American Politics and Foreign Policy - Essay Example

American Politics and Foreign Policy "Insert of "Insert Assessment Number" Insert Logo - try Yahoo! image search Minor Essay - 1,553 Words In April, 2007 Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened a moratorium on the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. Why Analyse the extent to which Putin's actions were justified. By "Customers Name" 2007 Introduction This discussion will provide detailed analysis on the reasons why Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened a moratorium on the 1990 Conventional Arms Forces in Europe treaty during April earlier this year. It will also analyze the extent to which Putin's actions were justified in the context of current global political issues. Additionally, the analysis will look at the arguments for and against to dissect the situation in finding out answers to the proposed questions. Background research on the treaty itself will also be included to provide fundamental knowledge about the issues being discussed in the appropriate political perspectives. The concluding section will draw upon all of this information and the global arguments will be considered when making a finalization about the matter. The Issue In April this year, Vladimir Putin announced that Russia will consider withdrawing from Europe's key arms control treaty in response to United States' plans to install missile defense systems in Eastern Europe (Danilova, 2007). The Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, which was signed in the last few months of the Cold War, has been considered as the foundation of stability in Europe. It places limits on the number of conventional weapons and foreign forces that can be deployed among member nations (Navosti, 2007). This particular aspect provides the backbone to the matter. In the first indication that the United States was losing patience with Moscow's inflexibility on the issue, Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, described Russia's fears simply as "ludicrous" (Columbia Tribune, 2007). "The Russians have thousands of warheads," she told a press conference in Oslo prior to a NATO meeting. "The idea that somehow you can stop the Russian strategic nuclear deterrent with a few interceptors just doesn't make sense" (Columbia Tribune, 2007). Mr. Putin said he had decided to declare a moratorium on an updated version of the treaty because NATO powers had failed to ratify it (Danilova, 2007). The United States and its NATO allies said they would not ratify the treaty until Russia withdrew its troops from Moscow-backed seceding republics in Georgia and Moldova - an argument the Russian Kremlin dismisses as a pretext to allow Washington to boost its military presence in Eastern Europe (Navosti, 2007). Background on the Treaty Negotiated and signed during the final years of the Cold War, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty is often referred to as the "cornerstone of European security" (Crawford, 2002). According to the Reuters Fact box (2007) the treaty, signed on November 19, 1990, eliminated the Soviet Union's overwhelming quantitative advantage in conventional weapons in Europe by setting equal limits on the amount of tanks, armored combat vehicles, heavy artillery, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters that NATO and the former Warsaw Pact could deploy between the Atlantic Ocean and the Ural Mountains (Crawford, 2002). Designed to prevent either alliance from concentrating forces for launching a blitzkrieg-type offensive, the treaty employs a system of concentric zones mandating smaller deployments of tanks, ACVs, and artillery the closer one moves toward the center of Europe (FAS, 1999). While the threat of such an offensive all but disappeared with the breakup of the Warsaw Pact and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the CFE Treaty's weapons limits and inspection regime, which provides an unprecedented degree of transparency on military holdings, continue to play an important role in Europe (FAS, 1999). CFE states-parties overhauled the treaty in November 1999, replacing the bloc and zone weapons limits with national and territorial arms ceilings, but the original CFE Treaty will remain in force until all states-parties ratify the adaptation agreement. Belarus is the only nation to have completed the entire conformational process (Crawford, 2002). A New Cold War The missile defense shield was intended primarily to defend Europe against an impeding nuclear attack from emerging powers such as Iran (The Belmont Club, 2007). The fact that Vladimir Putin has chosen to link a defense against the Iranian threat with the arms control agreements which spelled the end of the Cold War means he is giving Europe a choice between restarting the tension with Moscow, and preventing Iran from becoming a new nuclear power (The Belmont Club, 2007). It then becomes apparent that the West can have one or the other, but not both. This amounts to an objective alliance between Moscow and Teheran (The Belmont Club, 2007). A new Cold War has started with a new arrangement. Perhaps it had already begun earlier had the West but the wit to sense it. With the mood in Congress being what it is, it is entirely possible that the Democrats will urge the President to abandon the plans for the missile defense of Europe, effectively giving Iran the power of blackmail over an already terrified and cowed Continent (The Belmont Club, 2007). Having acquired the taste to withdraw, why not withdraw further If backward is good, further backward is even better. The enemy goes from strength to strength and the Western leadership remains stuck on a circular track. Putin's Justifications Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed that Russia should unilaterally defer the implementation of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe until other parties to the treaty ratify the document (Navosti, 2007). At his annual state of the nation address, Putin said "I think it is necessary to announce a moratorium on Russia's implementation of the CFE treaty until all NATO countries ratify it and start to strictly adhere to it, as Russia does today unilaterally," (Navosti, 2007). It was also noted that other members of the Russian parliament stated that NATO newcomers, such as Slovakia and the Baltic states, despite preliminary agreements with the alliance, have not joined the CFE treaty altogether, adding that the treaty has been implemented only at the level of information exchange and mutual inspections (Navosti, 2007). Putin also reiterated that Russia is the only party to the agreement that signed, ratified and has been implementing the provisions of the document. "We have significantly reduced our armed forces," Putin said. "We have withdrawn almost all heavy weaponry from the European part of the country (Navosti, 2007)." "What about our partners They have not even ratified the adopted treaty, citing the Istanbul Agreements that stipulate the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia and Transdnestr," the Russian leader said (Navosti, 2007). He also suggested that Russia might consider leaving the CFE treaty if talks with NATO countries show no visible progress in the implementation of the treaty in the future. A Kremlin source also believed the Kremlin's determination to follow up on Putin's proposal, giving the alliance a year to make a decision on the CFE or face Russia's unilateral withdrawal from the treaty (Navosti, 2007). U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who met with President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov during his recent visit to Moscow, apparently failed to convince the Russian leadership that the U.S. missile shield does not pose any threat to Russia, although he suggested that Moscow could cooperate with Washington on a whole range of issues related to the missile defense system (Navosti, 2007). Moreover, Russia seems to have warned Washington that it would monitor the U.S. missile defense installations in Europe if they were ultimately deployed, and would develop an adequate response to U.S. actions. "Ludicrous" Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed as "ludicrous" Russian concerns that Washington's plans to deploy anti-missile defenses in Europe would endanger Moscow's nuclear arsenal (Columbia Tribune, 2007). The outbreak of high-level talks had failed to soften Russia's public opposition to the U.S. plan to install radar scanners in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland. Washington also says the deployment is aimed at protecting Europe and North America from a growing threat of missile strike by North Korea, Iran or others in the Middle East (Columbia Tribune, 2007). Through this fact, it is clear that Moscow believes those countries do not pose an immediate threat, and claims the U.S. plan aims to target Russia's strategic missile arsenal. Rice stated that the United States would continue efforts to "demystify" the missile defense plan for the Russians by pushing an offer to cooperate with Moscow by sharing data and technology (Columbia Tribune, 2007). She insisted that Russia, Europe and the United States shared a common threat from the risk of Iran developing long-range missiles. Nevertheless, diplomats have said there was growing support for the U.S. plans among European governments (Columbia Tribune, 2007). Conclusion Each of the previous sections have looked at each side of the issue with regards to its political content. It is through these different opinions that the political backgrounds of both Russia and the United States appear very dissimilar. If considering Putin's reasons for pulling out of the treaty to be justified, one must look beyond the issue of nuclear missiles, and consider the more frightening prospect of a long term nuclear war if the tensions between the rival nations continue to deteriorate. On the other hand, the United States government appears undaunted and relatively confident that dealings with Russia will all work out for the best. While dismissing such thoughts of a new Cold War, government officials in the US would be better off treating this issue with caution and concern. As noted previously, Russia isn't the only powerful nation that the United States needs to worry about; Iran is emerging too. References Columbia Tribune, "Rice dismisses Russian worries about missiles", 26 April, 2007, http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Apr.asp Crawford, D. "Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE): A Review and Update of Key Treaty Elements," Arms Control Bureau, Department of State, January 2002. Danilova, M., "Putin Threatens Pullout from Arms Pact", 26 April 2007, http://www.federalnewsradio.com. FAS (Federation of American Scientists), "Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE)": http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/cfe/text/index.html, 1999. Novosti, R., "Putin proposes moratorium on CFE Treaty", 26 April, 2007, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news People's Daily Online, "Conventional forces treaty should be ratified: NATO Chief", 27 April, 2007, http://english.people.com.cn Reuters News, "FACTBOX-Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe" http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L2686614.htm The Belmont Club, "The Return of the Cold War", 26 April 2007, http://fallbackbelmont.com US Department of State, Fact Sheet: Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, June 18, 2002. Read More