Council for a Livable World

Media reports last night indicated that progressive candidate Jim Martin of Georgia (D) lost his election bid to incumbent Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R). With 96% of precints in, according to the New York Times, Chambliss led Martin 57.5% to 42.5%. Most sou…

The Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Proliferation and Terrorism released its final report today: World at Risk.

The Commission was created by HR 1, commonly known as the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, in order to “address the grave threat that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses to our country.”

The panel was chaired by former Democratic Senator Bob Graham and former Republican Senator Jim Talent.

Leading experts from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, the Council’s sister organization, issued reactions to the Commission’s findings. Read how the wonks get down after the jump.

LEONOR TOMERO, DIRECTOR FOR NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION

The report is an urgent call for action and effective leadership to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism, which is one of the gravest threats to U.S. security. The report highlights the urgency for the new administration and Congress to take practical steps that will most effectively reduce the risk of biological and nuclear weapons-usable materials spreading and falling into terrorist hands.

This report is all the more important as several key recommendations, such as appointing a high-level official to coordinate U.S. efforts on WMD proliferation (recommended by the 9/11 Commission), have been mandated by Congress and ignored by the Bush administration.

The report also points to several new and timely recommendations such as declaring a moratorium on reprocessing for civilian purposes, stopping the use of bomb-grade uranium for civilian purposes, extending the verification provisions of the Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (which is set to expire next year), limiting the spread of sensitive nuclear technologies, and strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency’s capability to detect diversions of dual-use materials in a timely manner. It also calls for engaging other countries more deeply in these efforts as the United States will need international cooperation and buy-in to make these efforts effective.

While the report highlights the need to strengthen non-proliferation efforts and to revitalize the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by imposing automatic penalties for non-compliance and by expanding the capabilities and resources of the IAEA, the United States will likely have to make significant progress on promises it made pursuant to its Article VI NPT commitments. In this context, the report favors extending the key provisions of the START agreement.

It is likely the United States will have to begin negotiating further significant reductions and make good on other promises such as ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty if it seeks further buy-in and support from non-nuclear weapon states on making progress to limit the spread of nuclear weapons material and technologies.

The actions recommended in the report are achievable in the near- to medium-term; without them, the United States will continue to dangerously fall behind in the race to prevent nuclear terrorism.

ALAN PEARSON, DIRECTOR FOR BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONTROL

The Commission correctly argues that the United States has placed too little emphasis on preventing biological attacks and limiting the proliferation of biological weapons. The new administration and the next Congress should heed the Commission’s call for greater government oversight of research laboratories working with the most dangerous pathogens, the creation of an oversight system for high-risk research, and the renewal of U.S. global engagement, which is essential for effectively reducing biological threats.

As the report argues, the United States should devote much more effort to strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention, improving infectious disease surveillance capabilities, and expanding cooperative threat reduction activities. The Commission also makes an intriguing proposal for a new initiative to bring together leading developed and developing nations to forge a global biosecurity strategy.

WANNA KNOW MORE?

Just call me the Santa Claus of arms control policy…

Actually, don’t you dare call me that. At least not in public.

The Future of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP): Next Steps
The Expanding Range of Biowarfare Threats
Understanding and Preventing Nuclear Terrorism
Fact Sheet on Strengthening Arms Control and Nonproliferation
Time to Name a Coordinator for WMD Proliferation

John Isaacs, executive director at Council for a Livable World (and green tie guy at left), has a new op-ed out in the Guardian UK this afternoon. Text is below.

The End is in Sight
By John Isaacs
Published in the Guardian UK on December 2, 2008

The security agreement signed by the United States and Iraq and approved by the Iraqi parliament last week marks the beginning of the end of the American occupation.

It is about time. For more than six years, this war has undermined the American position in the world, trampled Iraqi sovereignty and caused over 4,000 American and 176 British combat deaths – not to mention tens or even hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties.

Robert McNamara’s Vietnam war-era claim that we can see “the light at the end of the tunnel” now appears to actually be true in Iraq.

President-elect Barack Obama, in a December 1 press conference, agreed that the war is in its end-game. The US-Iraq agreement, Obama said, “points us in the right direction. It indicates we are now on a glide path to reduce our forces in Iraq.”

The agreement mandates that “all US combat forces” withdraw from urban areas in Iraq by June 30, 2009, and that “all US forces” withdraw from the country by December 31, 2011. The agreed-to language upholds Iraq’s “sovereign right” to demand the departure of US forces anytime and recognizes the United States’ “sovereign right” to remove its forces earlier than the end of 2011.

This timetable is consistent with Obama’s pledge, stated over and over during the election campaign, to remove all US combat troops within 16 months of taking office in January 2009.

Indeed, the agreement to remove all American forces by the end of 2011 goes beyond Obama’s promises, as he has talked of leaving a residual force in Iraq indefinitely to train and equip Iraqi security forces, fight terrorists and protect remaining American personnel. Obama may well run up against an Iraqi desire to be rid of American troops once and for all.

When negotiations began more than a year ago, those opposed to the continuation of the war feared the worst. It would be, they thought, an attempt by President George Bush to tie the hands of his successor. Anti-Iraq war activists also believed the agreement was an effort to leave a permanent American presence in Iraq with the control of oil substantially in American hands.

However, Iraqi government officials, concerned with the appearance of ceding too much power to the Americans, forced many concessions from the Bush administration. Indeed, the agreement represents a stunning reversal for the Bush administration, which until now rejected any timeline for troop withdrawals and clearly saw Iraq as an outpost and demonstration of America’s military power in the Middle East.

Instead, no matter how Iraq turns out in the end, this war will be marked by historians as a disaster in both conception and implementation.

The beginning of the end of the war does not mean that there will not be many hiccups along the way. While there are fewer casualties than before, there is little doubt that fighting may flare up again. There is still very little agreement on power sharing between the Shias, the Sunnis and the Kurds, and those groups may resume violent clashes in the future.

Moreover, the accord included a number of ambiguities that could grow into sore points. The two countries left vague the freedom of action for US soldiers, future security commitments and the protection of Iraqi assets.

And while the Iraqi parliament, and perhaps the Iraqi people through a future referendum, have been required to approve the agreement before it can go into affect, President Bush refused to submit the agreement for approval to the US Congress.

Still the agreement, combined with the coming to power of a new American president who opposed the war in the first place, means that American military involvement in Iraq is finally coming to an end.

The media has been all abuzz with the formal announcement that Obama’s former favorite foe has been appointed Secretary of State. But, most of that coverage has been focused on  exaggerated disagreements during the presidential campaign and behind-the-scenes political maneuvering, all of which miss the point.

On policy, Obama and Hillary are not night and day, but more like 4:30 and 4:45.  

“When it comes to foreign policy, Obama and Clinton agree far more than they disagree,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World. To paraphrase the late Alabama Governor George Wallace, Isaacs added: “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Obama and Clinton on foreign policy.”

Isaacs based his assessment on a thorough examination of Obama and Clinton’s Senate voting records; national security platforms as laid out in articles and op-eds; and responses to queries in debates, public appearances, and questionnaires.

Isaac’s analysis compares and contrasts their policy positions on Iraq, Iran, nuclear weapons, missile defense, and other relevant foreign policy issues. Read his full analysis here.

Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, the chairman of our sister organization just published an op-ed co-authored with former congressional Rep. Tom Andrews. With all the media attention that the Hillary as Secretary of State has been receiving, Tom and Gen. Gard take…