6/24/09

US-Russian negotiations for the replacement of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) resumed this week – marking the first time in eighteen years the world’s two largest nuclear powers have negotiated a binding and verifiable agreement to reduce their arsenals.  At their July 6th summit, Presidents Obama and Medvedev will review progress – and both have suggested that the new treaty will mark the foundation for cooperation in other important areas such as Iran and North Korea. START I, signed in 1991 by the first President Bush after nearly a decade of negations spearheaded by the Reagan administration, signaled to the world that the US and Russia were serious about preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons and has been critical in reducing the nuclear threat.  The treaty facilitates the reduction of nuclear stockpiles by decommissioning former Soviet/Russian nuclear warheads, which reduces the risks of these materials falling into the hands of terrorists. But  the treaty is set to expire on December 5th.  The Bush administration had years to renew it, but opted for an alternate approach (the 2002 SORT agreement) that abandoned President Reagan’s strict inspection and verification regimes in favor of a faith-based approach.

A START follow-on will secure more Russian nuclear materials; rebuild a significant US-Russian partnership on broader nuclear issues; and boost global efforts to control the most deadly weapons and materials. A new treaty enjoys tremendous bipartisan support, led by the “four horsemen” former Secretaries of State Kissinger and Shultz, former Secretary of Defense Perry and former Senator Nunn. Most recently, a START follow on was recommended by a Council on Foreign Relations task force chaired by Perry and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft.  But despite its bipartisan support and its importance to our national security and to U.S.-Russian relations, certain hard line conservatives like John Bolton and Arizona Senator John Kyle are determined to unravel over three decades of progress on arms control. Their obstructionism must be overcome.

START replacement treaty is a key agenda item for Obama’s July 6 Moscow visit – and renewed US-Russian cooperation. “US and Russian negotiators arrived in Geneva on Monday to resume talks on cutting their nuclear weapons arsenals, diplomats said. The third round of talks on replacing the Cold War-era Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) are officially to be held on Tuesday and Wednesday, a US official said... The discussions are meant to feed into a summit between US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow in early July. The attempt to strike a new deal to succeed START, which expires on December 5, symbolises a thaw in US-Russian relations in recent months,” reports the AFP.  An agreement on a new START is essential to reducing the number of nuclear weapons.  A recent bipartisan Council on Foreign Relations task force, chaired William Perry and Brent Scowcroft,  “supports efforts to renew legally binding arms control pacts with Russia by seeking follow-on agreements to START and the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT). The report also urges the United States and Russia to initiate a serious strategic dialogue, because it is only through such engagement that they can open up opportunities for deeper reductions in their arsenals and gain a better sense of the feasibility of moving toward multilateral nuclear arms control.” As Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director, of the Arms Control Association writes, “[t]he landmark 1991 START agreement reduced excess nuclear stockpiles and provided greater predictability and stability. START slashed each nation's strategic warhead deployments from about 10,000 to less than 6,000, and it limited each country to no more than 1,600 strategic delivery systems. START helped build the confidence and stability necessary to eliminate Cold War-era tensions.” [AFP, 6/22/09. Council on Foreign Relations, 4/09. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, 6/23/09. The Cable, 6/22/09. Daryl Kimball, 6/19/09]

Nonproliferation negotiations promote the U.S.-Russian bilateral relationship, enabling cooperation on other important matters.  The Council on Foreign Relations explains, “the change in administrations provides an opportunity to put the U.S.-Russia relationship on a new footing,” and that “U.S.-Russia arms control agreements have been invaluable in helping stabilize strategic relations, developing a shared understanding of activities involving nuclear weapons, and lending predictability to reductions in American and Russian strategic nuclear forces. Both sides have expressed interest in renewing arms control negotiations.” Samuel Charap of the Center for American Progress writes, “The first component [of a strategy toward Russia] should be to maximize the extent to which Russian policies complement our objectives on issues critical to our national security interests. Or, put another way, to make Russia a part of the solution to significant international problems. Russia can play a major role on a wide range of foreign policy challenges facing the United States. This is particularly true in terms of arms control and nonproliferation, since Russia is our only ‘peer’ on these issues.”  This is specifically true regarding North Korea, as Russia’s role in the six party talks is vital. [Council on Foreign Relations, 4/09. Center for American Progress, 5/20/09]

Nuclear stockpiles and vulnerable fissile material are a great risk to national and global security:  talks with Russia are the first step in global efforts to reduce them, and opposition to such efforts flows from an outdated Cold War view of the threat. The Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction programs have done much to secure nuclear stockpiles and fissile material around the world.  But enthusiasm has lagged, and the threat remains real. A report from the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism assessed that the U.S. faces a serious threat from terrorists attempting to “carry out an attack with biological, nuclear or other unconventional weapons somewhere in the world,” and the U.S. must act urgently to counter this threat.  As the CFR report explains, “Terrorists now and for the foreseeable future do not have the wherewithal to enrich their own uranium or produce their own plutonium. Instead, they would have to target state stockpiles of these materials. To acquire nuclear weapons, a terrorist group could try to buy or steal existing weapons or weapons-usable fissile material, or convince or coerce a government custodian to hand over these assets.”  The United States and Russia together hold over 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons.  A reduction of stockpiles between the two countries would reduce the possibility of theft or illicit sales – and heighten the incentive for other countries to take the problem seriously.  This makes a new START agreement all the more important.  Opposition to these efforts, led in Congress by Senator Kyl and outside by John Bolton, flows from the outdated assumption that, as the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists describes Kyl’s views, “cutting U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles does nothing to deal with the more pressing threats of terrorism, North Korea, Iran, and the deteriorating situation in Pakistan.”  Yet the Perry-Scowcroft task force believes that the START negotiations will actually make international responses to those nuclear challenges more likely.  As they say in their task force report, “Success in negotiating a follow-on bilateral arms control treaty with Russia will require clarity about the long-term strategic visions of both the United States and Russia. As part of a reinvigorated strategic dialogue, both countries should explore the geopolitical implications of deeper reductions and changes in nuclear force posture.”  [Congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, 12/03/08. Council on Foreign Relations, 4/09.  Bulletin of Atomic Scientist, 6/23/09.]

What We’re Reading

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed that Iran will not yield to protestors “at any cost.” In his speech yesterday, President Obama sharpened his criticism of the Iranian government’s crackdown, saying he was “outraged” and “appalled” by the events of the past few days. Iranian officials reported the arrests of several foreign nationals in connection with the protests.

Former detainees at the U.S.’s Bagram military base in Afghanistan have alleged abuse at the hands of American soldiers.

Missile strikes by a U.S. drone in Pakistan killed at least 43 people.

After a four-year hiatus, Obama is sending an ambassador to Syria, indicating the deepening engagement between the U.S. and the Syrian government.

Netanyahu demands Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish homeland as a new condition for peace.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford appears to have been in Argentina rather than hiking the Appalachian Trail during his recent, unexplained five-day absence.

The U.S. has filed a WTO complaint against China, alleging that China restricts exports of raw materials through quotas, duties and other barriers.

China expressed “serious concerns” about a nuclear North Korea after talks with Pentagon officials.

The North Korean government allowed the Swedish ambassador to meet with imprisoned American journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling.

The former Prime Minister of Kosovo, Agim Ceku, was arrested in Bulgaria on Tuesday. He is wanted for alleged war crimes committed during the 1998-99 war in Kosovo, when he was a commander in the rebel Kosovo Liberation Army.

Experts say that the Kimberley Process certification scheme, designed to prevent the use of diamonds to fund conflict, is failing, pointing to recent violence in Zimbabwe and diamond smuggling across the Ivory Coast, Guinea and Sierra Leone.

Arctic nations are promising to cooperate on challenges in order to avoid “new ‘Cold War’ scrambles.” Military activity is stirring in the region, where a climate change-driven thaw may allow new fishing territories, shipping routes and opportunities for oil exploration.

Commentary of the Day

John Podesta urges Congress to pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

Thomas Friedman calls on Americans to “end our addiction” to oil in our own “green” revolution.

Roger Cohen argues Iran’s Islamic Republic system has been weakened.

Tim Rutten calls Twitter “tyranny’s new nightmare.”