9/30/10

With just over a month until the mid-term elections, partisanship has flatlined Congress, forcing Members to pass a stopgap spending measure to keep our government running.  With a significant number of legislative priorities requiring attention during the lame duck session, one of the most urgent items Congress should take up is the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START).  New START is not only a priority for our national security, but it also enjoys broad, bipartisan support - a rarity in today's partisan climate.  The Senate has a history of approving strategic arms control agreements on a strong, bipartisan basis.  In fact, 18 years ago tomorrow, the Senate passed the original START agreement on a 93-6 vote.  The New START accord is squarely in line with its predecessor, giving today's conservatives a chance to continue the legacy of Ronald Reagan by reducing the threat of nuclear weapons.  There is bipartisan momentum to approve this treaty, with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently voting 14-4 in favor of New START.  However, a small minority of extreme conservatives, led by figures such as Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), could stand in the way, forcing Senators to make a choice: make America safer or side with the fringe.        

Bipartisan experts agree: passage of New START is an urgent national security priority.  This week, members of the Consensus for American Security - a group of eminent national security experts and military leaders - submitted a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) urging the Senate to ratify the New START accord before the end of the year. The letter reads in part "As retired military officers and national security experts who have spent our careers dedicated to protecting the security of the United States, we respectfully request you commit to a full Senate vote on ratification of the New START Treaty before the end of this year. Building on the vision of previous presidents from both parties, New START allows us to invest in the nuclear security priorities necessary to confront the threats of today and tomorrow. The treaty offers a streamlined and modern verification system that demands quicker and more transparent inspections and information exchanges, bringing new weight to ‘trust but verify.'  With New START in force, America will be safer.  Currently, we have no verification regime to account for Russia's strategic nuclear weapons. Two hundred and ninety seven (297) days have elapsed since American teams have been allowed to inspect Russian nuclear forces, and we are concerned that further inaction will bring unacceptable lapses in U.S. intelligence about Russia's strategic arsenal.  Without New START, we believe that the United States is less secure." 

The signers of the letter - including former Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former Advisor the Secretary of Defense under President Reagan Graham Allison, former National Security Advisor Samuel Berger, Ambassador Richard Burt (U.S. Chief Negotiator for the original START), former Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Major General Paul Eaton, Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, Ambassador Steven Pifer, Ambassador Wendy R.  Sherman and former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott - represent the latest in a long list of bipartisan experts and military leaders who have strongly endorsed the treaty.  In addition, seven former STRATCOM Commanders - those responsible for commanding our nuclear forces - noted their strong support, saying "We strongly endorse its early ratification and entry into force."  And as former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger stated in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: this "decision will affect the prospects for peace for a decade or more. It is, by definition, not a bipartisan, but a nonpartisan, challenge." [CAS Letter, 9/28/10. STRATCOM Letter, 7/14/10. Henry Kissinger, 5/25/10]

New START is squarely in line with past strategic arms control treaties - which the Senate passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis.  The original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty was negotiated by Ronald Reagan, signed by George H. W. Bush and entered into force under Bill Clinton.  The United States Senate gave its advice and consent to ratify this important treaty on October 1, 1992 - 18 years ago from tomorrow.  Joe Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund, wrote yesterday, "On October 1, 1992, the Senate ratified [Ronald Reagan's] START I treaty. The agreement cut U.S. and Russian long-range nuclear weapons by 30 percent. Keeping with Reagan's ‘trust but verify' mantra, it established for the first time a system of mutual and rigorous nuclear weapons inspections.  The vote to approve the treaty was 93-6. Amidst the chaos and uncertainty of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. Senate managed to overcome partisanship and vote overwhelmingly in favor of bolstering American security... Some Senators, including a number who were around to vote in favor of the first START treaty, have forgotten Ronald Reagan's legacy of responsible threat reduction. New START is not a radical shift in U.S. security policy. The new treaty places the same inspectors back into Russia to continue the vital work that Reagan tasked them with years ago. It cuts deployed long-range forces by 30 percent, as did Reagan's treaty, but still leaves both nations with more than enough weapons for any conceivable military contingency...The Senate should respect Reagan's legacy and pass this vital national security treaty."  [Joe Cirincione, 9/29/10]

Conservatives face a choice:  make America safer or side with the fringe.  Conservatives have fissured into two blocks when it comes to U.S. nuclear security and the New START Treaty. The first group represents serious foreign policy thinkers who understand the importance of getting U.S. boots back on the ground in Russia and reducing the Russian nuclear arsenal through ratification of New START. They are part of a bipartisan consensus of senior national security officials with experience reaching far back into the Cold War who have called for the immediate ratification of the treaty.

The second group, led by Senator DeMint - who is known for frequently confusing Russia and the Soviet Union and for angering even fellow conservatives with his obstructionism - continues to play politics with American security. Using dangerous ploys and political dog whistles in an effort to gum up the treaty, DeMint tried to insert an amendment during the Foreign Relations Committee markup of the resolution to ratify the New START Treaty that would have committed the U.S. to building a missile defense system capable of defending against every possible missile attack from every possible foreign threat, including Russia. Defense Secretary Robert Gates called that proposal "enormously destabilizing, not to mention unbelievably expensive." Outside of government, extreme conservatives such as Mitt Romney - who touted his opposition to New START in a letter to raise money for his 2012 presidential campaign - parrot this position by making what Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senator John Kerry (D-MA) called "a cynical ploy that seeks to exploit public fear of nuclear weapons." The faction that conservatives choose to side with will clearly show whether they are serious about protecting American national security or more interested in scoring partisan political points.  [Senator Lugar, 7/17/10. Josh Rogin, 9/28/10. John Kerry, via Foreign Policy, 9/16/10]

What We're Reading

New sanctions against Iran implemented by the United Arab Emirates have led to a sharp drop this week in the value of Iran's currency, prompting the government to consider intervening.

Pakistan closed a vital transit link for NATO supplies for the war in Afghanistan in apparent retaliation for an attack by coalition helicopters on a Pakistani security post hours earlier.

President Barack Obama requested Israel extend the West Bank settlement construction moratorium by only two months.

The Justice Department is stepping up efforts to stanch the flow of money to violent Mexican drug cartels and impound the assets of corrupt officials around the world.

The threat level against the president and other government targets by the radical right is on the rise, as are criminal investigations by the FBI and state authorities, according to a six-month TIME investigation.

An Indian court ruled that the site of a demolished mosque would be split between Hindus and Muslims, dousing immediate fears of a violent backlash in one of the country's most religiously divisive cases.

Talks between North and South Korea ended with no apparent progress and no new meetings scheduled.

The Irish government announced that it expected to inject billions more euros into two of its largest banks in a sweeping action meant to regain the confidence of jittery investors.

China thumbed its nose at US legislation aimed at forcing China to strengthen its currency, the yuan, which critics say China keeps artificially low.

The Security Council today lifted the arms embargo and other sanctions it imposed on Sierra Leone more than 12 years ago during the civil war there.

Commentary

Hannah Gurman suggests Cuba could be the "new corporate utopia" for American businesses.

Sadanand Dhume writes Pakistan could learn about economic growth and confronting terrorism from its former eastern province, Bangladesh.

Nicholas Kristof warns another bloody war and genocide is brewing in Sudan in the coming months, saying the Obama administration needs to take a tougher stance.