Obama�s Nobel & START: Peacemaker arrives empty-handed
By Eric Walberg
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Dec 9, 2009, 00:24
many a smirk as US President Barack Obama flies to Oslo to be crowned Peacenik
of 2009, but it is the Russians who get the prize for taking the shine off
desperately needed a new nuclear arms treaty to replace START I to provide some
justification for the Nobel Committee�s gamble. The award in the face of US
imperial wars and hubris is proving to be extremely embarrassing to everyone,
left and right. In awarding the Nobel Prize to Obama on 9 October, the
selection committee �in particular looked at Obama�s vision and work toward a
world without atomic weapons,� giving him an out, if he could at least bring a
nuclear arms treaty with him.
inspectors packed their bags last week and left Russian nuclear sites
unmonitored for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union almost
two decades ago. The expiration of the treaty and stalled talks on a
replacement dealt a blow to those in the Obama administration who had hoped to
achieve at least this one tangible step before the president goes to Norway.
knows when it has a good hand, and it coolly played along with White House
officials frantically trying to broker a signing ceremony for the new START
treaty in the Czech Republic on 11 December, after Obama�s visit to Copenhagen
for global climate treaty negotiations and his trip to Oslo. Keep in mind that
the Czechs are gung-ho to be part of US missile plans for Europe, which are
clearly aimed at Russia as much as any other state. How fitting to have the
Russians grovel in Prague and cheer on the war president as the world�s symbol
of peace and goodwill.
children older than six or seven believe in Santa, and the supposedly �minor�
details left to negotiate to make sure Santa arrives on schedule at the White
House are in fact not so minor.
December 2009 is not Moscow July 1991, when START I was signed, just weeks
before the coup which deposed Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, as the Soviet
Union descended into chaos. The original START allowed for US inspectors to
live near the country�s primary missile production facility in Votkinsk in the
Udmurtia republic, deep in the heart of Russia, and carry out intrusive
inspections on demand, something which Gorbachev was in no position to demand
from Bush senior.
The need to
re-evaluate this lopsided one-way monitoring process just cannot be papered
over. It amounts to whether Moscow will accept its subservient role in the
US-run nuclear club or not. Russia wants to end the imbalance, while Washington
wants to maintain and even increase its access to Russia military secrets.
issue -- how many warheads and launchers each side will be allowed -- probably
could be settled without too much effort. The Russian government has said it is
more than happy to reduce its strategic arms stockpiles by �several fold� if
the US would only give up plans for Star Wars and its planned European bases.
After all, what difference does it make if you can destroy the world twice as
opposed to only once?
Obama promised not to put its missiles in Russia�s backyard in September, in
order to clinch a deal with the Russians to allow NATO weapons and armies to
pass through Russia on their way to Afghanistan, his sundry minions have gone
out of their way to backpedal. The Czechs and Poles are increasing their troop
numbers in Afghanistan, after all, and they are not easily mollified. Likewise,
US and NATO officials continue to assure Ukraine and Georgia that they will
soon be part of the happy NATO family, despite Obama�s obvious lack of interest
in thereby further provoking the Russians. These unstated ploys are really just
as much sticking points as the officially acknowledged ones.
START I was
indeed historic. In 1985, at the height of the Cold War, the US and Russia
possessed 23,000 and 39,000 operational warheads each. By 1995, these arsenals
were more than halved to 11,000 and 16,000 respectively. When the Soviet Union
was dissolved on 31 December 1991, Russia and the former Soviet republics with
nuclear capabilities (Ukraine, Belarus, Kazahkstan) agreed, in the Lisbon
Protocol signed on 5 December 1994, to abide by the treaty until its expiry 15
years later. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association,
says that since the START I treaty was signed, the US and Russia have slashed
their strategic nuclear arsenals even more. �Today, the United States deploys
approximately 2,200 strategic warheads, and Russia deploys somewhere slightly
above 2,200 strategic warheads today on a smaller number of strategic delivery
looked doomed as time ran out under US president George W Bush, who dismayed
the Russians as he pursued a policy of confrontation and encirclement of Russia
and launched war after war abroad. But Obama seemed to promise a less
confrontational approach with his talk of �pressing the reset button� with
Russia, and during his state visit to Russia last July, Obama and Medvedev
agreed to hold talks dedicated to extending START I.
embarrassing dilemma -- the Nobel Peace Prize and his vow to intensify the war
in Afghanistan -- he was keen to bring to Oslo at least a scrap of paper to
justify the committee�s faith in him. The Russians, eager to change the
trajectory of their relations with Washington, played along. However, to expect
the Russians to lie down and play dead again was foolish on the part of
Obama�s advisers. Sergei Markov, a United Russia State Duma deputy, said the
main difficulty would be achieving a treaty that viewed Russia and the US as
equals. �It was very difficult to negotiate a balance when in the Cold War the
balance of power was 50-50, but in the 1990s it was 90-10 for the US. Today we
are still far from equals,� he said, hinting at what might be the case if
Russia continues its recovery and the US continues its decline.
But it is
not just Russia that is the spoiler. Otfried Nassauer, director of the Berlin
Information Centre for Transatlantic Security, said the US has also shown
obstinacy on some issues for domestic political reasons. Obama needs at least
seven Republican votes in the Senate to ensure ratification.
Khramchikhin, an analyst with the Institute for Political and Military
Analysis, said the political impetus might be lost if talks run into next year.
�It is just very hard to bring the interests of both sides into one place,� he
As START I
was due to expire, the US and Russian presidents issued a joint statement: �We
express our commitment, as a matter of principle, to continue to work together
in the spirit of the START treaty following its expiration, as well as our firm
intention to ensure that a new treaty on strategic arms enters into force at
the earliest possible date.� In July, Obama and Medvedev agreed to reduce their
stockpiles of nuclear warheads to 1,700 each within seven years, a START I Mark
II if you like, though they did not sign anything.
So we can
hope that Obama�s shiny medal will at least remind him of this one small step
he has made towards ridding the world of nuclear weapons, a goal that he has
expressed more than once. During his visit to Prague in April, for instance,
Obama pledged to push for ratification of the 13-year-old Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty, much to the displeasure of many a US hawk.
it may be easier to pursue his dream without a new treaty, which would need
those pesky seven Senate Republicans to get it ratified. The Senate is
notorious for balking at approving peace treaties, most notably, the
10-year-old Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production
and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines. Obama supported it back in 2006, but as
president, apparently is unable to do anything about getting the Senate to
ratify it. Bemoans Senator Patrick Leahy: �The administration�s approach to
this issue has been cursory, half-hearted, and deeply disappointing. One would
hope that an administration that portrays itself as a global leader on issues
of humanitarian law and arms control recognises this is an opportunity.�
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly. You can reach him at ericwalberg.com.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor