The New Myths of New START
Heritage.org
What do
Senators
Jon Kyl (R–AZ),
Scott Brown (R–MA), and
George Voinovich (R-OH) all have in common? One
Senator is from a blue state, one from a red state,
and the other is retiring from office all together.
But last week each of them told the White House
that, despite their belief in the need for a nuclear
treaty with Russia, this lame duck is not the right
time to vote on President Barack Obama’s New START.
Faced with these setbacks, the Obama Administration
has gone into campaign mode, throwing out any
argument they can think of to browbeat Senators into
voting on the treaty now. Their favorite talking
point is that none other than President Ronald
Reagan himself would have supported this treaty. The
President invoked Reagan’s name three times at a
White House event last Thursday. And this
Saturday he mentioned Reagan’s name five times in
his
weekly radio address. The problem is that Reagan
would never have signed on to President Obama’s New
START.
While President Reagan did negotiate and sign the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with
the Soviet Union, that does not mean he would have
signed any agreement that reduced U.S. nuclear
weapons. As Heritage Vice President of Foreign and
Defense Policy Studies Kim Holmes
notes, Reagan would never sacrifice our missile
defense capabilities for treaty concessions: “Why
did Ronald Reagan walk away from Mikhail Gorbachev’s
offer to eliminate nuclear weapons if only we gave
up the Strategic Defense Initiative? Why did Reagan
not take him up on that offer? The reason is that
Reagan believed strategic defenses were the
essential ingredient in disarmament—the exact
opposite of what Gorbachev’s vision was then and
President Obama’s vision is today.”
And
President Obama’s New START contains at least five
sections that limit missile defense, including:
(1) Paragraph 9 of the Preamble explicitly links
missile defense and offensive nuclear weapons; (2)
Paragraph 3 of Article V prohibits conversion of
offensive strategic missile launchers to launchers
of defensive interceptors and vice versa; (3) an
array of provisions limit and restrict certain types
of missiles and missile launchers that are used as
targets in missile defense tests; (4) Article XII
and Part Six of the Protocol create an implementing
body, called the Bilateral Consultative Commission,
that could impose additional restrictions on the
U.S. missile defense program; and (5) Article IX,
Part Seven of the Protocol, and the Annex on
Telemetric Information to the Protocol could be
interpreted in a way that could lead the U.S. to
share telemetric information from missile defense
tests. This information could be used to undermine
the effectiveness of our missile defenses.
Claims that Reagan would have supported New START
are not the only myths emanating from the White
House. Other false claims include:
(1)
Without New START, terrorists would get nukes:
There is a real threat that terrorists could get
nuclear weapons. But the nukes that are most
vulnerable to terrorist threats are Russia’s 10,000
tactical nuclear weapons—which are not covered by
New START!
(2)
Without New START, Israel’s security would be
compromised: In their zeal to see the treaty
passed as soon as possible, some proponents have
proclaimed that New START is “a Jewish issue.” New
START is only marginally relevant to Moscow’s policy
in the Middle East. And not every foreign and
national security issue is a “Jewish issue” because
it has some tangential connection to Iran. New START
should be considered on its merits.
(3)
Without New START, our nuclear arsenal would not be
modernized: By threatening to withhold funding
unless the treaty is ratified, the White House would
be playing crass politics with national security. If
funds are needed for the most vital and sensitive
military capability in the military’s arsenal, they
should never be held hostage to a political deal. To
bargain with the nation’s security is the antithesis
of the appropriate behavior of a commander-in-chief.
It would also demonstrate the lack of the
President’s real commitment to his responsibility as
the steward of America’s nuclear arsenal.
Conditioning funding for nuclear program on New
START is playing politics with our national
security. If the dollars are needed, they should be
provided without conditions—period.
(4)
Without New START, we can’t verify Russia’s arsenal:
The Administration and proponents of the treaty are
also arguing for a quick “lame duck” ratification by
saying that the U.S. is in danger without New START,
because without a verification regime it lacks
insight into Russia’s nuclear forces. This is rather
amazing, considering that Administration officials
have insisted that Russia is not a threat. Moreover,
the lack of verification measures, supporters of the
treaty argue, is increasing instability and
uncertainty between the two major nuclear powers.
Yet this is the result of the Administration’s own
actions. The White House did not move to take
advantage of a five-year extension clause under
START I and instead
insisted on negotiating a separate agreement. At
the time, the Administration justified its approach
by saying that it was more important to get the
treaty right
rather than get the treaty soon.
(5) Without New START’s inspections, satellites
would be diverted from other missions: The New START
inspections are not nearly valuable enough to alter
our satellite needs. Paula DeSutter, former
Assistant Secretary of State for Verification,
Compliance and Implementation, told
The Washington Times:
“Our overall satellite capability is not what it
used to be and not what it ought to be. Eighteen
spot inspections a year is not going to fill the gap
left by inadequate NTM capabilities. If we want
better coverage of Russia’s strategic threats, we
are going to have to launch more satellites.”
In his weekly address this Saturday, President Obama
said about New START: “Some have asked whether
it will limit our missile defense—it will not.”
Forgive us for not taking this President at his
word. This is the same President who said Americans
could keep their doctor under Obamacare, the same
President who promised a net spending cut, and the
same President who promised that his economic
stimulus plan would keep unemployment below 8
percent. The Senate considered the original START
for nearly a year. The Obama Administration
took more than 12 months to negotiate New START but
has sought approval from the Senate in less than
five. And they still have not released the
negotiating record. Just like Obamacare, they want
votes without legislators knowing what they are
voting for. If the case for New START is as strong
as the Obama administration claims it is, than the
White House should act like it and stop pushing for
a lame duck vote.