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

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share