Council for a Livable World

September 24 marks the 46th anniversary of ratification of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.  In 1963, in the midst of the Cold War, matters moved more quickly than now. The treaty was ratified in a matter of months by a thundering vote of 80-19. Then …

Last Thursday, President Obama boldly killed President Bush’s misguided missile defense deployment in Europe, and this Thursday, he continues to push his nuclear agenda forward at a United Nations Security Council summit meeting.

The meeting, the first of its kind chaired by a U.S. president, is designed by Obama to continue the momentum toward nuclear security and arms control that the President initiated in his unforgettable Prague speech in April.

At the United Nations, the U.S. is putting forth a resolution (the draft can be seen here) that calls upon all countries to pursue “a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” In addition, the resolution calls for universal ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and promotes a breadth of arms control and nonproliferation initiatives.

Care to show your support for President Obama’s nuclear agenda? You can send a message to the White House supporting his commitment to pragmatic steps on the way to a world free of nuclear weapons here.

 

This post was originally published on Matters of Principle by Sen. Gary Hart on September 21, 2009. Sen. Hart served as the Chairman of Council for a Livable World from 2006 to 2009.

The Founders of the United States not only designed a system of government, they also established principles which bind and guide their successors at home and abroad.  To the degree we, their heirs, abide by these national principles we remain true to the vision of the republic they intended us to be and we earn the respect of those around the world who believe us to be a principled nation.

It is worthwhile periodically to remind ourselves what our guiding principles are.  We are committed to the principle that all people (they said “men”) are created equal.  We believe that every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Our principles guarantee rights of speech and assembly and freedom of press and religion.  We are dedicated to the proposition that all are entitled to equal justice under the law, that justice requires due process, not arbitrary, application of the law, and that no magistrate can place us in custody without charges.  Our principles extend to the right of the individual, regardless of wealth or class, to be secure in his or her person and property from unwarranted search and seizure.  Our political systems are based on checks and balances to prevent concentration of power and the principle of taxation only carried out by those we freely elect to represent us.

All this would seem elementary civics except for this: we do not always live up to these principles, especially in our dealings with other nations and peoples.  

There is a direct correlation between fear and our willingness to suspend our principles.  In wartime, both domestic and foreign, presidents have suspended the most crucial right of all, habeas corpus, that protects us from arbitrary arrest and that dates to the Magna Carta.  This was true during the Civil War, World War II, and the war on terrorism.

And especially during the Cold War and the more recent war on terrorism our foreign policy has been based on the proposition that the enemy of our enemy, however dictatorial, undemocratic, and contrary to our principles it may be, is our friend.  Most often this friendship has amounted to large financial payments or weapons deliveries in exchange for military basing rights.

We pay for this in more ways than one.  Most often we pay for abandonment of our principles by the sacrifice of international respect.  It was a basic belief of those who founded the United States that we could remain strong and secure by resisting expediency and by standing like a rock on our principles.

After eight years of an Administration that seemed impervious to public opinion, what a new era we are in. Over the past three months, Council supporters and advocates sent more than 10,000 letters to elected officials, urging them to oppose wasteful and ineffective missile defense programs, including the proposed “third missile defense site” in Europe.

Last week, the White House announced its intention to reconfigure U.S. missile defense policy in Europe – a move which smartly includes scrapping the missile interceptors in Poland and the accompanying radar in the Czech Republic.  

This shift in policy was prompted by a request by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense that the President revise the previous missile defense plan – a request aimed to align missile defense policy with immediate security threats, rather than long-range missile threats from Iran that do not currently exist.

According to Council ED John Isaacs, ““The decision to revamp the missile defense plan in Europe is based on technological reality rather than rigid ideology…The Obama administration’s proposal is a better choice for U.S. and European security.”

For more on the political context of this announcement, click here for an analysis by Military Policy Analyst Travis Sharp.