The third round of bilateral talks between the US and Russia started on 5 October 2009. It remains to be seen whether both countries will be able to develop a follow-up agreement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), which expires on 5 December 2009. US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev began the weapons-reduction process while attending the April G20 Financial Summit in London, announcing a new bilateral treaty aimed at reducing the number of nuclear warheads to 1,100 and bringing about reductions in delivery vehicles, such as ballistic missiles and submarines to 700-800 per country. The new treaty is a beginning towards the ‘nuclear-free world’ agenda proposed by both the presidents.

 

Possessing more than 95 per cent of the world’s nuclear weapons, Obama stated that  US and Russia will lead by example, taking concrete steps toward the long-term diplomatic goal of disarmament while sending a powerful message to countries such as Iran. With such an agenda, a follow-up agreement is crucial for both countries to monitor each other’s nuclear stockpiles.

 

The first round of bilateral talks in Moscow held on 19-20 May 2009 was an important  positive development in US-Russian relations, marking a definite shift from the days of the Bush administration when the bilateral relationship suffered due to American plans to develop a missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. The recent talks were described as very “successful” and “constructive” addressing new cuts in US and Russian nuclear weapons arsenals. Both sides also agreed to hold further meetings addressing trans-national issues such as terrorism, organized crime, corruption and drug trafficking, as well as strengthening US-Russian economic ties and cultural exchanges.

 

These ambitious plans notwithstanding, Obama and Medvedev failed to make any significant progress in setting the world on the path to nuclear abolition during the last summit in July. They could only agree on minor cuts in their respective weapons arsenals due to American unwillingness to cancel plans for the missile-defence shield in Central Europe. Russia believes these plans undermine its national security.  It was, at this point, believed that these plans for a missile defence shield, a legacy of the Bush era, could ruin ambitions for bilateral rapprochement. However, Russia received some comfort from President Obama's unexpected announcement in September to  cancel all plans for the missile-defence shield. The release subsequently of a new plan for a missile-defence shield, that would include the deployment of smaller radars closer to Iran, on land and on Aegis missile-tracking ships, was considered by Russia an even greater security threat. Russian reaction on the matter seems to be mixed. While the scrapping of the old plan demonstrates a victory for Russian politics, Chief of Russia’s General Staff, General Nikolai Makarov is convinced that the US anti-missile shield had only been modified, not scrapped as the US claimed.

 

According to reports, America was expecting better Russian cooperation on an array of foreign policy issues, such as the US led war in Afghanistan. The whole bilateral negotiations illustrate a complex quid pro quo situation. Even if Russia and the US consistently deny the immediate connection between the international dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme and their nuclear disarmament negotiations, recent events underline the exact opposite. It would seem that Russia is using Iran as a bargaining chip in its quest for cooperation with the US and NATO on a joint missile defence, this is supported by the statement of Russian Major General Vladimir Dvorkin that a joint missile defence system would be ‘even more important than START’ because it would represent a dramatic boost in mutual trust. With US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton affirming during her Moscow visit in October that the world would not wait forever for Iran to prove it was not building nuclear bombs, it will be interesting to see the extent to which Russia and US will pull together, when the limit of diplomatic proceedings is reached.

 

Both Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev symbolize a new, post-Cold War generation of leaders who warmed-up long frozen US-Russia relations. Whether this new era of bilateral relations will lead to a new era of nuclear disarmament as well, remains to be seen. The fact that Russia and the US are aiming for a legally binding document by the beginning of December is a step in the right direction. In light of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, it is necessary to think about the extent to which US-Russia negotiations will continue if a follow-up agreement cannot be formulated. This would have severe consequences for Obama’s vision of a global zero and the intentions of both, the US and Russia, to serve as an example for nuclear disarmament. The entire process also raises the question for smaller nuclear weapons states like Britain or France as to why they should even consider reducing their nuclear stockpiles if the two biggest nuclear states fail to make any noticeable cuts in their own accumulations.