We Don't Do Treaties
To no one's surprise, the review conference of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that took place all this month in New York ended in a bust. The ostensible reason for the failure was the deep division between those NPT members (like Iran and Egypt) who insisted the US and other nuclear weapons states needed to live up to their disarmament commitments and those (led by the US) who insisted that the non-nuclear states needed to strengthen their nonproliferation commitments. This division between the nuclear haves and nuclear have-nots is not new (it has dominated every review conference since 1975), and neither is the failure of an NPT review conference (which has happened once before).
What is new is the lack of concern shown by an American administration over the failure to strengthen the nonproliferation regime. While other countries sent foreign ministers to the conference, all we could do was send a mid-level state department official. Rice, so we were told, couldn't even find one hour to fly up to New York anytime this month.
What explains this lackadaisical attitude towards a treaty that is meant to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and help prevent weapons or materials from falling into the hands of terrorists (which Bush in his debate with Kerry last year agreed constituted the gravest threat to America's security)?
I think there are two basic explanations. One is that this administration hasn't yet met a treaty it really likes. It sees treaties as constraints on America's freedom of action -- as Jim Lindsay and I have argued, Bush believes that an America unbound is a more secure America. This belief applies especially to arms control treaties, which the Bushies argue constrain the good guys but do nothing to constrain the bad guys, because they will invariably cheat. So since 2001, Bush walked out of the ABM Treaty, threw out the comprehensive test ban treaty, torpedoed efforts to strengthen the biological weapons convention, sabotaged the implementation of the chemical weapons convention, and now did nothing to strengthen the NPT. Instead of treaties, Bush looks to ad hoc coalitions -- like the G-8 and his Proliferation Security Initiative -- to work the proliferation problem. (Note the very interesting comment by a "senior Bush official" at the end of David Sanger's story in today's Times).
The other reason is that Bush sees the proliferation problem in a very different way than his predecessors. To the president, the problem is not the weapons or technology but the nature of the states and regimes that seek to possess them. The focus of our efforts should be to prevent weapons and technology from falling in the hands of rogue states and their tyrannical rulers -- not on preventing the spread of technology per se. We don't want Iran to possess the ability to enrich uranium -- but we're not particularly worried when Brazil insists that it needs to do so as well. Rogue states have weapons of mass destruction. We, Bush once said, don't -- we have a nuclear deterrent. Treaties don't prevent rogue states from acquiring weapons of mass, and neither do negotiations. To Bush, the only sure way to deal with the threat of rogues acquiring weapons of mass destruction is through regime change. As Cheney once said, "We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it."
Now, Bush is surely right that a rogue state acquiring nuclear weapons represents a greater threat than when a democratic state does so. Yet, one way to prevent rogues from getting this capability is by trying to halt proliferation everywhere -- including to our allies and friends. We've spent an awful lot of time and effort to convince countries like Japan, South Korea, Germany, and many others that they are better off being allied with us than getting their own nuclear weapons. We've been very successful in this effort. The NPT was an essential means to that end -- and seeing the treaty weakened cannot be good for anyone.
More fundamentally, Bush's policy of non-proliferation by regime change doesn't have a very good track record. It got us stuck in Iraq -- at an extraordinary cost in lives and dollars. And, of course, we never found any weapons. It hasn't worked particularly well in stopping North Korea from building more nuclear weapons either. In fact, while Pyongyang did not manufacture any nuclear weapons during the eight years when Clinton actively engaged the North, it has produced enough material for at least 6 more nuclear weapons since Bush became president. So sometimes, when you don't negotiate, evil wins.
Comments (13)
the 2004 debates..when asked about unilateral talks Kerry said "sure, whatever works," while Bush said "no, we need other countries involved."
And in the same sentence Bush said "no other country will have veto power over the United States..."
Forrest Gump's 'Mamma' was right. Stupid is as stupid does...
May 29, 2005 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't realize how non-specific my final sentence was. To clarify, what I was referring to as stupid was the GOP policy of saying one thing in one sentence, the opposite in the next sentence, and then insisting that bot statements are not only correct, but do not contradict each other at all.
Actually, one could argue that is pretty smart. But anyway, just wanted to clarify my comment lest it is misinterpreted.
May 30, 2005 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NPT has had some value, but it's diminishing.
The United States lacks moral authority on this issue and every country has wised-up to the NPT's limitations.
The nuclear weapons states aren't giving up the perks that go along with having nukes. And the mid-level powers aren't letting the NPT thrwart their ambitions. Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea have all acquired nukes with acceptable negative consequences.
Iraq suffered unacceptable consequences, but for the realpolitik-types Iraq's crime was not acquiring nuclear weapons but failing to acquire nuclear weapons.
And for a large number of people and diplomats in the world the United States is a larger threat to international peace and stability than an Iranian gov't with nuclear weapons.
So what's next after the NPT?
The United States could try to police the world through military force. This won't work, but it may be good domestic politics (in the United States).
The nation-states could try to negotiate abolition of nuclear weapons. This won't work, but it may be good domestic politics, especially in Europe.
Or we could try something else.
May 31, 2005 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
<i>One is that this administration hasn't yet met a treaty it really likes.</i>
The Bushies like NAFTA, WTO and CAFTA fine.
May 31, 2005 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
<i>Bush believes that an America unbound is a more secure America.</i>
Bush said he believed Iraq had WMD too. What the Neo Cons say and what they believe are often different.
Bush, the Neo Cons and the GOP want power. Having American voters anxious about security issues is good domestic politics.
It seems possible that the Bush administration is actively promoting insecurity so "get tough" politics--the GOP's specialty--will be the coin of the realm for decades to come.
May 31, 2005 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The other reason is that Bush sees the proliferation problem in a very different way than his predecessors. To the president, the problem is not the weapons or technology but the nature of the states and regimes that seek to possess them.
Let's be honest about Democrats.
Democratic non-proliferation efforts haven't been successful either.
When the GOP claims Reagan defeated the Sovs the Dems often respond that it was bi-partisan continuation of policies started under Truman that defeated the Sovs.
But fair's fair. It's not like nuclear proliferation began on Bush's watch.
Bush sees bad actor states as the problem. This model will not work for eliminating proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Democrats prefer the arms treaty control model. But this hasn't worked either.
So perhaps it's time to consider something different.
What if the world better managed international conflicts?
What would this look like? What if we had an international legislature and judiciary for arbitrating international conflict?
May 31, 2005 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd recommend Eugene Volokh's post on the applicability of treaties on First Amendment rights and how ultimately the congress and White House can demonstratively impact our rights (or the general reflection of how other's rights should be viewed) based on the treaties we sign or disconnect ourselves from.
Removing the democratic right of the Republic to protect our personal freedoms based on representative decisions is ludicrious. This applies to any treaty, NPT, Kyoto, or other international policy brought forth by other nations.
To extend this argument into peripheral territory, if the American people were bound to be the final decision makers for international treaties, it would leave open more opportunities to modify our Bill of Rights, moving the country towards a possible greater list of freedoms (as people would be more accustomed to questioning the basis of their own personal freedoms on a semi-regular basis). Whether that's a safe thing to do or not is a big unanswerable question, given corporate influence over voting, but it's a curious question.
May 31, 2005 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the point you're trying to make about the NPT?
May 31, 2005 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point wasn't to drive down too far into the meat of Ivo's commentary, but to point out that the Bush administration's disengagement or lack of care for treaties as a whole might be a boon instead of the viewpoint of this a negative -- if we can drive the decisions for treaties directly into the hands of the American people instead of through bureaucracies. Ultimately, we the people are the ones responsible for whether a treaty should affect us; let heads of state discuss protectionism based on our nuclear arsenal all they want, but leave the decisions as to our participation in nuclear, missile or other treaties in the hands of the voters.
May 31, 2005 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why should treaties be ratified by the voters and not laws and budgets?
May 31, 2005 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like it was nearly inevitable that the nonproliferation framework would break down, given the obvious conflict between the interests of the established nuclear-armed states and everyone else. Bush doesn't seem to have helped at all, but it's not like he caused this.
People must have seen this stuff coming, at least ever since the breakup of the USSR. Are there realistic plans for limiting the spread of nukes through means other than the NPT, or do we just need to accept a long-term future in which lots and lots of countries have nuclear weapons?
May 31, 2005 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you surely clarified something for me ... Dubya trying to do Hegelian dialectic is almost as much fun as listening to Dubya try to say nuclear.
Dennis
June 1, 2005 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
The breakdown of the NNPT was inevitable as soon as the Class I signatories (US, Britain, USSR, France and China) reneged on their obligation under the treaty to move expeditiously toward the elimination (not reduction, elimination) of nuclear weapons.
Prior to the breakup of the former USSR, the nuclear ambitions of client states were largely held in check by the superpowers. The only notable exceptions were two pariah nations (Israel and South Africa) and India. The lessons that can be gleaned from history following the implosion of the USSR are not terribly happy ones.
First, attempting to develop nuclear armaments is a good way to get attention from the US and your neighbors. If the process is revealed too early, you run the risk of very negative attention (i.e., invasion (a la Iraq).
However, if you are successfully able to develop nuclear arms and reveal this fact to the world after you have some in stock, the attention may still be rather negative (Pakistan), but you will get a new currency in world affairs (Pakistan, North Korea).
Or, to put it into a Hegelian dialectic context for our readers at 1600 Pennsylvania, here is the lesson you've taught the world.
Thesis: Developing Nukular weapons make us safer in a dangerous world. (Pakistan)
Antithesis: (Being accused of) Developing Nukular weapons will get us invaded. (Iraq)
Synthesis: If you're going to develop Nukular weapons, do it vewy quietwy (wike you was hunting wabbits) and don't tell anybody until you have a few in-hand. (N. Korea)
Dennis
June 1, 2005 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink