Editorial | Fearing a new arms race

It may not seem so at first glance, but Donald Trump's decision to tear up the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) treaty with Russia has implications for Jamaica. There are not only the dangers inherent in any new arms race between these two countries, but the situation seems likely to be worsened by drawing China into the tussle.

First signed in 1987 by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev of the former Soviet Union, the INF bars the United States and Russia from possessing or testing nuclear-tipped cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometres or 300, to 3,400 miles. At the time of the agreement, it meant that the Soviets would dispossess themselves of nuclear-capable missiles that could hit America's NATO partners in Western Europe.

Either side, however, has, in recent years, accused of the other of cheating. The Americans claim that the Russians have developed new missiles capable of doing what the INF prohibits, while Moscow insists that America's installation of new missile-defence systems in Europe has tipped the balance in favour of America and its allies, effectively neutralising the intent of the treaty.

There are a number of factors why Mr Trump may have acted at this time. Like a child with bits of paper, there is no international agreement that Donald Trump, left to his own devices, doesn't want to shred, especially if he believes it makes him seem strong, and, in his febrile imaginings, can parlay it as a failure of some kind by his predecessor, Barack Obama. In this case, he claims that Mr Obama failed to act against Moscow's misbehaviour.

By acting ahead of next month's midterm election, Mr Trump, perhaps, also hopes to negate or counterbalance the narrative that he is Vladimir Putin's poodle by doing something obviously not in the interest of the Russian president. Then, there is John Bolton, the neo-conservative ideologue and the president's national security adviser who is keen on expanding America's military dominance and probably perceives Mr Trump as a vector for his philosophy.

The containment of an increasingly economically and militarily powerful China would be part of Mr Bolton's creed. Beijing is not a signatory to the INF, but American military analysts have argued that missile arsenals would place it in breach of the treaty were it a member. Against this backdrop, it is probably not surprising that Mr Trump spoke as though China has cheated and framed what, from his perspective, would be fixing the INF, in the context of China being party to the deal.

An attempt to draw China into this pact is not of itself a bad idea, but America's unilateral withdrawal from the regime is. For, perchance Beijing is reluctant, it raises the spectre of America, freed from the constraints of the INF, seeking to find bases in the Pacific, other than its territory of Guam, to station intermediate cruise missiles capable of hitting China.

Strategic Error

The resultant instability, if it happens, won't be contained to the Asia-Pacific region or for that matter, Europe. With Mr Trump also having ripped up the Iran nuclear deal, it lends to the ascendancy of hardliners in Tehran who see the possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to America's power and perceive efforts, with Europe, to salvage the remnants of the agreement as a strategic error.

Further, China, with more than US$2 billion in infrastructure investments and loans in Jamaica, has emerged as the island's major development partner. The United States is our major trading partner and, up to now, closest geopolitical friend.

Managing these relations grows more difficult in the age of Trump. It requires foreign policy that is principled and appreciates, especially for small nations like ours, the worth of multilateral systems - even when they are stressed.