Common Sense on Weapons of Mass Destruction

Conclusion

Conclusion T h e u n i t e d s t a t e s i s t h e s t r o n g e s t country in the world today, and the most significant to the ultimate success of arms control and nonproliferation. The American public usually supports arms control and the international rule of law (for example, a strong majority favor ratification of the ctbt), but, as stated in the Introduction, apparently the public does not consider these issues sufficiently important to insist that U.S. political leaders either actively address them or risk paying a political price. Thus many politicians believe themselves free to respond to the wishes of special interests rather than those of the American people. If the United States and the world community wishes to be secure in the future, this must change. Perhaps the American public (and other publics) does in fact consider these issues important. However, the issues may seem so technical that only experts can understand them, and therefore elected representatives are relied upon to sort them out. But in any country that functions as a representative democracy, it is 1 5 2 never wise to leave matters as important as these to elected representatives and government officials. In the end, arms control and nonproliferation are political issues and should be treated as such; policies made by political representatives must reflect the informed wishes of the people. In a sense, these matters are highly technical and complex. But they are also simple, as I have attempted to express in this book. Do we want international peace and security issues to be determined by a system of rules and law or by force? Do we want to focus primarily on more and better weapons for our security? Or do we want to combine a strong defense with efforts to limit weapons so as to limit the potential destructiveness of conflicts? President Theodore Roosevelt famously declared that, in international affairs, the United States should “speak softly and carry a big stick.” Are we to rely entirely on the “big stick”? Or will we consider “speaking softly” as well? The possibility remains, at least for now, of constructing a truly new world system based on international law and treaties. This potential world system represents perhaps the best chance history has yet given us to establish lasting peace, stability, and security for the world community. This objective will not be easy to accomplish, and will greatly depend on effective and continuing international cooperation and consensus. In the course of building this consensus, there will need to be cooperation among states at many levels and respect for the views of all countries. Every country must commit to the international legal process and to the viability, strengthening, and expansion of international treaty regimes across the spectrum of issues affecting the global condition: security, environment, resources, health, economy, society, and so on. Each of these is vitally important, and security problems cannot be solved in isolation from them. If it is true that effective international policies in fields such as health and the environment require ever-increasing levels of cooperation among countries, surely this is just as c o n c l u s i o n / 1 5 3 true if not more so of the search for peace and stability in a dangerous world. A case in point with respect to international cooperation is the npt mentioned so often here. Some argue that traditional nonproliferation policies have already failed and that counterproliferation (that is, the use of force rather than diplomacy and treaty regimes to inhibit proliferation) is the only viable policy. But traditional nonproliferation policies have not yet failed, and in the long term, international cooperation based on a shared commitment to international rules is the only way to win the war on terror. Of course, it will be difficult for traditional nonproliferation policies to succeed if the nuclear weapon states do not observe their part of the basic bargain, if the political value of nuclear weapons remains high, if rogue states pursue nuclear programs because they believe they are likely to be subject to military intervention , and if neighboring states are likely to respond to each other with nuclear weapon programs. It has been clear for several years now that the choice is not between traditional nonproliferation and counter-proliferation policies, but rather between a strengthened and successful npt regime and gradual descent...