MEMO FOR THE MOVEMENT
Senate Should Reject START Treaty and
Demand Release of Negotiating Record
RE: The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty -- New START - negotiated between the U.S. and Russia and signed on April 8 in Prague--weakens America's national defense with little or no benefit in exchange.
ACTION: The United States Senate should reject the New START treaty because it's a bad deal for America. Moreover, the Senate should refuse to even review the treaty until the release of the full negotiating record, which will provide lawmakers with insights into not only the official text, but also the course of discussions between the Obama Administration and the Kremlin.
ISSUE-IN-BRIEF:
* The "New START" treaty will make America less safe
o START is an integral part of President Obama's bid to "rid the
world of nuclear weapons." Senate consent to its ratification
would legitimize that unachievable and ill-advised goal.
o Taken together with the rest of the Obama denuclearization
agenda, START would undermine America's deterrent.
o The Treaty seeks to resuscitate the bilateral arms control
nostrums of the 1970s. It might more accurately be called "New
SALT" for it replicates many of the shortcomings of the earlier
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties.
o In particular, New START will effectively relegate the United
States to a renewed - and dangerous - posture of "mutual assured
destruction" with respect to Russia.
o The Treaty does nothing about the immediate problem: nuclear
proliferators like Iran and North Korea.
o Overall, the Administration's nuclear policy ensures that only
the United States will be disarmed.
o Without our global deterrence, there will be more wars, not
fewer, and more proliferation, not less.
* What is in START
o Throughout the treaty, the Russians' preferences prevailed - at
America's expense.
o The United States is the only one making unnecessary
cuts.
o START is rooted in a false and undesirable vision of "parity"
between the U.S. and Russia.
o The treaty's restrictions will exacerbate the effect of
President Obama's unilateral restrictions on modernizing our
deterrent. START imposes no corresponding limitations on the
comprehensive nuclear modernization efforts the Russians now have
underway.
o The START treaty text explicitly limits U.S. missile defense
development under certain conditions.
o Worse yet, Russian officials claim that U.S. negotiators
offered guarantees that the U.S. will not make qualitative or
quantitative improvements to its existing missile defense
systems.
* What is not in START
o It is focused on Russia and ignores the nuclear threats posed
by others - especially China.
o The cuts the treaty would make in U.S. nuclear forces are more
likely to encourage Iran and other proliferators to build up
their arsenals, rather than discourage them.
o The treaty does not address the issue of lower-yield,
"tactical" nuclear weapons, in which Russia has a ten-fold
advantage over the United States.
o The treaty's verification arrangements are inadequate.
o The Obama administration refuses to undertake the steps needed
to build a credible U.S. deterrent for the 21st Century,
including the modernization of existing weapons and the creation
of new ones that are safe, reliable and appropriate for modern
threats.
* The Russians view START Treaty as their victory
o According to Leonid Ivashov, a retired three-star general and
well-known hard-liner, the treaty was a "real diplomatic
success," because the Russian delegation "did not yield."
o Another well-known hardliner, Sergey Kurginyan, stated bluntly
that "Russia could not have an easier partner on the topic of
nuclear arms than Obama."
Simply put, the United States should not be party to a treaty which does not benefit the United States. As currently written, "New START" does not meet that standard and its ratification should not be approved by the U.S. Senate.
MOREOVER, even consideration of such approval by the Senate should be preceded by a careful review of the New START Treaty's negotiating record - a step made necessary in particular by the conflicting representations by the U.S. and Russian sides about the nature and extent of the negotiations on limitations with respect to missile defenses.
Cliff May, President, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Frank J. Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy
Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness
Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General
Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring
David McIntosh, former Member of Congress, Indiana
Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform
Wendy Wright, President, Concerned Women for America
William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government
Gary Bauer, President, American Values
Dr. Herbert London, President, Hudson Institute
Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com
Craig Shirley, Chairman, Citizens for the Republic
Mathew D. Staver, Founder & Chairman, Liberty Counsel
Susan Carleson, Chairman & CEO, American Civil Rights Union
Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
Alfred Regnery, Publisher, American Spectator
Jim Martin, Chairman, 60 Plus Association
Brent Bozell, President, Media Research Center
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1984882,00.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/09/krauthammer_us_got_very_little_from_russia_on_iran.html
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/04/stop-start
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/91507-lieberman-not-enough-votes-in-senate-to-ratify-start-treaty
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/18/guest-blogger-will-start-treaty-weaken-u-s-missile-defense-senator-kerry-seems-to-hope-so/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/9/stop-the-new-start/
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36911
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
LiveFreeOrDie| 6.22.10 @ 4:23PM
"The United States Senate should reject the New START treaty because it's a bad deal for America."
Could have stopped right there.
C Bowen| 6.22.10 @ 6:31PM
Cliff May, Frank Gaffney, Gary Bauer?
What century are you people living in? Who posted this silliness?