Nuclear arms treaty

The goal is clear and shared by both countries. Russia and the US want to reduce their number of nuclear missiles and replace the old bilateral START arms reduction treaty, which will expire at the end of the year, with a new arms control pact. A preliminary meeting between the two sides has been described by the Russian Foreign Ministry as "constructive" and "businesslike," increasing the expectations for a positive outcome.

"I think generally the chances for success are very good", says Oliver Meier, International Representative of the Arms Control Association. "Both sides on the major issues are really not far apart. They have the same ideas in mind in terms of overall reductions in warheads," he added.

"They have the same preferences in terms of having a legally binding, verifiable treaty. The problem is that the timetable is very challenging because they are aiming for an agreement in the next couple of months and that will be very tough."

If, as expected, it takes longer to solve the remaining differences, such as whether to include stored warheads as Russia wants or not include them as the US wants, the existing START treaty could simply be extended beyond its expiration date at the end of the year.

As an alternative, another similar treaty could be signed until a more ambitious arms deal is reached in a second round of talks.

Different categories of nuclear powers

While the prospects to strike a deal with Russia look positive, President Barack Obama has a much loftier vision which he announced in his speech in Prague in April: A world free of nuclear weapons.

But could a new arms control agreement between the US and Russia, which combined possess at least 90 percent of all nuclear weapons, really put that much pressure on other nuclear powers and launch a global trend towards nuclear disarmament?

Miles Pomper, a Senior Research Associate at the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies, cautions against unrealistic expectations of a Russian-American arms deal on other nations with nuclear weapons.

"What it might do is within the non-proliferation treaty process it would convince other countries of the goodwill of the United States and Russia to meet their commitments to make steps toward nuclear disarmament and by doing that those other countries could increase the pressure on the Irans and North Koreas (of this world) to comply with their non-proliferation commitments. But it's not a kind of direct correlation."

The experts point out that it is important to consider that the countries possessing nuclear weapons can't simply be lumped together. The first category of nations, consisting of the states recognized by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, includes France, Britain and China. Getting them involved in arms reduction negotiations would probably be easier than to approach the second group of countries, consisting of India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, states that are not formally recognized by the non-proliferation treaty.

Of the official nuclear powers, Britain and China tend to be open towards international nuclear disarmament while France has taken a more reluctant stance towards disarmament.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was speaking about a nuclear free world even before Barack Obama and China traditionally had voiced a preference for a nuclear weapons free world, the experts point out.

It's a whole different story with the group of unofficial nuclear states. With them it's all about regional security, says Oliver Meier.

"If you go talk about Israel of course you have the problem of the Middle East, you have the problem of Iran and very much will depend on what progress is made in the Middle East.

"India and Pakistan, of course you have the situation in South Asia, the rivalry between those states. And North Korea is anybody's bet. That is at the moment very difficult to predict what policy North Korea is pursuing."

Political climate has changed

While it is helpful to keep Obama's vision - a nuclear free world - in mind, it is important to focus on the concrete steps that have to be taken first by Russia and the US. To merely amend or extend the existing START treaty in a first round of negotiations will take time.

To hammer out a new deal with more aggressive cuts in nuclear weapons will require even more patience, says Miles Pomper.

"Just those two negotiations might take all of Obama's first term, assuming there's a second term. So I think until you get those you can't really judge the third round and maybe bringing other countries into the negotiations."

Obama of course knows himself that the goal of a nuclear free world is a political marathon, not a sprint. In his speech in Prague, he admitted that this goal may not be reached in his lifetime. Still, the global political conditions for a long time haven't been as conducive to nuclear arms reductions as they are right now.

"We now have from a range of people and governments a list of proposals how to move forward towards that goal," argues Oliver Meier.

"For the first time in many, many years we have that discussion being led by a range of political actors, but also by the public, who have not taken this goal serious before. And of course to have the United States in the leadership role has changed the political dynamics a lot."

Author: Michael Knigge

Editor: Robert Mudge