Disarmament Diplomacy

News Review

No Deal on ABM Treaty as Bush Announces Nuclear Reductions

Summary

At their November 13-15 summit meeting in Washington, DC, and Crawford, Texas, US President George Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin reinforced their commitment to reduce their nuclear forces, overcome differences on missile defence and the future of the ABM Treaty, and proceed with forging a 'new strategic framework' for relations between them. Despite some pre-summit speculation, no agreement on revising the ABM Treaty, or replacing it with either a successor accord or a 'new understanding', proved possible. President Bush did, however, announce a planned unilateral reduction in operationally deployed US strategic warheads from the current level of around 7,000 to between 2,200 and 1,700 by the end of the decade. Under the terms of the 1993 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II), the two sides committed themselves to reduce warhead ceilings to 3,000-3,500. However, START II is yet to enter into force, a prospect dimmed by the Russian Duma's conditional ratification in April 2000 demanding US Senate ratification of agreements signed in New York in September 1997 extending the deadline for the Treaty's implementation (from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2007), and defining theatre missile defence (TMD) systems permissible under the ABM Treaty. While Russia is committed to removing these obstacles, and commencing START III negotiations to reduce the warhead ceiling to as low as 1,500, the Bush administration has now signalled its intent to 'move beyond' both the ABM Treaty and the START process. President Putin did state his willingness at the summit to reciprocate the US reductions in some fashion, but also sought clarification of the exact nature and status of the reductions he would be seeking to match. See Documents and Sources for extensive material from the summit, as well as major pre-summit discussions at the APEC Summit in Shanghai.

For all its positive atmosphere and exceedingly warm personal relations, the summit thus begs more questions than it answers. As the following selection of widely divergent comment illustrates, the two main issues to be clarified are, what will the next US move be in relation to the ABM Treaty and its missile defence testing programme, and how does the US envisage the nature, scope and codification of its own, and any Russian, reductions?

Comment on ABM and Missile Defence

President Putin, November 6: "[C]ompromise can only be found as a result of very intense negotiations. ... [O]ur position in this is quite flexible. We believe that the ABM Treaty...is important, essential, effective and useful, but we have a negotiating platform starting from which we could reach agreements."

Russian Chief of Staff General Alexander S. Voloshin, November 9: "[I]t is my opinion the US will unilaterally withdraw from the [ABM] Treaty... We don't want to trade over this. Our support for the US [action] in Afghanistan will not be affected...but the arguments for greater cooperation with the US will gradually disappear."

Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov, November 3: "We often hear that the ABM Treaty is hopelessly outdated, that it is a relic of the Cold War. Partially - I stress, partially - I agree. ... All the fundamental Russian or Soviet-US accords are relics of the Cold War to some extent. ... If I could offer my personal opinion, today's NATO also is, in many ways, a relic of the Cold War."

Defence Minister Ivanov, October 29: "While this discussion is happening, we believe that the ABM Treaty should continue fulfilling the important mission that it has been fulfilling until now."

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, November 18: "The time is coming when our testing programmes will start to bump up against the constraints of the treaty. We're not going to violate the treaty, and that means that, one way or another, we're going to have to move beyond the ABM Treaty... [We will move ahead with our] robust testing and development programme."

US Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow, November 19: "We, for our part, are committed to work on a new strategic framework...whether or not we find a compromise on the short-term question of testing under the ABM Treaty. ... Missile defence could be an area for close US-Russian collaboration since both of us face and will face these new threats in the future."

Letter from 9 Republican Senators (Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Jon Kyl, Don Nickles, Bob Smith, Larry Craig, Jim Inhofe, Richard Shelby, Rick Santorum), to President Bush, November 9: "We are concerned that recent news stories distort your position by reporting that your administration intends to reach an agreement with Russia that would permit full testing of our missile defence programme while leaving the ABM Treaty intact. As you know, this is not plausible because the ABM Treaty (1) severely constrains testing, (2) contains no provision allowing treaty violation by mutual consent, and (3) senior officials have stated repeatedly that your administration will not violate this treaty." (Emphasis in the original.)

Comment on Nuclear Reductions

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, November 14: "We need to put it down in a treaty. It doesn't mean we distrust anyone. Just the opposite: it would consolidate and boost our relations."

Vice Admiral Valentin Kuznetsov, Russian Defence Ministry, November 14: "[W]e are heading in the right direction in the elimination of huge missile arsenals...[but] what will guarantee the meeting of the reduction and [its] verification? ... [Russia and the United States have] worked out a thorough mechanism in the sphere of control and verification relating to the destruction of strategic nuclear arms. Discarding it now would be wrong."

Ambassador Vershbow, November 26: "The next step is to codify these reductions, to include measures for verification, without the multi-year negotiations that used to be necessary in Cold War days."

Condoleezza Rice, November 8: "I think we all have to try and get out of a particular frame of mind about US-Russian relations that just turns it into a newer version of US-Soviet relations... And so when it comes to something like nuclear offensive forces, we have no reason to match warhead for warhead in the way that we did in old Soviet times."

Condoleezza Rice, November 1: "What we want to talk to the Russians about is how we see our deterrent needs, in terms of levels, in terms of the period of draw-down, in terms of how they're structured. But we consider this not a matter of negotiation, but a matter of how American forces ought to be structured. And we expect the Russians to have the same concerns. ... But I just want to re-emphasise, this is not an arms control negotiation in which we try to equalise the numbers."

Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, November 15: "President Bush has announced...that the United States will reduce its force level...to somewhere between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed warheads. The devil is in the details. For example, 'deployed warheads': to date I have not gotten an explanation of what is going to happen with all the other warheads, roughly 4,000 additional warheads, not just ours, but the Russians as well... For great countries to have such fundamental decisions rest upon personal assurances between two honourable men is not sufficient... The more we know about what is going on in the Russian nuclear force posture, the easier it is to determine how we should deal with them, how we should counter them. With a handshake, all we know is what President Putin says to the press or in private to President Bush. That is all we know. With a written agreement, we have specific commitments. US/Russian relations will benefit from knowing what each has promised and what we and they have not promised."

Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, Chair of the Appropriations Committee, November 15: "[I]mportant as this agreement would be, I am shocked by the President's view that an agreement on arms reductions need not be on paper. ... A simple handshake leaves many questions unanswered. What will happen to the nuclear warheads once they are removed from their missiles? ... It was Ronald Reagan himself who said, 'Trust, but verify.'"

Related Developments

On October 25, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced the US had postponed a number of missile defence tests after legal advice that they may have violated the ABM Treaty. According to Rumsfeld: "For some time now, we've advised the Congress and the government of the Russian Federation that the planned missile defence testing programme that we have was going to bump up against the ABM Treaty. That has now happened. This...reality, it seems to me, provides an impetus for the discussions that President Bush [is planning to hold] with President Putin..." See Documents and Sources for full statement and press briefing. Following the failure to achieve a decisive breakthrough at the November summit, US officials made clear that the Pentagon's testing programme would resume. The Bush administration has ruled out violating the accord, stating it will either leave the treaty, which would require providing a six-month notice of intent to withdraw, or proceed in the context of an agreed framework with the Russians.

Three days before Rumsfeld's statement, Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters that the line between permissible and impermissible testing remained in dispute: "I have had discussions with some Russian colleagues of mine who suggest we can probably do more testing than we want under the treaty, or the 1997 New York [TMD] Protocol... We are looking into all of that." Powell's remarks suggest an ironic situation in which US characterisation of the Treaty as rigid and inflexible may be leading it to underestimate the leeway for testing it allows, while Russia's dedication to the Treaty in its present form may be leading it to extol its capacity for prudent accommodation. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told reporters in Washington on November 14, his officials were now busy saying to the Americans, "let's look together at what tests you need. If such tests don't violate the treaty, why discard it? We don't think the ABM Treaty is outdated." Earlier (November 9), Russian Chief of Staff General Alexander S. Voloshin remarked: "Our military experts have calculated that for the next five to seven years, the existing conditions set in the ABM Treaty do not prevent the US from continuing its testing programme. But if there are obstacles to this, then tell us... We are ready to discuss how to change the Treaty."

In late October, media reports suggested that the postponed tests mentioned in Rumsfeld's statement were in fact delayed due to technical problems, related in particular to the prototype interceptor warhead being developed by the Raytheon Corporation. On October 29, Rumsfeld insisted that, whatever other considerations may be in play, the "important thing is we are not...putting the United states in the position where a small cluster of lawyers could argue we are violating the treaty."

The effect of September 11 on US strategy and priorities remains hard to gauge. The administration argues that the case for a shield against limited missile attack is clearer than ever. President Bush told reporters on October 11 that he planned to ask President Putin "to envision a world in which a terrorist thug and/or a host nation might have the ability to...deliver a weapon of mass destruction...via a rocket. And wouldn't it be in our nation's advantage to be able to shoot it down?" On November 13, Republican Representative Curt Weldon dismissed all criticism concerning the likely expense of any missile defence system: "We saw two buildings taken down [in New York]. Imagine if that had been all of Manhattan. ... [I]n that context, the cost is not an issue. It's a defence we do not have now." However, Under Secretary of Defense Dov Zakheim told reporters on October 5: "As you can imagine, this is not the No. 1 subject of debate inside the Department. Obviously the relationship with the Russians is going to change with respect to missile defence." Zakheim added: I don't see leaving a big wide gap open [for the terrorists] by not having a missile defence." Echoing the prevalent sentiment in his own party, Democratic Senator Max Cleland observed on October 1: "The likely place we're going to get hit next if we don't do something is the terrorist biological attack. I think now we have to put the national missile defence [programme] on the back burner."

Note: on December 3, the US Defense Department announced it had "successfully completed a test involving a planned intercept of an intercontinental ballistic missile target" as part of its "Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) Segment, formerly known as National Missile Defense." The test, postponed from October 24 and again by numerous weather problems in early December, was described by US officials as fully compliant with the ABM Treaty. See next issue for details and reaction.

Reports: Sen. Cleland cites threat of biological attack, Reuters, October 1; Pentagon sets back missile test schedule, Reuters, October 5; Transcript - Bush, in press conference, decries terrorist 'evildoers', US State Department (Washington File), October 11; Secretary of State Colin L. Powell briefing on board aircraft en route Washington DC, US State Department, Office of the Spokesman, October 22; Missile defense tests are put off, Washington Post, October 26; US, awaiting Putin, delays missile defense tests, New York Times, October 26; Russia hints at missile talks, Associated Press, October 29; US missile test delayed for technical, not political, reasons, Bloomberg, October 29; Excerpts from DoD news briefing Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers, October 29, 2001, CLW website; NSC Advisor Rice briefs on war on terrorism, missile defense, Washington File, November 1; Secretary Rumsfeld press conference with Russian Minister of Defense, Moscow, November 3, 2001, US Defense Department news transcript; Putin says Russia flexible on ABM Treaty, Reuters, November 6; Press briefing by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, The White House, November 8; A Russian volley over the ABM Treaty, Business Week Online, November 9; Letter from 9 US Senators to President Bush, November 9, 2001, CLW website; Missile shield program still costly, Associated Press, November 13; Russia official blasts missile cuts, Associated Press, November 14; Putin seeks to strengthen US ties, Associated Press, November 14; Bush, Putin mixed on formal treaty, Associated Press, November 14; Sens. Byrd and Biden on the need for written arms control agreements, November 15, 2001, CLW website; Rice - US nearing treaty limit, Associated Press, November 18; Closer Russia, NATO ties sough, Associated Press, November 19; Byliner - Amb. Vershbow on Bush-Putin Summit and US-Russian relations, Washington File, November 26; Missile intercept test successful, US Department of Defense News Release, December 3.

© 2001 The Acronym Institute.