Beyond the Bubble

Responsible leadership was the mandate for the American and Russian governments last week. On April 8, President Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev signed an arms control treaty that, once ratified, will force both countries to reduce their nuclear arsenals by approximately 30 percent.

The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) will replace a pact that was signed in 1991 by the two nations, which expired in December. The international community hopes that this initiative will build momentum towards a new era in the cooperation between the two superpowers.

While many Americans believe that the gravest nuclear threats are posed by states such as Iran and North Korea, they fail to recognize that Russia remains the only nation with the capacity to decimate the United States. The Washington Post notes that “The former Cold War enemies own nearly 95 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons, even after extensive reductions in recent years.”

While the mood at the Prague signing ceremony was overwhelmingly positive, critics did not fail to note the underlying divisions that persist between the two nations. They aptly recognized that the presidents did not discuss matters of missile defense nor their policies surrounding more general European security. President Obama also failed to press Medvedev on his nation’s human rights record.

Skeptics also note the way in which the recent overthrow of the Kyrgyzstan government will test the newly strengthened bond between the two world leaders. In the past week the small country in Central Asia has been in chaos as the opposition government has taken power and demanded political legitimacy. In the wake of these developments, both the American and Russian leaders struggled to determine their nation’s response. Highlighting the inherent differences between the nations, the United States took a very cautious approach to the acceptance of the new regime, sending aid for those killed in the violent uprising. Russia however, was quick to recognize the new government.

Despite these snags, however, unity was the central theme of the proceedings. Obama noted, “When the United States and Russia are not able to work together on big issues, it’s not good for either of our nations, nor is it good for the world. Together, we’ve stopped that drift, and proven the benefits of cooperation. Today is an important milestone for nuclear security and nonproliferation, and for U.S.-Russia relations.”

Providing an equally positive sound bite for reporters, Medvedev hailed the treaty as a “a truly historic event.” He stated that “what matters most is that this is a win-win situation,” he said. “No one stands to lose from this agreement. I believe that this is a typical feature of our cooperation. Both parties have won.”

While it is evident that this treaty represents a positive step for the international community at large, more policy initiatives of this kind must materialize in order to reach Obama’s objective of a nuclear-free world. Canadian journalist Paul Koring bluntly notes that though progressive, the treaty still permits “both Russia and the United States (to keep) enough nuclear warheads to basically obliterate every large city on earth several times over.” A sobering thought some two decades following the end of the Cold War.