Treaty expiration concerns negotiator
Coming expiration of arms control treaty with Russia concerns expert Ambassador will speak in Albuquerque
Within a few years, it is possible that the United States and Russia will no longer have a nuclear arms treaty in force or under negotiation — the first time that has occurred in 50 years, national security expert Ambassador Linton Brooks said during a recent phone conversation. Why is that important?
“In the time we are spending on this phone call, Russia could destroy the U.S. as a functioning society, and they’re the only country in the world that could do that,” he said. “We should at least be ‘mildly’ interested in that.”
As an arms control ambassador, Brooks headed negotiations on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties, START I and START II, in the 1990s. He is a former administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration and now consults on nuclear issues and serves on the Board of Managers for Sandia National Laboratories.
Brooks, who is based in Washington, D.C., will be the featured speaker Tuesday as part of the lecture series hosted by Albuquerque International Association, a division of the Center for International Studies. The nonprofit organization is dedicated to providing better international education and enhancing global awareness. Its lecture series brings national and international experts to share insights and lead discussions about critical global trends and issues.
The New START treaty, the most recent iteration of the arms agreement, is scheduled to end in 2021, though it could be extended to 2026 if the U.S. and Russian presidents agree to do so, Brooks said. An extension would not need U.S. Senate approval, though a new treaty would.
While there is a good possibility the current treaty will be extended, the prospects for a new treaty are much more questionable, Brooks said. That’s because the Russians have been less than diligent about honoring other treaties, particularly the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF, which was signed in 1987 and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1988.
That treaty called for the elimination of all nuclear and conventional missiles with ranges up to 3,420 miles. The INF “is still in effect and it’s clear to the U.S. that the Russians are violating it,” he said.
“The last administration (of former President Barack Obama) and this one are convinced that there have been violations, so it’s very likely that if the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty ends, there will not be a replacement treaty, and it’s even less likely the Senate would ratify a new treaty,” Brooks said.
In the U.S., lots of attention is focused on Russia’s alleged meddling in the last presidential election and the Robert Mueller investigation into possible links between Russia and associates of President Donald Trump, if not Trump himself, Brooks said.
While those are important matters, there are other issues that have far greater ramifications. Like it or not, Brooks said, “Russia matters to us strategically because of their position on the U.N. Security Council. Which means that whenever we try to mobilize international opposition, we need at least their acquiescence.”
Also, he said, “We do not want to ignite a new arms race, because it costs a lot of money and it does not make us any safer, and we don’t want to lose the transparency and knowledge that we gain from inspections under arms control.”
Should the treaty be allowed to lapse, Brooks said, there are measures that are not legally binding that can be taken to mitigate the damage.
For example, the U.S. and Russia can have informal agreements that neither country will increase its military forces, and we can continue to talk, exchange information and cooperate where possible, “so that in time of crisis we don’t inadvertently walk ourselves into a dangerous situation,” he said.
“The fact that there are other issues with Russia is not a good reason to not think about a nuclear arms treaty,” Brooks said. “The whole idea of arms control presumes that there are issues. We don’t have an arms control treaty with the British or the French because they are genuine partners and allies.
“Arms control is about people you don’t trust.”