0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
302 $
AUGUST 2020

China Rejects Expanded INF Treaty, John Bolton Says New START Will Fall Apart By 2021

Donate

China Rejects Expanded INF Treaty, John Bolton Says New START Will Fall Apart By 2021

Click to see full-size image

On July 30th, China rejected being part of an expanded INF treaty, as per Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying.

The exchange, during the press briefing was the following:

“Q: Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono said on July 29 that countries that are not signed parties to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) are enlarging their arsenals. If this treaty is no longer effective, there must be a new framework covering the US, Russia, China, the UK and France. On the same day, US Secretary of State Pompeo said that he hopes China can be part of the strategic dialogue between the US and Russia, and that China should be part of the relevant agreement. I wonder if you have any response to that?

A: China has made clear its position on the INF Treaty on many occasions.

China is concerned about and opposed to the possible annulment of this treaty due to the US unilateral withdrawal from the treaty. We hope the US and Russia can resolve differences through dialogue and make efforts to preserve the treaty. It will be good for global strategic stability, regional peace and security and mutual trust between major countries.

Regarding the expansion of the INF Treaty, as a bilateral treaty between the US and Russia, its expansion will lead to a series of complex issues covering political, military, legal and other areas. Many countries have concerns about it. China will not agree to it either. The so-called “new framework” proposed by Mr. Kono in its essence is not new at all. It won’t help to preserve the INF Treaty. Instead, it only finds or rather gives the US new excuses for its unilateral withdrawal from the treaty.”

Chunying stressed that China’s defensive policy was defensive in its nature, development of intermediate-range missiles is entirely defensive.

“The real intention of the US withdrawal is to make the treaty no longer binding on itself,” she said.

She furthermore, said that these claims were attempts to simply shift blame on China by the US, in justification of some questionable actions, mostly related to nuclear disarmament.

“Mr. Pompeo is also shifting the blames by saying China can be part of the relevant dialogue and agreement between the US and Russia. China stands for the comprehensive prohibition and complete elimination of nuclear weapons. However, nuclear disarmament should follow a basic principle, which is international recognized, that the security of all countries shall not be undermined.”

US National Security Adviser and avid war enthusiast John Bolton said that the New START treaty between US and Russia would likely not last past 2021.

He made the claim during his speech at the 41st annual National Conservative Student Conference.

All that he has to say can be heard in the following video:

HINT: Bolton begins speaking at approximately the 33rd minute mark.

He confirmed that US would withdraw from the INF on August 2nd.

“This Friday will mark the official end of the INF treaty when the United States withdraws”, Bolton said.

He reminded of some allegedations against Russia, and as has been constantly circulating in MSM, the entire blame of the unilateral US withdrawal from yet another commitment is blamed on the other side. This time – on China, in addition to Russia.

He alleged violations of the treaty by Russia, claiming that Moscow continues to develop advanced ballistic and hypersonic delivery systems while modernizing its inventory, and stressed that China continues developing intermediate-range arms while the United States has its “hands tied” by the INF.

Regarding the New START, he said that no final decision had been made, but it was unlikely to be extended.

“The New START nuclear agreement, which was ratified in 2010, was flawed from the beginning. It did not cover short-range tactical nuclear weapons or new Russian delivery systems. It is due to expire in February 2021, and while no decision has been made, it is unlikely to be extended. Why extend the flawed system just to say you have a treaty?” Bolton asked rhetorically.

New START was signed in 2010, and is currently the only Russian-US arms control treaty. Russia has repeatedly stressed that it is open to dialogue on the future of the treaty. (Since, in February the US suspended its obligations under the INF, it simply took it several months to finalize the termination of the treaty).

Earlier in July, Russia and US top officials met in Geneva for strategic talks. According to Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, who led the Russian delegation, the two sides thoroughly discussed the extension of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

In an interview with C-Span on July 30th, US President Donald Trump said that he was expecting to reach an arms control agreement with Russia, completely opposite of what Bolton keeps saying.

“I think we are going to end making a deal with Russia where we have some kind of an arms control, because all we are doing is adding on what we don’t need and they are, too”, Trump said.

According to MSM reports, Trump raised the idea of a new three-way accord, including China, during June’s G-20 Summit in Osaka with Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Whether that is actually true, is unclear, and China appears to be disinterested in it, regardless.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Lazy Gamer

    So where does it leave the nations that bound themselves to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons? lol Technology does not flow backward and you can bet on man’s distrust/aggression for his neighbor as there are indeed grounds to do so. lol

    • Sinbad2

      The treaty only applied to the USA and the Soviet Union, it’s the INF treaty, and the US broke that treaty when it introduced THAAD claiming it’s a defense system.

      The USA Europe/NATO Russia China Japan Australia were never party to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

      Mixing your treaties will get you drunk.

      • Lazy Gamer

        I did mix them because they both deal with the issue of nukes and i was talking in a general manner. To get the gist of what i was saying, it is like here is china, trying to increase its arsenal for security reasons while the rest of the world are honorable idiots. Comprende?

        • Sinbad2

          China has 200 nukes, the US 7,000.

  • Rob

    Bolton and Pompeo both should enjoy Lollypops. INF dead since Trump withdrew from INF.

  • Hrky75

    Funny fact – neither Japan or S Korea – countries well within range of intermediary range chinese missiles push for China joining INF Treaty. Only a country that can be poten

    • Sinbad2

      Japan and South Korea only speak when America tells them to speak.

      • Xoli Xoli

        Their are control with Samsung Android remote controls.Bomb with Atomic and silence with weapon carriers and B52

  • Brother Ma

    So who cares ? It was only signed in 2010 right? And due to expire in 2 years. So big deal !The US unilaterally pulled out as it obviously doesn’t like the fact that China and Russia has outsmarted it in tech and strategy. Be damned with it ,China and Russia should just say fine ,gloves are off ,we can get you any time we want and research more weapons!

    Is my logic flawed?

    • grumpy_carpenter

      “Is my logic flawed?”

      In a way. You’re ignoring the fact that nuclear nations are down to around 15 minutes to figure out if what your intel is telling you is an attack or a computer glitch and make the decision to launch a retaliation. If there is no checks and limitations on weapons how do you know if your radars are picking up a shooting star or the launch of a secret space based nuclear weapon.

      Say you get an informer who tells you that your enemy is planning to launch a fleet of nuclear armed satellites that will be able to rain hell on your country with no warning. Do you launch a preemptive strike or let them get their satellites operational then try to find a solution while under their complete domination? No limitation agreements leads to a world or nuclear hair triggers.

  • cechas vodobenikov

    the USA cannot be trusted….”amerikans have been liars and braggarts for 3 centuries”. Daniel Boorstin
    “Obama’s job is to lie to a nation of liars”. Kiese Laymon
    “the state always reflects the desires and values of its people”. E Durkheim

  • Tudor Miron

    US is so predictable :) They realise that they are far behind in new types of weapons development and now they want to take advantage by destroying old treaties. But west is not the world, world is much bigger than west and world is taking notice.

    • Sinbad2

      The cost of moving their bases from Korea and Japan would cost trillions.

      • Tudor Miron

        They think that they can print thar green paper endlesly.

  • Toronto Tonto

    No more deals with the Russian and Chinese thieves , boycott all there junk .

    • Sinbad2

      Exactly no more deals, the Americans never honour their agreements only a fool would sign a treaty with the Americans.

      Ask any native American what an American treaty is worth and he will show you a toilet.
      They have always been liars and thieves.

  • Sinbad2

    Why would China want to tie one hand behind its back to please the barbarians?
    Obviously they want to be able to destroy every American asset they can get at.
    So missiles that can reach Japan Korea Australia Guam Diego Garcia are necessary for defense.

    The Americans should think about forward deploying to Antarctica.

  • Xoli Xoli

    USA NATO is precisely like Satan who is pulling humanity to hell because of his own nonsense by challenging God.