ABM Treaty update.

On December 13, 2001 President George Bush announced the intention of the United States to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. in making this announcement, President Bush provided Russia with the required six-months notice to break the 1972 treaty.

The pull-out follows Washington's claim that the limitations of the ABM Treaty would prevent the development of a ballistic missile defence (BMD) shield. A rigorous research and development program is already underway to build a shield designed to protect the US from attack by weapons of mass destruction delivered by long-range ballistic missiles. But military experts have argued that testing of the necessary elements would ultimately abrogate the treaty. By breaking the treaty, the US has declared its intention to pursue the testing regimen with vigour.

In the months preceding this announcement President Bush had engaged President Putin in debate over the potential to modify the ABM Treaty to allow limited missile defence. The discussions culminated in the Washington-Crawford Summit in November. Arguing that the ABM Treaty is a relic of the Cold War relationship between the US and the USSR and not representative of the "new strategic relationship" with Russia, Bush pledged to reduce the US arsenal of operational nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 over 10 years, apparently in the hope that Putin would respond with concessions on the treaty.

Even with promises of reductions, Putin would not make concessions and held that the 1972 treaty was still relevant. Without a compromise on the Russian side and with clear motivation to go ahead with BMD development, Washington announced its intention to dissolve the treaty.

Reaction to the US statement has been varied. While on the one hand expressing "regret" over the US decision, President Putin said the move posed no threat to Russia. At a December 16 press conference, Secretary of State Colin Powell insisted that "there is not going to be an arms race with the Russians and it is not going to be a crisis in our relationship." Analysts suspect that potential benefits from its growing economic relationship with the US outweighed Russia's allegiance to the treaty.

Conversely, China has expressed outrage over the US decision and strongly opposes both dissolving the treaty and US development of missile defence capability. Prior to the announcement China warned that dissolution of the ABM could provoke it to build up its nuclear arsenal. This threat of an arms race in Asia is a particular concern in light of the continued tensions between Pakistan and India. China's reaction could spark India and Pakistan to enlarge their nuclear arsenals as well. Colin Powell was sent to the region to address China's concerns, again insisting to the press that the move "is not a threat against their strategic deterrence."

Since the US announced its plan to abandon the ABM Treaty, the results of the second Nuclear Posture Review have been presented to Congress. A summary of the classified report, which outlines the designated role of nuclear weapons in future US military activity, was shared with the press. According to the synopsis, the military's new strategy pairs enhanced conventional capability with a reduced number of operationally deployed nuclear weapons to meet the wider range of needs in the post-Cold War military environment. The strategy maintains nuclear deterrence as a key to US military capabilities, with the capacity to resume nuclear weapons testing if necessary.

The US plan to reduce its deployed nuclear force - introduced in Crawford and outlined in the Nuclear Posture Review -- has blurry parameters. Further clarification has revealed that reduction of the deployed force does not necessarily entail destruction of the warheads.

The Department of Defense has stated that in reducing its deployed force, weapons will be stockpiled as active, inactive and 'in the queue for destruction'. Weapons in the active stockpile will be maintained so that they can be redeployed on very short notice. No information has been provided on the number to be held in the active stockpile, or the number to be placed in the queue for destruction, but it is clear that the US plans to keep a large number of warheads accessible for potential use.

Russia strongly opposes this definition of 'reduction', arguing that both the US and Russia should be moving towards complete destruction of their nuclear forces. It argues that the US should be committed to the irreversibility of reduction strategies, as it pledged to do by agreeing to the 13 practical steps of the 2000 NPT Review Conference Final Document

In January 2002 the two nuclear powers held talks on weapons reduction. Russia held to its position on reduction. It also pushed for a legal agreement to codify the reduction schedule, although the US believes that no formal treaty is necessary. Continued discussions are necessary before consensus can be reached, but both countries have expressed confidence that a compromise will be achieved.