The Collapse of Nuclear Arms-Control Treaties
5 December 2024, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)
The United States withdrew from two nuclear-arms-control treaties with Russia, and from the one nuclear-arms-control treaty with Iran (which isn’t even a nuclear-weapons nation). America is the only nation yet to have cancelled a nuclear-arms-control treaty that it had ratified; and it did this three times.
The purpose of the U.S. Government in these treaties has been to avoid placing nuclear weaponry under the control of the United Nations, which latter goal had been the intention of the U.N.’s inventor and designer, the anti-imperialist Franklin Delano Roosevelt, until he died and his desire quickly became warped by his immediate successor, the pro-imperialist Harry Truman, who turned the U.N. into a mere talking-forum, no world-government at all. So, for the U.S. Government, these armaments-treaties have been a mere holding-action until the U.S. Goverment would ultimately take control over the entire world (all other Governments). This was Truman’s imperialist intent, in direct violation of FDR’s plan. The U.N.’s officials therefore represent Truman, not FDR. (‘Historians’ have hidden this crucial fact from the public, as a consequence of which, ‘historians’ have misrepresented FDR’s plan for the post-WW-II world in which empires would be violations of international law. For example, on Decermber 4th, the neocon — i.e., pro U.S.-imperialism — Netflix ‘historical’ documentary series, “Churchill at War”, was introduced, presenting Churchill not as the Cecil Rhodes acolyte racist, war-craving, champion of imperialism that he actually was, but as the greatest hero of WW2 and champion of “freedom” — which is antithetical to ANY empire. FDR was the actual avatar of both of those positive attributes. Churchill was, to the contrary, so obsessively a champion of imperialism, that his team drew up for the new President Truman their proposed plan called “Operation Unthinkable”, a joint U.S.-UK invasion to conquer the Soviet Union, proposed to start on 1 July 1945; but, instead, Truman decided only on 25 July 1945 to start the Cold War, to achieve the same ultimate objective but far more slowly.)
For the Soviet Union after WW2, the goal was to place all nuclear weapons under the control of the United Nations, as FDR had intended; but, since the U.S. Government under Truman would not allow this, the purpose of the Soviet Union’s participation in arms-control treaties was to accept the U.S. Government’s alternative, which was arms-control treaties, instead of disarmament under international law, and signed them, and continued to adhere to them. Intra-national, instead of inter-national, control of these weapons, was America’s demand, so as to keep the U.N. out of the matter, and Russia has always tried to make the best it could, under that U.S.-imposed circumstance.
All of these facts will be documented here, so that the ‘historians’ will have these facts shoved in their faces:
.
On 19 September 1959, at the U.N. General Assembly, the Soviet Representative headlined “Declaration of the Soviet Government on General and Complete Disarmament”, and presented a series of proposals, including:
.
“Declaration of the Soviet Government on General and Complete Disarmament”
September 19, 1959
P. 14:
The Soviet Government proposes that the programme of general and complete disarmament should be carried out within as short a time-limit as possible — within a period of four years.
The following measures are proposed for the first stage:
The reduction, under appropriate control, of the strength of the armed forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China to the level of 1.7 million men, and of the United Kingdom and France to the level of 650,000 men;
The reduction of the armed forces of other states to levels to be agreed upon at a special session of the United Nations General Assembly or at a world conference on general and complete disarmament;
The reduction of the armaments and military equipment at the disposal of the armed forces of States to the extent necessary to ensure that the remaining quantity of armaments corresponds to the level fixed for the armed forces.
The following is proposed for the second stage:
The completion of the disbandment of the armed forces retained by States;
The elimination of all military bases in the territories of foreign States; troops and military personnel shall be withdrawn from the territories of foreign States to within their own national frontiers and shall be disbanded.
The following is for the third stage:
The destruction of all types of nuclear weapons and missiles;
The destruction of air force equipment;
The entry into force of the prohibition on the production, possession and storage of means of chemical and biological weapons in the possession of States shall be removed and destroyed under international supervision;
Scientific research for military purposes and the development of weapons and military equipment shall be prohibited;
War ministries, general staffs and all military and paramilitary establishments and organizations shall be abolished;
All military courses and training shall be terminated. States shall prohibit by law the military education of young people.
In accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, States shall enact legislation abolishing military service in all of its forms — compulsory, voluntary, by recruitment, and so forth. …
(4) Conclusion of a non-aggression pact between the member States of NATO and the member States of the Warsaw Treaty
.
The U.S. response came a few months later at the “Conference of the Ten Nation Committee on Disarmament”:
.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/unoda-web/documents/library/conf/TNCD-PV6.pdf
“Conference of the Ten Nation Committee on Disarmament”
22 March 1960
Final Verbatim Record of the Sixth Meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva
P. 36:
Mr. Eaton (United States of America): I have no intention of entering into this discussion on foreign bases. I think the discussions that we have had here this morning have indicated that we shall run into political problems at the very earliest stage, problems on which earlier conferences have foundered. I would only say that the forces of my Government are only employed outside my own country and within my own country for the purpose of defending both ourselves and those of our allies who wish to be associated with us, who welcome our troops as a part of theirs and as a part of the allied defences, and for no other reason. Whenever the time comes when these troops need not be employed, for defensive purposes only, there need be no doubt in the mind of anyone here that those forces will be withdrawn.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/unoda-web/documents/library/conf/TNCD-PV46.pdf
“Conference of the Ten Nation Committee on Disarmament”
24 June 1960
Final Verbatim Record of the Forty-Sixth Meeting, Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, p. 4:
Mr. Nosek (Czechoslovakia): What did Mr. Eaton propose? He proposed the introduction of control measures. … exclusively with measures of control, that is with the old and well-known requirement of the United States — the introduction of control over armaments. Apparently with a view to misleading world public opinion, which requires a concrete discussion of general and complete disarmament, the United States representatives are beginning to prefer — for tactical reasons — to call those measures not “partial measures” but “initial steps” on the road to general and complete disarmament under effective international control.
.
https://b-ok.cc/book/5398150/073f73 — removed by U.S. Department of Justice but archived here:
.
“The United Nations and Space Security: Conflicting Mandates” p. 17:
This [obfuscation and evasion by the U.S. (which on p. 16 was referred to as merely “proposals directed towards the establishment of control without disarmament”)] ultimately led [on 28 June 1960] to the USSR, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania not attending the 48th meeting of the Ten-Nation Committee, which signalled the end of these discussions in the Committee.
The U.S. Government refused to discuss the Soviet Union’s proposal for all war-weaponry to be placed under U.N. command, and decision-making only by the U.N., to enforce only U.N. laws — no longer under the command of individual nations.
Consequently, the U.S. Government had its way on this matter; and, so, all that there has been are treaties to ‘control’ nuclear weapons, not to eliminate them from posing the danger of a usage of them that would be in violation of international law.
So: here is how that — the U.S.-imposed ‘arms-control’ approach — has gone:
.
https://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/NMHB2020rev/chapters/chapter12.html
“List of Nuclear-Related Treaties and International Agreements”
[I include only the main ones here:]
Opened for signature: 1959| Entry into force: 1961
Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water (Limited Test Ban Treaty or LTBT)
Opened for signature: 1963|Entry into force: 1963
Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or NPT)
Opened for signature: 1968|Entry into force: 1970
Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty or ABM Treaty)
Signed: 1972|Entry into force: 1972|U.S. Withdrawal: 2002
[1972-2002
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty
Unilateral United States withdrawal[edit]
On 13 December 2001, George W. Bush gave Russia notice of the United States' unilateral withdrawal from the treaty, in accordance with the clause that required six months' notice before terminating the pact—the first time in recent history that the United States has withdrawn from a major international arms treaty.[23] This led to the eventual creation of the American Missile Defense Agency.[24]
Supporters of the withdrawal claimed that it was a necessity in order to test and build a limited National Missile Defense to protect the United States from nuclear blackmail by a rogue state. However, the withdrawal had many foreign and domestic critics, who said the construction of a missile defense system would lead to fears of a U.S. nuclear first strike, as the missile defense could blunt the retaliatory strike that would otherwise deter such a preemptive attack. John Rhinelander, a negotiator of the ABM treaty, predicted that the withdrawal would be a "fatal blow" to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and would lead to a "world without effective legal constraints on nuclear proliferation". Former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry also criticized the U.S. withdrawal as a very bad decision.[25]]
Interim Agreement Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Certain Measures with Respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks or SALT I [& SALT II], & superseded by START I in 1991])
Signed: 1972|Entry into force: 1972
Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitations of Underground Nuclear Weapon Tests (Threshold Test Ban Treaty or TTBT)
Signed: 1974|Entry into force: 1990
Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Underground Nuclear Explosions for Peaceful Purposes (Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty or PNET)
Signed: 1976|Entry into force: 1990
Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty or SALT II)
Signed: 1979|SALT II never entered into force, although both sides complied with its provisions until 1986
Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty or INF Treaty)
Signed: 1987|Entry into force: 1988|U.S. Withdrawal: 2019
[1987-2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty
US withdrawal and termination[edit]
See also: Nuclear arms race and Cold War II
The US declared its intention to withdraw from the treaty on 20 October 2018, citing the previous violations of the treaty by Russia.[7][12][13] This prompted Putin to state that Russia would not launch first in a nuclear conflict but would "annihilate" any adversary, essentially re-stating the policy of "Mutually Assured Destruction". Putin claimed Russians killed in such a conflict "will go to heaven as martyrs".[68]
It was also reported that the US need to counter a Chinese arms buildup in the Pacific, including within South China Sea, was another reason for their move to withdraw, because China was not a signatory to the treaty.[7][12][13] US officials extending back to the presidency of Barack Obama have noted this.]
Signed: 1991|Entry into force: 1994 [expired 2009; was to be replaced by START II which never was ratified]
Signed: 1993|START II never entered into force
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)
Opened for signature: 1996|CTBT never entered into force
Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions (Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, SORT, or Moscow Treaty)
Signed: 2002|Entry into force: 2003 [expired in 2011]
Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START Treaty)
Signed: 2010|Entry into force: 2011 [expires in 2026]
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) (aka the Iran nuclear deal)
Signed: 2015|United States terminated participation: 2018
.
PS: If you like this article, please email it to all your friends or otherwise let others know about it. None of the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media will likely publish it (nor link to it, since doing that might also hurt them with Google or etc.). I am not asking for money, but I am asking my readers to spread my articles far and wide, because I specialize in documenting what the Deep State is constantly hiding. This is, in fact, today’s samizdat.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
Richard c. Cook at global research news hadan article posted. In the first paragraph he states that before ww2 TheCouncil on Foreign Relations submitted to the FDR administration a paper calling for full spectrum military domination by the U.S. after the war.