DATE=4/26/2000
TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP
TITLE=RUSSIA'S AFFIRMATION OF ARMS CONTROL
NUMBER=6-11792
BYLINE=ERIKA EVANS
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS
TELEPHONE=619-2702
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:


INTRO:  Russia's new President, Vladimir Putin, won 
his first major legislative victory this month by 
getting both chambers of parliament to approve the 
START-Two treaty with the United States.  Under the 
treaty, both nations' nuclear arsenals will be cut 
roughly in half.  But while Russia's ratification of 
the agreement was a big victory for Mr. Putin, it may 
cause some trouble for the United States.  Today, U-S 
editorial writers are discussing what could 
potentially hold the START-Two agreement back.

For a sampling of various points of view in American 
press, we turn to _________________ in today's U-S 
Opinion Roundup.


TEXT:  Russia's ratification of the nuclear arms 
treaty, known as START-Two (Strategic Arms Reduction 
Treaty-Two) is welcome news to Washington.  There are 
however, some problems.   

As part of START-Three discussions the United States 
wants Russia's agreement to amend the 1972 Anti-
Ballistic Missile Treaty, which prohibits the 
development of defense systems aimed at repelling 
missile attacks.  The Clinton Administration is 
seeking to renegotiate the terms of the A-B-M treaty 
so as to allow for a limited missile defense against 
nuclear attacks against rogue nations, such as North 
Korea.  

Mr. Putin has warned that Russia would not implement, 
and might even withdraw from, all arms-control pacts 
with the United States if Washington goes ahead with 
missile defenses. 

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in Pennsylvania says that 
since U-S Senate rejected a comprehensive test ban 
treaty last year, it will be a serious challenge for 
President Clinton to get the lawmakers to approve 
provisions in START-Two that would limit missile 
defense.

VOICE: President Clinton now must convince the Russian 
      government that it is in both nuclear powers' 
      interest to amend the A-B-M treaty to allow for 
      such limited defense.  In doing so he will be 
      walking a tightrope.  He must convince President 
      Putin that America's defense system will not be 
      designed to shield this country from an all-out 
      nuclear attack from Russia, and thus will not 
      jeopardize the perversely stabilizing Cold War 
      doctrine of "mutually assured destruction".  
      ...Mr. Clinton, who will visit Moscow in June, 
      should do his best to convince the Russians that 
      their security would not be threatened by a 
      modest A-B-M system directed against rogue 
      nations.  If he fails in that mission, the 
      United States may be left with a painful choice 
      between the stability of the current arms-
      control framework and the promise afforded by a 
      unilateral pursuit of an anti-ballistic system. 

TEXT:  That was the opinion of the Pittsburgh Post-
Gazette.  The Chicago Tribune says Russia can now 
claim to be a leader in arms control and point its 
finger at the United States for trying to destabilize 
a bedrock agreement of mutual deterrence.

VOICE:  This is an unwelcome change in global 
      relations.  Until last October, the U-S could 
      rightly argue it was doing all it could to lead 
      the movement to control the proliferation of 
      nuclear weapons around the world, and that 
      Russia was the obstinate player.  Last October 
      though, the U-S Senate rejected the test ban 
      treaty.  Now Russia has agreed to it.  That puts 
      Russia in the company of Britain and France -- 
      also among the five early nuclear powers - which 
      have signed and ratified the C-T-B-T 
      (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty).  And it lumps 
      the U-S with the only other early nuclear power 
      that has not - China.  ...Though it may argue as 
      such, this is not exactly a case of Russia 
      acting out of nobility.  Russia has significant 
      economic as well as strategic reasons for moving 
      on these long-stalled arms treaties.  It cannot 
      afford to maintain its existing nuclear arsenal, 
      and any reduction in warheads helps free up 
      scarce resources for other military needs.  
      Regardless of motives, Russia has taken the lead 
      and put the U-S on the defensive - and that's 
      not a comfortable position for this nation.

TEXT:  So says the Chicago Tribune.  The Washington 
Times warns that in an effort to strengthen the 
security of the United States and Russia, President 
Clinton must not deal away the country's missile 
defense.

VOICE:  Desperately seeking a foreign-policy legacy, 
      Bill Clinton has cast his eyes on the big-stakes 
      game of nuclear arms control.  Notwithstanding 
      all the failures that mark that legacy to date, 
      the potential for fiasco has never been greater.  
      ...In a world inhabited by virulently anti-
      American rogue states certain to join both the 
      nuclear and the intercontinental ballistic 
      missile clubs in the foreseeable future, 
      America's supreme interests are indisputably 
      jeopardized.  Mr. Clinton's "bargain" is to 
      obtain permission from Mr. Putin to let the 
      United States deploy a vastly inferior, 
      extremely limited A-B-M system.  In exchange, 
      the U-S would unwisely agree to eviscerate 
      reductions in its submarine-launched warheads, 
      which are already scheduled to be reduced by 50-
      percent under START-Two.  It would be a lose-
      lose deal for America, which doesn't need Mr. 
      Putin's permission to protect itself.

TEXT:  And lastly, The Providence Journal in Rhode 
Island offers its opinion.  It says President Clinton 
is in a strong position and should not let it go to 
waste.

VOICE:  The (Clinton) administration might be tempted 
      to resolve the potential impasse by accepting 
      Mr. Putin's conditions, because Mr. Clinton, who 
      has yet to sign any major arms-control 
      agreements with Moscow, seems desperate about 
      creating a "legacy".  But Mr. Clinton's dreams 
      of a personal legacy are nowhere near as 
      important as the realities of his nation's 
      security.  He must keep those priorities 
      straight. Despite all the propagandistic 
      initiatives Russia is likely to engage in, Mr. 
      Clinton is in the driver's seat.  He should 
      speak softly; there's no need to humiliate Mr. 
      Putin specifically or Russia generally.  But 
      neither is there any reason to give in to 
      threats.

TEXT:  With that view from The Providence Journal, we 
conclude this sampling of press reaction to Russia's 
position on nuclear arms control and the American 
government's response.

NEB/ENE/gm  



26-Apr-2000 17:36 PM EDT (26-Apr-2000 2136 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America
.