Nuclear Policy Priorities Aligning After New START Success

Today's top nuclear policy stories, with excerpts in bullet form.

Stories we're following today:

The Senate’s Next Task: Ratifying the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty - Mikhail Gorbachev in The New York Times [link]

• Since last week, when the United States Senate ratified the treaty, which reduces the size of the American and Russian nuclear stockpiles, we can speak of a serious step forward for both countries. I hope this will energize efforts to take the next step to a world free of nuclear weapons: a ban on all nuclear testing.
• The priority now is to ratify the separate treaty banning nuclear testing. The stalemate on this agreement, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, has lasted more than a decade.
• The process of ratification stalled after the United States Senate voted in 1999 to reject the treaty, claiming that it was not verifiable and citing the need for “stockpile stewardship” to assure the reliability of American weapons.
• Nevertheless, in the 21st century only one country, North Korea, has ventured to conduct nuclear explosions. There is, in effect, a multilateral moratorium on testing. It is increasingly obvious that for the international community nuclear explosions are unacceptable. In the meantime the preparatory committee for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization has built up a strong verification regime.
• The American senators should give this serious thought. As George Shultz, secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan, has said, Republicans may have been right when they rejected the treaty in 1999, but they would be wrong to do so again.
• It is fairly certain that once the Senate agreed to ratification, most of the countries still waiting would follow…Universal ratification of the test ban treaty would be a step toward creating a truly global community of nations, in which all share the responsibility for humankind’s future.

New START: The Post-Game Spin - Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy's "The Cable" [link]

• The New START ratification drive is over, but the post-game maneuvering has just begun and each stakeholder is putting out their own message about the treaty's passage last week in an attempt to set the tone of the arms control debate going forward.
• The first question open for discussion is whether the vote on the treaty -- 71 to 26, with 13 Republicans voting yes -- is a strong bipartisan show of support for arms control or a weak instance of a treaty barely passing despite a large, entrenched anti-arms control constituency in the Senate.
• "We had a very strong result yesterday, with 71 senators voting in favor of the treaty, and that was resoundingly from both parties," New START's chief negotiator Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemeoller said.
• The second major post-ratification question is whether the changes the Senate made to the Resolution of Ratification (ROR) to New START represent a victory for the treaty's detractors and whether they will have real policy implications as the treaty goes into effect.
• The Republican leadership is already arguing that the promises Obama and Democrats agreed to, as codified in the amendments to the ROR, represent wins for the pro-missile defense and anti-arms control communities.
• What seems clear is that now that the Senate has completed its first arms control debate in over 10 years, both sides are now more educated and attuned to the issues involved and have a better idea of what their mission is on arms control going forward.
• For arms control advocates, the goal is to build on the momentum from New START to push the administration to bring up the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)…But the GOP leadership in the Senate is confident the administration won't be so willing to try and move any arms control treaties that don't already have bipartisan support.

Iran: Another Problem from Hell - Amb. Christopher Hill for Project Syndicate [link]

• Throughout 2010, the pattern for negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program held to form. With just about every diplomatic effort failing to yield results, international efforts have increasingly given way to discussions about sanctions – and what mix of them would be needed to bring Iran to heel.
• In 2011, a renewed focus on comprehensive economic sanctions could turn out to be the bad idea whose time has arrived.
• Sanctions, of course, have a dismal historical record in achieving their aims. Indeed, they have often been more useful in proving the law of unintended consequences. So it might be useful to step back and take one more look at our disagreeable negotiating partner – Iran – to see what should, and should not, be emphasized diplomatically.
• While sanctions may deepen Iran’s predicament, they are unlikely to break the diplomatic impasse on nuclear weapons. But, given the Iranian government’s increasingly unhelpful reactions to diplomatic overtures, there is unlikely to be any interest in toning down sanctions. Indeed, just the opposite response is likely – efforts to tighten sanctions still further.
• Yet, America must be willing to “sanction and talk” when it comes to Iran, thereby creating greater space for an eventual diplomatic strategy.
• Sanctions should be a tool of diplomacy, not the other way around. Even as we look to tighten sanctions on Iran in 2011, we must strengthen our efforts to establish a strong political and diplomatic track.

And the Winners of the 2010 “Arms Control Persons of the Year” Title Are… - Arms Control Now [link]

• … Kazakhstan’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kairat Umarov, National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Administrator Tom D’Agostino, and their international partners “for securing material containing 10 metric tons of highly enriched uranium and three metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium, which is enough to make about 775 nuclear weapons.
• The operation is the largest of its kind and is an example of the international cooperation envisaged by the leaders attending the April 2010 Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, D.C.”
• The winners received the highest number votes in ACA’s online poll conducted earlier this month.
• Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind), who won in 2009, received the second most votes in 2010 for his “his courageous and unflinching leadership for prompt Senate approval of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty despite months of partisan division in the Senate on the treaty.”
• Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev earned the third most votes for “their leadership efforts to negotiate and sign the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

GAO on Missile Defense Plans: Don’t Hold Your Breath - David Wright in All Things Nuclear [link]

• As a proposed amendment to New START was calling for mandating an optimistic schedule for the administration’s European missile defense plan (the European Phased Adaptive Approach, or EPAA), GAO was briefing a report on the Hill warning about the undue optimism of the EPAA schedule.
• The development of U.S. anti-missile systems continues to proceed with too much optimism and too little testing. And the spotty test record is for tests conducted under controlled conditions without realistic—or in most cases, any—decoys or other countermeasures.
• On the planned European system, the GAO report states, "… system schedules are highly optimistic in technology development, testing, production, and integration, leaving little room for potential delays. As efforts to meet near-term commitments unfold, the schedule for delivering capabilities may be difficult to achieve and resources needed may grow."
• The push to make the program schedule-driven rather than reality-driven makes no sense. For example, GAO notes that this is pushing the system into a buy-before-you-fly situation.
• The development process seems to be guided by the principle that missile defense is so important that we simply don’t have time to do it right and make sure it works. Even those who support missile defense should agree that doesn’t make sense.