If the new start Treaty will not be signed until may, it will be a bad signal
Peter Cheremushkin, sob. the Interfax correspondent in WashingtonAmerican expert Hans Christensen in an interview to "Interfax" commented on the situation around the negotiations on the new start TreatyMoscow. March 22. INTERFAX - Hans Kristensen - Director of the Washington-based Nuclear information project at the Federation of American scientists. He is co-author of the world survey on nuclear forces, published by the Stockholm Institute SIPRI.Christensen in an interview with the correspondent of "Interfax" in Washington to Peter Cheremushkina commented on the progress of U.S.-Russian negotiations on the new start Treaty- Mr. Christensen, it seems that the start negotiations process was somewhat delayed. And although both sides make optimistic statements that the work is nearing completion, the end of this process is not visible. What can You say about the negotiations?- Delay in the talks was a surprise to many in Washington. Many were surprised that there was such a number of difficulties. And, frankly, it might even be some level of disappointment. But it will have to cope for the future of good relations with Russia.In America many believe that Russia is trying to extract concessions from the American side, through ongoing puffs. And some in Washington are beginning to think about the future agreements on arms control in General. And how they will form a strategic relationship in the long term. Many expected the start negotiations process will be quick and saw it as almost resolved the issue. But the problems with verification measures and ratification proved more complex than expected.I think both sides have the prerequisites to ensure that things went slower than expected. One of these issues - checking and inspection. U.S. and Russian nuclear structure after the cold war have developed in different ways and can say, in a different direction. This was especially evident in recent years, when questions of strategic arms control has been given much less attention. Because, as you know, the Bush administration came to power with the opinion that we no longer need the strategic arms control, the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty. Then was developed the Moscow Treaty of 2002, which, in fact, was not a contract and a handshake.And now the American administration went back to those questions, because she understands at stake a large bet. The development of the American nuclear potential, its structure, forces and resources were in the direction of possessing a smaller number of warheads on each missile. And more missiles. While Russia's potential was developing in the direction of possessing a large number of nuclear warheads and fewer missiles. The US no longer make missiles, while in Russia, missiles continue to be produced. Because of this imbalance encountered various problems in the process of testing the new start Treaty. Russia is very focused on parity and equality between the two countries. While the U.S. does not take into account the parity with Russia, and think about, how should I put it, on fundamental deterrence. They believe that the U.S. is not so important, is Russia a little more or a little less nuclear weapons.Russian negotiators believe that the US should not have access to the objects of missile production in Russia due to the fact that in the United States no production of missiles. Americans say: "How so? In the same essence of the agreement! This is a test". The Americans insist that they should have more delivery vehicles because they have fewer warheads. But in Russia there is a question regarding U.S. warheads stored in warehouses.- In addition to those issues that You listed, there is still the issue of linkage between strategic offensive and defensive weapons, missile defense and strategic offensive weapons. In Moscow in the State Duma, said that the new Treaty will not be ratified, unless it is linking to is ABOUT. In the U.S. Congress, especially Senator McCain, say that the Treaty will not be ratified if it will contain this link. In the Senate, the Republicans no majority, but it is a threatening issue for the ratification of the Treaty. What might be the solution?- As always, both sides have hardliners who are trying to score points on this. In the U.S. administration there is a desire first to step forward and to lead to the signing of the contract. First, we will extend the contract and create a new control system. The U.S. nuclear potential will not significantly change, but it will be a little different. But both countries give a signal, and maybe it will become part of the agreement in the sense that at least reduce the nuclear level in the future linkage to missile defense will inevitably need. And linking with conventional weapons, which are capable of carrying warheads. I think that the issue is not linked, but how soon, this linkage must be defined and documented in writing as stipulated in the Treaty.Ultimately, this linkage will have to go, but she will be such that it will not impose actual restrictions on ballistic missiles. Everything will depend on how will look the final version of the contract. When the Russian parliamentarians have expressed a tough stance against linking, they should clearly understand that they will get, eventually, if you take such a tough stance.
> > > >