Rumblings from the Right on START

by Kelly Bronk

A panel convened by the Heritage Foundation on December 1 previewed the emerging right-wing attack line on the Obama Administration’s nuclear policy.

Participants in “A START Follow-On Treaty: Russian Nuclear Doctrine, Arms Control Objectives and U.S. Policy Response,” included Heritage’s Ariel Cohen and Baker Spring, Keith Payne, head of the National Institute for Public Policy, and Timothy Morrison, Senator Jon Kyl’s (R-AZ) National Security Policy Adviser. They criticized the Obama Administration’s efforts to reduce Russian arsenals through the on-going negotiations.

Most military officials and national security experts believe that the existing START treaty – which expires on December 5th – and the START follow-on treaty currently in the final stages of negotiation are integral elements of a smart national security strategy. As explained in an Arms Control Association backgrounder, the START follow-on will include modest cuts in Russian and U.S. arsenals and continue the inspections that allow the U.S. to verify these reductions.

But the rhetoric of the participants seemed frozen in the logic of the Cold War: if something is good for the Russians, it cannot be good for the United States.

Panelist Andrei Shoumikhin, a visiting professor at Missouri State, questioned whether the Cold War had actually ever ended and declared that, for Russia, “The Obama Administration decision to proceed with the follow-on to START treaty and the other moves of the Obama Administration are actually like a godsend gift coming from above.”

Demonstrating just how far outside the mainstream these viewpoints have drifted, Cohen cited Russia’s nuclear posture as evidence that it might use tactical nuclear weapons in local conflicts, such as those in Chechnya and Georgia. Cohen argued, “In reality, you see both the force structure and statements that not only Russia would use nuclear weapons – including tactical nukes, including short range ballistic missiles – but it will use it increasingly in contexts of lesser and lesser conflicts.”

Although some participants – like Payne – expressed “hope that we will all be able to support the Administration’s post-START agreement,” they conditioned their support. Payne insisted that any treaty must meet his four “measures of goodness:” preserving and promoting U.S. missile defense, extended deterrence, the survivability of U.S. strategic forces and the sustainability of U.S. nuclear weapons.

Sen. Kyl’s aide echoed Payne’s worries and complained that the US would loose the ability to monitor the Russian missile production facility at Votkinsk once the START treat expired. Morrison declared: “We are heading to December 5th, with no real idea what the world will look like on December 6th.” However, as Max Bergmann of the Center for American Progress notes, U.S. inspectors were forced to leave the facility this December because of a deal the Bush administration made with Russia before leaving office:

The reason monitoring is ending at Votkinsk is because the Bush administration locked the Obama administration in by giving into Russian demands – not because the Obama administration didn’t care about verification or bungled the negotiations, as conservatives are suggesting. The Obama administration – like on almost every issue – inherited a bum hand from the Bush administration on START.

The criticism got personal, with one panelist taking a swing at the U.S. negotiators. “This agreement to Russian demands raises questions about the competency level of our negotiation team,” Cohen claimed.

These are just the first shots in what is likely to be a full-scale battle over U.S. nuclear policy in the months ahead.