Nuclear Weapons a Non-Issue at Democratic Presidential Debate

Not a big night for nuclear weapons or nonproliferation issues at last night’s CNN/YouTube Democratic presidential debate. Actually, it wasn’t much of a night for international issues generally, with Darfur, the Iraq war, possibly meeting the leaders of unfriendly countries, and global warming being the only non-domestic questions asked (save a discussion on Mike Gravel’s comments on the Vietnam War).

Below is the question regarding possibly meeting with leaders of countries unfriendly to the U.S. and the responses given by Obama, Clinton, and Edwards – the only three candidates asked to respond. Long story short, Obama would meet the leaders of unfriendly countries; Clinton might meet with them after a vigorous diplomatic effort; and Edwards would meet with them after a similar diplomatic effort.

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

COOPER: Senator Edwards, would you meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il?

EDWARDS: Yes, and I think actually Senator Clinton's right though. Before that meeting takes place, we need to do the work, the diplomacy, to make sure that that meeting's not going to be used for propaganda purposes, will not be used to just beat down the United States of America in the world community.

But I think this is just a piece of a bigger question, which is, what do we actually do? What should the president of the United States do to restore America's moral leadership in the world. It's not enough just to lead with bad leaders. In addition to that, the world needs to hear from the president of the United States about who we are, what it is we represent. … That, in fact, we believe in equality, we believe in diversity, that they are at the heart and soul of what the United States of America is.

The candidates did, however, also briefly discuss nuclear energy, which is relevant to the discussion on reprocessing, an issue that has serious nonproliferation concerns. Below are excerpted responses by Edwards, Obama, and Clinton – again, the only three candidates asked to respond. (Full responses are available here.) Long story short, Edwards expressed concern over nuclear energy; Obama cautiously embraced it; and Clinton was noncommittal.

EDWARDS: I do not favor nuclear power. We haven't built a nuclear power plant in decades in this country. There is a reason for that. The reason is it is extremely costly. It takes an enormous amount of time to get one planned, developed and built. And we still don't have a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste. It is a huge problem for America over the long term.

OBAMA: I actually think that we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix. There are no silver bullets to this issue. We have to develop solar. I have proposed drastically increasing fuel efficiency standards on cars, an aggressive cap on the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted.

CLINTON: I'm agnostic about nuclear power. John is right, that until we figure out what we're going to do with the waste and the cost, it's very hard to see nuclear as a part of our future. But that's where American technology comes in. Let's figure out what we're going to do about the waste and the cost if we think nuclear should be a part of the solution.

But perhaps the best moment of the evening came when each candidate was asked to look at the candidate to his or her left and tell the audience one thing he or she likes and dislikes about that particular candidate. Dennis Kucinich, the last in the row of candidates, responded, “You notice what CNN did. They didn't put anybody to the left of me. Think about it.”