Happy Offensive New Year!

Russia and the United States Will No Longer Be Signing A

Treaty on Strategic Weapons in the Old Year

by Vladimir Solovyev

Moscow

Kommersant
p8

17 Dec 09

Despite all the public promises of the Russian Federation and the United States to
sign a new treaty on the reduction of strategic offensive weapons by the end of
December, the timetable for completing work on the document has already been
postponed to next year. This was confirmed to Kommersant by sources in the
Kremlin, who were, however, unable to give a possible date for the signing.
Kommersant's interlocutors involved in drafting the treaty note that it should be
signed before the UN review conference on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
(NPT), which is scheduled for spring [May 2010]. Otherwise Moscow and Washington
will be harshly criticized for stalling the disarmament process.

The timetable for the signature of the [new] START treaty, which the sides
promised to prepare first by 5 December, then by 11 December, and finally by 18
December, was again modified yesterday. Without clarifying what precisely is
hindering the document from being finalized and handed over to the presidents of
the two countries, US and Russian functionaries announced that it will definitely
not be signed this week. In particular, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs
let it be known that the signing ceremony of the new treaty will not take place
either in Copenhagen, where Barack Obama and Dmitriy Medvedev will arrive to take
part in the international climate conference, nor in any other European capital.

"We do not plan to visit neighboring countries in the framework of this trip," Mr
Gibbs snapped in response to questions from journalists yesterday. At the same
time, a day earlier Philip Crowley, the US Secretary of State's press relations
assistant, had noted that both Washington and Moscow were focused on ensuring that
the treaty is signed by the end of this year. "Our aim is to do this. And we will
simply continue to work and to assess the situation on a day-to-day basis," Mr
Crowley said. "The teams (of negotiators -- Kommersant) are working intensively.
They have made progress. In our estimation, we are right on the brink of an
agreement."

The Russian Federation president's aide Sergey Prikhodko expressed himself in the
same spirit Tuesday: "We note the continuing progress both on many key questions,
and on the preparation of the document itself. We are absolutely not dramatizing
any contradictions or difficulties. Both delegations are working very
harmoniously."

Be that as it many, Kommersant ascertained that, despite the statements of

approval, Moscow and Washington are reconciled to the fact that the key bilateral
document will not be signed not only after the aforementioned Copenhagen
agreement, but this year at all. Kommersant was informed to this effect by its
sources in the Kremlin on conditions of anonymity.

"The signing will not take place in December. But this does not mean that any
insuperable obstacles have arisen. The negotiations are proceeding in a positive
manner, and everyone wants to bring them to a conclusion," Kommersant's
interlocutor in the Russian Federation Presidential Staff noted. In his words, the
text of the document has been almost completely agreed and needs only minor
revision. True, the functionary did not clarify precisely what negotiators are
revising. He also did not risk predicting when Messrs Obama and Medvedev may sign
the long-suffering treaty. "Earlier the presidents adopted a joint statement that
until the appearance of the new agreement the sides will maintain the provisions
of the old one. Therefore there is no rush -- everything is operating and the
diplomats are working," Kommersant's interlocutor concluded.

Diplomats, at least the Russian ones, had indeed prepared themselves for shock
labor this month. At any rate, the head of the Russian Federation Ministry of
Foreign Affairs even postponed the already announced traditional pre-New Year's
reception for the press in the minister's name from 18 December to 12 January.

Meanwhile, experts involved in working on the document say that the Russian and
American negotiators still have things to work on. "The cause of the slippage of
the date for signing the document is simple -- it is not ready. There are still
some rough edges that should be ironed out before it is presented to the
presidents for signing," one of the drafters of the treaty explained to
Kommersant. In his words, the divergences are not of a critical nature, but it is
impossible to move further without harmonizing positions.

Among the most substantive contradictions the expert listed disagreements that
have still not been settled on the subject of the level to which the sides should
reduce the number of delivery vehicles of nuclear warheads. When Moscow and
Washington were just beginning to elaborate the new treaty, they denoted
requirement positions that were diametrically opposed: The United States proposed
to stop at the figure of 1,100 delivery vehicles, whereas the Russian Federation
designated a ceiling of 500 units. Later the US side lowered the bar to 800
delivery vehicles, but, Kommersant's interlocutor said, this level still does not
satisfy the Russian side. However, the latest round of Russian-US negotiations on
strategic offensive weapons, which began in Geneva back on 9 November, has not yet
ended, and that means there is still time and opportunity to agree positions.

By way of examples of other disagreements the expert cited the failure to settle
questions pertaining to the counting of heavy bombers (he declined to specify what
the problem is here), and also the absence of a final agreement on how to mention
in the treaty the interrelation of strategic offensive weapons and strategic
defensive weapons -- that is to say, missile defense -- for which Russia is
lobbying. "Proposals for letters of exchange have been heard. This is when the
sides exchange written statements that, depending on the contents, may either be
included in the treaty and then be regarded as legally binding, or not be included
and bear a politically obliging character. Which of these options should be
adopted has not yet been decided," Kommersant's interlocutor explained.

The expert expressed doubt that the sides would manage to settle everything and
get the treaty signed in January 2010. "That is unlikely, and my point of view
from the very beginning has been that there should be no haste in this matter.
December 5 was an unrealistic deadline. But all the same, the signing should not
be dragged out -- the UN review conference on the NPT is due to take place in May.
By this date it is necessary to have a signed treaty. Otherwise both we and the
Americans will be criticized for dragging out the progress of moving toward the
complete abolition of nuclear weapons," Kommersant's interlocutor concluded.