Georgy ARBATOV, full-time member of the Russian Academy ofSciences, honorary director, RussianAcademy of Sciences'Institute of US and Canadian Studies

Planet Earth can't enter the 21-st century, unless it resolves the arms-limitation issue. This places special responsibility on the world's two mightiest nuclear powers, e.g. Russia and the United States. They must step up their efforts in order to attain specific accords making it possible to impede the nuclear-arms build-up and to scale down nuclear arsenals. Unfortunately, one still has every reason to say that Russian-US dialogue in the given field has virtually ground to a halt.

The START-II Treaty, which stipulates the limitation of strategic offensive arms, and which has been signed by the Presidents of Russia and the United States, still remains to be ratified by the State Duma, e.g. the Russian Parliament's lower house. The START-II treaty sets equal strategic-weapons ceilings, which are seen as something acceptable by Russia.This country has the right to maintain 3,500 nuclear warheads in line with that document's provisions. Nevertheless, quite a few State-Duma members have a negative opinion of the START-II treaty, noting that Russia won't apparently benefit from it, and that the United States merely wants to get rid of Russia's heavy-duty MIRV-ed ICBM-s. Incidentally, the US side claims that it would apparently be unable to cope with such ICBM-s in case of war. The negative attitude of State-Duma members toward the treaty's ratification became especially pronounced in connection with NATO's war against Yugoslavia, NATO's eastward expansion and the approval of that bloc's new aggressive concept. The West's current anti-Russian campaign, which denounces Moscow's anti-terrorist operation in Chechnya also tends to affect the deputies' mood. (Chechnya is one of the Russian Federation's North Caucasian republics -- Ed.) However, politicians should not guide themselves by emotions alone. One should keep in mind that Moscow regards the START-II treaty as increasingly important in the context of its deteriorating relations with NATO. However, that document should be modified to some extent; well, such an opportunity does exist. The Russian side can ratify the treaty, provided that it enters into force after the coordination of contentious issues. Both Russia and the United States should move to elaborate the START-III treaty right after the START-II treaty's ratification. The new treaty would be expected to bring strategic-arms ceilings down to 2,500 warheads.

As I see it, the third State Duma, whose line-up has already changed, will ratify the START-II treaty over the entire 2000 period. The Duma's different line-up favors such a forecast. The leftist opposition doesn't boast the majority of seats inside the third State Duma, which has already started working. It ought to be mentioned in this connection that the leftist opposition opposed the START-II treaty more actively than the rest. The third State Duma mostly comprises moderate centrist deputies, who, by all looks, will support the Government that consistently advocates the START-II treaty's fastest possible ratification. At any rate acting president Vladimir Putin, who is quite optimistic on this score, thinks that the START-II treaty's ratification process will, at long last, become completed before the year is out. Incidentally, the Russian military leadership also advocates the document's ratification, with the Russian Federation's Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev noting this more than once.

I'd like to note that Russia, which sincerely strives to attain concrete results within the framework of the disarmament process, is worried about the US side's attitude toward the 1972-vintage Soviet-US ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty. The United States has been lately noting the need for revising this highly important document on many occasions.

This doesn't boil down to conversations alone. For example, the Washington administration intends to decide on the deployment of a national ABM system already in the summer of 2000. It goes without saying that such a decision would deviate from the ABM Treaty's provisions, also creating a more pronounced disbalance between Russian and US arsenals.Doubtless, this would entail yet another spiral of the arms race.

The Russian Federation's Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov has already said that the creation of a national ABM system and the violation of the 1972 ABM Treaty would automatically induce any other country, and not just Russia, to develop new-generation weapons systems, which would render similar ABM systems ineffective. Ivanov implies that Russia, China and other countries would begin to actively develop powerful offensive weaponry, also swelling their respective ICBM arsenals, which were being reduced for quite a while in line with the START-I treaty. Well, this doesn't meet Russian and US interests alike.

As one analyzes the results of that 50-year-long nuclear era at the turn of the century, one arrives at a rather paradoxical conclusion. Strange as it may seem, but arms-limitation talks have virtually stopped after the end of the Cold-War period. We have even got used to this situation.Evidently, that dangerous confrontation between the two super-powers, namely the Soviet Union and the United States, had compelled them to search for compromises. By all looks, the United States, which believes that it has now been deprived of a worthy rival after the USSR's disintegration, no longer deems it necessary to conduct a constructive and equitable dialogue, which, nonetheless, is needed by the entire planet and all nations, which have been nurturing the idea of general and complete disarmament for a long time now. US Senate's recent refusal to ratify the comprehensive test-ban treaty shows that we still have a long way to go, before completely banning and destroying all nuclear weapons.

In 1986 the then USSR president Mikhail Gorbachev had suggested eliminating all types of nuclear weapons. However, Gorbachev had stipulated an excessively short deadline, that is, until the year 2001. By all looks, Gorbachev's proposal was deliberately aimed at expediting bilateral talks, which have now ground to a halt. Such negotiations must be resumed and intensified. This constitutes the duty of two great powers, i.e. Russia and the United States, which are responsible for the world's destinies. Both countries possess tremendous potentialities, which must be used in the interests of all mankind.

Home Page