CWA # 64
United States
The INF Treaty: US withdraws to balance China?
|
Sourina Bej
10 November 2018
|
Photo Source:
In a multilateral world order where multiple powers are emerging as global powers, how long will the Cold War era agreement stand as an anchor to maintaining international peace in nuclear security? It is time that bipolar regimes be revamped to suit the multipolar world order needs where multilateralism is the new normal.
Sourina Bej is a Research Associate at the ISSSP, NIAS
In October 2018, Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew US from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).
While one could witness a trend in the US withdrawing from international agreements under the Trump administration, the decision on the INF treaty was surprising. This has raised multiple questions, even within the US. Why did Trump withdraw from a significant Cold-War era treaty? Does this reflect a larger geopolitical shift from Europe and Russia, and towards the Indo-Pacific? How will Europe and Russia respond to this unilateral withdrawal?
Why did the US withdraw?
The overriding reason is that of Russian deployment of the 9M729 cruise missile. NATO has designated the cruise missile as SSC-8 and is said to have a range of approximately 2,000kms.
A crucial Cold War-era arms control agreement, the 1987 treaty between Washington and Moscow has maintained a blanket ban on all land-based missiles with ranges between 500 to 5,500kms. With US retracting, it could be a leeway towards not only manufacturing but also testing the missile parts. The US had in the past (2002) withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which had then incurred rapid global rebuttals and build-up of anti-missiles defences. President Barack Obama, for this reason, chose not to leave other nuclear weapons treaty in spite of reports that Russia was violating the INF Treaty. In July 2014, the US government charged Russia with the violation of the accord.
Secondly, Trump, even though he has not publicly criticised Russia but he is surrounded by hawks with strong opinions on nuclear issues. NSA Bolton belongs to that coterie and has been overtly instrumental in formalising a decision on INF.
Thirdly, with American mid-terms nearing, the US Cyber Command has started targeting individual Russian operatives trying to prevent the spread of misinformation and misrepresentation (a possible conclusion of allegations of Russian meddling in Trump’s election) during the elections. This campaign is the first known overseas cyber operation to protect American local elections.
The US decision is partly influenced by the domestic politics and a new geopolitical thinking but mostly reflect US’s larger commitment in keeping with a treaty that has been regularly violated by Russia (even though allegedly) and needs a relook at a multipolar world order.
Europe’s Divided Dissent?
Europe sees the US withdrawal as a part of America First policy. The strong reaction against Trump has come from the Scandanavian counties which lay in close proximity to the threats of Russia’s Arctic expansion. The most vociferous has been Germany. Wolfgang Ischinger, the former German Ambassador to the United States, has reiterated at the expansion of the treaty by bringing in China.
The only support seems to have come from the UK. Withdrawal could be another round of splitting views in NATO at a time when managing transatlantic relations collectively has appeared difficult.
Major Geopolitical shift: Indication of larger US Pacific Policy?
Trump administration’s greatest worry may be in Asia, where the 1980s pact now constrains the United States from placing short and intermediate-range missiles on land to respond to China’s efforts to carve out a sphere of influence in the Western Pacific. Several strategic thinkers in the US believe that China has built up a massive land-based arsenal of short- and intermediate-range ballistic and cruise missiles as part of its wider military modernization. The INF treaty has not impinged on the Chinese pursuit. Harry Haris, US Ambassador to South Korea, has said intermediate-range systems make up “approximately 95 per cent” of the People’s Liberation Army missile force.
Is Pacific the place where US could be looking at while framing its decision on INF? The Pentagon has already been developing nuclear weapons to match, and counter, what the Chinese have deployed. But that effort would take years. Hence in the interim, as reported by the New York Times on 19 October, US could modify its existing weapons (including its non-nuclear Tomahawk missiles) and deploy them first in Asia. It is important to note that the Tomahawk missile is banned under the INF treaty.
However, such lurking Chinese threat towards crediting a withdrawal doesn’t seem concrete as the INF does not prohibit sea and air-based systems. It also does not prohibit South Korea and Japan from developing long-range missiles. If China is the perceived threat then its allies could have acted long ago.
On the other hand, Russia is likely to refocus its resources on the build-up of a land-based arsenal of short- and intermediate-range missiles. The cost-effective nature of such weapons is a boon for Russia's increasingly resource-constrained military modernization program,
At a time when the United States and the Soviet Union were the only global superpowers, the INF Treaty was a landmark agreement that helped provide stability and security in Europe. In a multilateral world order where multiple powers are emerging as global powers, how long will the Cold War era agreement stand as an anchor to maintaining international peace in nuclear security? It is time that bipolar regimes be revamped to suit the multipolar world order needs where multilateralism is the new normal.
