As Republicans continue to work themselves into a tizzy about the New START treaty’s preambular language on missile defense, there are a number of key points to keep in mind about why this should be a non-issue. I realize that this is all about p…
THE WEEK BEFORE CHRISTMAS
‘Twas the week before Christmas, when all through the house,
Not a treaty was stirring, not even New START.
The speeches were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that some amendments soon would be there;
The Senators were nestled all snug in their rooms,
While smells of jet fuel danced in their heads.
When out on the plaza there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.
Away to the window I flew like a flash,
Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.
The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow
Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below,
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But an adjournment resolution, and eight tiny taxis,
With a little old driver, so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment it must be St. Reid.
More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name;
“Now, Kyl! now McCain! now, Kerry and Lugar!
On, Casey! on Cardin! on, DeMint and Wicker!”
To the top of the Senate! to the top of the Capitol!
Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!”
But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight,
“Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-recess.”
With apologies to the original authors and for the poor rhyming.
Senator Lugar on Amending New START’s preamble
During his colloquy yesterday with Senator Kerry, Senator Kyl argued that New START’s preambular language noting an interrelationship between offensive and defensive forces, together with Russia’s unilateral statement stating that improvements in U.S. missile defense capabilities could be grounds for withdrawal from the treaty, gives the Russians powerful leverage over the future direction of U.S. missile defense programs
As such, some Republicans plan to support a treaty killing amendment to be offered by Senator McCain (today?) to remove the language on missile defense from the preamble so that Russia can’t threaten to withdraw from the treaty if the U.S. expands its missile defenses.
In a Dear Colleague letter sent to other Senators yesterday, Senator Lugar (R-IN) reiterated that amending the preamble in this way would be pointless and counterproductive:
Russia’s ability to withdraw from the New START Treaty over concerns about U.S. missile defense plans does not depend on language in the treaty’s preamble. Russia’s ability to withdraw from the New START Treaty is governed by Article XIV of the Treaty, which reads, in pertinent part, that: “Each party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme national interests.” Removing language from the treaty’s preamble will not constrain Russia’s ability to decide for itself whether to withdraw from the treaty pursuant to Article XIV.
Some might argue that the Senate should seek to amend Article XIV to assert that Russian objections to U.S. missile defense are not a basis for withdrawing from the treaty. But such a course would not be in our interest because it would likely require us to agree to corresponding constraints on our right to decide for ourselves under what circumstances we may withdraw from the treaty.
For more information on how the treaty’s preamble does not meaningfully limit U.S. missile defenses, see here and here.
New START Update: Day Two on the Floor
In the wake of yesterday’s impressive 66 – 32 procedural vote in favor of moving to executive session to consider New START, the Senate spent the day “debating” the treaty – without considering any amendments to the treaty or the resolution of ratification.
Meanwhile, our military leaders continued to stress the national security urgency of prompt ratification. “We need START, and we need it badly,” proclaimed Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at Gen. James Cartwright at a White House press conference. Or as the Associated Press put it: “Military leaders dispute GOP on arms control pact”.
For the most part Senators gave speeches in support and in opposition to the treaty. Those who spoke in favor of the treaty included: Kerry (Massachusetts), Lugar (R-Indiana), Cardin (Maryland), Boxer (California), Nelson (Nebraska), Mark Udall (Colorado), Shaheen (New Hampshire), Bingaman (New Mexico), Menendez (New Jersey), Dorgan (North Dakota), Conrad (North Dakota), Durbin (Illinois) and Casey (Pennsylvania).
Opponents who spoke included: Kyl (Arizona), Thune (South Dakota), Burr (North Carolina), Cornyn (Texas), Inhofe (Oklahoma) and Sessions (Alabama). Senator Chambliss (Georgia) also raised numerous concerns, but did not indicate how he would vote. Despite repeated calls from Senator Kerry for amendments, Republicans offered none. Instead they complained about the lack of time to consider the treaty and rehashed substantive objections that have been addressed and answered time and time again over the past seven months. As Senator Kerry put it: “We’re ready to vote on the treaty. The only thing we’re waiting for are the people who say we don’t have time.”
Two moments from the debate stood out. First, immediately following a 45-minute statement from Senator Kyl, Senator Isakson (R-Georgia) gave a stirring speech about the importance of the treaty and his reasons for voting to support it in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Said Isakson: “I came to the conclusion that verification is better than no verification at all. Transparency is what prevents things like 9/11 from ever happening again.” While he did not join the majority in yesterday’s procedural vote, his impassioned defense suggests that he will support final approval of the treaty.
The second noteworthy moment was an evening colloquy between Senator Kyl (who once again made it abundantly clear that he intends to oppose the treaty) and Senator Kerry. The two Senators went back and forth on the Department of Defense’s plans to maintain and modernize U.S. nuclear delivery systems and missile defense. On missile defense, Kyl disagreed with the entire military brass in claiming that the treaty imposes meaningful limits on U.S. missile defenses and gives the Russians powerful leverage over the future direction of these programs.
Kyl made it clear that there will be amendments offered to strike New START’s preambuar language and Article V, Paragraph III of the treaty, which prohibits the conversion of ICBM and SLBM launchers into launchers for missile defense interceptors and vice versa.
Given some last minute changes to the Senate schedule before adjourning for the day, New START will be on the floor again tomorrow – the schedule after that remains murky. Will the Republicans begin offering amendments? Stay tuned.
UPDATE 12/17 8:30 AM: Due to Republican opposition, Majority Leader Reid has pulled the Omnibus appropriations bill from consideration in favor of a short term CR, which should be wrapped up by Saturday night to avoid a government shutdown. Reid also filed cloture on the DREAM Act and DADT repeal last night, meaning votes on those two issues will occur on Saturday as well. With the omnibus out of the way, the road should be even clearer to debate and vote on New START before Christmas (how soon before Christmas is anyone’s guess). Those Republicans arguing that the Senate shouldn’t consider New START at the same time as an enormous spending bill (a specious argument to begin with) no longer have that leg to stand on.
Duck and Cover Version 2.0
William Broad’s article, “U.S. Rethinks Strategy for the Unthinkable,” which appeared in today’s New York Times, relays the Obama administration’s push for increased public awareness of what to do in the event of a nuclear blast.
Administration officials claim that the survivability from the fallout is greater than one might typically imagine. The key is getting to adequate shelter and staying put, rather than fleeing as most people might do in such a situation.
Even remaining sheltered for just a few hours would significantly reduced the number of fatalities from radioactive fallout, concludes a report from a multiagency modeling effort led by Lawrence Livermore Labs in California. The results from this model found that there would be approximately 285,000 casualties due to fallout a mile from ground zero if people did not seek shelter. Minimal protection (e.g. a car) would reduce this to 125,000 casualties, and shelters such as a basement would further reduce the number of casualties 45,000.
The report concluded that the best shelter is in a large office building or an underground garage.
What is problematic, however, is figuring out how to educate the public without causing undue fear or panic. Upon arriving in office, President Obama attempted to initiate a planning for disaster response, but was impeded by political roadblocks. Cities such as Las Vegas did not want to participate in mock disasters, claiming that it would reduce tourism.
The fact remains that public awareness and education is crucial. Broad notes that there was insufficient disaster planning for Hurricane Katrina, which, as we all know, led to a very uncomfortable moment between Kayne West and Mike Myers.
If we want to avoid future uncomfortable moments, it might make sense to pursue a disaster management program which educates the public about how to minimize the risks from fallout.
This would be a much better use of our time and resources than, say, preparing for the very unlikely event of thousands of incoming Russian ICBMs from which escape is almost impossible.
