Nuclear arms reduction between the US and Russia is in disarray
Photo: zimvi
On 8th April, 2010, US President Obama and the Russian President, Medvedev, have signed a landmark nuclear arms reduction treaty in the Czech capital, Prague. The deal replaces the expired Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) of 1991. The Treaty commits the former Cold War enemies to each reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 - about 30% lower than the figure of 2,200 that each side was meant to reach by 2012 under the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (Sort). They are also allowed, in total, no more than 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear arms. The new limit on delivery systems is less than half the current ceiling of 1,600 - though each heavy bomber counts as one warhead irrespective of the fact that it might carry multiple bombs or missiles. The White House has then said it hopes and expects the US Senate to ratify the treaty this year. Senate ratification requires 67 votes, which means it must include 8 Republicans. Prospects for the successful ratification of New START, (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), the nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia, suffered a dangerous setback on 16th November when a key second-ranking Republican Senator John Kyl virtually ruled out supporting the treaty during the ongoing lame duck session in the U.S. Congress. Senator John Kyl of Arizona said in a statement: "When Majority Leader Harry Reid asked me if I thought the treaty could be considered in the lame duck session, I replied I did not think so given the combination of other work Congress must do and the complex and unresolved issues related to START and modernisation." If the treaty does not pass before the U.S. Congress reconvenes early next year, President Barack Obama will face an even more daunting challenge since the Democrats' hold over the Senate has been weakened after the elections earlier this month and they will hold only 51 seats in January. Reacting to Kyl's refusal to engage on the matter sooner, Vice-President Joseph Biden said: "Failure to pass the New START Treaty this year would endanger our national security." Biden also noted the treaty was fundamental to the U.S.-Russia relationship, and critical to the U.S.' ability to provide supplies to its troops in Afghanistan. Touching upon the quid pro quo element of the treaty between the White House and the Republicans, Biden underscored the fact that President Obama had agreed to invest $80 billion on the modernisation of the U.S.' nuclear arsenal over the next decade, and, based on consultations with Senator Kyl, had conceded an additional $4.1 billion for such modernisation over the next five years. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the Obama administration had put forward a package that ensured the U.S. a strong nuclear deterrent. Both the President and other senior White House officials such as Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes emphasised the broader foreign policy benefits that the "reset" in U.S.-Russia relations, which the treaty embodied, would bring. Why the US hardliners rejects the new START with Russia? There are many reasons for rejection of the Treaty but some of them deserve mention as follows: First, the hardliners argue that the low limits under the Treaty on nuclear warheads ignore the enormous disparities between American and Russia global responsibilities and the importance of "nuclear umbrella" in maintaining international security. Second, the Treaty reflects the Obama administration's lack of seriousness about national missile defence. The linking of nuclear arsenals to defence missile system in the preamble of the Treaty should be deleted. Third, the Congress should pass a new law financing testing and development of new warhead designs before ratifying the Treaty. Fourth, the verification process under the Treaty is found to be inadequate because Moscow's extensive tactical nuclear weapons capabilities are left out. Given the new composition of the Senate next January, (the Republicans will be 47 in number and not 41 as it exists in the current one), it will be extremely difficult for Obama administration to get the Treaty ratified and thus one of the major foreign policy achievements of President Obama is likely to be jeopardised. In the light of the background the US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, a former Senator for eight years, who has a reputation of getting along with the Republicans, swung into action to save the Treaty. It is reported that in the last 20 months when Democrats were in majority, she reached out to Republicans all the time. It appears for the next few weeks saving the Treaty is likely to consume much of her time. She planned to delay a trip to Lisbon to a NATO meeting and scrapped a trip to St Petersburg where she was to attend a meeting on saving Tigers hosted by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Noting that Russia has cooperated with the US on Afghanistan and Iran, she reportedly said: "This is also a treaty that is critical to our bilateral relationship with Russia." At the Lisbon NATO Summit on 19-20 November, President Obama said he had won "overwhelming support" among NATO allies for the START deal. Russian President Medvedev also called on the Senate to be "responsible" and ratify the deal.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments