Introducing The New Nuclear Pandemic

By Celia Canon- Talk Radio News Service

Americans should be more concerned by the proliferation of nuclear weapons from North Korea to other states or non-state actors, rather than focus on a direct N.Korean nuclear attack on the Western World.

Such was the conclusion of former Secretary of Defense William Perry when addressing the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on U.S nuclear weapons policy today.

“When we are concerned about proliferation, for example from N.Korea to Iran, we are concerned with the possibility that nuclear terrorists might be a bomb... The greater danger is that the bomb or the fissile material leak from one of these countries.” said Perry.

On Monday, N.Korea announced that it had successfully detonated and underground nuclear bomb, and on Tuesday, it launched two short-range ballistic missiles. As a result, the Obama administration may be facing an unexpected turn in the nuclear debate.

The topic is gaining momentum as talks between the U.S and Russia on the renewal of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) are feared to be unsuccessful.

That N.Korea has nuclear capabilities and is testing missiles has fanned the flames on the necessity to reconsider the reduction in the Department of Defense FY2010 budget.

Perry was joined by Brent Scowcroft, former assistant to the President for National Security Affairs who explained that “a great danger in nuclear terrorism lies with the civilian nuclear power and the loose fissile material that comes with that.”

Scowcroft appealed to the security dilemma to provide a link between N.Korea or Iran acquiring a nuclear power and nuclear terrorism.

“If we don’t put a cap on proliferation now, we could easily face 30 or 40 countries with that capability, That is not a better world,” said Scowcroft, adding that “If [Iran and N.Korea] are free to enrich uranium to weapons grade, then you have others who want to do it just for protection or whatever and then you have a tremendous danger of terrorists getting hold of fissile material and then its relatively easy.”

The U.S government had already started to deal with this problem under the Bush junior administration, as Perry explains: “For one thing I support the initiative of the previous administration called the Proliferation Security initiative (PSI) and the recent moves to strengthen this initiative.”

Former President George.W. Bush said that PSI’s aim is "to keep the world's most destructive weapons away from our shores and out of the hands of our common enemies."

The initiative is limited to controlling alien ships in one’s waters to search for weapons. Airways are however not part of the PSI.

The Senate Rebuilds Pakistan

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico - Talk Radio News Service

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.)
Photo by Michael Ruhl

In the next 5 years, the Pakistani infrastructure will be fortified by almost $10 billion American dollars, if Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) have anything to say about it. The aptly titled Kerry-Lugar Bill will provided money for rebuilding the lives of civilians in war torn Pakistan.

Both Kerry and Lugar said that most of the money that has been funneled into Pakistan in the past few years has gone towards security. The aim of this bill is to shift the balance, to place more of an emphasis on infrastructure.

The Senators want to use the money for building schools, improving health care, building bridges, water projects, and other elements of infrastructure. Kerry said that the target projects are “things that would improve life and give people a sense of progress” to civilians.

The money would also be used for ensuring an independent media, expanding human rights and the rule of law, expanding transparency in government, rooting out political corruption and countering the drug trade.

Additionally military funding would be conditioned upon several things, including Pakistani security forces preventing al Qaeda and Taliban forces from operating in Pakistan. The military forces would not be able to interfere in politics or in the judicial process, according to the provisions of the bill.

The legislation bill would give $1.5 billion each year from FY 2009-2013, and would recommend similar amounts of money over the subsequent five years. There would be required benchmarks to measuring how effective the funding is, and the President will have to submit semi-annual reports to Congress about progress made.

The Right to Defend Oneself

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

“We all have an inherent right to self defense in international waters,” according to Senator Jim Webb (D-VA). This remark came out of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that saw testimony from Richard Phillips, Captain of the Maersk Alabama. Phillips received international media attention several weeks ago while being held hostage by pirates off of the coast of Somalia.

Both the Senators and the witnesses acknowledged that Piracy off of the coast of Somalia has been on the rise recently. Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) said that America’s “ability to project naval power and to help ensure the free passage of goods and humanitarian aid is as important as ever.”

Phillips acknowledged that more needs to be done to secure vessels of the merchant marine, specifically arming the crew.

“In my opinion, arming the crew cannot and should not be viewed as the best or ultimate solution to the problem. At most, arming the crew should only be one component of a comprehensive plan and approach to combat piracy,” he said.

The comprehensive approach the committee discussed could include increased U.S. Navy presence in the most dangerous areas, the creation of a protected corridor that civilian ships can travel within, the rooting out of pirates in their land based sanctuaries and the “hardening” of ships, to make the ships structurally more resistant to pirates. “Hardening” measures include razor wire on railings, fire hoses to repel the pirates, and unbolting ladders that lead onto the boat. Phillips does not believe this will stop the pirates, but rather, that they will find a way to adapt.

Maersk Chaiman John Clancey, also present at the hearing, does not believe that arming the crews is a good idea.

“Our belief is that arming merchant sailors may result in the acquisition of even more lethal weapons and tactics by the pirates, a race that merchant sailors cannot win. In addition, most ports of call will not permit the introduction of forearms into their national waters,” Clancey said.

Clancey also posed that greater liability may be assumed by the companies if sailors are traveling with weapons. Neither Chairman Kerry nor Phillips felt that this argument was strong, because of the intense amount of training that mariners go through already. Kerry, a former member of the U.S. Navy, feels that the benefits outweigh the risks, and that multinational agreements can be reached to work out the issue of bringing weapons into port.

Richard Phillips is scheduled to testify next week before the Senate Armed Services Committee.