news details |
|
|
| US-Russia Agreement on Arms Control | | |
Salman Haidar
President Obama’s visit to his counterpart, President Medvedev, which has just been concluded was preceded by a considerable outpouring of denigration of Russia in the western media. Nor were Russian commentators lagging behind in pouring scorn on their once-rival super power, now the sole global power. What came through was uncomfortably reminiscent of the bad old days of the Cold War.
It does not take much, it would seem, for the hardened warriors of that era to reach once more for their lances and tilt again at the familiar foe. The crescendo of criticism directed from both sides at the other was an indication of how low their relations had shrunk and how testing was Mr Obama’s task of restoring equable ties ~ ‘reset’ the relationship is how it was described. During the Bush era, relations had blown hot and cold but towards the end had turned rather frosty, especially as Russia improved its economy and adopted a more assertive role in its region. Mr Obama has already done much to restore the balance in his country’s relations with a number of other countries that have been in the USA’s bad books and distance himself from some of the uncompromising policies of his predecessor.
Familiar complaints
IN the case of Russia, the buildup to the Moscow visit underscored the difficulties and showed why significant change would be difficult to achieve. The complaints voiced by analysts from either side were familiar. From the US side, much was said about the lack of proper democratic processes in Mr Putin’s Russia, the monopolization of oil wealth by a privileged few, the bare knuckle treatment of the media, the harassment of neighbours, especially Georgia; and much else besides. Russian counterparts complained about US arrogance even while its policies were failing, as in Iraq, condemned its hegemonic tendencies, denounced the eastward march of NATO and showed great unhappiness at the proposal for a US missile shield in Eastern Europe. Though the outpourings were toned down as the visit became imminent, enough had been said to show how wide is the gap between the two.
Doubtless for this reason, expectations of what the summit could achieve were deliberately pitched low. The focus as presented to the public was on arms control. The START I agreement on limitations of strategic weapons is due to expire in December this year. It has to be replaced by a new agreement, which both sides desire, so that there is no risk of regression to the era of a nuclear free-for-all. The protagonists now take a much more sober view of their nuclear requirements and had signaled well in advance of the Moscow meeting that major cuts in their holdings of nuclear weapons were desirable. They had been in contact with each other to work out some of the details, so it came as no surprise that they were able to announce an agreement at the summit. This is described as a framework agreement, which means that the principles are agreed but the detailed task working out mutual limits on the size of their respective holdings remains to be done. This is expected to be complete before START I expires at the end of the year. Thus the two Presidents can claim to have made a solid advance in an area of shared interest but there is little particularly remarkable about it. It represents a further step in the steady process of reducing nuclear weaponry which has been going on even during Mr Bush’s tenure of office. He had agreed to a limit of 2,200; now the numbers will be further brought down to between 1,500 and 1,675.
The personal equations developed at this initial Russia-US summit may be no less significant than the formal agreements signed by the leaders. Apart from President Medvedev, Mr Obama met former President Putin, now Prime Minister and widely believed to be the major political figure in Russia even though he no longer occupies the topmost position. The two leaders showed cordiality towards each other in their public remarks after the meeting. Some years ago, when Mr Bush met Mr Putin, the two seemed to get on exceedingly well and a new era appeared to have dawned, but eventually conflicting state interests drew them apart. This time, too, a good start has been made, though it remains to be seen how far they can come to terms on issues where they do not see eye to eye.
One matter on which some convergence has been achieved is Afghanistan. Even before Mr Obama reached Moscow, it was announced that Russia would permit overflights by US aircraft bound for Afghanistan to re-supply US troops. Up to ten such flights a day would be permitted, which should considerably ease US supply problems. It was not so long ago that, supposedly under Russian pressure, Kyrgyzstan rescinded its agreement with the USA for one of its airfields to be used as a base for operations in Afghanistan.
Overflights issue
Under revised arrangements concluded recently, that base will now be available for supply purposes, not for military operations. With these changes it has made, Russia has emphasized its role as a major regional factor that is not to be bypassed in the US-led NATO operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Russia, too, would like to see the Taliban suppressed and thus is able to make common cause with the USA on the overflights issue.
There are other matters, too, where they have similarity of view, notably that of non-proliferation. Nuclear weapons development in North Korea is a great worry for both and they have been engaged together, along with others, to try to bring it to a stop. Iran’s reported programme of nuclear enrichment is another worry but here the two are divided in their reaction.
Russia is conspicuously aloof from US-led efforts to compel Iran to change course. Similarly, there are other differences between the two on developments in the Caucasus and Central Asia where Russia is zealous in preserving its position in the region it refers to as its ‘near abroad’. These differences will be tough to resolve because they arise from rival perceptions of national interests. But Mr Obama’s visit should serve as an encouragement to an active search for compromise. Maybe there will also be a fresh look at NATO’s desire to expand eastward, which is seen in Moscow as a deliberate, and needless, anti-Russian policy.
India is only tangentially affected by these Russo-US differences. It will need to note, however, their shared interest in global reductions in nuclear weapons, for which the USA is to call a conference next year. Historically, India has been at the forefront of the movement for nuclear disarmament and the Rajiv Gandhi Plan for disarmament is still the most comprehensive and realistic proposal on offer. We will need to prepare for the fresh challenge that lies not far ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
