Russia's Withdrawal From START II Treaty
A Foreign Ministry statement said the decision was taken in reaction to Washington's unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and the fact that the U.S. Congress has refused to ratify the START II Treaty.
The START II Treaty, signed in January 1993 by former Russian and U.S. presidents Boris Yeltsin and George Bush, stipulated a two-thirds reduction in the two countries' nuclear warheads to no more than 3,500 for the U.S. and 3,000 for Russia. The treaty had been due to take effect at the end of 2003.
The official withdrawal of Russia from the START II Treaty has been announced at a time when Moscow and Washington have opened a new chapter in their relations, including enhancement of cooperation between Russia and NATO in the so-called campaign against terrorism and the agreement reached by the two countries' presidents last month to reduce their nuclear arsenals.
Experts believe that Russia's withdrawal from the START II Treaty indicates that despite voicing readiness to promote cooperation after the September 11 attacks, the two countries still have differences on the legacy of the Cold War, such as treaties for the reduction of their nuclear arsenals.
Obviously, Russia has pulled out of the START II Treaty because of concern over the shift in the military balance of power in favor of the U.S. Indeed, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, unilateral U.S. moves such as its withdrawals from the Kyoto Protocol on controlling global warming and the treaties on establishment of an international criminal court and non-proliferation of biological and chemical weapons have led to suspicions among the international community, including Russia, about the adventurous goals of Washington.
Despite the fact that the U.S. itself has abandoned disarmament treaties, it is accusing countries opposed to its policies of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorism. Such accusations are clearly aimed at facilitating U.S. development of weapons of mass destruction and fanning the flames of war around the world.
Undoubtedly, these self-serving U.S. policies are driving other countries into an arms race which would certainly threaten international security.
Taking all this into consideration, especially given the fact that the U.S. possesses the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, experts believe that the fate of disarmament treaties should be determined in Washington. In other words, it is up to U.S. officials to safeguard the international community from the danger of such weapons by checking their own weapons programs and arsenal.