New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty Signed

Also published here.

President Obama, President Medvedev and Czech President Klaus at Prague Castle, White House Photo, Chuck Kennedy, 4/8/10

One issue that has been front and center for Barack Obama has been nuclear arms control. He even wrote about it in college. During his Senate career, he finally had the opportunity to work on legislation regarding nuclear non-proliferation issues.

As President, he has been passionate about how we can work toward a world without nuclear weapons. He has been realistic that it’s a difficult process and will take a long time; he expressed this in a speech a year ago in Prague.

It is therefore symbolic that President Obama and President Medvedev of Russia signed a New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) in Prague today. I’ve written extensively about New START; you can read my overview of the treaty here.

That scrambling sound you hear is nuke wonks the world over shuffling papers, opening laptops, and cracking knuckles, getting ready to analyze the treaty protocol and text. You’ll be hearing a lot more about that, but I’d like to zero in on something significant from the White House blog. We all expected the Russians to issue a unilateral statement on missile defense; Brian McKeon explains it well:

One issue relates to U.S. plans for missile defense. The Russian government made a “unilateral statement” in connection with the treaty signing that indicated that if there is a qualitative and quantitative build-up in the U.S. missile defense system, such a development would justify Russia’s withdrawal from the New START Treaty.

There is nothing particularly novel about this kind of unilateral statement. In the long history of arms control agreements between the United States and Russia (and before that the Soviet Union), dating back to the Nixon Administration, the two countries have frequently issued such statements at the end of a long treaty negotiation. Sometimes these statements would make public a political understanding between the parties. Other times they would represent one party’s view or interpretation of an issue; in many cases, the other party would respond to give its own view.

The Russian statement falls into the latter category. It is described as a “unilateral” statement for a reason – the Russian government made a statement about missile defense with which the United States did not, and does not, agree. If we had agreed to it, the issue would be put into the treaty text, or issued as a “joint” statement. In fact, the United States issued its own unilateral statement, indicating that it plans to continue to develop and deploy its missile defense systems in order to defend itself. Neither the Russian statement nor the U.S. statement is legally binding on the other party. But each side is making its intentions clear — to the other party, and to the world.

It is worth noting that the Soviet government made a similar unilateral statement in 1991, when the predecessor START treaty was signed. At that time, the Soviet government said it would be justified in withdrawing from the START Treaty if the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty). As it happened, in 2001 the United States did withdraw from the ABM Treaty. The Russian government objected, but did not withdraw from the START Treaty.

Please also read Travis Sharp’s first-take analysis at the Nukes of Hazard, and Pavel Podvig’s snapshot as well.

Finally, here’s what President Obama had to say:

Today is an important milestone for nuclear security and non-proliferation, and for U.S.-Russia relations. It fulfills our common objective to negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. It includes significant reductions in the nuclear weapons that we will deploy. It cuts our delivery vehicles by roughly half. It includes a comprehensive verification regime, which allows us to further build trust. It enables both sides the flexibility to protect our security, as well as America’s unwavering commitment to the security of our European allies. And I look forward to working with the United States Senate to achieve ratification for this important treaty later this year.

Finally, this day demonstrates the determination of the United States and Russia — the two nations that hold over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons — to pursue responsible global leadership. Together, we are keeping our commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which must be the foundation for global non-proliferation.

While the New START treaty is an important first step forward, it is just one step on a longer journey. As I said last year in Prague, this treaty will set the stage for further cuts. And going forward, we hope to pursue discussions with Russia on reducing both our strategic and tactical weapons, including non-deployed weapons.

President Medvedev expressed similar sentiments. Read the whole transcript here, including a question-and-answer session with the press.

I’ll have more analysis in the next few days.

Today was a big day for both Russia and the United States. However, the work isn’t finished. Both the US Senate and the Russian Duma have to approve the treaty before our respective presidents can ratify it.

It’s going to be a tortuous process, but I do think it’s possible. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that it happens in a timely manner.