- South Carolina sheriff refuses to lower American flag for Nelson Mandela
- South Africans hold day of prayer for Nelson Mandela
- Mandela not on life support in final hours, friend says
- Ukraine protesters topple, decapitate Lenin statue in Kiev
- Kim Jong-un’s uncle removed from North Korean state documentary
- Thailand crisis deepens as opposition quits Parliament
- Campbell Soup apologizes for SpaghettiOs’ Pearl Harbor tweet
- Former Reagan aide James Baker: President regretted apartheid veto
- Some donations to gay waitress who allegedly forged hate note refunded
- German President Joachim Gauck boycotting Sochi Olympics
GAFFNEY: Denuclearizers’ dangerous ambitions
New START just the opening round for larger agenda
Hold onto your hats. No sooner had the Senate finished approving the so-called New START by the closest margin of any bilateral arms-control agreement with Moscow than the accord’s principal architect served notice of her ambitious plans for further denuclearizing the United States. Unfortunately, the disarmament agenda Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller is helping President Obama pursue will make the world more dangerous, not safer for America and its interests.
As with Mr. Obama, who reportedly first espoused the idea of ridding the world of nuclear weapons while a radical undergraduate at Columbia University, Ms. Gottemoeller is no newcomer to the idea of “global zero.” In the 1990s, she even lent her name to a report recommending that the U.S. engage unilaterally in nuclear disarmament, if necessary. During the Clinton administration, then-Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen declined to give her a top Pentagon post in the face of intense controversy about her views. She subsequently secured a consolation prize in the form of a succession of senior positions in the Department of Energy.
Last year, though, Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton entrusted Ms. Gottemoeller with responsibility for negotiating the so-called New START with the Russians. Their shared determination to secure that accord no matter what led to a succession of concessions that made the final product lopsidedly advantageous to the Kremlin. (A desire to obscure that reality doubtless contributed to the administration’s refusal to share with the U.S. Senate the record of the New START negotiations - which, in turn, contributed to the uninformed nature of the abbreviated debate and vote for the treaty during the just-concluded lame-duck session.)
Next up on Ms. Gottemoeller’s agenda are the following, among other deeply problematic initiatives:
1. The Senate’s urgent reconsideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). A majority of senators rejected that accord in 1999 on the grounds that it is unverifiable and inconsistent with the maintenance of a safe, secure and reliable U.S. nuclear deterrent. Both defects persist.
2. Further and still-more-problematic cuts in U.S. and Russian strategic forces. Such reductions likely would preclude the maintenance of the sort of balanced deterrent posture based on a “triad” of land- and sea-based missiles and long-range bombers that the United States correctly has deemed necessary for decades -and that may be needed more than ever in the future.
3. A treaty on so-called tactical nuclear forces. A clear defect of New START was that it left Moscow with a 10-to-1 advantage in such weapons, whose destructive power often is greater than that of the Hiroshima bomb. Even if the Kremlin dropped its historic opposition to limiting these arms in a new accord, verification would be impossible as a practical matter and the price high in terms of further reducing the “nuclear umbrella” U.S. tactical nukes provide our allies.
4. We know from reporting by The Washington Times‘ Bill Gertz that Ms. Gottemoeller and her boss, Undersecretary of State Ellen O. Tauscher, are beavering away at negotiations with Russia that would add to the already ominous constraints New START will impose on U.S. missile defenses. It remains to be seen whether the Obama administration, having largely kept the Senate in the dark about these talks, will be willing to submit whatever they produce to the Senate for its advice and consent or will use the Bilateral Consultative Commission the new treaty establishes to circumvent legislators altogether.
That uncertainty is only increased by the way the Senate conducted the “debate” on New START. Despite the best efforts of critics led by Republican Whip Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, the Senate’s truncated lame-duck deliberations were, by and large, superficial and uninformed. All too often, testimonials from former officials substituted for due diligence. Binding remedies to the treaty’s defects were blocked in favor of cosmetic, and surely fleeting, understandings with Team Obama.
In the end, however, the 71-26 vote (in which 13 Republicans sided with the majority) obscured a reality that Ms. Gottemoeller and her colleagues would do well to bear in mind. New START likely would not have been approved next year. Eleven of the incoming GOP freshman senators asked the leadership not to deny them a chance to consider and vote on this accord. Between those who are replacing Democrats who voted for New START and those taking the seats of Republicans who did so, it appears that the next Senate will be able to block further reckless denuclearization initiatives.
That prospect looms particularly large insofar as the new membership in the Senate and the new Republican management in the House of Representatives are going to have to reckon with powerful reasons to proceed on such an agenda with extreme caution. These include the un-reset hostility of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin, the rising power and increasing aggressiveness of Communist China, the imminent nuclear-weapons capability of Iran together with the proliferation cascade it is setting in train, and Iran’s basing of ballistic missiles in Venezuela.
Time will tell how damaging the denuclearizers’ efforts to date will prove. Before more harm is done, though, it behooves Congress as a whole - and most especially the new leaders of House committees responsible for the implementation of treaties (even if they are not party to their approval) - to serve notice on Mr. Obama, Ms. Gottemoeller and those who share their vision of a denuclearized America and world: Not so fast.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for The Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program “Secure Freedom Radio,” heard in Washington weeknights at 9 on WRC, 1260-AM.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Get Breaking Alerts
- Obama: Hole U.S. 'digging out of' requires billions more in unemployment benefits
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement
- Sen. Rand Paul: Supreme Court needs to re-examine Fourth Amendment
- Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress
- PRUDEN: British press horrified as London's new mayor dares to proclaim the truth
- 'Hunger Games' delivers Obama's message on income inequality
- 'Dude, I'm dreading that I will have to go': Czech prime minister on Mandela funeral
- Sen. Richard Durbin: No line in the sand on unemployment benefits
- Kill team: Obama war chiefs widen drone death zones