• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Senate Misinformed about New START

    Although the U.S. Senate gave its advice and consent to the ratification of New START, a strategic nuclear arms control treaty with the Russian Federation, the debate about the substance and ramifications of the treaty is far from resolved.

    Dr. Keith Payne, President of the National Institute for Public Policy, argues in his latest article that the Senate was misinformed by the Obama Administration about New START. Despite the Obama Administration’s claims to the contrary, Russian officials have publicly stated that the Russian Federation will not have to cut even a single warhead as a result of reductions stipulated in the treaty. But this question also remains—on how many other issues with New START was the Senate misled?

    Anatoly Serdyukov, Russia’s Defense Minister, said that Russia will not have to cut a single unit, be it a delivery vehicle or a warhead, because those will be retired before the expiration of their service life. Accordingly, the U.S. is the only party to the treaty that actually has to cut its warheads and delivery vehicles under the treaty limits. The Administration has never acknowledged this apparent disparity and even stated that “the Treaty imposes equal limits on both Parties.”

    However, “equal limits” are not the only issue in the treaty where the Administration appears to have misled the Senate. During the New START debates, a number of experts expressed concerns about the negative impact of New START’s provisions in the preamble, the body, the protocol, and the annexes of the treaty for the U.S. missile defense program. To that end, Senators John McCain (R–AZ), Bob Corker (R–TN), and Joe Lieberman (I–CT) attached an understanding to the treaty on December 22, 2010, that specifically rejects the Russian claim that the language in the preamble is legally binding. The same understanding also states that New START does not impose any limitation on the deployment of missile defenses (other than the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article V).

    It now appears likely that the ratification law of the Russian Federation, approved by the Duma in the second reading of New START, may include language that is tantamount to asserting that language the treaty beyond Article V, paragraph 3, is legally binding on the U.S. Apparently, the understanding the Duma is considering attaching to the treaty will clearly and unequivocally reject the understanding attached by the Senate.

    This raises the question of whether the two diametrically opposed understandings will or should bar the exchange of the instruments of ratification between the two parties and prevent entry into force of New START. By exchanging the instruments of ratification, the U.S. runs the risk of being charged by Russia with material breach of New START if it undertakes steps to qualitatively or quantitatively improve U.S. missile defense capabilities according to is present plans. This situation illustrates that there is no agreement between the parties on an issue that is essential to the treaty. As critics have pointed out all along, there is an irreconcilable difference between the two parties on the issue of missile defense, which suggests that the treaty might be an exercise in futility.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    22 Responses to Senate Misinformed about New START

    1. Bobbie says:

      We are being put in the line of danger. The American government communicates their misinformation and covers it up with more misinformation.

      Because of the times, there shouldn't have been question to verification of the president's birth certificate. And because he doesn't respect or reflect the founding principles of this country, I don't want to believe this country would produce a person with such high unwillingness to do for the people. This is being made to much an exception. WHY?

      GE- more theatrics. For every job created will continue to cost more unnecessary amounts of tax dollar monies to promote than they'll afford to pay employees.

      I'm not sure how to ask this but I am curious to know:

      How is it that businesses being subsidized by government still have a place on wall street when government manipulates the business?

    2. Pingback: ~THIS JUST IN… | Just Piper

    3. Pingback: Tweets that mention The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    4. OhioHistorian says:

      I wonder what the State Department thinks they have accomplished by this treaty. They have allowed the Russians to keep all of their warheads, but forced us to cut ours. They are either so misinformed that they should not hold their jobs, or they are such liars they should not hold their jobs. Either way, a responsible administration would "let them go".

      Unfortunately, with Barack Obama as the "Chief Decider" and the White House Cookie Baker as SOS, there will be no accounting to go on. The next Republican President will have to create a "Rubber Room" into which to put these diplomats to retire them. George Bush should have done so in 2000, but the outcry from the Democrats would have been too loud. Besides, he had Colin Powell, who is one of the crowd.

    5. Gabriel says:

      Bobbie,

      How many nuclear weapons do we need pointed at other countries to keep you satisfied? Does it matter that President Obama has spend 14% more on Defense Spending then Bush or did you not know that fact?

    6. Aaron, USA says:

      "We are being put in the line of danger. The American government communicates their misinformation and covers it up with more misinformation."

      As does all government, it's not this specific administration. I wonder if you consider Assange a terrorist, or a hero.

      "Because of the times, there shouldn’t have been question to verification of the president’s birth certificate. "

      Grammar, please.

      "And because he doesn’t respect or reflect the founding principles of this country,"

      Like white power, slavery, patriarchy, and aristocracy?

      " I don’t want to believe this country would produce a person with such high unwillingness to do for the people. This is being made to much an exception. WHY?"

      As much as the current administration has done wrong, it's done right. There's quite a bit of popular legislation that's been passed.

    7. Lloyd Scallan (New O says:

      Knowing what we now know about Obama's tactics (not that many did not know before the election) to lie and decieve the American people, why would anyone NOT think Obama is delibertly "misimfroming the Senate". How many time must Obama prove that he is not worthy of the title of President of the United States. He won the election by fraud (aided by the media) and continues the same policy today. OBAMA CANNOT BE TRUSTED!

    8. Bob Jason, Englewood says:

      It amazes me that the Senate would agree to a new round of nuclear weapons reductions yet completely ignore the fact that China has nuclear weapons, intercontinental ballistic missles, and a growing military budget which includes cruise missle capable submarines and new stealth fighters. How do you pretend China doesn't exist and what's worse is neither Russia nor China have helped the United States in curbing the nuclear ambition of countries such as Iran and North Korea. This treat does nothing but put a feather in Obama's foreign policy cap to impress his liberal world-wide friends at the cost of United States security. Shame on those who voted for it.

    9. Arkie says:

      Aaron "As much as the current administration has done wrong, it has done right. There's quite a bit of popular legislation that's been passed'

      Legislation being popular does not necessarily make it right. I wish that our politicians would only pass laws that had the best interest of this country at heart, in accordance with the constitution.

      Unfortunately we have politicians (from both sides of the ailse) that are self serving and for years have been passing laws that are not supportive of the constitution and the America people.

      With the economy the way it is we as a country should start reducing the amount of moeny we send outside the country and starting turning that money inwards in support of the country and the citizens of the country.

      We should pass laws that makes business want to remain in the United States. Passing laws for environmental issues is fine as long as they don't run businesses out of the country.

      Letting foreign car manufacturers builds cars in the US that does not comply with US policy should not happen.

      If Unions are putting US manufacturers at a disadvantage pass laws that correct this. If Unions are injurying the quality of education pass laws that correct this.

    10. R Holland, Chandler, says:

      Our Campaigner-in-Chief is leading us down a path of total ruin. He is letting the world run us while all the time keeping his nose in the air.

    11. Richard, Gilbert AZ says:

      Why is it that the Senate can allow themselves to be misinformed about something as important as national security (New Start). There should be no misunderstanding on these treaties. The Senate did not do their job!! This must have been a salute to Neville Chamberlain.

      Bobbie, can you tell us where the 14% increase in defense spending was used?

    12. Anna says:

      It is all so very sad that this is another example of misinformation from the present government for their own agenda. There were those that did warn the American people about the reality of the Treaty but they were so vilified and denigrated for trying to expose the truth they had little sway.

    13. Richard, Gilbert AZ says:

      Sorry Bobbie. The defense increase in spending question should be for Gabriel.

    14. Steve S. California says:

      "How many nuclear weapons do we need pointed at other countries to keep you satisfied?" How many are pointed at you, and why? New, old, capable, less so? Who's heavily invested in a major delivery and modernization program, the the most dangerous to us in the immediate future is relatively crude, but effective. If these things are not self explanatory and evident to you, then you are commenting on a subject with which you are not familiar. Your 14% increase is not fact, but cancellation of F-22 (for promises of more F-35's, a promise already broken by production cuts to that program.), cancellation of the critical ABL program and so much more, all in the face of gen 5 fighters on line in Russia and China (BTW they have 10 new aircraft types in production). The only piece missing is this.. It is not 6 Dec 1941. IF the worst were to happen, we no longer have the option to change a peacetime industrial base to wartime footing. We will fight with what we have, and no more, as the issue will be decided much quicker than that conflict. Denial of the possibility is sheer foolishness, of the kind that will cost us dearly should it come to pass. Any idea why Churchill called WWII the unnecessary war?

    15. Mike, Wichita Falls says:

      Do these diametrically-opposed statements of understanding issued by both parties to the treaty really amount to changes to the treaty itself which must be resolved before it is ratified by either jurisdictional body? If so, this was not a foreign policy victory for Obama, about which he will probably boast at his state of the union address, but a foreign policy blunder. If the Senate had carefully considered all documents associated with this treaty and not rushed to a lame-duck session vote, as the GOP had desired, our country and national security would be better for it.

    16. Bobbie says:

      Thanks for the correction, Richard.

      Gabriel,

      Why do you insist on ignorance regarding the protection and safety of America and her people? I'd rather the president was spending money doing his expected job in protecting the people and this country instead of unconstitutionally spending money on making sure you're penalized for using a condescent light bulb, eating a big mac, threatening freedom of speech because you and government can't handle truth or anyone sharing it, ptting more government tax dollar investment, Indoctrinating the youth through government run education. Abortions,. Any of your personal issues, etc… you know the government sees you inferior, so you are certain to play the part.

    17. Ace Sez Bishop, Cali says:

      Rush Limbaugh (The smartest man in the USA) loudly proclaimed during the campaigning in 2008 that Osambo was not telling the truth about his associates and endeavors—time after time Rush exposed the connections and faults of the black campaigner–and not enough people paid attention–so now we have the traitorous conduct of Osambo to contend with–its no surprise that he has covered up his personal background info–he has something to hide –something unConstitutional? Criminal activities? unAmerican agenda?

      Nothing that Osambo has done since gettin' elected has made a positive impact on the American life style–absolutely nothing!

      What well known entertainmet celebrity commented that "I hope the President fails" and recall the outrage by a majority of citizens then as compared to now the people that really understand what Rush was saying?

      The USA cannot–must not allow Osambo and his czars to continue destroying the Nation—voting has consequences and voting for a man that has spent millions of bux to conceal his education and work records–seems to arouse suspicions, doesn't it?

    18. Norma in Nebraska says:

      The Senate was "misled" regarding the START Treaty? How about telling the truth for a change. How about this: The President, the military leaders, and other leading members of our government who we SHOULD be able to TRUST to tell us the truth and protect us . . . everyone LIED to us! We should fire them all.

      Instead of beating around the bush, call a spade a spade. The President has lied so many times that if one believed in Pinochio, his nose would be about two miles long. Do we wait until the whole country is destroyed before we fire this guy?

      GOD help us all . . . .

    19. Greb B. Vail, AZ says:

      Anna: Defense spending is one of the few items allowed the federal Government to spend money on. Even the interstate system was built with the idea that it was needed to get armed forces across the country in a hurry incase of invasion by a hostile power. (Every so many miles the Interstate system is supposed to have a one mile, extra thick, straight section of pavement to allow for the emergency use of military aircraft to use as airstrips). Just what we need in defense of the country is agruable, but the need for us to keep a healthy stock of nuclear warheads is not one of them.

    20. Gabriel says:

      Bobbie,

      Again, Obama has already spent 14% more on National Defense then Bush in his last year in 2008. Provide specific examples of what President Obama is doing to make our country less safe. Remember, if you cant provide specifics it makes your arguement very, very embarrasing. Specifics. If you open your mouth without thinking, (which you usually do) and refuse to provide specifics it tends to backfire on your comments. Infact, I don't think you have ever provided specifics on anything. waiting…

    21. Col (ret) Duane Hard says:

      One wonders if these Senators even read the Treaty? They don't read other legislation this Obama Administration puts in front of them. These are very dangerous people simply giving away our National Secuirty! Thanks for your great work in getting the Truth out to the American people.

    22. Matt, Colo Springs, says:

      This incoherant collection of words and phrases called the START treaty needs to be UN-ratified! The adminstration has mislead the Senate and American people and their tactics can NOT stand up to the Light of Truth and Freedom.

      A locket of Pres. Regan's hair has vastly more intelligence, love of America and integrity than Obama (and his administration and cronies) does at all.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×