Revisiting Reykjavik Revisited The 25th Anniversary of a Remarkable Meeting by RiChard rhodes PuliZTer-PriZe winner This year, 2011, marks the 25th and arms negotiator Max Kampelman by former Secretaries of State George anniversary of the astonishing meeting and Stanford University physicist Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former in Reykjavik, Iceland, in October 1986 and longstanding government adviser Secretary of Defense William Perry and between Soviet General Secretary Sidney Drell, discovered a common and former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn. Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President urgent concern with renewed nuclear Ronald Reagan. That meeting very peril. In particular, terrorist attacks by “Nuclear weapons today present nearly led to an agreement to begin the a sub-national group, al Qaeda, had tremendous dangers, but also an historic process of eliminating nuclear weapons raised the spectre of nuclear terrorism opportunity,” the editorial began. from the world. Ultimately the two undeterred by the threat of nuclear “U.S. leadership will be required to leaders were unable to agree, but both retaliation. There was uncertainty as take the world to the next stage—to a understood their negotiations to have well about how long the grand bargain solid consensus for reversing reliance been uniquely fruitful, as indeed they of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation on nuclear weapons globally as a were. “Seen by many as a failure,” Treaty would hold when the nuclear vital contribution to preventing their Gorbachev wrote later, the Reykjavik powers continued to shirk their proliferation into potentially dangerous Summit “actually gave an impetus to commitment to the non-nuclear hands, and ultimately ending them as a reduction by reaffirming the vision of powers to move expeditiously toward threat to the world.” a world without nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament. Shultz, Drell and by paving the way toward concrete Kampelman invited other former U.S. In a list of steps that would lay agreements on intermediate-range government officials to participate in their the groundwork for a world free of nuclear forces and strategic nuclear new initiative, and many responded. the nuclear threat, the statesmen also weapons.” The two-day meeting highlighted the importance of U.S. signalled as well the beginning of the Calling for a nuClear- ratification of the Comprehensive end of the Cold War. weaPon-free world Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) by: “Initiating a bipartisan process with Two decades later in 2006, with little Out of that effort came a conference, the Senate, including understandings movement toward nuclear elimination held at the Hoover Institution in to increase confidence and provide for in the intervening years, a core group Stanford, California, on the 20th periodic review, to achieve ratification of of American statesmen determined anniversary of the Reykjavik Summit. the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, taking to renew and advance the Reykjavik The findings of that conference were advantage of recent technical advances, vision. Former Reagan Secretary of summarized in an editorial in the Wall and working to secure ratification by State George Shultz, U.S. Ambassador Street Journal on 4 January 2007, signed other key states.” 20 CTBTO SPECTRUM 17 | SEPTEMBER 2011 President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev at the Reykjavik Summit, October 1986. Other editorials followed, along with the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral building a safer world concerted efforts by the four signatories William Crowe, former U.S. Ambassador for our Children to carry the message of urgency and arms negotiator Thomas Graham, to presidents and prime ministers Jr., historian Don Oberdorfer, physicist I wondered if there were other reasons throughout the world. In a joint op-ed Roald Sagdeev, U.S. National Security besides the threat of undeterrable published in The Wall Street Journal on Council non-proliferation expert Rose nuclear terrorism that had changed their 15 January 2008, the statesmen renewed Gottemoeller and many others. minds. As the opportunity arose during their call for a nuclear-weapon-free and after the conferences, I asked some world by supporting, among other I was surprised to hear Henry of them. The most common reason, I measures, the adoption of a process Kissinger acknowledge, at the end of the learned, was that the end of the Cold for bringing the CTBT into effect “… second conference, in a tone that seemed War and the dissolution of the Soviet which would strengthen the Nuclear more than pro forma, that he had learned Union had removed the threat of conflict Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a great deal across its two days: so had I. I with what had been a hostile nuclear aid international monitoring of nuclear was not surprised to see that former U.S. power. (Many Americans today believe activities.” Their friends dubbed them Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard that the United States has already “the Four Horsemen,” though they rode Perle, a prominent neoconservative eliminated its nuclear arsenal. That belief to oppose the apocalypse, not to deliver who had consistently worked to oppose is perhaps ill-informed, but it accurately it. Their work continues today, with nuclear disarmament, attended the first reflects an intuitive sense that the U.S. committed support from many national conference but not the second. nuclear arsenal’s primary purpose was to leaders including American President deter the U.S.S.R. from nuclear use, and Barack Obama. Many of the participants in the two vice versa. Russia clearly does not stand conferences had opposed moving toward in the same relationship to the United moVing beyond eliminating nuclear weapons during their States as the former Soviet Union did.) The Cold war active careers in government. Partly that was because their government service fell Some of those I spoke with As an historian affiliated with Stanford within the Cold War years, when both mentioned the great expense of University who has written at length the United States and the Soviet Union maintaining a nuclear arsenal, although about the development and international believed that their vast nuclear arsenals the American military has argued that politics of nuclear weapons, I had the protected them from nuclear attack. meeting the same objectives with privilege of attending both the October Partly the participants had served at the conventional forces will cost more 2006 conference and a second conference convenience of presidents who had been in annual appropriations than the held at Stanford University the following committed to maintaining large nuclear nuclear arsenal does. The argument year. It was encouraging to watch arsenals and had properly represented is questionable, since it’s difficult to and hear a small crowd of statesmen, their superiors' views. Partly as well they imagine any military objective for scientists and specialists debate the deep had understood the darker truth that which the United States—or any other problem of the continued existence of nuclear weapons had served to embody major nuclear power—would violate nuclear weapons in the world—men national prestige and to communicate the taboo that has held fast against and women such as former chairman of unmistakable national strength. nuclear use since 1945. The former French Consulate, the Höfði House, site of the Reykjavik Summit. Caption 21 CTBTO SPECTRUM 17 | SEPTEMBER 2011 President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev in front of the Höfði House, Reykjavik, Iceland, October 1986 the power of moral values embodied in the goals nations and communities of nations set for themselves. “Indeed,” Soviet Union on nuclear and space arms he said, “we in the U.S. understood the in Geneva from 1985 to 1989, coincident power of the ‘ought’ at a time when our with the Reykjavik Summit. Kampelman very existence as a nation was at stake. told me he helped initiate the Reykjavik Our founders established the Declaration Revisited project in 2006 because he was of Independence and our Constitution as worried about the security of the world clear goals for our nation—goals we have that his children and grandchildren would continually been working to achieve. inherit. He told me that with tears in his And they established these ‘oughts’ of eyes. I took him at his word. independence, freedom, and liberty in an atmosphere of slavery, second-class The ‘oughT’ of citizenship for women, and property sTabiliTy and PeaCe qualifications for voting. .The power of the ‘ought’ is great, warrants respect, It’s one thing to represent a government. and should not be minimized. Today, a It’s another to contemplate personally central theme of American foreign policy your responsibility for the world must be to move the ‘is’ of our present you have helped make. Kampelman global nuclear peril to a more hopeful understood that nuclear disarmament ‘ought’ of stability and peace. We must was a difficult challenge, perhaps the not minimize the pursuit of the ‘ought.’ most difficult challenge the international Our role must be to establish a civilized community has ever faced. As he said ‘ought’ for the human race. The abolition at the opening of the conference at of weapons of mass destruction now Stanford in 2007, he found inspiration must be central to that objective.” to pursue meeting that challenge in a surprising place. He had taught political Idealism is often dismissed as science before he entered government. impractical, even weak, as a motive A basic text he had used in his teaching force in international affairs. I found was An American Dilemma, the Swedish it hopeful that men and women economist and sociologist Gunnar with long experience of government Myrdal’s monumental 1944 report on service gave concrete expression to the state of race relations in the United the idealism of “ought.” They saw, States. In a word, they were ugly, with and see, the elimination of nuclear apartheid throughout the American South weapons as a goal worth working and a continuing plague of lynchings.