Washington-Moscow Relations Improve: In Pledge of the Ratification of the New START
Published in Iranian Diplomacy
(Iran) on 24 November 2010
by Mahmoud Shouri (link to original)
(Iran) on 24 November 2010
by Mahmoud Shouri (link to original)
Translated from
by Mehran Zarifi.
Edited by Mark DeLucas.
These days, of the many issues facing the U.S., relations with Russia have turned into one of Obama’s main concerns. The debate about Russia’s partnership with NATO and the ratification of the New START are the two subjects that have come forward in U.S.-Russia relations.
With the partial victory of the Republicans, Obama, who signed a nuclear arms control and reduction treaty with Medvedev in April, perceives the ratification process of this treaty in the next term of the Senate as one of his most serious challenges. By putting more pressure on the current members of the Senate, he is attempting to have it passed before the New Year’s Eve and the commencement of the new Senate term.
On the sideline of the Lisbon summit, U.S. President Barack Obama once again urged the Senate to ratify this treaty quickly. He remarked, “To improve U.S.-Russia ties and to verify that Moscow nuclear arsenals are under needed inspections, the ratification of the treaty is crucial.”
Along with this, the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, also said, “The new agreement on reduction of the strategic and nuclear arms (the New START) is the centerpiece of improved ties with Russia and failure to ratify the accord could pose real problems for the relationship. Some positive things have been happening in this relationship. If the START treaty isn't ratified, I think all of that is potentially at risk. I'm not trying to scaremonger. I just think you have to be realistic that the New START treaty is a centerpiece of the relationship and for that not to be ratified, I think, poses real potential problems for the relationship.”
The Republicans believe that the agreement weakens the strategic nuclear deterrent capability of the U.S. Opposing the New START, they argue that in this agreement the U.S. has lost more than it has gained. In their opinion, the acceptance by the U.S. to reduce strategic nuclear weapons and strategic surface triple warheads, which are deployed in land-based missile launchers, too heavily favors Russia, because, after ten years, the Russian nuclear warheads and strategic weapons will undergo spontaneous disintegration and break down. On the other hand, Russia does not possess the means to modernize these weapons.
Reacting to the probable opposition of the Republicans to the New START, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “I don't know what they're looking for frankly because we have essentially, in terms of the adds that they thought were needed, we have made those adds," he said.
In addition to the issue of arms-reduction, we also see Obama interest in ensuring Russia's cooperation with NATO. Consistent with their traditional mentality, Russian officials have conveyed signs of satisfaction and of course ambiguity about this proposal of the Americans and other NATO members. Though it has agreed to put its territory at NATO’s disposal for withdrawal of the NATO soldiers from Afghanistan and transport of supplies to that country, Russia has provided a vague response to the proposal of NATO Secretary-General concerning its joining the missile-defense system, and has only said that it will assign some specialists to study the proposal.
It appears that behind the scenes there is a deal going on between Russia and the U.S. Russia's performance with regard to the issue of Iranian nuclear development is one indication. Russia's promise of cooperation with NATO and the concerted efforts of the Obama administration to pass the New START treaty are two others. From the talks of the American officials about the ratification of the New START and its importance in the U.S-Russia ties, it may be concluded that more Russian cooperation with the U.S. relies on one condition: ratification of the New START.
Now, it remains to be seen whether Obama will succeed in getting the Senate’s ratification of the treaty before the expiration of the current term, and, if he does, if he will win the support and cooperation of Russia in return — or, should the Republicans succeed in sinking the treaty, if Russian cooperation will cease to be forthcoming.
With the partial victory of the Republicans, Obama, who signed a nuclear arms control and reduction treaty with Medvedev in April, perceives the ratification process of this treaty in the next term of the Senate as one of his most serious challenges. By putting more pressure on the current members of the Senate, he is attempting to have it passed before the New Year’s Eve and the commencement of the new Senate term.
On the sideline of the Lisbon summit, U.S. President Barack Obama once again urged the Senate to ratify this treaty quickly. He remarked, “To improve U.S.-Russia ties and to verify that Moscow nuclear arsenals are under needed inspections, the ratification of the treaty is crucial.”
Along with this, the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, also said, “The new agreement on reduction of the strategic and nuclear arms (the New START) is the centerpiece of improved ties with Russia and failure to ratify the accord could pose real problems for the relationship. Some positive things have been happening in this relationship. If the START treaty isn't ratified, I think all of that is potentially at risk. I'm not trying to scaremonger. I just think you have to be realistic that the New START treaty is a centerpiece of the relationship and for that not to be ratified, I think, poses real potential problems for the relationship.”
The Republicans believe that the agreement weakens the strategic nuclear deterrent capability of the U.S. Opposing the New START, they argue that in this agreement the U.S. has lost more than it has gained. In their opinion, the acceptance by the U.S. to reduce strategic nuclear weapons and strategic surface triple warheads, which are deployed in land-based missile launchers, too heavily favors Russia, because, after ten years, the Russian nuclear warheads and strategic weapons will undergo spontaneous disintegration and break down. On the other hand, Russia does not possess the means to modernize these weapons.
Reacting to the probable opposition of the Republicans to the New START, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “I don't know what they're looking for frankly because we have essentially, in terms of the adds that they thought were needed, we have made those adds," he said.
In addition to the issue of arms-reduction, we also see Obama interest in ensuring Russia's cooperation with NATO. Consistent with their traditional mentality, Russian officials have conveyed signs of satisfaction and of course ambiguity about this proposal of the Americans and other NATO members. Though it has agreed to put its territory at NATO’s disposal for withdrawal of the NATO soldiers from Afghanistan and transport of supplies to that country, Russia has provided a vague response to the proposal of NATO Secretary-General concerning its joining the missile-defense system, and has only said that it will assign some specialists to study the proposal.
It appears that behind the scenes there is a deal going on between Russia and the U.S. Russia's performance with regard to the issue of Iranian nuclear development is one indication. Russia's promise of cooperation with NATO and the concerted efforts of the Obama administration to pass the New START treaty are two others. From the talks of the American officials about the ratification of the New START and its importance in the U.S-Russia ties, it may be concluded that more Russian cooperation with the U.S. relies on one condition: ratification of the New START.
Now, it remains to be seen whether Obama will succeed in getting the Senate’s ratification of the treaty before the expiration of the current term, and, if he does, if he will win the support and cooperation of Russia in return — or, should the Republicans succeed in sinking the treaty, if Russian cooperation will cease to be forthcoming.