-Caveat Lector-
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020222-77660232.htm
WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War!
U.S. drops pledge on nukes
By Nicholas Kralev
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Bush administration is no longer standing by a 24-year-old U.S.
pledge not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, a senior
administration official said yesterday.
Washington is not looking for occasions to use its nuclear arsenal,
John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international
security, said in an interview.
But we would do whatever is necessary to defend America's innocent
civilian population, he said.
In case of an attack on the United States, we would have to do what is
appropriate under the circumstances, and the classic formulation of that is,
we are not ruling anything in and we are not ruling anything out, Mr. Bolton
said.
We are just not into theoretical assertions that other administrations
have made, he said in reference to a 1978 commitment by the Carter
administration not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states unless
they attack the United States in alliance with nuclear-armed countries.
On June 12 that year, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance made the following
statement on behalf of President Carter, which became known as negative
security assurances:
The United States will not use nuclear weapons against any
non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty or any
comparable internationally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear
explosive devices, except in the case of an attack on the United States, its
territories or armed forces, or its allies, by such a state allied to a
nuclear-weapon state, or associated with a nuclear-weapon state in carrying
out or sustaining the attack.
In 1995, Warren Christopher, the first secretary of state in the Clinton
administration, reaffirmed Washington's commitment. Along with the pledges of
the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, who are all
nuclear powers, it became part of a resolution, which the council adopted
April 11, 1995.
But Mr. Bolton said such promises reflect an unrealistic view of the
international situation.
The idea that fine theories of deterrence work against everybody, which
is implicit in the negative security assurances, has just been disproven by
September 11, he said. What we are attempting to do is create a situation
where nobody uses weapons of mass destruction of any kind.
Mr. Bolton spoke a day after returning from Moscow, where he led the
second round of arms-control negotiations that are expected to produce an
agreement on nuclear cuts in time for President Bush's visit to Russia in May.
The undersecretary said the negative security assurances never came
up in the discussions with the Russians. Washington has never had a
no-first-use nuclear policy but Moscow did until the mid-1990s.
Mr. Bolton's remarks displeased some arms-control analysts yesterday,
who said that such significant U.S. government statements as the negative
security assurances should not be repudiated.
These assurances are important in order to maintain the integrity and
credibility of the nonproliferation regime. Repudiation can have a negative
effect on international security, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of
the Arms Control Association.
The nonprofit organization's publication, Arms Control Today, discussed
the issue in an interview with Mr. Bolton earlier this month.
Although Washington's official position on using nuclear weapons against
non-nuclear states has remained unchanged until now, both Democratic and
Republican administrations have maintained ambiguity to maximize the
credibility of the U.S. nuclear force, Mr. Kimball said.
Only a year after the Clinton administration reaffirmed Mr. Carter's
pledge, Defense Secretary William Perry said on April 26, 1996:
If some nation were to attack the United States with chemical weapons,
they have to fear the consequences of a response from any weapon in our
inventory. ... We could have a devastating response without use of nuclear
weapons, but we would not forswear that possibility.
John Holum, Mr. Bolton's predecessor at the State Department under
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, said yesterday that the Bush
administration's position to ignore the 1978 commitment would not affect the
strategic balance of power but might send a wrong message overseas.
It doesn't make the use of weapons of mass destruction more or less
likely, but it's reflective of the administration's negative view of
international treaties, Mr. Holum said.
He noted that there was an extensive debate in the Clinton
administration on whether it's responsible to rely on nuclear weapons to
combat potential biological and chemical attacks, but a decision was made to
maintain ambiguity.
Mr. Bolton said there has been
