The Senate Foreign Relations Committee continues to push forward with hearings on the New START Treaty, despite vocal opposition from stubborn opponents relentlessly repeating the same misguided objections. Listening to these obstinate Representatives continue to regurgitate these same obstructive statements, a listener is left wondering if any amount of information, military experts or hearings would really convince them to put security over partisan politics.

Working Across the Aisle for a New START

Bi-partisan collaboration is not only possible, it has been a cornerstone of non-proliferation treaties since START I. The New START Treaty is no different. It maintains a broad coalition of support from respected individuals, both Democrat and Republican. As noted by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the treaty “is, by definition, not a bipartisan but a non-partisan challenge.” This claim has been echoed by a veritable parade of respected authorities, both civilian and military, that have come forward with their support.

During several hearings, the SFRC has heard the testimonies of former Secretaries of State and Secretaries of Defense. According to James Baker and William Perry, ratifying the Treaty is crucial in preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue states. According to foreign policy experts Henry Kissinger and Stephen Hadley, the New START is fundamental to the relationship between the United States and Russia, while Brent Scowcroft warned that if the U.S. fails to ratify the treaty, diplomatic efforts for nuclear non-proliferation may be thrust into “a state of chaos.”

Why Should We Ratify?

The reasons for ratifying the New START treaty are numerous and compelling. Since the expiration of START I in 2009, the United States and Russia have lost a critical link between the two governments. For this reason, the treaty offers benefits far greater than an incremental decrease in nuclear weapons. It will reestablish definitions, counting rules, and a means of verification previously laid out in the expired START I treaty

Failure of Treaty negotiations will have even greater strategic consequences. Henry Kissinger noted the importance of passing New START in order to achieve other key objectives, specifically “to reduce or eliminate the danger of war by miscalculation…to bring about the maximum stability in the balance of forces to reduce incentives for nuclear war by design…to overcome the danger of accidents fostered by the automaticity of the new technology. Kissinger even broached the topic of disarmament, albeit cautiously, stating “All these measures combined might, if successful, merge into a strategy that would reduce or limit—and, in the end, perhaps eliminate—the use of these weapons as a conscious choice.”

To join the discussion and stay current with Committee proceedings, become a fan of the New START Page

The global community has a moral obligation to reduce its greenhouse gases. Climate change talks in Copenhagen are set to begin in slightly over 46 days. And yet the United States is far from passing any legislation that would truly curb our greenhouse gas emissions below the scientific recommendations of 25-40 percent of 1990 levels. The House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. This bill, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill, proposes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by only 17 percent of 2005 levels, or in other words: 4 percent of 1990 levels. Additionally, the Boxer-Kerry bill in the U.S. Senate has requested a reduction of 15-20 percent of 2005 levels, only 7% of 1990 levels. Both of these goals, according to the legislation, would be reached via a cap-and-trade program; thus using the all glorious (see: sarcasm) market forces to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. However, those opposed to the bill are now referring to this as "crap-and-trade" Good for them, using the same language as a five year old. This really furthers the debate in our country.

There is a moral imperative to stop the search for bi-partisanship if it does not advance the U.S.'s responsibility to reduce our carbon footprint. In an op-ed written by Senators Graham and Kerry they announced their efforts to find bi-partisan support for climate change legislations. Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested that republicans would be willing to sign a bill if it included drilling, "clean coal" technology, nuclear power, and carbon capture and sequestration. While I personally support nuclear power, there are many things that do not make sense. There have been attempts to find any excuse to drill for oil, and here is another one. How does this advance our carbon reduction and environmental protection? Carbon capture and sequestration is a science that is not completely understood. The earth has a well developed system for regulating itself and converting pollutants, thus we do not know what will happen to our system if we start burying pollutants underground. They have to go somewhere, just because you can't see them doesn't make it go away. Additionally, "clean coal" is a minimalist effort and gives the green light to coal-fired plants.

Although some jobs, in particular sectors and constituencies- may be lost, it does not negate our greater responsibility to our general citizenry, and the global environment. The Atlantic Slave trade employed thousands of people, from ship builders, sailors, capturers, traders, auctioneers, and more. However, the United States eventually decided to end slavery because our sense of justice and morality outweighed the fear of job loss. However, we were grossly behind Britain and other European nations in abolishing slavery. Now we look back on our participation and we are ashamed, particularly because we were not the first to abolish the slave trade. I am afraid the same thing will happen here. I am not equating those working in the coal industry-particularly the hard working blue-collar Americans-with slave drivers. I use this example only to illustrate that the time has come for the United States to take a principled stance. We are already grossly behind Europe once again, and just a few generations from now they will look back and ask "what were they thinking? Didn't they see their own hypocrisy?" We claim to be a world leader yet are continually following in shadows. Everyone's lives are in danger with as climate change is accelerated. We DO have a moral obligation. The idea that our children will have a better future than we had will not come to fruition if we ignore our environment. They will not have the same bio-diversity, their air will be dirty, their water polluted, their rivers dried, and their cities flooded.