Europe, Headlines, Human Rights, North America, Nuclear Energy - Nuclear Weapons, Peace

RUSSIA: Some Partial Resetting at Last

Kester Kenn Klomegah

MOSCOW, Jul 7 2009 (IPS) - Russia and the United States have made a breakthrough by signing a new strategic arms reduction agreement after several months of diplomatic negotiations, closing some of the pages of the past and opening a new chapter for the future.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a nuclear weapons reduction agreement and also set up a U.S.-Russian presidential commission for economic cooperation, besides signing a cooperation agreement on use of Russian territory for delivery of equipment to fight Taliban forces.

The new agreement obliges Russia and the United States to cut stockpiles to 1,500-1,675 operational warheads within seven years after the treaty comes into force. The agreement also places considerable limits on delivery vehicles.

“We have signed a joint understanding for a follow-on treaty on the START agreement which will reduce our warheads and delivery systems by up to a third from our current treaty limitations,” Obama said after the agreement was signed Monday. “This legally binding treaty will be completed by the end of this year.”

Obama’s visit was a part of a much-trumpeted attempt by the U.S. to “reset” relations with Russia, damaged in recent years by last August’s Russia- Georgia war, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) expansion to Russia’s border, and U.S. plans for a missile defence system in central Europe.

But Obama acknowledged persisting differences on the European missile defence, and reiterated that the planned shield in Europe would “deal with a missile coming in from Iran or North Korea, or some other state.”

Many analysts in Washington believe it would be imprudent to swap the missile defence system for a new treaty, and that a possible decision not to deploy elements of the missile defence system in Europe would convince Moscow that threats and intimidation are the best way of influencing the Obama administration.

On the other hand, nuclear weapons are the last attribute of Russia as a superpower. Few now consider Russia a major political or economic player. Consequently, Russia’s civilian and military officials actively oppose nuclear cuts for the sake of global peace, rather than in exchange for major U.S. concessions.

But Russia also needs a new treaty because its strategic offensive arms continue to age, while new weapon systems do not ensure adequate replacements. Moscow would therefore be better off synchronising the inevitable scrapping of its missiles with the U.S.

The two leaders found other common interests. Yevgeny Volk, head of the Moscow office of The Heritage Foundation, a policy think tank, told IPS that “certainly a solution to Afghanistan problems that includes the neutralisation of Taliban and other extremist forces and the establishment of a strong and democratic government in Kabul is important both for Washington and Moscow.”

Moscow may even have greater interest in this, he said, because the Taliban represent a direct political and military threat to neighbours in central Asia, and to Russian clout in the region.

But there is a limit to common interests. “Russia does not like the increase of American and NATO influence in this country and in the central and southern Asia in general, and will like to contain or at least control this influence,” Volk said.

“It will be hard for the U.S. and Russia to work together because of the fundamental values underlying their regimes,” Robert Orttung, senior fellow at the Washington-based Jefferson Institute told IPS. “Russia is increasingly authoritarian and relies heavily on official anti-American rhetoric to boost its legitimacy.”

Orttung said that after the Obama-Medvedev summit, “Russia and the U.S. will have to find areas where they can work together. One area might be energy efficiency. Russia and the U.S. are both major energy producers and consumers, despite the usual focus on Russian production and U.S. consumption. They would have an interest in working together in developing energy efficiency technologies.”

The global recession was high on the agenda. Obama, in an interview with Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, dismissed suggestions that the U.S. was responsible for the economic crisis.

“We need to spend less time thinking about who is to blame and more time working together to do what needs to be done to get all of our economies moving in the right direction,” Obama said.

He said the economic crisis resulted from “a culture of irresponsibility regarding financial matters” in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, and urged efforts to promote an era of responsibility.

“We’re called upon to recognise that the free market is the most powerful generative force for our prosperity – but it is not a free licence to ignore the consequences of our actions,” Obama said.

Alexey Pushkov, director of the Institute of International Political Problems at the Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Academy in Moscow, said: “After Obama’s predecessor refused to respect Russia’s interests for two terms, the U.S. administration has now done something to show that it has really changed its stand, resetting their relations.” Up to a point.