Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

You are here: Home / Archives for Front and Center

Prospects for New START by end of 2010 improve

New START just might win approval in the Senate by the end of the year.

Should that happen, mark November 30, 2010 as the key turning point.

But don’t count on it just yet.

A number of Republican Senators said good things about New START today, following weeks of criticisms from the same bunch.

Starting from the top:  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Says McConnell: “I think the view – the unanimous view of Senate Republicans is let’s take care of the tax issue; let’s take care of how we’re going to fund the government for the next 10 months; and then if there’s time left for other matters, it will be up to the majority leader, Senator Reid, to decide whether we turn to other things before we adjourn for the year.”

Sure, he is holding New START hostage to tax cuts and appropriations bills.

Details, details.

But that the biggest opening he has left all year.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the once and future President, added:  “I believe that we could move forward with the START treaty and satisfy Senator Kyl’s concerns and mine about missile defense and others.”

It might not be “I Love You,” but it is a good, well, maybe I will like you in the morning.

Tennessee Senator Bob Corker joined the chorus. Cornered by reporters, he said:
“I thought they [the Obama administration] did a good job. I think it’s continuing to evolve in a good way as it relates to modernization . . . Could we finish? I think it’s possible that we could.”

Good for him.

Retiring Ohio Senator George Voinovich (R-OH), who has railed against the treaty as undermining Central European countries that once were Soviet satellites, now has changed his tune.

“In an interview with Washington Wire, Mr. Voinovich said unified support out of the Lisbon summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization this month convinced him that Europe, especially Eastern Europe, wants the treaty. He had based his concerns on his belief that the treaty’s ratification could bring a return to Russian dominance of Eastern and Southeastern Europe. ‘There seems to be a lot of coming together there and a lot more comfort [with the treaty] among our friends and allies in Europe,’ Mr. Voinovich said. ‘I think I’d be supportive.’”

Finally, there is the brand newest Senator, Mark Kirk (R-IL), ever cautious but sort of semi-positive: “I’m open-minded and this is one of the issues I’ll raise with the State Department briefing teams coming up to talk to me.”

Does this add up to 67 votes? Not yet, but stayed turned.

It’s not over until the fat Senator sings.

Sources for these quotes:
http://yhoo.it/gdit8u
http://on.wsj.com/hfs3If

What the 2010 elections mean for national security issues

Center head honcho John Isaacs has a timely piece in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists today on the impact of the recent midterm elections on key nuclear and other top national security issues over the next two years. John writes:

While the campaign locked in politicians’ views on budget deficits and health care, there was minimal debate on national security issues. This could signal that there might be more latitude for negotiations on issues such as nuclear weapons reductions and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

For John’s full analysis on “What the 2010 elections mean for national security issues” click here.

Below are some highlights from the piece:

New START
The issue of nuclear reductions was not a key issue during the campaign; largely, candidates touched upon the topic of New START only when presented with specific questions about the treaty.
CTBT
Eight Republican senators are needed for Senate approval of New START; 14 will be needed for the CTBT.
Cutting military spending
During their election campaigns, the new Republicans virtually unanimously called for reductions in federal budget spending. While most of that fire was trained on domestic spending and entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, there is newfound Republican inclination to consider cuts in the Pentagon budget as well.
Iran
There has been talk that Republicans will press for a harder line on Iran. On November 6, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham expressed strong support for military strikes on Iran.
Non proliferation spending
If Congress makes across-the-board reductions to match levels in previous years, as is likely, the Defense Department and Energy Department nuclear safeguard programs are likely to suffer.
War in Afghanistan
Opposition to US troops in Afghanistan has been bubbling in Congress, with opposition led by Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Jim McGovern and outgoing Wisconsin Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold.

New Endorsements of New START

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
November 2010

Recent Remarks from Military and Intelligence Leaders, Statements from NATO Allies, and Newspaper Editorials In States With GOP Senators Demonstrate Wide-Ranging Support for New START

U.S. Military and Intelligence Leaders

•    Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
“Despite what anybody says, I, as secretary of Defense, and the entire uniformed leadership of the American military believe that this treaty is in our national security interest.”
November 21, 2010

•    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen
“I think this is, more than anything else, it’s a national security issue. I was involved extensively the negotiations with my counterpart in Russia. We have, for decades, have had treaties with them to be able to verify aspects of the nuclear weapons capabilities that we both have. And from a national security perspective, this is absolutely critical.”
November 21, 2010

•    Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
“I think the earlier, the sooner, the better. You know, my thing is, from an intelligence perspective only, are we better off with it or without it? We’re better off with it.”
November 16, 2010

•    Retired Lt. Gen. Dirk Jameson, former deputy commander of U.S. nuclear forces
“[It’s] quite puzzling to me why all of this support [for New START] . . . is ignored. I don’t know what that says about the trust that people have and the confidence they have in our military.”
November 19, 2010

•    Former Director of Operations for the Defense Intelligence Agency Donald Kerrick
“Now, after nearly a year in the dark, the Senate has the opportunity to turn the lights back on by ratifying the New START Treaty. The treaty must be promptly ratified for a very straightforward reason — it makes America safe. As a former director for operations for the Defense Intelligence Agency, I can say definitively that this treaty makes an enormous difference to our nation’s security.”
November 21, 2010

NATO Allies

•    NATO General Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen
“The New START treaty will contribute to an improvement of security in Europe and the whole Euro-Atlantic area, and I would strongly regret if ratification is delayed . . . A delay in the ratification of the treaty would be damaging to security in Europe, so I strongly encourage all parties involved to do their utmost to ensure an early ratification.”
November 19, 2010

•    Foreign Minister Audronius Azubalis of Lithuania
“And also I just would like to add that we see this treaty as an entrance to START negotiations — thank you — as also we see this treaty as a prologue, as an entrance to start talks about sub-strategical weaponry, which is much more even dangerous, and it’s quite difficult to detect.  And we are, who are living in the East Europe, especially, know this.  That’s what we are for START treaty.”
November 20, 2010

•    Foreign Minister Girts Valdis Kristovskis of Latvia
“And I want to underline that Euro-Atlantic cooperation is very important for security of my state.  And of course, START II [sic] treaty ratification in Congress we support very strongly, and also this policy of President Obama and his administration is very important for security of our region.”
November 20, 2010

•    Foreign Minister Nickolay Mladenov of Bulgaria
“START is not just key to the security of Europe but it is key to making sure that today what we managed to achieve in the new Strategic Concept, and that is a NATO that reaches out in partnership with — to other countries, can actually be implemented.  So all I can say is, don’t stop START before it’s started.”  
November 20, 2010

•    Foreign Minister Janos Martonyi of Hungary
“My country has a very special historic experience with Russia.  We also have a special geographic location.  And with all that historic and geographic background, we wholeheartedly advocate the ratification of START. It’s a general interest of my region, of Europe, and indeed, most importantly, of the transatlantic alliance.  It’s also a global interest, and I would very much encourage, for this reason, not to kill START before it starts, as it has been just said. And this is a process which is a promise at the same time and a commitment for the whole world.”
November 20, 2010

•    Foreign Minister Lene Espersen of Denmark
“I can tell you, besides being Minister for Foreign Affairs, I’m also the chairman of the Conservative Party in Denmark, which is the sister party of the Republican Party.  So nobody will ever accuse me of being soft on security. And this is the reason why I said, well, maybe it could be fruitful for us as a broad member of NATO — the North, the East, the Central — to say why it’s important for us that the START treaty is ratified and that as soon as possible.”
November 20, 2010

•    Foreign Minister Jonas Stoere of Norway
“I’d just like to say briefly, I second my Danish colleague.  Norway neighbors Russia.  We live a few kilometers from one of the largest nuclear arsenals there is.  And as my colleague from Lithuania said, this is an entry point to a process which can keep bringing these levels down. And if those levels go down, we can do a lot of other things, which will enhance security.  So missing this opportunity, I think for all us Europeans, is really something of great concern.”
November 20, 2010

Newspaper Editorials

•    The Louisville Courier-Journal (Kentucky)
“The determination of the national Republican Party to oppose anything that could be construed as a victory for President Obama has moved from being irresponsible to downright dangerous… If efforts to ratify the treaty fail, the Obama administration would be severely undercut just as it is making progress in enlisting Russia and other countries to intensify the pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions. If there is any area in which policy should be decided on a strictly bipartisan basis, surely it would be nuclear weapons.”
November 21, 2010

•    Knoxville News Sentinel (Tennessee)
“Ratification is in the best interests of the country and is important for the future of the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge. Unfortunately, Tennessee’s senators, Republicans Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, appear willing to go along with Kyl… Corker and Alexander should help secure ratification by joining in the call for a vote on this important for national security treaty.”
November 21, 2010

•    Atlanta Journal Constitution (Georgia)
“Senate Republicans refuse to step up to approve the arms control pact, which requires a two-thirds majority. None of their professed “reasons” make sense… There is no excuse for this, no rationalization that explains it in any way other than a crass political ploy on an issue of unchallenged national security importance.”
November 22, 2010

•    Toledo Blade (Ohio)
“This situation wreaks of “all politics, all the time” rather than acting in the best interests of the United States. Both the New START treaty and good working relations with Russia fall firmly into the latter category.”
November 22, 2010

•    Nashua Telegraph (New Hampshire)
“With so many overpowering arguments supporting the agreement, it doesn’t take a cynic to conclude Kyl’s opposition is motivated by more than concerns over the treaty itself. Giddy over their mid-term election triumphs that will bolster their ranks by six seats, Senate Republicans are drooling over the opportunity to embarrass and undermine President Obama, regardless of what is best for the country.”
November 21, 2010

•    St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
“On the U.S. side, treaties need the advice and consent of the Senate, which means ratification by two-thirds vote. This ought to be a no-brainer; the treaty has been endorsed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and six former secretaries of State… Failure to ratify START II would leave the United States in a far weaker diplomatic position. Friends and enemies alike would see a nation less concerned about peace than politics. They would not be wrong.”
November 19, 2010

•    Bangor Daily News (Maine)
“The treaty, which needs 67 votes for ratification by the Senate, has gotten tangled up in partisan politics, posturing and pork-barrel negotiations. There is also a group of senators who are opposing the bill in an attempt to get more money for nuclear weapons labs in their states.”
    November 15, 2010

•    Maine’s Sun Journal
“Now is the time for Maine’s senators to take the leadership role for New START ratification as asked for by diverse Maine constituents, editorial writers in major Maine newspapers, and the Maine Medical Association.”
November 21, 2010

•    The Times of Trenton (New Jersey)
“Failure to ratify this treaty could undermine that stance to the detriment of the United States and the world. In making his case, President Obama last week assembled former secretaries of state of both parties, including Henry Kissinger from the Nixon era, military leaders, diplomats and policy analysts who all agree that this treaty is both sound and necessary. So, again, what possible reason could Sen. Kyl have for orchestrating this delay?”
November 21, 2010

•    Salt Lake Tribune (Utah)
“Sen. Jon Kyl’s objections notwithstanding, the U.S. Senate should bring the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and Russia to a vote in the lame duck session. To delay that vote until after the new Congress convenes next year would only postpone, and perhaps jeopardize, ratification of a good treaty.”
November 24, 2010

•    Deseret News (Utah)
“This is one vote that shouldn’t hinge on false political perceptions. The one sure tip-off that ratification is important is that leaders of the U.S. military support it and believe it enhances national security. Ratification should be high on the to-do list of the outgoing Senate.”
November 16, 2010

•    Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee)
“There was no acceptable reason for Arizona Sen. John Kyl, the Senate’s chief Republican negotiator on the proposed treaty, to announce last Wednesday that he would oppose and help block a vote on the pending treaty. Indeed, his statement that time in the lame-duck session is too short to resolve what he claimed were remaining “complex issues” concerning the treaty seems a blatant contrivance — an artifice to mask an obvious effort to damage President Obama politically by undercutting his ability to improve security and foreign relations in key areas abroad.”
November 21, 2010

•    Des Moines Register (Iowa)
“A delay serves no purpose other than for Republicans to show they can make the president wait. But not moving forward could weaken U.S. relations with the Russian Federation, where the more liberal Medvedev faces an internal power struggle of his own with hard-line Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. That could damage cooperation on containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”
November 16, 2010

•    Houston Chronicle (Texas)
“We join many others in calling on Sen. Kyl to withdraw his objections and allow a Senate vote on the new START treaty without delay.”
November 27, 2010

•    Chicago Tribune (Illinois)
“Some Republicans accuse the administration of trying to rush ratification. But the Senate has already put off the vote and held some 20 hearings on the issues. There is nothing new to be learned by waiting.  This treaty clearly would enhance the national security of the United States. Any time the Senate has a chance to do that, it should not delay.”
November 29, 2010

Chinese Déjà vu: Call for Emergency 6-Way Meeting – Seriously?

China’s proposal for “emergency consultations” among envoys to the Six-Party Talks in early December is reminiscent of an all-too familiar recent past. Beijing claims the meeting is to prevent further escalation between the two Koreas. But don’t get your hopes up just yet.

Wu Dawei, chief Chinese nuclear negotiator on CCTV:

“The Chinese side, after careful studies, proposes having emergency consultations among the nuclear envoys in early December in Beijing to exchange views on major issues of concern to the parties at present…”

Such words should be cautiously analyzed because it may be a veiled attempt to outwardly resume the Six-Party Talks but, in fact, evade any responsibility to influence North Korea regarding Pyongyang’s latest two attacks on the South. Beijing appears to be trying to elicit pre-Six Party Talks before the real thing. Click “Read More.”

Why? Look here:

Wu Dawei, chief Chinese nuclear negotiator on CCTV:

“Although the proposed consultations do not mean the resumption of the six-party talks, we hope they will create conditions for their resumption.”

As the saying goes, there’s a time and a place for things. First thing’s first, the latest North Korean attack, which killed two marines and two civilians, should be dealt with before discussions can take place on resuming nuclear talks.

After the Cheonan incident, China’s been trying to resume the Six-Party Talks in three phases: U.S.-North Korea direct talks –> unofficial, preliminary Six-Party Talks –> official Six-Party Talks. China’s latest proposal would only aggravate South Korea and perhaps even the US and Japan.

In light of North Korea’s consecutive deadly attacks on the South, the focus should be on defusing tensions and holding Pyongyang responsible for them. However, China appears to be trying to put current hostilities on the Six-Party agenda. That could, in effect, shift the focus away from the North’s attacks to the nuclear issue. Holding “emergency consultations” in early December would be the first time in two years for the six countries to meet since the Six-Party Talks broke down in December 2008.

Beijing has been under fire for mishandling the March 26 Cheonan attack, and Seoul, Washington and Tokyo have since called on Beijing to step up. South Korea, the U.S. and Japan have been reluctant to resume nuclear negotiations until North Korea first took responsibility for the Cheonan attack and showed a serious will to denuclearize. The pressure is on because North Korea has again attacked the South, this time killing and injuring civilians as well. By attempting to arrange six-way consultations again this time, Beijing may be trying to outwardly show its efforts while essentially pointing the finger toward Seoul, Washington and Tokyo if such a meeting doesn’t materialize knowing that the three countries would still want North Korea to first take responsibility for the Yeonpyeong attack.

The Six-Party Talks could be useful as a diplomatic stage for pressuring and grilling North Korea on the Yeonpyeong attack, but such objective would require very careful coordination so that the focus is not diluted at the six-way dialogue table. It’s uncertain whether this is possible.

Upcoming Trips:
We should keep an eye on the results of two upcoming trips between senior North Korean and Chinese officials:

  1. North Korea’s Choe Thae-bok, secretary of the Worker’s Party Central Committee and chairman of the regime’s parliament Supreme People’s Assembly, is expected to visit China on Tuesday at the invitation of Wu Bangguo, China’s top legislator and second-ranking official, according to China’s state-run Xinhua News Agency.
  2. China’s Wang Jiarui, director of the Chinese Communist Party’s International Liaison Department, is expected to visit Pyongyang soon as Chinese Premier Wen Jiaobao’s envoy.

These meetings could drastically change the current tide. If Beijing and Pyongyang miraculously strike a deal on the nuclear issue that the US or South Korea cannot ignore, then it could jumpstart nuclear negotiations but gloss over North Korea’s attacks, essentially leaving them unresolved. Pyongyang’s charm offensive to resume nuclear negotiations following its Cheonan attack was widely viewed as a way to evade taking responsibility for torpedoing the South Korean ship.

What Does North Korea Want?
No one knows for sure, but we can make some assessments based on clues from recent and past behavior. There have never been single explanations when it comes to North Korea, and most often, there are several elements in play, sometimes feeding off each other. Here are some possible scenarios surrounding the Yeonpyeong attack:

1. Kim Jong-il? If the Dear Leader is responsible for the Yeonpyeong Island attack, he may be trying to test U.S. patience, or “strategic patience” as Washington’s coined its policy. Kim ultimately wants to negotiate a peace treaty with the U.S. to replace the armistice. Why? Because a peace treaty would theoretically rid U.S. troops, by which North Korea feels threatened, from the Korean peninsula. Pyongyang may try to create a conflict zone in the West Sea by engaging in more military provocations and use them as an excuse to elicit peace treaty negotiations.

(propaganda organ) National Peace Committee of (North) Korea carried by KCNA:

“The madcap aggression war exercises launched by them in the sea and the sky near the extension of the Military Demarcation Line in the West Sea of Korea are putting the Korean Peninsula at a state of ultra-emergency… [The West Sea] is the most acute and sensitive area where military conflict might break out anytime.”

The Northern Limit Line in the West Sea (a.k.a Yellow Sea) was unilaterally drawn by the U.S.-led United Nations Command at the end of the Korean War in 1953 and denied by Pyongyang. The de facto maritime border has been the site of bloody naval skirmishes in the past.

We should be mindful that the North is preparing for a leadership succession and is working hard to meet its deadline to become a “mighty and prosperous nation by 2012.” Latest revelations of the North’s nuclear development (light water reactor construction and pilot uranium enrichment program) are also apprently part of the plan.
Another possibility is Kim Jong-il trying to further divide the progressives and conservatives in South Korea.

2. Kim Jong-un? If heir apparent Little Kim is responsible for the Yeonpyeong attack, he may be trying to show the North Korean military that he has what it takes to become the next leader despite his young age, which is believed to be 25 years old. There have been rumors that Kim Jong-un was behind the Cheonan attack and cyber-attacks on South Korean government websites.

3. North Korean military? Perhaps the Yeonpyeong attack was the doing of the North Korean military elite suggesting that it may have become much more powerful than Kim Jong-il expected or can handle. Perhaps the military wanted to exert its force after their leader elevated the authority of the Workers’ Party in September when the military had enjoyed the highest position in government for decades.

What Should the U.S. Do?

  • Continue to stand with and stand by South Korea in future actions.
  • Press China to take an active and responsible role as a regional superpower and “Big Brother” to rein in North Korea but focus on the immediate issue at hand, which is defusing tensions and preventing further North Korean military provocations.
  • Garner international support in dealing with the Yeonpyeong attack. When the U.S. takes over the presidency of the UN Security Council on December 1st, use that position to the fullest.
  • Find an opportune time in the future to resume talks with North Korea. History has shown us that North Korea at the least refrains from provocations during negotiations.