John Robles: This is the “Voice of Russia” world service. Hello, this is John Robles. I’m speaking with Max Bergmann, he is a nuclear non-proliferation policy analyst at the Center for American Progress. I want to ask you some questions today regarding the postponement of the START Treaty. My first question is what is the main reason behind the postponement?
Max Bergmann: The way the Senate works is that before the full, entire senatorial vote on the Treaty, it has to get passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And so the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took the Treaty up after it was signed. And actually it was moving incredibly fast for the Senate. Most Treaties have taken much longer to ratify. So, the Senate was trying to get everything done, the committee was trying to get everything done and have a vote before in August when the senators leave on vacation. They could have held the vote, but I think they were very close to actually getting a couple more Republicans to support the Treaty. But these Republicans objected to sort of being pressured and circumventing the traditional rules of the Senate. So, I think, what really happened here was a vote could have been held, but there is a danger of losing Senate Republicans. So, Senator Kerry had the committee pulled back and said “Ok, we’ll delay the vote until September, so that we can fully answer all the questions that the Senators have.”
John Robles: Ok, how will this impact Russia-US ties?
Max Bergmann: I don’t think it should. I mean, I can understand if there is some concern on the Russian side.
John Robles: Some people say it’s like a slap in the face to Russia.
Max Bergmann: I don’t believe it’s a slap in the face to Russia. I believe that this is how the Senate works and if anyone has been following US politics, especially over the last year and a half, he can tell you that things don’t move quickly in the Senate. I don’t think this is a slap in the face to Russia. You know, I understand Russian concerns at the failure to move quickly. I think the direction of the new START Treaty is still on track to be ratified hopefully this year. If not this year, then very soon in the next Congress.
John Robles: Ok, worst case scenario. Congress fails to ratify it. What happens next?
Max Bergmann: I think that would be an incredibly horrible scenario. I think there is a sort of asymmetry about this Treaty that on the one hand it’s very modest, but on the other hand if it fails to be implemented, I think it will have extreme implications. I think that first you will just have a complete loss of confidence and intelligence that the both sides had about each other’s nuclear arsenals. And the last thing you want when you have weapons on hair-trigger alert is a loss of confidence about the other side, and so I think it could lead to growing uncertainty. I think Russia would see this as a big slap in the face. And I think relations would cool. I think, in a broader perspective it would really call to question the administration commitment to nuclear disarmament, to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Both the US and Russia used the START Treaty during the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in May to really make the argument that we are committed to arms control. And if you don’t ratify this Treaty then I think there is a danger that countries that don’t have nuclear weapons could look at this and say “Well, the US is upholding its end of the MPT bargain. Why should we continue to be non-nuclear weapon states? It could potentially close the whole non-proliferation regime overboard and lead to a sort of a cascade of nuclear proliferation. I think it is the worst case scenario. But I think it’s not put of the realm of possibility if this Treaty is not ratified by the Senate.
John Robles: This leads my next question. How does the START Treaty, and how will the START Treaty, affect international security?
Max Bergmann: I think, if it’s ratified, what it simply does is kind of basically maintain the current nuclear status quo of nuclear stability between the US and Russia. The new START provides a platform for further talks, for further action on other things and maintains nuclear stability. The analogy I’d like to use. It is sort of continuing traffic laws. People don’t really pay attention to the traffic laws, but if you eliminated them, the consequences would be severe and a lot of people would probably die. So, continuing the sort of institutions and structures that are in place and modernizing them, which this Treaty does in terms of verification and monitoring, is incredibly important, I think, for overall global security. From the US perspective we are really committed to disarmament and to arms control. And that the Bush administration years, where this didn’t get much attention, were sort of “a blip on the radar” from the past history of US President.
John Robles: Someone recently said that without verification mechanism we would have nuclear anarchy.
Max Bergmann: It was Senator Tom Daschle who said it. Yes, I think, that’s exactly right. Without the verification monitoring measures we‘d be sort of back to what we were in the Cold War when there were absolutely no rules or processes governing the US-Russia nuclear relations. We’d be back at the point where it would be very easy for suspicion and distrust to carry the day. And ultimately when you are dealing with military planners on both sides, their job is to be skeptical and they are going to be even more skeptical if they don’t have boots on the ground monitoring each other’s arsenals and don’t really have solid intelligence about what other side is doing. That leads to increased skepticism, increased tension and fear and could put us to the point where nuclear war, which has now become unthinkable, becomes slightly more thinkable. And that in itself is a horrible direction to be moving in.
John Robles: I agree completely. Thank you very much.
Download
Please rate: