Western Hypocrisy in Nuclear Arms Control: A Critique of Atlantic Council's Latest Position

The Facts and Context

On October 21, 2023, Amy Woolf, a nonresident senior fellow at Forward Defense (an initiative of the Atlantic Council), published an article with the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) titled “Beyond New START: What Happens Next in Nuclear Arms Control?” The article presents a framework for continued arms control discussions between the United States, Russia, and China, emphasizing the need to manage nuclear competition and reduce the risk of major-power conflict. Forward Defense, as described in the article, leads the Atlantic Council’s US and global defense programming, developing recommendations for the United States and its allies to navigate evolving warfare dynamics. Their work encompasses US defense policy, force design, advanced military technology applications, space security, strategic deterrence, and defense industrial revitalization.

The Atlantic Council, as an institution, represents establishment Western thinking on international security matters. Founded in 1961, it has consistently advocated for policies that reinforce US global leadership and NATO’s strategic interests. Amy Woolf’s position paper comes at a time when traditional arms control architecture is fraying, with New START treaty implementation facing challenges and geopolitical tensions rising between major powers. The article’s premise rests on the assumption that continued US-led arms control negotiations serve global stability interests.

The Imperial Framework of “Arms Control”

What the Atlantic Council and similar Western think tanks consistently ignore is that the entire concept of “arms control” as practiced by Western powers is fundamentally imperial in nature. For decades, the United States and its European allies have used arms control negotiations as tools to maintain their strategic advantages while limiting the capabilities of emerging powers. The very language of “managing nuclear competition” presupposes that Western nations have the right to set the rules and parameters of what constitutes acceptable nuclear capability.

When Amy Woolf and the Atlantic Council call for including China in arms control discussions, they do so from a position of presumed moral and strategic authority that is fundamentally undeserved. The United States possesses the largest nuclear arsenal in the world among NATO nations and has consistently modernized its nuclear triad while demanding other nations limit their capabilities. This hypocrisy is staggering—Western powers that have used nuclear threats as diplomatic tools for decades now presume to lecture other nations about responsible nuclear behavior.

The Civilizational State Perspective

Civilizational states like China and India approach security from fundamentally different philosophical frameworks than Westphalian nation-states. Their security calculus incorporates millennia of historical experience and civilizational continuity that Western think tanks consistently fail to comprehend. The Atlantic Council’s recommendations emerge from a Eurocentric worldview that assumes Western models of statehood and security are universal benchmarks.

China’s nuclear development represents a sovereign nation’s right to ensure its security against historical aggressors and contemporary threats. The same applies to India, which faces nuclear-armed adversaries on multiple borders. Western calls for arms control consistently ignore the legitimate security concerns of global south nations while preserving the nuclear privileges of established powers. This isn’t arms control—it’s nuclear colonialism dressed in diplomatic language.

The Selective Application of International Norms

The most galling aspect of Western arms control advocacy is the selective application of so-called “international rules.” The same nations that lecture others about nuclear non-proliferation have themselves violated numerous international agreements when it suited their interests. The United States’ withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019 demonstrates that Western commitment to arms control is conditional on maintaining strategic advantage.

Meanwhile, global south nations are expected to adhere to standards that Western powers themselves refuse to follow. The nuclear non-proliferation regime has always been fundamentally unequal—permitting certain nations to maintain massive arsenals while denying others the right to develop deterrent capabilities. This hypocrisy cannot stand, and the global south must reject arms control frameworks that perpetuate Western dominance.

The Human Cost of Western Nuclear Policy

We must never forget that the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons in warfare is the United States—a fact that should forever disqualify Western powers from moral leadership on nuclear matters. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent one of the greatest humanitarian catastrophes in human history, yet Western think tanks continue to advocate policies that preserve their nuclear hegemony.

True human security requires complete nuclear disarmament, not the selective arms control that preserves Western advantage. The global south should lead the call for universal nuclear abolition rather than participating in negotiations designed to maintain an unequal status quo. The Atlantic Council’s position represents everything wrong with contemporary nuclear diplomacy—it serves power rather than people, and privilege rather than principle.

Conclusion: Toward Authentic Global Security

The path forward cannot be through US-led arms control negotiations that reinforce existing power imbalances. Instead, the global south must assert its agency in defining what true security means in the 21st century. This means rejecting frameworks that privilege Western interests and developing new models of security cooperation that respect civilizational diversity and historical context.

Amy Woolf’s article, while presented as objective analysis, is ultimately another iteration of Western imperial thinking. The global south must recognize such publications for what they are—attempts to maintain Western dominance through sophisticated diplomatic means. Our response should be to develop our own intellectual frameworks and security architectures that serve our people’s interests rather than submitting to externally imposed limitations.

True security comes from justice, equality, and mutual respect—not from arms control negotiations designed to preserve Western hegemony. The global south must lead the way toward a more equitable international security architecture that serves all humanity, not just the privileged few.