海角大神

An administration with little love for treaties and the limits they place on the exercise of American power is about to scrap another one 鈥� this time the Reagan-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

President Trump told a campaign rally over the weekend that he intends to pull the United States out of what is known simply as the INF treaty, and this week he has dispatched his national security adviser, John Bolton, to Moscow to inform Russian President Vladimir Putin of the US decision.

Spurred on by Mr. Bolton 鈥� the preeminent hawk in the White House and a longtime critic of the treaty signed with Russia in 1987 鈥� Trump says he鈥檒l withdraw from what he considers another bad international deal for the US, one he and arms control experts agree Russia has been violating for years.

鈥淲e鈥檙e not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and do weapons and we鈥檙e not allowed to,鈥� Trump said in Nevada Saturday.

Leaving the treaty will free up the US to counter Russia鈥檚 treaty-violating arms deployments aimed at Europe 鈥� and to respond to a Chinese buildup of intermediate-range nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at the South China Sea, administration officials say.

But for many arms control experts, the US move portends something else: a return to the big-power arms race of the cold war years and to the diplomatic tensions, particularly in Europe, that deeply marked that era.

鈥淒onald Trump came into office with a disdain for international institutions and multilateral cooperation, and now those impulses are being encouraged by John Bolton in the area of arms control,鈥� says Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington.

Eyes on New START

The overriding concern聽Mr. Kimball sees is that jettisoning the INF treaty will turn out to be a harbinger of White House intentions orchestrated by Bolton to do away with the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. Without renewal, that treaty would expire in 2021.

鈥淚f that happens, then we鈥檙e talking an unconstrained international arms race that would leave America and its allies and everybody else less secure,鈥� says Kimball. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think that鈥檚 necessarily what Donald Trump wants, but he鈥檚 blundering into that direction with the path he鈥檚 taking with withdrawal from INF.鈥�

When President Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev signed the INF treaty, which banned land-based medium-range missiles (with a range of 500-5,500 kilometers), it was seen as a key factor in reducing cold war tensions, slowing a destabilizing arms race, and solidifying transatlantic security relations.

Today some arms control experts say that a treaty that was once useful has been rendered a fiction by Russian violations through deployment of prohibited tactical nuclear weapons 鈥� intended, the US contends, to intimidate former Soviet states that now align with the West, a number of them NATO members.

鈥淭he INF Treaty is dead 鈥� it鈥檚 dead because Russia killed it,鈥� says Franklin Miller, a former special assistant on arms control to President George W. Bush and now an expert on nonproliferation policy issues at the Scowcroft Group in Washington.

Saying, 鈥測ou can鈥檛 call it an existing viable treaty if the Russians have been violating it for a number of years,鈥� Mr. Miller argues that by staying in the INF the US is achieving 鈥渦nilateral restraint 鈥� not arms control.鈥�

US will get the blame

Still, he agrees with many of his colleagues in the national security community who say that the manner in which the Trump administration has gone about announcing its intentions to withdraw from INF will only hurt the US. It will assign responsibility for failure of an arms control accord to the US, they say, and solidify the global view of Trump鈥檚 America as a unilateralist superpower.

鈥淚f I were in government still, I would not have rolled [the decision] out this way,鈥� Miller says, adding he would have worked to 鈥減ut it on the Russians,鈥� where he says it belongs.

Others are less careful in their assessment of the administration鈥檚 move.

鈥淲e鈥檝e been effectively played by the Russians鈥� to appear to the world like the power that killed an arms control treaty 鈥渢hat the Russian military never liked,鈥� says Richard Burt, who was ambassador to Germany and the chief US negotiator for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed with the Soviet Union in 1991. 鈥淭he fact of the matter is that the US is going to get the blame for ending the treaty, not the Russians 鈥� and that鈥檚 the Donald Trump 鈥榓rt of the deal,鈥欌�� he says.

Yet while Trump may be happy to withdraw from what he considers to be one more bad deal for the US, it is really Bolton who is the mastermind behind the decision, others say.

鈥淭his is coming from John Bolton, who has never met a treaty that he liked,鈥� says Ellen Tauscher, a former undersecretary of State for arms control and international security under President Barack Obama. And while she agrees that Russia has been violating the INF for years, she says that killing it is just a step in a piece of a larger design from Bolton 鈥� whom she notes was behind the abrogation of the ABM Treaty in 2002.

鈥淚n the end, this is about not extending the New START Treaty,鈥� she says.

Emboldening Russia

What worries some officials and experts alike is that an end to the treaty will only embolden an already scofflaw Russia to throw any caution to the wind and deploy growing numbers of the presently illegal medium-range missiles 鈥� further fueling tensions in Europe.

Indeed, Russian officials met Trump鈥檚 announcement of his intention to withdraw the US from the treaty with warnings that such a move risks setting off a new round of arms deployments in Europe. Replying to accusations that Russia is violating the treaty, the officials countered that it is in fact the US that is violating the treaty鈥檚 terms 鈥� through deployment of missile-defense systems in Poland and Romania that Russia says can be converted to missile launchers, and a growing use of what it calls 鈥渟trike drones鈥� that can serve as short- or medium-range missiles.

鈥淥n the contrary 鈥� we have provided evidence that it was the United States which has been eroding the foundations and main provisions of this treaty,鈥� Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Monday. 聽聽

In the meantime, some experts say, the US simply does not need to abrogate the INF treaty in order to address the growing challenge of China鈥檚 land-based nuclear-tipped missiles. In their view, the future of deterring China and its arms buildup aimed at the South China Sea will be more effectively handled with air- and sea-deployed missiles, which are not affected by the INF treaty and its ban on certain land-based missiles.

Some officials are pointing out that Trump in his weekend remarks underscored his openness to 鈥� even his preference for 鈥� reaching a new agreement on medium-range nuclear missiles with both Russia and China. The suggestion, officials say, is that the president may be taking a tough line on INF to jar the Russians and Chinese into going for a three-way deal.

鈥楽leepwalking鈥� into an arms race?

Yet the over-arching concern of many arms control experts is that the US decision on INF will set the stage for mounting tensions and unbridled efforts by the major powers to out-arm each other with nuclear weapons.

鈥淲e could end up sleepwalking into a new international arms race,鈥� says Ambassador Burt, now a managing partner in security issues at McLarty Associates in Washington. Already, he notes, both the US and Russia are spending more than $1 trillion 鈥渙n a new generation of nuclear arms systems.鈥�

Still, more cautious observers like Miller note that New START remains in effect until 2021 鈥� and many things, including another US presidential election, will happen before then.

鈥淚 wouldn鈥檛 make any 鈥� predictions that this will affect New START,鈥� Miller says. Noting that Putin, a 鈥渟erial violator of arms treaties,鈥� has kept Russia in compliance with New START suggests that he sees it as operating in Russia鈥檚 interests.

鈥淗ow we respond [on INF] could affect the Russian response in the future,鈥� Miller says, 鈥渂ut I wouldn鈥檛 make any leaps of faith at this point.鈥�