Posts
For
Immediate Release: January 28, 2013
Contact:
Blair FitzGibbon, 202-503-6141
The recent criticisms of Chuck Hagel’s positions on nuclear weapons are factually baseless and totally wrong. Having worked closely with Chuck Hagel on nuclear weapons issues as part of a number of Global Zero initiatives, most recently, as co-authors with him of the 2012 Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission Report, we would like to set the record straight.
To begin with, three things need to be made clear:
First, we are not unilateralists. We support bilateral, negotiated, verifiable U.S.-Russian arms reductions, to be followed by multilateral negotiations, bringing other key countries into a serious, verifable process of reductions. This is and has always been the centerpiece of the approach advocated by Global Zero, by the four of us, and by Hagel. It has been explicitly, consistently and repeatedly spelled out in our many reports and public statements over the years (see below), including the 2012 Commission Report. The charge of unilateralism is belied by the facts and is dead wrong.
Second, the suggestion that we naively believe that the elimination of nuclear weapons can be achieved easily or in short order is likewise false. We again have clearly stated in our many reports and statements that this cannot be achieved quickly nor easily – that it will take decades of painstaking work, including the establishment of a verification regime with universal, intrusive inspections.
Third, some have attempted to depict our positions on nuclear weapons policy as representing a fringe viewpoint. In reality, our views on the issue are clearly now squarely in the “mainstream,” as they reflect President Obama’s stated position that the massive nuclear arsenal we inherited from the Cold War is poorly suited for today’s threats, including nuclear terrorism. You are out of the “mainstream” if you believe otherwise. It is clearly in the national security interests of the United States to lower the number of nuclear weapons in the world and move toward the goal of eliminating them.
Beyond the President of the United States, support for this goal is widespread among experienced, respected leaders from across the political spectrum – including the hundreds of political, military, diplomatic and national security leaders from the United States and around the world who are part of Global Zero. It builds on the vision of President Reagan, whose goal was “the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth” and who began the process of nuclear arms reductions 25 years ago.
Some have specifically asserted that the Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission Report we co-authored with Hagel last year supports unilateral disarmament. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The report lays out all possible options for the process of arms reductions – and then endorses the bilateral negotiated approach. The report even goes beyond that to call for a multilateral approach that includes not just the United Sates and Russia but the other nuclear powers as well. The report concludes:
“Only a broad multilateralapproach can effectively address the multitude of serious nuclear dangers found in other parts of the world. While pursuing bilateral negotiations to reduce the U.S. and Russian stockpiles to much lower levels, the two sides should initiate a multilateral process that would seek to cap, freeze, reduce and otherwise constrain the arsenals of third countries. Nuclear arms regulation must become comprehensive and universal.”
Two of us (General (Ret.) James E. Cartwright and Ambassador Thomas Pickering) representing the commission testified before Senator Feinstein’s subcommittee on energy and water development last summer, saying: Our report calls upon the United States and Russia “to reach a comprehensive, verifiable agreement that provides for equal reductions by both sides… We wish to emphasize that the commission does not call for unilateral cuts by the United States. Our view is that the only valid and useful approach should be to negotiate an agreement with the Russians.”
Letters to President Obama and then Russian President Medvedev in March 2009 co-signed by Global Zero colleagues including Hagel clearly spelled it out:
“[G]etting to global zero will not happen overnight nor unilaterally; it will require the phased and verified reduction of all nations’ arsenals over a period of many years…. The United States and Russia must lead the way with a bilateral accord for deep reductions, to be followed by an agreement among all nuclear weapons states to join in the phased and verified reduction of all arsenals to zero.”
The point was reiterated in an April 2009 op-ed co-authored by Hagel and several Global Zero colleagues in the Times of London:
“This will not happen overnight nor unilaterally. Getting to global zero will require the reduction of all nations' arsenals over many years. Because American and Russian stockpiles account for 96 per cent of the world's nuclear weapons, these two countries should begin with deep reductions to their arsenals, while beginning a dialogue with the other nuclear weapons states.”
Finally, some have suggested that our 2012 Commission report calls for reductions in our arsenal that would weaken U.S. deterrence. This too is false. Our report calls for an arsenal with the capacity to deliver many hundreds of nuclear warheads. Such a force would project a threat of draconian dimensions at any prospective aggressor country and thus easily meet any reasonable requirements of deterrence. All of its co-authors are uncompromising in our belief that as the process of arms reductions goes forward the United States must maintain a strong and stabledeterrent, as long as nuclear weapons exist.
Any suggestions that our positions on nuclear weapons are unilateralist or would somehow weaken the United States are wrong and irresponsible. On the contrary, we have developed a serious and sensible approach to developing a U.S. defense strategy that can best address the 21st century threats we face and strengthen ournational security. The status quo with large nuclear arsenals on launch-ready alert poorly serves our security needs in an era of nuclear proliferation and potential nuclear terrorism.
The step-by-step plans we have developed with Global Zero for the multilateral, phased, verified elimination of all nuclear weapons have been endorsed by political leaders and leading newspapers worldwide, with the Financial Times concluding that, “Global Zero’s plan has shown the direction to be travelled; the world’s leaders most now start moving.” And The New York Times has written: “The Global Zero campaign believes that as an interim step, the country can go down to 1,000 warheads, deployed and stored, without jeopardizing security. We agree. The country will needsome number of nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future. And it must ensure that they are safe and reliable. But spending on the arsenal must be rational and consistent with national security goals – not driven by inertia or politics.”
Chuck Hagel’s and Global Zero’s views on nuclear weapons are in the U.S. national security interest and squarely in the mainstream. Continuing with Cold War nuclear weapons policies is not.
Setting the Record
Straight on Chuck Hagel’s Global Zero Position on Nuclear Weapons
A Statement by Amb.
Richard Burt, Gen. (Ret.) James E. Cartwright, Amb. Thomas Pickering and
Gen. (Ret.) John J. Sheehan*
*Co-authors
with Hagel of the 2012 Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission
Report
The recent criticisms of Chuck Hagel’s positions on nuclear weapons are factually baseless and totally wrong. Having worked closely with Chuck Hagel on nuclear weapons issues as part of a number of Global Zero initiatives, most recently, as co-authors with him of the 2012 Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission Report, we would like to set the record straight.
To begin with, three things need to be made clear:
First, we are not unilateralists. We support bilateral, negotiated, verifiable U.S.-Russian arms reductions, to be followed by multilateral negotiations, bringing other key countries into a serious, verifable process of reductions. This is and has always been the centerpiece of the approach advocated by Global Zero, by the four of us, and by Hagel. It has been explicitly, consistently and repeatedly spelled out in our many reports and public statements over the years (see below), including the 2012 Commission Report. The charge of unilateralism is belied by the facts and is dead wrong.
Second, the suggestion that we naively believe that the elimination of nuclear weapons can be achieved easily or in short order is likewise false. We again have clearly stated in our many reports and statements that this cannot be achieved quickly nor easily – that it will take decades of painstaking work, including the establishment of a verification regime with universal, intrusive inspections.
Third, some have attempted to depict our positions on nuclear weapons policy as representing a fringe viewpoint. In reality, our views on the issue are clearly now squarely in the “mainstream,” as they reflect President Obama’s stated position that the massive nuclear arsenal we inherited from the Cold War is poorly suited for today’s threats, including nuclear terrorism. You are out of the “mainstream” if you believe otherwise. It is clearly in the national security interests of the United States to lower the number of nuclear weapons in the world and move toward the goal of eliminating them.
Beyond the President of the United States, support for this goal is widespread among experienced, respected leaders from across the political spectrum – including the hundreds of political, military, diplomatic and national security leaders from the United States and around the world who are part of Global Zero. It builds on the vision of President Reagan, whose goal was “the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth” and who began the process of nuclear arms reductions 25 years ago.
Some have specifically asserted that the Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission Report we co-authored with Hagel last year supports unilateral disarmament. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The report lays out all possible options for the process of arms reductions – and then endorses the bilateral negotiated approach. The report even goes beyond that to call for a multilateral approach that includes not just the United Sates and Russia but the other nuclear powers as well. The report concludes:
“Only a broad multilateralapproach can effectively address the multitude of serious nuclear dangers found in other parts of the world. While pursuing bilateral negotiations to reduce the U.S. and Russian stockpiles to much lower levels, the two sides should initiate a multilateral process that would seek to cap, freeze, reduce and otherwise constrain the arsenals of third countries. Nuclear arms regulation must become comprehensive and universal.”
Two of us (General (Ret.) James E. Cartwright and Ambassador Thomas Pickering) representing the commission testified before Senator Feinstein’s subcommittee on energy and water development last summer, saying: Our report calls upon the United States and Russia “to reach a comprehensive, verifiable agreement that provides for equal reductions by both sides… We wish to emphasize that the commission does not call for unilateral cuts by the United States. Our view is that the only valid and useful approach should be to negotiate an agreement with the Russians.”
Letters to President Obama and then Russian President Medvedev in March 2009 co-signed by Global Zero colleagues including Hagel clearly spelled it out:
“[G]etting to global zero will not happen overnight nor unilaterally; it will require the phased and verified reduction of all nations’ arsenals over a period of many years…. The United States and Russia must lead the way with a bilateral accord for deep reductions, to be followed by an agreement among all nuclear weapons states to join in the phased and verified reduction of all arsenals to zero.”
The point was reiterated in an April 2009 op-ed co-authored by Hagel and several Global Zero colleagues in the Times of London:
“This will not happen overnight nor unilaterally. Getting to global zero will require the reduction of all nations' arsenals over many years. Because American and Russian stockpiles account for 96 per cent of the world's nuclear weapons, these two countries should begin with deep reductions to their arsenals, while beginning a dialogue with the other nuclear weapons states.”
Finally, some have suggested that our 2012 Commission report calls for reductions in our arsenal that would weaken U.S. deterrence. This too is false. Our report calls for an arsenal with the capacity to deliver many hundreds of nuclear warheads. Such a force would project a threat of draconian dimensions at any prospective aggressor country and thus easily meet any reasonable requirements of deterrence. All of its co-authors are uncompromising in our belief that as the process of arms reductions goes forward the United States must maintain a strong and stabledeterrent, as long as nuclear weapons exist.
Any suggestions that our positions on nuclear weapons are unilateralist or would somehow weaken the United States are wrong and irresponsible. On the contrary, we have developed a serious and sensible approach to developing a U.S. defense strategy that can best address the 21st century threats we face and strengthen ournational security. The status quo with large nuclear arsenals on launch-ready alert poorly serves our security needs in an era of nuclear proliferation and potential nuclear terrorism.
The step-by-step plans we have developed with Global Zero for the multilateral, phased, verified elimination of all nuclear weapons have been endorsed by political leaders and leading newspapers worldwide, with the Financial Times concluding that, “Global Zero’s plan has shown the direction to be travelled; the world’s leaders most now start moving.” And The New York Times has written: “The Global Zero campaign believes that as an interim step, the country can go down to 1,000 warheads, deployed and stored, without jeopardizing security. We agree. The country will needsome number of nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future. And it must ensure that they are safe and reliable. But spending on the arsenal must be rational and consistent with national security goals – not driven by inertia or politics.”
Chuck Hagel’s and Global Zero’s views on nuclear weapons are in the U.S. national security interest and squarely in the mainstream. Continuing with Cold War nuclear weapons policies is not.
No comments:
Post a Comment