INF demise
The US and Russia have
announced their withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)
treaty that placed limitations on the use of medium range conventional and
nuclear missiles. Signed in 1987 between then US President Ronald Reagan and
Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the INF treaty was considered a cornerstone of
the global arms control regime. Both sides had been signalling their intent to
pull out of the treaty for months, all the while trading charges of violating
the treaty’s terms. The central bone of contention was a new missile that
Russia had developed, which the US and NATO claimed violated the treaty. While
the US and NATO placed the range of the 9M729 missile at 1,500 kilometres,
Russia parried this by saying it could only travel 480 kilometres. Since the
INF treaty limited the use of missiles with ranges of 500-5,000 kilometres,
this disparity was about whether the 9M729 fell within the purview of the
treaty. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered the coup de grace to the
INF treaty at an ASEAN conference in Bangkok on August 2, 2019, minutes after
Russia pronounced the treaty was dead. Pompeo and the Russian Foreign Ministry
traded charges of the other side being responsible for the development, with
the latter saying the US had made a serious mistake by ditching the treaty more
for its own gain than alleged Russian violations. Russian Deputy Foreign
Minister Sergei Ryabkov urged the US to implement a moratorium on deploying
intermediate-range nuclear missiles after the demise of the INF. But NATO
responded by promising a ‘measured and responsible’ riposte to the alleged
significant risks posed by the 9M729. The US had launched a six-month
withdrawal from the INF treaty procedure in February 2019. Moscow responded by
beginning its own move to pull out. Last month, Russian President Vladimir
Putin formally suspended its participation. It appears that it was Washington
that initiated the move, with Russia virtually being forced to follow. What is
puzzling is why the US did not invoke the verification clauses of the INF
treaty to settle once and for all the controversy over the range of the 9M729.
The mystery is resolved if
the post-withdrawal statements of the US are perused. The US has spilt the
beans by admitting its concern that the bilateral INF treaty gave rising power
China free rein to develop its own long-range missiles. Recent US-China tensions,
centred on trade and maritime disputes, are indicative of what lies behind the
US’s hurry to leave the treaty. While Pompeo called on Russia and China to join
discussions for a multilateral arms control treaty to replace the INF,
observers thought the other key arms treaty, New START, which expires in 2021,
may well be the next victim of Washington’s lack of will to maintain the global
arms restraint architecture and its anxiety about China’s growing military
strength. In the present atmosphere after the tearing up of the INF treaty by
the US, it seems like asking for the moon for it to expect Russia or China to
enter into another solemn agreement that Washington may tear up again later. The
demise of the INF treaty and the manner in which it was killed has badly
damaged trust and confidence between the US and Russia, and China will have
taken note of the development. Pompeo’s ‘invitation’ for talks on a new
multilateral treaty comes as the US Defence Secretary Mark Esper says he wants
to quickly deploy new intermediate-range missiles in Asia to counter China.
This hardly sounds like arms restraint. NATO too is making similar noises. While
the US and Russia between them own 90 percent of global nuclear stockpiles, a
new arms race, with China the third player, is feared by knowledgeable
observers. Hardly a prospect the world needs amidst all its other troubles.
No comments:
Post a Comment