6/18/10

Support for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty has been overwhelming.  Every expert witness who has been called to testify on the treaty has endorsed ratification of the accord.  With the full support of the military leadership of the United States behind it, it is, in the words of former Republican Secretary of Defense and longtime nuclear expert James Schlesinger, "obligatory" for the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty.  The men and women who are responsible for defending our country have repeatedly stated that the New START accord will not prevent the United States from deploying the most effective and cost-efficient missile defense system possible.  Our top uniformed officers agree that the New START agreement actually reduces some of the constraints the previous START agreement placed on our missile defenses.  In the future, it may even be possible to expand our capabilities by utilizing portions of Russia's missile defense system.  Such cooperation would strengthen the ability of the United States to protect its allies and send the Iranian regime and other potential proliferators a clear message.  Failure to ratify the agreement would, in the words of George H.W Bush's National Security Advisor General Brent Scowcroft, throw our efforts to control nuclear threats into a "state of chaos." 

National security officials, military, and technical experts from across the political spectrum agree that the Senate must ratify the New START accord.  Every single national security, military, and technical expert who has testified on the New START agreement has urged the United States Senate to ratify the treaty:

James Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense for Presidents Nixon and Ford and the Secretary of Energy for President Carter: "It is obligatory for the United States to ratify."  [James Schlesinger, 4/29/10]

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "I encourage the Senate to fully study the treaty. I believe you will see the wisdom of ratifying it, and I sit before you recommending that you do so." [Michael Mullen, 6/17/10]

General Kevin Chilton, STRATCOM Commander: "I want to begin by assuring you that I was fully consulted during the treaty negotiation process and I support the ratification of New START."  [Kevin Chilton, 6/16/10]

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu: "We share a strong belief that the New START treaty will make our country more secure. And we urge the Senate to ratify it expeditiously." [Gates, Clinton and Chu, 6/17/10]

Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor to President Nixon and Secretary of State to Presidents Nixon and Ford:  "I recommend ratification of this treaty." [Henry Kissinger, 5/25/10]

Stephen Hadley, National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush: "The New START Treaty makes its modest but nonetheless useful contribution to the national security of the United States and to international stability." [Stephen Hadley, 6/10/10]

New START does not limit U.S. missile defense systems or in any way diminish our ability to protect and defend our allies.  Our leading uniformed officers have repeatedly stressed that the New START agreement does not constrain the missile defense plans of the United States.  In fact, the U.S. now has the freedom to conduct certain tests that were limited by the previous START agreement.

Director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly:  "The New START Treaty actually reduces previous START treaty's constraints on developing missile defense programs in several areas." [General O'Reilly, 6/16/10]

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: ‘The treaty will not constrain the United States from deploying the most effective missile defenses possible nor impose additional costs or barriers on those defenses." [Sec. Gates, 6/17/10]

Commander of U.S. Strategic Command General Chilton:  "As the combatant command also responsible for synchronizing global missile defense plans, operations, and advocacy, this treaty does not constrain any current missile defense plans." [Kevin Chilton, 6/16/10]

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Ash Carter:  "Missile defenses have become a topic of some discussion in the context of the Senate's consideration of the New START Treaty with Russia. The fact is that the treaty does not constrain the U.S. from testing, developing and deploying missile defenses. Nor does it prevent us from improving or expanding them. Nor does it raise the costs of doing so. We have made clear to our Russian counterparts that missile defense cooperation between us is in our mutual interest, and is not inconsistent with the need to deploy and improve our missile defense capabilities as threats arise." [Flournoy and Carter via WSJ, 6/17/10]

In addition, in the future, the United States may expand it missile defense system by incorporating additional information from Russian radars that would help strengthen U.S. capabilities.  As Josh Rogin of The Cable explains, the U.S. has long considered cooperating with Russia on missile defense issues. "U.S. officials and lawmakers have been calling for formal U.S.-Russia missile defense cooperation for decades. When Ronald Reagan unveiled the original plans for missile defense in the 1980's, he repeatedly talked about sharing missile defense technology with Russia as a means toward eventually eliminating offensive strategic ballistic missiles.  Formal talks on cooperation date back to 1992. The most visible sign was the 1997 agreement to start the Russian American Observation Satellite (RAMOS) program... A "framework" or "draft agreement" is being considered, but it only covers future cooperation, not current deployment plans. The draft also includes data sharing, joint radar systems, and the like, but the U.S. side has been clear that limits on either the quantity or quality of missile defense deployments that fall outside the framework are not on the table. The Obama administration has requested $9.9 billion for missile defense in fiscal year 2011."

Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Carl Levin (D-MI) further explained yesterday: "An expansion or additional capability, which would be a very powerful statement to Iran, just like the recent sanction vote in the U.N. was a powerful statement to Iran. They are more and more isolated, not just from people who have traditionally been very outspoken about the threat, but now even from the Russians and the Chinese."  [The Cable, 6/17/10. Sen. Levin, 6/17/10]

Failure to ratify the New START treaty in a timely manner will have negative consequences for national and global security.  A rejection of the New START agreement would not only wipe clean the progress that has been made on reducing the threat of nuclear weapons, but it would also severely strain our relations with the international community.  Global cooperation is paramount for dealing with rogue states like Iran and North Korea.  By rejecting this treaty, the United States would also be rejecting opportunities to thwart the threats posed by such states.  As President George H.W. Bush's National Security Advisor, General Brent Scowcroft (Ret.) explained, "The principal result of non-ratification would be to throw the whole nuclear negotiating situation into a state of chaos."

Henry Kissinger further explained the impact on the international environment in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee saying: "In deciding on ratification, the concerns need to be measured against the consequences of non-ratification, particularly interrupting a [bilateral arms control] process that has been going on for decades, the relationship to the NPT, and to the attempt to achieve a strategic coherence. And so, for all these reasons, I recommend ratification of this treaty...In short, this committee's decision will affect the prospects for peace for a decade or more. It is, by definition, not a bipartisan, but a nonpartisan, challenge... This START treaty is an evolution of treaties that have been negotiated in previous administrations of both parties. And its principal provisions are an elaboration or a continuation of existing agreements. Therefore, a rejection of them would indicate that a new period of American policy had started that might rely largely on the unilateral reliance of its nuclear weapons, and would therefore create an element of uncertainty in the calculations of both adversaries and allies. And therefore, I think it would have an unsettling impact on the international environment." Kissinger was joined by his fellow Cold Warriors who outlined the consequences of failing to ratify the new accord.  Secretary Schlesinger stated that failure to ratify this treaty "would have a detrimental effect on our ability to influence others with regard to, particularly, the nonproliferation issue," and Secretary Perry further commented that "If we fail to ratify this treaty, the U.S. forfeits any right to leadership on nonproliferation policies."  [Brent Scowcroft, 6/10/10. Henry Kissinger, 5/25/10. William Perry and James Schlesinger, 4/29/10]

What We're Reading

Kyrgyzstan's interim president said that 2,000 people may have died in the ethnic clashes that have rocked the country's south - 10 times her government's official estimate - as she made her first visit to a riot-hit city since the unrest erupted.

Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad was indicted on 10 counts including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, attempting an act of terrorism and transportation of an explosive -five more than originally expected.

Turkey's military said it killed as many as 120 Kurdish rebels in an air raid on rebel hideouts in northern Iraq last month and a daylong incursion by elite commandos into Iraq this week.

Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said the world must send a strong message to North Korea that its provocative actions are unacceptable.

IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn met with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero amid rumors the country is seeking a bailout from the EU and IMF.

Gunmen with automatic weapons stormed a house outside Fallujah, Iraq, killing a Sunni Awakening Council member, his wife, and three of his children.

Dozens of miners were trapped and feared dead after a fiery blast tore through a tunnel in a Colombian coal mine during a shift change, killing at least 16 workers.

South African electricity workers gave mediators three more days to resolve a pay dispute with employers and avert power cuts during the World Cup.

European Union leaders meeting in Brussels have agreed to call for a tax on global financial transactions at the G20 in Toronto next week. Also, they approved Estonia's bid to join the euro currency.

The first study of its kind has found that 270 tons of illegal bushmeat could be passing through one of Europe's busiest airports each year.

Commentary of the Day

Marc Lynch responds to conservative critiques that "the Arab core is hollowing," arguing that U.S. policy towards the Middle East has changed too little from the Bush years, not too much.

Philip Stephens argues that Turkey has not been lost to the West. Not yet, anyway. What has happened is that the terms of engagement have changed.

Hussein Ibish says that while no one is looking, the Palestinians are building a state-and it's time to pitch in.