The honouring of treaties has been described by many eminent men and women throughout history as a sacred undertaking requiring also good faith by each party for their proper enforcement; a matter of, not least, honour.
Treaties are important partly because they often mark the end of a period of conflict.
Let us remind ourselves that the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, INF Treaty, between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was to eliminate intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles. The US Senate approved the treaty on May 27, 1988, jointly signed in December 1987 by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, then finally ratified on June 1, 1988.
As we approach the 31st anniversary of the ratification of the treaty of 1988 this June, it’s important we all reflect on why it is so essential for a country not to break treaties.
Recently the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that the US will withdraw from the landmark treaty within six months of February 2 (by August 2019) unless Russia “proves” its full compliance with the pact.
The treaty first signed by Reagan and Gorbachev banned production, flight-testing and possession of all ground-based cruise and ballistic missiles with a range of between 500km and 5,500km.
Today Washington accuses Moscow of violating the treaty by testing the ground-launched cruise missile SSC-8, designated as 9M729 in Russia.
Moscow denies this, saying the missile has not been developed and tested for the banned range.
Nevertheless, to save the treaty, Moscow began bilateral negotiations in Geneva on January 15, 2019. These ended in failure.
The US side was intransigent. The US was not prepared to discuss anything but the SSC-8’s elimination, while Russia thought it wiser to press for an all-embracing, comprehensive solution between the two sides.
The US needs the consent of its major European allies, most of whom are unhappy about the treaty termination, as it will be them, not the US, who will be exposed to the missiles Russia deploys once the accord becomes invalid.
The US withdrawal from the INF nuclear treaty is the latest and most serious example of a broken treaty contributing to a new world disorder
Moreover, Washington refused to discuss any transparency measures or listen to Russia’s concerns about its own compliance: for example, Moscow is wary about the US’s Mk-41 vertical launch systems for missile interceptors deployed in Romania and due to be employed in Poland because they can launch ground-based cruise missiles as well.
The Russian administration to this day has been seeking to preserve the treaty.
That said, Putin’s Russia’s has its own internal political conflicts not dissimilar to those that exist in Washington DC.
In Russia’s military and political establishment the treaty has been criticised by some of the political and military leadership for a wide variety of reasons: citing for example that too many and great concessions to the US were given by Gorbachev (the USSR destroyed twice as many missiles as the US); the need to target US missile defence systems in Europe; and so on.
Among the Russian ‘hawks’, their versions of John Bolton, major concerns have been ground-based medium range missiles’ position by the US in Europe on ‘Russia’s doorstep’, as well as of course the fact that countries such as China, Iran, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel have medium range missiles that need to be a part of a more global treaty.
However, if the US starts deploying missiles in Europe, Russia must react and position its weapons to defend itself, in reaction to the threat instigated by the US.
Indeed, one could argue that the arms control structure of the Cold War era with Moscow-Washington accords at its core is becoming obsolete, the INF treaty part being no exception.
Without the participation of other nations, especially China with its dramatically rising military power, the ability to solve these global security challenges of the 21st century are destined to fail.
The US decision perfectly fits Donald Trump’s “America first” mantra; Trump feels Washington’s past international obligations are merely a nuisance and an impediment for pursuing US national interests.
The consequences of the treaty termination won’t be immediately apparent nor dramatic. Originally its aim was to address a particular issue in the East-West relations of the late 1980s: the imbalance caused by the deployment the Soviet SS-20 missiles targeting Europe.
Its contribution to international arms control is limited as it banned only ground-based missiles, leaving sea-based and air-based missiles of the same range beyond control.
And what about the Asia Pacific?
No doubt, Washington’s major strategic goal in this region is to contain China, and to achieve this goal it is seeking a level playing field to develop all kinds of weapons, ground-based intermediate-range missiles included.
However, there seem very few platforms where US ground-based missiles can be deployed. Japan, South Korea and Southeast Asian countries are probably out of the question: no government would think it worth the risk of angering their own public and importantly Beijing. What does that leave, Guam and Alaska?
The world is drifting towards a new chaos where every country will be acting on its own.
Furthermore, such consequence will hardly be avoidable given the US’s deteriorating relations with China and Russia.
Consequently, in the area of arms control, the world is about to be left without any structure. It is drifting towards a new chaos where every country will be acting on its own. This is not an inspiring prospect.
Under this ‘new world disorder’ it will be difficult to contain the global arms race and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including the threat of terrorists obtaining such weapons.
Richard Galustian is a political and security adviser based in MENA countries for nearly 40 years.
This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece