tv [untitled] December 1, 2010 5:30pm-5:59pm EST
hello are you watching r t the international broadcast these are top stories. world cup countries hoping to host football's flagship tournament make a final push the day before the winners and russia is among the favorites but it does face tough competition all played out later today. fresh protests sweeping across europe against the need to bail out failing economy. next. president calls on the leading players in european security to push aside the stereotypes of the past and work together for the sake of future stability.
programs continue time next for our guests to roll up their sleeves for some cutting for us to bait in cross talk and in this latest edition people of. the future of a new arms reduction treaty between russia and the u.s. cross-talk on the air on this channel just twenty seconds from. and you can. follow you know welcome to cross talk i'm peter lavelle start forward or start back
with a new strategic arms reduction treaty between russia and the u.s. ever become law obama is putting all his political weight behind senate ratification while many see opponents playing politics in danger in global security . and you can. discuss ratification of the new start treaty i'm joined by my guests in washington richard burt he's a managing director mclarty associates and a former u.s. ambassador to germany amitai etzioni he's a professor at george washington university and daryl kimball he is the executive director of the arms control association and another member of our crosstalk team on the hunger all right gentlemen crosstalk rules in effect and that means you can jump in anytime you want richard byrd i can like to go to you are should i call you when bassett or because you are one of the chief negotiators if not the chief negotiator for the u.s. side first the first start agreement so looking at the lead at the debate that is
going on we can talk about in the about this the lengthy process on this program but do you give it your household approval is this a good treaty and then if it isn't i want to know why the republicans are blocking it later go ahead and bassett or bird. well to begin with your first question is it a good treaty i you're correct i did negotiate the start one treaty or i led the u.s. delegation that negotiated that treaty with our russian counterparts i was also heavily involved in one form or another i think with most the us russian arms control agreements reached over the last twenty five years and i think this treaty is is clearly falls right in the mainstream of the agreements we have negotiated in the past i think it's fully verifiable in fact in some respects it's it's an improvement in verification on the on the on the first start treaty secondly it
continues the process that we began in the early ninety's of reducing both sides deployed nuclear weapons and i think politically. as potentially put to us russia relationship back on the road in other words it's led to an improvement in the in the overall strategic and political atmosphere which is allowed the united states and russia to cooperate on on issues like the war in afghanistan and and working on the problem of iranian nuclear proliferation so i think for all of those reasons i think it is a clearly in my judgment a step in the right direction. it's hard for me to understand the criticism all right. we can we do this or we do that a little bit later i want to check our panel to see what they should be treated
before we talk about the political ramifications if i go to you all that so much i mean is it a good treaty or a bad treaty in your opinion is it necessary. but i very much agree with the bastard bill that it's basically a good treaty and it would be politically damaging if it doesn't get out of fright and i very much hope it will get to a fight but i think it's important also to hear allies that is kind of a cold war concept it focuses on russian american missiles which at the moment they don't endanger anybody so the notion that this is directly connected to current global security it's likely made a dramatic i'm saying that because i want to caution against. excessive interpretations it it gets delayed or. as i would very much regret is not approved you have a lot of t.v.
sitting there senate which have not been approved in some cases you'll be able to act as if they have been improved but above all i'll make just the moment i'm not russian missiles and i don't think anybody seriously believes they need states is going to attack russia these long range missiles this have a called woman toilet these cuts down the number of weapons but even i even if the cuts which takes years years and. to implement even if they're already in place implemented perfection both sides to every nuff nuclear weapons to kill each other and everybody has to be five times over three times over so it's important to keep the treaty in perspective it should be approved it's a good treaty but it's not. it could become an issue i've been dead if it gets interpreted partners of his iran and his north korea terrorism so there are many issues we both face both are isolated states which we can work on jointly been
continued to work directly even if sadly it is good to really get to meet you guys going to get approved ok general thing go to you and i read your lengthly. support a report supporting the ratification process but there are of the other global issues here number one president made bed of that signed the agreement with president obama i mean from a russian side looking at this is that well what paper is what is it worth a paper that obama signs if ratification isn't going to go through after the lengthy process and it was very bipartisan up until the midterm elections ok and there's also the other issue here that's very important and you mentioned in your research is the nonproliferation regime which has been in tatters for over a decade and obama and i'm not a supporter of or against him ok but i think as a reasonable person nonproliferation is a very very important issue today because of some of the countries that have already been mentioned in this program so it does have a very important ramifications if this treaty does get in trouble beyond the russia
us relationship which could be damaged by the way if it isn't ratified go ahead. right well i largely agree with what the two other guests said i think we have to remember that the united states senate is the world's greatest deliberative body and it may be surprising to song that it's taken so long for the senate to get around to debating this treaty and voting on it. but that's the way it is in the american system and i think with president obama's strong push and the us military strong push for ratification of the tree this year i think it will get done despite the political obstacles that have been thrown in the way. but you know the treaty i think is essential it's not just a good treaty it is essential and two main reasons one is as was said it's essential for more cooperation and less confrontation between the united states and russia even though the cold war is over and yes even though the presence of two
thousand strategic nuclear weapons on each side is a remnant of the cold war this treaty is essential for united states and russia to maintain the transparency and predictability about what each other is doing so that that old cold war animosity doesn't come back so it's essential for that reason it's also essential peter for the broader global nonproliferation effort the united states and russia are key to working on problems like north korea iran loose nuclear material the united states and russia with this treaty in force can then try to engage the other nuclear armed countries of the world into a broader dialogue about how to reduce the salience of nuclear weapons the number and to try to work on this more broadly so this treaty is a first step if you will a start toward strengthening the global nonproliferation system and resetting u.s. russian relations in a variety of areas that are critical to both country's security and better birds
are people looking at this ratification process and really going after the issues the general just mentioned here nonproliferation because again the united states was pretty lax in its attitude towards nonproliferation over the last decade or so and obama stepped up to the plate and said this is important in the transparency issue that's the most important word i think general mention is in the united states and russia can be very transparent in dealing with these weapons again. givenchy getting rid of them probably will take a long time if ever but still the intent is very good other countries need to can look to the united states and russia collectively former foes and to show transparency that getting rid of nuclear weapons is key to our future is that would you say that's also very high in the agenda here in looking at this treaty well i think that's high on the agenda but i think the crucial issue here and why i think frankly professor at sione in kind of referring to this treaty as an artifact of
the cold war period is is wrong is that i think what we are trying to achieve is a international consensus over the further spread of nuclear weapons and i think this treaty viewed in a broader context together with the obama administration's nuclear posture review which tried to deemphasize the role of nuclear weapons in american defense strategy when viewed in the context of the obama administration's nuclear security summit last spring when over forty countries came together to look at the problem of trying to control the spread of dangerous nuclear materials and technology. if this treaty is not ratified to use the word you used at the outset of this program is it's going to represent a step back we need to remember that non-nuclear nations especially signatories to
the nuclear proliferation treaty negotiated in the late one nine hundred sixty s. see a link between efforts on the part of nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals on the one hand and they're continuing to abide by the nonproliferation treaty on the other so i think the failure of start would be would undermine the credibility of the united states and i would argue. other countries other nuclear countries in trying to dampen down incentives for nuclear proliferation in fact i would go so far as to argue that the two countries that would welcome the non ratification of start would be north korea and iran because it would give them simply more arguments to make in going forward with their respective nuclear programs and real quick before we go to the break what do you think about his global ramifications of that kind of reflecting what the ambassador had to say. i'm caught here
because i like to take it to be honor freud and then now you dates not that consequential it sounds like amount of money to trade but days no connection here connection other than some ideological and talking points between the treaty and proliferation just to give a quick example india is not maintaining its nuclear weapons because i started states as more of a few because president obama talks about that not in his lifetime one day if you going to dig zero then i do remember the density they keep nuclear weapons because of pakistan united states gave edition of material nuclear macare trained china to give additional nuclear material to and it's done and the time you have to jump in here really quickly into a short break we'll go right back to we come back after a short break we'll continue our discussion on the new start treaty stay with.
good some. excellent professional. medics travel guns possessing extra ordinary car. the doctor who helped many people in his country. the political criminal responsible for thousands of deaths. was it an attempt to repent. or just escape a fair trial. the other life. on our t.v. . well. bringing you the latest in science and technology from around russia.
we've got the future covered. if. you come in. welcome to roscoe computer remind you we're talking about the strategic arms reduction treaty. but before we see what russians think about this tree the new strategic arms reduction treaty was signed in prague this april by presidents of russia and the united states the treaty will come to force after being read to quiet by the parliament of both countries start is seen as one of the major achievements of obama's foreign policy and a key element in resetting russia u.s.
relations by the rectification in the u.s. senate is now in danger since republicans are threatening to derail it the russian public opinion research center asked russians who would benefit more by signing the start treaty thirty three percent of the respondents said both russia and u.s. twenty seven percent believe the entire international community will gain twenty two percent cited the u.s. to profit more in case taught is signed and another four percent think it will profit russia only back to peter. ok i want to talk about why the republicans are opposed this but i will tell you made a very interesting point at the end of the first part of the program about the demonstration effect here and so can i reiterate here russian the united states can set a good example for the world for being for in terms of transparency in dealing with nuclear weapons and be a demonstration to other countries to take the n.p.t. seriously you mentioned ok like india but him even israel could be thrown in that category saying you know the two major arsenals in the world are working together
on the same page to limit it to hopefully to start destroying more and more of these weapons so do you think that it's a nonstarter that other country in the world really care what russia united states are doing but i right i was officials saying that if you proceed and i think we should read the treaty it's going to take one of the talking points. he's going to leave you don't have his twenty two other talking points you talk about inspiring other nations to photo creating an atmosphere these are very lovely words but i know little about israel and israel has nuclear weapons for these and then to do is russia and united states you see because of situations in the middle east iran is building nuclear weapons because of all kinds of notions of who are good and your and such and so you know as did you can inspire these nations
because if you give a speech about zero or because of russia united states going to try and train a nuclear weapon somebody if you haven't even mentioned defected tactical nuclear weapons not covered trance absolutely and. major major concern. terrorism is they're getting their hand on a tactical nuclear weapons they're not going to use into an intercontinental but it's a could miss it's so again i don't want to take of a from the importance of the treaty but i also want to say that actually united states we have many many ways to corroborate or many there is even if very is executive really very good really. really need not be right should be but we should not be reacting to a general want to jump in general you so you know i mean first go ahead and i would also like to jump in here because general first so i mean i think i think they're
in the real world there is a connection between what the larger superpowers do with their nuclear arsenals and our efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons we see that all over it's a one of the reasons why this treaty is essential but to get your question about why the trees getting held up in the sand here the questions republicans are as good ok good you know many republicans have spoken up about this and it's not all of them they don't have questions about the treaty itself within the fort. corners of the treaty but they're raising some other questions slightly outside of the treaty and i think the administration has answered all these very well and it's time to move on some republicans believe that the new start treaty will somehow limit the united states' options with respect to missile defenses it plainly and simply does not fact this is a very friendly. treat to missile defense and the united states and russia need to work to cooperate on missile defenses now so that future u.s. missile defense deployments don't aggravate russia's sense of security or
insecurity since you mentioned the russians are going to raise can i just jump in here and dmitri medvedev just a few hours ago talked about that in if this treaty isn't signed in dealing with and with anti-missile defense there's the there's some clouds on the horizon let's listen to what the president had to say. in the next decade we have the following alternatives either we reach an agreement on a missile defense and create a full blown mechanism for cooperation if we fail to have a constructive agreement a new stage of the arms race was stopped and we will have to make a decision on creating new strike forces. the russian president didn't say that by serendipity ok a few hours ago it's has everything to do with what's happening in washington right now you want to finish up go ahead. well it what what the russian government is concerned about is what might happen ten years down the road as some of these short
and medium range missile interceptors that are planned for europe might take on strategic interests after capabilities and that could warry russia because it could begin to impact its smaller strategic missile force so that's why president obama and nato along with president medvedev are now talking about finding ways to cooperate on missile defense to make sure that it is not threatening to russia but it is it is focused on threats from countries like like iran so i think that's one of the questions that are being raised in the senate but it should be a reason to to hold it up and another question being raised in the senate by some senators is what about tactical nuclear weapons the professor mentioned this not in the history of u.s. russian arms control has there been a formal agreement limiting or even accounting for u.s. and russian short range nuclear weapons so-called tactical or battlefield bombs this treaty does not do that that's by design but if we want to get on to
limitations on u.s. and russian nuclear weapons we need to ratify this treaty the next round of discussions can and should cover strategic as well as tactical nuclear weapons in the third main issue that the republicans are raising on capitol hill is they want to be assured that if the united states is reducing its nuclear arsenal that we're taking care of in maintaining the reliability of the weapons that remain behind we have been doing this for decades and the obama administration has proposed a very robust ten year plan eighty four billion dollars eighty five billion dollars over over ten years to upgrade the facilities around the u.s. nuclear weapons labs that are used to refurbish existing warhead types that is a very raw. planned it's higher than any other plan put forward by any administration democratic or republican that should issue
a republicans on the hill so i think the administration has an extremely good case to make in the next few days to get the senate to approve it ok ambassador burns what's the if we keep mixing in why the republicans are against is a lot has been said since the last time you spoke so go ahead prioritize react go ahead well i will what what what what i would say is just very briefly and it's probably i think the one most important aspect of this agreement that hasn't been discussed today and that is the fact that this agreement is the cornerstone of what i believe has become a very productive relationship between president obama and president medvedev i think the fact that they were able to reach agreement on start which whether it goes harkens back to the cold war or it doesn't it's still seen as very important to both sides national security establishments it's open the door to a very intense relationship between the two presidents it's led to agreements.
on afghanistan it's led to russian support and sanctions against iran ambassador really has or could it be i mean let me let me let me ask a very simple question do the republicans want to throw the ball away do the republicans want to throw everything oh you just you know if you'd let me top question. granted my problem is this i do not think the administration has adequately made the case for the new improving relationship between united states and russia were on the verge of a historic agreement that would lead to russia entering the w t o the world trade organization i know for a fact that that would not have happened without a lot of behind the scenes support by the obama administration and that discussion between president obama and president medvedev and w t o started in the context of their discussions over start so what i think we're really talking about here is not
an old cold war issue but process a new opportunity after all the expectations and disappointments in the u.s. russia relationship before a decade or more to really move this relationship to a win win situation rather than the kind of. contrarian problems that we've had in the past that's what's at stake here i mean time what do you think and then add one thing it's not just the republicans yes there are enemies of an improved u.s. russia relationship in the united states but the point also has to be made that there are enemies of an improved u.s. russia relationship also in russia and and i think this agreement by getting this agreement ratified we will open the doors for greater cooperation in the future ok if i go to you i mean i would like to repeat the question the republicans willing
to throw away all of the improvements that we've seen in this bilateral relationship because it really would throw a wrench into the works because they'll be there and do you agree with the ambassador there are people in the political establishment rush would say yes see you can't trust these people see you can't ok and it feeds upon the extremes on both sides unfortunately the extreme in the u.s. seems to be mainstreamed go ahead. i'm very much hope that it will not happen dead people both sides understand again i hope to think it would be a pool but if not we still have a very important list. joined interest and as i said to point out we have succeeded in finding a close understanding between the two countries i should on some point out that i have discussed this issue in a proof or in the kremlin and it's not that he is completely symmetrical
it it's likely again i don't want to get undermined it. is nearly time we just ran out of time gentlemen very good discussion if you simply don't have any more time many thanks to my guests today in washington and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at r.g.p. see you next time and remember crosstalk.