Susan Burk Returns As U.S. Representative to the High Stakes 2010 NPT Review Conference

Summary: Obama has made it clear he sees the “sound” Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as critical to stemming nuclear weapons proliferation. So what will Obama’s bold nuclear moves-warming up to Russia on a new START treaty, calling for eventual nuclear weapons abolition, and bringing focus back to the NPT-yield? It’s too soon to tell. But the nomination Susan Burk as Special Representative reflects the high aims Obama has for the 2010 meeting. Below is a review of Burk’s testimony to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and discussion of NPT 2010 meeting’s significance to Obamaland foreign policy.

Two key-if little noted-nominees for diplomatic roles in the Obama White House testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday.  Ivo Daalder has been tapped for U.S. Representative on the NATO Council, and Sarah Burk has been nominated for U.S. Representative to the 2010 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference.

President Obama’s recently announced commitment[i] to revitalizing the NPT to stem nuclear proliferation brings Burk’s likely role special significance.

Burk, if confirmed, will play a major role in the 2010 NPT Review Conference. Held every five years, these meetings bring together the 188 treaty members to discuss nonproliferation and disarmament issues. With Iran inching closer towards nuclear weapons capability and North Korea reneging on its pledge to disarm, this meeting may be the last chance to exert multinational pressure on these rogue states.

NPT meetings have had a erratic track record. In 1995, with Susan Burk heading up Clinton’s delegation, the NPT treaty was renewed permanently. But the 2000 conference was marked more by what was avoided (fears of collapse in the wake of 1998 nuclear tests of Pakistan and India), and 2005′s has been considered “a near total fiasco.”[ii]

Iran, as a member of the NPT, holds a unique test for the treaty regime. While Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea have developed nuclear weapons since the treaty’s ratification, none were members of the NPT (North Korea left the organization before developing its limited nuclear weapons capability). Iran crossing the nuclear line would represent the treaty’s largest failure-and call into question its grand bargain of nonproliferation in return for peaceful nuclear technology sharing and eventual nuclear weapons disarmament.

Susan Burk’s opening statement offers a concise review of the Obama administration nonproliferation policy aims and the challenges it faces as it heads into the 2010 NPT Review Conference. The administration has an ambitious agenda, calling for:

* Nuclear Fissile Material Cut-Off treaty

*  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

*  Successor to the START treaty between Russia and United States

*  WMD Free-Zone in the Middle East

*  IAEA Nuclear Fuel Bank to spur peaceful uses of nuclear technology

Burk also states her intent to shepherd international support against potential Iran nuclear weapons proliferation and North Korea’s nuclear program:

The second pillar of the Treaty is nonproliferation. The United States, along with other NPT Parties, must act with urgency to stem the spread of nuclear weapons. We need tough and smart diplomacy – backed by real incentives and real pressures – to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon capability and to achieve the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

And on the NPT itself she stated:

If confirmed, I will work with colleagues in the State Department and elsewhere in the government, as well as other NPT stakeholders, to lay the groundwork for a 2010 Review Conference that will reinforce the Treaty as an effective legal and political barrier to nuclear proliferation.

Obama’s call for eventual nuclear abolition puts the NPT front and center. We will see if improved relations with Russia and Europe, not to mention Latin America and Asia, yield any rewards at this global conference. Past conferences have seen success and utter failure. If used effectively, the 2010 NPT conference could signal a unified voice against recent Iranian and North Korean nuclear policies. Furthermore, the diplomatic moves of other nations will determine whether or not an Iranian nuclear weapons capability sets off a nuclear-arms race throughout the Middle East.

While many external factors will shape results of the 2010 NPT Conference, the conference will be an early indicator on the effectiveness of President Obama’s foreign policy.

 

Related Materials

i On April 5th, 2009 President Barack Obama delivered an address on nuclear weapons in Czech Republic city of Prague. His speech highlighted the importance of the NPT:

Second, together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation.

The basic bargain is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy. To strengthen the treaty, we should embrace several principles. We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the treaty without cause.

…

But we go forward with no illusions. Some countries will break the rules. That’s why we need a structure in place that ensures when any nation does, they will face consequences.

Just this morning, we were reminded again of why we need a new and more rigorous approach to address this threat. North Korea broke the rules once again by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles. This provocation underscores the need for action — not just this afternoon at the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons.

Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response — (applause) — now is the time for a strong international response, and North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons. All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. And that’s why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course.

ii Quinlan, Michael. Thinking About Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Problems, Prospects. Telegraph review article, April 23rd 2009:

The next NPT review conference, due in 2010, has a chance to redeem itself after what the author rightly calls the “near-total fiasco” of its predecessor four years ago. It could be a key step towards the eventual abolition of weapons whose “lethal enormity” has changed the nature of warfare. Quinlan writes that few informed commentators would put at more than 50-50 the chances of reaching that goal by 2045, the centenary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The road ahead will be long, difficult and uncertain.

Torturing Over Torture in Obamaland: What The Pundits Are Missing; The Zelikow Memo

Summary: Members of the Obama administration and the DC punditry should read Philip Zelikow’s recent blog at Foreign Policy magazine. He reminds us that the question over torture isn’t whether Obamaland botched its handling or the effectiveness of the interrogation techniques, but the morality and consequences of prusuing a policy torture. This is not to suggest morality of the day should override laws, but rather when pursuing a policy it may be sometimes best to ask ‘ought we be doing this?’ before asking ‘how can we do this?’. Sometimes seeking out covert justifications for a decision open more troublesome dillemas.

It’s been a tough week for the Obama administration. Pundits have almost universally failing marks to Obamaland’s handling of the torture issue. Either he’s being too soft (not going after the interrogators and failing to fess up to the intelligence gained by Bush era enhanced interrogation techniques) or he’s being too hard (chasing after lawyers who were doing what they could to defend American security).

And the pundits don’t stop there. How President Barack Obama aired the issue has brought stiff rebukes. Only releasing some memos has opened the White House to charges that it’s cherry picking. And it hasn’t helped that in a draft memo CIA Director Dennis Blair admitted enhanced interrogation techniques worked, only to have it deleted upon official release.

So not only are the wing-nuts on both sides unhappy, the press has caught the White House not being transparent on a tier-one issue—analogous to catching a teenager with their pants down at the school dance.

Now none of this is surprising: the torture issue is thorny, and there was no ‘perfect’ solution for Obama come to. This becomes painfully obvious when one sees conservatives (read Dick Cheney) sensing the torture issue as the wedge issue to revitalize Republican Party (particularly if there is another terrorist attack on America or its allies).

Listening on torture: Philip Zelikow's recent Foreign Policy article offers some valuable, if indirect, advice to the administration. Before deciding on how to deal with torture, we must first analyze the moral and practical consequences to permitting enhanced interrogation techniques. In calling for a moral analysis of torture, Zelikow implicitly highlights the value of frank and open discussion. While Americans know Obama is against torture, it might be worth reminding them why.

But this all overlooks a basic point: yes, torture can work. But does that mean only torture works, and how is American society impacted by water-boarding terrorists? By bypassing this valuable discussion (or simply trying to recycle news-cycles), the media has flooded the public with talking points & juvenile discussions over who’s up & who’s down.

Absent in this high-minded prattle has been serious analysis of this vital moral and national security issue.

And that is why Philip Zelikow’s recent blog entry on Foreign Policy is so important. There Zelikow reveals his authorship of a dissenting memo towards the Bush administration’s legal reasoning on enhanced interrogation techniques. Boilded down he brings these crucial points to the debate over torture:

1)      Water-boarding misses the point: “Before getting to water-boarding, the captive had already been stripped naked, shackled to ceiling chains keeping him standing so he cannot fall asleep for extended periods, hosed periodically with cold water, slapped around, jammed into boxes, etc. etc. Sleep deprivation is most important.” 

2)      The CIA techniques being used were “proscribed by current case-law” (i.e. illegal) 

3)      In legally justifying their policies the Bush White House did not claim a right only to torture non-citizen terrorists, but had to argue that US citizens could be tortured with compelling national security concerns. Or as he states much more brutally, “Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest — if the alleged national security justification was compelling.” 

4)      Upon distrubing his memo, Zelikow soon discovered that the White House attempted to gather and destroy all copies

Zelikow shows exactly how America got into this torture mess—by the Bush administration actively avoiding a moral discussion over the role of torture in national security, and instead giving life to truly dangerous legal interpretations. As such he reminds us that the discussion over whether or not truly dangerous terrorists cannot be separated from the larger question torture in American society.

The Bush administration, for reasons of national security, did a profound disservice by avoiding a frank discussion on torture. When weighing that against Obama’s decision to curtail torture and messy delivery, recent Obama administration criticisms come across toothless and swallow.

But Zelikow—who’s “rough guess is that physical coercion can break people faster, with some tradeoff in degraded and less reliable results”—demands we bring the discussion back to morality. By avoiding this discussion the Bush administration pushed covert and pernicious legal justifications whose reverberations may have done caused more problems that they solved.

The lesson for Obamaland? Have the discussion. Hold a presidential press conference.

Update 5:12 pm: Next Wedneday–coincidently his 100th day in office–Barack Obama will hold his third presidential press conference.