some multilateral formats in the form of the treaties on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, prohibition of their placement in the outer space, the CTBT, etc.
But the nuclear forces of the third NWSs have not so far been directly constrained. The transition from a bilateral nuclear disarmament to a multilateral format implies such constraints.
The above-mentioned difficulties do not mean that the expanding of the number of countries involved in the process of nuclear disarmament is impossible in principle, although it will be a much more difficult task than 40 years of negotiations between Moscow and Washington.
It seems that the availability of political will, the combined efforts of the two leading nuclear powers (as well as, of course, the continuation of their bilateral negotiations and agreements in this area) could, in principle, make the transition to multilateral nuclear disarmament possible.
However, this reformatting will not take the form of a model of the direct accession of the ‘Two’ (Great Britain and France),
‘Three’ (Great Britain, France and China) and ‘Four’ (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) to the US-Russian negotiations.
4.2. Several forums of a bilateral format will be a more likely option in the foreseeable future (2020–2030):
• Great Britain / France – Russia;
• the USA – China;
• Russia – China (highly questionable);
• China – India (also difficult);
• India – Pakistan.
Some coordination between these forums would be a crowning achievement of the US and Russian diplomacies.
In a number of cases, the third NWSs will have to rely on technical verification means of Russia and the United States, or special international bodies (within the framework of the UN or IAEA).
4.3. European powers. All previous attempts of the USSR to ‘combine’ the strategic nuclear forces of the European states and the USA and limit them by a single ceiling were rejected by the West on the grounds that the British and French nuclear forces constitute national rather than collective deterrents. In the future, this position is unlikely to change2. A huge asymmetry in the SNF
2 The first such attempt was made in the framework of the SALT-1 Agreement in 1972, and then in the negotiations on the SALT-2 at the end of the 1970s, and in the 1987 INF Treaty.
of the parties will impede separate negotiations between Russia and the two European states.
Willingness of Britain and France to accept at least some measures of confidence building, transparency and inspection of the New START ‘menu’ would have a significant positive value as a precedent and an example for other countries, especially China. But the two European states probably would not agree to treat such measures as a legally binding limitation of their nuclear arms (even according to the unilateral adoption of relevant modernization programs), since it may be perceived as the acknowledgement of the Russian nuclear superiority.
Regarding the commitment of Great Britain and France not to build up their nuclear forces, Russia’s agreement to negotiate on tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) could be a significant additional argument to interest the USA and NATO.
4.4. China. China is very likely to be progressively involved in the nuclear arms limitation process. But wishful thinking about expanding the number of participants in nuclear arms control would hardly play any role in this process. China’s involvement is possible only on a purely pragmatic basis. It will occur, if Beijing comes to the conclusion that Chinese concessions in the field of transparency and arms limitations are being recouped by US concessions (and, by default, Russian ones) on the issues of interest to Beijing.
China sets out many conditions, but the real prerequisite of its consent to nuclear arms control negotiations is apparently the recognition by the United States (and implicitly by Russia) of China’s right to possess a nuclear deterrence capability in relation to the two nuclear superpowers, despite the lack of the strategic parity with them. This condition implies a commitment of the two major nuclear powers not to try to weaken the Chinese deterrence capability through offensive means (nuclear and conventional) and defensive systems (the US missile defences in the Pacific and the Russian Aerospace Defences east of the Urals).
It would be difficult for the USA to agree to the Chinese conditions in the light of its security obligations involving American allies and partners (Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan). For Russia, it would not be easy either because of the growing gap between the RF and PRC in the number of conventional forces in Siberia and the Far East.
Thus, China’s involvement in the nuclear arms limitation process implies not only modifications of the Chinese course but also a substantial revision of the American and Russian military policies.
Real prerequisites of China’s consent to a phased opening of its strategic armaments and to their limitation (or at least restriction) may include:
- the US obligation not to build up sea and land-based BMD in the Pacific Ocean;
- a joint US-Russian obligation that, in case of an agreement between them on cooperation in the field of BMD development within the framework of individual projects (for example, the data exchange from their missile launches warning systems), China may participate in the arrangement (in a way acceptable to the PRC);
- the transition of Russia and the USA to negotiations on a new START, including the elimination of strategic carriers, limitation of high-precision conventional weapons and boost-glide systems (which is also of interest to Russia);
- progress in the US-Russian non-strategic nuclear arms control which would make it possible to address the issue of transparancy and limitation of Chinese intermediate- and shorter-range systems;
- rejection of the NATO proposal toredeploy Russian non-strategic weapons to the eastern part of the country.
A bilateral dialogue between the USA and China is a most probable format of negotiations (in parallel with the US-Russian negotiations on START and alongside with regular strategic consultations between Russia and China). A trilateral format is possible (on cooperation in the BMD area, for example, data exchanges between the early warning systems.)
4.5. South Asia. Rough parity and uniformity of the nuclear