Worst Case Against New START

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who is considered a frontrunner for the Republican nomination in the 2012 presidential election, made a lot of noise with his July 6 comment in The Washington Post titled “Obama’s Worst Foreign Policy Mistake.” Among Obama’s largest foreign policy failures, Romney singled out Obama’s support for the New START agreement that was signed with President Dmitry Medvedev in April, and he urged U.S. senators not to ratify it in its current form.

Romney’s views are hardly representative among senators. For example, Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, replied to Romney’s argument in a Washington Post comment on July 7, “A Treaty That Will Improve Our Nation’s Security.” Kerry is convinced that the treaty will improve the United States’ relationship with Russia and that ratification will confirm its devotion to nonproliferation.

Romney’s opinions represent the view of conservatives in the United States who do not want to see a “reset” in U.S.-Russian relations. His arguments against New START are about as valid and relevant as those in support of preserving the musty, old Jackson-Vanik amendment, which Congress passed 36 years ago to punish the Soviet Union for not allowing Jews and other religious minorities to freely emigrate.

Despite attacks on New START by Romney and other opponents, the ratification progress looks optimistic. The Senate has already devoted six sessions to this topic, which means it has moved faster and progressed further than the State Duma.

Kerry has personally informed me that a document concerning the treaty, prepared jointly by the Armed Services, Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees, will be finalized by late July. Russia, which wants simultaneous ratification, will keep this pace.

It is encouraging that not all Republicans share Romney’s point of view. A prime example is Senator Richard Lugar, who said Romney’s arguments were groundless during the congressional hearings on the issue and that refusal to ratify New START would mean that the United States would no longer be able to monitor the Russian nuclear arsenal.

Opposition to New START centers on the question of who will benefit from nuclear arms reduction more — Russia or the United States. But this is a false argument since both sides clearly gain from the treaty. When Romney and his allies speak about the treaty’s one-sided advantage for Russia, he is in effect accusing U.S arms control experts of gross incompetence, if not selling out U.S. national security to the Russians.

There were three main objections to New START in Romney’s op-ed: It prevents the United States from fully developing missile defense facilities around the world; undermines U.S. security obligations and guarantees to its allies in Europe; and gives Russia a large advantage in terms of intercontinental missiles — particularly those equipped with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles —?  and strategic bombers. None of the arguments is true.

The New START agreement should be ratified simultaneously by both sides. Its ratification will be a victory for the reduction and control of strategic nuclear arms and an even bigger victory in terms of restoring trust between Russia and the United States.