The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Conservative Leaders Oppose START Treaty

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Conservative Leaders Oppose START Treaty

10.29.10 @ 10:30AM

MEMO FOR THE MOVEMENT

QUACK, QUACK, QUACK:

The New START Treaty must not be forced down the throats of the American people during a “Lame-Duck” session of Congress

RE: The Founding Fathers intended for the Senate to serve as a real quality-control mechanism in the making of treaties. Senators must not accede to the Obama administration’s pressure to rubberstamp New START, a major strategic nuclear arms control treaty between Russia and the United States. This is because New START can have a profoundly negative impact on our security by increasing the number of weapons in the world and raising the risk of nuclear war.

ISSUE-IN-BRIEF: The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to grant “advice and consent” to ratification of treaties negotiated by the Executive Branch: major arms control treaties like New START - a bilateral agreement with Russia that would require dramatic cuts in our deterrent forces - require particular scrutiny. The Congress’ duty to provide for the common defense further demands that “the world’s greatest deliberative body” must live up to that descriptor by exercising due diligence on an accord inimical to the national security.

There are many reasons for the Senate not to rush to judgment on New START during a “Lame-Duck” session - here are a few:

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT BEEN TRANSPARENT ABOUT NEW START. Russia succeeded to a remarkable degree in achieving their objectives in New START. Despite repeated requests from senators, the administration has refused to release the treaty’s negotiating record. As a result, neither Congress nor the American people currently know what, if any, ancillary agreements and as-yet-undisclosed understandings - on issues such as missile defense, nuclear targeting, etc. - were concluded as part of the treaty deliberations.

NEW START IS INHERENTLY UNEQUAL. It is an open secret that the United States, alone among the world’s nuclear powers, is not engaged in a sustained modernization of its nuclear triad. By contrast, the Kremlin is upgrading each element of its strategic arsenal, notably with new long-range missiles and bombers. The Russians also said they will exploit New START’s counting rules to maintain as many as 2100 warheads, not the 1550 the United States expects to have. In addition, the Kremlin is aggressively modernizing its tactical nuclear weapons inventory, which is already estimated to be ten-times the size of its U.S. counterpart and unconstrained by the New START Treaty. The net effect of these shifting strategic trends will be to condemn the United States to decided nuclear inferiority relative to Russia. Its forces will also be inadequate to provide extended deterrence to our allies.

NEW START IS PART OF A LARGER, AND DANGEROUS, PUSH FOR UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT. The Obama administration has made pursuit of global nuclear disarmament (“global zero”) national policy. Toward that end, it believes the United States must lead by example in dismantling its strategic arsenal. New START is explicitly meant to be a key step in this process - but not the last. If the Senate agrees to New START’s ratification, the administration will construe it as an endorsement of the President’s radical agenda. That will translate not only into still-more draconian cuts in our deterrent, but the continued, deliberate atrophying of its aging weapons and delivery systems.

NEW START LIMITS AMERICAN MISSILE DEFENSE DEVELOPMENT. Administration officials have repeatedly said that nothing in New START serves to constrain U.S. missile defense development. Yet, Article V of the Treaty and additional provisions in the Protocol and Annexes clearly impinge upon U.S. missile defense options. At best, the Russians’ threat to withdraw from New START if the U.S. makes qualitative or quantitative improvements to its anti-missile systems will discourage the Obama administration from seriously investing in such defenses. At worst, the Treaty will constitute a significant impediment to protecting the American people from ballistic missile attack.

NEWLY ELECTED SENATORS NEED ADEQUATE TIME TO CONSIDER SUCH A MAJOR TREATY.

The process through which this treaty has been considered

by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been biased with hearings packed with

“treaty friendly” witnesses. In 12 hearings, just two witnesses out of

22 were critics of New START. Given this stacked deck of witnesses and the

inherently incomplete and misleading record they produced, it is all the more essential

that the decision on this treaty not be made by yesterday’s Senate, but by the one elected

next week by the American people. It would be utterly unconscionable to oblige the

three newly elected Senators who are expected to be seated in time for the short

lame duck session to cast uninformed votes on so complex and controversial a matter. The

rush to ratification undermines the important role of “advice and consent” that the Senate

must exercise on any treaty of this magnitude.

CONSERVATIVE ACTION PROJECT

Herman Pirchner, President, American Foreign Policy Council

Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Preparedness

Ambassador Henry Cooper, Chairman, High Frontier

Frank J. Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy

Wendy Wright, President, Concerned Women for America

Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General

Ken deGraffenreid, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

David Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union

Phyllis Schlafly, Founder & President, Eagle Forum

Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform

Gary Bauer, President, American Values

David N. Bossie, President, Citizens United

Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring

James Martin, Chairman, 60 Plus Association

Donna Hearne, Executive Director, Constitutional Coalition

Herman Cain, President, The NEW Voice, Inc.

Andrea Lafferty, Executive Director, Traditional Values Coalition

Bill Pascoe, Executive Vice President, Citizens for the Republic

Susan Carlson, Chairman & CEO, American Civil Rights Union

Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

Brent Bozell, President, Media Research Center

Michael A. Needham, CEO, Heritage Action for America

James C. Miller III, former Reagan Budget Director

Alfred Regnery, Publisher, American Spectator

Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com

David McIntosh, former Member of Congress, Indiana

T. Kenneth Cribb, former Chief Domestic Advisor to President Reagan

Mathew D. Staver, Founder & Chairman, Liberty Counsel

Tom Winter, Editor-in-Chief, Human Events

Jordan Marks, Executive Director, Young Americans for Freedom

Marion Edwyn Harrison, Past President, Free Congress Foundation

Rev. Lou Sheldon, Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

J. Kenneth Blackwell, former U.S. Ambassador, UN Human Rights Commission

(All organizations listed are for identification purposes only)

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE NEW START TREATY PLEASE VISIT THESE WEBSITES & BLOGS:

Parsing the ‘Partisan’ Politics of New START,

by James Carafano

http://bigpeace.com/jcarafano/2010/08/12/parsing-the-partisan-politics-of-new-start/

Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix

September 16, 2010 by Baker Spring Backgrounder #2466

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Twelve-Flaws-of-New-START-That-Will-Be-Difficult-to-Fix

Protective Agreement to Limit Missile Defense and Space Systems Should Delay New START

October 19, 2010 by Baker Spring WebMemo #3038

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/protective-agreement-to-limit-missile-defense-and-space-systems-should-delay-new-start

Tea Party on New Start: more right than Rogin,

by James Carafano

http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/31/tea-party-on-new-start-more-right-than-rogin/#ixzz130Ii82p7

BOLTON & DESUTTER: The illusory verification gap

Break in treaty compliance data is Obama’s own doing

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/19/president-obama-and-a-fellow-democrat-sen-john-ker/print/

Frank Gaffney: New START is a Non-Starter http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/19/new-start-is-a-non-starter/?page=2

New Deterrent Working Group: Toward a New Deterrent

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/spr09/monroe.html

Ignoring Arms Control History Carries a Cost

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/19/ignoring-arms-control-history-carries-a-cost/

Missile Defense Criticism of Sen. DeMint is Off Target

http://blog.heritage.org/?p=44145

New START Proponents Drag Out Same Tired Argument

http://blog.heritage.org/?p=43567

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/126161-midterm-election-fallout-could-derail-start-treaty-vote-key-republican-says

PattyMor| 10.29.10 @ 2:30PM

Only someone who truly hates the United States could support such a one sided treaty.

Peter TF| 10.29.10 @ 3:21PM

This is a stunningly disingenuous post. The Treaty is supported by the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Director of the US Missile Defense Agency, and the Commander of our strategic nuclear forces. It has also been supported by seven of the last eight living commanders of our nuclear forces.

And yet, the authors avoid this inconvenient reality altogether. Are they arguing that the Republican Party should ignore the opinion of our military leadership? Are they calling them naive? Are they calling them liars for arguing that New START is squarely in our national security interest?

This policy prescription is a recipe for disaster.

Annie Neroda| 10.29.10 @ 3:49PM

I agree with you, Peter TF. It's time for us to write to our Conservative Senators and ask them to ratify this treaty. It has been held up long enough.

JoAnn Dolberg| 11.11.10 @ 9:22PM

@PeterTF....It is not too difficult for those of us who ARE enlightened, to see whose side YOU are on!

jerry hertenstein| 11.16.10 @ 12:49PM

SAVE THE USA. VOTE NO

Dennis Illig| 12.17.10 @ 10:45PM

I am opposed to this new treaty (New START Treaty).

LH| 12.22.10 @ 3:13PM

The START Treaty was ratified with with help of supposedly conservative Republican votes. Why is anyone surprised? Except for a handful of true believers on the right and left, most Republican Senators’ votes can be bought. They usually sell out cheap, especially when voting on international affairs. Most of them know little and care less about foreign policy, since foreign affairs rarely matter in congressional elections. How many Americans could find Russia and Moscow on an unmarked globe? By simply campaigning on the tried and true issues of abortion, guns and school prayer, while appeasing potentially dangerous special interests and avoiding macaca moments, they can continue to enjoy Washington's strip clubs and all-you-can-drink receptions at full lobbyist expense over life long careers.

We may never know what payoffs were received by lightweight backbenchers like Corker and Isakson, but they surely were paid off to vote for the START Treaty. The consideration may have been tendered in advance, in the form of earmarks for friends and family passed earlier in the session, or the payoffs may come later. Cash from wealthy third parties like Comrade Soros may have been transferred to secret offshore bank accounts, like the ones in Switzerland where international courier Vince Foster regularly deposited the Clintons' unreported loot. $10 million per vote would be chump change to Soros, but that’s what he would have to pay in Brazil or Indonesia. In Washington, a vote on an issue like this with no electoral consequence probably would be worth less than it would cost the Russians to buy top secret documents from a non-ideological traitor.

All of the START Treaty “conservatives” undoubtedly support harsh penalties for government employees who sell defense secrets to the Russians. However, is there any real difference between selling defense secrets to a foreign government, or selling a vote for a treaty that benefits the foreign government?