Later this month, a rare event in international politics occurs: heads of state will gather for a summit-level meeting of the United Nations Security Council.  Set to begin on September 24th, it will be only the fifth such meeting in the history of the Council.  And, it will be the first-ever time the Council is chaired by the President of the United States.  In a press release, Ambassador Rice stated the purpose of the meeting:

The session will focus on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any particular countries. Key areas to be highlighted will include arms control and nuclear disarmament, strengthening the NPT regime, and denying and disrupting trafficking in and the securing of nuclear materials. We are consulting with colleagues on a potential product for that session, and will keep you posted as that evolves.

Is this a cause for concern?  It damn well could be.  Consider that the President will be leading a summit of global heads of state in the part of the UN whose actions are binding (well, sort-of), and with the tide of the Senate in his favor, the two-thirds majority requirement to approve the treaty to make it “the supreme law of the land” would only take a handful of weak Republicans.  Considering the President’s own stated views on nuclear disarmament, we need to keep an eye on this.  Let me remind you of his views in his own words:

Note that he would ban production of fissile materials, which will, over time, mean that our nuclear capability either degrades or down-sizes.  He advocates dramatic decreases in our nuclear arsenal because he thinks it will “avoid giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse.”  He blatantly ignores the fact that the world works on cold calculation, not the kind of fuzzy moral leadership he advocates.  Emerging nuclear powers won’t be swayed to give up their programs out of some moral obligation based on America’s supposed “leadership” in nuclear disarmament, in fact, they’re more likely to pursue such programs knowing the US is less of a factor. 

So here the President is, chairing a council of heads of state, talking about nuclear disarmament.  What will the President do?  His own stated views of what should be done, notably US disarmament, have massive implications, and threaten the very structure of the defense of the free world.  Think of the nations whose security is guaranteed by our nuclear forces, thus not needing to employ their own weapons programs—free, prosperous nations like Japan, South Korea, and many of the nations of NATO.  The global economy and our very way of life depend on the security of free nations, which is why we have historically maintained such an arsenal.

It’s a sad trend that is often attributed to the left, but the right sure has its isolationist elements that could give a damn about employing American resources to defend free people abroad.  The President apparently doesn’t realize that American strategic dominance has been the global protector of free people.  Our massive stockpile ensures we will always have the advantage over any foe of our way of life that challenges it.  President Obama’s naive vision of a nuclear-free world won’t “make the world safe for democracy,” it will make it far more dangerous and unpredictable.