Senate Not Likely To Ratify Nonproliferation Treaty, Says Expert

By Meagan Wiseley - University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service

Deepti Choubey, Deputy Director of the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said Monday that the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) is not likely to be presented to the U.S. Senate for ratification before the Non Proliferation Treaty Conference which takes place in Austria next May.

“Certainly CTBT, I don’t see being ratified unless there is a massive reorientation in the administration’s political strategy about how to get it done...I think that’s one issue we can put to the side for this upcoming review conference,” Choubey said.

Adopted by the United Nations (UN) in 1996, the CTBT bans all nuclear explosions on Earth, regardless of whether or not they are conducted for civilian or military purposes. Several UN members, including the U.S. signed the treaty, but as of this year, the U.S. Senate has yet to ratify it.

Choubey said she has high hopes for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty Follow-On (START), calling it a “modest arms control measure.” In July of this year, both U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian Federation President Dmitry Medvedev signed the treaty, which aims to reduce and limit global strategic offensive arms to the range of 500-1100 by 2016.

However, Choubey warned that if the Senate does not ratify the CTBT by 2015 there will be a “negative impact” on the other members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime.

Experts: Sea Control Vital to American Supremacy

By Jonathan Bronstein, Talk Radio News Service

If America is to remain an international superpower, it must control the world’s oceans, according to U.S. military and policy experts.

“The United States quite simply is a maritime nation,” said Michael Auslin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “Our future is possibly more tied up in the Pacific than with Europe.”

“The more power diffuses to the international system and Asia, the harder it will be to protect the global commons and the more difficult it will be to protect maritime security,” said Ashley Tellis, senior associate at with the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. Tellis said that the interests between rising nations, like India and China, are not all shared by the U.S. and would be unreliable partners who would almost certainly take advantage of any global cooperation.

Tellis is skeptical of the concept that international maritime cooperation “is essentially an idea that is pivoted on the notion of cooperation, and it works best in a world where all nations have common interests.”

Historically, the domination of the seas has been vital to the continuing strength and viability of powerful countries. But America’s role as a global hegemony is in jeopardy as Asian nations, like China and India, are taking militaristic actions to control large bodies of oceans.

In 1994, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was officially enforced, which defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world’s oceans. But before China signed the treaty, they extended their territorial waters to the continental shelf, which was much farther than the 12 miles stated in the original treaty.

America did not sign the agreement, which creates a global system of signals to aid in communication in order to prevent any misunderstandings.

According to Bernard Cole, a professor at the National War College, the Chinese view the situation as: America must “stay 200 miles off our coastline at all times and we won’t have any conflict.”

Japan is another major player within the Asian-Pacific region because of the strength of their economy and relations with America. But Japan itself is at a “crossroads toward rising or falling as a nation,” said retired Vice Admiral Hideaki Kaneda of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. “It is very critical in the long term to maintain this important maritime alliance for Japan and the United States.”

How does the U.S. approach Iran?

by Christina Lovato, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service

"If the United States is able to set a new tone in context with the
relationship in Afghanistan and elsewhere I think in of that
itself will change the nuclear calculations of Iran's leadership."
said Karim Sadjadpour, an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace.

In a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing titled "Iranian
Political and Nuclear Realities and U.S. Policy Options" witnesses
gave their recommendations on how the U.S. should approach Iran
concerning nuclear production. The hearing comes after a report
released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stating that
Natanz, an Iranian nuclear plant, has gained enough reactor-grade
uranium to allow Iran to create an atomic bomb.

Sadjapour focused on three key options that he thinks the U.S. should
follow. The first being to commence the dialogue with Iran by aiming
to build confidence on areas of common interest such as Afghanistan
and Iraq rather than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the nuclear
issue. "Focus on Supreme leader in Iran, Khamenei not the President,
Ahmadinejad. If I had to describe him (Ahmadinejad) in one word, is
mistrustful...He believes that if you compromise you project
weakness." he said. Sadjapour also stated that it is imperative that
the U.S. maintain an airtight international approach saying that each
country should approach Iran with the same talking points.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Zambia and Egypt, Frank Wisner, said that Iran
is important, Iran is dangerous and Iran is urgent. "I do not believe
in the military option...there is no room for a military
response...the issues of national survival that are first and foremost
on Iran's mind gives me some hope that we can get traction if we chose
to engage and engage fully but I won't pretend for a moment that
dealing with Iranians will not be extremely tough. There will be many
setbacks and many deceptions...I personally welcome as I'm certain all
of us do, an appointment of a new special representative to take a
hard look at Iran and our foreign policies." he concluded.

The "Nuclear Renaissance" may not be the resolution to foreign dependence of oil

"Nuclear energy is not just another way to boil water," said Charles
Ferguson, Phillip D. Reed senior fellow for science and technology at
the Council on Foreign Relations. Ferguson was part of a panel at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace discussion addressing
concerns about the "Nuclear Renaissance" being "glamorized" in the
next administration.

Sharon Squassoni, a senior associate in the Nonproliferation Program,
said, "to reduce dependency on foreign oil, nuclear power is not the
way… Nuclear energy only produces electricity, for now. This
inherently limits its ability to substitute for oil. In the U.S., oil
is only used for about 1.6 percent of electricity generation. When you
look at oil producing nations in the Middle East, a lot more of their
electricity generation comes from oil---it's about in the 30 percent
range."

Squassoni argued that in order to pursue nuclear energy, we'll have to
live with foreign dependence. Squassoni said this is due to "the
location of uranium and the structure of nuclear fuel supply. It's not
just uranium mining and milling. Its conversion, fuel fabrication, and
enrichment, so the structure of the nuclear supply industry is very
much concentrated in a hand full of suppliers. "

Dr. Alan Hanson, Executive Vice President of Technologies and Used
Fuel Management of AREVA NC Inc., believes we need to diversify our
fuel supply between countries around the world. When we build nuclear
plants in foreign countries, Hanson said we should "B.O.O.: Build,
Own, Operate," meaning until we can train their workers adequately and
with environmentally friendly culture, we should maintain operation.
This cooperation would require global interdependence on nuclear
energy.

Hanson said since a large portion of the funding for nuclear energy
comes from financing, our economy might make it hard to accomplish
such measures. He said we won't really know the cost, competitive or
not, until after they're built. This requires a lot of confidence in
the next administration, whose leading candidates have somewhat
similar policies on the matter.

Ferguson explained that while Obama and McCain have rather similar
policies on the need for constructing and renewing more nuclear
reactors in the next couple of decades, McCain has more specific goals
of how many reactors and where. Ferguson said the main factor they
differ on is finding nuclear waste repositories. While McCain supports
the nuclear waste repository in the Yucca Mountain ridge, Obama does
not. Ferguson also said McCain supports a market based decision on
fuel supply, while Obama wants to put funding into diversifying fuel
sources.

New president, new talks with Iran?

George Perkovich and Karim Sadjadpour, director and associate respectively of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, spoke about the possible actions that the new American president could take to better the relationship with Iran. Sadjadpour began with a direct call for dialogue between Iran and the United States. Because of the Bush administration's actions towards Iran over the past eight years, Iran's influence in the Gulf region is greater than it has ever been, Sadjadpour said. He advocated "building confidence" incrementally by beginning with talks that would highlight the commonalities between Iran and America. Perkovich agreed, adding a necessary change of psychology on the subject of nuclear power from both sides. With this change would come the promise to "take force off the table on the issue of enrichment", although Perkovich included that this promise would be based around Iran's continued pledge to the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).