Stephen Rademaker: Why Democrats Fail at Arms Control
[Mr. Rademaker, assistant secretary of state from 2002-06 with responsibility for arms control and nonproliferation, is senior counsel at BGR Government Affairs in Washington, D.C.]
In his address to the U.N. General Assembly yesterday, President Barack Obama once again stated his goal of "a world without nuclear weapons." Today Mr. Obama will address a special session of the U.N. Security Council on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. He will reiterate his intention to sign a new treaty with Russia providing for significant nuclear reductions, as well as his aim of persuading the U.S. Senate to reconsider its 1999 rejection of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Once those goals are met, he plans a second round of negotiated nuclear reductions with Russia.
But Mr. Obama's ambitious arms-control agenda is in trouble. To students of arms control, this comes as no surprise. Every Democratic president for the past 40 years has come into office committed to negotiating deep nuclear reductions with Russia. Each has left office without success.
The surprising fact is that the entire alphabet soup of U.S.-Russian strategic arms-control treaties was negotiated and signed by Republican presidents. Nixon gave us the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, Reagan the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, Bush 41 the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), and Bush 43 the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT).
By contrast, their Democratic counterparts have a much thinner record of accomplishment. President Jimmy Carter signed the SALT II treaty but withdrew it from Senate consideration after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; the treaty never entered into force. President Bill Clinton labored for eight years but never signed a strategic arms-control treaty with Russia.
The principal reason that recent Democratic presidents have failed with Russia has been their excessive enthusiasm and ambition, which perversely encourages the Russians to overreach, dooming prospects for agreement. This was a problem for Messrs. Carter and Clinton. And it promises to be an even bigger problem for Mr. Obama, who comes to office with an arms-control agenda—the abolition of nuclear weapons—far more ambitious that of any previous administration.
The most pressing arms-control problem facing the U.S. and Russia today is the need to make sure that some sort of arms-control verification regime is in place when the current one established under the START treaty expires on Dec. 5 of this year...
Read entire article at The Wall Street Journal
In his address to the U.N. General Assembly yesterday, President Barack Obama once again stated his goal of "a world without nuclear weapons." Today Mr. Obama will address a special session of the U.N. Security Council on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. He will reiterate his intention to sign a new treaty with Russia providing for significant nuclear reductions, as well as his aim of persuading the U.S. Senate to reconsider its 1999 rejection of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Once those goals are met, he plans a second round of negotiated nuclear reductions with Russia.
But Mr. Obama's ambitious arms-control agenda is in trouble. To students of arms control, this comes as no surprise. Every Democratic president for the past 40 years has come into office committed to negotiating deep nuclear reductions with Russia. Each has left office without success.
The surprising fact is that the entire alphabet soup of U.S.-Russian strategic arms-control treaties was negotiated and signed by Republican presidents. Nixon gave us the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, Reagan the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, Bush 41 the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), and Bush 43 the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT).
By contrast, their Democratic counterparts have a much thinner record of accomplishment. President Jimmy Carter signed the SALT II treaty but withdrew it from Senate consideration after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; the treaty never entered into force. President Bill Clinton labored for eight years but never signed a strategic arms-control treaty with Russia.
The principal reason that recent Democratic presidents have failed with Russia has been their excessive enthusiasm and ambition, which perversely encourages the Russians to overreach, dooming prospects for agreement. This was a problem for Messrs. Carter and Clinton. And it promises to be an even bigger problem for Mr. Obama, who comes to office with an arms-control agenda—the abolition of nuclear weapons—far more ambitious that of any previous administration.
The most pressing arms-control problem facing the U.S. and Russia today is the need to make sure that some sort of arms-control verification regime is in place when the current one established under the START treaty expires on Dec. 5 of this year...