Alla Yaroshinskaya, Ph.D.
During the last years we have seen the complete stagnation of efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The START-2 Treaty, signed by both the Russian and American presidents, was unable to work for a number of reasons. The main reason was that Russia's Communist-dominated parliament did not wish to ratify the treaty as NATO pursued plans to expand toward the Russian border, and the United States, as sole superpower after the end of the USSR, bombed Kosovo. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTB) also had the same fate in Russia. The non-proliferation situation in India and Pakistan left much to be desired. The overall picture showed that the Non-Proliferation Treaty is not working, and to the contrary, humankind is moving very quickly to a new era of nuclear armament.
The presidential election in Russia last spring changed this deadlock. Newly elected President Putin found the exact words and political instruments to push the newly re-elected Russian Duma, where he enjoys the support of the majority, to ratify START-2 and the CTB Treaty. The Russian President has also offered to cut strategic nuclear weapons to 1,500 units under START III.
One would think the world would use this new impetus for global action to create and sign a special international treaty to ban nuclear weapons and to begin to abolish them. Of course, this is a difficult process, but humankind has received a unique chance to enter the third millennium with a new solution to the problem of nuclear weapons. But, unfortunately, nothing like this has happened. Today we still have to analyze why non-proliferation and disarmament efforts have stalled and what may be done to revitalise the process.
From the Russian point of view the main obstacle today is the position of the United States. I am not discussing the Senate's failure to ratify the Russian Duma's addendum to the START-2 treaty and the CTB Treaty, although these could be very important steps with respect to non-proliferation and a very good example to other countries that have nuclear weapons or who plan to develop them. I am not reflecting on the refusal of the former US President to support Mr. Putin in his initiative to cut the strategic nuclear arsenals of both countries to 1,500 units. This is indeed a pity because Russia, experts say, is ready to make even deeper cuts - to 1,000 units. I am talking about the cornerstone of the contemporary process of nuclear non-proliferation - the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. The situation surrounding the ABM Treaty is the main challenge to the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The situation we have now in Russian-American affairs may be classified as a journey from "cold" war to peace and back to "cold" peace.
What will Russia do to oppose the United States authorities' passionate wish to change the ABM Treaty and build the so-called National Missile defence system? The Russian President has described these "sanctions" clearly: if the US proceeds with deployment of a National Missile defence, Russia will withdraw from the START II Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. (Of course, in that situation we cannot speak about a START III treaty.) Russian authorities urged that the world should negotiate a global missile ban, which would be much less expensive and more reliable in preventing attacks from "rogue" states. But the US has twice failed to support Russia's initiatives - to cut both nuclear arsenals to 1,500 units.
Reflecting on the developments blocking progress in nuclear disarmament we must not forget about Russia's largest neighbour, China. Although Russia is now economically weak it could develop a military alliance with China if the US begins to deploy a national missile defence system. Some years ago when the Prime Minister of Russia went to China to propose a military alliance, the Chinese authorities were not ready to entertain such an idea. But now this prospect looks more possible. The US national missile defence gives China a new impulse to create and design its own nuclear weapons. (Today China has about 20 units of nuclear weapons that can reach the US.)
It is understood that China, like Russia, worries about the security of its own territory. China will never agree to allow the US national missile defence to cover Taiwan and Japan with a "nuclear umbrella". In this context China and Russia already have common ground.
For a better understanding, I will make the following comparison. Would the United States be happy if Russia were to build its own national defence system, covering Alaska? Or better still, Iraq? Evidently, these are a rhetorical questions.
It is not necessary to say that the US national missile defence plan will provoke many countries to move faster to create, design and deploy their nuclear arsenals. (I would like to recall that according to Russian experts on nuclear control, 40 countries have the potential to create nuclear weapons, and 20 of those already have them.)
A close look at the American initiative to create a national missile defence reveals that this initiative was a political card in the hand of both candidates in the last U.S. presidential election. On September 1, 2000 President Clinton delayed a decision on a national missile defence, saying the earliest such a system will be deployed is 2006-2007. This meant that Mr. Clinton has passed that difficult question to his successor. It would appear that Russia, other concerned countries, and the world as a whole has received some extra time to prevent this dubious project.
Some Russian and American experts and commentators said that Russia has achieved its first serious international victory and the ABM Treaty will survive at least a few more years. But let us look more closely at this situation.
First, look on the American side. Yes, President Clinton agreed to postpone the deployment of a national missile defence system, but he said nothing about another anti-missile weapons system, less well known in the US, much less in Russia and the rest of the world. I am speaking first of all about the Theatre missile defence systems which protect the American army in regions of conflict (such as in the Persian Gulf War of 1991). The American Theatre defence programmes - Theatre High-Altitude Area defence (Thaad), the Patriot Advanced Capability-3, the Navy Theatre-wide and Navy Area defence - might be candidates to replace NMD, US and Russian experts suppose. These systems are now under extensive testing. The Patriot is ready to begin its service life next year and another system is still undergoing extensive testing in order to be deployed in 2006-2007. That is also the case with both Navy defence systems. The latest laser programmes will permit the US to shoot down ballistic missiles from space by 2013.
For specialists the question is where the line between Theatre missile defences, which cover just part of the United States, and national missile defences, which cover the whole territory of the USA, actually lies. To specialists, it is clear that the U.S. is looking for a way to build NMD without formally destroying the ABM Treaty. But practically the consequences of building such armaments would be the same.
What is the position of the Russian side on this question? I have already mentioned Russia's warning that it may withdraw from START II and the CTB Treaties. But the lack of a Russian position is due to Mr. Putin's offer last summer to work together with the USA on non-strategic antimissile ballistic defence. (He confirmed this offer at the Millennium Summit in New York City when he met with Mr. Clinton.) It looks as though Russia does not object to Theatre systems working on the boost phase. The main Russian concern is that they do not violate the ABM Treaty. But in such a situation the US may find a way to keep the ABM Treaty, formally, and to destroy it in practice.
From my point of view, this offer was a mistake on the part of the Russian President because this position gives the US the opportunity to build up local systems into national ones, under the guise of discussions on preserving the sacred cow of the ABM treaty.
Russia, by showing it was ready to work together on a common missile defence in the non-strategic field (President Putin later made the same appeal to Europe), gave the Americans a legal loop-hole to pursue their nuclear ambitions. I warned about this in my speech in Japan, to the Antinuclear Conference in November, 2000, before the US election. Today we see how US President Bush, jr. is trying to give new life to President Reagan's "Star Wars". The Bush administration's plans to deploy NMD go far beyond the Clinton programme, which offered only land-based interceptors. Secretary of defence, Donald H. Rumsfeld, wants to return the world to the Reagan era using the Clinton Programme and adding space and sea-based systems. The last recommendation of military advisors, along with the Clinton administration's proposed deployment of 20 interceptor missiles in Alaska by 2005, is for the Navy to develop a ship-based system, that could fire interceptor missiles to destroy enemy missiles in their boost phase, immediately after they are launched. The military are pushing the administration to develop systems that can destroy missiles in three stages of flight - immediately after launch, in mid-flight and at the end of the flight. They seek to convince the Pentagon and the President to continue work on the Airborne Laser Programme, to develop a small weapon to be carried in an airplane to destroy enemy missiles at the beginning of their flight. But the most ambitious recommendation is for the Pentagon to continue with development of a space-based laser. So, welcome to Star Wars!
What will happen if these plans become reality? The following would be the most immediate consequences from the Russian side:
Notice, I speak only about the consequences for the world and for peace from the Russian side. Do not forget that the US NMD will affect the whole world order and every nation will pay own political and economic price for that nuclear madness.
What is the current Russian position?
First of all, all of Russia is strongly opposed to the United States plans to deploy NMD - from the President to its citizens. It is Russia's wish to save the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and a basis for further reduction of strategic offensive weapons. Secondly - Russia is represented in different initiatives on the reduction of nuclear weapons (START II and START III) and to resolving the problem with regard to missile and missile technology proliferation.
Russia defends the international values of peace, cooperation and international security.
July 2001