The Prague Project

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.

When the Senate reconvenes on November 15^th they will face a test of their willingness to govern.  A vote on the New START treaty will be the perfect assessment of Congressional willingness to overcome partisan squabbling and cooperatively bolster U.S. national security.  So can the Senate leave the politics of the election behind and pass the New START treaty?

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller hinted at this test of bipartisan governance in her remarks at an Arms Control Association event on Monday.  “It was a good treaty before the election, and it is a good treaty after the election,” said Gottemoeller.  Her point was clear and has been reiterated by many national security officials over the past week.  So how good is this treaty?  Good enough for 7 former Stratcom commanders for starters, but what else?

To recap, New START reduces the American and Russian deployed nuclear arsenals by 30 percent and places U.S. inspectors back in Russian nuclear sites to monitor their activities.  As General Kevin Chilton, the commander of U. S. Strategic Forces, reminds us, “without New START, we would rapidly lose insight into Russian strategic nuclear force developments and activities.”  That’s why our military leadership has repeatedly voiced their unanimous support for the treaty. The treaty is also backed by an overwhelming bipartisan coalition of former national security leaders.  The vast list of supporters includes patriotic luminaries like former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright, Henry Kissinger, and George Schultz.  In the words of Senator Lugar, “the reason why the START treaty might finally make it is that almost every American statesman or stateswoman of the last 20 years has come to testify that this is important.”

A vote on New START must be bipartisan by nature, as two-thirds of the Senate is required to give its advice and consent on a treaty.  New START, therefore, represents the first post-election test for the Senate about whether they can put aside politics in favor of serious action to move the country forward.

The Senate has had the treaty since May, held almost 20 hearings, and the Foreign Relations Committee approved the treaty with a 14-4 bipartisan vote.  Still, the treaty has not been brought to a full vote.  The midterm elections environment proved too toxic for some Senators and the White House to come to an agreement.  Other Senators, like Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) held up the treaty while negotiating for unrelated funds for the nuclear weapons complex in future budgets.

Now the elections are over, and the money has been doled out.  It is time for the Senate to heed the advice of so many national security leaders and decisively act to bolster U.S. national security.

Earlier this week both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton called for a vote on the treaty in the upcoming session of Congress.  Speaking on behalf of the Pentagon, Press Secretary Geoff Morrell also strongly urged the Senate to vote.  “This treaty is absolutely critical to the effectiveness of our nuclear arsenal, our knowledge of Russian nuclear capabilities and U.S. national security overall,” said Morrell.  “We’re advancing it at this time and pushing for ratification because we need this. And we need it sooner, rather than later.”

Senate partisanship is the last barrier to realizing the security benefits of New START.  The Senate returns to work on November 15th.  With elections fallout settled and the military asking for the treaty to be ratified, will the yet uncommitted Senators accept their responsibility and give this treaty their vote of approval?

Let’s hope they recognize this opportunity to demonstrate bipartisanship and improve our national security.

Paralyzed before the midterm elections, Congress kicked a can of some 20 important pieces of legislation down the road and into the post-election days.  Among these necessary votes to take place is the ratification of the New START Treaty, which would reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles by 30 percent and place U.S. inspectors back into Russia to monitor its nuclear sites.  New START has garnered the unanimous support of military officials and is backed by an overwhelming bipartisan coalition of former national security leaders.  Now, with the 112^th Congress widely expected to suffer from even more gridlock than its predecessor, the Administration is hoping that New START will feature prominently in a very productive lame-duck session.

On November 15, lawmakers will come back to Washington, DC and be expected to sit quietly and attempt to move legislation on nuclear security, the defense budget, Bush tax cuts, illegal immigration, Medicare, unemployment benefits, etc.  This is a lofty list.  Either Harry Reid went back to Nevada and found a time-turner, or somebody is kidding themselves.

Given the results of Tuesday’s election, the Republican Party will come back to Washington with newfound energy and might seek to scuttle or delay important legislation- at least until the new Congress is installed in January with more Republican seats.  Democrats may lack the energy to fight them on this.  What is clear, however, is that the lame-duck session will have to be productive in order to avoid a government shutdown (somebody explain to me how this is what our founders intended).  So how do you get Congress to do what it is supposed to do?

First of all, senators and the American people need to be reminded that members of Congress are elected to govern.  Over the next several days there will probably be a wave of anti-lame-duck press hammering against the legitimacy of what has already been disparagingly labeled ‘the fired congress.’  The 111^th Congress, however, just like every Congress before it, was elected to actually do things when they are in session.  They are supposed to fund the military, debate taxes, and, for the Senate, provide advice and consent on treaties.

Regardless, opponents of the New START treaty may latch onto the ill-conceived message of a “Congress without a mandate” for the purpose of delaying the ratification process.  However, the 111^th Congress still has a mandate to govern until January 2011.  The least they can do is accept their responsibility to govern and use that mandate to ratify New START this year.

By Michael Crabtree

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee continues forward with hearings on the New START Treaty, despite vocal opposition from stubborn opponents relentlessly repeating the same misguided objections. Listening to these obstinate members of Congress continue to regurgitate these same obstructive statements, a listener is left wondering if any amount of information, military experts or hearings would really convince them to put security over partisan politics.

Working Across the Aisle for a New START

Bipartisan collaboration is not only possible, it has been a cornerstone of non-proliferation treaties since START I. The New START Treaty is no different. It maintains a broad coalition of support from respected individuals, both Democrat and Republican. As noted by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the treaty “is, by definition, not a bipartisan but a non-partisan challenge.” This claim has been echoed by a veritable parade of respected authorities, both civilian and military, that have come forward with their support.

During several hearings, the SFRC has heard the testimonies of former secretaries of state, secretaries of defense, and national security advisors. According to James Baker and William Perry, ratifying the treaty is crucial in preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue states. According to Henry Kissinger and Stephen Hadley, the New START is fundamental to the relationship between the United States and Russia.  Brent Scowcroft warned that if the U.S. fails to ratify the treaty, diplomatic efforts for nuclear nonproliferation may be thrust into “a state of chaos.”

Why Should We Ratify?

The reasons for ratifying the New START treaty are numerous and compelling. Since the expiration of START I in 2009, the United States and Russia have lost a critical stabilizing link between the two governments. For this reason, the treaty offers benefits far greater than an incremental decrease in nuclear weapons. It will reestablish definitions, counting rules, and a means of verification previously laid out in the expired START I treaty.

Failure of treaty ratification will have great strategic consequences. Henry Kissinger noted the importance of passing New START in order to achieve other key objectives, specifically “to reduce or eliminate the danger of war by miscalculation… to bring about the maximum stability in the balance of forces to reduce incentives for nuclear war by design… to overcome the danger of accidents fostered by the automaticity of the new technology.” Kissinger even broached the topic of disarmament, albeit cautiously, stating “All these measures combined might, if successful, merge into a strategy that would reduce or limit—and, in the end, perhaps eliminate—the use of these weapons as a conscious choice.”

To join the discussion and stay current with Committee proceedings, become a fan of the New START Page.

Michael Crabtree is a Research Associate at Citizens for Global Solutions. View the original blog at the Global Solutions Blog.