|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S.-Russia: Moscow Treaty Tops U.S. Senate Agenda, but Delays Expected By Bryan Bender Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who will reclaim the chairmanship when the Republicans retake control of the Senate Jan. 7, told Global Security Newswire in an interview Friday that the Moscow Treaty would be one of his first orders of business. Signed by U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in May, the treaty calls for deep reductions in U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear forces (see GSN, May 24). As of last Friday, the committee was scheduled to begin hearing testimony from Secretary of State Colin Powell on the so-called Moscow Treaty as early as Jan. 14, with a vote by the full Senate to approve the treaty planned by the end of the month, according to Lugar’s staff. Lugar predicted the Senate would complete its deliberations on the treaty “very soon.” Russian ratification of the Moscow Treaty, however, will probably move more slowly, according to Russian officials. Putin submitted the treaty to the State Duma for ratification last week (see GSN, Dec. 10) and Bush submitted the treaty to the Senate earlier this year (see GSN, June 21). The Duma “will take up the ratification issue at the start of the spring session,” said International Affairs Committee Chairman Dmitriy Rogozin. Several hurdles, however, could prevent Russia from ratifying the treaty next year. Speaking Friday in Washington, Rogozin said the Putin administration had not furnished plans for implementing the treaty reductions and domestic politics could also delay the process as December 2003 parliamentary elections near. Nevertheless, “most of the process” will be completed in 2003, Rogozin predicted. In coming days, U.S. domestic politics may also affect the treaty ratification schedule. Incoming U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is facing a challenge to his leadership and according to a Lugar adviser the leadership question could delay the settlement of Senate organizational issues such as committee structure and budget questions. The current uncertainty makes concrete planning for early next year virtually impossible, the adviser said. “Short and Shallow” Debate? The United States plans to implement the treaty by reducing its number of operationally deployed nuclear weapons to fewer than 2,200 warheads by the end of 2012 and to store many of the reduced warheads. Russia is expected to do the same, although the treaty does not explicitly say how both sides should shrink their nuclear arsenals, only that they must “reduce and limit” them. Because the new treaty lacks any verification measures, the two countries will use the existing arms control verification regimes to provide a basis for confidence and predictability in future arms reductions. Arms control experts said Senate plans for dispensing of the treaty quickly signals that there will be little debate, despite widespread criticism that the agreement is little more than a pledge to de-alert some nuclear weapons, while keeping thousands of weapons in storage. “I expect the discussion to be short and shallow,” Joseph Cirincione, director of the Nonproliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Most Republicans want to support the president and most Democrats are too intimidated to point out that this treaty is not much of a treaty. I expect there will be very little debate.” He criticized the document for not requiring the destruction of any nuclear warheads and for not being legally binding. “It’s hardly worth ratifying,” Cirincione said. “It is so full of loopholes and ambiguities you can’t really call this a legally binding agreement. It devalues treaties as legally binding diplomatic instruments.” For example, “what is an operationally deployed strategic weapon?” he asked, “It is not defined in the treaty. This treaty does not destroy one nuclear weapon. It provides guidelines for taking them off alert and putting them in storage.” The result, critics charge, will be U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals that will remain as large in 10 years as they are today. “No conceivable U.S. military mission in 10 years will require 2,000 100-kiloton weapons ready to fly in 15 minutes notice,” Cirincione said, noting that thousands more warheads would be kept in storage. Lugar said Russia in particular has said it would like to reduce its nuclear weapons much more substantially. “The Russians would like to go lower than 1,700 but the dilemma is money,” he said. “A very substantial new increment is needed,” he said. “If you’re really worried about nuclear terrorism, this isn’t going to help you,” Cirincione said of the treaty. [EDITOR’S NOTE: Richard Lugar is a board member of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group.] For further information, see: U.S.-Russia Nuclear Reduction Treaty Text (U.S. State Department)
| ||||||||||
Back to top
