#2
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
November 17, 2001
DID THE BUSH-PUTIN SUMMIT LIVE UP TO EXPECTATIONS?
Author: Sergei Sokut, Vadim Solovyov
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
IN ASSESSING THE RESULTS OF THE RUSSIAN-AMERICAN SUMMIT IN TEXAS, ANALYSTS BRUCE BLAIR AND SERGEI ROGOV AGREE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO SENSATIONS. AT THE SAME TIME, THEY BELIEVE THAT THIS SUMMIT HAS OPENED UP ANOTHER PHASE IN THE NEW RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES.
Summing up the summit - the expectations and the
results
Bruce Blair, head of the Defense Information Center, and Sergei Rogov, director
of the US-Canada Institute in Moscow, discuss the presidential summit in Texas.
Question: Mr. Blair, how do you assess the results of the talks between George Bush and Vladimir Putin on the issue of strategic weapons and the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty of 1972?
Bruce Blair: The result of the talk on strategic attack missiles was predictable and positive but not too impressive. This was a logical step in the process of arms reduction but it can hardly be called a breakthrough in Russo-American nuclear relations.
Both sides have very large nuclear arsenals left, and this extent of nuclear arsenals may be explained only by a potential possibility of a large-scale nuclear war between Russia and America. However, in reality such a war does not seem possible now.
President Putin seems to have made an important concession by allowing Bush conducting tests of the national missile defense system.
Question: What are the chances of the new Russian-American treaty on limitation of strategic weapons?
Blair: This will hardly be a treaty in its traditional meaning. In particular, the sides will hardly conduct long negotiations on this issue as they used to. The treaty is most likely to be substituted for by something like intergovernmental agreements. They will be legitimate but they it won't be necessary for parliaments to ratify them.
Question: Do you really think that the Bush administration is eager to reach a compromise with Russia on the ABM treaty, or does it just want to achieve a more practical result: make the missile defense program more agreeable to international public opinion?
Blair: I think President Bush and his retinue want to gain a compromise with Russia but on his own conditions, which is not a compromise as it is. The US administration wants to make believe that it is aspiring to a compromise I order to calm down both foreign and domestic opponents of the national missile defense system.
Question: How do you assess the results of the negotiations on the issue of strategic weapons and the ABM treaty of 1972 between George Bush and Vladimir Putin?
Sergei Rogov: Vladimir Putin's visit to the US highlighted positive moments in Russian-American relations that appeared after September 11. An actual prospect of cooperation between the two countries has appeared. The new Russo-American relations will be based on interests related to cooperation and partnership in the cause of combating international terrorism. Another basis for the new Russo- American relations may be nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and other mass destruction weapons. This means that Russo-American relations will enter a principally new phase, in which control over strategic weapons will not play the main role anymore. However, this does not mean that issues related to control over strategic weapons will be altogether removed from the agenda.
Question: What do you think of the future of the ABM treaty?
Rogov: I think it was principally important that the US administration has given up the idea of the unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty. As is known, there are rather influential circles in the Bush administration that wanted Bush to inform Russia about America's withdrawal from the treaty in six months. However, now I think this won't happen.
Question: Do you mean the unilateral reduction of nuclear weapons declared by Bush?
Rogov: Before the meeting with the Russian president in Washington Americans had refused to talk on this topic, asserting that it was necessary for them to analyze the international nuclear political situation before formulating their proposals. At the meeting with Putin his American counterpart reported that the US is ready to consent to much larger arms reductions than the Clinton administration was able to. The figure of 1,750-2,250 nuclear warheads is close to the figure proposed by Russia. A year ago Putin proposed to slash strategic attack weapons within START III down to 1,500 warheads.
However, the American side has not clarified its position regarding how these relations will be registered. Americans are saying that they are ready to do it unilaterally during the following decade. This means that the issue of START III is not resolved yet, since the US administration does not want to bother with signing new treaties.
The Russian side will apparently insist on registering the mutual undertakings within a new treaty. This treaty may retain components of the verification regime stipulated by START I but at the same time stipulate undertakings and terms of their implementation.
Besides, the American side has made it clear that it won't object to Russia's independent determination of the content and structure of its strategic attack forces. In this connection a question arises: What will happen to the ban of placement of Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs) on intercontinental ballistic missiles?
This issue should also be registered in some formal agreements, since both Russa and the US have ratified START II. Although the treaty has not come into effect, it bans the placement of MIRVs on intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Question: How will the negotiations be arranged? Who will prepare materials for an agreement on slashing strategic weapons?
Rogov: So far, these consultations have been handled by the ministries and departments of foreign affairs and defense. Now it seems to be necessary to alter the format of the consultations. Their subject should be concrete agreements including the ABM treaty of 1972.
In my opinion, today there is some significant progress in America's approach to the ABM treaty of 1972. This is related not only to the fact that the Bush administration has postponed its decision on withdrawal from the treaty but also to the fact that the very program of the national missile defense system is likely to be considerably altered.
Nevertheless, the Bush administration will continue the research and tests of the missile defense system, including some tests that formally come into conflict with the ABM treaty. This will cause a sort of suspense, since formally the treaty won't be canceled but at the same time the US will feel free about violating some of its secondary issues. This is the probable scenario for continuation of the negotiations.
It is also not ruled out too that these negotiations may result in amendments to the ABM treaty legalizing the tests. In this case the very regime of regulation and limitation of strategic defense and attack weapons will be preserved in a modified version.
(Translated by Kirill Frolov)
Next Article