Rhianna Tyson Kreger 2014-12-27T15:20:22-05:00 Rhianna Tyson Kreger http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=rhianna-tyson-kreger Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Rhianna Tyson Kreger Good old fashioned elbow grease. From Chaos, a New Security Order tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.5617896 2014-07-25T08:55:08-04:00 2014-09-24T05:59:07-04:00 Rhianna Tyson Kreger http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rhianna-tyson-kreger/
The ability to predict outcomes decreases as a system's complexity increases. If we have a gas in a container and remove 10 percent of its molecules, it is likely that we will observe little change: it will still remain gas in a container. But, if we take a complex system, such as a human body, and take away 10 percent of its molecules, the entire system will be dramatically, unpredictably, changed. The system is just too complex.

Our human-inhabited planet is similarly just too complex. When you add not just the reality of chaos, but the inevitability of human fallibility and errors (after all, anything created by humans can be no more perfect than we are), we must conclude that the systems we set up to manage our affairs will be increasingly unpredictable as they increase in complexity.

Seemingly dormant yet pervasive within our chaotic, fallible, unpredictable world order is the continued existence of more than 16,000 nuclear weapons, many of which are on high-alert status, with much fissionable material remaining insufficiently secured and vulnerable to theft or misuse. These twentieth century relics constitute nothing short of an existential threat to humanity. (See, if you dare, Eric Schlosser's sickening compendium of the accidental, unauthorized, and inadvertent use of U.S. nuclear weapons. Warning: you may not sleep so well tonight.)

To address this existential threat, there are two paths before us: one path attempts to improve the management of the stockpiles, and, along the way, summon piecemeal cooperation from Russia (and, later, China and other nuclear powers) to incrementally bean count our way down to lower numbers of weapons. This approach is predicated on another relic of the last century: the paradigm of "strategic stability," whereby two sides inspire a delicate balance of fear of the other, just enough to keep them afraid of using their nukes, lest it provoke the other side to use theirs. Each hard-fought, hard-won, incremental reduction remains at the mercy of the next unpredictable swing of the chaos pendulum: how will the next crisis du jour -- be it an Edward Snowden, a Ukrainian revolution, or an Arctic trade route dispute -- affect cooperation and our security?

We could take a different path. We could finally relegate to the dustbin of history the concept that American security requires a goodly amount of Russian insecurity (or Chinese, or Indian, or Brazilian, etc.). We could face the very real, indisputable, twenty-first century reality that our security is interminably intertwined with everyone else's who shares our planet. The existential threats posed by rising sea levels, warming climes, pandemic diseases, cyber (in)security, and nuclear weaponry are inarguably global. No single state can unilaterally address these issues successfully. Nor should progress on them be held hostage by inevitable, unpredictable crises.

Cooperation to successfully address shared global threats -- environmental, health, and economic -- is a necessity, not an option.

One hundred years ago, heir to the empire of Austria and Hungary, Archduke Ferdinand, was suddenly shot and killed in Sarajevo when his car coincidentally took an unexpected wrong turn, placing it directly in front of his nineteen-year-old assassin, Gavrillo Princip, who was casually standing in front of Moritz Schiller's delicatessen. This unpredictable event plunged Europe -- and eventually, the rest of us -- into the largest, bloodiest conflict the world had yet known. Today, the world is even more complex, more automated, and far more deadly than it was in 1914.

Unpredictable events are inevitable. Their effects on our future are unknowable. This is physics, this is fact, reality. The precarious ability of outmoded concepts of security to manage the fall-out from such events is insufficient. It is time to embrace the reality of the twenty-first century, to stop pretending our security requires the insecurity of others, and usher in a new cycle of trust and collaboration befit for our globalized, chaotic world.]]>
The Meaning of Iran's Nuclear Weapon Program tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1527515 2012-05-18T15:06:17-04:00 2012-07-18T05:12:06-04:00 Rhianna Tyson Kreger http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rhianna-tyson-kreger/
It is also about prestige, and it is also about respect, both of which Iran believes it is entitled to, and neither of which it feels it sufficiently has.

Remember that Iranians are the inheritors of the great Persian civilization, of cultural treasures such as famed Persian poetry and paintings, jaw-dropping architectural feats and, today, thirteen UNESCO World Heritage sites. From the dynasties of Achaemenid (550 BC) to Safayid (1722 AD), Persian empires once stretched from the Indus River to the Mediterranean Sea.

Fast forward nearly a millennium, and the descendents of this once mighty empire find their nation listed on the "Axis of Evil" by the world's most powerful country, which then proceeds to invade and occupy a neighboring country, also on that Axis. Remember also that this same invading country, not half a century before, had overthrown Iranians' democratically elected leader and replaced him with an unpopular monarch whose repressive regime sowed the seeds for the eventual takeover of power by an oligarchy of different, yet arguably no less ruthless, despots.

To develop a nuclear weapon requires a country's smartest scientists and a chunk of its wealth. The five Permanent Members of the Security Council have them, in droves. What greater demonstration of a country's resources, both human and capital, than the development of a nuclear weapon? If the world won't give Iran the respect its Persian forbears merit, then they will solicit the respect by other means, seemingly, necessary.

Nuclear weapon-yielding countries have tried -- and continue to try -- to persuade Iran to relinquish its nuclear capabilities by promising that they would enrich uranium for them. This solution, of course, is premised on the acceptance of Iran's dubious claim that it seeks nuclear power only. It is also premised on Iran's faith in promises made by countries that have overthrown their regime in the past, and which are possibly plotting similarly, if less overtly, today.

It does not help, of course, for Iran's president to find it domestically useful to lambast against the West's staunchest ally in the region and calling for its destruction, however vaguely veiled the rhetoric, or its translation, may be. It is certain, no matter how shocking or unbelievable this may seem to war-weary Israelis, that the Israel element is not a driving motivator in Iran's nuclear weapon program. It's just a handy distraction.

Quasi-red herrings such as the Iranian nuclear energy program, or Israel's nuclear weapons capability, prevent us from finding a solution to this impasse, since they obfuscate the core objectives of Iran's program: respect and prestige, from which influence and prosperity flow.

It is a dastardly shame, a mark of our collective embarrassment that, over 60 years since the destruction of Hiroshima, and nearly 40 years since countries agreed, by law, to eliminate them, nuclear weapons are still perceived as the best guarantor of respect, prestige and influence. This is the fault of the only five legal nuclear weapon possessors, whose membership in the closed nuclear club is the only consistent commonality behind their shared, coveted permanent seats on the Security Council.

With full, cognizant recognition that nuclear weapons are genocidal, ecocidal and, to a high degree, suicidal, it is time that world leaders heed the desperate calls from their populaces and find another, more modern and useful source of national prestige and respect.

It is possible that such 21st century leadership will not emanate from the same corners of the world that led the 20th century down such a horrifically self-destructive course. The countries that lead the way in renewable energy systems, in innovative education and technology, will express the insights, priorities and values that will earn it the respect of peoples the world over.

Nearly ten years of political posturing, both within Iran and without, over the Iranian nuclear weapon issue, have layered the issue with a multitude of complicating factors. For Iran to give up its program now would result in the exact opposite of its primary goal; Iran's "capitulation" to the West would amount to losing face, not garnering respect.

The onus is perhaps on the peace-loving, forward-looking, globalized youth, whose own values and behaviors are free, in ways unprecedented from past generations, from provincial dictates and norms, enabled by, of course, the much-heralded new arsenal of social media tools. The Twitter revolutionaries of Egypt and Tunisia found global respect and admiration, not from their wielding 1950s technology or their savvy use of force. Until the leaders of all countries learn that respect and power no longer stem from the antiquated vectors of yesteryear, we may continue to ignore the true impetus of Iran's nuclear program, at our collective peril.]]>
Wisdom or Fatal Folly tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.836185 2011-03-15T22:45:13-04:00 2011-05-25T18:40:24-04:00 Rhianna Tyson Kreger http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rhianna-tyson-kreger/
Fast food, fast profits, and other modern gifts to the world ultimately will not health or security make. There should be no flag waving for the "Whopper" or the bacon-wrapped fried chicken known as the "Double Down". However the folly and arrogance of nuclear energy is in a league of its own.

Not one new nuclear energy plant has opened in the US since the 1979 disaster at Three Mile Island. Yet despite the environmental and security risks posed by nuclear energy facilities, the US continues to support their development elsewhere. For example, in derogation of a core bargain of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) that, with the exception of the US, China, Russia, UK, and France, only countries renouncing the development of nuclear weapons should gain the so called benefits of nuclear energy, the US government advances the economic interests of the nuclear industry by supporting nuclear energy deals with India, a country which has developed a robust nuclear arsenal and refuses to join the NPT. Not only is this folly, but it is an arrogant folly.

Nuclear energy plants, like nuclear weapons systems, do not forgive mistakes of judgment, of mechanical error, or simple human negligence. Still, in the face of dire warnings to the dangers of nuclear power, humans continue to build nuclear energy plants and nuclear weapon systems, convinced that no mistakes will be made. How easily we forget a truism when greed and the quest for power intoxicate our reason: systems are only as foolproof as the humans that create them.

The crisis in Japan is just the most recent tragedy to befall the nuclear age. There is perhaps no other country with more sophisticated nuclear facilities, with more safety checks and backup systems in place. Yet mistakes were made. Hearts all over the world reach out in sympathy for the suffering of the people of Japan. The extent of the catastrophe in Japan is not yet known, nor will it be known for quite some time, as radioactive isotopes could linger in the air, water and soil long after the reactors finally cool. However, the cost is already too dear.

Reality demonstrates that it is supreme arrogance to think that we will not make mistakes of judgment, that machines will not err or that human negligence can be avoided. In fact, only God does not make mistakes. Acting as if we were God is nothing short of blasphemy.

The tragedy in Japan is a strong and deplorable wake-up call to stop this arrogant nuclear folly. Should the warnings of nuclear weapons opponents be as crassly ignored as those from nuclear power opponents, the consequences could be unthinkable. There have already been far too many computer and human errors nearly triggering nuclear exchanges for any informed person to rest easy. President Obama has wisely advocated that the US should lead in global efforts to abolish nuclear weapons.

We are not perfect and all that we create reflects our imperfections. We thus must not make imperfect devices that can destroy so much precious life. That is wisdom that we can be proud to export.]]>
START-ing a New Security tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.800440 2010-12-23T16:00:14-05:00 2011-05-25T18:20:30-04:00 Rhianna Tyson Kreger http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rhianna-tyson-kreger/
Indeed, the new agreement which limits both countries' arsenals to no more than 1,550 deployed warheads is an important step in President Obama's "Prague Agenda," a roadmap towards his vision of a nuclear weapon-free world (a vision he shared, by the way, with President Reagan and countless former cabinet members like Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara, William Perry, Colin Powell... you get the idea). Ironically, however, in the focused frenzy to secure this step, we may have dug potholes along the Road to Prague.

Nuclear disarmament, after all, is not a zero-sum game. Its not just about getting rid of a certain type of weapon that is arguably genocidal, ecocidal and suicidal. Disarmament is a process, not an occurrence, a confidence-building project to build the legal, technical and political infrastructure that will comprise a truly cooperative security regime. This is what Prague was about.

But in the fight for START, its detractors distorted the debate. This modest arms reduction treaty -- and it is modest; 1,550 warheads can still blow up the planet, many times over--has been framed by them not as a part of the disarmament process and infrastructure that make us all safer, now, but instead as another means by which to sustain military dominance through our nuclear arsenal. The last arguments from some START supporters had conceded the opposition's objectives: from agreeing to bloated nuclear "modernization" budgets to assurances for ill-advised missile defense systems, START, some proponents argued, will not stand in the way of these cornerstones of militarism and dominance. The point goes to our team, but the game may have gone to Kyl's.

Politics is the art of the possible, I'm told, and unsavory compromises are part and parcel of Getting Things Done in Washington. But if the purpose of START wasn't just START itself, but rather a re-start of a process towards a cooperative security regime, does today's ratification fulfill the intended purpose? How will the Duma -- the Russian house of parliament charged with ratifying treaties -- react, having followed the American debate and the assurances that the US will plough ahead with missile defense systems? What will be the effect of the "modernization" budget, which promises an unjustifiable $85 billion for new warheads, on the quest to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? What we thought were compromises for START may in the end prove to have compromised the real agenda.

Or not. The hugely important verification systems that START will maintain are indeed helping to build the cooperative infrastructure that a verified nuclear weapons-free world will require. Cooperating on these mutual verification checks will build trust between the US and Russia and could portend effective cooperation on other security challenges, such as nuclear terrorism or Iran. Ratifying START also demonstrates that, despite our growing political polarization, we can still muster bipartisan cooperation on the most important matters of security, just as we've always done on issues of arms control. So for now let us all agree to shelve these misgivings and fortify our commitment to advancing security-enhancing disarmament, and raise a glass in solidarity with our DC colleagues: here's to the START of renewed momentum on the Road to Prague.
Countdown to Zero: A Compelling Film With a Critical Message tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.665873 2010-07-30T18:35:45-04:00 2011-05-25T17:15:21-04:00 Rhianna Tyson Kreger http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rhianna-tyson-kreger/ An Inconvenient Truth, galvanized public discourse--and action--surrounding climate change. Teamed up with policy expert Bruce Blair and Writer-Director Lucy Walker (Devil's Playground, Blindsight) they created the newly released Countdown to Zero, which unequivocally argues that, whether by accident, malicious intent of "terrorists" or as a result of failed diplomacy, nuclear weapons pose an unacceptable risk and must be eliminated.

While scores of arms control and disarmament civil society groups are deeply inspired by the mass consciousness-raising and mobilization opportunity the film presents, many disarmament activists are vocally disappointed with the film. They are concerned that the film overemphasizes the hazard of sub-state actors acquiring these weapons of terror and places insufficient responsibility upon countries like the US and Russia for their continued reliance on-- and dangerous posture of-- nuclear weapons.

Countdown to Zero makes the case for abolition without employing the moral arguments eloquently posited by luminaries such as Albert Schweitzer, or Cold Warrior George Kennan, who once stated:

The readiness to use nuclear weapons against other human beings - against people we do not know, whom we have never seen, and whose guilt or innocence is not for us to establish - and, in doing so, to place in jeopardy the natural structure upon which all civilization rests, as though the safety and perceived interests of our own generation were more important than everything that has taken place or could take place in civilization: this is nothing less than a presumption, a blasphemy, an indignity- an indignity of monstrous dimensions - offered to God!

Indeed the film omits many valid arguments highly relevant to advancing to the security of a world without nuclear weapons:

1) The continued possession of nuclear weapons--which by itself entails a threat to use them--instigates others to acquire them. As UN High Representative Sergio Duarte said, "One cannot worship at the altar of nuclear weapons and raise heresy charges against those who want to join the sect."

2) It is necessary to uphold the rule of law by fulfilling the unanimous ruling of the International Court of Justice wherein the Court held " ...there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control"

3) Because nuclear weapons, in the words of the late Senator Alan Cranston, are "unworthy of civilization," it is imperative as a matter of conscience to address their moral impropriety.

4) We should not overlook the injustice and destabilizing impact of the extraordinary economic expenditures wasted on nuclear weapons and outrageous allocations within nuclear weapons-states to modernize their arsenals - a burlesque expression of improved means to unimproved ends.

5) This is the moment to utilize the political high ground opened by the Five Point Plan set forth by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon which includes, inter alia, a "call for the (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) NPT parties to pursue negotiations in good faith - as required by the treaty - on nuclear disarmament, either through a new convention or through a series of mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification."

6) Every citizen has a right to demand compliance with the commitments stated as "The reaffirmation by the nuclear-weapon States of their unequivocal undertaking to accomplish, in accordance with the principle of irreversibility, the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all States parties are committed under Article VI of the Treaty," as stipulated in the 2010 Final Document of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, agreed to by 189 countries that are parties to the NPT, and the important diplomatic processes that are necessary to achieve that goal.

Do such omissions weaken the core argument of the film? Do they dilute the film's efficacy as a public outreach and engagement tool? Hardly. Rather, it is the responsibility of civil society groups and concerned citizens to seize the opportunity of this powerful, mass-distributed major motion film arguing for abolition and supplement the film's message by drawing attention to these various initiatives and remonstrations.

Of course nuclear proponents could try to use the film for their own nefarious ends by focusing singularly on the dangers of terrorists or unfriendly states getting a hold of the weapons, arguing that military force can prevent such proliferation. Such people brought the US into a war in Iraq by simply telling lies. Will they try to distort the message of this film? Possibly. However, this possibility should only motivate abolition-minded civil society members to redouble our efforts and help amplify the movie's unambiguous concluding message: that abolition is the only way, and we will achieve it with engaged, public support.

The film's core message is compelling, effectively presented and unambiguous: the only way to address the nuclear threat of nuclear weapons is through their elimination. Towards this end, it calls for incremental threat-reducing steps, such as bringing the new US-Russia Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty into force, taking the weapons off of high alert status, lowering the numbers of existing warheads and obtaining a universal, legal, intrusive, and enforceable agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Russia, the United States and China already have pronounced modernization programs in place, to say nothing of the more shrouded programs by the "unofficial" nuclear weapon states of Israel, India and Pakistan. The politics of turning these programs around will require a shift in the characterization of nuclear weapons: that they are a greater problem than any problem they seek to solve. This is the message of Countdown to Zero. This shift will require all of us to speak up, mobilize public opinion and, as captioned in the last frame of the movie "Demand Zero"!

Jonathan Granoff is the President of the Global Security Institute (GSI). Rhianna Tyson Kreger is a Senior Officer at GSI. See: www.gsinstitute.org.

This post originally appeared on the Tikkun blog.]]>
Rethinking Israeli Security tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.611204 2010-06-14T11:44:22-04:00 2011-05-25T16:45:26-04:00 Rhianna Tyson Kreger http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rhianna-tyson-kreger/
The willingness of Israel to use overwhelming force isn't best exemplified by the flotilla incident, but rather another development that got lost in the entrails of recent headlines. A summit at the UN--in which Israel did not take part--called for a meeting in the Middle East to craft steps towards a verifiable, legally-enforceable ban on weapons of mass destruction. Israel, which is all but known to have a sizable nuclear arsenal, most likely won't take part in that conference, either. Such reticence will be perilous.

Nuclear weapons can obliterate a nation. Today's nukes, after all, are not like the ones that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as horrific as those 15 kiloton weapons were, as lasting as their damage has proven. Modern nuclear weapons are smaller, far more accurate and pack a much bigger punch: 15 thousand tons of TNT yield compared to many in the million ton range, devices that defy imagination in their destructive capacity.

There is perhaps no nation on Earth as acutely aware of the possibility of obliteration as Israel. Thousands of years of persecution, countless pogroms and a Holocaust, followed by the past 60 years of regional conflict with our immediate neighbors. For us, annihilation isn't an abstract concept. It's our history, and for those of us living in the State of Israel, the unthinkable is our daily reality.

Ensuring security is the paramount concern. We risk that which we hold dear--good relations with our friends, economic prosperity for our children--when we feel our security is in peril. We take no chances; we cannot afford otherwise. A weapon of mass destruction in the port of Newark would wreak unimaginable horror on the US eastern seaboard. A weapon of mass destruction in the port of Jaffa would end Israel.

The decision to develop nuclear weapons in Israel was not taken lightly. Indeed, the founding fathers debated it furiously, and the mission proceeded in secrecy from even the most powerful officials. We risked everything: we diverted our precious national resources--human and financial--from building our nascent State to advancing the nuclear program. Like the Biblical Samson, we were given one last chance at strength before facing the hungry lions. Like Samson, we were willing to take down our enemies if it meant avoiding death on their terms. Never again, went the tacit understanding, will we be led like lambs to the slaughter.

It is ironic, then, that the weapon in which we invested so heavily, upon which we relied so entirely as our "ultimate insurance" is the source of our greatest insecurity today. Beyond Iran's potential weapons, the threat of "loose nukes"--weapons and materials stolen during the dissolution of the Soviet Union--is a grave problem that no nation can ignore. Still, two decades after the end of the Cold War and the risk of accidental launch of the dozens of thousands of nuclear weapons that remain in the arsenals of the US and Russia persists. Weapons are on high alert, fissile material remains inadequately protected and destroyed, and accidents or theft seems inevitable.

Israel's own nukes, like, ostensibly, all nuclear arsenals, exist as a deterrent; in other words, the threat of their use negates the actual need to use them, or so went the Cold War argument. Yet such a theory of deterrence requires predictability, rationality and cross-cultural transparency, with a zero margin of error, ingredients that do not and most likely will not exist in the Middle East.

Therefore, as a Jew and as a staunch supporter of Israel, I support the abolition of nuclear weapons. I believe that the only way to address the threat posed to all of humanity by nuclear weapons is through their phased elimination, a collective process whereby the confidence built through taking each step enables us to take the next small step. Moreover, the verification system needed to make sure they do not get into the hands of sub-state actors will be obtained far more rapidly in a cooperative environment based on universal legal norms.

The abolition process does not require unilateral disarmament. The relations between states and peoples is marked by far too much distrust and hostility. Nuclear weapons, which can destroy civilization, are the most burlesque example of this dysfunctional behavior amongst peoples, our inability to solve conflicts diplomatically and our willingness to resort to violence. Nukes are an affront to humanity and, therefore, to God. However, the existing heightened level of distrust and hostility is such that abolishing nuclear weapons unilaterally could render us susceptible to attack against those who seek to perpetuate violence against us. Yet still, we know that security through violence is unsustainable. So long as nuclear weapons exist, we are threatened, and insecurity prevails.

While we cannot be so bold as to predict what the process looks like each step of the way, we do know what the first steps entail: deeper reductions between the largest arsenals of the US and Russia, a global prohibition on nuclear testing and the production of fissile materials. Each step taken makes us safer, immediately. Moreover, as we collectively take each small step, our confidence in such cooperative action grows, making the next step easier to take.

Engaging in an international process that builds confidence by Israel and in Israel to work cooperatively with other nations will help addressing other shared goals. Will it solve the issue of a Palestinian state? Of course not. Will the cooperation engendered through this process facilitate greater possibilities with our neighbors to do so? Inevitably. For starters, it could be a backdoor towards recognition, a necessary step within any peace process or regional security talks.

Israelis' heightened sense of threats to insecurity will remain; 6,000 years is hard to shake off. The process towards abolition does not diminish our vigilance; the IDF remains as strong as ever, El Al continues with its groundbreaking security measures. For a nation that sometimes sees no plausible route towards peace with its neighbors, Israeli participation in the nuclear abolition process provides, quite possibly, the best path towards cooperation and engagement.

Jewish ingenuity helped create the weapon that is now the greatest threat to our survival. We did not endure 6,000 years to be annihilated by our own invention. Let it also be Jewish brilliance, leadership, and morality that contribute towards the liberation of all humanity from the Damocles sword of nuclear weapons. ]]>