The Ramifications of Pulling Out of the INF Treaty
By Kira Webster
European diplomats are now in a last chance attempt to save the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty between the U.S. and Russia. President Donald Trump announced on Oct. 20th that he planned to withdraw from the treaty. The move was intended to put pressure on Russia, along with announcing plans to develop our own counterpart missile as a bargaining tool. Members in Trump’s cabinet were surprised by the announcement and scheduled a cabinet-level meeting to discuss the future of the decision. However, the meeting was cancelled by National Security Advisor John Bolton with no explanation.
Over the past four years, the U.S. has accused Russia of violating the treaty because of Russia’s development and deployment of new ground-launched medium-range missiles. Russia has denied the accusations and has accused the U.S. of violating as well. They claimed that the United States’ launchers for the interceptors in the Aegis ground-based missile defense system in Romania (and soon to be deployed in Poland) could be used for an offensive missile cruise. While State Department diplomats have support from senior officials in the Defense Department, supporters of INF face harsh opposition from Bolton, who has been a long-time supporter of ending all nuclear arms treaties.
The INF Treaty was signed on December 8, 1987 and has been in effect since June 1988. It outlawed all intermediate-range and shorter range ground-based missiles. The result was the destruction of almost 2,700 missiles, as well as their launchers. In addition, the agreement was instrumental in winding down the Cold War. It also established a control on missiles with ranges between 300 to 3,500 miles in Russia. Without the treaty, Russia would be free to deploy any missiles along its borders in Europe and China.
A group of U.S., Russian, and German nuclear weapons experts – known as the Deep Cuts Commission – said that the “repercussions of a collapse of the treaty could trigger a new arms race, increase the risk of nuclear escalation, and further undermine political relations between the U.S., Russia, and Europe.”
Professor of International Law at Purdue University Dr. Louis Rene Beres stresses the importance of both Congress and U.S. citizens in keeping a diligent watch on President Trump’s temperament towards nuclear war. Beres also advocates putting pressure on the commander-in-chief to take his decisions more seriously and urges the President to do anything he can to reduce stress on an already expanding nuclear arms race between superpowers. Tensions were raised earlier in the year over Trump’s threatened abandonment of nuclear arms treaties being violations of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, a 1968 treaty that committed several nation-states to limiting nuclear arms. The President must also maintain awareness of the fact that U.S. strategy is still heavily connected with international law, and we need our allies behind us if we are to maintain any semblance of international law. With the U.S. pulling out of a nuclear treaties – and there have been talks of Trump on pulling out of the New Start Treaty – it could give countries with nuclear arsenals more liberty to use their weapons.
One key fact that makes pulling out of the INF Treaty a losing situation for us is this: while we could build a missile capable of reaching Moscow undetected, we do not have one now. This could leave an opening for a new arms race, as Russia works to balance our power. Keeping the treaty would also help extend its limits to other countries. Moving forward, the Trump administration could ask Pyongyang to eliminate missiles with ranges over 500 kilometers (a deal that never came to fruition with the Clinton administration) to remove the Korean missile threat to Japan. Israel could also potentially be at lower risk if Iran was offered the same deal. India, China, and Pakistan could also agree to not nuclearize their missiles with ranges below 500 kilometers, keeping their conventional missiles distinct from their nuclear ones. This would bring more of the world’s nuclear arsenals under control.
Putting pressure on Congress to keep the treaty intact, as well as deter President Trump from following through with any rash decisions in the future, is most likely the way to go. While Trump may not seem to understand this, the Supremacy Clause of our Constitution prohibits him from enacting or breaking a law (especially with the gravity of this treaty) purely on his whim of the moment. While he is chief executive, he is not the only faction in our government. Like most democratic-republics, we hold to the concept of separation of powers that keeps any one faction of government from growing too strong.
