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."
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.
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.