Experts Urge U.S. Not to Withdraw From Treaty

Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
7/18/2014

Frustrated with delays by the Obama Administration in taking action on potential Russian violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, two key Republicans this week urged the Administration to confront Moscow about the issue. In a July 17 letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and Ted Poe (R-Texas) called the potential violations “clear-cut, illegal and destabilizing” and questioned how the Administration plans to penalize Russia for the violation. “It has been reported that Russia’s violation of the INF Treaty began in 2008,” the lawmakers wrote. “In this case, it was a basic fact that demonstrated that state’s intentions since the Administration first attempted its ill-fated ‘reset’ policy. The first step in fixing our policy with respect to Russia is to admit its failure and to clearly acknowledge and confront its behavior.”

Rogers is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s Strategic Forces Subcommittee, while Poe chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee. The lawmakers also pushed Kerry to clarify whether provisions in the treaty banning the production or flight-testing of intermediate-range missiles—as Russia is alleged to have done—is “essential” to the treaty’s purpose and whether tests of a strategically-tested missile (more than 5,500 kilometers) in a different configurations at shorter distances would be prohibited by the treaty. “If not, please describe what has changed since the Senate considered this treaty and adopted its Resolution of Ratification on May 27, 1988,” the lawmakers wrote.

Administration Still Reviewing Potential Violations

The INF Treaty that was signed by the Soviet Union and the United States in 1987 required each country to get rid of missiles with ranges of 300 and 4,000 miles, and the accord also prevents each country from testing or building such weapons. But reports earlier this year suggested that top State Department officials met with NATO allies in January to provide info on alleged Russian tests of a new land-based cruise missile that violates the treaty. Thus far, the Administration hasn’t completed its review of the potential violations, and its annual compliance report on treaties has been delayed since April. Rogers said the Administration was offered a chance to testify at a hearing the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee held July 17, but declined.

Rogers: ‘Where’s the Promised Action?’

At this week’s hearing, Rogers continued to express frustration at inaction by the Administration. “Where’s the promised action?” he said. “Our allies are wondering. No doubt [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is wondering if he’ll get away scot-free with this, too.” He suggested that the inaction raised questions about the U.S. commitment to its allies, which are most affected by intermediate-range missiles that would not be able to threaten the continental United States. “If President Obama won’t state what we all know—Russia is violating the INF treaty—what are the odds he will defend our allies from these new military threats?” Rogers said. “I am waiting for the President to show some leadership.”

Experts Urge U.S. Not to Withdraw From Treaty

A trio of experts testifying at the hearing suggested that the United States should not withdraw from the treaty in response to the violations. Such a move would “actually be welcomed in Moscow,” said Stephen Rademaker, the National Security Project Advisor for the Bipartisan Policy Center. “We shouldn’t make it any easier for them. We should force them to take the onus of that, take the international and diplomatic hit for pulling out of the treaty.”

He said the Administration should confront Russia over the issue and stop worrying about the potential impact on its own arms control agenda. “It needs to accept the reality of Russia,” he said. “Russia does not share President Obama’s vision of eliminating nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. They’re not particularly fond of arms control agreements. My sense, and it’s only a sense, is that the Obama Administration has not wanted to confront the violations … because they’re invested from the perspective of trying to advance a broader arms control agenda.”

Expert: ‘Goal Should be to Multi-Lateralize the Issue’

Steven Pifer, director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative at the Brookings Institution, said the United States should push its allies to pressure Russia about the violations. “The goal should be to multi-lateralize the issue,” he said. “That is, have other countries, the ones that are most directly threatened … to press Moscow on the question. Washington should strive to make this not just a U.S.-Russia issue but a German-Russia, a Chinese-Russian, an Italian-Russian issue as well.”

Pifer said withdrawing from the treaty would not be in U.S. interests—for now. “Continuing to observe the INF Treaty while pressing for the compliance issue with Russia and having others do so makes sense at least for the foreseeable future,” he said. “This does not mean that if Russia wantonly violated the treaty the United States should continue to observe it indefinitely. But for now there is no compelling interest on the American part for withdrawal.”

U.S. Urged to ‘Widen its Aperture’ for Evaluating the Treaty

Jim Thomas, Vice President and Director of Studies for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said Russia’s actions amount to “arms control salami slicing that is slowly undermining” the treaty. He suggested a “latter day dual track” approach that would include seeking to multi-lateralize the treaty by placing limits on other countries intermediate range missiles—addressing a major concern of the Russians—and seeking to amend the treaty to allow ground-launched conventionally armed missiles with ranges up to 2,000 kilometers outside of Europe.  At the same time, he said the United States could prepare its own military options to deploy intermediate range missiles that would have been outlawed by the treaty. “The United States cannot permit Moscow to make a soft exit from the INF Treaty while itself remaining a party to the treaty in good standing,” Thomas said.

He noted, however, that it was important that the United States “widen its aperture for evaluating” the treaty and ensuring it serves its global interests. “A treaty barring two countries from pursuing certain classes of militarily desirable missiles while not stopping other states poses threats toward the U.S. and its allies overseas … must be constantly reevaluated to determine the tipping point where the costs of arms control overtake its benefits,” he said. “That day may be quickly approaching.”