Sen. Udall: We Must Ratify New START

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

Stories we're following today: Monday, August 9, 2010:

We Must Ratify New START - Sen. Mark Udall in the Boulder Daily Camera [link]

• The [New START] treaty's limits have been validated by our defense planners and ensure we have the flexibility to meet our security needs. The treaty also includes a strong verification regime, which Secretary Gates called the "key contribution" of the agreement.
• As the Senate debates New START, we should not only consider the consequences of ratification, but also the consequences of failure. Because START I expired last December, we currently have no treaty, and therefore, no constraints on Russia`s stockpile or verification of their weapons.
• New START Treaty opponents have tried to make the case that the dangers of ratifying the agreement outweigh the advantages of ratification. They are wrong.
• Ratifying this treaty goes beyond politics. We cannot tolerate partisan sniping when we know a lack of demonstrated bipartisan support could poison relations with Russia and our allies.
• Top national security leaders from both parties recently published a statement of support for New START, warning us that "a world without a binding U.S.-Russian nuclear weapons agreement is a much more dangerous world." We should heed this warning and ratify this agreement as soon as possible.

Letter to the Editor - Sen. Dianne Feinstein in The Washington Post [link]

• The Aug. 4 op-ed piece by Jack Goldsmith and Jeremy Rabkin, "A nuclear treaty's risk to the Senate," falsely claimed the New START agreement would cause the Senate to cede its constitutional authority to the executive branch.
• They noted that treaty supporters say the commission may only make changes that "do not affect substantive rights or obligations under the Treaty." They attributed this quote to an unnamed State Department official.
• In fact, the quote comes straight from the treaty -- Article XV, paragraph 2. It means the commission cannot alter any aspect of New START -- including missile defense -- without Senate ratification.
• The Senate's constitutional role in American foreign policy has not been eroded by these bodies in the past. There is no reason to suspect it is at risk now.

US-Vietnam Nuke Deal Unlikely to Include No-Enrichment Pledge; Critics Say US Backtracking - The Associated Press [link]

• The Obama administration has told U.S. lawmakers that a nuclear cooperation deal with Vietnam is unlikely to include a coveted promise by the Hanoi government not to enrich uranium, congressional aides say.
• Two congressional aides familiar with the discussions said the Obama administration has concluded that it is unlikely to persuade Vietnam to agree to a UAE-style no-enrichment pledge.
• The United States and Vietnam signed an agreement in March meant to pave the way for U.S. companies to help build nuclear power plants. The countries are now negotiating a broader deal that would allow U.S. companies to enter Vietnam's nuclear power sector.
• Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center think tank and a former Pentagon official, urged the White House to "step back and ask, 'Does it make sense to be peddling nuclear cooperation as a way to make and influence friends there?'"

Abolishing Nukes: Flicker of Hope to Global Cause - Charles Hanley for The Associated Press [link]

• The cause that Hiroshima never abandoned is now also the cause of a growing movement worldwide, embraced by statesmen in Washington and other capitals, endorsed by old Cold Warriors, promoted by Hollywood, financed by billionaires.
• At its peak, in 1986, the global stockpile totaled more than 70,000 weapons. Through those years, the world teetered on the edge of a catastrophic nuclear exchange an unknown number of times.
• Global Zero's study group of former U.S., Russian, Chinese and other military and diplomatic leaders proposes a phased process whereby the U.S. and Russia negotiate down to 1,000 warheads each by 2018. Meanwhile, by mid-decade, other nuclear-armed nations would enter multilateral talks to reduce their weapons in proportion to continuing U.S. and Russian cuts. All would reach zero by 2030.
• In the end, champions and critics of "zero nukes" both say, the greatest obstacle lies in the regional clashes that keep the world on edge and nations building nuclear arsenals. Easing such crises must come first, many say.

Russia Accuses U.S. of Violating Old Arms Pacts - The New York Times [link]

• Russia’s Foreign Ministry released a report on Saturday accusing the United States of violating dozens of provisions of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons treaties going back about a decade, apparently in a retort to American critics of a new arms treaty, who have been accusing Russia of violating past agreements.
• The United States responded to the accusations with a terse comment rejecting Moscow’s claims. “We have met our obligations under START,” said Megan Mattson, a State Department spokeswoman.
• “It is an issue balancing accusations on the American side with counteraccusations, which are more numerous on the Russian side,” said Sergei Karaganov, a dean of the faculty of international relations at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow.
• Mr. Karaganov added that the point of the report was to say that “nobody is holy” in observing arms agreements.

Nagasaki remembers A-bomb after 65 years - Agence France Presse [link]

• The Japanese city of Nagasaki on Monday commemorated the 65th anniversary of its destruction by a US atomic bomb, with representatives from Britain and France attending for the first time.
• The US was not at Monday's ceremony due to what it called a scheduling issue but did send an envoy for the first time to the commemoration of the Hiroshima bomb Friday, in a reflection of President Barack Obama's push for a world without nuclear weapons.
• With 32 countries represented, including Israel for the first time, the ceremony observed a moment of silence amid steady drizzle at 11:02 am, the time the bomb detonated on August 9, 1945.
• The United States has never acceded to demands in Japan for an apology for the loss of innocent lives in the atomic bombings, which many Western historians believe were necessary to bring a quick end to the war and avoid a land invasion that could have been even more costly.