Dear CCI Followers wherever you are!
In this post-Thanksgiving holiday weekend, I want you to know that we are deeply grateful for each of you who have been helpful to CCI’s work in the past and now into the present.
I opened emails this morning and found a message from Anatoly Chistyakov, one of our Russian PEP Fellows from out in Rybinsk (where weary Volga boatmen pulled small boats across a tiny isthmus with ropes!). Anatoly’s PEP business management training was exceptionally helpful. His businesses have since prospered sufficiently that he was able to bring his whole family to the United States for a Christmas present last year!
Anatoly has been an ardent supporter of warm relations between our nations. He carefully watches as they do the diplomatic dance with each other. In the message below, he writes with a different tone, one of considerable concern. It relates to breaking treaties and other serious challenges.
Dear Sharon! This letter contains the translation of the statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry dated November 22, 2020 in connection with the withdrawal of the United States from the Open Skies Treaty. This is the next step of the US government aimed to increase tensions between our countries in line with the Cold War.
Anatoly.
Although we American citizens pay little attention to treaties, Russian citizens do. I remember when Ambassador Matlock stood in Washington, DC in 2016 and said, “Nothing will change unless many American citizens themselves get involved” (and push Congress and policymakers to act differently). So far this hasn’t happened.
How can we wake up a sufficient number of American citizens to speak for our common futures and for all of our world in 2021? We at CCI are trying our best, but so far it isn’t enough. Your ideas will be very much needed.
Sharon Tennison
Center for Citizen Initiatives
The statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry dated November 22, 2020 in connection with the withdrawal of the United States from the Open Skies Treaty
2029-22-11-2020
On the night of November 22, the United States completed the procedure of withdrawing from the Open Skies Treaty. The principled attitude of the Russian side towards this decision of Washington was expressed six months ago in the statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry on May 22, 2020. Today we would like to highlight some extra critical points.
It is noteworthy that it was Washington in the 1950s that put forward the idea of mutual overflights of the territories of states for the purpose of aerial photography, and in the late 1980s returned to it and initiated the conclusion of the Open Skies Treaty. This has always been presented by the American side as evidence of its commitment to the policy of openness. It is obvious, however, that the United States wanted, first of all, to «enlighten» in detail the USSR territory inaccessible to them.
More than ten years ago, our American colleagues also initiated the digitalization of the implementation of the agreement, apparently hoping to realize their scientific and technical advantage.
Washington’s attitude towards the treaty began to change for the worse when Russian flights over the territory of the United States became commonplace, and especially when our country was the first to create digital surveillance equipment and install it on its open skies aircraft. The American side could not put up with such an infringement on its “exclusivity” and began to create barriers to the implementation of the Treaty. Let us recall only some of them:
– de facto ban on observation flights over US territory as a result of failure to provide a sufficient number of intermediate landings for Russian AN-30B aircraft;
– limiting Russia’s ability to observe the Aleutian Islands;
– actual decrease in the maximum flight range due to the cancellation of stops for night rest of the crews at the refueling aerodromes and the related exceeding of the maximum load on the crew;
– an actual decrease in the flight range over Alaska as a result of the illegal inclusion of a transit flight range over the waters of the high seas;
– understating the range of observation flight over the Hawaiian Islands;
– establishment of restrictions on the flight altitude of the observation aircraft that are not provided for by the Treaty and are contrary to ICAO recommendations;
– unlawful delays in the issuance of visas to designated personnel
– non-compliance with the established deadlines for payment of debt for observation flights
– Georgia’s incitement to violate the Open Skies Treaty
– direction for the implementation of open skies missions of old aircraft in an unsatisfactory technical condition, which posed a threat to the life and health of flight participants.
The United States arrogantly ignored our proposals to resolve these problems, while insisting on the immediate satisfaction of its claims, the answers to which we have given repeatedly. Realizing that in order to reach an agreement, Washington would need reciprocal steps aimed at removing Russian concerns, they interrupted consultations and began to accuse our country of “violations” of the treaty. These far-fetched accusations were used by them as an excuse, first to take the “countermeasures” and then to withdraw from the Treaty.
In recent months, Washington has hypocritically stated that if the Russian position changes, it could reconsider its decision. In fact, no one of them even thought to rewind anything. It was a public game, designed to mislead the governments and publics of European countries, urging Washington to change its mind. As in relation to other treaties in the field of arms control, the American side deliberately went to undermine the Treaty (recall that the US participation in this agreement was a condition for its entry into force).
Now, having withdrawn from the Treaty, the American side expects that its allies, on the one hand, will prevent Russian observation flights over US military installations in Europe, and, on the other, share their photographic materials of Russian territory with Washington.
Of course, this is unacceptable for Russia. We will seek firm guarantees that the states remaining in the Treaty will fulfill their obligations, firstly, to ensure the possibility of observing their entire territory, and, secondly, to not transfer the materials of observation flights to third countries that are not parties to the Treaty.
If our colleagues really want the Treaty to continue to operate and Russia to remain a state party to the Treaty, then they should, without delay, seriously think about what should be done to remove Russian concerns.
Washington made its move. Neither European security nor the security of the United States and its allies itself benefited from it. Now the West is wondering what Russia’s reaction will be. The answer is simple. We have repeatedly emphasized that all options are open to us. We carefully monitor and analyze how the words of other parties to the Treaty correspond to their deeds. Based on the security interests of Russia and our allies, we will take appropriate decisions.