Proliferation is Top Threat: Debate Rhetoric Must Lead to Action
Oct 1, 2004
News from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
For immediate release - Friday, October 1, 2004
The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation today commended Senator Kerry and President Bush for identifying the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as the single biggest threat to U.S. national security during their first Presidential debate.
The Center agrees that there is no greater danger than that posed by loose materials falling into the hands of terrorists or rogue nations developing a nuclear weapons capability.
“Iran and North Korea are at present the two hottest regional flashpoints as far as nuclear proliferation is concerned,” stated Molly Pickett, non-proliferation analyst at the Center. “The North Korean situation requires a balance of bi-lateral discussions and multi-party talks, but above all must immediately be given the constant attention that it warrants.”
While Iran has indicated a greater willingness to cooperate than North Korea, it has also emerged as a serious proliferation threat by refusing to halt its uranium enrichment activities – a process necessary for both nuclear energy and for weapons development. The Center supports increased U.S. cooperation with its allies to resolve the Iran crisis through diplomacy. In no case should the use of force be considered anything but an absolute last resort.
Removing fissile material from unsecured sites around the globe is equally important in efforts to halt weapons proliferation. Acquisition of this material is the greatest obstacle to terrorists intent on delivering a nuclear 9/11 to American soil, yet dozens of sites in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere remain dangerously exposed. The Center supports a “global cleanout” of fissile materials similar to that initiated by President Bush as part of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, but agrees with Senator Kerry that the timeframe for securing the world’s supplies of these critical materials must be drastically reduced.
Coordination of all of these non-proliferation efforts is a key factor. “After the 9-11 attacks, we recognized the need for a homeland security chief and now we are creating an intelligence chief; if nuclear non-proliferation is the greatest threat, why is there is no non-proliferation chief to coordinate the efforts of all the various programs?” said the Center’s executive director Beth C. DeGrasse.
Such a person would be responsible for accelerating funding. While overall non-proliferation funding has increased in the last four years, more so than Senator Kerry states, it has not increased at the rate claimed by President Bush or to levels necessary to reduce the threat. Non-proliferation programs at the departments of Defense, Energy, and State had a combined budget of $1.51 billion in Fiscal Year 2001. President Bush tried to reduce this spending during his first year in office, but renewed the levels of funding after a significant backlash from Congress and the non-governmental community. The President’s request for Fiscal Year 2005 was just under $2 billion, a 29% increase since 2001. Studies by the Department of Energy and other experts indicate that to make sufficient progress, the United States must commit $3 billion a year to non-proliferation efforts.
“The Presidential candidates are right in making nonproliferation a top priority,” Pickett stated. “The Bush Administration has taken some steps in the right direction, but the extent of action and the level of funding to date has not matched the rhetoric. No matter who is in the Oval Office in January, we can not afford to let another year go by without drastic improvement in our efforts to halt the spread of these terrible weapons,” Pickett concluded.
###
RSS Feed