• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

NORTH KOREAN BOMB PRIOR TO THE BRATISLAVA SUMMIT

RIA NOvosti

Alexei Arbatov, director of the International Security Department at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), Russian Academy of Sciences, for RIA Novosti

In the run-up to the Bratislava meeting between Vladimir Putin and George Bush, I would describe Russia-US relations as normal.

We do not view each other as enemies, but our cooperation is far below what the US and Russia could and should achieve. In point of fact, bilateral relations are in an alarming stagnation. There is no crisis yet, but we approached a crisis point during the presidential election in Ukraine. Russia and the US also stood on the verge of a crisis when the Americans launched the operation in Iraq and before that, when they wanted to raise the issue in the UN Security Council and threatened to punish everyone who vetoed their resolution. But stagnation is a dangerous situation, which leads to backward movement, deterioration in cooperation, and growing contradictions.

There are many unsolved problems in Russia-US relations, which are not discussed in enough details, as the two sides limit themselves to shallow communiques, statements and agreements. The great powers have not signed a single serious treaty for years. This is generally the current US administration's fault, because it disregards international treaties as such. But this leads to the rejection of international relations, because international treaties, which formalize the common interests of states, have been the fabric of international relations since Hugo Grotius (1583-1645).

The Americans may not want to cooperate using treaties, but Russia must do its best to talk them out of this delusion. However, Russian policy in this respect is notable for a lack of initiative and coordination. The Defense Ministry, the Russian Security Council, the Foreign Ministry, and foreign trade organizations act as they want, without a common plan.

I do not want to view the forthcoming meeting in Bratislava as a soccer match, but Russians have a trick or two for the Americans. The Americans will criticize Russia's domestic policy, largely correctly, and demand support for US policy in Iraq and Iran. Moscow should support some of American actions, but firmly formulate its position, which is mostly substantiated and coincides with that of Western Europe. But there are some things for which Washington should be criticized.

Have nuclear arsenals disappeared from the face of the Earth? Did we not agree to cut strategic offensive weapons in 2002, and decide to formalize the agreement in a treaty? But we did not do anything to sign it, just as we have not done anything to formalize a common position on missile defense systems. The initiative on the creation of new nuclear weapons comes from the US, which regards them as ordinary weapons with an increased explosive force. This is an extremely dangerous trend.

What can we expect from non-nuclear states when the great nuclear powers do not do anything serious to reduce their nuclear arsenals but continue to rely on nuclear deterrence, a first nuclear strike doctrine, and the modernization of their nuclear arms? They look at the US and Russia and decide that they should acquire such weapons too, especially in view of Iraq's experience. The US attacked that country and overthrew its regime. It does not matter whether the regime was bad or good; the operation was undertaken contrary to law and without a UN Security Council sanction.

North Korea has announced that it has nuclear deterrence forces. Is it a bluff? This is for specialists to decide, but the Americans immediately withdrew their direct threats to North Korea and launched six-party talks to convince it to abandon its nuclear program. What kind of example does this give to other countries? Create your own nuclear weapons or at least say that you have it - and other states will talk with you, not attack you. North Korea has announcedits withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the six-party talks on the termination of its nuclear programs. Moreover, it has announced that it has nuclear weapons.

Mr. Putin and Mr. Bush will most certainly discuss the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in general and in detail. In my opinion, they will talk about Iran's nuclear programs. The US is piling pressure on Iran because of its nuclear programs and its stance on Iraq. Washington is worried that Iran supports Hezbollah. But international terrorism does not consist of isolated organizations that are like islands, far and wide. International terrorism includes both Hamas and al-Qaida.

Seeing that Russia trusts Iran's statement about the peaceful nature of its nuclear power engineering and that the US mistrusts it, Europe decided to act as the arbiter, which is positive. The European leaders - Germany, France and Britain - pledged to settle the problem of the Iranian nuclear program by encouraging it to sign a package of agreements that would go beyond power engineering and include diplomatic aspects, Iran's accession to the World Trade Organization, investment, and the advance of European companies to the Iranian market.

All of this is offered to Iran as compensation for the pledge to abandon the dual-purpose aspects to its nuclear programs, even though they are permitted by the NPT. Russia guarantees the delivery of nuclear fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power station and subsequent removal of spent fuel. This Russian stand complements the European position. Since Europe is the closest ally of the US, we can presume that it can probably influence US policy.

On the whole, the Bratislava meeting should not prod Russia-US relations forward but stop them from sliding to a critical point. Too many contradictions have accumulated in our relations. In the past few years, and in particular in the last year and few months, nearly every international problem has become the subject of serious disagreement between Moscow and Washington, beginning with Iraq and ending with Ukraine. The presidents should certainly clarify where their countries stand, pinpoint major differences and decide how these differences can be settled.