The Prague Project

Last year, the day after President Obama and President Medvedev signed New START, Ploughshares Fund and the Center for Policy Studies in Russia (PIR Center) founded a group of American and Russian security and defense experts called the Sustainable Partnership with Russia Group, or the SuPR Group.  This morning the SuPR Group released a report with recommendations to further reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles and to strengthen bilateral cooperation as both countries look to counter some of the greatest threats to national and international security, including nuclear proliferation and nuclear security.

The Old Super Group

Before being released to the general public the SuPR Group’s report was circulated to high level U.S. officials in the White House, State Department, Department of Defense and Congress and Top Russian officials, including Russian President Medvedev, were briefed on the Group’s conclusions.

The report was developed following a two-day discussion held last February in Gstaad, Switzerland, by the members of the Group and a handful of official observers; it cautions that failure to nurture the success of the New START could lead to a “cold pause” in U.S.-Russian relations and undermine the security of both nations. The SuPR Group has identified 7 immediate next steps for U.S. and Russian policy-makers to act on in order to avoid such a strategic misstep.  Their recommendations are as follows:

1. Accelerate reductions mandated by New START to ensure completion prior to the next NPT Review Conference
2. Establish greater transparency with regard to U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons, including disclosures of the number of weapons dismantled each year
3. Take measures to “de-alert” nuclear weapons
4. Make progress on NATO-Russia missile defense cooperation and the Conventional Forces in Europe regime
5. Re-energize and elevate bilateral consultations on the Iranian nuclear and missile programs, working toward a common understanding of the risks and a list of options
6. Take an active role in facilitating the success of the 2012 Conference on establishing a WMD-free zone in the Middle East
7. Widen participation of Middle Eastern states in international nonproliferation discussion fora such as the Nuclear Security Summit

Since President Obama took office much has been made of the “reset” in the U.S. relationship with Russia and the ratification of New START has often been heralded the key component of the that “reset”.  However, as these seasoned defense experts have urged, U.S. and Russian national security are best served by accelerating the reductions called for in New START and working to create new avenues for cooperation.  As Joe Crincione, President of Ploughshares Fund and a member of the SUPR Group, and Haleh Hatami discussed in their recent op-ed, “The New START reactivated the weapons inspection regime between the two countries and put them back on the road to reducing the two largest nuclear stockpiles in the world.  But since then, momentum has slowed.”

The goal for both countries policy-makers should be to move as quickly as possible to eclipse the achievements of New START, not settle for them.  Indeed, it should be noted that the SuPR Group’s recommendations were similar to those recently discussed by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov in The New York Times.  It goes without saying that the active pursuit of these recommendations would greatly bolster U.S. and Russian national security.

The SuPR Group is slated to reconvene in Washington D.C. before the end of the year (2011) to continue there ongoing discussion and adjust their recommendations for U.S. and Russian security cooperation.

Saint Nicholas worked his magic today at the U.S. Capitol Building, presiding over the ascension of reason over fear and logic over politics–a true Christmas miracle.  Other than being the inspiration for modern day Santa Claus, we know that Saint Nick was a 4^th century Greek bishop, whose original name, Nicolaos, translates as “victory of the people.”  And what a victory it was.

Yesterday the Senate voted 71-26 in favor of ratification of the New START treaty.  After more than 382 days since the original START treaty expired, Americans can now rest assured that the United States will soon regain the ability to inspect Russia’s nuclear facilities and keep track of a significantly smaller Russian strategic nuclear arsenal. America’s military and foreign policy leaders are no doubt relieved to again have the United States back in the business of verifiable nuclear weapons reductions.

While we wait for New START to enter into force, we can at least begin seeing the indirect benefits provided by concluding this treaty.  Trust between Moscow and Washington has been bolstered (even if just a little).  This will only help as the U.S. and Russia advance cooperation on matters of counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics, counter-insurgency, and counter-proliferation.  Russian assistance is key to success in all of these challenges, and New START puts on a path where that cooperation is more likely to yield returns.  Moreover, New START proves once again for the world and reassured our allies that the United States is capable of leading on the international stage.

Last but not least, New START is a modest but crucial step towards realizing the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.  This goal is distant, but the steps are clear.  And although the Senate just took a step in the right direction, it is not their generation that will rid the world of its nuclear shadow–it is ours. Eliminating nuclear weapons will never be easy, but, as with New START, we can continue to make progress towards securing and reducing global arsenals.  New START does not accomplish that goal, not even close, but we do know that the prospect of a nuclear-free world would be much dimmer without it.

Maybe the Senators finally got it, maybe they were persuaded by the echoing voices of military and national security experts, or maybe they just wanted to go home.  Whatever the reasoning, the Senate provided its advice and consent for the New START treaty.

Consider it a ‘victory for the people’ from Saint Nick or the Senate’s gift to American citizens–either way it’s just in time for Christmas.

Nearly three months ago, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved New START with bipartisan support.  Since then, treaty supporters have been waiting for Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to bring the ratification debate to the Senate floor, hold a vote, and prove that at least nine Republicans (the number needed for New START to pass) care more about national security than they do about political jockeying.

Last week, in a stunning performance on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) threw down the gauntlet to New START naysayers like Senator Jim Demint (R-SC).

Sen. Shaheen was brilliant.  She outlined the reasons why the treaty should be ratified NOW and described the bipartisan throng of national security heavyweights that support the treaty and describe it as central to U.S. national security.  She reminded her colleagues of the amount of time and patience that the Administration has given to answer questions and allay senators’ remaining concerns.

Picking a favorite line in Sen. Shaheen’s speech is extremely challenging, but, for the sake of time, I’m going with:

We should not play partisan politics when it comes to nuclear weapons.  In a speech this morning at the Heritage Foundation, my colleague, Senator Jim DeMint claimed that the New START Treaty weakens our national security.  Nearly the entire foreign policy and national security establishment – Democrats and Republicans alike – completely disagrees with him.

BAM (but yeah, read the whole thing)

Basically, Sen. Shaheen drew a line in the sand: senators have the opportunity to take a step for national security by lining up ready to support New START’s ratification, or they can continue with shameless political gaming.  At the end of the day, at least 67 senators will have to vote for our national security.  In order to secure those votes, Majority Leader Harry Reid is going to have to get his ducks in a row.

While we wait for a floor debate, it is useful to explore which Republicans are are likely to fall in.  Here’s the latest breakdown of GOP senators who support New START or seem to be waddling that direction:

Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) – A true baller and shot caller, Lugar has been a supporter of New START from the beginning of time.

“I strongly support the New START Treaty and believe that it deserves the bipartisan support received by past arms control treaties. It will make verifiable reductions in strategic nuclear launchers and warheads and replace the 1991 START I Treaty that expired last year. Most importantly, New START will enable American verification teams to return to Russia to collect data on the Russian arsenal and verify Russian compliance.”

See?  Baller.

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) – Tweeted her support for New START on December 10 and issued a press release where she declared, “I support the President’s commitment to reduce not only the number of strategic nuclear weapons through the New START treaty, but also to reduce, in the future, those weapons that are most vulnerable to theft and misuse – and those are tactical nuclear weapons.”

Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) – Released a press statement on December 10 in support of the treaty.

“I am confident that New START will provide predictability in our relationship with Russia and thus enhance global stability, and most importantly, our national security.  Therefore, if the Majority moves to consider New START under a framework that allows for sufficient debate and amendments, I intend to support the Resolution of Advice and Consent.”

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) – Gave a nod to New START on December 10 during a statement he made at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, commenting, “I still hope we will be able to bring this up next week, and a lot of work is being done to that effect.…I think we are very close.”

Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) – On September 16, Isakson voted in favor of New START’s resolution of ratification in the Senate Foreign relations Committee.  Senator Isakson has also described, on his official website why it is important for the Senate to ratify New START.

Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio) – In an interview with the Wall Street Journal following NATO’s Lisbon Summit, Voinovich said, “There seems to be a lot of coming together there and a lot more comfort [with the treaty] among our friends and allies in Europe,” Mr. Voinovich said. “I think I’d be supportive.”

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) – In early December, Sen. Graham said that he was “pleased with the way things are moving” on New START.  He went on to say that “There’s growing belief among Republicans that to do the treaty sooner rather than later would be beneficial, if you had enough time to debate it” and consider amendments to the resolution of ratification.

Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) – While discussing his top priorities last week, Sen. Brown told Congressional Quarterly: “I think we need to do taxes and the CR.  Then we need to move on.  The next thing I think we should do after that is START.”

Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) – Has said he is “leaning yes.”

Senator Robert Corker (R-TN) – On September 16, Corker voted in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to send New START to the Senate for ratification.  The Obama Administration has more than adequately addressed Corker’s main concern regarding treaty ratification, the need for funding to modernize the nuclear weapon complex, by promising up to 180 billion dollars for modernization over the course of the next 10 years.

An amazing bipartisan consensus has developed over the New START treaty that many are now calling a national security imperative.  In the face of a bipartisan wave of support from current and formernational security leaders and the U.S. military, will the Senate thwart something that is so strongly in the national interest?

As of this Sunday, December 5^th, it will have been one full year since American inspectors were allowed in Russian nuclear facilities (see the counter in the top right corner).  Without these inspections, the U.S. intelligence community has been in the dark on Russia’s nuclear arsenal.  The military does not want to be in this situation anymore.  As Gen. Kevin Chilton, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, has warned:

Without New START, we would rapidly lose insight into Russian strategic nuclear force developments and activities, and our force modernization planning and hedging strategy would be more complex and more costly. Without such a regime, we would unfortunately be left to use worst-case analyses regarding our own force requirements.

Put more simply by James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, when it comes to New START, “the sooner, the better.”

For decades Senators has relied on trusted and respected national security leaders to advise them on matters of American security.  The Joint Chiefs of Staff, current and former Secretaries of State, current and former Secretaries of Defense, seasoned military officers, experienced national security civil servants, and more–these are the people trusted to keep the country safe.  They are all united in support of New START, but now, at the last minute, some Senators have decided to stop listening to them.

New START has the unanimous support of the U.S. military.  The Senate has more than enough time to ratify it before it concludes this session.  When the treaty comes to a vote, the final contest will be between those who trust the advice of our seasoned and experienced national security leaders and those who wish to defy it.

Still, most Republican senators have been slow to show their support for the treaty because it is one of the Obama administration’s top national security priorities.

Their opposition also flies in the face of a vital historical consensus on the responsibility of nuclear powers to maintain the stability and predictability of their nuclear arsenals.  Ronald Reagan himself codified this consensus in the INF treaty and the first START treaty.  As Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, chief negotiator of the New START treaty, explained in a recent op-ed:

President Reagan famously challenged the Soviets to ‘trust but verify.’ His concept for a strong verification regime that includes on-site inspections was first implemented in July 1988 under the treaty between the United States and the U.S.S.R. on the elimination of their intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles (the INF Treaty).

The U.S. military has not forgotten that legacy and is pressing hard for treaty opponents to remember it.  But national security experts cannot ratify the treaty.  They can only advise lawmakers and remind them of the dangers of an unchecked nuclear world.

The U.S. military has made a very strong case for ratification of New START.  Now it is up to Senators to heed the advice of these trusted and respected stewards of American security, or stand defiantly against the national interest for the sake of shameful partisanship.

In his 2001 Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing, John Bolton testified:

Now I hate to be accused of thinking like a lawyer, but I have to tell you, it makes me a little bit nervous not to have the structures in place, particularly when it gets to questions of verification and compliance. [emphasis mine]

Bolton acknowledged that on-site inspections of the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal – like those under START and modernized for New START– have advantages.  Their absence would apparently send a quiver through his mustache (below).

Lately, Bolton has done nothing but malign the New START treaty.  A few weeks ago, Bolton hit the pages of The Washington Times with Paula DeSutter.  They noted the current absence of on-site inspections, but said, “there is no arms control crisis here.”  Today in The New York Times, Bolton teamed up with John Yoo – the legal mind behind George W. Bush’s torture policies – to argue against the New START treaty and Senate process.

It has now been 340 days since the U.S. lost the ability to inspect Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons.  Once ratified by the Senate, New START will improve our national security by reestablishing that capability and reducing both U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals.  But Bolton does not like the treaty – advocating it’s rejection after it was signed and pushing delay tactics now.

It appears that Bolton has swallowed his nervousness on verification.  Or, perhaps his commentary was as misleading then as it is now.

Bolton has always been an interesting character.  His latest antics only add to his harrowing credibility gap.  But why is he still perceived as a legitimate voice on national security, especially on treaties?

An Unbalanced Debate

Bolton is the most outspoken opponent to the New START treaty and has become the arms control darling for the extreme right.  Given the massive number of military and bipartisan national security experts who have voiced their support for this treaty, it’s surprising that Bolton can still be heard.

“This treaty has the full support of your uniformed military,” testified Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen.  STRATCOM Commander Gen. Kevin Chilton supports New START, as does his predecessor JCS Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright and 7 commanders that came before him.  Just yesterday, Lt. Gen. Frank Klotz, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, said, ”My sense is that the START Treaty ought to be ratified and ought to be ratified as soon as possible.”  These officers are joined by over a dozen former senior military officers who also support New START.  That’s a lot of military brass, in addition to the former cabinet officials and national security experts who are lining out the door in support of this treaty.

Bolton is joined by a lonely handful of mostly former Bush officials – Heritage counts them at six, plus John Yoo.  Why The New York Times feels a need to let him represent this vanishingly small minority opinion remains a mystery.

A Broken Record

John Bolton never met a treaty he didn’t like.  So when Bolton’s name appears in an article about a treaty, assume that he rejects the treaty outright or is being disingenuous.

When in government, Bolton killed, disemboweled and publically denigrated treaties – the ABM treaty, BWC protocol and the NPT, respectively.  In Bolton’s eyes, treaties only burden the U.S. – regardless the net security benefits made in tradeoff.  Instead of seeking agreements, Bolton ritually pushes U.S. unilateralism and spurns arms control as a tool of international security.

As he wrote in his memoir, “I saw treaties as essentially only political documents, and the whole debate over what was ‘legally binging’ in ‘international law’ as just another theological exercise, I didn’t care about the answer.”  He would rather any adjustments to U.S. nuclear forces be done unilaterally or informally with Russia – as his Moscow Treaty codified without worry for verification or implementation.

With his time outside of government, Bolton continues his broken record by taking it to the op-ed pages.  Editors have been eager to oblige.

A Lesson in Rejecting Bad Advice

It is difficult to take Bolton seriously.  He had plenty of time in government to help advance U.S. national security.  Instead, he furthered his own narrow ideology.  Through his efforts and the administration he worked for, the U.S. lost credibility abroad and wasted many opportunities to advance the interests of the United States [Bolton and Yoo were key players in items 13 and 6 on that list, respectively].  Given Bolton’s sole devotion to kicking dirt in the President’s eye on foreign policy, it’s impossible to sort Bolton’s politics from his policies in the first place.

Worse yet, accepting Bolton’s advice on New START would equate to dismissing the advice of the U.S. military leadership and several generation’s worth of national security leaders.

Until someone convincingly explains to me why I shouldn’t, I’m going to side with the men and women with “General,” “Secretary,” and “Commander” in their title.