"everyone is expected to live up to treaty obligations,”"in 2001 the US administration unilaterally pulled out of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972" .
.......and so we march closer to wisdom and understanding with nuclear toys to play with
NYT April 27, 2007
Putin to Suspend Pact With NATO
By C. J. CHIVERS and MARK LANDLER
MOSCOW, April 26 — President Vladimir V. Putin said Thursday that Russia would suspend its compliance with a treaty on conventional arms in Europe that was forged at the end of the cold war, opening a fresh and intense dispute in the souring relations between NATO and the Kremlin.
The announcement, made in Mr. Putin’s annual address to Parliament, underscored the Kremlin’s anger at the United States for proposing a new missile defense system in Europe, which the Bush administration insists is meant to counter potential threats from North Korea and Iran.
Mr. Putin suggested that Russia would use its future compliance with the treaty as a bargaining point in that disagreement with the United States.
The new standoff also demonstrated the Kremlin’s lingering frustration over NATO’s expansion toward Russia’s borders and with the treaties negotiated in the 1990s when Russia, still staggering through its post-Soviet woes, was much weaker and less assertive on the world stage than it is today.
Although Mr. Putin did not mention it on Thursday, Russia is angry that in 2001 the Bush administration unilaterally pulled out of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972.
On Monday, Mr. Putin’s defense minister, Anatoly E. Serdyukov, rejected an offer from the visiting American defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, to share antimissile technology, which had been intended as a way to assuage Moscow’s opposition to Washington’s missile defense plan.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking in Oslo at a gathering of diplomats from NATO countries, reacted coldly to Mr. Putin’s speech.
“These are treaty obligations, and everyone is expected to live up to treaty obligations,” she said.
Ms. Rice also dismissed Russian concerns that introducing new military technology to Europe could upset the balance of forces there and set off an escalation that could lead to a new cold war. She called such claims “purely ludicrous” and said the scale of the proposed missile defense system was obviously far too small to defend against the Russian nuclear arsenal.
Though the step by Mr. Putin was incremental, it was highly symbolic and reminiscent of brinkmanship in the cold war.
The agreement in question, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, known by the initials C.F.E., was signed in 1990 by the members of NATO and of the Warsaw Pact, including Russia.
It required the reduction and relocation of much of the main battle equipment then located along the East-West dividing lines, including tanks, artillery pieces, armored vehicles and attack aircraft. It also established an inspection regime.
Under the treaty more than 50,000 pieces of military equipment were converted or destroyed by 1995. With its initial ambitions largely achieved, it was renegotiated in 1999, adding a requirement that Russia withdraw its forces from Georgia and Moldova, two former Soviet republics where tensions and intrigue with Moscow run high.
Russia has not withdrawn its troops, and the revised treaty has not been ratified by most of the signing nations, including the United States, which has withheld ratification until the Kremlin complies with the troop withdrawal commitments.
Though in many ways the treaty has already stalled, it has remained a powerful diplomatic marker, a central element in the group of agreements that defused the threat of war in Europe as Communism collapsed.
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO’s secretary general, expressed dismay at the Kremlin’s decision, saying the alliance greeted Russia’s announcement with “concern, grave concern, disappointment and regret” and calling the treaty “one of the cornerstones of European security.”
Mr. Putin abruptly called the treaty’s future into question. In doing so, he pointedly did not use any of the conciliatory language he sometimes inserts into his speeches to leaven his criticisms of the United States.
He did not define specifically what he meant by a moratorium, nor did his foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, when asked in an appearance in Oslo whether Russia might resist inspections or shift conventional forces now that it was no longer observing the treaty. “Everything will be in moratorium,” Mr. Lavrov said. “It is clear, is it not?”
Mr. Lavrov’s hard-line position in public was preceded by what one senior American official described as a “riveting” session with NATO diplomats in private. In an intense 10-minute monologue, he presented a list of grievances about NATO and its role in the world, from its enlarged membership to the missile defense system.
The officials said Mr. Lavrov’s tone prompted stern responses from several NATO members. “The push-back was universal,” the official said, “including some countries that have been reserved about missile defense. It did not have the effect that he may have anticipated.”
The back-and-forth underscored the intensity and breadth of the dispute, and the degree to which the two sides have parted.
Mr. Putin and Mr. Lavrov warned that Russia might withdraw completely from the treaty if the Kremlin was not satisfied with the results of negotiations in the NATO-Russia Council, an organization created in 2002 to increase cooperation between the former enemies.
“I propose discussing this problem,” Mr. Putin said, “and should there be no progress in the negotiations, to look at the possibility of ceasing our commitments under the C.F.E. treaty.”
His comments drew the loudest applause of the day from Russia’s largely compliant Parliament, which for the most part sat quietly during his 70-minute speech.
The Russian president’s remarks coincided with the latest effort by the Bush administration to promote its missile defense system, which it says is necessary to protect Europe if diplomacy fails to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The system would take at least several years to install and be put into operation, American officials say, and the project would be running on a parallel clock against Iran’s suspected weapons program.
Mr. Lavrov said forcefully that Russia saw no such danger, and that in any event Russia, Europe and the United States should assess the region’s strategic risks jointly. “Our starting point is that we should conduct a joint analysis of whom we should protect ourselves against,” he said. “Who are our enemies?”
He added, “We cannot see at the moment any kind of justified threat.”
American officials were equally adamant in dismissing Russia’s contention that the system would threaten its security.
“The idea that somehow 10 interceptors and a few radars in Eastern Europe are going to threaten the Soviet strategic deterrent is purely ludicrous, and everybody knows it,” Ms. Rice said, slipping inadvertently into cold war terminology with her reference to the Soviet Union.
Aside from the military issues, Mr. Putin chided the West for what he called meddling in Russia’s domestic affairs in the guise of democracy promotion efforts.
The argument simultaneously evoked old times and raised questions about how, and through whom, the latest disagreement might be resolved. Mr. Putin restated to the Parliament his intention to leave office next year, at the end of his second four-year term, which would mean that the issues raised on Thursday could well fall to a successor.
The Russian Constitution limits the president to a maximum of two terms, but there have been calls by politicians loyal to Mr. Putin to set the rule aside and let him remain in office, and speculation has never fully subsided that he might do so. But on Thursday, Mr. Putin was clear about his intentions, saying this annual address was his last.
“In the spring of next year my duties end, and the next state of the nation speech will be delivered by a different head of state,” he said.
The disagreement with the West seemed certain to extend well into that next term. “On missile defense,” Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said, “we do not see eye to eye.”
C. J. Chivers reported from Moscow, and Mark Landler from Oslo
NYT April 27, 2007
Putin to Suspend Pact With NATO
By C. J. CHIVERS and MARK LANDLER
MOSCOW, April 26 — President Vladimir V. Putin said Thursday that Russia would suspend its compliance with a treaty on conventional arms in Europe that was forged at the end of the cold war, opening a fresh and intense dispute in the souring relations between NATO and the Kremlin.The announcement, made in Mr. Putin’s annual address to Parliament, underscored the Kremlin’s anger at the United States for proposing a new missile defense system in Europe, which the Bush administration insists is meant to counter potential threats from North Korea and Iran.
Mr. Putin suggested that Russia would use its future compliance with the treaty as a bargaining point in that disagreement with the United States.
The new standoff also demonstrated the Kremlin’s lingering frustration over NATO’s expansion toward Russia’s borders and with the treaties negotiated in the 1990s when Russia, still staggering through its post-Soviet woes, was much weaker and less assertive on the world stage than it is today.
Although Mr. Putin did not mention it on Thursday, Russia is angry that in 2001 the Bush administration unilaterally pulled out of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972.
On Monday, Mr. Putin’s defense minister, Anatoly E. Serdyukov, rejected an offer from the visiting American defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, to share antimissile technology, which had been intended as a way to assuage Moscow’s opposition to Washington’s missile defense plan.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking in Oslo at a gathering of diplomats from NATO countries, reacted coldly to Mr. Putin’s speech.
“These are treaty obligations, and everyone is expected to live up to treaty obligations,” she said.
Ms. Rice also dismissed Russian concerns that introducing new military technology to Europe could upset the balance of forces there and set off an escalation that could lead to a new cold war. She called such claims “purely ludicrous” and said the scale of the proposed missile defense system was obviously far too small to defend against the Russian nuclear arsenal.
Though the step by Mr. Putin was incremental, it was highly symbolic and reminiscent of brinkmanship in the cold war.
The agreement in question, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, known by the initials C.F.E., was signed in 1990 by the members of NATO and of the Warsaw Pact, including Russia.
It required the reduction and relocation of much of the main battle equipment then located along the East-West dividing lines, including tanks, artillery pieces, armored vehicles and attack aircraft. It also established an inspection regime.
Under the treaty more than 50,000 pieces of military equipment were converted or destroyed by 1995. With its initial ambitions largely achieved, it was renegotiated in 1999, adding a requirement that Russia withdraw its forces from Georgia and Moldova, two former Soviet republics where tensions and intrigue with Moscow run high.
Russia has not withdrawn its troops, and the revised treaty has not been ratified by most of the signing nations, including the United States, which has withheld ratification until the Kremlin complies with the troop withdrawal commitments.
Though in many ways the treaty has already stalled, it has remained a powerful diplomatic marker, a central element in the group of agreements that defused the threat of war in Europe as Communism collapsed.
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO’s secretary general, expressed dismay at the Kremlin’s decision, saying the alliance greeted Russia’s announcement with “concern, grave concern, disappointment and regret” and calling the treaty “one of the cornerstones of European security.”
Mr. Putin abruptly called the treaty’s future into question. In doing so, he pointedly did not use any of the conciliatory language he sometimes inserts into his speeches to leaven his criticisms of the United States.
He did not define specifically what he meant by a moratorium, nor did his foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, when asked in an appearance in Oslo whether Russia might resist inspections or shift conventional forces now that it was no longer observing the treaty. “Everything will be in moratorium,” Mr. Lavrov said. “It is clear, is it not?”
Mr. Lavrov’s hard-line position in public was preceded by what one senior American official described as a “riveting” session with NATO diplomats in private. In an intense 10-minute monologue, he presented a list of grievances about NATO and its role in the world, from its enlarged membership to the missile defense system.
The officials said Mr. Lavrov’s tone prompted stern responses from several NATO members. “The push-back was universal,” the official said, “including some countries that have been reserved about missile defense. It did not have the effect that he may have anticipated.”
The back-and-forth underscored the intensity and breadth of the dispute, and the degree to which the two sides have parted.
Mr. Putin and Mr. Lavrov warned that Russia might withdraw completely from the treaty if the Kremlin was not satisfied with the results of negotiations in the NATO-Russia Council, an organization created in 2002 to increase cooperation between the former enemies.
“I propose discussing this problem,” Mr. Putin said, “and should there be no progress in the negotiations, to look at the possibility of ceasing our commitments under the C.F.E. treaty.”
His comments drew the loudest applause of the day from Russia’s largely compliant Parliament, which for the most part sat quietly during his 70-minute speech.
The Russian president’s remarks coincided with the latest effort by the Bush administration to promote its missile defense system, which it says is necessary to protect Europe if diplomacy fails to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The system would take at least several years to install and be put into operation, American officials say, and the project would be running on a parallel clock against Iran’s suspected weapons program.
Mr. Lavrov said forcefully that Russia saw no such danger, and that in any event Russia, Europe and the United States should assess the region’s strategic risks jointly. “Our starting point is that we should conduct a joint analysis of whom we should protect ourselves against,” he said. “Who are our enemies?”
He added, “We cannot see at the moment any kind of justified threat.”
American officials were equally adamant in dismissing Russia’s contention that the system would threaten its security.
“The idea that somehow 10 interceptors and a few radars in Eastern Europe are going to threaten the Soviet strategic deterrent is purely ludicrous, and everybody knows it,” Ms. Rice said, slipping inadvertently into cold war terminology with her reference to the Soviet Union.
Aside from the military issues, Mr. Putin chided the West for what he called meddling in Russia’s domestic affairs in the guise of democracy promotion efforts.
The argument simultaneously evoked old times and raised questions about how, and through whom, the latest disagreement might be resolved. Mr. Putin restated to the Parliament his intention to leave office next year, at the end of his second four-year term, which would mean that the issues raised on Thursday could well fall to a successor.
The Russian Constitution limits the president to a maximum of two terms, but there have been calls by politicians loyal to Mr. Putin to set the rule aside and let him remain in office, and speculation has never fully subsided that he might do so. But on Thursday, Mr. Putin was clear about his intentions, saying this annual address was his last.
“In the spring of next year my duties end, and the next state of the nation speech will be delivered by a different head of state,” he said.
The disagreement with the West seemed certain to extend well into that next term. “On missile defense,” Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said, “we do not see eye to eye.”
C. J. Chivers reported from Moscow, and Mark Landler from Oslo
No comments:
Post a Comment