Southern Hemisphere Clean, or: Geographically Halfway to Success!

Wonderful news coming to us from the Global Security Newswire:

The African Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone Treaty's entry into force last month [July 2009] established a ban on nuclear weapons throughout the entire southern hemisphere, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Friday.

This truly is fantastic news. That all countries south of the Equator have committed to a nuclear weapons-free world is absolutely significant. Of course, the southern hemisphere is also largely devoid of the same technological development as the North -- plus the majority of the world's population lives above the Equator:


(On a side note, if you take a page out of Jared Diamond's brilliant book Guns, Germs and Steel, you'd recognize why the North is so developed vs the South. But I digress.)

So all that is to say that perhaps having the entire Southern hemisphere commit to being a nuclear weapons free zone (NWFZ) is not that big a deal, since the real power players live in the North. This very well might be a valid point. But consider the increasingly globalized world in which we live. Consider how much current events are affecting all countries and all peoples, regardless of socioeconomic factors like population density or income distribution. There is no doubt in my mind that this momentous occasion, when half of our geographic Earth is committed to a nuclear weapons-free world, will have a profound and long-lasting impact on key decision makers in all developed countries.

The goal of seeking a world devoid of these instruments of mass slaughter is no longer the goal of just President Obama -- it has been embraced by other world leaders, both on and off the political stage. Events have been set in motion and the movement is gaining momentum, slowly but surely. As efforts are consolidated by the medical community (IPPNW), grassroots organizations (We Must Disarm), academic intelligentsia (Harvard Kennedy School) and think tanks (Council on Foreign Relations), among others, policymakers around the world are starting to take notice.

So are people like you and me.

It's time to turn the tides; it's time to stop believing nuclear weapons will protect anyone from anything; it's time to come to full terms with the true capabilities of these instruments and accept that we as a race are better off without them (see my post on specicide).

It all starts here. It all starts now.

Turning the Argument on its Head, or: Why Conservatives Should Push for Disarmament

Work has blocked Blogger.com, and now I have to work either really early in the morning or really late in the evening. So it's rather late to post this, I know, but I still feel compelled to share:

With the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki commemorated two weeks ago, it's important that we take time to reflect, to remember and to commit to a nuclear weapons-free world. On August 6th, John Loretz at IPPNW wrote a poignant piece on remembering the hibakusha on the IPPNW blog. He said:

We need reminders. Some of us may need them more than others at this moment in time, especially political leaders who have embraced the goal of a world without nuclear weapons only to be criticized and even ridiculed by those who cling to the bomb as something of value. Nuclear deterrence as a foundation for security and stability ... has always required a sanitized language. Does anyone really want to look at that diorama too closely as the human, rather than the strategic, meaning of deterrence? Doesn’t it ask us a little too insistently whether we value our humanity more than strategic advantage?

This sense of a shared humanity -- one that transcends geographic boundaries, languages, cultures, religions and political ideologies -- is something I have stressed before. And for those who still cannot agree with the idea that "deterrence" is an inherently flawed policy that can no longer apply to our post-Cold War, post-9/11 world -- and believe me, there are many such people in our government -- they need only to look at one of the most brilliant and cogent arguments for nuclear disarmament, which comes to us now from J. Peter Scoblic, writing in the LA Times. You can get the full text here, but below is the main point:

Despite potential flash points with nations such as Russia (over Georgia) or China (over Taiwan), it would be lunacy to engage in [conventional] combat with either because of the risk of escalation to a nuclear conflict. Abolishing nuclear weapons would obviously not make conflict with those states a good idea, but it would dramatically increase American freedom of action in a crisis. That should make hawks, with their strong faith in the efficacy of American military power, very happy ... American conservatives cling to our arsenal as though it gives us great sway over foreign countries. Yet when our conventional power has proved insufficient, nukes have done little to augment our influence abroad.

Scoblic presents disarmament not as an option, but as a necessary move that should be embraced by conservatives who tout and advocate for the conventional military superiority of the United States. In other words, disarmament is no longer the stuff hippie dreams are made of.

I have also made reference to the flawed nature of deterrence, arguing that in the end, nuclear weapons haven't prevented conflict from taking place. Wars have still happened, blood has still been shed. The only thing that has been deterred by the US nuclear arsenal is a nuclear attack from another country. But violence is still widespread, conventional wars have still taken place, and the United States has found itself mired in more than one very messy situation overseas, with no real competitive or relative advantage provided by its nuclear weapons (I'm specifically thinking of the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf wars).

Cold War theories simply don't hold up anymore in a post-9/11, asymmetric-warfare environment. Enemies are harder to identify and even harder to penalize -- this ambiguity creates a vacuum in which nonstate actors (such as rogue states, deranged individuals, terrorist cells, etc) have the potential to act with impunity. Nuclear terrorism, therefore, is one of the greatest threats faced by all of humanity.

Fortunately, we have a President who is committed to eliminating the dangers posed by nuclear terrorism specifically, and by weapons proliferation more generally. It is now high time that we ask ourselves what the strategic value really is of possessing nuclear weapons in this day and age.

Short vs Long Term Effects of Nuclear War, or: An Incomplete Truth

I was on Twitter today (you can find me here) and came across this picture, which is an explanatory diagram on nuclear weapons, their destructive power and how many would be needed to completely wipe civilization off the map. Check it out:


It's interesting in itself that human beings occupy only one-eighth of the world's landmass, but I suppose that landmass figure of nearly 149 million square kilometers includes areas that are absolutely uninhabitable by humans, including regions of extreme heat and extreme cold (Antarctica, I'm looking at you!). So while the numbers don't lie, they do seem a bit misleading. But let's continue:


Seeing as how some of the information presented here has been culled from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, I won't argue with the above point.

Now here comes the conclusion:


So the bottom-line conclusion of this analysis is that there are, currently in existence, only about 0.83% of the nuclear weapons needed to destroy humanity. Therefore, while nuclear weapons are indeed devastating instruments, they are by no means the path to Armageddon. Right?

Wrong. What the author of this analysis takes into account very nicely is the immediate effects of a nuclear war, but he fails to consider the long-term impact of multiple explosions. Even a limited, regional nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons would utterly devastate human populations through a combination of famine, radiation, and sudden global climate change. My friends at IPPNW have written a very succinct analysis of just such a scenario, which you can find here.

It is extremely important to not become focused on short-term consequences. Whether arguing for or against the presence/threat/use of nuclear weapons, keeping in mind the long-term effects and implications will put things into better perspective for most.

(See the original image, article and comments here).

Clandestine Diplomacy, or: Bill Clinton Delivers!

If you're going to send a Clinton to rescue two young females, which one do you send? And if you want to learn more about North Korea's inner workings at the same time, which one do you send then? Probably not the one who was called a "funny lady" who "looks like a primary schoolgirl."

The Obama administration made a wise choice in deploying former President Bill Clinton to North Korea to bring back Laura Ling and Euna Lee, two journalists working for San Francisco-based Current TV (run by Al Gore). As Clinton touched down in Pyongyang yesterday, the New York Times reported:

The administration has tried to keep its diplomatic campaign [with respect to North Korea's nuclear weapons program] separate from this case, which American officials have portrayed as a humanitarian issue, appealing to North Korea to return the women to their families.

“Their detainment is not something that we’ve linked to other issues, and we hope the North Koreans don’t do that, either,” the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said to reporters in June.

Yet we all know that Kim's health has deteriorated in recent months, and I cannot help but wonder how much of Clinton's mission was to feel out Kim's control on the country.

The Times followed up today with this news:

Administration officials said Mr. Clinton went to North Korea as a private citizen, did not carry a message from Mr. Obama for Mr. Kim and had the authority to negotiate only for the women’s release.

... Still, North Korea, clearly seeing a propaganda opportunity at home and a rare chance for a measure of favorable publicity abroad, welcomed Mr. Clinton with the fanfare of a state visit ... Among those greeting Mr. Clinton at the airport was Kim Kye-gwan, North Korea’s chief nuclear negotiator.

... Given Mr. Clinton’s stature and his long interest in the North Korean nuclear issue, experts said it was likely that his discussions in North Korea ranged well beyond obtaining the release of Ms. Ling and Ms. Lee.

“It would be someplace between surprising and shocking if there wasn’t some substantive discussion between the former president, who is deeply knowledgeable about the nuclear issue, and Kim Jong-il,” said Robert L. Gallucci, who negotiated with North Korea in the Clinton administration.

Mr Clinton's role in the Obama administration is one of particular interest, as his wife (who was defeated by Obama in securing the Democratic nomination) is now that same President's Secretary of State. I hope that his visit to North Korea was one of great success -- beyond securing the release and recovery of Ling and Lee within 20 hours, which in itself is a huge accomplishment.

On a side note: before Bill Clinton was deployed to the DPRK, the White House compiled a list of possible envoys to meet with Kim Jong Il and bring the two journalists back home. One of the options being considered was Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is a fellow Fletcher School alum!

The War of Ideas, or: Werrcome to Arr-Arrabic Terrevision!

With my apologies for the highly irreverent title, let's get down to business:

China is launching its own state-controlled Arabic channel. Get the scoop from the BBC here. But why would the Chinese make such a move? The reasons vary, depending on who you ask. Chinese government-run CCTV says it's because China wants to get to know the world better, as well as let the world get to know China better.

But while there might be some validity to this statement, there's something to be said for China's recent unprecedented rush to gain true great power status through a multitude of channels. From pushing for the renminbi to replace the US dollar as the world's major reserve currency, to closing coal plants in Beijing in an effort to be more environmentally conscious, China seems to have finally woken up and smelled the green tea. Its role in world affairs, at both an economic and military level, is now undisputed, and will only increase in importance over the next quarter century. How and to what extent that role will completely manifest itself in world affairs is yet to be seen.

But back to the Chinese broadcasting in Arabic (apparently those from China who speak Arabic are actually quite good, but the thought is nonetheless amusing). Marc Lynch, associate professor at the Elliott School at George Washington University, makes an interesting observation on his Foreign Policy blog: "The rest of the members of the [United Nations] Security Council have got [a state-controlled Arabic television station] ... so why shouldn't China?"

Good point, Abu Aardvark. China seems to be practicing a form of diplomacy and statesmanship that dominated Cold War thinking: they see the Middle East as a potential sphere of influence, an unclaimed swath of land in which the Chinese have vested interests. If China wants to exercise control in the area through some medium other than sheer military might, it makes sense to set up a television station that can broadcast Chinese interests in the local language, right? Of course then, it should come as no surprise that the United States, France, Russia, Germany, the UK and Iran all already have equivalent state-run Arabic stations, designed to accomplish the same goal.

Interestingly, the last time I checked, the Middle East is (contrary to steadfast public opinion) not a monolith, composed of just one culture, one religion, one form of economic or political system, or one language. And while this last point is actually moot -- thanks to the development and acceptance of Modern Standard Arabic as the universal dialect for all media publications -- the rest stand on their own merits. Winning the hearts and minds of all the people of the Middle East will take much more than setting up a television station, regardless of what country is sponsoring said station. Such an endeavor would require, for starters, open dialogue at all levels of government and society.

If the Chinese are serious about going down the "hey-the-other-big-kids-have-Arabic-television-stations-we-want-one-too" route, they only need to look at the United States' largely failed attempt at developing and promoting its own station, al-Hurra. Al-Boo is more like it.