Therefore, with or without the treaty, the U.S. and Russia would be forced to accelerate the reduction of their nuclear arsenals while developing more modern weapons. For both countries, arms reduction moves are a must, even without the treaty. The significance of the treaty is that it sanctifies the reductions and boosts mutual confidence by allowing the two sides to cross check each other's progress. The deal, therefore, enhances each side's national security and global stability.

Both sides' parliaments harbored understandable fears that compromises made in reaching the agreement might undermine their national security. The US Congress feared the US missile defense program would be restricted. But in the end missile defense was excluded from the treaty. The Russian State Duma, on the other hand, is fearful Russia's national security will be harmed without restrictions on the US missile defense system. Reportedly, America made other compromises, giving up a request to send personnel to supervise the Votkinsk Machine Building Plant, a Russian nuclear base that produces Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missiles. That the US and Russian administrations can show such flexibility is a sign of growing mutual confidence.

The key point is whether the administrations of the two countries can persuade their parliaments. It is true that American politicians, in particular, have a general hostility to foreign countries. A similar treaty signed by the heads of state of the two countries was aborted in its final stages because of the USSR invasion of Afghanistan. (But the two countries still honored the agreement in practice.)

But apart from that single exception all other nuclear arms control treaties have been ratified. Politicians in both countries are fully aware that even without a treaty, they would have to dismantle some weapons, so why not work together to complete the task?

After the September 11th attack, nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism become a nightmare for all countries. Both the American and Russian policy-makers are eager to preserve the nuclear balance while reducing unnecessary weapons and providing space for other defense development. For this reason they are promoting a worldwide nuclear non-proliferation campaign and aiming to gradually reduce the importance of nuclear weapons as a factor in state security and world politics.

We can be confident that presidents Obama and Medvedev will convince their parliaments. With the interests of the state are involved, the Republicans are likely to give the treaty the final nod. In Russia, the situation is exactly the same.

Effect on the world

The treaty, if ratified, will enhance ties between the two countries. And a better relationship between the world's two superpowers will improve the international political situation and help guarantee the safety of humanity.

Regarding other nuclear weapons states, the effect of the treaty will be limited for the time being. Assuming a second-rank nuclear country has around 200 nuclear weapons, it will take another two rounds of bilateral reductions by the U.S. and Russia before they will be able to persuade others to join the process.

Nevertheless, although it will take time, progress on disarmament will eventually come, and will be of a great significance to the world. President Obama's pledge to move towards zero nuclear weapons, and the concept of a nuclear-free zone first put forward by China 46 years ago, indicate how eager the world is to create a safer environment.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://www.h5a3.com/opinion/node_7082361.htm

(This article was translated by Ren Zhongxi, Pang Li and Chen Xia.)