Engel-Rasmussen Op-Ed: The Importance of the New START Treaty
By: Representative Eliot L. Engel, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Former NATO Secretary General and Prime Minister of Denmark
Ten years ago, the United States successfully negotiated the New START Treaty with the Russian Federation. This treaty put important constraints on Russia’s nuclear forces, but it stands to expire in February 2021, which would mark the first time that Russia would have no limitations on its nuclear arsenal since 1972. American and Russian leaders have the option to extend it for up to five additional years. They should do so.
The New START Treaty has served us well. It places tough limits on Russia’s nuclear arsenal, enshrines strong and detailed verification measures to ensure President Putin and Russia do not cheat (as they have on many other agreements), and builds in flexibility for the United States to maintain a safe, secure, modern, and effective nuclear deterrent. In addition, the unprecedented verification mechanisms in the Treaty, which allow American officials to walk into Russian nuclear launch sites with minimal notice, give the United States and NATO Allies critical insights into Russia’s capabilities and intentions, information that is impossible to replicate.
This treaty hasn’t just benefited the United States. While the U.S. and Russia are the only signatories, the treaty has proven hugely important for the security of Europe as well. Now with New START as the last remaining constraint on Russia’s nuclear arsenal, Europe has come out resoundingly in support of the Treaty’s extension for the safety, stability, intelligence, and deterrent value it provides.
But not everyone feels that way. The treaty’s detractors point to emerging threats from Russia and China as a justification for allowing the treaty to lapse. Indeed, Russia is working to deploy new nuclear systems not yet covered by existing arms control treaties, and China, though its arsenal is only a fraction of the size of those of the United States and Russia, is unconstrained in its ability to grow and modernize its nuclear forces. Naysayers argue that New START cannot capture Russia’s new weapons systems and that extension would weaken NATO’s hand in negotiating a new agreement that includes China.
That’s just not the case.
Russia has already admitted that its new systems that could be deployed during the lifetime of the Treaty would, in fact, be covered by the New START framework. And the United States cannot hope to negotiate with Russia and China because China will not come to the table. To date, China has refused to engage in any negotiations. Further, with a stockpile of warheads dwarfed by those of Russia and the United States, China’s entry into a trilateral agreement could even give it permission to pursue the aggressive nuclear expansion we all hope to avoid.
In addition to New START, we should consider pursuing agreements that would place augmented constraints on Russia and China. And extending the treaty to 2026 would free up the critical time and resources needed to address the new challenges from China and Russia, which aligns with the Trump Administration’s stated goal of supporting multilateral arms control.
We should be under no illusions that Vladimir Putin or the Russian Government will honor international laws, norms, and agreements. That’s precisely why New START is so valuable. The State Department has affirmed that New START is working and that Russia is complying. NATO will continue to adapt to meet new challenges as it has for 70 years. But we shouldn’t try to fix things that aren’t broken.
The New START Treaty works. It may not be perfect, but it works. Arms control efforts between Russia and the United States should certainly be expanded to include new weapons and rising actors. But to pursue that goal, the United States and Europe shouldn’t tear down what’s already in place and holding Russia’s strategic nuclear inventory in check. With the complex security environment and the increasing number of threats that Europe and the United States face from adversaries like Russia and China, it is critical that the New START Treaty be extended. Without it, the Alliance may not have the bandwidth or the resources to meet the challenges of the decades to come.
