Presidents Obama and Medvedev: With New START passed, can

they go further, and pass a comprehensive nuclear test ban?

 

 

Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Russia

For a Better World: The U.S. Senate Must Pass a Nuclear Test Ban

 

"Universal ratification and the entry into force of the treaty banning nuclear testing will be an important step in building a truly global community of nations; a community of shared responsibility for the future of humanity, not only in the security sphere but in all other spheres. And this, as the global economic crisis has demonstrated, is needed now as never before."

 

By Mikhail Gorbachev,

former USSR president

                                         

 

Translated By Yekaterina Blinova

 

December 24, 2010

 

Russia - Rossijskaya Gazeta - Original Article (Russian)

Ratification of the New START Treaty, signed in April by presidents Obama and Medvedev, was a long-awaited event and the result of a determined struggle. As recently as a few weeks ago, it seemed the fate of the Treaty was hanging by a thread.

 

Today we can speak of a real step forward for the United States and Russia. Judging by the report of a telephone conversation between the two presidents, in a number of areas, they are optimistic about the prospects for partnership between the two countries.

 

At the final stages, President Obama put his authority and political capital on the line to achieve ratification of the Treaty. And it's good that sufficient numbers of Republicans were found in the U.S. Senate who put the true interests of their country’s security above narrow party interests.

 

Opponents of the Treaty couldn't find convincing arguments, which is precisely why the ranks of its adherents consistently grew. I think the influence of comments by former president George H.W. Bush, Secretaries of State George Shultz, James Baker and Henry Kissinger played a role. Having endorsed the work of a Democratic president, veteran Republicans showed wisdom and responsibility. This is an important example for the future.

 

 

But the victory came at a price. While pushing for ratification of the Treaty, Barack Obama made significant concessions to the military-industrial complex. The president promised to allocate tens of billions of dollars in the coming years for modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, which is hardly compatible with a movement toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

 

Still potentially acute is the question of anti-ballistic missile systems. During the debate, many senators questioned the Treaty's wording about the connection between offensive and defensive methods, which was carried over to the new Treaty from the first START Treaty signed in 1991. Others attempted to undermine ratification by attaching the problem of tactical nuclear weapons and even regular weapons to the Treaty.

 

It is very important that these attacks by opponents of the Treaty were repulsed. And at the same time, we must understand that all of these problems will have to be discussed. There must be talks about missile defense. Difficult negotiations on tactical nuclear weapons are approaching, and the search for a realistic agreement on conventional arms in Europe. It will very soon be known whether this is merely rhetoric - demagoguery that shields an aspiration for military superiority - or a genuine readiness to agree on reducing the military burden.

 

A priority that I believe requires a speedy solution is the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It is absolutely essential to break the impasse that has blocked this important undertaking for over ten years, particularly if we're concerned about nuclear non-proliferation.

 

I recall how difficult it was to move in this direction during the second half of the 1980s. We then announced a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing, but the United States continued to test, so we had to react.

 

But at the same time, we defended this principal: a total ban on nuclear testing under strict international controls, with the use of seismic methods and on-site inspections, is absolutely necessary.

 

Our position ultimately prevailed, and in 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed. It differed from other instruments such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in terms of how it would enter into force: in order for that to happen, the Treaty must be signed and ratified by all 44 countries in the category of “nuclear-capable states.”

 

At this point, it has been signed by 35 countries, including three members of the “nuclear club” - Russia, France and Great Britain. But the list of those who refuse to do so is impressive: the United States, China, Israel, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, India, Pakistan and North Korea, with the last three not even having signing the Treaty. Each of these countries has its own arguments, but they differ in their shares of responsibility. The ratification process slowed drastically when in 1999, the U.S. Senate rejected the Treaty. The alleged reason for failure was the supposedly inadequate system for performance monitoring and "technical oversight" of the condition of the weapons. But I think the real reason was a desire to keep “testing.”

 

Nonetheless, in the 21st century, only one country - North Korea - has chosen to conduct nuclear tests. In fact, a multilateral moratorium on nuclear testing has been established. It has become evident that such tests have become unacceptable to the vast majority of people in the international community. Meanwhile, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization has created a powerful control system: 250 tracking stations (80 percent of the agreed-upon number) are already functioning. Having discovered relatively low-magnitude North Korean tests, the system has already demonstrated its viability.

 

Read a Selection of the Best

Worldmeets.US Translations of 2010

 

So perhaps things should be left as they are and we should be content with this de-facto moratorium? No, because obligations that have not been confirmed and legally agreed-upon can easily be violated. And if that happens, it would render futile, attempts to influence the behavior of states that have caused to many “headaches” for the United States, and other nations as well.    

Posted by WORLDMEETS.US

 

This is what American senators should consider. As George Shultz recently stated, “my fellow Republicans may have been right to reject against it some years ago, when they rejected the treaty in 1999, but they would be wrong to do so again.”

 

An even greater mistake would be to resume nuclear testing. The United States would derive no military or political benefits from doing so. The politically effective move would be a just decision to ratify the Treaty. It's safe to say that most of the countries that refuse to do so will change their positions after a positive decision by the U.S. Senate. And even the most “problematic” countries, as experience shows, don't want to be eternal outlaws, and this would provide further opportunity for dialogue with them. But such talks will only be effective if America rejects it two-faced position: "you can't, but if we want to, we can." Senators have to look at the situation realistically and seriously. This is no place for political games. Having made one step in the right direction, we must go further.

 

And there is one other important argument. Universal ratification and the entry into force of the treaty banning nuclear testing will be an important step in building a truly global community of nations; a community of shared responsibility for the future of humanity, not only in the security sphere but in all other spheres. And this, as the global economic crisis has demonstrated, is needed now as never before.

 

CLICK HERE FOR RUSSIAN VERSION

blog comments powered by Disqus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Posted by WORLDMEETS.US December 30, 1:10pm]

 

 







Bookmark and Share