Advertisers:
advertise on this site


Sir Christopher Meyer on the West's Strategic Confusion

Former UK Ambassador to the United States and author of 'Getting OUr Way: 500 Years of Adventure and Intrigue: the Inside Story of British Diplomacy' discusses the lessons of history and America's wars.

Daniel Yergin on the Future of Global Energy

Cambridge Research Energy Associates Chairman and Pullitzer-Prize winning author Daniel Yergin discusses the prospects for renewable energy, the oil politics of the Middle East and the future of the hydrocarbon economy.

Jim Locher on Reforming the United States' National Security Architecture

Project on National Security Reform President & CEO Jim Locher discusses how to reform the national security council to focus more on long-term strategic thinking.

More videos are available on the Video Archives Page
The Washington Note is now a member of the Political Insiders advertising network:
Find out more...

VA Loan and VA Refinance
Information from VA Mortgage Center



ADVERTISE SEND FEEDBACK OR TIPS CONTACT DETAILS
Support The Washington Note

Using PayPal

Bush to Ditch START Framework

Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Wednesday, May 23 2007, 12:57PM

Steve hosted a really interesting reception last night on the USS Sequoia for people interested in U.S.-Cuba policy.

I managed to get past my characteristic awkwardness in DC-style networking situations and it paid off, as I met some very smart and passionate individuals. There was a palpable sense of optimism at the event: many believe that the current U.S. policy toward Cuba, a cold war relic whose life has been extended by small-minded politics, is on its last legs.

The stories about the history of the Sequoia, the former Presidential yacht, probably would have made the night worthwhile on their own.

No time to dwell on sentiment, though. It appears the Bush Administration is getting ready to scrap an extremely effective arms control regime and replace it with something much skinnier. The rationale? From Reuters:

In the post-Cold war era, many provisions of the 1991 START accord, which mandated deep nuclear weapons cuts, "are no longer necessary. We don't believe we're in a place where we need have to have the detailed lists (of weapons) and verification measures," added [Asst. Secretary of State Paula] DeSutter, who handles arms control and verification issues.
Russia wants something binding, like the current START agreement. That seems like the right way to go.

Even if all were well in the U.S.-Russia relationship, going ahead without a binding arms control regime of this kind would still be an ill-advised move. The START agreement has greatly enhanced U.S., Russian, and international security during its lifespan.

Besides, all is not well in the U.S.-Russia relationship. A few years ago, the U.S. had an opportunity to stop the anti-democratic regression in Russia as a powerful friend and respected example. Now, its image tarnished and its influence damaged, the Bush Administration seems content to trade barbs with Russia from afar. The result of this gross negligence? Russia is growing less democratic and more hostile to the U.S. by the day.

It doesn't help that the U.S. is pushing missile defense systems in Europe. Russia withdrew from a key arms control treaty last month for precisely this reason.

Obviously, President Bush is no fan of multilateral treaties (the Law of the Sea is a notable and worthy exception). That's the big problem.

But there are "local considerations," too. The direction of the U.S.-Russia relationship is largely in American hands, and agreeing to a new arms control regime to replace START would be a step in the right direction.

-- Scott Paul

« Previous Article - Michael Baroody Withdraws
» Next Article - A Neocon War-Planning Vacation to the Bahamas!

Reader Comments (5) - post a comment

Posted by gmathol, May 25 2007, 6:27AM - Link

Breaking all the treaties is a big mistake, because Russia has lots of potential. Russia has also the missing rocket technology, which America doesn't have.

What would be the supply if the Russians would deploy their shield in Cuba and tell their US counterparts we do this to protect you against rockets fired from Iran - which Iran will never do anyway?

Posted by erichwwk, May 24 2007, 1:05PM - Link


The all or nothing choice is likely more attractive than the prospect of facing a war trials tribunal after a further erosion of power. Hitler made pretty much the same choice.

Hopefully no one on this list has any wonder of why the rest of the world is acting hostilely towards us, although just as the Germans in the early 1940's, a significant number of US citizens may either be sticking their heads in the sand or actually refuse to believe the extent of US criminality.

Posted by Mrs. Coulter, May 24 2007, 10:14AM - Link

Disturbing to say the least. At a time when the Russians are COMPLETELY freaking out (to use the technical term) about US plans to locate missile defense installations in eastern Europe, we're looking to ditch the START framework.

And then we wonder why they're reacting hostilely to us.

Posted by Carroll, May 23 2007, 11:02PM - Link


Ah Scott..you aren't awkward...we think you are pretty "sauve" verbally... except for the "cooky" thing.

But I agree with you about Russia....if I could choose anyone to be allies with (other than old Europe) it would be Russia. We are missing a golden opportunity there..it would solve many of our problems.

Posted by Sam Thornton, May 23 2007, 9:18PM - Link

Would be interesting to know what the current default Russian targeting solutions look like. Ditto for the US. Any open source material available?

Leave a comment:


(required)
(required)
- only for verification, not for display or any other use.

(required)

Type the characters you see in the picture above.


The Washington Note - Steven ClemonsHome - About - Archives - Published - Recommended - Advertise - Contact
THIS SITE IS COPYRIGHT © 2009 THE WASHINGTON NOTE. ALL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED.