BACKGROUND & THE FACTS.
A landmark nuclear arms control agreement entered into by the
United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1987
faces possible collapse. On October 20, 2018, President Trump
announced that Washington will withdraw from the Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty and on October 22, John Bolton, Trump’s
National Security Adviser flew to Moscow to hold high level talks
with top Russian officials including President Putin on the planned
US withdrawal. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was put
in place in the final days of the cold war to eliminate all
conventional and nuclear missiles and missile launchers with range
target capability of between 500 to 5,500 kilometres. Global
attempts at nuclear disarmament dates back to the 20th century
where world leaders had attempted to create a peaceful planet by
limiting the development, stockpiling and deployment of arms. The
aftermath of the second world war and the recurrent threats of
nuclear confrontations has been largely responsible for efforts
within the last six decades to limit, control and regulate the
global nuclear arms equation. From the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of
1963 which prohibited above ground missile testing. The Nuclear Non
Proliferation Treaty of 1968 where majority of countries of the
world including non nuclear powers made a positive commitment to
renounce development of nuclear weapons and give up on existing
ones. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT 1 & SALT 11)
Agreements of 1972 and 1979 which placed a cap and banned the
development of intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with
nuclear weapons. SALT 1 led to the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty of
1972 and the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New Start)
2010. However the collapse of communism and the emergence of
Mikhail Gorbachev as Secretary General of the Soviet Union offered
a new window for world peace and stability.
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed on the
8th of December 1987 by President Ronald Reagan of the US and
Mikhail Gorbachev, the then Secretary General of the Soviet Union.
The U.S senate gave its ratification on 27th May, 1988. The Treaty
became effective on 1st June 1988. The INF Treaty initially applied
only to the US and the Soviets but in 1991, its membership was
expanded to include successor states of the former Soviet Union
like Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. The Treaty majorly prohibits
parties from possessing, producing and test running ground launched
ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500
kilometres. Article 13 of the Treaty provides for the establishment
of the Special Verification Commission, an independent watchdog
with unfettered access and power to inspect and ensure compliance
and enforcement of the Treaty including resolution of disputes
arising from it.
The U.S and Russia have not hidden their desire to accumulate
strategic missiles including capability to deploy them but with the
entrance of very ambitious guys like China, Iran and North Korea
into the global nuclear weapons equation, the world has stepped
further into nuclear uncertainty. A situation that has prompted the
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists to move its DoomsDay clock to 2
minutes to midnight reflecting the unsettling dynamics of our
nuclear reality. The INF Treaty had prescribed 1st of June 1991 as
a deadline for state parties to act. As of 1st June 1991, a total
of 2,692 prohibited weapons were destroyed including 109 ground
launched cruise missiles. 1846 from the Soviets and 846 from
the Americans. The sudden news of Trump’s decision to withdraw from
the Treaty will be received with shock and discomfort in Europe
especially Western Europe given its proximity to Russia and the
likelihood of being caught in the cross fire in the event of
unexpected nuclear confrontations between Washington and Moscow.
Should Russia decide to deploy its intermediate range missiles,
western europe could be subjected to severe nuclear jeopardy. That
situation may be probable inview of Trump’s recent suggestion of
interest to expand US military bases in Poland and Romania with
capability to launch ballistic missiles. An action Russia views as
provocative and undermining Russia’s security. Beyond Washington’s
strategic defence policy, the security of Europe was a major factor
behind the INF Treaty. Following the deployment of Russia’s SS20
missile launchers in Russian territories near the border with
Europe in 1977, the continent was rattled especially the baltic
states. The Russian SS20 was an intercontinental ballistic missile
with supersonic speed and accuracy with an offensive but
concealable multiple independently targetable re-entry
vehicle(MIRV) and a delivery capability of four nuclear warheads
with up to 200 kilotons each. The SS20 was considered a game
changer in the nuclear theatre. The safety of western europe forced
the US and NATO allies to formulate and adopt the NATO Double Track
Decision in 1979.
CONTROVERSY & THE CHINA QUESTION.
Several Issues and controversies have continued to undermine the
viability of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
Primarily, the Treaty has been criticised by many analyst as a cold
war relic given the fact that nuclear players such as Iran, North
Korea and China are not signatories hence unhindered and not
covered and limited by the Treaty from developing their missile
systems. The US withdrawal could as well be a move to counter
China’s growing strategic military capabilities especially given
the fact that Beijing has repeatedly ignored insinuations to sign
up to the Treaty and limit its weapons development in the Pacific.
Interestingly, John Bolton, the US national security adviser who is
largely viewed as a neo conservative has been a long time critic of
the agreement as “an obsolete nuclear treaty”. Trump’s decision to
withdraw may however escalate the era of arms race with the
unverified speculations that the US plans to leverage the Treaty
exit to develop and deploy more strategic missiles in Japan as a
measure to counter China’s threat. China’s non membership of the
INF Treaty seem to have created a military asymmetry the US is
uncomfortable with but given the potential diplomatic challenges of
deploying ground launched missiles within the East Asia theatre, it
is doubtful if the US will be willing to square up to it. My
thinking seem more plausible considering the fact that the US
Seventh Fleet is believed to have sufficient missile capability to
crumble China’s defences. Notwithstanding, the US decision to ditch
the Treaty may probably be part of a robust and strategic quest to
counter threats from China and reestablish Washington’s
geopolitical and military supremcy in East Asia.
THE UNENDING ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLATION.
The United States and Russia have been consistent in their
accusations and counter accusations of violation and potential
violation of the INF Treaty. In 2008, Washington accused Moscow of
violating the INF Treaty by testing the SSC-8 cruise missile.
Russia on the other hand considers the US attempt to bolster its
strategic presence in the balkans by expanding US military bases in
Poland, Romania and Bulgaria as a violation of the terms contained
in the Treaty. In 2016 and 2017, the US Administration activated of
the INF Treaty and summoned 2 separate meetings of the Special
Verification Commission to discuss Russian non compliance. In early
2018, the US Department of Commerce launched another round of
sanctions on Russian companies believed to be involved in the
development of missiles prohibited under the INF Treaty. Towards
the end of 2017, Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO was
compelled to voice concern over allegations of Russian violation of
the Treaty. Russia has however remained firm and consistent in
denying all allegations of violations and in addition has accused
the US of nuclear blackmail and being the actual violator of the
Treaty citing Washington’s ballistic target missiles development
program. With the allegations and counter allegations, there seem
to be no end to the diplomatic bickering.
TRUMP & THE NEW NORMATIVE ORDER
President Trump’s election and his unconventional foreign policy
objectives has significantly shifted and altered the international
normative order in many respects. Under the 2019 US National
Defence Authorization Act, a whopping 717 billion dollars defence
budget has been approved. Of that figure, over 4 billion dollars
has been set aside for the development of 3 littoral combat ships,
a ford class aircraft carrier, 6 icebreakers and a columbia class
ballistic missile submarine. These points to the shift in Trump’s
Administration’s thinking from diplomacy to military superiority. A
departure from the Obama era, largely characterised by diplomacy
and engagement.
There’s however no doubt that under customary international law,
a material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties
entitles the other party to invoke the breach as a ground for
terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in
part as provided by Article 60 (1) of the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties. However given the serious diplomatic and security
underpinning of the INF Treaty and the undesirable situation the
world could be thrown into if the Treaty is ditched, it is doubtful
but not improbable that Washington will follow through with the
withdrawal. Some experts are of the opinion that the announcement
by Trump could as well be a strategy to force renegotiation of the
Treaty and compel China and other nuclear players to sign up to
it.
It is important to note that under Article 15 of the INF Treaty,
the conditions and procedure for withdrawal from the Treaty
provides that the the Treaty shall be of unlimited duration
and each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have
the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that
extraordinary events related to the subject matter of the Treaty
have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its
decision to withdraw to the other Party 6 months prior to
withdrawal from this Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement
of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having
jeopardized its supreme interests.
So far, there has been no formal Notice containing what
extraordinary event is prompting the withdrawal but it does appear
that satisfying that termination clause will not pose any legal
obstacle. I hold the view that the major consideration will be the
expediency or otherwise of abandoning the Treaty at this crucial
period and how that may shape perception of the U.S around the
world as an unfaithful party to international agreements
considering the accelerated pace with which Washington has
withdrawn or threatened to withdraw from a number of key
international treaties and agreements including the Paris Climate
Accord, the UN Human Rights Council, the Treaty of Amity, the
Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,
UNESCO and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) more
commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal.
COLLAPSE OF THE INF TREATY & IMPLICATIONS FOR GLOBAL
SECURITY.
A collapse of the INF Treaty will unshackle Russia’s nuclear
hunger, allow the U.S nuclear missile sophistication, encourage
China to stockpile more nuclear warheads and inspire renegades like
Iran and North Korea who are nevertheless non parties to the INF
Treaty and that will in all certainty spark a renewed and
uncontrolled arms race and roll back years and years of diplomatic
efforts to keep the planet from potential nuclear apocalypse.
Ditching it will further put the world into a dangerous security
twist and foist grave nuclear uncertainty on the globe. The Russian
foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has been blunt on what would be
Russia’s response if the US follows through with the withdrawal. On
October 22, 2018, Lavrov told reporters at the Kremlin that in the
event that Washington withdraws from the Treaty, Russia will take
every step to shore up its defence and nuclear capabilities to
achieve parity. The implication of that means an unrestrained
stockpiling nukes on an unimaginable scale. That will certainly
undermine global stability. On the European front, there is tension
and unease over the fate of the INF Treaty. spokeswoman for
the EU foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, said in a recent
statement that “The INF contributed to the end of the cold war
and constitutes a pillar of European security architecture since it
entered into force 30 years ago. The world doesn’t need a new
arms race that would benefit no one and on the contrary would bring
even more instability.”
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in a statement issued by the
Bulletin’s CEO Rachel Bronson on 25th January 2018 suggest the
Bulletin has moved its Doomsday Clock to 2 minutes to midnight, a
stark reflection that the world is on the cusp of a potential
nuclear fall out. It furthers the argument that the world may be
inching towards a nuclear tipping point with very lethal
consequences. A crisis may be brewing unless all key players and
stake holders recommit to nuclear arms control agreements and
negotiations. In a potential nuclear confrontations, while Russia,
its allies and the West will be the theatres of action, Africa,
Asia and the rest of the world will be victims of collateral
nuclear catastrophe.
CONCLUSION
In the final analysis, balancing strategic interests and
diplomacy may be complicated but the collapse of the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty will be a complex
nightmare. I hold the strong view that a nuclear war can never be
won and must never be fought.
Dignity Ekop is a lawyer, researcher on
international law, Associate in the dispute resolution unit of a
top-tier law firm in Lagos and Summer 2019 LL.M candidate at the
Fletcher School of Governance & Diplomacy, Medford. He can be
reached at dignityekop@gmail.com