A Dangerous Treaty

This article appeared in the June 3, 2002 edition of The Nation.

May 16, 2002

The Nation has warned repeatedly that the Bush Administration was threatening to undermine perhaps the best chance in a generation for a cooperative relationship with Russia that would make the world safer. The US-Russian nuclear weapons reduction agreement, announced May 13 and scheduled to be signed when George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet in Moscow on May 24, confirms our worst fears--and indeed may even create new dangers.

An unprecedented kind of cooperation between the two former cold war rivals is essential because of the disintegration of Russia's Soviet-era nuclear infrastructures, a development that has made the dangers of nuclear proliferation and accidents even greater than they were during the cold war. The only solution is very deep, rapid and irreversible cuts in the number of nuclear weapons in both countries, along with taking those that remain off hairtrigger alert. This treaty, which was virtually dictated to an impoverished and militarily weak Russia by the Bush Administration, falls far short of that goal--it doesn't even mention de-alerting--and thus represents a potentially tragic lost opportunity.

The treaty calls for each side to reduce its strategic warheads from about 6,000 to between 2,200 and 1,700. On the surface, those cuts may seem to be "historic," as the White House is claiming. Leaving aside the fact that the lower numbers are still obscenely high, the reductions are not to be realized until 2012, and during that ten-year period neither side is obliged to make cuts on a specified schedule. Since the agreement also permits either side to withdraw from the treaty with three months' notice, the United States or Russia could legally carry out few or no reductions for almost a decade and then abrogate the treaty before it expires. (The withdrawal clause was also insisted upon by the habitually unilateralist Bush Administration; because the treaty was all but imposed on Putin, it's unlikely to have much strong or lasting support in Moscow in any case.) Worse, reductions made may turn out to be virtual because neither side, on White House insistence, is required to destroy its decommissioned warheads--it may store as many as it wishes, as Washington has made clear it intends to do. Moscow will almost certainly do the same, and, given the widely recognized lack of security at its storage facilities, will thus multiply the already considerable risk of Russia's nuclear devices falling into the wrong hands--that is, fueling the danger of proliferation that has been especially alarming since September 11.

Subscriber Login

4 ISSUES FREE

Subscribe Now!

The only way to read this article and the full contents of each week's issue of The Nation online is by subscribing to the magazine. Subscribe now and read this article -- and every article published since for the past five years -- right now.

There's no obligation -- try The Nation for four weeks free.

.
Most Read

Issues »

Most Emailed

Issues »

Popular Topics

Blogs

» Campaign 08

"Troopergate" Report Review Rattled By GOP Protests | A veteran of the Bush-v-Gore fight of 2000 is on the ground organizing Palin backers to challenge inquiry into veep candidate's wrongdoing.
John Nichols
Posted at 7:00 PM EST

» The Dreyfuss Report

Thirty Years' War in Afghanistan | It might be unwinnable -- or it just might take several decades. A sober look at that other war.
Robert Dreyfuss

» Editor's Cut

The Woman Greenspan, Rubin & Summers Silenced | How Brooksley Born might have helped us avert this financial meltdown
Katrina vanden Heuvel

» The Notion

Is the Second Superpower of the Cold War Going Down? | The Soviets were bankrupted by an Afghan War that wouldn’t end. Now, is it our turn?
Tom Engelhardt

» The Beat

No More Stolen Elections! | A new campaign seeks to avert a repeat of Florida or Ohio in 2008.
John Nichols

» Capitolism

Expert Failure | How the elites failed us.
Christopher Hayes

» Act Now!

S. Dakota Goes After Choice (Again) | Meet the Rev. Steve Hickey. He believes that S. Dakota has been chosen by God to upend Roe v. Wade.
Peter Rothberg

» And Another Thing

Are You the Very Model of a Modern Vice-President? | Sarah's not the only one with a special skill.
Katha Pollitt