#3
Moskovsky Komsomolets
May 15, 2003
A NUCLEAR BOMB IN STARS AND STRIPES
A Duma member speaks about the SORT Treaty
Author: Marina Ozerova
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

THE DUMA RATIFIED THE STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE REDUCTIONS TREATY YESTERDAY. WHILE THIS TREATY DOES NOT ACTUALLY BIND RUSSIA TO ANYTHING, THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER IT ARE EVEN LESS BINDING THAN RUSSIA'S. NEVERTHELESS, THE TREATY IS SYMBOLIC OF IMPROVED RELATIONS BETWEEN THE US AND RUSSIA.

Yesterday, the Duma dealt with ratification of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), signed by presidents Putin and Bush a year ago.

Aleksei Arbatov (Yabloko faction), deputy chairman of the Duma defense committee, describes the useful and useless aspects of this treaty.

Question: Why was ratification scheduled for April 1, and then postponed?

Aleksei Arbatov: This was related to the war on Iraq. Russia claimed at the time that the war was a serious mistake. As long as the meaning of the SORT is not so much strategic as political, as it is a symbol of improving relations between Russia and the US, it would be out of place to ratify it against the background of the war on Iraq. For the US would have immediately interpreted the very ratification fact as a sign that we do not object to the war on Iraq.

Question: Could it be said that the ratification of the SORT on May 14 is timed to coincide with Colin Powell's visit to Russia?

Aleksei Arbatov: Of course, these two events are related. Powell has always supported a more moderate line in the American administration in respect to both Russia and Iraq. His visit was evaluated as a good background to ratify the treaty. Or on the contrary - the ratification was evaluated as a good background for Powell's visit, as it is a good way to patch the gap that arose in Russian-American relations after the war on Iraq.

Question: What is the significance of the treaty?

Aleksei Arbatov: The meaning is that the US undertakes to cut its strategic nuclear forces in the next ten years. Meanwhile, Russia actually undertakes no obligations, as its strategic forces are being cut and will go on being cut because of money pressure. In ten years, we will have 1,000-1,500 nuclear warheads left. So Russia even will be able to increase its strategic nuclear forces if it likes, as the treaty sets an upper limit of 1,700-2,000 nuclear warheads.

However, unfortunately, this is not a real full-scale treaty like ones concluded with the US before. It lacks a lot that makes the difference between a treaty and an agreement on intent. There is no clear definition of the treaty subject, nor rules of counting reduced weapons, and there is no procedure to cut down and destroy weapons, nor a system to check the fulfillment of the treaty and a schedule to destroy weapons... So the US may not remove any single warhead for ten years, but it can say three months before the term specified in the treaty: sorry, the situation has changed, so we are pulling out of the treaty...

Russia held talks from weak positions. Decisions on the development of strategic nuclear forces, which were made in the last three years, led them to becoming weaker. Consequently, the US lost interest in serious talks, and they did not want to sign a full-scale treaty. If the SORT is not filled with specific content, it will remain only a symbol. However, further consultations are assumed, and the Russian side hopes greatly it will be possible to settle content issues during them. However, the US has not any reasons to make concessions to us, while Russia has not any serious arguments to convince the US of the need to make them.

Question: Does Russia need such a treaty?

Aleksei Arbatov: It does. It creates at least a chance that America's nuclear forces will be cut. This is better than nothing. Unfortunately, nothing more constructive and positive is connected with the treaty.

(Translated by P. Pikhnovsky)

BACK TO THE TOP    #257 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE