Login/Logout

*
*  

"[Arms Control Today is] Absolutely essential reading for the upcoming Congressional budget debate on the 2018 #NPR and its specific recommendations ... well-informed, insightful, balanced, and filled with common sense."

– Frank Klotz
former Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
March 7, 2018
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

Yeltsin Submits START II, ABM-TMD Agreements to Duma

April 1998

By Craig Cerniello

As part of the START II ratification process, Russian President Boris Yeltsin formally transmitted to the Duma on April 13 the package of strategic arms control agreements that were signed by the United States and Russia last September in New York. (See ACT, September 1997.) This action has been accompanied by some encouraging signs that the Duma may take up START II before adjourning for its summer recess on July 10.

The package of agreements includes the START II extension protocol and associated documents; the memorandum of understanding (MOU) on succession to the ABM Treaty; the two agreed statements relating to the ABM Treaty; the agreement on confidence-building measures (CBMs); and the regulations of the Standing Consultative Commission (SCC). The joint statement on the annual exchange of information related to theater missile defense (TMD) systems and the unilateral statements issued by the United States, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine on their respective TMD plans are also part of the package.

Although Yeltsin submitted the New York agreements to the Duma, they are not all necessarily subject to ratification. At this point, the Duma is expected to take action on START II (as amended by the protocol), the MOU on succession as well as the first and second agreed statements on demarcation. It is not yet clear, however, whether the Duma will choose to act on the CBMs agreement or the SCC regulations, which are simply implementing documents related to the agreed statements and MOU.

The Clinton administration has stated that it intends to submit a similar package of agreements to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification once Russia has ratified START II. In addition, the United States and Russia agreed at Helsinki in March 1997 to immediately begin negotiations on a START III agreement, which will limit each side to 2,000 to 2,500 deployed strategic warheads by the end of 2007, once Russia ratifies START II. A Clinton-Yeltsin summit meeting may also be linked to Russian parliamentary action on START II.

With the transmittal of the package to the Duma, Yeltsin appears committed to achieving START II ratification. Referring to the amended START II treaty, Yeltsin said April 13 that it "corresponds to the interests of Russia." That same day, he formally appointed Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov and Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev as his representatives during the Duma's deliberations on the treaty.

According to an April 14 Interfax report, Gennady Seleznev, chairman of the Duma, said final parliamentary hearings on START II (involving Primakov and Sergeyev) might take place in May and that the ratification issue will be put on the agenda in June.

In that same report, Vladimir Lukin, chairman of the Duma's International Affairs Committee, an influential committee in the ratification process, expressed his support for START II as amended and stated that an "interfactionary" commission will be established in the near future to assess the package of strategic agreements that Yeltsin submitted.

Amid these developments, Primakov and Sergeyev continue to publicly make the case for the strategic arms reduction process. Primakov said on April 2 that START II ratification is "in the interests of Russia (and) in the interests of world peace," while Sergeyev called for further arms reductions on April 23 and said the United States and Russia could maintain strategic stability with only 2,500 deployed warheads each.

Nevertheless, it is unclear whether the Duma can be persuaded to act on START II promptly in the aftermath of Sergei Kiriyenko's controversial nomination as prime minister and the U.S. Senate's formal approval of NATO enlargement.

Yeltsin Submits START II, ABM-TMD Agreements to Duma

Cochran, Inouye Introduce Alternative NMD Bill

March 1998

As an indication that the debate on national missile defense (NMD) policy is intensifying, Senators Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Daniel Inouye (D-HI) introduced the "American Missile Protection Act of 1998" on March 19, thereby offering another alternative to the Clinton administration's "3+3" program (see ACT, January/February 1998). The legislation (S.1806) would make it U.S. policy "to deploy as soon as is technologically possible" an NMD system that is capable of defending the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized or deliberate). Their proposal differs from the NMD bill introduced last year by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS), which calls for deployment by the end of 2003, in that it does not mandate a specific deployment date and does not require the United States to consider withdrawing from the ABM Treaty if an amendment is not reached with Russia within one year to permit NMD deployment. Under the Clinton administration's 3+3 plan, the United States seeks to develop the elements of an NMD system by the year 2000 that can then be deployed within another three years if the ballistic missile threat makes it necessary.

Cochran, Inouye Introduce Alternative NMD Bill 

Advancing the Arms Control Agenda: Pitfalls and Possibilities

January/February 1998

An ACA Panel Discussion

Before its annual membership meeting on February 18, ACA presented a panel discussion of the arms control issues facing the Clinton administration and the Senate in the coming years and the state of U.S.-Russian relations. Panelists included Spurgeon M. Keeny, Jr., ACA president and executive director; Jack Mendelsohn, ACA deputy director; Susan Eisenhower, chairman of the Center for Political and Strategic Studies and a member of the ACA Board of Directors; and John Isaacs, president and executive director of the Council for a Livable World. Eisenhower had returned the previous day from her most recent trip to the former Soviet Union, where she met with a number of Russian and Ukrainian officials, including Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeniy Primakov and Defense Council member Andre Kokoshin.

Below is an edited version of the panelists' remarks and the question and answer session which followed.

 


Spurgeon M. Keeny, Jr.

Let me start the proceedings with some observations on where we have been during the past year and where we will be going in the next year and for the rest of the Clinton administration. At this meeting a year ago, I observed that the fate of the Clinton record on arms control in the second term would depend on two actions which were then before us. One was the ability to obtain the Senate's approval of the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC], and the other was the success of the Helsinki understandings in obtaining the Duma's ratification of START II. As you all know, that administration made a major effort and achieved approval of the CWC. This demonstrated the ability to complete arms control legislation, despite strong initial opposition, even with this somewhat recalcitrant Senate. At the same time, despite the success of converting the Helsinki understanding into actual agreements in New York in September, the Duma has continued its opposition to ratification of START II.

Today, the administration is faced with four closely interrelated problems, any one of which could prevent progress in arms control. The first is the continued opposition to START II in the Duma because of strong opposition to NATO expansion and, to a lesser extent, concern about the future of the ABM Treaty. The second is the continued Senate efforts to kill the ABM Treaty and possibly oppose approval of the amended START II package because of the theater missile defense demarcation language which it contains. The third is Senate opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban [CTB] Treaty. The fourth problem is the failure to resolve the Iraqi UNSCOM inspection problem.

On START II, the arguments in the Duma about the inequities of the treaty have been largely answered by the Helsinki and New York agreements, which amend the implementation of START II by extending final completion of the reductions for five years and by commiting to undertake START III negotiations to reduce final warhead ceilings from the current 3,000-3,500 to 2,000-2,500. Now, although some Russian officials, taking into account the new Founding Act, appear to be reconciled to NATO expansion, at least as far as the first three new adherents are concerned, the Duma as a whole is clearly not convinced of this. Beyond that the notion of a second phase of NATO expansion to include the three Baltic states is anathema to all Russians across the political spectrum.

On the ABM Treaty, U.S. efforts to "protect" the treaty from domestic critics by establishing a very permissive, self-defined and self-implementing demarcation line have not persuaded the Duma that this will in fact protect the treaty, and have not pacified U.S. advocates of a substantial ABM deployment. In this connection, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott [R-MS] has introduced legislation requiring the deployment of a national missile defense system with an initial operating capability in 2003. This would undoubtedly require crippling amendments to, or the repudiation of, the ABM Treaty. On its part, the Duma will almost certainly attach conditions to its START II ratification that the ABM Treaty must continue in force in its present form.

As to the CTB Treaty, I don't think I have to lecture this group on how important it is as part of the nuclear non-proliferation strategy. It has become the litmus test of the support of the nuclear-weapon states for the reduction of their dependence on nuclear forces. It was a major factor in obtaining the indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]. The United States must ratify the CTB in 1998 in order to maintain the momentum of international support for the treaty. Without U.S. ratification, Russia and China are not going to ratify the CTB. If U.S. action is not taken in 1998, it will probably mean that there will not be a widely ratified CTB Treaty in time for the NPT review conference in 2000, which will look to the CTB as the primary indicator of the intentions of the nuclear-weapon states to honor their commitments when the NPT was indefinitely extended in 1995.

There is, unfortunately, significant Republican opposition to the test ban, and more important, at least as of now, there is no leading Republican senator who has taken the role of champion of the CTB. Hopefully, such champions soon will emerge. The administration has undertaken a serious effort to advance the CTB, and I trust Bob Bell will have more to say on that later. The administration has the advantage that never existed in the past in the support of the military and of the weapons laboratories on the treaty. Recently, four former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs joined the present chairman in support of the treaty and the current weapons laboratories' directors have all supported the treaty. Now, this support does involve rather lavish support of the stockpile stewardship program of the laboratories. Clearly a stewardship program is necessary; whether it needs to be this generous can be debated. Nevertheless, it should assure us with support of the weapons laboratories.

I think the biggest hurdle for the test ban, in the final analysis, will be the verification issue, rather than reliability and safety concerns. Unfortunately, the intelligence community is the most uncertain in its support for the treaty. As most of you know, the performance of the intelligence community in the case of the recent Novaya Zemlya earthquake was very disturbing, and even now it has not come out unambiguously in identifying it as an earthquake. The community's inflexibility in dealing with an obvious earthquake does not build confidence in its ability to deal objectively with future verification problems.

On a more positive note, there is clearly overwhelming public support for the CTB and little opposition. Hence, if it can ever be brought to a vote, which John Isaacs will discuss, I think it will be approved by the Senate. It will be hard for real-life politicians to oppose such a broadly supported idea.

Now, turning to Iraq, I think it must be put in the category of fundamental problems for the future of arms control. It has become the total focus of the nuclear non-proliferation policy issue with far-reaching implications. I would very much prefer to discuss the more positive aspects of the non-proliferation policy, including: making progress in North Korea, the lining-up of China and Russia in a more supportive role to the non-proliferation regime, and even, possibly changing attitudes toward Iran, but all of these developments have been pushed into the background by Iraq.

There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a menace, although his actual current capabilities, I think, are grossly exaggerated as part of the effort to build public support for punitive action against Iraq. There is no question that he has grossly interfered with the legitimate activities of the UNSCOM inspectors. There is no question that he has repeatedly lied or misled UNSCOM as to the nature and extent of his programs. Speaking personally, I do not oppose punitive action in principle, if it is in fact really necessary to protect the international non-proliferation regime or the integrity of the United Nations. However, one must weigh very carefully the contribution to this objective, namely, building an international nuclear non-proliferation regime and constraining Iraq in the long term, against potential immediate adverse effects, if we go this route essentially alone without clear Security Council backing.

No one appears to have claimed that a limited bombing program will force Saddam out or change his world view. No one appears to claim that such a limited bombing program would prevent his future development of biological or chemical weapons capabilities. But against these unclear positive contributions of a punitive attack and the satisfaction of punishing a wrong-doer, there seem to be a remarkable number of adverse consequences that the administration does not appear to have considered very carefully. These include the destruction of the remarkable Gulf War alliance that is indispensable to maintaining sanctions. It will probably end UNSCOM inspectors' access to Iraq, which, even if incomplete, will be extremely important in the long term in ascertaining whether Iraq resumes its BW, CW and nuclear weapons programs and ballistic missiles to deliver them.

It will almost certainly seriously worsen U.S.-Russian relations. It will substantially undercut the position of our friends in Russia, and drastically reduce the prospects for the Duma's early ratification of START II. Important people in Russia all the way from [President Boris] Yeltsin and Minister of Defense Igor Sergeyev to leading Duma personalities have underscored the negative impact this will have on the prospects for START II. It will also undercut the leadership role of the United States and the prospect for success in the Middle East peace process. To this I would also add that it will probably result in a substantial increase in U.S. domestic pressure in the Senate for a national missile defense, given the almost hysterical over-reaction to the extent of the BW, CW threat that the U.S. government has stimulated.

And finally, unless we are extremely lucky in this limited attack, it will not have any impact on Saddam Hussein and may be even appear to strengthen his position within Iraq and within the region. All of this will have the effect of deflating the almost invincible image that the United States has established for its conventional arms capabilities. The Gulf War was a remarkable military victory. If we follow it with a military exercise that does nothing except create serious new problems, the world may take another look at just how significant super-high technology U.S. conventional arms are.

In closing, let me say that the events of the next few weeks with regard to Iraq and in the next few months with regard to the expansion of NATO, particularly those involving commitments to a second-phase expansion to include the Baltic states, will have a decisive effect on whether the Duma will act on START. This in turn will determine whether there will be significant further progress in arms control during the balance of the present administration.

 

Jack Mendelsohn

I stand here somewhat diffident because I have to steer a straight and narrow path between Susan Eisenhower, who returned last night from Moscow; a representative of the Russian embassy; Stan Riveles, the head of our missile defense negotiating team; and Bob Bell, who's going to speak at lunch on the administration's policy. So I have to be constrained and will probably be contradicted, if not corrected, many times during the day.

The big question is still: Will Russia act on the START II agreement? In the late fall, Russian officials were quite upbeat about the opportunities and possibilities for START II in the Duma after the success of the Yeltsin administration in gaining approval of the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Yeltsin administration thought that they had learned how to deal with the Duma in the way that U.S. presidents have to deal with the Senate to get what they want, and they were expecting to move early this year on the Open Skies Treaty, which they thought would be quite easy, and then START II. Clearly, there are a number of extraneous factors, but primarily the Iraq situation has slowed the process down and Duma representatives are now threatening that if we bomb Iraq then they will not act at all on START II or they will reject it.

What is striking about this situation is how similar it looks to the way the U.S. Senate behaves in similar situations. The obvious connections are, first, the linkage aspects, where unrelated incidents lead you to take actions that are not in your own interest, and secondly, not putting an important document—like the CTB Treaty—on the parliamentary calendar; the Duma has not put START II on its calendar. Neither in the U.S. case nor in the case of the Duma does this mean that they are not going to deal with it: that depends on how successful the Yeltsin or Clinton administrations will be in forcing their parliaments to act.

If we bomb Iraq and expand NATO, we could be treading water on START for an extended period of time, perhaps for this year, perhaps for longer. One of the biggest dangers, if the Russians do not act on START II and we tread water, is that the arguments against taking decisive action to deploy missile defenses will be undercut. Because the key argument that the administration uses, and correctly, is that the reason we want to be cautious about what we do on missile defenses is that they are linked to strategic force reductions, both in the minds of most arms controllers and certainly in the minds of the Russians. To allow that strategic force reduction process to continue, we have to be cautious about ballistic missile defenses. If that reduction process doesn't continue, if the Russians look like they are not going to act on START II, that undercuts the argument against missile defense and, I think, strengthens the case of those who want to argue, "Well, the Russians aren't reducing formally in any case so what would be the harm in deploying strategic missile defenses?"

On the other hand, if the Duma—and this is the irony of ironies—if the Duma does approve START II, then the potential blockage shifts to the U.S. Senate, where approval is not assured for the package that will be sent back for Senate action, which is a protocol to extend the time frame of implementation for START II and the package for theater missile defense [TMD] agreements. Helms has made it quite clear, as have other conservative senators, that they want to takea "careful look,"—meaning they'd like to defeat—some aspects of the TMD package.

Now particularly, if the Russians act and the START II package comes to the U.S. Senate—and the administration intends to submit to a START II protocol as a package with the TMD agreements because understandably, as I explained earlier, they are linked. They are related and the administration believes that the TMD material would be quite vulnerable without the START II prolongation protocol. Helms and other conservative senators clearly want to look at the second agreed statement on higher-velocity TMD systems, which some senators object to even though only one ban exists in there on space-related systems. They also want to look at the multilateralization of the ABM Treaty in the memorandum of understanding [MOU] on succession. They object to that for a number of reasons: One, they believe it will make it more difficult in the future to amend the ABM Treaty, and secondly, they believe, mistakenly, that if they defeat the multilateralization MOU, the ABM Treaty then becomes an invalid or inoperative document. There is also an issue related to which branch of government has the right, the legislative or the executive, to name a successor state to a treaty. So there is also sort of a constitutional power struggle in the multilateralization debate.

In any case the administration has a very powerful argument—if it gets the package from the Russians—in favor of the TMD settlement: primarily, that in the minds of the Russians, continued viability of the ABM Treaty, of which the TMD package is part, is linked to significant, monitored, verified, MIRVed reductions under START II and you don't get one without the other. Secondly, the Defense Department supports this treaty, and thirdly, there are serious budget implications if we don't get START II, in embarking on a missile defense program.

In the debate in Russia, they have basically the same three arguments in favor of START II: that they are strategically at a disadvantage if they do not move into START II, where they will have regulated, verified parity with the United States, rather than reduction on their side, which might not be matched by the same kind of reductions on our side. Secondly, their Ministry of Defense very strongly supports START II and has made an excellent presentation to the Duma on the strategic necessity for Russia to move into a START II agreement. And lastly, there are serious budgetary implications for Russia, which will have great difficulty sustaining its strategic forces at START I levels.

Let me just mention briefly some of the issues we will face if we get past the approval stage in the U.S. Senate. There are four, perhaps five, basic issues related to the immediate aftermath of START II approval. Hopefully, by the end of the year, we will be whisked into a discussion of further reductions in the levels of strategic forces. That's something the Russians want, that's something we've committed ourselves to last year in the Helsinki-New York process, and it actually shouldn't be that hard to negotiate. The United States has already said it is prepared to live with a level of 2,000 warheads in the commitment to 2,000-2,500 warheads in START III. The Russians, now, would very much like an even lower level and are talking about figures around 1,500, so we're really talking about a debate or range of warheads from 1,500 to 2,000. It doesn't seem an impossible figure to get either a compromise or arrive at some agreed point.

We are also talking about deactivation. Again, this is something that we are likely to move into quickly because the administration's selling point on START II to the Senate, after having moved the completion date to the end of 2007, is that within a year of the original completion date, January 2003, all the systems that are scheduled to come out of the force will basically be off-line and non-operational. Now, the Russians recognize how anxious we are and, while they are not opposed to deactivation, they have established a linkage between promptly getting a satisfactory level for START III and their completion of the dactivation process. They want to keep the pressure on us for an appropriate level; we've got to keep the pressure on them for deactivating as soon as possible those systems that are scheduled to be eliminated.

Many of you in the audience are interested in de-alerting, which is a subset of deactivation. I urge you to pose questions to Bob Bell this afternoon on where that might stand. Some say that obviously, if you are going to deactivate a system, it's going to be de-alerted; it's not going to be available for use. But there's a second aspect of de-alerting, and that's whether or not the remaining operational forces will come off high alert status, and the administration has combined the two and talks almost interchangeably about deactivation and de-alerting, but there is a difference. As for the deactivation of those systems that are scheduled to be eliminated, everybody's on board. But de-alerting, I think, will have a much more difficult time, both in the United States and in Russia, which, I believe, is not quite ready to talk about de-alerting operational forces at this time.

A third issue that will be on the table is the question of transparency of nuclear infrastructures: stockpiles, dismantling, fissile materials. Here again, I think we're going to have a difficult time. The Russians are not enthusiasts about opening up their nuclear infrastructure to the kind of transparency measures that we ultimately have in mind. As a matter of fact, there is a contrary trend in the Russian position right now, which is that they are seeking less onerous verification, some relief, if you will, from the verification measures that were instituted in START I and carried over into START II and that they now find unnecessary. So, rather than becoming more transparent, they'd like to see some relief. There is some relief that's possible in the verification area, but we don't have an open door from the Russians to transparency.

The fourth issue is tactical nuclear forces, and again, I don't think we're exactly on the same track there. The U.S. put tactical nuclear weapons on the table at Helsinki, although there was not agreement to ban or limit them, it was agreed to discuss "measures" dealing with them. The United States would like to get a little more transparency into the Russian stockpile. The Russians added SLCMs as a counter-proposal because they're not so sure that they want to put their tactical nuclear weapons on the negotiating table. They are sure, however, that they would like to get a better deal on SLCMs than they got in START I, which was simply a very high cap of 800 with not much else involved. Fortunately, the tactical nuclear weapons-SLCMs are to be treated as a separable issue and are not directly linked to START III. Tactical nuclear weapons are something we are going to have to deal with, one way or another, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that as strategic nuclear forces come down, people are going to be concerned that there will be a potentially unsettling disparity in the tactical sector.

The last issue on the START III table—and which will be both highlighted by and left over from the debate in the United States Senate—is Theater Missile Defense. The Russians have made it quite clear that they want to continue to follow the TMD issue, that they are still concerned about developing and deploying highly-capable TMD. So that discussion isn't over and is likely to figure prominently along side the START III negotiations.

 

Susan Eisenhower

On the inevitability of NATO expansion, you know, hope springs eternal. I will not believe it is going to happen until it happens, because I came back from Moscow with the absolute conviction that to expand NATO would be a mistake of historic proportions, and I would underline that several times. NATO expansion has been received, I would say, with fear and trepidation. That in combination with the situation in Iraq has really created a very new dimension to our relations with Russia—a dimension that could jeopardize U.S.-Russian relations for some time in the future.

I had a fascinating trip and met with many officials at all different levels including Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeniy Primakov and Defense Council official Andrei Kokoshin. Perhaps the way to begin my remarks would be to quote Mikhail Gorbachev, who I had the pleasure of seeing at a conference last Saturday. He, of course, is central in many ways to this question of NATO expansion because it is his policy that has been discredited within the Russian Federation. That is, his policy of disarmament and withdrawal and the attempt to create a partnership with the United States.

Let me say that I am going to be making these remarks from the Russian viewpoint, because I think this is something that is absolutely critical, and when you read the U.S. papers, it is astonishing, the lack of perspective that is addressed to the Russian question. I don't know about everybody else here, but I was raised in a family that had very active and dynamic dinner table conversations. I was constantly the trouble-maker, raising all kinds of issues at dinner. Part of the Eisenhower family tradition was that you weren't allowed to make a blanket statement about anything unless you assessed how it looked to the other guy. We don't do that very well in this country, and I must say, coming back from Russia and having a sense of seeing it from the other perspective, I think there are a number of issues that we are going to have to focus on now if we are going to avoid a complete meltdown in relations. I was frankly shocked before I left for Moscow, to read an open letter signed by more than 60 retired admirals and generals supporting NATO expansion. I could respect, certainly, all of their arguments, though I disagree with them, except where they got to the blanket statement in this open letter that, believe it or not, expansion of NATO is going to improve U.S.-Russian relations. I think to say it as a statement is absolutely astonishing. The principle being that NATO expansion is about creating stability, and therefore Russia will welcome stability, and therefore U.S.-Russian relations will improve.

In discussing this particular open letter in Moscow, which they were aware of, one democratic reformer emphasized that if NATO expansion isn't bad enough, having the U.S. tell Russia what's in its interest doubles the insult. We are going to have to accept the fact that NATO expansion is not going to improve U.S.-Russian relations and it should just be taken as a fact, because the Russians have told us it's not going to improve relations.

At a conference, Gorbachev listened to all the technical discussions about arms control arms reductions, and finally became somewhat exasperated by it and said, all the technical stuff is fine, but what we have here is a philosophical question before us. And that philosophical question relates to, what kind of relationships we are going to have with each other. It is a question of trust, he said. And he added frankly, NATO expansion has absolutely poisoned the atmosphere—those were his words—of U.S.-Russian relations. I don't know whether the translator was correct but he also used the word 'swindled,' which is a pretty strong word.

In fact, Gorbachev and others see a number of policies that the United States has adopted as deeply threatening to Russia in many ways. Not only NATO expansion, butalso this appearance that the United States wishes to dominate the world in some kind of unilateral fashion. Gorbachev made the point of saying that U.S. behavior, not only on NATO expansion but also on the question of Iraq, has given real life to the conspiracy theories that have been floating around Russia for some time.

He raised another point about a policy that I began to see for the first time from the other side's point of view. And that is the necessity within the former Soviet space for countries there to cooperate with one another. He made the point that the United States has adopted a policy that will not allow for even economic integration between Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Russia and other countries, which have worked together for centuries. In fact, there is a tendency to begin to try to enter into relationships in that part of the world, as a way to thwart Russia. I went to Kiev on this trip and it was very clear that the Ukrainians took the opportunity to complain about the Russians. I had some uneasiness that the United States was going to be part of some competition, in terms of influence. I personally was uncomfortable with that because, as Gorbachev mentioned, some kind of cooperation, certainly on the economic front, is going to be absolutely crucial because the United States has not provided economic help and their economic survival is going to depend on some interaction.

In any case, I think the strongest message I came away with was that even Gorbachev himself, who has always been very Western-focused, made the point very strongly that U.S.-Russian relations are at their most serious point in some time. You might be interested to know that Gorbachev is against strikes in the Middle East, because he is of the opinion that there is a vast difference between the situation in 1991, when Iraq was clearly a military aggressor, and the situation now, where he and others believe there is still room for a diplomatic solution.

Gorbachev, of course, was the man who presided over unification of Germany back during the days of the Soviet Union. There were renewed complaints about the fact that the Soviets had received assurances about NATO expansion. But perhaps the most interesting discussion I had was with one radical reformer who felt that there was another betrayal perpetrated on the Russians after the "Two-plus-Four" period. He said that in 1994 he had attended a NATO conference and was told that unless Russia joined Partnership for Peace, NATO would expand. Several months later NATO committed itself to expanding anyway. In the meantime he had testified before the Duma supporting the idea of Russia becoming a member of Partnership for Peace, precisely to avoid this eventuality. This young reformer was saying to me that he regards it as a personal insult to him that Russian reformers had been betrayed a second time.

I mention this only because now we've got two generations of aggrieved Russians on this particular point and it was said with a kind of passion that surprised even me. I have to say, however, it was very clear that the unhappiness about NATO expansion was underscored many times by the issue in Iraq. This is one aspect that will have huge impact for the arms control agenda. I was told, not by one person but by many, that if in fact there are unilateral strikes in Iraq, START II is dead. It's not even postponed; it is flat out dead. And so again, taking the Russians at their word, which they certainly deserve, I think we should take note of that.

Coming back and reading the American press or even some of the press that reached me in Russia, I think we have to examine the way Russia is being characterized inside the United States as a bad actor on the international stage. My own personal opinion is that Americans are not very good at looking at it from other people's perspectives. It's very clear to me that the Russians have a very specific viewpoint, and that it's not an anti-American viewpoint at all. In fact, I was rather interested that a number of Yevgeniy Primakov's colleagues, some of whom were critics of Primakov, told me what Primakov's line had been inside Russia. They said that evn in closed-door sessions of the Duma, Primakov has been trying to convince Russia of the importance of working with the United States.

I say this because it seems to me that at the heart of the way we perceive Russia in this Iraqi situation is our interpretation of who Yevgeniy Primakov is. I don't know if you saw The Washington Times article that came out last week characterizing Primakov as this Soviet apparatchik, a Brezhnev protégé, former KGB agent who had connections in some way to Lavrenti Beria, a man who is working against U.S. interests at all points. I have to tell you, such misinformation reminds me of the Soviet Union, though this time it came from our side. I took that article and made it my business to talk to at least five different people across the political spectrum about who Yevgeniy Primakov is, and found, to my intense interest, that there at least five or six flat-out factual errors in this story.

I thought I would take my opportunity here to tell you very quickly what I found out about Primakov. I have known him for twelve years myself. I actually met with him on this trip, and so I can tell you that first off, he was not happy at being regarded as someone connected to Lavrenti Beria. In fact, his wife was Georgian, but there is no family tie there at all. But then, not taking Primakov's word for things, as I say, I was interested that so many reformers believe that, in fact, Primakov had spoken long and hard in private sessions about the importance of good U.S. relationships. Several of his earlier colleagues emphasized that it's not possible that Primakov worked for the KGB in the early years back in the Middle East simply because at the Institute, everyone knew who was who. It is important to note that Primakov came to power in the Soviet Union first through his promotion by Alexander Yakovlev, who was regarded as "the architect of Perestroika," and later was promoted as an alternative member of the Politburo by Mikhail Gorbachev. I was told by several people and Primakov himself that because of his travels, Primakov never actually met Brezhnev.

The point being that if you believe that Primakov and other Russians wish to specifically thwart the United States in this part of the world, then suddenly you can see the need to expand NATO rapidly or to take a completely different approach. If you look at Primakov and others as reformers who are trying hard to defend the interests of new Russia as it goes through a very difficult transition, then you come up with a very different way of looking not only at Russia, but perhaps U.S.-Russian relations.

In addition to the economic power struggle, there is a power struggle within the national security apparatus. I thought it was extremely interesting that the division within that community could be seen in three ways. Over the signing of the NATO-Russian Founding Act, there were those who were absolutely against signing it at all, and then within the camp of westernizers, there was a division betweem those who believed Primakov should have held out longer, and those who thought he had no choice but to sign. In general, most westernizers felt that he probably had to sign for one specific reason: to prove one more time to the United States and to the world that this is no longer the Soviet Union they're dealing with.

In conclusion, I would say that I find all this extremely difficult. Many of those here in the audience, including Bob McNamara and I, were going back and forth to the Soviet Union in the late 80's trying very hard to improve U.S.-Soviet relations. Today I think relations are at their worst, certainly in the last decade. I'm not sure what we could do to repair relations, but certainly none of the major issues that are on the agenda, including non-proliferation and curbing drug trafficking can be done without Russia. I think we have to have a wholly different approach to this part of the world because in the end they have a different viewpoint about how to solve this crisis in Iraq and how to build European security.

In Iraq, they feel that since Saddam Hussein does not have any launch capabilit for his developing program that there's at least enough time to work out a diplomatic solution—a solution that would be, as Primakov himself told me, "a victory for the international community." But there will be huge resistance if they see American unilateral action going forward unchecked because, in their view NATO expansion and U.S. unilateral action in Iraq are all part of a larger pattern of, as Gorbachev said, an American desire for superiority in the world. There is deep concern about the future of the UN and other international institutions.

I wish I had a more encouraging report. Maybe I'm going to be a dissident when I say that the positive movement has to come from our side. Because, the Soviet Union of Gorbachev's era, and now Russia, has done the very things that were part of our wildest dreams during the Cold War. It's not a question of wanting to be an imperial power. There seems to be complete understanding that they are no longer a superpower. A little respect and recognition of their legitimate needs would go a long way. At the dinner table we should try to look at it from the other guy's standpoint. There is never going to be any possibility to solve great international issues without that as a starting point.

 

John Isaacs

Unlike Susan Eisenhower, who got off a jet plane from Moscow to come here for the talk, I only took a cab ride from Capitol Hill—though some people would argue that the distance I traveled is even greater.

As is frequently the case, much of our hope for arms control progress in 1998 rests on what happens in the legislative branch—not a very friendly one at that. The major difference we face now, compared to previous times, is that we have two legislative branches to be concerned about, the Russian Duma as well as the U.S. Senate. It almost makes one long for the good old days when the Soviet general secretary would just tell the legislature when to approve a treaty.

I have a list of 15 or 16 treaties that could be considered by the Senate. I'd like to focus on, what I believe, will be the three most important ones that may—or may not—be considered. First, of course, is NATO enlargement. Second is the CTB Treaty. And third, what I count as five treaties related to the ABM Treaty, START I, and START II—all of which could be and may be submitted as a package to the Senate later this year.

Now, to do well in this group of three treaties will depend on the relationship between our secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, and our chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms. As this relationship goes between Mr. Helms and Ms. Albright, so in many ways go our hopes for arms control in the Senate, aside from a few other little things that have been discussed—like what may happen in Iraq and the Russian Duma.

Part of the reason that NATO enlargement is sailing so rapidly through the Senate is because of the strange bedfellows supporting that treaty. You have Helms and Albright, and you have Clinton and the majority leader, Trent Lott, all on the same side—it's a tough combination to beat. Now, I won't say more about NATO enlargement because we've already heard a lot about that, and I'd really like to focus particularly on the next two areas, the CTB Treaty and the ABM-START-related package.

Most of you may have heard about the letter from Senator Helms to the president saying, "Yeah, I'll deal with the CTB Treaty, but not until I deal with, first, the Global Warming Treaty, and second, the ABM Treaty." I would take that with something of a grain of salt. It's not exactly gospel; it's Jesse Helms laying out his opening position for the upcoming negotiations with the Clinton administration. That means that the administration—the president, Secretary Albright, National Security Advisor Berger—now has to put forward its position on proceeding in the Senate this year.

I understand a response letter has gone from the president to the Senate, but I haven't seen it and I haven't spoken to anyone who has. Undoubtedly, there will be heavy negotiations on what comes up in the Senate after NATO enlargement, which may well be considered by the end of March.

My understanding is that while Senator Helms is proclaiming "no, no, no" to the CTB, his staff is quietly preparing for what they see as very possible hearings and committee and floor action on the treaty. In trying to get the CTB considered, I'd like to remind you all that there are also many chips on our side of the table. The Senate Republicans have a long list of bills that they want the Senate to consider to set the stage for the 1998 congressional elections. That agenda can be held up by Democratic senators who insist on a vote on, let's just say, the CTB or some other issue. And I'd like to remind you further that it was a mild-mannered New Mexican senator, Jeff Bingaman, who went to the Senate floor in the fall of 1995, took off his jacket to reveal a Superman T-shirt underneath, and began a long, long speech just when the Republicans wanted to bring up the flag burning amendment. He managed to get the Republicans to come to an agreement within two days on a time certain for a vote on the START II treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention. This Bingaman theorem, holding up some of their legislation for some of our legislation, can work to our advantage on the CTB Treaty this year, too.

The further good news on the CTB is that the Clinton administration is truly getting its act together. We all saw the State of the Union address, where there was not only strong endorsement but also the letter of endorsement from the former chairs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That was followed by the president going to Los Alamos to give a strong pitch for the CTB, Secretary Peña speaking to the National Press Club last week; and various staff briefings and staff trips to verification sites and weapons labs, by the staffs of the Foreign Relations, Armed Services, and Intelligence committees. Remarkably, despite someone saying that there is a lot of opposition to the CTB, I know of only one or two Republican senators who have said "no" to it. Republican Senators have been remarkably silent on this issue thus far. That all leaves me mildly optimistic—though I certainly wouldn't bet on it—that we can get the CTB Treaty scheduled for later this year—hopefully by the summer—and that we can actually win Senate approval.

But as hard as the CTB fight in the Senate will be, I believe that the fight for the ABM Treaty amendments will be even harder. I think Republicans are reluctant to try to defeat a major new international commitment, whether it's NATO enlargement, the Chemical Weapons Convention, or the CTB Treaty. But I think they look upon the ABM Treaty in a much different way as a 25-year old treaty; they feel there are fewer consequences trying to defeat or cripple the treaty. As we all know, national ballistic missile defense has been an article of faith for Republicans since Ronald Reagan was president, and I don't think naming Washington National Airport after him will fulfill this article of faith. Since 1995, Republicans have been pushing for ballistic missile defenses by the year 2003; while they have failed in Congress to get missile defense mandated, they have forced the Clinton administration to ratchet up funding so that we are now spending $4 billion on missile defense.

The voting numbers for the ABM Treaty amedments work in the Republicans' favor. Winning approval of a mandated ballistic missile defense over a Clinton veto requires 67 votes; that's why the Republicans failed in 1995 and 1996 and that's why Trent Lott—despite saying missile defense was a major priority last year—never even brought it up for a vote. But to kill one of these ABM Treaty amendments, all the Republicans need is 34 votes. Thirty-four votes instead of 67 is obviously a much easier number to attain.

When Senator Helms says he wants to "dispose" of the ABM Treaty before the CTB Treaty, he's using the word in both senses. I'd like to quote Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, from a speech last October, who I think reflects the views of a number of Republicans on the ABM Treaty in calling the treaty "a mistake in 1972 and even worse policy today." Senator Inhoffe said, "I believe that this [the consideration of these ABM Treaty amendments] is an opportunity we need to be looking forbecause all it would take is 34 senators to reject this multilateralization of the ABM Treaty. I believe we should take this opportunity that there is, when it comes before this body for ratification, to reject this and thereby kill the ABM Treaty, which certainly is outdated." Now we have good lawyers here—such as John Rhinelander—who might argue that if the Senate defeats one of these amendments it does not really kill the ABM Treaty. But it's clear that the political impact of that defeat would be devastating for our arms control hopes—in Moscow and in Washington.

The administration, as we've heard, hopes to tie this package of five agreements together and say to the Senate, "If you want further nuclear reductions, you have to go along with the ABM Treaty amendments." But again, as we've heard, that depends on events: what happens in Iraq and what happens with START II in the Russian Duma.

So, as usual, 1998 shapes up as a challenging year in the Senate. I think we'll be done with the NATO issue one way or another by the end of March, and then we hope to begin the major push to get the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to schedule the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

 

Questions & Answers

Q: If there is no action on START II and III, can we go into a de facto arms control regime where both sides will abide by the limits, although there is no treaty obligation?

Mendelsohn: It's a good question, and maybe I can only answer it by talking around it. The Russians themselves have, at times, suggested that maybe we ought to leapfrog START II and move right into START III. The administration has resisted this because they sense that what the Russians have in mind is perhaps congruent with our thoughts on levels, but not congruent on how you get to those levels. What would happen, most likely, is that if you went on a gentleman's agreement basis, the Russians would have every reason and opportunity to drop the key component of START II, which we find most attractive, and that is the elimination of MIRV-ed missiles. So, it would be hard to get anything but a levels agreement, if you will, as a follow-on if you skip START II. If we didn't get the MIRV part, I think that would make it unattractive to the Senate, so we'd have serious friction on this. I'm not optimistic about leap-frogging. If you lose STRT II for some reason or another, you'd probably have to go back to the table rather than having a virtual agreement.

Keeny: I would just add that going back to the table on these very complex agreements, START I and START II, and reconstructing it, would put completion past this administration. We have all learned from past experience that if things are delayed for an extended period, lots of things can happen. You will regret greatly not having completed the action.

Q: What are the prospects of having any Senate action on any agreements given the complex linkage that exists, and what kind of conditions can we expect on these other, more important treaties given the large number of conditions attached to the Senate's advive and consent to the Chemical Weapons Convention?

Isaacs: I guess the part about conditions doesn't particularly bother me. Yes, there were 28 conditions added to the Chemical Weapons Convention, but how many can name any of those 28 conditions, and how many of them are having a serious impact today? I asked this question to Harvard chemical expert Matthew Meselson just a couple of days ago and he said maybe one has serious implications for carrying out the Chemical Weapons Convention, but the other 27 really don't. Mostly conditions have served as statements of policy and opportunities for senators to state a position without causing serious damage to most treaties.

The larger question is: Can the Senate do anything this year? The Senate schedules legislation through negotiations; for any legislation to come up, there will have to be negotiations, and that's more or less what I was indicating. There have to be negotiations between the Clinton administration and Senator Helms and Senator Lott on what comes up this year in terms of national security issues after NATO enlargement. I think that the logical bargain that one can see is the administration, which has not submitted this ABM Treaty package to the Senate as yet, agreeing to submit those treaties to the Senate for a vote in return for Helms and Lott guaranteeing time for debate and a vote on the Senate floor on the CTB Treaty. And the gamble will be that the Clinton administration can win on the ABM Treaty using the nuclear reductions argument. That, of course, still depends on what happens with the Russian Duma, what happens in Iraq and other things that I won't even try to predict. If the Senate can spend two weeks on the Ronald Reagan airport, and they can deal with the START II treaty in a few hours, they can deal with CTB.

Q: What could be done to defeat the NATO expansion bill, and what is the possibility?

Eisenhower: I would just say delay; I think any delay would be a positive thing. The reason I remain hopeful, maybeit's unrealistic, is that there are a lot of wild cards out there. We might use force in Iraq and there could be resistance on Capitol Hill. The president's personal problems could also enter into this. There are a lot of wild cards out there. We do have this rather peculiar deadline, because we have to be ready to celebrate the 50th anniversary of NATO, which is the driving reason we're rushing to do this. But I think any delay that occurs means that there is more time to reconsider the unanticipated consequences of this policy.

Isaacs: There's certainly a lot of concern in this room about NATO enlargement, and those concerns are reflected throughout the Senate. But the problem we've had is those concerns have not been reflected by senators willing to get up and say, "I'm going to vote against NATO enlargement. I am going to lead the fight against it." If we can't get that, we can't win. Just last week, Senator John Warner [R-VA], who was one of the senators we had counted on to lead the opposition, more or less changed his tune from opposition to three-year delay on the second round of NATO enlargement. Senator Ted Stevens [R-AL], who had also expressed serious reservations about the cost of NATO enlargement, seems to be going along and will offer one of these 28 conditions, or whatever the number will be, that will show he is concerned without seriously affecting NATO enlargement. There are a lot of wild cards that could disrupt things, including the campaign in Iraq. There are conditions on nuclear weapons, on further expansion on the Baltic states, which could break up the pro-NATO coalition, but at this point, it looks very difficult for our side, the anti-side, to win.

Q: Why do the Russians take out their frustrations with the United States by threatening not to ratify START II, which does have the value of ensuring them parity with the United States? What is it that causes this political reaction in Russia?

Eisenhower: There's nothing logical about this sort of thing, and the deputies in the Duma whom I talk to and who support ratifying START II see it just as some way to express their unhappiness with us. They have no other tool to use to emphasize their unhappiness, even though it's counterproductive. The deputies who would like to see START II ratified are rather exasperated by this. There is always a danger that we can take everything too logically. We're talking about human beings who react on an emotional basis. This looks like something that could be used to demonstrate that frustration, even if it's not in their interest. I would just hope that we use a little more psychology in the future because we could probably get everything we want in Iraq, along with good relations with Russia.

Isaacs: It's not frustrated legislators, it's trying to apply logic to the legislative bodies. There's a parallel if you want to look at illogic in terms of how a number of Republican legislators view the Nunn-Lugar program. Various legislators in the Huse have been saying, "The Russians are doing awful things in Iraq and Iran, and therefore, by God, we should cut off the Nunn-Lugar program to help the Russians dismantle their nuclear the weapons that could be pointed at us." That doesn't seem to be logical to me, but it was logical to about 200 members of the House of Representatives. So, if there is illogic from time to time in the Duma, there may be some in our legislative body as well.

Q: In the world we're in today, it's no longer thought to be good for the economy to have high defense spending, either here or in Moscow. When people talk about arms control proposals, they ask how much money will it save. Is it possible that economic constraints might be the saving grace of these arms control problems?

Isaacs: Dealing with economics brings in a measure of logic which doesn't always apply. There's another example around the world where the IMF is going around to a number of countries, South Korea particularly, but also Central European countries, and saying, If you want to rebuild your economies, you have to cut military spending. Then Secretary of Defense Cohen goes to the same countries saying, "You'd better not cut military spending." So, we have the economics weighed against other policy elements. I think there is a strong argument within the Pentagon for the economics that you talked about. The Pentagon would be delighted to go down to START II levels immediately; they're restricted by Congress. There is a fair possibility that there could be this tacit agreement, moving to the lower numbers under START II, although in response to the earlier question, I can't see how we would move on to START III without formal ratification of START II. So economics could drive the Pentagon, which could drive U.S. policy toward some of these reductions we desire.

On the other hand, at the same time, Speaker Newt Gingrich and others are going around saying, "$270 billion may not be enough for the military this year. We'd like to raise the military budget." So maybe while you see economics as the driving force for cutting military spending, there are others in Congress who would rather increase military spending, no matter what the consequences.

Q: Why does U.S. military action against Baghdad reinforce Russian concerns about NATO expansion?

Eisenhower: I'm glad you asked that question because I'd like to clarify that the word "swindle" related to NATO expansion, not to Iraq. First of all, there are both similar features and certain features that are different. The key similarity, at least from what I understood, was in the perception that America is intent on using its status as the world's only superpower to impose its will across the board, most specifically in NATO expansion and with Iraq. There's been very little analysis of even where Russia's interests are in the Middle East with respect to Israel. You kind of get this feeling that they must be againt Israel, in some fashion, because of what seems to be a pro-Arab approach from Moscow. But in fact, there are 700,000 former Soviets living in Israel, so they have a great interest in Israel's security as well. In Moscow, I heard many times that the UN is in jeopardy if the United States acts unilaterally because the votes in the Security Council are in favor of finding a diplomatic solution; so, if the United States acts unilaterally, it has essentially said that the UN does not count. The Russians, and again this is their viewpoint, regard the UN as a vital organization in the world because it is one organization in which they have a voice as well as a veto. And I heard over and over again that unilateral strikes would undermine the UN, when it was bad enough that the United States doesn't pay its dues.

A couple of people also said to me: "Isn't it sort of ironic that your secretary of state, your chief diplomat, is saying that diplomacy won't work, and isn't it interesting that your former ambassador to the UN says that the UN can't handle this issue." I think that there is just a very strong feeling in Moscow that use of force in the long run will not deter proliferation questions because it only underscores one more time that the only way to be of any importance in this world is to have all the high technology gadgets that can help you impose your will. Again, these are not my views, but this is what I heard.

Keeny: I'd just underscore one aspect of that response. From a Russian perspective, they would like to feel they were in a cooperative position working with the United States. But their positions, which don't seem illogical on Iraq, are just dismissed out of hand by the United States, which says it will proceed unilaterally, regardless of world opinion in general, and Russian opinion in particular. That can disturb Russians, particularly if they are feeling that their general political position in the world is substantially threatened.

Eisenhower: One other interesting thing that Primakov mentioned in our meeting was that if the United States takes unilateral action, in his view, it will be the end of the peace process in the Middle East. The United States is the key actor in the Middle East, and this will discredit the United States' position there. So, there is more at stake than the question at hand. Not only the future of the UN, but the United States' position in the region as well as the ability to deal with these issues cooperatively.

Q: Do the Russians really have a different estimate of what Saddam Hussein wants to do with respect to developing weapons of mass destruction? Are their interests really different from ours?

Eisenhower: My impression is that the Russians do share our non-proliferation goals and it is a question of whether diplomatic means have been exhausted. In the course of trying to research some of Mr. Primakov's biography, I did discover something rather interesting. In this Washington Times article, the author made a big deal about Primakov's trips to the Middle East just before the war with Iraq. You'll remember, he went twice. This is actually the genesis of this tremendous campaign against Primakov here in this country. In the Washington Times article, it said these two trips to Iraq created a complete fall-out between Primakov and Shevardnadze. The implication was that Primakov was freelancing in the Middle East against the foreign minister's wishes. I used my opportunity when I saw Gorbachev on this trip to ask him this question directly: Who sent Primakov to the Middle East? Was this Primakov off trying to find solutions on his own against the foreign minister's wishes? Gorbachev said flat out he personally sent Primakov to the Middle East on those two occasions. What was also interesting about this, and this was confirmed by two other sources I talked to, is that Shevardnadze reacted in a way that no one in Moscow could understand because Gorbachev had sent Primakov himself. Primakov was of the view that the war could be averted, because of his long-standing relationships there. In fact, Shevardnadze's position on this against Primakov actually did much to split Gorbachev's relationship with Shevardnadze. I thought that was very telling. Again, because we have a rather cockeyed view of Primakov in all this, this tends to infect the way we view the Russian role. We all have to keep our eyes and ears open. At least as far as I know and from what he said, our non-proliferation goals are the same. He emphasized that many times to me but others said that he did it privately in the Duma, that they are going to support UN resolutions. The difference maybe in the perception of whether, actually, diplomatic means have been exhausted.

Keeny: This confrontation with Iraq comes at a time when we seem to be having some success in persuading Russia to tighten up its export controls, its handling of peripheral leakage or sale of information to potential proliferating countries. I think the Russians are increasingly recognizing that they have as much to worry about weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East as anybody else, and that they should do all they can to tighten up this regime. If I were that close to Iraq, I would want to be very careful that this kind of U.S. intervention was going to contribute to the principal non-proliferation objective, namely, making sure that 10 years down the road, Iraq is really part of the community of nations and does not have a substantial additional capability with weapons of mass destruction.

The United States hasn't really been very imaginative in a number of the approaches that one might take. I'm not saying they would succeed, but one of the complaints of the Iraqis has been the unbalanced nature of the inspection teams, which are overwhelmingly American and Anglo-Saxon in make up. A number of people, including the Russians, have suggested, why don't you modify and expand the nature of the inspection teams to either obtain Iraqi acceptance or at least call their bluff. Why not add to the existing group a significant number of Russians, French, Chinese, Italians, what have you, and make it a much larger inspection group, and even possibly reduce the number of Americans. I would involve these other countries directly in Saddam Hussein's bad behavior if it continues vis-à-vis the inspection teams. We've taken a very arbitrary position. We do it exactly the way it is and the way we want, and we won't even consider anything else. We have not created a world opinion that we really have exhausted all the diplomatic approaches, and I think that is very frustrating to the Russians and other people who may well have basically good intentions in trying to resolve this without creating a situation which makes it even more certain that Saddam Hussein will continue his programs of weapons of mass destruction and destabilizing nature in the region.

Q: I wonder if Susan Eisenhower heard any ideas when she was in Moscow for diplomatic alternatives to bombing that couldn't usefully be applied here?

Eisenhower: The only thing I heard was when I met with Primakov on Saturday. The big question was whether Kofi Annan was going to go to Iraq. He personally stated that he wanted to see that happen. But beyond that, I'm afraid that was one of the questions I should have asked but I didn't. This, if you'll remember, on Saturday was just after a Washington Post article about Russian sales of fertilizer fermentation equipment. There was some personal insult felt around Moscow. I personally cannot evaluate that story, but some people said that the accusations were a provocation, that there wasn't anything to it. I can just say as a person who is part of this community, that dual-use transfers are going to be a very big problem.

Q: What are the constructive things the United States can do to maintain UN sanctions on Iraq?

Keeny: In view of Saddam Hussein's bad behavior, we can probably maintain the sanctions. I think if we engage in an ineffective bombing campaign, we may well find a number of important countries will simply no longer abide by the sanctions. The whole sanctions regime may collapse if Saddam can emerge as the perceived aggrieved party and not someone who is in violation of Security Council resolutions.

Before its annual membership meeting on February 18, ACA presented a panel discussion of the arms control...

Strategic Agreements and the CTB Treaty: Striking the Right Balance

January/February 1998

By Robert Bell

On February 18, Robert Bell, special assistant to the president for national security and counselor to the assistant to the president for national security affairs, delivered the luncheon address to the Arms Control Association's annual membership meeting. In his dual-hat role, Bell advises the president and the president's national security advisor on a broad range of defense and arms control issues, including national security strategy, strategic nuclear and conventional arms control and weapons acquisition. Since joining the National Security Council in 1993 as senior director for defense policy and arms control, Bell has become a leading voice in U.S. policy debates on these issues.

Before joining the administration, Bell served as the principal arms control advisor to two of the Senate's most influential members during the 1980s and early 1990s: Charles Percy (R-IL), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and then Sam Nunn (D-GA), chairman of the Armed Services Committee. A graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy (1969) and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University (1970), Bell also served as an Air Force officer and worked as a defense analyst at the Congressional Research Service. The following is an edited version of Bell's remarks and his responses to questions.

 


It is a special pleasure for me to be invited to address your annual membership luncheon, because the Arms Control Association and its leadership, especially your very able executive director and deputy director, Spurgeon Keeny and Jack Mendelsohn, and all of your members—and forgive me for not recognizing many of the "giants" in this room who have built the platform of defense security and arms control on which this administration stands today—have truly been stalwart champions for arms control and non-proliferation throughout my entire professional career.

It's a true pleasure to salute the association, Spurgeon, for everything you do—for your intense involvement in winning the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC] last year; before that, winning the ratification of START I and START II, and those were not givens; and winning the unanimous support of the Senate, including a "yes" vote from Senator [Jesse] Helms, for the CFE flank accord last summer; for your close monitoring, involvement and support for the indefinite and unconditional extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] in 1995 and the successful conclusion of the Comprehensive Test Ban [CTB] Treaty, which the president has called the hardest-fought, longest-sought prize in the history of arms control; for your efforts to sustain and extend the Nunn-Lugar program and other efforts to address the security, control and safe disposition of the residue of the Soviet Union's nuclear menace; and last, but certainly not least, for your organization's unwavering defense of the fundamental integrity of the ABM Treaty and its continuing vital role as a cornerstone of strategic stability.

When I think about the Arms Control Association and the ABM Treaty, I can't help but be reminded that the last time I attended a full-membership event of this organization was in 1988. I was in the company of Senator Sam Nunn, who this organization was honoring that night for his phenomenal defense of the ABM Treaty and his rebuttal—indeed, the demolishing—of the reinterpretation that Judge Sofaer had put together. Senator Nunn had drawn hugely on contributions from John Rhinelander and Ray Garthoff and so many other people in this room, but you were here to honor Senator Nunn that night. As I well recall, Senator Nunn decided, being a plain-speaking man, that that would be a good occasion and this would be a good forum to unveil his proposal for deploying by 1996 a treaty-compliant national missil defense [NMD] that he, at my urging, had called "ALPS," for Accidental Launch Protection System—a term that he hated, by the way. And as I recall quite clearly, when the senator finished his remarks, the silence was deafening. That was quite a night. He was your "man of the year," but what a moment.

So, before anyone worries, let me be very quick to say that I've not come back seven years later to announce that the administration has decided to deploy a national missile defense. But I would like to talk about national missile defense and the ABM Treaty, and especially their interrelationship. I also want to update you and the association on where we're going with START II ratification, START III, CTB ratification, de-alerting, and our policies on strategic nuclear deterrence, no first use and negative security assurances. In doing this I want to repeatedly come back to the theme of balance. Indeed, I've titled my remarks, if you will, "Strategic Agreements and the CTB Treaty: Striking the Right Balance."

Now, for those of you that know me well or have worked with me over the last two decades, it may not surprise you that I've put so much emphasis on the need for balance in our strategic approach. I mean, just consider the following tidbits from my bio, some of which Stan Resor ticked off. My mother was a very wealthy Yankee from Massachusetts, but my father was a working-class Southerner from Alabama. My military service was in the Air Force, but in the Senate I worked for a Navy man and a former Coast Guardsman. In the Senate I worked on a Republican staff and then went to work on a Democratic staff. Then I worked in the legislative branch for 18 years, but followed that with five years in the executive branch. And for the last five years, prior to this recent decision, I've worn two hats—senior director for defense and senior director for arms control—which basically meant that I would spend my mornings building up our armaments and spend the afternoons building them back down.

The burden of my remarks today is to persuade you and the association that what we've achieved during these five years of Bill Clinton's presidency is a national security posture whose defense and arms control components reflect a prudent and rational degree of equilibrium.

You have to start, really, by asking what are the objectives? What is the objective of our national security strategy? First and foremost, it goes without saying, because it's in the Constitution, we have a responsibility to have a strategy that "provides for the common defense, promotes the general welfare and secures the blessings of liberty." And clearly, the greatest danger that we as a nation face to our "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" is weapons of mass destruction [WMD] and their prospective use or proliferation.

 

Living With WMD

To address this threat, this paramount defining threat of this era, of WMD, we have put together a three-part strategy. Part one is preventing, or at least constraining, the spread of these terrible weapons and reducing or eliminating them outright. And here, of course, the main burden is carried by arms control treaties and multilateral non-proliferation regimes such as the NPT or the Australia Group. And it certainly includes the CTB Treaty, which has now been endorsed by four former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the three directors of our national nuclear laboratories and which the president has asked the Senate to give its advice and consent to this year. And finally, it includes rograms designed specifically to eliminate WMD, particularly the Nunn-Lugar program—the legacy achievement of my former boss, Senator Nunn, and his visionary Republican colleague, Senator Richard Lugar.

Part two of our strategy is deterrence—deterrence of efforts or temptations by adversaries or prospective enemies to use weapons of mass destruction to attack or coerce the United States or its allies. And should parts one and two prove inadequate, part three of the strategy involves active means of defeating WMD, including missile defenses and counter-proliferation attack capabilities.

Now, in my two decades of involvement here in Washington in debates in the policy arena over defense and arms control issues, I think I've come to realize more than anything that the fault lines that we see in these debates can be attributed to the relative weight or priority that some, in the context of this debate, are placing on different parts of this three-part package. Some place far greater, if not exclusive, reliance on one of the elements; others discount or even dismiss altogether the value of others.

For example, let's start with the arms control treaties and the multilateral regimes. Some—and here I'm thinking mainly of the far right, if you will—think that arms control is a "sham," that it's at best ineffective or even works as a counter-productive bromide that lulls us into a false sense of security. Some would even terminate the Nunn-Lugar program. With regard to the second element, deterrence, we have sort of an unusual situation now where deterrence as a concept and as a building block of national security is under attack from the right and the left. There's the view that deterrence as a concept or as a pillar of national security is itself immoral, if not unviable. The prospect or the threat of massive retaliation as a building block for national security, in some quarters, is simply not accepted.

And now, with the growing discussion in the public arena over de-alerting options, I think we're seeing increasingly a line of argument that's coming from another side of this debate that says that deterrence is part of the problem; because by clinging to the continued importance of this we are putting barriers in the way of what should be a more straightline and rapid movement to step back completely—a zero-alert posture, if you will—from the precipice of the Cold War and take all the systems down, even at the expense of the traditional calculations that have underpinned our confidence that our deterrence posture was credible.

And then last, of course, missile defense, an issue that's in swing from the right and the left as well. For some, missile defense is the complete answer; a complete solution to our national security requirement, even if it's at the expense of the loss of the other two elements. Even if it means the destruction of the NPT, the CTB, the START agreements, and indeed, strategic stability as a measure of deterrent posture. For others, it's missile defense, not arms control, that's the "sham." Missile defense is a contrivance in the eyes of some: not proven, not likely to work, costing billions, getting in the way of what could be a more robust policy with respect to arms control.

But we in the Clinton administration—and I hope this doesn't surprise you—believe that each of these elements has merit, that each has a significant contribution to make to our national security, and that each can only be pursued if we acknowledge their interrelationship. And yes, to be sure, that means, necessarily, recognizing that there are trade-offs involved across those three baskets. Let me illustrate this point by discussing in a little more detail each element of this strategy triad, starting with the arms control regimes and the multilateral non-proliferation regimes.

 

The Non-Proliferation Strategy

Of course, if you look at the NPT and the CTB, which ar two of our principal tools for preventing, or at least constraining, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, you have to begin by recognizing that neither offers a foolproof guarantee. The critics have a talking point, to be sure, in pointing out that NPT can't stop nuclear proliferation, the CTB can't stop a country that's determined to acquire a nuclear capability. But they can constrain them. And together they're effective. One without the other isn't going to be viable.

If the Senate should reject or refuse to act on the CTB, I believe we put at risk the NPT. Certainly, I feel very strongly that had it not been for our willingness to negotiate the CTB in the first term of the Clinton administration, we would have never achieved the indefinite and unconditional extension of the NPT.

Now, with respect to going directly at the problem and reducing or eliminating weapons of mass destruction, I think it's important to note standing here today, in February of 1998, nine months after what was a very earnest Senate debate on the Chemical Weapons Convention, that the arguments that the administration made at the time about the paramount importance of the United States leading in this field have been validated. That came to a vote in the Senate. The Senate exercised its correct judgment, in my view. And because we ratified, things that the critics said would not happen have, in fact, happened. Russia ratified and deposited its instrument. China deposited its instrument of ratification, as did Iran and Pakistan. We have seen real vindication here for the argument of the importance of American leadership.

With respect to the START treaties, we have the opportunity for a truly breath-taking achievement in human experience. In START I, we are now two years ahead of schedule. The first reduction milestone was this past December. Both we and Russia are at the point of reductions now that we did not have to get to until 1999. We are both two years ahead of schedule in building down real nuclear dangers. START II, still pending in the Duma, offers the next step down, but more importantly opens the door to START III. And with START III, as per the Helsinki agreement, we have the commitment to reduce to the level of 2,000-2,500 strategic nuclear warheads by the year 2007, in tandem with a separate but related negotiation on tactical nuclear weapons and on the disposition of warheads and fissile material itself. So we have the opportunity available; indeed, we have a commitment in principle from the presidents of these two nuclear powers to achieve within the next nine years an 80 percent reduction in the strategic nuclear danger that existed at the end of the Cold War in 1991.

 

The Future of the ABM Treaty

Now, what does all of that mean for the ABM Treaty? Here, too, it's a question of balance, because I do not believe that we can achieve the promise of START II and START III unless we maintain our commitment to the ABM Treaty. Now, that's not just my view. This is the fundamental position of the Russian Ministry of Defense [MOD]. In their presentations to the Duma for ratification of START II—and they are making some very powerful arguments to the Duma—they have stressed two things about the ABM Treaty. One is that U.S. adherence, scrupulous adherence, to the ABM Treaty is a fundamental condition for MOD supporting ratification of START II. It's part of their, if you will, "safeguards package;" it's a condition of their support. Second, the MOD has argued to the Duma that there are many things in START II that they think are advntageous to Russia, and right at the top of that list is the fact that in the treaty itself you have a cross-reference to the ABM Treaty that reaffirms our U.S. fundamental commitment to that treaty.

So, what does that mean then in terms of this interrelationship between defense and offense, between the ABM Treaty and the reality of where we are with the START process? First, and I think obviously, it means that had this administration not—beginning in 1993 when we went to Geneva at the five-year review of the ABM Treaty and reaffirmed our commitment to it—made clear our fundamental commitment to the integrity of the ABM Treaty, we would not be where we are today with the prospect of START II ratification.

Second, I would say that absent our success last year in terms of the agreements on higher- and lower-velocity theater missile defense [TMD] demarcation and the succession understandings for the ABM Treaty—the Duma would not act on START II. I think it's that simple; the linkage in their mind is that clear.

Third, I believe that absent Senate approval of these three ABM agreements, there's a real question of whether the government of Russia will allow START II to enter into force, or will continue, for that matter, the START III negotiations that we're pledged to begin immediately upon Duma ratification of START II. I'm not predicting that, and in the end I don't know for sure what their reaction would be. But many, many things that they have said lead me to that view. In fact, some quarters in Moscow—Chairman Lukin of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for example—have argued that the Duma shouldn't even take up START II until the Senate has given its advice and consent to these three ABM agreements, a sequencing that we do not accept in the administration and that we have tried to warn the Russians off of as fatal to the future of both sets of agreements.

So in sum, we believe that once the Duma has approved START II—as extended by this five-year measure that Secretary Albright and Foreign Minister Primakov signed in September—the Senate, hopefully this year, will have an opportunity for a historic debate on strategic offense and strategic defense issues and their interrelationship. Indeed, this will be a great debate in the history of arms control—one in which we hope the Arms Control Association is a major player—that will determine, in my view, the future not only of the ABM Treaty—and certainly, Chairman Helms has made clear in his recent letter that he sees the debate on these three agreements as the vehicle for a larger debate on the treaty itself—but also will determine the future of START. And in our judgment, Senate defeat of these three ABM accords would carry with it the genuine risk of derailing the START process altogether and forfeiting the opportunity for reducing by 80 percent the strategic nuclear danger that we saw just seven years ago.

 

The New PDD

Now, with respect to deterrence as the second element of our strategy, you are all familiar, of course, from the extensive press coverage of the presidential decision directive [PDD] that the president signed in November. I want to talk very briefly about two aspects of it: first, in terms of strategic nuclear deterrence, and second, its implications for regional conflicts, particularly those where chemical or biological weapons could be in play.

With respect to strategic nuclear deterrence, the PDD reaffirms our fundamental commitment to maintain a strategic nuclear posture across a triad of strategic forces, robust posture that is not dependent on a launch-on-warning planning assumption, and that includes secure reserve forces and survivability sufficient to allow you to confirm that a nuclear weapon has actually detonated on American soil before you would have to face the retaliatory decision.

Now, the good news in this PDD is that it confirms the position of the president, with the full support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commander in chief of our strategic command, that we can maintain that kind of deterrent posture as a hedge against an uncertain future, not a deterrent posture that we think is required today or tomorrow or next week or next month given the course that Russia's on today. But because that course is not certain we are maintaining that strategic posture as a hedge. The good news is that we believe, and now have confirmed with this PDD, that we can do that at significantly lower levels than have ever been entertained before, indeed, down to the levels of the Helsinki agreement for START III.

The PDD also reaffirmed—and I was very glad to see that Spurgeon's editorial in the most recent issue of Arms Control Today took note of this (See ACT, November/December 1997)—our negative security assurance policy; that is, it is the policy of the United States, as restated in this PDD, not to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict unless the state attacking us or our allies or our military forces is nuclear-capable or not in good standing under the NPT or an equivalent regime, or third, is attacking us in alliance with a nuclear capability.

So what that means, then, in terms of our no-first-use or negative security assurance policy is that we are continuing to stand up for the assurances we've given the world that have been so instrumental in achieving our non-proliferation goals and underpinning our non-proliferation agenda, including the extension of the NPT and the attainment of the CTB. Now, there is an element of balance here. This is not a categorical no-first-use posture. For the states that are identified in those three exceptions, we do not forswear any options. And there's an element of deterrence there.

Here, too, we are trying to recognize that our interests are best served by balance and equilibrium. To be sure, if you wanted to put the most weight, the greatest priority, on the deterrence element of your strategy, you would make a very clear nuclear threat. You would say if you attack us in any fashion—conventional, chemical, biological—we will use nuclear weapons. That would be a categorical threat that would maximize your deterrence. Unfortunately, it would derail your non-proliferation policy and your non-proliferation agenda. So we have tried to strike the balance by maintaining long-standing U.S. policy in this area, actually dating back to Secretary of State Vance in 1978.

Now last, with respect to the defense or active means for destroying weapons of mass destruction, we've continued on course with our national missile defense developmental program that we still refer to as "three-plus -three," and the president's NMD budget request for 1999, which is almost a billion dollars, still presents the option of a deployment decision in the year 2000 that could be realized by the year 2003. That said, it's important to note the caveats: the testimony has been very clear that this accelerated course entails very high technical risk and very high degrees of concurrence between the test program and the production program. The GAO recently did a study that underscored that.

In my own experience, I remember back to the debate we had with Senator Nunn's ALPS proposal, where this issue of what is the appropriate level of technical risk that one should sign on to was very much at the heart of the debate between Senator Nunn and then-Senator [Al] Gore. In the end, the position the Congress adopted was that a national missile defense deployment objective should be low-to-moderate technical risk, at best.

And we have to remember some of our experience with weapons systems to know the dangers that are inherent if you push thetechnical risk too far. But you'll do what you have to do if the threat requires it. There have been crash programs before in our nation's history—Polaris was certainly one. If the threat requires the compression of the program, you will do what you have to do. But if the ballistic missile threat does not require a deployment decision in the year 2000, this administration will not make a deployment decision.

With respect to TMD we're committed to the full panoply of programs that we're pursuing, all of which, at least with regard to the programs that are mature enough to reach that stage, have been certified to the Congress as compliant with the ABM Treaty.

 

Beyond START II

Now, if this balanced three-part national security strategy is going to be effective, it can't just be on autopilot. Things have to happen, things have to fall into place. I think there are five principal challenges that we face, not just the White House or the administration, but we collectively as people that believe both in arms control and national security.

The first is the Duma has got to ratify START II. It's been a long wait. We've worked very hard the last year and a half to bring it just to the point of final action. We've been assured by the Russian government that they have everything they need to get the job done. There is now this issue of Iraq, which is overshadowing everything in terms of calculations of the ratification prospects. But leaving that aside its seems to me we're in a position to get this done. And it's very important as that debate is going on that we not have a divisive debate within the United States Senate over the ABM agreements. That is one reason we feel so fundamentally that we're not going to submit the ABM package to the Senate until the Duma has ratified START II.

The second challenge is to get the debate that we're having on de-alerting right. And by "right" I mean the right balance. It's not black or white; there are arguments on both sides. We need to strike the right equilibrium. On the one hand, we need to be open to every opportunity that presents itself to improve crisis stability, to step back from the precipice of the Cold War, to stand down the nuclear dangers of an era that's now receding. But at the same time, we also have to be sensitive to the requirements of deterrence in terms of how you calculate stability; and second, we need to be sensitive to the implications of our actions with respect to timing.

The strongest argument that's being made in the Duma right now for ratification of START II is the argument of their Defense Ministry that if the Duma ratifies START II, the parity ratio of strategic nuclear forces between Russia and the United States will be 1:1, and if they fail to ratify START II, Russia will be in a position of nuclear inferiority at the strategic level by a ratio of 1:3. They have reduced the argument to that simple an argument: What would you rather have, parity at 1:1, or inferiority at 1:3?

I think we need to be very careful that, while START II hangs in the balance in terms of ratification in the Duma, setting aside the Iraq issue, we not, in effect, suggest that that argument doesn't carry weight anymore because we're going to end-run START II with an alternate approach through e-alerting. So it's a question of timing. I also think we need to appreciate that we are on the hook from the Helsinki agreement, just as soon as START II is ratified, to immediately enter into a negotiation with the Russians to agree on how to deactivate half of our remaining strategic forces—the drop from the START I level to the START II level—five years before those systems have to be destroyed under the old arms control treaty rules.

In that early deactivation negotiation, we've been put on notice by the Russians that they're going to come to the table with ideas different than simply taking warheads off of delivery systems. So, we need to be careful, first, to take into account the START II implication, and second, to think ahead to a negotiation that we're going to have on deactivation or de-alerting, because in that sense I think the words are interchangeable.

Now, the administration is very hard at work on this. We've had a very earnest review both within the Strategic Command, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense's office, and the interagency that's moving along very nicely. We have not reached any final conclusions. But I want to assure you that we are looking at each of these ideas to ask ourselves which ones would have merit.

The third challenge—and this is much more parochial and domestic—is to win the argument with Congress over base closings. Now, that may surprise you in this arms control audience. But the Quadrennial Defense Review [QDR] is a balanced package with strategic nuclear elements, conventional elements, readiness elements and training elements. And the whole package depends on generating the savings we need to do everything: to maintain the readiness, the training, the quality of life enhancements for our troops, the conventional modernization, and yes, the strategic nuclear forces that underpin our deterrent posture. If we fail to win the argument with Congress over infrastructure reductions, particularly base closings, and don't generate the billions we need to make the QDR whole in terms of its fiscal assumptions, the first pressure point is going to come, I believe, in the services on the nuclear accounts, because the further you move away from the Cold War the harder it is to maintain support across the river for the nuclear accounts.

Fourth, I think we've got to be very clear-headed in this debate over TMD and NMD about the importance of considerations of technical risk. We need to make sure that the money is being spent wisely on defenses that will, in fact, work.

And last, we've got to ratify the CTB. I've not saved that until last because it's the lowest on my list; it's the one issue I'm spending most of my time on each day at the NSC right now. I've saved it until last because I just want to end on that note and leave it very much on your mind. The president believes fundamentally that the CTB is in the best interests of the United States. We believe that its provisions will significantly further our nuclear non-proliferation and arms control objectives and strengthen international security. And we believe that this is the session of Congress that the Senate should act.

There's been a lot of debate about entry into force and the future of this treaty, and everyone in this room is familiar with the very daunting challenge we face with regard to India, Pakistan, North Korea and perhaps others to bring the treaty into force. But when the president goes to the subcontinent this fall, we believe it is extremely important that he go from a position of strength, having secured Senate advice and consent to this treaty so we can approach other governments with the best position and the best leverage.

It's a huge job of changing Indian perceptions on this treaty. And should, God forbid, we fail to change their perspective on this treaty, it's important to realize that the fall-back position for the CTB, in terms of getting it into force, is an extraordinary conference that would be called in September of 1999—which, after all, is only 18 months from now—at which the world figuresout how to get the treaty into force anyway. And the catch is you cannot vote to call that conference, you cannot vote to convene the conference, indeed, you cannot participate in the conference unless your country has ratified the treaty.

So, going back to where I began, the importance of American leadership. If we are to lead the world, as we did in the negotiations, in securing the entry into force of the CTB, we believe it is fundamentally important that the Senate act on this treaty this year.

 

Questions & Answers

Q: How confident are you that the Duma will act favorably on the various elements of the START II-ABM package?

Bell: Well, in the last several months I've gone from skeptic to cautious optimist, setting aside the issue of Iraq. There's no question, based on what [Foreign Minister Yevgeniy] Primakov and [Defense Minister Igor] Sergeyev have said, the Russian government, almost with one voice, is saying very clearly that hostilities with Iraq fundamentally change the equation with respect to START II, certainly in the near term. And the Duma adopted a resolution to that effect. But I had gotten myself to the point of cautious optimism earlier this year based on three things.

First was everything we did and succeeded in doing, going back to Secretary Perry's visit to the Duma a year and a half ago, where he had a very rude reception, to deal with the issue of NATO enlargement. We did that through the NATO-Russia Founding Act, by concluding the [CFE Treaty] flank agreement and by concluding an MOU on the basic elements of an adapted CFE Treaty, all of which were designed to address this concern. Second was the five-year extension of the [START II] destruction requirements to address their economic concern about the cost of arms control. Third was Stan Riveles's hard work to get the ABM agreements done, which was clearly a precondition for START II ratification.

With that set of agreements it seemed to me that, with the overlay of the Helsinki accord and the certitude for the Duma that START II was not the end of the road but there was another meaningful step to follow, we had put down the four building blocks for ratification. Beyond that, you had the coincidence of the Primakov-Sergeyev team coming together, which, by anyone's calculation, is the strongest lobbying duo we could hope for in face-to-face daily contact with the Duma. It takes Yeltsin too, but Primakov and Sergeyev do carry weight in the Duma, and they've been on point and effective in their presentations. The MOD's arguments, I think, have been quite brilliant in terms of framing the issue for the Duma.

And last but not least, you had reports of this fairly remarkable deal between the Communist faction in the Duma and the Kremlin over the Russian flag and its relationship to START II. There are reports that in exchange for Yeltsin agreeing not to press the Duma now to approve legislation recognizing Russia's new flag (which the Communist party faction does not like), Speaker Gennadi Seleznev has agreed to schedule the START II debate for this spring. Now this may sound preposterous on first hearing, but we shouldn't find it preposterous because that's the only way we got START II through the Senate. We tend to forget about these linkages, but there was a time when we were not making any headway in terms of getting START II on the Senate schedule. This is the same treaty that the Communists think is demonstrably one-sided to Russia's disadvantage. It took us until January of 1996 to secure Senate ratification of START II, and the reason it finally got put on the Senate schedule was that Democrats had organized a filibuster against an amendment to prohibit flag burning, and it was only the decision to stop that filibuster and schedule a vote on the flag-burning amendment that got START II to the Senate floor.

Well, we're very good teachers. That's where we were on the eve of the Iraqi crisis. If we can get the treaty to the Duma floor, I am persuaded we'll win the vote.

Q: What are the administration's plans for dealing with the reserve warheads under the START III arrangements?

Bell: I think there are two elements that will come into play, neither of which has been decided yet, but both are very interesting and fundamental questions. The first one is: How successful will we be in the course of the START III negotiations themselves in making real headway in a side agreement to eliminate warheads? At Helsinki we agreed in principle that, for the first time, the START III treaty will feature a negotiation on the disposition of the warheads and fissile material. We've been very hard at work—Rose Gottemoeller and Lucas Fischer have co-chaired an interagency working group on the options that are available in terms of an opening U.S. position on that very subject, and there's a full range of options. I can't breach the confidentiality of that options review right now because we've not taken it yet to a point of decision.

Perhaps even more important, Russian receptivity to push the envelope with respect to actually dealing with reserve warheads is going to fundamentally affect your overall nuclear holdings, setting aside what the accountable deployed levels are. The accountable deployed levels will, by the year 2007, be down to 2,000-2,500. So the question is what's in your reserve, or inactive storage? That's going to be a function, first, of the result of the negotiations in START III. But second, it's going to be a function of sort of national policies with respect to the weight you attach 10 years from now—in the year 2007—to hedge strategies.

In other words, we basically maintain a START I force now. We've kept at START I levels to keep weight on the Duma to do the right thing with respect to START II. Once you get an agreement to come down to that next level, you have to make decisions as a matter of national policy about what reconstitution capability you want to preserve should the agreement fall apart or should you discover that the other side is fudamentally violating the treaty. So, in the context of START III levels, a big-ticket question will be: What is your tasking to the Department of Energy in terms of a reconstitution level? That's a decision that has not been made and will only be made once we get further into START III negotiations. I can't confirm or deny that 10,000 is the total number of warheads the U.S. will have under START III because there is no number yet that is associated with a successful START III negotiation. We just have not made those decisions.

Q: Will tactical warheads be addressed in START III as well?

Bell: We agreed at Helsinki that there will be a separate but related negotiation on non-strategic nuclear forces. One of the big questions, in terms of the actual content of START III negotiations, is what position the Russian government will bring to the table when it's time to start turning cards over and show what they're prepared to propose.

Certainly, we expect scrupulous Russian reaffirmation and adherence to the unilateral tactical nuclear reduction commitments that were made in 1990 and 1991 by Gorbachev and Yeltsin, which, in the aggregate, could produce about a two-thirds drawdown. That would, in comparison with the levels that President Bush announced, leave a Russian advantage, but it's markedly reduced from the advantage they have in non-strategic nuclear forces right now.

With regard to both warhead disposition and tactical weapons, in the run-up to Helsinki we were able to reach agreement on a set of words that both sides would sign up to. But there are a lot of second- and third-order specifics beyond that baseline in terms of what the Russian government really proposes to do when we get to the negotiation.

Q: Could you elaborate on the interrelationship that you're describing between the CTB Treaty and the NPT, particularly the possible effect of Senate inaction on the CTB as we approach the NPT review conference in 2000?

Bell: I think there's a very direct interrelationship in the eyes of a large part of the world between the position that the declared nuclear-weapon states take with respect to arms reductions and nuclear testing on the one hand, and the viability of our non-proliferation agenda on the other hand. The first and most obvious manifestation of that, I think, is the NPT.

In January of 1995, we made some very hard decisions within the Clinton administration with respect to the content of our CTB negoiating position, specifically dropping what had been our opening position to negotiate a CTB that was 10 years in duration and would have to be affirmatively renewed. In early 1995, Tony Lake gave a speech at the Carnegie Endowment dropping that and agreeing to pursue an indefinite CTB, because we had come to the conclusion that without that change we would not have prevailed in winning the indefinite and unconditional extension of the NPT. There were a lot of news stories being written through 1995 that said, in effect, we were losing this battle and that the NPT was going to go down. There's no question in my mind that if we had sustained the policy of the two previous administrations and refused to negotiate a CTB in any forum, the Conference on Disarmament or otherwise, we would not have gotten the NPT extended.

Now, the NPT is facing a review conference in the year 2000, with preparatory conferences in 1998 and 1999, and I think that Senate rejection of CTB could create a dynamic that would put the NPT at risk. But it's not just the NPT that's at risk. It's the credibility of U.S. leadership across the board on non-proliferation as we make demands on countries—whether it's Russia, China, Pakistan, India or anyone else—if we're not prepared to walk the walk and talk the talk ourselves when it comes to fundamental treaty obligations with respect to a cessation in nuclear testing.

Q: At Helsinki we agreed to a ceiling of 2,000 to 2,500 strategic warheads. Yet, Yeltsin has been reported as saying that the Russians could achieve their objectives with a level as low as 1,000 weapons, and there have been other proposals to reduce the levels to 1,000 or 1,500 weapons. Has the Clinton administration talked about the question of how low the United States can go and still maintain its objective of deterrence?

Bell: There are lots of people who have opinions and views about what the outer edge of the envelope is with respect to the strategic deterrence paradigm that we're in now and that we codified with the presidential decision directive in November. But if you're asking have we worked the hard bureaucratic, interagency task of driving through to a decision for numbers below the Helsinki numbers—either divided recommendations to the president or a consensus position that the national security team brings to the president for affirmation—the answer is no.

The Helsinki numbers were affirmed through just such a process. Before the president reached a decision, he was assured by [Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff] General Shalikashvili that the Joint Chiefs and the commander in chief of U.S. Strategic Command were confident that we could maintain a robust strategic nuclear deterrent, but not some protracted nuclear warfighting capability, with the numbers that were in play for Helsinki.

There have been suggestions of lower numbers from different places within the Moscow establishment. But first you've got to get START II ratified, because we've been very clear that we are not going to commence formal negotiations on START III until that happens. When we get to the START III table, based on this melange of different numbers that have been thrown around post-Helsinki, we'll see what the Russian government's number is. And if it's different than Helsinki, we will work a process, as we did before Helsinki, to see where we are on that.

Q: What is the administration's policy on the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq, particularly in response to Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction? How does this fit in with the recent Presidential Decision Directive [PDD]?

Bell: There has been comment on this dating back about 10 days, to a piece that ran in Newsday on February 9 that had a number of errors in it, both about our policy and the PDD. Let me be clear. The PDD reaffirmed the U.S. negative security assurance that we have held to in this administration and that we codified in a UN Security Council resolution. Indeed, this policy dates back to Secretary of State Vance in 1978, and it has been a fundamental position of Republican and Democratic administrations ever since.

We have no plans, no planning, no intention, no policy of using nuclear weapons preemptively to go after, take out, whatever you want to call it, WMD storage or production facilities. There was a flap over this two years ago with respect to Tarhunah in Libya, and Secretary of Defense Perry went down to Maxwell Air Force Base and made very clear what our policy is, and we stand by that policy.

We have every conventional option we need to deal with our ability to target facilities that store or produce weapons of mass destruction. And that is distinct, then, from the use of such weapons by an adversary in a conflict where our negative security assurance policy stands.

Q: How far could the administration go in pursuing non-treaty agreements with Russia in the event the START process bogs down?

Bell: The short answer is I don't know, because it's an untested proposition. I think we have a pretty clear sense that the Russians, not just by our estimates but by their own statements, think that due to their economic difficulties they are on a glide path to a START II level, or a lower force level, one way or the other. In fact, that's one of the principal arguments that the Russian MOD makes for ratification—they're going down and they might as well get us to join them.

Now, on our side, we have a very different situation. Right now, we have not only a presidentially directed policy that says until and unless the Duma ratifies START II, we're going to maintain START I levels, but we have a law that says that. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998, which was signed in November by the president, includes a provision, Section 1302, that says thou shall—that's a mandatory verb—maintain 18 Trident boats, 71 B-52s, 500 Minutemen and 50 MXs. That's the law. That is the will of the Congress in a binding provision.

That provision goes on to say that once START II is ratified, no money can be spent on any agreement or understandingbetween the United States and Russia, not just negotiated agreements but perhaps tacit reciprocal measures—I think lawyers would have to come to a judgment on this point—that requires deactivation of systems before they have to be destroyed under arms control requirements, until the president submits a report to Congress. The report must inform Congress whether the de-alerting or deactivation measure—for example, taking warheads off, turning off power generators, removing launch keys, putting large tractors on top of silo lids—is, first, verifiable (and most of this doesn't come up to the traditional standards of verification); second, reciprocal, that is, whether one side is getting a better deal; and third, whether one side or the other has an undue breakout asymmetry advantage.

If the president cannot inform the Congress that any de-alerting or deactivation agreement or understanding is verifiable, reciprocal and not asymmetrical, money can only be spent to go forward with that deal if the president waives the requirement on national security grounds. In other words, if we give them the rope to hang ourselves with by saying, "We've just signed up to something that's not verifiable and not reciprocal, and presents an undue breakout advantage to Russia, but is still in the U.S. national security interests," only on those conditions could we spend the money.

So, there is a major question there, at least in my mind, about how open the running field is even for the de-alerting debate given the congressional legislation, setting aside the question that we've not come to internal conclusions within the administration yet on how we would handle the deactivation negotiation that we're required to have pursuant to Helsinki once START II is ratified.

Q: If the de-alerting or deactivation steps were unilateral, would they be covered by this law?

Bell: I don't know. The first half of Section 1302, which requires the United States to maintain specified strategic nuclear delivery systems at certain START I levels absent START II ratification, prohibits any action to retire or prepare to retire any of those systems.

Again, I'd have to get lawyers to work on this, but if it ever came to it, you would have to decide whether a particular measure, if it were decided to pursue it unilaterally, and I don't think that's a given necessarily, would be construed for purposes of the law as being a step preparatory to retirement or as just a step that is a change in the alert posture, which, because it is reversible, could be construed as not being preparatory to retirement of the system.

Q: Given the focus on biological weapons that has arisen during this latest crisis with Iraq, will the administration give more high-level attention to the verification protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention [BWC] now under negotiation in Geneva?

Bell: The short answer is yes, for a variety of rasons. One has to do with timing and considerations that were pertinent during the debate on the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC]. As Lori [Esposito Murray] well knows, as the president's representative for ratification of that treaty last year and someone who spent countless scores of hours on the Hill talking to staff, there was an interrelationship established during the CWC ratification debate between our position on the BWC verification issue and continued support from the pharmaceutical industries for CWC. There were, I thought, obvious suggestions that had we put together an initiative that involved something that the industries would have construed to have been unacceptably intrusive inspections for BWC, that they would have turned against the CWC. We wanted to secure the CWC and that was, as you all know, a close vote as it was.

From my conversations with the president on this subject—and I need to be very clear to say that I am not working that issue—he believes that because of this crisis with Iraq, the world now is much more sensitive to the dangers that are represented by the BW threat and that the dynamic may have changed in terms of what the traffic will bear on an inspection regime, which isn't to say, "Anything goes." We have a very modest set of steps, but it's one that we think that will improve the situation and can sustain the support of the pharmaceutical industries. That proposition is going to be tested. It's being tested right now in consultations with allies.

Q: Given the fact that most U.S. allies have signed the Ottawa landmine treaty, what effect will that have on the ability of the United States to conduct coalition operations using landmines?

Bell: That's an issue that we're spending a lot of time on. What we're discovering is that our allies, particularly in NATO but also in Asia, in most cases had simply not thought this through. You had a case where the negotiating position was being driven principally out of foreign affairs ministries, and the defense ministries had not cranked in analytically and in terms of their own view on this. So, we're in a situation now where these countries have signed the treaty and are clearly going to ratify, at least eventually, and their own defense ministries are saying, "What does this mean for coalition operations?"

What we're hearing is a wide range of answers. It's not just a function of the legal views of what Ottawa requires and different countries' own interpretations of Ottawa, but it's also largely a function of the domestic legislation that was moving through a lot of these countries' parliaments while Ottawa was under way. In some cases, there are domestic laws that are more restrictive than Ottawa. In other cases, there are domestic laws that may provide more flexibility, even assuming ratification and entry into force of Ottawa.

The second point is that there is one set of issues that has to do with the so-called pure anti-personnel landmines [APLs], and another that is unique to the "mixed munitions," such as anti-tank mines that incorporate anti-personnel, or anti-handling, devices to keep infantry from deactivating the anti-tank mine. During the final negoiations in Oslo, the United States sought unsuccessfully to exclude certain mixed munitions in which the anti-handling device is not integral to the anti-tank mine.

The president has directed, of course, independent of Ottawa, that we will replace all of our systems everywhere except in Korea by the year 2003—and in Korea by 2006. If you take the Ottawa treaty, figure out how much time you need to get the requisite ratifications and then add six months for entry into force, then the timeline provided in that treaty to get rid of pure APLs is not that far away any more from U.S. target date of 2003. But that's a lesser-order issue.

The larger issue is that while we are looking for possible alternatives to existing U.S. mixed-munitions, it's not clear whether there is a viable alternative. It's in the area of mixed munitions, particularly if you imagine a war with Iraq where there's armored-maneuver warfare going on and you're trying to lay down anti-tank fields to protect maneuvering armored forces, that the impact is the greatest. That's the area where we're getting, I think, the widest range of answers back from allies.

We've had one round of consultations. We're going to have another round this spring. NATO's looking into this institutionally within the Military Committee. It was discussed at defense ministerial levels by Secretary Cohen late last year. But I think it's going to be another couple of months before we're able to take the full measure of the implications of the Ottawa treaty for that issue.

Now, all of that said, we are not, I repeat, we are not trying to talk people out of going forward with Ottawa. The president's been very clear. It's each country's decision to make, and if they choose to sign the treaty, that's their prerogative, and we recognize that.

On February 18, Robert Bell, special assistant to the president for national security and counselor to the assistant to the president for national security affairs...

SPECIAL SECTION: New START II and ABM Documents

On September 26, the United States signed several important arms control agreements and issued a number of joint and unilateral statements related to START II and the 1972 ABM Treaty, codifying the commitments made by Presidents Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin at their March summit in Helsinki. The START II documents, signed or issued jointly by the United States and Russia, should enhance prospects for ratification of the treaty by the Russian Duma and for the prompt initiation of negotiations on a START III agreement after START II enters into force. (See p. 27.) The ABM related documents, signed or issued by the five states represented at the treaty's Standing Consultative Commission (SCC)—the United States, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine—clarify the demarcation line between strategic and theater ballistic missile defenses, formalize the former Soviet republics' succession status under the treaty, outline confidence building measures and address future TMD plans. (See p. 26.)

The following special section provides the full text of select documents. In addition to the two START II documents presented below, the United States and Russia issued a Joint Agreed Statement that will allow the United States to "download," or remove, warheads from its Minuteman III ICBMs any time before December 31, 2007. Also not included in this section is an agreement signed by the five SCC parties on regulations governing the operation of the commission.

Protocol To The Treaty Between The United States Of America And The Russian Federation On Further Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms Of January 3, 1993

The United States of America and the Russian Federation,

Reaffirming their commitment to the further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms,

Desiring to enhance the viability and effectiveness of the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of January 3, 1993, hereinafter referred to as the Treaty,

Have agreed as follows: Article I

1. In paragraph 1 of Article I of the Treaty the words "seven years after entry into force of the START Treaty" shall be replaced by the words "no later than December 31, 2004."

2. In paragraph 3 of Article I of the Treaty the words "January 1, 2003" shall be replaced by the words "December 31, 2007."

3. In paragraph 5 of Article I of the Treaty the words "seven years after entry into force of the START Treaty" shall be replaced by the words "December 31, 2004."

4. Paragraph 6 of Article I of the Treaty shall be formulated in the following way:

"The Parties may conclude an agreement on a program of assistance for the purpose of facilitating implementation of the provisions of this Article, including for the purpose of accelerating such implementation." Article II

In paragraph 1, paragraph 6, and paragraph 9 of Article II of the Treaty the words "January 1, 2003" shall be replaced in each case by the words "December 31, 2007." Article III

1. This Protocol shall be subject to ratification and shall enter into force on the date of exchange of instruments of ratification.

2. This Protocol is an integral part of the Treaty and shall remain in force for the duration of the Treaty.

DONE at New York City on September 26, 1997, in two copies, each in the English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.

Letter From Foreign Minister Yevgeniy Primakov To Secretary of State Madeleine Albright On Early Deactivation1

Dear Madame Secretary:

On behalf of the Government of the Russia Federation, in connection with the Treaty Between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of January 3, 1993, hereinafter referred to as the Treaty, I have the honor to propose that agreement be concluded between our Governments on deactivation of certain strategic nuclear delivery vehicles.

Under this agreement our Governments would agree that upon entry into force of the Treaty, the Russian Federation and the United States of America shall deactivate, by December 31, 2003, all strategic nuclear delivery vehicles which will be eliminated under the Treaty, by removing their nuclear reentry vehicles or taking other jointly agreed steps.

Immediately upon entry into force of the Treaty, experts of the Parties will begin work simultaneously both on the understandings concerning methods of deactivation as well as parameters of an appropriate program of assistance of the United States of America in the implementation of the deactivation mentioned above. Practical steps to implement deactivation will be undertaken on the basis of these understandings.

Taking into account the supreme national interests of the country, the Russian Federation proceeds from the understanding that well in advance of the above deactivation deadline the START II Treaty will be achieved and enter into force.

This letter together with your response shall constitute agreement between the Governments of the Russian Federation and the United STates of America, which shall enter into force on the date of entry into force of the Treaty and shall remain in force as long as the Treaty remains in force.

Please accept, Madame Secretary, the assurances of my highest consideration. Memorandum Of Understanding Relating To The Treaty Between The United States Of America And The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics On The Limitation Of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems Of May 26, 1972

The United States of America, and the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, hereinafter referred to for purposes of this Memorandum as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) Successor States,

Recognizing the importance of preserving the viability of the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems of May 26, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Treaty, with the aim of maintaining strategic stability,

Recognizing the changes in the political situation resulting from the establishment of new independent states on the territory of the former USSR,

Have, in connection with the Treaty, agreed as follows: Article I

The United States of America, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, upon entry into force of this Memorandum, shall constitute the Parties to the Treaty. Article II

The USSR Successor States shall assume the rights and obligations of the former USSR under the Treaty and its associated documents. Article III

Each USSR Successor State shall implement the provisions of the Treaty with regard to its territory and with regard to its activities, wherever such activities are carried out by that State, independently or in cooperation with any other State. Article IV

For purposes of Treaty implementation:

(a) the term "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" shall mean the USSR Successor States;

(b) the terms "national territory" and "territory of its country" when used to refer to the former USSR shall mean the combined national territories of the USSR Successor States, and the term "periphery of its national territory" when used to refer to the former USSR shall mean the periphery of the combined national territories of those States; and

(c) the term "capital" when used to refer to the capital of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in Article III of the Treaty and the Protocol thereto of July 3, 1974, shall continue to mean the city of Moscow. Article V

A USSR Successor State or USSR Successor States may continue to use any facility that is subject to the provisions of the Treaty and that is currently located on the territory of any State that is not a Party to the Treaty, with the consent of such State, and provided that the use of such facility shall remain consistent with the provisions of the Treaty. Article VI

The USSR Successor States shall collectively be limited at any one time to a single anti ballistic missile (ABM) system deployment area and to a total of no more than fifteen ABM launchers at ABM test ranges, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty and its associated documents, including the Protocols of July 3, 1974. Article VII

The obligations contained in Article IX of the Treaty and Agreed Statement "G" Regarding the Treaty shall not apply to transfers between or among the USSR Successor States. Article VIII

The Standing Consultative Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, shall function in the manner provided for by the Treaty and the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Regarding the Establishment of a Standing Consultative Commission of December 21, 1972, as well as by the Regulations of the Commission, which shall reflect the multilateral character of the Treaty and the equal legal status of the Parties in reaching decisions in the Commission. Article IX

1. This Memorandum shall be subject to ratification or approval by the signatory States, in accordance with the constitutional procedures of those States.

2. The functions of the depositary of this Memorandum shall be exercised by the Government of the United States of America.

3. This Memorandum shall enter into force on the date when the Governments of all the signatory States have deposited instruments of ratification or approval of this Memorandum and shall remain in force so long as the Treaty remains in force.

4. Each State that has ratified or approved this Memorandum shall also be bound by the provisions of the First Agreed Statement of September 26, 1997, Relating to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems of May 26, 1972, and the Second Agreed Statement of September 26, 1997, Relating to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems of May 26, 1972.

DONE at New York City on September 26, 1997, in five copies, each in the English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.

 

First Agreed Statement Relating To The Treaty Between The United States Of America And The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics On The Limitation Of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems Of May 26, 1972

In connection with the provisions of the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems of May 26, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Treaty, the Parties to the Treaty have, within the framework of the Standing Consultative Commission, reached agreement on the following:

1. Land based, sea based, and air based interceptor missiles, interceptor missile launchers, and radars, other than anti ballistic missile (ABM) interceptor missiles, ABM launchers, or ABM radars, respectively, shall be deemed, within the meaning of paragraph (a) of Article VI of the Treaty, not to have been given capabilities to counter strategic ballistic missiles or their elements in flight trajectory and not to have been tested in an ABM mode, if, in the course of testing them separately or in a system:

(a) the velocity of the interceptor missile does not exceed 3 km/sec over any part of its flight trajectory;

(b) the velocity of the ballistic target missile does not exceed 5 km/sec over any part of its flight trajectory; and

(c) the range of the ballistic target missile does not exceed 3,500 kilometers. 2. The Parties have additionally agreed on reciprocal implementation of the confidence building measures set forth in the Agreement on Confidence Building Measures Related to Systems to Counter Ballistic Missiles Other Than Strategic Ballistic Missiles of September 26, 1997.

3. This Agreed Statement shall enter into force simultaneously with entry into force of the Memorandum of Understanding of September 26, 1997, Relating to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems of May 26, 1972.

DONE at New York City on September 26, 1997, in five copies, each in the English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.

 

Common Understandings Related To The First Agreed Statement Of September 26, 1997, Relating To The Treaty Between The United States Of America And The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics On The Limitation Of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems Of May 26, 1972

I

The term "interceptor missile," as used in the First Agreed Statement of September 26, 1997, shall refer to any missile subject to the provisions of paragraph (a) of Article VI of the Treaty if such a missile:

(a) has been developed by a Party as a missile to counter ballistic missiles other than strategic ballistic missiles; or

(b) has been declared by a Party as a missile to counter ballistic missiles other than strategic ballistic missiles; or

(c) has been tested by a Party even once with the use of a ballistic target missile. With respect to subparagraphs (a), (b), or (c), such a missile shall be considered an interceptor missile in all its launches. II

The provisions of paragraph 1 of the First Agreed Statement of September 26, 1997, do not supersede or amend any provision of the Agreed Statement of November 1, 1978, and do not alter the meaning of the term "tested in an ABM mode" as that term is used in the Treaty, including the Agreed Statement of November 1, 1978.

III

The Parties have agreed that, for the purposes of the First Agreed Statement of September 26, 1997, the velocity of an interceptor missile as well as the velocity of a ballistic target missile shall be determined in an earth centered coordinate system fixed in relation to the Earth.

IV

The Parties have agreed that, for the purposes of the First Agreed Statement of September 26, 1997, the velocity of space based interceptor missiles shall be considered to exceed 3 km/sec.

These Common Understandings shall be considered an attachment to the First Agreed Statement of September 26, 1997, and shall constitute an integral part thereof.

 

Second Agreed Statement Relating To The Treaty Between The United States Of America And The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics On The Limitation Of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems Of May 26, 1972

In connection with the provisions of the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems of May 26, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Treaty, the Parties to the Treaty,

Expressing their commitment to strengthening strategic stability and international security,

Emphasizing the importance of further reductions in strategic offensive arms,

Recognizing the fundamental significance of the Treaty for the above objectives,

Recognizing the necessity for effective systems to counter ballistic missiles other than strategic ballistic missiles,

Considering it their common task to preserve the Treaty, prevent its circumvention and enhance its viability,

Relying on the following principles that have served as a basis for reaching this agreement:

the Parties are committed to the Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability;

the Parties must have the option to establish and to deploy effective systems to counter ballistic missiles other than strategic ballistic missiles, and such activity must not lead to violation or circumvention of the Treaty;

systems to counter ballistic missiles other than strategic ballistic missiles may be deployed by each Party which will not pose a realistic threat to the strategic nuclear force of another Party and which will not be tested to give such systems that capability;

systems to counter ballistic missiles other than strategic ballistic missiles will not be deployed by the Parties for use against each other; and

the scale of deployment¾in number and geographic scope¾of systems to counter ballistic missiles other than strategic ballistic missiles by any Party will be consistent with programs for ballistic missiles other than strategic ballistic missiles confronting that Party;

Have, within the framework of the Standing Consultative Commission, with respect to systems to counter ballistic missiles other than strategic ballistic missiles with interceptor missiles whose velocity exceeds 3 km/sec over any part of their flight trajectory, hereinafter referred to as systems covered by this Agreed Statement, reached agreement on the following:

1. Each Party undertakes that, in the course of testing, separately or in a system, land based, sea based, and air based interceptor missiles, interceptor missile launchers, and radars, of systems covered by this Agreed Statement, which are not anti ballistic missile (ABM) interceptor missiles, ABM launchers, or ABM radars, respectively:

(a) the velocity of the ballistic target missile will not exceed 5 km/sec over any part of its flight trajectory; and

(b) the range of the ballistic target missile will not exceed 3,500 kilometers. 2. Each Party, in order to preclude the possibility of ambiguous situations or misunderstandings related to compliance with the provisions of the Treaty, undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy space based interceptor missiles to counter ballistic missiles other than strategic ballistic missiles, or space based components based on other physical principles, whether or not part of a system, that are capable of substituting for such interceptor missiles.

3. In order to enhance confidence in compliance with the provisions of the Treaty, the Parties shall implement the provisions of the Agreement on Confidence Building Measures Related to Systems to Counter Ballistic Missiles Other Than Strategic Ballistic Missiles of September 26, 1997, hereinafter referred to as the Confidence Building Measures Agreement, with respect to systems covered by this Agreed Statement and not subject to the Confidence Building Measures Agreement on the date of its entry into force. Each such system shall become subject to the provisions of the Confidence Building Measures Agreement no later than 180 days in advance of the planned date of the first launch of an interceptor missile of that system. All information provided for in the Confidence Building Measures Agreement shall initially be provided no later than 30 days after such a system becomes subject to the provisions of the Confidence Building Measures Agreement.

4. In order to ensure the viability of the Treaty as technologies related to systems to counter ballistic missiles other than strategic ballistic missiles evolve, and in accordance with Article XIII of the Treaty, the Parties undertake to hold consultations and discuss, within the framework of the Standing Consultative Commission, questions or concerns that any Party may have regarding activities involving systems covered by this Agreed Statement, including questions and concerns related to the implementation of the provisions of this Agreed Statement.

5. This Agreed Statement shall enter into force simultaneously with entry into force of the Memorandum of Understanding of September 26, 1997, Relating to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems of May 26, 1972.

DONE at New York City on September 26, 1997, in five copies, each in the English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.

 

Common Understandings Related To The Second Agreed Statement Of September 26, 1997, Relating To The Treaty Between The United States Of America And The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics On The Limitation Of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems Of May 26, 1972

I

The term "interceptor missile," as used in the Second Agreed Statement of September 26, 1997, shall refer to any missile subject to the provisions of paragraph (a) of Article VI of the Treaty if such a missile:

(a) has been developed by a Party as a missile to counter ballistic missiles other than strategic ballistic missiles; or

(b) has been declared by a Party as a missile to counter ballistic missiles other than strategic ballistic missiles; or

(c) has been tested by a Party even once with the use of a ballistic target missile. ith respect to subparagraphs (a), (b), or (c), such a missile shall be considered an interceptor missile in all its launches.

II

The Parties have agreed that, for the purposes of the Second Agreed Statement of September 26, 1997, the velocity of an interceptor missile as well as the velocity of a ballistic target missile shall be determined in an earth centered coordinate system fixed in relation to the Earth.

III

The Parties have agreed that for the purposes of the Second Agreed Statement of September 26, 1997, the velocity of space based interceptor missiles shall be considered to exceed 3 km/sec.

IV

For systems to counter ballistic missiles other than strategic ballistic missiles with interceptor missiles whose velocity exceeds 3 km/sec over any part of their flight trajectory, that become subject to the Confidence Building Measures Agreement in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Second Agreed Statement of September 26, 1997, the Parties understand that, in connection with the provisions of paragraph 2(b) of Section IV of the Confidence Building Measures Agreement, detailed information on such systems shall be provided in a form and scope as agreed upon by the Parties.

These Common Understandings shall be considered an attachment to the Second Agreed Statement of September 26, 1997, and shall constitute an integral part thereof.

 

Agreement On Confidence Building Measures Related To Systems To Counter Ballistic Missiles Other Than Strategic Ballistic Missiles

The States that have signed this Agreement, hereinafter referred to as the Parties,

Desiring to promote reciprocal openness, greater trust between the Parties, and the preservation of strategic stability,

Declaring their intention to implement, on a reciprocal basis, confidence building measures with respect to systems to counter ballistic missiles other than strategic ballistic missiles,

Have agreed as follows:

I. General Provisions

1. Systems subject to this Agreement shall be: for the United States of America—the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) System and the Navy Theater Wide Theater Ballistic Missile Defense Program, known to the other Parties by the same names; for the Russian Federation—the S 300V system, known to the United States of America as the SA 12 system; for the Republic of Belarus—the S 300V system, known to the United States of America as the SA 12 system; for Ukraine—the S 300V system, known to the United States of America as the SA 12 system; and other systems as agreed upon by the Parties in the future.

2. The Parties shall conduct an initial exchange of information and notifications, as provided for in this Agreement, no later than 90 days after entry into force of this Agreement, reflecting the status as of the date of its entry into force, and update this information annually, unless otherwise agreed. Information shall be updated reflecting the status as of January 1 of each year and provided no later than April 1 of each year.

II. Notifications

1. Each Party shall provide notifications to the other Parties of test ranges and other test areas where launches of interceptor missiles of systems subject to this Agreement will take place. Notifications of test ranges and other test areas shall include the names of ranges (test areas) and their locations. Such notifications shall be provided either within 30 days after entry into force of this Agreement, or no later than 90 days in advance of the first launch of an interceptor missile of a system subject to this Agreement at each test range (test area).

2. Each Party shall provide notification to the other Parties of each launch of an interceptor missile of systems subject to this Agreement, if during that launch a ballistic target missile is used. In this connection:

(a) an interceptor missile launch notification shall specify the name of the test range (test area) where the interceptor missile launch will take place; the type (designation) of the interceptor missile; the planned date of the interceptor missile launch; the planned launch point of the interceptor missile (geographic coordinates; for air based systems the geographic coordinates of the projection of the planned launch point of the interceptor missile onto the Earth's surface shall be specified); the planned launch point of the ballistic target missile (geographic coordinates);

(b) each interceptor missile launch notification shall be provided no later than 10 days in advance of the planned date of the interceptor missile launch and shall be effective for seven days beginning with the planned date of that launch; and

(c) if the launch of the interceptor missile will not occur or has not occurred within the specified 7 day period, the Party that planned to carry out the launch of the interceptor missile shall provide a notification thereof no later than 24 hours after the expiration of the 7 day period. Such a notification shall state that the interceptor missile launch has not occurred and shall either specify a new launch date, which will establish the beginning of a new 7 day period, or state that a notification of a new launch date will be made in accordance with the procedure specified in subparagraph (b) of this paragraph.

III. Demonstrations of Systems and Observations of Tests

Any Party may on a voluntary basis arrange, for any other Party or Parties, a demonstration of its systems or their components subject to this Agreement or an observation of their tests. In each specific case, the participating Parties shall agree in advance on the purpose of, and the arrangements for, such demonstrations and observations.

IV. Assurances

Each Party shall provide assurances that it will not deploy systems subject to this Agreement in numbers and locations so that these systems could pose a realistic threat to the strategic nuclear force of another Party. The measures used to provide such assurances shall include:

1. Each Party shall provide to the other Parties, in a form and scope as agreed upon by the Parties, an assessment of the programs with respect to the development, testing and deployment of ballistic missiles, other than strategic ballistic missiles, confronting that Party.

2. For each of its systems subject to this Agreement, each Party shall provide the following information:

(a) the name, type (designation), and basing mode of the system as well as of its interceptor missiles, launchers, and associated radars;

(b) the general concept of operation; the status of plans and programs; and, in addition, for systems in testing, the number of systems it plans to possess; the information shall be provided in a form and scope as agreed upon by the Parties;

(c) the class and type of basing platform: (i) for land based systems: the number of launchers in a battalion;

(ii) for sea based systems: the class and type of each ship, and the number of launchers on a ship of that class capable of launching interceptor missiles of each type;

(iii) for air based systems: the type of each aircraft, and the number of interceptor missiles each aircraft is capable of carrying; (d) the number of interceptor missiles of a fully loaded launcher. 3. For components of each of its systems subject to this Agreement, each Party shall provide the following information:

(a) for a completely assembled interceptor missile: the number of stages, the length, the maximum diameter, the type of propellant (solid or liquid), maximum velocity demonstrated during launches, and the length and diameter of the interceptor missile launch canister;

(b) for the interceptor missile launcher: the maximum number of interceptor missiles of a fully loaded launcher; and

(c) for the radar: the frequency band (in designations adopted by the International Telecommunication Union) and potential, expressed as a value that is not exceeded by the radar's potential. The potential of a radar shall mean the product of its mean emitted power in watts and its antenna area in square meters.

V. Additional Voluntary Measures

Each Party may provide on a voluntary basis any other information or any other notifications not specified elsewhere in this Agreement. The topics, amount, and time frame for such information and notifications shall be such as each Party determines.

VI. Implementation of the Agreement

1. To promote the objectives and implementation of the provisions of this Agreement, the Parties, within the framework of the Standing Consultative Commission established in accordance with the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems of May 26, 1972, shall consider:

(a) issues concerning implementation of the obligations assumed under this Agreement, as well as related situations which may be considered ambiguous; and

(b) amendments to the provisions of this Agreement and other possible proposals on further increasing its viability. 2. The Parties shall use the Nuclear Risk Reduction Center channels or the equivalent government to government communications links for providing the notifications and for exchanging the information provided for in Sections II, IV and V of this Agreement.

VII. Confidentiality

Each Party undertakes not to release to the public the information provided pursuant to this Agreement except with the express consent of the Party that provided such information.

VIII. Entry into Force and Duration

This Agreement shall enter into force simultaneously with entry into force of the First Agreed Statement of September 26, 1997, Relating to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems of May 26, 1972, and the Second Agreed Statement of September 26, 1997, Relating to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems of May 26, 1972, and shall remain in force so long as either of those Agreed Statements remains in force.

DONE at New York City on September 26, 1997, in five copies, each in the English and Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.

 

Joint Statement On The Annual Exchange Of Information On The Status Of Plans And Programs With Respect To Systems To Counter Ballistic Missiles Other Than Strategic Ballistic Missiles

1. The Parties understand that in implementing the provisions of paragraph 2(b) of Section IV of the Agreement on Confidence Building Measures Related to Systems to Counter Ballistic Missiles Other Than Strategic Ballistic Missiles of September 26, 1997, each Party will provide information annually on the status of its plans and programs with respect to systems to counter ballistic missiles other than strategic ballistic missiles that includes:

(a) whether or not that Party has plans before April 1999 to test, against a ballistic target missile, land based, sea based or air based interceptor missiles whose velocity exceeds 3 km/sec over any part of their flight trajectory;

(b) whether or not that Party has plans to develop such systems with interceptor missiles whose velocity over any part of their flight trajectory exceeds 5.5 km/sec for land based and air based systems or 4.5 km/sec for sea based systems; and

(c) whether or not that Party has plans to test such systems against ballistic target missiles with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles or against reentry vehicles deployed or planned to be deployed on strategic ballistic missiles. 2. The Parties understand that should any Party have questions or concerns regarding activity related to any change in the statement on plans of any other Party, the Parties will, in accordance with Article XIII of the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems of May 26, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Treaty, the Second Agreed Statement of September 26, 1997, Relating to the Treaty, and Section VI of the Agreement on Confidence Building Measures Related to Systems to Counter Ballistic Missiles Other Than Strategic Ballistic Missiles of September 26, 1997, conduct consultations, within the framework of the Standing Consultative Commission, to discuss such questions or concerns, as well as possible proposals for further increasing the viability of the Treaty, including possible proposals to amend the Second Agreed Statement of September 26, 1997.

Statement by the United States of America On Plans With Respect To Systems To Counter Ballistic Missiles Other Than Strategic Ballistic Missiles2

The United States of America states that, with regard to systems to counter ballistic missiles other than strategic ballistic missiles, it has no plans:

(a) before April 1999 to test, against a ballistic target missile, land based, sea based or air based interceptor missiles whose velocity exceeds 3 km/sec over any part of their flight trajectory;

(b) to develop such systems with interceptor missiles whose velocity over any part of their flight trajectory exceeds 5.5 km/sec for land based and air based systems or 4.5 km/sec for sea based systems;

(c) to test such systems against ballistic target missiles with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles deployed or planned to be deployed on strategic ballistic missiles.

 

NOTES:

1. Albright's letter to Primakov is nearly identical except for the paragraph on START II, which reads: "The Government of the United States of America notes the statement of the Russian Federation position on the issue of START III entry into force." [Back to text]

2. The Republich of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and Ukraine each issued the same statement. [Back to text]

SCC Parties Clear Final Hurdle For ABM-TMD 'Demarcation' Accords

 

Craig Cerniello

ON AUGUST 21, the five participating states in the Geneva based Standing Consultative Commission (SCC)—the United States, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine—completed an agreed statement on so called "higher velocity" theater missile defense (TMD) systems, marking the conclusion of nearly four years of complex negotiations to establish a "demarcation line" between permitted TMD and restricted ABM systems. The five states will now review this agreed statement as well as four other agreements concluded last year in the SCC, with the expectation that the documents will be signed at the foreign minister level in late September at the UN General Assembly.

Before the SCC agreements can enter into force, however, they must be approved by the five states according to their respective constitutional procedures. It remains unclear whether the TMD agreements are restrictive enough to placate the Russian Duma, which generally is skeptical of U.S. missile defense efforts, or too restrictive to appease the U.S. Senate, which generally is opposed to any limitations on TMD programs. Some senators may also oppose the agreement that multilateralizes the ABM Treaty, fearing that adding new states to the treaty will make amending the accord virtually impossible in the future.

Claiming that the ABM Treaty needed clarification to accommodate TMD systems in the post Cold War era, the Clinton administration initiated the demarcation negotiations in November 1993. By October 1996, the SCC had completed and prepared for signature the texts of four agreements: an agreed statement pertaining to "lower velocity" TMD systems (those with interceptor velocities of 3 kilometers per second or less); an agreement on TMD confidence building measures; a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on ABM succession; and an agreement outlining new SCC operating regulations. The signing ceremony in Geneva was canceled at the last minute, however, when Russia announced that it would not sign the agreed statement on lower velocity TMD systems until negotiations pertaining to the more controversial issue of higher velocity TMD systems (those with interceptor velocities above 3 kilometers per second) were concluded. (See ACT, October 1996.)

Presidents Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin resolved this issue during their March 1997 summit meeting in Helsinki, when they agreed on a set of basic principles and provisions applicable to higher velocity TMD systems. (See ACT, March 1997.) Five months later, the SCC completed an agreed statement related to higher velocity TMD systems, based on the March 21 "Joint Statement Concerning the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty."

Under the agreed statement on lower velocity TMD systems, the five states will be permitted to deploy systems with interceptor velocities of 3 kilometers per second or less, provided that they are not tested against ballistic missile targets with velocities above 5 kilometers per second or ranges greater than 3,500 kilometers. This agreement would cover the U.S. Army's Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, which is scheduled to be fielded in 2006, as well as the previously deployed Russian SA 12 system.

The agreed statement on higher velocity TMD systems reiterates the ban on testing such systems against ballistic missile targets with velocities above 5 kilometers per second or ranges that exceed 3,500 kilometers. The statement also bans the development, testing or deployment of space based TMD interceptor missiles, and requires an annual data exchange of TMD plans and programs. Each side will continue to make deployment decisions on higher velocity TMD systems based on their own national compliance determinations. The United States has already declared that the Navy's Theater Wide Defense system, scheduled for deployment in 2008, is compliant with the ABM Treaty.

Broadly speaking, the agreement on TMD confidence building measures (which applies to both lower and higher velocity systems) attempts to reassure the United States and Russia that TMD systems are not being developed for national missile defense purposes. In an effort to increase the transparency of TMD activities, these confidence building measures reportedly include prior notification of TMD test launches as well as data exchanges pertaining to TMD plans, programs and production.

The MOU on ABM succession designates the United States, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine as the only parties to the ABM Treaty, thereby resolving the issue of which states would assume the rights and obligations of the former Soviet Union under the treaty. The latter four states will collectively be limited to ABM deployment at a single site.

Finally, the agreement on SCC regulations details the new procedures under which the body will operate. This agreement became necessary in light of the multilateralization of the ABM Treaty.

Clinton to Submit ABM Amendments' to the Senate

President Bill Clinton has agreed to seek Senate approval of any agreement that would add new parties to the 1972 ABM Treaty, originally a bilateral accord between the Soviet Union and the United States. A condition attached to the resolution of ratification of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty "Flank Document," unanimously approved by the Senate on May 14, requires Senate advice and consent for a 1996 agreement that would formalize the succession of Russia, Belarus, Kazakstan and Ukraine to the ABM Treaty, if and when such an agreement is signed.

Signature of the June 1996 memorandum of understanding (MOU) on ABM succession, however, is awaiting completion of separate agreements, currently being negotiated by the United States and Russia, that would establish a "demarcation line" between permitted theater missile defense systems and restricted strategic ABM systems.

The administration had previously agreed to submit the demarcation agreements to the Senate for its advice and consent, but it resisted seeking Senate approval of the MOU because it held that the question of succession did not constitute a "substantive modification" to the ABM Treaty and fell within the president's purview under the Constitution and international law. Nevertheless, in a May 14 letter to the Senate, President Clinton agreed to submit the agreement to the Senate "without prejudice to the legal principles involved."

The Arms Control Agenda At the Helsinki Summit

Jack Mendelsohn and Craig Cerniello

AFTER AGREEING to disagree on the desirability and acceptability of NATO enlargement, President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin reached agreement on a number of arms control issues during their March 20 21 summit meeting in Helsinki, Finland.

In an effort to address Russian concerns over the residual force levels and timing of reductions of START II, the two presidents agreed once START II enters into force to begin immediately negotiations on a START III agreement which would reduce deployed strategic warheads by 1,000 below START II levels. In addition, they agreed to extend by five years the deadline for reaching START II levels for deployed strategic warheads.

In a "Joint Statement on Parameters on Future Reductions in Nuclear Forces" (see p. 19), the presidents agreed that the START III negotiations will include four basic components: a limit of 2,000 2,500 deployed strategic nuclear warheads for each side by the end of 2007; measures relating to the transparency of strategic nuclear warhead inventories as well as to the destruction of strategic warheads; conversion of the current START agreements to unlimited duration; and the "deactivation" by the end of 2003 of all strategic nuclear delivery vehicles to be eliminated under START II.

In a separate "Joint Statement Concerning the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty" (see p. 20), agreement was also reached in principle on the next steps in the effort to regulate the deployment of higher velocity (above 3 kilometers per second) theater missile defense (TMD) systems which are permitted by, but some fear could circumvent, the 1972 ABM Treaty. On the basis of the joint statements on START II/III and higher velocity TMD systems, Yeltsin pledged to seek the prompt ratification of START II by the Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament.

 

START III Guidelines

In the joint statement on future nuclear force reductions, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed to a set of basic principles for a START III agreement, to be negotiated as soon as START II enters into force and designed to respond to the Duma's concern that START II will require a prohibitively expensive restructuring and buildup of Russian strategic nuclear forces. Members of the Duma have vigorously complained that by eliminating all its MIRVed ICBMs—multiple warhead, land based missiles which currently constitute 50 percent of Russia's strategic nuclear forces—START II would require it to build several hundred single warhead ICBMs in order to maintain numerical parity with the United States at the permitted 3,500 warhead ceiling.

The joint statement seeks to respond to this objection by limiting the United States and Russia under a new START III agreement to a level of 2,000 2,500 strategic nuclear warheads each by December 31, 2007—thereby reducing the need for Russia to build up as rapidly and extensively its single warhead ICBM force to maintain numerical parity. Assuming both sides had deployed the maximum number of permitted warheads under both treaties, the new START III level represents a 28 percent reduction from START II.

A second basic element of START III is agreement that, as both sides reduce their strategic nuclear arms to lower levels, measures should be taken to assure the irreversibility of those reductions. The joint statement calls for measures that would increase the transparency of each side's strategic nuclear warhead stockpiles as well as measures that would provide for the actual elimination of strategic warheads. If this element is successfully negotiated, START III would be the first agreement to require each side to destroy warheads in addition to strategic nuclear delivery systems.

The third basic element of START III would convert both START I and II (along with III) to treaties of unlimited duration. As currently written, START I—which is now multi lateral—and START II remain in effect for a period of 15 years and are renewable for five year periods.

As a final element of START III, the sides agreed that all strategic nuclear delivery vehicles to be eliminated under START II will be deactivated no later than December 31, 2003, "by removing their nuclear warheads or taking other jointly agreed steps." This provision steps back from the September 1994 U.S. Russian statement on strategic stability and nuclear security, which called for such deactivations once the treaty had been ratified, but still renders the systems non operational, although not in an irreversible fashion, four years before they are required to be eliminated.

The Helsinki statement also notes that in the context of START III negotiations, the United States and Russia will "explore, as separate issues possible measures relating to nuclear long range sea launched cruise missiles [SLCMs] and tactical nuclear systems." (Emphasis added.) Russia apparently raised the issue of limits on nuclear SLCMs because, although these systems are not currently deployed by the United States, they are only loosely limited in a politically binding declaration that accompanies START I. The United States sought discussions on tactical nuclear systems, where the Russians may have as much as a 10 fold numerical advantage, primarily to better understand the extent of implementation by Moscow of its 1991 and 1992 pledges to withdraw large numbers of tactical weapons from its operational forces.

Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin also agreed in Helsinki that the United States and Russia will "consider the issues related to transparency in nuclear materials." Thus, the sides will not only address strategic nuclear warhead stockpile and warhead elimination transparency (presumably at the dismantlement facility), but will also explore transparency measures pertaining to the fissile materials that have been extracted from dismantled warheads. Overall, these measures would significantly improve accountability and both sides ability to monitor the strategic nuclear infrastructure of the other.

 

Extending the START II Deadline

Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin also agreed to extend the deadline for the elimination of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles under START II to December 31, 2007—five years beyond the original January 1, 2003 deadline. Although the United States and Russia are already well ahead of schedule in implementing START I, this five year extension is intended to help overcome the Duma's concern that Moscow will not have enough time and money to destroy, restructure and replace its strategic forces under START II by the beginning of 2003. Because START I only entered into force in December 1994, Duma critics point out that scheduled reductions under that treaty will not be completed until December 2001 (seven years after entry into force), leaving Russia with only one year to eliminate the large number of MIRVed systems banned by START II. Under the new agreement, the United States and Russia will have 10 years (1997 2007) to complete their respective nuclear force reductions under START II and III. This corresponds to the 10 year implementation period originally agreed to in START II (January 1993 to January 2003) but, since START II and III are now to be co terminous, will result in at least 1,000 fewer deployed strategic warheads.

More significantly, by easing budgetary and restructuring pressures on Moscow, the extension of START II provides Russia with additional time to evaluate the impact of NATO enlargement and U.S. TMD deployments on its national security. Russian critics of START II have argued against Russia's elimination of its MIRVed ICBM force in 2003 on the eve of U.S. deployment of highly capable TMD systems. (The Army's Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system is scheduled to be deployed in 2004.) Now, even though all strategic nuclear delivery vehicles to be eliminated under START II must be deactivated by the end of 2003, Russia can delay their actual elimination (in particular, the large force of 10 warhead SS 18s) and thus retain a "hedge" against unfavorable or unforeseen strategic developments.

The joint statement notes that after the extension of the START II reduction schedule has been approved by the Duma as part of the normal ratification process, it must also be approved by the U.S. Senate, which gave its advice and consent to the treaty in January 1996 based on the original deadline.

 

ABM and TMD Issues

In the "Joint Statement Concerning the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty," Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin reaffirmed the May 10, 1995 principles for agreement on demarcation between ABM and TMD systems. (See ACT, June 1995.) These principles include a commitment to the ABM Treaty, viewed as a "cornerstone of strategic stability," as well as the understanding that each side has the right to deploy effective TMD systems as long as they do not violate or circumvent the treaty.

In addition, the principles permit each side to deploy TMD systems as long as they do not "pose a realistic threat to the strategic nuclear force of the other side" (the so called "force on force" criterion) and are not tested to give such systems that capability. The principles also prohibit the United States and Russia from deploying TMD systems for use against each other, and state that the "scale of deployment"—in number and geographic scope—"will be consistent with theater ballistic missile programs confronting that side" (a "commensurate with the threat" criterion).

During their meeting, in what was characterized by the United States as "a major breakthrough," the two presidents also reached an agreement in principle governing the status of higher velocity TMD systems under the ABM Treaty. Prior to the Helsinki summit, the United States and Russia had been far apart on the ABM TMD demarcation issue with Russia seeking explicit limits on more capable TMD systems and the United States prepared to agree only to a very general set of confidence building measures related to TMD plans, programs and deployments.

In June 1996, the five parties to the Geneva based Standing Consultative Commission (SCC)—the United States, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine—reached a preliminary "phase one" agreement that would have acknowledged as compliant the deployment of lower velocity TMD systems, such as the Army's Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC 3) and THAAD systems. (See ACT, July 1996.) The sides were scheduled to sign the phase one agreement in October 1996 but the signing ceremony was canceled at the last minute when Russia announced that it was not prepared to allow the agreement to enter into force until a "phase two" agreement covering higher velocity TMD systems, such as the Navy Theater Wide TMD system, had been negotiated. (See ACT, October 1996.) The SCC reconvened in February 1997 but was unable to resolve these differences before Helsinki.

The Helsinki joint statement basically reflects the U.S. position that explicit limits on TMD should relate only to targets and testing and not to the systems themselves. The statement notes that there are four elements to the phase two agreement on higher velocity TMD systems. The first two elements allow the United States and Russia to deploy higher velocity TMD systems provided that they are not tested against ballistic missile targets with velocities above 5 kilometers per second or ranges that exceed 3,500 kilometers. The third element prohibits each side from developing, testing or deploying space based TMD interceptors or components based on other physical principles (such as lasers) that can substitute for such interceptors. Finally, the sides agreed to exchange "detailed" information related to their TMD plans and programs on an annual basis.

The joint statement further notes that neither side "has plans" to flight test higher velocity TMD systems against ballistic missile targets before April 1999; to deploy TMD systems with interceptor velocities above 5.5 kilometers per second for land based and air based systems or 4.5 kilometers per second for sea based systems; to test TMD systems against ballistic missile targets equipped with MIRVs; or to test TMD systems against strategic ballistic missile reentry vehicles.

The presidents also agreed to continue consultations through the SCC on TMD related matters, including "any questions or concerns either side may have regarding TMD activities, including matters related to the agreement to be completed on higher velocity systems." The U.S. side maintains that these consultations would not give either side a veto over the other side's TMD programs. The joint statement also repeats another theme of the May 1995 statement, noting that there is "considerable scope" for U.S. Russian cooperation in TMD efforts, including the possibility of collaboration on early warning information and technology cooperation in areas related to TMD.

As drafted, the Helsinki joint statement addresses some, but clearly not all, of Russia's previously stated requirements for a phase two agreement on higher velocity TMD systems. According to a letter to then Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov proposed that a phase two agreement include maximum speed limits for interceptors, a ban on space based tracking and guidance sensors, and explicit limits on the number and geographic deployment of high velocity TMD systems. (See ACT, July 1996.) These key Russian conditions were notably absent from the Helsinki agreement. As a result, there has been considerable uncertainty as to how the phase two agreement will be received in the Duma (which generally remains skeptical of U.S. TMD efforts) and among the key officers of the Strategic Rocket Forces (who have traditionally been strong supporters of the ABM Treaty), and some speculation that these demands could resurface in the SCC.

 

Congress Denounces TMD Agreement

Despite the fact that it essentially adopted the U.S. position, the Helsinki joint statement on high velocity TMD systems still drew a strong negative reaction from several Republican members of Congress. In a March 23 joint statement, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R GA), Representative Bob Livingston (R LA) and Representative Chris Cox (R CA) argued that the agreement "will halt the development of the most effective possible ballistic missile defense," a reference to space based systems. "If allowed to stand, this agreement will place the lives of our brave fighting men and women—and ultimately millions of Americans—in jeopardy," they asserted.

Just days before the Helsinki summit, congressional opposition to any effort to negotiate on TMD had intensified. On March 19, the House Republican Policy Committee, which is chaired by Representative Cox, adopted a unanimous policy statement that offers a scathing critique of the Clinton administration's missile defense policies. On that day, Representative Curt Weldon (R PA) along with five other House Republicans wrote a letter to President Clinton expressing their "strong opposition" to measures that would impose limitations on U.S. TMD systems. Then, in a March 20 letter to President Clinton, Gingrich and four other House Republicans expressed their "deep concern" that the United States might propose at the summit restrictions on TMD deployments as well as measures that would multilateralize the ABM Treaty.

 

The Administration Responds

In the days immediately after the Helsinki summit, the Clinton administration responded to these congressional critics. On March 24, in a White House briefing clearly provoked by the March 23 joint statement, Robert Bell, senior director for defense policy and arms control at the National Security Council, refuted several "misconceptions" related to the ABM TMD demarcation issue. In response to the claim that the administration's position on demarcation has resulted in the "dumbing down" of U.S. TMD capabilities, Bell argued that the Helsinki agreement will allow the United States to deploy all six of its planned, "core" TMD systems. These systems include the Army's Patriot Advanced Capability 2 (PAC 2) upgrade, an improvement of the system deployed during the Persian Gulf war; PAC 3 (formerly ERINT); THAAD; Navy Area Defense; Navy Theater Wide Defense; and the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), which is being developed by the United States, Germany and Italy for deployment by NATO. With the exception of the Navy Theater Wide TMD system, which has already been judged compliant with the ABM Treaty by the U.S. national review process, all of these systems were deemed compliant on the basis of last year's phase one agreement covering TMD systems with lower velocity interceptors (up to 3 kilometers per second).

In a March 27 address to the Navy League, Secretary of Defense William Cohen argued that the ABM agreement "does not impinge on the development, testing or deployment of any of our planned TMD systems" and "places no limitation on the speed of the TMD interceptors." Rejecting the notion that there is a distinction between space based interceptors deployed on TMD or ABM systems, Cohen argued—as had Bell—that the agreement's prohibition on the former is not a new restriction on U.S. missile defense capabilities because the ABM Treaty already explicitly bans space based ABM interceptors.

Other critics in the missile defense debate, however, argue that the administration's position on high velocity TMD systems will almost certainly have a deleterious impact on the ABM Treaty in the long term. Although the Helsinki agreement places limitations on the parameters of ballistic missile targets and prohibits space based TMD interceptors, these critics argue that it would allow the United States and Russia to deploy highly capable TMD systems, in the Russian case with nuclear warheads, that could have inherent capabilities against strategic ballistic missiles, become the base for a nationwide defense, undercut the ABM Treaty, and complicate efforts to achieve further nuclear force reductions.

The SCC is likely to reconvene in early May, when it will begin the process of transforming the Helsinki joint statement into a formal phase two agreement on high velocity TMD. During his press briefing, Bell indicated that the agreement would contain only the four elements specified in the joint statement and would require approval by Congress—National Security Advisor Samuel Berger subsequently indicated that the administration would request Senate advice and consent—and the Duma. Based on the initial negative congressional and uncertain Duma reaction to the agreement, however, the Clinton and Yeltsin administrations may both face—for different reasons—an uphill battle in winning such approval.

Joint Statements of the Helsinki Summit

Joint Statement on Parameters On Future Reductions In Nuclear Forces

Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin underscore that, with the end of the Cold War, major progress has been achieved with regard to strengthening strategic stability and nuclear security. Both the United States and Russia are significantly reducing their nuclear forces. Important steps have been taken to detarget strategic missiles. The Start I Treaty has entered into force, and its implementation is ahead of schedule. Belarus, Kazakstan and Ukraine are nuclear weapon free. The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty was indefinitely extended on May 11, 1995 and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed by both the United States and Russia on September 24, 1996.

In another historic step to promote international peace and security, President Clinton and President Yeltsin hereby reaffirm their commitment to take further concrete steps to reduce the nuclear danger and strengthen strategic stability and nuclear security. The Presidents have reached an understanding on further reductions in and limitations on strategic offensive arms that will substantially reduce the roles and risks of nuclear weapons as we move forward into the next century. Recognizing the fundamental significance of the ABM Treaty for these objectives, the Presidents have, in a separate joint statement, given instructions on demarcation between ABM systems and theater missile defense systems, which will allow for deployment of effective theater missile defenses and prevent circumvention of the ABM Treaty.

With the foregoing in mind, President Clinton and President Yeltsin have reached the following understandings.

Once Start II enters into force, the United States and Russia will immediately begin negotiations on a Start III agreement, which will include, among other things, the following basic components:

Establishment, by December 31, 2007, of lower aggregate levels of 2,000 2,500 strategic nuclear warheads for each of the parties.

Measures relating to the transparency of strategic nuclear warhead inventories and the destruction of strategic nuclear warheads and any other jointly agreed technical and organizational measures, to promote the irreversibility of deep reductions including prevention of a rapid increase in the number of warheads.

Resolving issues related to the goal of making the current START treaties unlimited in duration.

Placement in a deactivated status of all strategic nuclear delivery vehicles which will be eliminated under START II by December 31, 2003, by removing their nuclear warheads or taking other jointly agreed steps. The United States is providing assistance through the Nunn Lugar program to facilitate early deactivation.

The Presidents have reached an understanding that the deadline for the elimination of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles under the START II Treaty will be extended to December 31, 2007. The sides will agree on specific language to be submitted to the Duma and, following Duma approval of START II, to be submitted to the United States Senate.

In this context, the Presidents underscore the importance of prompt ratification of the START II Treaty by the State Duma of the Russian Federation.

The Presidents also agreed that in the context of START III negotiations their experts will explore, as separate issues, possible measures relating to nuclear long range sea launched cruise missiles and tactical nuclear systems, to include appropriate confidence building and transparency measures.

Taking into account all the understandings outlined above, and recalling their statement of May 10, 1995, the Presidents agreed the sides will also consider the issues related to transparency in nuclear materials.


Joint Statement Concerning The Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty

President Clinton and President Yeltsin, expressing their commitment to strengthening strategic stability and international security, emphasizing the importance of further reductions in strategic offensive arms, and recognizing the fundamental significance of the Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty for these objectives as well as the necessity for effective theater missile defense (TMD) systems, consider it their common task to preserve the ABM Treaty, prevent circumvention of it, and enhance its viability.

The Presidents reaffirm the principles of their May 10, 1995 Joint Statement, which will serve as a basis for reaching agreement on demarcation between ABM systems and theater missile defense systems, including:

The United States and Russia are each committed to the ABM Treaty, a cornerstone of strategic stability.

Both sides must have the option to establish and to deploy effective theater missile defense systems. Such activity must not lead to violation or circumvention of the ABM Treaty.

Theater missile defense systems may be deployed by each side which (1) will not pose a realistic threat to the strategic nuclear force of the other side and (2) will not be tested to give such systems that capability.

Theater missile defense systems will not be deployed by the sides for use against each other.

The scale of deployment—in number and geographic scope—of theater missile defense systems by either side will be consistent with theater ballistic missile programs confronting that side.

In this connection, the United States and Russia have recently devoted special attention to developing measures aimed at assuring confidence of the Parties that their ballistic missile defense activities will not lead to circumvention of the ABM Treaty, to which the Parties have repeatedly reaffirmed their adherence.

The efforts undertaken by the Parties in this regard are reflected in the Joint Statement of the Presidents of the United States and Russia issued on September 28, 1994, as well as in that of May 10, 1995. Important decisions were made at the United States Russia summit meeting on April 23, 1996.

In order to fulfill one of the primary obligations under the ABM Treaty¾the obligation not to give non ABM systems capabilities to counter strategic ballistic missiles and not to test them in an ABM mode¾the Presidents have instructed their respective delegations to complete the preparation of an agreement to ensure fulfillment of this requirement.

In Standing Consultative Commission (SCC) negotiations on the problem of demarcation between TMD systems and ABM systems, the United States and Russia, together with Belarus, Kazakstan and Ukraine, successfully finished negotiations on demarcation with respect to lower velocity TMD systems. The Presidents note that agreements were also reached in 1996 with respect to confidence building measures and ABM Treaty succession. The Presidents have instructed their experts to complete an agreement as soon as possible for prompt signature on higher velocity TMD systems.

Neither side has plans before April 1999 to flight test, against a ballistic target missile, TMD interceptor missiles subject to the agreement on demarcation with respect to higher velocity TMD systems. Neither side has plans for TMD systems with interceptor missiles faster than 5.5 km/sec for land based and air based systems or 4.5 km/sec for sea based systems. Neither side has plans to test TMD systems against target missiles with MIRVs or against reentry vehicles deployed or planned to be deployed on strategic ballistic missiles.

The elements for the agreement on higher velocity TMD systems are:

The velocity of the ballistic target missiles will not exceed 5 km/sec.

The flight range of the ballistic target missiles will not exceed 3500 km.

The sides will not develop, test, or deploy space based TMD interceptor missiles or components based on other physical principles that are capable of substituting for such interceptor missiles.

The sides will exchange detailed information annually on TMD plans and programs.

The Presidents noted that TMD technology is in its early stages and continues to evolve. They agreed that developing effective TMD while maintaining a viable ABM Treaty will require continued consultations. To this end, they reaffirm that their representatives to the Standing Consultative Commission will discuss, as foreseen under the ABM Treaty, any questions or concerns either side may have regarding TMD activities, including matters related to the agreement to be completed on higher velocity systems, which will be based on this joint statement by the two Presidents, with a view to precluding violation or circumvention of the ABM Treaty. These consultations will be facilitated by the agreed detailed annual information exchange on TMD plans and programs.

The Presidents also agreed that there is considerable scope for cooperation in theater missile defense. They are prepared to explore integrated cooperative defense efforts, inter alia, in the provision of early warning support for TMD activities, technology cooperation in areas related to TMD, and expansion of the ongoing program of cooperation in TMD exercises.

In resolving the tasks facing them, the Parties will act in a spirit of cooperation, mutual openness, and commitment to the ABM Treaty.


Joint U.S. Russian Statement On European Security

Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin discussed the present security situation in the Euro Atlantic region. They reaffirmed their commitment to the shared goal of building a stable, secure, integrated and undivided democratic Europe. The roles of the United States and Russia as powers with worldwide responsibilities place upon them a special requirement to cooperate closely to this end. They confirmed that this cooperation will be guided by the spirit of openness and pragmatism which has increasingly come to characterize the U.S. Russian relationship in recent years.

Recalling their May 1995 Joint Statement on European Security, the Presidents noted that lasting peace in Europe should be based on the integration of all of the continent into a series of mutually supporting institutions and relationships that ensure that there will be no return to division or confrontation. No institution by itself can ensure security. The Presidents agreed that the evolution of security structures should be managed in a way that threatens no state and that advances the goal of building a more stable and integrated Europe. This evolution should be based on a broad commitment to the principles of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE] as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, the Budapest Code of Conduct and other OSCE documents, including respect for human rights, democracy and political pluralism, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security.

The Presidents are convinced that strengthening the OSCE, whose potential has yet to be fully realized, meets the interests of the United States and Russia. The Presidents expressed their satisfaction with the outcome of the Lisbon Summit of the OSCE and agreed on the importance of implementing its decisions, both to define further the goals of security cooperation and to continue to devise innovative methods for carrying out the growing number of tasks the OSCE has assumed.

They underscored their commitment to enhance the operational capability of the OSCE as the only framework for European security cooperation providing for full and equal participation of all states. The rule of consensus should remain an inviolable basis for OSCE decision making. The Presidents reaffirmed their commitment to work together in the ongoing OSCE effort to develop a model for security in Europe which takes account of the radically changed situation on the eve of the 21st century and the decisions of the Lisbon Summit concerning a charter on European security. The OSCE's essential role in Bosnia and Herzegovina and its ability to develop new forms of peacekeeping and conflict prevention should also be actively pursued.

In their talks in Helsinki, the two Presidents paid special attention to the question of relations between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Russian Federation. They continued to disagree on the issue of NATO enlargement. In order to minimize the potential consequences of this disagreement, the Presidents agreed that they should work, both together and with others, on a document that will establish cooperation between NATO and Russia as an important element of a new comprehensive European security system. Signed by the leaders of the NATO countries and Russia, this document would be an enduring commitment at the highest political level. They further agreed that the NATO Russia relationship, as defined in this document, should provide for consultation, coordination and, to the maximum extent possible where appropriate, joint decision making and action on security issues of common concern.

The Presidents noted that the NATO Russia document would reflect and contribute both to the profound transformation of NATO, including its political and peacekeeping dimension, and to the new realities of Russia as it builds a democratic society. It will also reflect the shared commitment of both NATO and Russia to develop their relations in a manner that enhances mutual security.

The Presidents recalled the historic significance of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe [CFE] in establishing the trust necessary to build a common security space on the continent in the interest of all states in Europe, whether or not they belong to a military or political alliance, and to continue to preclude any destabilizing build up of forces in different regions of Europe.

The Presidents stressed the importance of adapting the CFE Treaty. They agreed on the need to accelerate negotiations among CFE parties with a view to concluding by late spring or early summer of 1997 a framework agreement setting forth the basic elements of an adapted CFE Treaty, in accordance with the objectives and principles of the Document on Scope and Parameters agreed at Lisbon in December 1996.

President Yeltsin underscored Russian concerns that NATO enlargement will lead to a potentially threatening build up of permanently stationed combat forces of NATO near to Russia. President Clinton stressed that the Alliance contemplates nothing of the kind.

President Yeltsin welcomed President Clinton's statements and affirmed that Russia would exercise similar restraint in its conventional force deployments in Europe.

President Clinton also noted NATO's policy on nuclear weapons deployments, as articulated by the North Atlantic Council on December 10, 1996, that NATO members have "no intention, no plan and no reason" to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of states that are not now members of the Alliance, nor do they foresee any future need to do so. President Clinton noted NATO's willingness to include specific reference to this policy in the NATO Russia document. President Yeltsin spoke in favor of including such a reference in the document.

The Presidents agreed that the United States, Russia and all their partners in Europe face many common security challenges that can best be addressed through cooperation among all the states of the Euro Atlantic area. They pledged to intensify their efforts to build on the common ground identified in their meetings in Helsinki to improve the effectiveness of European security institutions, including by concluding the agreements and arrangements outlined in this statement.


Joint U.S Russian Statement On Chemical Weapons

President Clinton and President Yeltsin discussed issues relating to the entry into force of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. They stressed the commitment of the United States and Russia to full and effective accomplishment of the tasks and objectives of the convention.

The Presidents reaffirmed their intention to take the steps necessary to expedite ratification in each of the two countries. President Clinton expressed his determination that the United States be a party when the Convention enters into force in April of this year, and is strongly urging prompt Senate action. President Yeltsin noted that the Convention had been submitted to the Duma with his strong recommendation for prompt ratification.

Mindful of their special role and responsibility in the matter of chemical disarmament, the United States and Russia understand that their participation in the Convention is important to its effective implementation and universality.

The Presidents noted that cooperation between the two countries in the prohibition of chemical weapons has enabled both countries to enhance openness regarding their military chemical potential and to gain experience with procedures and measures for verifying compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Parties will continue cooperation between them in chemical disarmament.

The United States will seek appropriation of necessary funds to build a facility for the destruction of neuroparalytic toxins in Russia as previously agreed.

For more information contact Spurgeon M. Keeny Jr. or Jack Mendelsohn

U.S., Russia Cancel Signing of TMD 'Demarcation' Agreement

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty