U.S.

The U.S. Should Withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies

An OC-135 Open Skies aircraft at Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., September 14, 2018. (Charles J. Haymond/USAF)
The treaty costs us money that could better be spent on other aspects of national defense, and benefits us less than it benefits Russia.

Amid reports that President Trump is considering withdrawing the U.S. from the Treaty on Open Skies, there’s been a flurry of op-eds and editorials warning about the threat to “international peace” that such a move poses.

The handwringing is overdone. Whatever purpose it used to serve, the costs of the treaty to the United States now outweigh the benefits. The Trump administration should withdraw from it for three reasons.

First, Russia is not complying with the letter or spirit of the treaty. The treaty is one of several signed near the end of the Cold War that were intended to facilitate trust and transparency between the United States, its allies, and the Russian Federation. It allows member states to conduct unarmed surveillance flights over another treaty member’s territory on short notice, and to take photographs of military assets and personnel in the process. It’s meant to verify that treaty members are doing what they say they are doing — namely, complying with other arms treaties — and, from our perspective, not acting in a way that should cause other nations to fear they might soon be invaded, à la Ukraine.

Russia has been limiting and preventing flights over those parts of its territory in which there is the most interest among U.S. allies: Kaliningrad, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Chechnya. A treaty originally meant to foster trust is doing more to stoke distrust. And even when Russia is technically complying, the timing of its flights and its choice of flight paths are highly concerning. In one instance, Russia flew the Tupolev Tu-154M spy plane over parts of Washington, D.C., and Bedminster, N.J., where President Trump was vacationing at his Trump National Golf Course. According to one U.S. official, the spy plane flew through the temporary flight-restriction (TFR) airspace that was established around the president’s golf club.

The United States has tried to persuade Russia to act responsibly. According to the last State Department compliance report, the U.S. and its allies and partners sought to engage Russia in an effort to resolve concerns about treaty compliance. Unfortunately, “after the last meeting in March 2017, the United States came to the conclusion that Russia did not share the U.S. interest in engaging substantively toward a mutually agreeable resolution.” The United States then moved forward with implementing a few measures, legal under the treaty, to encourage Russian compliance. Neither carrots nor sticks apparently worked.

Over the last several years, senior Pentagon officials have been as transparent as they can be in unclassified settings about the way the treaty has outlived its original purpose. In a February 2015 congressional hearing, Lieutenant General Vincent R. Stewart, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was asked by Representative Mike Rogers (R., Ala.), “Can you say anything about how Russia, in this venue, is using their Open Skies flights over the United States? And as the principal intelligence officer for the secretary ofdDefense, can you tell us if that concerns you? And what are those concerns?” Stewart replied, “The Open Skies construct was designed for a different era. I am very concerned about how it is applied today. And I would love to talk about that in closed hearing.”

There is evidently far more detail divulged in classified settings about the extent to which the Russians are leveraging the treaty to their advantage. But there are some things one can deduce from the public statements.

In a September 2017 hearing, Senator Tom Cotton asked General Joseph Dunford, at the time the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Given the size and capabilities of our satellite constellation versus Russia’s, is it fair to say that Russia gets more benefits from these flights than does the United States?”

“I believe that argument has been made, and it’s compelling to me,” General Dunford responded.

That’s the second reason the United States should withdraw: The Russians need the treaty and the surveillance flights it permits far more than we do. In an era in which the United States is competing with Russia, it is a wonder why we would permit the Russians the right to conduct surveillance flights in our airspace.

Finally, the surveillance flights that are the treaty’s purpose are expensive, and without a clear advantage to staying, one can only conclude that the money is better spent elsewhere. As Senator Cotton recently said, “Vladimir Putin has violated the Open Skies Treaty for years while continuing to benefit from surveillance flights over the United States. The president should withdraw from the treaty and redeploy the hundreds of millions of dollars the Pentagon wastes on Open Skies flights and equipment to increase U.S. combat power.”

Enhanced combat power, especially in particular systems meant to help deter Russia, would strengthen the hand of U.S. diplomats. The United States can and should continue conversations with the Russians about military intentions and capabilities. As both countries conceive of new strategies and advantages to outmaneuver each other where interests conflict, it continues to be important to look for ways to foster transparency and trust. But we don’t need the Open Skies Treaty to do that.

The Trump administration has sought to reorient American national-security and defense policies toward deterring great powers such as Russia and China and defending American sovereignty. To those ends, it should not allow nostalgia for treaties of the past to handicap us now.

Most Popular

The Trail Leading Back to the Wuhan Labs

It is understandable that many would be wary of the notion that the origin of the coronavirus could be discovered by some documentary filmmaker who used to live in China. Matthew Tye, who creates YouTube videos, contends he has identified the source of the coronavirus — and a great deal of the information that ... Read More

The Trail Leading Back to the Wuhan Labs

It is understandable that many would be wary of the notion that the origin of the coronavirus could be discovered by some documentary filmmaker who used to live in China. Matthew Tye, who creates YouTube videos, contends he has identified the source of the coronavirus — and a great deal of the information that ... Read More
Film & TV

America’s Favorite Movie

For more than a decade, readers volunteering their ratings on the movie site IMDb have declared The Shawshank Redemption (1994) their favorite film of all time. (Number two is The Godfather). Unlike the unholy tablets that are the box office charts, which are strongly linked to marketing budgets and show a ... Read More
Film & TV

America’s Favorite Movie

For more than a decade, readers volunteering their ratings on the movie site IMDb have declared The Shawshank Redemption (1994) their favorite film of all time. (Number two is The Godfather). Unlike the unholy tablets that are the box office charts, which are strongly linked to marketing budgets and show a ... Read More
World

All Signs Point to China

Just one big story today: collecting and sorting through what we know about the coronavirus's origins, and what makes sense and what doesn’t in the theory that it originated from someone eating bats or pangolins from the Huanan Seafood Market. What We Know and What We Don’t Know about the Source of ... Read More
World

All Signs Point to China

Just one big story today: collecting and sorting through what we know about the coronavirus's origins, and what makes sense and what doesn’t in the theory that it originated from someone eating bats or pangolins from the Huanan Seafood Market. What We Know and What We Don’t Know about the Source of ... Read More
Media

The Media Owe Senator Tom Cotton an Apology

One of the biggest issues people have with the mainstream press these days is that some of its members are so insulated that they end up buying into and promoting false narratives without actually checking these narratives' veracity. That seems to be exactly what happened in mid February, when major outlets ... Read More
Media

The Media Owe Senator Tom Cotton an Apology

One of the biggest issues people have with the mainstream press these days is that some of its members are so insulated that they end up buying into and promoting false narratives without actually checking these narratives' veracity. That seems to be exactly what happened in mid February, when major outlets ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Welcome Back, Plastic Bags

Single-use plastic bags are a miracle of modern technology. Cheap, light, convenient, and ubiquitous, they provide an elegant solution to a problem. If you recycle them, as most people do, and put your rubbish in them, that creates a net reduction in carbon emissions compared with buying the heavier, thicker ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Welcome Back, Plastic Bags

Single-use plastic bags are a miracle of modern technology. Cheap, light, convenient, and ubiquitous, they provide an elegant solution to a problem. If you recycle them, as most people do, and put your rubbish in them, that creates a net reduction in carbon emissions compared with buying the heavier, thicker ... Read More

The Didactic Plague

There are two Christian concepts on my mind on this Palm Sunday. One is theodicy, the other is the sin of presumption. “Theodicy” means “the vindication of God,” referring to a seeming conundrum that has vexed Christian thinkers since the beginning: How can evil coexist with an all-good, all-loving, ... Read More

The Didactic Plague

There are two Christian concepts on my mind on this Palm Sunday. One is theodicy, the other is the sin of presumption. “Theodicy” means “the vindication of God,” referring to a seeming conundrum that has vexed Christian thinkers since the beginning: How can evil coexist with an all-good, all-loving, ... Read More