New START extended

Biden must now reverse Trump’s ‘Bonfire of Treaties’

From END Info 22 | February 2021. Download here

The agreed extension of New START, which places limits on the numbers of both US and Russian intercontinental-range nuclear weapons, is a very welcome development. Does it mark a new phase in nuclear agreements? If so, why is this important?

Under the Trump administration, a whole series of treaties and agreements went up in flames: a ‘Bonfire of Treaties’. This was massively destabilising in the context of increased nuclear tensions generally, an aggressive and unpredictable US military posture and a global shift in power away from US dominance. US actions can be understood as an attempt to maintain and extend ‘power’ by a risky effort to both re-write the ‘rules’ from a time when it enjoyed unrivalled influence and to ‘discipline’ strategic rivals into conformity. Without doubt, this was a very risky course, one which generated a ‘global tinderbox’ in international affairs.

As a consequence the ‘Iran Deal’ (JCPOA), which allowed Iran some relief from threat, and the Intermediate-range Forces Treaty (INF), which prevented the deployment of a whole class of nuclear missiles in Europe, were destroyed along with a series of other important agreements. Now that the new Biden administration has accepted Russia’s offer of a five year extension to New START, immediate steps must be taken to revive the JCPOA and INF Treaty as a means of reducing tensions.

The agreed extension of New START offers some hope, but official announcements from the US State Department strike a worrying tone. “President Biden pledged to keep the American people safe from nuclear threats by restoring the U.S. leadership on arms control and nonproliferation” announced Antony J Blinken, Secretary of State. Blinken’s statement reads as if New START was purely a means to reduce the numbers of Russian intercontinental missiles rather than a joint agreement to limit both US and Russian missiles in this classification. A bit of clarity on this point would suggest at least a bit of honesty. Blinken continues: “President Biden has made clear that the New START Treaty extension is only the beginning of our efforts to address 21st century security challenges. The United States will use the time provided by the five-year extension of the New START Treaty to pursue with the Russian Federation, in consultation with Congress and U.S. allies and partners, arms control that addresses all of its nuclear weapons. We will also pursue arms control to reduce the dangers from China’s modern and growing arsenal. The United States is committed to effective arms control that enhances stability, transparency and predictability while reducing the risks of costly, dangerous arms races.” [emphasis added]

It’s noticeable that Blinken says nothing about the US’s dangerous nuclear weapons or the need to reverse their ‘internal proliferation’ and ‘lack of control’. ‘Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon?’ asks Elisabeth Eaves in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (8 Feb 21). The Russians and Chinese may well be asking the same question. “America is building a new weapon of mass destruction, a nuclear missile the length of a bowling lane. It will be able to travel some 6,000 miles, carrying a warhead more than 20 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It will be able to kill hundreds of thousands of people in a single shot. The US Air Force plans to order more than 600 of them” writes Eaves.

The extension of New START is undeniably for the good. Resurrecting the JCPOA, INF and similar agreements and treaties would make the world a safer place. Biden should work towards this goal. But if Biden’s aim is to simply re-engineer a ‘nuclear order’ that punishes and restrains ‘strategic competitors’ on the one hand and ‘aspiring nuclear powers’ on the other whilst the US continues to plough billions of dollars into ever-more destructive nuclear weapons capabilities, then the world will become a more dangerous place.

If Biden fails to engage in serious diplomacy with Russia and China and instead continues to talk up the risks posed by both states, then what course will Russia and China take? In particular, if Biden continues on the ‘New Cold War’ route with respect to China, then what does he expect will happen? Russia and China will meet like-for-like and continue to develop their nuclear capabilities. Others, not yet nuclear powers, may well pursue their own route to ‘nuclear security’. The world cannot afford the risks that would come with such a course of action.