Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

New U.S.-Russia Nuclear Deal

The new U.S.-Russia nuclear agreement, hailed as one of President Obama's most significant foreign policy accomplishments, will continue the gradual reduction of the two countries’ nuclear stockpiles.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Inter Press Service

When U.S. President Barack Obama accepted his Nobel Peace Prize last fall he said, “I’m working with [Russian] President [Dmitri] Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.” Three and a half months later, that work has come to fruition.

In a telephone call last Friday, Medvedev and Obama finalised a successor treaty to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) that expired in December.

The accord will continue the gradual reduction of the former Cold War powers’ nuclear stockpiles that has been mandated by a series of treaties since the early 1990s.

It is being hailed as one of Obama’s most significant foreign policy accomplishments thus far and, coming just days after his most significant domestic achievement – health care reform – caps a victorious week for the president.

But like health care, the road to a new 10-year arms reduction accord was longer than expected.

This road began nearly a year ago when Obama laid out his vision of a nuclear weapon-free world in a speech in Prague. It will come full circle on Apr. 8 when a signing ceremony for the new START will likewise be held in the Czech capital, a year and three days after Obama’s speech there.

With the treaty negotiations now in the rear-view mirror, attention will turn to ratifying the treaty and to the implications it may have for a future Russia-U.S. partnership on nuclear nonproliferation.

Both the U.S. Senate and Russian Duma will need to ratify the accord, and in order to reach the two-thirds majority needed for ratification Obama will need the support of some Republicans.

Some in that party had criticised the treaty negotiations, citing their opposition to any concessions to Russia limiting the U.S.’s ability to implement missile defence programmes.

Multiple U.S. government officials said Friday the accord would set no constraints on missile defence. Russia had wanted missile defence included in a new treaty while the U.S. had wanted only offensive systems included, and the disagreement was a large reason the two sides were not able to agree on a new accord before the old START expired Dec. 5.

In its final version, the accord will recognise the dispute over missile defence, but not restrict the U.S.’s ability to build and expand such systems. Russia has reserved the right to pull out from the treaty if it feels threatened by U.S. missile defence systems, such as the planned missile defence shield in Europe.

Secretary of Defence Robert Gates explained, “The reductions in this treaty will not affect the strength of our nuclear triad. Nor does this treaty limit plans to protect the United States and our allies by improving and deploying missile defence systems.”

He said the “prospects are quite good” for Senate ratification.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton likewise expected bipartisan support for the treaty, though she would not set any timetables.

“It’s in America’s interest in the particulars of this treaty and it’s in America’s interest because it puts us in a very strong leadership position to make the case about an Iran, about a North Korea, about other countries doing more to safeguard nuclear materials,” she said.

Officials said the treaty would mean Russia would join the U.S. as a partner in this leadership position.

Obama cited other efforts on which the former rivals have cooperated over the past couple years and, in terms of nuclear nonproliferation, said, “We are working together to pressure Iran to meet its international obligations.”

The breakthrough in the new START negotiations is assumed to have occurred when the two presidents last spoke by phone on Mar. 13.

The accord will call for a reduction in nuclear warheads on deployed missiles and rockets from the 2,200 now allowed to 1,500 for each country. This reduction will take place within seven years of the date the treaty enters into force. It will also lower the limit of the deployed and non-deployed missiles, rockets and bombers that transport the warheads to 800 total.

The original START, signed Jul. 31, 1991, resulted in a 40-percent reduction in the countries’ arms.

The new limits on nuclear warheads represent a 74 percent reduction from that treaty’s limits and 30 percent from the Moscow Treaty of 2002.

The Obama administration is expected to seek further reductions in arms stockpiles later on.

Speaking of the very long-term, Clinton said, “We have a vision, a long-term vision, of moving toward a world without nuclear weapons…. So you have to look at this as part of our whole approach toward non-proliferation.”

The signing ceremony for the new START accord will come just days before a nuclear summit to be held in Washington beginning Apr. 12. A review conference of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) is set for the following month.

The Obama administration is expected to use these events to increase pressure on countries that are accused of violating the NPT’s ban on the spread of nuclear weapons. The START negotiations, therefore, are widely seen as directly related to Washington’s efforts to pressure Iran and North Korea to end their nuclear programmes.

For the foreseeable future, though, the vast majority of such arms – 95 percent of the nuclear warheads in the world – are still in the arsenals of the two former Cold War superpowers.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was a leading framer of the “global war on terror” and a staunch supporter of aggressive U.S. military action around the world.


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Right Web readers will be familiar with Mr. Fleitz, the former CIA officer who once threatened to take “legal action” against Right Web for publicizing reports of controversies he was associated with in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz recently left his job at the conspiracy-mongering Center for Security Policy to become chief of staff to John Bolton at the National Security Council.


Norm Coleman is chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition and a former senator from Minnesota known for his hawkish views on foreign policy.


Billionaire hedge fund mogul Paul Singer is known for his predatory business practices and support for neoconservative causes.


Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, is a passionate supporter of Trump’s foreign policy.


Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the largest “pro-Israel” advocacy group in the United States, is known for its zealous Christian Zionism and its growing influence in the Republican Party.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share