Blog

What do America’s mid-term elections have to do with Russia’s cooperation on START? From Defense News:

“A Russian parliamentary committee may withdraw its recommendation to ratify a new nuclear disarmament treaty with the U.S. after the results of the mid-term polls, an official said Nov. 3. President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev signed the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in April, but the accord has yet to be ratified by the Russian lower house, the State Duma, or the U.S. Senate.
…
“‘I think that today we are going to cancel our recommendation to ratify the agreement,’ said the chairman of the Russian Duma’s foreign affairs committee Konstantin Kosachev. ‘If the ‘lame duck’ senators from the old make-up cannot do this in the next weeks then the chances of ratification in the new Senate will be radically lower than they were until now,’ he told the Interfax news agency.”

Kosachev is probably correct. Among other things, Republican senators are concerned about the linkage in the treaty between offensive and defensive missile strategy. They’re also concerned about a rumored secret missile defense agreement between the U.S. and Russia. Republican senators have requested START negotiating records, and the Obama administration rebuffed them. They sent a letter to Secretary Hillary Clinton requesting documents related to the secret agreement, and the State Department has denied such an agreement took place.

The Senate Foreign Relations approved the treaty last month, and the full Senate will deliberate. Republicans have regained control of the House and increased their representation in the Senate. Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican who supports the new START, said he doubts the treaty will be ratified this year.

Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican who supports the new START, said he doubts the treaty will be ratified this year. Although several of his fellow Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have serious concerns about START, the committee approved the treaty last month. The full Senate is slated to deliberate, but if the midterm election results in fewer Senate seats for Democrats, START will have a tougher time passing.

Lugar criticized Republicans who oppose the treaty. An excerpt from CQ Today:

“Lugar did not mince words when it came to his own party’s role in obstructing progress on the treaty, known as New START.

“Asked why he has had such trouble persuading his GOP colleagues to join him in supporting the accord, Lugar observed that since the end of the Cold War, there has been considerable opposition in the Republican party, sometimes Democrats, but very frequently Republicans, who took the position back then that you just can’t deal with the Russians.’

“Lugar added that in the current political climate, ‘there is also a feeling that this is something that is not a high priority for many members of the Republican Party.’

Lugar does not believe START restricts U.S. missile defense plans, nor does he believe the U.S. and Russia are in secret negotiations to restrict missile defense. Last week, six Republican senators sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton requesting that she turn over documents and transcripts related to secret missile defense talks. The State Department has denied such talks.

Lugar admitted that it’s “very hard to rebut secret negotiations…I would just say there aren’t any.”

If the talks are secret, how would the Senator know there aren’t any? I guess he takes it on faith, despite the Obama administration’s refusal to allow senators access to the START negotiating record.

(Source: The Hill and CQ Today)

In an attempt to “reset” relations with the former Soviet Union, President Barack Obama scrapped Bush-era plans to deploy missile defense shields to Poland and the Czech Republic that would have protected the region from Iranian attacks. The Heritage Foundation’s Ariel Cohen makes the case that despite our concessions to Russia, the country has pursued policies harmful to our interests. Let’s start with START:

“According to the Administration, New START is a direct result of its ‘resetting’ of U.S.–Russian relations. The Administration views New START as a part of its ‘getting to zero’ nuclear disarmament agenda while relying on unverifiable treaties to ensure compliance with a comprehensive nuclear weapons ban.

“Additionally, the New START limits the U.S. ability to develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect the homeland as well as America’s allies. There are concerns about the inadequacy of the New START verification regime: The degree of verifiability is low and the treaty fails to account for Russia’s 3,800-strong tactical nuclear arsenal. Additionally, the treaty appears to exclude rail-based ICBMs and their launchers from coverage and could permit Russia to circumvent the limits the treaty imposes on such.[1]

‘The Near Abroad’

“Russia also increased its presence and pressure in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. As a result of the 2008 Russia–Georgia war, Russia recognized the independence of secessionist Abkhazia and South Ossetia, established five military bases there, and deployed long-range S-300 missile batteries, which allow aerial control over most of Georgia.

“In Armenia, Moscow recently extended the lease of the Gyumri military base until 2044 and made commitments to protect Armenia’s borders against Azerbaijan and Turkey. A recent Russian book on the Georgia war describes Gyumri as a staging area for an attack on Tbilisi, Georgia. The Russian–Armenian protocol makes Russia the dominant power in South Caucasus, as the U.S. and NATO are unwilling to commit to a long-term military presence there. This arrangement is similar to the renegotiated lease for the massive Sevastopol naval base in Ukraine as it, too, prevents the country’s future membership in NATO. Russia continues to keep a contingent in Transnistria on Moldovan soil.

“Russia is also expanding attacks on the authoritarian Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko in order to replace him with a more pliant, pro-Moscow (but not necessarily more democratic) president.

“To further strengthen its dominance in Central Asia, Moscow used its media muscle in Kyrgyzstan to facilitate the overthrow of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev. The move was payback for his refusal to evict the U.S. airbase at Manas airport. Russia now demands to be allowed to deploy an ‘anti-narcotics’ military base in Osh in Fergana Valley, the scene of brutal violence in the summer of 2010.

“Winning in Afghanistan is a vital U.S. national interest; the Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan, a major NATO refueling and transportation hub, has been critical to this effort. Nevertheless, the U.S. and Kyrgyzstan may negotiate a deal that would make Russia’s Gazprom a key supplier of jet fuel for Manas.

“The U.S. and governments of Central Asia recognize that Russia and China will have clout in the heart of Eurasia. Nevertheless, they have a critical common interest in checking these nations’ influence in the region as well as denying terrorists and drug lords sanctuaries in Central Asia, especially after 2011. This has to be a part of a comprehensive, long-term strategy. The Obama Administration, however, is doing little to secure long-term U.S. presence in the region.”

Read the full web memo.

Washington Times columnist Frank Gaffney is optimistic about the Republicans’ chances in next month’s midterm elections. Republicans have serious yet unanswered questions about the new START, and if they regain a majority in Congress, President Barack Obama definitely won’t see a quick START ratification. An excerpt:

“There are 41 Republican senators today, and – thanks to the importance the framers attached to the Senate’s responsibility for providing quality control on international treaties – just 34 of them can prevent ratification. At least that many, and perhaps virtually all GOP senators, can be expected to object to hasty consideration of this particular treaty on three grounds:

“First, New START is unverifiable. The Republican vice chairman of the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, has written a classified letter to that effect, and he summarized its findings in a conversation with me on “Secure Freedom Radio” last week: ‘I think the treaty is weak on verification, especially compared to previous treaties like START and the [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] Treaty. We will have much greater trouble determining if Russia is cheating, and given Russia’s track record, that’s a real problem.’

“New START will afford the Russians a say over our anti-missile defenses. In 2001, President George W. Bush withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which had effectively given them a veto in such matters. A number of senators have expressed concern that the Kremlin is correct when it asserts that the new accord’s preamble and other provisions will effectively hobble America’s ability to protect its people and allies, even from threats emerging from North Korea and Iran – and that Russia will withdraw from the treaty if that proves not to be the case.

“For these reasons, Republican senators led by Jon Kyl of Arizona have been trying to extract from the Obama administration the New START negotiating record in the hope of clarifying exactly what U.S. diplomats have promised the Russians on missile defense. These requests have been stonewalled by Team Obama, which to date has deigned to provide only a classified summary – a far cry from the authoritative text.”

Gaffney mentions the “secret” missile defense agreement we blogged about earlier this week. Sources reported that the U.S. and Russia have met to discuss restricting missile defense outside START. Critics of START are concerned about the treaty’s lack of verification and a link between missile offense and defense. Senators would be well advised to hold off on ratification until these issues are addressed.

As mentioned in the previous post, six Republican senators have asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to turn over documents and transcripts related to secret missile defense talks between the U.S. and Russia. A State Department official denied that the two countries are pursuing such an agreement.

The Heritage Foundation’s Baker Spring writes about these talks in his latest web memo:

“It appears that the Obama Administration is challenging the U.S. Senate regarding the ratification of the new strategic arms control treaty with Russia called New START and its potential negative consequences for U.S. missile defense options—so much so that a group of Senators have felt compelled to send an October 18 letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking for further details. From the outset, the Administration has asserted that New START will not limit the missile defense options of the U.S., including the option to deploy components of a missile defense system in space. The Senate has made it clear that it does not want the agreement with Russia to limit U.S. missile defense options.

“According to a recent report in Bloomberg, however, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is claiming that the U.S. and Russia are on the verge of concluding a side agreement[1] that an earlier report in The Washington Times indicates will limit U.S. missile defense options.[2] If so, the Obama Administration’s insistence that the side bargain constitutes a ‘missile defense cooperation agreement’ is cynical at best. Further, it is possible that this side agreement could limit U.S. space capabilities, which has additional negative implications for missile defense.
…
“That the Obama Administration would be engaged in negotiations with Russia on genuine cooperation in the area missile defense should be expected and encouraged.

“It is objectionable, however, to use these negotiations as a cover for doing the opposite of what the Administration advertised—i.e., curtailing missile defenses. As such, there is clear justification for the Senators’ demand that they and their colleagues receive the record of these negotiations.

“For their part, Russian leaders have, on a number of occasions, voiced their view that the U.S. missile defense program is aimed against their country and stated their desire to curtail it. The Obama Administration, for its part, has been less than forthright in its assertions that New START itself does not impose restrictions on U.S. missile defense options. New START contains implied and direct restrictions or impediments to various sections of the U.S. missile defense program…”

On Columbus Day, Senator Kit Bond was interviewed on Secure Freedom Radio about his views on the new START, which is currently before the Senate for deliberation. Vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the senator is privy to classified information related to the treaty.

“I think that pushing this new START treaty the administration is taking us down a dangerous path. I think the treaty is weak on verification especially compared to previous treaties like START and the INF treaty,” Bond told host Frank Gaffney. “We will have much greater trouble determining if Russia is cheating and given Russia’s track record, that’s a real problem.
…
“Some of the information is new to us on the committee, but [Russia's] history of skirting the edges of the treaty is long standing. We know the Russians violated certain parts of the inspections under START.  There are other treaties that have been identified that have had less than full compliance by the Russians. If we don’t have a solid means of verifying it, it makes no sense to trust them. This is one that turns President Reagan’s theory of trust but verify on its head.  We will trust them even though we can’t verify it. I really wonder what benefits we will get from what I consider more show and less go than we had even in the last START treaty.”

According to Bond, the U.S. somehow allowed Russia to terminate our right to “onsite monitoring of missile’s coming out of the gate.” He also mentioned Russia’s option to withdraw from START if we build missile defense systems in Europe.

As the U.S. Senate deliberates whether to ratify START, Americans should be more concerned than ever about strong and comprehensive missile defense. As Baker Spring noted in his Heritage backgrounder, deterring nuclear strikes from rogue nations must go beyond the Cold War-era retaliation strategy and President Barack Obama’s present-day nuclear disarmament strategy.

Nuclear threats in Iran and North Korea are growing, and the U.S. must have the flexibility to develop and implement a defense strategy that isn’t hamstrung by agreements with Russia. The former Soviet Union agreed to sell S-300 missiles to Iran before announcing that the deal was included under sanctions against Iran.

In light of missile defense experts’ concerns about START, we invite them and readers to watch the Heritage Foundation’s high-definition, one-hour documentary, “33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age.” The documentary explains the history of missile defense, the present global nuclear threat, and what the U.S. must do to protect itself and the world. This film serves as a wake-up call to complacency and apathy. View the trailer below.

Visit the film’s YouTube channel.

Rebeccah Heinrichs, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a  missile defense expert, wrote a blog post at Big Peace about stopping ratification of the new START. An excerpt:

“Two weeks ago U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his Russian counterpart, Anatoly Serdyukov, cruised down the Potomac River on a U.S. Navy barge. Gates’ goal: find common ground on issues critically important to free nations such as preventing Iran from ‘nuking up’ and cooperating on building a defensive system to protect innocent people from terrorists’ missiles. They failed to find common ground and two days later it was reported that Russia, defying the U.S. and Israel, is selling sophisticated anti-ship missiles to Syria, the country famous for arming the terrorist group Hezbollah.These missiles will give Syria the ability to threaten ships in the Mediterranean Sea. Currently there are Israeli Navy ships in the Med and within the next several years the Obama administration plans to deploy U.S. Navy ships with ballistic missile defense capabilities to the Med to defend against longer range missiles.

“Russian officials opposed Bush Administration plans to deploy missile defense in Europe and now oppose Obama’s more modest, phased approach to deploy short and medium defenses in Europe over the next several years and eventually defenses for the U.S. by 2020.

“Gates’ goals of finding common ground with Serdyukov on squeezing Iran and defending against missiles are inseparable. Iran already has missiles capable of reaching Europe and the intelligence community says they’ll be able to hit the U.S. in five years. This means U.S. troops and allies in Europe are already at risk. If the mullahs in Iran successfully marry a nuclear weapon to those missiles, not only would Iran dramatically increase their ability to coerce the U.S. and our allies, they could also sell the technology to other dangerous countries or non-state actors. Missile defense cooperation between the U.S. and our allies is essential to global security.

“Just this month NATO’s Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said NATO needs to improve their very limited missile defense system. ‘If Iran eventually acquires a nuclear capability that will be very dangerous, and a direct threat to the allies. That is the reason why I am now proposing a new and effective NATO missile defense system.’

“Despite this shared threat, in February Russia’s ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin lambasted U.S. plans to deploy missile defense systems in Europe.”

Last week we excerpted James Carafano’s op-ed in the San Francisco Examiner about Senator Jim DeMint’s criticism of the new START. Among other things, the senator believes START won’t help protect the country from rogue nations like Iran, and he offered amendments to fix the treaty’s problems.

The Heritage Foundation’s Baker Spring weighed in on the topic. At The Foundry, he writes:

“The Obama Administration has stated on numerous occasions that there is ‘no way, no how’ the New START treaty, a nuclear arms control agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States, will limit U.S. ballistic missile defense options. However, ongoing exchanges of opinions on this question show that the issue is far from clear.

“Reporter Josh Rogin, in his recent critique of an amendment that Senator Jim DeMint (R–SC) offered to the resolution of ratification for New START in the Senate Foreign

Relations Committee (SFRC) disparages the Senator’s effort. DeMint also offered a similar amendment to the defense authorization bill for the FY2011. Rogin’s criticism is, at its core, based on a single, fallacious argument: If you can’t defend against every possible missile that could target America, why even bother? Rogin’s critique also implies that some proponents of New START want to limit missile defense.

“Even if Rogin doesn’t understand why we should make sure we are able, under New START, to deploy the best missile defenses possible, the SFRC obviously does. That’s why it included a modified version of the amendment in its resolution of ratification by voice vote backed by Senator Jim Webb (D–VA), Senator Bob Corker (R–TN) and others.

“As it stands, New START does little to ensure that the United States and Russia are able to protect and defend the people, territory, infrastructure, and institutions of both countries, and of their respective allies. Both amendments attempted to fix this flaw. The version of the amendment adopted by the committee states that a paramount obligation of the U.S. government is to provide for the defense of the American people, its forward-deployed troops, and U.S. allies. Moreover, it states that arms control policies based on the theory of mutual assured destruction (MAD) can be contrary to the safety and security of both the U.S. and Russia.”

The Heritage Foundation‘s James Carafano wrote about Senator Jim DeMint’s opposition to START. An excerpt from the San Francisco Examiner:

“DeMint doesn’t mind playing the maverick when national security is on the line…He did it again earlier this month, when Foreign Relations Committee was set to pass the New START nuclear agreement with Russia on to the full Senate. Until then, most critics of the treaty contented themselves by simply saying it needed to be studied closely. The didn’t want to draw the fire of the ‘no-nukes’ crowd.

“Not DeMint. ‘The nuclear-weapons treaty President Obama has negotiated with the Russians may help him make America’s erstwhile Cold War adversary happy,’ he declared, ‘but it won’t help protect us from the rogue nations that threaten the United States today.’  He proceeded to offer some hard-hitting amendments to try fix the treaty’s flaws.

“The amendments failed, and the committee sent New START to the full Senate.  But DeMint clearly intends to press his point.

“That Friday he spoke at the Value Voters Summit, a mammoth conservative convention mounted in Washington, D.C., by the Family Research Council Action. The summit focuses on social and fiscal issues, and DeMint’s did hit on those issues.

“But he also made a point of questioning the New START and plugging missile defense–something many analysts (including me!) fear might have to be curtailed because of language in the treaty.”