The new U.S. Ambassador to Russia, William J. Burns, speaking at the Moscow Carnegie Center on March 1, 2007, said that “It is also important today to look ahead to the challenges and possibilities that lie beyond the expiration of the START Treaty in 2009, and the Moscow Treaty in 2012. At the direction of our Presidents, we have begun a strategic security dialogue to consider what we want in place when the START Treaty expires, what further steps to pursue, and what sort of transparency and confidence-building regime makes the most sense.”
Russia has been trying to get the talks going for some time now - in June 2006 President Putin publicly called for opening of the talks. Sergey Kislyak, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, went to Washington in September to begin the consultations, but his counterpart, Robert Joseph, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was less than enthusiastic about negotiating a new binding arms control agreement, so the talks stalled. The contacts, however, continued - according to a story in The Washington Times, Kislyak and Joseph at their meeting in the early February 2007 agreed to hold a meeting of experts some time in March.
Now that Robert Joseph left the administration (or has he?), the talks may get a new start. A new agreement won't be easy, though. The list of things that both sides would like to change is fairly long and it is not clear if they would be ready to make all the necessary concessions.
The book
Comments
How difficult would it be to simply extend START until December 30, 2012? This treaty is invaluable in building trust and transparentness between Russia and the United States and needs to continue. Extending START would in no way interfere with the Moscow Treaty (SORT) and give the respective governments time to determine national needs and begin negotiations on a post-SORT agreement. I have my doubts but will try and remain the eternal optimistic.
Frank Shuler
USA
Extending the treaty, in theory, is quite easy. Article XVII mandates the parties to meet one year before expiration to discuss an extension. If the signatories agree, the treaty can be extended in a five year increment by presidential signature. Now if there were to be changes to the text of the treaty, it would have to go back to the Duma and Congress, which was the death of START II. Given the current U.S. administration's aversion to treaties, I wouldn't hold my breath for an extension.
Both START treaties, the INF and SORT are no longer in the national interest of the Russian Federation and CSTO. This is the direct result of the US unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 ABM treaty and its unilateral decision outside of NATO to deploy its own elements of an active ABM system on European Russia's border (Poland, the Czech Republic and possibly Georgia and the Ukraine)... Russia will never allow this and will respond unilaterally. It is Mr. Bush and his naive foreign policy that has caused a new nuclear arms race between major powers again and Russian strategic forces will once again be a greenlit priority under Putin and/or Ivanov ... along with a slow conventional forces rebuild that will be designed to overwhelm, slice and dice Eastern and Southeastern Europe - not to mention the Baltics.