There are few topics in the modern world that cause more intense debate than the presence of nuclear weapons and their use in military policy. Fear of attack from weapons of mass destruction has led to ongoing tension among world leaders since their advent.
In response to a growing worldwide fear of the unsafe and uncontrolled increase in nuclear weaponry, President Barack Obama has set out to take a stand by setting an example. In a speech delivered in Prague on Sunday, April 5, Obama addressed his desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Speaking to a cheering crowd of over 20,000 people, he stressed that the United States, as the only country to have used a nuclear weapon, has a "moral responsibility" to lead the world in this effort.
Acknowledging the loftiness of his plan, Obama admitted that though his goal of nuclear disarmament will not be easy to fulfill, it is important to recognize its need. "I'm not naïve," he said in his speech. "This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change."
To start, Obama promised to actively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) — a treaty that bans all nuclear explosions for any purpose. More than 140 nations have ratified the treaty, but in order for it to take effect, it must be approved by over a dozen countries that currently possess nuclear weapons.
Although the United States has been slow to agree to the treaty, Obama is determined to ratify it. He said in his speech that after over five decades of talking about it, he thinks that it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to actually be banned.
On the Tufts campus, Obama's speech has been met with both optimism and skepticism. Antonia Chayes, a visiting professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, views Obama's speech as a step in the right direction for American foreign policy, but she recognizes that total disarmament is a distant goal.
"I think moving in the direction of reducing nuclear weapons is realistic," she said. "It is absolutely necessary to keep the whole path of nuclear non-proliferation going, but I think that the goal of total and complete nuclear disarmament is only a far distant goal."
Chayes stressed above all else the necessity of ratifying the CTBT. "I think there are many steps [toward nuclear disarmament] and the critical step is passing the [CTBT]," she said.
She explained that Obama's speech and ideas about nuclear disarmament are sure to be welcomed by countries abroad, but that the real issue lies in whether these ideas will be approved in the United States.
"The important question is whether he can muster the votes in the Senate to ratify the [CTBT]," she said. "I don't think there's going to be much of a problem with further reduction bilaterally … The real issue is ratification and whether, in light of all the other demands, he is willing to go to the mat to fight that one out."
Sophomore Sarah Kowitt, an International Relations major, was glad to hear talk of reducing nuclear weapons but remains skeptical about what can realistically be done. "I think it's a great ideal but realistically inconceivable," Kowitt said. "The idea that every country would agree to move to disarmament would require tremendous international cooperation — cooperation that doesn't currently exist. I think that Obama's speech was more of an idealistic appeal for disarmament — not really a concrete promise that it will happen."
Despite her uncertainty, however, Kowitt remains pleased with Obama's speech. "I think Obama recognizes that disarmament would be an extremely difficult process, but at the same time, that doesn't mean that we should not take any action; talking about the situation is the first step in changing it," she said. "So even though I think the idea is practically unfeasible, I think that the speech was at least a good step in forcing people to think about the situation."
While Obama pledged change and spoke of lofty future goals, he ensured that as long as nuclear weapons exist, the United States will maintain a "safe, secure and effective" arsenal.
