By Shoshana Bryen
WASHINGTON, D.C. –Arms control, a vestige of the Cold War, is back. Negotiations to determine the future size and shape of the American and Russian arsenals have been concluded and a new accord will be signed Thursday in Prague. How fitting to sign in the Czech Republic, stripped of a planned missile defense system by the Obama Administration in hopes of gaining Russian help on Iran (which never materialized).
There is a huge, gaping hole in this agreement on the role-if any-of missile defenses in the future. The Soviets/Russians understand American missile defenses as a threat to their interests. If the United States is able to defend against a Russian attack, the theory goes, it could be more willing to strike first. Nonsense, say the Americans, defense is defense, and the United States needs it against other threats.
The Russians are clear: Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced that, “Russia will have the right to opt out of the treaty if … the U.S. strategic missile defense begins to significantly affect the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces.” While American plans for a missile shield in Romania does not affect Russia, he added that Russia could opt out if U.S. missile interceptors become capable of intercepting Russia’s strategic missiles. “We cannot forbid the USA to work on missile defense. But this treaty will have clearly worded linkage between this work and the number and quality of strategic offensive weapons. The treaty and all the obligations it contains are valid only within the context of the levels which are now present in the sphere of strategic defensive systems.”
Russian presidential aide Sergei Prikhodko said, “The negotiators’ task was to ensure that inseparable mutual connection between strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms (missile defense) was adequately reflected in the new treaty. That task has been successfully accomplished- the linkage between strategic offensive arms and missile defense, as well as ever greater importance of this linkage in the process of strategic offensive arms cuts are set down in the treaty and will be legally binding.”
The United States says no, not true. A White House press release and a statement by Secretary of Defense Gates say there is no linkage and there will be no impact on U.S. plans to improve and deploy missile defenses.
Whose word will prevail when the question arises? Will the Russians walk away when they think they’ve gotten everything they can from the United States in terms of arms reduction? What would keep them in a treaty that has outlived its usefulness?
The treaty will go to the Senate for ratification-needing 67 votes. The first obligation of the Senate should be to understand the depth of the Russian understanding that future American missile defense capability is hostage to Russia. The second would be to ensure that missile defense-crucial to the United States and to our allies in Asia and Europe-is hostage to nothing.
*
Bryen is senior director of security policy of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Her column is sponsored by Waxie Sanitary Supply in memory of Morris Wax, longtime JINSA supporter and national board member