Clinton and Gates tell Senate: Ratify New START

Posted By P.J. Aroon Monday, November 15, 2010 - 1:05 PM Share

At this point, the New START arms-control treaty with Russia has been endorsed by:

  • All of the current U.S. military leadership
  • 7  former commanders of U.S. Strategic Command
  • 5 former defense secretaries
  • 3 former national security advisors
  • 6 former secretaries of state

By now it should be a no-brainer that the U.S. Senate should ratify this important treaty, but some senators still need convincing.

Thus, today in a Washington Post op-ed, Secretary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are calling on the U.S. Senate to ratify New START. The duo write that the treaty will allow U.S. inspectors to resume inspecting Russian nuclear forces, including 18 short-notice inspections per year, after a break in inspections since the previous START Treaty -- negotiated by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush -- expired in December 2009.  New START will also put into effect a verification regime under which the United States and Russia will reduce their arsenals to 1,550 strategic warheads each.

Clinton and Gates write that the treaty will promote key U.S. national security objectives, including: "Reducing the number of deployed nuclear weapons while retaining a safe and effective deterrent; providing direct insight into Russia's nuclear arsenal; and creating a more stable, predictable and cooperative relationship between the world's two leading nuclear powers."

The two secretaries stress that the New START treaty will neither limit the United States in  deploying missile defenses nor constrain its modernization of nuclear forces. It also won't restrict U.S. deployment of conventional weapons, "including strike systems that could potentially hit a target anywhere on the globe in less than an hour."

This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue. Clinton and Gates point out that every U.S. president since the start of the Cold War has favored verifiable arms-control agreements and that the Senate has wholeheartedly approved these deals. In 1992 in a 93-6 vote, it approved the START Treaty, negotiated under Reagan and the first Bush. In 2003 in a 95-0 vote, it approved the Moscow Treaty, negotiated by George W. Bush. 

The Senate needs to push New START through so U.S. inspectors can get back to inspecting those Russian missile silos and the United States can continue advancing its national security.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

EXPLORE:HILLARY, NUKES, RUSSIA
 

AMERICAN SON

10:54 AM ET

November 16, 2010

Foreign Policy - New Start's Implications

During WWII, and for a time thereafer, strategic thinking in America was at its highest. We built, we propered, we lived without war on our shores. Then, 9-11, and our desparate attempts to quell a worldwide insurgency, On this there is much to go over, but not here.

Here, we must look at what this magazine is all about: foreign policy. How many readers have asked what will the ramifications with our foreign policy be post a New Start Treaty and with the administration seeking further cuts? It would be far different than the present state of our being able basically do as we please because of our nuclear presence. But this they want to cut, drastically. There are all kind of arguments, but they are shallow. If there are specific items within the treaty having to do with verifications and on-site inspections, this is all the treaty should have been about in the first place. You study the problem before you jump into policies. But the president has held a view since his days as an undergraduate at Columbia and has brought this view into the White House. He comes on the scene when strategic thinking has decreased in vision and we see an America largely blind, largely manipulated, largely deceived. In our hubris we think we are the shapers. I submit we are largely unaware of the terrain, the enemy, the possibilites, and the ramifcations of proposed acts.

We are like nations in Barbara Tuchman's book, "The March of Folly," where the authoress asks why leaders so often do that which is opposite of the best interests of their constituents even though common sense would dictate otherwise. We know there is a difference between facts and beliefs, but it is so easy to get caught up in beliefs without examining the facts. Even the media is caught in the storm. Where is true investigative analysis? It surely is in short supply. We cannot make sound policy without full input of all variables. These, have been left out of the desire for New Start.

What are the long-range implications? Does the administration have a belief that we can, or have, won the hearts and minds in the Kremlin and in Communist China? Tell me it isn't so, Joe.

America's lodestar today should be: America cannot afford any more mistakes, particularly with our national security. The Senate must take the time, dig into the ideas, fathom the impact, perceive the possiblitiles, and then do what is correct in regard to the New Start Treaty. It is too much, too soon. It puts us on a fast-track when fast here is dangerous.

Go back to the drawing boards. Seek a treaty that only has on-site inspections with the smallest drawdown of nuclear arms, say a 50 (yes fifty) decrease. We treat that which has kept our country safe with disrespect for the ability to allow us to live, to thrive, to complete, and to prevail. If, and when, we lost this, we shall be a different country, and this august magazine shall be reporting a far different foreign policy than we have now. There is much at stake. The Senate must get it correct.

Reject the New Start Treaty and Go Back to the Drawing Board. And...take your time people.

 

Madam Secretary is an obsessive blog about all things Hillary Clinton. From her policies to her pantsuits, Madam Secretary delivers up-to-the-minute news, analysis, and gossip about America's top diplomat.