New START and Senate Processes: A Critique of Last Resort?

Stephen Rademaker's recent piece in the Washington Post is the latest in a series of offensives against the New START treaty with Russia.  He falsely plants the blame for the delayed ratification schedule on the Democrats, although it is the Republicans who have spent the past few months scrambling to hold the treaty hostage to political maneuvering. On the plus side, he implicitly concedes that the debate on the content of the treaty is essentially over - he has no beef with the text or implications of New START. At a loss for substantive things to critique, he turns to an otherwise tedious and boring topic: Senate processes.

Rademaker says that critics of the treaty have been unfairly excluded from the process, but the evidence is to the contrary. Claiming that Senate leaders haven't given Republicans time to formally file their complaints with the treaty is a criticism of last resort. There have been 20 hearings, three classified briefings and almost 800 questions asked on the record. There have been countless meetings between concerned Senators (primarily Republicans) Secretary Clinton, Vice President Biden, and various members of the negotiating team. 

The negotiating record on missile defense was shared with the Senators who asked for it, even though Senator Kerry pointed out that the precedent for this practice is minimal and should be repeated only with caution. That sentiment goes as far back as George Washington, who firmly opposed sharing a treaty's negotiating record. 

Senator Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, specifically delayed the vote from August until September to give Senators who weren't sure how they felt about new START more time to come to a decision. After announcing the delay, he said: "If we forced a vote today, I would have won. But I would have angered some people and made them feel they weren't being included," Kerry said. "I think it's important to build a broader consensus." Kerry has already solicited input from Senators on the resolution of ratification, which is exactly what Rademaker insisted must be done. 

Rademaker's article makes a serious omission in its discussion of the negotiations between the administration and Republican senators who want the most bang for their "yes" vote. The issue of funding for nuclear modernization has taken center stage in the informal negotiations, with Senator Kyl and others demanding billions in nuclear pork in exchange for a yes vote on New START. Even though the administration already proposed almost historic funding for modernizing the nuclear weapons complex, Republicans are trying to squeeze out more dollars.

But few Senators have been openly critical about the treaty, and most of them have not made any specific demands. The majority of Republicans are hiding in the shadows on the issue, and Senators Corker and Kyl are doing their dirty work. 

Complaining that Senators have not been given the opportunity to express their reservations on the treaty is ironic, given that Rademaker's intent is to support ongoing efforts of Republican obstructionism in the Senate.  Opponents of the treaty - like Rademaker - are clearly struggling to escape the resounding support in favor of New START. The list of respected foreign policy and arms control experts from both sides of the aisle who support New START seems never ending. They all say that the treaty is necessary to our national security.  Why shouldn't we believe them?

The delay in ratification only increases the time that will pass before we can get our hands on information about Russia's nuclear program. Instead of relying on complaints from obstructionists about mundane Senate procedures, we need Senators to do the right thing and put national security over partisan games.