Republicans are opposed to New START, but the question is why? Well, listen to Jon Kyl, who was on Meet the Press this morning, he does try but ultimately fails to offer any reason for his opposition. I guess he is leading a filibuster in order to stop any discussion of ratification of the Treaty. As noted in the first comment by NCD, below.  He attempts to justify killing the New START ratification process. Have things changed so drastically since 1982, when there was basic agreement around the world on the need to reduce nuclear proliferation. Can Kyl and other even give a cogent explanation about their opposition? And even though there are many conservatives who have taken Sen. Kyl to task over his opposition to START, he is unaffected by that criticism? Why?  The answer is politics. Otherwise, there is no appropriate answer. Well we know don’t we, they are following through on Jim DeMint’s threat, meaning they have one goal and only one goal and that is to make this President a one term President and they will achieve that goal with any methods, even if it means making the United States more vulnerable and having worse relations with our allies.

Let’s review the exchange between Kyl, Durbin and David Gregory this morning on MTP:

Jon Kyle says there is “No Chance for New START in lame duck session”, he demands weeks for debate, blames Harry Reid, then goes off onto budgets and taxes and says New START not a priority.

Durbin: Respect Jon Kyl, but the reality is the failure to ratify poses a danger to the US and her security.  Durbin goes on to say, “While we wait, no inspectors on the ground in Russia, no compliance”.  Nobody discusses the damage to relations with Russia, and others who will not bother to enter into treaties with the US because those treaties will die in the Senate.

Administration: Kyl acting in bad faith, Arms Control Association, trying to undermine the President

David Gregory: What is your opposition to the Treaty?

How much debate did last START treaty take? (Three days according to Gregory and the official record), Kyl gives no answer. Kyl of course claims START of 1992, is not the same thing, except that treaty expired in 2009, so not only is it relevant it is an extension of the original treaty and expands methodologies to reduce nuclear proliferation.

David Gregory: “What is your opposition to START? What are you not getting from the Whitehouse to make this deal?” Jon Kyl does not answer this question, he talks about all the reasons it isn’t a big deal to do START yet.

Sometimes power really does corrupt completely. START negotiations began in June of 1982.  SALT II was in limbo, suspended when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. START is the brainchild of President Ronald Reagan and his national security team. START was an introduced an alternative framework to implement reductions in strategic arms on a large scale. By 1982, politicians of both parties agreed that strategic nuclear arms reduction were in the best interest of the world and as recently as 2002, when George W Bush, was President, SORT, another arms control treaty, was unanimously approved by the Senate March 6^th, 2003. Senator Kyl, at that time had no reservations, but of course he was in charge then and the President was a Republican, so there was no need to play politics with arms control. Currently, Republicans have opted to play politics here rather than to seriously attempt to govern or to do what is right for America and ultimately for the world.  The differences between New START and SORT are vast, as SORT has no mechanism for implementation, unlike START, which has had methodologies for implementation since the drawdown analysis in 1996. Nevertheless, Senator Kyl continues to insist that this just isn’t an important issue. Presidents Obama and Medvedev signed the new treaty on April 8, 2010.  In May, with a shoddy analysis done by John Bolton in the Wall Street Journal, the extreme wing of the Republican Party has opposed START for reasons that are not entirely clear.  Bolton clearly does not believe that nuclear proliferation should end.  Soon after Bolton published his critique, Sarah Palin, who rules her constituents from Facebook, wrote on her facebook wall that she too opposes START. Unfortunately, she is never clearly identifies her reasons for opposing nuclear arms reduction. It seems she simply uses her facebook page to inform her followers using typical propaganda techniques, and she prods them to get active and contact their representatives to oppose START.  There is only one goal, and that goal is not in protecting America, the goal is to make President Barack Obama a one term President. Many Republicans this and have spoken out recently, like Richard Lugar, John Danforth, and plead with their colleagues not to use this for political gain, but they have been either ignored or chastised.  To Kyl and the other, it seems short term political gains are the goals.  So when will the Senate address New START?  Politics is what lies behind all the real answers here, but since Republicans are putting their party over country here, why are they not paying a political price for this?  Currently, there is overwhelming support for ratifying New START. Republicans think it is in their own best political interest to delay START, effectively killing the treaty.

I want to add this, if Democrats had done this either to GHWBush over START I, or to GWBush over SORT, the talking cable heads and radio idiots would be calling Democrat traitorous, treasonous,  anti-America, and at the same time yelling “Off with their Heads”. Yet, there seems to be very little serious coverage of START. Clearly, Republicans care only about their return to power via the Executive Branch; they literally would allow an escalation of the arms race until they are able to win back the Presidency. Clearly, Republicans hate America.

Bibliography

Bloomfield, Lincoln P. "Arms Control and International Order." International Organization 23.3 (Summer 1969): 637-655.

Cimbala, Stephen J. "Post Start, Re Start and New Start, Defogging Russian-American Strategic Nuclear Arms Control." Joint Force Quarterly 57 (2nd Quarter, 2010): 94-102.

Diehl, Paul F. "Ghosts of Arms Control Past." Political Science Quarterly 105.4 (Winter 1990-1991): 597-615.

Glennon, Michael J. "The Senate Role in Treaty Ratification." The American Journal of International Law 77.2 (1983): 257-280.

Krepon, Michael. "Assessing Strategic Arms Reduction Proposals." World Politics 35.2 (1983): 216-244.