RPT: ANALYSIS - New START Extension Positive But Strategic Stability Depends On US Election Outcome

MOSCOW (Pakistan Point News / Sputnik - 22nd October, 2020) The potential extension of the New START arms reduction deal between the United States and Russia is a positive development and would be helpful for strategic stability but the fate of the deal still very much depends on the outcome of the US presidential election, experts told Sputnik.

The Russian and US delegations appear to have shrunk the gulf between them when late on Tuesday, reports emerged from Helsinki that the US side welcomed Russia's proposal to extend the freeze on warhead stockpiles by one year.

Miles Pomper, a senior fellow at the Washington DC office of the Middlebury Institute's James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, told Sputnik that the path forward depended on whether or not US President Donald Trump could secure a second term in office.

"Extending by a year is helpful. First if [Democratic contender] Joe Biden is elected it will give the new administration and Russia time to decide how to move forward. If Trump is reelected Russia might be more flexible, but there is still a fair chance treaty could end," Pomper said

According to Pomper, the fork in the road between the two candidates led to starkly different outcomes for the future of strategic stability, with a new Trump presidency casting doubt on the possibility of any new agreements.

John Carlson, who is a member of the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, spelled it out clearest regarding the unpredictability of any deals if Trump remains in office but maintained that a one-year extension is still preferable to allowing a lapse in arms limitations.

"It is better to extend START by a year rather than allow it to lapse. What happens after a year depends on the outcome of the upcoming election. If Biden wins, negotiations on renewal of START could begin early in 2021, no need to wait for the year to run. If Trump wins, it's impossible to predict," Carlson mused.

At the same time, Joshua Pollack, a senior research associate at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California, told Sputnik that while a possible Biden presidency meant a greater chance of further extensions and substantive efforts towards a new deal, the final say may depend on who the US electorate puts in the Senate.

"The deeper problem facing any future arms-control treaty is the need for a supermajority in the Senate to ratify it. That barely happened in 2010 for New START and might not ever happen again. We have had treaties fail to enter into force before," Pollack said, recounting the examples of the SALT II (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks).

Matthew Bunn, a professor of Practice of National Security and Foreign Policy at Harvard University, told Sputnik that the proposed extension should be longer than one year so as to avoid more crammed talks.

"It would be much preferable to extend New START by more than one year, to avoid trying to negotiate a complex new accord against a short deadline," Bunn said in correspondence with Sputnik.

Bunn went on to say that Russia and the US shared greater responsibility before the international community to "fulfill their obligations to negotiate in good faith toward nuclear disarmament" given that "non-nuclear-weapon states are deeply unhappy about the two-tier system created by the current nonproliferation regime, in which some states are allowed to have nuclear weapons and others are not."

This is an opinion shared by Carlson. In a discussion with Sputnik, Carlson said that START expiring without a new deal in place may have negative effects far beyond the defense strategies of the US and Russia.

"START is of course an arms control treaty rather than a non-proliferation treaty, the outcome on START does not directly affect non-proliferation. However there is an indirect effect - if START lapses this will add to the already very negative atmosphere impacting international collaboration on nuclear issues," Carlson said.

In contrast to his peers, Carlson stressed that the issue of arms control, and by extension nuclear non-proliferation, must not rely so heavily on who occupies the White House, but that "a coalition is needed among the other nuclear-weapon states together with leading non-nuclear-weapon states."

M. V. Ramana, Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security with the University of British Columbia's Liu Institute for Global Issues, meanwhile, told Sputnik that any cap on the buildup of a stockpile is welcomed since the arms race between the two countries has accelerated dangerously in recent years.

"The extra year can only help. Even if the two countries do not reach a new agreement, the extra year will still slow down the race," Ramana said, before echoing his analyst peers in saying that the viability of a fresh agreement depended on the outcome of the election in November.

Pollack, in his correspondence with Sputnik, was also puzzled over the political machinations of the US negotiating team, especially so close to the election.

"The Russian side may be prepared to offer a symbolic concession in order to give President Trump the ability to announce a success on the eve of the election, but Trump's negotiator, rather than pocket that concession and declare victory, is demanding that a program of verification be created for a freeze on the manufacturing of warheads... no such system has been created before, and it's unlikely that a meaningful verification mechanism can be negotiated in the time available," Pollack said.

Here, Nikolai Sokov, a senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Nonproliferation, told Sputnik that the Russian side is all but assured to turn down such a proposition, as "the Russian proposal is 'take it or leave it.'"

Sokov harbored some optimism that a substantive deal would eventually be reached, but not under the current conditions of tight deadlines, internal political turmoil and mutual distrust.

"Now, an agreement to address nuclear stockpiles is, in principle, a positive development and a major step under Article VI of the NPT (disarmament). I am sure that the parties will eventually come to that, but the current hasty deal may fail - primarily as a result of deep crisis in the US-Russian relationship and domestic politics."

Whatever the response from US lead negotiator Marshall Billingslea, it is clear that the more consequential verdict to Moscow's proposals will come from the US electorate on November 3.