Russia and the US have signed a new strategic nuclear arms reduction treaty (START). Officially, the treaty cuts their weapons by one-third — in fact, each party will decommission only several dozen.
Nevertheless, the treaty is a considerable achievement. It normalizes political relations between the two countries, thereby facilitating their further cooperation and rapprochement.
The return of strategic nuclear weapons to the center of world politics increases Russia’s political weight and highlights the field in which Russia can still assert itself as a superpower. It also gives a political boost to US President Barack Obama, cast as the most constructive and progressive president for decades and possibly for many years to come.
After the treaty was signed, the US hosted a nuclear non-proliferation summit, a landmark event for the Obama administration, which has made the fight against nuclear proliferation a trademark policy. The few accords reached at the summit, although welcome, are not as significant as the impression that the summit created, that world leaders are ready to work together to confront nuclear proliferation.
Debates about the role of nuclear weapons in the modern world, as well as in the future, are only beginning. The world system on which past discussions of nuclear weapons were based has become almost unrecognizable, calling into question the adequacy of the mentality and concepts inherited from that system.
The heart of the matter is that it is obvious nuclear weapons are immoral. An A-bomb is millions of times more immoral than a spear or sword, hundreds of thousands of times more immoral than a rifle, thousands of times more immoral than a machine gun and hundreds of times more immoral than salvo systems or cluster bombs.
Nuclear arms also have a significant moral distinction. Unlike other weapons, they are an effective means of preventing large-scale wars and mass destruction of people, property and cultures that have plagued humanity throughout recorded history. To reject nuclear weapons and strive for their elimination is, no doubt, a moral aim, at least in the abstract, but it is feasible only if humanity changes.
Apparently, the advocates of eliminating nuclear weapons believe that such change is possible. I do not. Indeed, the risks of a world without nuclear weapons — or only a minimal number of them — are tremendous.
Nuclear deterrence — a threat to kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people — is a concept that does not fit into traditional morals. Yet it has worked, preventing catastrophic wars, while making people more civilized and cautious. When one pole of nuclear deterrence weakened, because of Russia’s political decline in the 1990s, NATO, a defensive union of democratic and peaceful states, committed aggression against Yugoslavia. Now that Russia has restored its capability, such a move would be unthinkable. After Yugoslavia, there was an unprovoked attack on Iraq.
In a nearly perfect world, Russia and the US would not need large nuclear stockpiles, but cutting nuclear weapons to a bare minimum in current conditions would give a big advantage to small nuclear powers, which will see their nuclear potential gain near-parity with larger states.
Moreover, reducing nuclear weapons to a minimum might theoretically enhance the usefulness of missile defense systems and their destabilizing role and even non-strategic missile defense systems, the deployment of which might be useful, will be questioned.
If stockpiles of tactical nuclear weapons are reduced, as some US, European and Russian experts have proposed, the opponents of Russia’s ongoing military reform will have even more reason to object to reconfiguring the country’s conventional armed forces away from confrontation with NATO toward a flexible-response capability vis-a-vis other threats.
Similarly, if the US withdraws its largely nominal tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, US-Europe strategic ties would weaken. Many Europeans, above all in the new NATO member states, would then demand more protection from the mythical Russian Leviathan.
The world community seems to be losing its strategic bearings. Instead of focusing on the real problem, namely the increasingly unstable international order, it is trying to apply Cold War-era concepts of disarmament. At best, these are marginally useful — more often, they are harmful in today’s circumstances.
What is most needed nowadays is clear thinking about how to live with an expanding club of nuclear states, while keeping the world relatively stable. To this end, the two great nuclear powers need a coordinated deterrence policy toward new nuclear states. Simultaneously, they should offer guarantees to non-nuclear states that might feel insecure.
In the first place, it is necessary to fill the increasing security vacuum in the Middle East. China, the world’s rising strategic player, might join this policy, though it currently ranks third in terms of military power.
Arms-control talks are mostly needed for rendering national arsenals more transparent and for building confidence between the great powers. That is all there is to their usefulness.
So, instead of mimicking Cold War-era treaties, it is necessary to launch an international discussion about the role of military force and nuclear weapons in the world as it is now evolving. We might then eventually recognize that eliminating nuclear weapons is not just a myth, but a harmful myth, and that nuclear weapons are useful assets that have saved, and may continue to save, humanity from itself.
Sergei Karaganov is dean of the school of world economics and foreign affairs at Moscow State University’s Higher School of Economics.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS