In Historic Vote, UN Approves Ban Process

Historic vote - “History was made at the United Nations” last week, writes Ploughshares Fund President Joe Cirincione for The Huffington Post. “For the first time in its 71 years, the global body voted to begin negotiations on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons.”

--“Every president since Harry Truman has sought the elimination of nuclear weapons,” Cirincione writes. “The new presidential administration must make a determined effort to mount new initiatives that reduce these weapons, reduce these risks. It should also support the ban treaty process as a powerful way to build global support for a long-standing American national security goal. We must, as President John F. Kennedy said, eliminate these weapons before they eliminate us.” Full story here. http://huff.to/2eKKvsc

Next steps for the ban - “In a faceoff at the United Nations [on October 27, 2016], a large majority of the world’s countries voted to begin negotiations of a legal ban on the possession of nuclear weapons. The United States and the other states with nuclear weapons opposed this effort, but did not have the votes to stop it,” writes David Wright for Union of Concerned Scientists. “The resolution calls for the UN to convene a conference next year ‘to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.’”

--“By negotiating a nuclear weapons ban, the international community would outlaw the possession of nuclear weapons in the same way the Biological Weapons Convention outlaws biological weapons; the Chemical Weapons Convention outlaws chemical weapons; and the Ottawa Treaty outlaws landmines. Supporters of the ban also believe that if the vast majority of the world’s countries make this clear statement that nuclear weapons are illegitimate, it will increase the pressure on those countries with nuclear weapons—whether or not they are party to the NPT—to reduce their nuclear arsenals and move toward elimination.” Full story here. http://bit.ly/2f5W6Fo

U.S. on the ban - “We assessed that the Resolution would not help move disarmament efforts forward. Successful nuclear reductions will require willing and active participation from all nuclear weapon states, proven and robust verification measures, and security conditions conducive to further reductions. The resolution simply does not address those three factors,” Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Thomas Countryman wrote of the U.S. decision to vote no on the resolution.

--“We know that most support for Resolution L.41 was based on noble intentions, but there is no short cut to a nuclear weapons-free world,” Acting Under Secretary Countryman added. “We will work with every nation that is committed to achieving progress on these priorities, but we will insist that words are not enough...Now is the time to refocus on the fact that we have a shared goal: to ensure nuclear weapons are never used again.” Full piece here. http://bit.ly/2fnZexZ

Tweet - @nukestrat: The US "will not participate in a premature negotiation of a nuclear weapons ban treaty." If you try, you might help shape the outcome!

Checks on presidential power - “For the first time in decades, the prospect of nuclear warfare is a center-stage issue in presidential politics,” writes Steve Liewer for Omaha World Herald. “The political discussion raises questions about the role of a president in a moment of nuclear crisis, a moment that would unfold at the White House, the Pentagon and just south of Omaha at the U.S. Strategic Command. While Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have many checks on presidential power, the decision to launch an emergency nuclear weapons strike is entirely in the hands of the president.”

--“Military officers who carry out launch orders are well-versed [in launch protocol] ... , and they are obliged to disobey an order that they believe to be illegal. “‘You could have a commander saying [to the President], ‘You’re a wacko, we’re not going to do this,’ ” said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists... But there’s also a strong culture [in the military] of following orders and sticking with established protocols. “‘For a lot of different reasons, I don’t think anybody would step in,’” [nuclear expert Bruce] Blair said.” Full article here. https://goo.gl/LGMx6t

Engaging Russia - “The collapse of U.S.-Russia cooperation [on plutonium disposition and other issues] raises other questions, like whether the financially strapped Kremlin will continue to fund security upgrades at Russian nuclear sites,” write Robert Litwak and Matthew Rojansky for Newsweek.

--“Moscow has linked nuclear security to the broader U.S.-Russian relationship. Rather than fight this linkage, the next U.S. administration should consider initiating a security dialogue with Russia that includes nuclear non-proliferation cooperation, but also addresses related concerns, from nuclear force modernization to the implications of increasingly capable ballistic missile defenses, conventional forces and even space and cyber capabilities.” Full story here. http://bit.ly/2dU7Cnx

Experts weigh in on Russia - “The U.S. and Russia are the world's two mightiest nuclear powers, and yet over the years, they've made deals to reduce their respective arsenals. Just like a marriage gone bad, though, things have soured between Washington and Moscow. Bickering over nuclear issues has increased markedly in recent months, with each side accusing the other of cheating. And that war of words is being matched by actions,” writes David Welna for WYPR.

--“‘I would have to say that, without question, this is the low point in U.S.-Russian relations since the end of the Cold War,’ says Steven Pifer, an arms control expert at the Brookings Institution.” Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists added, “This is a gradual sort of escalation of tensions between the two sides that goes beyond discourse and just disagreements over a treaty...It's getting pretty deep now.” Full discussion here. http://bit.ly/2f60FQ7

See also - Jeffrey Lewis’s interview with Alex Lockie of Business Insider on the simple intent behind Russia’s recent nuclear moves: “They do it periodically to irritate us.” Full piece here. https://goo.gl/eXgjax

Tweet - @plough_shares: Small is not always beautiful. Fitting #nuclear weapons (and energy) into our lives via @forbes #NewTech http://bit.ly/2fANUh2

China and North Korea - “A new round of shadowboxing appears to have begun in Washington over North Korea policy in the wake of Pyongyang’s two latest nuclear tests... For some time, the Obama administration’s policy of ‘strategic patience’ has found few defenders apart from its architects, and there is now a general consensus that the next four to eight years will require a different approach,” writes John Delury for 38 North. “While US officials are consulting intensely with their South Korean counterparts, not enough attention is being paid to Beijing’s perspective... the ‘China factor’ [is] ... a decisive one, in ways that policy makers need to weigh carefully.”

--“Fighting for engagement and negotiation with North Korea in the US foreign policy debate is an uphill battle. But proponents of engagement have one trump card: when Washington engages, the China factor becomes an asset in dealing with North Korea... Beijing, after all, is steadfast in its strategy of engaging Pyongyang, and it is perpetually looking for US openness to negotiation... If the next US president adopts an engagement strategy, Xi Jinping’s government would likely step up its own work to achieve short-term breakthroughs and long-term solutions.” Full article here. http://bit.ly/2e9OuwU

Tweet - @GlobalZero: What can China do to take the lead on int'l nuclear disarmament? Via @BulletinAtomic. #EliminateNukes http://bit.ly/2fALS0B

Clinton on nukes - Presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton highlighted the dangers of a new nuclear arms race at a recent campaign event, saying “the more nuclear material there is in the world, the more likely terrorists are to get their hands on it. Or that someone will miscalculate and start a war that can’t be stopped. And when a few more countries go nuclear, their neighbors will feel pressured to do so as well.”

--“One of the reasons I worked so hard to impose sanctions on Iran so that we could get them to the negotiating table is so that we would not have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. And I am proud that we put a lid on Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” Secretary Clinton added. Watch the speech here. http://bit.ly/2frarhf

See also - Clinton’s campaign released a new campaign ad this week featuring Daisy from President Johnson’s memorable 1964 ad on the dangers of nuclear weapons. CNN has the full story. http://bit.ly/2frarhf

Quick Hits:

--“The Nuclear Ban Treaty and Our Wobbly Nuclear Order,” by Michael Krepon for Arms Control Wonk. http://bit.ly/2f0iAI1

--“The Missing Case for Deterrence and Resolve in Asia,” by Hugh White for War on the Rocks. http://bit.ly/2f97ii5

--“Interview/Former IAEA director general: Japan can lead in banning nukes,” by Ichiro Matsuo for The Asahi Shimbun. http://bit.ly/2ew0f25

--“The Nuclear Terrorism Threat: How Real Is It?” by Brian Michael Jenkins and John Lauder for Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. http://bit.ly/2ejh9TU

--“A family tradition: Working to keep the world safe from nuclear disaster,” published by Public Radio International. http://bit.ly/2eiZ6Ny

--“Blinken holds strategic talks with China with focus on N. Korea,” published by Yonhap News. http://bit.ly/2f9couO

--“European Parliament Adopts Resolution Condemning Nuke Test,” published by KBS World Radio. http://bit.ly/2f9Ibw1

Events:

--“Balancing a New Relationship with Iran: Security and Insecurity in the Wake of the Nuclear Deal,” a panel featuring Ambassador Lincoln Bloomfield, Jr., Richard Burchill (Moderator), Laicie Heeley, David Albright and Mark Fitzpatrick, hosted by The Stimson Center. November 10, 10:30am-12:00pm at 1211 Connecticut Ave NW, 8th Fl, Washington, D.C. 20036. Details here. http://bit.ly/2fAKI55

--”What to Do about Russia’s Rising Profile in the Middle East,” a conversation featuring Anna Borshchevskaya, Thomas Cunningham, Alireza Nader, Aaron Stein and Barbara Slavin, hosted by The Atlantic Council. November 29 at 9:30am, at Atlantic Council, 1030 15th Street NW, 12th Floor (West Tower Elevator), Washington, DC. Details here. http://bit.ly/2ejjWfF

--“The Future of the Command and Control of Our Nuclear Weapons,” by Ploughshares Fund, featuring Eric Schlosser, author of Command and Control and Joe Cirincione, President of Plowshares Fund. At Four Seasons Hotel Seattle, 99 Union St., Seattle, WA on November 29, 2016 from 6:00 to 9:00pm. Details and registration here. http://bit.ly/2frpJT9