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

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

Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), former chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is a leading ”pro-Israel” hawk in Congress.


Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.


Huntsman, the millionaire scion of the Huntsman chemical empire, is a former Utah governor who served as President Obama’s first ambassador to China and was a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


Print Friendly

The very idea of any U.S. president putting his personal financial interests ahead of the U.S. national interest is sufficient reason for the public to be outraged. That such a conflict of interest may affect real U.S. foreign policy decisions is an outrage.


Print Friendly

The new US administration is continuing a state of war that has existed for 16 years.


RightWeb
share