How Blocking New START Damages America’s National Security

Eight months ago, President Obama and Russian President Medvedev signed New START in Prague—the latest in a generation of agreements between our nations to safely and responsibly lower the number of surplus nuclear weapons. Now, as the Senate concludes the business of the 111th Congress, a small number of senators are attempting to block ratification of this important treaty. Blocking this treaty not only would undermine a long history of bipartisan support for US-Russia nuclear arms reduction, it would significantly damage America‘s national security.

Trust Russia, No Need to Verify?

A cornerstone of U.S. arms control agreements with Russia has been, in the words of President Reagan, “trust, but verify.” Beginning with the first START treaty, U.S. inspectors have had on-the-ground access to Russian nuclear weapons facilities in order to verify that they were complying with treaty obligations and not secretly increasing their capabilities. One year ago, on December 5^th, this on-site inspection and verification capability expired.

The Russian nuclear arsenal represents the most significant military capability facing the United States, making it vitally important that we track it. Losing on-site inspections means that intelligence resources might need to be diverted from hot spots like Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea to cover the gap in our monitoring. Ratifying New START would restart on-site inspections and allow limited U.S. intelligence capabilities to refocus on other pressing threats—as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen said recently, “we’ll know a lot more about Russian systems and intentions than we do right now.”¹

Damaging U.S.-Russian Relations

Despite a relative decline in power since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia remains an important world power. Improvements in U.S.-Russia relations under the Obama administration have resulted in tangible benefits. At the recent NATO meeting in Lisbon, Russia agreed to expand supply routes to and from Afghanistan, train and equip Afghan forces and counter the Afghan heroin trade, which helps fund the insurgency in Afghanistan.² Russia also voted in favor of stronger sanctions against the Iranian nuclear program this summer and suspended the sale of military equipment to Iran.³

The Obama administration’s ‘reset’ policy was designed not only to improve collaboration between the U.S. and Russia, but to also strengthen Russian President Medvedev against hardliners in the Russian government. Killing new START will be a significant setback to this growing partnership and lead to emboldened antidemocratic factions in Russia and more hard line policies on issues of real importance to America’s national security.

Undermining U.S. as a credible negotiating partner and world leader

New START is the fourth in a series of nuclear arms agreements with the Russia dating back to 1991. All three previous agreements were ratified by the Senate with broad, bipartisan support, with only a total of 10 votes cast against the agreements: START I (93-6), START II (87-4), Moscow Treaty (93-0)

New START follows this legacy and the appearance of controversy in its approval has rattled NATO allies. At the recent NATO meeting in Lisbon, foreign ministers implored the Senate to pass New START in the interest of global security and the trans-Atlantic alliance.⁴ As Richard Haas, a former Bush administration national security official, said, “If we can’t ratify this, then we just undermine our credibility.”⁵

The U.S. is demonstrating leadership in multiple international negotiations of great consequence to our national security and economic well-being. We convened a global summit to secure and safeguard nuclear materials and keep them out of the hands of terrorists. We are working with allies to isolate and sanction Iran and North Korea and end their nuclear weapons programs. We are facilitating negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. We are trying to reduce trade barriers in China and throughout Asia. If the Senate is unable to pass START, it weakens the word of America’s president—future, as well as current—at the negotiating table. Such a reality has profound consequences for U.S. security.

Conclusion

New START should be ratified by the Senate without delay. It provides for a significant reduction in surplus nuclear arms while still allowing the U.S. to maintain an unparalleled nuclear deterrent. New START provides for more robust monitoring and verification of Russia’s nuclear arsenal than previous treaties and, contrary to the assertion of some critics of the treaty, in no way inhibits the ability of the U.S. to continue to develop and deploy theater and homeland missile defense systems. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held 18 hearings thoroughly examining all aspects of New START and reported it out favorably on an overwhelmingly vote of 14-4. Republican Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), the Senate’s leading expert on nuclear weapons, has strongly endorsed the treaty, along with a stellar bipartisan group of national security experts and military leaders, including Colin Powell and former President George H.W. Bush. Every one of the concerns about New START raised by skeptics has been addressed by the Pentagon and White House. And yet the siren call of partisan gain remains powerful and could derail treaty ratification. If heeded, the damage to America's national security will be immediate and lasting.