We here at USDemocrazy are not exactly history experts (too short of an attention span), but we were pretty sure that the Cold War was over. But then yesterday there was all of this news circling around about Russia and nuclear weapons and treaties and stuff.
So, we began to wonder — did we get sucked into some kind of “Back to the Future” plot?
Turns out no. (Would have been fun.) Actually, as we know, nuclear weapons are still a huge deal in foreign policy post-Cold War, and so the U.S. and Russia’s nuclear relations are getting more lip service over the past few days.
Basically, the United States and Russia have reached an agreement that would reduce their nuclear arsenals and would replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991 (START), which expired last year. Exciting!
The New York Times outlines the parameters for us, saying that this agreement…
would require both sides to reduce their warheads and launchers by more than one-quarter. The agreement is the most significant accomplishment so far for Mr. Obama’s policy of trying to “reset” relations with Russia. It is intended to pave the way for another more far-reaching round of reductions later in his term.
And according to the Washington Post, the numbers of nuclear weapons that will magically disappear into thin air will be reduced by a few hundred. They also cite a statistic that explains that the U.S. and Russia possess about 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. That’s a lotta bombs, folks.
It’s been a big week for Obama and Congress, and this is just one more thing to pile on to their plates. You’ll remember that Congress has to ratify all treaties that the President negotiates. Gotta love the synergy!
But that’s not all in terms of what’s up for nuclear policy in the U.S…. Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic explains what’s next on the agenda…
If March was health care care month, then April … will be nuclear month — the administration plans to release its Nuclear Posture Review, hold a nuclear security summit in Washington, the Senate plans to begin debate on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and preparations begin for a major review of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Obama campaigned on getting rid of nuclear weapons production and proposing BIG reductions in capabilities (as you can see in the video below), so why is he falling short of that goal within this particular treaty? Well, the same NYT article from before says it’s a trust-building tactic.
Think about it: if you were Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, would you just say, “Sure, Barack! I trust that you’ll get rid of all of your nukes! So we will too! No problem!”
We didn’t think so.
For all the work Obama is doing to build trust through negotiations and talks with his Russian counterpart, some people (like Fly and Schmitt at Foreign Policy) believe that Obama might not be taking the right approach to relations with Russia by basing them off his personal relationship with Medvedev.
The authors claim that this is what G.W. Bush did with then-president and now-prime minister Vladimir Putin, and that didn’t turn out so pretty.
Why don’t they want such ties to Medvedev to run U.S.-Russia policy? Well…
In fact, [Medvedev's] seemingly well-meaning comments about arms control or Iran have often been overshadowed by more bellicose moves from Putin, as happened last week. The obvious point is that Putin is still calling the shots and will likely continue doing so as he plots a return to the Russian presidency in 2012.
So, maybe the foreign policy advisers to Obama know more about who to trust, because clearly we don’t! Either way, this is an important step in nuclear arms control for the world, and that shouldn’t be diminished.
What are you thinking about nuclear weapons in the modern age? Got questions about U.S.-Russia relations? Engage us in the comments section!
