Russia Suspends Arms Agreement Over U.S. Shield

Russia Suspends Arms Agreement Over U.S. Shield

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/wo...gewanted=print

By ANDREW E. KRAMER and THOM SHANKER
July 15, 2007

MOSCOW, July 14 — President Vladimir V. Putin, angered by American plans to deploy a missile shield in Eastern Europe, formally notified NATO governments on Saturday that Russia will suspend its obligations under the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, a key cold war-era arms limitation agreement.

The decision ratcheted up tensions over the missile shield plan, but also reflected a trend of rising anti-Americanism and deep suspicion toward the West here as Russia’s March presidential elections approach.

Russia’s suspension will take effect in 150 days, according to a copy of the president’s decree posted on a Kremlin Web site. That delay leaves open the possibility of further negotiation on the 1990 treaty, which resulted in a huge wave of disarmament along the former East-West divide in Europe.

Despite a Foreign Ministry statement that Russia would reject any limitations on redeploying heavy weaponry on its Western border, the Kremlin’s move is not expected to radically transform the security situation.

But the decision is a strong indicator that the smiles and warm embraces between Presidents Bush and Putin just a few weekends ago at the so-called lobster summit in Maine did little to soften the Kremlin’s pique over proposals to build two American missile defense bases in former Soviet satellite states, Poland and the Czech Republic.

So on Saturday, Mr. Putin reached for a powerful diplomatic tool to fend off what he has described as American bullying and NATO and European encirclement, both economic and military, that the Kremlin believes encroaches into a Russian sphere of influence. White House officials expressed immediate disappointment after the announcement from Moscow, but pledged to continue to meet with their Russian counterparts to resolve the dispute.

“We’re disappointed Russia has suspended its participation for now, but we’ll continue to have discussions with them in the coming months on the best way to proceed in this area, that is in the interest of all parties involved and provides for security in Europe,” said Gordon D. Johndroe, the National Security Council spokesman.

Critics of the United States’ handling of relations with Russia have warned that the Bush administration was creating an environment in which the Putin government, emboldened by a flood of oil dollars and seeking to re-establish its status in the world, could pick and choose among its treaty obligations. After all, the Bush administration has put less stock in official treaty relations than many predecessors. Under Mr. Bush, the United States pulled out of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty so it could pursue the goal of a global antimissile shield, the exact effort that has so angered Mr. Putin and his inner circle.

Indeed, the Saturday announcement from Moscow was not much of a surprise, given Mr. Putin’s earlier warnings. Bush administration officials routinely point to other significant areas of cooperation — on halting nuclear proliferation, on battling terrorism and combating drug traffic — so White House officials reject assessments that relations with Russia are on the point of rupturing.

But while the Saturday announcement was, at least, unsettling to officials in Washington and in NATO capitals, senior policy analysts said it is likely only to strengthen the position of Mr. Putin’s leadership clique among Russian voters in the spring elections. Anti-American posturing has played well with the public, and it is encouraged in the state news media and through such means as leaflets distributed by Kremlin-sponsored youth groups. One depicts American warplanes loading body bags at a Moscow airport, for example.

Mr. Putin’s decree explained the decision to indefinitely suspend Russia’s treaty obligations as caused by “extraordinary circumstances” that “affect the security of the Russian Federation and require immediate measures.”

A separate statement by the Foreign Ministry identified these circumstances as unrelated to the missile shield plans — though Mr. Putin has linked the issues in previous speeches. In the most notable case, during a state of the nation speech to Parliament on April 26, Mr. Putin threatened to suspend observance of the treaty in response to the United States’ abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and plans to deploy missile-shield elements in the Czech Republic and Poland.

Still, Mr. Putin’s threat in April, and his execution of it on Saturday, left some arms-control experts scratching their heads because the conventional forces treaty has no formal provision for a signatory nation to suspend observance. A nation can withdraw from the treaty without violating its terms, but only after notifying the other signatory countries 150 days in advance.

The decree Mr. Putin signed on Saturday adhered to that time frame, but sought to apply it to suspension instead of withdrawal. The foreign ministry said this formulation complied with “international law.”

The Kremlin on Saturday offered six reasons for suspending the treaty, many of which reflected a deep bitterness in Moscow about what is perceived here as a string of broken promises as NATO expanded into the former Warsaw Pact countries after the fall of communism.

They included a claim that NATO expansion into Eastern Europe had beefed up the alliance’s military capabilities in violation of the treaty, a charge that NATO denied.

The statement said the new NATO member nations of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are not signatories of the treaty but have alliance weapons deployed on their territories. Russia maintains that NATO committed in 1999 to refrain from opening bases in new member countries, though now the United States is building facilities in Romania and Bulgaria. NATO says those are training sites.

Also, the statement noted that NATO governments have not ratified the 1999 amendments to the treaty, which Russia ratified in 2004. Western governments say they will not ratify them until Russia withdraws troops from the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Moldova.

In a statement, NATO said member countries would convene a task force on Monday to formulate a response.

“NATO regrets this decision,” James Appathurai, a NATO spokesman, said in a telephone interview. “The allies consider this treaty an important foundation of European security. This is a disappointing move in the wrong direction.”

He said the treaty has no provision for suspension, only withdrawal. “Nobody is going to be splitting hairs here and requiring Russia withdraw,” he added. He also denied that NATO’s eastward expansion left the bloc in violation of the treaty. “All of this falls into a larger Russian concern of encirclement,” he said.

The European Union called the treaty suspension “regrettable.” Cristina Gallach, spokeswoman for the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said in a telephone interview: “We appeal to everyone to start talking. This treaty is fundamental for the stability and security of Europe.”

In Germany, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Russia’s decision “was a real cause of concern.” Some members of Germany’s governing coalition have repeatedly criticized the American missile shield plan, saying it could lead to just such a move by Russia.

A statement posted by Russia’s Foreign Ministry said flatly that Russia would halt inspections allowed under the treaty and claim the right to redeploy heavy weaponry along its western and southern borders, but would do so only in response to any possible NATO redeployment. It also suggested that the suspension was Russia’s first official rejection of the arms limitations treaties of the Soviet Union.

A deputy foreign minister, Sergei I. Kislyak, said Russia was not “shutting the door on dialogue” on the treaty, leaving open the possibility of a negotiated retreat from the position announced Saturday.

However, Russian commentators with ties to the Kremlin were quick to praise the suspension. “Today’s decision is not propaganda,” Gleb O. Pavlovsky, a Kremlin-linked political analyst, said in remarks carried by Interfax. It comes “against the backdrop of the world’s rearmament near our borders,” he said. “If today’s message is ignored, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty will be next.”