Bush's Nuclear Hypocrisy

President Bush's call for changes in international rules on the sale of nuclear equipment would effectivelyrevoke the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty's provision allowing countries to pursue atomic energy if they pledgenot to build nuclear weapons.

Bush argued for the change by saying that the world's consensus against proliferation "means littleunless it is translated into action. Every civilized nation has a stake in preventing the spread of weapons ofmass destruction."

But there is another important aspect of that international consensus, also written into theNon-Proliferation Treaty, which the United States signed:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effectivemeasures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on aTreaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

That is, the treaty directs those states already possessing nuclear weapons to engage in honest attempts atreducing and eventually eliminating nuclear weapons.

The old "arms race" between the former Soviet Union and the United States may be over, but hasthe United States -- the nuclear giant of the world, and hence the nation in the strongest position to take aleadership role -- acted in "good faith" to eliminate its own nuclear weapons and encourage othersto do the same? Do the actions of the United States since that treaty went into effect in 1970 indicate anyintention to honor its provisions?

Sadly, the answer is no. Instead, the United States -- with its overwhelming military advantage in theworld, conventional and nuclear -- seems bent on continuing to create, and threaten the use of, nuclearweapons.

Jacqueline Cabasso, executive director of the Western States Legal Foundation (a public-interestorganization that monitors and analyzes U.S. nuclear-weapons programs) sums it up this way: "The U.S. isspending more money on nuclear-weapons research and development than ever before, giving its nuclear arsenalnew military capabilities and elevating the role of nuclear weapons in its aggressive and unilateral 'nationalsecurity' policy." Cabasso cites ongoing work on such weapons as a "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator"as clear evidence of U.S. intentions to pursue nuclear weaponry, not work toward its elimination.

Perhaps more frightening, the Bush administration's January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review laid out a nuclearpolicy that calls for the development of low-yield or so-called "mini-nukes" and integrates nuclearweapons with conventional strike options. The review discusses possible first-use of nuclear weapons, evenagainst non-nuclear countries if the United States believes a country may use chemical or biological weaponsagainst the United States or its allies. The review's language -- "U.S. nuclear forces will continue toprovide assurance to security partners, particularly in the presence of known or suspected threats of nuclear,biological, or chemical attacks or in the event of surprising military developments" -- not surprisinglymakes the world nervous.

Bush would do well to listen to his own words, such as this comment on "Meet the Press" lastweekend: "See, free societies are societies that don't develop weapons of mass terror and don't blackmailthe world."

On the heels of a U.S. invasion of Iraq that virtually the whole world opposed and which had no legalauthority, U.S. citizens should face the unpleasant fact that we have the most extensive arsenal of weapons ofmass terror, and that much of the world is frightened of how they might be used.

Though U.S. citizens typically have a self-indulgent belief that their country can be trusted with suchweapons (despite the painful reality that the United States is the only country to have ever dropped an atomicbomb), the world's fears are not irrational. Again, Bush's own words, from his 2002 speech at West Point, makethe point: "We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties,and then systemically break them."

Every "civilized nation" has a stake not only in preventing the spread of weapons of massdestruction, but also pressuring the nuclear powers to honor the Non-Proliferation Treaty and move toward amore secure world in which no nation can threaten the ultimate horror. It is the task of U.S. citizens to pushour own government toward that civilized policy.

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University ofTexas at Austin and author of Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity.