Obama’s Conflicting Schedule

On Saturday, one of the most important disarmament treaties between the U.S. and Russia, START-1, expired. On Friday, Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitri Medvedev spoke on the telephone, while Foreign Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met in person in Brussels. The result was a joint declaration that the two countries wish to continue work “in the spirit of the treaty” and wish to work hard in order to make a new treaty as fast as possible.

That means the top leaders in both countries have given negotiators a shove in the back and that a new schism will not occur even though the treaty has expired. The matter of finding new, detailed control regulations is too complex and will take about six months to develop. Regulations must be in place if the new nuclear treaty is to have any meaningful influence on common trust. Every military instinct opposes this. The U.S. has already, despite these words, had to withdraw inspectors from the city of Votkinsk, where they were overseeing Russian missile production. Hopefully the presidents’ words are weighty enough that a new nuclear deal will still be possible and that we don’t have to wait until summer for it to be implemented.

Obama was not able to bring this kind of deal to Oslo as concrete evidence of the honor bestowed upon him by the Nobel committee for his work to downsize nuclear arsenals. If the deal is right around the corner, it would not matter, because he would not be able to include references to such a deal in his Nobel speech on Thursday. Because of his rescheduling, the American president will not be able to bring something from the climate summit in Copenhagen either.

We do not know why Obama chose to travel to Copenhagen at the end of the summit and not at the beginning as was planned. Normally political leaders don’t travel to this type of summit unless they have something to show for it. The rescheduling might indicate an understanding between the U.S. and China, the two biggest polluters in the world. If this understanding materialized concrete promises of reduction in pollution, it would be great news for work pertaining to the climate. But if the promises are too vague, or the two countries block radical measures, it would be extremely negative for development.

It is probable that the other participants have put considerable pressure on Washington and Beijing, and that this pressure has had an effect. For now we can only hope that the most positive explanation is the right one. Without the U.S. and China joining the team, [trying to work on the climate] will be difficult and of little use.