Munich Made History with Nuclear Weapons Ratification
The International Conference on Security Policy concluded yesterday in Munich. The most important event was the exchange of ratification documents on the Russian-American START Treaty. Moscow and Washington outlined an interest in continuing nuclear weapons reduction dialog.
The International Forum in Munich gathered around 350 representatives from 50 countries — including heads of governments, ministers of foreign affairs, defense and economics, well-known experts, analysts and political scientists. On that platform, the exchange of ratification documents on the START Treaty, which was conducted by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, looked not only effective but symbolic too. It was a sign of changes.
After many years of a standstill, the START Treaty was finally ratified.
Of course, in the Hotel Bayerischer Hof — where the discussions were held — it was possible to hear criticism of the START Treaty between Russia and the United States. There was even a scandal: as reported by the English newspaper The Telegraph, the WikiLeaks website published information revealing that Washington gave Moscow serial numbers of Trident missiles, which the U.S supplied to Britain, for the success of the START negotiations. Trident is the only component of the British nuclear forces. Previously, London announced that it has 160 warheads, but the number of missiles was still a secret. British politicians claim that Russia, knowing the serial numbers, can deduce this classified data.
In general, there reigned a conviction that the START Treaty will be beneficial for global stability. Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon called the treaty’s ratification “a historical, political milestone on the road to our ultimate goal of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.”
Within 45 days, Russia and the U.S. must exchange information about character, structure and dispositions of their strategic offensive weapons. The inspections will resume in 60 days.
Hillary Clinton expressed her willingness to continue negotiations on nuclear weapons ratification. As was expected, she mentioned tactical nuclear weapons. Moscow and Washington still have serious disagreements on this matter. At the same time, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov hinted that compromises are possible: “We note a growing concern of the international community on issues of the tactical nuclear weapons. We are ready to discuss this subject with a comprehensive approach to strategic stability.”
The evaluation of the Russia-Western Europe situation, which was presented at the Conference by Vladimir Putin on Feb. 10, 2007, was remembered in Munich as “shock therapy.” Today, in 2011, there are signs showing that confrontational approaches based on opposing force capabilities are fading into the background.
“The goal is to raise the Russia-NATO relationship to the level of strategic partnership. Most importantly, it shouldn’t just remain on paper,” noted Lavrov during Munich discussions. Potential creation of a joint project EURO-ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) can serve as proof. Munich has not yet clarified perspectives on this very important matter. Hillary Clinton said that the U.S. “will not accept any constraints on [their] missile defense system,” and collaboration with Russia will ensure strategic stability. It is expected that at the next conference in “Bayerischer Hof,” there will be more clarity on whether Russia, the U.S. and NATO will use this unique opportunity to create a joint ABM system in Europe based on equality and mutual interests.
Undeniably, the ABM issue doesn’t eliminate necessity in resolving other important problems. During three days in Munich, a lot of problems were discussed. For example, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was worried about possible defense budget reduction of the Alliance. Also, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai was talking about transfer of responsibility for their country’s security to Afghans in 2014. In turn, French Foreign Minister Michéle Alliot-Marie warned the EU about “the loss of strategic importance.”
The International Forum in Munich gathered around 350 representatives from 50 countries — including heads of governments, ministers of foreign affairs, defense and economics, well-known experts, analysts and political scientists. On that platform, the exchange of ratification documents on the START Treaty, which was conducted by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, looked not only effective but symbolic too. It was a sign of changes.
After many years of a standstill, the START Treaty was finally ratified.
Of course, in the Hotel Bayerischer Hof — where the discussions were held — it was possible to hear criticism of the START Treaty between Russia and the United States. There was even a scandal: as reported by the English newspaper The Telegraph, the WikiLeaks website published information revealing that Washington gave Moscow serial numbers of Trident missiles, which the U.S supplied to Britain, for the success of the START negotiations. Trident is the only component of the British nuclear forces. Previously, London announced that it has 160 warheads, but the number of missiles was still a secret. British politicians claim that Russia, knowing the serial numbers, can deduce this classified data.
In general, there reigned a conviction that the START Treaty will be beneficial for global stability. Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon called the treaty’s ratification “a historical, political milestone on the road to our ultimate goal of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.”
Within 45 days, Russia and the U.S. must exchange information about character, structure and dispositions of their strategic offensive weapons. The inspections will resume in 60 days.
Hillary Clinton expressed her willingness to continue negotiations on nuclear weapons ratification. As was expected, she mentioned tactical nuclear weapons. Moscow and Washington still have serious disagreements on this matter. At the same time, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov hinted that compromises are possible: “We note a growing concern of the international community on issues of the tactical nuclear weapons. We are ready to discuss this subject with a comprehensive approach to strategic stability.”
The evaluation of the Russia-Western Europe situation, which was presented at the Conference by Vladimir Putin on Feb. 10, 2007, was remembered in Munich as “shock therapy.” Today, in 2011, there are signs showing that confrontational approaches based on opposing force capabilities are fading into the background.
“The goal is to raise the Russia-NATO relationship to the level of strategic partnership. Most importantly, it shouldn’t just remain on paper,” noted Lavrov during Munich discussions. Potential creation of a joint project EURO-ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) can serve as proof. Munich has not yet clarified perspectives on this very important matter. Hillary Clinton said that the U.S. “will not accept any constraints on [their] missile defense system,” and collaboration with Russia will ensure strategic stability. It is expected that at the next conference in “Bayerischer Hof,” there will be more clarity on whether Russia, the U.S. and NATO will use this unique opportunity to create a joint ABM system in Europe based on equality and mutual interests.
Undeniably, the ABM issue doesn’t eliminate necessity in resolving other important problems. During three days in Munich, a lot of problems were discussed. For example, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was worried about possible defense budget reduction of the Alliance. Also, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai was talking about transfer of responsibility for their country’s security to Afghans in 2014. In turn, French Foreign Minister Michéle Alliot-Marie warned the EU about “the loss of strategic importance.”