient à l’Union européenne - parce qu’elle est le théâtre des opérations et donc la première victime- et à la diplomatie française par son savoir-faire de poser le débat et d’affirmer sa volonté de peser sur les discussions. Sinon, comme l’affirmait un expert, « si une guerre nucléaire avec la Russie commence, il faut se relaxer, ouvrir une bonne bouteille de vin et attendre humblement la mort. »
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Jun 23, 2016

Hi Javier,

Thank you for writing about this.

The end of the Cold War brought about a global and unprecedented opportunity to create a new nuclear weapons paradigm, an opportunity that was mostly wasted.

Except for the success of the (American proposed and Russian accepted) Megatons to Megawatts programme which turned rusty old atomic weapons from the 1950's, 60's and 70's into valuable nuclear power plant fuels. (Yes, it was costly, but the alternative was unimaginable)

However, so much more could have been done and not only with regards to weapons grade fissiles, but in regards to the several thousand tons of so-called 'spent fuel' sitting in storage (most of it sitting in earthquake-prone Japan) where it must be kept cooled and secure for up to 20,000 years, in the case of certain types of spent fuel.

The Megatons to Megawatts programme which ended recently, did so successfully and with astonishingly little fanfare considering the scale and success of that internationally acclaimed programme.

An incredible opportunity to morph the uber-successful Megatons to Megawatts programme into Phase II (removing more rusty 'newer' bombs from the 1980's and 1990's, which have since become unstable) and to process all of the world's 'spent fuel' into usable nuclear reactor fuel, was missed.

'Heartbreaking' doesn't begin to describe it.

I applaud President Obama's ultimately successful Iran policy, which culminated in agreement between Iran and the U.S. in regards to Iranian weapons-grade capabilities being diminished to the point where it's no longer a concern.

Powerful forces in American and elsewhere attempted to prevent President Obama from concluding such an agreement with Iran, for the sake of political gain.

Whatever our agreements/disagreements with Mr. Obama, he deserves full credit and our respect for navigating the Iran accord to an ultimately successful conclusion.

In a world of competing interests -- and yes, many of those 'interests' make for 'sexier' newspaper copy than Megatons to Megawatts II, surely at the top of our competing interests file should be lowering the threat of blowing ourselves off the planet, and in the case of spent fuels sitting in tsunami/earthquake zones, potentially poisoning ourselves off the planet.

The French are the world experts at reprocessing spent fuels and weapons grade uranium into usable nuclear power plant fuels, with Russia closing the gap in such technologies.

The need exists, the technology exists, the funding could be found just as it was for Megatons to Megawatts, all we need is an international leader of very high stature, Javier, and an internatonal team of experts to lead us towards a new, broader, and wider Megatons to Megawatts II programme that can solve two problems at once -- old nuclear weapons retirement and reprocessing and spent nuclear power plant fuel reprocessing.

As always, very best regards, JBS
- John Brian Shannon Jun 23, 2016
  
  [typo correction]
  
  The need exists, the technology exists, the funding could be found, just as it was for Megatons to Megawatts -- all we need is an international leader of very high stature, Javier, and an internatonal team of experts to lead us towards a new, broader, and wider, Megatons to Megawatts (II) programme that can solve two problems at once -- old and deteriorating nuclear weapons and thousands of tons of 'spent' nuclear power plant fuel sitting in storage around the world.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Jun 23, 2016

2 comments:
1) Are you willing to be on the front lines ? the only way to "compel" North Korea would be by military action. Said action would likely cause them to use said weapons.

2) This would require the members of the UN security council to trust each other. I find it more likely I could flap my arms and go to the moon then the US, Russia, and China trusting each other. Has all 3 have cheated on arms control agreements many times and likely will again.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Jun 23, 2016

Non proliferation is a case of - Hello how do you do, please go first. No, No, I assure you please go first, its only polite
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Jun 23, 2016

Double, triple, quadriple, etc.... Standards.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/50XZIiD/zh;

重振可不扩散日程

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

The Sino-American Cold War’s Collateral Damage

The End of Scandinavian Non-Alignment

Will Italy Sink Europe?

The Martyrdom of Jamal Khashoggi

The Brexit Endgame

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

America’s Midterm Mess

America’s Plutocrats Are Winning

The Untapped Potential of EU-Africa Trade

Taming Capital Flow Volatility

Why a Sino-American Cold War Won’t Happen

The End of America’s China Fantasy

America’s Inflation Risks

Defining Diplomacy Down

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register