EDITORIAL: U.S.-Russia nuclear treaty

The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) to cut the large number of strategic nuclear weapons possessed by the United States and Russia is set to take effect.

In addition to the U.S. Senate, where deliberations faced difficulties, both houses of the Russian parliament also approved ratification of the treaty. With the toughest part of the ratification process over, the treaty went into force on Feb. 5.

The United States and Russia will reduce the number of strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 or fewer within seven years after the treaty goes into effect. After suspension with the expiration of START I in December 2009, mutual inspections of nuclear weapons will also resume under the new treaty. It will make it possible to verify the reduction process with more certainty.

This is a major step toward "a world without nuclear weapons" advocated by U.S. President Barack Obama.

The United States and Russia are urged to boldly advance the reduction of their nuclear capabilities, including shorter-range tactical nuclear weapons. We also want them to pave the way for nuclear disarmament that also involves other nuclear powers and the validation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

But it is also true that during the process of deliberating on the new treaty, it has become clear that there are numerous hurdles that need to be overcome.

First, in the haste to pass the treaty, differences between the United States and Russia concerning their positions on missile defense were left intact and only made reference to the point with ambiguous expressions. As a result, when approving ratification, the U.S. Senate resolved that the new treaty should not stand in the way of U.S. missile defense deployment.

To counter the move, the Russian parliament demanded Moscow withdraw from the treaty in case U.S. missile defense becomes a threat to Russia's nuclear deterrence. The Russian leadership has repeatedly warned that a new nuclear arms race could start if the missile defense system for Europe, on which Moscow agreed with NATO in November, fails to reflect Russia's position.

However, given that the United States and Russia possess more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons, they must not stall moves for nuclear disarmament for the sake of the regional missile defense issue. While carefully keeping an eye on Iranian nuclear development, cooperation must also be advanced in the area of missile defense.

The U.S. side is also proposing that tactical nuclear weapons be included in future negotiations. In response, the Russian side is taking a cautious stance, calling for the United States to remove tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe and calling for comprehensive negotiations to include space weapons and non-nuclear strategic weapons.

However, the United States and Russia face threats of nuclear terrorism. Reducing tactical nuclear weapons and placing them under stricter control serve their common interests. It is also a reality that NATO overpowers Russia in terms of conventional military capability. In that sense, comprehensive negotiations are also needed.

Alleviating mutual distrust and building security for Europe as a whole are also indispensable to decrease dependence on nuclear weapons.

Russia also stretches across Asia, where the United States has allies. That is all the more reason why future nuclear disarmament has much to do with Asian security.

In Asia, an arms race is intensifying, including China's nuclear weapons, and could put a damper on global nuclear disarmament. To avoid such a vicious cycle, Asian countries should also seek a security framework that does not rely on nuclear weapons or fuel an arms race of conventional weapons.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Jan. 30