a Bloomberg Columnist praises the us administration for the release of yet another peace Treaty. The author argues that Russia constantly violates the agreement and this discreditied peace treaties. But Washington did not provide solid evidence of violations on the part of Moscow.
President Donald trump is preparing to leave the next agreement with Russia in the field of arms control, and the opposition was beginning to resent all the more so for trump, this is the second such contract from which it comes. “This is madness,” tweeted former CIA Director Michael Hayden (Michael Hayden). “Another short-sighted step of trump’s withdrawal from the Treaty, which involved many of our close allies,” said former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power (Samantha Power).
But trump accepted the right decision — both in detail and in principle.
We are talking about the open skies Treaty, which was signed in 1992. It allows American and Russian aircraft to fly reconnaissance over military installations and locations of weapons. The purpose of the contract is to have 35 countries participating in this Treaty were absolutely sure that their opponents fulfil their commitments on arms control.
Theoretically it is a good idea. The observation from above is one way to ensure that important agreements with Russia on arms control. It also provides the source data for military planning, showing where the troops and military equipment in peacetime. But in this agreement there is one big flaw. The party, which should worry everyone else (Russia), consistently violates international agreements.
Let us remember the recent actions of Moscow. When the Russian special forces unit in 2014, invaded the Crimea and later in Eastern Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin has violated taken in 1994, the obligation to protect and respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Ukrainians received such assurances in exchange for abandoning nuclear weapons of the Soviet era that was located on their territory.
The same thing Russia did with the Treaty on the elimination of intermediate and shorter-range missiles (INF Treaty). Russia has largely complied with that part of the agreement, according to which in Europe was eliminated an entire class of intermediate-range and short range, making it since its signature in 1987 and to about 2008. But in 2008, she began testing cruise missiles, land-based missiles with a launch range, violating the terms of the INF Treaty. USA on for 10 years tried to convince Russia to return to compliance with the Treaty, but Putin continued to escalate and eventually deployed these prohibited missiles that can hit targets in Europe. Therefore, in October 2018, NATO officially declared that Russia is violating its commitments and the US announced that it is withdrawing from the INF Treaty.
A similar story can be told about the Treaty on open skies. When he in 2002 entered into force, Russia has largely complied with its conditions. But when came to power the administration of President Barack Obama, the US discovered that Russia restricts them to fly over certain objects concerning which Washington had suspicions. While the United States gathered evidence that the Russian reconnaissance aircraft carried out a survey and plot are important elements of the us infrastructure. As said on Thursday, Senator Tom cotton (Tom Cotton), the “Treaty on open skies began his life as a good agreement between the major powers, and died as the agent of the Russian intelligence.”
Us diplomats raised questions about this contract before their Russian counterparts and urged them to return to compliance. But Moscow is not inferior. Because the United States has spy satellites and other technical means to collect those data which are collected reconnaissance aircraft, we have almost nothing to lose, leaving the open skies Treaty.
It also raises an important question of principle. If Putin thinks he can get away with the violation of the treaties that comply with its most important opponents, then why would he want them to do? What are the benefits of agreements on arms control, if they do not contribute to the strengthening of international security?
This question is crucial in approaches of administration trump to the control arms. Speaking in February with a speech that went unnoticed, assistant Secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation Christopher Ford (Christopher Ford) said: “If arms control does not enhance security, for example, in cases where our counterparts refuse to fulfill their obligations, we clearly declare its willingness to withdraw from such a failed agreement.”
It would seem that this is obvious, and in almost every contract has provisions under which a party can reasonably get out of it. But to the administration trump any high ranking leader in the United States did not set out this principle as clearly as did Mr. Ford: if the other party refuses to honour the agreement we pulling ourselves out of it. If trump and his successors will adhere to this simple principle, in the future agreements on arms control will provide security, which can not make the current flawed contracts.
Therefore, it should not be surprising that although ��ramp out of the open skies Treaty, his administration agreed to begin negotiations with Russia on the extension of the other strategic agreements on nuclear weapons, known as start-3. The administration trump is not against arms control. It is against the violations of treaties on arms control.
