Project for Nuclear Awareness

Did the 2009 Moscow Summit Move the Ball Forward on Nuclear Disarmament?

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:21:13 GMT

Did the 2009 Moscow Summit Move the Ball Forward on Nuclear Disarmament?

When the two countries controlling 95% of the world’s nuclear weapons sit down to discuss arms control, the global community pays attention.

At the Moscow Summit earlier this week, the United States and Russia agreed through a “joint understanding” to reducing their active nuclear arsenals by 25-30% over the next ten years. They are currently negotiating a new arms control treaty to be implemented in December when the current treaty, START I, expires. The new treaty will share many of the same traits: the aforementioned reductions in nuclear weapons and methods of delivery, and a strict verification system.

By most accounts, President Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev achieved everything on their agenda. The success of the summit lies between the official agenda, and what was excluded.

On the agenda were reductions in nuclear weapons. Some analysts, especially conservatives, contend that the Russians gave up nothing and the US is sacrificing security and options. But the US and Russia are no longer on the verge of total destruction and nuclear weapons are—or should be—relics of a bygone era.

What an arms reduction understanding represents is that global powers are willing not only to lead the nuclear non-proliferation movement, but also to put teeth behind all efforts of arms control. The nuclear powers are no exceptions to the rules. Nuclear insecurity also derives from the actions of non-state actors and states who sponsor terrorism. This international security threat was recognized in Obama and Medvedev’s joint communiques on nuclear security and preventing nuclear terrorism.

Excluded topics were just as important as included topics. Obama and Medvedev agreed to continue a dialogue on missile defense, but to separate it from the new START treaty to avoid stonewalling that treaty’s process. Also off the agenda was any mention of Iran, particularly after the Islamic Republic’s election unrest. However, President Obama did discuss Iran at the joint press conference with President Medvedev, and they both noted the importance of collaborating to prevent nuclear proliferation “in dangerous areas of the world,” i.e., the Middle East in particular.

Some neo-conservative analysts say that the Russians did not concede enough, that reducing nuclear weapons is antithetical to American security, and that the Russians cannot be trusted. But neither side can afford to continue to treat US-Russian relations as a zero sum game. Both countries have an obligation as global powers to take a leadership role, and nudge the world towards greater international peace and security. Though the new START treaty will come later in the year, this summit set the groundwork for further dialogue and greater cooperation.

No one expected miracles to come out of the summit, with Russian-American relations still cool after a period of deep thaw. But supporters of arms control and the vision of a nuclear weapons free world can be pleased with the outcome of the meetings, so far. If PNA has a particular criticism, it is that reductions could be quicker and deeper than those presently achieved—we especially don’t need thousands of weapons in storage, which could be re-activated at a later date. But a second round of talks is projected, and we are hopeful about the next set of agreements. In particular, the Global Summit in 2010 proposed by Obama could prove very fruitful if it is well prepared. We need to keep in mind this is the first major nuclear framework agreement with Russia in eighteen years, and that all sides need to adjust to the tune of collaboration, not confrontation, both nuclear and otherwise. As Obama noted in his New Economic School speech, we need to move away from “zero-sum,” and move to “win-win.” We cannot afford to accept the old status quo.

Written by Katherine Locke and Ed Aguilar, July 8, 2009

See the Recent Endorsement by G8 Leaders for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World: White House Briefing Room | July 8, 2009
Subscribe to the Project for Nuclear Awareness RSS Feed to receive more articles like this.

The US-Russia Summit: Obama Meets Medvedev, Putin, and Gorbachev

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:12:23 GMT

THE US-RUSSIA SUMMIT: Obama Meets Medvedev, Putin, and Gorbachev

This article is based on an interview Monday, July 6, and analysis of the talks on Tuesday, July 7, in the form of questions about the Summit.

Will Russia and the US agree on basic terms of a framework for a new START Treaty, to replace the Treaty of 1991?    This is important for two reasons: one, the 1991 START treaty expires in December, and two, both presidents needed to send a message to their people and to the world that they’re getting a handle on nuclear arms reductions.

So it was good to see that Presidents Medvedev and Obama, after the first day of talks, agreed to reduce active nuclear arsenals by 25%, from 2200 active warhead limits, to a maximum range of 1500-1675, and delivery vehicles (submarine and land-based missile launchers) from 1600 to a range of 500-1100.

What about missile defense?     This is one of the matters they can make progress on. Currently, under the plans laid in 2007-2008, there would be US defensive missiles in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic. The theory is that these missiles are defensively aimed at Iran. Russia’s question is: Why have them then on Russia’s western border? It is possible that the US and Russia could wind up agreeing on a new location for the missiles, closer to Iran, but, don’t expect agreement on this during the Summit. The US has said it will not connect the two issues.

Third, what about Georgia and Ukraine?    The U.S. has a complaint about Russian heavy-handedness in its “Near Abroad”, that is, places such as Ukraine, which used to be part of the Soviet Union and gained national independence in the 1990’s, and Georgia, which was also a Soviet Republic, and is now divided,, with the majority of Georgia allied with the West, and two autonomous regions, under a kind of Russian protectorate status. This is another issue that won’t be easy. The US wants to assure no more Russian invasions. Russia wants to protect the Russian-speaking population, and also try to keep Georgia out of NATO, which could happen this fall. The danger is a new crisis, which could upset the arms-reduction applecart. Further confrontation in Georgia-- or Ukraine-- is in neither country’s interest.

Fourth—what’s in the new START Treaty framework?    The U.S. was proposing deep cuts in deployed nuclear weapons, to about 1500 on each side. We at the Project for Nuclear Awareness, and allies at the Peace and Security Initiative, favor going down to 1,000 on each side. This would send a powerful message that both sides are serious about nuclear arms cuts, and which all experts we’ve consulted say is more than what’s needed as a deterrent against attack. Right now, each has at least 2,200 on high alert—which means ready to fire within minutes. As noted, the agreement cuts by 25%, a good number, but not as far as the US would have liked.

What is most important is that the new treaty will include inspection and verification of the reductions by both sides. This was a flaw in the 2003 Moscow Treaty signed by Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush, which was not so much a treaty as a gentlemen’s agreement to reduce the numbers. The principle of inspection and verification is a key requirement for a treaty that will stand the test of time, and will stand as a model for future treaties with other countries, that will be needed to keep the process going forward.

Ironically, the original 1991 START treaty, signed by Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush Sr., has appropriate verification and can serve as a model. President Obama met with former President Gorbachev, as well as of course Vladimir Putin, still Prime Minister, on Tuesday, Day Two of the Summit. More about these meetings in our next analysis.

What other success can we expect from this Summit?    Cooperation over Afghanistan, with over-flight rights, has been agreed to. We should see cooperation as well, to help pressure Iran on nuclear weapons. Less likely is help on Iranian human rights, though it would be in both countries’ interests if Iran opened up, instead of isolating itself with more repression over disputed Presidential elections. The European Union has been more forceful on this issue than either Russia or the US. Interestingly, a leading Iranian body of clerics in the holy city of Qom over the weekend declared the recent election results “flawed”, as the recount was incomplete, and stated the resulting election of the regime was “illegitimate.” We can be sure there will be further developments, within Iran, but the Iranian people will have to decide what happens there themselves. Some critics are calling Presidents Obama and Medvedev too cautious on Iran. Perhaps as if to deny this, Vice President Joe Biden stated on Meet the Press that the US could not control what happens between Israel and Iran if the latter goes nuclear. Rather than military action, talks with Iran are needed on both human rights and nuclear weapons issues. Time will tell what happens.

One issue where we probably won’t see much early progress is European energy security, which includes Russian control of the pipeline of oil and gas through Ukraine and Belarus to Western Europe. But Russia can really improve its image if it cooperates on energy.

What about North Korea?    I think we’ll see some talk about tightening sanctions, to let the North Koreans see they can’t conduct more missile testing with impunity. Of course, until there is clarity on North Korean succession, it’s hard to find the right levers to help that regime change in a positive direction. North Korea is a country which literally cannot afford a million-man army and a nuclear program, but it has both. Sooner or later, they will either have to reduce their belligerence, or the regime may just implode of its own weight.

Have we really set the “Reset Button” on Russian relations?    Yes, I think so. Already, they have signed an impressive set of agreements on various military and civilian-cooperation agreements. PNA will analyze these in a follow-up article this week.

Will you take a moment to tell about your exciting youth program at PNA?    Sure, thanks. To help build the antinuclear movement, PNA does innovative work, especially on video, on the web, with our youth group. The site for our youth video dialogue this fall—which people can attend from all over the country, is www.bang-usa.org, which stands for Ban All Nukes Generation. We’ve done these video conferences with students and young professionals, linking for example Philadelphia, Mexico City, Milwaukee, Vancouver, British Columbia, Princeton, N.J., and a number of other places.

In October, we’ll have sites in Philadelphia, which you can register for now, in California, which will be ready soon for registration, and finally in Mexico City, and in Moscow. In all of these cities, young people will be able to talk to each other and hear world-class experts speak, across the continents. We have a tentative venue in Geneva, which we’ll know about soon. So we’re looking forward to this, and we hope a lot of stations cover it—in fact we plan to stream it live so you can cover the keynotes by Hans Blix, of the WMD Commission, and by other key leaders, including student and youth leaders from bang-usa, on how we build this movement to end nukes.

What’s Needed Long-Term with Russia?    These things—help Russia integrate into the world economic system as a full partner, in the WTO; work together on global warming, world hunger, and toward a world free of nuclear weapons. This last is a very-long-term, strategic goal, but as you may have seen in the Sunday NY Times, President Obama has been thinking about these things since Columbia University, as a student, in 1983. At that time, Obama wrote a lengthy term paper on: “U.S.-Soviet strategic arms reductions,” and how to make progress on these issues. Clearly, he’s been thinking strategically for a long time.

In fact, if Obama and Medvedev want to take a more strategic view, the best thing they can do in their own countries’ interest, is to strengthen the IAEA— the International Atomic Energy Agency. The reason is simple. The IAEA has the experts, and the experience, to carry out appropriate inspections. Also, the IAEA has the mandate of the United Nations, and the US is a strong force on the governing council of the IAEA, along with our allies, so we can keep the process honest. Finally, for years the complaint of many countries has been: the US and Russia demand that we submit to safeguards agreements, but where are theirs? It is a fair question. If we agree we have nothing to hide, and we certainly want to make sure the Russians have nothing to hide, then both we and they should be willing to establish and fulfill safeguards agreements. These are being built into the framework of the START replacement treaty, it appears.

What is a realistic timeline for the future?    Of course, we cannot expect everything from one meeting. I think the Administration has been playing down expectations, precisely so as not to put too much pressure on the two Presidents. But I can tell you this. We in PNA have met both Obama’s top nuclear advisor during the campaign, Ivo Daalder, and his new special envoy for arms control with Russia, Rose Gotmoeller, and these are both folks who are very serious about nuclear disarmament. I think if all goes well, we will have the first new nuclear treaty in many years by the end of 2009, progress on Europe, NATO, and global warming, and if so, then we’ll be well-positioned for more rapid progress on the multilateral front. For 2010, President Obama has called for a Global Nuclear Summit. We support that call, and are eager to hear more details.

What else does PNA recommend?    Our Agenda supports what the US is doing. We also go further, saying we also need a treaty to prevent weapons in space. We support his plan for a fissile materials ban, and especially, we need to safeguard all existing such materials. That’s the only certain way to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists and militants. Finally, of course, we support the elimination of nuclear weapons, with a disciplined plan to get there. Thus, we’ve endorsed the Model U.N. Nuclear Weapons Convention. This is a draft of what a treaty to eliminate the production, possession, and use of nuclear weapons, globally, could look like. It has been endorsed by the UN Secretary-General, by the European Parliament, and by a large majority of members of the United Nations.

Finally, the President made news, by saying that the US “intends to host a global Nuclear Security Summit next year, to bring all the countries of the world” to the US, to bring progress on this critical issue.

This is a conference that has not been yet set out in detail—but that again, shows the President’s commitment, and shows he’s willing to spend political capital to move ahead down an important road.

Ed Aguilar is executive director of the Project for Nuclear Awareness.

This article is based on Ed’s radio interviews on the U.S.-Russia Summit, and prospects for its success. For more on the Model UN Nuclear Weapons Convention, go to the Information Page for the International Youth Dialogue, at www.bang-usa.org.

Stopping Kim Jong-il: North Korea's Nuclear Weapons and U.S. Options

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:06:23 GMT

   By Craig Eisendrath, Chairman of PNA

    With its recent detonation of two nuclear devices, North Korea has become increasingly menacing. It is not clear if the nuclear devices are technically ready for rocket launch though North Korea is pursuing greater missile capacity. As time goes on, if North Korea is not stopped, then it could soon have the ability to strike against Hawaii and eventually the American mainland. Proposed steps to impose sanctions, by the United States, Russia, China, Japan, England, France and South Korea, do not involve forced interception of North Korean ships, or any economic measures which are likely to curb North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Although Kim Jong-il has not yet officially stepped down, it is likely that the country is presently being ruled by his 25-year-old son, Kim Jong-un. This change of leadership offers little promise of policy change. In addition, North Korea is presently holding hostage two American television journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who have been sentenced to 12 years of hard labor.

    After years of aggression and conciliation, North Korea today seems determined, no matter what the cost, to be a nuclear power. The Project for Nuclear Awareness believes that it would still be possible to negotiate an agreement whereby North Korea gave up its nuclear capacity, but only with major incentives including full diplomatic recognition, the end of the Korean War, a declaration of non-aggression by the big powers, guarantees of food and oil, and a regional security agreement which would ease North Korea's anxieties. In exchange for these concessions, we should insist on intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency and automatic sanctions which are far more effective than the ones presently in place.

    If North Korea does not accept such an offer, it would mean that North Korea has dropped out of the negotiation process altogether and is set on being a nuclear power and a member of the nuclear club. Of course, Pyongyang is doing this at an enormous price. North Korea lacks the means to feed its own people and the country is wracked by starvation. Food aid delivered as an incentive for nuclear negotiation could be critical.

    Could the United States live with a proven unstable and unreliable state fully armed with nuclear weapons and rockets capable of hitting targets in the United States? This is the great dilemma which the Obama administration presently faces: does it act to disarm North Korea now before Kim Jong-il's weapons program is fully realized, or, if negotiations fail, does it acquiesce in accepting North Korea as a nuclear power? Time will tell.

What Next for the Iranian Republic, and for the Struggle for Peace in the Middle East?

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:18:02 GMT

(image credit: BBC News)

Some two weeks after the Iranian election, the crisis continues. The charges of fraud have not let up, and new detailed studies seem to show great inconsistencies in the electoral count. The official Iranian vote overseers, the 12-member Guardian Council, admitted that in fifty districts, voter turnout was listed as over 100% of registered voters, a physical impossibility, resulting in three million “extra” votes recorded for current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation, “The Next Explosion in Iran” 21 June 2009).

Because the margin between Ahmadinejad, the reported winner, and Mir Hossein Mousavi, the second-place candidate, was over three million, however, the Guardian Council announced that this did not constitute major election fraud and would not result in annulment of the election as former Prime Minister Mousavi had demanded.

Inside Iran, powerful people are speaking up against a backdrop of violence and protest on the streets, including Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani and former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, a leading member of the Assembly of Experts. This situation has begun to divide the ruling clerical elite. Some reports say that Ayatollah Ali Khameini’s position as “Supreme Leader,” a position determined by the Assembly of Experts, may even be at risk. In the interim, however, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been announced as the winner, and is slated to be inaugurated between late July and mid-August. This is later than usual, and may provide room for maneuver, if the Assembly of Experts and the Guardian Council feel they require it.

World reaction has been almost uniformly negative, especially to the shooting of some nineteen or more peaceful demonstrators in the street, including one 26-year-old woman, Neda Sultani, who has been seen by millions in a heart-rending amateur video, shot and bleeding on the street as a bystander to the demonstrations. Her death has become a symbol, and Iranian opposition leaders have called for the world to show its grief for the fallen, including Neda Sultani, in prayer and street processions on Friday, June 26. Such demonstrations are apparently being planned in many countries, and there have been rallies from Paris to Kuala Lumpur.

A joint study by UK think tank Chatham House and the University of St. Andrew’s Institute of Iranian Studies investigated the election results. They compared the 2005 election, when Ahmadinejad won, with 2009. They concluded that, in order to attain the 24.5 million recorded votes in 2009 for Ahmadinejad, he would have had to receive all 11.5 million votes he received in 2005, as well as all 10.5 million new voters and 2.5 million reformist voters. They concluded: “Is this possible? Yes. Is it likely? The report doubts it.” View the full 19-page report from Chatham House.

The grave situation begs the question: What should the U.S. and the international community’s response be?

President Obama has been very measured in his response, not seeking to add to the violence of the government’s response by providing any excuse of interference. However, by the time of his June 23 White House press conference, the President hardened his tone in response to the repression.

He declared: “I am appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the past few days.” He noted the “heart-breaking” images coming out of Iran, specifically noting the case of Neda Sultani’s murder, and added: “We also know this: Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.” But so far, President Obama has not spelled out specific steps for the US to take. He may await indication of any change in Iranian leaders’ approach, before such a decision.

Several major European countries have condemned the violence, and some have opened their embassy doors so that wounded protesters could receive medical treatment. NGOs, including Amnesty International, are keeping track of arrests and detentions which total over 500, possibly many more, including many journalists and leaders of opposition groups.

But repression can only go so far, before becoming highly counter-productive. The question begins to arise: What next for the Iranian Islamic Republic?

Questions to keep in mind: Has the government lost the trust and support of some of the key groups and classes that brought it to power? This was a populist revolution against an unpopular dictator, the Shah of Iran. Yet now, cries of “Where is my vote?” and “death to the dictator” are heard. Working-class Iranians are hurting economically. Many women and young people are angry and distressed at both the lack of human rights, especially for women, and the lack of jobs, even for educated professionals. Many middle-class people, who have never been activists, are now deeply involved in the opposition, whether in the streets, on blogs, or quietly at home. Whatever the actual vote count, this has gone beyond elections alone, to the issue of: What is the Iranian Islamic Republic, and how will the will of its people become manifest?

Our concern at the Project for Nuclear Awareness is for two things: Our main mission is to help rid the world of nuclear weapons threats, whether in Iran, China, or for that matter, the U.S. as well. We are totally “non-partisan” in that respect. In respect to human rights, the right of people to vote for their leaders, to participate peacefully in their country’s civil society, the right of all men and women to be equal before the law, the answer is yes, yes, and yes—we support freedom for people everywhere. In respecting those rights for all, we are totally non-partisan as well.

Right now, the President, the U.S. administration, and many European and international leaders are walking a fine line. They do not want to intervene in Iranian internal politics; but the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights goes beyond partisanship, to codify universal rights, which the Iranian administration must also respect, whoever emerges as the leadership in the Islamic Republic. It is the duty of world leaders, as noted by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon early this week, to support and enforce human rights wherever they are threatened by actions which violate international commitments.

On the nuclear front, we support a broad opening in the Middle East, whereby all parties come together to talk about new solutions, a new regime of nuclear disarmament. This can lead over time to a Nuclear-Weapons-Free Middle East, which is in the best interests of Iran, Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and all powers in the region.

Will the Iranian people see a redress of their grievances? Will there be a just outcome to a critical situation? Only time will tell. One thing is certain, and that is that right now, the whole world is watching Iran, for some answers.

International Youth Dialogue for Nuclear Disarmament

Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:00:22 GMT

The International Youth Dialogue for Nuclear Disarmament, October 26th -27th 2009, will connect venues in Philadelphia, Santa Barbara, Moscow, and Mexico City via live video conference using Polycom technology.

Learn more and register for the Philadelphia venue.

Registration for Santa Barbara, Moscow, and Mexico City venues will be available shortly.

Questions? Interested in co-sponsoring the Dialogue? Contact Kim or Emily at 215.546.3030 or infopna@gmail.com. The following organizations and businesses are Sponsors for the International Youth Dialogue.

World Federation of United Nations Associations

Open Letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Fri, 22 May 2009 12:46:08 GMT

Join PNA's co-conveners and executive committee members in calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to match Administration words with concrete action. Much encouraging progress was made at the recent Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee session but we need to ensure that Secretary Clinton continues to provide leadership and commitment to the cause of nuclear non-proliferation. Read the open letter and then sign on!

Take Action by 1/1/2001!

House Should Approve Aid Package for Pakistan

Tue, 05 May 2009 13:41:26 GMT

Send a letter to your Congressional Representative to urge them to pass the supplemental aid package for Pakistan.

Take Action by 5/5/2009!

The Art of Disarmament

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:51:20 GMT

From Sunday April 19^th to Wednesday April 22^nd, the visual petition for deep cuts in global nuclear weapons was on display at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia. The Nuclear Disarmament Art Exhibit was hosted by PNA’s youth network, Ban All Nukes Generation (BANG-USA), and featured the work of nearly seventy professional and student artists from around the world.

Sunday’s opening show offered attendees the opportunity to learn more about PNA, meet some of the featured artists, vote for their favorite pieces, and join in a reception and awards ceremony for the top prized pieces. At first place was Phil Bracco’s “Black Rain” a poignant, mixed media sculpture depicting a Japanese woman soaked in the black rain that immediately followed the bombing of Hiroshima. Placing in second was Siri Beckman’s “Creation of Atom,” an oil painting that played with the image and themes of creation displayed within Michelangelo’s famous fresco on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Third place was John Baccile’s “Living on Borrowed Time,” a print that recalled the Manhattan Project’s first successful nuclear test and the test director’s subsequent declaration, “Now we're all sons of bitches.”

Honorable Mention artists include Bianca Cevoli, Joshua Hey, Laura Ladendorf, Fabian Dominic Wyss, and Ryan Friant, who also won the Audience Choice Award for his mixed media print, “Precarious Perch.”

PNA was delighted and thrilled by every artist’s contribution and thanks all those who attended the show and supported the visual petition for deep cuts in the global nuclear weapons arsenal. Check out more photos from the event on our Flickr Album!

I don't think artists can avoid being political. Artists are the proverbial
canaries in the coalmine. When we stop singing, it's a sure sign of repressive times ahead.

-Theresa Bayer, Professional Artist

Today we say all art is political. But I'd say all art has to do with ethics.
Which after all really comes to the same thing. It's a matter of attitudes.

-Ingmar Bergman, Filmmaker

FCNL Petition to Ban Nuclear Weapons

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:40:32 GMT

Check out this petition from our allies at FCNL to ban nuclear weapons.

Take Action by 1/1/2001!

U.S. Talks Begin with Russia, Syria, Iran-- Cautious hope for change

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:52:52 GMT

PNA Editorial:

U.S. Talks Begin with Russia, Syria, and Iran-- Cautious Hope, Signs of Change

The United States—and President Barack Obama—may be on the way to breaking a long-standing ice-jam in diplomatic relations with our adversaries. PNA is cautiously optimistic that, with proper nurturing, these overtures can turn into real U.S. diplomatic success, and over time lead to stabilizing relations in the Middle East and Central Asia. We welcome these long-overdue developments. Here are some signs of hope:

➢ 1. U.S. and Russia, Hit “Re-Set” on Relations and Nuclear Weapons

The New York Times reports that President Obama will visit Moscow in July, and his London meeting with President Dmitri Medvedev has already led to a detailed, four-page U.S.-Russia negotiations framework on nuclear weapons.

For the text of the US-Russia statement, as transcribed by Federal News Radio, go to

US-Russia Statement

Released by the White House on Wednesday, April 1, 2009, Presidents Obama and Medvedev stated:

“Reaffirming that the era when our countries viewed each other as enemies is long over, and recognizing our many common interests, we today established a substantive agenda for Russia and the United States to be developed over the coming months and years. We discussed measures to overcome the effects of the global economic crisis, strengthen the international monetary and financial system, … and advance regulatory efforts to ensure that such a crisis does not happen again.

We also discussed nuclear arms control and reduction.

As leaders of the two largest nuclear weapons states, we agreed to work together to fulfill our obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and demonstrate leadership in reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world. We committed our two countries to achieving a nuclear-free world, while recognizing that this long-term goal will require a new emphasis on arms control and conflict resolution measures…. We agreed to pursue new and verifiable reductions in our strategic offensive arsenals in a step-by-step process, beginning by replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with a new, legally binding treaty. We are instructing our negotiators to start talks immediately on this new treaty and to report on results achieved in working out the new agreement by July.”

PNA is especially heartened that they cited the NPT, with its good faith negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons, and have set an ambitious goal on a new US-Russia treaty for deep cuts. The setting of specific timetables shows that both sides are serious about these cuts, which can be an example for smaller nuclear powers.

➢ U.S. and Syria

In the April 6 New Yorker, Pulitzer-prize-winning reporter Seymour Hersh discloses back-channel talks involving the U.S., Syria, Turkey, and Israel. If successful, these talks can be a foundation for Middle East peace, elusive for so long. A few intriguing quotes from Sy Hersh’s Syria Calling—The Obama Administration’s chance to engage in Middle East peace:

Syria’s Pres. Bashar Assad: “We are happy that he (Obama) has said that diplomacy- and not war- is the means of conducting international policy.” Considering negotiations with Israel, it is “essential that the United States play a prominent and active role in the peace process.”

Martin Indyk, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel: “There is a deep divergence between Iran and Syria, captured in the fact that at the same time as Iran’s president threatens to wipe Israel off the map, his Syrian ally is attempting to make peace with Israel…Should negotiations yield a peace agreement, it would likely cause the breakup of the Iranian-Syrian axis.”

Khaled Meshal, leader of Hamas, “”If we suppose that Israel is serious, we support the right of Syria to negotiate with Israel to attain its legitimate rights.” Itamar Rabinovich, former Israeli Ambassador to Washington, “Bibi (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel) would prefer to make a deal with Syria rather than with the Palestinians.”

Former American diplomat: “There are a lot of people going back and forth to Damascus from Washington saying there is low-hanging fruit waiting for someone to harvest.”

Senator John Kerry: “ Our latest conversation (with Syria) gave me a greater sense that Assad is willing to engage positively with Iraq, and have direct discussions with Israel over the Golan Heights- with Americans at the table. I encourage the Administration to take him up on it.”

Essentially, as Hersh reports, “Assad has told the Obama administration that his nation can ease the American withdrawal from Iraq. Syria can also help the U.S. engage with Iran, and the Iranians, in turn, can become an ally in neighboring Afghanistan…”

Syria wants and needs the help of the U.S. in brokering and enforcing a peace deal with Israel, particularly on the issue of the Golan Heights. In turn, Syria can act as a bridge between the United States and Iran, and also possibly Hamas.

➢ U.S.-Iran Relations

As with Syria, there is a window of opportunity here. The same day, March 31, U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke held “a brief but cordial meeting with Iran’s deputy Foreign Minister.” This is the highest level meeting since the former Bush Administration froze all contacts with Iran, a policy that has not worked. PNA encourages Ambassador Holbrooke, Secretary Clinton and the President to see what steps may work, pragmatically. As Sy Hersh notes, Iran may actually provide some help on Afghanistan, where it is a counter-weight to Pakistan and the Taliban.

PNA welcomes the progress the Administration has begun to make on these long-term, critical problems. We hope all Americans will support these efforts, and also write to Congress to re-insert the cuts in the State Department and foreign affairs budget recently made. We need these funds, for this agenda to work. If we must make cuts in this recession, we can do it on the F-22 fighter expansion, unneeded against any current adversary. To link to Syria Calling—The Obama Administration’s chance to engage in Middle East peace:

Syria Calling