Don't let 'perfect' be enemy of 'good' in nuclear negotiations
In the autumn of 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis, the United States and the then-Soviet Union came as close to a nuclear exchange as has ever happened.
Within a year, the leaders established a hotline between the two countries to facilitate communication because of the fear of what could have occurred was palpable on both sides.
Six years later, in the early stages of détente between the Americans and Soviets, a process of arms control was launched resulting in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks or SALT I treaty, which froze American and Soviet arsenals at then-current levels. The treaty helped the two countries control spiraling costs and sent a signal to other nations considering a nuclear program.
Over the next five decades, successive American administrations worked to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons through a series of agreements including SALT I and II and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), New START, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) and these were complemented by American programs that included Nunn-Lugar and the Proliferation Security Initiative.
However, American concerns about proliferation were not limited to the existential threat posed by the Soviet Union/Russia and the former Soviet republics. We facilitated the end of nascent nuclear programs in South Africa and Libya relatively peacefully and in Iraq violently. Israel bombed a nuclear reactor construction site in Syria.
We continue to try to work with Pakistan to secure its nuclear weapons, mindful of the ties between the Pakistani intelligence service and militant Islamic groups. We signed an agreement with Iran to stop and partially roll back its nuclear enrichment program, and we have used sanctions to try to slow the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea, a mafia state that has shown a willingness to sell missile technology for much-needed cash.
Now, however, talks with North Korea over its nuclear program are, at best, uncertain. Both the U.S. and Russia have accused each of violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and analysts warn that it hangs by a thread. New START expires in three years and there are no new talks on the horizon to either extend the current treaty or agree to further reductions. The U.S. has pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, though the other signatories are - for the moment - trying to make it work. And, at the beginning of this year, President Trump, in a series of angry tweets, announced a suspension of military and security assistance to Pakistan.
This is all occurring against the backdrop of a $1.4 trillion program of modernization of our nuclear arsenal, the price the Congress demanded for the signing of New START in 2011 as well as Russia's well-publicized announcement of new nuclear delivery systems. One of the slides in President Putin's bombastic presentation seemed to be targeting Mara Lago.
President Trump has argued for a new Iran nuclear deal that extends the current restrictions as well as bringing to an end Iran's missile program and its support for militants throughout the Middle East. On North Korea, he seeks complete denuclearization as we define it. Analysts think the INF Treaty could be saved by changes to the inspection regime. Relations with Pakistan, while never easy, need constant tending given our mutual desire to defeat ISIS. And, while relations with Russia are at an absolute low point, arms control could form the platform for engagement as it did even during some of the darkest days of the Cold War. All is possible if we do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
In 1962, fear of the ultimate nightmare caused the nuclear powers to edge back from the brink and begin a slow, grinding process of reducing the nuclear threat. We should never forget that sense of fear for future generations are depending on our wisdom.
Keith Peterson, of Lake Barrington, served 29 years as a press and cultural officer for the United States Information Agency and Department of State. He was chief editorial writer of the Daily Herald 1984-86.