Policy Alert #176 | October 30, 2018

On October 19th, the New York Times reported that the United States was preparing to announce its exit from the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) ahead of US National Security Advisor John R. Bolton’s visit to Moscow. US President Donald Trump raised the issue at a campaign rally in Nevada on October 20th: “Russia has violated the agreement. They have been violating it for many years. And we’re not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and go out and do weapons and we’re not allowed to.” Speaking to reporters, Trump claimed that one of the reasons for the withdrawal was China’s lack of participation, even though the INF Treaty was a bilateral agreement between the US and Russia. At a press conference in Moscow on October 23rd, Bolton explained that the US’s concerns began during the previous administration of President Barack Obama and emphasized the discussion of withdrawal was motivated by Russian violations: “The problem is there are Russian INF-violating missiles in Europe now. The threat is not American withdrawal from the INF Treaty; the threat is the Russian missiles already deployed.” At the press conference, Bolton confirmed that the US would file its official withdrawal “in due course.”

 

RUSSIA

During his meeting with Bolton, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin quipped, “As I recall, there is a bald eagle pictured on the US coat of arms: it holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in the other as a symbol of peaceful policy: a branch with 13 olives. My question: has your eagle already eaten all the olives leaving only the arrows?” Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov denied US allegations that Russia was in violation of the treaty: “We absolutely disagree that Russia violates the INF Treaty. Russia was and remains committed to this treaty’s provisions.” Spokesperson Peskov also expressed Russia’s objection to terminating the treaty without a viable substitute: “Certainly, there are bottlenecks. But ruining the treaty in a situation where even hints at concluding a new one do not exist is something that we do not welcome.” In response to concerns about the fate of the renewal of the 2010 US-Russia New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which is due to expire in 2021, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov explained his country’s efforts to initiate renewal negotiations: “We have expressed more than once, including through the statements by President Vladimir Putin, our readiness, as is stipulated by the Treaty itself, to extend its effect after 2021, when the first ten years of its operation expire.”

 

• Retired Colonel Mikhail Khodarenok called for calm in an op-ed for government-funded RT. Khodarenok pointed out that past withdrawals from nuclear agreements have not resulted in nuclear war, such as the US exit from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT): “It has been over 16 years since they did withdraw from it, back in June 2002. Still no sign of Armageddon.”
• State-owned Sputnik News highlighted objections to the move from scholars and politicians outside Russia, including President of the Pacific Forum at the Center for Strategic Studies Ralph Cossa, Members of the European Parliament, President of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University Peter Kuznick, and Director of the Arms Control Association Daryl Kimball.
• Dmitry Sudakov, a contributor at the nationalist Pravda Report, echoed the call for cooler heads to prevail. Sudakov argued that Russia has repeatedly confirmed its commitment to retaliatory strikes only and pointed out the country’s limitations in any new arms races: “One cannot say that the Russian economy is much more stable than the Soviet one. Another arms race for Russia is just as dangerous now as it used to be for the Soviet Union, especially if oil prices go down again.”
• The independent, Dutch-owned Moscow Times featured an op-ed by Lenoid Bershidsky, Bloomberg Opinion columnist, founding editor of both the Russian business daily Vedomosti and opinion website Slon. Bershidsky dismissed Trump’s efforts as outdated, both in terms of strategic utility and international norms: “Even if Trump still lives in the 1980s, the rest of the world has moved on. New times no longer favor blunt instruments like indiscriminate spending. Diplomacy is potentially more useful.”

 

CHINA

During a press conference on October 22, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying offered a carefully worded statement of disappointment in the US’s intended withdrawal from the INF Treaty that also communicated Beijing’s desire to be left of out the discussion, given that it is not party to the Treaty: “Unilaterally withdrawing from the treaty will cause many negative effects. What needs to be stressed is that making an issue out of China on withdrawing from the treaty is totally wrong. We hope that the relevant country can cherish the hard-won outcomes achieved over the years, prudently and properly handle the issues related to the treaty through dialogue and consultation and think twice before pulling out.”

 

• The China Daily, a state-directed media outlet, pointed out the flawed logic of the Trump administration’s references to China in its reasoning for withdrawal: “Despite it being a bilateral treaty, Trump cited China among the reasons he was pulling the US out of the agreement. The hostility he has adopted toward China means that it will also feel the need to enhance its missile deployment. […] But that has nothing to do with the US-Russia INF Treaty, and should be handled independently. Mixing the two essentially unrelated matters will do nothing except worsen strategic mistrust and breathe further life into a new Cold War.” A China Daily political cartoon echoed concerns that the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty is merely the first move in the US’s efforts to unleash a nuclear arms race by depicting New Start as the next line to be cut.
• Diao Daming, an associate professor of international relations at Renmin University of China, argued that Trump’s calculus in the decision was motivated by the upcoming midterm elections in the US and the need to posture against Russia “to gain the upper hand on Syria and Iran.” Diao criticized the move, however: “It should be noted that the US is seeking the upper hand at the cost of Europe’s sense of security and amid escalating conflicts between NATO and Russia. Besides, the move might have a domino effect and damage the international society’s faith in achieving nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. Thus there is good reason to call Trump’s move ‘dangerous.’”
• Zhao Minghao, a senior research fellow with The Charhar Institute and adjunct fellow at the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China, penned an op-ed for the nationalist Global Times that was less optimistic about US intentions: “The withdrawal may be just a prelude to the US destruction of global nuclear disarmament and arms control systems. The Pentagon is stepping up research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons and comprehensively upgrading US nuclear arsenal. The Trump administration has made it clear it will significantly reduce the threshold for nuclear weapons use, which will inevitably increase the risk of nuclear conflict. […] Apart from the trade war, the Taiwan question and the South China Sea issue, the potential disruption of strategic stability may become a new source of friction between Beijing and Washington.”

 

JAPAN

In a press conference on October 22nd, Chief Cabinet Secretary of Japan Yoshihide Suga expressed his country’s regret at the US’s decision and emphasized that the potential threat to Japanese security: “Changes in the international security environment are crucial to the peace and stability of our country. We will carefully observe the moves of the US and Russia, and would also like to hold diplomatic discussions between Japan and the US.” The worsening of US-Russian relations over the INF Treaty may also complicate Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s attempts to improve Japan’s ties with Russia.

 

• The left-leaning Mainichi Shimbun lamented the US withdrawal and grimly considered the consequences for the renewal of New START: “Abolishing these two treaties, which are among the few instruments preventing nuclear arms races, would kick-start military buildups observed during the Cold War, and a new nuclear state might emerge out of the struggle. Washington’s departure from the INF treaty will only undercut its efforts to denuclearize North Korea. […] Washington, Moscow and Beijing, the latter of whose nuclear forces are far more powerful than 30 years ago, should pursue serious negotiations to reduce their nuclear arms.”
• The centrist Japan Times urged the US to pursue preservation of the INF Treaty to maintain the current stability in Asia: “Russia is likely cheating on the INF, but that is no reason to abandon the treaty yet. […] Japan was rightly concerned at the time of its negotiation that the INF agreement would allow Russia to withdraw weapons from Europe and redeploy them to Asia. Russia has largely chosen not to do so but if the INF is abandoned, Moscow would have no incentive to restrain deployments in Europe and Asia.”
• The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun was more forgiving of the Trump administration’s efforts: “Even if the United States complies with the spirit of the treaty, if Russia and China continue their military buildup, it would become difficult for the United States and its allies to maintain their deterrence. The global security order that has been formed under U.S. leadership could also collapse. It is understandable for Trump to harbor such a sense of crisis.” Nevertheless, the Yomiuri called for the Japanese government to “move realistic nuclear disarmament forward” through diplomacy.

 

RPI acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York for its activities.