Since 1982, the U.S. and Russia have been negotiating arms reduction through the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) that was concluded in 1991. This issue is now burning again. Over the last couple of days there has been a rapid change in the climatic relationship of the U.S. and Russia. The U.S.-Russia relations have not only been at the forefront of their foreign policies but have affected those of other capitals.
The atmospherics surrounding President Obama’s far-fetched promise of further cuts in nuclear arsenal are reminiscent of John F. Kennedy’s slogan some 50 years ago. People around the world would like a nuclear weapons free world, but they are clueless about how all this would be done. Obama’s mantra of disarmament in a recent speech in Berlin actually boils down to some more reductions in deployed nuclear arsenal if Russia reciprocates.
Russian’s has made it clear that they do not have any plan to pursue further reductions to its nuclear arsenal in the near time as they did in the strategic offensive treaty three years ago.
Obama announced that the U.S. is prepared to cut its deployed nuclear arsenal by up to one-third. However, if any one reading this looks back and remembers the leaders of the last 50 years you may notice only some rising debates instead of some practical work done to cut down nukes.
A good illustration is a well-known controversy. In his presidency John F. Kennedy nearly 50 years ago delivered the same speech while addressing and highlighting the value of the nuclear cut down between both rival states. Mr. Obama also came out with the proposition to reduce the quantity of tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) deployed in Europe. In order to make nuclear energy safer he urged the international community to mend their efforts in curbing Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.
Now, what remains of more concern is the America’s efforts to build up their ballistic missile defence system which depicts that Russia will not consider further cuts to its nuclear arsenal until the US addresses certain issues affecting Russian interests. Yet, spoken warmly of their relationship and looking forward to further arms control negotiations back in 2010 the differences remained, particularly over the issue of US missile defence installations in eastern Europe. There is a lack of depth in relationship between both the cold rivals.
Obama insisted the U.S. missile defence plans were “not directed at changing the strategic balance between the U.S. and Russia” but rather at protecting the American people from emerging threats such as Iran. However, Russian leaders remain convinced that it could seriously undermine Russia’s nuclear deterrent. Russia also believes that BMDS built by America is actually intended to expand NATO’s role in Europe. This will also facilitate US military interventions. The concerns of interventions and active diplomacy have driven Russia to sign a binding treaty with the U.S. that limits the speed, location, and capabilities of its missile defenses and transparency provisions.
The U.S. always wanted a nuclear weapons free world but the practical road to achieving this goal will never be realised until they make a strong commitment to further cuts and give a mutually agreed timeline towards disarmament. Ironically, the U.S. advocates Global Zero but maintains 5,113 warheads that are operationally deployed, or in active reserve, or are held in inactive storage. Their vague diplomatic antics often undermine their ability to achieve their objectives.
Both the U.S. and Russian can strengthen global security and pave the way for a more stable and predictable world. Now is the time to embark on a historic mission to start a new chapter in bilateral relations between Russia and the U.S. for their deployed weapons and also for their Global Zero initiative by reducing their warheads in inactive storage. We must try to make it happen for our children, grandchildren and for the sake of a safe world. The alternative in the current situation of our time is more money being spent on weapons of deterrence and less money spent on our schools, hospitals etc. for all this bolder action is required because peace demands actions.