When President Obama announced on September 17 that he had
decided to cancel a plan for putting missile defense systems in the
Czech Republic and Poland, he ignored repeated warnings from
Members of Congress not to permit negotiations with Russia over
strategic nuclear weapon reductions to also limit U.S. missile
defense options.[1] Now, he is sending Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton to Moscow to discuss arms control issues with the
Russian government.[2]
His earlier decision regarding missile defenses in Europe,
however, makes it clear that there is not really anything
constructive for the Secretary of State to discuss with the
Russians, particularly in relation to a future treaty on reducing
strategic nuclear arms. By ignoring the prudent advice from
Congress and opting to subordinate the missile defense program to
his arms control agenda and his desire to "reset" relations with
Russia, President Obama has made it clear that the negotiations
with Russia will result in a treaty that will not serve U.S. and
allied security.
False START
The negotiations with Russia are designed to replace the 1991
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expires on December
5. Presidents Obama and Dmitri Medvedev pledged to reduce the
number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads on each side to
between 1,500 and 1,675 and the number of strategic delivery
systems to between 500 and 1,100.[3]
While President Obama wants to ratify the treaty before the
expiration of START, it is not yet signed. Thus, he has created a
circumstance where the U.S. negotiators are trying to reach an
agreement against an unrealistic deadline where they are certain to
grant unwarranted concessions to the Russians. The announced
cancellation of the missile defense systems for the Czech Republic
and Poland is just such a concession.
Warnings from Congress
Obama and Medvedev adopted a joint statement[4] on April 1 in London
that committed both sides to negotiating on the issue of the
"interrelationship of strategic offensive and strategic defensive
arms." This can be interpreted as code for stating that reductions
in offensive strategic weapons must be accompanied by severe
restrictions on defensive forces, and most particularly missile
defenses. Consequently, the statement prompted multiple warnings
from Members of Congress. For example:
- On June 25, the House of Representatives adopted an amendment
to the Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 2647) offered by
Representative Michael Turner (R-OH) that would prohibit the
expenditure of funds for the remainder of the current fiscal year
to implement an agreement with Russia to reduce strategic nuclear
forces unless the President certifies to Congress that the
agreement "does not limit ballistic missile defense."[5]
- On July 2, a bipartisan group of Senators wrote to President
Obama that abandoning the missile defense systems in Europe through
the START follow-on treaty negotiating process would risk their
support for the treaty: "[W]e will be reluctant to support any
agreement that is explicitly conditioned on U.S. abandonment of
missile defenses in Europe or otherwise linked to a U.S. decision
to curtail or abandon those defenses."[6]
- On July 23, the Senate adopted an amendment offered by Senator
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) to the Senate version of the Defense Authorization
Bill (S. 1390). This amendment expressed the sense of the Senate
that the START follow-on treaty should not include any limitations
on ballistic missile defense systems.[7]
A Flawed Approach to Arms Control
The U.S. Senate should come to the following realizations before
the START follow-on treaty is submitted for advice and consent:
- The most effective strategic posture for the U.S. and its
allies is defensive. Given that ballistic missiles are among the
most appealing delivery vehicles for strategic weapons by states
like Iran and North Korea, ballistic missile defenses are the most
essential elements of effective defensive postures. President
Obama, however, seems determined to take the U.S. in the opposite
direction in order to curry favor with Russia and get an early
agreement on the START follow-on treaty.
- The Obama Administration may make the argument that the text of
the START follow-on treaty will not contain any article that limits
U.S. missile defense systems, which may well be true. But the
Administration's action to cancel the missile defense deployment in
the Czech Republic and Poland in the face of Russian demands has
established a clear linkage between the treaty and limitations on
missile defense options. Such linkages will be as much a part of
the treaty agreement with Russia as the text.
START Worrying
The Obama Administration's unseemly haste in concluding the
START follow-on treaty with Russia is resulting in a final product
that fails the tests of national security and morality. Successful
arms control is the result of a process that is pursued with care
and patience.
During the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan took the time to
persuade the Soviet Union of the wisdom of his "zero option"
proposal regarding intermediate-range nuclear force (INF) missiles
and that he would not accept a linkage between what would become
the INF Treaty and limits on missile defense.[8] Clearly, President
Obama is pursuing a rushed approach on arms control with the
Russians that President Reagan would recognize is fatally
flawed.
Baker
Spring is F. M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security
Policy in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy
Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis
Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage
Foundation.