US, Russia agree on nuclear arms reduction and joint approach in Afghanistan

10:41 GMT, July 7, 2009 Is it a wind of change or just a temporary up-wind in diplomatic relations between the US and Russia? Even though the visit of President Barack Obama to Moscow has given legitimate cause to hope about the future relationship and cooperation, most observers remain wary of a premature judgment fn the overall results. This meeting of the two still-most powerful nations, in political as well as military terms, was expected to cover numerous major topics which dominated the countries relationship during the past years, such as the US missile defence shield, the position on Iran’s nuclear programme, the war on terror, and the enlargement of NATO in eastern Europe. But the centrepiece of the whole remains the reduction of nuclear warheads. Each of the topics had enough potential to make it a difficult task for Obama to initiate the announced restart of a fruitful diplomatic relationship.

Against this background and considering the hot-tempered exchange of more or less subliminal threats during the Bush Administration, the outcome of the visit has been very positive and has been praised by both leaders, however, not without being realistic about remaining differences.


Reduction of nuclear arsenal

Obama and Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev announced the start of negotiations as of tomorrow on a new strategic arms-control treaty. The confident approach schedules a reduction of long-range nuclear stockpiles by about a third. This new pact would replace the START 1 agreement and aims at a much stronger slashing of the two countries nuclear arsenal: each side is to reduce strategic warheads to a number ranging from 1,500 to 1,675 units, and strategic delivery vehicles to a range of 500 to 1,100 units. This significant reduction is to be accomplished within seven years. The treaty itself is conceived to run for ten years, as the final three years are scheduled to be used for verification of the implementation.

The START 1 treaty obliges Russia and the United States to reduce nuclear warheads to 6,000 and their delivery vehicles to 1,600 each. In 2002, a follow-up agreement on strategic offensive arms reduction was concluded in Moscow. The agreement, known as the Moscow Treaty, envisioned cuts to 1,700-2,200 warheads by December 2012. The START agreement will end in December.

The new plan was referred to by Medvedev as a “reasonable compromise” after several reports hit the news in Russia before the visit, showing that senior analysts and military leaders were worried about Russia’s national security in the event of a severe reduction in its nuclear arsenal. As RIA Novosti reported, a Russian analyst said Russia needs to maintain superiority over developing countries' nuclear arsenals. Sergei Karaganov, chairman of the Council for Russia's Foreign and Defence Policy, explained that nuclear weapons continue to be "the backbone of Russia's political, and to some extent economic, influence." He further stated: “We could go as low as 1,600, or even 1,500 warheads. This is acceptable, especially if we increase their effectiveness and reduce the response time. We are also ready to reduce the number of delivery vehicles by several times.”


The US missile defence shield — still a stumbling block?

The back and forth of this matter has been troubling the diplomatic relationship of the two countries for quite a while now and can be seen as the major cause for the severe depletion of this relationship. Is it or is it not a threat to Russian interests? Both sides have hotly argued for their respective view and the US has desperately tried to emphasise the fact that the missile shield is exclusively aimed at the interception of Iranian ballistic missiles. Therefore, Obama stressed once more that the missile shield is not being built to intercept missiles from "a mighty Russian arsenal."

However, Medvedev further insists that a replacement of the START agreement, as described above, must be linked to Russian concerns about the US missile defence programme in Eastern Europe. It therefore remains unclear whether both sides would be able to agree on any deal without a concordant position on this particular matter.

As Gary Samore, Obama's chief adviser on weapons of mass destruction and arms control stated, he is confident that “at the end of the day – because our missile defense does not actually pose a threat to Russia's strategic forces – [...] they'll be prepared to go ahead without trying to extract a price on missile defense."


The Iran question

Even though some great steps have been made towards a new agreement on a reduction of nuclear warheads, a common position on how to proceed in the diplomatic struggle with Iran could not be found. As observers reported, this matter had been comprehensively dealt with during the meeting of the two leaders. Obama underlined his view, that North Korea and Iran have to be prevented from further advancing their nuclear programmes and stressed the importance of respecting international law and nuclear weapon treaties. He called for consequent punishment in case of noncompliance.

However, as far as this can be judged from a public point of view, future development of this matter will show if US and Russia will be able to agree sometime. The diplomatic concept of the two nations still seems to be too unalike to find common ground concerning the intervention in what is regarded in eastern European and Asian nations as, more or less, “domestic” issues.


Joint position on Afghanistan

Quite unanticipated was the announcement of a deal concerning the war in Afghanistan. In a joint statement, momentous for US-Russian ties, the two countries agreed on a new common approach in the effort to stabilise Afghanistan. This especially includes an agreement to allow the United States to transport arms and military personnel across Russian territory by land and air into Afghanistan. According to the White House, this would save $133 million per year due to a transit fee waiver, shorter flying times and fuel savings.

Furthermore, the new cooperative approach envisages increased assistance to the Afghan army and police, as well as the training of counter-narcotics personnel. The presidents welcomed the increased international support for upcoming elections in the war-torn county and emphasised that they were prepared to help Afghanistan and Pakistan work together against the "common threats of terrorism, extremism and drug trafficking."


Differences remaining

It is not unhealthy to have some differences in a relationship. It rather keeps it fresh and interesting. And both leaders are aware of these differences in the US-Russian relationship, which will not be overcome easily. This especially is due to the two countries’ concepts of foreign policy, which have developed in completely different directions, not only during the post-WWII period but over the past centuries.

It is, therefore, an important signal when Obama states that the two countries are not "destined to be antagonists." Speaking in the Russian capital to graduates of the New Economic School he said that "the pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game. Progress must be shared." It is especially the open and self-critical approach of Obama which could bring a significant change in the relationship.

Obama said he recognises that "we may not agree on everything." But in a healthy diplomatic relationship this should not be an insurmountable obstacle. One change should bring the next, and so the up-wind could become a true wind of change. 
 

With the right attitude from both sides, Russian and US cooperation could achieve staggering positive strides in many fields: from defense, energy and space exploration to feeding the hungry. gy@nevic.ru

---

Created: 2010-01-03 11:33:46