Washington Times - February 22, 2002
U.S. drops pledge on nukes
By Nicholas Kralev
The Bush administration is no longer standing by a 24-year-old U.S.
pledge not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, a
senior administration official said yesterday. Top Stories
Washington is "not looking for occasions to use" its nuclear arsenal,
John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and
international security, said in an interview.
But "we would do whatever is necessary to defend America's innocent
civilian population," he said.
In case of an attack on the United States, "we would have to do what
is appropriate under the circumstances, and the classic formulation
of that is, we are not ruling anything in and we are not ruling
anything out," Mr. Bolton said.
"We are just not into theoretical assertions that other
administrations have made," he said in reference to a 1978 commitment
by the Carter administration not to use nuclear weapons against
non-nuclear states unless they attack the United States in alliance
with nuclear-armed countries.
On June 12 that year, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance made the
following statement on behalf of President Carter, which became known
as "negative security assurances":
"The United States will not use nuclear weapons against any
non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty or any
comparable internationally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear
explosive devices, except in the case of an attack on the United
States, its territories or armed forces, or its allies, by such a
state allied to a nuclear-weapon state, or associated with a
nuclear-weapon state in carrying out or sustaining the attack."
In 1995, Warren Christopher, the first secretary of state in the
Clinton administration, reaffirmed Washington's commitment. Along
with the pledges of the other four permanent members of the U.N.
Security Council, who are all nuclear powers, it became part of a
resolution, which the council adopted April 11, 1995.
But Mr. Bolton said such promises reflect "an unrealistic view of the
international situation."
"The idea that fine theories of deterrence work against everybody,
which is implicit in the negative security assurances, has just been
disproven by September 11," he said. "What we are attempting to do is
create a situation where nobody uses weapons of mass destruction of
any kind."
Mr. Bolton spoke a day after returning from Moscow, where he led the
second round of arms-control negotiations that are expected to
produce an agreement on nuclear cuts in time for President Bush's
visit to Russia in May.
The undersecretary said the "negative security assurances" never
"came up" in the discussions with the Russians. Washington has never
had a no-first-use nuclear policy but Moscow did until the mid-1990s.
Mr. Bolton's remarks displeased some arms-control analysts yesterday,
who said that such significant U.S. government statements as the
"negative security assurances" should not be repudiated.
"These assurances are important in order to maintain the integrity
and credibility of the nonproliferation regime. Repudiation can have
a negative effect on international security," said Daryl Kimball,
executive director of the Arms Control Association.
The nonprofit organization's publication, Arms Control Today,
discussed the issue in an interview with Mr. Bolton earlier this
month.
Although Washington's official position on using nuclear weapons
against non-nuclear states has remained unchanged until now, "both
Democratic and Republican administrations have maintained ambiguity
to maximize the credibility of the U.S. nuclear force," Mr. Kimball
said.
Only a year after the Clinton administration reaffirmed Mr. Carter's
pledge, Defense Secretary William Perry said on April 26, 1996:
"If some nation were to attack the United States with chemical
weapons, they have to fear the consequences of a response from any
weapon in our inventory. ... We could have a devastating response
without use of nuclear weapons, but we would not forswear that
possibility."
John Holum, Mr. Bolton's predecessor at the State Department under
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, said yesterday that the
Bush administration's position to ignore the 1978 commitment would
not affect the strategic balance of power but might send a wrong
message overseas.
"It doesn't make the use of weapons of mass destruction more or less
likely, but it's reflective of the administration's negative view of
international treaties," Mr. Holum said.
He noted that there was an "extensive debate" in the Clinton
administration on whether it's "responsible" to rely on nuclear
weapons to combat potential biological and chemical attacks, but a
decision was made to maintain "ambiguity."
Mr. Bolton said there has been "no formal review" of Mr. Vance's
statement by the Bush administration, "nor are we going to undertake
a review of every official statement made by secretaries of states in
the past five administrations."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 11-07-02 MET DST