Will New START nuclear treaty survive ‘hostile’ US-Russia relations?

Will New START nuclear treaty survive ‘hostile’ US-Russia relations?

The World staff

Amulya Shankar

Player utilities


Listen to the story.

US special envoy Marshall Billingslea speaks to the media after a meeting with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergej Rybakow in Vienna, Austria, June 23, 2020.


Leonhard Foeger/Reuters


The United States and Russia have about 91% of the world’s nuclear warheads. And the arms control pact — the New START Treaty — between the two nations expires next year. 

The US wants to broaden its main nuclear arms control agreement with Russia to include all their atomic weapons, a US envoy said on Tuesday after talks with Moscow on a new accord.

US Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea also said Washington would keep pressing China to join the talks on replacing the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) which expires in February.

Washington wants Beijing involved because it says China is secretly racing to increase the size and reach of its nuclear arsenal, but Moscow favors a multilateral accord, possibly including France and Britain, Billingslea said.

“We, the United States, intend and believe … that the next arms control agreement must cover all nuclear weapons, not just so-called strategic nuclear weapons,” he told a news conference in Vienna that followed the talks there on Monday.

Matthew Bunn is a professor of the practice of energy, national security and foreign policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School. He spoke with The World’s Marco Werman about the implications of the New START Treaty.

Marco Werman: What are the main points of the current agreement — the New START Treaty, or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty — and would you say it’s been effective?

Matthew Bunn: The New START Treaty has been highly effective. Both sides agree that the other is complying with its key provisions. It limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons on each side. We don’t face as many Russian nuclear weapons as we otherwise would. And it provides for an extensive set of monitoring and verification. So, we have more predictability and more understanding of what’s going on.

Related: China rebukes US envoy for photo stunt at nuclear talks with Russia

What’s at stake with this week’s negotiations? Where have the US and Russia settled at this point?

Well, it appears they made some progress. They agreed to set up some working groups on particular topics and to meet again, possibly in July. So that’s the good news. They have not yet agreed to any extension of New START. That’s the bad news. The further bad news is that the United States is still insisting on China taking part. And China has no interest in doing so. China has less than a tenth as many nuclear weapons as either Russia or the United States.


Related: US pulls out of Open Skies Treaty, Trump’s latest treaty withdrawal 

So we’ve got a presidential election in November. What signs are you going to be looking for that New START is on track and there will be limits on nuclear arms?

Well, I think we’ll have to watch these negotiations very carefully. I doubt the United States will actually withdraw. But I think that letting the agreement expire — about two weeks into the next president’s term, by the way — is a real danger. My guess is that the Trump administration will not agree to extend New START until the last minute. And so it may be a scramble if Biden is elected, for him to get it extended in the two weeks after he takes office. And I think that scrambling, in general, is not the right way to manage nuclear weapons policy. But I think it’s not just a matter of arms control. It’s a matter of the broader set of measures designed to reduce the danger of nuclear war. Right now, we have the most hostile and dangerous US-Russian relations in decades. We have technologies that are evolving that blur — the line between peace and war — and make it more difficult to prevent escalation from conventional to nuclear war. So there’s a big agenda of steps that have to be taken to reduce nuclear dangers. Ultimately, it’s the governments that have to take action.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. Reuters contributed reporting. 

Millennials in China reexamine their spending habits as economy recovers

Millennials in China reexamine their spending habits as economy recovers

Rebecca Kanthor

Player utilities


Listen to the story.

Visitors hold face masks at the Shanghai Disneyland theme park as it reopens following a shutdown due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, at Shanghai Disney Resort in Shanghai, China May 11, 2020. 


Aly Song/Reuters


In China, millennials — defined as anyone born between 1981 and 1996 — have been known to be big spenders. But as the Chinese economy recovers from a coronavirus-induced slowdown, many young people are reexamining their lives and their spending habits.

Wang Aijing, 29, was living the single life in Shanghai, and making a good living working as a fashion journalist. ”I don’t see it’s necessary to save money. Because, for me, like marriage or buying a house — it’s too far away from me,” she said.

Related: Governments work on recovery plans as societies open up 

“Everything was just a mess for me. I realized that I really need to rethink about the whole financial status of myself. And then I realized how much I spend — not very reasonably.”

Wang Aijing, 29

Then the coronavirus outbreak turned everything upside down. Her company downsized, she lost her job, and her plans for the future disappeared. “Everything was just a mess for me. I realized that I really need to rethink about the whole financial status of myself,” she said. “And then I realized how much I spend — not very reasonably.”

She wasn’t alone. A study reported by a Shanghai paper showed that 45% of young people under 30 had experienced a drop in income during the COVID-19 outbreak, more than any other age group.

It was time for a new plan. Last month, she started to save money regularly in her bank account. And she’s changed her shopping habits too: no more buying clothes and makeup.

Related: China sends a new message about centuries-old chopstick tradition

She and her friends started downloading new apps on their phones to sell off secondhand electronics and get group deals. “In the past, we probably would laugh at people who use that, too,” she said. “But now it seems like we discovered its beauty. It’s really bringing cheaper stuff, and it’s okay quality.”

Another poll taken in April showed that more than half of Chinese shoppers under 30 plan to start managing their finances better.

James Roy, an American market analyst in Shanghai, has been paying close attention to young shoppers and people who buy luxuries. He says he’s noticed several shopping trends in post-COVID China. There are revenge shoppers, who did consolation shopping once quarantine ended. There are those who are embracing a simpler life, albeit one marked by fewer but higher quality products. And then there are the bargain hunters, like Aijing.

“Especially this younger group, they’ve been the ones that have been saving the least, you know, they’re big credit card users and have been very avid shoppers,” he said. “I think, in a way, this is a time for some of them where that’s kind of caught up to them.”

Monthly shopping promotions are offering great deals as the government tries to stimulate the economy. And travel restrictions have removed focused spending domestically. 

“You’re not spending that money overseas like when you’re traveling to Hong Kong or to Paris or to Tokyo or Seoul. So, all of that money that they would have been spending abroad is getting spent domestically.”

James Roy, market analyst in Shanghai,

“You’re not spending that money overseas like when you’re traveling to Hong Kong or to Paris or to Tokyo or Seoul,” Roy said. “So, all of that money that they would have been spending abroad is getting spent domestically.”

Related: Shanghai Disneyland reopens — with face masks and social distancing 

Despite these temptations, saving money has actually turned into a new lifestyle for Aijing and others.

She used to grab an expensive latté at an independent coffee shop. Now? She heads to Starbucks for early morning 50%-off deals. She used to meet her friends for brunch at the latest hotspot. Now they choose a restaurant where they can use coupons or points. Sometimes they’ll entertain at home — something they never did before.

She’s found a community of young people just like her in online budgeting groups.  

“It’s interesting to see how they use money, how they save up, how they live the life they feel more meaningful.”

Wang Aijing, 29

“It’s interesting to see how they use money, how they save up, how they live the life they feel more meaningful,” she said. “There are some people saving up money for trips, honeymoon, or their children’s education. There’s always a purpose. I like that. I like saving up money for something that makes your life better.”

The biggest change Aijing is making, though? In a few months, she’ll pack her bags and move back in with her parents in southern Guangxi province — more than 1,000 miles away from her life in Shanghai. She expects to find a job that will pay less than a quarter of the salary she made in Shanghai. But without the temptations of big city life and with no rent and few living expenses, she’ll finally be able to save big.

For many embracing a thrifty lifestyle, it isn’t exactly by choice. But Aijing is feeling positive about it.  

“I feel like although I was paid — OK, I was paid good, but that is at the expense of my life. I just feel like pulling together all the resources that I have makes me feel like I’m smarter than before and it’s a normal thing that everyone does and it is nothing shameful,” she said.

Now that saving has become a habit for her, she has new dreams of what she can achieve, including an apartment for herself and a summer holiday in Italy. The pandemic may have taken Aijing’s job, but it’s also given her a new outlook on life.

COVID-19 brings new scrutiny to illegal wildlife trafficking

COVID-19 brings new scrutiny to illegal wildlife trafficking

Steve Curwood

Player utilities


Listen to the story.

The novel coronavirus originated in a Wuhan “wet market,” where animals and meats of all kinds are sold in close proximity. Wet markets are hubs of illegal wildlife trafficking.




The illegal trade of protected species is a highly lucrative form of organized crime — with deadly consequences. In addition to threatening ecosystems and inciting violence, wildlife trafficking plays a key role in spreading diseases, including the novel coronavirus that is now sweeping across the world.

COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, likely jumped from bats to endangered pangolins and then to humans at a wildlife market for bushmeat in Wuhan, China. Three-quarters of new human diseases, such as SARS, Ebola and HIV, come from animals. These are known as zoonotic diseases and wildlife trafficking plays a key role in their transmission from animals to humans. Wildlife trafficking has also led to the dramatic decline of many species, including rhinos, elephants and pangolins.

Related: COVID-19: The latest from The World

Investigative journalist Lindsey Kennedy recently wrote about the problem of zoonotic diseases for Foreign Policy magazine. She spoke with Living on Earth’s Steve Curwood about how the coronavirus outbreak could lead to the end of wildlife trafficking.

Steve Curwood: So, why do you study zoonotic diseases?

Lindsey Kennedy: I don’t specifically study the diseases. I’m part of a journalistic collective. I have spent the last two years with my colleague Nathan Southern, looking into the wildlife trade in Southeast Asia. I think a lot of people don’t realize how big the wildlife trafficking trade is. It’s one of the four biggest illegal trades in the world. It brings in about $26 billion a year. And most of that goes back to China. But the most trafficked mammal in the world is an animal called the pangolin. It kind of looks like a small scaly anteater, and about 10,000 of these are trafficked every year. So when we saw that carcasses of the pangolin — on their way into China, illegally being trafficked — had tested positive for the COVID-19 virus, we started thinking about whether or not this could have been something that triggered the outbreak. So, we came at it from a wildlife perspective rather than a disease studies perspective.

Explain to me how the pangolin might be related to COVID-19.

When any kind of disease can jump from a species to another species or an animal to a human, that’s called a zoonotic disease. And that’s incredibly dangerous because our immune systems aren’t prepared to deal with them. In the case of COVID-19, we know that it came from wild animals. It’s present in bats and pangolins, and snakes. We don’t know exactly which of these animals provided the link to humans. All of them are trafficked and sold within China. And we don’t know exactly how that virus moved. But what we do know is that when you bring wild animals into contact with humans and livestock, you massively increase the risk of all these different diseases jumping between species and going into the human population and just causing havoc.

And remind us of other diseases that are zoonotic — that come from animals and jumped to humans.

SARS [severe acute respiratory syndrome] is another one that originated in civet cats, actually, back in 2003 in China, and that was a very similar thing. That was wildlife being sold in markets and that’s where it originated. Ebola is another one that comes from bats, similar to COVID-19. There’s just loads of them, to be honest: bird flu, swine flu — these are all zoonotic diseases.

In fact, isn’t HIV zoonotic?

Yes, it is. 

To what extent are these diseases getting into the human population because we’re destroying the habitat of these creatures and consuming more and more?

It’s definitely creating more and more risk all the time because the more you have deforestation, the more humans go further into the habitats of animals and are coming into contact with animals they [haven’t had contact] with before — every creature on Earth carries millions of types of bacteria and viruses — every time you come into contact with a new animal, you increase this risk massively. Epidemiologists have been saying for some time that the more contact we have with animals through deforestation or by going into forests and bringing animals back into our world and selling them in markets and that kind of thing, that there would be a pandemic. We just didn’t know when it was going to happen. And now we’re seeing it happen.

Talk to me about the markets where these animals are sold. You call them “wet markets.” What do they look like?

It depends on where you are in the world, because they’re not just in China. But, generally, imagine a big, sprawling market where it’s not necessarily the cleanest, but you’ve got lots of live animals squashed into small spaces in cages — different types of animals in small spaces — and sometimes you’ve got animals being cut up and prepared for sale, even while you’ve got live animals still nearby. If you think about when meat is prepared in factories, how clean that has to be and how many processes an item goes through on a production line to make sure that a virus or a bacteria doesn’t jump from one to another — none of that is happening in a big wet market like that. People are walking around, they’re touching different bits of meat. People are sneezing, animals are touching each other. It’s just chaos, really, in terms of virus prevention.

So why is it that people eat foods that are in these kinds of conditions?

In the case of China, most wildlife that’s trafficked is done so for traditional Chinese medicine. The pangolin…is used in lots of different types of Chinese medicine; Also, its scales are used in the production of meth. Parts of tiger and rhino are used in Chinese medicine. That’s why these kinds of products are brought in and sold in markets. But a lot of animals are also sold just for meats, just because it’s kind of a prestige thing to eat wild meat in a lot of the world.

What steps have China and other countries taken in terms of regulating the wildlife trade, now that we’ve seen yet another instance of how deadly this can be for humans?

It is illegal in China to import endangered animals and it has been for some time. There are a few problems with this. The big one is the fact that all efforts to stop the trade have focused on prosecution [and] haven’t done anything to tackle demand at all over the years. So, the trade hasn’t really reduced, because it doesn’t matter how many poachers you send to prison and it doesn’t really matter how many busts you make of shipments coming into China. If people still want to buy those things, someone’s going to find a way to get them in. The thing about this particular scenario with the coronavirus outbreak is that a lot of conservationists are hoping that this is going to be more effective than any of that regulation because people will be put off eating it and they’ll stop buying it, in case they get sick. So, hopefully, this situation will actually be more effective than regulation has been in the past.

Related: China cracks down on wildlife trade amid coronavirus outbreak 

What regulations has China put on it right now? Anything specific in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak?

There has been a ban on selling wildlife in big wet markets. They did the same thing after SARS, though, so it remains to be seen how long that lasts and whether it’s just until it all blows over, and then it comes back. So, again, if people want [the illegal wildlife] enough, it’ll come back. If people decide that actually it’s not healthy for them, hopefully that will stop happening. The younger people in Southeast Asia and in China aren’t as interested in eating wildlife. They don’t see it so much as a social status. It’s something the “weird older people” do. So hopefully, over time, as these people grow up, they’ll maintain those attitudes. You have to hope.

Looking back, what did we learn from the response to SARS and what can we do now to perhaps better prevent another outbreak?

I think with SARS, it was contained relatively quickly. I’m not a clinician; I don’t specialize in epidemics. But SARS was contained relatively quickly and I think we kind of got away with it. And for that reason, there wasn’t a sea change. People kind of forgot about it. They started doing the same things, buying the same animals after a little while, and I think maybe it was seen as a bit of a one-off. Whereas this time, I don’t think anyone realized how far this would spread. I mean, we’ve declared a global pandemic. It’s huge. I think that that has to leave lasting changes; that has to leave lasting attitudes toward eating wildlife and tracking wildlife this time.

This highly lucrative traffic in poaching and hunting dangerous species goes on, as you say, at a very high level. There is a huge market. How could it be stopped?

The only way you can stop the illegal wildlife trade is by reducing demand. Everything else makes it worse. There’s an amazing writer on conservation, Vanda Felbab-Brown, who uses the example of the drug trade. Let’s say you’re bringing in a massive shipment of cocaine into a country. You know that the border control is going to seize, like, 50% of that. So you just get your producers to give you 50% more cocaine in the first place. The problem is, when you apply that to animals, when you apply it to the wildlife trafficking trade, that’s incredibly destructive, because if you kill another 50% of pangolins or tigers…you’re killing more animals as a result. So really, it has to be an education thing, where you persuade people not to buy it. And you also need to remember that the people who are poaching are often in incredibly dire situations, in really poor areas, where there are few employment opportunities. So you have to treat it as a development issue, as well, and work with those people to provide better employment so that they’re not tempted to go and poach something on spec, basically. 

Related: Corruption worsens an already devastating illegal wildlife trade in Uganda 

What can the international community do to stop this? What has it done so far? And where are the deficits in the approach?

One more popular angle that’s been floated a lot…is to treat the wildlife trade as a serious organized crime problem, and sometimes as [a way] to fund terrorism. … That really gets the government’s attention. … But the problem is, then you start reacting to it with police and with armies, and those things don’t stop a little old lady in China wanting to go and buy her Chinese medicinal stuff in China. It doesn’t stop her. It doesn’t stop the poacher in Namibia, who wants to feed his family. It doesn’t stop either of those things. So even though there have been loads more money thrown at this in recent years, and even though governments are taking it very seriously, they’re kind of just going about it in the wrong way, and it’s making it worse.

It doesn’t help that in the US, a couple of years ago, Trump lifted the ban on importing elephant products, which I’m sure has nothing to do with the fact that his own son is a big trophy hunter abroad. … But as I say, the really effective policies are the ones that work with local communities, help people to shift from poaching to sustainable tourism — going and seeing the wildlife, going out and photographing wildlife instead of killing it and that kind of thing. They’ve been effective. And educating people about why it’s damaging to the environment and to themselves to eat wildlife. These are the effective things, but not so much going in all guns blazing and arresting people.

Talk to me about the broad implications of wildlife trafficking.

We are losing species across the globe faster than at any other time since the dinosaurs. It is kind of an emergency, really, the rate at which we’re losing biodiversity. And that is driven by wildlife trafficking and deforestation. That’s a tragedy in itself, to lose that incredible wealth of ecology. But it is also a tragedy for the human societies that live in these areas. In places like Indonesia, communities have lived the same way for hundreds of years. People who live on the fringes of forests hunt food in a way that is sustainable or they fish or they’re able to build their homes from trees in that area without doing serious damage. But when you have wholesale destruction of an area, you completely disrupt all of the ways those people live and you push them further into poverty. So it’s just a tragedy, kind of all across the board, really.

This interview aired on Living on Earth from PRX. It has been edited and condensed for clarity.