Blog

Los Angeles Times columnist Doyle McManus notes the Obama administration’s implication that the U.S. Senate must ratify new START, despite serious concerns, because we owe Russian president Dmitry Medvedev.

“‘President Medvedev has made every effort to move Russia in the right direction,’ President Obama said last weekend at the NATO summit in Lisbon.  ‘It’s also important that we don’t leave a partner hanging after having negotiated an agreement like this.’

‘Vice President Joe Biden, in Washington, made the point a little more bluntly, as Biden often does. Medvedev, he said, has been the key Russian leader pushing for a “reset” of better relations with the United States — not Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who has been more skeptical — and it’s in our interest to give Medvedev a boost.
…
“But there are problems with this argument.

“Although Medvedev technically has the top job (and titular responsibility for foreign policy), every Russia watcher knows that Putin is the real boss, and that he could reassume the post of president as soon as Russia’s constitution allows him to, in 2012.”

Experts say the Obama administration’s perceived special relationship with Medvedev may be an illusion, and McManus reminds readers about the relationships Obama’s predecessors had with Russian leaders. The positive effects of a “reset” with Russia will be ephemeral, if the Senate doesn’t ratify START. The Republican takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives, coupled with Obama’s declining popularity, don’t portend well for “reset” relations.

“If New START isn’t ratified, Biden warned, other governments, not only Russia’s, will ask: ‘You guys can’t even deliver on something you helped tie down?’”

Not only has NATO agreed to expand missile defense in Europe, the former Soviet Union has agreed to cooperate. Last Friday at the NATO summit, members approved the proposal to expand and link missile defense shield systems in the U.S. and Europe to protect against long-range missile attacks from rogue states like Iran.

NATO’s secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen sought to expand missile defense in Europe and made it clear that he wanted Russia’s cooperation in the effort. He got it, but at what cost? Although Russia’s president Dmitry Medvedev agreed to cooperate, he said his country’s cooperation must be a “a full-fledged strategic partnership between Russia and NATO…Otherwise, it’s a no-go. Everybody’s clear that the missile defense system will be useful only when it is universal. I’ll be blunt with you, we need to sort it out.” (Source)

In other words, Russia’s cooperation is contingent on concessions NATO’s willing to make.

NATO also sought Turkey’s cooperation, but the country said it would not agree to the expansion if reference to Iran was explicit. To accommodate Turkey, Iran will not be named in the agreement.

During the summit, President Barack Obama took the opportunity to stress the importance of ratifying START, which calls for warhead and launcher reductions. No doubt ratification would please Russia, but Republican senators have   questions about START. In his weekly address, the president made reference to these senators.

“Over the last several months, several questions have been asked about New START, and we have answered every single one. Some have asked whether it will limit our missile defense – it will not. Some, including Senator Jon Kyl, have asked that we modernize our nuclear infrastructure for the 21st century – we are doing so, and plan to invest at least $85 billion in that effort over the next ten years – a significant increase from the Bush Administration.

“Finally, some make no argument against the Treaty – they just ask for more time. But remember this: it has already been 11 months since we’ve had inspectors in Russia, and every day that goes by without ratification is a day that we lose confidence in our understanding of Russia’s nuclear weapons. If the Senate doesn’t act this year – after six months, 18 hearings, and nearly a thousand questions answered – it would have to start over from scratch in January.”

The president adds that it would be a “dangerous gamble” to delay ratifying the treaty, but senators would be well advised to wait until the administration addresses their concerns.

The Heritage Foundation’s Michaela Bendikova and Conn Carroll also blogged about START this week.

Heritage Action’s Tim Chapman pens an op-ed for Politico on why John Kerry is clueless about START. Kerry, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, claimed there was “no substantive disagreement” between Republicans and Democrats on START. Even the most uninformed person knows that’s not true. Republican senators have publicly expressed their substantive disagreements with START. Chapman reports that newly elected senator Roy Blunt will reveal a letter from his fellow newly elected senators demanding to study and consider the treaty before a vote.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is hoping for another “victory” for his administration, pushing the Senate to ratify START now or next Congress. According to the LA Times, Obama called this treaty, with its numerous problems, a “national security imperative.”

Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican, sides with Democrats on START. According to Politico, he wants the Senate to vote on START now. Senator Jon Kyl, lead Republican negotiator on START ratification, holds a different view. He opposes lame-duck voting and prefers to wait until the new Congress.

The Heritage Foundation’s Owen Graham blogs about issues that must be addressed before senators vote on START at The Foundry. For example, although the Obama administration denies the treaty restricts our missile defense, Republican senators believe otherwise.

“Moreover, the lack of verification measures, supporters of the treaty argue, is increasing instability and uncertainty between the two major nuclear powers. Yet this is the result of the Administration’s own actions. The White House did not move to take advantage of a five-year extension clause under START I and instead insisted on negotiating a separate agreement. At the time, the Administration justified its approach by saying that it was more important to get the treaty right rather than get the treaty soon.”

The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano comments on a national poll featured on CNN. The poll showed that three out of four Americans want Congress to ratify START.

Carafano asks whether the people polled really understand the treaty, and suggests five questions CNN didn’t ask but should have asked:

“Question #1. Would you support a treaty that requires the US to cut more weapons and launchers than the Russians; allows them to actually build more launchers, allows Russia to modernize when Obama has already said he will not build modern nuclear weapons, and leaves Russia with many times more nuclear ones than the US? (hint: Russia has an estimated 10 to 1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons that is not covered by the treaty)

“Question #2. Would you support a treaty that requires the US to share sensitive missile defense information with Russia, information that might be passed to Iran to help them plan how to defeat US missile defenses? (hint the treaty could require sharing telemetry test data with Russia)

“Question #3 Do you think an independent commission not accountable to the US government should be able to dictate limits to missile defense? (hint that is in the treaty too)

“Question #4 Would you vote for a treaty with 12 major flaws in it? (hint-want to guess how many major flaws there are in New START?)

“Question #5 Would you want a treaty that, despite the White House claims to the opposite, could actually result in more nuclear states and an increased likelihood of nuclear war?

“If CNN had included these questions, Americans who are interested in protecting and defending America and understand the importance of Missile Defense might well have voted very differently.”

Did the Republican takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives sound the death knell for START? Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl said he would oppose a START vote, at least during the lame-duck session. From the Wall Street Journal:

“Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona said there wasn’t time to deal with his concerns over a treaty that would cut U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons deployments by about one third and restore weapons inspections that were halted nearly a year ago. Treaty ratification requires 67 votes in the Senate. Mr. Kyl’s decision likely pushes a vote to next year, when the Senate Democratic majority shrinks to 53 from 58.

“Mr. Kyl’s announcement took the White House by surprise. A White House official said that just last Friday, officials from the Defense Department, the National Nuclear Security Administration and the U.S. Strategic Command briefed the senator and offered an additional $4.1 billion over the next five years that he had demanded to modernize the remaining nuclear arsenal.”

The treaty would limit strategic warheads to 1,550 and launchers to 700 each. Republican senators have cited several concerns about START, including lack of verification and a link between missile defense and offense. These senators requested the treaty negotiating record, and the Obama administration has refused to turn it over. Republicans also suspect Russia and the U.S. entered into a secret agreement on missile defense, and the State Department has gone on record to deny it.

Earlier this week, we linked to the Heritage Foundation’s must-read START fact sheet. The treaty weakens our nation’s missile defense by reducing our stockpiles and imposing restrictions on our missile defense options. As the experts say, a lame-duck congressional session is not the time to ratify such a troubling treaty.

Cross-posted on the Heritage Action blog:

Washington – Late last week, the Obama administration submitted a new offer to Senate Republicans in a last-minute attempt to gain Republican support for ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) during the Senate’s Lame Duck session.

“America’s security cannot be viewed as some chit for nuclear modernization,” Heritage Action’s CEO Michael A. Needham said.  “No amount of money can obscure the treaty’s fatal flaws, including inadequate verification measures and limits on missile defense.”

The deal would provide an addition $4 billion for modernizing America’s nuclear arsenal; however, reports also suggest the administration is prepared to withhold all such funding if the Senate blocks the treaty.

“The administration’s reported threat to withhold all modernization funding is reckless,” Needham continued.  “Senators who support New START in its current form will find themselves on the wrong side of their constituents and America will find itself on the losing end of a dangerous treaty.”

Heritage Action for America’s opposition to ratification stems from serious, substantive policy concerns.  Earlier this month, Heritage Action targeted 10 states, including Arizona, Kentucky and Tennessee, with direct mail pieces.  The mailer urged constituents to call their Senators and tell them to oppose the treaty, which “put Russia’s military interests ahead of our own.”

With more than 700,000 members across the country, The Heritage Foundation and its sister organization, Heritage Action for America, are committed to building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and a civil society flourish.  To that end, Heritage Action will continue to oppose ratification of the New START Treaty.

Politico reports that the Senate Republican Policy Committee sent a memo to Republican Senate staffers urging them to delay voting on the new START. An excerpt from the memo:

“The fact sheet then asserts that the treaty provides ‘effective verification and inspection systems leaving Russia unable to achieve militarily significant cheating or breakout.’ Member offices should review the assessment of the treaty’s verification regime by Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Bond, available in Senate Security. That assessment is consistent with the testimony of Former Secretary of State James Baker that the New START verification program ‘does not appear as rigorous or extensive as the one that verified the numerous and diverse treaty obligations and prohibitions under START I.’

“The fact sheet then asserts that the treaty provides no constraints on deploying conventional prompt global strike capabilities. This does not answer the question of whether the Administration is committed to developing those capabilities. If the Administration were to pursue those capabilities by loading a conventional payload onto either an ICBM or SLBM, then the treaty very much limits the deployment of conventional prompt global strike capabilities. This is because every one of these weapons deployed in such a configuration counts towards the treaty’s central limits on delivery vehicles and warheads, and thus one ICBM, SLBM, or bomber may potentially have to be removed from deployed service in order to remain within the treaty’s central limits. To be fair, the Administration claims it is developing conventional prompt global strike capabilities that do not count towards the treaty’s central limits, but information on the state of those programs is very much lacking, and deployment of a converted ICBM or SLBM would be much quicker in comparison.”

Naturally, the president wants the Senate to ratify the treaty during the lame-duck session, despite Republican senators’ legitimate questions about whether the treaty undermines America’s security.

The Heritage Foundation has published a fact sheet about why the new START is bad for missile defense. An excerpt:

New START Leaves America Vulnerable

New START Treaty Weakens America’s Defense: It is evident that Russia seeks to curtail U.S. missile defense programs. New START is one of the tools to achieve this.

New START Restrictions: New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defense options through Article V of the treaty and additional provisions in the Protocol and Annexes. The Preamble also applies the logic that U.S. missile defenses must be reduced in accordance with the reduction of the strategic offensive arms of Russia because otherwise the defenses will “undermine the viability and effectiveness” of Russia’s offensive force.

Limiting U.S. Options and Sovereignty: The treaty restricts certain types of missiles and missile launchers that are used as targets in missile defense tests. The treaty also gives the Bilateral Consultative Commission, the treaty’s implementing body, a broad mandate that could permit it to impose additional restrictions on missile defenses.

Lame Duck Not the Time to Ratify Treaties: If the Administration and current Senate majority leadership push for a vote on New START during the “lame duck” session, the Senate will not have time to adequately evaluate it, especially newly seated Senators who need time to become educated on the treaty, exacerbating an already biased process in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

White House Should Release Treaty Negotiating Record The Administration has refused to give the Senate access to the record that includes all draft versions of the treaty, memoranda, notes, and communications between U.S. and Russian negotiators. The record is critical to clear up questions on key provisions in the treaty and how the Russians interpret them.

Other Bad Deals in the Works? Recent comments by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov indicate that Russia and the U.S. are negotiating a separate side agreement that will limit U.S. missile defense and space options even further.

***

Heritage reiterates that rogue state Iran could have a nuclear weapon in two years and an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015, and North Korea has conducted nuclear tests. Both countries have continued these developments, despite global condemnation.

During the 1964 presidential campaign, President Lyndon Johnson’s camp ran an ad that has become known as “Daisy Girl,” in which a child counts flower petals in a peaceful meadow, followed by an ominous voice counting down to a nuclear explosion. The campaign ran to counter candidate Barry Goldwater’s stance on nuclear weapons.

A group has produce a similar ad intended to invoke the same anti-nuclear fervor of the original ad, and to urge senators to ratify new START.

As we mentioned in the previous post, there are important questions raised in the treaty that must be answered before ratification, and no amount of “Daisy Girl” ads should deflect the Senate from their mission.

In contrast, we offer the Heritage Foundation’s START video. The treaty not only threatens the stability of the U.S., but the stability of the world. As National Review’s editors stated, the new START constrains our missile defense, and lawmakers who’ve vowed to uphold the Constitution should not vote for a treaty that weakens and undermines our defense strategies.

In a National Review editorial published on NPR, the editors argue why it’s important for the Senate not to ratify the new START.

“The president’s priorities on nuclear arms should be the pursuit of comprehensive missile defense, the modernization of America’s nuclear arsenal, and the prevention of rogue states from acquiring WMD. New START does nothing on the last two goals and is actively hostile to the first.

“Instead, what the treaty does is limit the number of deployed ‘delivery vehicles’ — missile silos, aircraft, submarines — to 700 per side, approximately the level the aging Russian nuclear infrastructure is already struggling to maintain. But it does nothing to limit the Russians’ massive stockpile of undeployed warheads — by one estimate, some 8,000 of them — or to cut into their advantage in tactical nuclear weapons designed for use on the field of battle. Meanwhile, it encourages the Russians to ‘MIRV’ their platforms, packing multiple warheads onto a single vehicle, at the same time the Obama administration has unilaterally discontinued that practice in an effort to ‘to increase stability.’”

Can’t be any more succinct than that. START’s problems are numerous; these include lack of verification, a linkage between missile defense and offense, and the Obama administration’s refusal to allow senators to see the negotiating record. As we mentioned earlier this week, Republican senators seek confirmation about a secret missile defense agreement between Russia and the U.S. So far, the State Department has denied the existence of such an agreement.

Senators would do well to refuse START ratification until they can be assured, without equivocation, that it won’t constrain our missile defense or weaken our national security.