Edwards, Dean, Kerry, and Kucinich on Non-Proliferation

[La_Serpiente]

Edwards, Dean, and Kerry on Non-Proliferation

On December 15, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards presented a comprehensive plan to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Edwards' policy establishes new standards and safeguards to stop the spread of unconventional weapons, gives the international community new tools to punish nations that violate these standards, and improves America's ability to become an international leader in this effort. Governor Howard Dean and Senator John Kerry also recently advanced strong, new proposals. Below, we summarize each of the three initiatives, and we will track all of the candidates' positions though the campaign.

Senator Edwards

Edwards' speech was the most comprehensive and far-reaching of three proposals. He offered a five-part strategy designed to bolster the Non-Proliferation Treaty. His plan includes:

1.) Creating A New Global Nuclear Compact
Within six months of assuming the presidency, Senator Edwards' would convene leading nations to develop a new compact that would reinforce the NPT. This compact would heighten security for existing nuclear facilities and materials; ensure more frequent verification that nuclear facilities are not being misused; authorize international inspectors to mount no-notice challenge inspections in countries that have a record of non-compliance; set specific limitations on the capability of nations to produce nuclear materials and increase the international community's role in providing nuclear fuels for peaceful programs; and authorize strong, immediate multilateral penalties aimed specifically at the military capabilities of any nation that quits the NPT. Edwards said:

• "Right now it is too easy for a country to cheat or use a legal civilian power program as the jumping off point for an illegal military one; by withdrawing from the Treaty on short notice and having a weapons capability within months. We cannot accept the false choice between the administration's dangerous doctrine of preemption and a multilateral regime that isn't up to the current challenge. That is why I will create a Global Nuclear Compact to reinforce the NPT. The Compact will close the loophole that allows civilian nuclear programs to go military. We must reinforce the NPT by creating a Global Nuclear Compact to meet the needs of our times-keeping the capabilities and materials required to make the world's worst weapons out of the wrong hands."
  

2.) Triple Funding for Nunn-Lugar Programs
Edwards would secure and eliminate former Soviet weapons by the end of the decade by tripling funding for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs (CTR). Edwards plans to fund this increase by canceling the Bush Administration's plans for new nuclear weapons and cutting spending on the national missile defense program. He also intends to fully implement the G-8 Agreement reached last year and expand CTR programs beyond the former Soviet Union - to countries like India and Pakistan.

3.) Create International Norms Against Nations that Violate Non-Proliferation Agreements
Edwards proposes ending the North Korean nuclear program and preventing other states from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons, working through the United Nations Security Council and using other mechanisms to establish international norms that treat countries that violate non-proliferation treaties, as criminals.

4.) Improve Intelligence Capabilities to Understand and Respond to WMD
According to Edwards, the "intelligence failure" in Iraq and the September 11 attacks highlight the urgent need to improve domestic intelligence capabilities. He plans to create a new agency to combat terrorism and reform both technical and human intelligence related weapons of mass destruction.

5.) Appoint a High-Level Non-Proliferation Director
This official would bring focus and energy to national non-proliferation efforts and consolidate the work that currently takes place under six different agencies.

Dean's Prescription
Governor Howard Dean unveiled several non-proliferation initiatives in his December 15 foreign policy speech. Dean plans to expand and globalize the Nunn-Lugar Program with the assistance of other countries. Under his proposal, the U.S. and our allies would triple current contributions to CTR programs, bringing the total to $60 billion over the next 10 years. Dean said:

• "Our global alliance will place its strongest emphasis on this most lethal form of terror. We will advance a global effort to secure the weapons and technologies of mass destruction on a worldwide basis. To do so, we will build on the efforts of former Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Richard Lugar. The Nunn-Lugar program has been critical to securing the vast nuclear, chemical, and biological material inventory left over from the Soviet Union. Incredibly, despite the threat that the nexus of terrorism and technology of mass destruction poses, despite the heightened challenges posed by 9-11, the current administration has failed to increase funding for these efforts to secure dangerous weapons. I know that expanding and strengthening Nunn-Lugar is essential to defending America, and I will make that a priority from my first day as President.
  
  Our new alliance will call upon all nations to work together to identify and control or eliminate unsafeguarded components -- or potential components -- of nuclear, chemical and biological arms around the world. These include the waste products and fuel of nuclear energy and research reactors, the pathogens developed for scientific purposes, and the chemical agents used for commercial ends. Such materials are present in dozens of countries -- and often stored with little if any security or oversight.
  
  I will recruit every nation that can contribute and mobilize cooperation in every arena -- from compiling inventories to safeguarding transportation; from creating units specially-trained to handle terrorist situations involving lethal substances to ensuring global public health cooperation against biological terror."
  

Kerry Seals the Ports

Senator John Kerry's plan is designed to improve port security and prevent terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. In a speech on December 17, Kerry said:

• "As President, I will tackle this issue head-on by removing potential bomb- making entirely from the world's most vulnerable sites with in four years. We will work with other countries to track down and secure existing nuclear weapons and stop the development of chemical and biological arsenals. And we will start a global effort to remove weapons-usable materials from the more than 100 insecure civilian plants around the world that still use this kind of material. And I will appoint a top-level coordinator whose job is to make sure this gets done."
  

Kerry's initiative to combat proliferation includes:

1.) Appoint A Presidential Coordinator to Secure Nuclear Weapons and Materials Around the World

2.) Establish A Global Security Standard for Nuclear Weapons
Through U.S. diplomacy and economic tools, Senator Kerry plans to create a global standard for the security of nuclear weapons and material. Under his plan, the U.S. with our allies, would offer assistance to other countries to meet this standard.

3.) Secure the World's Most Vulnerable Nuclear Sites in Four Years
Under this initiative, nuclear material would be removed from the world's most vulnerable sites within four years. An international protocol would be established to track and account for existing weapons.

4.) Create U.S.-Russian Commitment to Secure Russia Nuclear Weapons
Kerry's proposal calls for a U.S. and Russia to sign a bilateral agreement guaranteeing that all of Russia's nuclear weapons and materials are adequately secured within four years.

5.) End U.S. Efforts to Build New Nuclear Weapons
Kerry plans to immediately end the current administration's efforts to develop new nuclear weapons. He believes that these efforts run contrary to the international non-proliferation regime.

Senator Kerry has a seven-part plan to improve port security. Senator Kerry said:

"Even though there is a very real threat of nuclear and biological weapons in any one of the millions of containers which come into this country every year, there is no global system for tracking and security. We have affordable, existing technology that could allow sensors to be placed on containers which could track their position, signal when and where they were entered, and detect whether they contain radioactive or dangerous chemicals. As President, I would move immediately to protect American ports and the Americans who live near them by putting such a system in place."


more...

Edwards, Dean, and Kerry on Non-Proliferation

Kucinich on Non-proliferation

We must demand that our nation and all nations:

• Abide by the principles of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
  
• Stop the development of new nuclear weapons.
  
• Take all nuclear weapons systems off alert.
  
• Persist towards total, worldwide elimination of all nuclear weapons.
  

Our nation must:

• Revive the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty.
  
• Sign and enforce the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
  
• Abandon plans to build a so-called missile shield.
  
• Prohibit the introduction of weapons into outer space.
  

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/nuclearnp.php

[HFishbine]

1. Edwards' votes

in the senate have supported the "missle shield" and development of battlefield or "low-yeild" nuclear weapons.

[lcordero]

2. The more I look at politics, the more cynical I get

Triple funding this, triple funding that

creating more bureacracy that does not work

giving more money to agencies that have helped stage coups in other countries

All of this looks more like a scheme to waste taxpayer money and to give nothing back that is of any value to the taxpayer.

[gottaB]

3. Kerry on Missile Defense

This is Kerry on missile defense, taken from the Peace Action Candidate Guide:

I support the development of an effective defense against ballistic missiles that is deployed with maximum transparency and consultation with U.S. allies and other major powers. If there is a real potential of a rogue nation firing missiles at any city in the United States, responsible leadership requires that we make our best, most thoughtful efforts to defend against that threat. The same is true of accidental launch. If it were to happen, no leader could ever explain not having chosen to defend against the disaster when doing so made sense.

I opposed the Bush Administration’s decisions to proceed with early deployment of a national missile defense system and to abrogate the ABM treaty, destroying an important arms control achievement while also doing damage to important international relationships.

Kerry voted no on the American Missile Protection Act of 1998 (S.1873), but yes on National Missile Defense Act of 1999 (S.257). So Peace Action says he supports, CNN says he opposes.

More info needed....

The Council for a Livable World candidate questionnaire asks, "Do you support or oppose the current plan to deploy a ground-based version of a national missile defense in Alaska and California by the fall of 2004?" Kerry says he opposes it and does not elaborate.

Found a floor statement Kerry made in May of 2001, reproduced at mindfully. Here it is.

President Bush yesterday gave a very broad outline of a new national security strategy that moves away from our reliance on deterrence and arms control toward missile defenses and unilateral arms reductions. While the President's brief remarks raise more questions than they answer, I would like to take a minute to address some of the key issues he touched on.

First, the President stressed that we must move away from our reliance on deterrence to keep our citizens and our allies safe from aggression or nuclear blackmail. I agree. If there is a real potential of a rogue nation firing a few missiles at any city in the U.S., responsible leadership requires that we make our best, most thoughtful efforts to defend against that threat. The same is true of accidental launch. If it ever happened, no leader could ever explain not having chosen to defend against the disaster when doing so made sense.

But missile defense is only a response of last resort, when diplomacy and deterrence have failed. And given that no missile defense system will be 100% effective, we must not set aside the logic of deterrence that has kept us safe for 40 years. Even in periods of intense animosity and tension, under the most unpredictable and isolated of regimes, political and military deterrence have a powerful, determining effect on a nation's decision to use force. We saw it at work in the Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein was deterred from using his weapons of mass destruction by the sure promise of a devastating response from the United States.

President Bush also stressed the fact that national missile defense is only one part of a comprehensive national security strategy. I could not agree more. But missile defense does nothing to address what the Pentagon considers a much more likely and immediate threat to the American homeland from terrorists and non-state actors, who could quietly slip explosives into a building, unleash chemical weapons into a crowded subway, or send a crude nuclear weapon into a busy harbor.

Our first defense against this kind of an attack is a robust, international effort on non-proliferation. But the Bush administration wants to cut U.S. funding for counter-proliferation programs to deal with the huge weapons stockpiles of the former Soviet Union. President Bush has also sent mixed signals about his intention to continue the efforts of the Clinton administration with regard to the threat from North Korea. If the President is serious about nonproliferation, he should quickly complete the review of our policy toward North Korea, so we do not miss a real opportunity to freeze Pyongyang's ballistic missile program and stop its exports of missile technology.

While the President gave very few details about the nature or the technology of the system he wants to deploy, he did stress his interest in pursuing technology that will allow us to intercept ballistic missiles in their boost-phase, when they are moving the slowest.

Back in June 2000, I called on the previous administration to explore the technology for a boost-phase intercept system, which would build on the current technology of the Army's land-based THAAD (Theater High-Altitude Air Defense) and the Navy's sea-based Theater-Wide Defense systems, to provide forward-deployed defenses against both theater ballistic missile threats and long-range ballistic missiles in their boost phase.

I welcome President Bush's commitment to investing the considerable resources needed to make these systems capable of reaching the speeds required to intercept an ICBM. A forward-deployed boost-phase intercept system would allow us to target relatively small ballistic missile arsenals, or shoot-down a very few accidental or unauthorized launches.

Deploying such a system will require amendments to the 1997 ABM Treaty Demarcation agreements, which establish the line between theater missile defense (TMD) systems that are not limited by the Treaty and the strategic defenses the Treaty proscribes. In a nutshell, these agreements allow the United States to deploy and test the PAC-3, THAAD and Navy Theater-Wide TMD systems, but prohibit us from developing or testing capabilities that would enable these systems to shoot down ICBMs.

Russia certainly won't be happy about making these changes, but they will probably prefer accommodating a clearly limited system than allowing the Treaty to be scrapped and all limitations on strategic defenses to be removed.

I agree that the strategic situation we confront today is worlds apart from the one we faced in 1972, but nothing in this changed environment suggests that we will be better off by walking away from the ABM Treaty. If somehow Russia and China are not persuaded by President Bush's assurances that our missile defense system is not aimed at undermining their nuclear deterrent capabilities, and instead they perceive a growing threat to their interests, they will act to counter that threat. We will not be safer if our NMD system focuses their energies on developing -- and eventually selling – new ways to overwhelm our defenses.

The ABM Treaty can be amended to reflect our changed security environment. But to abandon it all-together is to welcome an arms race that will make us more vulnerable, not less.

The President made a point of announcing that he will begin high-level consultations with our allies about his plans for NMD and he stressed that he would seek real input from them as he moves forward. This is critical. Even if, as can be expected, our allies in Europe and Asia accept a U.S. NMD system, they have a lot at stake in how we develop and deploy that system. The President must take their views into account as he determines what architecture he will pursue and the timing of deploying. Clearly, these are important discussions that will require more than one or two cursory consultations.

The Administration must also pay close attention to our allies concerns about Russia. Because they are keenly aware that a fearful, insecure Russia is a dangerous Russia, they have consistently stressed the importance of including Moscow in our discussions on NMD. Let me be clear: the importance of working with Russia as we move forward is not to suggest that Moscow has a veto over our missile defense plans. But we have an obligation to avoid unilateral steps that will throw our already tenuous relations with Russia into further turmoil. Serious discussions with Moscow on amending the ABM Treaty – even if they are not ultimately successful – will allow us to move toward NMD deployment transparently and with minimal provocation.

As with Russia, if an NMD decision is made absent serious discussions with China, the leadership in Beijing will perceive the deployment as at least partially directed at them. The Administration must try hard to reach a common understanding with China that there is a real threat from isolated regimes bent on terrorism and accidental or unauthorized launches. The Clinton administration invested a great deal of time and diplomatic effort convincing Russia that the threat is real and it affects us both. We must make the same effort with China. If we fail to take this task seriously, we will jeopardize stability in the Pacific.

The President's proposal on NMD lacks specifics and his intentions on the ABM Treaty are vague. He and his advisors know that the American people will not support an expensive, ineffective NMD system, or one that comes at the expense of a Treaty that has made them safer over the last 20 years. So to sweeten the President's bad news on these two issues, he promised – again without any detail – to unilaterally reduce the U.S. arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons.

The proposal to unilaterally reduce U.S. nuclear stockpiles is an important and overdue first step toward reducing the nuclear danger. Unfortunately, before the President can make good on this promise, he will have to convince his Republican colleagues in the Congress to repeal a provision in the FY 98 Defense Department Authorization bill that prohibits the reduction of strategic nuclear delivery systems to levels below those established by the START I treaty.

Senate Democrats have tried for the last three years to repeal this provision, which prevents exactly the kind of nuclear reduction President Bush has spoken about. But they have been stymied by a Republican leadership that believes the U.S. should not move to START II arms levels – even though the Senate ratified that treaty in 1996 – before Russia has done so.

I hope we can move immediately to repeal this prohibition and begin the process of cutting our strategic arsenal in half -- from more than 7,000 warheads today to the 3,500 allowed under START II. While those reductions are underway, the President should immediately proceed to talks with Russia on a START III agreement, which could bring our arsenal to below 2,000 warheads and codify similar, transparent, verifiable and irreversible reductions by Russia.

Mr. President, for forty years, the United States has led international efforts to reduce and contain the danger from nuclear weapons. We can continue that leadership by exploiting our technological strengths to find a defense against ballistic missiles, and by extending that defense to our friends and allies. But we must not jeopardize stability in Europe and Asia by putting political ideology ahead of commitments that have kept us safe for decades.

[gottaB]

4. More from Arms Control Association

No master index I can find...

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_01-02/Dean.asp

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_01-02/Ewards.asp

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_01-02/Kerry.asp

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_01-02/Kucinich.asp

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_01-02/Sharpton.asp

[oasis]

5. This thread is loaded with information.

[gottaB]

6. Kick for a vital issue

:kick: