Care About Nuclear Proliferation? Who’s Your Candidate?

Despite that interminable feeling, there won’t be any more Bush in 11 months, and it’ll be up to President Clinton, President McCain, or President Obama to deal with stuff like this:

All info from Global Security Newswire.

“Masked men yesterday abducted two Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission officials in the country’s politically unstable northwest border region, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Feb. 7).

“They were technicians from the PAEC, they were whisked away early Monday morning,” said local police chief Akbar Nasir.” – link

Dangerous people are pursuing nuclear technology. Our United States history of safeguarding our nuclear program and not seeking any meaningful reduction in nuclear proliferation will eventually come to bite someone on the ass. One piece of good news is coming from the U.S., thirty years too late though it is:

“The United States is expected to press for a fissile materials cutoff treaty this week at the United Nations, while China and Russia plan to push for a competing pact that would ban a space arms race, the Washington Times reported”
[...]
“The fissile materials ban would prohibit the production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.”
[...]
“Opposition to such a treaty is expected from China, India, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and Syria”- link

Meanwhile, a report on Iran’s weapon capability is hung up, and the culprit may be politics instead of facts:

“The International Atomic Energy Agency could delay a highly anticipated report on Iran’s nuclear program because of disputes between technical staffers and agency head Mohamed ElBaradei, Agence France-Presse reported.”
[...]
“There were disagreements between ElBaradei and his technical staff. ElBaradei is pushing for one thing, while the people who went on a technical visit to Iran during January disagree,” said one Western diplomat.”
[...]
“I’ve heard that some of [ElBaradei’s] technical staff are not happy,” a second diplomat said. “There’s a concern that most of the big issues are going to be declared as resolved when there’s still a feeling that they’re anything but.” – link

So nuclear technology is loose in Pakistan while the Bush administration rattles our United States Military saber at the Iranians, who may or may not have a program. The IAEA report is now delayed because of disagreements, so it’s hard to have confidence that it will be the fullest possible picture of Iran’s real capability. I’m not sure who El-Baradei is getting political pressure from, but I can guess a few of them might be Bush, Rice, Gates, and Cheney.

Lastly, there’s continued trouble a-brewin’ as Bush pushes his Defense Contractors’ Welfare Fund project in the Czech Republic:

“The Czech Republic hopes to seal a deal to host a U.S. missile defense radar base in the next few months, the International Herald Tribune reported Sunday”
[...]
“Czech leaders want an agreement in place before the next U.S. president is elected in November. They worry that the new administration might be slow to pursue negotiations on the radar base or could simply eliminate plans for a European missile shield.”
[...]
“The Bush administration also wants to deploy 10 missile interceptors in Poland. After initially appearing cool to the plan, the new administration under Prime Minister Donald Tusk seems to be moving toward agreement with Washington.”
[...]
“[NATO Secretary General] De Hoop Scheffer said he could not “intellectually understand” Russia’s opposition to a limited number of missile interceptors, given the size of its arsenal.” – link

Nuclear proliferation has happened throughout the Presidencies of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush without any reduction in nuclear stockpiles or fissile material. American voters need to decide which candidate is most likely to effectively reduce a global nuclear threat that’s clearly moved beyond traditional state-sponsorship.

Hillary Clinton: “opposing the enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolutions challenging Pakistan, Israel and India’s nuclear weapons programs but supporting the delivery of nuclear-capable missiles and jet fighters to these countries. This past fall she voted to suspend important restrictions on U.S. nuclear cooperation with countries that violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

John McCain has openly declared his militarism by voting against ratifying the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty in October 1999.

Who does that leave us with…? Oh yeah:

Barack Obama: “will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.”
[...]
“Obama will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.”
[...]
“Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.”

It’s a scary world. We need a President who will make it safer, not who will continue the ignorant business-as-usual that will certainly end in a mushroom cloud.