Foreign Policy in Focus<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Interview with Lawrence Wilkerson<\/p>\n\n\n\n
September 5, 2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Emanuel Pastreich<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Interview with Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of\nstaff to Secretary of State Colin Powell and current Distinguished Adjunct\nProfessor of Government and Public Policy in the Government Department of the\nCollege of William and Mary.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Emanuel Pastreich:<\/em><\/strong> What is the current status of the\nIntermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty on nuclear weapons?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Lawrence Wilkerson:<\/strong> As\nyou know, the United States pulled out of the INF medium-range nuclear weapons\ntreaty with Russia in August and it plans a substantial buildup of these\ndestabilizing weapons, above all in East Asia. This move is dangerous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The INF Treaty was far from perfect, but it had a broad appeal,\nincluding an appeal to many in the military, because it simply made sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That treaty between the United States and Russia encompassed all\nmissiles, nuclear or conventional, ballistic or cruise, that had a range of\nbetween 500 and 5,500 kilometers. When the INF Treaty was signed in 1987, it\nhelped to slow down a dangerous arms race. For the first time since the Cold\nWar started, an entire class of nuclear weapons was eliminated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pastreich:<\/em><\/strong> Why do you think the\nUnited States withdrew?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Wilkerson:<\/strong> We\nno longer live in a rational world in which policy makers take a\nscientific approach to risk. Rather, policy making is dominated by\nirrational figures like John Bolton, the president\u2019s national security advisor,\na man who hates arms control with a passion, who spends his days trying to find\nways to undo the few restrictions that remain, and who would plunge the world\ninto a completely new nuclear arms race.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This time, however, the competition won\u2019t be bilateral, just\nbetween the United States and the USSR. This time the race will be global, and\nwe will see a nightmare world of instability, with a renewed risk of a nuclear\nholocaust as a result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pastreich:<\/em><\/strong> What\u2019s the background\nbehind this drastic shift in American policy?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Wilkerson: <\/strong>Right\nnow there are a huge number of intermediate range missiles stationed in Fujian\nProvince, and elsewhere in southern China, which are aimed at Taiwan. We\u2019re\ntalking about a missile for just about every square meter of every viable\ntarget in Taiwan. China was never a signatory to the INF Treaty because at the\ntime its missile capacity was minimal and its nuclear weapons policy, which was\nset by Mao Zedong, was one of sufficiency to deter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If there was a valid reason for the United States to withdraw\nfrom the current INF Treaty, it was this change in China\u2019s missile arsenal.\nChina is most likely contemplating a new doctrine with regard to the use of\nnuclear weapons. That change has little to do with Russia and everything to do\nwith the pressing need for a new nuclear weapons arms control regime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pastreich:<\/em><\/strong> You mean that China\u2019s\nactions were a reason for the United States to withdraw?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Wilkerson:<\/strong> In\npart, the changes in China were a factor. And Russia has<\/em> been\n\u201ccheating\u201d with respect to the INF Treaty. Even more dangerous is Russia\u2019s\npublication of a military doctrine calling for blunting NATO\u2019s advantage in\nPGMs [precision guided munitions] by using short-range nuclear strikes. Russia\nhas been building a missile inventory necessary to accomplish this doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are of course other aspects of the problem. We find a\nmutual abuse of the INF Treaty, such as the United States putting ABM defenses\nand troops in former Warsaw Pact countries, thus moving the borders of NATO so\nthat they are smack up against Russia\u2019s \u201cnear abroad.\u201d And now the United\nStates refuses to talk about almost anything with Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We see the proliferation of medium-range missiles among\nnon-signatory countries (China, DPRK, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) and also\nviolations of the INF Treaty by both the original treaty signatories, who also\nhappen to be the owners of the vast preponderance of nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pastreich:<\/em><\/strong> What do you think that\nshould the United States have done then?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Wilkerson:<\/strong> Sadly,\nthe United States kept complaining about what was imperfect about the treaty,\nbut it made no effort to create something better, to fashion and gain support\nfor an entirely new and more comprehensive nuclear arms control regime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Instead, what the United States is accomplishing is the launch\nof a far more virulent arms race, one that could lead, some would argue\ninevitably, to the use of nuclear weapons in war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It would have made better sense to maintain the treaty, or to\ndeclare it obsolete, in a bipartisan manner, and, in either case, to open\nnegotiations to expand the treaty so as to include all nations that possess\nextensive stockpiles of intermediate range missiles\u2014particularly those that\nalso possessing nuclear weapon capability. From the point of view of smart arms\ncontrol, of our children\u2019s future, and of the security of the United States and\nof the world, such an expanded and modernized, treaty would make perfect sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But Trump\u2019s national security advisor, John Bolton, doesn\u2019t do\narms control. Moreover, Trump himself seems to disdain multilateral\narrangements, sensible negotiations, and the type of astute diplomacy required\nto accomplish either. He seems to more-or-less follow Bolton and his desire for\n\u201ca little nuclear war.\u201d While campaigning, Trump even suggested he believed the\nworld would be better off if there were more, not fewer, nuclear weapons, and\nstates that possessed them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pastreich:<\/em><\/strong> What can be done now to\ncorrect this mistake?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Wilkerson:<\/strong> I\nthink you mean, given these clear realities what can be done to modify the\nbehavior of an administration that has been opposed to arms control from the\nvery start and that has done more and will do more to damage arms control\nefforts than any previous administration? How will we convince John Bolton and\nMike Pompeo, who made their careers by opposing rational arms control treaties,\nthat they don\u2019t need to abandon treaties but should rather expand them,\nmulti-lateralize them, and seek new ones that do even more than the old ones\ndid?<\/p>\n\n\n\n If we are talking about these individuals alone, the task is\nhopeless. They are beyond redemption. But democratic politics is not simply\nabout individuals, whether it be presidents, national security advisors, or\notherwise. There are cases in American history where extremist politicians have\nbeen brought into line by a shift in the mood and in the culture and by a\nweigh-in by the demos<\/em> in\naccordance with such shifts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What we need is to create again in Washington DC a nuclear arms\ncontrol environment, a culture in which responsibility and strict regulation of\nnuclear weapons\u2014and other weapons, as in the Conventional Forces in Europe\nTreaty\u2014is accepted as a necessity. We need to ensure that such a development is\na natural occurrence, that it is something that is not disdained, but rather\nanticipated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the end of the day, we need to negotiate a series of treaties\nthat form a global overlapping system that includes all classes of nuclear\nweapons. We need to bring into this process pariah states like Israel and North\nKorea. Achieving that goal requires us to be tough at times. We must be ready\nto take a strong stand to insist that all nuclear weapon states must join the\nregime that will be established.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pastreich: <\/em><\/strong>What is the thinking about\nnonproliferation and disarmament in the U.S. military?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Wilkerson:<\/strong> The\nmilitary makes the challenge even greater because there are large factions in\nthe military who are hankering for a new nuclear arms race. Those generals and\nadmirals want more money, and they want to build more missiles. Doing so will\nallow them to get their hands on some of the trillion-plus dollars allotted for\nnew nuclear weapons by former President Obama.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Those officers want all sorts of nuclear and non-nuclear\nmissiles, but the diversity in their demands does not mean that they are\nstrategically imaginative. They are not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All they want is more, more, and a little more. But we should\nalso remember that there are some clear thinkers and some brave people devoted\nto the common good mixed in with them. They see the handwriting on the wall and\nthey wish to avert nuclear war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n President Trump is highly susceptible to the military\u2019s siren\ncall. The president has painted himself into multiple corners, and he seems to\nfeel that he desperately needs the military to be president of the United\nStates. Since he now faces opposition at almost every level of government and\nincreasingly within the country, loyalty has become his first priority. He\nperceives the military to be overwhelmingly loyal to him and he wants to reward\nthem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This relationship between Trump and the military is dangerous\nbecause Trump is so ignorant about diplomacy and security, and at the same time\nhe is increasingly desperate in his search for support. He does not care about\nglobal warming or nuclear war, but he is obsessed with his political standing.\nHe desires above all to have people who will gather around him and listen to\nhim speak. He is ultimately concerned with holding on to power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, nuclear missiles, in particular, offer big juicy\ncontracts that are not subject to much external review, and they empower the\npresident\u2014who is the one who can decide on his own whether or not to use them.\nSo these weapons also feed Trump\u2019s ego.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But anyone with any understanding of nuclear weapons knows how\nclose we have come to nuclear war in the past\u2014even with treaties in place.\nSadly, most educated citizens have no idea how different a world we will be\nliving in once the nuclear weapon genie escapes from its bottle, especially as\nthere is a whole new group of nations like Germany, Turkey, Iran, Japan, South\nKorea, Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, and so on, that have either in the past\nshown a desire for nuclear weapons or who could join in a future nuclear arms\nrace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pastreich:<\/em><\/strong> The decision to\nwithdraw from the INF treaty, and other agreements like the ABM Treaty, while\nsimultaneously increasing the number of short-range nuclear missiles, seems as\nif it was made in meetings among Bolton, Pompeo and Trump, with some input from\nthe military. There were few, if any, congressional committees who debated the\nnew policies, or summoned experts on nonproliferation for\ntestimony. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Wilkerson:<\/strong> This\nunhealthy policy-making process seems to be intrinsic to the Trump\nadministration. But the shift has been taking place for some time. The cause is\nnot necessarily Trump.<\/p>\n\n\n\n H.L. Mencken wrote back in 1920 that one day, \u201c\u2026the White House\nwill be adorned by a downright moron.\u201d Although that prediction was uncanny, it\nwas not a matter of chance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The current crescendo of incompetence is the product of a\nlong-term structural and statutory shift that has encouraged a dysfunctional\ndecision-making process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We can see Trump\u2019s arbitrary use of power as the logical\nconclusion of the centralization of national security decision-making in the\nWhite House that dates back to the 1947 National Security Act. This\nconcentration of power in the White House, and the decline of the power of the\npresident\u2019s cabinet, as well as of the powerful congressional committees run by\nhighly educated and focused political leaders like Jacob Javits or James\nFulbright, have profoundly altered the process by which policy is formulated\nand decisions are made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The next step came after Ronald Reagan both consolidated power\nin the executive and stripped other parts of the federal government of budgets\nand authority. He created a new policy landscape that was readily made use of\nby H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, with some slight\nvariations. So, the original balance of powers among Congress, the judiciary,\nand the executive described in the constitution existed only by dint of\ninstitutional inertia. That balance was ready to be torn down\u2014and was torn down\nlike a rotten tree\u2014by Trump\u2019s people. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Pastreich: <\/em><\/strong>How does this institutional\nshift relate to the seemingly endless wars the United States is involved in?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Wilkerson: <\/strong>Many\nmembers of Congress\u2014and particularly powerful committee chairmen\u2014are backed to\nthe hilt by Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, BAE, Grumman, General Dynamics,\nand other military contractors who are pursuing big-budget contracts with the\ngovernment. This trend is true for both parties, but the Republicans practice\nit with greater abandonment. The coffers of these Congress members are\nessentially filled up by lobbyists who represent these merchants of war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pastreich<\/em><\/strong>: Although it seems\nirrelevant to lobbyists and influence peddlers, the constitution is supposed to\nbe the manual that determines how the Federal government is run.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Wilkerson:<\/strong> The\nthree branches of government are co-equal, but the legislative branch was\nclearly meant to be primus inter pares,<\/em> and\nJames Madison was quite adamant on that point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The executive has become the overwhelmingly dominant branch. And\nnow you have a specially selected Supreme Court and a court system that\nbasically approves all of the executive branch\u2019s actions, domestic and foreign.\nThe Congress, especially the Republican-dominated Senate, is incapable of\noverriding the president. At this very moment, the Republicans in the Senate\nand the White House are conspiring to keep the House of Representatives from\nreclaiming the war powers that the constitution grants to Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That battle is but the small end of the sword, if you will. The\nbig end is that if we do go to war with Iran, for example, it will be without\nany congressional input, whatsoever. The latest disaster for the United States\nwill be perpetrated by the executive branch alone, without any accountability.\nThat is the degree to which the decision-making process with regard to war has\nbeen usurped by the president.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, saying that decision-making is centralized in the\nWhite House is not the entire story. That White House we see today was created\nby, and takes its marching orders from, a predatory and transnational\ncapitalist state where defense contractors, investment bankers, and hedge fund\nbillionaires call the shots. Then there is big oil, big food, and big energy.\nNeedless to say, having the decision-making so centralized makes it much easier\nfor the big money from these groups to have impact than would be the case if\ndecision-making were spread across the cabinet or across the government. Also,\nthere is no moment in the process when anyone asks what the national interest\nis, what the long-term implications are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pastreich:<\/em><\/strong> Let\u2019s come back to\nChina for a moment. What are the risks for America here?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Wilkerson:<\/strong> First,\nlet\u2019s consider what the role of the United States should be\u2014and, not just about\njuicy military budgets resulting from the China threat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These days the United States is just a disruptor in Asia, and an\nunintelligent disruptor at that. We swing from cooing \u201cI love you, Kim Jong Un\u201d\nto imposing vicious tariffs on Chinese goods to creating a major embarrassment\nfor Japanese Prime Minister Abe when he tried to help out with Iran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And most of us were shocked to see Trump mocking how Japanese\nspeak and how Koreans speak. That was the president of the United States! He\nwas not speaking to Prime Minister Abe or to President Moon, but to a racist\naudience at home and for strictly domestic political purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But to a certain degree the future role of the United States in\nEast Asia will be determined by power dynamics in the region as much as by U.S.\npolicy. Some Americans might want to stay, to be a hegemon in Northeast Asia\nforever. But that is not a sustainable policy. There is a desperate need for\nthe United States to find a middle ground, a course that preserves some\nessential American influence within a cooperative framework. The competition\nwith China, and other powers, is going to be substantial at all levels, and\nsimply painting China as a bogeyman is not going to do the trick.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, we need to go back to good old-fashioned diplomacy. That\nis more important than any fighter plane or missile. No state is going to fare\nwell in a hot war, or even in a new cold war. We need to use our creativity to\nshape a culture that supports arms treaties, disarmament, and peace in\ngeneral\u2014peaceful competition, if you will. And we must build an off-ramp that\nallows America to dismount the imperial train and steer away from global\nhegemony and towards global cooperation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Oddly enough, I think Trump is \u2013 very inexpertly, imperfectly,\nand probably unknowingly \u2013 digging out the foundations for such a new\ncollaborative order through his destructive fits. He calls into question the\nvalue of NATO, and the so-called deep state is immediately up in arms. So,\nalthough Trump may be doing many destructive things, he is also drawing\nattention to the anachronism that NATO has become post-Cold War. The alliance\nno longer has any purpose except to seek out trouble \u201cout of area\u201d to justify\nitself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We need to have the courage to discuss how we will bring back\nU.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula, and under what circumstances. We cannot\nconsider that discussion a taboo topic. We also need to use our imagination,\nand our commitment, to create a regional order that assures the continued\nsecurity of the Korean Peninsula without\nthat U.S. troop presence<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s be honest with ourselves. If the United States wants to\nmaintain its influence in East Asia, its needs plans to bring its troops back\nfrom other parts of East Asia, including Japan and particularly Okinawa. We\nwill be much better off if we take the initiative than if we are pushed out by\nsome disaster or another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And in terms of policy change, I am not just talking about\nsecurity issues. The United States today is flat-out bankrupt, with a $22\ntrillion debt. Annual interest payments on that debt added to the annual\nmilitary budget will zero-out all other discretionary federal spending in less\nthan a decade. We just did something unprecedented: we printed billions of\ndollars under the Quantitative Easing program with absolutely nothing behind\nthose dollars except the paper and ink on which they were printed. We have no\nearthly idea what such profligacy will produce in the future. We have new security\nchallenges like a changing climate and we had better start saving money, and\nlearning to respond to new security challenges, in a manner that does not\nrequire such an expensive military instrument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pastreich:<\/em><\/strong> How can the United\nStates fashion a different strategy for engaging with the world?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Wilkerson:<\/strong> Ambassador\nRichard Haass threw out the concept of \u201cintegration\u201d back in 2001 in his\ndiscussions with his Policy Planning staff. He thought that \u201cintegration\u201d was\nthe best one-word substitution for \u201ccontainment.\u201d For Haass, integration was a\nconcept that offered an alternative to globalization and its demand for\nunending expansion and extraction. Haass did not like the concept of\nglobalization, and I think he was right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Globalization has happened before, in the 1890s, for example.\nBut globalization brings contradictions and tensions that are dangerous. What\nis going on today goes beyond globalization. What we see happening today is\nintegration: integration of trade, integration of society, integration of\nculture. That integration is at times mean, disruptive, hateful, and dangerous,\nbut it\u2019s happening.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trade is where we observe the most profound integration. For\nexample, the United States cannot make a sophisticated piece of military\nequipment any longer without employing foreign components.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But Trump is heading in the opposite direction. He wants to take\napart trade agreements and institutions, to disintegrate, not to integrate,\ntrade. And he thinks that somehow the destruction of global institutions will\nsave \u201cwhite America.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Foreign Policy in Focus Interview with Lawrence Wilkerson \u201cAmerica\u2019s Rush Back to Nuclear Weapons\u201d September 5, 2019 Emanuel Pastreich Interview with Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell and current Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy in the Government Department of the College of William and Mary. Emanuel … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9296425,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[651,11788],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9402","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles","category-interview"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9402","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9296425"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9402"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9402\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9402"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9402"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9402"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}