Bloomberg: Obama, Medvedev Move to Cut Nuclear Arsenals in New Agreement

Bloomberg: Obama, Medvedev Move to Cut Nuclear Arsenals in New Agreement

March 25 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev may sign the first new treaty to reduce their nuclear arsenals in two decades as early as next month, the Kremlin and U.S. analysts said.

Negotiators for the two sides have reached agreement on all elements for an accord, and the leaders probably will meet in Prague for the signing, a Kremlin official said yesterday on condition of anonymity in line with the government’s policy. The timing hadn’t been made final.

The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty probably will lower the number of deployed warheads to 1,600 for each side, at least 25 percent below actual current levels, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington. Bombers and land- or submarine-based missiles that could carry the warheads probably will be capped at a level below 800, he said.

Under the treaty that expired in December, each side is permitted a maximum of 2,200 warheads and 1,600 launch vehicles.

Obama’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said there are “still some things that need to be worked out” before a deal on a replacement agreement is sealed. Obama and Medvedev probably will have another conversation in the next few days, he said.

Officials in Prague said they have been notified that the two leaders are seeking to sign the accord in the Czech capital. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last week that a signing ceremony may be held “in early April.” Medvedev is scheduled to visit neighboring Slovakia on April 6-7.

“I would anticipate that when we have something to sign, it will be in Prague,” Gibbs said yesterday.

The timing would mark a year since Obama pledged in an April 5 speech in Prague to pursue a replacement for the treaty as a step toward the global elimination of atomic weapons.

‘Really Done’

“I think it’s really done,” Kimball said. “If you look at all the tea leaves in the last several days, the two sides have reached agreement on a critically important” treaty.

Disagreements that had stalled a final accord since the basic warhead and launcher levels were settled last year appear to have been resolved, said Kimball and Steven Pifer, a former ambassador to Ukraine with expertise in arms control who is now an analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Signals indicate “they’re pretty much done,” Pifer said.

Missile Defense

Negotiators got stuck on details including Russia’s demands that the treaty address U.S. plans for a missile-defense system in Europe.

The final treaty probably will contain wording addressing the connection between the offensive weapons that the agreement primarily addresses and defensive arms that have the potential to undercut agreed levels, Kimball and Pifer said. Such language is contained in the 1991 accord and wouldn’t limit U.S. missile defense plans, they said.

Senate Republicans would object to linkages similar to the one in the 1991 treaty, said Ryan Patmintra, a spokesman for Arizona Senator Jon Kyl.

Kyl, who is the party’s whip, and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell wrote Obama on March 15, saying lawmakers probably wouldn’t ratify a treaty that includes “unilateral declarations that the Russian Federation could use as leverage against you or your successors when U.S. missile defense decisions are made.”

The two Republican leaders also tied ratification to submission of a plan to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal with more funding than the administration has requested.

Medvedev and Obama have made signing a new nuclear arms accord a priority as they try to repair ties that sank to a post-Cold War low under Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush.

Breakthrough

“This is a major diplomatic and domestic political breakthrough for the president at a critical time,” said Stephen Flanagan, vice president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

“While the actual reductions achieved would be modest,” he said, it suggests a “reset in relations with Moscow” may lead to more weapons reductions in years ahead.

Obama’s and Medvedev’s meeting may occur before the U.S. president’s summit on nuclear security April 12-13 in Washington. Flanagan said having a weapons reduction treaty in hand may help Obama push his broader non-proliferation agenda at the meeting.

Obama yesterday privately briefed Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry, a Democrat, and the panel’s top Republican, Senator Richard Lugar, on the arms-reduction talks. They will play key roles in Senate ratification. A treaty also would be subject to approval by the Russian parliament.

“I assured the president that we strongly support his efforts, and that if the final negotiations and all that follows go smoothly, we will work to ensure that the Senate can act on the treaty this year,” Kerry, of Massachusetts, said in a statement. He plans to begin hearings sometime after Congress returns from its Easter holiday break.

To contact the reporter on this story: Viola Gienger in Washington at vgienger@bloomberg.net. Roger Runningen in Washington at rrunningen@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: March 24, 2010 21:51 EDT

Reuters: Q+A - Why is a U.S.-Russia nuclear deal important?

REUTERS - Russia and the United States have reached agreement on a new nuclear arms reduction treaty, a Kremlin official who asked not to be identified said on Wednesday.

A White House spokesman said a deal on a successor to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) was very close but there were "still some things that need to be worked out." He said Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev would likely speak soon.

"We are very close to having an agreement on a START treaty, but we won't have one until President Obama and his counterpart Mr. Medvedev have a chance to speak," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

The two largest nuclear powers have been formally negotiating on a successor to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) since April 2009.

* WHAT IS THE NEW TREATY?

- Presidents Obama and Medvedev in April, 2009, said they wanted to agree a new deal by the Dec. 5 expiry date of START I but talks snagged and the two sides agreed to act in the spirit of START until a replacement was ready.

The two leaders agreed in July that a new treaty would limit operationally deployed nuclear warheads to 1,500-1,675, with a more specific limit to be determined in talks, cutting from current levels of 2,200-2,700.

In the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), also known as the Moscow Treaty, each side agreed to cut strategic nuclear warheads to 1,700-2,200 by 2012.

Obama and Medvedev said the limit for delivery systems -- jargon for the bombers, missiles and launch systems that deliver a warhead to a target -- should be in the 500-1,100 range.

* WHY IS A NEW DEAL IMPORTANT?

-- Washington and Moscow say finding a replacement for START I would help "reset" relations after a period of tension. Obama has said improving relations with Russia, a key player in Iran and a source of support on Afghanistan, is a priority.

-- START I played an important role in reducing the superpower brinkmanship of the Cold War.

-- Both the United States and Russia -- which hold 95 percent of the world's nuclear arms -- are committed to reducing the number of atomic weapons.

Moscow and Washington realise their nuclear superiority is not threatened by any other power so, officials say, it makes sense to get rid of more weapons.

-- Russia's vast store of Soviet-era nuclear weapons is one of the factors keeping Moscow at the top table of world politics.

After Russia's conventional forces were starved of cash in the chaos that followed the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, its still mighty nuclear deterrent is the centrepiece of the Kremlin's military doctrine.

-- A new deal is expected to include detailed verification and procedures to ensure that cuts can be checked, though not as strict as those in START I. The 2002 Moscow Treaty did not contain them, cited by arms experts as a fundamental flaw.

The verification procedure is important because it allows the former Cold War foes accurately to predict how many weapons each side has and thus reduces the chance of a new arms race.

-- A replacement for START I is seen as the first step towards much deeper cuts. Both sides hope an agreement on START could lay the ground for more ambitious talks about reducing the silos of thousands of non-deployed nuclear warheads and shorter-range tactical nuclear warheads.

Those talks could also impose must bigger cuts to deployed strategic warheads and delivery systems.

-- A deep cut by the world's two biggest nuclear powers could help create the momentum for a nuclear security summit Obama is hosting in mid-April and a May conference to review the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

* WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS?

- The two sides have agreed on a news blackout from negotiations in Geneva, so there have been few details about what has caused the delay in achieving a deal.

- Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said in December that U.S. plans for a missile defence system were the main obstacle to reaching a new deal, suggesting Moscow wanted it to limit missile defences.

Obama and Medvedev agreed in July that the treaty will contain a provision describing the relationship between offensive and defensive weapons, but the United States says the pact is not the place for details on missile defence.

-- Working out how to count nuclear weapons seems simple at first glance, but can be exhaustingly difficult. For example, if a missile carries 10 warheads, should it be one weapon or 10? How does one count a missile that can carries 10 warheads, but has only one warhead currently deployed on it?

-- Russia wants to see the number of delivery systems to be further limited. However, Moscow has worries about such systems which have had their warheads removed but which could swiftly be deployed in the event of conflict.

-- Russia has also expressed concern that the United States could use ICBMs to carry conventional warheads.

-- Russia is concerned that the United States may simply increase the number of its new conventional weapons, some of which can be almost as destructive as nuclear bombs.

(Writing by Guy Faulconbridge and Steve Gutterman in Moscow; Editing by Jon Hemming)