TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/102191/1021002.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 5.6 KB | 122 lines

                                                                                WORLD, Page 70

AMERICA ABROAD

Heading Off a Chain Reaction


By Strobe Talbott


    Soviet and American diplomats were back at it last week,
trying to make an agreement out of the disarmament bombshells
that George Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev had just finished
lobbing at each other. The latest round of benevolent
one-upmanship is intended to diminish the danger of war, save
money both countries need for domestic spending and set a good
example for the rest of the world.

    That much Bush and Gorbachev acknowledge. But they're also
engaged in a tacit conspiracy to eliminate as many nuclear
weapons as possible from parts of the U.S.S.R. that want to be
independent countries.

    As recently as a few months ago, the leaders of
pro-independence movements in the non-Russian republics were
virtually unanimous in demanding the removal of Soviet nukes.
One parliament after another passed resolutions proclaiming
nuclear-free zones. Popular support for such measures was
strongest in Ukraine and Belorussia, which are permanently
scarred by the Chernobyl disaster, and Kazakhstan, where
radioactive "venting" from underground testing at Semipalatinsk
has caused generations of children to be born deformed and
diseased.

    The leaders in the outlying republics are an odd mix. Some
were dissidents under the old regime; others were minions of
Moscow who embraced nationalism only when it was expedient. When
the abortive coup in August accelerated the disintegration of
the union, sovereignty went from a slogan to a realistic,
negotiable objective. Provincial politicians looked in the
mirror and saw statesmen and strategists. They started having
second thoughts about whether sending local Soviet missile crews
packing was a good idea after all. Nuclear storage facilities
and launch sites suddenly looked less like imperial outposts and
more like valuable assets that might come in handy as the
republics bargain with the Kremlin over the terms of
confederation or secession: You want your ICBMs back? O.K., but
first you'll have to agree to the following 87 points in our
declaration of independence.

    "Almost overnight these guys have seen an impossible dream
come within reach," says Roger Molander, a strategic analyst at
the Rand Corp. "They look at the leverage they've got in their
dealings with Moscow, and they say to themselves, `Hey! Here's
the chance of a millennium. Let's go for it!' "

    Some leaders in the republics are almost surely thinking
about more than just the trade-in value of all that lethal
hardware in their midst. They may be asking themselves, What's
the ultimate status symbol and guarantee of sovereignty in the
late 20th century? One tempting, though dangerous answer: a
nuclear arsenal of one's very own.

    Officials in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belorussia have been
dropping broad hints that they want at least to preserve the
option of eventually commandeering nuclear-weapons facilities
under their jurisdiction and running up their own flags over the
command-and-control bunkers.

    Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk, the prototypical
born-again nationalist, is in the habit of referring to all
Soviet weapons in his republic as "ours." He enjoys pointing out
that Ukraine would be the third largest nuclear power on earth,
after the U.S. and whatever is left of the U.S.S.R. Kazakhstan
would be fourth. Belorussia would be in the next echelon with
Britain, France and China.

    In an interview with CNN last week, Alexei Arbatov, an
expert on international security in Moscow, asked, "Who knows
what might happen in even half a year? Extremist forces [in
the republics] might claim the right" to their own nukes.

    If the Soviet stockpile, like the Soviet Union itself,
mimics nuclear fission and splits into smaller pieces, the
result could be a burst of proliferation throughout the Eurasian
landmass. Just one example: if a free Ukraine were to have its
own Bomb, Poland might want one too. Sooner or later, Germany
would feel compelled to rethink its policy of remaining a
nuclear have-not.

    To avert that kind of chain reaction, the Bush
Administration is trying to dissuade the republics from making
proprietary claims to whatever weapons of mass destruction
remain within their borders once the latest arms-cut agreement
is implemented. When traveling to the U.S.S.R. or receiving
Soviet visitors in Washington, American officials issue a blunt
warning: U.S. political and economic support for the republics
will depend on their willingness to leave control over all
nuclear forces firmly in the hands of the central government.

    There is a certain logic and appeal to this injunction.
Even if the would-be founding fathers of some would-be new
countries harbor nuclear ambitions, they know perfectly well
which republic will end up with the most warheads and launchers
stationed on its territory: Russia. The Ukrainians, Kazakhs,
Belorussians and the rest would prefer that all that megatonnage
remain Gorbachev's responsibility rather than become the
property of Boris Yeltsin.

    Nothing personal against Yeltsin here. He's been a
champion of democracy. But no one can be sure about Yeltsin's
successors. The other republics don't want to break free of
their decades- or centuries-old bonds to Moscow only to live in
the shadow of a nuclear-armed Russia. In the end, they may even
settle for something less than total sovereignty, ceding what
they see as their nuclear rights to a higher and larger
authority, if only to be sure that Russia does the same thing.